Problems In Lewis' Theology

[Capstick]

Hi,

I'm fairly new here, so what I'm about to say will probably be regarded by some of you as close to blasphemy, however, please refrain from stoning me just yet! :)

Don't misunderstand me; I love the writings of C.S. Lewis (I've read both the Chronciles of Narnia and his space trilogy), and he remains one of my favorite authors to this day. However, I have noticed several theological problems in his writings, several of which are especially apparent in The Last Battle.

The one reference that I have the most trouble with occurs in The Last Battle
towards the end of the book where they meet a Calarmine soldier in what is essentially heaven. Aslan says to him that although he had worshipped Tash his whole life, in reality, the man was worshipping Aslan. Obviously, there is a profound problem with this statement! It seems to be saying that there are "multiple" paths to God. If someone can worship Tash and yet be saved, why not be a Buddhist, or a Muslim, or Hindu? Religion would then simply be subjective, with no firm truth. The First and Second Commandments specifically prohibit this: there is only one path to God and He must be approached on HIS terms, not ours.

The second problem with his theology, is that, although a Christian, C.S. Lewis was also heavily influenced by "classical" pagan writers, such as Plato. Again this is apparent in the Last Battle where there is a "deeper, more real Narnia." This theology is taken directly from Plato (I believe its Plato). He believed that this reality was like a shadow on the back of a cave wall, reflecting something grander and more real. However, I don't see this imagery in Scripture.

Has anyone else noticed these problems (or others), and what are your opinions on this?

[Dragon]

The situation with the Calormen I don't think of as much as multiple paths to God as in different religions. I think of it more as God speaking to someone in an unreached country who has never heard the gospel, yet still lives by it. That was a part I had pondered on a bit as well though (and I'm still not entirely sure about it myself).

As for the other imagery you mentioned, it reminded me of the passage in I Corinthians 13 where we have been seeing God through a glass but will soon see face to face (paraphrased). Lewis, of course, expanded this idea a bit for his personal idea of heaven. I for one don't know that much about Plato or Aristotle or whomever it was who came up with the theology you mentioned.

[GrayCloak]

"Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me. Then by reasons as my great desire for wisdom and understnading I overcame my fear and questioned the Glousius One, and said: Lord, is it then true as the Ape said that thou and Tash are one? The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said: It is false. Not becasue he and I are one, but becasue we are oppisites, I take to me the services that thou hast done to him. For I and he are of such different kinds, that no service that is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore if any man swears by Tash and keeps his oath for the oaths' 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 it is by Tash that his deed is accepted...."

The Last Battle Chapter 15 Pg 188-189

It seems to me that what is passed here between Aslan and the Chalormean is Aslan saying that it is the devotion of the worship that is important, reguardless of what god was served. This would be wrong on Lewis's part as in ancient time the Philitines worshiped Daegon adamantly, yet God did not accept thier worship and they were a great enemy of Israel. On the same level Elijah scorned the worshipers of Baal, even though their cries and pleas were genuine to their 'god' he was not the true God, and thus thier cries went unheeded.
Furthermore, Tash was a demon and the worship of him was utterly evil. Molech's worship was adimant and his followers truly beleaved in him, but that does not overshadow the fact that Molech demanded human sacrifices, which is against God's law; would God accept such evilness in his own name, even if the people were sincere in their actions? How could this Chalormean be worshipping adimantly a demon all his life, and yet Aslan found his devotion acceptable in his sight?

I will also note that this sounds close to justification by works, not faith (i.e. If one's worship is good then you go to heaven) but perhaps that is an argument for another time.... :)


I would love to think that what you said was true in the book Dragon (As I prefer it overwhelmingly so to what was actually given) and if you can change my mind on the matter I would openly listen to what you have to say.

[NiennaTinuviel]

I agree with Dragon. I have talked to some of my friends who are of a different religion about this and I have come to believe that unless you are worshipping GOD then you will not go to Heaven. But then you have to think about how different people think of GOD. Just because he has a different name doesn't neccessarily mean that he is not GOD. I know I might sound blasphemous here but bear with me. Everyone knows deep in their heart that there is a God. That's why someone who has lived on an island their whole life, never heard of God, never heard of Jesus, can still know and worship the true God. This is what it says in the bible, that everyone has knowledge of God in their hearts. There are those who choose to believe it and those who choose to hide it. Anyway so what I'm trying to say is kind of what Aslan said to Edmund and Lucy in Voyage, that they wouldn't come back to narnia and see him again but he was in their world too and that they must learn to know him by his other name. Names don't matter. You can call God Aslan or whatever but as long as you KNOW he is the Lord of the Universe then you are worshipping the true God. I've heard that somewhere in the middle east an altar was found with an inscription that said "to the unknown God". I don't know if what I said makes sense but thanks for letting me spout...
~Chantal

[GrayCloak]

I really hope more people join in on this discussion, as I find it completely fascinating!

I understand what you are saying, and wish to clarify my previous post and make a couple new statements. What my point is about Aslan and the Chalormean is not that someone can’t have the true worship of God without use of the proper name, (such as calling Aslan Jesus in our world and Aslan in Narnia) but rather that the worship of Tash in and of itself would be evil and unchristian. I know there are many different denominations in Christianity today, all with varying beliefs and practices, but I myself do not believe that you can be a practicing and consistent heathen and still an adamant Christian. Perhaps the Calormean’s heart was true in his worship to his god, but he still was not worshiping Aslan, he was worshiping the demon Tash with all that that entails. Tash’s worship must have varied greatly from that of Aslan’s, and the Chalormean even said that he believed in more than one god! (I would refer to my previous post about the heathen gods of Old Testament times) The Chalormean should have come to Narnia, heard about this mighty Aslan, and thrown down his weapon saying that This God was the True God, and not the hollow Tash he had followed, while repenting for ever worshipping the graven Tash.

It is dear to my heart that God has known his elect from all eternity and prepared a place for us within the new heaven and earth, and I do not believe that anyone has their theology completely right. (I shudder sometimes to wonder how I falter in my own) But someone who is out-rightly unchristian, and even draws the sword against those who would have been his Christian brothers, how could his demon-worship have been directed to Aslan, the very creature who was King of those whom he drew his sword against? He hated Aslan, and still clung to Tash; he even seemed unrepentant of his loathing for the lion until he actually met Aslan after death.

I hope no one is offended by my beliefs, and I am so heartened to hear the replies/rebuttals on this form and hope that I am promptly corrected/challenged on one of my points (And please be lengthy as I desire to hear what others think of what I’ve said here)

[Capstick]

Wow, it looks like we've got a good discussion going here. So far, I'd have to agree with what GrayCloak said. I'll try to answer some of your objections Nienna, while also building on what GrayCloak said.

"But then you have to think about how different people think of GOD. Just because he has a different name doesn't neccessarily mean that he is not GOD."

It is obvious from the Bible that God has more than one name: Yahweh, Prince of Peace, Wonderful Counselor, etc, as well as the whole doctrine of the trinity (there is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit). However, if there are different names for God, how do you know if you are worshipping the One True God (the God of the Bible) or a false god? There are several important issues here.

FIRST: The Bible is clear that God is unchanging. His nature, character, attributes, etc. are constant.

TWO: God is revealed to us through Scripture, and more specifically, His character is revealed through the Moral Law (i.e., the Ten Commandments).

THREE: Building on this, God has specifically told us how He wants to be worshipped. God is to be worshipped in spirit and in truth, meaning that we must be sincere in our worship and also that we need to worship Him according to the way that He has told us to. One example: we are not to worship God through the use of idols; the Second Commandment is very clear on this.

Sincerety is no substitute for truth. Those who do not worship God on HIS terms, will face the consequences. In the Old Testament, Aaron's two sons worshipped God with "strange fire." This was so offensive to God that He killed them immediately! Going back to the issue of the Calormine (I don't know how to spell that) in the Last Battle, simply because he was sincere in his worship of Tash did not mean that he was worshipping Aslan.

Thus, we should be able to tell true religions that might worship the One True God, but with a different name for Him, from false religions. I am sorry to say this, but every other religion than Christianity is a false religion, worshipping a false God. Islam, Buddhism, Hinduish, Shintoism, etc, are all false religions. They do not worship the same God that we do, but with a slightly different name. In the New Testament, it says that if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, then you shall be saved. This implies that those who do NOT confess Jesus as Lord, and do not believe that God raised Him from the dead will NOT BE SAVED!

Now, having said all that (I hope I didn't bore anyone), I do agree with some of the things you said. All men DO have knowledge of the One True God. However, they suppress this truth in unrighteousness.

Well, thanks for letting me have my say. I hope I didn't intimidate you! :)

By the way, the altar with the inscription "to the unknown God" was in Athens. Paul mentions it in one of his letters.

[dawntreader77]

wow! this is a very interesting/ammusing discusion! well, i realy dont know about this one. maybe the lewis didnt relize the error or like what grey cloak said, about in that first paragraph. im clueless. but i agree very much with the ones who talked about ''no one comes to the Father but by me.'' and how Jesus is are only way to Heaven...im a bit confused about the wholle thing now though. lol.

[Warrior-Poet51088]

I had noticed some of those theological issues when I finally read LB this summer. I agree with what capstick and Grey Cloak have said, for the most part.

Another thing to take into consideration is the fact that Lewis was Catholic(not that this makes him any "less" of a Christian; the R.C.C. has many Christians in it, but some of its members are there only because of the "tradition").

[Capstick]

Well Aragorn, I'm glad you agree with me, but I must respectfully disagree with one thing you said :) ! I do not believe that Lewis was Roman Catholic. His good friend, J.R.R. Tolkien was Catholic, but I do not think that Lewis himself was.

However, I do agree with you that the Roman Catholic faith has many problems. This isn't to say that Roman Catholics cannot be Christian, but, as you said, there are many traditions in it that are not grounded in the Bible. In fact, that was the whole cause of the Protestant Reformation in the 16th and 17th centuries, but that really is a whole 'nother issue for another time.

