|
|
Post by rbbailey on Mar 25, 2010 15:23:45 GMT -8
Josh, Kirby:
Yeah, the other themes and mythologies are certainly present. But then... Abraham did come from Ur, Moses out of Egypt, etc.... We modern Christians often forget the mixed origins of our mythology, and we tend to think myth is different than history.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kirby on Mar 25, 2010 16:37:48 GMT -8
This isn't history though. It's a TV show, a new myth, if you will. Jacob may act like Jesus, and share some qualities, but he is still Jacob, not Jesus. Just like Aslan is Aslan, not Jesus. He may be a symbol for, or representative of, but is not Jesus.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 25, 2010 16:55:57 GMT -8
Actually, Aslan was/is supposed to be the actual Jesus.
Many have criticized (rightly or wrongly) the Narnia books for being too allegorical.
The Lord of the Rings, on the other hand, I think, gives us a better example of your point in that several characters temporarily or in one or two senses only, play a Christ-figure role (Frodo in his humility, Gandalf in his sacrifice, Aragorn in his kingliness, etc..)
|
|
|
|
Post by Kirby on Mar 25, 2010 17:37:52 GMT -8
No, no, no. He is Aslan, the savior of a fictional world of talking animals. Lewis never intended the books to be allegories. He started by envisioning a world where animals could talk to entertain his goddaughter Lucy, and then got philosophical when he wondered how salvation would come to such a world. It would'nt be through Jesus, but through Aslan. Logic! Why don’t they teach logic at these schools?  Back on track: Very little discussion of Hurley. He was so courageous in this episode. I like the idea of him being teh next Jacob. Once he gets over his fear, he is kind, generous, always up to helping someone, etc. He is losing his doubt, and walking by faith. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 25, 2010 18:45:21 GMT -8
Yes, I know Lewis didn't want the Narnia books to be seen as allegorical, but still they are open to that label. Many of the characters don't stand on their own nearly so well as Tolkien's characters.
Narnia is somewhere on the spectrum between Pilgrim's Progress and Lord of the Rings when it comes to allegory. Lewis' Space Trilogy is less on the allegory side, his Pilgrim's Regress is more so than the Chronicles.
Well, this all hinges on the vantage point. You seem to be describing this from our vantage point, but from the vantage point of the books themselves, Aslan is indeed Jesus, as we are made aware of at the end of the Voyage of the Dawn Treader and at the end of the Last Battle.
|
|
|
|
Post by rbbailey on Mar 25, 2010 18:54:34 GMT -8
There is a point in the Narnia books where Aslan specifically says, "In your world, you know me [in another form]" Or something along those lines.
Aslan saves Narnia in a different way than he did our world (note: He dies for Edmund, not for all the sins of Narnia) and this is payed out in the Space Trilogy as well, that salvation belongs to God, and in our case, that salvation came through the actions on the cross. In another world, or on another island (a floating island, like the floating islands in the Space Trilogy, like the seemingly floating island of Lost) salvation may be possible through Christ, but in a different way. Think of those who were saved before Christ came to the world -- they were not saved 'by the blood of Christ' in the same way we think of it, yet it is difficult to believe that all the people in all the world did not have some access to salvation before the historical Jesus actually rose from the grave. Even Jesus discussed the idea of 'another way' with the Father in the hours preceding the cross. All of this is to say that while we, in this age, under this covenant, are bound or not by the blood sacrifice of Christ, under another covenant, with another people, in another age, in another place, the salvation of Christ could fulfill the same laws but in a different way.
Yeah, don't get me wrong, I'm not going beyond the idea that this is a TV show. I'm simply saying that it is actually a well written piece, something ever more rare for TV, and that it is based on threads of truth from (pardon me) deeper magic from before the dawn of time... if you get my meaning.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 25, 2010 19:07:31 GMT -8
This kind of makes it sound like the requirement that Jesus die for sins was arbitrary. To me, that is something that is an absolute in any possible world where there is sin. Also, I think Scripture implies that those saved before the life of Christ were still saved through his blood. Am I hearing you wrong?
