A sickening example of religious vampirism

by expatbrit 80 Replies latest jw friends

  • dedalus
    dedalus
    I also belive that most of the people involved in this discussion or incredibly unfamiliar with Mr. Lentz's play and the message that it communicates.

    Oh we or, or we?

    That's why a huge chunk of his website is posted right at the front of this very thread. I've personally read every page of Lentz's website, and yet he accuses me of misunderstanding his character "Jason," who isn't, he asserts, an atheist. Yet his website says of that character:

    But Katie also meets Jason Holmes, a rebellious, arrogant, angry young man who hates God and those who believe in Him.
    Why would Jason hate people for believing in God, since he believes in God himself? Isn't the intelligent conclusion, based on this, that Jason doesn't believe in God?

    Then there's this lovely tidbit:

    JASON: (He pushes Katie away, and holds the bible up) "This book represents everything I hate about Lisa........and GOD!!!!"

    KATIE: (confused) "I thought you didn't believe in God."

    JASON: "I DON'T!!"

    Jason is infuriated. He's been caught in a contradiction and knows it. He throws the bible on the floor at Katie's feet. Katie picks up the bible, then looks at Jason.

    Is it possible to hate a fictional character? Sure! So what's the big "contradiction?

    Anyway, if I shell out $5.00, I can be treated to the entirety of Lentz's play and the "message that it communicates." But I think I've got the picture.

    So how do you know so much about it, compactmowse?

    Dedalus

  • compactmowse
    compactmowse

    I have read the synopsis as well. It seems to me, Dedalus, that you are ignoring the fact that the character "Jason" is angry and arrogant AND an atheist. That is not to say that all atheists are angry and arrogant, but in this case, the FICTIONAL character of "Jason" is angry, arrogant, etc. ALso, in this case, it is due to his rejection of the truth. The contradiction that "Katie" mentions is referring to the fact that as an atheist, Jason does not believe there is a god. In saying that he hates God, he is suggesting that there IS a God to hate. Therefore, he is contradicting himself by acknowledging a God that he claims does not exist.

  • mommy
    mommy

    Mr Lentz,
    Thank you for showing up and confirming that this play is based soley on your opinion of god. You said Jason wasn't an atheist yet you describe him in your character list as this:

    Jason Holmes: A student. Independent, rebellious, and arrogant. A loner loaded
    with anger. He has rejected God. The path he now follows in life is "his own".
    He has little tolerance for other points of view, especially from those who believe
    in God.
    He has an intense dislike for Mr. Brooks and Lisa Caldwell.

    IMO most troubled teens are products of their enviroment, though he is responsible to a certain extent. Yet many states do not even prosecute teens as adults, because even the goverment understands that they are not emotionally ready to accept full responibility for their actions. Yet, you painted this teenager as the epitomy of evil. This upset me greatly.

    You also made the statement:

    What can be stated truthfully about christians and non-christians alike is this: Anyone who murders someone else is not doing God's will and has rejected God's truth
    That again is your opinion. I feel that murdering another person is saying you do not value them as a person worthy of living, no more no less. Plus to complicate things a bit more suppose there is a fine upstanding christian that murders, he is then accused of rejecting god and only thinking of himself.
    Rejecting God does not normally lead to murder. But all murders are the result of rejecting God as well as God's will for our lives.
    Yet, isn't that why humans feel they need god in their life, because they are imperfect and will make mistakes? So basically you are "screwed" either way. The path you speak of has a very small shoulder, and it is man's opinion of who falls off.

    Yet you have no problem swallowing this and then pushing such idiocy onto young impressionable children. I understand your zeal for spreading what you believe to be the only path to walk on. Yet the vampirism that was eluded to is rampant in your narrow minded views. Our way, or you will be a murderer. Sorry, does not make sense to me. This play upset me greatly, but I am glad you are making $5 a pop off it, seeing as you are hosting on a free website and all.<that was sarcasm btw>
    wendy

    When I leave, you will know I have been here

  • detective
    detective

    Good points Dedalus. I don't really agree with O'Connors view myself but she's a good read and certainly a perfect foil for more simplistic morality writings.

