I recently came across a very well-done and pretty site (no doubt undertaken by the movie producers of the upcoming The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe) about the Chronicles of Narnia at narnia.com
I cruised around the site, seeing what they had to offer, and nowhere was there even one mention of the Christian undertones of the Narnia books. There was an "about C.S. Lewis" section, telling how he was influenced by stories that his Irish nanny told, and how he originally wrote The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe for a group of children who were sent to live with him during the battle of London, but not once did it mention his conversion to Christianity or the fact that he's known for writing anything other than Narnia books. I found this rather sad. Is it not good marketing to mention the fact that the story contains Christian influences or that the author was a noted Christian scholar?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, you wouldn't read the books as Christian propaganda, surely? I recognise that they are propaganda, but that's not why you read them - you read them because they are good stories. I don't see anything wrong with marketing that.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I don't understand the question - I wouldn't read the books as Christian propaganda?
I read the books as Christian allegory. There's no propaganda in allegory.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
I've met people that were angry when they got into the series and realized that there were Christian themes and symbolism. I suppose they felt that they should have been "warned." It makes sense to include this in the description of the books because it was clearly CSL's intention that they be read with the symbolism etc.
However, if that is a site for the movie and the moviemakers are planning on yanking all the Christian undertones from the script, then I can understand why they would make SURE that they don't mention them. I don't know either way, but it's just a guess.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I read somewhere that Lewis's family was still very much involved to ensure the Christian themes remained in the filming. Is this wishful remembering on my part?
Dagonee
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Oh, I hope they don't yank them out. That would be a shame to ruin an author's work for the laughable purpose of not subjecting your audience to any religion.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
*has serious issues with the Lewis estate*
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Why?
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
LW&W without Christian allegory would be... a completely different story.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote: I don't understand the question - I wouldn't read the books as Christian propaganda?
I read the books as Christian allegory. There's no propaganda in allegory
But many people wouldn't see a lot of difference between the two, Annie.
Why remove people from your viewing audience by making a big deal of it during the Marketing phase?
I have heard that the movie will be very close to the original, so hopefully they will retain their character.
But anyone should be able to enjoy the story, even is they aren't Christian.
BTW, after "The Passion", how is it NOT a publisity move to announce your christianity throughout the movie industry?
Kwea
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Seeing as how every Disney story hinges on a massive act of self-sacrifice and redemption, they would be stupid to take the Christian themes from LW&W. But since they are riding the coattails of Harry Potter/LOTR and not The Passion, I figure they will stick with that. I can't imagine someone being offended by the Christian themes of LW&W, since it is pretty purely allegory. There isn't a part where the narrator comes out and explains that this is really a bible story, except maybe at the end of Prince Caspian I think Aslan tells Lucy that it is time for her to learn of him by another name in her own world.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Ever since I first heard that they were going to make Narnia movies, I was afraid that they were going to remove the Christian themes from the stories. That seems more likely than ever now.
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
Did you know that Tolkein hated LW&W? He thought allegory was garbage.
Just a little trivia.
EDIT: They have the creationism scene from the Magician's Nephew in there as the citing for Aslan. Don't get more religious than that. Unless they stuck the ressurection scene in there.
EDIT EDIT: Hey... they do have the ressurection scene in there under Aslan's How.
[ September 30, 2004, 11:25 PM: Message edited by: Book ]
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote: Is this going to be a secularized Hollywood version or will C.S. Lewis’ Christian themes stay intact? It’s no secret that C.S. Lewis was an outspoken Christian and his faith was woven throughout everything he wrote. Narnia is no exception and much of the stories are allegorical in nature. Will Hollywood have its way and strip out Lewis’ spiritual messages? Not so, promises Douglas Gresham, co-producer and stepson of Lewis himself. A committed Christian, Gresham has vowed not to “change the words of the master.” Indeed, Walden Media itself has a track record of family-friendly films so it seems that the film will be in good hands. Many are concerned that Disney's influence will water down the Christian themes which run through the Narnia stories, but it's important to remember that Walden Media is ultimately in charge of the film, not Disney.
