Christian Symbolism in Skyfall

1235

Comments

  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,343
    Can we not, out of simple respect for one another, not make childish jabs at each others' religions? I doubt you'd like it if I were the one taking potshots, and I'd just like the same courtesy extended to myself and the other Christians on here.

    I second that actually. There's no need for that as it only leads to strife and bad feelings between members and that's the last thing we want here in this community.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,359
    It's the politics thread all over again.
  • edited December 2013 Posts: 3,236
    chrisisall wrote:
    Can we not, out of simple respect for one another, not make childish jabs at each others' religions?
    My religion invites childish jabs.
    1st rule of religion: If you truly believe, no one can piss you off with their nonsense.

    It gets tiresome after a point, and I'm really a difficult person to offend.
    Murdock wrote:
    It's the politics thread all over again.

    I suppose there's a reason those two are lumped together on the list of things not to talk about.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,343
    Murdock wrote:
    It's the politics thread all over again.

    Well they do say never to discuaa religion and politics and this thread is surely a case in point as to why this is so.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,827
    It gets tiresome after a point, and I'm really a difficult person to offend.

    I'm hard to offend as well.
    Unless you dis Dalton or Trek. :))
  • chrisisall wrote:
    It gets tiresome after a point, and I'm really a difficult person to offend.

    I'm hard to offend as well.
    Unless you dis Dalton or Trek. :))

    Then maybe I shouldn't tell you that I prefer Brosnan and Star Wars...
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,827
    Then maybe I shouldn't tell you that I prefer Brosnan and Star Wars...

    "Ahl be back."
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    chrisisall wrote:
    Yeah, I can't quite figure it out. Being a sort-of-Buddhist, I'm not so serious about it all, so when anger enters the conversation, it's like an unexpected blowout. And it happens on most forums. Right here at MI6 on a Spider-man thread I innocently commented on Spider-man 2's use of crucifixion imagery when Pete saves the train, and a WHOLE religious argument popped out of nowhere.
    *raises hands in air*

    To be fair, mate, that was at a time when I didn't know you as well as I do now, so I again apologize if I didn't before.

    Still, I can't say I'm surprised this thread suffered a quick death and went into eternal derailment full of acidic verbal attacks. I think it says more about the members than the topic itself when mature, level-headed discussion can't be had.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited December 2013 Posts: 17,827
    To be fair, mate, that was at a time when I didn't know you as well as I do now, so I again apologize if I didn't before.
    Not necessary, but retro-appreciated- let he who is without sin cast the first web. :D
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited December 2013 Posts: 28,694
    chrisisall wrote:
    To be fair, mate, that was at a time when I didn't know you as well as I do now, so I again apologize if I didn't before.
    Not necessary, but retro-appreciated- let he who is without sin cast the first web. :D

    And we're right back to Spider-Man again! ;)
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,827
    And we're right back to Spider-Man again! ;)
    Spidey, Batman & Bond rule!
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,380
    RC7 wrote:
    00Beast wrote:
    I believe that @BeatlesSansEarmuffs has very valid reasoning behind his claims- even if Christian symbolism in SkyFall was not an intent of the makers behind the movie, it surely does pop out as if it were intentional. As a Church of Christ attending Christian, I myself really like seeing discussions such as this one! It's a neat thought to think that the makers of the Bond movies would include Christian elements, and I wish we could know for sure if it was intentional or not. Sadly, what with Hollywood and the currently "politically correct" film industries that we have today, I would highly doubt that these Christian elements were intentional. Personally, I wish they were intentional, because what a great way to get someone thinking about The Word if its contents are embedded into a popular movies franchise. I admire your view on this, @BeatlesSansEarmuffs! Well done!

    Sorry to burst your bubble, but 'political correctness' has nothing to do with this. That's me being polite. The general populace aren't obliged to believe works of fiction. In that sense SF and your beliefs are aligned.

    Thank Christ (that's me burning along with DN for blasphemy I presume?) for some sanity at last RC7.

    Presume 00Beast would think it similarly 'great' were EON to embed elements of the Koran in their films to get people 'thinking about The Word'? Or is that not so desirable?

    Wizard, I think you're a god on this board.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,256
    The Voice from the thread said:

    "You're not sending me to the cooler!"

    Mr-freeze.jpg

    Dimi replied:

    "That depends on your definition of safe debate."

