151 réponses à ce sujet

[Icesong]

Nizaris1 wrote...

Many western writers actually copying Muslim end time prophecy and make it into their stories.

For example, The Lord of the Ring, it is messianic theme story. They only took away the prophecy, but the whole premise is actually Muslim end time situation. LotR is about the Yakjuj Makjuj (Orcs), the Dajjal the One Eyed Dark Messiah (Sauron), Al Mahdi and Jesus (Aragorn and Gandalf), battle in Middle Earth (Middle East)

Your knowledge of LotR continues to be underwhelming. If you want to draw allegorical parallels much more appropriate would be Dagor Dagorath. But before you do that:

“I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history – true or feigned– with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse applicability with allegory, but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.” ― J.R.R. Tolkien

Islam isn't even the originator of a final battle and a messiah.

Modifié par Icesong, 07 janvier 2013 - 05:43 .

[d4eaming]

Icesong wrote...

Nizaris1 wrote...

Many western writers actually copying Muslim end time prophecy and make it into their stories.

For example, The Lord of the Ring, it is messianic theme story. They only took away the prophecy, but the whole premise is actually Muslim end time situation. LotR is about the Yakjuj Makjuj (Orcs), the Dajjal the One Eyed Dark Messiah (Sauron), Al Mahdi and Jesus (Aragorn and Gandalf), battle in Middle Earth (Middle East)

Your knowledge of LotR continues to be underwhelming. If you want to draw allegorical parallels much more appropriate would be Dagor Dagorath. But before you do that:

“I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history – true or feigned– with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse applicability with allegory, but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.” ― J.R.R. Tolkien

Islam isn't even the originator of a final battle and a messiah.

To put it more simply: JRR Tolkien denied to his death that Lord of the Rings was a religious allegory.

JK Rowling, however, has reportedly admitted that Harry Potter is an allegory and that the character is representative of a Christ figure.

As to all the rest of the posts, I cannot facepalm enough. I don't have the patience for it.

[d4eaming]

Beholders are also one-eyed and they are certainly not an anti-christ of any kind.

[Icesong]

Nizaris1 wrote...

Only in Muslim source saying the Anti-Christ is One Eyed, clearly shown in LotR

http://en.wikipedia....Masih_ad-Dajjal

"...You should know that he is one-eyed, and Allah is not one-eyed." - prophet Muhammad (pbuh)

Watch this

"The Eye of Sauron" was just a metaphor. He isn't actually in the form of an eye. That Peter Jackson made him one in the movie was just artistic license, not Islamic inspiration.

Nizaris1 wrote...

LotR is clearly based upon Muslim end time prophecy and Muslim Messiah concept

“I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history – true or feigned– with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse applicability with allegory, but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.” ― J.R.R. Tolkien

What's unclear about this quote? The last sentence is as if he's speaking right at you.

Modifié par Icesong, 04 janvier 2013 - 06:03 .

[d4eaming]

Nizaris1 wrote...

"The Eye of Sauron"...Sauron is the dark-Messiah who corrupt the world leaders through "the ring", in Islam that is Dajjal/Anti-Christ do, then the two figure come out, Al Mahdi and Jesus who will fight the Dajjal and his system, uniting all the faithful....Aragorn and Gandalf who unite everyone to fight Sauron

Of course, the "One Eye" is not literal, it is all symbolic

"Dajjal army will dissolve like salt in water" - prophet Muhammad (pbuh)

Look at the final battle when the Eye exploded...the orcs dissolved like salt in water....

And of course, this too is symbolic, not literal

LotR is clearly based upon Muslim end time prophecy and Muslim Messiah concept

You... what? No. The man himself, the man who created those books, said there was absolutely no religious allegory of any kind within Lord of the Rings. It is a story, not a moral treatise or a religious dissertation.

You interject your religion/nationality into half the threads you comment on. You are really not that interesting nor that important for everything to be based on Islamic beliefs. Anything that appears Islamic is nothing more than your wishful thinking and deliberate twisting of facts to suit your agenda, or whatever it is that's going on between your ears.

[Ninja Stan]

Let's try and keep real-world religion out of the discussion, please. It's far too easy to make the thread political and ugly where religion is involved. thank you.

