You Don't Know Jack
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Fantastic write up. Always been more of a Tolkien fan, but I've read and enjoyed all of Lewis' work.
Thanks for that, MB; that was a very informative read, right there.
I'm uncertain if I would've liked someone who was as indecisive as this or this defensive about something that's meant to be personal, not public (IMO), but he is still very interesting to read about.
I'm uncertain if I would've liked someone who was as indecisive as this or this defensive about something that's meant to be personal, not public (IMO), but he is still very interesting to read about.
I was beginning to doubt Moviebob after his space-sulk, but this was really thought out and well researched...
When I was ten or twelve I read the entire Narnia series and I did not notice the religous aspects at all. I grew up in a religion free household not because my parents hated religion or hid me from it it was just not an issue for me. So when I first read them I just really enjoyed the story and it did not matter to me what the story was based on or who Aslan was supposed to be when I did become more familiar with religion It just never bothered me.
Good arguments on both sides, here. Hooray for the Escapist community!
(The link presents the Chapter for context.)
But you are right in that it is important to establish what is meant by a word, otherwise there is a fundamental disagreement that is easily missed. Still, I think it would be quite a leap to, "both sides mean nothing".
Except, John 14 [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014&version=NIV]:6: "Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.[']" (NIV, emphasis mine.)Staskala said:
(The link presents the Chapter for context.)
Seems pretty straightforward to me. If "good" is "God's will" then "good deeds" are "good deeds" regardless of if the person was aware of or consciously working to promote good (i.e. God's will).summerof2010 said:
But you are right in that it is important to establish what is meant by a word, otherwise there is a fundamental disagreement that is easily missed. Still, I think it would be quite a leap to, "both sides mean nothing".
Dammit, you linked me to TV Tropes T_T It was an hour and a half before I got back to this long-buried tab to write this comment.
In the connected article about Liam Neesons statements, the people who responded did so firstly by saying it was not the authors intention, and secondly by insulting him personally. They seem to have completely missed the point that fiction means different things to different people. Neeson clearly said "that?s what he means for me." He makes no claims that Lewis meant that.
Great article! Well researched and thought out. I've loved Narnia since I was a child and have read many of CS Lewis' other books.
Oh, wow, Lewis's life was actually pretty interesting. I should look into some of his biographies.
Although, just to nitpick, isn't the Chronicles a set of seven, not six books? Or are two of them lumped together somewhere?
Although, just to nitpick, isn't the Chronicles a set of seven, not six books? Or are two of them lumped together somewhere?
true...true
religion's biggest problem is it's own followers.
that's why's it's always good to remember that "that believers are more than their belief(their still people) and that a believe is more than its believers(it has its own mode of being.)"
(don't trust buddhism too much though...it's getting embroiled with politics in the east)
religion's biggest problem is it's own followers.
that's why's it's always good to remember that "that believers are more than their belief(their still people) and that a believe is more than its believers(it has its own mode of being.)"
(don't trust buddhism too much though...it's getting embroiled with politics in the east)
I always found it mean that because Susan liked to go out dancing and wear lipstick she was shut out from their final reunion in Narnia (the rapture). I thought Susan was hot 
-----edit-----
Oh yeah, and thanks for the wonderful article.
-----edit-----
Oh yeah, and thanks for the wonderful article.
As a huge fan of all of Lewis's writings, and of the man himself, I have a few minor nitpicks with your article, which are not really worth getting into. But, on the whole, I think it was quite a good article, and I'm happy to see it here. I agree with the others who are calling for more articles like this.
That's about as far away from "No one comes to the Father but through me!" as you can get.
See, this has always been one of the biggest put-offs I've had over Christian(and, to be fair, any religious) philosophy.
If God is all-loving and completely benevolent, why should He care if we feed the hungry, clothe the cold, or heal the sick in the name of some other god? Shouldn't the mere fact that we do good unto others be enough to please him? To think otherwise would imply that God is very vain, a trait unbecoming the ultimate good of the universe.
But Lewis's philosophy is one I can get behind. Jesus(and, by extension, God) doesn't care why you did those good deeds, only that you did them.
See, this has always been one of the biggest put-offs I've had over Christian(and, to be fair, any religious) philosophy.
If God is all-loving and completely benevolent, why should He care if we feed the hungry, clothe the cold, or heal the sick in the name of some other god? Shouldn't the mere fact that we do good unto others be enough to please him? To think otherwise would imply that God is very vain, a trait unbecoming the ultimate good of the universe.
But Lewis's philosophy is one I can get behind. Jesus(and, by extension, God) doesn't care why you did those good deeds, only that you did them.
S'funny, I am a Christian and I read that passage a little different to what it's being thrown about as here.
"Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
Taken out of context we're looking at a pretty cut and dried statement, believe in Christ and you recieve the Grace of God. All fairly simple so far, except that belief in the sacrifice of Jesus covers that fairly neatly. Through that our sins are washed away and we can have a relationship with God once more. I.e. through Jesus we can get to the Father. As for the way and the life parts, again fairly simple (at least to my mind) Jesus led as perfect a life as it was possible to lead, he fed the hungry, clothed the poor, healed the sick, ultimately gave his life for folks he'd never know and never meet and did it all for God. If anyone emulates that, in any way, if anyone can even meet a tenth of that then they are leading a life that's going to be okay with God. Just cut down on the bad shit and do our level best not to do it, we'll be fine. We're human so mistakes are allowed. God's kinda awesome like that.
OT: Awesome work, Bob, well written and researched. Thoroughly enjoyable read.
"Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
Taken out of context we're looking at a pretty cut and dried statement, believe in Christ and you recieve the Grace of God. All fairly simple so far, except that belief in the sacrifice of Jesus covers that fairly neatly. Through that our sins are washed away and we can have a relationship with God once more. I.e. through Jesus we can get to the Father. As for the way and the life parts, again fairly simple (at least to my mind) Jesus led as perfect a life as it was possible to lead, he fed the hungry, clothed the poor, healed the sick, ultimately gave his life for folks he'd never know and never meet and did it all for God. If anyone emulates that, in any way, if anyone can even meet a tenth of that then they are leading a life that's going to be okay with God. Just cut down on the bad shit and do our level best not to do it, we'll be fine. We're human so mistakes are allowed. God's kinda awesome like that.
OT: Awesome work, Bob, well written and researched. Thoroughly enjoyable read.