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
Good to hear.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
quote: I've met people that were angry when they got into the series and realized that there were Christian themes and symbolism. I suppose they felt that they should have been "warned."
This baffles me. It baffled me when I was not a christian, and it continues to baffle me now. Why on earth would anyone feel this way? I have read lots of different books that put forward lots of different views, opinions, philosophies, religions, etc. Either I agree, or I don't, and leave it at that. Why on earth should there be a warning label for christianity? If you come across it, and you don't like it, then leave it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I didn't realize Narnia was a Christian allegory until about ten years after I read them.
So, while I think it would be good to stick the source material, they are great books anyway. Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
When I read this book as a child, I read it as a story, period. When I read it to my child, I noticed that it was an allegory. I still loved the story, and it was as exciting as when I read the series the first time, and had my best imaginary friend, Reepicheep, with me at all times. I still find Prince Caspian to be the single sexiest fantasy character I have ever read, and would marry hm in a New York minute if he came into being and asked me. (I would have a tough time choosing between him and Eddard Stark, though, to be honest)
What are the Christian issues people would have a problem with? The fact that there are good people and bad people, and that it is better for all of us if the good people get their way? The sacrifice-rise again part? There are many stories that have that as a theme, and not just from Christian lore.
I hope they remain true to the story, as it remains my favorite, along with the Arthurian legend, ever told.
[ October 02, 2004, 09:24 AM: Message edited by: Elizabeth ]
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
I think that if they decide to make them Christian allegory, the need to have a director who understands the Christian allegory and is committed enough to the Christian theology it's alluding to to make it work. Pretty much, I'm saying the director should be Christian. It's like when I see mormons in Hollywood movies--Mormons didn't write those parts, so Hollywood writers just played off of stereotypes they were familiar with. Stereotypes that aren't exactly correct. If LLW turns into a movie about Christian stereotypes, they should just cut out the allegory altogether. Because it still has the potential to be a good story without it.
I have issues with the Lewis estate because of a stage production of LWW put on at BYU last year. The play itself was horribly written, but it was the best published one available to the director (who ASKED the LE if he could write his own adaptation, and got a resounding no). BTW this play ignored the allegory in the book, which George brought back in with things like costume.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
How can the Allegory be taken out with keeping the story? I simply don't see how that's possible, obviously you say it was done, so it has been, but how? Is it no longer Edmund who betrays Aslan? Does Aslan no longer die, or come back to life? Did Endmund do it based on the temptations and trickery from Jadis? If these elements were the same, I can't see how the allegory couldn't have survived.
[ October 02, 2004, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
Posted by martha (Member # 141) on :
I'm sorry I don't have time to read the whole thread, but I wanted to throw this comment in:
I read the Narnia Chronicles over and over again in grade school. I think I read The Magician's Nephew seven times. The stories were magical to me, a part of my personal history and the foundation for stories and dreams that I made up.
When I was told later (early teens, I think) that the Narnia Chronicles are a Christian allegory, I was mildly horrified, and suddenly ceased to revel in their magic. Perhaps my reaction was wrong, and I wouldn't react with more than curiosity if I learned the same thing today...
I don't know if the website people should have completely avoided addressing the issue, but I do think it's a smart move not to bring a lot of attention to it. Because children of all different backgrounds, not just Christian, should be able to enjoy Narnia as a world written for them.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
I am reading this book to my fifth grade class, and they are enthralled. They don't have a clue about the allegory, they just drink in the witch, the weapons, and the fighting. ha ha.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I read those stories first when I was nine or so, and they almost worked as intended. I believed Aslan and Narnia were real. I didn't get the Christian connection until it was pointed out to me much later, though. Maybe I was too literal-minded : Even when Aslan, at the end of Voyage of the Dawn Treader, says right out that "you must learn to know me in your own world, where I have a different name," (quoting from memory, probably got it wrong) I didn't get it.
So based on my own experience, it is very bad propaganda, being too subtle for its target audience. But that doesn't change Lewis's intention, which was to prepare children for believing in Christ.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
I find it funny that I haven't heard of anyone who loved Card's Homecoming series being horrified upon learning the series was based on the Book of Mormon. Most reactions I've heard (including mine before I knew anything about the LDS church) were, "Huh. Interesting."