[Lunis]

This is all highly fascinating. If I happen to see C.S. Lewis in heaven someday, I will drill him on why he made all these little loops in his theology. Hmm, I'll study up on his beliefs until then. He seems to have had quite a few broad-viewed ideas.
( * Lunis

[NiennaTinuviel]

I hope nobody misunderstood my post. I do believe that Jesus is the only way and that any other religion besides Christianity is sadly misled and will not lead to Heaven or God. But I made a mistake when i was reading exactly what Lewis wrote about the Calormen. I think I was confused about exactly what was the problem. I thought it was just that he worshipped a god named Tash but now I think that there is an inconsistancy there because it's true, if you knowingly worship a different god/demon whatever and refute the true knowledge of God then you are in the wrong and there is no way you will die and God will say to you "well because you were so religious to YOUR God we'll just pretend it was to me ok?" I just don't think that works. Sorry about that. I hope I don't sound too confused or garbled I just wanted tos ay that yes, I believe there is only one way to God and any "christian"who says there are many paths to the same God is not a true christian because they are going against the bible when it says " I (Jesus) am THE way, THE truth and THE life, NO ONE comes to the father except through me"
~Chantal

[GrayCloak]

Have I mentioned lately that I love this forum? :D

Lewis was an Anglican by the way, and not only that but he was only a classical philosopher, which meant he was highly influenced by Greek culture and mythos. (Explaining why he has creatures like fauns (Roman term for saters) nyads, dryad, ect...)

He was heavily into Plato, and some of the other old Greek philosophers explaining a couple of sequences in LWW when he is talking with the children about the current school system. "Logic...why don't they teach Logic anymore?"

-Lunis, I too am looking forward to seeing Lewis in heaven, I have often been downhearted that I never got a chance to hear his conversations with Tolkien. (I would have loved to be a fly on the wall around those two!) :)

[AlwaysHis324]

That scene in the Last Battle has always always bothered me. I generally skip it when I read that book, because well, I don't agree with it. I see it as a huge flaw in Lewis' theology.

The Bible tells us that no one is without excuse

Romans 1:18-20 ~ The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness,
since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
Just because the Calorman was raised to believe that Alsan was evil and Tash was good, is no excuse. If we were to transfer it to our world, just because a child was raised believing in Budda or Muhammed, and not Christ, that is not an excuse for his rejection of the gospel.

Someone has already mentioned this verse
John 14:6 ~ Jesus answered, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the father except through me" If in the allegorical sense Aslan is Jesus, it is through Him that men are saved.

Which brings me to another flaw I see in Lewis' logic in this sense... it was works and service that were attributed to the Calorman's salvation. I guess I don't exactly see what Lewis was trying to state in the portion of his book. All I see is that it does not line up with scripture.

I do see the greek influence in the whole "more real" Narnia situation. However I also find that a great reflection of the passage in Corinthians.

1 Corinthians 13:12 ~ Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
and
2 Corinthians 4:18 ~ So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.


I guess my biggest issue with Lewis' theology is his veiw of Creation. This is not so much reflected in the CoN but rather in the space trilogy. I am a firm believer in a literal 6 day creation, no gap, and a young earth. Lewis was not. However, I am still a fan of Lewis' work. He was a creative man, with a great intellect. I do believe he was a Christian, despite his misguided theology. You know what, I probably beleive some wrong theology as well, but I know I am going to heaven for the simple fact that "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and beleive in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved!" (Romans 10:9)

[Capstick]

Well put AlwaysHis324, I couldn't have said it better myself. When I reread that passage in The Last Battle, I came to the same conclusion as you did: it sounded very much indeed like a work's based righteousness. (Salvation is by faith ALONE, not works).

I have read Lewis' space trilogy and I really enjoyed it. I too, am a literal, strict, 6-day Creationist. I was not aware that Lewis was not. One thing to note though about his space trilogy, was that he was using the mythology that was established by J.R.R. Tolkien in The Lord of the Rings (this is especially clear if you read That Hideous Strengh).

By the way, what denomination of Christianity are you? By any chance are you Reformed? :)

[GrayCloak]

You have a very eloquent way of expressing your point AlwaysHis, and I agree with you wholeheartedly!

I am also a firm 6 day creationist, and have always had a problem with the way Lewis handled the creation of his world. Lewis seems also to be relying on ‘Works vs. Faith’ i.e. it was the Calormean’s works of worship that were accounted to him, meaning perhaps that he had earned his own salvation. (Which would really have made Aslan’s sacrifice in LWW unimportant wouldn’t it :D )

There is no doubt in my mind that Lewis was Christian (If you haven’t already I urge you to read ‘A Grief Observed’ where Lewis deals with a trial of faith after the loss of his wife, and please don’t consider the movie ‘Shadowlands’ as a substitute as Hollywood has robbed it of its Christianity.) I fell much the same about his as I do Tolkien (Probably my favorite author) That though their theology was wrong they did indeed, confess that they believe in the One True God.

“If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved”

[Y. Fish]

I normally avoid threads like this one, but I really felt like I had to jump in this time.

So Lewis didn't agree with exactly what the rest of the Christian church said. So? The Chronicles of Narnia aren't supposed to be mirrors for scripture, they're Lewis' personal take on faith, and he's perfectly allowed to disagree with what someone else says. Personally, I agree with him on the Emeth issue (in fact, I used that scene from LB with Emeth as a quote in the Favorite Quotes Thread on this site). A world where only Christians got in to heaven would put Gandhi in hell and Hitler in heaven, and that is a world which many people, probably including C. S. Lewis, have trouble believing in. There can't be theological "errors," because theology is defined by a person's individual beleifs, and no one person or religion has a monopoly on the truth.

Sorry if anyone's offended, I just really felt like somebody needed to add some counterargument here.

[AlwaysHis324]

I appreciate your sentiment Y fish, however my stance remains. Lewis' representation of theology in LB is unbiblical, plain and simple.

Being good does not get you into heaven. Scripture is clear on that. Unless Ghandi accepted Christ as his savior, even a good person like Ghandi won't be in heaven.

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith, not of works lest any many should boast. Ephesians 2:8-9.

The root of all truth is found in God's word, the Bible. It is where we should go for our source of theology.

No, CoN is not supposed to be an exact interpretation of scripture, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not think anyone has said that. We are simply pointing out instances where we see unbiblical theology coming through in Lewis writing.

[Capstick]

Nicely put AlwaysHis324, but if no one minds, I think I need to reply to Y. Fish's statements as well. Please do not take this personally Y. Fish, but I STRONGLY disagree with what you said, and so I'm going to take some time to respond to it.

"So Lewis didn't agree with exactly what the rest of the Christian church said. So? The Chronicles of Narnia aren't supposed to be mirrors for scripture, they're Lewis' personal take on faith, and he's perfectly allowed to disagree with what someone else says..."

The problem here that comes in is that these beliefs do have consequences, ESPECIALLY concerning the doctrine of Salvation. We are also concerned about those people who might read these books and then base their theology on this. In addition, as Christians, we need to be concerned about only believing what is true, because Truth is an attribute of God. Now, none of us are saying that because of these problems, Lewis' is totally bankrupt and we shouldn't read his writings; far from it. However, allowing heresy and doctrinal error to go unchallenged is a dangerous thing (it is like playing with fire, but to a greater extent: you put your eternal soul on the line).

"A world where only Christians got in to heaven would put Gandhi in hell and Hitler in heaven, and that is a world which many people, probably including C. S. Lewis, have trouble believing in."

Sorry, but once again I believe you're wrong.

If Ghandi did not confess his sins and place his trust in Christ Jesus alone for his salvation then, you might not like to hear it, but he is in hell.

None of us are saying that Adolf Hitler would go to heaven; in fact, quite the contrary. He was an occultic, evil, sadistic man. Even if he "claimed" that he was a christian, that does not mean that he is saved. His actions demonstrate that he did love God or His law.

Matthew 7:16-20 basically says that by their fruits you will know them.

In addition, C.S. Lewis would support what I have just said regarding Hitler.

"and if any man do a cruelty in my name then though he says the name 'Aslan' it is Tash whom he serves and it is by Tash that his deed is accepted...." I believe that GrayCloak dealt with this in a previous post.

Moreover, saying that something is "hard to believe" is an illogical argument. Our beliefs should not be based on our personal feelings, but rather on what is true. Deciding that you don't want to believe in something because it is "harsh" or "unpleasant" is the same thing as a small child deciding that he isn't going to believe in peas because he doesn't like the taste of them! Despite the child's sincerety, this is not going to make the peas vanish.

"There can't be theological "errors," because theology is defined by a person's individual beleifs, and no one person or religion has a monopoly on the truth."

Sorry, but once again, I have to disagree with you one-hundred percent. There IS such a thing as absolute truth, and it is based on the character and nature of God revealed through His Moral Law (summarized in the Ten Commandments). I would like to make two points herre:

ONE: Truth, by definition, must be absolute. If it is not, then it is not truth! An example: if a circle is round, it cannot also be square.

TWO: If there is no such thing as absolute truth, then there is no such thing as right or wrong: it is all based solely upon personal preference. Thus, rape, murder, homosexuality, cannibalism, human-sacrifice, etc. all become perfectly fine because without absolute truth morality cannot exist.

I think I've answered all basic issues, and I hope I haven't scared you off :) . I would like your feedback on this Y. Fish, as well as some feedback from other people (especially that of GrayCloak and AlwaysHis324 :D ).

[GrayCloak]

Darn you AlwaysHis324 and Capstick! I leave the message boards for a couple of hours and you refute the best argument we've had on here! :D (And did it exceptionally well I might add. :) )

I will add only two things:

One:.”. Jesus answered, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the father except through me" John 14:6

Also, I don't know how many of your are familiar with the Westminster Shorter Catechism (This is not scripture but it is an interpretation of it, and what I firmly believe) in question 4 it states:

"What is God?"

And the answer

"God is a spirit, infinite, eternal unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power holiness, justice, goodness and TRUTH!"

Jesus is truth. There is no way around it, and it can never be subjective, there is only one truth and it is God.

The second thing I will say is that from now I promise to check this darn forum more often so I can write a page and a half like Capstick got to!

[Lunis]

Well, this is a great topic! I haven't had time to say much, but I think you're all doing a splendid job. :D :rolleyes: You can definitely tell who are the writers here. ;)

As to your fly on the wall statement, Graycloak...
I agree! Hmm, it sort of reminds me of something in a book (turning into a small insect to get an inside look or inside "scoops").

( * Luni

[Y. Fish]

Well, I suppose I stand corrected. But this is the central flaw of any religious argument: nobody's ever corrected, because nobody ever changes their minds. Every religion on this earth says essentially the same thing: "I'm right because my God/Goddess/Deity told me I am, and you guys are all wrong." Who's to say that we happen to be the ones who got it right? Yeah, yeah, I know, God told us we're the ones who got it right. But refer to the statement above. Everybody's God told them that they're right. So nobody ever suspects for a second that they might be wrong, until they die, and then we all find out "who won." And there's really no sense in posting any of this, because nobody's going to give it more than a passing, "poor little heathen girl, if only she could see the light."

Sorry. I had a bad week, and I'm feeling a little angry/sad/desperate today. Please try not to take offense. I'm just saying that God told Lewis, like everybody else on this planet, that he was right. And were Lewis alive today, nobody on this forum would be able to make him think differently, because everybody's truth is absolute. It's just that none of them are ever absolute together.