  • dedalus
    dedalus
    It seems to me, Dedalus, that you are ignoring the fact that the character "Jason" is angry and arrogant AND an atheist.

    Better check with Mr. Lentz on that -- he told me that the fact was, "Jason" is NOT an atheist.

    My original statement regarding this was that Mr. Lentz has written a modern day morality play. As such, the characters are meant to stand in for everyone in their group. Morality plays aren't meant to be subtle; indeed, Mr. Lentz's play is about as subtle as an anvil.

    That is not to say that all atheists are angry and arrogant, but in this case, the FICTIONAL character of "Jason" is angry, arrogant, etc.
    It is fine for a text to posit a fictional character who has all these qualities. But it cannot be said that that text has a sophisticated understanding of the views it attempts to represent. Does the play give any good reason for Jason's anger and arrogance? It seems quite clear to me that he is angry and arrogantbecause he is an atheist. If he hadn't rejected God, none of this would have happened.

    ALso, in this case, it is due to his rejection of the truth.
    What "truth" is that?

    The contradiction that "Katie" mentions is referring to the fact that as an atheist, Jason does not believe there is a god. In saying that he hates God, he is suggesting that there IS a God to hate. Therefore, he is contradicting himself by acknowledging a God that he claims does not exist.
    Yeah, I get that, and it's not a new point. This is an irony, not a contradiction, but at least we're in the same ballpark. My problem with the play is that this "irony" or "contradiction" is never probed, examined, explored. Instead, Jason starts killing people. If the play had explored this irony, it probably would have discovered that Jason doesn't hate God per se. Of course, in the hands of Mr. Lentz, there are only two possibilities: as an atheist, Jason must either convert, or go on a killing spree.

    You should read the essays posted by Expatbrit. If you're too dense for that, skip to the parts in bold.

    Dedalus

  • dickelentz
    dickelentz

    To clarify a couple issues, let me explain.

    First, the play was not based on Cassie Bernall's life story at all. The development of the play began within a few days after the Columbine tragedy with the awareness that at least one of the victims (Rachel Scott) was a Christian and that she had actively shared her testimony with others at her school.

    Secondly, many different groups used the Columbine tragedy as a means to discuss problems in society in general. Some focused on the need for gun control, some on the affects of peer criticism and bullys in high schools, and some on the failures of social programs to reach troubled youth. I took the view that the killers relationship with God was an important factor in what ultimately happened. If this makes me guilty of "vampirism", so be it. But I accept this label only to the same degree as others who looked at the Columbine tragedy and tried to make some sense about why it happened.

    The cause of this tragedy was complex. It was a combination of circumstances and decisions that ultimately culminated in two teen-agers taking out their anger on their school mates. There's is no one thing we can point to and say "this is what caused it to happen". It was a variety of things.

    I chose to look at the tragedy from a spiritual point of view. I felt that if the killers had trusted God to help them with the problems they faced and then listened to God as He guided them, they would have acted differently. As I said before, all murders are the result of rejection of God. That is because God cherishes all life and desires that we cherish life just as much as He does. Murder is an example of what happens when a person turns their back on God and the things that God values. The killers reacted as they did not because they didn't believe God existed, but because they turned their backs on God and the help He offered them.

    Someone asked about truth. The truth is this: God does exist. He also loves us. He wants to have a relationship with us that results in a fulfilling life. He also wants us to spend eternity with Him.

    The problem is that we are imperfect. The Bible calls this sin. This sin separates us from God. This separation keeps us from experiencing the fullness of life God wants for us. But what's worse, if we die separated from God, we will live eternally apart from Him.

    Because God loves us, He did something to restore our broken relationship with Him. God sent his son Jesus to die on the cross to pay the penalty for our sin. God accepts Jesus' sacrifice as "compensation" for our imperfections and our sin. I am redeemed now not because of something I've done to earn God's favor, but because Jesus died for me on the Cross.

    By the way, this is not true because I believe it. I believe it because it's true. I've read many books that have tried to discount what happened 2000 years ago in Jerusalem. But an objective look at the historical evidence validates that Jesus existed, that he claimed to be the son of God, that He died on a cross, and that He rose from the dead. These facts and these facts alone validate that Jesus is the only means to bring us back to God and redeem us from our fallen natures.

