Skip to content

Document Header

Content Header

  • Nuuni Nuunani

    Captain Aslan! @_@

  • NightSprite

    Almost Boadicea like!

    • awhorl

      Why almost? She’s quite blue! Captain Ancient Islander! Forget the colonies.

  • Pirate_Prince_Navarion

    Wonder Captain Aslan! I can’t wait for the explanation of what exactly that is. The “Nora’s” part makes it weird.

    • wanderingdreamer

      Well didn’t they summon her courage the previous page? Well, they summoned something from Nora and Alexia’s courage/helping out her friends was the price needed to do so but it came from Nora.

      • Nalyd

        I think he means, “We know this is Nora’s courage, but what exactly it? and why is it manifest as a sword carrying woman? Is it literally a part of herself made manifest? Or is it a spirit ‘creature’ like Gluttony, Greed, Sloth and Pride that has been summoned using Nora’s courage as the medium? For that matter, what are all the other spirits? Are the spirits whats-his-face can see around people the same things, or different? Do dead people’s spirits go on to become spirits like these?”


        • wanderingdreamer

          I just assumed “rule of cool” for all of those questions. XD

        • Dvarin

          Sidney’s original recipe for a summoning was circle + offering + conduit. Nora as conduit has an above-average capacity for courage, so Rosie can pull an above-average manifestation of courage through her from wherever spirit entities come from.

          I think Pride worked the same way–Lei imbued her bugs with Pride because it was personally her strongest emotion, implying she used herself for conduit.

          (Unrelatedly, “Sidney’s Original Recipe” really sounds like fried chicken. “Every piece imbued with deliciousness!”)

          • Nalyd


            Thank you! I forgot Sidney explained the summoning procedure before, and specifically about the conduit.

            I’m throwing my bet for what happened into your corner of the table.

        • Courage is one of the Four Cardinal Virtues (courage, justice, temprance and prudence), which stand against the Seven Deadly Sins (wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony).

          I have to say, the Deadlies sound like more fun.

          • Nonesuch

            Courage is one of the four HEAVENLY Virtues, which is a subset of the Seven Cardinal Virtues, which stand opposed to the seven deadly sins, you mean…

            • That’s what i thought till i did a little googling before posting that.

              From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

              The cardinal virtues

              1805 Four virtues play a pivotal role and accordingly are called “cardinal”; all the others are grouped around them. They are: prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance. “If anyone loves righteousness, [Wisdom’s] labors are virtues; for she teaches temperance and prudence, justice, and courage.” These virtues are praised under other names in many passages of Scripture.

              (That page is on the Vatican’s own website, BTW)

              Also, this page of discussion at the Catholic Encyclopedia online.

          • svartalf

            I don’t know…Courage sounds pretty fun all things considered. Sure, it can place you in seriously un-fun places, but a Virtue would be just about as powerful as a Deadly, I’d think. Gluttony’s got it’s…mouths…full right now. Pass the popcorn, this just got interesting…

  • Judanas

    The ‘Part Aslan’ appears to be her having skinned him.

    • Toddtr

      So she’s Jadis the White Witch

      • Nalyd

        Or a donkey in disguise.

        • Alex Hollins

          Or Heracles.

      • No, its clearly the Slightly Bluish Sort of Off-White Witch

  • Sanjay Merchant

    Is the animal hide some kind of oblique Cowardly Lion reference, or am I just reading too much into our minty fresh warrior woman?

    • =Tamar

      Hercules wore the skin of the lion he defeated.

    • Tsapki

      Wearing animal skins in general was seen as a sign of favor in most hunting societies. Afterall, you had to have overcome such a beast in most cases to be able to wear it’s pelt. But then that goes for most body parts. I am reminded of Futurama.

      “Now remember Fry, when you kill your enemy, make sure to eat their heart. So you can gain their courage. Their tasty, tasty courage.”

      May have ad libbed that a bit.

  • HUNRonin


    • JWLM

      Who’s tough now, Blobby?

  • sal

    Alexa’s got some serious confidence in her buddies to pull through in the nick of time.

  • Valerie Kaplan


    • Dud

      Awww. She’s just a big pussycat really…

  • Del

    I like it!!!

    Sinful spirits are summoned from some far-off Hell. But good spirits are summoned from persons who practice beauty and virtue!!!!

