This Is My Fireproof Thread

[Created2Write]

There's this one movie I like for it's 'manning up' message. That's Lord of the Rings, with Aragorn doing his duty even though he is sure he'll probably mess it up, and does mess it up but keeps going. He is encouraged by his fiance to do what's right even though it means they will be apart, and encourages her dad to support him even though her dad isn't sure he's the right guy for her. He does all the stuff he does without real expectation of reward, and you kind of get the feeling he's surprised to find himself king and he is obviously surprised to find he got the girl at the end.

Sorry, I guess that's a huge spoiler for whatever people haven't seen the movie. Anyway you should rent it or buy it cheap--it has a giant spider, cavalry charges, sword fights and lots of mountain vistas in it, and other cool stuff. Way better than Fireproof. In fact if Fireproof had had that stuff in it I might have been distracted enough to think I enjoyed it for a while.

Interesting comparison. I like it.

Jason calls me "his Arwen". If only I had the dress to go with it...

 

[JaneFW]

There's this one movie I like for it's 'manning up' message. That's Lord of the Rings, with Aragorn doing his duty even though he is sure he'll probably mess it up, and does mess it up but keeps going. He is encouraged by his fiance to do what's right even though it means they will be apart, and encourages her dad to support him even though her dad isn't sure he's the right guy for her. He does all the stuff he does without real expectation of reward, and you kind of get the feeling he's surprised to find himself king and he is obviously surprised to find he got the girl at the end.

But just fyi, that's not in the book. Aragorn knew he was destined to be the king. That destiny had been handed down from father to son from the time that Gondor "fell" and became ruled by the stewards. Also, that stuff about Arwen and Elrond was made up - with him lying to her to get her to leave middle earth - and really irritated me. She was never going to take off and leave him. Ugh, Hollywood.

Don't know if you have read the books, but if you have and you're just talking about the story as it is shown in the movie, that's fine. I'm just a purist about LOTR.

Aragorn was my "ideal man" from being about 12 or 13 when I first read those books. He was a man head and shoulders above every boy I ever met. Those boys could never live up to him! (And never have.)

 

[McScribe]

I have read the books, I'm just talking about the movies. Separate experience. And both good and bad about each. I mean you have a point about the sub story you mentioned, but at least Tom Bombadil isn't in the movies.

 

[JaneFW]

I have read the books, I'm just talking about the movies. Separate experience. And both good and bad about each. I mean you have a point about the sub story you mentioned, but at least Tom Bombadil isn't in the movies.

That's fine. I was just saying that the movie Aragorn is not the way that Tolkein wrote him. I prefer Tolkein's version I think, although I never envisioned such a good looking Aragorn, because he's not written that way. (But the movie version is more than easy on the eye.)

I don't much like Tom Bombadil either. I always skip that part of the book, other than the part where the hobbits are trapped by the barrow-wights, and then I skip it again until they are on their ponies and leaving. Him and his river wife. <big eye roll>

 

[McScribe]

I just had to put up this bit from Cracked.com, censored by me.
From a list of deleted scenes that prove the book isn't always better.
#6.
The Lord of the Rings - The Ridiculous Tom Bombadil

Tolkien's Lord of the Rings defined the fantasy genre so hard that it'd have been stupid for all the other fantasy writers in the world not to rip him off, but it's also probably one of the least-cinematic novels you'll ever find this side of Ayn Rand. See, as we've already pointed out, Tolkien wasn't actually a novelist at all; he was a stodgy old linguistics professor with an awesome pipe habit who basically wrote the books as a support system for his made-up Elf languages.

Via Wikimedia Commons​

Even in military uniform, he looks like the world's biggest nerd.​

A fake language dictionary disguised as an epic fantasy novel, as you can imagine, doesn't exactly lend itself to the big screen. So, for the sake of streamlining the story, a lot of elements had to be tweaked or outright abandoned. For example, the book version drags on for six chapters after Gollum takes his swan-dive into the volcano, and before it's over, we see Saruman acting like a small-time mafioso in the Shire before ending up on the wrong end of a shiv. So, yeah -- the infuriating multiple endings in Return of the King: That's real. But what they left out was much weirder, such as the part where Merry and Pippin almost get eaten alive by an angry tree but are saved by a dancing, prancing forest-dweller who calms down the tree by singing to it and then lures the bewildered hobbits back to his secluded shack in the woods.
Wait, What?
Meet Tom Bombadil:

Via Wikimedia Commons​

​

Tom enjoys long walks in the woods, wearing a blue coat with stylish yellow boots, singing, flitting about like a wood-nymph-hobo and rescuing wayward travelers from angry trees. Oh, and when he talks, he sounds like this:
"Hey dol! merry dol! ring a dong dillo!
Ring a dong! hop along! fal lal the willow!
Tom Bom, jolly Tom, Tom Bombadillo!"
In Chapter 7, Tom takes the hobbits (who inexplicably don't run in the opposite direction the second he opens his mouth) back to his home, where they are greeted by Tom's shockingly hot blonde wife, who serves them what "seemed to be clear cold water, yet it went to their hearts like wine and set free their voices."