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:So based on my own experience, it is very bad propaganda, being too subtle for its target audience. But that doesn't change Lewis's intention, which was to prepare children for believing in Christ.
I think this is proof enought that the writing isn't propaganda. Propaganda instills people to action and is evident in its intentions.
What CS Lewis did by including the resurrection and other Christian themes was merely to teach Chrisitan principles in a new format. I don't think he intended to create a militia of young Christian zealots: if he had, he would have been a lot more overt about it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Even when Aslan, at the end of Voyage of the Dawn Treader, says right out that "you must learn to know me in your own world, where I have a different name," (quoting from memory, probably got it wrong) I didn't get it.
*sigh* Thank you. That now makes sense. So that's what he meant.
I just figured that there's magic everywhere and that he, literally, had another name in this world, but was still a great big lion and I just hadn't been contacted yet.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I can't understand the fears of people who believe that anyone would be motivated to remove the allegory from Lewis' work -- if only because the allegory, in most cases, substitutes for plot. There are very few scenes in ANY of the books that could be removed for this reason without seriously impacting the novels; I can only think of three or four, and all of 'em are in A Horse and His Boy and The Last Battle, which are the suckiest books in the series, anyway.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Tom, having encountered many people who think the books are great "except for all the Christian stuff," and knowing Hollywood's ability to massively destroy the heart of adapted stories, I think any fears on that score are well justified, your correct analysis of the narrative structure notwithstanding.
Dagonee
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Wow. I think Tom Davidson just agreed with me.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I find it funny that I haven't heard of anyone who loved Card's Homecoming series being horrified upon learning the series was based on the Book of Mormon. Most reactions I've heard (including mine before I knew anything about the LDS church) were, "Huh. Interesting."
I know people who stopped reading it because he had "snuck in" the Book of Mormon stuff.
Dagonee
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Actually, I've heard more of Mormons doing that than those who weren't Because they felt he was somehow committing blasphemy or plagiarism - but not for reasons of feeling they were being propagandaized.
[ October 02, 2004, 07:19 PM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I find it funny that I haven't heard of anyone who loved Card's Homecoming series being horrified upon learning the series was based on the Book of Mormon. Most reactions I've heard (including mine before I knew anything about the LDS church) were, "Huh. Interesting."
Well, I wasn't horrified, exactly, but I wasn't pleased, either. I felt that Card had cheated by sneaking the stories of his faith through the back door of my liking for science fiction, so to speak.
quote:I just figured that there's magic everywhere and that he, literally, had another name in this world, but was still a great big lion and I just hadn't been contacted yet.
Heh, that was my impression too. Great minds, as they say.
quote:I think this is proof enought that the writing isn't propaganda. Propaganda instills people to action and is evident in its intentions.
No, it is proof that it is very subtle propaganda indeed. I am looking at the intention, which was to produce more good little Christians. You are looking at the effect, which was (as far as I can tell) nothing of the kind. You are also thinking of propaganda in the context of Goebbels and "The Triumph of the WIll," which indeed was pretty blatant. But I would suggest that the best propaganda is not obvious as such to its intended audience; consider this maths question from 30's Germany, for example :
quote:A lunatic asylum is to be built for 6 million Deutschmark. How many family houses at 15000 DM each could be built instead?
That's pretty obvious to you and me, but for a nine-year-old boy?
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
quote: Because children of all different backgrounds, not just Christian, should be able to enjoy Narnia as a world written for them.
Umm... didn't you just say that YOU enjoyed them very much as a child, being totally oblivious to the christian imagery? Because that's really what it is... imagery and symbolism. It's not allegory of the same type as, say, Bunyan's The Pilgrim's Progress, where you pretty much have to already understand christianity in order to understand the books.
Yes, these books put alot of christian imagery into them, but if that doesn't suit your fancy, you can just as well pretend it wasn't there. I know that when I read them as a kid, I didn't care one bit (even with my mom pointing it all out to me). I was just enthralled with the stories, I wanted to visit Cair Paravel and hug Mr. Beaver. I still can't get my fingers around this "horrified" thing... There's something there that I'm not quite grasping.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
There's always the option of not letting your children read books whose message you disagree with. Heaven knows I plan on doing that.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
My dad has read me sections from Machiavelli's The Prince before. This amuses me greatly.