    Well, there are “personal spirits,” anyway. Remember how Mal could see all the spirits, and each person had a personality spirit that hovered about him? (Cover page of “No Rest For the Wicked.”) And the peaceful spirit that manifested when Wolfe played his violin so beautifully?

    Somebody saw Nora’s courageous spirit…. and now we all can!

    (I’m a little surprised that Alexa didn’t see to summoning up that pluck from herself. I half expect Alexa to be some Barber-great-granddaughter.)

    • Tikatu

      Truthfully, beyond Nora being an obvious Barber sister, I can see Rosie being a Barber descendant. She bears a striking resemblance to Florence…
      Love this representation of Nora’s courage–courage she doesn’t even realize she has!

      • svartalf

        I think they just used the Courage going around to summon a Virtue (First one seen in the strip…) and it manifested itself the way it did. Gluttony’s got a problem right now…

        Rosie’s been selling herself short. She’s a LOT more accomplished in many ways than she allows herself.

  • Darkoneko Hellsing

    Oh. Well, courage it was.

  • Me-me

    Wouldn’t that mean that Nora is part-Aslan?

    That’s kind of awesome.

  • Amy B.


    Some seriously cool stuff. I love that Courage depiction.

  • maggPi

    oh, YEAH.

  • maggPi

    I so love your description. Thank you, I needed cheering.

    (Is it wrong to have more faith in Aslan than God, considering he’s supposed to be an allegory for Christ? I am conflicted, and somewhat tipsy, as I have suffered a nasty shock today.)

    • Nalyd

      I’m not sure I follow? ^_^”

      If you mean having more faith in a fictional character that reflects Christ, than in Christ himself, than I must admit that isn’t quite right. If you mean you are feeling particular faith in Christ as the Lion, as opposed to Christ the Lamb, I don’t know that that is particularly wrong. It’s still the same Jesus, just a different aspect that you are particularly. . . I don’t know how to properly say it. . . identifying with/taking comfort in/feeling assured by(?) at the moment. :)

      In the same way that a husband or wife may take particular comfort in their spouse’s character as a Kind Comforter while feeling sad, as an Aware Helper when busy or overwhelmed, as a Passionate Lover when needing companionship, or as a Capable Provider.

      Christ the Lamb, who is blameless and allowed himself to be sacrificed on the cross, who we turn to when torn over sin and seeking forgiveness or the reminder of our new blamelessness in Him.

      Christ the Lion, mighty and strong, unwavering, defender of his bride the Church, who we remember and turn to when overwhelmed by hardships and struggles.

      These are BOTH “Jesus Christ, the Lion and the Lamb”. They are simply different titles for him given according to different roles he fulfills in our lives and creation and the different sides to his relationship with us.

      I hope that helps, and I’m sorry to hear something happened. Prayed for you, and hoping things are looking up.

      • Me-me

        Okaaayyy… I’d like to preface this with a statement that I intend to be completely unbiased. I’m not supporting or decrying anything here, at least not intentionally. Nevertheless, here are a few points, mostly to your first sentence (as that is, I feel, the most relevant to this discussion).

        1) He said God. He could be buddhist for all we know. Christianity is only one (albeit, particularly fractious) religion.

        1a) Even if he is christian it would make more sense that he would be referring to the Father, or even the Holy Ghost, than the Son, based on his wording.

        2) It’s not you “admitting” that it isn’t quite right, it’s you “asserting” that it isn’t quite right. A subtle distinction. Phrasing makes all the difference sometimes. You believe that it would be wrong to put faith in a fictional character than your actual deity, as that would be blasphemous. However, please do note that it is only blasphemous to HIM if he ALSO follows your particular religion. Not to offend, I am just suggesting that respect be given for equality.

        3) I don’t know that it would be wrong, even given these two premises. For all its translations across multiple millenia, the bible is not as relatable as a story written in one’s native tongue. It’s easier to understand and imagine a fictional scenario, and apply it allegorically than it is to try and comprehend a deity with implications on real-world metaphysics, whether the stories applied allegorically or not. And not to mention there are thousands of different interperetations of the original texts… few are as entertaining as the more modern fictional storybooks.
        3a) As long as he doesn’t start worshipping Aslan as a deity (“Put no other gods before me”) what actually contradicts taking more strength from a fictional character, or indeed anyone other than your god, according to your god’s scripture?

        P.S. We’re doing this. We’re making this happen. Religious discussion. Let’s see if we can’t make it a peaceful one.