Photos.com​

Who's up for seconds?​

Then it's off to bed for the hobbits, who are ominously warned, "Heed no nightly noises!" which has to be the most terrifying piece of bedtime advice you can possibly hear from a man whose facial hair looks like it has unspeakable sexual appetites of its own. Frodo, predictably, is plagued by terrible dreams all night and wakes up to Tom shouting, "Ring a ding dillo! Wake now, my merry friends! Forget the nightly noises! Ring a ding dillo del!"

"Ring a ding dello! The darkness demands tears and shrieking sacrifice! Ring a derry dol!"​

Later, Tom shows up again to save the hobbits from a Barrow-wight, which is totally cool except that in the process, the hobbits mysteriously end up losing most of their clothes. "You won't find your clothes again," said Tom, "bounding down from the mound and laughing as he danced round them in the sunlight." Then he instructs them to "Cast off these cold rags" and "run naked in the grass!"

"I ... I guess we sort of have to, huh?"​

Originally, Tom Bombadil has nothing to do with Lord of the Rings; Tolkien first wrote about him years earlier, portraying him as a sort of nature-spirit. He lifts out of the story so easily that even people who have read Lord of the Rings tend to forget about him. Who Tom is and why he lives in the woods are never fully explained; he's supposed to be "oldest and fatherless," so theories are that Tom may be God, or some kind of avatar of Middle-earth. You can read Lord of the Rings as an allegory for World War II, in which case Tom Bombadil represents the spirit of pacifism and noninvolvement. Which, as we all know, makes for great action movies.
In Tolkien's own words: "Tom Bombadil is not an important person -- to the narrative. I suppose he has some importance as a 'comment.' I mean, I do not really write like that: he is just an invention (who first appeared in The Oxford Magazine about 1933), and he represents something that I feel important, though I would not be prepared to analyse the feeling precisely. I would not, however, have left him in, if he did not have some kind of function."

"Or maybe it was all that pipe weed."​

There you have it: The writer himself isn't prepared to commit to an answer about why this happened.

 

[hijklmnop]

You remind me of someone. LOL!!! Nice disguise.

Anyways, have fun exercising dominion over your...oh wait, nevermind. I'm sure it's fun in your imagination. Once again, you're supposed to be married to be posting on this forum. I'm pretty sure this is not the best place to bash women and marriage.

 

[McScribe]

Well, he's partly right, actually. The complaint that the movie is one sided in criticism and not even correct in application is a valid one. It doesn't show two people each working on their strengths and weaknesses to create a stronger marriage, it shows the guy alone having to be the good person in order to win his wife back. I wouldn't mind if I saw how in real life that generally works, but I don't find that it does.

 

[JRSut1000]

I was thinking the same thing too even before I saw his response. I was thinking it seemed rather one-sided too.

 

[Romanseight2005]

Well in all fairness, it showed that one person can make a difference. Remember that while Caleb was the first to turn to God, the book was actually first done by his mother. So they were showing that it could be done by the man or the woman.

According to many, women are the one's filing for divorce, and men are the ones trying to save the marriage,(not saying I agree)and this movie went with that premise, in Caleb's case, and the opposite in his parent's case.

 

[JRSut1000]

Good point! I really do like that they show that with the parents, it was opposite. It does help give some balance.

 

[Romanseight2005]

The troubling thing is that so many women think that the woman in this movie is behaving in a Godly manner. This is chick-crack, and designed to pander to womens' lower impulses.

Excuse me? The movie certainly didn't portray the wife as being Godly or doing the right thing, at all! In fact, the main point was Caleb showing Christlike love, which meant loving the unlovable, or loving sacrificially. In all fairness, Caleb was a total jerk in the beginning of the movie, so the wife wasn't the only one in the wrong there. Caleb is simply the one who got it together first. Which again, they made a point of showing that it could be the woman to get it together first, with his parents.

 

[hijklmnop]

I think it's ironic how so many men want the right to be the leader in their household, go on about how women ought to submit to their authority, etc, and then get all uptight when a movie portrarys a man actually BEING the spiritual leader in his household by setting the right tone and the woman then following suit. IMO being a good leader means doing the right thing whether you're followed or not in hopes that your good example will inspire those you're leading....not refusing to "go first" and do the right thing because you're too busy whining about the state of who is supposed to be following you. If you want to be a leader...then step up and lead your household by doing what is right...which is, in fact, being willing to lay down your life for those you love! Don't expect your wife to go first if you want her to follow you. It's completely backwards and you can't have it both ways.

