Narnia Hate Watch
By Paul J Cella Posted in Culture — Comments (120) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Here at Redstate we have been struck by the level of unabashed odium that the upcoming film The Chronicles of Narnia has already provoked. Not since The Passion of the Christ have we seen such hatred for a film yet to be released. Thus we inaugurate the NARNIA HATE WATCH.
It is plain to see that men who despise something else make Narnia their stalking horse. They despise American Christianity, or they despise Christianity in general, or perhaps the challenge of the cross confounds and infuriates them. As the Apostle wrote, “For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing.”
We begin today with Polly Toynbee of the UK Guardian. Hers is a confused and uneven polemic. Disney’s marketing of the film to Christians irks her; she warns that the company “may come to regret” this strategy in Britain, claiming (against the evidence) that The Passion of the Christ “bombed” in the UK. She goes on to speculate that British secularism will make for some “embarrassing questions” about the Christian allegory of the story. She writes, “After a long, dark night of the soul and women's weeping, the lion is suddenly alive again. Why? How?” It might be replied that this difficulty (or opportunity) is hardly unfamiliar to the church: some very obscure Christian figures have wrestled with it before. They go by names like Saint Paul and Saint Peter.
Then this:
Of all the elements of Christianity, the most repugnant is the notion of the Christ who took our sins upon himself and sacrificed his body in agony to save our souls. Did we ask him to?
Folly to the Gentiles.
Toynbee, moving along, cites Tolkien against Lewis; inserts the mandatory insinuation of racism and the other one about Christianity’s “rigid hierarchy of power”; then plunges into a little anti-American philippic, referring to American Christianity as “that warped, distorted neo-fascist strain that thinks might is proof of right.” Next she complains of the temerity of Lewis’s attempt to use his story to bring readers to Christ: “So Lewis weaves his dreams to invade children’s minds with Christian iconography,” which is “heavily laden with guilt, blame, sacrifice and a suffering that is dark with emotional sadism.” And so it goes.
Our next specimen is a Palm Beach Post columnist whose burden is to demonstrate that Florida Gov. Jeb Bush’s promotion of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe under the Just Read, Florida! program is somehow an establishment of religion. “We’re opening up the public schools,” he grumbles, “to some backdoor catechism lessons in the guise of getting kids to read.” And this horror under the auspices of a “cabal of Christian commerce.”
Finally, there is the novelist Phillip Pullman, author of an atheist fantasy trilogy, whose objection is that the Narnia series is consists of “a peevish blend of racist, misogynistic and reactionary prejudice” and lacks even “a trace” of Christian virtue.
[Readers are asked to send other examples to me.]
« Hating James Dobson: To Heck With His Qualifications, He's a Meanie — Comments (14) | Death to America! — Comments (85) »
Narnia Hate Watch 120 Comments (0 topical, 120 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I read all the books when I was young and loved them. I plan on going to see the films. The problem is that unless you really stress it is a christian book most people will find it is hard to tell. When I told my mother that a year ago she was surprised because she didn't realize that. Narnia is not some magical resurgence of Christianity in films because of this.
WHY CAN'T WE JUST ENJOY A STUPID FILM WITHOUT BOTH WACKO SIDES CHIMING IN.
Although I suppose that I'd probably be a crypto-neo-fascist Christian. Guess that means that I get only one Jesus Jackboot.
Moving along, I think that editors should get in the habit of asking their writers "Is this topic going to make you explode your spleen all over the screen?" before they assign stories - or at least warn us first. Toynbee's going to be hard to top.
Moe
PS: Ah, Pullman. Wrote three books that his contemporaries enjoyed; this is, of course, three more than I've managed.
WHY CAN'T WE JUST ENJOY A STUPID FILM WITHOUT BOTH WACKO SIDES CHIMING IN.
If they didn't manufacture controversy out of whole cloth, their relevance (and fundraising) would wane. Then they might actually have to get real jobs that produced something beneficial to the economy.
@Hoosier: You're absolutely right about the Christian allegories not being obvious. In my particular case, I read LW&W to my children several years ago and they enjoyed the story just for the story's sake. Then, afterwards, I focused on Aslan and started asking some questions... culminating in, "do we know anyone else who died in place of someone else and came back to life?" Only then, did they make the connection, but when they did, you should have seen their eyes light up. Then everything fell into place for them in the remaining stories.
is flabergasting to me (and I don't spell or through that word or around much or well).
I understand people who choose not to believe in Christ (I pity them, but understand them).
But when someone rejects the notion of His love without challenging it's factual basis then I just shake my head in wonder.