        • Just gonna echo that we’ll be keeping this one peaceful, please, if there’s any disrespect on any side here I’ll act on it. Everyone’s been great so far, let’s keep it like that!

          • Nalyd

            I hope it’s cool that this is so long. I tend to be very wordy and it’s something that I’m working on. >_>;;

            • No bother for me, as long as everything’s civil you can talk as much as you wish!

              • Nalyd

                Thank you. :D

                Although it still became too long. I just checked it. It’s 5 pages w/o double space. D:

        • Nalyd

          POST 1


          Sorry, I got really into it. This is all basically clarifying the topics about what we are discussion so that we are on the same page, and than going deeply into my response for your first point. The second post should be really short I think.


          That’s cool. I’m quite happy to talk about God and other religions and am of the opinion there isn’t any reason to get bent out of shape over people disagreeing. It’s always a bummer when people start freaking out over the fact the other party in a discussion or argument doesn’t change to their point of view. :P

          I suppose I should preface that I do actually hope that you/others will come to Christ, but clarify that it isn’t some need for everyone to believe the same thing as me and such. I’m quite capable of making friends, or at least peaceful acquaintances, with someone who disagrees with my every belief and preference, “religious” or otherwise. When I hope and pray for other people to come to Christ it is based on the desire for good for you/them because a life that rejects God will one day end and face judgment for that rejection of Him and His Son, whereas those who turn to God in repentance are forgiven of their sins, Jesus having taken the weight of them upon himself to bear in our place.

          tl;dr 3rd person explanation: Nalyd doesn’t want everyone be just like him and is a xenophobe. Nalyd’s belief in God compels him to share with people the good news he has received.

          I explained all this so that it doesn’t become an issue with either yourself or someone else who may chance upon this and read it. I know that the reality of this world is that, “Christian” or otherwise, some people do share their “faiths” for less well-meaning reasons. (exa. xenophobia, control, the benefits of having other people believe, celestial brownie points and the like, etc.)

          That said. . .

          1) I’d assumed it was a safe bet that maggPi was referring to the God who I believe in, specifically the God of Israel who created all things and sent His Son, Jesus Christ, who was both wholly man and wholly God, to Earth to live a perfect life and preach salvation and to one day demonstrate Himself as the sacrifice for our sins, taking the weight of them off our shoulders, so “that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (John 2:16 of the ESV translation) with God. “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.” (John 3:17-21 of the ESV translation)

          I considered this to be a safe bet for two reasons. First and foremost, the specific reference to Christ at the end of maggPi’s sentence. At the time it seemed like if “God” was not referring to the Judeo-christian God the reference to Christ would be unnecessary. I do realize that maggPi could have meant, grammatically speaking, “Is this wrong to have more faith in Aslan than God because Aslan is an allegory for Christ and my God has nothing to do with Christ?” However, that seems a bit too complicated a reading of maggPi’s text based on the uncomplicated manner in which maggPi was speaking. Thinking back, I’ve certainly been responsible for poorly worded statements that could be understood in differing ways, and it is possible maggPi’s question was simply one of those. However, in practical and normal speech second guessing statements to such a degree becomes extremely impractical. Assuming there is sufficient reasoning to come to one specific understanding of a sentence than, at least in my opinion, it is acceptable to go forward based on that understanding and later clarification falls on the initial writer’s shoulders based. Practically speaking, it is often impossible to go forward with a discussion knowing with absolute certainty the meaning behind another person’s choice of words. The meaning must be inferred. Inferring responsibly is falls on the shoulders of the reader/responded. Clarity of statements and explanation of meanings falls on the person putting forth opinions, arguments and ideas. In a discussion these roles are constantly switching back and forth. I have come to the best inferred understanding of your statements that I am able and am now putting forth statements of my own which you will in-turn infer things of to the best of your ability.

          Secondly, as to why I assumed maggPi was speaking of my God and not a differing god of some other belief, lies in the manner that I just now capitalized the two names/titles of “god” differently based on what I referred to. (I go forward with this prefacing that this is from my own personal experience and that Your Millage May Vary.) Firstly, monotheism, for which God would be a proper pronoun [], is most widely believed by Abrahamic religions, notably Judaic, Christian, and Muslim peoples. Outside of these, both within the United States and the world as a whole, while there are other monotheistic religions they are far from making up a majority of the population. While it wouldn’t be impossible for someone who believes in pantheism or polytheism to have a single god to whom they give particular worship to, and therefore perhaps refer to that god as “their god”, this would still not be a proper pronoun according to their beliefs.