Posted by Mazer (Member # 192) on :
quote:This baffles me. It baffled me when I was not a christian, and it continues to baffle me now. Why on earth would anyone feel this way? I have read lots of different books that put forward lots of different views, opinions, philosophies, religions, etc. Either I agree, or I don't, and leave it at that. Why on earth should there be a warning label for christianity? If you come across it, and you don't like it, then leave it.
Well, I felt pretty cheated when I realized that the Alvin Maker series was not a Pagan friendly alt-reality story, but a rewrite of Mormon mythology. In fact, its funny that OSC often points to "dishonesty" in storylines he does not like, because I really felt like I was being sold something by this series. When I found out what it was about, I got that slimy, used-car-salesman feeling. That being said, i really don't think of this as religious propaghanda on the part of OSC, just an allegoric re-telling of one of his heroes. And although my disappointment with the mythic source lessened my enjoyment of the series, I still enjoyed it.
quote:I find it funny that I haven't heard of anyone who loved Card's Homecoming series being horrified upon learning the series was based on the Book of Mormon.
However, somehow in my ignorance of LDS lore, I still realized this series had a very "mormony" quality to it, so it didn't bother me. Perhaps being aware of it, I didn't feel as though I was being "duped."
But with LW&W, the things that are xtian allegory are also archtypical themes in non-xtian writings, so it can be appreciated from a non-xtian standpoint.
In '77 a lot of xtians pointed out all the xtian themes of Star Wars, but it turned out Lucas had just read his Campbell and Jung.
Besides, Lewis, despite being a staunch xtian and apologeticist, wrote very pagan-friendly works, (Not unlike his Catholic friend, Tolkien, and not unlike someone else we all like to read, [as much as he might deny it.]) So, my concern with the movie is not that they might take out the xtian themes, (how could they?) but that they overdo them with a heavy hand. (Since apparently Hollywood IS open to religious propaghanda in movies-The Passion.)
Oh, and I read the Chronicles fully aware of the allegory and enjoyed them anyway. I was a kid, and didn't care about that.
[ October 03, 2004, 01:00 AM: Message edited by: Mazer ]
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote: (Since apparently Hollywood IS open to religious propaghanda in movies-The Passion.)
You do realize that every single major hollywood studio turned DOWN distribution for this film, even after it was completed, right?
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Is xtian some new unoffensive buzzword?
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Nah, Fluffbunnies apparantly use 'xian' all the time.
(not that I'm insinuating anything about the above poster, BTW. This site is just the first thing that came to mind when I read the term 'xian'.)
[ October 03, 2004, 01:31 AM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
A new buzzword, anyway.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
actually isnt x for the cross or Christ one of the symbols that appears in the catacombs?
*could be hallucenating*
AJ
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Funny. I read the Alvin Maker series, totally clueless about the Mormon aspect. It was after I read it that I landed here, realized OSC was Mormon, and learned that the series was Mormon-based. All I remember thinking was, "Cool."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm surprised you think Tolkien and Lewis are "pagan-friendly," since both view pagan myths as prefiguring and being fulfilled by the Gospel. I don't see how Alvin is any less Pagan-friendly than Lewis or Tolkien, since all three basically coopt paganism into Christianity, using different devices to convey the same message.
And it doesn't bother me a whole lot, but "xtian" does seem to violate one of the niceties of letting groups pick their own names.
Dagonee
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:(Since apparently Hollywood IS open to religious propaghanda in movies-The Passion.)
Hollywood (yes, I realize that it is silly to refer to the city as a single entity, but I'm doing it anyway) did everything in it's powere to keep The Passion from happening. If Gibson hadn't bankrolled the entire project himself, it could never have happened.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
quote: Since apparently Hollywood IS open to religious propaghanda in movies-The Passion.
Hollywood was only "open" after the movie grossed so much money. They were fully prepared to laugh their butts off when Gibson's movie flopped. Then we see all the cheesy "religious" movies and series on TV after Passion came out, because they realized that it would sell. Too bad they were *still* wrong.
