Instead of:

“My interpretation here is that it is both a waste of my time and God’s time to enjoy (i.e. look at, read, see how it speaks to me, find meaning) art/fiction? How can that be a waste of my time, and of God’s?”

It looks like I need to refine my comments a bit more before hitting submit. Sometimes I am pressed for time and don’t always go back and proof.

Regarding the end of the discussion, well, Tim B., whatever. I can’t dechiper your points and you can’t mine. And so it goes.

I got it from what you wrote at 12:35pm: “My interpretation here is that it is both a waste of my time and God’s time to enjoy (i.e. look at, read, see how it speaks to me, find meaning) art/fiction? How can that be a waste of my time, and of God’s?” Who can’t help but interpret the phrase “God’s time to enjoy etc.” to mean that you believe God does the same thing that you do when you are enjoying stuff?

You wrote: “If the point is that because there is a far end of the specturm, the entire spectrum must be avoided at all costs…I am sorry for you.”

No, that is not the point. I’m tired of discussing this. Fine, feel sorry for me. Doesn’t matter at my end.

No, there is no web site. Adios.

..we delve into speculative meanings and long pointless discussions, in other words, a waste of time.

Speaking of pointless discussions that waste time, it is very difficult to have a discussion when one part is choosing the extreme as an example: Manson, A Clockwork Orange, abstract art — these are at the far end of the spectrum. If the point is that because there is a far end of the specturm, the entire spectrum must be avoided at all costs…I am sorry for you.

Tim, do you have a web site or some such thing which offers up your views on art or writing in depth? I still think there must be more to it than what’s here.

We are speaking two different languages, and I simply can’t figure out what you are trying to say and how you are interpreting things.

Which, oddly enough, is ironic, considering the discussion on the importance of meaning.

Not a lot of time here, but:

You are over-reaching in logic to say I can’t tell “make believe” world from factual. But is the moral code somehow “suspended” the fictional world but not in the factual world? If a rape occurs in the fictional world, is that not as wrong as in the factual world? Are occultic items such as the magic wand or other “plot devices” somehow not so occultic in the fictional world?

A moral code is different than natural laws. So, if rape occurs in a fictional world, it IS just as wrong in a fictional world. (specifically noted in “The Wounded Land” by Stephen R. Donaldson, Wooster graduate).

However, one of the plot devices inherently present in science fiction and fantasy is that the underlying cosmos (world/system) operates in a manner different than our own – its natural laws are different.

Things like telekenesis, pyrokenesis, telepathy, levitation and a host of other physically/metaphysically impossible things in the real world exist in the fictional world. So, in the fictional world the physical laws of the universe allow such things to occur, and they are, therefore natural actions/laws/abilities. However, in the real world, telekenesis would be a ’supernatural’ action/ability.

Your previous statements blur this difference.

To try again:

You said:

“Supernatural means something that is apart from or opposed to the natural order of the world.” Right…exactly. Fictional or not.

This implies that you wish to classify actions within a fictional cosmos that do not exist in our cosmos as “supernatural” (as you said – “Fictional or not”).

This is decidedly NOT the case though, unless you wish to build a case that the only acceptable fiction for Christians to read is that which is “based on a true story” (which generally makes it, to some degree, not fiction), or, at the very least, is completely grounded in the reality of this world (which generally rules out most children’s and young adult’s fiction, along with 99% of cartoons and children’s movies).

HOWEVER

Now, as I read the pronouncements against divination, sorcery, etc. within the context of the Bible, these things are forbidden because they attempt to do what humans did in the Tower of Babel – to try to ursurp God by superceding the physical laws put in place by Him – to try to somehow be gods unto ourselves.

In the books by Tolkien, Lewis, Rowling and others, no such pretense is made – that the protagonists are attempting to ursurp God’s authority or nature. In fact, all three of these authors (and more) work within the natural laws of the fictional cosmos in which the story is set.

There is nothing ’supernatural’ here…

The leap of logic you have made, to try to me more explicit, is to say that a story set in a fictional cosmos is evil if the natural laws of that cosmos are different from that of our own, real cosmos – particularly if such differences would appear “magical” were they present in our own.

You explicitly stated:

All I’m sayin’ is HP and LOTR sucks evil stuff!

Thus, at this point, you have moved beyond personal conviction (which is fine) into declaring that Christians (no quotes, EVER) who do read HP and LotR are engaging in evil (which is not fine). Additionally, the articles you linked (if you agree with them), give the ludicrous conclusion that these books are somehow ‘gateway drugs’ into the occult…
_____

As for Johnnie Mac, I would include myself in the specific statement: Some Christians see Johnnie Mac’s works decidedly lacking in grace and Christ-like orthopraxy, therefore being just as ‘anti-Biblical’ as some might see a fictional work…, yet I would not (nor have I read others) compare him to Manson. Such disagreements do not make me, you or John “Christians” – and it is highly arrogant to attempt to make distinctions on who real “Christians” are…

The “they” I was referring to were the “some Christians” remark you made in your 8:55am post: “Some Christians see Johnnie Mac’s works decidedly lacking in grace and Christ-like orthopraxy, therefore being just as ‘anti-Biblical’ as some might see a fictional work….” So it wasn’t fantasy on my part.
———————
I wrote: “They are suspect that they have not received the Holy Spirit.”

