Robert Louis Stevenson - Tumblr Posts

BLACK ARROW (Dir: John Hough, 1985).

Made for The Disney Channel, Black Arrow is a swashbuckling adventure based upon the novel by Robert Louis Stevenson.

Set during the War of the Roses, corrupt Yorkist landowner Sir Daniel (Oliver Reed) is robbed by black clad vigilante Black Arrow (Stephan Chase). Seeking revenge, he sends his young nephew Richard (Benedict Taylor) on his trail. Sir Daniel is set to acquire more land with his marriage to the reluctant Lancastrian Lady Joanna (Georgia Slowe). Joanna does a runner, forms an alliance with Richard and together they determine to avenge Sir Daniel's wrongdoings.

Disney's third adaptation of a Stevenson novel, following Treasure Island (Byron Haskin, 1950) and Kidnapped (Robert Stevenson, 1960), Black Arrow was what would now be labelled a Disney Channel Original Movie. Back in 1985, The Disney Channel had a remit to provide family entertainment, not just sitcoms for tweenagers. Its new content, like that of the Disney Studio’s past was designed to appeal to a broader demographic than that of the Channel today. While Black Arrow would seem out of place on today’s Disney Channel, it is exactly the kind of movie of which company founder Walt Disney would have approved.

Having previously worked for Disney on the excellent Escape to Witch Mountain (1975), the talented John Hough was engaged to direct. To Black Arrow, Hough brings a somewhat more cinematic vision than one would usually expect from a TV Movie. The quality production only belying its TV origins through the prevalent use of close ups and mid shots.

The impressive cast of acting heavyweights Oliver Reed, Fernando Rey and Donald Pleasence also lend the film an air of prestige.

The film is not entirely flawless. Admittedly, there are a few unlikely plot contrivances and one of two moments which stretch credibility. While Benedict Taylor cuts far too modern a figure; strolling around the 15th Century like the 5th member of EuroVision popsters Bucks Fizz!

Overall though, Black Arrow is pretty solid entertainment. Old fashioned it may be but it does make me yearn for a time when The Disney Channel catered to more than just tweenage audiences.

Check out my blog jinglebonesmovietime.blogspot.com for more reviews of vintage Disney classics!

may i present you

penguin pingu classics

[Part 1/2]

Decided to illustrate a poem my mom used to tell me when i was a kid. Guess it stayed with me.

Heather Ale by Robert Louis Stevenson

Part 2

[Part 2/2]

Part 1

What Is Original Sin?

By Psychologist & Bible Researcher Eli Kittim

Most of us think that we are good people. We haven’t harmed anyone. We’re not that bad. So, what kind of sins do we have to confess? In fact, sometimes we can’t even think of any. Yet 1 John 1.8-10 (KJV) reads:

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive

ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we

confess our sins, he is faithful and just to

forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from

all unrighteousness. If we say that we have

not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word

is not in us.

——-

Original Sin

Original sin is the Christian doctrine that human beings inherit a sin nature at birth, with some Protestant theologians even arguing for total depravity, namely, that we’re in such a state of rebellion against God that we’re not even able to follow him, by ourselves, without his effectual grace. Other Christian theologians, such as Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 215 AD), totally dismissed the thought of original sin by giving it a more allegorical interpretation.

Unlike Christianity, both Judaism and Islam hold a more positive view of human nature. They assert that human beings have an equal capacity for both good and evil, and that they don’t inherit another person’s sin at birth. They also claim that although humans might be culturally conditioned to sin by decadent societies, nevertheless they’re not born that way. To back that up, the Jews often quote the Torah (Deut. 24.16), which states:

The fathers shall not be put to death for the

children, neither shall the children be put to

death for the fathers: every man shall be

put to death for his own sin.

To drive the point home, they usually cite Ezekiel 18.20:

The son shall not bear the iniquity of the

father, neither shall the father bear the

iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the

righteous shall be upon him, and the

wickedness of the wicked shall be upon

him.

But these passages are only referring to actual sins, namely, to behavioral sins that each individual is personally responsible for. These verses, however, are not addressing *collective sin* that resides in human nature.

——-

The Collective Unconscious

Carl Jung (1875 - 1961), the famous Swiss psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, defined the concept we now know as the “collective unconscious.” This phrase refers to the deepest layer of the unconscious mind which, according to Jung, is genetically inherited and is therefore not part of individual history or personal experience. In other words, it’s not part of the personal unconscious.

