Never having read any of ‘The Chronicles of Narnia’ books by CS Lewis (mostly because I feared I would be preached to), I still find myself excited by the preview of the first movie installment ‘The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe’. It’s a curious-making trailer and Disney could have a hugely successful franchise on par with The Lord Of The Rings movies and the Star Wars phenomenon.
Of the 5 reasons listed on the Moviefone website as to why this venture may be a huge success, #5 may be the most convincing:
In fact, the Lewis books’ much-explored Christian allegorical themes are already inspiring some to predict box office success to rival the awesome take of that behemoth Christian non-allegory, ‘The Passion of the Christ.’
The non-allegory of ‘The Passion of the Christ’? They’re kidding, right?
I’m not overly pleased that it may be a huge thrill for Christians to see these books made into movies or that it will promote Christian ideals but I expected a venture to counter the satanic messages the Harry Potter books and movies contained. LOL
Disney has further committed to movie adaptations of the next 2 books in CS Lewis’ Narnia series. This first one could suck but dayum, it sure has a purty trailer! Check it out!
Dale, come back when you have something original to contribute.
Zilch- I don’t blame the kid, really. He was just a toddler, and he obviously wasn’t intentionally trying to be a nuisance. Also, Narnia is a kid’s movie, and of course I anticipated that there would be kids there making noise (even though we did go to a 9:45 PM show in a deliberate attempt to avoid this). What pissed me off was that the parents were doing nothing to try to calm him down, and on top of that they had these looks on their faces like his causing a disturbance was just the Cutest. Thing. Ever. And it really was a pretty big disturbance- the kid was being really, really loud and running around and climbing on things, and it went on from during the previews until Lucy met Mr. Tumnus (btw, a word to the wise: don’t sit too close to the screen or it will look like Mr. Tumnus’ left nipple is COMING RIGHT AT YOU). Then when the mom started yelling the kid’s name rather than actually getting up and doing anything about the situation, I just couldn’t take it anymore. We weren’t the only ones who left, either.
Anyway, I ended up not going to the later show- I got my tickets refunded then went to a bar to sing karaoke and get drunk, so it all worked out in the end I guess.
Brock- The car accident was just a fender-bender, but unfortunately it was totally my fault. Friday was the first day the roads were icy here, and the sun was in my face, and I just wasn’t paying enough attention at exactly the wrong moment because I was reaching for my coffee. Luckily no one was hurt, and all the damage was to my car, so hopefully nothing will come of it. Of course, the only reason I even HAD coffee, which I don’t normally drink, was because I was exhausted from spending that 35 hours hours in the office. And not 5 minutes before my boyfriend had told me that he didn’t think I should be driving, but I couldn’t get the day off work because my boss is a dick and totally disregarded the fact that according to our personnel policies I had already earned the day off. And then it turned out that I was the only one on the team who bothered to come in anyway. So I was pretty much primed to explode by the time I got to the theater that night. But anyway, the accident could have been much worse.
DOF: Awesome idea. And you’re totally right that that’s what drives the sales of the home theater systems. I’m the most dedicated movie-goer ever, and I’m about ready to just save up all the money I would spend in a year going out to films and using it to buy a sweet home theater set-up. I can only imagine that less enthusiastic movie-goers are making that decision more readily that I am.
….Aaaand I’ve just realized that I’m turning this entry into a little mini-blog of my own, so I’m going to quit while I’m somewhat less than ahead. Les! Lay some insight down on us. How was the movie?
I’d put it a little differently, Sexy Sadie:
“We’ll pray for you, Dale. Not.”
Ulfrekr- sounds like you had a bummer all around. My s.o. and I often have a similar problem: we perform marionette concerts, where Barbara does the marionettes and I do the music. Our shows are intended for adults, or older kids, but some people hear “puppets”, thinks it’s Punch and Judy, and bring their toddlers. It usually works out pretty well, because the marionettes tell the kids to behave, but sometimes it’s disruptive. I hope you and your bf get to see the film in peace sometime.
I’m glad that no one got hurt in the auto accident. cheers, zilch
Ulfrekr just wrote about poor parenting. Maybe god just wanted Jesus to quite running in front of his special showing of Dogma. That’ll show the little bastard.
