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 cited by certain Protestant demoninations (most notably the Assemblies of God and various Baptist groups) so that their doctrine goes unchallenged in that area.

[Warrior-Poet51088]

Originally posted by faeriechylde@Oct 19 2004, 08:42 AM
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. ;)
My bad.

[TrueCrusader]

OH GUYS This is a question that I was asked when I was a little kid to see if I could take the lords supper!


If you died today and saw God at the gates of heaven then God asked you "Why should I let you into heaven?" What would you say!

[cslouis]

Well, until recently I would have said, "Oh, Lord, dear God, haven't you toyed with me enough?" But that was purely hubris speaking.

[Dead Rain]

aye., true indeed, cslouis

[faeriechylde]

Haha, I guess I've never thought about this hypothetical situation...
I would probably say, "I don't know, why should You? I'm still trying to figure that out..."

[TrueCrusader]

This one is a thinker! but there is only one answer to it! If aragorn reads this I bet that he will get it! being reformed and all!

[Warrior-Poet51088]

Well, TC, now that it's about 5 months later, I have time to answer your question (I may have read it, but most likely didn't have the time to reply).

If I died today, and God asked me why He should let me into His perfect Heaven, I'd say, "Because I trust Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour, for he has cleansed me from all my sin by His death on the cross."

Something to that effect, anyhow...........

[inkspot]

I just read this whole thread. You all are a very thorough bunch of debaters (as I know from the 50+ pages of "Debating & Discussing," which I didn't read all of that).

Anyway, a BUNCH of interesting stuff in this thread about what CS Lewis' theology was, as portrayed in the Chronicles of Narnia. I think it was resolved that most Christians believe Jesus is the only way to salvation, but others think as long as you are following whatever religion out of a desire to follow goodness and love, you will be saved. And we think maybe Lewis believed that, too. BUT, the most comfortable explanation I found for the Calormene Emeth being received in Aslan's country was simply that Emeth had been on a spiritual journey, and he recognized Aslan at last (and before his death) so he was saved. Bravo to whoever posted that, sorry, it was so many pages back.

I don't think Lewis could have been intending with Emeth's example (in The Last Battle) to communicate that Emeth's good works in Tash's name had saved him, because Lewis was known to believe that works were NOT a key to salvation. He said, "Bliss is not for sale, cannot be earned, 'Works' have no 'merit' though of course faith, inevitably, even unconsciously, flows out into works of love at once. He is not saved because he does works of love; he does works of love because he is saved. It is faith alone that has saved him; faith bestowed by sheer gift."

[inkspot]

I just said all that about Emeth, but was reminded of something else CS Lewis said:

* "I couldn’t believe that 999 religions were completely false and the remaining one true."

*"We are not pronouncing all other religions to be totally false, but rather saying that in Christ whatever is true in all religions is consummated and perfected."

The latter makes some sense as regards Emeth: whatever was true in his worship of Tash was fulfilled in Aslan.

Lewis doesn't want the millions who follow other religions to be condemned and hopes that there is a way for them to find Jesus in this world or the next one.

[Lisbeth]

"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 think it's important to understand what Lewis is saying and not saying here. If you don't do the second, you can't do the first.

To begin with, remove your thoughts from the area of soteriology. Lewis did not believe in works righteousness. As in The Great Divorse, he urged people to "take the charity." Rather, he is using a "supposal" to make an interesting point about service to God.

The pivot on which it turns is the last part of the quote above: "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."

This idea is driven by passages like Matt 7:21-23, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'" and John 16:2: "They will put you out of the synagogue; in fact, a time is coming when anyone who kills you will think he is offering a service to God."

The supposal then is that if evil done in the name of God is really done for Satan (and it is), then what is the status of good done in the name of Satan? Of course you can argue the case that it is impossible to do good in the name of Satan (and some have in this thread), but possible to do evil in the name of God. Does that make the name of Satan more powerful than the name of God? I hope not. This is a tough question.

Lewis seldom takes the easy out, though. He asks, "but what IF?" and plays it out in this scene with the Calermene. And it is in that innocent questioning that we should take this passage. Note the way the Calermene approaches the situation. (And here I should point out that the American edition of TLB has a typo in this dialog. Where the American edition says, "Yes, I have served Tash all my life," as if the Calermene is proud of it, the English edition says, "Yet, I have served Tash all my life.") Clearly the Calermene knows, in hindsight, that serving Tash was wrong. And here Aslan gently leads the Calermene to know and accept the truth.

The fact that this happens after the Calermene has passed through the door should not be taken as belief in a second chance after death. Lewis has a tendency in his writing to play with causality and time so that sometimes order of events is irrelevant. Rather this story is an illustration of how God deals with us - where we are - in love and gentleness. We are not expected to know it all and get it all right. But we should expect that God will meet us on the way and lead us toward the light, as he does with the Calermene. This theme is repeated many times in the Narnia stories.