    OK boys and girls, the way I see it, intelligent people who see things this way and intelligent people who see things that way, have turned this thread into a by all means intelligent debate. However, there's a fuse underneath it too. Once lit, we will have to temporarily freeze the place in order to save us from the destructive fires of hell the post bin.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    echo wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    00Beast wrote:
    I believe that @BeatlesSansEarmuffs has very valid reasoning behind his claims- even if Christian symbolism in SkyFall was not an intent of the makers behind the movie, it surely does pop out as if it were intentional. As a Church of Christ attending Christian, I myself really like seeing discussions such as this one! It's a neat thought to think that the makers of the Bond movies would include Christian elements, and I wish we could know for sure if it was intentional or not. Sadly, what with Hollywood and the currently "politically correct" film industries that we have today, I would highly doubt that these Christian elements were intentional. Personally, I wish they were intentional, because what a great way to get someone thinking about The Word if its contents are embedded into a popular movies franchise. I admire your view on this, @BeatlesSansEarmuffs! Well done!

    Sorry to burst your bubble, but 'political correctness' has nothing to do with this. That's me being polite. The general populace aren't obliged to believe works of fiction. In that sense SF and your beliefs are aligned.

    Thank Christ (that's me burning along with DN for blasphemy I presume?) for some sanity at last RC7.

    Presume 00Beast would think it similarly 'great' were EON to embed elements of the Koran in their films to get people 'thinking about The Word'? Or is that not so desirable?

    Wizard, I think you're a god on this board.

    It's rare to see such a good judge of deity my child.

    Alas I cannot offer eternal life merely a promise you will end up in the grave.

    Now go forth and have a few ales and get yourself laid and don't waste your precious time here worshipping anyone (although at least I do in fact exist). Such is The Word of the Wizard.

    Now unless anyone wishes to donate to the church of The Wizard (so I can spread The Word obviously and certainly not spend it all on coke and hookers) can we leave all this mumbo jumbo behind and like Darth has tried to say a couple of times get back on topic as this debate has interest as like it or not we are historically tied to religion and it's fascinating to see if something as, on the face of it, sinful as Bond with all its shagging and killing (although you note it's only the shagging that offends) has any links with so called spirituality and a 'higher plane'.

    Personally I would say that any references to religion in Fleming and by the character of Bond are mere vestiges of the Christian upbringing we all have forced upon us for being brought up in a nominally Christian country.

    When it comes to SF though I can see that Mendes (as an arty type director - you wouldn't get a meat and potatoes guy like Spottiswoode trying it) might try to weave such themes into the background and the resurrection motif certainly I suppose is undeniable but I'm yet to be convinced by @Beatles case. Where he sees 'total body immersion' as significant I just see Bond falling in some water. And this total body baptism only exists in certain crackpot Christian sects. In Catholicism (by far the biggest demonination) you just have a splash of water on your head so it's hardly mainstream. In the UK hardly anyone does it (a certain Lynn Benfield is the only person that springs to mind) so if Mendes is intending total immersion as a religious metaphor he's targeting quite a small number of people. But then I suppose in the bible that's what John the Baptist did to Jesus so maybe..?

    But if so is Mendes saying Bond is our saviour? Certainly the Whitehall scene has this feeling.
  • Posts: 15,229
    As I said, there is a difference between using Christian symbolism, Christian imagery and Christian commonplaces and defending a Christian ideology. I don't think SF or indeed any Bond movie is a piece of Christian propaganda. Dracula was a pro catholic novel, I will easily defend this, but SF does not make an apology of Christian moral. In fact, Bond as a man acts in ways that contradict or reject Christian moral. You can be a believer and be a Bond fan, but sorry guys, you need to recognise this.

    And a side note on swearing: you don't hear a Westerner using Muslim blasphemies because he uses words from his own culture as transgression. And I for one don't mind the transgression.
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,423
    Ok, I am glad. Thanks @4EverBonded and @Dragonpol.

    :-)

    Back on the 2/3 page, it was mentioned that Bond is watching his soul being corroded by his job. He's a sinner, for sure, but Bond is doing it for the greater good.

    There's a fascinating passage from the novel, Dr No, in which Bond muses;

    "“Whatever happened to dead people, there was surely one place for the warm and another for the cold. And which, when the time came, would he, Bond, go to?”

    I'd like to think that Bond, despite his "sins", would go the warm place. I think that God, Allah or the Universe etc, would reward him. For keeping us safe. No one should do the things Bond has to do. But he does them anyway, regardless of the damage inflicted on his soul.

  • edited December 2013 Posts: 3,494
    Ludovico wrote:
    As I said, there is a difference between using Christian symbolism, Christian imagery and Christian commonplaces and defending a Christian ideology. I don't think SF or indeed any Bond movie is a piece of Christian propaganda. Dracula was a pro catholic novel, I will easily defend this, but SF does not make an apology of Christian moral. In fact, Bond as a man acts in ways that contradict or reject Christian moral. You can be a believer and be a Bond fan, but sorry guys, you need to recognise this.