Think what you will of the movie, but all Gibson wanted to do was bear his testimony of what he believes in in the form he knew best. That element is curiously absent from the miniseries on Judas Iscariot or the Last Temptation of Christ, IMHO.
[ October 03, 2004, 11:01 AM: Message edited by: sarcasticmuppet ]
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
My roommate and I were at the video store last night, and I was being funny by pointing every time we passed a new movie about a biblical figure and saying, "We heard that The Passion sold really well, so...." After the seventh or eighth movie about Judas or Mary or John, even I got sick of it.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I'm surprised you think Tolkien and Lewis are "pagan-friendly," since both view pagan myths as prefiguring and being fulfilled by the Gospel. I don't see how Alvin is any less Pagan-friendly than Lewis or Tolkien, since all three basically coopt paganism into Christianity, using different devices to convey the same message.
That is a fairly friendly view compared to the historically more frequent "Pagan! Kill!" attitude of Christian writers.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
quote:actually isnt x for the cross or Christ one of the symbols that appears in the catacombs?
Sort of. The X is the Greek letter Chi, which is half of the Christogram. The Christogram is Chi with a Rho (P) on top of it - those are the first 2 letters of Christ in Greek. It became common throughout Europe after Constantine I adopted it as his battle insignia and won the battle (I forget which one - it's been a long time since I took Early Christianity) that made him the emperor. The legend is that he had prophetic dream where he saw the Christogram in the sky and heard a voice telling him that he would conquer under that sign.
BTW, I'm Jewish and I love the Narnia books. I am not at all offended by the Christian themes and I cannot wait to read them with my future children.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
That's all very interesting. But the word is christian. Not xtian.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Wow - I took medieval art, and I thought that the symbol Constantine saw was a cross. Huh- I guess I didn't pay very close attention.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
DKW, are you out there? I would love to hear what you think of all this.
Posted by Mazer (Member # 192) on :
quote: I'm surprised you think Tolkien and Lewis are "pagan-friendly," since both view pagan myths as prefiguring and being fulfilled by the Gospel. I don't see how Alvin is any less Pagan-friendly than Lewis or Tolkien, since all three basically coopt paganism into Christianity, using different devices to convey the same message.
You must have misunderstood me, I did find the Alvin maker tales very Pagan-Friendly, and I think I implied elsewhere in my post that OSC's writing is pagan friendly. I meant that I did not at first realize that they were not ONLY pagan friendly alt reality tales.
And I understand how C..S.Lewis, rationalized the paganistic, polytheism in his books, but they are still pagan friendly enough that some fundies consider them anti-CHRISTIAN. (My Mom had a real problem with them.) And speaking of uptight Christians,
quote: And it doesn't bother me a whole lot, but "xtian" does seem to violate one of the niceties of letting groups pick their own names.
Well I used the term Xtian, when I was a CHRISTIAN, just as I used xmas, and people have used xmas for years. The only people I have known to get their panties in a twist about xmas were the same people who wanted to burn santa claus, not put up xmas trees or mistletoe, put up signs that say "Jesus is the reason for the season" and ignore the whole Catholic church blending of paganism and Christianity that resulted in Christmas. If I really were trying to be obnoxious, I would say Jeebus and Dog, but I am not, so I don't.
In truth, I am a horrible typist, and have enough trouble with typos, so its just easier to type xtian. Semantic objections aside, everyone obviously knew what I meant.
Oh and on the issue of Passion, is it any surprise that an industry with a high number of Jewish people would object to antying called "The Passion of the Christ" All it takes is for one person to point out that Passions were Catholic promoted plays designed to incite hatred against Jews, and that pretty much kills it in Hollywood.
Now I am not saying that Mel's movie is anti-semetic, but Passions historically were, and all I see around me in the aftermath of this movie (At least from my co-workers,) is a bunch of ignorant asses who couldn't be bothered to get their hung-over bodies to church on a regular basis teling me that they hate Jews, "Cause the Jews killed Jesus! I saw it in that movie!" So, the anti-semetic charge is not a far stretch, with that one. But it STILL got made and distrubuted, which was my whole point in the first place, (before we got sidetracked with half the posters trying to convince me that, "yes, hollywood is still evil.")