I think reading more than that, theologically, into the passage blinds us to what Lewis is trying to show us.

[inked]

Well writ, Lisbeth!

The theme of God's activity to save mankind is broader than some readings of Scripture. There is in the OT a theme of salvation and God at work among the non-Jewish populations of the world. Some of the prophets in particular elucidate this theme, and some stories of the patriarchs (the whole Joseph bit is an interesting example). We are repeatedly told that God does not desire the death of sinners, but that they return and repent.

"What, O man, does God desire of thee, but to do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly before God?"

Isaiah 53 entire (which forthtells and foretells and previews the Incarnational God in both the Jewish nation as servant and Jesus as Servant)

the Nunc Dimittis : "Lord, now lettest thy servant depart in peace. For these eyes of mine have seen the Saviour whom Thou has prepared for all the world to see: a Light to enlighten the Gentiles and the glory of Thy people, Israel."

Peter's vision in Acts of the sheet and animals and his understanding that more than historic Israel and political Israel was "saved" by Jesus' Incarnation, Crucifixion, Resurrection, Ascension, and the Coming of the Advocate, "Now I perceive that men of every nation who fear God and do what is right are acceptable to Him" - Acts 10:34.

Do not misunderstand me, all who are saved are saved are saved through Jesus and His "one, full, perfect, sufficient satisfaction for the sins of the world" which He made for our sins "and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world."

And the "Yet, I served..." is an act of repentance, faith, and acceptance of Aslans' grace. Do not forget the thief on the cross next to Jesus who defended Jesus from the accusations of the one railing at Jesus from the other cross. "Remember me..." to which Jesus replied in His grace, "Today thou shalt be with me ...." Someone great (whose name escapes me at the moment) wrote wisely of this that it indicated that it so happened that all men might come but none should presume!

What Lewis is modelling here is not "alternative" salvation, but the sovereignty of God's grace as Jesus said "All that the Father gives me are mine and none shall snatch them out of my hand." And in this image we are shown the breadth, and depth, and height of the mercy of God acting beyond our best understandings. "By this ... that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" is THE Way, THE Truth, and THE Life. God calls and we answer, yes or no. "And this is not for you and your children only but to as many as the Lord our God shall call" - Peter's Pentecost sermon.

So what Lewis has done is open to our imagination to God's love and grace and provision NOT validate alternate routes to salvation. There is only one Way but remember all countries (even Calormen and Narnia and England!) are in Aslan's country. There is no where His dominion and grace cannot reach!

[Lisbeth]

And the "Yet, I served..." is an act of repentance, faith, and acceptance of Aslans' grace.
Thank you, inked. I like that thought.

On the various arguments and discussions I have seen in this thread, I have three comments.

There was a rather drawn out argument over whether other religions lead to salvation. A divide that I saw becoming clearer in it is whether different religions worship differet gods or worship the same God under different names. This divide closely relates to Lewis' use of "gods/goddesses" in his writing.

As others have pointed out Lewis and Tolkien used the same shape for their mythologies. Because Tolkien was more explicit in how he laid it out in the Silmarillion, it is easier to use his terminology. Illuvatar, "The One," created the universe and the beings in it through song. The greater created beings Valar and Maiar were made stewards of the world. Diverse people, in fear and ignorance, worshipped them as gods. This is a reflection of the Greek view where there were diverse gods, but philosophers recognized that there was one God over them.

Lewis added an "incarnational" strain to this theme that was different from Tolkien's. In Tolkien, a spirit would become incarnated by traveling from Valenor to Middle Earth. But in Lewis, any particular god might be found to be an incarnation of the one God. This can be see in Till We Have Face where Lewis retells the story of Psyche and Cupid. When Psyche's sister Orual finally meets the god, she finds that he is the one true God and lover of all souls. This is a reflection of Hinduism where all of the gods are considered to be aspects of the one God.

So do other religions worship other gods or the same God under different names? Certainly not other gods in the sense of another who is coequal in power and majesty. There is only one God. So do they worship lesser created beings, or do they worship the one God in various aspects? I don't know that as finite human beings, we can make a blanket statement for all religions about that. One religion may be on one side and another on the other. And for those religions that worship created beings, are they worshipping one that is in rebellion against God or one that is not? And once we have gone through all that, do the worshippers have a clear understanding of the nature of their god? And can they?

I am intentionally not answering these questions. I am pointing out that the answers are probably more complex than what I have seen so far in this thread. And to do justice to Lewis, you can't be satisfied with the simple answers because he avoided simple answers.

For the other two topics, I would like direct people to The Great Divorce.

