Tash

[PrinceOfTheWest]

I've always found The Last Battle one of the more difficult of the Chronicles to read. If it weren't for the glorious ending, I'd have a difficult time reading it. Despite the heroic and enchanting figures of Tirian and Jewel, the story is pretty much a "downer", with the bullying Ape, scheming collaborators like Ginger the cat, those wretched turncoat dwarfs, and the tyrannical Calormenes.

For all that, the story still proceeds like a typical Narnia tale: light narrative, simple characterizations, nothing too heavy - with one critical exception:

Tash.

Placed slap in the middle of the story, the description of Tash floating through the woods of Narnia toward Stable Hill is not just bone-chilling but almost desperately horrible because you know it belongs there. What's going on in Narnia makes Tash's appearance not only expectable but inevitable, and Lewis tells it as well as his Tolkien describes Shelob or Williams describes the damnation scene in War in Heaven. (It also shows the truth of the statement that it takes a good man to write horror, since only a good man understands it. Bad men do not understand the evil that grips them well enough to describe it with accuracy.) I'd always just shuddered my way past that whole part, then read quickly until I could get to the place where the High King banishes Tash - I didn't want to dwell on the monster.

But this time through the Chronicles, I got to wondering about Tash - what he signifies, how he is summoned, and what his coming into Narnia means. I've got some thoughts, but I want to see what others think. Here are some things that I got to wondering:



What mightTash correspond to on our spiritual battlefield?
Since Jadis was the primordial evil presence in the Narnian world, what role does Tash play? Where might he have come from?
What does Aslan have to say about Tash?
What might the High King mean when he refers to Tash's "rightful prey"?
What summoned Tash to Narnia? Is there an equivalent in our world?
How do the Calormenes worship Tash? What kind of people does it make them?
What does it mean to say Tash is "inexorable"?
What might the coming of Tash to Narnia mean for Narnia?
Any thoughts? Or questions to add?

Under the Mercy!

[Jewel of Narnia]

I think that Tash represents the current thinking that all gods and religions are equal/the same. For example: the Calormenes combining the names of Tash and Aslan, to confuse the Narnians.
And shows that a strong believer in God/Aslan can tell the difference.
I don't know if what I said was clear, but I hope you get what I'm trying to say. :o

[Wallis]

It appears to me that Lewis took much of his inspiration from Revelation. He might have added a dash of some of the other eschatological writings from the Old Testament as well.

It may well be that Lewis believed in angels and demons; I have nothing at hand to support either side of the arguement/discussion.

As one who disregards the mythological aspect of angels and demons, I look at the world, its history, and the Last Battle in a context where we humans struggle within ourselves as to whom we are going to accept as God: Christ or ourselves.

Tash, to me, represents the Old Adamic nature that is always at war with the New Adam. Paul, in his Hellenic tradition and nature, compared it with the spirit wrestling with the flesh. Tash is as inexorable (Not capable of being persuaded by entreaty; relentless) as we cannot shed the human (or animal, in some cases) nature from our being.

From a perspective on the spiritual side, we are in constant battle against our human nature in trying to be living Christs while in the flesh. The Tash represents those desires that originate in the flesh (human nature), and these desires become the objects that we begin to worship. In simple terms, we could quote "power, wealth, beauty" as just the tip of the iceberg. But in more subtle terms, we need to add "self-esteem, admiration, well-being" and many other ME-centered desires that are a part of our make-up.

---

In response to your second point, I will admit up front that I might be a bit facetious in my response. I feel that the "irst joke" was already indicative of human nature entering into the world of Narnia. It didn't really need a Jadis or a "fallen" human or any spirit of evil to enter into the world. Narnia was not created as perfect as we would like to think but with all of the foibles of every other world created in the real world and otherwise.

Tash is not necessarily an offshoot of Jadis and her ilk but a personification of the imperfectness of human nature, even as portrayed in animal and mythologic form.

---

Aslan and Tash Commentary (http://www.geocities.com/malchats/commentaries/030908.html)

---

7 Deadly Sins in CON (http://cslewis.drzeus.net/papers/7sins.html)

---

I believe there is an absence of Aslan ever having mentioned Tash, as much as there is an absence in the Old Testament of God talking about the other gods that are worshipped. There should be a great significance in this absence. If we all speak with one voice: "there is One God!", then any reference to other gods by the One God would create the impression that there are many gods who all operate at the same level. I believe Aslan, like Christ, recognizes that people set up their own false gods within their own framework and view of the world, and it is this battle that we must fight on a minute-by-minute basis to reject all other gods.

---

The wages of sin is death. The sin against the Holy Spirit is the one unforgiveable sin. Thus, Tash's rightful prey is none other than the person who gives his/her entire being to his/her gods and rejects the Truth, the Life, and the Way. In my opinion, it is not God who damns but our own human nature that leads right down that path into hell, however you want to define the term.

---

Contrary to most posters here in this forum, I do not look at the Calormenes as being a distinct people (e.g., Moslem, Arabians, et al). I view the Calormenes as being all of the people inhabiting the Earth, and they represent the anti-Christ nature of our human nature. They glorify the physical world. They adorn themselves with pride as well as rich clothes. They blind themselves to a philosophy of the real world that refuses to include the glory of Christ and the Kingdom of God brought to Earth.

---

In conclusion, I don't feel that Tash came to Narnia. He was part and parcel to Narnia upon its creation, especially with the creation of all creatures and imparting some of those with sentience and a soul, if you will.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Again, a few things worth responding to here. Anyone else?

[Gibby]

Since Jadis was the primordial evil presence in the Narnian world, what role does Tash play? Where might he have come from?
The ape represents the false Christ and the donkey, perhaps his prophet. Tash must represent the devil. Does this mean the witch was Tash? Maybe. The witch was more like the serpent who was a deceiver, possibly not entirely revealed to Narnia and Tash was the entire manisfestation of evil that was allowed to materialize due to the great wickedness in Narnia.


What does Aslan have to say about Tash?
I can't remember. I would have to read it again to answer that.


What might the High King mean when he refers to Tash's "rightful prey"?
Those who were willingly deceived by the ape possibly


What summoned Tash to Narnia? Is there an equivalent in our world?
The great wickedness in Narnia. I think there is. The way is being paved for antichrist as we speak. I could go on forever on this subject but in a nutshell:

2 Timothy 3:2-4

2People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God—

As our world begins to turn their backs on God more and more, this is becoming commonplace, wouldn't you agree?

Also, technology advances are the setup for the one world government, cashless society, and the mark of the beast. Look at identity theft. Why not have a chip implanted in your skin with all your financial information on it so that no one can steal that info? They are already implanting chips in elderly patients with their medical info. A company in Florida is producing these chips. Look at Europe and the "euro" . The stage is being set. The only thing that is left is the rapture of the church (if you believe in the pre-trib rapture).

How do the Calormenes worship Tash? What kind of people does it make them?
Deceived by the ape.


What does it mean to say Tash is "inexorable"?
His "purpose" cannot be stopped (but his "purpose" is limited and allowed for a short time)



What might the coming of Tash to Narnia mean for Narnia?
The end of the story. But a happy ending eventually, just like the book of revelation is a gloomy read but at the same time, a story of hope and victory!

[Gibby]

I believe there is an absence of Aslan ever having mentioned Tash, as much as there is an absence in the Old Testament of God talking about the other gods that are worshipped. There should be a great significance in this absence. If we all speak with one voice: "there is One God!", then any reference to other gods by the One God would create the impression that there are many gods who all operate at the same level. I believe Aslan, like Christ, recognizes that people set up their own false gods within their own framework and view of the world, and it is this battle that we must fight on a minute-by-minute basis to reject all other gods.
.


I think God does mention the worship of other God's but in no way suggests that they are at the same level. After all, like you mentioned, God hardwired us to worship Him but we turned our back on Him. Therefore, because of our "hardwiring" we will worship something, like it or not: money, objects, self, other gods, you name it! God talks about us worshiping other "gods" but exposes the folly.





Judges 6:24-26



24 So Gideon built an altar to the LORD there and called it The LORD is Peace. To this day it stands in Ophrah of the Abiezrites. 25 That same night the LORD said to him, "Take the second bull from your father's herd, the one seven years old. [a (http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?book_id=7&chapter=6&verse=24&end_verse=26&version=31&context=context#fen-NIV-6680a)] Tear down your father's altar to Baal and cut down the Asherah pole [b (http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?book_id=7&chapter=6&verse=24&end_verse=26&version=31&context=context#fen-NIV-6680b)] beside it. 26 Then build a proper kind of [c (http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?book_id=7&chapter=6&verse=24&end_verse=26&version=31&context=context#fen-NIV-6681c)] altar to the LORD your God on the top of this height. Using the wood of the Asherah pole that you cut down, offer the second [d (http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?book_id=7&chapter=6&verse=24&end_verse=26&version=31&context=context#fen-NIV-6681d)] bull as a burnt offering."





Matthew 6:23-25



23But if your eyes are bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!

24"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.

25"Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes?



---

[PrinceOfTheWest]

It may well be that Lewis believed in angels and demons; I have nothing at hand to support either side of the arguement/discussion.
I find this an astonishing assertion regarding the author of The Screwtape Letters, Perelandara, and That Hideous Strength. In the introduction to Screwtape, he explicitly discusses that the Enemy has generally followed two strategies throughout history: either getting people to focus too much on him, or to ignore him altogether. Lewis held that our current age was one that fell into the latter error, but he was unswerving in his belief in spiritual beings, both benevolent and malevolent. Nobody who knows his work could honestly come away with any other conclusion.

As one who disregards the mythological aspect of angels and demons, I look at the world, its history, and the Last Battle in a context where we humans struggle within ourselves as to whom we are going to accept as God: Christ or ourselves.
I think you're missing the point, Wallis - the issue is not whether you regard or disregard angels or demons, but whether they objectively exist. If they do, then your disregard will not make them go away; if they do not, my belief in them will not create them.

Tash, to me, represents the Old Adamic nature that is always at war with the New Adam. Paul, in his Hellenic tradition and nature, compared it with the spirit wrestling with the flesh. Tash is as inexorable (Not capable of being persuaded by entreaty; relentless) as we cannot shed the human (or animal, in some cases) nature from our being.

From a perspective on the spiritual side, we are in constant battle against our human nature in trying to be living Christs while in the flesh. The Tash represents those desires that originate in the flesh (human nature), and these desires become the objects that we begin to worship. In simple terms, we could quote "power, wealth, beauty" as just the tip of the iceberg. But in more subtle terms, we need to add "self-esteem, admiration, well-being" and many other ME-centered desires that are a part of our make-up.
The classic Christian view is that we fight three enemies during our earthly struggle: the World, the Flesh, and the Devil. It seems to me that you're confusing two of them: the Devil and the Flesh (i.e. concupiscence, the weakness and propensity to evil which is the consequence of Original Sin, even after it is removed.) Tash is clearly an external malevolent being - even if one disregards him.