    And a side note on swearing: you don't hear a Westerner using Muslim blasphemies because he uses words from his own culture as transgression. And I for one don't mind the transgression.

    I quite agree that no Bond movie is a piece of Christian propaganda. It is what it is, entertainment. Read into it whatever you may.

    For those offended by my Viagra joke, which was only me trying to bring a little levity into the entire conversation, it's also a fact that the Christians and other monotheists have often relegated women to a stature below men that could best be described as "subservient". Polytheists such as myself don't have that issue. The laws of this planet dictate that creation cannot happen without both male and female, meaning the only possible conclusion for me is that any "supreme being" of the monotheists who created this planet and all in it defies gender.

    I have met an entity that called itself Jesus, laugh if you'd like because I don't care whether anyone believes it or not, and there was nothing but love, white light, and peace there. I never got a feeling of a specific gender attached. What I did get was a profound sense of sadness regarding the daily abuses by human beings towards other humans in "his" name. Some of these hardliner fundamentalists like the Westboro crew will be in for a very rude awakening one day in a place they weren't expecting to be.

    Okay, please excuse me while Mohammad and I meet up for our weekly discussion of what one would do with a 1000 virgins while we smoke the hookah.

    @Wiz- Beast isn't going to like your crackpot Christian sect joke ;)

  • Posts: 4,762
    @SirHenryLeeChaChing: Christians don't try to make women less than they are- there are merely Biblical guidelines which state that women cannot actively lead in worship services or teach in the company of men, and it is not to make them lower, but rather to leave the duties of the church to men, whom God gave that role to. Just thought I'd clarify a little bit there.
  • 00Beast wrote:
    @SirHenryLeeChaChing: Christians don't try to make women less than they are- there are merely Biblical guidelines which state that women cannot actively lead in worship services or teach in the company of men, and it is not to make them lower, but rather to leave the duties of the church to men, whom God gave that role to. Just thought I'd clarify a little bit there.

    Oh really? Let the reformed Catholic and Hexenmeister give you a little lesson from the book you proudly profess to know well and live by-

    Ephesians 5:22-24
    Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

    Huh? Or how about this gem-

    1 Peter 3:1
    Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands.

    Do you know what subjection means? You can spin it any way you want to, but the fact is that husbands are told that they "lead the home" and wives are expected to be submissive as long as he holds up that ideal.

    Obviously the hardline and Biblical literalist sects of Christianity encourage and espouse this, but thankfully there are some denominations not living in the dark ages where women are allowed to be clergy and Christian at the same time.

    Thus endeth the lesson.




  • The passage from Ephesians continues by telling husbands to love their wives as Christ loves the Church. Christ, of course, loved by serving and dying for them, which was a radical concept to extend to husbands and wives at the time.

    The selection from St. Peter is a way for wives to convert their husbands to Christianity. It's common to see people recommending being loving and giving, rather than proselytizing, as a method of winning people to the faith. Even Pope Francis is practicing the same ideals today.

    I cannot comment on your meeting with Jesus. The feelings of love and light and peace are consistent with what almost everybody says about encounters with divine beings. Of course, I disagree on your more general conclusions in the spiritual life, but I trust that will be resolved someday, and I certainly hope we can see each other on the other side.
  • Posts: 4,762
    00Beast wrote:
    @SirHenryLeeChaChing: Christians don't try to make women less than they are- there are merely Biblical guidelines which state that women cannot actively lead in worship services or teach in the company of men, and it is not to make them lower, but rather to leave the duties of the church to men, whom God gave that role to. Just thought I'd clarify a little bit there.

    Oh really? Let the reformed Catholic and Hexenmeister give you a little lesson from the book you proudly profess to know well and live by-

    Ephesians 5:22-24
    Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

    Huh? Or how about this gem-

    1 Peter 3:1
    Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands.

    Do you know what subjection means? You can spin it any way you want to, but the fact is that husbands are told that they "lead the home" and wives are expected to be submissive as long as he holds up that ideal.

    Obviously the hardline and Biblical literalist sects of Christianity encourage and espouse this, but thankfully there are some denominations not living in the dark ages where women are allowed to be clergy and Christian at the same time.

    Thus endeth the lesson.




