Comments on: James Cameron, Bible Avatar

By: Mike Bull

Mike Bull — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 10:02:42 +0000

That’s a great take on it. Very interesting.

By: B. Pastoral

B. Pastoral — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 09:56:43 +0000

I’ve just found your entry. Very interesting analysis and also relevant to my own take on Cameron’s Avatar. I see more of a parallel between the “Jake Sully” character and a composite of the biblical Caleb and Joshua’s two spies, however. Here’s my thinking, if you may be interested.

http://www.amazon.com/review/R2BIAUEQFRY26G/ref=cm_srch_res_rtr_alt_1

By: Scott

Scott — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 14:03:41 +0000

Maybe a less known fact is the word Navi (the name of the blue people) is the Hebrew word for Prophet!!!! Coincidence… I THINK NOT

By: tiger tim

tiger tim — Sat, 17 Apr 2010 07:17:52 +0000

—Cameron, who’s aging FAST —might find his soul for real by sacrificing some of his enormous
box office in his ‘fave’ franchise slum —ACROSS
the Pacific —and confront that same regime’s
staggering legacy of ‘peacetime’ genocide.
AMEN

By: mathmama2

mathmama2 — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 23:15:24 +0000

I found it interesting that when the avatar was ‘born’ he ran out into the ‘garden’ before his ‘time’, and was thrown a piece of fruit by a women, which he ate and enjoyed.

By: Pastor Pritam Singh Sandhu

Pastor Pritam Singh Sandhu — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 07:19:12 +0000

I absolutely enjoyed reading this blog entry and was fascinated by the biblical themes and imagery throughout the Avatar movie. Mike Bull – you wrote well and very insightfully. Extremely thought provoking. There must be many more biblical themes not included here.

Blessings from Singapore!

By: andy culpepper

andy culpepper — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 00:01:04 +0000

The movie is replete with Christian symbols. But what Cameron chose to do is to include Christian symbols among mythology and other religious references — Native American as well as Hindu. The title alone is a reference to a Hindi deity. Here’s the link to my review and analysis. I hope I’m right. If I’m wrong, it’s marvelous coincidence. Nice catch with Yahweh. But there are more. And the Joshua reference is possible, but I’m more inclined to go with an interpretation which plays off Sigourney Weaver’s name. And Jake’s. Check out my post on TheHollywoodBeat.com if you like, and see what you think.

http://www.thehollywoodbeat.com/genre/drama/avatar-a-face-for-the-ages

By: Mike

Mike — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 03:03:33 +0000

Your point list is pretty thorough.
I took my boys to see Avatar and I liked the movie a well.I saw the 3D version which was really cool but after awhile I got a head ache from the 3D effect.It does have religious undertones that point to a pantheistic/mother earth world view but what makes this unique is this “mother pandora” hears and answers prayers unlike the new age mother earth.The story of the exploitative nature of the materialistic and military/industrial society reminds me of the book of Enoch.The Nephilim were condemned not because of their use of magic but the use of knowledge for their own selfish interests.It was the abuse of power that was the sin; the exploitation of women, creating drugs and using metallurgy to create weapons of war and all these things caused great suffering to society as a whole.It was the abuse of knowledge and how it affected both the creation and the community that violated Gods law.Another aspect I liked about the film was how it portrayed Divine intervention as a limited event which I think reflects how Divine intervention works in the Christian world view.Too much Divine intervention negates free will but a limited amount gives life to myths and miracles.Their are scenes that hints at Resurrection and also the Tree of Life.I don’t think it is a coincidence the writers choose to call the “sinner” scientist Grace Augustine.In the end she is saved by Grace. The religious nature of the story is presented ambiguous enough that one can weave ones own religious views into it.It’s a good movie….

By: Uri Brito

Uri Brito — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 16:50:29 +0000

Mike, one more comment and I will be done. Again, thanks for the interaction.
But…circumcision and crucifixion are faith responses. They may not be with all the pomp and glory of a once-I-was-drunk-now-I-am-found response, but it is a response of faith nevertheless. Grace is poured, thus faith is enlivened; not the opposite.
Babies leap….is it not faith simply because it was not spoken? Mentally handicap express their faith, though they cannot articulate it. Is it faith in your scheme? Faith is faith whether or not it meets modern expectations. Faith may begin passively, but it is combined and matured with active faith (see Shepherd).
I must confess you are enigmatic in this respect. I have no idea why you are trying to maintain this theses in light of your hermeneutic. As Pratt used to tell us in seminary: “All contexts shape our theological convictions.” Mine did…what is yours? Let’s talk in the New Year about this. Glad to have you in Bh’dom.

By: Mike Bull

Mike Bull — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 22:54:47 +0000

Uri

Infant baptism is not a response by the infant. Like circumcision, like the crucifixion, it is the silent son under the knife of the Father. That is not how it is presented in the New Testament, ever.