In response to your second point, I will admit up front that I might be a bit facetious in my response. I feel that the "first joke" was already indicative of human nature entering into the world of Narnia. It didn't really need a Jadis or a "fallen" human or any spirit of evil to enter into the world. Narnia was not created as perfect as we would like to think but with all of the foibles of every other world created in the real world and otherwise.

Tash is not necessarily an offshoot of Jadis and her ilk but a personification of the imperfectness of human nature, even as portrayed in animal and mythologic form.
Again, I'm astonished that you could get that out of the text. The "first joke" was an expression of the ability to speak and to love - a mark of the image of God in the selected creatures (who were not even human, so how could they have "human" natures?) It was Aslan who said to Digory that His new world was not hours old yet already evil had entered into it - in the person of Jadis. The clear message is that Narnia was pure, virgin, clean of sin. Lewis proposes the same thing in Perelandara - an unfallen world, until it is literally invaded by an evil man who acts as a bridge for an even worse spirit. You're assuming that evil is innate to human nauture, not something external. This defies Christian orthodoxy and much of what Lewis wrote.

I believe there is an absence of Aslan ever having mentioned Tash, as much as there is an absence in the Old Testament of God talking about the other gods that are worshipped. There should be a great significance in this absence.
Dead wrong on both counts. Aslan discusses Tash directly and pointedly with the young Calormene officer Emeth when He explains why Emeth's service, which he thought was to Tash, was in fact to Aslan. Furthermore, God extensively discusses false gods, directly and by name, throughout the OT. Here are a few samples:





Lev 18:21: You shall not give any of your children to devote them by fire to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the LORD.
Lev 20:3: I myself will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people, because he has given one of his children to Molech, defiling my sanctuary and profaning my holy name.
Is 57:9: You journeyed to Molech with oil and multiplied your perfumes; you sent your envoys far off, and sent down even to Sheol.
Jer 32:35: They built the high places of Ba'al in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to offer up their sons and daughters to Molech, though I did not command them, nor did it enter into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.
Jer 48:7,13: For, because you trusted in your strongholds and your treasures, you also shall be taken; and Chemosh shall go forth into exile, with his priests and his princes... Then Moab shall be ashamed of Chemosh, as the house of Israel was ashamed of Bethel, their confidence.
If we all speak with one voice: "there is One God!", then any reference to other gods by the One God would create the impression that there are many gods who all operate at the same level. I believe Aslan, like Christ, recognizes that people set up their own false gods within their own framework and view of the world, and it is this battle that we must fight on a minute-by-minute basis to reject all other gods.

The wages of sin is death. The sin against the Holy Spirit is the one unforgiveable sin. Thus, Tash's rightful prey is none other than the person who gives his/her entire being to his/her gods and rejects the Truth, the Life, and the Way. In my opinion, it is not God who damns but our own human nature that leads right down that path into hell, however you want to define the term.
While it is certainly true that we must fight our own tendency to idolatry, particularly self-idolatry, that is far from the only enemy we fight. To ignore the clear Word of God in this struggle is to set ourselves up to be assaulted on unguarded walls.

Contrary to most posters here in this forum, I do not look at the Calormenes as being a distinct people (e.g., Moslem, Arabians, et al). I view the Calormenes as being all of the people inhabiting the Earth, and they represent the anti-Christ nature of our human nature. They glorify the physical world. They adorn themselves with pride as well as rich clothes. They blind themselves to a philosophy of the real world that refuses to include the glory of Christ and the Kingdom of God brought to Earth.
You are certainly right in that the Calormenes are all those things, but what is to prevent them from also being a separate race?

In conclusion, I don't feel that Tash came to Narnia. He was part and parcel to Narnia upon its creation, especially with the creation of all creatures and imparting some of those with sentience and a soul, if you will.
My conclusion regarding your conclusion is that you brought a lot of assumptions to the text which seem to have blinded you not only to the immediate meaning but to much of the deeper meaning as well. For my part, I have no difficulty believing the mythology of demons and angels, as Lewis defined mythology - a story that means more than it says. Even as the beings in Perelandara were both real and mythological at the same time, so beings in our world - and Narnia - can be both symbolic and real. Lewis's work, the Scriptures he believed in, and the clear teaching of the Church are all in agreement: there are malevolent spiritual forces that are distinct and separate from the sinful tendencies of our fallen natures. Yes, there is an internal struggle, but there is an external one, too, as St. Paul makes clear in Ephesians 6:12: For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.
You may contend that you have a right to your opinion, which may be true, but I also have a right to believe my automobile runs on homogenized milk - if I want to live with the consequences of that decision. I defy you to find any reference to Tash at the creation of Narnia, or any other reference to his presence in Narnia before the closing chapters of Last Battle - and by "reference", I mean actual text, not some sort of isogetic reading whereby you project your own presuppostitions onto what is plainly there.

[Wallis]

Well, my dear Prince. I see that when you asked for other people's opinions, your true agenda was to set them up so that you could knock them down.

Inasmuch as I opened up to you with my opinions, I do not appreciate you willy-nilly knocking them around and down, just because you happen to view the world in a very myopic way.

I take umbrage with people like you who set yourself up as an authority of both Lewis and the Word. Let me see some credentials. I have been a theologian for 35 years, and the fact that angels and demons do not exist is a demonstrated fact, if you will do some research on the subject. And the Devil does not exist except in the nature of mankind. Do some research on the history and development of the doctrine of the Devil.

Lewis wrote in the vein of mythology, and he used mythologic themes both inside and outside the church.

[inkspot]

Now boys. Don't get offended with each other. That's just what the devil wants! Tee-hee. :p

Wallis, I did not know you did not believe in angels and demons. Why not?

Because I am a Christian, I personally believe in them because they are referred to in the Bible (as that old Scot would say in That Hideous Strength, "Show it to me in the Word of God") -- but I am curious how you can say not just that you don't believe in them, but that they don't exist? Don't you think there are more things under heaven and earth than are dreamt of in philosophy, Horatio?

As for ol' Tash, I tend to think like Wallis that he was created or at least existed at the time of the creation of Narnia, and Aslan makes it clear that he has a role to play, albeit a terrible one. He's like a demon, or an angel of death, maybe?

[Saruman]

I take umbrage with people like you who set yourself up as an authority of both Lewis and the Word. Let me see some credentials. I have been a theologian for 35 years, and the fact that angels and demons do not exist is a demonstrated fact, if you will do some research on the subject. And the Devil does not exist except in the nature of mankind. Do some research on the history and development of the doctrine of the Devil.

Lewis wrote in the vein of mythology, and he used mythologic themes both inside and outside the church.

I don't know about this so-called research, Wallis, but I have had the most awful experience of seeing and praying for a demon-possessed person. How do I know this 20-some year old girl was possessed and not merely influenced by drugs or had not taken her medication that night? Perhaps seeing her writhe and growl, and hearing her most hellish bloodcurdling screams from far off, was enough to convince me she was trapped and that there was some other being there. Not to mention the fact that someone said she had dabbled in witchcraft. And even further, I saw her come back after the Holy Spirit set her free, and was able to hear how this had not been the first time she had been in this state (her boyfriend and mother were there as personal witnesses). Particularly since it happened at my church, after a youth study in the sanctuary had exited. I had been working that evening, least expecting something of that nature to transpire.

Clearly you are strongly opinionated in such matters as you view them, in your fashion, but I am an eye-witness (and I have no doubt I am one in a sea of others). One need only to look at the world of men today, in which people engage in all sorts of vile and heinous activities and practices, opening themselves up to a spiritual realm far beyond their grasp to comprehend. But even more than having seen it with my own eyes I have already known of the existence of angels and demons, for it is in God's Word, the Bible, where history has been written down. Within the four Gospels alone Jesus freed so many people who were bound by demons, and spoke extensively on such issues.

I do not intend to take part in any theological battle, but I must correct a flawed viewpoint.

[unleavened]

I didn't read the whole thing so this may be repetitive. I'll make it short.

In my Opinion:
Tash = Saten
Rightful Prey = Those who didn't have faith in Aslan through the incident. I think someone said those who were willingly decieved. I'd add "or part of the deception.
How do the Calerman's worship Tash? No clue, but I'd bet it's not by exchanging chocolate and teddy bears.
What kind of people does that make them? Decieved into cruelty. Very sad when you look at the reality of it.
Inexorable? Hmmm, dunno
What does Tash's comming mean for Narnia? End Times! ENDTIMES!!!!

[Saruman]

I'm not sure if it was in A Horse and His Boy or in The Last Battle, but Lewis writes that the Carlomenes would offer human sacrifices to Tash in Tashbaan. (I am almost certain it is in TLB.)

And, unleavened, might I add that you have a pretty pure outlook on the subject. I admire that. :)

[Wallis]

There is no flawed viewpoint, Curumo. There is only a matter of opinion.

You would prefer to believe that the maladies of the brain are caused by demons. To me this is mythology. That Christ spoke within the confines of the religious and medical understanding of the day is quite consistent of His ministry, but in no way should be construed as being fact.

I have no desire to discuss angels on this thread, but I will invite you to read the following from another thread: Angelology 1 (http://communities.anomalies.net/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=41;t=000334)

Bottom line: I really don't care if people want to believe in angels and demons. To me, it is all a distraction from a relationship to the living One God.

[Wallis]

Why Does Evil Exist?
It was of no interest to God to create a species consisting of virtuous automata, for the 'virtue' of automata who can do no other than they do is a courtesy title only; it is analogous to the 'virtue' of the stone that rolls downhill or of the water that freezes at 32 degrees. To what end, it may be asked, should God create such creatures? That He might be praised by them? But automatic praise is a mere succession of noises. That He might love them? But they are essentially unloveable; you cannot love puppets. And so God gave man free will that he might increase in virtue by his own efforts and become, a free moral being, a worthy object of God's love. Freedom entails freedom to go wrong: man did, in fact, go wrong, misusing God's gift and doing evil. Pain is a by-product of evil; and so pain came into the world as a result of man's misuse of God's gift of free will. (Dr. Joad as quoted in the The Christian World of C. S. Lewis by Clyde Kilby pp. 65-66)

You don't need the invention of a devil to bring about evil.

----

From Lewis himself:

Mere Christianity (http://members.aol.com/thompsonja/cslewis.htm)

----

Perhaps a reading of God in the Dock would be of benefit to us all.

[Wallis]

Beyond the parameters of traditional Arminianism, however, Lewis expected that some non-Christians would be saved. "Though all salvation is through Jesus, we need not conclude that He cannot save those who have not explicitly accepted Him in this life." On the radio he announced: "We do know that no [one] can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him."