[GrayCloak]

You are right Y.Fish, if you ever argue religion with someone whose is different than yours then you will get into the "My god says this is what is true, so it is" dilemma, and maybe we won't ever see eye to eye on things. The fact is however that Christianity is the true religion, all others are inconsistent or arbitrary, and none but Christ shall lead us to eternal life.

You said "So nobody ever suspects for a second that they might be wrong, until they die, and then we all find out "who won."

If it is not to personal I would like to know your religious background/standing, as it would help me understand your position more. You will think I'm ignorant and hard headed for saying this but I don't have to wait until I die to know which faith is the right one, because I know right now that I follow the true God and that all others are false; I know that Jesus died for my sins, that he was raised from the dead, and that when I die I shall have to stand before him and give an account before the Almighty of all the deed I did in my life, and that no sins shall be held against me because Jesus covered them all with his blood.

Only in Christ do I find comfort, that no matter what else happens, Jesus died for me, and because of that I can be saved and find my hope in the next life.

It is naive of me perhaps, but I would really like to discuss this with you further, and maybe even be able to talk about why you believe what you do, so I can understand you more.

I am sorry that you had a bad week, if it helps any I've been having a bad year, (The count is currently: Lost all my friends, having financial troubles in my family, and job issues for my dad, so really it can only go up from here right? :D ) so at least we have that in common :)

[Warrior-Poet51088]

W()()t! Gotta love the WCF! The teacher mentioned it in a WorldViews class one day, and some person(towards whom I am hatefully disposed) said, "Isn't that [the catechism] a Catholic tradition?" Now, to understand this, you have to realise that she said it in a very down-playing, "Oh-that's-not-good-enough-for-me" tone of voice, which really ticked me off. I guess what it boils down to is that I don't like people who go around making biggoted statements on subjects they have not even the slightest understanding of!

Right, back to topic...
I agree with what AlwayHis324 and GrayCloak have said, and hope that we can get past this game of loggerheads with Y. Fish, and back to defining our personal beliefs, so that we can build each other up!

[NiennaTinuviel]

wow I leave for a couple of days and look what I come back too. I love this topic, let's keep it alive.

[lulu]

Wow i probably should have expected it you all being lewis fans but some of you are REALLY religious. by the way thats not an insult or me looking down on you i'm actuly very impressed with your sheer amount of faith (i myself am a devout athiest, though have a strange fascination with religion).
I don't think there are really any problems with the narnia theology, sure its not an outlook of christianity that we all agree on but Lewis was writting his own personal beliefs, and i think i prefer his idea on acceptance to heaven, that it is your actions and your character that determine where you go in your afterlife, not your beliefs. I never really liked the idea that perfectly good muslims, budhists, shiks and athiests as well as many other religious people would be cast into hell just because they didn't choose the right god.

[Capstick]

Sorry I haven't posted in a while, I've been kept busy this last week.

Lulu, the reason some of us are saying that there are theological problems in the Narnia books is because the theology in question goes against what the Bible itself actually says; our believes should never be personal and subjective, but ought to be based on absolute truth of the Bible.

Now, regarding the other things that you said, as I've stated before, I disagree with them, and I think I've already answered some of those objections (you might want to look at some of my previous posts on this topic). If you would like, I am perfectly willing to get into a theological discussion with you, debating my beliefs against yours (we could even start a different topic for that sole purpose). :)

By the way, its great to see some other Reformed people on this forum! As you might have guessed, I'm a staunt Protestant. (I agree with you Aragorn, the WCF is great! :) )

[GrayCloak]

....fighting desire to ask people what denominational standings they have...... ;)

I agree (once again, this is getting creepy) with Capstick: religion can never be subjective; only objective with the basis on God's law. Moralism can never be a substitute for the truth, or God's law; in fact without God's law, what would be the basis of good and evil?

LuLu, I too find other religions/faiths fascinating, but being acquainted with them you must understand that there are highly and outrightly ungodly and there are wrong things within them.

Take Hinduism, for example: the worshipers of Cali are the most wicked and evil people imaginable, they believe that through chaos (i.e. the rape, murder and destruction of others) they are serving their god devoutly; their worship may be sincere, but these are evil people.

Also, in regards to what Lewis believed, take the most important scene from LWW, where Aslan is strapped to the stone table, obviously a symbol of Christ upon the cross. If we could earn our own salvation (Through good works, or devoted religion) then we would have had no need for Jesus to die for us. Can we really be so arrogant as to think that we can earn our own salvation, when it took the Son of our God to perfectly atone for it? I think Lewis was inconsistent here, when he talked about the calormean earning his salvation in the Last Battle.

I would love to hear your take on this LuLu.


phew! That was a load off my chest.... :D

[lulu]

I accept other peoples views and i see no point in debating with other people over their religion compared to my lack of it as their views and mine are unlikely to change. However i do find most religions intrigueing. In all religions ungodly things have happened because of how follows have interpereted the words, the followers of Cali do very evil things, but that is a small minority of hindus, christianity has also done sick and unholy things in its time.

As for jesus dying on the cross to save us, i believe he was just a very devout, religious and peace loving man, but i do not believe he was gods son, and i don't believe his death affects what happens in my afterlife, i respect jesus and i respect most christians (apart from the ones who do unholy things) but i just don't believe.

I think aslan respected the caloreman as a devout and good servant to him, i think as aslan said that by all the good deeds he got into heaven not by who he worshiped, it was only an acident of birth after all that had him worshiping tash over aslan, basicly this guy was a good enough person to get to heaven that it doesn't matter that he made a simple mistake in choosing the wrong god to worship, it was his deeds rather than his beliefs.

Once again i will stress the point that I am not trying to impose my views on anyone and i am not insulting people with different views, merely stating mine.

[AlwaysHis324]

lulu~ you stated that you believed Jesus was "just a very devout, religious and peace loving man, but i do not believe he was gods son".

Have you read the Gospels? Jesus Himself stated He was God's son. If He is not, as you believe, why would He make that claim? And what would making that claim make Him? A crazy man? A lier?

Have you read many of Lewis' works? Like Mere Christianity and The Great Divorce? What do you think of those?

[TrueCrusader]

"christianity has also done sick and unholy things in its time"
Could you please state the Sick and unholy things?



True Crusader

[lulu]

Witch hunts
the great crusades
spanish inquisition
hundreds of racist groups
Arpithed and segregation in both america and parts of africa
Holocaust
many anti-sematic killings
wars
slavery
the destruction of entire civilisations like the aztecs and the incas because they didn't worship christ

I am not blaming christianits, just some of the people who interpret the words wrongly, as happens in all religions.
As for jesus saying he was gods son, i believe he used to refer to god as a father in many of his speaches but i think that was a metaphor. Also the bible wasn't written by jesus, but by his followers, some parts of it over a hundred years after his death, some things may have been exagerated or the perspective slightly scewed.
just again must say i am NOT insulting christinity, i am just stating my beliefs which aren't going to change.

[Capstick]

In terms of the list you just gave I would like to say two things:

First of all, it appears that you are saying that there are those who misinterpreted the Bible and did wrong things because of this (racism, the holocaust, some of the doings of the Spanish inqusition, etc would all fall into this category), and that the Bible does not actually condone these things. If this is an accurate statement of your position, I would have to agree with you. Matthew 7:15-20 says that "by their fruits you will know them." In other words, a man's actions demonstrate what he really believes and where his heart is. The Bible does not teach racism, murder, etc. Thus, even if a man "claims" to be a Christian, but he lives a life in opposition to the Bible, obviously he does not love Christ and he is not truly saved.

The second thing that I would like to say regarding this list is that some of the things you listed I would have to say were good things. Some of the crusades, for instance, were launched to free the Holy Land from Muslims were were attacking Christian pilgrims. This is not to say that all of them were good (the Fourth Crusade, for example, was a horrible disaster, and I do not condone it). The other thing you listed that I would disagree with was the destruction of the Aztec civilization by the Spaniards. Now, not to take this discussion off on a tangent, but the Aztecs were a thoroughly depraved, wicked society that killed hundreds of thousand of people EVERY YEAR by sacrificing them to their gods. In addition, when Cortez arrived there, he was hailed by many people Mexico as a liberator from the Aztec tyrants.

Now, getting back on track, I believe that your point is that all religions have men who have misinterpreted the true teachings of them which leads them to do bad things. As I've demonstrated, men who do these things in "Christ's name" are not truly Christians. However, there are many other religions where, if men were to follow their faith's consistently, it would lead to such atrocities. As I mentioned, the Aztec religion required human sacrifice. Going back to the original example of the Hindus, the worshipper's of Cali (I believe they were known as "Thuggies) are consistent with their faith. They believe that there are many paths to god; thus, some choose a life of asceticism-denying the body through poverty and suffering-while others choose a different path-such as rape, murder, robbery, etc. Both paths are seen as leading equally to "god." Let me use another example (and I'll probably get into trouble with someone for this one :) ). Islam is based upon the teachings of Mohammed, and, when carried out consistenly, it is a religion of terrorism and warfare. Mohammed himself was a brigand and a robber, who used the sword to "convert" people. In fact, there are passages in the Koran (the Muslim holy book) that say to wait in ambush and kill infidels, and to murder Christians and Jews. Again, this statements of mine will probably offend some of you, but what I'm trying to demonstrate is that when men become consistent with their basic beliefs it leads to horrible things. Now, lulu, you might argue that Christianity has also done "horrible" things such as what I claimed Mohammed did; however, I would like to refer you back to my original two arguments regarding your list.

Finally, the gospels are very clear that Jesus was the Son of God. He himself makes that claim in several passages (I don't know the exact references off the top of my head). Now, regarding what you said about the gospels being written many years after his death, that is a whole 'nother debate; I've already said quite a lot here, so if someone else wants to tackle that issue, please go right ahead :) .

Thanks for bearing with me everyone, and letting me rant :D . I look forward to having other people criticize and commen on what I've said, and hopefully I haven't scared anyone off.

[lulu]

Sorry if it sounded like i was blaiming christianity for that list, i wasn't i'm blaming people who misinterpret it, who in my opinion are evil and nasty people using christianity in an attempt to back up their warped and horrible prejudices.
Sure the aztecs made human sacrifices which were wrong but that does not justify the destruction of a civilisation and almost all its knowledge and traditions. The whiping out of a civilisation can never be seen as good, and niether can the pillaging, rape, murder and desecration of holy land that occurred during the crussades.