Is her life so full of love that she has no place for the Creator to wrap His arms around her. Or is she so bent on doing what she wants that she will ignore even what she considers true by painting Jesus as a Supernatural Stalker.
Where were all these people when Neo spread out his arms and died to save mankind in the third matrix movie.
Oh wait, they don't mind ripping off Christian symbolism as long as they can weave enough humanism into their story to offset it.
because he is the most ignorant.
To describe anything Lewis wrote as 'lacking even a trace of Christian virtue' is to demonstrate one's analytical ability as being the equivalent of being unable to tell the difference between Beethoven's No.9 and a chain saw.
I've read and reread Narnia a number of time when and since I was a child. Never till now did I ever think it was a Christian novel. Even now after being pointed out the parallel I simply do not care. Nor does any other liberal I know. I am sure there a couple of nuts out there to yup about it but seriously NO ONE CARES!!!
This is up there with "War on Christmas".
No one spoke about it till Christian groups started to point out that Narnia is a good way to tell about Christmas.
P.S.
On the side note: I never asked Christ to die for me, I'd much rather he lived and stread around some more of that wisdom.
There are a lot of things about Christianity which I can understand being offended at, if looking in from the outside. Various bits and pieces about denial of self, the vengeful God of the Israelites, and so forth. If especially ignorant, the role of women in the New Testament, even.
That the sacrifice of Christ is 'the most repugnant' because unasked for is startling. This must be, I suppose, the same mindset of the woman who gets upset when a man holds open the door to let her in from the pouring rain. Courtesy be damned! a modern womyn can open her own door, I suppose is how the train of thought runs. More's the pity in the case of unsaved man: any woman lacking physical infirmity is capable of opening a door, modern or not--man, whatever his gender, seems quite incapable of his own redemption without appealing to external agency.
One would think Ms. Toynbee could at least be grateful of the good intention.
the difference is that the Matrix was a pile of gnostic claptrap, so that's OK, gnosticism being, in a sense, the archnemesis of Christianity.
were just rolling their eyes and wishing they hadn't paid to see it.
Where does Pullman get the idea that "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" is racist or misogynistic?
If the book was racist, why is the most evil character a WHITE Witch? Maybe because she resembled the snow she inflicted on Narnia?
If the book is misogynistic, why does Lewis choose two boys and two girls as the heroes of the story (other than the Christ-like figure of Aslan)? Why does one of the boys (Edmund) fall into temptation, while the two girls (Susan and Lucy) remain true to the quest throughout?
My question to Pullman: has he read the book?
You can kinda see his point. If tomorrow YOU decided to die for lets my sins without asking me, me agreeing with your intention and etc you could hardly blame anyone for saying: Dude, well he did not ask you, it was just your idea.
like the straight parallel to when Jesus created the world in 3 hours by singing?
haha, just kidding. i loved the books as a kid, read them many times and never noticed the (at least what i think now are) obvious christian overtones. the allegories certainly aren't omnipresent, plenty of plain old fantasy/mythology elements, but even kids can tell where it gets a little overbearing (dawn treader...great story until that sudden ending and the aslan speach. last battle...barely any story, lots of talking and then suddenly everyone is dead and narnia inverts upon itself...whaaaa?) even if they cant put their finger on why exactly.
i still love the series though, and will occasionally pick one of them up at my parents' house when i visit over the holidays.
even if they are just LOTR-lite ducks
*ducks *
with no space. preview preview preview.
Of course we are not suprised...NBC engaged in further anti-Christian bias last night on Law and Order.
And that god has given us his word, the book, it's name be the Federal Register, you shall know him by his acts, not for him the cross and Calvary, but rather the tax increase and affirmative action. You will pray in his temple, the Department of Health and Human Services, you will observe the sabbath, which is income tax filing day. Listen not to false prophets but heed the apostles Howard, Nancy,{ get that woman's hair off my feet !] and John the K. And above all render unto Caesar and love your neighbor more than yourself,especially if your neighbor is a designated minority or a federal employee. Do all this and you will join me in Paradise, or at least the poorhouse. Just don't wait for me as i will be busy doing my father's work.
What happened to the "reasonable skeptic"? Where are the tolerant liberals?
My first impression is that it sounded much like a typical "liberal" style rant. I think every "group" has complained at one time or another about how Hollywood portrays them.
there is no war on Christmas, there is no devil, there is no war on terror, there is no Alqueda, we are the only terrorists, the economy is bad, and Democrats are not the party of defeat. Don't you guys have some kind of conference or something where you can come up with some new material? While denial and fabrication may fit your ideology best, most good propagandists try to slip a little truth into their work...just to keep it interesting!