In the children’s Narnia series, the lion Aslan is Lewis’s Christ-figure. In The Last Battle deceivers say: "[The god] Tash and Aslan are only two different names for You Know Who." Later they use the hybrid or compound name Tashlan to make their point. At the end of this last book in the Narnia series one of the outsiders, a Calorman named Emeth (which is the transliteration of the Hebrew word for "truth"), who has been a life-long worshiper of Tash, approaches Aslan. To this Tash-server Aslan says, "Son, thou art welcome." Emeth counters, "I am no son of Thine but a servant of Tash." Aslan rejoins: "All the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me." This is a clear indicator that for Lewis the non Christ-worshiper may be received into heaven. Similarly, in another fictional setting, Jane Studdock, an unbeliever, says to Ransom the Pendragon: "I know nothing of Maleldil [the Christ-figure]. But I place myself in obedience to you." To her acknowledgment Ransom replies:

It is enough for the present. This is the courtesy of Deep Heaven that when you mean well, He always takes you to have meant better than you know. It will not be for always. He is very jealous. He will have you for no one but Himself in the end. But for tonight, it is enough.

This issue raises the question of Christianity in relation to other world religions. Lewis said: "I couldn’t believe that 999 religions were completely false and the remaining one true." Similarly he stated: "We are not pronouncing all other religions to be totally false, but rather saying that in Christ whatever is true in all religions is consummated and perfected." Kathryn Lindskoog wrote: "Lewis expressed hope that many true seekers like Akhenaton and Plato, who never had a chance to find Christ in this life, will find Him in the next one."

Theology of Lewis. Lewis (http://www.faithalone.org/journal/2000i/townsend2000e.htm)

[High King Peter]

I think that Tash is a direct representation of Satan. I think this because Alsan says that "he is his opposite". I took that to mean that if he is the opposite of the figure of Christ, he must represent the evil one.
Its a chilling thought. Forgive me if this sounds blunt.

[inkspot]

Thanks for your explanation, Wallis! I do not have time to look up the links you gave, but I am still curious, if you believe the Bible, why you don't believe in angels and demons?

There are places in the Bible with specific references to angels with names, such as Michael and Gabriel, and the certain actions that they did, such as the Annunciation, and rebuking the devil when they fought over the body of Moses... So, I wonder why God would inspire the Bible-writers to put these references in the Bible, if they were just fairy tales?

Also, what do you think about Ephesians 6:12, "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."

(Maybe we should do this in another thread, but I am curious -- I know you are a smart and sincere believer, and I am wondering how it is you don't believe some things that seem to me to originate with the Bible.)

[Saruman]

There is no flawed viewpoint, Curumo. There is only a matter of opinion.

You would prefer to believe that the maladies of the brain are caused by demons. To me this is mythology. That Christ spoke within the confines of the religious and medical understanding of the day is quite consistent of His ministry, but in no way should be construed as being fact.

Of course there is a matter of opinion, as I stated before, but there indeed is a flawed point of view. Obviously I wasn't born yesterday; I know the difference between one who suffers mental maladies (having worked at a church I saw all sorts of loonies come on to the campus from time to time, and clearly they weren't demon-possessed). What I witnessed, however, was something as if it had come directly from one of the histories of the Bible.

but in no way should be construed as being fact.

How, then, ought we to take the collective histories of the Bible? As an achievement of excellent literary prose of the day? As a born-again Christian, I know and realize that the Word of God has been influenced by His Holy Spirit, and all that is included therein (i.e. things Satan said, things an angel said, etc., etc.) were meant to be in there to teach and instruct us. Since it seems you do not believe Jesus' ministry in setting people free from demons to be factual, then we should take a look at the many examples found in the Old Testament (Jacob wrestling with an angel of the Lord, a lone angel wiping out an opposing army , inter alia). The Old Testament is scattershot with examples of the existence of these "other beings"; that is to say, they are a very real presence. If my God is apt to believe in their existence, then I think I will follow in His footsteps.

Emeth counters, "I am no son of Thine but a servant of Tash." Aslan rejoins: "All the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me." This is a clear indicator that for Lewis the non Christ-worshiper may be received into heaven


For me, theology doesn't begin and end with Lewis. Just because he was born-again and a fellow believer doesn't mean he was free from error. I will follow Christ, the God-Man, the Second Member of the Holy Trinity of One God in Three Persons, when He said this (Jn 14:6): "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no man comes to the Father, but by Me." Apart from Christ there is no salvation. It is therefore impossible for one who doesn't accept Christ's gift of pardon for sin to enter into His Kingdom.

In sum, you are well entitled to your opinions, whether they are flawed or not. They, of course, remain opinions, as do mine, and those of every other living person in the world. When pointing out facts, however, then one ought to set aside opinions for the time being. If one who is a Christian does not view the Word of God as the ultimate authority on any given issue, then they have fallen short of a greater relationship and [I]ginosko of the Living God, no matter how long they've been saved by grace. In all, I think this is a sad commentary.

I have written all I have desired to write.

[Gibby]

Bottom line: I really don't care if people want to believe in angels and demons. To me, it is all a distraction from a relationship to the living One God.

The bible is God's complete revelation to mankind. Part of the relationship with our Father is to study His Word and live by it. The bible talks about angels and demons frequently so I am going to trust God by His Word. To discredit one single statement or word in the bible is to invalidate the entire scripture! That is where the power of His Word comes from; believing every stroke of the pen as pure fact! Otherwise it is dead...

[inkspot]

To discredit one single statement or word in the bible is to invalidate the entire scripture! That is where the power of His Word comes from; believing every stroke of the pen as pure fact! Otherwise it is dead...
Yah, this is kind of my view, but it is not every believer's view. As Lewis' theology points out, a person can be a sincere believer in Christ Jesus, forgiven and following the Lord's teachings and doing great work for the kingdom, without believing every word in the Bible to be literal.

Let's promise right now not to get contentious in this thread about whether the Bible is lterally true and if it is still valid if it isn't literally true, or else they will lock this thread up like the theology ones! :(

[Gibby]

Yah, this is kind of my view, but it is not every believer's view. As Lewis' theology points out, a person can be a sincere believer in Christ Jesus, forgiven and following the Lord's teachings and doing great work for the kingdom, without believing every word in the Bible to be literal.
:(

One more statement and I will close my lips...
You may be right, Inkspot, but if people really want the power of the gospel to work in their lives, they will believe it to be literal. To pick and choose what to believe is to put God in a box, only pulling Him out when they need Him. To say that a claim in the bible is too outrageous to believe is to put limits on the Holy Creator of the entire universe. If people want the power of God to completely transform their lives, they will put their trust in God's Word. Faith like a child. You said it God, I believe it!

Luke 10:21-22

21At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.
22"All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows who the Son is except the Father, and no one knows who the Father is except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."

Sorry Prince, we all hijacked your thread! Tash, evil...Narnia rules!!

[inkspot]

Yah, as I said, I believe the Word to be inerrant and delivered through men by the Holy Spirit, from God.

But I know there are real believers who don't believe that. And I think the power of the Gospel must be at work in them -- witness CS Lewis, and Wallis. :)

For me, it doesn't work: if the Word is lying on one count, why believe any of it? But for others it works very well: it is the Word of God delivered through imperfect human beings and was fitted to the mental capacity and cultural mores of the people at that time -- so it is true in concept and spirit if not at every literal level.

I can see where they are coming from, and I believe Christ has put His hands on them, too. I just don't beleive that way.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

I stand falsely accused. Fellow forum member Wallis has said the following regarding my initial post:

Well, my dear Prince. I see that when you asked for other people's opinions, your true agenda was to set them up so that you could knock them down.
I am fully aware of my motivation when I made that post, which was exactly what I said it was: to get other people's thoughts on the topics. I had no hidden agenda, nor was it my intention to knock others down.

Having said that, I make no apologies for my response. Had your statements only been opinions, Wallis, I might have answered them as such. However, you took as departure points positions that were simply wrong (e.g. your "belief" that Aslan never mentions Tash, or that God never mentions the name of false gods in the OT, or that Tash never came to Narnia - in clear contradiction to the plain text in all cases), and proceeded from there to begin speaking authoritatively on a variety of issues. Did you expect not to be challenged on the incorrect portions of your statements?

I take umbrage with people like you who set yourself up as an authority of both Lewis and the Word.
I know - it's just terrible when people do that, isn't it?

Let me see some credentials. I have been a theologian for 35 years, and the fact that angels and demons do not exist is a demonstrated fact, if you will do some research on the subject. And the Devil does not exist except in the nature of mankind. Do some research on the history and development of the doctrine of the Devil.
I'm afraid I've had far too much contact with theologians - and some big names who you'd probably recognize - to be too impressed by that. Any theologian who claims "the fact that angels and demons do not exist is a demonstrated fact" is not a good theologian but a bad logician or scientist. "Demonstrated facts" are in the realm of science, i.e. things that belong to this space-time continuum, such as the boiling temperature of water at sea level. If angels and demons exist, they are outside of the bounds of our four dimensions, and hence outside the range of science. Their non-existence could not be a "demonstrated fact" any more than their existence. To even know of them, we would have to take someone else's word on the matter.
I'm well aware of the Babylonian Origin theory regarding spiritual beings, as well as the Documentary Hypothesis upon which it is based. I'm also aware there are large holes in both (see Before Abraham Was, Kikawada & Quinn), so that's not going to prove anything.

Lewis wrote in the vein of mythology, and he used mythologic themes both inside and outside the church.
At the risk of sounding like someone who sets himself up as an authority on Lewis, it was Lewis himself who maintained most strenuously that just because something is mythological does not mean it is not also objectively, historically real. For pete's sake, that's how Tolkien hooked him into seriously considering Christianity! The Incarnation is The Great Myth, the Dying and Rising God, Balder and Osiris both; the Corn God who feeds his people. Yet at the same time He was "born of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he suffered under Pontius Pilate..." The interpenetration of the objective and the mythological was one of the major themes of Lewis' work! You seem to be claiming that Lewis' use of spiritual beings in a mythological vein means he did not think they objectively existed; I submit that his use of them as myth says nothing about his belief in their objectivity.

I agree that the issue of spiritual beings is not essential to the salvation message. In my tradition, it is considered a doctrine but not a dogma; that is, one can not believe and still have saving knowledge of God. St. Paul even warns against obsessing over the topic - most interpretations I've seen of 1 Tim 1:4(...nor to occupy themselves with myths and endless genealogies which promote speculations rather than the divine training that is in faith...) explained that it referred to the obsession with hierarchies of spiritual beings which was a mark of Hellenistic mystery cults. Yet, the clear revelation of God in the Scriptures and Church tradition testifies that such beings exist, for the good and ill. If angels do not exist, then who appeared to Mary at the Annunciation? Who was at the tomb to announce the Risen Christ to the women? It is not a question of inventing a devil to bring about evil, it is a question of believing what we're told.

That's the core of my concern. It isn't the doctrine itself, it's the grounds on which you reject it. At the risk of sounding like unsophisticated, or even worse (to a theologian), fundamentalist, I can see on one hand the uniform witness of the sacred Scripture and the tradition of the Christian church throughout history down to the present day. On the other hand, you seem to be offering only "the history and development of the doctrine of the Devil" - a "history" which, oddly enough, didn't show up until the historical and higher critics of the mid to late 19th Century. That seems to me a weak reed, and leaves a dangerous gate open. After all, if you're going to reject one witness of Scripture based on modern scholarship, why not others? If Gabriel is excluded, what of his message? Does the Virgin Birth go next, and then Incarnation itself? Where does one draw the line, and by what criteria? And for my part, I've never found the doctrine of spiritual beings to distract from my devotion to Christ - in fact, in Lewis' hands, the mythological accounts of their obedience spurred me on to greater devotion.

I don't know how the thread got turned to the issue of qualifications for salvation, but I'll again take the risk of sounding like a self-appointed Lewis expert in order to say that I think he was standing in the tradition of Augustine and Aquinas regarding the salvation of those who never get a chance to hear of Christ. The conversation between Aslan and Emeth is illuminating in that regard. Here I definitely speak under correction, but I believe it was Lewis who advanced the idea that all men come to the Father through Christ, but we do not know exhaustively what that means. We know one way ("Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit..."), and we're certainly under mandate to do that, but that does not say that God has not opened up other avenues through Christ that we don't know of. Not that any of this should diminish our missionary fervor - we are under orders!

[Wallis]

My dear brothers and sisters in Christ.

Look. One of the reasons why the religious threads were closed were because we posters acted more like raging bull elephant fighting over the last female on Earth.

1. Faith should be irrespective of theology, yet theology has a direct impact--often derogative and damaging to faith. A faith that can be shaken by new information was never a faith in the first place.

2. People will quote the Bible until the cows come home, and yet they have no idea what they are quoting. Usually, these quotes will come from the Pauline letters. We are 2,000 years removed from the society from which these quotes were written. Without painstaking research, we have no idea of the concept, the thinking, the society, or the world in which they were written. We have to go beyond what we learned in Sunday School last Sunday or something that the pastor mentioned in his sermon.

3. Again, I am not going to discuss angels and demons. I have provided ample reference to a cornucopia of research. I'm not going to fill 4 to 6 pages in this forum with documentation by researchers who are a lot smarter than I. I will reiterate a statement I made on that other forum: if one wishes to denigrate brain maladies to demons, then cancel all your doctor appointments and call a priest.

4. Much of the religious discussion, as evidenced in the closed forums, is a kin to teaching a pig to sing. First, it is a waste of time, and second, it annoys the pig.

5. If people feel comfortable with the concept that God wrote the Bible through the fingers of people (men and women), then who am I to disturb their very myopic view of the supernatural. But they will miss the richness of the Bible and the history of the Jews and the mechanisms they employed to espouse that God is One and is the true God. Want to read something highly interesting? Read Hebrew Myths, The Book of Genesis by Robert Graves and Raphael Patai. You don't have to believe what they wrote, but at least you will have provided a window onto a "real" world that exists outside of the closed world encompassed by theology. Once one opens up the consciousness to a much larger world the relationship and wonderment with God increases.

****

And, Prince, one last word. Instead of approaching the discussion as an adult, you took the adolescent approach. You could have very patiently pointed out errors regarding Lewis by using chapter and verse from sources I could have checked out.

The fact that you will blatantly write that I am in error is laughable. This is not discussion. This is tyranny. And, I'm sorry--both for you and your pitiful attempt of explanation--but you did have a hidden agenda. You turned your nukes or phasers on me in a deliberate attack. The venom in your words was unconsciousable. You will rarely view such a response from me to other posters, but when you have knowingly and maliciously wronged me and others, I will not accept such impropriety and mannerless expression by you or anyone else.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Well, then, moving right along here...

I believe I've been remiss in one duty - posting my own thoughts on my own questions. If I'm going to be commenting on other's posts, I should offer others the opportunity to comment on mine, so here goes:

To me, it seemed that Tash corresponds to the malevolent spiritual forces we face here on earth. Furthermore, he seems the worst of the lot, whoever he is and however he got to the Narnian universe. If there is a Satan equivalent in the Chronicles, I would submit it is Tash, not Jadis (which is somewhat odd, considering that Jadis was the original "stain" on the world of Narnia.) Yet as someone pointed out in another thread, the circumstances in Narnia do not parallel ours exactly, so one would expect the theology to be different.

Aslan's words about Tash are most illuminating (related through Emeth). He says "Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the services which thou have done to him, for I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath's sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted." The point that stuck out for me was that Aslan and Tash are opposites, so much so that the same deed cannot rest on both their altars at the same time (so to speak).

It seems to me that Tash's "rightful prey" (the exact quote is "lawful prey" - sorry!) would be the ones whose deeds were a suitable offering to Tash, as Aslan explains above. I find it fascinating that the specific instance is Rishda Tarkaan. It is to him that Tash says specifically, "Thou hast called me into Narnia, Rishda Tarkaan. Here I am." This is extremely interesting, considering that earlier in the story Rishda is exposed as a complete unbeliever. In his discussion with Ginger the Cat regarding Tash and Aslan, Ginger states his belief that "there is no such person as either", which Rishda confirms, "all who are enlightened know that." Rishda does not believe in Tash, but rather in worldly power, symbolized by Calormene military and political might. Rishda is one of "...those who care for neither Tash nor Aslan but have only an eye to their own profit, and such a reward as the Tisroc may give them when Narnia is a Calormene province..." The greatest power he can see is the might of men, and it is that which he worships. The last person to explicitly "call" Tash would be Rishda, since he did not even believe there was such a being. Poggin the Dwarf indicts Shift of the same sin, "...this fool of an Ape, who didn't believe in Tash, will get more than he bargained for!" As Tirian puts it, "It has come to dwell among us. They have called it and it has come." It was unbelief that did the calling.

I see this as a warning, particularly to our age, when the might and knowledge of Man is exaulted and the knowledge of and obedience to God is frequently ignored or disdained. I believe it was St. Augustine who spoke of a "God-shaped hole" in our hearts that only He can fill. If Lewis' parable is as accurate as it seems to me, that hole will not be unfilled for long. Either we fill it with Christ, or something much worse will take up residence. If the parable of [i]The Last Battle is right, unbelief is what opens the door.

Somewhat fortunately, Lewis doesn't go into detail about the worship of Tash, but he does let slip toward the end of the chapter The Ape in Its Glory that human sacrifice is involved. ("...the terrible god Tash who fed on the blood of his people...") The effect it seems to have on the Calormenes (more obvious in Horse) is to make them a fear-dominated people. Even the leaders are but exaulted slaves, whose lives and positions are precarious. Tash is demanding and bloodthirsty; there is no good side to him and he accepts no appeal (the definition of "inexorable" - unable to be swayed or moved.) Slavery and fear mark every level of Calormene society, as opposed to the freedom of Narnian life.

The unfolding of the story makes clear what the coming of Tash to Narnia signifies: the End. But nobody knew that until Aslan throws open the Stable Door. To the ordinary Narnians, perhaps those who slunk away from the last battle itself, it appears that things are just going from bad to worse. After generations of trying, the Tisroc has finally succeeded; "Narnia is no more." It reminds me of Jesus' discourse in Luke 21. He's describing all these catastrophic things, and then He says, "Now when these things begin to take place, look up and raise your heads, because your redemption is drawing near." (v. 28) What a thing to say after curdling everyone's blood with these descriptions of famines, pestilence, and wars! Yet for the Narnians, that was exactly the case. Just when things looked totally lost, the Real Power showed up and solved the matter for good and ever.

How about us? What do conditions in our world look like? Do we have the courage to "raise our heads"?

Under the Mercy!

[inkspot]

The French poet Baudelaire said, "The devil's best trick is to persuade you that he doesn't exist!" The non-belief of the key Calormenes and traitor Narnians such as Ginger and Shift was key the evil that took place. The same could be very true in our world! If we refuse to recognize that there is a devil, or even a fixed condition of "evil," then there can really be no defense of what is good -- because who could agree on what is really good? :eek:

This is why, I think, Americans in the Bible belt (or the Red States, whatever we are) are so incomprehensible to most Europeans: because we really believe in good and evil as fixed concepts, and they feel themselves advanced beyond that stage, to an age of reason that denies God and the devil. We are coming from totally different worldviews and what seems vitally important to us seems trivial to them ...

[Gibby]

This is why, I think, Americans in the Bible belt (or the Red States, whatever we are) are so incomprehensible to most Europeans: because we really believe in good and evil as fixed concepts, and they feel themselves advanced beyond that stage, to an age of reason that denies God and the devil. We are coming from totally different worldviews and what seems vitally important to us seems trivial to them ...

This is funny, because alot of prophecy watchers are keeping their eyes on Europe as where the antichrist will arise. They say the stage is being set by Europe for the tribulation one world government and currency and Europeans are setting the pace worldwide for secularism in society. It's not working so great for France right now; secularism that is.

[Johan 72109]

I think it's slightly dangerous to do prophecy watching... To be honest, EVERY generation has perceived itself as the end times, but none has been. Remember, the Bible says that not even Jesus knows when the End will come. If HE doesn't know, you can be sure we won't.

However, I agree on the other points. Unbelief and modernism, the idea that humanity has ascended and has entered a philosphical renaissance, is the true danger in post-christian society in Europe. Places where atheism has thrived, combined with atheistic philosphy, has created all the states that ring through the ages as the most oppressive regimes known to man - such as communism and Naziism.

But unbelief and modernism is not the only ways of letting in the devil. What about the empire of Christendom? An empire that reigned Europe for over a thousand years, and caused some of the most oppressed and ignorant peoples in history, with the first cracks only appearing after a millenia, when the Reformation began. Here Satan was let in, but by a different means, which was fanatiscism and the blending of religion with politics, resulting in the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Wars of Religion, along with countless massacres and unneccesary deaths due to the hindrances set by the church upon intellectual advancement.

[Gibby]

I think it's slightly dangerous to do prophecy watching... To be honest, EVERY generation has perceived itself as the end times, but none has been. Remember, the Bible says that not even Jesus knows when the End will come. If HE doesn't know, you can be sure we won't.

.

You're definately right about us not knowing. Jesus just gave us hints as to the end times so that we would be ready and to place a sense of urgency to our witness. Although there have been wars galore since Jesus' time, I do remember hearing some statistics that state that worldwide earthquakes are increasing, there are, in number, more and more armed conflicts globally, and increased famine and plagues. I am not sure where the wicked weather and other natural disasters fit in. Here is an article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/3666474.stm)on natural disasters. I certainly don't dwell on prophecy or label particular events as fulfillment on prophecy but I am going to be ready and I am not going to be alarmed by disturbing trends in our society.
[/url]

Matthew 24:5-7

5For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ,[[url="http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=24&verse=5&end_verse=7&version=31&context=context#fen-NIV-23960a"]a (http://gldss7.cr.usgs.gov/neis/qed/qed.html)]' and will deceive many. 6You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 7Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places.

[Wallis]

My last replies were rather heated, and I will apologize for reacting in such matter. But when it comes to religious beliefs, tenets, and faith, NO ONE has the right on this forum to tell anyone here that they are wrong. Discussion of one's beliefs should be encouraged, and through thoughtful and rational discussion, one might alter their perception.

To answer some of the questions put to me:

1. The Bible is not a history. It is a witness by people of God acting in their lives. Most of Genesis, for example, is a badly comprised collection of myths that the compilers wrote to justify Israel, especially after David's kingdom was established and the Israelites whomped their neighbors.

1a. If we are to take the Bible so literally, then we must reject that the Earth is a spherical body, for the Bible clearly gives proof that the Earth is flat.

1b. If we are to take the Bible so literally, then we have to alter our own place within the supernatural. We no longer have free will. We are mere pawns on a giant chessboard, pulled this way and that not by our own minds and thoughts but dependent upon the whims of supernatural beings. Remind you of the Roman and Greek mythologies? And then, we add the whimsy of God into the equation, who rewards and punishes according to our deeds and words.

1c. Scripture should not define faith. If the Bible included the sentence that the Moon is made of green cheese, and then by going to the Moon we find that there is no green cheese, what happens to our faith which is based on the Bible? Having a faith based on words on a page is like building a house on sand. No, make that quicksand. Scripture is good for teaching, like moral teaching. But faith should be built upon that rock which we Christians call Christ. Born-again emphasize a personal savior and relationship. Whatever. But it is the "proof" that is established within an individual's mind and heart that faith should be founded: Christ acting within an individual's life and Christ acting through the individual in interaction and confrontation with the world.

1d. If Christians spout the infallibility of Scripture as a basis of faith and outward actions and inward thinking, what makes Christians so different from Moslems who declare that the Koran is the living Word of Allah? All is vanity and a house of straw. The Living Word should be existent within the very soul of the individual.

2. Does anyone know what the meaning of Satan is? A show of hands, please. Is my hand the only one raised here? My provided reference will explain it. One only has to research the development of this mythological creature to understand how the Jews understood the term and how Helenic thought changed the philosophical thought of the supernatural. Start with the original meaning: adversary.

2a. The whole of the Bible, the spirit of the Bible, clearly demonstrates that people are God's adversary. People have the choice to either follow God's will or not. Because we do have free will, we do have the choice of following our own natures. It is as one of my professors eloquently stated: every moment of our lives, we must make a choice: do I be God today or do I let God be God today.

2b. While most Christians search the Scriptures and the heavens and the Earth for signs of the Anti-Christ, they fall short of recognizing that the Anti-Christ dwells within their hearts and minds. Every moment of our lives we are the antithesis of Christ. We are selfish, hateful, spiteful, and so full of ourselves that we often kick Christ right out of our lives. The Devil didn't make me do anything. I did it. I am the Anti-Christ, the Old Adam. And I need to renew the New Adam every second of my life.

3. I highly recommend people read Alfred Edersheim. His century-old works are still valid and are full of insight, especially when one is trying to understand the culture and times of the Christ. His works are on-line, meaning that they are not only free but can be liberally copied and inserted into this and other forums. Visit Alfred Edersheim (http://philologos.org/online.htm#Edersheim)

4. By elevating Tash to the level of Aslan or Satan to the level of God, as many popular television programs and movies promote, is in direct confrontation with the profession of the Christian faith. God is One God. There are no other gods.

5. When a person believes something, it becomes real. How many people here believe in Santa Claus? Is my hand the only one raised? At an early point in time in our childhood, we realize that there does not exist a fairy elf who flies through the air in a sled pulled by reindeer. Yet, this "proof" is not satisfactory to completely obliterate the existence of Santa Claus. Because Santa is an idea, a spirit of love and giving. I sincerely doubt that anyone here would not share with their young children the concept of Santa. Parents do this sharing out of love and enjoyment, sometimes going way out of their way to perpetuate the child's fantasy.

5a. When enough people believe something, that reality becomes very tangible. The malevolent forces that we see everyday are not supernatural but have their origin of existence within the minds of people. At the same time, I was witness to a 24-hour prayer vigil for a young boy who had been diagnosed with an in-operable brain cancer/tumor. The day after that vigil had concluded, the tumor was gone. I mean, gone. The power of people believing in the power of God to heal this boy was real. And, yet, many of the people who participated in the vigil were just astounded at this miracle. Puts a whole new meaning on the phrase that faith the size of a mustard seed can move a mountain.

5b. When people stop believing in something, whatever it was ceases to be real.

[Parthian King]

1.The Bible is not a history,etc.

This is essentially a false choice by implication. The Bible is both a history AND a testimony by God’s people. It is also other things. I am not sure what definition of “history� you might be using, but before you go too far, recognize that pretty much everyone (in both the realms of secular history and biblical interpretation) recognizes that objectivity is a chimera. In other words, simply because the (I believe, inspired) writers of the Bible were testifying according to their faith does not mean it is not a legitimate history on its own terms, as other histories are, also on their own terms. With an eye to historical value, the idea that somehow the New Testament should be viewed (at best) with an attitude of bemused endearment while Josephus is swallowed more or else whole is absurd. Such a judgment speaks as surely of ideological presuppositions as does the confessional stance that opposes it.

As for your judgment of Genesis (a favorite whipping boy when it comes to approach of the historical critical school), I find it somewhat odd that you open your statement by arguing that no one has a right to say anyone else is “wrong,� then you proceed to accuse the canon of being so. Oh, those aren’t your literal words, but that’s what is heard when it is repeated, especially in the ears of the young. I find it even more puzzling to read such a description (“badly comprised�) applied to a masterpiece of ancient literature, so sweeping in its grandeur and majesty, and rich with spiritual truth that it played (and continues to play) a central role in transforming entire societies in occident and orient alike, quite literally changing the course of human history. Have those affected by its words been so naïve? Or could it be that they were tapping into a message in its lines that had nothing to do with Post-Enlightenment constructs and academic artifices that determine what is “badly comprised� when it comes to ancient literature? Those who were inspired to write the Scriptures were not at all concerned with producing a work that appears like the New York Times, but rather something that answers other questions entirely. It is a question of wavelength, and I wouldn’t bet against the Scriptures and their implicit worldview being the right one to be on.

C.S. Lewis himself gives pretty direct warning about these matters in “Of Fern-seed and Elephants.� He points out that many biblical scholars claim to be able to see fern-seed (tiny, obscure issues relating to the issues of the biblical text), but miss elephants (huge, centrally important issues relating to the text). He uses his own writings as an object lesson, pointing out that when it came to determining the origins of any given passage he had written, not only could his colleagues not determine the history of their development from what was before them, but HE HIMSELF could not! To apply that lesson in this context (assuming a disregard for the traditional stance that Moses wrote the Pentateuch): In what epoch, and for what motives Genesis was written, and how it was or was not pieced together—that’s fern-seed. That the book of Genesis in the form we have it is answering questions that make these latter questions seem ridiculously puny and unimportant by comparison—those are elephants.

1a.If we are to take the Bible so literally,etc.

Taking the Bible literally is not the issue, and rarely is. The issue is taking the Bible seriously and interpreting it according to responsible interpretative parameters. Poetry, parable, metaphor—these are not MEANT to be taken literally, and I have yet to meet the “literalistâ€� that wants to. By your numbering of your points, you imply that if one does not adopt a stance similar to your own vis-Ã*-vis Genesis, then one is a literalist in the strictest sense and is on the verge of arguing for a flat earth or (closer to home) a literal seven day creation. These are straw men, and it simply is not necessarily so.

You will not find the terms, or even really the concept of a divide between “natural� and “supernatural� in the Bible. We use those terms commonly, but again, they are Post-Enlightenment constructs. The “divide� between these “realms� is a perceived reality imposed upon us by the fall, but ultimately it is illusory. Again, look to Lewis’ comments in Screwtape about the “real world� of the atheist, and the remarks about the risen Christ being able to walk through walls not because He was less real than they were, but rather more. The continual insistence that the “natural� world is real and the “supernatural� one is somehow less real is to employ categories that are not contained in Scripture, aside from the conclusions we may draw about their respective “solidity.�

The Bible says nothing about the Moon being made of green cheese. You offer no example that carries your argument, so it is difficult to otherwise respond. The fact is, Scripture, with the aid of the Spirit who inspired it, mediates Christ in our lives. That is why it is called “canon� (rule, yardstick). It is not there to be worshipped apart from Christ, but the Fathers who helped form it never have considered that an option anyway. We worship Christ, but we have a rule that not only reveals Christ to us, but also guides us and binds us together in a community so we aren’t each one “doing what is right in our own eyes.� Good grief, there’s enough of that as it is, even among those who claim to respect the canon. To simply say that the written word has value only a moral textbook is extremely reductionist. It IS that, but it is a whole lot more than that.

1d.If Christians spout,etc.

I do not "spout" my position, and neither do I accuse you of "spouting." To belittle a position with verbs like "spout" is a caricature. As for your reasoning, IF Christians were to begin treating the Bible as the Muslims treat the Koran, then we could talk. The implication is that if I hold the Bible to be infallible (even just for faith and living—an incredible qualifier that even theological moderates would certainly subscribe to), then I will end up as a Muslim. The reality is, if I hold the Bible to be infallible in these matters then I will draw close to its Author through the Holy Spirit, and I will enjoy a living relationship with Him. The world of pure argument in which you appear to live (at least as far as these matters go) bears little resemblance to the one millions of Christians live in.

2.Does anyone know,etc.

Again, your tone is condescending. For starters, Satan is a Hebrew term apart from Hellenistic categories; “devil� is the Hellenistic term. Second, you fall into what philosophers call the genetic fallacy, that being the idea that if doubt is cast upon something’s origin, then it by corollary must be all wrong. Neither term is used in either Is.14 nor Ez.28, yet both bear witness to spiritual realities that the prophets were aware of, and are referenced by the more common terms used, whether they be “Satan,� “devil,� or “god of this age.� That his nature became clearer to God’s people, even as they interacted with the nations that had skewed views of him, should not confuse us. It doesn’t matter what you call him, or how the terms applied to him now came about through the complexities of history. Need we go into how the name of a pagan, Norse deity (Got) came to be used of the Beloved One, whom we name Father?

2a...people are God's adversary...

So, “Satan� means “adversary,� and people are “adversaries,� therefore people are “Satan� (in the broad sense of being the force of evil in the world). This is commonly known as syllogism: A=B, B=C, therefore A=C. Simple enough. Problem: Syllogisms can be easily manipulated, and badly applied they can lead to incorrect conclusions, e.g., I saw a group of Indians walking single file, ergo, all people who walk single file are Indians. This is a non-sequitur.

The fact that fallen people do in fact reject God and do generally fit your description does not rule out the existence of an intelligent, malevolent being who opposes God. It simply does not follow.

By elevating Tash,etc.

Correct, and hence Aslan’s growl when it is spoken to Him. Satan is a created being, and God Almighty is creator. But again, to argue for Satan’s existence as I have done here is hardly making the claim that Hollywood does.

5.When a person believes something,etc.

This is perhaps the most difficult and dangerous of your statements. You are essentially arguing that reality is in the mind of the believer, much as beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Yet Lewis would never swallow this essentially Postmodern construct, because it stands opposed to the teaching of Scripture and the Church. I actually think you have not fully appreciated what this stance does to your own confession of faith. Lewis argues that beauty is NOT merely in the eye of the beholder, but rather in the hand of the Creator, and we are empowered as ones made in his image to perceive it.

Reality is reality, whether we believe it or not. Screwtape goes on at length about those materialists who adamantly did not believe in either God or devils, but came to know better after death. Here he entices Wormwood to muddle his “patient,� so that later he can enlighten him with “the particular clarity that Hell affords.� There is no comparing the “myth� of Santa Claus with the Sacred Myth that escapes lesser methods to express found in Scripture, much less discursive and direct statements made in theological discourse about God and other spiritual realities.

[inkspot]

Welcome to the discussion, Parthian King. I didn't see you post before. Aren't you an erudite laddie? :)

I agree with you that just because a concept of the devil developed in ancient culture that there can't be a real Lucifer who fell from heaven like lightning (as Jesus mentioned in Luke 10:18 that he saw Satan fall) - in fact, it would seem to me to imply the opposite: that because there is a real devil, even other ancient cultures (without Jehovah and the Bible) got wind of it and put it into their mythologies.

What I am really trying to understand, from Wallis, still, is why not believe in these things the Scriptures seem to treat as fact?

If you can believe in the very wild idea that a perfect God would assume the form of man and that His death on the cross after a sinless life could somehow promise you life eternal with God and make a difference in the way you life your life today and the fulfillment you take from it ... if you can believe that ... why not believe in angels and demons as they are mentioned in Scripture?

That gift of salvation (as we believers understand it) is like Lewis' deep magic. If you can believe in that wonder of wonders without a lot of scientific evidence, why not believe in the other magical concepts of the Bible?

Still not getting it ... :(

[PrinceOfTheWest]

It would be nearly impossible to add to the posting by Parthian King, so I won't try to cover the same ground. In fact, I hope to cover as little as possible, for I think this thread has more than accomplished its original intention. (I certainly learned what at least some others think!)

My brother Wallis, I'm afraid you're going to have to put me with those "people feel comfortable with the concept that God wrote the Bible through the fingers of people (men and women)," those whose "very myopic view of the supernatural" you are so reluctant to disturb. Fortunately, I am in good company there, with C.S. Lewis himself, as well as my entire tradition (Roman Catholic). The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is the definitive theological statement of the Church's beliefs, states the following:

"God is the author of Sacred Scripture. 'The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.'" (Article 105, emphasis in original)

"God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. 'To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more.'" (Article 106)

So I guess you'll have to categorize all the theologians who helped drew up the Catechism as having a "myopic view of the supernatural." I don't mind being in such company. It makes much more sense than the approach you seem to be advancing: putting between yourself and a simple text all manner of "scholarship" and human wisdom, to the point that the human learning can obscure the divine wisdom of the text. I don't need such spectacles.

The Lord Jesus Christ told us that "by their fruit you shall know them" (Matt 7:16-20). Though I'm but an amateur historian, I've studied enough to know the fruit of the theology you espouse. Denying the miraculous in Scripture was only the beginning for the demythologizers of the 1800s; eventually Scriptural inspiration was cast into doubt, and ultimately as the Incarnation itself. That thinking so thoroughly destroyed the vitality of Protestant Christianity in Europe so the poisonous shoots of Naziism and Communism sprouted among the decaying corpses. It leapt across the Atlantic to eviscerate the mainline traditions of North America, so much so that even now they're tottering and collapsing.

Fortunately, God does not abandon His people even when they abandon Him. C.S. Lewis and his scholarship was one of the weapons He used to fight back the intellectual challenge of this school, as well as Tolkien in the realm of imagination. He sent renewal to His Church across a broad range of traditions - Evangelical, Catholic, and even Orthodox. Interestingly, where the renewal brought the most power was where people approached the Scriptures with simple faith and hard obedience. I have seen that renewal in action, and it has far more power than your advanced scholarship. Power to heal, power to change lives, power to turn people into what God really wants to be - all done for simple, "myopic" people who take God's word at face value and act in simple obedience.

So I won't say you're wrong. Perhaps you're right. Perhaps the Scriptures are a "badly comprised selection of myths", and I'd need years of proper theological training to understand them aright. Perhaps I really should always live wondering if I've ever gotten enough to catch their meaning. Perhaps yours is the proper view of the world, and mine is wrong (or "myopic"). But if so, my wrong view is one of majesty and glory that licks yours all hollow. I've seen the sun, and I've seen Aslan. I've wandered through the woods when the streams were flowing with wine and birds in the branches spoke to me. I've read the Words on the Stone Table and felt Aslan's breath confirm them in my heart, and even if I'm far away in some dingy hole, I remember them. So, I'm sorry to grind my foot into your fire here, but I'm off to follow the simple path of simple obedience. I'll pray for you as I go.

Under the Mercy.

[Wallis]

I am content that people believe what they want to believe if it will reinforce their faith. I will not try to persuade anyone from their position if it will endanger their faith. I merely provide a perspective that in the now or the future will be regarded and either accepted or disregarded. Remember that faith is not static. Faith will continue to grow, and in the coming days, our individualistic faiths will be continually challenged.

Inkspot, you haven't read my referenced postings, for the answers have already been provided. I encourage you, please, to read those. This thread is growing quite long enough without repeating what I have already written. And the fact that God became incarnate has nothing to do, really, with the cosmology of angels and demons. Also, we need to look very closely past the English translation of Christ's words to understand what he was conveying to Jewish ears. Since the Jews were much more into eschatologic and apocaylitic matters, we need to understand first what He was imparting to the Jews. The Jews loved their hyperbole and metaphors.

As we see from Edersheim, Christ vanquished all that is perceived to be the Prince of this world. The Jews would have quickly recognized the yoke of Rome. The fall of Satan is the final felling of the shackles of sin and human nature. And while the Bible speaks of demons, the medical age of Christ's times knew nothing of the maladies that can affect the human brain, just for a specific example, but still attributed disease as either being inflicted upon the individual by a demon or as retribution by God for a sin committed by a parent. The meaning of Christ's words should not be taken so literally but as cry of rejoicement, for even through today, as we continually conquer our own anti-Christ nature, Christ's victory through the cross continues.

Parthian King, you are most welcome to nitpick my verbs all you want. I accept the criticism.

That said, and given the fact that the written and the spoken word is inadequate to communicate what exists in the individual mind, I feel that you have not understood my argument for what exists and what does not exist. I would ask you to reread what I wrote and consider the "spirit" of what I am trying to convey. Santa Claus is an apt example of how people conceive the world and the actions within, assigning animals to talk and "angels" to protect.

As far as Genesis goes, one only needs to research a very limited selection to understand that not only is the writing of various passages indicative of different authors but several stories are joined together patchwork, often with contradictions of events and the jumbling of chronological order.

-----

Scripture is not all that important, when you boil everything down to the essence. I am not advocating the tossing out of Scripture. When we look at the very early church, shortly after the resurrection, we find people gathered together to worship the Christ. Edersheim will tell you that almost every Jewish household had scrolls of scripture, not necessarily a Bible, mind you. In fact, one of the duties of the Jewish mother was to instruct her children in the ways and means of the faith. The early church who was not Jewish did not have scripture, per se. They obviously had letters and notes that were passed down and through the apostles and other teachers.

The essence of Christianity is the Christ.

One of my favorite songs when I was a child was "Jesus Loves Me Because The Bible Tells Me So." I now regard this song as horrendous. Jesus loves me not because the Bible tells me so but because every nano-second of the day I feel His love, through thick and thin, through sickness and health, through joy and grief, etc.

While a majority of Christians want to believe in angels and demons, especially a malevolent being popularly called Satan, I will challenge this concept with an "How Dare You!" Now that your hackles are raised, let me proceed.

How dare we place ourselves in such an exalted position in the cosmology of a heaven, and Earth, and a hell. That we are so important as to merit the attention of supernatural beings at war with each other. There are billions of other Earths and probably just as many other sentient beings in the universe. Yet we, the people of the Earth, are so important that we are the "prize" of a battle that we did not seek nor did we ask for.

This postulation of importance is indicative of our adversarial nature to God. From the very beginning, the "war" being raged is We versus God. But note: it is not God versus Man. The fact that the universe is in constant warfare with itself is distilled down to the very nature of man. We need no supernatural "help" from a Satan to wage war against God. We can do it all by ourselves. And while we wage war with God, it is God who continually sheds His Love and Acceptance and eventually welcomes us home.

[Saruman]

Ah, if life could be so easy not to have a devil or demons, and therefore, with that said, not to have a hell. I can go and sleep with my neighbor's wife and it will not amount to anything, I wager. After all, it would be a personal choice and, without any demons to persuade me to do something "rash" (if, in light of certain others' positions, one can even consider that "amoral"). So let us eat, drink, and be merry: we're all going to go to heaven, right?

As far as God's "Acceptance," that is a dreadful mistake. God accepts no person. He loves all, and created men with whom He could have a personal relationship. Things began rightly, but soon deteriorated once Adam and Eve (listening to the counsel of Satan, who took the form of a serpent) ate of the forbidden fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. And so we have entered into this world sinful and in need of salvation. And even at the very beginning, after man had sinned, God gave a promise concerning the salvation of men: and it came in the form of the Second Member of the Trinity, Jesus Christ. Concerning angels and demons, does God speak, then, to nothing? If we forget this most simple and yet powerful message of our origins and the state in which man now finds himself, merely by coming to the presumption that "Satan" and "angels and demons" are mere illustrations of an internal warfare within the hearts of men, then we have come very short of truth. Why would Jesus, the living God, speak so much during His three years of ministry on this earth concerning the devil and his demons? What would Jesus mean, then, in speaking to the pharisees, proclaiming that they "serve their father the devil"? It becomes, then, much of an enigma, and in this way Satan achieves his goal. What better way to deceive men by having them believe he doesn't exist? One of his many tactics.

As I have stated (or, at the very least, have implied) in the past, everyone is entitled to an opinion. But opinions cower in the face of reality, and in the face of logic, and in the face of facts. God is not that much of a "mystical" Being that we cannot come to know Him and know what He intends for us in the life which He has given us. That's why we have the Bible, the literal Word of God, history-based and for the spiritual edification of mankind: to learn from the mistakes committed by those in the Bible and learning how pleasing it is to come to God by faith (Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" and also, Hebrews 11:5-6 "By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God. But without faith it is impossible to please Him: for he that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him.").

In conclusion, I am truly sorry that Wallis seems to fall in the line of today's psychobabblers, who profess that the so-called demon-possessed persons of former days (and even in these days) are poor folk who suffer from mental incapacities. And rest assured that I am not one with a medieval train of thought. I know (and have seen) the difference between one who suffers from mental disorders to one who is truly trapped by some other spiritual being. But at any rate, my brother is free to believe as he chooses. But truth will overrule any opinions we could ever form about God or His Word, and about reality.

One of my favorite songs when I was a child was "Jesus Loves Me Because The Bible Tells Me So." I now regard this song as horrendous. Jesus loves me not because the Bible tells me so but because every nano-second of the day I feel His love, through thick and thin, through sickness and health, through joy and grief, etc.

This is also unfortunate. One of the many songs that relate and demonstrate the love of Christ has been officially denounced by one who is more content on his feelings rather than laying himself out upon Christ. Is it truly all about feeling Him and feeling His presence rather than relying upon Him and resting in Him? I do not always feel the presence of the Lord, but this in no way implies that He is not with me, for I have the blessed assurance in His Word that He will never leave me nor forsake me. This song is quite the opposite of "horrendous," but is sweet and simple, the way it ought to be. I think in becoming too "scholarly," we set ourselves up for an horrendous fall.

[inkspot]

Hey, don't call a brother in Christ a psychobabbler. I don't know what it means, but it sounds pretty bad.

Anyway, back to Wallis' post on the other page. When a person believes something, it becomes real...When enough people believe something, that reality becomes very tangible. The malevolent forces that we see everyday are not supernatural but have their origin of existence within the minds of people.
I have been ruminating on this, and I cannot think you mean that our belief in something makes it real. If that were the case, then you would think angels and demons real because so many of us believe in them! And I cannot think that because you believe in Christ, that He is the Savior. Surely He is the Savior, and when you believe on Him, you are saved?

And you can't think if you don't believe in the devil, that will make the devil go away? The devil's best trick is to persuade you that he doesn't exist! Seems like you would be playing right into his hands. :p

No, the very reason you say there is no devil is the reason I think there must be one (in addition to the Bible tells me so). You say the atrocities that humans commit against each other are all because of the evil in men's hearts. But I think that men couldn't dream up the atrocities that we do to each other. I was just editing a book about the Rwandan genocide of 1994, where nearly 1 million people were slaughtered by their neighbors in a space of three months -- not mowed down by mindless military, but hacked to pieces by the next-door neighbors. Man is evil in his fallen state, but it takes something more to get into people and make them do that. There must be a devil.

Fuller Theological Seminary Professor Charles Kraft says demons only get their way in the world to the extent that people cooperate with them. Fallen man is evil enough, but I can't doubt there are spiritual forces urging him on.

Also, I have to agree with Curumo that the overwhelming feeling of Christ's love need not be present for Christ to save you. I think of poor, doomed Kurt Cobain who sang, "Jesus Doesn't Want Me for a Sunbeam." But of course, Jesus did want him, and did love him, and did die to set him free from sin, but Kurt didn't feel that love, so he didn't accept what the Bible told him about that love. How tragic to reject the message of the good news because you don't feel loved.

If anybody reads this, and you don't feel the love of God, that's okay: God still loves you, feelings or no. Just keep following Jesus, and you will feel that Presence some day!

[Gibby]

I
Scripture is not all that important, when you boil everything down to the essence...

The law was given to us to reveal lawlessness. Jesus came to save us because we cannot live up to the standards of the law on our own. Jesus also said that He would help us live according to His will or the law by changing our hearts. The Word of God is living and breathing and reveals the darkness in our hearts. Like any surgery, there is going to be pain as he cuts through to our hearts with His surgical knife and removes the "tumors". Much like Eustace submitting to Aslan and His sharp claws taking off his dragon skin. His claws pierced Eustace's heart, but he was healed! Jesus affirmed the authority of the law as well. To discredit scripture as "not important" suggests that we should just "make up" Jesus in our minds and tailor Him into what we think He should be in order to justify living our lives the way we see fit. That removes Him from the throne in our lives and allows us to live according to the way we think it should be. This is incredible folly and sets us to be swept away on a sea of post modernism.

Judges 17:6
In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit.

Without scripture as the authority in our lives, we are setting ourselves up for disaster.

Matthew 7:24-29
24"Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash."
28When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, 29because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law.

Wallis, I pray you would open your heart to the possibility of the Word of God being the rock to build your house on. I know this might make you appear to be committing intellectual suicide to those who know you, but consider it at least? The Lord says if you seek with your heart, you will find. I did! In his Word...

I say this out of love, not "I'm right, you're wrong"; I hope it does not come across that way.

[Parthian King]

For clarity’s sake, let me reiterate that we were speaking of Tash, a being analogous with “the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world� (Rev 12:9). The author of the book in which Tash appears, The Last Battle, was C.S. Lewis, a one-time atheist covert to orthodox Christianity who was a philosopher, scholar, and apologist at Oxford and Cambridge in the earlier part of the 20th century.

The lay of the land in this discussion appears fairly clear. Most are on the same page, though it has taken a bit to triangulate on Wallis’ point of reference in order to understand where he is coming from. I believe I have a fairly good idea now.

Inkspot, Wallis answers your question as to the core “why� he cannot accept the existence of angels and demons, or a literal Satan: Scripture is not authoritative for him. It forms some sort of a starting point for him, and perhaps a handbook on morality for the road, but otherwise his epistemology is based upon an eclectic mix of a materialistic application of certain critical schools of thought, empirical data, and apparently a measure of science fiction. Most of all, however, he is betting his eternity on how he feels, falling squarely into the Postmodern milieu (which sounds less derogatory than psychobabble). My earnest prayer is that by the grace of Christ, Wallis, your feelings endure long enough to place you in His hand on that Day.

It is not sufficient to speak of physical maladies when it comes to the presence of demons and especially the devil, for the very reason that Carumo points out: To do so attributes mental illness and inexplicability not only to the demonized souls described in the Gospels and Acts, but also to the writers of the New Testament, and through them, to God and Jesus themselves. I won’t waste space going into the implausibility of the theological stance that God is merely “humoring� the first hearers of the Gospels when it comes to Jesus’ (and His disciples’) encounters with the demonized, and therefore His current humoring of us (or, if you like, His silent expectation that we “grow out� of such a view). What is far more germane to the discussion are the numerous references elsewhere where no demonization (or “malady�) is ever brought into the issue. There the Enemy is variously described as “the god of this age,� “the enemy of our souls,� “The prince of the power of the air,� and so forth. There is no need to list them all, since concordances are readily available, and it appears that present are those who respect Scripture’s authority enough to accept these, and at least one person who does not.

Wallis, my hackles are not raised, and I fail to be provoked, although I would tender (given that you have granted me permission) that your use of the verb “nitpick� would indicate that a negation should have accompanied your use of the verb “accept.�

We do not believe in angels or demons, or the devil, because we want to, but rather because we are compelled to by Scripture. We accept it as authoritative because it has stood the test of time and because through it we came to know Him, Jesus Christ, and (as Prince of the West puts it) we continue to feel Aslan’s breath upon our faces in a community of faith. The focus of this discussion may be the existence of a real spiritual foe, but it is hardly the focus of our faith, and in a moment, a twinkling of the eye all things—especially him, will be nothing more than a dim memory (if that), as we hurtle into an eternity in God’s light. In the meantime, however, God sees fit to warn us of the existence of this “other lion� who roams seeking to devour (1 Peter 5:8), and we are not going to ignore the warning. Although my confession of faith does not rest upon my recognition of his existence, my long-term spiritual well-being appears to bear significant relation to it (given the aforementioned warning), so I’m going to heed it.

My point about Genesis was that the nature of its composition is secondary to the weight of its final form. This is precisely what Lewis argues in chapter 23 of Screwtape concerning the Gospel narratives: They say what they say, and no amount of theorizing can change that. Either you accept them or reject them, and bear the consequences for your decision. Although you claim that you will say nothing to undermine another’s faith, I can hardly conclude anything else given your posture toward the Bible, especially since Genesis and indeed the authority and integrity of the Scriptures on a whole hadn’t been an issue in the discussion to that point. From my youth I have been familiar with the tenor I perceive in your words, that of an arbiter who stands above the din of reckless belief to calmly speak reason into the ears of the ignorant masses those mysteries they would otherwise never know about the black leather book they naively carry to church each Sunday. What took me some time to find out (I have done some research—even more than the little that you keep suggesting) was that the historical critical school (or the Tübingen School, if you like) in its pure form met its demise in the Academy a century ago. Why? Among other reasons, because it was recognized that its proponents (F.C. Baur the principal, among others) were unmasked as interested players like the rest of the people on the field. For some time they got away with the charade that they didn’t have a stake in the game, laying out their research and conclusions like theological chemists in white lab coats, above the sweat and striving of the religious plebs below them. But their cover was finally blown, and scholars across the ideological spectrum recognized that an arbiter and a player one cannot be. Albert Schweitzer (hardly a “literalist�) noted that their study had been the same as staring down a deep well for several decades, the result being that they only saw a dark reflection of themselves rather than finding what they were looking for. Historical critical scholarship has exegetical value for shedding light on the text (great value, as a matter of fact), but because of its own history it can easily be used in a high-handed, deconstructive fashion. It can also be a most deceptive mask for one’s own presuppositions for the simple fact that since many do not in fact know its methods or the fruit thereof, they have little hope of articulately countering the conclusions of one who does, even if those conclusions are mistaken. But the fact remains that when it comes to presuppositions, the ivory tower scholar (or one who pretends to be) is on a level playing field with the peasant in the potato patch below. This is why going by individual feelings is so dangerous. They’re certainly great (spiritual ecstasy, I mean), but one cannot live by them any more than one can live alone.

Karl Barth (someone with a fair amount of theological credentials, I believe), when asked what was the most profound theological statement he had ever heard, responded, “Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so.� I have some problems with Barth, but I’m with him there. He recognized the central importance of Scripture in an unsure world.

And so we return to the inception of the discussion. When someone asks what we “think� about what a writer has written (as opposed to what we think, period), the issue is one of interpretation. In the case of our opinion, we are free to say whatever we like (at least philosophically speaking). But in this case, the point is a discussion about what Lewis intended regarding the character of Tash. Lewis without a doubt believed in the existence of Satan and demons (or as he calls them in Screwtape, “devils�). Unless we fall into the willy-nilly world of reader-response, wherein the author has no say whatsoever in the meaning of a text once it leaves his or her pen, we are left to determine that for Lewis, Tash is the devil, or at very least one of his higher minions. I would tender, in fact, that Lewis’ creation of Tash is yet another proof that he believes that the devil is a malevolent personality, worshipped by some, and capable of evil in the world. I am a fan of Narnia and Lewis, and Lewis’ other writings, because although not perfect, he’s pretty close for a mortal. We would do well to heed his warnings on the subject, and the warnings of the Lord he served.

[Wallis]

Inkspot, this is where you and I would have to agree to disagree. I am convinced that the nature of mankind is so corrupt that it needs no "outside" agency to spurn it to action.

[Wallis]

Curumo, you made a leap that I did not state. You went from the nonexistence of angels and demons to the nonexistence of hell. Again, if you review the sources I cite in my reference many posts above, you will learn what many theologians present for the history of hell. The hell as described by modern day Christians is a old but still modern day conception and divergent from our Jewish brethren, not to mention the Eastern philosophy of thought. And, Christianity really is an Eastern religion that has been usurped by the West and Western thought.

To deny God's Acceptance is outside Christian dogma. No one can come to the Father except through Me, Christ said. In that very simple statement, God's arms are wide open. I remember as a child seeing a picture of the Christ knocking at a door, the door representing a person's heart. The opening of the door to Christ is not man's acceptance of Christ but his surrender to the open arms of God.

Now, when people read my words along with other posters words, I see a great problem: people have not learned to read or think. I fault the schools and the parents for some of the people here inability to do either. Words raise certain hackles and immediately put cause filters within the mind to fall into place. It is these filters that disallow careful reading and following the meaning of a person's words. Thus, the easy dismissing of my posts as being psychobabble (LOL!), arrogant, et al.

We all have our Tashs, and the walling in of our precious ideas as being the Truth and only the Truth is just another Tash. Instead of that Truth serving us, we begin to serve that individual truth as a slave to that Tash.

[Wallis]

Gibby, you missed my point entirely. Please read it again without all the filters. So many people have come to know Christ without scripture mostly because there was no scripture in their language.

The LAW is just another Tash. The LAW has been fulfilled. The LAW is dead. It has been replaced by the GOSPEL of the Christ, which is not a LAW. In fact, the GOSPEL is the hardest concept to accept and understand. It is harder to follow than the LAW, because the LAW lays out a lot of DOs and DON'Ts. But the GOSPEL entails that you and I have to be the Christ to the world. There is no black and white in the GOSPEL. Loving one another exclusively is so stressful that it will drive the sanest man absolutely crazy.

[Wallis]

I appreciate that people will be praying for me, but please do not pray for me to somehow come back to a fundamentalistic core of a cosmology that does not exist. I have left that Tash behind.

The fact that Lewis believed in a devil is just one point of view when discussing his works. He may, in fact, have had that central in his mind when he wrote of the existence of Tash. Yet, that does not negate any discussion that Tash exists in many forms within the human mind and existence.

I will reiterate what I wrote before: I am Satan, and I am Tash. As long as I wear this Earthly flesh and possess a human nature, my very being and core is Anti-Christ. Therefore, living with and in the Christ, I struggle every nanosecond of the day to cast out the Satan/Tash that desires ascendancy and show the Love and Light of the Christ around me.

Prince, from your posts, I have to conclude that you are a Roman Catholic. Roman Catholics are required to believe in angels. Again, see my reference that details that dogma. Dogma, in and of itself, ends up being a Tash. Rather than dogma serving us, we end up serving the Dogma.

Now before anyone accuses me of Roman Catholic bashing, the same principle holds true for every Christian sect, right down into the individual congregation. There are so many Tashs set up with a single congregation, which become the all-important that needs servicing, and Christ is conveniently removed so that servitude to a particular Tash may be conducted.

[Wallis]

One very conspicuous absence from Narnia is the existence of angels and demons, bar Tash, if one wants to refer it to a demon.

Instead, the Will of Aslan is conducted solely through very real and animate creatures, human and otherwise. You will also note the absence of any kind of deus ex machina in Lewis' Chronicles.

How many times do we hear of Lucy asking for Aslan to be present? Her thinking is that if Aslan makes his presence known that he will fix everything. The blessed news is that Aslan is with her and the others at all times. But it is not Aslan doing the work; it is those who love him and believe in him that do the work.

So, too, in this very real world. In essence, God does nothing. But He receives the glory. In our apparent inability to fathom God, we like to assign very human attributes to God: He is male; He has ears to hear; He has eyes to see; He has hands and feet. In actuality, God is not corporeal at all but exists in all things as all things exist in Him. People are His hands, feet, voices, mouths, etc. We people are charged with performing His will, and even when we screw up, "good" will triumph over the "evil," which is the best that we humans can do at the best of times.

-----

There is one more point I'd like to reiterate for people to just think about.

Draw a circle on a piece of paper. Label that circle God. God is the entire universe. He is All. Now, where are you going to put hell? If most people draw another circle and label it hell, then they have negated the most basic teaching of both the Jewish and Christian religions. They have just created another universe that is equal to that of God, and that cannot be accepted if we profess that Christ is God and that God is All.

We worship the Living God, the One and Only God. Everything belongs to this One God, including whatever hell a person wishes to conceive.

[Parthian King]

Tennis anyone?

[Vanceone]

Tennis indeed! This is a very interesting thread; it really is. I suspect I come from a slightly different point of view than many here. As I gather the thread; we are discussing whether or not there is a literal devil or angels; as well as the authority of scripture. Oh, and Tash, of course. :D

For the record--I am firmly convinced of the reality of both. Yet, I also agree with Wallis to an extent--we do have the natural man who tempts us. Part of being here on earth is to overcome the natural man.
As for angels--I believe the term means Messenger--so under that defintion, there are angels--there have to be. Or do you think that if, say, John the Revelator showed up at your door he would not be an angel? Or Isaiah, or Ezekiel? They all would qualify as Angels, I believe. And if you say they cannot appear--why not? Are they gone, or dissolved, or what? If they are--then are you not arguing that the Resurrection is a falsity? And if so--then belief in Christ seems rather pointless, if there is no resurrection.

As to devils and the existence of Tash--I agree that C.S. Lewis believed in a literal devil; the Screwtape letters seem to be ample proof of that. I also don't think that the Lord created the devil--the Devil fell, it says; presumably of his own choice. And how can man have freedom to choose, save he is enticed by both sides? I know that temptations come to me that are not from just my flesh; as they would not naturally come at that point. Satan is tempting me, then. Yes, just because we have a natural man which influences us does not mean that there is no devil, either.

I agree-there is a problem in scripture about the Devil--he is not mentioned much. But if he tempted Christ (who, I hope you would say, does not have the natural man as much as any of us) then why would he not exist? Every day, I must choose my master--God, or Satan. Sometimes, every hour or minute--both are striving for my allegience. It is, however, up to me to choose which one to follow.

In your last post, Wallis, you are painting a picture of God that is very, very different than the one I believe the scriptures demonstrate. From what I can tell--you are saying God doesn't exist, in any meaningful sense. He is nowhere, and everywhere. You say, draw a circle--it is the universe, and it is God. I'd like to know--where does that come from? I certainly never read about that in the New Testament... I read things like the Voice of God speaking on the mount of Transfiguration to Jesus and his apostles. I agree that people do God's work, but that doesn't mean that God cannot do His own work. Jesus commanded us to pray to our Father in Heaven--what did He mean? Where is Heaven, and what does "Father" mean? If Jesus was speaking to the great unlearned, and thus couldn't tell them the truth, should we then be praying to the great amorphous mass who is everywhere and nowhere? It sounds like God is unknowable, as you describe him. Yet, Paul seemed to think that he could teach people how to know God.

I'm not trying to attack you; nor am I a fundamentalist or Catholic. I'm just honestly confused as to what you believe in--it sounds like you believe in nothing. Or, rather, whatever you believe in is for all practical purposes nothing. I hope I'm wrong. For the record, I agree with lots of what you say--the Bible, in my view, has some errors; whether they be translation, copying, what have you. Clearly, we know much more about mental illnesses now, too. But just because it's not perfect do I think it's all wrong, either. I think I hew a middle road in this discussion....

As for Tash (to bring this semi-ontopic), I think Lewis meant him to represent evil. There are but two churches only, really--the Church of God, and the church of the devil. What I mean is that there are true followers of Christ in every religious sect, as well as hypocrites, liars, etc.--followers of evil. I think Tash is a representation of that idea. :)

Wow, this is a long post... I think I'm up for some tennis. :D

[waterhogboy]

Tennis anyone?

HAHAHAHA!! Nice one!

Right, I'm a terror for these threads cos I have a short attention span and end up flickin thru the really long ones!! :o (A bit like in the duffers where you come on and theres 5 pages of new posts to read through) Anyway, I tend to skim read and pick up on things that come to my attention, so if I make any incorrect quotes or pickups please forgive me and correct me!

I disagree with Wallis statement that the LAW has gone. I believe this is totally incorrect. The LAW still stands now. The GOSPEL preaches that, although the LAW still stands, we cannot fulfil it through our own strength and we must rely wholly on God and the sacrifice of Jesus Christ for the LAW to be fulfilled. The LAW still stands though.

[Gibby]

HAHAHAHA!! Nice one!

Right, I'm a terror for these threads cos I have a short attention span and end up flickin thru the really long ones!! :o (A bit like in the duffers where you come on and theres 5 pages of new posts to read through) Anyway, I tend to skim read and pick up on things that come to my attention, so if I make any incorrect quotes or pickups please forgive me and correct me!

.

I'm with you WHB. As I get into some of the longer posts, my mind starts to wander and I have to wake up and go back to the last point on the post that I remember my noggin soaking up the info and then I have to pick it up from there. Maybe I have adult ADD or something...what was I talking about? Ah, yes...I like tennis too you guys; it's fun! That's the game where you hit the ball with a bat, right? (no wait, that's football, DOH!).
j.k.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Okay, then, I'll keep this post brief. The stance "God is the entire universe" is the very definition of a theology called Pantheism. That is explicitly not the Judeo-Christian faith. To put that out there as a model and then say it doesn't support hell is not only a logical fallacy, but a phenomenal ignorance of theology.

[Wallis]

Nope. Pantheism: 1. A doctrine identifying the Deity with the universe and its phenomena. 2. Belief in and worship of all gods.



As a college professor, I am no longer appalled and disappointed with the lack of ability in my students. They are a product of the school system, after all. People cannot read and comprehend; they cannot listen and understand; and, above all, they lack the ability to think for themselves.

I am disappointed that in this forum and others that posters refuse--repeat--refuse to do any research before writing their posts. So many people engage their fingers before they engage their brains. And what they do impart again is just another Tash they are serving.

Before I start posting, showing my ignorance, I do practice research. Since the WWW is so handy, it takes but a few key strokes and a click or two to view what is out there. And then, it takes open cognizance to evaluate what might hold true for me.

"We conclude from the Bible that God is sovereign over all things, eternal and infinite, all powerful, all knowing, and present everywhere at once." God, Everything (http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=165)

What the Prince seems to imply is that God is separate from the universe. God just created it but is only reactive. Reactive: 1. Tending to be responsive or to react to a stimulus. 2. Characterized by reaction. No credence is given to the possibility that God can be proactive as well. Whatever his implications are, he is practicing a characteristic denial of any information or thought that disturbs his individualistic, fabricated understanding of the cosmology of Christiandom. In addition, to deny that God is in everything and is the source of everything is to embody the idea that God is reduced to a player, vying for souls against an opponent almost as powerful as Himself.

Anyone who has studied any psychology classes will understand that a person is a product of his/her environment. And, as a person matures, filters are created within the brain that discriminate and even block forms of communication. One word alone is enough to trigger these filters. When I speak the word "dog," disparate images and thoughts emerge involuntarily within the minds of the listeners. So, too, here, when certain words are typed, such as "theologian," "angel," "Satan,": images pop up in the minds of the readers that prevent understanding.

Understanding that each of us are biased is understanding that we have created a Tash wit