Cali's followers are very limited and looked down on by most other hindus who accnowledge cali but prefer to follow the teachings of the more peaceful gods. Muhamed after he had rid the city of mecca from the unholy (who were muslims who haddn't been following Allahs law) settled back down again as a peace loving man (i still don't agree with his war though) and although muslims COULD do terrible things whilst saying they are following the Qur-an it is more they are not dissobeying it as there are loopholes, but the main body of the text preaches tollerence and non violence. The only religion i can think of that expresively forbids violence without contradicting itself elsewhere would be budhism.

As i said before i am not debating whether jesus is the son of god, i have no problem with people who do believe that, i am just saying i don't, i know it is said in the gospel, i dont need it pointing out any more but i still disbelieve it and nothing is going to change my mind about that. (sorry if that came out like a rant, it really wasn't)

[AlwaysHis324]

I haven't take offense to anything you have said lulu. Don't worry :)

Yes many evil things have been done in the name of Christianity. Things that I am convinces hurt God deeply.

My biggest puzzle with your statements is this. You said Jesus was a devout religious and peace loving man... but not the Son of God (like He claimed)... How can one say that. Either Jesus was the Son of God like He claimed, or He was a mad man, or the devil himself. It always intrigues me that people will say, "Oh Jesus was a good man, but no He wasn't the son of God" How can he be a good man if He made claims to being God's son? He very clearly stated who He was, yet if thats not true then what are the only to conclusions we can draw? Either he was who He said He was... or He was stark raving mad... or He was the spawn of Satan. Interesting.

[Capstick]

I understand that you're not blaming Christianity, just those who try to use it as a justification for their own wickedness; on this point at least we agree. However, the similarities just about stop there :) . I'd like to make a few more comments about your response, but I'll try to keep it short.

First of all, what did the people of Mexico actually lose when the Aztec empire collapsed? (which, was actually a result of their own actions; many of the natives living in Mexico rose up against the Aztecs because of their tyranny and oppression of the other peoples). The Aztecs were a backward people (both technologically and socially; they never invented the wheel, metalurgy, writing, etc).

Secondly, some of the comments you've made have brought up an important issue (please, don't take personal offense at this; you've discussed some of your objections of Christianity, so I'd like to reply likewise).

"Sure the aztecs made human sacrifices which were wrong but that does not justify the destruction of a civilisation and almost all its knowledge and traditions. The whiping out of a civilisation can never be seen as good, and niether can the pillaging, rape, murder and desecration of holy land that occurred during the crussades."

Now, you have made several moral judgments here. However, what determine morality, since you seem to be stating that there is a universal truth here. Morality MUST come from an objective standard. Your statements seem to agree with me on this issue. Now, I believe that all morality stems from the Moral Law of God (summarized in the Ten Commandments). However, since you do not believe in any god, what then do you use to determine right from wrong?

Again, please don't take personal offense here, but since we're on the subject, I would be very interested to hear your opinions here on this matter (as well as those of anyone else). :D

[lulu]

I believe in my own judgement to determine right and wrong, i think everyone is born with their own sense of morality, although some peoples are slightly skewed. Just because someone is not religious does not mean they can't have the same morals as somebody who looks to the 10 commandements for guidance.

I believe that when the new testiment was written years after christs death, the stories of him which had previously been handed down by word of mouth had become exagerated by different tellers slightly altering it until so that when written down he became the son of god.

I would like to say thatit is perfectly possible to believe Jesus is a good man, but not gods son, the Hindus believe this and so do the budhists who don't even worship a god but strive instead for understanding and inner peace

[GrayCloak]

lulu, there are two things I would like to address with your previous post:

1. You said that it is your own judgment that determines right and wrong, and that some people are inherently 'skewed' in their own morality. But what is the basis of morality, how can you say without the Law of God that it isn't YOUR sense of morality that is skewed and not those who do wrong.

God's Law says: "Thou shalt not kill"

If I had my own sense of morality however, then why would I follow God's, couldn’t I say "Well he ticked me off, so now he's free game!" One could argue that killing in itself is wrong, but where does this come from, where is the foundation of right and wrong if not in God's Law? If it is my own personal truth and morality, then I can do as I please, and no one else can say that my truth is wrong because there is no absolute basis for truth.

2. The second thing I would like to address is your take of how Jesus was not the son of God, but a moral teacher. What you’re saying is that though good man himself, through 'word of mouth' and a process of time his identity was skewed until people actually believed him to be the Son of God, and not the man he was.

The problem with this, however, is that there was only a forty year time eclipse between Jesus, and when the gospels were written; and I believe Paul even started writing in twenty years! This is undisputed. Thinking back in our own time, we can all remember what happened forty years ago; the Vietnam War, Kennedy being assassinated ect. and if we ever doubted these things then we could go to those who have witnessed them first hand; don't you think the apostles could have done the same thing?

Ok, thanks for letting me rant for a while, if anyone has anything to add, or if they want to challenge anything i've said, go right ahead! :D

[lulu]

You could say "Well he ticked me off, so now he's free game!" but i think even if you don't believe in god that would be dead against most peoples morality. In fact most of the ten commandements to me just seem to reflect most peoples moral nature. My sense of morality may be skewed to some people but to me its perfectly straight, the ones i was talking about with skrewed morality are people like mass murderes and political dictators.

One could argue that killing in itself is wrong, but where does this come from, where is the foundation of right and wrong if not in God's Law?

It comes from your conscience, you don't need to be religious to understand that taking the life away from a fellow human being is a horrible thing to do, it comes from years of evolution in which humans and their ancestors lived in social groups and tribes and were verry close, mourning deaths of other tribe members. Once you build up a relationship with people i think it becomes impossible to even contemplate killing someone as you can comprehend the sort of pain that it can cause to others.

I explained why i dont believe in christ being gods son (it also has a little to with virgin birt as well, it's almost imposible, my opinion is not going to change, especialy since i dont believe there is a god for him to be the son of, as i told you i am an athiest, that is practicaly a religion to me, telling me to embrace god and believe the exact words of the bible would be the same as telling you to renounce it. (that isn't really aimed at any of you in particular but a board i was on a couple of months back kept trying to convert me by saying i was going to hell which i found rather rude of them, though sort of funny as athiests don't even believe in hell)

[Capstick]

Sorry lulu, but I think you're missing the point of GrayCloak's argument; I'll try to explain some more. Your argument is that morality comes from people's "conscience"; however, a conscience is a purely subjective, personal thing that is, most likely, based upon the society in which we live. For example, lets go back to my previous example of the Aztecs; you agreed with me that human sacrifice is wrong. However, WHY is it wrong? You would argue that your conscience says that murdering people is a bad thing; however, the consciences of the Aztecs obviously said differently, because it was prevalent throughout their society. Thus, how do you determine whether what one person's conscience says to them is more right or more wrong than what another person's conscience says to them?

Now, you might argue that society would determine what's right or wrong; today, for example, most people agree that murder, robbery, rape, etc. are all horrible things, and so since everyone agrees these things are wrong that determine morality; however, this is simply a majority vote, and simply because the majority says something does not make it so. Let me give you two examples:

1. During the French Revolution, the masses decreed that the nobility needed to be killed; thousands of innocent men, women, and children were murdered. Now, there certainly were social problems in France during that time, but did they warrant the wholesale murder and destruction that ensued?

2. An even simpler example: 100 people are stranded on a deserted island. If 51 of those people decide that their conscience tells them that they are allowed to kill the other 49 people and eat them, is that OK, or is it still wrong?

"It comes from your conscience, you don't need to be religious to understand that taking the life away from a fellow human being is a horrible thing to do, it comes from years of evolution in which humans and their ancestors lived in social groups and tribes and were verry close, mourning deaths of other tribe members. Once you build up a relationship with people i think it becomes impossible to even contemplate killing someone as you can comprehend the sort of pain that it can cause to others."

History has proven that this statement of yours is untrue: there have been many cultures, nations, and groups of people who certainly have no qualms about murder; in addition, this argument of yours is based upon the fact that you don't want to cause people you know pain; however, what about killing someone you've never met? Let me give another example: Nazi concentration camps. The Nazis did not personally know the Jews they murdered, so why should that cause them pain? It obviously did not cause them pain, and thus millions of people were horribly murdered.

My overall point here is that basing morality upon a subjective conscience just does not work. As long as everyone agrees upon what morality is (and I would argue that this is because there IS an objective standard out there; since we were created in God's image, even though some might deny the truth, they still retain some of God's character), then things are fine. However, what happens when people become consistent with their views; if people's conscience tell them that rape, murder, robbery, etc. are all perfectly fine, what is to say that they are wrong?

Finally, I'm glad that you admitted that Atheist IS a religion; and, like all other religions, it is accepted by faith! :)

Once again, please don't take this personally; however, I think that these are very important issues, and ones that need to be addressed.

[GrayCloak]

Awwwwe, You mean I can't convert you lulu?.... :D
(You are aware that you've just proposed to me a challenge that is hard to resist, right? :) )

I agree with what Capstick just pospted (*grumbling*....Showing me up with his long, involved posts......) And as I am a Six-Day Creationist, I disagree with your point about years of evolution, and still hold firmly to my prior post concerning moral standards.

I do not think that just because the idea of not killing is dominent in our culture, that that makes it right. If this were the case, then at the flip of the hat we could go in the opposite direction, and decide that murder, rape, ect was the norm. The idea of putting my life and those I love in the hands of people whose own conciences dictates their actions, truly scares me. (Please don't take this as a slam against you lulu, as I don't doubt that you're a good person, mearly that I don't like the idea of men deciding good and evil for themselves, when this has not worked in the past.

The first sin in the Garden, was Eve wishing to be like God herself, thus eating the forbidden fruit; she let her own desires/concience/will rule her actions, and for her sin (and of course Adam who followed suit) man was forever banished from the Garden.

I hope it doesn't sound like all of us are ganging up on you lulu, as I've absalutly enjoyed every moment of posting on this forum, and find discussing this with you fastinating.

Question: In the Atheist Faith, where do you believe you go when you die?

-Hope to hear a rebutle

[lulu]

I believe that life just ends, and that's it, nothing. I know it is a depressing thought and not something i generaly like to think about, it truly terrifies me on the rare occasions i do.

I wouldn't say the athiest faith, it makes it sound like an organised society, its not its lots of people who have their own personal beliefs rather than general ones that go for everyone.

I doubt you'd be able to convert me even if you tryed, i'm the most stubborn person ever, if god where right before me i'd still stick to my athiesm just out of principal. (by the way have any of you ever read Small Gods by Terry Pratchet? its one of the better of his diskworld novels which includes an athiest who does just that and still manages to have conversations and ge on pretty well with the god in question)

1. During the French Revolution, the masses decreed that the nobility needed to be killed; thousands of innocent men, women, and children were murdered. Now, there certainly were social problems in France during that time, but did they warrant the wholesale murder and destruction that ensued?