I rather think the parallels are obvious, but both make for a good story.
Your grasp of Christianity is about as good as mine is of Martian farming. According to Christianity He died for all our sins (meaning that if you are human you have a path to redemption), but only if you accept that and ask for forgiveness. You see, free will and the ability to choose are critical components of Christianity. That may be why every authoritarian and totalitarian considers the eradication of Christianity to be a first order of business! Being unrepentant and denying God and Christ is not the path to salvation according to Christianity. There is forgiveness, but only to those who seek it.
If you are going to be vehemently opposed to something, and decry it as unprogressive, it behooves you to understand what you oppose first.
Wow what a great generalization of so many subjects.
Congrats on the hyperbola :)
Thats your belief. Other do not have to partake in it. If some one belief that let say their Haloween pumpkin dried up and died for your sins, does it mean you should respect it.
We long for the days of the "reasonable skeptic", and of the civilized discourse about the culture. But those things were "pre-culture-war". To those on the left who take the Culture War seriously (and that is a lot of them) serious religious belief IS the enemy. It is not enough to just ignore religious themes in movies, art or culture. They must be attacked and defeated.
As hard as it is for anyone who read TLTW&TW as a child to believe, it is viewed as evil by the cultural left.
Christians can end up sounding very defensive sometimes, but that is because they are under a legitimate cultural assault by the left. Both for their religious beliefs per se and for their general cultural status (American bourgeoisie).
there was only ONE Matrix movie, they didn't make 2 & 3.
I repeat they did NOT make 2 & 3.
and you made me laugh out loud!! What a great parallel!! LOL!!
If someone was willing to die for your salvation (for the moment, don't think eternal & sins, just salvation from starving to death or being shot), would you be mad at him for doing so? Even if you really didn't believe you were going to be killed, would you not recognize that he wasn't 'repugnant' for being willing to give his life for yours?
there were any christian elements in the book when I read it. Public School Boards will probably discuss pulling them off the shelves in a matter of weeks. ACLU to sue those that don't.
Just to show how diverse the Christian community is, I'd like to point out that many of us do not believe we have free will (Romans chapter 8) and that forgiveness is not just for those who seek it ("Father, forgive them for they know not what they do"). In this type of Christianity we believe our salvation was determined before the creation of the Earth, and that our accepting forgiveness is just a sign of God's love that is provided for our comfort.
While we can't really know who is saved or not, we ought to have pity on an unrepentant person, because in his miracles, Jesus often said that the person's faith that saved them.
Not mad. Simply not care.
Please answer this:
If tomorrow YOU decided to die for lets my sins without asking me, me agreeing with your intention and etc you could you blame anyone for saying: Dude, well he did not ask you, it was just your idea.
Take your contempt for the Christian religion elsewhere.
;)
, but it would be more fun if you actually pitched the ball (even underhanded), rather than teeing it up like that.
If we are talking about politics, and we are having a discussion about it, it exists. You can disagree, and claim that the litany of law suits against the open display of Christianity, and the active suppression of religious speech in public places does not constitute any kind of "war" on faithful people, but you cannot simply deny the events and facts. Politics is not reality. Denying that many Christians feel besieged by secular progressives, who are taking the concept of separation of church and state to its logical extremes, is not the same thing as saying that you are happy they feel persecuted, or they have no right to be upset by the events reported in the media. It is merely saying that you believe their feelings are less important than the feelings of whichever class of victims you feel deserve your sympathy. And denying the whole thing is quite an admission of callousness! After all, aren't we all now victims in your New America?
I can deny that racism exists in America, and direct your attention to all of the racist laws we have repealed, and the equitable ones that have replaced them as my evidence, but surely that would not convince you. You are probably certain that racism is pervasive and endemic throughout America, and all you have to do is consult the professional victims in the modern "Civil Rights" movement to get assurances. Their feelings probably have real value to you, and are able to move you to righteous indignation, but those of Christians (who I might add Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton claim to also be a part) do not. That is simply your opinion.
It is one thing to have an honest disagreement. It is quite another to dismiss a person's political argument out of hand, and deny that there are any grounds for it in reality, especially when the evidence is so overwhelming. But, if you are going to label a majority of people as unintelligent and ignorant because of beliefs they cannot prove to your satisfaction, may as well go all the way!
I have no contempt for Christian Religion. The question was academic.
Still moving on...