          (Beware incoming simile) Pretend for a moment that maggPi was referring to Athena, maggPi’s patron god, as “their God”. Without some contextual evidence in her post pointing to something other than a monotheistic belief set it would be irresponsible for me to interpret her statements as anything otherwise.

          Combined with my first reason, maggPi’s mention of “Christ”, I felt it was safe to rule out Judaism, in which Jesus Christ is an ancient heretic and at best an over inflated legend and at worst a practitioner of powerful black magic. (No joke. There are ancient records of prominent Jewish religious leaders and teachers who tried to use their writings to discredit his miracles as being the work of the devil, as he performed so many miracles of such great magnitudes that there was no place for them to feasibly argue his miracles as a series of elaborate tricks.

          It also seemed safe to rule out Muslim beliefs as they consider Christ to have been a prophet only, and that the Christian Bible is filled with lies about the things he’d said and bastardizations of his teachings. Also, while there may be converted Muslims who would refer to Allah as “God”, it is my assumption that most Muslims would refer to him specifically as “Allah”.

          • Nalyd

            POST 2

            2) Aaaah . . . thank you thank you. I’d missed that little grammar flop. =)p

            And yes, I know. If someone believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster and believes that the FSM takes particular pleasure in its followers worshiping analogies for the deities of other religions than it has nothing to do with me that it’s totally opposite to how my God wants people to pay more attention to Him than fictional characters that were designed to be analogies of Him, pointing people to Him, and that He’d be offended at people ignoring the reality of his existence in favor of a fictional metaphor of Him.

            Uhm. . . I think my grammar may have broken down where I switch between talking about the FSM and God. If it doesn’t make sense I can clarify, but I’ve been writing for awhile now and am afraid proofreading and a rewrite at this point would simply make it more confusing.

            To further add though, because maggPi asked the question and based on my assumption of our same beliefs there is nothing wrong with my asserting what I did. Even assuming maggPi does have a completely separate set of beliefs my assertion would still be sound. Rather than becoming incorrect or fundamentally wrong to have asserted, it would instead simply be n/a, non-applicable, to maggPi’s question.

            Like if someone asked, “What color is the sky?” and I responded with, “The grass is a vibrant bright green.” (Let’s add another level to this metaphor by pretending I’m a hired gardener and I’m currently planting grass seeds, and the variety of grass I’m planting is literally named ‘Skai’.)

            PS I really like metaphors and similes, can you tell? :D

            • Nalyd

              POST 3

              3) I’m not really sure what you are trying to say? Your first and second points aren’t strictly premises, at least not in regards to maggPi’s question, but rather arguments against what I said. Technically I don’t know that they were strictly that, either?

              One MAY render invalid my assertion that “faith in Aslan over God is wrong” by providing a sufficient counter argument. However, proving my ARGUMENTS wrong does not necessarily prove “faith in Aslan over God” as being either acceptable or unacceptable. This would merely return us to “zero”, the original question’s uncertainty.

              I can, however, make specific comment to your statement about the Bible, “For all its translations across multiple millenia, the bible is not as relatable as a story written in one’s native tongue.”

              First I should correct you. To to do I need to clarify a few things.

              1) The Bible as it is now commonly called today is a compilation of ancient holy texts of the Jews (the Old Testament) and letters and teachings about Jesus, His work on the cross, His teachings, and the revelations about God and His plans that came by Jesus and/or the Holy Spirit (the New Testament).

              2) As to the time frame of the Bible.

              2a) Many of the texts of the Old Testament are very old. Genesis deals with events thousands of years in the past. After it, the books begin in 1800 BC and continue on. The most recently written, Malachi, was written approximately 430 BC (I’ll throw out the extra little funfact that, while Dionysius Exiguusthe calculated 1 AD as being Jesus birth year, modern historical findings and calculations have revealed his exact birth to have fallen, as most scholars accept it, between 6 and 4 BC.)

              It must be understood that the process by which these holy texts were copied was by no means a haphazard game of Telephone. (A game in which one person whispers a phrase into the next persons ear, then this phrase is repeated around a circle until the phrase’s originator hears what the phrase has become and everyone laughs at the many changes which took place. This game is often used as an object lesson to teach the way information can change and become twisted in its telling and retelling, and the importance of getting information straight from the source.)

