Subject:
|
Re: New Stories from the New Testament
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 15 Feb 2002 08:06:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
861 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Markus Wolf writes:
> Yes, it is this sort of interpretation...
>
> Bob says, "I would like to explain why I don't think you should kill Johny
> Walker."
>
> Newspaper Story: Bob says, "I would like to... kill Johny Walker."
I am the first to admit that I have selectively chosen which stories from
the Bible, and in certain cases which parts of which stories to illustrate
on The Brick Testament. But I do not agree that my editing of passages from
the Bible is really anything like the reversal-of-meaning example that you
provide above.
> Similarly that would be like releasing the Harry Potter movie with Harry as
> the bad guy. You could cut and paste the original text and create a
> completely different story. Certainly anyone who has read the book would
> notice and the fans would respond. This is very similar to what has
> transpired between the Brick Testament and myself.
This is a little bit closer to what I have done, but still not quite right.
I could imagine someone creating a Harry Potter movie which down-played the
"nice boy" image of Harry Potter and emphasized those times at which Harry
does things which are morally-questionable or just strange. For example
(I've never read the book, but saw the movie), one might highlight the scene
early in the movie in which Harry uses magic to trap his cousin in the snake
pit at the zoo.
The difference between doing this to Harry Potter and doing this with
stories and characters from the Bible is this. Nobody expects that Harry
Potter has to be anything more than an interesting character. Whether or
not his actions are morally good or bad has no theological implications.
But the Bible is presented as the word of God, and has been looked to for
ages by millions as a guide to how the world really is and how one should
act. For a book that is the only written guide for humanity from a
supposedly all-loving, all-good, and merciful God to contain numerous
stories of heinous acts and morally questionable divine instructions is,
well, kind of strange and interesting to me.
> I hope that my above paragraph answers this question. Of course it's not
> the omission of details, but the selective removal of details to re-invent
> the teachings that I'm talking about. • <<snip>>
> How many of Jesus' miracles were mentioned?
> Hmmm. I count zero.
You are correct, I have chosen not to illustrate the more familiar nicer and
more friendly words and acts of Jesus which have been much more commonly
illustrated and expounded upon elsewhere. There will be some miracle
stories added to the site eventually, but for the most part these things did
not interest me as a LEGO illustrator.
> Maybe if the only stories and pictures I revealed
> about my dad was when he was spanking me and yelling at me. You would say
> he's an abusive father, right? That would be fair because I've only skipped
> a few details, like when I threw rocks at the cars going by our house.
Yes, but again, the difference is that nobody expects your dad to morally
perfect. If we did expect your dad to be morally perfect and a model for
all other humans to base their behaviour after, his spanking and yelling at
you would be a lot more interesting and worthy of drawing attention to.
> Though you skip around the accounts of the gospels, I noticed that you
> neatly neglected the passage where Jesus healed the man who's ear Peter cut
> off, and ended your tale as if Jesus either encouraged the behavior or was
> passive about it. I haven't looked it up myself yet, but I believe Jesus
> rebuked him saying, "He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword." Would
> love to hear your reasoning, though we both know the real answer.
Yes, but keep in mind that it was not just me who leaves out that little
detail from this story. Three out of the four gospel authors (Matthew,
Mark, and John) did not feel that the healing was important enough to
include. Likewise, three out of four gospel authors (Mark, Luke, and John)
have "selectively edited" the story to "drop" the part about Jesus saying
the thing about those who live by the sword dying by the sword. (By the
way, didn't Jesus say he came to bring not peace but a sword?) Anyhow,
here's how it breaks down:
Matthew: "One of the followers" cuts off the ear. Jesus says, "Put your
sword back, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword." There is no
mention of him healing anyone.
Mark: A "bystander" cuts the ear off. Jesus says nothing and there is no
mention of him healing anyone.
Luke: An unnamed disciple cuts off the ear. Jesus says simply, "That is
enough." He then heals the man's ear.
John: Peter cuts the ear off. Jesus says, "Put your sword back in its
scabbard; am I not to drink the cup that the Father has given me?" There is
no mention of Jesus healing anyone.
So for the record, 3 out of 4 gospels agree with my "editing". Obviously I
did not choose to include the healing which only 1 out of 4 gospels has an
account of because I have chosen to skip over such "nice" acts of Jesus and
highlight the less-often-looked-at strange, questionable, and alarming ones.
> Let's see, how can we drop enough words to rewrite "Father forgive them for
> they know not what they've done." to say, "Kill da Wabbit!" :O) You're
> right, Ben. It really does take an artist.
If Jesus had said both "Father forgive them for they know not what they've
done" (another Jesus quote which 3 out of 4 gospels did not include) *and*
"Kill da Wabbit!" then this would be a valid criticism. I contend that I
have not made Jesus say anything he is not recorded to have said in the
gospels, and I do not believe I have done any "dishonest and deceptive"
selective editing of the reversal-or-meaning sort.
> He can share his views of the Bible. I'm just pointing out that he
> deliberately missed some very key points of the story and it's not a mystery
> why. Did I try to shut down his site? Three announcements of the Brick
> Testament on Lugnet and I'm the first lurker to finally voice a dissenting
> view. I too have a right to free speech.
I just want to say a word of thanks to everyone who has posted on this
thread. I've appreciated all the comments, no matter whether they have been
generally supportive or critical. I'm sorry it's taken me a few days to
respond here -- I'm on the road and on the way to Brickswest this weekend.
-The Rev. Brendan Powell Smith
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: New Stories from the New Testament
|
| (...) That's funny, that's what they did in the movie -- emphasized/distorted events from the book that amplified Harry's questionable moral character. The zoo scene is actually one example of this -- in the book, Harry just 'disappears' the glass (...) (23 years ago, 15-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: New Stories from the New Testament
|
| snip (...) It's true that the Bible doesn't sugar-coat it's heroes. David, the man after God's own heart, is an adulterer and a murderer. God anoints Samson with incredible strength, even though he frequents prostitutes. God does destroy the entire (...) (23 years ago, 16-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: New Stories from the New Testament
|
| (...) You're right on this point. My apologies. (...) Yes, it is this sort of interpretation... Bob says, "I would like to explain why I don't think you should kill Johny Walker." Newspaper Story: Bob says, "I would like to... kill Johny Walker." (...) (23 years ago, 13-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
47 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