But, if you are going to label a majority of people as unintelligent and ignorant because of beliefs they cannot prove to your satisfaction, may as well go all the way!
no thank you, keeping on topic seems nice.
Denying that many Christians feel besieged by secular progressives, who are taking the concept of separation of church and state to its logical extremes, is not the same thing as saying that you are happy they feel persecuted, or they have no right to be upset by the events reported in the media.
Do not care if you call it Christmas, Day of the Big Fat Jolly Guy or PepperSteaks day. No one on the left cares about it: not even the Dailykos people
Anyhow, I got to put up decorations.
Real easy way to demonstrate the bias Hollywood has for Christians. Name me one movie (besides the Passion of Christ, which no one in Hollywood wanted to touch) where a Christian is protrayed as a normal human being.
The opposite is almost always true. If I see a Bible believing Christian on the screen I know for certian they will turn out to be some psychotic killer or child molester or something along those lines. Never fails.
I'm really excited for the film, it looks excellent.
At the same time there is the "unabashed odium that the upcoming film The Chronicles of Narnia has already provoked", is there anyone who doubts there also will be odium provoked by the movie Brokeback Mountain as well?
Everything offends somebody.
and it's a good thing you bring it up.
I do not want to get into a scriptural battle with anyone (I will surely loose), but I would say that small differences are not as important as the similarities and agreement that a majority of Christians have with each other. You can probably pull a line or two out of the Bible to support the contention that Christ died for everyone without them being sorry, repenting, or without acknowledging Him, but a it seems to me there is far more that supports the idea that one must be sorry for the evil they do and actually ask for redemption. Ignorance (innocence) seems to be the only exception in the Christian doctrine.
Surely there are sects who believe that everyone goes to Heaven regardless of what is in their hearts and regardless of their actions, but that would be a minor exception to the rule, and we can't have an honest discussion about "Christianity" unless we do speak broadly. Getting too specific means going down to the personal level, and I'm sure that each unique human being's beliefs vary even if they claim they are the same.
Jesus crying to God for mercy for his tormentors, because of their ignorance is precisely the same thing as you having compassion for someone who knows the word of God and disavows it. I make no claims about that which I cannot experience with my five senses, and am much more closely aligned with the skeptics. I simply do not like the argument or line of reasoning, because, broadly, I do not think it is representative of Christianity.
Where are the tolerant liberals? Passed into extinction years ago, didn't you get the memo?
Lets say to tomorrow YOU decided to die for my sins.
Without asking me, me ever agreeing with your intention, or ever knowing you. Basically its YOUR decision for whatever reason it might be. You might believe very strongly in it, you might be doing it for fun. So you do it.
Am I to blame for saying this:
"Well, I did not ask him to die for me. I do not see why it was necessary and do not believe in YOUR cause of doing it."
Let me get this right. He says he didn't ask Jesus to die for his sins. What this tells me is that he likes his sins. I mean, he doesn't deny that he is a sinner (another argument), he seems to be saying "leave me alone in my sins".
Jesus said that he did not come to judge the world, but the world would judge itself by this fact, that it loved the darkness more than the light.
Sounds like he likes the darkness.
I used to love Law and Order - watched it all the time. Not any more. I hate to be insulted and lectured to by those guys. They put down religion, pro-life people and conservatives as ignorant, insane, depraived or murderous. Its painful. Whatever happened to the good writers.
But, don't you think that claiming apathy as a virtue is a little silly?
One would think that a real liberal would become agitated over any suppression of free speech and public display of belief on sheer principal, even if you think practicing Christians are kooks who want to convert you.
Does the Daily Kos speak for liberals? My word! I did not know what a monolith it is! I shall have to look into this!
Well, the secular and socialist Left (which are not always the same thing) have finally managed to do the impossible: conflate hatred of the Jews and a disgust for the Christianity of their fathers into a single enemy, illustrated by an alliterative slogan of hate.
And if you don't find that offensive, just take out the word, "Christian" and imagine what would happen to anyone who would even print that line or utter it in polite company.
Without getting into the topic much further, I would just say this should be a wake-up call to all the libertarians and centrists who believe in freedom of markets and of thought, as well as to the Jewish people of America who love Israel and their heritage. The contemporary American Left is not their friend. And voting Democrat cannot be a viable option for any such voter unless and until the remnants of 20th Century collectivist thought that is incorrectly termed "liberalism" in this country (the destruction of a very rich, good word, with much history, I might add) is extinguished once and for all, bankrupted via the war of ideas through public discourse and the power of the democratic process.
even though I didn't believe I needed your efforts, I would not pledge you my undying devotion. Neither would I say that you or your other fans were repugnant.
