You Don't Know Jack
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
@ Bob
I found it interesting that you labeled the Left Behind series as 'genre' fiction. Within the Christian community those books are largely regarded as 'speculative guesswork' i don't know anyone that would call them sci-fi, or fantasy, because of how closely the authors tried to stay to the events foretold (in very involved symbolism) in the book of Revelation.
There ARE actual others that delve into sci-fi and fantasy territory that also publish themselves as "Christian Authors." (I personally hate the term, as I hate "Christian Music" and Christian Films". These are people that are simply catering to a specific audience for backing, while turning their back to the people that, if we are to follow the Bible, need to hear the Christian message more.)
A couple of these authors that write fantasy and science fiction with Christian labeling are; Ted DekKer, author of the Colors trilogy (Black, Red, and White) and Three, (which was made into a half decent movie.) as well as waaay too many others. Another author worth mentioning is Robert Liparulo, author of a book called "Comes A Horseman" that delves into a character that believes he is the antichrist, and even gets to the point of infiltrating the Vatican, with a host of followers. A REALLY tough sell in the so called 'Christian' market.
"Comes a Horseman" is a really good read, and I highly recommend it. Ted DekKar's work though can be a bit preachy and heavy handed with it's allegory and is a perfect example of a lot of the problems of authors writing to a solely Christian audience.
As for your essay on C.S. Lewis, thank you, I haven't heard much about his upbringing and the psychological analysis is enlightening.
If you are interesting in understanding the 'logic' that Lewis saw from his collegues in Oxford, seriously check out an essay he did called "Mere Christianity". You've probably heard of it, but if you haven't read it, it's got some great stuff in there, especially the first couple chapters.
I found it interesting that you labeled the Left Behind series as 'genre' fiction. Within the Christian community those books are largely regarded as 'speculative guesswork' i don't know anyone that would call them sci-fi, or fantasy, because of how closely the authors tried to stay to the events foretold (in very involved symbolism) in the book of Revelation.
There ARE actual others that delve into sci-fi and fantasy territory that also publish themselves as "Christian Authors." (I personally hate the term, as I hate "Christian Music" and Christian Films". These are people that are simply catering to a specific audience for backing, while turning their back to the people that, if we are to follow the Bible, need to hear the Christian message more.)
A couple of these authors that write fantasy and science fiction with Christian labeling are; Ted DekKer, author of the Colors trilogy (Black, Red, and White) and Three, (which was made into a half decent movie.) as well as waaay too many others. Another author worth mentioning is Robert Liparulo, author of a book called "Comes A Horseman" that delves into a character that believes he is the antichrist, and even gets to the point of infiltrating the Vatican, with a host of followers. A REALLY tough sell in the so called 'Christian' market.
"Comes a Horseman" is a really good read, and I highly recommend it. Ted DekKar's work though can be a bit preachy and heavy handed with it's allegory and is a perfect example of a lot of the problems of authors writing to a solely Christian audience.
As for your essay on C.S. Lewis, thank you, I haven't heard much about his upbringing and the psychological analysis is enlightening.
If you are interesting in understanding the 'logic' that Lewis saw from his collegues in Oxford, seriously check out an essay he did called "Mere Christianity". You've probably heard of it, but if you haven't read it, it's got some great stuff in there, especially the first couple chapters.
I remember feeling oddly betrayed when I got to 'a horse and his boy' (which is where I started noticing the religious undertones, 14 year old me was pretty dumb). There is the one... parable? Where Aslan tears up the Boys back to mimic the whippings given to the slave who had taken punishment for his actions, and it was just a little more than I could bear.
Still though, the books are very creative and fantastical. I especially liked the Voyage of the Dawntreader because it seemed like it had better pacing than the others.
Still though, the books are very creative and fantastical. I especially liked the Voyage of the Dawntreader because it seemed like it had better pacing than the others.
A fantastic man, and perhaps the best blueprint for us all to consider religion, religious or not.. to see how it fits into, and impacts our lives. He didn't really need or want a church, and nor did Christ.
It's an interesting post, although I have to argue that the title is misleading, as all of the information in it is widely known. At least, I thought so anyway.