|
|
|
|
Post by rbbailey on Mar 25, 2010 21:35:12 GMT -8
Well, don't get me wrong. In fact, I wanted to be sure to point out the idea that while the idea of 'another way' was... there... someplace, or Jesus would not have asked about it... 'another way' there was not, and thus the Father's will was done. I'm proposing that in a mythological other world, the fulfillment of the 'deep magic' may have taken place in another way. What if Adam had never sinned? The 'deep magic' would have been fulfilled in another way, right? Did Moses spend some time in a sort of limbo after he died when he could not actually enter the presence of God because that final sacrifice had not been made yet? Or, could it be one of two other scenarios: One we have discussed before: the cross and resurrection, somehow transcends time and covers those who came before if they understood that it would happen in the future. Or, that there is another covenant. There was another covenant. But the other covenant was still based on the 'deep magic'. Did Abraham's sacrifices and obedience to God get him to heaven, or did God bypass the 'deep magic' to get him in? If so, are Abraham and a handful of other characters the only ones able to get to heaven before Christ died? Am I making any sense? What topic is this thread? |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 25, 2010 22:51:58 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Mar 26, 2010 16:13:16 GMT -8
What about it killed it for you, Mo? Richard’s story, I guess. I don’t know. Hm. Let’s see. First off: I’m obviously not watching Lost for the religious kicks one can get from it. So you will understand that my enthusiasm for obvious or supposed parallels with whatever religious views is limited. What I like about the series is rather the mystery: The plot twists and turns and remains unpredictable big time. I don’t know how many crazy theories my friends and I have generated in the course of the seasons but I know that we were wrong 90% of the time. And that’s what made it fun: The guessing; the not knowing. The last episode was a rare accumulation of clues. And watching it reminded me of something I figured out quite a while ago: In mystery fiction the hunt is often better than the kill (do you say it like that?). That is to say: The final disclosure is often unable to match the high expectations. Sure, we haven’t seen the final disclosure yet, but now we finally heard Richard’s story and that was pretty damn lame. I don’t know what I expected but definitely something more original. Instead, we got the same boring old story in different guise. Mysteries are exciting precisely because they are mysteries. Once the riddle is solved, the entire thing is disenchanted. This episode was a major disappointment and so I figured it might be best to drop the ball right here and imagine my own ending*. Kinda like Margot suggested with Twin Peaks. *It’s not realistic that I will be able to do that, though. Hence, here are a couple of notes  On the implications of the episode: If Smokie is the devil, then the nuke wouldn’t kill him. But the nuke seemingly destroyed the island. It follows that Smokie was probably unleashed in the late seventies of the parallel universe. According to Jacob hell would break loose once the devil is released from Pandorra’s Box. But the parallel universe reality didn’t look a lot like hell, did it? And if evil was imprisoned on the island for centuries, who was responsible for evil happening outside of the island all those years? On Jacob being Jesus: I’m not sure Jesus would beat up people even if they intended to kill him. He was more the non-resistant kind of guy. He let them crucify him after all. And the wine analogy? First they drink the supposed blood of Christ together and then the wine represents evil. Furthermore Jacob is unable to relieve Richard from his sins which isn't quite Jesus-like either. And luring plenty of people to the island where they are being killed only because he wants to prove something to the devil doesn't seem to be a noble purpose either. (Though the story of Job sure tells us that God isn't that much of a noble fellow). And the baptism? I thought the point of baptisms was a free will decision and not a sort of forceful sink-or-swim situation. And didn’t Jacob say he wanted people to find out on their own without giving them clues? Which leads me to… The logic of: “I want them to find out on their own”. That’s a clear reference to the answer believers give you when being asked why God doesn’t show up. But I don’t understand the worth of that logic. 1. If everybody is supposed to invent the wheel on one’s own, why do we live in social relations to begin with? 2. Communicating with someone doesn’t automatically imply persuading someone. Why should it be meaningless? There might be some times when people have to make an experience on their own in order to understand something, but I don’t think that’s the general rule. I think that Jacob is indeed a savior figure and that similarities with Jesus are there on purpose. I doubt though that Jacob is supposed to be a 1:1 copy of Jesus. |
|
|
|
Post by Kirby on Mar 26, 2010 16:27:01 GMT -8
That's because he is not Jesus, he's Jacob! And Smokie is not the devil, he's Smokie/man in black/esau?
