Doctor Dolly: I haven't by the way forgotten about your Oxfam idea. I'm not yet sure how or anything, but the idea is now there, and I'm thinking about it, so thank you. (I feel at this point like humming, "I get by with a little help from my [imaginary] friends")
Yes, elder care is sad and hilarious both -- and so often falls to the wife and the daughters, though not always, of course. You will never go back into that particular box once you've been on the other side. Instead, your mission starts happening in other spaces because there are people who need you and the Lion's Paw knows how to put two and two together. This is beautifully eloquent. Thank you.
One is that God allows sin/suffering because he knows he can save us from it. The other is that he uses ones who have not seen, but yet believe to rebuke the ones who have seen and revolted. The later part of that is I suppose in the Christian Bible, the story of doubting Thomas, Gospel of John, blessed are those who have not seen yet still believe. The first part, I can see that being something Jill would say and I can also see what Eustace's counter-argument would be. I further recognize my intellectual inability to mount much of an argument on either side. I'm with Peter and if someone raises these things, I wave a flag of surrender, hand them over to my lay theologian spouse, and reach for the tequila. Someone once said, in the middle of Part 1 that I had the habit of setting up sticky issues, presenting different views on them, and then not answering the questions. And I agree with you completely that Eustace would never not be a friend of Narnia for his redemption is too important. But having experienced first hand that power, would he wonder why it wasn't used for more than just one spoiled, nasty boy? He believes in Aslan and will always work to do the Lion's work, but maybe his anger at Aslan manifests itself in non-belief here?
I'm thinking about this because a part of the Christmas chapter will involve the trip to church -- I need to figure out what COE services were like -- did they have vigil Christmas Eve services or did everyone go in the morning? The bits of reading I've done have made it sound as if there are lots of evening services -- because the churches weren't lit and the black out blinds were up. And when the family does go, what are Eustace and Lucy up to?
maybe his anger at Aslan manifests itself in non-belief here
But I don't see it manifesting as unbelief: it is anger or frustration. Eustace cannot not believe in Aslan: he has met him. He knows his power. What he is struggling with is trusting or understanding Aslan.
Which is, in effect, what I was getting at in The Cave in Deerfield, because like Eustace, I find Aslan, no matter how benevolent, kind of pants as a deity. And like you, I don't have an answer.
Which is where I also feel the need to butt in. I'm also going to wave the poor theologian, terrible at self-examination flag, but my response is "why does there have to be an answer?" I like (and want) a nice answer tied up in a neat bow, just as much as the next woman. But I'm also old enough to know that life rarely hands us nice, neat answers, especially to the big theological/philosophical questions like these. Through a glass darkly, now I know in part, and all of that...
Long question short, does there have to be an answer? Life doesn't go that way for most of us, so why should/would I expect you clever writers to be able to answer all of the biggies for me? For mine, it comes back to doing the best I can with what I have been given - and surely that is all that any one of us can do.
A lovely answer, thank you. Do you come here and usually don't sign in? Is there some initial or pseudo by which you normally self-identify? (There are several H's here and several L's, for instance). And if this is your first time, thank you even more.
I especially appreciate this as I am stinging a bit over something I got about the chapter, so meh. Eustace's skepticism took me by surprise. I can see how Eustace's skepticism and anger about the deity he does know translate into outright disbelief of the deity he does not know. There is a difference -- as pointed out, he's never going to pull a "don't believe in Narnia." But maybe he does develop a more challenging relationship with Aslan -- I don't think this is a bad thing, by the way and I suppose it becomes a positive. He perceives the shortcomings and the injustice (real or imagined), and still believes.
Long question short, does there have to be an answer?
Well, if there does, I think we're kind of screwed. *grins*
Your last line reminds me of that line from Angel: the Series: "If nothing that we do matters, then all that matters is what we do." On the days I feel a bit ground down by the universe, I try to cling to that.
I have wondered if part of it comes from the Narnians - if any previous child to wander through to Narnia met a Tumnus who didn't pull back at the last minute, and did hand him or her over to the witch? For the prophecies to be fulfilled you need both children coming through from our world, *and* someone on the Narnian side prepared to risk everything to save those children. In Tumnus' case, incidentally, without even the hope of return, because he doesn't ask Lucy to lead the revolution - he gets her safely back home.
That's what Cofax went after in The Cave At Deerfield. It's a very grim possibility. One thing I really liked about the LWW film adaptation was really setting the Witch's Narnia like Nazi Germany -- with the Witch in her Aryan glory, the Wolves as very SS like and Tumnus cast in the role of collaborator. It's very, very probable, if you go down the road that Aslan's a pretty incompetent deity. That isn't the angle I take, but there's lots of room for very interesting development.
