Similar Posts

8 Comments

  1. I guess that makes you a Panmellenialist – it’s all going to pan out in the end! :o)

    I find that a lot of theology is just an excuse for Christians to argue. There’s nothing wrong with discussing “what-if’s” until it starts to offend people.

  2. Agreed, Kait.

    I understand the reasoning for the (to some painfully) slow opening, but I also know there are abundant literary devices to speed things up a bit/add tension. Walley used some – dreams, Merral’s “sense” of things being not quite right. But, the very fact so many have seen the opening as a snorefest points to a problem.

    My issue with the theology had nothing to do with the end times whatever it is. It was more the issue of evil being “bound” so completely. It just doesn’t make sense in a world that is otherwise post fall.

    Nor does it make sense that the inhabitants of these worlds understand what a lie is, or hate, or other “evil” impulses if no one has experienced them for x-thousand years. Or that their schooling in the past would be so complete as to educate them on these ideas, without at least one person (assuming they have free will?) in all those decades deciding, “Gee, I think I’ll LIE! Could be fun!”

    Or maybe I’m just around young children too much. Where it’s truly unbelievable to imagine serving casserole-anything without having loud expressions of ungratefulness, or slabs slipped under the table to the dog.

    As a novel, it was a fun read. As a theology textbook??? (hello, it’s a novel)

    Again, here via wordpress. My blogger account won’t get you to anything related to this book. My own comments can be found here.

  3. Kait…I think I’m on your page with my end times view. *Pan out in the end* indeed!

    Rebecca, I saw your post yesterday and was going to point it out here. Forgot, sorry. But you make a very valid point. If evil is so completely banished, then all small children must be wonderfully polite and…perfect. I notice that the novel doesn’t dwell on little kids much!

    But you’re right. It’s a novel, not a theological textbook. That was one of the main points of my post today. It’s a story built on an interesting premise. (That got off to a slow start!)

    Thanks for stopping by.

  4. I definitely think there’s ways of stringing in conflict without there being any sin. Fear is of the unknown–not of just evil. I’ve read several book in YA that do an awesome job of taking a “seemingly” utopian society and drawing us into the world with conflict.

    Rebecca makes some really good points as to the premise, though. Seems highly unbelievable. I’m with her. I’ve got four kids. They were not born innocent.

  5. Cheers to Rebecca once again. I actually had to wash my daughter’s mouth out with soap this morning. (Am I allowed to say that on the internet?). I was appalled at how she talked back to *my wife* when she thought I wasn’t listening. (The funny part was that when I did it, she just kinda’ looked at me like, “What was that for?” Later I tasted the soap myself and realized it actually not only had a mango smell, but a mango flavor! Nice, dad!).

    Valerie, I have to agree with you. Despite being far fetched, the use of his “futuristic parable” would be easier thought of as an Adam and Eve version of Star Wars. If we’re just trying to point out the affects of sin on humanity and use the context of a sci-fi world, cool (which I think was his point, at least from what I’ve read of his commentary). But if it was to pose an actual suggestion for how the next 11,000 years might play out….eeeek!

    CH

  6. Hi, Rachel. Thanks for stopping by! Yes, fear is a valid technique for building tension. But for how many pages, with nothing to spur it on? Dunno.

    Christopher: mango flavored soap, eh? Got me a good laugh there, and I needed one today. Yep, Walley wrote a story. Doesn’t have to mean we all believe it could happen! Most of our stories (in our chosen genres, anyway) never could.

    So be it.

Comments are closed.