 

[McScribe]

I think it's ironic how so many men want the right to be the leader in their household, go on about how women ought to submit to their authority, etc, and then get all uptight when a movie portrarys a man actually BEING the spiritual leader in his household by setting the right tone and the woman then following suit. IMO being a good leader means doing the right thing whether you're followed or not in hopes that your good example will inspire those you're leading....not refusing to "go first" and do the right thing because you're too busy whining about the state of who is supposed to be following you. If you want to be a leader...then step up and lead your household by doing what is right...which is, in fact, being willing to lay down your life for those you love! Don't expect your wife to go first if you want her to follow you. It's completely backwards and you can't have it both ways.

You can't have it both ways. Which is why there's such a muddle. It was one of the things troubling my relationship with my ex. Just out of curiosity, do you like the picture of leadership demonstrated in the movie, and would you generally advocate it?

 

[Romanseight2005]

I think leadership literally means modeling, not expecting someone to be under your thumb, or obedient to you. In many cases, that will cause someone to follow your lead. Have you ever heard the saying that in parenting, what your children learn is caught, not taught? Well, I don't expect a man to be a woman's parent, or act like one, in fact that's incredibly condescending, but the idea of how to lead is there. Jesus gave the example of washing His disciple's feet. Look, either person, the wife or the husband, can model sacrificial love. In the movie, it didn't take several years to accomplish a change on her part. Many times what gets advocated is that the woman keep sacrificing for years and years while the man continues to to do the selfish things,(like the wife in the movie) I doubt Caleb would have held up that level for several years. Anyway, Dreamer had a point. If people want to lead, then they need to lead bu being Christlike. Honestly, I think that is why so many women get sore about the whole submission issue. What gets advocated is her continuous submission, but what's actually being described as her submission, is leadership. So women are in actuality being called to lead in Christlike behavior, but then are chastised for taking any sort of partnered approach to their marriage, let alone leadership.

 

[McScribe]

Yeah it goes back and forth. My main beef is that there is no guarantee that christlike leadership will work, to be honest. It didn't even work consistently for Jesus.

I've stated my views on mutual submission before, they seem to always get lost in the shuffle, but I'll say it again: the Book of Ephesians is radical in its time and today about how to love one another, as a church and as a couple. It states that women are to submit to husbands as the church submits to Christ. If you look at how that happens, in the Bible the church is at rock bottom meant to be a friend, a true and good friend above all things, to be in kinship and in closeness.

If you look at how the husband is to lead the wife, it is as Christ led the Church. But how is that? Christ often is generous, protective, offers guidance, wisdom and example. But to be honest this is taking a big risk, because you have to be prepared for rejection. And in the midst of that you have to love anyway.

 

[hijklmnop]

You can't have it both ways. Which is why there's such a muddle. It was one of the things troubling my relationship with my ex. Just out of curiosity, do you like the picture of leadership demonstrated in the movie, and would you generally advocate it?

I only saw the movie once, several years ago, so I can't speak on specifics, but overall I would say that yeah, the idea of him taking the lead by "going first" and treating her in a right and loving and selfless way instead of what he was doing before (yelling at her, engaging in his own sinful habits and demanding that she submit to him) was a good example of spiritual leadership from a husband.

 

[Romanseight2005]

One thing that I thing that has to be noted as a very important difference though, in how Christ led, was that Christ WAS indeed wiser than his disciples. He had access to all wisdom. In the case of husband and wife, both have access to the mind of Christ, and neither has some specia; knowledge that the other doesn't have access to, and I think that is where some issues come into play. If a man acts like he knows more than a woman, and comes accross to her like a teacher, that is really condescending, unless it genuinely is a subject he knows more about. Being a man, doesn't give him that extra wisdom or knowledge, just by his being a man. Tbh, there are very specific things, that do have to be taken into account, in regards to time period. For instance, In the Jewish culture, where the Gospel came from, men had been the only ones allowed to learn the scriptures, so it made sense that they would have to be the ones to teach their wives. The New Testament church was radical in a lot of ways, including that women were now sitting beside their husbands in a church assembly. This was new, and of course men would have to teach them, and women who were just learning the scriptures would have been wrong to teach the men who had much more experience in studying the scriptures. It was also quite common for grown men to literally marry children. Again, that makes the man teaching the woman, more logical. However, when the boldness of the Holy Spirit fell upon male and female alike, and women were now proclaimed to be coheirs,(this had not been proclaimed before) things were in the movement of change. Furthermore in the individual cases of women being really knowledgeable in the scriptures, they were teaching even men, like in the case of Priscilla and Aquilla. She was coteaching, and in fact her name is mentioned first, which might well indicate that she was leading the teaching, but at any rate, she was teaching another man.

