Comments on: A Christmas Carol – Uncle Scrooge and the True Meaning of Christmas

By: Yaholo

Yaholo — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 15:13:45 +0000

@William

I agree that churches are better at helping the poor than governments. I also agree that people use such institutions to shrug personal responsibility. However, I have to disagree that Scrooge approved of governments supporting the poor. Scrooge, given the context of the times, was pointing out that he is already taxed to pay for government institutions and therefore should not have to pay more money. Also, my comment “a true conservative” is meant as an irony, not that I am saying he should have been liberal. I take every change I can to point out that political labels and ideologies are insufficient as a guideline for spiritual and moral development.

By: William Bumper

William Bumper — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 12:49:15 +0000

A true conservative. What does that mean? Am I to understand liberals are great caring people and would never benefit themselves on the behalf of others? You began to lose me with this very poor choice of statement. Remember, Scrooge supports government sponsored programs for the poor. This in no way is a conservative thought.

Scrooge is not evil, true. His fault lays in not having mercy. Read the book and you see instances showing a lack of mercy. This is because he does not see for he is within himself or in plain words has given the moral responsibility to the government. He like many humans take themselves out of the reality in the hopes that someone else, government, will take their, Scrooge and others, responsibility. It takes Scrooge participating to see that he is morally obligated and not his government.

We can all learn something from this story if we take the time to “listen” to it. For us to overcome poverty and cruelty amongst humans, we need to take responsibility instead of leaving it to our impersonal governments. There is a reason why churches are affective at assisting the downtrodden.

Dickens does a wonderful job of describing Jesus without mentioning him. He may not have intended this, but this story in an allegorical way describes and shows Jesus.

By: george

george — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 03:10:12 +0000

AH! WEll, that would make better sense. He understood things well enough to incorporate so many of the teachings of Christ in one fell swoop. Again, I cannot explain how much I enjoy this story. I would love to get a nice old copy of the book… something that feels authentic!

-g-

By: Yaholo

Yaholo — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 02:58:43 +0000

@george

Thanks for the comment. Dickens was rumored to show interest in Unitarian Christianity, but was an Anglican his whole life until death.

By: george

george — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 02:47:08 +0000

My friend,

I LOVE THIS STORY. It is a tradition of mine every year to watch several versions. I am only missing one in my collection *R. Owen* although I have seen it in the past. I have 5 versions that I think are worth watching… Stewarts is one that follows the book best, but in my humble opinion, falls short in capturing the depth that C. Scott captures (along with an irreplaceable cast… of course we know you have the same Mrs. Dilbert cast in both of these versions).

I made my wife suffer through 3 versions this year, but only got a bit into the one from 1935 (Hicks)… bummer! I Love love love it! You struck a chord with me. I actually have a post about this last month.

I wanted to do something like you have posted here about the various Christian models that can be seen in this story. Amazing that Dickens was a Unitarian (I think… correct me if I’m wrong)!!!

God Bless, it looks like we will be doing a blogskin for you! Excellent!

-g-

By: Michael

Michael — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 02:33:14 +0000

I have to agree with your well written analysis.
I have always felt the same way. And have read the origional (or at least an old old printing of the book – library was throwing out the collection when I was 10 – I’m now 50).
I still believe though, that George C. Scott portrayed the character and redemption better than any.
Probably why it is so hard to find, and never makes it to TV like the others. Secular Progressives shun this version like vampires to light.

By: Jim

Jim — Tue, 25 Dec 2007 02:28:02 +0000

Great points, bro! Lots “struck home”, but the most chilling thing was when you pointed out that Scrooge would be esteemed a “true conservative” by today’s standards. Humbling, sobering, invigorating, resolutioning (if such were a word)!
As I think about what you said (and comparing the Classic to today’s world, I also notice another analogy. Scrooge didn’t contribute to institutional/organized charities — even after his awakening; he contributed to individuals, at “ground level”. At this time of year, charitable organizations lay it on thick in the hopes of scoring bankdrafts, but the most satisfaction comes from being anonymous benefactors to the needy that we personally know about. The person-to-person kindness and grace that exemplifies a personal Lord… Thanks!

By: Mike Harlowe

Mike Harlowe — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 02:27:12 +0000

Enjoyed the analysis and agree. You may want to check out the annual production Actors Theatre in Louisville, KY puts on. It’s different every year and always excellent. It’s a family tradition for us and a great value as well.