              These holy texts underwent a strict process of copying in which the slightest of mistakes would result in the burning of the copy so as to not corrupt the text. Though some mistakes did find their way through, review of ancient manuscripts show that the errors were all inconsequential, thinks that in English would be equivalent to writing “j” instead of “i” or “there” instead of “their” and rarely affected the meaning of the text. There is consistency between ancient copies.

              2b) Jesus died Approximately 30 AD. The earliest written book of the New Testament, James, was written approximately 45 AD. Revelation, the last written book of the Bible, is placed at being written between 70 and 95 AD.

              These were likewise treated duly with respect for the authorities of their writers. The copying of these, having been so much more recent than the Old Testament, can also be traced historically and geographically. Known erroneous texts can often be traced to the exact city and approximate date that, whether by intentional purpose or pure accident, the contents of a text were changed, copied, and spread en mass to other areas.

              (The following information was referenced from )
              To reference other classical manuscripts and how much faith is placed in them by the historical research community:

              + Iliad – earliest copy made 500 years after the original. There are 642 current manuscript copies

              + Pliny – 750 years and 7 manuscript copies

              + Plato – 1200 years and 7 manuscript copies

              + Livy – 350 years and 20 manuscript copies

              (please note: The Iliad has the second greatest number of manuscript copies of any work of antiquity.)

              To compare these famous works to the New Testament. . .

              – – How old is the earliest copy?

              “Several fragments have been dated within 50-150 years of the original documents. Several nearly complete NT manuscripts dating within 300-400 years of the original. In fact, there are 500 different copies of the NT that are earlier than 500 AD.”

              – – How many ancient manuscript copies currently exist?

              There are “More than 24000 manuscript copies in multiple languages / translations. Located over a wide geographical area (Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Turkey, Greece, Italy)”

              Turning to what you said of “all its [the Bible’s] translations across multiple millenia” I must raise the question: Do you simply mean this as a statement of fact, that

              *the Bible has been translated many times from the original language into many different languages*

              or are you saying that

              *the Bible was translated from its original language into another language, and from this language into a new language, from this 3rd language to a 4th language, and on to a 5th, 6th and perhaps even 7th language, and that some point along the way the original meaning has been all but completely lost*


              I won’t deny that there are times where this happens process of translation occurs, though not perhaps to such extremes as I just suggested, but the end result, the complete loss of intent and meaning, rarely does. Possibility does not beget regular necessity, and as in my earlier point there is quite a bit of historical evidence to show the modern English Bible, albeit translated into a different languages, is still the same Bible ancient Jews read in Hebrew (Old Testament) and Greeks and Jews alike read in Koine Greek (New Testament). When the Bible is translated into a new language it is regularly translated straight from the Hebrew/Greek by teams of experts. When not, perhaps when translated by a Christian that has gone to live with a small people group that has their own self sustained language, it is usually translated from a well vetted translation. Rather than many “translations across the multiple millenia” you are really only talking about 2 or 3 translation ‘jumps’, and that only in a very small subset of cases. Current modern translations for the major languages of the world are all straight from the original manuscripts.

              Allegories are regularly used to help in understanding difficult concepts. Jesus himself seemed to have been more fond of teaching in parables than in obviously spelling out important lessons. However, an allegory is not the thing itself. I may paint a picture of a bird, but that painting will never jump off the page and fly. I could paint a picture of a bucket of water, another of a rushing stream and another of a rainy day and someone who sees it may have an idea of water and how it behaves. However, no number of paintings would ever satisfy that persons thirst.

              • Me-me

                3) I am afraid that, logically, if we can neither prove nor deny the acceptability nor unacceptability of an action, it defaults to acceptable. If you gave me a week I could find some philosophical sources, but unless there is actual scripture decrying taking strength from someone or something other than God, then even given the premises there would be no problem in having “faith” in Aslan.

                2a) It may not have been a haphazard game of telephone, but even a game of telephone played by the most attentive and earnest people in the world can introduce some warps. It’s been 2000 years and more than a few languages. Not to mention that I don’t doubt that the understanding of these languages in question have been influence by these translations, which brings you to a kind of catch-22 of historic linguistic interperetation.