[Icesong]

Nizaris1 wrote...

Of course NO....

and so J.R.R Tolkien

even though everything is obvious

What it comes down to is, just because you can draw a parallel and even if they may work perfectly, that doesn't mean it's what the author intended. People also think/thought LotR was allegory for WW1 or WW2.

Modifié par Icesong, 04 janvier 2013 - 06:42 .

[Quirkylilela]

The trope definition linked earlier said some of the characterisitics could be mixed or matched but the sacrifice as a means to complete their objective was not one of those things.

[Emzamination]

Icesong wrote...

Nizaris1 wrote...

Of course NO....

and so J.R.R Tolkien

even though everything is obvious

What it comes down to is, just because you can draw a parallel and even if they may work perfectly, that doesn't mean it's what the author intended.

So much this.

[esper]

Emzamination wrote...

Icesong wrote...

Nizaris1 wrote...

Of course NO....

and so J.R.R Tolkien

even though everything is obvious

What it comes down to is, just because you can draw a parallel and even if they may work perfectly, that doesn't mean it's what the author intended.

So much this.

Of course that brings up one of the big questions in the narrative discussion.
What is most important:

Author intent or the recipients perception of the work?

[LobselVith8]

Swagger7 wrote...

What?     

Hey, Nizaris apologists!  Are you going to stand up and defend this as well?  Perhaps if I only tried a little harder to understand it would make perfect sense?!?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

How does it feel to spend so much time defending a person's opinions and then have the rug pulled out from under you by a post like that?

I don't see what's wrong about people initially addressing that Nizaris that English isn't her first language, and trying to be understanding about that at the beginning of the conversation in this thread. If she says something later that they disagree with, that doesn't change that they were trying to be understanding at the beginning of the conversation because of the language barrier.

[Swagger7]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Swagger7 wrote...

What?     

Hey, Nizaris apologists!  Are you going to stand up and defend this as well?  Perhaps if I only tried a little harder to understand it would make perfect sense?!?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

How does it feel to spend so much time defending a person's opinions and then have the rug pulled out from under you by a post like that?

I don't see what's wrong about people initially addressing that Nizaris that English isn't her first language, and trying to be understanding about that at the beginning of the conversation in this thread. If she says something later that they disagree with, that doesn't change that they were trying to be understanding at the beginning of the conversation because of the language barrier.

Oh certainly.  That would be the case had they all actually agreed with/understood her actual position and defended it, like Youth4Ever did.  Most of her supporters completely avoided any of the arguments however, and seemed to be taking her side just because they thought those of us who disagreed were just being mean or not taking the effort to understand what she was saying.  They were defending the poster and not the content, which is why I took the opportunity to poke fun at them.  You of all people should know how annoying it is to have your intellectual discussion interrupted by what amounts to heckling from the stands.  (I'm referring of course to some of the commentators in the variious atheism threads who never actually addressed the arguments you made.)

Of course, it's also very annoying to be unjustly labelled a xenophobe with a "superiority conplex" when one is merely trying to explain something. (glares at pants witch and Emzamination)  When people stoop to that level in an argument, is it so wrong to have a little fun at their expense? 

Again, I exempt Youth4Ever, and anyone else who was actually discussing the topic, from my teasing.

Modifié par Swagger7, 04 janvier 2013 - 07:40 .

[Swagger7]

esper wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

Icesong wrote...

Nizaris1 wrote...

Of course NO....

and so J.R.R Tolkien

even though everything is obvious

What it comes down to is, just because you can draw a parallel and even if they may work perfectly, that doesn't mean it's what the author intended.

So much this.

Of course that brings up one of the big questions in the narrative discussion.
What is most important:

Author intent or the recipients perception of the work?

I come down heaqvily on the side of author intent.  While a recipient can get their own value out of a work, this interpretation is only valid from their perspective, and they have no objective say regarding the work itself.  "Death of the Author" is a concept literary critics came up with so they wouldn't get egg on their face every time they were wrong, which was often.  Can you tell that I don't have much love for literary critics?

