• The new B5TV.COM is here. We've replaced our 16 year old software with flashy new XenForo install. Registration is open again. Password resets will work again. More info here.

The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe.

It's all a parable at best. The Bible is mostly parable, not fact. Get past the semantics and learn the lessons...Love, compassion, devotion, honesty, integrity and uplifting one another instead of tearing them down. The rest is not important.
 
It's all a parable at best. The Bible is mostly parable, not fact. Get past the semantics and learn the lessons...Love, compassion, devotion, honesty, integrity and uplifting one another instead of tearing them down. The rest is not important.
Click to expand...

That attitude would put the priests and preachers out of business overnight. :LOL: So I wouldn't hold my breath on this one. :eek:
 
You're also running into the burden of proof again. Your post seemed to indicate there was real scientific evidence backing up the creationists. There's a difference between believing their may be a devine explanation for what we don't know and discounting the evidence we do have to conform to your preset belief.
 
Sorry, DG, I don't follow you at all there. I responded to

"It's all a parable at best. The Bible is mostly parable, not fact. Get past the semantics and learn the lessons...Love, compassion, devotion, honesty, integrity and uplifting one another instead of tearing them down. The rest is not important. "

How did burden of proof get inside there in your mind? :confused:

I was discussing the idea that many Christians have that the bible is more parable than absolute fact. This is an attitude that many Christians actually to have, I know, they have told me so. So I'm afraid I just don't get what your point is. :confused:
 
I wasn't replying to you Hyp, yours was just the last post with a reply button and I thought I might need to use smiley faces.

Mostly my post was about how intelligent design, or the excuse of 'you can be both christian and a scientist', is used as a back door to force non-scientific study into science classes. Of course you can be a christian and still be a rigorous scientist. However since science relies so much on evidence, observation and such(a little thing called the scientific method) even if you prefer the fanciful for explaining what we don't yet know that's really in the realm of philosophy class.

By the way the phrase creationisim in modern usage implies refuting evolution therefore my original post that a creationist scientist is no scientist at all.
 
I saw the trailer before Episode III. It looks like it's going to be pretty good. It actually intrigued me to want to go see it.
 
The trailer gave me goose bumps, I think it was Aslan's roar that did it. it just looked great...

Weta are also behind the effects. Count me in.
 
I saw it in the cinema yesterday before RotS .. I don't know what to think actually.

The visuals look stunning, yes. Looked a bit very .. battle-y in the Lord of the Rings inspired way. Not that the battles in Lord of the Rings were poorly done .. but I don't need to go to the cinema to see fake after fake of it :D And the battles had WAY too much weight for my tastes in the LOTR movie trilogy .. based on books QUITE different from the Narnia series .. quite more battle-centric. If they try to make a Narnia movie by the exact same aproach .. I'm not convinced it will be too great. Well .. hopefully they won't overdo it with the battle scene, I suppose we will know more once the movie comes closer :D

That and Lucy looked evil. :eek: .. will never get her to be anyone but the cute girl with the rabbit teeth from the BBC series :D .. to be honest, I'm much more looking forward to seeing that again than to seeing the new one.
 
There are several different ways of looking at Genesis from a creationist point of view. I don't want to get into that here... all I wanted to say is that Reepicheep rocks, and he's my favourite character.

Anyone who disagrees is a poltroon! :p
 
Hehe :D .. he was one of the two characters I really liked in the series that I have since finished .. him and Puddleglum.

After having read all 7 books - especially the seventh - I got a bit tired of the whole Aslan thing, religious connections or not. Just the kind of knee-falleyness that seemed to be normal towards him, just because he was he .. kind of got on my nerves. And the way Aslan's greatness was always pulled into the plot also when it wasn't really relevant .. oh well :D Infalliable characters never are my favorite sort.

Was SUCH a relief to read Harry Potter after the Chronicles of Narnia, just for the attitude difference people there have towards the Harry Potter equivalent of Aslan - Dumbledore. Was nice to be reminded that a character can be extremely wise, respectable, mighty and caring without it getting .. well .. cheesy. And how it's possible for someone else to not like this person's actions without being evil :eek:
 
Yeah, Lewis could have done a little more to make Aslan a touch less stuffy. But about knee-bendyness... if you came face to face with the Savior of the Universe, what would you do?
 
Well .. the same I suppose. Just that people don't even have to know that to go all "ooh, Aslan is the greatest!!!!" :D .. that's part of what bothered me. He's always the greatest and the coolest just because he is Aslan .. not because he has saved the universe :confused:
 
Well .. the same I suppose. Just that people don't even have to know that to go all "ooh, Aslan is the greatest!!!!" :D .. that's part of what bothered me. He's always the greatest and the coolest just because he is Aslan .. not because he has saved the universe :confused:
Click to expand...

I think that's a truth which can easily be lost regarding the person Aslan represents as well.
 
That's the trouble with infallible characters, it sucks the drama out of stories.

I know this isn't popular but that's a major problem with modern religions. You need interesting and compelling stories to attract followers but you have to include contradictions if you want an infallible deity.
 
That's the trouble with infallible characters, it sucks the drama out of stories.

I know this isn't popular but that's a major problem with modern religions. You need interesting and compelling stories to attract followers but you have to include contradictions if you want an infallible deity.
Click to expand...

I think you can get away with it, as long as you have strong enough fallible characters to reflect back at that person as well. I think the NT gets away with it (but not necessarily dramatic versions of it), but in Narnia, on most occasions the Pevensie kids are too perfect.

Ok in Wardrobe, you have a good analogy of the resurrection and restoration, but in terms of the nature of redemption I feel Dawntreader is stronger.
 
but in Narnia, on most occasions the Pevensie kids are too perfect.
Click to expand...

Not too sure about that. Without giving too much away for those who have not read the books, one of the kids, Edmund, is a really nasty little so-and-so.

The sort you want to grab by the scruff of the neck, and throw headfirst into the moldiest, stinkiest duckpond you can find.
Not a good idea to do so, though - Edmund would probably poison the duckpond.
 
For sure, but after his "experience" he's pretty much a clone of Peter. In fact, he pretty much takes over the Peter role in Dawntreader.

I think Eustace was worse before his "incident"
 
Well .. as Edmund put it, Eustance was just an ass. Edmund was a traitor.

One thing I've been wondering about the movie is .. hmm .. is it movie or movies? I've seen nothing suggesting that they're planning to do more than 1 / seven .. but would kind of make sense .. I guess it depends on how well it does at the box office.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 126 (members: 0, guests: 126)

Share this page

Back
Top