Can no longer separate sex from sin
- Thread starter HistoryPrincess
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Good question. If you actually look into it and why he's rebelling, the real thieves are the Sheriff of Nottingham and Prince John's noblemen. Prince John became regent while his brother, King Richard, was away on Crusade. And according to both this story and actual history, he was a bit of a scoundrel.
Then again, he was the youngest son in his family and was called John Lackland, because as the youngest he lacked a real land inheritance.
Anyway, some versions of the story say Robin Hood used to be a nobleman himself. And when he saw what the Sheriff was doing and what Prince John was letting his men do, he was like, "Enough is enough." And so he turned outlaw.
But he was technically only an outlaw in the eyes of Prince John. The Sheriff of Nottingham and Prince John's noblemen were extorting from the peasants and farmers and taxing them heavily. This tax revenue was meant to help the common people, but the Sheriff and the noblemen in Prince John's inner circle were taking it and using it for personal gain. In fact, that's where we get the term "Robber Baron," i.e. a wealthy person who gets wealthier at the expense of common folk.
So, in essence, they were in fact stealing it. If anything all Robin Hood was doing was stealing the money back so they couldn't exploit the peasants. Some people think he was some sort of medieval communist, but I never got that. I always thought of him as someone who simply wanted to rid the existing system of corruption and greed.
With my sense of virtue, I doubt I would steal in any way, for any purpose. I'm more the type to simply engage in armed conflict with such corruption.
Which is what the merry men were for.
And though the Sheriff and the noblemen technically acquired the money from taxes, they were in fact using it for anything but its original purpose, which, nowadays, is called fraud.
I seriously don't know. I'm not an expert in economics or politics or law. I find politics to be too toxic to even think about getting into.
It was also interesting the way this movie portrayed Much the Miller's Son. He's one of the Merry Men in the ballads and is also part of the Merry Men in the movie.
He's often left out of adaptations, though that's probably because, in the original ballads, he can be not just cruel but a cold-blooded killer, to the point where he thinks nothing of killing a young boy.
It could actually be a good plot point in an adaptation, with him and Robin Hood having a falling out to the point where Much turns against him. After all, his nickname, Much, comes from his "much" wealth due to his wealthy merchant father.
The only thing I was a little disappointed about with this movie was that it didn't have Alan-a-Dale, one of Robin Hood's more well known Merry Men, the other two being Little John (ironically a giant of a man) and Will Scarlet (known for his red clothes, hence, Scarlet) who were in the movie.
Yeah, I know Alan-a-Dale didn't appear until the 1600s (to be fair, the Crusades didn't come into play until the mid 1800s), but still, you can't go wrong with a minstrel. Heck, he was in the Disney animated version as a rooster and sort of acts as a narrator for the story.
It was also interesting the way this movie portrayed Much the Miller's Son. He's one of the Merry Men in the ballads and is also part of the Merry Men in the movie.
He's often left out of adaptations, though that's probably because, in the original ballads, he can be not just cruel but a cold-blooded killer, to the point where he thinks nothing of killing a young boy.
It could actually be a good plot point in an adaptation, with him and Robin Hood having a falling out to the point where Much turns against him. After all, his nickname, Much, comes from his "much" wealth due to his wealthy merchant father.
The only thing I was a little disappointed about with this movie was that it didn't have Alan-a-Dale, one of Robin Hood's more well known Merry Men, the other two being Little John (ironically a giant of a man) and Will Scarlet (known for his red clothes, hence, Scarlet) who were in the movie.
Yeah, I know Alan-a-Dale didn't appear until the 1600s (to be fair, the Crusades didn't come into play until the mid 1800s), but still, you can't go wrong with a minstrel. Heck, he was in the Disney animated version as a rooster and sort of acts as a narrator for the story.
I'm no expert, but I do follow policy matters. I like history. It helps me know what works and what doesn't. I can make decisions today, that effect tomorrow.
Would you characterize Robin hood as a tax protester? Would you believe if he had really lived, as the stories are told, he could easily become the monster he was fighting?
Would you characterize Robin hood as a tax protester? Would you believe if he had really lived, as the stories are told, he could easily become the monster he was fighting?
Well of course. Irony plays a lot in names.
Big men called little.
Fat men called slim.
Bald men named Harry.
I always thought of him as a rebel in the noblest of terms. Rebellion isn't always a bad thing. If anything, he was simply displaying his loyalty to King Richard. Prince John was only regent, so that didn't mean the actions of the noblemen and the Sheriff were endorsed by the king himself.
Rebellion is a natural thing for men. I've been in rebellion my entire life.
Yes.
Women have also made for some great rebels. When the Romans were taking over the British Isles, Queen Boudica of the Iceni, though ultimately unsuccessful, proved herself a force to be reckoned with.
The story is that her husband, King Prasutagus, had made a trade agreement with the Romans, which was a common part of their conquering strategies, befriending the local rulers. But King Prasutagus died shortly thereafter. He left half of everything in his will to the Romans, and the other half to his wife and their two daughters.
But of course, women didn't count in the Roman laws of inheritance, so they basically came and plundered her people. Not only were her people impoverished, but Boudica herself was whipped and her daughters were raped.
Determined to exact deadly revenge on the Romans, she gathered the tribespeople of the British Isles together, and went on an apocalyptic killing spree. They literally burned Roman settlements in modern day Colchester, St. Alban's, and London to the ground, and the death toll of the Romans killed rose to over 70,000.
Even so, Boudica's rebellion ultimately lost, and supposedly, rather than fall into Roman captivity, she poisoned herself.
The idea of Roman law, not supporting women inheritance, runs contrary to what I've learned about Roman society.
Either that or they simply wanted an excuse to raid and plunder. And they referred to non Romans as barbarians.
From their point of view, they probably were.
Rome was hell bent on seizing territory to have a revenue stream to support the social programs in Rome.
Yeah, the Romans had good inventions and ideas but they were barbarians in their own right.