I would disagree that anything that features in the Daily Mail could, or should be considered a "firestorm of controversy".
It's an interesting post, although I have to argue that the title is misleading, as all of the information in it is widely known. At least, I thought so anyway.
I would disagree that anything that features in the Daily Mail could, or should be considered a "firestorm of controversy".
Great article. I've long been a fan of Lewis myself, so it's nice to read this and see others appreciate his work.
Simple, easy to work with, respectable. I dig it. So as long as a person subscribes to that code of ethics, they're heaven bound, right? What if someone places, say, their country over the lives of millions? Though they have a different code of ethics, they're still doing what's "right." Or what determines your code of ethics? I'm going somewhere with this.Onyx Oblivion said:
So you're saying, "Follow God's will, even if you don't believe in God?" Seems kind of counter-intuitive to me.sorenity34 said:
EDIT: I just thought of an even better response to both of you. This is my point exactly. Even though you both seem to have the exact same philosophy, you believe completely different things. One says not hurting folks is good, the other says whatever God says is good is good. And you both say "do good." Frankly I think it's closer to the truth that neither of you, nor Jacksie in his quote, are saying anything at all.
Very good read. However, one bit near could be debated.
Personally, it sounds to me like the follower of Tash still entered "through" Aslan. I think this is a different interpretation of that quote--if they lived good lives, then people can convert during their judgement and enter Paradise through Christ--not an opposing opinion.MovieBob said:
Wow, the people who slated Neeson in that news article REALLY pissed me off... *HUFF* *HUFF* ... now excuse me while I go and read the rest of your article Mr.Bob.
*finished reading* wow that was good, REALLY good. Made me feel better. Whats funny is that even though Aslan said "its all good as long as its good" people still got annoyed at Neeson for emplying he has links to other religions. He may not have been a representation of anyone but Jesus but he in no way condems others for thinking differently.
Kind of the dumb, they cant accept others ideals but Aslan can.
*finished reading* wow that was good, REALLY good. Made me feel better. Whats funny is that even though Aslan said "its all good as long as its good" people still got annoyed at Neeson for emplying he has links to other religions. He may not have been a representation of anyone but Jesus but he in no way condems others for thinking differently.
Kind of the dumb, they cant accept others ideals but Aslan can.
This article was VERY good, yes!
However...hrm... I feel I'd need to read the text to make a proper interpretation, but trying to rationalize this by the aforementioned stance I side with... Is there a Biblical verse to the effect of "God's name is stamped upon our hearts"? I think I had heard/read that before, and it's the basis of my ruminations on baby deaths, that since their hearts know God, and they presumably wouldn't have the mind to have willfully disregarded/rejected Him, they'd be in Heaven. This also plays into wondering about being at all fair to places in the world that wouldn't know God as "God"/"Yahweh"/"Jehova"/whatever: would they "know" God, even if under an incorrect moniker? Would this Tash-follower have been doing right by God's will, even if he was doing so under the premise of another god? I figure one would be driven to good works by the grace of God/the Holy Spirit, that God's presence is the means by which "good" is done. So, is it that the ex-Tash guy, by evidence of leading a righteous life, does, inside, "know" godliness, even if it's not until recently that he consciously knew from whence it came?
Dammit, now you (Bob/Lewis) have gotten me to make walls-o'-text. Good going, heroes.
*BTW: "Tash" is an awxome god-name.