You replied: “Really? And you know this how?”

The “fantasy Christians” I was talking about above, if I had only one thing to know about them, based only on calling Grace to You and John MacArthur anti-Biblical, I would call them “Christians” in quotes. It is applying the “you will know them by their fruit” verse if I was to judge them just by their statement. As I repeatedly already said, the final judge is God Himself.
—————————–
You wrote: “Personally, I take Jesus rather seriously that I’ll be judged by the same measure I use to judge others, so I’ll let him decide who’s not his follower.”

Agreed.
————————–
You wrote: “Putting Christian in quotes rather flies in the face of that particular teaching, as Brendt frequently likes to hammer home.”

A lot of people call themselves “Christian” who are not so.
————————–
I wrote: “What you consider “shoddy” research is basically doing what the Bereans do, go to the Bible and examine the claims and beliefs of the Charismatics, Emergent, SS. I don’t base it on my opinion but rather the Bible.”

You wrote: “Wow. I almost spit my lunch all over the monitor laughing at that one.” You’re welcome. Please send picture of the milk coming out of your nose. : )
————————–
You wrote: “I have a WHOLE LOT more respect for the Bereans than I do for books like ‘The Truth War’.”

I haven’t read “The Truth War” so whether it follows the logic you posted I don’t know.

I used to be a charismatic. I was fool to believe in it. God rescued me from that. Johnnie Mac was right on.
—————————
You wrote: “I do not wonder about their beliefs in the Bible…..I see the fruit in their lives – since I actually know them – and see how their belief carries through to action, and I see how seriously they take the claims, instructions and beliefs of Jesus – incredibly seriously.”

But some “Christians” see evil-ness them on par with Charles Manson?
———————
You wrote: “That you cannot discern between a factual world/system and a fictional one says far more about you than about those who can do so without having to consciously consider what is fact and what is fiction – it is obvious.”

You are over-reaching in logic to say I can’t tell “make believe” world from factual. But is the moral code somehow “suspended” the fictional world but not in the factual world? If a rape occurs in the fictional world, is that not as wrong as in the factual world? Are occultic items such as the magic wand or other “plot devices” somehow not so occultic in the fictional world?
—————-
You wrote: “1) You have demonstrated a belief that a fictional world must adhere to the natural laws of the real world.”

Though I never said that, that would be nice…..as in “This is based on a true story.”

You wrote: “2) If the natural laws in the fictional world allow actions/abilities within that world that are not available in our own, you believe that it is immaterial, because such actions/abilities within our own world would be supernatural.”

I really don’t see how you are deriving this from my postings at all. Ummmmm….WHAT?

You wrote: “3) You have no Biblical basis from making the leaps of logic required in #1 and #2 as interpretations that should apply to all Christians.”

Ummmmm…..WHAT? All I’m sayin’ is HP and LOTR sucks evil stuff!

You wrote: “4) Your tone appears tio suggest that, somehow, Christians who do not arrive at your a-biblical conclusion, must therefore be “Christians”.”

Uhhhh…probably about 85-90 percentish of the time. I still can get it wrong sometimes.

You wrote: “Is that more clear?”

What do you think?
—————————
You wrote: “As for facist tendencies – it is the judgement of the hearts of those who do not come to your same conclusions and the underlying tone of one’s belief equating with God’s belief which speak to the facism, not the physical coersion of the individuals… ”

I only judge in accordance to the same standard I judge myself, against the Bible.

Chris L, they are “Christians” because they consider people like John MacArthur as “evil” as say, Charles Manson.

I’m not sure exactly who ‘they’ is anymore, as you’ve seemed to moved into fantasy, yourself. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Manson and MacArthur are equal in their lives as sinners. Personally, I don’t put much stock in what either one of them says, though I suspect Chuck’s parole hearings are much more entertaining than John’s radio show.

They are suspect that they have not received the Holy Spirit.

Really? And you know this how? Personally, I take Jesus rather seriously that I’ll be judged by the same measure I use to judge others, so I’ll let him decide who’s not his follower. Putting Christian in quotes rather flies in the face of that particular teaching, as Brendt frequently likes to hammer home.

What you consider “shoddy” research is basically doing what the Bereans do, go to the Bible and examine the claims and beliefs of the Charismatics, Emergent, SS. I don’t base it on my opinion but rather the Bible.

Wow. I almost spit my lunch all over the monitor laughing at that one.

I have a WHOLE LOT more respect for the Bereans than I do for books like ‘The Truth War’. Why? Because the “research” involved typically takes something along the lines of:
1) Brian McLaren is emergent
2) Therefore, if we refute Brian McLaren, we refute all emergents
3) The emergent church (and some emerging churches) exists in a postmodern culture, rather than combating postmodernity
4) The simplistic interpretation of the postmodern view is that truth does not exist
5) Therefore, if we prove truth exists, we discredit postmodernity, therefore discrediting emergents, as well

And the truly shoddy “research” goes on from there. Using Johnnie Mac’s hit-pieces on Emergent Christians and Charismatic Christians as examples, what we have are books that, when examined by people who actually know and talk to Emergent Christians and Charismatic Christians, are simply armchair research into what Johnnie Mac believes EC’s and CC’s must be like – without ever really finding out – and then exercises in tearing down the straw men he just created.