The guy quoted in the diary said that he believed that Christianity was repugnant because he didn't feel the need to be saved. I'm just saying that is a gross over-reaction.
No idea what you actually sad.
Ok, at this point in the discussion I'll just grin, nod and sloooowlyyy back away so nto make any sudden movements.
Christians believe that on Judgement Day we will face the consequences of what we have done in our lives. You have to agree that much of what each of us has done is sinful. Whether it is speaking out in anger, not sharing freely what we have, or not forgiving those who hurt us. Given who we are, how could you expect us to deserve eternal life? So we can't earn our way into heavan, but thankfully God provided another way. God asked Jesus to die for our sins so that justice for all of our sins could be served. All he asks in return is that we have faith, accept that sacrifice that has been made for us, and then turn away from sin, to the best of our ability.
So that is why it is necessary. As to whether you are too blame, the Bible says that God has made his presence abundantly clear. Do you agree with that?
As a member of the cultural left, I really liked the Narnia books when I was a kid, plan to reread them soon for the movies, and plan to go see the movie. They have religious themes in them, but that doesn't bother me at all.
I disagree strongly with the guy who wants to keep Narnia out of the schools, especially. It has Christian themes...but really, what doesn't? Schools are not the place for religion masquerading as science (Ed. - Don't bother responding to this and getting off topic, I'm sure loads of you disagree with this premise.) but literature deals with religion because religion is an important part of our world and society.
As for the evidence presented in this post on the necessity for a Narnia Hate Watch, interpreted here as a full-on attack on Christianity in the movies, I've got to say it seems a little overstated. Someone will complain about almost anything. That does not a movement make.
A reasonably successful science fiction writer named David Brin wrote an article a while ago complaining that Star Wars had strains of fascism running through it. (At http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/1999/06/15/brin_main/index.html) I read his article, saw some amount of truth in it mixed among some amount of hyperbole, then went to see the movie anyway. While the movie turned out to be somewhat of a laughingstock, it wasn't because swarms of angry Brinites took to the streets and smashed down theatre windows.
To Answer your question:
I believe the Christians hold it to be true for themselves and others.
That was not my question though. My question applies to people who do not believe themselves to be Christian (maybe I should have made it more clear :)
Jews and Moslims do not believe the applies to them same as Christians do not believe the Moslim beliefs apply to them. And there is a large number of other religions. Hindus number at about a billion and that religion does not share ancestry which Judeo-Christian-Muslim god.
It's hard to see how all these religions can be right. Each person has to decide what they are going to have faith in, even if it means to have the faith that there is no god.
And what of the answer to my questions?
If all Non-Christian people did not ask for Christ to die for their sins should than can they be blamed for saying: "Well we did not ask them to die for us"?
Lewis wrote all 7 Narnia books while Tolkien was spending 14 years writing Lord of the Rings. While Lewis was a big fan of LotR (Tolkien would read it to their group a chapter at a time while he was writing), Tolkien didn't really like the Narnia stories, and felt somewhat uncomfortable about it, since Lewis was such a big fan of his work.
Around here I would be considered a liberal, probably "one of those whacky liberals" to be exact. I have read these books at least 7 times through and yes, I can see the biblical allegories, but tons of movies are allegorical in nature.
Personally, I haven't seen any Narnia bashing and I am looking forward to the release of the movie...I hope they make the other 6 eventually!
crass (krăs)
adj. crass·er, crass·est
So crude and unrefined as to be lacking in discrimination and sensibility.
I hope you'll pardon the assessment of crudity or unrefinement. I think the sentiment betrays either a marked ignorance or a marked irrationality concerning the matter, though. Supposing that you give me a Christmas present, out of the blue. I have not asked you for anything, and I almost certainly do not know you well enough to expect any such thing. Let us further suppose that you have done this for no particularly obvious reason, and that you do not ask for remuneration in kind.
Is your action repugnant, as Toynbee put it? It might be a great many things, but I would have to presuppose a great many things about your motives to find it repugnant.
which I know you know My dear 'benice
But the overeaction is the near universal reaction of all men until they accept the free gift of eternal life as a son of God rather than death as the wages of sin for men playing God.
Pride (repugnant need) goeth before the fall.
Beginning with eve and adam, man has found submission to God's will and law repugnant and the suggestion that they are sick in sin which only the cross can cure to be a scandal.
Gen.
5For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
------------------------
1 Cor
18For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
19For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
25Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29That no flesh should glory in his presence.