Jung held that each person retains these innate unconscious impressions of humanity as a collective knowledge of our species. They’re in our genes, so to speak. But, here, also lurk all the dark, animal instincts of man, as well as the archetypes. One such archetype is called the “shadow,” an unconscious aspect of the personality that the conscious self doesn’t recognize or identify with. It represents a large portion of the *dark side* that is completely foreign and unknown to the ego. These collectively-inherited unconscious archetypes are universally present in every human being.

Over the years, many artistic works, like Star Wars, have addressed themselves to the dark side of human nature, from Pink Floyd's album Dark Side of the Moon, to horror movies like American Psycho and Hannibal Lecter, to the constant violence that no current Action film seems to be without. Life imitating art would be when we witness the exact same things happening in real life while turning on the 6 o’clock news. We customarily disassociate ourselves from this aspect of human nature. We can never imagine that this state of mind resides within all of us. We always point fingers at someone else. In our eyes, we are saints. We’re like the Pharisee in Luke 18.11:

The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with

himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as

other men are, extortioners, unjust,

adulterers, or even as this publican.

But, according to Jesus, we are all a bunch of hypocrites. In Matthew 15.18-19, Jesus implies that the dark side is hidden in the unconscious. It’s not simply a conscious thought, a spoken word, or an action that is the cause of one’s sinful behavior but rather a deep state of being (aka “the heart”) out of which proceeds all manner of evil:

But those things which proceed out of the

mouth come forth from the heart; and they

defile the man. For out of the heart proceed

evil thoughts, murders, adulteries,

fornications, thefts, false witness,

blasphemies.

That’s why Jeremiah 17.9 declares:

The heart is deceitful above all things, and

desperately wicked: who can know it?

No wonder Paul says that the unregenerate are still carnal (Rom. 8.8):

they that are in the flesh cannot

please God.

As theologian Timothy Keller asserts:

The church is not a museum for pristine

saints, but a hospital ward for broken

sinners.

If one fails to understand Jung’s concept of the “collective unconscious,” or the dark side of human nature, one will ultimately misunderstand the Biblical doctrine of original sin.

——-

Why Does Jesus Have to Die for Humanity?

Jesus doesn’t have to suffer greatly and die on a tree simply on account of sins that were committed in the past, or to justify repentant sinners because of their current or future sins. No! Jesus dies to redeem *human nature* from original sin. He dies for humanity’s collective sin (past, present, and future). And he also redeems humanity, in himself, by dying to sin. In other words, Jesus dies to the sinful state of being, if you will, in order to free human nature from the bondage of death and decay. Not only does Jesus justify sinners by dying to sin, but because he is God, he also transforms human nature itself. In the resurrection, Christ’s human nature that rises from the grave is no longer sin-tainted, but glorious!

Otherwise, if everyone sinned voluntarily, and human beings were not tainted by original sin, then there wouldn’t be any reason for God’s Son to die for mankind. In that case, sin would be an individual or personal responsibility, not a collective one. And humanity would not need a savior because there would be neither a collective cause nor a cure for crime, violence, and murder. These people would simply be classified as criminal offenders who, unlike others, consciously “chose” to behave that way.

However, that’s not what Paul says in Romans 5.18–19:

Therefore as by the offence of one [Adam]

judgment came upon all men to

condemnation; even so by the

righteousness of one [Christ] the free gift

came upon all men unto justification of life.

For as by one man's disobedience many

were made sinners, so by the obedience of

one shall many be made righteous.

In fact, Paul declares in 1 Corinthians 15.21-22:

For since by man came death, by man

came also the resurrection of the dead. For

as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all

be made alive.

Conclusion

Because the concept of the unconscious had not yet been discovered in Antiquity or the Dark Ages, the existence of the collective unconscious was not known, let alone addressed by either Judaism or Islam. Their criticism of original sin is quite unsophisticated and is presented exclusively from the point of view of the conscious mind. They neither comprehend the totality of the personality nor do they consider unconscious motivation. Therefore, to deny or ignore the overwhelming influence of the dark side of man (aka sin nature) is equivalent to a naïveté: a lack of experience, sophistication, and wisdom! This lack of skillful treatment is either due to innocence or deep repression.

That’s precisely why many people don’t know what sin is. And, consequently, they keep sinning. They can’t even understand why Jesus has to die for them. They often ask, what’s the big fuss about “original sin”? Read Jonathan Edwards’ sermon, “The heart of man is exceedingly deceitful.”

What do you think is the meaning behind Robert Louis Stevenson’s book, “The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde”? It presents the duality within man. This work is emphasizing the dark side of human nature that is hidden underneath our socially-acceptable “Dr. Jekyll” persona. But in the unconscious lurks another personality, Mr. Hyde, who represents evil that’s waiting in the wings. The depth of human cruelty is also represented in “Heart of darkness,” by Joseph Conrad. It’s the same idea in Bram Stoker's “Dracula.” All these classic works of art act like mirrors in trying to show us blind spots that we don’t usually see in ourselves and end up projecting onto others. And this darkness that proceeds from man’s collective unconscious is what Christian theologians have coined “original sin.” Louis Berkhof, in his “Systematic Theology,” pt. 2, ch. 4, writes:

actual sin in the life of man is generally

admitted. This does not mean, however,

that people have always had an equally

profound consciousness of sin. We hear a

great deal nowadays about the ‘loss of the

sense of sin.’

Therefore, the psychological and spiritual goal is to give up one's naivete and to expand one's consciousness so as to embrace and integrate all aspects of one’s personality and human nature. That’s what psychoanalysts mean when they say, “making the unconscious conscious.” It is here that rebirth in Christ becomes possible. That’s why wisdom teachers typically say that we need to see existence as it really is. What you need to do, in the words of the Dalai Lama (which represent the title of his book), is to figure out “How to see yourself as you really are.” It is then, and only then, when you will finally realize that sin is not simply an isolated behavior, but rather a state of being——deeply rooted in the “carnal mind” (cf. Rom. 6.6)——that needs to be transformed by the Holy Spirit. And that *existential experience* in and of itself constitutes not only a prelude to “rebirth,” but also the hope of salvation in Jesus Christ!

——-

For more info on this topic, see my essay, “BIBLICAL SIN: NOT AS BEHAVIOR BUT AS ULTIMATE TRANSGRESSION”: https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/184880965717/i-think-the-greek-phrase-%CF%87%CF%89%CF%81%E1%BD%B6%CF%82-%E1%BC%81%CE%BC%CE%B1%CF%81%CF%84%CE%AF%CE%B1%CF%82-ie

Eli of Kittim

BIBLICAL SIN: NOT AS BEHAVIOR BUT AS ULTIMATE TRANSGRESSION

I think the Greek phrase χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας (i.e. “without sin”) in reference to Jesus in Hebrews 4.15 has been greatly misunderstood. If in thi

Book Review: The Suicides Club, Robert Louis Stevenson.

To surprise of my forgetful memory, I had already read this short novel, but given that I didn't quite remember the specific details of it, I took great pleasure in reading it again.

The plot is quite simple, really: prince Frorizel of Bohemia is a man quite brave but easily bored, always on the hunt of new adventures. Fortune puts him on the path of a stranger acting extravagantly on the streets of London, gifting people cream cakes or eating them if they refuse it. When asked about his behaviour in private, the man reveals to the prince and his confidant, colonel Geraldine, that he's a member of a private and very secret club, the Suicides Club.

The Club is exactly that: a group of men who want to die but for one reason or another can't muster the will to take their own lives. But the real kick is how they decide who dies next and how they solve the problem of the suicide: homicide at the hands of a fellow member of the club.

I don't want to spoil any further the story, so I will just give a general overview of the structure and what I liked.

This short novel is divided in three chapters, each one from the perspective of a new character. The first, that of Florizel. The other two return eventually to the storyline of the prince, but succeed somehow into generating confussion in the reader about where the story wants to go or why it changed so drastically its perspective.

Given the collection this book is part of, I am a little puzzled at why would someone consider it a Crime and Mystery novel, at least in the traditional sense associated with Sherlock Holmes and Herculè Poirot.

Even more so considering this particular edition of the novel includes another short one: "The Misadventures of John Nicholson". I found it a very funny story on itself, but it stumbled like its main character through the plot without much thought or point to it.

I include the first chapter because it has a stellar hook for a reader, and a translation below:

"John Varey Nicholson — one has to admit it — was what one could call a stupid man; nonetheless, men much stupider than our friend sit today at the Parliament [...] [John was] a creature totally abandoned by the Gods."

Overall, it was a pleasant and rather quick read, but not one I'll think much about in the future.

Again, I apologize for any crude error in my writing, I'm trying to practice more my English skills and this proves a helpful challenge.

My other readings of 2023.

Just finished the strange case of dr jekyll and mr Hyde

What the fuck was that (im obsessed)

Im not ok

I cant explain it, but jekyll and utterson are so fucking in love