    So that's what the play is about. Not about "Cassie" or about "atheists" or about "christians". It real focus is on the choices we all make about God, the consequences for the choice that at least one person ("Jason") made about God, and ultimately the eternal consequence of accepting or rejecting the salvation that God offers to everyone of us.

  • compactmowse
    compactmowse

    Dedalus, I do not believe that Mr. Lentz's characters are meant to include everybody. It's a play. The characters are fictional. If you believe that those characters are symbols of their respective "groups", then feel free to include yourself in one. I do see myself, or anyone I know for that matter, fitting perfectly into one of these so-called "groups". I also would like to commend Mr. Lentz for his reply. It is quite clear, at least to this reader, that his intention was to share truth. Dedalus, you asked "what is truth?". I can tell you something about truth. It is objective. It is absolute. And most importantly, that which is true is true whether the general populus, or a mere individual, believes it or not. Truth cares not for people's opinions.
    Thank you

  • detective
    detective

    Dick e Lentz stated:

    As I said before, all murders are the result of rejection of God. That is because God cherishes all life and desires that we cherish life just as much as He does. Murder is an example of what happens when a person turns their back on God and the things that God values.

    Are you saying that you believe in God but not the bible? When you make a statement like this, I am left with the impression that you either haven't read the bible or have dismissed it entirely. I'm sure I won't be the only person to point out that there's a whole lot of God-approved killing going on in the "good book".

  • dedalus
    dedalus

    Lentz wrote:

    Someone asked about truth. The truth is this: God does exist. He also loves us. He wants to have a relationship with us that results in a fulfilling life. He also wants us to spend eternity with Him.
    Okay, prove that God exists. Prove it. If you can't, you have to stop using the word "truth," and the word "fact."

    But an objective look at the historical evidence validates that Jesus existed, that he claimed to be the son of God, that He died on a cross, and that He rose from the dead. These facts and these facts alone validate that Jesus is the only means to bring us back to God and redeem us from our fallen natures.
    What is the historical evidence? Where are the independent, objective corroborations of the Bible accounts? Be specific, I'd like to know.

    Also, I want to echo Detective's question: in the Bible, God orders men to murder other men all the time. How is this possible, if one can only murder after one has rejected God? Why is God, especially God of the OT, such a bloodthirsty, wrathful, quick-to-anger kind of God, anyway?

    Compactmowse wrote,

    It's a play.
    No shit.

    The characters are fictional.
    But based on real life ones.

    If you believe that those characters are symbols of their respective "groups", then feel free to include yourself in one.
    That's the point. I'm an atheist, and as such I am very much misrepresented in the play. Yes, I think the Christian God you and Lentz peddle is a monster, a moron, a tyrant. I resent the way your type of nonsensical religious babble has affected my own life, and I resent the brainless devotion this tyrant sky-God is given.

    But I've not committed any atrocities in anyone's name -- I'd never murder anyone. None of the atheists I know are very keen on murder. Yet Christians, as a collective historical group, pretty much have the market on mass murder and tyranny. Something about their religion seems to demand it.

    Dedalus

  • dedalus
    dedalus

    POST SCRIPT

    Dedalus, you asked "what is truth?". I can tell you something about truth. It is objective. It is absolute. And most importantly, that which is true is true whether the general populus, or a mere individual, believes it or not. Truth cares not for people's opinions.
    Well, that certainly isn't the message of the play you're defending!

    As Katie travels from class to class, she discovers man's answers to some of her questions. In History, she hears that studying history can help her master the world she lives in. In Biology, she observes an experiment that illustrates the belief that life originated from a primordial pool as the result of a 'cosmic accident'. And in Philosophy, she listens as students debate options for making moral decisions.

    So, as I've already stated, according to this play, whatever "truth" is, we evidently should not look to the past for examples of it, or attempt to measure and qualify it objectively, or contextualize it according to the world in which it supposedly exists. This passage, in fact, takes a very derisory tone toward any objective analysis of "truth."

    Evidently "truth" is just a warm and fuzzy feeling you get by blindly following the people who claim to have it.

    Dedalus

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit