Talk:Jinn

Page Content
I just removed a decent amount of irrelevant (and occasionally erroneous) content, mostly having to do with Arabian mythology. Now I have a problem finding enough content to merit this being a separate page. Can anyone think of more relevant, in-universe content? Is it possible this page should re-direct to a page about Jadis or Charn and merge the information in there? Lasaraleen Tarkheena 05:12, April 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems fine to me. There are shorter articles. If someone wants to quickly find out what a "Jinn" is, they would probably prefer to have a direct article rather than a section somewhere else.
 * I know of no information ever given on the Adam/Lilith myth in any volume of The Chronicles of Narnia. The only reference to Adam in the stories references only Eve as his wife. As such, I question the inclusion of this in the Narnian wiki. -- ChrisK (talk) 14:26, October 9, 2012 (UTC)
 * LWW Ch. 8. Mr. Beaver: "But she's no Daughter of Eve. She comes of your father Adam's...first wife, her they called Lilith. And she was one of the Jinn." Lasaraleen Tarkheena (talk) 02:35, October 10, 2012 (UTC)

Ancestral problem
Wait. If Adam was the father of Jinns, they would be half-human. Is that make any sense? Guest, 10:32, December 11, 2012 (UTC) You're right; it's a little bit strange. I think the idea is that Adam and Lilith begat one race and Adam and Eve begat another. The two are entirely separate, even though Adam was the father in both. I don't know quite how it works, but it does. Lasaraleen Tarkheena (talk) 15:26, December 11, 2012 (UTC)

According to the ancient Hebrew myths about Lilith; she and Adam never sired any children together. The legend goes that when God first created Adam, he made him with 2 heads, and then split him in 2, thus making 2 humans each with 1 head. God made one of them an exact opposite to the other, calling her a woman, and named her Lilith. But there was a problem. Lilith was expected to serve under her husband, as women were expected to (sexist I know, but remember this is an ancient myth), but Lilith refused. She spurned Adam and chose to walk the road between worlds, preferring the company of angels and demons instead, whom she mated with. The children she bore with them were said to be called the Tormentors of Man's Dreams. With this in mind, she could have mated with any number of creatures along the way, and spawned Jadis's race (or at least one of their ancestors). Storyseeker1 (talk) 18:58, December 11, 2012 (UTC)

This may lead to a very long discussion, but it should be noted that the Christian concept of a woman's submission to her husband is not necessarily sexist. Lewis certainly didn't believe it was; read his Perelandra or Mere Christianity. Lasaraleen Tarkheena (talk) 23:51, December 16, 2012 (UTC)

So you believe women should answer only to men and serve under them? Because frankly that is the impression I get when I look at christianity. Didn't Jesus note something about women looking after their husbands (it had something to do with when a woman washed his feet with her own hair, I think). And as I recall, hardly any of the girls in Narnia ever fought. And note; Lewis published these books in the 50s. Back then, most women were just homewives. I don't know if I'd call him sexist, as he was just writing women as how they were in his day. Storyseeker1 (talk) 00:01, December 17, 2012 (UTC)

That "women should answer only to men and serve under them" is a huge misrepresentation of the Biblical position. The verse you are thinking of is Ephesians 5:22-23, "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church..." This, however, is closely followed by verse 25: "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her." If you know about Christian doctrine, Christ gave up His throne in heaven to become a lowly human carpenter, and then to be tortured and killed in order to save the Church from eternal suffering and re-unite her with Himself. So, who has the harder job? The wife who is instructed to submit to her husband, or the husband who is supposed to love his wife enough to do for her what Jesus did for the church?

Also, Lewis did not merely submit to the status quo of a woman's submission to her husband; he actively defended it. In Mere Christianity, he argued for it thusly (although of course he says it much better than I do; read Book 3, Ch. 6 of Mere Christianity for his actual argument): Since there are two spouses, if they disagree there can be no majority rule. Thus, unless they are to split up whenever they have a serious disagreement, there must be a head: they cannot have equal votes. Why the man? Lewis pointed to a woman's instinct to value the needs of her husband and children against all others. "She is the special trustee of their interests" (Lewis). The man is given headship to balance this. To those who doubt his perception, he asks: "If your dog has bitten the child next door, which would you sooner have to deal with: the master of that house or the mistress?" If you define sexism as any doctrine which tells women to submit to their husbands (although I do not think this is the correct definition), then you must affirm that Lewis was sexist.

To your assertion that Narnian girls didn't fight: Susan did not prefer to, but she was very skilled with the bow. Lucy went to war against Rabadash after his attack on Archenland. Aravis wore her brother's armour and was likely well-trained in its use. Jill used a knife and a bow.

This is getting lengthy, but it should also be said that Christianity in no way supports the inferiority of women. During His ministry on Earth, Jesus shocked political and religious authorities with his value of women and minorities. Lasaraleen Tarkheena (talk) 00:49, December 17, 2012 (UTC)


 * You do know the word "submit" is another word for "surrender" or "meek and obedient", as it states in the dictionary?  I'm sorry, but in this case we have to agree to disagree, because personally the christian church sounds like it is the embodiment of sexism.  And the man being the head??? What totally outdated BS! My mom and most of my female friends would punch their man's lights out if they ever spouted that drivel to them, and tried to make them think they should listen to them and do whatever.  My aunt did a thousand times more than her husband ever did, as he was without work, and she had to support them both.


 * And as for Jesus sacrificing himself. You make it sound as though he's the only person ever to make sarcrifices. Queen Boadicea fought the Romans, giving her life for the freedom of her people, as did Joan of Arc.  Women are just as capable of making sacrifices as men are. And the time when they are supposed to just stand by and do whatever the men tell them to do is over.


 * And as for christianity not supporting it; you should look up the more recent news. There's been an ongoing debate about letting women become bishops, but the church is refusing it, basically saying women can't be bishops. Prime Minister Cameron said he was all for it, but it's up to the church to decide. Needless to say, they refuse. (Stupid I think, because I should think the church needs all the followers it can get lately. They say the church only has a few million at most around the world. When the Pope visited the UK, most people said they werent bothered).


 * I dunno about Lewis, as I've never read that thing. But the thing about going to the mistress instead of the man, and there being a head.... What about Margaret Thatcher, Queens Elizabeth I and II, Victoria, Cleopatra...etc? They were the mistresses of their own houses, yet they worked much better than the men.  I believe men and women are all equal, and the thought about them being submissive and leaving things like leadership and such to men is outdated. Anyone who thinks differently should go live in an Amish community or something.


 * I hadn't considered Lewis a sexist, but after what you just said, now I think he might very well have been, though I will still take into fact that he did live in a different era.

Storyseeker1 (talk) 01:47, December 17, 2012 (UTC)


 * Time to calm down, folks... this is sounding a bit angry. I've seen this debate happen over and over again, and it's mainly caused by people misunderstanding each other, which happens a LOT on the internet. This really isn't the place, and it no longer relates to Lewis more than slightly. 05:45, December 17, 2012 (UTC)


 * That's the problem. Religion is not made for conversation or discussion. That leads sooner or later to "war".  Harry granger   Talk  |  contribs 12:58, December 17, 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry; I didn't mean to come across as angry. I do think there is more than just misunderstanding here, and  that it is a valid discussion to have, but you're right that perhaps this isn't the right format. Also, not to start another long debate, but Lewis would certainly hold that religion is worthy of discussion, as would I. Lasaraleen Tarkheena (talk) 23:55, December 17, 2012 (UTC)


 * You may be right that it's worthy of discussion, but it's dangerous.  Harry granger   Talk  |  contribs 13:35, December 18, 2012 (UTC)