---------------
2 Cor
9But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
------------------
3 Cor
18Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
19For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
20And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.
21Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are your's;
22Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are your's;
23And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's.
Tolkien hated allegory, period. That's why he didn't like Narnia, and hated it even more when people claimed that LOTR was allegorical.
But as far as allegories go, I think Narnia is about as good as you can get. As many people have pointed out, you can appreciate the books without understanding the allegory. But once you understand Lewis' purpose, you can continue to appreciate more and more meaning in the stories.
but I would be kind of bothered if you then went around calling it "repugnant."
Three points.
- You didn't ask to be born either. Be grateful.
- The act of sacrifice doesn't have to (and rarely ever) asks permission. This INCREASES the nobility of the act.
- But since you want to go down that road, yes, the people cried out for Christ to die and not Barabas.
So there.
with Tolkien, and I vastly prefer LOTR to either Narnia or Lewis' Space trilogy (although the latter has the great virtue of showing how easy it is to reconcile an orthodox Christianity viewpoint with modern science, including evolution and extraterrestrial life). The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe is the best of Lewis' fiction, IMO, and I do plan on seeing the movie, which looks delicious in the previews. Still Lewis was better when writing non-fiction and his apologetics (mere Christianity, the Four Loves, etc) are masterpieces.
between simply saying, "I do not believe in Christianity", and being unabashed about it, and going out of your way to state that you did not ask for nor do you desire the redemption that faithful people believe in? One would think that the former would be sufficient, but because it is not, it raises some other interesting questions.
Why is what you write any different from someone telling you that you are going to Hell, and denigrating your atheism, or whatever you claim you are? Isn't the accusation of eternal damnation the reaction you are looking for? If you got it, does it confirm your moral superiority, validate your prejudice, and reinforce the animosity you have against Christians?
Aren't you supposed to be the open minded one, and those who disagree with you the closed minded ones? Really, Christians believe that Christ was divine, and that pretty much negates your hypothetical argument of mortal strangers needlessly sacrificing themselves for your soul. But isn't that your point? Christ died for nothing? He was nothing more than a mortal stranger who you don't know and don't care about?
I'm glad to read the posts of such an academic interested in open-minded enlightenment! I'm glad your life is so brimming with love and happiness that you can scoff and denigrate those who must look beyond this mortal existance to find peace and happiness. Best of luck with that!
if we all chanted "They did NOT make 2 & 3" along with "There is no Godfather, Part 3" and "The Abyss ended 10 minutes earlier than its supposed actual ending" long enough... perhaps miracles would happen....
But even so, even in The Matrix, Neo is pretty obviously a Christ-figure there too -- and more blatantly, I thought, than in those other non-Matrix movies 2 & 3.
-TS
and as a p.s. I believe that the animosity that flows from those who don't know "The peace that passes all understanding" partly comes from conviction. I have not always lived as God would have me to live. In those times, the Holy Spirit brought conviction to me, and it was not a comfortable feeling. Maybe it was different, because I was saved at the time, but I believe he convicts the lost as well. Their animosity may be related to the spiritual pain involved in the rejection of God, which they can't even recognize themselves.
Well, in a season of apparent Movies That People Get Worked Up About Needlessly, I guess that this is the across the aisle sort of trade for "Brokeback Mountain", depending on who you listen to.
Personally, I can't wait for Narnia. I've studied the books in grad school and basically beaten the allegory to death, but, that's kind of not the point. This movie, as most movies are, is about being entertained for a few hours, and I'm thinking that this film looks like it can do that, handily, so let people take away from it whatever they need to, I say.
What blame are you asking about? Christians believe that Christ suffered and died for their sins. Everyone shares in the blame for the death of Christ. Or are you asking about having to suffer eternally for not having faith?
do you hold it against someone who isn't Christian if their reaction to the statement that Christ died for their sins is something to the effect of "hey, I didn't ask for Him to do that."
Philip Pullman's opinions about The Chronicles Of Narnia are about as relevant as Adolph Hitler's opinions about the positive societal contributions of citizens of Jewish faith or descent. It is not that he doesn't know what he's talking about; it is that he is well known to be on the other side of the issue.
or in a relationship between equals, maybe you have a point. The thing is Christians say the Jesus is God Incarnate. So we have God dying for us. It puts the question in a different light.
if someone doesn't believe Juesus was god incarnate than they will take the human to human perspective. If the hypothetical 'you' in the above question claimed to be god incarnate, would that change your perspective of their act?
believe Jesus to be God wuld see the act in a different light than one who believes the claim.
