Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

15993Re: [mythsoc] Defense of Narnia against Pullman

Expand Messages
  • Carl F. Hostetter
    Dec 9, 2005
      I think you're both giving Pullman WAY too much credit for any sort
      of thoughtfulness behind his words at all. I read his statement as a
      slam at Lewis because Lewis was what would these days be always
      called a "CONSERVATIVE Christian" (pronounced with a marked lip-curl
      as a shibboleth for all other right-thinking people) for whom there
      actually are universal and timeless moral standards of right and
      wrong, and for whom facing judgement based on ones alignment and
      comportment in accord with those standards is a certainty.

      Pullman of course will have none of that for _his_ Jesus (at least,
      not when it is convenient for him to have any kind of Jesus at all)
      and so attributes to the Jesus of the New Testament the "liberal"
      least-common-denominator sort of "love" that he finds least
      objectionable: the hallmarks of which are unquestioning acceptance of
      all other behaviors and beliefs, and valuing "niceness" above all
      other virtues. His is a Jesus that knows nothing of Hell (or of
      Heaven, really), and who came to win us salvation only from the
      "oppression" of other men, and only so that we can all just be our
      mellow selves in our own groovy way, where everything is cool, and
      nothing harshes our buzz.

      In other words: by "love" Pullman means "non-judgment" (or again, is
      his world, "non-Church"), which is what he would have the New
      Testament to be all about. In other words still: "It's a groovy kinda
    • Show all 18 messages in this topic