 

[hijklmnop]

Yeah it goes back and forth. My main beef is that there is no guarantee that christlike leadership will work, to be honest. It didn't even work consistently for Jesus.

I've stated my views on mutual submission before, they seem to always get lost in the shuffle, but I'll say it again: the Book of Ephesians is radical in its time and today about how to love one another, as a church and as a couple. It states that women are to submit to husbands as the church submits to Christ. If you look at how that happens, in the Bible the church is at rock bottom meant to be a friend, a true and good friend above all things, to be in kinship and in closeness.

If you look at how the husband is to lead the wife, it is as Christ led the Church. But how is that? Christ often is generous, protective, offers guidance, wisdom and example. But to be honest this is taking a big risk, because you have to be prepared for rejection. And in the midst of that you have to love anyway.

WDYM, it didn't work for Jesus? Because everyone didn't follow him? That's no expectation to have...even our perfect leader God doesn't expect us all to follow Him. It DID work for Jesus because everything He did was right and part of God's ultimate plan. We don't judge Jesus' "success" on whether or not 100% of the population followed unquestioningly but on whether He followed in and fulfilled GOD'S plan.

So, if your beef with being a spiritual leader in your home is that it might not "work", I would say you're looking to get the wrong main outcome. If your goal is to follow God and have a fantastic relationship with Him, then you will more naturally be the kind of person He created/wants you to be because your eyes will be on Him (not others), and you will feel more fulfilled in that whether others care or approve or respond the way you might like them to or not. IF your goal is to follow commands only to earn worldly rewards, such as a submissive wife and happy family, then your target is off. Those are good things for sure but they can be idols if you are putting them before the spiritual. God doesn't promise us earthly results, but spiritual ones. So don't try to be a godly man as a way to try and "make" your wife be a better wife...just be a godly man because you love God and you want to be His kind of guy. The rest, if it happens, is bonus. And if it doesn't, you've still done the right thing and will experience the spiritual benefits God promises.

 

[McScribe]

WDYM, it didn't work for Jesus? Because everyone didn't follow him? That's no expectation to have...even our perfect leader God doesn't expect us all to follow Him. It DID work for Jesus because everything He did was right and part of God's ultimate plan. We don't judge Jesus' "success" on whether or not 100% of the population followed unquestioningly but on whether He followed in and fulfilled GOD'S plan.

So, if your beef with being a spiritual leader in your home is that it might not "work", I would say you're looking to get the wrong main outcome. If your goal is to follow God and have a fantastic relationship with Him, then you will more naturally be the kind of person He created/wants you to be because your eyes will be on Him (not others), and you will feel more fulfilled in that whether others care or approve or respond the way you might like them to or not. IF your goal is to follow commands only to earn worldly rewards, such as a submissive wife and happy family, then your target is off. Those are good things for sure but they can be idols if you are putting them before the spiritual. God doesn't promise us earthly results, but spiritual ones. So don't try to be a godly man as a way to try and "make" your wife be a better wife...just be a godly man because you love God and you want to be His kind of guy. The rest, if it happens, is bonus. And if it doesn't, you've still done the right thing and will experience the spiritual benefits God promises.

Dreamer with respect you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. What I mean is that in movies like this doing the godly thing always gets the expected reward. I was saying I liked Castaway better because he did the right thing even though it was hard to do it at the end. Just because he survived and learned good things about life didn't get him the rewards he hoped for.

In my own experience it is good to be godly but you may not get what you hope for. But in that sense we are God's children, and we have to live by faith, not by sight. So I don't think we really disagree. I'm saying that the movie is almost discouraging for me because what I need especially now is to believe that there is more to life than I immediately see but that God's ways are always best.

 

[hijklmnop]

Dreamer with respect you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. What I mean is that in movies like this doing the godly thing always gets the expected reward. I was saying I liked Castaway better because he did the right thing even though it was hard to do it at the end. Just because he survived and learned good things about life didn't get him the rewards he hoped for.

In my own experience it is good to be godly but you may not get what you hope for. But in that sense we are God's children, and we have to live by faith, not by sight. So I don't think we really disagree. I'm saying that the movie is almost discouraging for me because what I need especially now is to believe that there is more to life than I immediately see but that God's ways are always best.

Sounds like we actually agree. Thanks for clarifying.