If someone isn't Christian, then that is saying that they don't believe that Christ died for them, and was resurrected, etc. What blame there is for that depends on your view of predestination. As a Calvinist, I believe that God choose that person to be a non-believer as part of his plan, and we should respond accordingly with love in the hope that they in due time come around.
be a non-believer, how can they come around?
that the phrase "predestined to be a non-believer" pretty much answers your question.
was I questioned the poster.
hehehhe, now we are hitting the hundreds of year of theological questions on Calvinism.
An expanded version of the question is: Is everyone is predestined by God to carry out a certain role are they then blameless, for they have no free choice?
"Are they blameless"?
One of the 5 points of Calvinism is that all of us have sinned, and none are "blameless".
It's not an issue of free will at all. If you are adrift in the ocean in a life raft you have free will. You can't save yourself, but the coast guard can. You have free will, but can't save yourself. Only Christ saves. (IE, I have free will. That doesn't mean I can fly).
Remember, Christ knocks BEFORE you answer. A sheepherd gathers his flock, not vice-versa. When we are born again, we don't give birth to ourselves. I believe that that I felt the spirit and asked Christ into my life. I didn't ask THEN feel the spirit.
In the end it doesn't matter if you are Calvinist or Arminian. Whether you felt the spirit called you or you called to it, isn't this a great season?
But, contrary to some that are so offended by the use of the term repugnant, it actually pefectly expresses the attitude of one who either rejects the concept of sin or deems oneself sinless?
If one rejects the existence of a God to whom one must answer or has chosen to reject God no matter that he does exist, and therefore, be ones own master, then the concept of the cross is repugnant to those views.
To which catagory do you belong? The only other option is that one is under conviction.
Also, I understand perfectly why one would find the cross repugnant and not other religions.
The repugnance of Christianity to the world is unique.
but Tender Mercies, a fine film, is all about redemption.
The preacher in the Preacher's Wife is also a fine person.
And even Lithgow's character in Footloose isn't really portrayed as a bad guy.
but I read the book a a child (and saw the animated movie made of it) and didn't connect the dots to it being a "Christian" story, although I can certainly see the parallels as an adults.
I think there are those on the far left who are so used to everything in the entertainment industry being marketed to them, they freak out at the idea of "Christian marketing". It kind of amuses me to see them offended. Shoe's on the other foot now.
Of all the elements of Christianity, the most repugnant is the notion of the Christ who took our sins upon himself and sacrificed his body in agony to save our souls. Did we ask him to?
Have fun explaining that comment to God on judgement day. I can hardly think of a more blasphemous remark.
It's a book that has been made into a movie period. And, if anyone thinks for a second that anything coming out of Hollywood is going to be Conservative or racist; needs to get their head examined. Hollywood only supports Liberals, any movie that emphasized Conservative beliefs would result in the blacklisting of everyone who ever worked on it.
Even though we were created as a sinners, God is just, so his plan takes into account what we want and what our character is. What happens to us is evidence for what we really deserve.
readily recognize the symbolism. When my daughters 3rd grade teacher read the series to them in class, we discussed the book at home (she eventually read the books for herself that year) and she easily could tell which characters stood for which biblical characters, and what events the various events stood for.
My younger daughter is reading it in her 5th grade reading class right now. I asked her if the teacher discusses the Christian allegory at all (out of curiosity) she said he didn't, but she could also easily tell what the various characters and events represented.
But the books definitely can be and are enjoyed apart from their Christian symbolism.
the gospel.
Essentially, Christ died for the sins of the world, you can choose to accept the gift or reject it, and the truth is that Jesus did it while we (you and me) were still enemies with God-he did it because he wanted to, not because anyone asked him to.
"Hollywood" the overpaid actors may be liberals, but I'd say "Hollywood" the business really only supports making themselves rich.
And if that coincides with making movies that will be appreciated (and well-attended) by Christian audiences, I'm sure Hollywood has no problem making it. I bet it will be a great movie.
It just happens that making themselves rich is usually easiest by appealing to base sex and violence appeal. While many Democrats in the last decade in their search for funding have embraced protecting such garbage, I'd remind everyone that Tipper Gore (a social liberal in many ways!) led the charge to ban explicit music lyrics many years ago.
Sigh I wish I could just explore my own religious beliefs without feeling like I have to side with a political group. I blame both the left and the right for getting us into this mess, though it's probably always been this way, and I just didn't notice. I guess I should try to be more optimistic too. Sigh
that movie painted Christians as pretty ignorant (and admittedly it frustrated me as well, given the liberal use of verses well out of context).