I have to agree to a point. I was hoping there would be something much more mystical then "OK i will touch your shoulder now and you are immortal, thanks for not killing me, despite the promise you could see your wife again."
I am really hoping Ben will speak up soon and explain some things. or Richard. Or one of the surviving others that keep answering questions with damn questions.
I've been saying for awhile that while some things will be explained (i.e. Richard's story) not everything will fit in a tidy little box at the end, hopefully. I'd much rather they left a lot up to the viewer as to what things meant and why things might have happened. That is why I loved the ending to the Sopranos. That is just the end of the story that is being told. There is no more. Resolutions to some things are best left to individual imaginations.
But it is fun to guess, and then argue with others, and MAKE them see that I am right. Because I am always right.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 26, 2010 18:13:22 GMT -8
That's a good question. However, my particular Christian eschatology holds that the devil is currently "bound" during the age of the church, yet that binding doesn't mean the absence of evil, just the inability of satan to maintain virtually unrestrained deception upon the earth. I'm still fascinated at how differently you and I perceive God in the book of Job. Not sure what to say to that except that I think Lost is portraying how fine of a line it is between a sadistic God and a God who values love and free will above all else. The angel of the Lord, which I believe is the pre-incarnate Jesus, of the OT was indeed a fierce warrior, and also the Jesus of the book of Revelation is fierce as well. Jesus is, of course, not only the Lamb that was slain but the Lion of Judah as well. During that part of the episode I was actually thinking of that passage in Exodus where God is about to kill Moses for not circumcising his son- ie, He shows his fierce side to the one person in the world He trusts most to get an important point across. (Moritz, I can just see you rolling your eyes at that one ) Jacob, just like God, isn't "refusing to communicate". He's just refusing to overwhelm. kirby wrote: I think smokie is a whole lot more like the devil than esau! |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 30, 2010 21:03:42 GMT -8
Creepie Keamy  |
|
|
|
Post by michelle on Mar 30, 2010 21:08:14 GMT -8
Yes! Desmond is BACK!! I knew it was just a matter of time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kirby on Mar 31, 2010 9:46:27 GMT -8
Whitmore...he wants to keep smokie on teh island too, he seems to know the trouble he would cause off the island. However, I think he still has his own selfish reasons to be on the island.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Apr 6, 2010 2:23:17 GMT -8
The angel of the Lord, which I believe is the pre-incarnate Jesus, of the OT was indeed a fierce warrior, and also the Jesus of the book of Revelation is fierce as well. Jesus is, of course, not only the Lamb that was slain but the Lion of Judah as well. Oh brother...  So you are basically saying that Jesus would beat up people and "waterboard them" in order to get his message through without contradicting his own teachings? Give me a break! During that part of the episode I was actually thinking of that passage in Exodus where God is about to kill Moses for not circumcising his son- ie, He shows his fierce side to the one person in the world He trusts most to get an important point across. (Moritz, I can just see you rolling your eyes at that one ) What is really hard to swallow is that God being about to kill someone for not circumcising doesn't cause you a terrible headache. Jacob, just like God, isn't "refusing to communicate". He's just refusing to overwhelm. I see. That's why Jacob gives Richard a good bashing as a starting point for their relation. As I said, communicating doesn't equal overwhelming. If God talked to me, he would still have to convinvce me that he is actually a being worth loving and worshipping and not merely a jealous, ill-tempered sadist. I think that Kirby is right: Jesus is Jesus and Jacob is Jacob. The figure Jacob is certainly Jesus-inspired, but he probably isn't supposed to be a 1:1 allegory. Maybe I'm wrong. But there is too much One question nobody picked up yet is why the alternate reality isn't like hell even though with the island being sunk, Smokie must be on the lose. Another thing that occured to me: When Smokie said to Jacob he would kill all possible candidates, could that be seen as a link to the Jewish king (Herodes?) who would kill all the newborn boys because of the prophecy that one of them would be the king of kings? I only vaguely remember that chapter and I'm too lazy to look it up. But maybe that's the reason why newborn babies or their mothers (can't remember either) die on the island?? |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Apr 6, 2010 9:12:52 GMT -8
I'm not saying that Jesus would literally beat someone up. I'm saying it's a metaphor for how God has to take us through tough situations sometimes to wake us up.
|
|