2. An even simpler example: 100 people are stranded on a deserted island. If 51 of those people decide that their conscience tells them that they are allowed to kill the other 49 people and eat them, is that OK, or is it still wrong?

to number 1 i say that i understand the reasons for the uprising, but the murder of the inocents was wrong and unjustified. (i would have to study more about the french revolution before i can give you a fuller answer as i admit this is something that has only been touched upon in my history lessons and my personal historical reading leans more towards ancient history)

To the second i say that canabalism is always wrong, i can understand what drives people to do it in extreme situations but i still find it wrong and frankly plain disturbing

[Capstick]

You didn't really deal with the arguments that I set forth :D .

The point that I am trying to make is that, without a sovereign and unchanging God, what determines morality? Your position, as I understand it, logically leads to the conclusion that morality is decided by the society as a whole, which as I demonstrated in my two examples, can eventually lead to horrible things.

"To the second i say that canabalism is always wrong, i can understand what drives people to do it in extreme situations but i still find it wrong and frankly plain disturbing."

I agree with you that cannibalism is a horrible thing; however, WHY is it always wrong? From my perspective, I say its wrong because thats what the Bible says; however, by what standard of morality can YOU say that its "always wrong?" You have just made an absolute statement: that cannibalism is wrong at all times and at all places. It is wrong not just for yourself, but for others as well. However, going back to my previous example, the Aztecs would disagree with you. So, how can you determine who is right in this situation? Your conscience says cannibalism is bad; the consience of others (i.e., the Aztecs, if any remained alive today) would say that its perfectly fine. How is this dilemna resolved without some basic, objective standard that we can compare the conscience of everyone to (like the Moral Law of God :) ).

I am very interested to hear your response.

[AlwaysHis324]

A questions I always like to pose to atheists is "What if you are wrong?"

See if I, as a Christian, am wrong, well I have lost nothing. I have lived a full and good life and will leave behind a legacy to be proud of. However, if an athiest is wrong, and there is a God, and what the Bible says is true... well they will certianly suffer for their mistake.

lulu, you mentioned that you don't like to think about death. I feel sorry for you. Not believing in a God must truly leave you feeling hopeless. Does it? I know I couldn't live like that. Personally I think it takes more faith to not believe in a God then to believe in one.

Also, I do not mind thinking about death. And I hope this doesn't sound morbid, but I look forward to it. I would rather spend a day in heaven then a thousand here on earth.

lulu, have you read the entire Bible? Even if you don't want to believe it, it is a good and interesting read. I would encourage you to read it.

GrayCloak ~ I am with you on the challenge. :P

[GrayCloak]

Lulu, Capstick refuted everything I would have anyway (He's beginning to get of my nerves a bit.... :) ) I too am a very stubborn person (In fact on more than one occasion I have been known to 'cut off my nose to spite my face') so maybe we'll never to eye to eye on things, but I would really like to understand where you are coming from:

"I believe that life just ends, and that's it, nothing. I know it is a depressing thought and not something I generaly like to think about, it truly terrifies me on the rare occasions i do."

This is something I have never had to face in my life, in fact something I didn't even think about other people having to deal with until I read your post. But I guess for those people who are Atheist, or unbelievers, this is always something ominous forever hanging over your head.

I have always found my assurance and hope in the Resurrection, and the death of Jesus Christ to make that possible for me. I have never feared death, or really thought of it besides anything but what it is; the departing from this life into the next.

This is just really strange for me, (Who for the most part has only ever been exposed to people who's beliefs are similar to mine) So if you would, bare with me while I badger you.

Do you not believe in God because you think it's illogical, or because you're opposed to the idea?

Is there a reason why you're an Atheist, and not something else?

Did you ever believe in God, or at least hope that he was out there?

I hope I'm not getting too much on your nerves, but like I said it's just so strange for me to read the things you say and wonder to myself "People really believe that?"

Oh well, hope I haven't scared you off.....

[Lirimaer_senshi]

Hi everyone!

This is my first post

Just a little about me. I go to The Salvation Army (yes we are a church) and i am also a Bible college student in South Australia

Now for my two cents....

This is a very interesting topic. I'd just like to refocus the issue a bit here. I found it interesting how you all have interprated that scene in the book because i have always scene it in a different light. I think that the story of Emeth meeting aslan is a wonderful parable of someone's faith journey. It's the story of a man who was worshipping a false god but what he didn't know that what he was whorshipping evil itself. One day he became suspicious because what people were telling him about Tash was not right in his heart. He made up his mind to discover the truth at any cost and in his search for truth he found Aslan and he believed. Aslan tells him that "no vile deed can be done to me". Isn't that the same as saying "your forgiven" or "I will not count your sins against you".

As for the "you can get to heaven if you worship other gods" argument, as far as I could tell Emeth was not dead when he met Aslan. He simply went through the stable door looking for the truth and he found what he truely seeked.

I hope this has been interesting and/or helpful

God Bless
luv Lirimaer Senshi

[TrueCrusader]

Welcome Lirimaer!


Glad to see some christians out there!
Welcome hope you have a great time.
Well just saying Hi!

TrueCrusader



PS. sorry if I spelled your name incorrectly.

[Capstick]

Here's a section from The Last Battle, which was posted earlier by GrayCloak:

"Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me. Then by reasons as my great desire for wisdom and understnading I overcame my fear and questioned the Glousius One, and said: Lord, is it then true as the Ape said that thou and Tash are one? The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said: It is false. Not becasue he and I are one, but becasue we are oppisites, I take to me the services that thou hast done to him. For I and he are of such different kinds, that no service that is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore if any man swears by Tash and keeps his oath for the oaths' 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 it is by Tash that his deed is accepted...." -The Last Battle Chapter 15 Pg 188-189

I have absolutely no problem with a pagan who repents of his sins and trusts in Christ alone for his salvation; however, I do not think that is what is happening here. First of all, I believe that ealier, Emeth had said that he never knew Aslan. Since Salvation is only through Jesus (and I'm sure we're all agreed that Aslan is very clearly a picture of Jesus), how can a man be saved if he never knew who Jesus was?

Secondly, what Lewis is saying here sounds very suspiciously like salvation through good works. In other words, Aslan is accepting this man into heaven because of the good life that he had led; however, this is very clearly against what Scripture teaches. Salvation is only through faith in Christ Jesus; and, in addition, that faith is a free gift of God; we have done nothing to deserve or merit it.

I hope this answers what you posted; please feel free to send feedback, whether you agree with me or disagree. :)

[AlwaysHis324]

Interesting thought Lirimaer_senshi (welcome by the way). I will admit your view has some valid points, but I tend to have to agree with Capstick. True, Emeth was not dead, but where in this scene does he put his trust in Aslan? Where does he confess?

Now it can be argued that things work differently in Narnia. I have seen this arguement other places. Some actually argue that Aslan's sacrfice was for Edmund alone, and not all of Narnia, therefore, faith in Aslan is not required for salvation in Narnia, but simly service to him...

but that gets in to sticky territory if you ask me. Shall we simply stick with comparing it as a direct allegory?

Lets talk about Horse and His Boy. I am listening to the radio drama of it right now, and I got to thinking about some theology stuffs in it. What is y'alls opinion on the part where Aslan scratches Aravis in the same manner in which her slave was whipped? Also what about when Aslan as a cat attacks Shasta, or rather scratches him, when Shasta mentions how he once hurt a kitten? What are your thoughts on these parts with the view of Aslan being Jesus?

[GrayCloak]

AlwaysHis324, you've brought up one of my favorite parts of HB with Arivis!

I have always seen it as an inacting of the Lex Talonis 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth'

Also in a passage in Galations (I don't know that exact number, I'll look it up later) "Do not be decieved, God will not be mocked, whatever a man sowes so also shall he reap."

She had inflicted pain upon her servant willing, and there had to be consequenses for it. Aslo I would note about the definate change in Arivis's personality after Aslan scratches her; when she first told Shasta about her servant being whipped she was indifferent, even condesending about it. When Aslan confronts her however, she is regretful, and asks how the girl is, though Aslan does not tell her.

On the issue witht he cat and Shasta, I will offer my two cents, whether you end up reading my whole post or not.... :P

The cat was Aslan aproaching Shasta in a gracious and loving state, offering protection and safetly in the darkness of the tombs. And as Shasta stood so close to the living God he could not help but be conflicted and guilt ridden of past sins (i.e. Shasta being cruel to the kitten) which he confessed to Aslan, and in turn had to pay a price for. (Being scratched)

Any thoughts? (Am I overthinking things again..... :rolleyes: )

I especially want to hear AlwaysHis324's take on this....

[Y. Fish]

Lirimaer senshi, your name sounds very familiar... anime series or something?

Anyway, about the Emeth issue. Lirimaer made an important distinction: While Emeth was worshiping a god that was evil, he did not know Tash was evil. I'm not saying that Emeth saw the evil things Tash was doing and said, "Oh, well that's okay," I'm saying he didn't see any of that, because Tash was not visibly active in Calormen the way Aslan was in Narnia. Emeth, never having witnessed Tash's horror for himself, beleived Tash to be the benevolent god that Aslan was. So, Emeth's worship of Tash was, in a sense, worship of Aslan by a different name.

Emeth sought goodness, and thought Tash was the goodness he sought. Then he found out, "Oh, the name of that goodness is Aslan, whoops," but it was still the same goodness. So really, this isn't a case of "salvation by works." I mean, think about it. It's all well and good to say that if Calormens really were seeking goodness, they'd see the evil of their god and go north to Narnia, but you've got to think about the cultural context. The Calormens are raised since birth to think that Tash is the embodiment of all good and that Aslan is the symbol of all that is barbarian and evil--and that's NOT saying that they saw good and evil reversed. They simlpy reversed the names the associated with good and evil. Switching the labels on the peanut butter and jelly jars doesn't change your perception of what's nutty and what's jelly.

Okay... now for the crushing rebuttall...

[Capstick]

Sorry Y. Fish, but once again I have to completely disagree with you :D .

Your argument, as I understand it, is that Emeth from the very beginning was worshiping Aslan, but he thought his name was Tash. This argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny for several reasons:

First of all, Aslan and Tash are two VERY different gods: the one true God versus an evil demon. In addition, their worship and beliefs HAD to be different; thus, Emeth was not simply a Christian with a different name, but he believed in an entirely different religion. This is apparent, because when Aslan and Emeth meet, Aslan talks about how Tash is the antithesis of what He really is.