    Your Scripture examples are exactly what I am trying to point out- the words from 1 Peter and Ephesians work to say that a wife should be submissive, yes, but that doesn't have the context you think it means. What it means is that a wife should let the husband make the final decisions and should obey what he says, but it does not mean that she has to be some form of slave in servitude. You are forgetting the verse in Ephesians 6:25 and the verse in 6:28 that go to say "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her". Please do not accuse me of not knowing the Scriptures, because you neglected to bring up this verse yourself. We're not in the dark ages by any means- we are merely abiding by what is in Scripture. By the way, I am in no way out to "get you". I'm just engaging in a little Biblical/Spiritual discussion, so please don't make this an argument, because that's not what I want for either of us.
  • Look, I'm not looking to start an argument with either of you. But your responses are exactly the problem I point out at interfaith meetings when I have represented my religious beliefs. No one can agree on much of anything and everyone has their own interpretations of Biblical passages and some people use it for good, and others use it for evil. I knew this argument was coming back because I've debated it before. You have so many sects and different versions of the Bible and there is no standard. You should read how the Westboro crew is getting slaughtered over Paul Walker by other Christians, but to the Westies they are right and more righteous. All the books say "thou shalt not kill", but then the King James version actually justifies it in the name of faith as easily as the Old Testament and Quran does the same.

    In short, fix your own house before you attempt to fix someone else's and clean up your own acts. What's happening to the Catholics shall come to pass for others. They finally had to admit that the Inquisitions were wrong and apologize for their blood soaked hands.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    Wow, this is still going on? Surprised this thread has managed five pages. Religious debates don't work, specifically for the reason Sir Henry has outlined: what one person interprets as this, another interprets as that, and if you've got a religious and non-religious person arguing, then it'll never, ever work out. I'm an Atheist, yet I'm not out looking for religious people to bash. Just try to stick as close to the topic as you can. This is going to go nowhere, only leading to more and more prick-measuring.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited December 2013 Posts: 9,117
    Christ knows I have tried to drag this thread back on track, seeing as I was responsible in part for sending it in a unwanted direction, but I'm out as not being permitted to repudiate 00Beast's tiresome evangelism without being censored there's little left to say.

    Sorry @Beatles but this is invariably what happens when the 'R' word is mentioned. I apologise for my part in derailing this thread but at least let the record show that I did actually attempt to contribute to the debate.

    Time for the lock methinks.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    Sadly, it just doesn't work. It's the same as 'Should we have a black Bond?', because it always gets off track and racism gets brought up. There are some topics that will never work on these forums.
  • Posts: 4,762
    Look, I'm not looking to start an argument with either of you. But your responses are exactly the problem I point out at interfaith meetings when I have represented my religious beliefs. No one can agree on much of anything and everyone has their own interpretations of Biblical passages and some people use it for good, and others use it for evil. I knew this argument was coming back because I've debated it before. You have so many sects and different versions of the Bible and there is no standard. You should read how the Westboro crew is getting slaughtered over Paul Walker by other Christians, but to the Westies they are right and more righteous. All the books say "thou shalt not kill", but then the King James version actually justifies it in the name of faith as easily as the Old Testament and Quran does the same.

    In short, fix your own house before you attempt to fix someone else's and clean up your own acts. What's happening to the Catholics shall come to pass for others. They finally had to admit that the Inquisitions were wrong and apologize for their blood soaked hands.

    Well, I am certainly not making attempts to use it for evil, nor am I a Westboro member, and I am not seeking to tell you that you have things you need fixing, because we all have things we need to get fixed in our own lives. I am sorry if you think I'm trying to criticize you, because let me make it clear, I am in no way trying to put you down.
  • Creasy47 wrote:
    Sadly, it just doesn't work. It's the same as 'Should we have a black Bond?', because it always gets off track and racism gets brought up. There are some topics that will never work on these forums.

    I guess there's a reason why you're not supposed to discuss religion and politics at dinner. I suppose the same goes for race.
  • edited December 2013 Posts: 12,837
    00Beast wrote:
    such vices really don't improve life- they only impair it from being truly great.

    They make life more fun and a fun life is a great one in my book.
  • @00Beast- the funny thing about fixing is that we police our own. You don't hear about people of my faith contradicting themselves and going around killing people and claiming our books justified it. Passages in our books provide us with a clear code of conduct that leaves little room for debate.
    00Beast wrote:
    such vices really don't improve life- they only impair it from being truly great.

    They make life more fun and a fun life is a great one in my book.

    Indeed, but this is something he'll never believe nor accept. His idea of fun is probably an ice cream social.

    Please excuse me now while I finish my Linda Blair brand of split pea soup that bunch is so fond of associating me with :-&
  • Posts: 4,762
    00Beast wrote:
    such vices really don't improve life- they only impair it from being truly great.

    They make life more fun and a fun life is a great one in my book.

    That may be, but for a lot of people, it just gets them into hot water, whether that is immediately or later on down the road. I would like a great life too, and in fact, I believe that I have one as it is, without all of the things which Christians are told to avoid.

    @SirHenryLeeChaChing: Actually, who doesn't like going out for a good ice cream? Also, why do you insist that Christianity mandates going out and slaughtering for The Lord? I don't read that in my Bible either.
This discussion has been closed.