I do not wonder about their beliefs in the Bible (because the ones I know believe it to be God’s Word, authoritative, and the written source of our belief). It’s not my place to, either. I don’t wonder about their honesty to themselves and God. I see the fruit in their lives – since I actually know them – and see how their belief carries through to action, and I see how seriously they take the claims, instructions and beliefs of Jesus – incredibly seriously.

As far as misguided goes, I see them far more interested in pursuing pure religion, as defined by James, than the nasty-penned busy-bodies who spend more time shooting the wounded than serving the lost. If you want misguided, it’s Christians who spend their time worrying about what movies other Christians watch, what books they read, and whether they pass out candy or Chick tracts to the neighborhood kids on October 31st – or judge them based on these criteria.

“Supernatural means something that is apart from or opposed to the natural order of the world.” Right…exactly. Fictional or not.

Wrong – exactly. World (as used in “of this world”) – cosmos, in the Greek – is a system of being, as opposed to a literal place. Nature is defined by the rules of the world (system) in which it operates. In fiction, one of the key ingredients is often suspended reality – accepting that, for the story, a system apart our own exists – only within the story.

That you cannot discern between a factual world/system and a fictional one says far more about you than about those who can do so without having to consciously consider what is fact and what is fiction – it is obvious.

If I tell a story about in a world in which people have wings and fly, am I talking about the supernatural, or the natural? If I watch a commercial about an insurance-selling caveman, am I engaging in the supernatural or the natural? If I accept that the reality in the commercial/book/movie/story is NOT my own, then I also accept that the laws of science in my own reality do not have to be those in the work I am watching/reading/hearing.

This is not occultic or supernatural.

However, if a Christian is concerned about whether listening/watching/reading a story is beneficial or sinful, then he should let his/her conscience be his/her guide – because that is what convicts us in areas of gray.

“While you may be convicted that you cannot separate fact from fiction, and that whatever happens in a fictional world must be translated as if it were in our own, there is no Biblical basis for making a blanket pronouncement about such interpretation.” Like the GEICO caveman says, “Um, WHAT?”

There you go, quoting supernatural cavemen… (but wait, cavemen supposedly existed more than 6,000 years ago, so are you taking a Theistic Evolutionary stance by quoting him as well???)

To rephrase my quote:
1) You have demonstrated a belief that a fictional world must adhere to the natural laws of the real world.
2) If the natural laws in the fictional world allow actions/abilities within that world that are not available in our own, you believe that it is immaterial, because such actions/abilities within our own world would be supernatural
3) You have no Biblical basis from making the leaps of logic required in #1 and #2 as interpretations that should apply to all Christians.
4) Your tone appears tio suggest that, somehow, Christians who do not arrive at your a-biblical conclusion, must therefore be “Christians”.

Is that more clear?

As for facist tendencies – it is the judgement of the hearts of those who do not come to your same conclusions and the underlying tone of one’s belief equating with God’s belief which speak to the facism, not the physical coersion of the individuals…

Ok, an example. The movie “A Clockwork Orange.” When this movie was sprung (yes, sprung) upon my college English class, it was very shocking to my being to view this film. It was pornographic, extreme, violent, and had thoughts on sexuality that never entered my mind before then. On the outset, without having “discussions” about it or examining it’s “meaning,” this film is worse than HP or LOTR. Of course, being that this was shown in a college class, we had discussions about the meaning of this film. Yeah, a film about showiing the failure of modern psychiatry was discussed for nearly three days pondering all kinds of meanings seen in the film, especially the nude statues in the milk bar. So a film that uses various “plot devices” in a perverse way to “move” the film, should be avoided by Christians without further ado. But if we examine the film “allegorically,” we can find all kinds of “meaning(s)” here to discuss to the point we think this film is alright for Christians to view because there is so much meaning to it despite the perversity in it. I don’t know if I can further ’spain my viewpoint.

You can go around and around in discussion groups discussing “literature” and find you’re just wasting your’s and God’s time fooling with this.

I am not trying to bait you. I really don’t understand — perhaps the better word is identify with — what you’re saying here. My interpretation here is that it is both a waste of my time and God’s time to enjoy (i.e. look at, read, see how it speaks to me, find meaning) art/fiction? How can that be a waste of my time, and of God’s? The entire book of Leviticus is one giant manifesto on God’s love of physical beauty and the way the colors, imagery, and symbols are to have additional meanings. Just imagine the cloth and golden sculpture. It wasn’t functional nor necessary, but is evidence of God’s love of beauty.

Francis Schaeffer has written some great things about Christians and the arts, which includes fiction, visual, music, etc. I feel like I’m doing some kind of rehash here, but I really am perplexed at how you think enjoying and finding meaning in art is a waste of time and, if taken to higher levels, even meaningless.

Am I understanding you wrong? Could you word your point concisely and briefly, if I am, so that I understand you correctly?