Secondly: "Emeth sought goodness, and thought Tash was the goodness he sought." There is a problem with this statement. First of all, what defines "goodness?" Goodness must be based solely on the absolute truth of God's unchanging character. Tash, as the antithesis of everything that Aslan stands for, could not possess any of this goodness in his religion. Thus, if Emeth truly sought goodness, he would not have found it in the worship of Tash. To call the worship of Tash "goodness" is to call evil good, and ultimately good evil.

In addition, this is still "salvation by works," because Emeth is being saved because of his search for "goodness." However, the Bible is clear that Salvation comes ONLY through faith in Jesus, and in addition, that faith is a free gift from God; in other words, we have done nothing to merit it.

Finally, what you're saying also seems suspiciously like what someone else said, and it could logically lead to that conclusion. If you worship Tash, you're really worshipping Aslan; thus, Tash and Aslan are the same god; we could call him Tashlan! (Now, where have I heard this before :) ). Alright, maybe I'm taking this a bit too far (and having some fun at your expense), but your argument is leading in that direction, and we ALL want to stay as far away from that direction as possible.

If anyone else can think of some important arguments I've missed, please post them.

[Y. Fish]

-okay, personal promise to myself, this is the LAST post I'm making on this subject-

Capstick, honestly, did you even read my post? No, Tash and Aslan are not the same thing. Obviously not. I neither stated nor implied that.

"If you worship Tash, then you're really worshiping Aslan; thus Tash and Aslan are the same god!"

This is illogical and has nothing to do with what I said. You're focusing on names; I'm talking about substance. (And please excuse my lack of creative synonyms in the following explination): Tash is a deity of badness. Aslan is a deity of goodness. Emeth worships a deity of goodness. Therefore, he does not worship Tash, but instead worships Aslan, though he has been led to beleive that the name of Aslan is Tash. But names mean absolutely nothing-- "That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." (Also please excuse my use of that hideeously over-quoted line of Shakespeare.) That is what I mean by "Emeth sought goodness." And the search for a god of goodness is not salvation by works; it is the heart of what leads people to salvation by faith. Emeth did not try to enter heaven by his own good works, he sought the true, good god who would give him salvation for his faith.

Now, if you want to make the case that Emeth could not have been saved because he was not, in name, a follower of Aslan, you could. It is true that his religious practices probably conformed to the customs of Calormen and the religion of Tash. His prayers and religious celebrations would have indeed have been Calormen and not Narnian. But the statement I'm trying to make is that these things are not what matters; all that is superficial. What matters is that Emeth lived for a god of goodness and love, not a demon. Emeth lived for Aslan, not Tash, regardless of what label Emeth put on him. Names, cultures, and deeds don't matter: what matters is the heart of what Emeth truly believed his God was.

I can see where you're coming from in saying that the religion of Tash could not have contained any goodness. But I have to argue that what Tash is really like and how the Calormens perceive him are very likely different things. Yes, Tash is a demon, but the Calormens don't neccessarily know this. (I'm sounding stupid, aren't I? Just bear with me for the time being. I have a valid point, I promise.) In Narnia, the Narnians would have no trouble discerning Aslan's true nature, because he has come to Narnia before and walked among the people there. Aslan is a very "hands-on" kind of god. But there is no record of Tash ever visiting Calormen the way Aslan visits Narnia. Tash tends to stay in his little underworld and doesn't visibly interfere with mortal life, and so the Calormens could easily fabricate a version of Tash who was far more god-like than the real thing. After all, Tash is supposed to be a false god, is he not? The Calormens could worship their "good version" of Tash, completely unaware that the real thing was a hideous demon. There is (and I just know you're going to tear this one apart) a gut instinct in human beings that keeps us (or at least the vast majority of us) from worshiping that which is evil (Tash), so the idea of an entire empire submitting to an evil god is unrealistic. Yeah. And now ten of you are going to find a bunch of examples to disprove me, and beat yet another argument into the dust. Have fun.

[Y. Fish]

-odd, it posted twice- Nevermind this post here. It doesn't really exist. If you're seeing it, you're just insane, that's all.

[Capstick]

Thanks for replying, I was beginning to think that I'd scared everyone off :) .

I think I understand now what you're saying, whereas before it was a bit unclear to me (I hope you didn't take some of my comments too personally; I have a sarcastic sense of humor that can get me into trouble sometimes :) ).

However, I'd still have to disagree; your theory is interesting, but do you have any evidence to back it up? Is there any place in the Narnia books that you can point to that shows that the Calormeans were worshipping Aslan by a different name (Tash)? If your argument were true, then that would mean that ALL of the Calormeans were saved, and I don't recall seeing this in the books at all.

I also detect at least one other large flaw in what you have said: for your argument to remain sound, you would have to assume that the religion of Tash had been changed so that it was essentially the same thing as the religion of the Narnians, and the only major difference would have been the name of God. I find this to be highly improbable.

Finally, I would like to make several comments about some of the things you have said (once again, this is nothing personal against you, so please don't take it that way :) ).

"It is true that his religious practices probably conformed to the customs of Calormen and the religion of Tash. His prayers and religious celebrations would have indeed have been Calormen and not Narnian. But the statement I'm trying to make is that these things are not what matters; all that is superficial. What matters is that Emeth lived for a god of goodness and love, not a demon. Emeth lived for Aslan, not Tash, regardless of what label Emeth put on him. Names, cultures, and deeds don't matter: what matters is the heart of what Emeth truly believed his God was."

I would like to pose an open question here: what is required for salvation? In other words, what must a man do to be saved? I believe that the Law of God is a fundamental aspect of His character, and thus it cannot be separated from Him. Jesus said that if you love me, keep my commandments. How could Emeth love Aslan (Jesus) if he knew nothing about His law?

Well, thanks again for posting; as some of you may have guessed, I quite enjoy debating. I believe that we should all be commited to the search for Truth, and I hope that nobody has taken any of my remarks too personally, as none of them were meant to be personal. Hopefully, we can keep this discussion (or others like it) going, but it seems like people keep dropping off of the discussion. :)

[lieke]

wow you guys say a lot of things, i can't follow it so you must do it whitout my opinion :P not that you need it :rolleyes:

[Capstick]

Thanks for the complement, and thanks for posting (I was beginning to think that I'd scared everyone off). Hopefully, we can get some more people to take part in these discussions.

[Biantai]

It is clear that Lewis was more open-minded than many other Christians.

Anglicanism and most Christian churches believe that only those who accept Christ will go to heaven. As someone said, Ghandi would not go to heaven.

Of course, there are dissenters within these churches, and although Lewis was an Anglican if what he wrote in the Narnia books reflects his own beliefs (as we can only expect it does) he personally believes that worshop and good deeds done in the name of another god, are counted as good deeds done for (the Christian) God, and a man such as the Calormene in the Last Battle can be saved.

Although Lewis' theology contradicts (in this aspect) mainstream Anglican/Christian theology, that does not make it 'wrong'. It is internally consistent. Only a fundamentalist who believes anything that disagrees with his own beliefs must be wrong, would believe this, and if this is the case, then there's no reasoning with you.

[Capstick]

Although Lewis' theology contradicts (in this aspect) mainstream Anglican/Christian theology, that does not make it 'wrong'

Sorry, I'll have to disagree with you there. I believe in absolute truth, and the source of this truth is the infallible word of God. Thus, everything that is NOT consistent with the Bible is wrong. The fact that Lewis' theology was internally consistent is irrelevant in determining whether he was right or wrong; the only thing that matters is whether or not he was consistent with what is taught in the Bible. I (and several other people on this form), believe that, in this aspect, Lewis is wrong because the view he holds in the Last Battle is not what is taught in Scripture.

Now, you-and anyone else-are perfectly welcome to disagree with me, to discuss this issue, and to give reasons why the view that I hold is wrong.

(By the way, yes I am a fundamentalist; and no, I do not agree with your definition of a fundamentalist-I can be reasoned with :) ).

[cslouis]

why not be a Buddhist, or a Muslim, or Hindu? Exactly, why not?

Although I choose to be Christian. One should not be coerced to God, one must freely choose. And give of oneself and give oneself freely.

[Warrior-Poet51088]

Hehehe. It'd be really evil of me if I threw Predestination into this debate, especially after cslouis' latest post.

[Capstick]

Oh, please do Aragorn! :D

[AlwaysHis324]

Originally posted by cslouis@Sep 21 2004, 03:18 PM
why not be a Buddhist, or a Muslim, or Hindu? Exactly, why not?

Although I choose to be Christian. One should not be coerced to God, one must freely choose. And give of oneself and give oneself freely.
Why not? Well because only belief in Jesus Christ will give you eternal life. Thats why not.

Good post capstick, I couldn't have said it better.


Aragorn, please don't, as it might just increase my headache :P :rolleyes:

[GrayCloak]

I really do need to check this sight more often, looks like you all refuted some of the best stuff we've had on here without me..... :(

AlwaysHis324: speldid job, as usual!

Capstick: allways supurpe!

Aragorn51088: I wish you had brought in Predestination, it would be interesting to see how people reacted to it! :D

[Smog]

Hey, I'm new here and I have been reading your posts and I think
that I would agree with capstick. We are to worship God in Spirit and in Truth.

Please post back ;)

[Gerber]

Right on Smog!

God wnats us to worship him (as you said) in spirit and in truth.
It doesn't matter if we love God, we also have too worship him the way He wants to be worshiped. Jesus said "if you love me keep my commandments."

[black cloak]

i think you mean " If you love Me, you will keep My commandments." John 14:15 :P

[TrueCrusader]

Aragorn please bring in predestination! KEEP THIS TOPIC ALIVE ITS DIEING AND NEEDS HELP!!!!!!!!!

[Jene Sai]

I am dying to witness this debate on predestination...

...so I will lead into it a little bit.

Does anyone else see the influence of Arminianism (man choosing God to save him instead of God choosing His own elect) in Lewis's writings?. I am refering to the LB in peticular.

Please be kind. I am new to this forum and it has been quite a while since I read the CON.

[Capstick]

Well, I was going to let someone else reply to this for once, but apparently everyone's over in another forum talking about cheese and the correct way to butter a cat...Oh well,

I thought you brought up an interesting point Jene Sai, and I too would like to see a discussion on Predestination. Since there might be some people out there who are unfamiliar with this term, I would define predestination as the belief that from before the world or anything else was even created, God chose those who would become His elect. In other words, God has always chosen certain people to be saved, and others He has chosen to be damned. This definition should work for now, but if anyone else can think of a more accurrate one, please post it.

Anyway, its been quite a while since I've last read the Chronicles, and I can't think of any examples of Arminianism right off the top of my head. Do you know exactly which point in the book you are referring to? I am familiar with Emeth, the Calormene at the end of the book, but, as we've discussed before, that hits me as being more of a "salvation by works" sort of thing, rather than "man choosing God."

[Jene Sai]

In regard to my earlier post...

...I was more leaning toward the influence of Arminianism on the Anglican (Church of England, Episcopal, etc.) Church. Since all men are creatures of their time, I was wondering if anyone saw this bent in Louis's writing?

Side Note...

...Dosen't salvation by works contradict predestination?...

...Because if man can earn God's grace that makes it no longer a gift. In other words, it takes the perogative out of God's hands and gives it man.

What is the general feeling on this?

[faeriechylde]

Wow, it took me about an hour to read this whole debate and see what was going on.
Capstick, where on earth did you get such a thorough theological education? I'm not sure I agree with you on all your points (I'm not even sure I understand all of them) but I commend you for being so sure of what you believe. (And I do agree with you on pretty much everything, except that I think at times you've misunderstood the statements of others.)
In the case of Emmeth, I have a problem with what some people said earlier about interpreting Aslan as telling him that sincere worship of any god would lead to heaven. That is not what Aslan is saying at all. On the contrary, he is saying that there IS a true moral law that Aslan created in creation, and that many of us can see without even having direct knowledge of Aslan. He is saying that Emmeth followed this moral law, believing it to be the law of Tash, when in fact it was Aslan's. He is not condoning the sincere worship of Tash at all, because he himself declares that doing evil is the service of Tash no matter what name is given to it. You may say, "Well, how did Emmeth know what was right and wrong in a society that worshiped evil?" Lewis doesn't directly answer this, but I would say that (because I also believe in predestination) the Spirit of God was convicting and leading him.
Now, this is not to say that I agree with what Lewis wrote in this area, because following the true moral law is not enough to save a person, as no one can truly follow it on their own. That is why Christ's sacrifice was necessary for us. We must also remember, though, that the CoN are not necessarily a consistent allegory all the way through for C.S. Lewis's theology. They would be very dull if they were. The idea of a substitutionary sacrifice on Aslan's part is really only directed toward Edmund, and the idea of anyone having to accept that sacrifice for salvation of his sin is not even remotely introduced in the books.
The real question then is, on what is Lewis basing the salvation of Narnia (and Calormen), and does that have to be considered a perfect mirror image of his beliefs concerning the salvation of our own world? I think if you want to debate about Lewis' theology you should probably look at some of his more clearly doctrinal works.

[Warrior-Poet51088]

I can see what you're saying, Fae, and it does make sense.

Since I've been asked (mutiple times!) to bring up Predestination, I will do so now(I haven't checked this thread for a while--homework and such, and I've been off buttering cats and discussing cheese).

I am a Presbyterian (or Frozen Chosen, if you absolutely must). I believe that God did, in fact, predestine some people to be saved and others to be condemned. I do not believe that as "The Elect" we should scorn the "Reprobate"(un-chosen), nor should we consider ourselves better than Unbelievers---it is ONLY by the grace of God ("Not by works, so that no man can boast") that we have been redeemed. As such, I believe it is our duty, no our privilege, to glorify the One True God Almighty, who was and is, and is to come. To do this, we must follow.....wait. I'm getting off on a tangent. Sorry. As Believers, we should not blow off anyone whom we think is not Predestined; we never even knew that we ourselves were Predestined before we were saved. With this in mind, we must always, always seek to reflect God's Grace and Christ's Love for us in every aspect of our lives, so that Unbelievers will be drawn to us by our actions, and not just our words. This, then, is the way in which we can seek to save the lost.

[Warrior-Poet51088]

Will somebody post???? It's been awhile and about 10 ppl have viewed the topic; I'm not gonna smite you down if you say something contradictory to my beliefs--I would love to get to deabte or at least hear what others believe!

[faeriechylde]

:lol: How about if we agree with you and don't think we can say it any better? Then what?

[Warrior-Poet51088]

Just let me know! I didn't know if I had offended anybody, and I really enjoy getting to debate this kind of thing, so I didn't want to scare you all away! :D :P :lol:

[GrayCloak]

Well, *I'm* not offeneded, but I can't debate you on this becasue I believe in Predestination. (Or unconditional election :D ) I've been checking this topic with great atisapation waitng for someone to say something contrarry to it.

*sigh* maybe we should say something compeatly out there, and then throw Predestination on those who post. lol!

:( Comeon! Someone post!

[Capstick]

Well, I'd post, except I'm also in complete agreement (by the way Aragorn, nice job). It appears then that if we're going to keep this topic alive, we either need to (1) continue to discuss predestination and the possible influence of Arminianism in Lewis' works (as I said earlier, its been a while since I last read LB, so my memory is a bit fuzzy) (2) continue to discuss other theological problems that we might have with the Chronicles (3) finally, find some other controversial, theological topic to bring up that will get lots of people interested! (we might even consider starting a slightly different topic if people want to start a discussion on the last one).

I'm open to suggestions...

[GrayCloak]

Well I've got a new theological error to add to the list.

I've just started to re-read the Chronicles, something I have not done in such a long time that I am throughly ashamed of myself. (I know, I know,...bad GrayCloak) I've always been aware of the deep-seated Greek influence within Lewis's works, as I've stated somewhere near the begining of this topic (You know, a couple of pages back, when we were involved in such lovely debates about theology *emits Deep long-ful sigh*) and for the most part I remember when I read the book glancing over things, or not fully understanding thier meaning. (It broke my heart when I discovered that a 'Faun' was really a satyr in Greek mythology, and for a time as I child I continued screaming "Run Lucy!" at the appearence of Mr. Tumnus.) But after finishing PC I was a little disturbed with a couple of things in the book:

1: The Dryads, and HammaDryads (you know the boy ones who aren't payed nearly as much attention as the girls :rolleyes: ) are not just Tree Spirits, but are constantly reffered to as 'gods' and 'godesses'. (enphisis little 'g') Now I have a serious problem with this as I belive their is "But one only, the living and True God." Unlike in ancient religions, Aslan is not the 'Chief God' as Zeus or Oden, but rather he is *the* God, and there should be no others save he. There is also a referance to the 'River God' who was chained by the bridge of Berunna.

2. The appearence of the 'Old Gods' were also rather unsettling for me. Bachus and Selenus make thier appearence within Naria in Pc, as well as referance made to them by Mr. Tumnus in LWW. They are both ancient Greek gods, and furthermore they are 'gods' of a well....let's just say, 'less then respected reputations.' As I have already said I have problems with the idea of more than one god, but the appearence of Greek gods (And I've read Classic Mythology staring them both, and they're not good guys even then) I really found distastful.

Now I respect Lewis emensly, and I love his work now more than ever (Currently I'm in the middle of Voyage of the Dawn Treader, and I am enjoying every moment of it) These were just the things that struck me as I finished up the first of the books, and I was wondering if anyone had anything to add/comment/disagree/debate about.

And I promise I won't throw Predestination into it, unless you really deserve it! :D

[I'mbigger/you'reolder]

Wow, all this time, I thought I was the only one who was a little puzzled by his theology sometimes. First of all, yes, God is the One, the Only, True God, just as in Narnia, it's Aslan. If you've ever read Perelandra, which is awesome, you'll see some more of that god/goddess stuff. I think that Lewis actually might've hit the nail on the head in some regards. In Perelandra, we see Mars and Venus. They are described in amazing ways that Ransom can scarcely take in. The only way he can describe them, is saying that our versions of them are perversions which drastically fall short of the real thing. Please note that this whole time, we are dealling with human language (a finite thing) trying to describe heveanly things (infinite things), so we get to a point where our language can begin to confuse us, and even contradict itself. In Layman's terms, it can be really hard to put stuff into words sometimes. Lewis is suggesting that there are creatures that God might have created which are immensly beautiful, powerful, and awesome. More so than beasts, humans, even angels. The best word that I could think of, without sounding remotely blasphemous, would be "archangels". (in Perelandra, Venus and Mars talked about how our "god" of earth rebelled, i.e. Satan, a fallen angel [archangel, depending on your beliefs]). But I think Lewis might've wanted to go a step farther than archangels, but ran out of words to use that didn't sound blasphemous. We should remember, though, that our knowledge of God compared to God, is like a speck of dust compared to Everest. Though we may think we know a lot, we actually know didley squatt. I hope that makes sense.

[faeriechylde]

Good reply, I'mbigger/you'reolder! I don't have to add anything, but I will anyway. :lol:
To really understand what Lewis means by "gods/goddesses," one would have to read The Space Trilogy (in That Hideous Strength, the "gods" or "archangels" of the planets descend to earth and Merlin is tempted to worship them, but Ransom, who has met them before, tells him not to, saying, "Have you forgotten that they are our fellow servants?").
When the Bible talks about having only one God, what it means is that we should worship no one (or nothing) but God. Lewis is very clear that we are not to worship the "gods" in his stories. He uses that word for lack of a better one, and I would argue that to him it simply means "immortal," "spirit," or "ruler."
I agree that his synthesism with Greek mythology can seem strange to us as American Christians, but we must remember that he was educated in classical (Greek and Roman) literature before becoming a Christian, and Tolkien at first introduced him to the gospel by calling it "the one true myth." He believed that the story of God's redemption of mankind was reflected in all mythology, and so he longed to "redeem" the mythology that he had grown up with by making it submissive to the "true myth," or the story of Christ and his work of redemption. Notice that though (as Graycloak pointed out) certain gods or mythical creatures he used in the CoN are not exactly "good" in Greek mythology, he shows them as having their place in Narnia as servants of Aslan. By this I think what he was trying to say was that the Greeks had perverted the ideals that God had instituted, but we cannot utterly reject the ideals just because some people didn't get them all right.
Okay, that was a really long explanation... more comments, anyone?

[I'mbigger/you'reolder]

Thanks Faeriechylde, now for my question. When Aslan died and came back, the stone table was split. Christianity teaches us that Christ came to fulfill the Law, not abolish it. The image of the broken table always gives me the idea that its ideas are obsolete now that Aslan rose again. There is the idea that we, as Christians, need not sacrifice for our sins since Christ was the ultimate Sacrifice. Should Christians still obey Jewish Law, being that it's in the Bible, even as it says things like don't cut the hair on your sides (Lev. 19:27) or if your camping with troops, dig a hole in the ground outside the camp for when you do business (Deu. 23:13). If we shouldn't obey these laws, why? Is the whole table broken, or just part of it? We obey the 10 Commandments, what about the rest of the Law? I'd really like an explanation on these ideas. I realize it might be a little of subject, so I apoligize for that. Thanks a bunch.

[Warrior-Poet51088]

Originally posted by I'mbigger/you'reolder@Oct 10 2004, 09:56 PM
Please note that this whole time, we are dealling with human language (a finite thing) trying to describe heveanly things (infinite things), so we get to a point where our language can begin to confuse us, and even contradict itself. In Layman's terms, it can be really hard to put stuff into words sometimes.
Have you ever read Dante's Paradiso? He has that same problem, but the book is still immensely, incredibly beautiful!!!!

I agree with Fae (I was all ready to type the same things, but you laready had, sooo...




About your question, I'mbigger/you'reolder (welcome, by the way!), I think the imagery Lewis is using there is in refernce to the dividing cloth in the temple beeing torn--because of Christ's sacrifice, we don't need a High Priest to talk to God; Christ is our High Priest. This is contrary to some R.C.C. beliefs, but it is what I believe the Bible says (rather explicitly in Hebrews!)

[faeriechylde]

You have made a very good observation here, I'mbigger/you'reolder. I'll start to answering the part pertaining to the stone table: all your questions have whole theological reference books trying to answer them, so I can't pretend to be able to fully answer them here.
In LWW, what law is written on the Stone table? The Witch says, "Have you forgotten the Deep Magic?... [The Magic that] is written on that very Table of Stone which stands behind us? You know that every traitor belongs to me as my lawful prey and that for every treachery I have a right to kill."
The traitor in this instance is, of course, Edmund. So what did this law (or "Magic") written on the Stone Table do? It declared Edmund a traitor condemned to die at the hands of the Witch. Through this Lewis is making a very clear allusion to Romans 7, where the apostle Paul describes how the law shows us what sin is, and because we are all sinners, we all stand condemned by the law.
When Aslan raises from the dead and the Stone Table is broken, it is symbolic of what Paul writes in Romans 7:6, "We have been released from the law so that we serve the new way of the Spirit, and not the old way of the written code," and in Romans 8:1-2: "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death."
One thing we need to be careful to do when we are studying the Jewish law is to distinguish between the moral laws that God gave the Israelites as his people, and the governmental laws that he gave them as a nation. There is a very big difference, and they are literarily separated in the books of the Law (the Pentateuch, or Torah). Some of the laws you mentioned, I'mbigger/you'reolder, are sanitary or cultural laws that were necessary for the people of Israel as a nation, but were not moral laws in the technical sense (though notice that to them everything was done to please God, there was no obvious division between religious and secular).
We as Christians are God's people and have entered into his covenant, but we are not (at least according to what I have learned) merely a continuation of the ancient nation of Israel. We are therefore not required to live by their ancient national laws. (To see how this issue came up in the early church and how they dealt with it, read Acts 15.)
Which laws should we obey then? To answer this question, most Christians look to the teachings of Jesus in the gospels. Look, for example, at his answer to the rich young ruler (Matt. 19:16-21) and his answer to the Pharisees (Matt. 22:34-40).
Jesus also had a very thorough and unique interpretation of how we should obey the Law. (Matt. 5)
I hope this helps a little. I sort of ran through all of this very quickly, but it was still really long! ;)

[I'mbigger/you'reolder]

Yep, I think you got it. I asked this question to some people I knew to be wise, so with your interpertations and theirs, I think it's all good. Does anyone else have any questions? I love reading this thread.

[GrayCloak]

Oh, did I just miss an entire theological debate! :angry: *kicks stack of textbooks across the floor* See what you made me miss!

As *everybody* here seemed to jump on my case (in a good kinda way :D ) about my post about the 'gods' and 'godesses' in CoN, I'd like to make one statment:

Concerding if you've read the Silmarillion by Tolkien concerning the deeper parts of his mythology, his coments about the Valar and the Maiar I prefer to those of Bachus and Selenus in PC. These are powerful angelic being, but they are never refered to as 'gods' they are the 'Valar' even though all of them have qualities, aspects, and fetures about them that vastly resemble the old god's of mythology.(I mean, does Valinor remind *anyone* else of Mount Olympus :rolleyes: )

This said I comend all those who posted their replies, as I understand what you're saying, and partically agree with it, just not compleatly. :D

Oh, and welcome I'mbigger/you'reolder, I'm so glad someone else decided to post here and discuss this kind of stuff. Let's hope someone post something *really* contraversal!

[I'mbigger/you'reolder]

Okay, in ten words or less, explain your views on all the parallels in CoN to the Christian faith! :lol:

No, really. Anyway, I know this site is devoted to CoN, but what theological stuff do you guys think on Lewis' other books?

[Ephinie]

The fact that Lewis uses the term "gods" to refer to some of his characters in his books, I don't have a problem with. I think that, especially in fantasy works, it's perfectly acceptable to use that word in reference to higher beings as long as it's fairly clear that those "higher beings" are not objects of worship. I think Lewis does this in the Chronicles of Narnia. However, going along with what GrayCloak said... Lewis uses actual greek gods. I don't exactly see a problem with that either, however, as was mentioned, the gods used have a somewhat saudry reputation. Bacchus is like, the god of wine and revelry... He could actually be described as the god of debauchery. Moreover, Lewis does not seem to portray him in any different light when you see him in the CoN... statements were made that when he comes to Narnia, the rivers ran with wine instead of water. (In my mind, that part is actually kind of cool) But the more telling aspect of this "god's" character is that it mentions that the girls were afraid of him, and wouldn't have been comfortable with his presence if it had not been for the fact that Aslan was with them. Just the way Lewis described him seemed to emit a sense of immorality, yet Bacchus was still clearly on Aslan's side. Now, given the fact that it is a fantasy work, I think it works out fine... it's just a bit ironic. I'm going to really go out on a limb here and hypothesize something: Perhaps Lewis's use of Bacchus was almost like a rejection of certain ideas found within traditional Christianity. Drunkenness is clearly against Christian values, and it would have been even more so in Lewis's time. Now, he was from England, and I don't know how that was viewed over there in their time, but definitely there was a strong prohibitionist movement within the church here in America. In fact, there still is... I don't know of a single Protestant church that approves of ANY alcoholic consumption by any of its members. I personally am AG, and they'll fight to the bitter end insisting that Christians should never partake, and that the wine drunk by Jesus and the disciples in the Bible was only grapejuice. So, maybe Lewis used Bacchus particularly to illustrate that he believed it was acceptable and perhaps even good for Christians to cut loose and be wild once in a while. But, like I said... that's only a theory. Since Lewis is dead, there's not way to really know what he was getting at.

[I'mbigger/you'reolder]

Wow, what a thought! I don't really remember which book it was in, but I definitely remember Bacchus from the books. I guess this would be my take on it. I'm not C.S. Lewis, and I'm definitely only a Religion/Philosophy MINOR in college, but, here goes!

Lewis may not have wanted to make the point that not all "gods" (CoN gods, not Space Trilogy gods) were good (for the moment, we'll pretend that term is completely cool and understood by all [for more info. read the last theological discussion this thread saw]). He might have wanted to make the point that even these great beings even make mistakes. No matter how "on Aslan's [God's] side" we may be, we still mess up. I like how the kids were only comfortable with Bacchus when Aslan was around. That was maybe the main point Lewis sought to make. I'm sure that Mr. and Mrs. Beaver lied, cheated, and were mean at one point in their life. Tumnus was a great faun, who made the mistake of following Jadis, but he comes around! The point is, is that none of these characters are perfect, Aslan is. We all make mistakes, no soldier is perfect. But the more soldiers willing to fight, the better.

As to drunkenness (how do you spell that, anyway?), you might be right on Lewis' thinking. You might notice that Bacchus was the ONLY character that ever appeared to be a drunkard. I personally think that drinking to get drunk is wrong, and, for me (maybe not for you), drinking period is wrong. For me, it's unwise (family history of drunkeness [is that how you spell it?] will do that to you), I'd loses some credibility as a witness, and it's not a part of the abundant Life that I seek.

I hope that at least makes sense in relation to your queries.

[Smog]

Originally posted by Ephinie@Oct 17 2004, 08:55 AM
Drunkenness is clearly against Christian values, and it would have been even more so in Lewis's time. Now, he was from England, and I don't know how that was viewed over there in their time, but definitely there was a strong prohibitionist movement within the church here in America. In fact, there still is... I don't know of a single Protestant church that approves of ANY alcoholic consumption by any of its members. I personally am AG, and they'll fight to the bitter end insisting that Christians should never partake, and that the wine drunk by Jesus and the disciples in the Bible was only grapejuice. So, maybe Lewis used Bacchus particularly to illustrate that he believed it was acceptable and perhaps even good for Christians to cut loose and be wild once in a while. But, like I said... that's only a theory. Since Lewis is dead, there's not way to really know what he was getting at.
Just to make this clear, I do not believe that alcohol is wrong. I think that when the Bible talks about wine it means literal wine and NOT grape-juice.

Now I am not trying to offend anybody here by what I said, but I think that it is very clear that God says wine is a good thing, as long as we do not abuse it.

[I'mbigger/you'reolder]

This may sound like I'm contradicting myself, but I make sense to me. I've actually heard that a glass of wine a day or something is pretty healthy. That'd make sense, I guess, if it's true. Here's the verse that is the one we've all been referring to, I believe.

Eph 5:18 And "do not be drunk with wine," in which is debauchery, but be filled by the Spirit, (LITV)
If you want an elaboration on this, check out the first few chapters of Acts, to see what is meant by this verse.

I punched in "drunk" in the Bible search and got almost 40 verses, and all of them that were referring to wine-drinking, made the distinction between "drinking" (permissable) and "drinking to get drunk" (bad move).

[Warrior-Poet51088]

Right, it's like the difference between drinking to someone's health, or a marriage toast, or whatever versus binge drinking, which is definitely not right!

Ephinie, could you show some verses that support your belief that the wine in the Bible was just grape juice, cuz I'm pretty sure that it was wine, or at least, there would have been a distinction between wine that is obviously alcoholic (the marriage feast at Capernaum) and the wine Jesus explicitly drank at the Last Supper.

[faeriechylde]

Um, Aragorn, I may be wrong, but it seemed to me that Ephinie's post said only that her church believed that the wine in the Bible was grape juice, not that she did. Let's not jump to conclusions. ;)
Anyway, I just want to make it clear that, while I was raised in a home that thought any kind of alcohol consumption was wrong, I don't agree with that. I believe that drunkenness is wrong, but the whole prohibition thing actually began as a social movement and was embraced by the church in the late 1800's. It was not one of the original teachings of the Bible or beliefs of the church followers.
And, Ephinie, I go to a Protestant church that doesn't consider all kinds of alcohol consumption a sin. It's a nondenominational church that's part of the (funnily enough) Vineyard fellowship of churches.

[Ephinie]

Yeah, there are no verses that support the belief that the wine mentioned in the Bible was just grapejuice... because it wasn't. That's an unBiblical belief