[LobselVith8]

Swagger7 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

I don't see what's wrong about people initially addressing that Nizaris that English isn't her first language, and trying to be understanding about that at the beginning of the conversation in this thread. If she says something later that they disagree with, that doesn't change that they were trying to be understanding at the beginning of the conversation because of the language barrier.

Oh certainly.  That would be the case had they all actually agreed with/understood her actual position and defended it, like Youth4Ever did.  Most of her supporters completely avoided any of the arguments however, and seemed to be taking her side just because they thought those of us who disagreed were just being mean or not taking the effort to understand what she was saying.  They were defending the poster and not the content, which is why I took the opportunity to poke fun at them.  You of all people should know how annoying it is to have your intellectual discussion interrupted by what amounts to heckling from the stands.  (I'm referring of course to some of the commentators in the variious atheism threads who never actually addressed the arguments you made.)

Of course, it's also very annoying to be unjustly labelled a xenophobe with a "superiority complex" when one is merely trying to explain something. (glares at pants witch and Emzamination)  When people stoop to that level in an argument, is it so wrong to have a little fun at their expense? 

Again, I exempt Youth4Ever, and anyone else who was actually discussing the topic, from my teasing.

Fair enough, Swagger7.

[Swagger7]

Icesong wrote...

Nizaris1 wrote...

Of course NO....

and so J.R.R Tolkien

even though everything is obvious

What it comes down to is, just because you can draw a parallel and even if they may work perfectly, that doesn't mean it's what the author intended. People also think/thought LotR was allegory for WW1 or WW2.

He specifically denied that any part of the Lord of the Rings was allegory, but he openly admitted to several things that influenced him.  These included his experiences in WWI, his Catholicism, Beowulf, Norse mythology, etc.  Some people read one of his quotes about some particular influence, take it completely out of context, and go around claiming the entire point of Lord of the Rings was that one bit of influence. 

[HiroVoid]

esper wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

Icesong wrote...

Nizaris1 wrote...

Of course NO....

and so J.R.R Tolkien

even though everything is obvious

What it comes down to is, just because you can draw a parallel and even if they may work perfectly, that doesn't mean it's what the author intended.

So much this.

Of course that brings up one of the big questions in the narrative discussion.
What is most important:

Author intent or the recipients perception of the work?

I usually go with the recipients perception though I always think knowing the author's intent is good as well.  It's also why I don't ever give any real mind to 'word of god' statements.

[esper]

HiroVoid wrote...

esper wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

Icesong wrote...

Nizaris1 wrote...

Of course NO....

and so J.R.R Tolkien

even though everything is obvious

What it comes down to is, just because you can draw a parallel and even if they may work perfectly, that doesn't mean it's what the author intended.

So much this.

Of course that brings up one of the big questions in the narrative discussion.
What is most important:

Author intent or the recipients perception of the work?

I usually go with the recipients perception though I always think knowing the author's intent is good as well.  It's also why I don't ever give any real mind to 'word of god' statements.

I tend to agree with you, but then you get certain recipients's perception of some naratives, where you just go...
How the **** did you get that fromt the story.
Of course some naratives have such an obvious authorital intent that not reading it into the text distract from the meaning. Certain satires for example gets better when you know it is a satire and not that which is satire over.

Still on general principle I agree with you. (It is still one of the most funny thing to discuss with my proffessors.)

And here we have some of the good argument for the author (Hope the quote doesn't mess up):

Swagger7 wrote...


I
come down heaqvily on the side of author intent.  While a recipient can
get their own value out of a work, this interpretation is only valid
from their perspective, and they have no objective say regarding the
work itself.  "Death of the Author"
is a concept literary critics came up with so they wouldn't get egg on
their face every time they were wrong, which was often.  Can you tell
that I don't have much love for literary critics?

There is a difference between critic and value. And a lot of critiques are indeed not good. Since most recipients of a narrative are consuming the narratives as an individual (even if your watch in a group your enjoyment of it is your own) the individual interpretation is the most important. However, I will still say for it to be valid you need concrete proof. Such as saying that and that in the narrative supports my understanding, and that and this shows the weakness in it.

But even if I am on perception side, mostly. I do not completely miss Word of God. If Word of God says that the work is meant to be an analouge over sexual frustration for example then it is an analoge over sexual frustration. However, if Word of God is so inflexible I do reserve the right to insist that the author failed to make their intent come across.

