One Line Review 3: Dancer In The Dark

This is the best Christian analogy of our time, better even than that one with the Lion.

Your Correspondent, That thing with the hamster was a long time ago.

14 Responses to “One Line Review 3: Dancer In The Dark”

  1. jayber crow says:

    I can’t speak for Dancer in the Dark, but the Narnia stories are not anything so crude as “analogies.” Nor are they “allegories.” They are, of course, “supposals.” Which is obviously a whole other kettle of fauns…

  2. zoomtard says:

    “Oh look at me Mr Fancypants with my theological education and my thought-through blog posts. I’m Jaybercrow the most amazing man to ever come out of Japan. Oooh lah deeh dah!”

    Or in other words, good point.

  3. The Lion King’s rubbish…

  4. zoomtard says:

    I heard you did a legend cover version of that Circle of Life song…

  5. once I get a couple of Shloers into me anything is possible, even Elton John cover’s…

  6. QMonkey says:

    “Do not be deceived, Wormwood. Our cause is never more in danger, than when a human, no longer desiring, but intending, to do our Enemy’s will, looks round upon a universe from which every trace of Him seems to have vanished, and asks why he has been forsaken, and still obeys.”

    I think the senior demon continues… for then they have lost all sense of rational thought and are in essence, fanatics who will believe what they have chosen to believe, never mind the evidence … they are a skip and a jump from blowing up a school bus in the name of their god. So run away dear wormwood.

    Or maybe I misquote.

    i’ve left this comment on the wrong post havent i 🙁 ah well

  7. jayber crow says:

    Ah well I’ll follow QMonkey and continue the discussion on the wrong post…

    I’m not convinced that the world has much to fear from believers who are wrestling with doubts, not sure that they have all the answers, but choose to live in obedience to the commands of Jesus – dangerous commands like love God, love your neighbour, love your enemies, care for the poor, be peacemakers…

    I’m with GK Chesterton, who suggested that fanaticism doesn’t come from a lack of rationality, but from an excess of rationality and logic. Or rather, the lack of something else which keeps reason healthy – call it common sense, perspective – something that is not against reason, but goes beyond it.

    That’s why you can never argue a fanatic (religious or not) out of their position, and they can never think their way out of it. There is always a certain merciless, relentless internal logic to their position. As Chesterton puts it, “He is in the clean and well-lit prison of one idea: he is sharpened to one painful point. He is without healthy hesitation and healthy complexity.”

    To shamelessly paraphrase (i.e. butcher) something else GK says, the honest, doubting believer is content to get their head into the heavens (and then get on with loving their neighbour). The purely rational, logical person tries to get the heavens into their head – and it is their head which splits.

    What was this post about anyway?

  8. QMonkey says:

    ah, thanks for engaging me but , you have misconscrued. im happy with …”dangerous commands” like love your neighbour, love your enemies, care for the poor, be peacemakers… hardly radical or origional in the world of philosophy, and certinly not something you exculsivly find in christians… in a lot of cases the opposite.

    i wasnt having a general digg at believers and rationality. that would be lazy. i was specifialy casting aspersions on Lewis, when through the screwtape he implies that its a good thing to look around, see no trace of that which you have put your ‘faith’ yet still obey. i might ask, what would it take for him todecide… ah, ok, might have been wrong here about this ole god stuff. i find it hard to debate with people of faith, who don’t have a good answer to the what would it take to convince you question. in fact i find it hard to debate with anyone about anything when they cant answer the what would it take to change your mind question.

    it was a specific toungue in cheek jibe at zoomtards use of screwtape. (all ways good to have a debate on your blog… mr tard will be happy as larry)

  9. zoomtard says:

    I actually think you are being weirdly dismissive of Jayber there. To cynically present “Dangerous commands” as if they are common sense runs against any sense of history that I’ve ever come across. And they are still insanely radical and they do find their origins in the thought of Judeo-Christianity. But that is for another day…

    What you were trying to do as I understand it was comment on a quote from CS Lewis that I used in reference to the struggling and grasping faith of Mother Theresa. In reference to to the nun, she is anything but a fanatic liable to blow up a school bus in the name of her God. In the reference to the novel, the passage is set in the context of a period of dryness in the man’s spiritual life, what Lewis used to call the “undulations”. So Mother Theresa wasn’t believing in the spite of “evidence” but was acting out of the profound tension of knowing that God was there but wanting him to be more present and well, different. Lewis’ convert wasn’t believing in the spite of “evidence” but was acting out of the recent memory of action in his life attributed (by him) to God.

    Basically, all that is to say that Lewis was not implying that faith is a good thing when there was “no trace of that which you have put your faith in”. He was saying that faith that took the long view and dealt with the desert time as well as the bountiful harvest time is the scariest thing Screwtape could face.

    By the way, if the bones of Jesus of Nazareth were discovered I would give back the Cardboard Mansion and never think another worshipful thought about YHWH.

  10. QMonkey says:

    >>>By the way, if the bones of Jesus of Nazareth were discovered I would give back the Cardboard Mansion and never think another worshipful thought about YHWH.

    and how would i go about proving they were the bones?

    if the bones of jimmy dicky, son of the living squid god were found then id stop beliveing im an alien… etc etc

    but, ok, you’ve engaged. so is that it? thats the only thing? anything that could happen that would make you doubt. i do know any awful lot of people who if it turned out we evolved from from less complex life forms they’d stop beliveing in god… but im thinking you’ve probably folded all that nicely in to your faith.

    jeeper – i do hate the way i get all sarcy on these maters.

    nice blog, keep it up

  11. QMonkey says:

    actualy… im not ‘happy’ with love thy enemy i think its morally misguided… but as you say one for another day

  12. QMonkey says:

    happy to host a tag-team debate with both of you on my blog 🙂 not just to increase my hits honestly.

    rules of friendlyness and respect set out beforehand of course. searchers on a journey seeking answers to big questions

  13. jayber crow says:

    I’d rather have the debate over a few pints, but given our geographical dispersion, we’ll have to settle for a rumble in the blogosphere.

    If you kick off with something provocative I’m sure Z and I will merrily wade in. I’d love to get into your question about what kind of evidence would persuade us to give it all up as a bad job…

    Passionate disagreement in a context of mutual respect and friendliness with just a hint of sarcasm sounds good to me…