So back to the topic at hand, I hope these Narnia movies get made, and I doubt that any effort will be put into diluting the CHRISTIAN overtones, as it would effectivley destroy the storyline, to remove the allegory.
[ October 04, 2004, 02:00 AM: Message edited by: Mazer ]
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote:"Cause the Jews killed Jesus! I saw it in that movie!"
Huh. Looked like the Romans doing the beating, scourging, and nailing to the cross to me.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Right.....right after they tried him in a kangaroo court of their own, and turned him over to the Romans....and insisted that another be released instead of him...
Not that I agree with the anti-Semitic charges made by some Jews...but have you ever heard Gibson speak of his religious views? It is kinda scary....he is that intense about them. So they were right to be concerned, maybe, upon hearing his plan to make that movie.
Also, a lot of people can green-light a movie...and not all of them are Jewish.
Although i am not a hard core "Xian" (sorry, couldn't resist... ), I did see the movie, and it was very....
Well, for lack of a better word, let me say it was moving, at least to me and my family.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Thanks for linking to the chi-rho...I had heard of it many times, but had never seen what it looked like.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:The only people I have known to get their panties in a twist about xmas were the same people who wanted to burn santa claus, not put up xmas trees or mistletoe, put up signs that say "Jesus is the reason for the season" and ignore the whole Catholic church blending of paganism and Christianity that resulted in Christmas.
Xtian bothers me, and I do none of the above. Your scorn shines through both in the word and in the quote above. You have a right to say whatever you want, but please know that you are neither respectful nor polite when you do so.
[ October 04, 2004, 08:14 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
What Kat said.
As if it's OK to say something that deliberately bothers a set of people because they're wackos, when you're admittedly doing it just for convenience.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Out of interest, why would "xmas" bother someone? After all, "mas" is a word that's been shortened for convenience, too, and the "x" is a traditional substitution for "Christ" among many Christians.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: The only people I have known to get their panties in a twist about xmas were the same people who wanted to burn santa claus, not put up xmas trees or mistletoe, put up signs that say "Jesus is the reason for the season" and ignore the whole Catholic church blending of paganism and Christianity that resulted in Christmas. If I really were trying to be obnoxious, I would say Jeebus and Dog, but I am not, so I don't.
The term xmas bothers me.
I don't put up Santa Clause in our house, but it doesn't bother me that others do.
I have never put up a sign, nor said the phrase "Jesus is the reason for the season". While I agree with the sentiment, I don't like the idea of turning a serious idea into a trite rhyme.
I am very aware of the pegan origins of Christmas and Easter. I guess you could say that I ignore them, because they don't bother me.
quote: Out of interest, why would "xmas" bother someone? After all, "mas" is a word that's been shortened for convenience, too, and the "x" is a traditional substitution for "Christ" among many Christians.
I've never seen "x" used as a substitue for "Christ" in any form except for the word xmas or x-mas. As far as I have known, it's not used as a substitue anywhere else.
The reason why it bothers me is that its use appears to be attempt to keep the parts of Christmas that I could do without (Santa, reindeer, snomen, trips to the mall, Christmas episodes of every single sitcom with Christmas miracles in them, the Grinch, etc.), while removing anything that has any Christian significance.
Does that make sense, Tom?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
When I was in seminary, the professors whose disciplines/training were in early church history tended to use the chi as an abbreviation for “Christ” when they were writing on the board, writing notes on students’ papers, etc. In handwriting it looks subtly different from a capital X, though, which doesn’t show up in typing. I never saw any of them use it in typing, but typing usually indicated a more formal situation where no “shorthand” abbreviations were used.
It shouldn’t be offensive, because it (the chi) is an ancient symbol for Christ. However, I think the X has more modern connotations in most people’s minds, signifying x-ed out, or even “removed for obscenity.” Because those connotations are likely to be stronger for most people, I’m unlikely to ever use it as an abbreviation in anything but private notes. Communication is about what the receiver perceives, after all, as much as what the sender intends.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
:muses:
Christian rock band called 'XXX.'