I havent' seen either of the other two movies to have an opinion.
But I bet if we had a challenge that had gave you a set amount of time to list all the movies that had Christians painted in a bad light and all the movies that had Christians painted in a good light, you would end up with the bad lights easily winning the good lights.
In general, Hollywood is not that kind to Christians (or anyone with religious conviction for that matter).
Ummm... "...the level of unabashed odium that the upcoming film The Chronicles of Narnia has already provoked"??
Please.
Philip Pullman, the Palm Beach Post, and the Guardian. That's three. I'd say the "level" here is pretty low. I rather suspect the levees will hold.
I can see how it might serve the interests of those who gain political or real capital from regularly reigniting and fighting the culture wars if there actually were some kind of concerted effort by the MSM (that's what you folks like to call it, right?) to criticize this film for being too overtly Christian. Unfortunately for you, there is absolutely no evidence of this taking place.
"Not since The Passion of the Christ have we seen such hatred for a film yet to be released"??? Maybe you should take a gander at the review of LWW written by those Communists in the NYT before you begin bording up your doors against the anti-Christian hordes. Heck, check out the Village Voice if you want to see a self-avowed socialist aetheist talk about how much he liked the movie. The only controversy here is what you will generate by digging up film reviews from small town newspapers of no consequence.
Go back to saving Christmas.
I would also like to point out the delicious irony of Mr. "liberal execration" calling Civil Rights activists "professional victims" immediately after claiming that Christians are somehow being "beseiged" by a "war" on people of faith by secularists. Bravo, sir. Perhaps now you can coach me on the subject of fabrication and denial.
movie. Repeat: ONE movie.
some rude noise that fits here but Redstate doesn't have sound --- fortunately :-)
If you don't believe that Jesus was divine, then how could he die for your sins? To say that Jesus died for our sins is not to say that he died with forgiveness and good intentions in his heart. It was a thing agreed upon in Heaven: "Am I not to drink the cup that the Father has given me?" Or to put it another way, if you don't believe in a Divine judgement in which you have need of an intercessor, there's no reason to believe that anyone could be such an intercessor.
Good writing in a bad cause (Gnosticism), IMO, although it rather falls off in the third book. Panzerbjorns are a nifty idea though.
but really, see Tender Mercies. An absolutely stunning performance by Robert Duval.
As far as Footloose goes, I only was referring to the Lithgow character--the preacher/father. Overall, the movie is superficial. But Lithgow is a good enough actor that he makes something of the role.
having a grasp of what the gospel says with thinkin git is actually true. I am sure he understand that the gospel claims jesus dies for the sins of the world without being asked to by us; but to those of us who see the gospel as fiction (or at least as 'based on a true story' as todays bio pics), just becuase the gospel said it doesn't make it so.
I read all seven books religiously (no pun intended) as a small child and repeatedly and I never picked up on the Christ story parallels. It's fairly obvious as an adult, but so are a lot of things I missed as child. Trying to to make this into one more kulturkrieg is really sad nad is clearly the work of those who exist solely on setting individuals against one another
But nevertheless we are all sinners. "What happens to us is evidence for what we really deserve." People do not necessarily deserve what happens to them. The Bible says it rains on the just and the unjust alike.
Most Christians believe in Original Sin so we are created sinners. This believe is the source of the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
refers to the fact that the human race as a whole was not created sinful. However it is also possible to believe in Original Sin without believing that anyone is personally born a sinner. The alternate teaching (found mostly in the Eastern churches) is that Original Sin mars human nature, but no one is guilty of Original Sin save Adam himself.
Allod creation bears the scars of sin, but God did not create us sinners.
in a threadjack here but again the truth or falsity of your statement depends on your theology. For me
Original sin is described not only as the death of the soul but as a "privation of justice that each child contracts at its conception".
Blacks, Asians and Hispanics have been complaining for years about how Hollywood portrays them and more recently Arabs have had their complaints, I'm sure your can empathize.
Tonybee forgot to say that the Chronicles of Narnia is nothing more than a piece of rabid Neo-conservative propaganda.
At an early showing, and it's just a fantastic, fantastic movie. These people upset about marketing it to Christian groups are just being silly. There is nothing wrong with marketing it too a group that you think will especially like the film and it's message.
The movie is not heavy-handed on the religion in any way. This is a film that both secular AND relgious audiences will love, it's just a wonderful fantasy adventure story.
I love these books, and I will absolutely be seeing this film.