Just so we’re clear here. If there was a torture of Christ it came nowhere close to the millions of those that have been tortured in his name. As a bonus, he knew he was going to be okay in three days, the rest of those watching their wives raped, kids beheaded and houses burned got bupkis. That’s just sick, brainwashed thinking Dale, but thanks for stopping by because I almost thought this fairytale had disappeared.
We need people like Dale to put things back into perspective. Unfortunately for Dale it’s not nearly the perspective he had in mind. Oh well, life’s a bitch!
Allan
Hey, deadscot, your karma just ran over my dogma…
**SPOILERS BELOW**
Went to CoN last night with my wife. (We went to the early show, intending to see Harry Potter. Harry was sold out, so we went to CoN instead.) I actually didn’t notice many people under 5’ tall in the audience. Pretty much all adults.
The point where the movie really lost me was after Aslan is killed on the tablet and the two girls endlessly lament and stroke the corpse of the dead lion. Tedious to say the least, especially considering that Aslan hadn’t really been in the movie much up to that point. Well, I guess he did spare their brother…and they did witness his death, but still…
The first 30 mins of the movie was decent, if a little nostalgic (nothing wrong with that), as the build up to the fantasy takes place, but most of the rest was a big ol’ brick of dark blue stinky cheese, with some light humour courtesy of the talking animals. (BTW, the CGI was very good.) It had a weird patriarchal undercurrent, but overall nothing too objectionable. I give it (**1/2)/(****), noting that my major complaints about the movie were:
a)The hyper-emotionality of the whole thing.
b)The movie’s timing seemed off…plot developments occurred and I was like “OK…so now it’s time for ‘x’ to happen…I see.”
c)The doe-eyed actors weren’t all that good, nor did they seem particularly well directed (except for during their cheesy closeups).
There were a few nice scenes though. I just wish they had called it Yule instead of Christmas. Ha. Cool CGI wolves, but it probably should have stayed a book.
All this talk about C.S. Lewis and God I wondered about any thoughts on Lewis’ argument for Christianity.
He says that if Christianity isn’t true, it is of little consequence. But if Christianity is true, it’s of eternal consequence.
e.g. if you die believing Christianity is true and it isn’t -so what, you don’t exist anymore, you’ll never know the difference. But if you die believing Christianity is false and it is true, you’re screwed (eternal torment in hell, weeping and nashing of teeth, etc, etc).
At nothing else, isn’t Christianity the “safe” route???
Pascal’s Wager rears its ugly head again.
Pascal’s wager.
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/wager.html
Gabtrat, do a search for “Pascal’s Wager” in the search box and you’ll see we’ve been over that several times already.
The short answer is as thus: If your only reason for believing is to cover your ass then chances are any God worth his salt isn’t going to be too happy with you once you meet up with him.
Gabtrat, Lewis is a decent storyteller, has quite a bit of insight into human nature, but is a poor logician. The comments above already raised the flaws in Pascal’s wager, I raise two more:
How do you go about ‘believing’ something in order for a supposed advantage of that belief? If you are not convinced it is true, (and I am not) then that is not belief.
Lewis himself recognized this in ‘Screwtape Letters’ as the malevolent Screwtape quips; “You see the little rift? Believe this, not because it is true, but for some other reason.” As Les said, the ‘other reason’ in this case is to cover your ass.
The second problem there is the “Homer Simpson paradox”. Which is: “What if we picked the wrong religion? Every week we’re just making God madder and madder.” Funny, but a completely legitimate question.
Somebody should sit down and compile a list of all the wager’s flaws, logical or otherwise. Perhaps in the form of a questionnaire
Another addition to DOF’s list of problems: If there truly is nothing after death, then by taking the “cover your ass” approach you are living your life towards false purposes, rather than making the most of what time you have. Granted, some people would argue that being a Christian has its own benefits regardless of whether Christian theology is in the strictest sense true, but it certainly isn’t the only or necessarily the best way to go about living a good life. I have a hard time believing most people would, say, take a vow of celibacy or be willingly martyred if they didn’t feel assured of some eternal reward. So I dispute Lewis’ claim that it is of little consquence if Christianity isn’t true. If it isn’t, it means that millions of people for thousands of years have been giving up their time, energy, and even lives on false pretenses, not to mention frequently taking the time, energy, and lives of others.