Ooh-- it's got the ancient symbol of Christ, the trendy, edgy connotation of the triple-X, and the mysterious inttellectual power of X. We can work the trinity into it, and the three crosses on Calvary . . .
I'm good.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I think the reason it bothers people is because it's a slang adaptation of their name. When people use slang terms for the name of a group, it's usually done so patronizingly (at best) or derogatorily (at worst). There are probably innocent slang origins behind the word kike, but we wouldn't use it in polite conversation, would we? If I had a conversation about gay marriage and referred repeatedly to homos, though I might just be shortening a word, it would coume across offensively.
I like to refer to a group of people with the name they've chosen for themselves. When I talk to my Native American friends, I call them Indians because that's what they call themselves. I use the term they prefer out of respect for them.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Huh. You learn something every day. Thanks.
Well, at least I try to.
edit: this is in response to dkw's post.
[ October 04, 2004, 11:13 AM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Mazer (Member # 192) on :
As I stated before, when I was a Christian I used the term Xtian with pride, both for the "Fish-Symbol" tie-in and the tie-in with the "straight-edge" life-style.
And I never said "xian", where is that coming from?
[ October 04, 2004, 11:22 AM: Message edited by: Mazer ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Those who are Christian now are asking you to stop.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Hmm, I'm actually surprised this bothers you so much Kat. I'd be more worried about the "baby devouring" LDs folk-image than I would about people choosing to abreviate X for Christ.
In fact, I suspect that the "X" thing being so that people could "take Christ out of Christmas" is an urban legend in itself. I was told that as a child, but I've yet to see one iota of proof that that was the reason for it and not just simple abbreviation.
AJ
Posted by Mazer (Member # 192) on :
quote: Those who are Christian now are asking you to stop.
Some are, and some don't have a problem with it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What are you going to do about that? Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
AJ, I've encountered that scenario before - X-Mas being allowed and Christmas not, for example.
I've also seen xtian or xian used far more in a scornful manner than I have in a respectful manner.
Dagonee
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: In fact, I suspect that the "X" thing being so that people could "take Christ out of Christmas" is an urban legend in itself. I was told that as a child, but I've yet to see one iota of proof that that was the reason for it and not just simple abbreviation.
I fail to see the distinction between doing it to remove Christ form Christamas and doing it to abbreviate Christ out of Christmas. Or is it just the intention that you are talking about?
Posted by Mazer (Member # 192) on :
Probably nothing. Maybe I will get kicked off the boards for not playing nice. Or maybe I will just avoid any topic where it might come up. I can't give in though, I would feel like I bent to the dominant paradigm.
What I won't start doing is carrying on in some sort of silly troll rage about how much I hate all these over-sensitive bible thumping fundies. Cause I used to be one, and while I disagree with that lifestyle, now, seeing someone rant about how much they hate it is just sad.
So if I aquiesce and mkae a real effort to type out c-h-r-i-s-t instead of x am I a mature poster, or just a tool. If I continue to type xtian, am I just a skript kiddie? I hate l33t-speak, and internet abbreviation. (NEway u r not uber, n3wB. w00t!) Is xtian the same sort of thing? I feel like you are belittleing someting I used to use with pride.
hmmmm
[ October 04, 2004, 11:39 AM: Message edited by: Mazer ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I can't give in though, I would feel like I bent to the dominant paradigm.
That's interesting. Is being polite a sign of weakness?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I guess I do mean the intent. As dkw said, it's abreviated a lot like that in theological lectures so that's quite easily where it derived from desipite the modern connotations that may or may not exist everywhere to begin with.
AJ
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Porter, If it’s being used as an abbreviation, it isn’t taking Christ out at all, since there’s nothing intrinsic about the English letters “C,” “H,” “R,” “I,” “S,” and “T” that make them any more representative of Christ than the Greek letter “Χ.”
