Talk:Children of the Corn

65.26.139.183 (talk) 19:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)==Who Can Kill a Child?==

Untitled

I was informed by a friend that this short story bore resemblance to a Spanish movie released the previous year called Who Can Kill a Child?, and am wondering if the similarities are coincidence.--Jmg124 (talk) 21:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This article describes the cult as "pseudo-Christian". I haven't seen the movies or read the book, so could someone please explain how the cult is "pseudo-Christian"? I mean, it's obviously not Christianity, thus the "pseudo" part, but I don't get how this cult is related to Christianity in any way. I mean, there's nothing in the New Testament about sacrificing adults to people who live in cornfields. I'm not trying to be a smart-aleck. I'm honestly confused about this. Evernut 17:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

There are various biblical quotes which are reinterpreted by the children. Once they've adopted their new adult-free religon, they choose new biblical names for themselves and their offspring. Also, they "crucify" their victims, a punishment widly associated with this religon. ---Jackel 19:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Thanks! Evernut 15:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think crucifying victims would make one "pseudo-Roman". 75.22.175.105 (talk) 04:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually the story draws on the rare and odd popularity of real life child evangalical preachers particularly in the southern USA. This popularity comes from emphasis on scriptures where Jesus says that say a child will lead them and that to enter the kingdom of God you must understand and follow scripture with the innocence and purity of a child.

The Horror element that King builds is on a big "what if" -- specifically a "cult" that believes that only childen lack the worldly attachments to do what God wants. They see that traditional Christian leadership was wrong when it decided that the new testament invalidated all aspects of the old testament. Even more fundamentally the cult believes that Abraham was wrong when he failed to sacrifice his son on the altar and that traditional Judaism and Christianity then started down a path of consolation prizes getting ever farther from what God really wanted. The cult's fundamental idea is that the more adult you become the more expose to the world corrupts and the more attached you become to worldly things and self-determinism over the wishes of God. So adults are inherently resistant to sacrificing their own relatives to God. Thus the cult sacrifices adults as they become too old to follow God's wishes.

Of course the final horror implication from the adult prespective is that this idea seems like a big deception by Satan/Lucificer...or is it? Or is it a throw back to pre-Judeo-Christian human sacrifice...though they emphasized sacrifice of enemies over sacrifice from with in the community which is a bit more Central American.65.26.139.183 (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Overhaul

This page is seriously in need of an overhaul. The summary is very badly written and outlines the film version, not the short story - and it is inaccurate in many of the things said, even if we're sticking to the film plot for this page (for example in the film Burt and Vicki are not married, nor are they traveling to California - their destination is Seattle. They are not trying to repair their relationship, but relocating for Burt's medical practice) The list goes on, and even these things are not consistent with the short storyline, so I have no idea what the page is even about, other than misrepresenting the story. The mention of "Isaac returning with bleached hair" is absurd. This whole thing seems like a disorganized kid wrote it.

~s —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.200.208 (talk) 00:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The article obviously has not received a lot of attention. Be bold and make some changes yourself! —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Point of Order

I note in the description paragraph and discussion above (for some reason edit is disabled there, so I am responding here), that the term "Pseudo-Christian" is used.

How can this be considered pseudo-christian if it emulates the vast majority of evangelical and fundamentalist sects? Does Wikipedia consider using the No true Scotsman logical fallacy to not be POV? If that is the tack to be taken, I respond with the equivilent logical fallacy that they are no Christians, because every sect calling itself Christian considers every other sect to be in heresy or even as apostate.

The christians in this movie (and easly other religions too) are simply a composite of existing sects with very large followings (New Apostolic Reformation, 22,000+ churches, including Sarah Palin's; etc.)

I am sick and tired of hearing Christians (muslims, jews, etc) using the No true Scotsman defense for the end results of their teachings.

My point of order is that the term "Pseudo-Christian" be removed, as all "Christians" are "Pseudo-Christians" to every other sect.

97.127.162.22 (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

In fact, given the usage, I ask that the term "Pseudo-Christian" be removed and changed to the intended "Christian", because the term "Pseudo-Christian" is clearly a non-neutral POV. A change to "Cult", although possibly appropriate, would also reflect non-neutral POV, as one man's cult is another man's enlightenment. The stories clearly depict Christians, and I don't think there is any ambiguity. IMHO, all religions are cults filled with dangerously demented fruitcakes (See: History of the world).

97.127.162.22 (talk) 18:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)(CDN)

They are not "Christians" but worship "He Who Walks in the Fields". Keep your own prejudices out of it.