I agree. Read The Hobbit in the sixth grade, when news of the movies was coming out, and like Gollum (CHapter 5, which was sampled for the front page of the book). Then, when I tried reading the LOTR books, I got through the first and a bit into the second (or: about halfway through Fellowship), and haven't gotten to finishing it. The world is interesting, but the writing was too much.Falseprophet said:
Yeah, Aslan kinda approved him, so -- without having read the books -- it sounds to me that the ex-Tash-er* was repenting of his old way and looking to Aslan for consolation. I'm not Christian, but I sit with the view that no one can get into Heaven by deeds alone.starwarsgeek said:
However...hrm... I feel I'd need to read the text to make a proper interpretation, but trying to rationalize this by the aforementioned stance I side with... Is there a Biblical verse to the effect of "God's name is stamped upon our hearts"? I think I had heard/read that before, and it's the basis of my ruminations on baby deaths, that since their hearts know God, and they presumably wouldn't have the mind to have willfully disregarded/rejected Him, they'd be in Heaven. This also plays into wondering about being at all fair to places in the world that wouldn't know God as "God"/"Yahweh"/"Jehova"/whatever: would they "know" God, even if under an incorrect moniker? Would this Tash-follower have been doing right by God's will, even if he was doing so under the premise of another god? I figure one would be driven to good works by the grace of God/the Holy Spirit, that God's presence is the means by which "good" is done. So, is it that the ex-Tash guy, by evidence of leading a righteous life, does, inside, "know" godliness, even if it's not until recently that he consciously knew from whence it came?
Dammit, now you (Bob/Lewis) have gotten me to make walls-o'-text. Good going, heroes.
*BTW: "Tash" is an awxome god-name.
The Left Behind series is speculative theology as well, as there's a lot about it that goes against the current interpretation of Revelations. It's always seemed to me to be a form of intimidation rather than explication. Conversion through fear is hardly a profitable method for Christians to engage their non-Christian neighbors. Tolkien criticized Lewis's theology, but the Narnia books express the same Christian concepts of freewill and providence that are at the very heart of The Lord of the Rings -- Frodo chooses to be good and constantly relies on outside help to save him from his circumstances.
With regard to the claim that "No one comes to the Father but through me," we need to be careful that we don't take things entirely out of context. The New Testament book of Romans also says your nature is a law to yourself, written on your hearts and witnessed by your conscience, which suggests pure legalism is not the answer. Lewis's writings about Christianity rarely treated the subject of denominations, focusing instead on what he called "the rules common to the whole house." That was kind of Jesus's whole point.
Oh, and like everyone else said, this was a great article.
With regard to the claim that "No one comes to the Father but through me," we need to be careful that we don't take things entirely out of context. The New Testament book of Romans also says your nature is a law to yourself, written on your hearts and witnessed by your conscience, which suggests pure legalism is not the answer. Lewis's writings about Christianity rarely treated the subject of denominations, focusing instead on what he called "the rules common to the whole house." That was kind of Jesus's whole point.
Oh, and like everyone else said, this was a great article.
You raise an interesting point. And just as I'm about to ask something, I realise exactly where that argument will head. i.e. From whence comes morality/ethics. In this fictional argument that we are most certainly not having, I say that that morals are solely in the province of the human mind, up to and including so called Holy texts are human creations based on human perceptions and reactions to the world around them.summerof2010 said:
You say: No, it's God/religion that defines the morals a person holds.
Then, neither of us having budged significantly on the issue both simply drop it and move on, that is till the next time we see someone bring up the same point and hopefully by that point will be wise enough to realise it isn't an argument worth having.
Bob, great article!
As a work of fiction, lay-theology, and spiritual inspiration I count "The Great Divorce" as one of Jack's best works. While many contemporary (especially American Evangelicals) might gag at the theological implications, I think it is among the most elegant and evocative descriptions of journeying through an after-life.
Despite brevity, "The Great Divorce" remains rich with impact, wisdom, and theological depth. I appreciate his ability to draw you deep into the environment and characters of his worlds.
Glad to see Lewis' life, work, and cultural impact being discussed on one of my favorite online communities!
As a work of fiction, lay-theology, and spiritual inspiration I count "The Great Divorce" as one of Jack's best works. While many contemporary (especially American Evangelicals) might gag at the theological implications, I think it is among the most elegant and evocative descriptions of journeying through an after-life.
Despite brevity, "The Great Divorce" remains rich with impact, wisdom, and theological depth. I appreciate his ability to draw you deep into the environment and characters of his worlds.
Glad to see Lewis' life, work, and cultural impact being discussed on one of my favorite online communities!
as ironic as it is i was born on the day "Jack" died. and as a belfast man it was truly great to read about a local hero. Im glad you mentioned the sectarian issues which most either people don't know about or ignore. thank you for being as thought provoking as always.MovieBob said:
