Why bring religion into the episode? Wordsworth's love of books could have been just as beautifully illustrated by him reading from Fitzgerald or Faulkner. It felt to me like Serling was shoehorning religion into something that didn't need it at all. Maybe I'm wrong. Was religion integral to the message of the episode?
shareRather than asking us, Turnip, why not put on your hip boots and give us your own explanation of why it was done that way? Surely you can come up with something. Toss Fitzgerald and everybody else in the bucket for a moment and look inside yourself. It's not rocket science to be sure, but how about you tell us?
share🍹
"In the name of Faulkner let me out."
LOL! I don't think Serling was trying to ram religion down anyone's throat. Indeed, I wonder if he was at all spiritual. Nevertheless, God is something all tyrannical governments try to eradicate because they don't want any of their "subjects" believing in anything but total government control of their lives.
🍹
shareI remember the one with Claude Aikens
where he became a self proclaimed god to the little people.
This one did not end well for him. Was this a message ?
🍹
shareThomas Paine had this to say about the Bible: "It is from the bible that man has learned cruelty, rapine, and murder; for the belief of a cruel God makes a cruel man."
Group think, conformity and thought-policing are often the result of a belief in a Higher Being. Rod, and people like him, may think that the horrors of the twentieth century perpetrated by atheist regimes might have been avoided if said regimes had only found God but the history of humankind tells us that theism in charge can be every bit as ruinous to free-thinking as rigid atheism can. And whether Rod intended this to be his message or not by pitting a one-dimensional monster of an atheist against a more sensitively-rendered "God-fearing" gent it's hard not to get this meaning out of "The Obsolete Man" all the same.
🍹
shareReligion has always been useful to the powerful, no doubt about it.
"V For Vendetta"' aims seem to mirror "Obsolete Man"'s, only in this case it was a Koran instead of a Bible (the way atheist regimes treated Christians in Serling's war days being replaced by the masses' suspicion of Muslims post-9/11).
There's a lot to mull over in "Obsolete Man," and it's by no means an unworthy episode. Also, I do like Nirvana being brought up when the Chancellor and Wordsworth discuss religion, suggesting that Rod's concerns when it comes to religious persecution concern all religions and not just Christianity. Additionally, in his final comments, he says "any ideology" unable to respect the rights of people is "obsolete." I loved that part. I think that was Rod's jab at fundies of all faiths and his acknowledgment that religion can be a problem too.
It's the old proverb that there are no atheists in foxholes. Everyone knows there is a God but some choose to 'believe' there isn't because they don't want to answer to anyone but themselves or other reasons. But if they are ever in a situation where there is no one but God to help they quickly 'remember' God and cry out to him. The whole point of the episode is a communist regime eerily similar to the soviet union at the time were not letting people think for themselves. The people were not allowed to read books, especially the Bible because they did not want them to worship anyone other than the government. They did not want people to challenge their absolute authority. I believe that we all deep down know that there is a God that created us and everything around us. The dictator was as atheist as you can be but in the end when it came to a life or death situation he knew that there is a God and said "In the Name of God let me out." It's a very moving episode for anyone who believes in God and knows there are those out there that feel threatened by that belief. What happened in that episode could very well still come true. Thank God we elected a president that recognizes God as the ultimate authority and not government. Also, It would not have been nearly as effective if Serling had had Wordsworth reading Fitzgerald or Faulkner because the Bible's words are holy. They are God's words written down by man. I would thank anyone would know that difference in the significance of God's words and the words of a human poet.
shareFrom promising to damn those who don't take the baptism to condoning the slaughtering of women and children the God of the Bible is a cruel, heartless, unholy, narcissistic monster whose behavior makes the all-powerful State Rod depicts in "The Obsolete Man" look like The Red Cross. As for their being a God I'm not sure I quite embrace the deism Thomas Paine extolled, but like him I think if there is a God it ain't the God of the Bible (or the God of the Koran for that matter); he certainly isn't the God I cry out for when I find myself in my proverbial foxhole. I also find it odd that Rod who with "Man" was obviously railing against intolerance and celebrating the rights of people everywhere would evoke the God of the Bible who is about as far removed from tolerance and supporting those with differing views as you can get. Better to evoke something like "Gatsby," which is every bit as holy as the Bible, is a staggering work of achievement from a free-thinking person, and does not come with the promise that if you don't believe it you are damned. Only the God of the Bible and Rod's State need resort to threats to get unbelievers to turn off their minds and surrender unconditionally.
shareWe are not going to agree on this but I just want you to know that people of faith do not see the God of the Bible(the only true God) as you call him as a monster. We know that without God we and the whole world would have never existed. We are all sinners and thus not worthy of God's love yet he send his only son to die so that we could live. God gives man free will. He wants everyone to do what is right but he has never forced anyone to do anything. I'm guessing your statement on intolerance comes because you think something is perfectly fine that God calls sin. There is nothing intolerant about God. He created the rules so he has a right to punish when people break those rules. I have never seen anything in the Bible to be a "Threat." We are all free to believe what we want to believe and live the way we want to live. Of course, Actions have consequences. God created Right and Wrong so he gets to decide what's right and what's wrong. The good think is he never changes what's right or wrong. What's God said is sin in the new testament is sin today. He doesn't change with the times. I know you don't believe anything I've said but I just want you to believe that the God I serve is not the God you described. He is not a Monster. He is not Cruel. He is not Heartless. He is not intolerant. He does not make threats. His word is life-changing on a far different level that "Gatsby" or any other Human-made work. Without God there would be nothing to live for. There is nothing like having a relationship with Him. I pray somehow, someway you will find it in your heart to accept him as your savior someday.
share Well, saying that those who don't accept the baptism are damned qualifies as a threat. At least I think it does.
And if the Christian God gives people free will and someone chooses Allah instead what's wrong with that? Isn't that person exercising his free will? Why should he be punished for exercising something his Maker gave him? Especially if as a Muslim he lives his life in a Christian way -- helping the poor, donating his time to improving a dying person's life -- only without being a Christian. Wouldn't a just God welcome someone not by how often he worshipped him but by the virtues he's lived by? It seems kind of harsh Jesus would eternally torment someone just because he voted for someone else.
Anyway, I've enjoyed your thoughtful comments. You've given me plenty to mull over.
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. I can tell your not one of those where it's your way or the highway. You are willing to hear the other side and ask questions. To answer your question, let me use an analogy. Let's say guy 1 starts a very successful company and hires guy 2 to work for him. Guy 2 is always on time, does his job well and guy 1 is happy with his work. But, for some reason Guy 2 will not respect guy 1 as his boss. He has picked some random guy not even involved in the company and claims this guy is his boss. Guy 1 created the company. He hired guy 2, so he is really the only possible boss. And yet Guy 2 does not see him as his boss. He does not give him the respect and appreciation Guy 1 deserves for hiring him in the first place. How long to you think guy 2 is going to last in the company? I don't think very long. It's a boss's right to fire someone who doesn't give him the respect he deserves. Just like it is God's right to send someone to hell that doesn't believe in Him. God doesn't want anyone of His children to go to Hell but there have to be rules. Without rules everyone is killing everyone else in the streets. God made his rules in the Bible and expects those who believe in him to follow those rules. If you break them all you have to do is humble yourself and repent of your sin. He is always right there to forgive you of your sins. he is far more patient than any human could be. He will give you thousands or more chances to live the way you are suppose to live but if you get to the end of your life and you still don't believe in him he has the right to judge you accordingly.
shareAngular Turnip and JR-TV, been following and enjoying your exchanges. It's not often that a religious discussion stays civil and thoughtful. Kudos.
A. Turnip- a totally get your questions about free will, damnation, etc. I can't speak for some other faiths or belief systems like some Fundamentalist sects. A friend of mine belongs to one and she and her pastor are SURE that I am not saved because I won't say their church's "Sinner's Prayer." Oh well... (can't please everyone, I am trying to please God!) But I can speak as a Catholic.
The Church has always maintained that God's plan of salvation IS for everyone, not just Christians. If a Hindu, Muslim, etc., practice his faith according to his conscience and believes he is doing God's will, there is salvation.
As for baptism, referring to John3:5, you must be born of water and the spirit, well... that passage causes a lot of disagreements even among Christians. My friend's church , for instance, sees it ONLY as a symbolic gesture. The Catholic Church takes it way more seriously. However the Church also teaches a "baptism of desire", namely, if someone would choose baptism IF they believed its saving power, then it applies to them too.
There's also the "baptism of blood", such as what happened to the early Christian martyrs in Rome who refused to worship Caesar and died rather than deny their Savior. They did not have the chance to be baptized. But they were baptized in blood.
JR- enjoyed your posts. This topic can make people hot tempered! I have been taught by the Church that "God doesn't send anyone to hell." We send ourselves there by disobeying Him. It's our own free will.
Like the example of marrying someone, it would not mean much if you could put a "spell" on a person and force him/her to love you. You want a person to love you because of their own free will, their own choice. God wants us to choose Him from our own free will too.
Very complicated topic!