Lucy will be mourning her loss of a formal role in the Christmas service. Eustace will use the humbug from Mary to cheer her up. They will debate what it means to be called. In a rare moment of insight, Mrs. P, who has coming looking for her wayward child and nephew, will realize all of her children have been called. She realizes that she is, in practice (and in reality) Queen Mum and will quietly assist in getting the kiddos to the right times and places while carefully maintaining her own appearance of neutrality.
You will of course, turn this on a 90 degree angle and it will all come out much better than my poor imagination.
Doctor Dolly (who very much wants to print this out for posterity. I am very rarely called beautifully eloquent.)
I saw this in my inbox and then went back and realized it had been temporarily marked for SPAM. Oi. Love the ideas! Thank you! I had seen that BBC site -- there's another one (hopefully bookmarked, but I'm sloppy about that) of a Christmas where the family was hosting a dashing Frenchman and he wore black silk pajamas and introduced the 15 year old girl of the house (who was sleeping on the living room sofa) to the french kiss. Somebody came in and separated them thank goodness. That story described lots of singing and dancing in the house. That BBC link is really poignant -- it's so humble -- dip your greenery in Epsom salts for a frosted look and beetroots and carrots are so festive!
Good old problem of theodicy... Personally I always emphasize two aspects: - of the free will - roughly speaking: if we have a free will, we must be allowed to do wrong; God certainly cannot repair everything we do immediately after it’s done; - of the limited knowledge and perception plus unclear definition of “good” and “bad” - we are not able to say what are all results of a particular deed and most certainly we are not able to judge if they are better or worse than all results of a deed which could prevent the other one from happening; to establish what is good or bad - or rather: happening of what is good or bad - one needs to possess infinite knowledge and infinite ability of information processing. In particular, one have to able to perceive time just as one of the dimensions. Such an independent observer - which, for his superhuman abilities, may be called God - would also need to have some criteria to establish what is worse and what is better - and these criteria could be different from ours (they surely are, as we - people - differ in that matter even between ourselves). Example for a second aspect: Pevensie siblings as monarchs were clear result of Jadis’ rule. Have their reign brought more good then Jadis’ - evil? Discuss. Why do I write so much about that (instead of commenting a new chapter like a good girl)? I have a feeling that second aspect I submitted could be close to your Edmund’s point of view. As a person which has an access to not-so-widely-available knowledge it should be especially conspicuous for him how lack of or possessing certain information influences our judgment about sb’s behaviour or facts. Krystyna
Thanks for commenting, Krystyna! I think you are right that Edmund falls into your second point as written here. I think that some people though do stake a definitive position on THIS is good and THIS is bad. Some of that is easy of course -- we assume that murder is usually going to be bad -- though I do remember a law and philosophy course I took once many years ago that began with the question, "Why do we not expose infants on hillsides? Why is killing children bad?" I did not do well in the class incidentally, because I may have continually answered, "uhhh because?" But the awareness of imperfect knowledge would make Edmund very slow to judgment.
Whereas the free will argument I could see being completely unpersuasive to Eustace as he would trot out the, well if God's is all powerful and omniscient, that means the free will doesn't mean anything. God saw it all coming and didn't stop the bad and could have done so but did not. How can one "bad" person's exercise of free will be more valuable than than say that person's victim? I'm not disagreeing but it's interesting to think about..
I haven't by the way forgotten about your Oxfam idea. I'm not yet sure how or anything, but the idea is now there, and I'm thinking about it, so thank you. (I feel at this point like humming, "I get by with a little help from my [imaginary] friends")
Yes, elder care is sad and hilarious both -- and so often falls to the wife and the daughters, though not always, of course.
You will never go back into that particular box once you've been on the other side. Instead, your mission starts happening in other spaces because there are people who need you and the Lion's Paw knows how to put two and two together.
This is beautifully eloquent. Thank you.
One is that God allows sin/suffering because he knows he can save us from it. The other is that he uses ones who have not seen, but yet believe to rebuke the ones who have seen and revolted.
The later part of that is I suppose in the Christian Bible, the story of doubting Thomas, Gospel of John, blessed are those who have not seen yet still believe. The first part, I can see that being something Jill would say and I can also see what Eustace's counter-argument would be. I further recognize my intellectual inability to mount much of an argument on either side. I'm with Peter and if someone raises these things, I wave a flag of surrender, hand them over to my lay theologian spouse, and reach for the tequila. Someone once said, in the middle of Part 1 that I had the habit of setting up sticky issues, presenting different views on them, and then not answering the questions.
And I agree with you completely that Eustace would never not be a friend of Narnia for his redemption is too important. But having experienced first hand that power, would he wonder why it wasn't used for more than just one spoiled, nasty boy? He believes in Aslan and will always work to do the Lion's work, but maybe his anger at Aslan manifests itself in non-belief here?
I'm thinking about this because a part of the Christmas chapter will involve the trip to church -- I need to figure out what COE services were like -- did they have vigil Christmas Eve services or did everyone go in the morning? The bits of reading I've done have made it sound as if there are lots of evening services -- because the churches weren't lit and the black out blinds were up. And when the family does go, what are Eustace and Lucy up to?
Reply
maybe his anger at Aslan manifests itself in non-belief here
But I don't see it manifesting as unbelief: it is anger or frustration. Eustace cannot not believe in Aslan: he has met him. He knows his power. What he is struggling with is trusting or understanding Aslan.
Which is, in effect, what I was getting at in The Cave in Deerfield, because like Eustace, I find Aslan, no matter how benevolent, kind of pants as a deity. And like you, I don't have an answer.
Reply
Long question short, does there have to be an answer? Life doesn't go that way for most of us, so why should/would I expect you clever writers to be able to answer all of the biggies for me? For mine, it comes back to doing the best I can with what I have been given - and surely that is all that any one of us can do.
Reply
I especially appreciate this as I am stinging a bit over something I got about the chapter, so meh. Eustace's skepticism took me by surprise. I can see how Eustace's skepticism and anger about the deity he does know translate into outright disbelief of the deity he does not know. There is a difference -- as pointed out, he's never going to pull a "don't believe in Narnia." But maybe he does develop a more challenging relationship with Aslan -- I don't think this is a bad thing, by the way and I suppose it becomes a positive. He perceives the shortcomings and the injustice (real or imagined), and still believes.
Reply
Reply
Well, if there does, I think we're kind of screwed. *grins*
Your last line reminds me of that line from Angel: the Series: "If nothing that we do matters, then all that matters is what we do." On the days I feel a bit ground down by the universe, I try to cling to that.
Rth, thanks for hosting this discussion!
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
I was thinking more of Ephesians 6, then the Gospels, but I suppose either is equally useful.
<>
Oh dear. I love research, it's the writing it up I don't particularly like...
http://www.exetermemories.co.uk/em/_story/story_35.php
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/britain_wwtwo/christmas_underfire_01.shtml
Lucy will be mourning her loss of a formal role in the Christmas service. Eustace will use the humbug from Mary to cheer her up. They will debate what it means to be called. In a rare moment of insight, Mrs. P, who has coming looking for her wayward child and nephew, will realize all of her children have been called. She realizes that she is, in practice (and in reality) Queen Mum and will quietly assist in getting the kiddos to the right times and places while carefully maintaining her own appearance of neutrality.
You will of course, turn this on a 90 degree angle and it will all come out much better than my poor imagination.
Doctor Dolly (who very much wants to print this out for posterity. I am very rarely called beautifully eloquent.)
Reply
Reply
Personally I always emphasize two aspects:
- of the free will - roughly speaking: if we have a free will, we must be allowed to do wrong; God certainly cannot repair everything we do immediately after it’s done;
- of the limited knowledge and perception plus unclear definition of “good” and “bad” - we are not able to say what are all results of a particular deed and most certainly we are not able to judge if they are better or worse than all results of a deed which could prevent the other one from happening; to establish what is good or bad - or rather: happening of what is good or bad - one needs to possess infinite knowledge and infinite ability of information processing. In particular, one have to able to perceive time just as one of the dimensions. Such an independent observer - which, for his superhuman abilities, may be called God - would also need to have some criteria to establish what is worse and what is better - and these criteria could be different from ours (they surely are, as we - people - differ in that matter even between ourselves).
Example for a second aspect: Pevensie siblings as monarchs were clear result of Jadis’ rule. Have their reign brought more good then Jadis’ - evil? Discuss.
Why do I write so much about that (instead of commenting a new chapter like a good girl)? I have a feeling that second aspect I submitted could be close to your Edmund’s point of view. As a person which has an access to not-so-widely-available knowledge it should be especially conspicuous for him how lack of or possessing certain information influences our judgment about sb’s behaviour or facts.
Krystyna
Reply
Whereas the free will argument I could see being completely unpersuasive to Eustace as he would trot out the, well if God's is all powerful and omniscient, that means the free will doesn't mean anything. God saw it all coming and didn't stop the bad and could have done so but did not. How can one "bad" person's exercise of free will be more valuable than than say that person's victim? I'm not disagreeing but it's interesting to think about..
Reply
Leave a comment