Mazer, changing something about your writing that isn’t received in the way you intended it isn’t being “a tool,” it’s being an effective writer.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
That makes sense. Thanks for the clarification.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I admit that the "X-mas" abbreviation never bothered me, and I've never heard of any of these other abbreviations. Must not be a Colorado thing or something. What does bug me is whenever Christmas is brought up as a religious holiday (it seems, IRL anyways) someone points out in a really prideful manner, like they just discovered this themselves after years of research in dank and dusty libraries and scouring books strewen across the Holy Land that in fact, really Christmas is celebrated at the same time as the Pagan celebration, and what do I think about that, huh?
OK, sorry, I'm done.
Hobbes Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
quote: What does bug me is whenever Christmas is brought up as a religious holiday (it seems, IRL anyways) someone points out in a really prideful manner, like they just discovered this themselves after years of research in dank and dusty libraries and scouring books strewen across the Holy Land that in fact, really Christmas is celebrated at the same time as the Pagan celebration, and what do I think about that, huh?
I wonder how much of this is a result of Dan Brown's "Angels and Demons" and "The DaVinci Code". I read them both so quickly and back-to-back that some of the subject matter has run together in my mind, but I do recall some discussion of how Christianity supplanted the old religion and more or less commandeered pagan holidays. Apparently (and I don't recall where I read this one) Jesus was not born in December as is celebrated but rather in what now would be August or September, and the decision to have "Christmas" take place when it did was a manipulation of the Winter Solstice rites. (note: that may NOT have been from Dan Brown, I was also reading a lot of Marion Zimmer Bradley around that time also and may be mixing her Avalon stories into my memory a bit as well)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I've known about that since I was eight years old. It's not a secret.
edit: I knew about the pegan origins of Christmas, and I was taught the He was not born in December.
[ October 04, 2004, 02:30 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Amen, Hobbes.
Edit: and Mr. porteiro head.
[ October 04, 2004, 02:29 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Goody, I've heard about this all my life. In fact, celebration of Christmas was outlawed in the 18th-19th century under some Puritanical governments because it was associated with paganism.
It definitely isn't new.
Dagonee
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The Pegans had a little-known but integral part in the formation of Christmas. Specifically, the Pegans introduced the Yule Log, wassail, and those end-the-year bragging letters.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
I believe the Orthodox Church celebrates christmas on January 8th.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Why is everyone spelling pagan, pegan?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
MPH mentioned them. I was going along for the ride.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I feel sorry for anyone with so little creativity that they only know one spelling per word. Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
quote: I hate l33t-speak, and internet abbreviation. (NEway u r not uber, n3wB. w00t!) Is xtian the same sort of thing? I feel like you are belittleing someting I used to use with pride.
I would have never guessed. I don't have any problem with the x for Christ, but seeing you type it over and over and over again in one post does in fact make me think of l33t-speak, which I find annoying in almost all cases.
So N-E wayz, Y don't U just tYpe like normal? C U L8tR. luv, fqwgads
The extra four letters doesn't take up *that* much thought, does it? Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Christmas is a perfectly good secular holiday; why should atheists allow the Christians to steal it?
quote:The extra four letters doesn't take up *that* much thought, does it?
[pedant mode] Five extra letters, actually. [/pedant mode]
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
I thought if anything, you should have corrected my "didn't" with a "don't"
xtian = five letters christian = nine letters nine minus five equals four.
[ October 04, 2004, 06:23 PM: Message edited by: sarcasticmuppet ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Christmas is a perfectly good secular holiday; why should atheists allow the Christians to steal it?
Christmas is not a perfectly good secular holiday - it's a Christian one by definition. It coincides with a non-Christian holiday, and has some traditions in common, but there's a lot of traditions that specifically derive from the Christmas celebration, not the Solstice celebration.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
That would be a shame to ruin an author's work for the laughable purpose of not subjecting your audience to any religion.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Because they felt he was somehow committing blasphemy or plagiarism ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
- but not for reasons of feeling they were being propagandaized.![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
Must not be a Colorado thing or something. What does bug me is whenever Christmas is brought up as a religious holiday (it seems, IRL anyways) someone points out in a really prideful manner, like they just discovered this themselves after years of research in dank and dusty libraries and scouring books strewen across the Holy Land that in fact, really Christmas is celebrated at the same time as the Pagan celebration, and what do I think about that, huh?![[Razz]](tongue.gif)