                A stricter process does not guarantee less mistakes. Indeed, burning all copies but the “correct” one may only serve to enforce a poor copy. Consistence and oversight only work on an assumption of pure correctness, which we cannot have from aramaic.

                2b) I suggested the latter, but not as strongly. The translations are not carried out with complete ignorance of intent, due to the personal importance of the document, so I would not assume that the original meaning is completely lost.

                I do, however, assume that some meaning has been lost, as no amount of good intentions can make a system which, (through natural entropy) can only introduce flaws, work perfectly.

                • maggPi


                  I had tried posting a reply to Nalyd’s first comment/reply to mine, but it glitched, and did not post. When Me-me replied with reference to allegory, I figured it was close enough to my (lost) written response to serve just as well, and lay the subject to rest.

                  Well, whoops. I guess not.

                  My original comment was meant facetiously. The more substantial heart of the subject is this:

                  C.S. Lewis himself used his character Aslan to explain that when good deeds were done in the name of Tash, it was Aslan that was being served and thus it was Aslan who granted reward. When evil deeds were done in Aslan’s name, it was Tash who was being served and thus it was Tash who granted reward (punishment).

                  So, all in all, it matters not what name one chooses to represent Good/Truth, what matters is our pursuit of It, and that we strive to do our best always, no matter how difficult it is, and how flawed we are.

                  If I choose to call “Jesus” (a title, obviously, not his given name) “Aslan” instead, what does He care? His given name has been lost in the annals of Time, and supplanted with allegorical titles.

                  I could go on to quote scripture, historical text, and a whole lot more, but really: If anyone wants to go through that stuff, they can get it from their pastors, rabbis, ministers, mentors, professors, and a myriad of Holy Teachers on their own terms and time.

                  What I CAN offer is an apology for getting people all stirred up over an innocent comment following a lovely webcomic. If my original reply to Nalyd hadn’t gone AWOL, it might have forestalled a lot of doubt and speculation on my intent.

                  Also, THANK YOU, Me-me. You understood me pretty much immediately, and came to my …defense? Is that the correct word? Close enough. Also, as an aside; I thought it pretty cool you referred to me as being male. I am not. It just goes to show how arbitrary labels can be.


                  Just so that anyone who has bothered to read all of the above back-and-forth commentary spawned by my original comment, as well as what I have written here, might care to know, I have NOT read much further than Me-me’s first response to Nalyd. This sort of thing is not what I like to inspire. I am an EXTREMELY private person, ESPECIALLY in regard to my spiritual beliefs. I do not even discuss them with my family. What I believe is between me and my Maker. I do not condone dictation or proselytization beyond True Teachings. That is; Teaching to help others live up to the Gifts they were born with, and help others to do the same through teaching or example, as opposed to oppression for personal or political agenda or power.

                  IF you are interested in one of the books I have read that deals with the man known as Christ in an historical and archaeological manner, I recommend “The Hiram Key” by Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas. It is interesting and well-written. Whether or not you enjoy it is up to you, and has nothing whatsoever to do with me beyond my having recommended it in the first place.

                  Lastly, don’t take comments posted after a webcomic so damned seriously, especially any of mine!

            • Me-me

              All more or less valid points, but I’d like to add some clarifications, if that’s alright. Again, no offence intended.

              I’ll accept that an abrahamic religion is more likely, and indeed, a christian one is as well. I simply wanted to acknowledge the possibility of a difference.

              People say “Allah” because that is the literal word, in arabic, for god. “Allah” translated to english is “God”. Not particularly relevant but I figured I’d point it out.

              An argument is only “sound” if the premises are true. So it’s not actually sound unless he does follow the same beliefs.

              As to the final point, related to my point number (3), is it indeed blasphemous? I’d like to know if there’s anything specific … as I understand it, a lot of things got “added” to what counts as blasphemy during the dark ages. You know, when they were doing witchhunts and so on.

              • Me-me

                Wow okay I was a few seconds late.

                • Nalyd

                  POST 4

                  edit: I numbered my post since this one put things out of order.


                  lol Yes, I am aware of the Allah/God equivalence. ;)

                  When I said that my assertion would still be accurate, even if non-applicable, assuming maggPi had differing beliefs than myself, I had meant it only in the context of where I thought the conversation lay. Of course, if maggPi’s beliefs were different, than my assertion would have no relevance to the question. However, it would be accurate in terms of someone asking the question who shares the same beliefs as myself.

