15993Re: [mythsoc] Defense of Narnia against Pullman
- Dec 9, 2005I 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
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>