The only worth, I’d say, of Pascal’s Wager is to argue the gravity of not believing in hell. I don’t think it would convince anyone of anything, other than that it is worth continuing a pursuit of whether there is a hell or not.
If you come to a place where you can say “I don’t believe there could possibly be a hell
It does nothing of this kind. The burden of proof, as well as the burden of definition, rests squarely on whoever claims that the supernatural exists – be that “god”, “hell”, “psychic powers”, or whatever. If anything, it makes the theist’s position worse, because there are now two supernatural claims to prove.
Horsefeathers – it does no such thing. It is a hypothetical condition dreamed up by the one making the claim. As such it has no bearing on the weight of evidence.
Go to the link provided by nowiser and read through it. At the end is the ‘atheist’s wager’ which carries just as much weight. So tell me, what is the value of the following equation: x/-x ?
Raising the point that many seemingly rational people believe in
the unicorngod is an ontological argument that is equally busted. So what if a lot of people believe something drilled into them by their culture, generation after generation? That isn’t proof it is true.I suggest you ponder the meaning of Hebrews 11:1 a bit more deeply and quit trying to prove god logically. To put it as gently as possible, you aren’t the first.
So tell me, gabtrat, have you taken steps to protect yourself from the Unicorn in your basement? Or are you risking being beaten to a bloody pulp by flaunting your ignorance of it’s existence?
By same token, have you taken steps to protect yourself from the bogeyman? Leprechauns? The Loch Ness Monster? All of these things can’t be proven to not exist beyond a shadow of a doubt so surely you’ve taken steps to ensure none of them have any reason to do you harm, yes?
Or do you not follow your own logic?
Welcome, gabtrat! Indeed, the thought of burning in hell for eternity is rather gripping. Since people don’t often report from the afterlife, we are free to allow our imagination to run hogwild. That’s exactly what gives the meme of heaven and hell such staying power, and why it has been usefully incorporated, consciously or not, into many religions: the Big Carrot and Stick in the Sky.
The others here have said it: Pascal’s Wager is a pretty weak reason to believe, and one not likely to please God (if He exists). You say:
So would you check for violent unicorns, gabtrat? I wouldn’t, especially if the counter-unicorn measures involve doing stuff I don’t like, and not doing stuff I do like, for the rest of my life, if the only indication of the unicorn’s existence was not neighing or whinnying downstairs, but just some two thousand year old fairy tale. Which leads to this:
Yes, and there have likewise been reliable, trustworthy people who believed the Earth was flat, and that the planets were fixed in crystalline spheres; not to mention all the people today who have been, by geographical accident, raised to believe in the wrong God, and will thus burn in Hell eternally. Tough luck, eh?
Sure, being an atheist is a minority position. But the popularity of a belief is no guarantee of its truth, especially when it is so deeply imbedded in the culture, and so congenial- who wouldn’t want to live forever on a cloud with a harp, or, say, be engaged in eternal sex on Planet X? As Michael Shermer says when asked his views about an afterlife, “I’m in favor of it”.
I myself wouldn’t mind having a few goodies of various sorts that I’m not likely to get. That’s no reason to think anything like this is going to happen after we’re dead. In fact, we should be especially critical of beliefs that have no evidence going for them except our hopes and fears.
Let’s play gabtrat madlibs!
Wow, so I guess racism is a-ok, my daily horoscope is always accurate, and Fox News really IS fair and balanced! Who knew?
It’s the old “if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it” routine. If you really believe in God then God obviously exists for you. If you don’t then God doesn’t. The only thing this really proves is one of two things, that God is sort of wishy-washy or subject to our whims!
As usual, Calvin has something pertinent to say too:
“I’ve been wondering, though. Is it truly being good if the only reason I behave is so I can get more loot at Christmas? I mean, really, all I’m doing is saying I can be bribed. Is that good enough, or do I have to be good in my heart and spirit? In other words, do I really have to be good or do I just have to act good?”
I think the atheist’s wager is flawed. If praying and celibacy etc. made me happy and content why is that time wasted? Is it wasted because I didn’t take the faster route through promiscuity? Everybody will do what they think will make them most happy in the end. I’m not going to be celibate so I can burn in Hell. It seems disingenuous to assert life is wasting away for those who choose theism.