                  Erm. . . If a child asked you, “How are airplanes made?” would you be correct or incorrect by answering with an episode of “How it’s Made” on airplanes? What if the child than countered with, “No silly! I meant the paper kind!”

                  The answer is therefore incorrect for the child’s intended question; however, that does not mean the episode of “How it’s Made” was erroneous it’s its telling of the process by which a large flying contraption is put together.

                  I suppose it was a bit of silliness for me to say that anyway, since it would still not be correct in the context of maggPi’s question if maggPi did not agree with me about God, but I simply meant to make the point that in the context of my beliefs it would still be accurate.

                  • Me-me

                    Right. I am aware of your intent, I simply meant to clarify that it wouldn’t be sound at all if maggPi’s belief were something else. It’s a terminological specificity thing. Not really important.

                    • Nalyd

                      Ah, I see. Thank you. I loved Intro to Logic, with all its formulas, but haven’t taken any classes relating to formal debate so my vocab relating to arguments and debates isn’t totally solid. :P

                      I’ve been typing for 3+ hours and need to give my eyes and brain a rest. I’ll respond to your most recent post later today or tomorrow. :)

                    • maggPi

                      “formulae” is the plural form of “formula.”

        • Nalyd

          Um. . . I was wrong? This is, well, 5 pages. Without double space. I may have gotten a bit carried away with how deeply I delved into certain topics.

          Just reply to whatever topics strike your fancy? Assuming you read this? (I hope you do? ^_^ )

    • Percabeth_trash

      I’d say it’s quite alright, myself. As a bookworm atheist, I find a lot of guidance and faith in fictional characters that I don’t find in religious figures. They’ve been by my side since before I can remember, teaching me and helping me, just like God for a Christian (etc).

      • maggPi

        Well thank you. I was raised Christian, but I found it easier to relate to Mr Lewis’ allegory than the dry verses we were taught in church. As a child, I understood the troubles the children experienced, but troubles of adults from over a thousand years ago were too distant and abstract. Anyhow, I guess it helped to shape my beliefs the way my family intended. I suppose, in the end, it doesn’t really matter how values are learned, so long as they are learned and cherished.

        P.S. I don’t remember what the nasty shock was, thankfully.

        • Percabeth_trash

          I’m glad you don’t remember your shock :)
          And yes, I loved Aslan a long time before I found out he was supposed to represent Christ and it didn’t really change my opinion of him, it just made me appreciate that it was a much better way of explaining the principles of Christianity than the (let’s face it, SUPER DIFFICULT) Bible verses. I could read the whole Bible and only sort of understand it, or I could read Narnia and ask myself, “What Would Aslan Do?” And as an eight year old, I would have much rather believed in a magical talking lion than in Christ.

          • maggPi

            Does it really matter, after all, what name we use for the One? I like to think that we can easily view the different religions of this world as different schools of thought on the same subject, such as (for example) there are different branches of mathematics. I’m pretty sure many people would call me blasphemer for uttering such a theory. 😉
            However, if more people embraced this idea, we might have less strife between us.

  • Cooper

    “What is this?!”
    “That, would be my Stand.”

    • Happyroach

      Gluttony: “WRYYYYYY!!!”

  • Grantwhy


    “Stupid dog!”

    (said the person who guessed right back on the January 31 page :)

  • Nonesuch

    Courage puts old Herakles to shame! :D


  • amaryllia

    Oddly enough, my first thought was how does Captain Aslan see with that lion skin over her eyes. Then the sheer awesomeness set in.

    • Mujaki

      She’s looking out through the lion’s nostrils, maybe?

    • Raikana Sakaro

      Stupid Theory: She is not wearing the lion skin. The lion skin is part of her. She sees through the lion’s eyes.

  • Guest

    Oh! Nora will become Harry after this bout of courage? (or Harry’s ancestor)

  • billydaking

    And this is why they needed Nora and not “just another servant”. Nora was the only one who had the courage to break Mrs. Skyes’s rules.

  • jonquil alexia

    Quite impressive is Nora’s courage.

  • Hornet

    Nora toke out the Nemean Lion???

  • Sunbird


  • CaptEndo

    Those shields had to be grasped in the center to be used as a weapon. Worn strapped to the arm like that was for taking a place in the shield wall or phalanx.

  • Is it a coincidence that Nora’s courage looks a bit like a certain sister of hers?

Primary Sidebar