And I don't think you can add and intent that is not there contextually. If you read some old Knights Romances (from 'the middle age', must not be confused with romantic littarature. they were not), chance that they are athetish propaganda simply do not exist, because the idea of atheism was not really viable at the time,

Modifié par esper, 04 janvier 2013 - 08:56 .

[XX-Pyro]

If it isn't literally art (as in, paintings, sculptures, etc) then I'd say author intent. The author has a clear and defined theme or moral that he or she wants to explain and if the reader gets something else out of that- wonderful, but interjecting your own ideas (as Nizaris is doing) is what makes reader interpretation have almost no meaning unless you can unconditionally draw proof from the novel (as you would do in an English class for example.)

[esper]

XX-Pyro wrote...

If it isn't literally art (as in, paintings, sculptures, etc) then I'd say author intent. The author has a clear and defined theme or moral that he or she wants to explain and if the reader gets something else out of that- wonderful, but interjecting your own ideas (as Nizaris is doing) is what makes reader interpretation have almost no meaning unless you can unconditionally draw proof from the novel (as you would do in an English class for example.)

What makes literary art different from other form of naratives. Literary authors also have an intent, that doesn't mean that the perception of the narrative can't live beyond the author's intent.

[addiction21]

Swagger7 wrote...

Icesong wrote...

Nizaris1 wrote...

Of course NO....

and so J.R.R Tolkien

even though everything is obvious

What it comes down to is, just because you can draw a parallel and even if they may work perfectly, that doesn't mean it's what the author intended. People also think/thought LotR was allegory for WW1 or WW2.

He specifically denied that any part of the Lord of the Rings was allegory, but he openly admitted to several things that influenced him.  These included his experiences in WWI, his Catholicism, Beowulf, Norse mythology, etc.  Some people read one of his quotes about some particular influence, take it completely out of context, and go around claiming the entire point of Lord of the Rings was that one bit of influence. 

I do wish Jackson put a greater influence on what happened to the Shire when Frodo and his band returned....

The whole agrarian vs.industrialization he had going on.

What was this thread about again? redefining terms as one sees fit?

[Emzamination]

Swagger7 wrote...


Oh certainly.  That would be the case had they all actually agreed with/understood her actual position and defended it, like Youth4Ever did.  Most of her supporters completely avoided any of the arguments however, and seemed to be taking her side just because they thought those of us who disagreed were just being mean or not taking the effort to understand what she was saying.  They were defending the poster and not the content, which is why I took the opportunity to poke fun at them.  You of all people should know how annoying it is to have your intellectual discussion interrupted by what amounts to heckling from the stands.  (I'm referring of course to some of the commentators in the variious atheism threads who never actually addressed the arguments you made.)

Of course, it's also very annoying to be unjustly labelled a xenophobe with a "superiority conplex" when one is merely trying to explain something. (glares at pants witch and Emzamination)  When people stoop to that level in an argument, is it so wrong to have a little fun at their expense? 

Again, I exempt Youth4Ever, and anyone else who was actually discussing the topic, from my teasing.

No need to glare at me, I did agree with and argue nizaris position. However since you yourself claimed not to understand her position, your judgement on a correct definite interpretation of her argument is a moot point, only nizaris could answer that. 

Anyways I stand by what I said. Your comment was calling her ignorant of her own statements on the grounds that you're the native english speaker and by right, you should know the meaning of anything in english better than Esl because it's your language. It was a snide remark attempting to establish her as the ignorant other and establish yourself as the superior in terms of english because you speak it more. How you came to the conclusion that speaking & understanding the language are one in the same, I don't know.

I think youth4ever put it perfectly "You're telling her she doesn't understand a topic or defintion she
clearly does because she isn't a native speaker. You're misunderstanding
her and attempting to make her look ignorant and that is unjust"

You show this even further when you ridicule her calling for the nizaris apologist to make sense of a statement you personally didn't understand, as others went on to argue her point. D-move bro. (also kudos on the ego stroke, yeah. saw what you did there, impressive.)

Modifié par Emzamination, 04 janvier 2013 - 11:24 .