When Lewis is on the edge of heaven he meets George MacDonald, his old teacher, and Lewis asks him about predestination. The answer that he gets is that the teaching of predesitination is both right and wrong, that it is impossible for created beings inside of time to understand the eternal. This should lead us to think that whatever we teach about predestination is a seeing in the mirror darkly. When talking about predestination it is easy to take it to a place that says people are not responsible for their sins because they are predesitined to their path. I think Lewis would say it's best not to break our heads on things we can't understand and be satisfied that we are saved because God intended us to be saved.

As for the discussion of wine and cutting loose, Lewis fealt that any passion was evil to itself - even if humans call it good - but could be redeemed by submission to God. In The Great Divorce we see several examples of ghosts who are using "love" to manipulate others. One is the husband labeled "the Tragedian." Another is a mother who insists that her son would be better off with her in hell. On the opposite side is the man afflicted by the lizard. When he allows an angel to kill it, it transforms into a beautiful stallion that bears him toward God.

[inkspot]

Very nicely reasoned and documented. Well done.

Now, I have read some articles that say because of these very arguments, Lewis was not a "believer" in our 21st Century reading of the term, but a pantheist because of the reasons outlined here.

He allows for the existence of God/god in other forms than YAHWEH of the Old Testament or Christ, and even argued much of the Old Testament was mythology rather than history.

What do you say to this?

[Lisbeth]

Let me point out that mythology is not untrue just because it is mythology. And "history," in the modern sense, did not exist when the Old Testament was written. The Old Testament is at once more mythological than people on the right wish to admit and more historical than people on the left wish to admit. To me it doesn't matter because in it I meet God.

If we take Genesis seriously, then all societies are descended from Edin and we should expect to hear echoes, however faint and however mixed with falsehood, of the original worship of God in all religions.

This, for example, lead me to pay attention to the legend of Earendil in the Silmarillion. It is essentially a "salvation" story. Earendil sacrifies his life to carry the plea of Middle Earth to the Valar, and in the end becomes the Morning Star. Tolkien must have derived this from some mythology. In what other mythologies can we find "morning star" legends? It didn't take me long to realize that it is also Jewish. The Bar Kochba revolution was lead by "the son of the star." So the morning star becomes another metaphore for the Messiah. (Rev 22:16) In how many religions do people wait for the morning star to rise in their hearts? (2 Peter 1:19)

But what I really want to talk about today is the notion found in this thread that the Old Testament Law is the perfect will of God. Such an opinion is an oversimplification that does not take into account the "seeing in a mirror dimly" of 1 Cor 13:12. If the Mosaic Law is the perfect will of God, then why did Jesus repeatedly say, "you have heard it said (in the Law of Moses)... but I tell you...?" So also, "Moses permitted... because your hearts were hard." Rather the Law of Moses was given in the measure that the Jewish people could handle in their lives.

The Pharasees revered the Law of Moses to the point that they would weigh out a tithe of their "spices--mint, dill and cummin," but "neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness." (Matt 23:23) This reminds me of Gandalf's assessment of Sauron at the Councel of Elrond: "He weighs all things to a nicety (with great precision) in the scales of his malace."

The real question for each of us is where does your heart lie? We can love the precision of our theological reasoning. Or we can love the one whom we meet in that theology. In VDT the children encounter Aslan in the country at the edge of the world. Here he tells Edmund and Lucy that they will never come to Narnia again. "It isn't Narnia (that we love), you know," sobbed Lucy. "It's you. We shan't meet you there. And how can we live, never meeting you?"

Indeed.

[inked]

It was precisely the muddy sort of thinking that all gods and goddesses must be in competition with YHWH that Lewis was out to abolish. Any item, self or computer or spouse or idealogy can be elevated to the place of God. But simply because that is so does not mean that everything is necessarily an alternative to GOD. Everything can be in a sinful world, but not everything is. Some things are avenues to God by which He draws us to Himself.

In this regard the nyaids and dryads and elelmentals can be modes of access to God, and are often spoken of that way and not as competitors. To speak of the awe and grandeur of YHWH as riding the thunder and scattering lightening bolts does not mean that Zeus=Jove=YHWH. It means that the natural force can be used to express or comprehend within limits the character or power that God has that is analogous to those events.

It is not either/or but both/and. The analogy fails, as they all do, when pushed too far in itself or in literal understanding of descriptors of this sort.

That is why Jesus kept applying correctives to the intertestmental developments and explications of the Law. The intent and purpose had been forgotten in the nitpicking. And the legalists could hold that I didn't do wrong because I kept all the nitpicks. As Lisbeth notes, this did not work well for Jesus and He expanded the Law.

In analogous fashion, the use of the lesser gods and goddesses are expansions of concepts of aspects of God, but certainly not His replacement. Left on their own they tend to contract to human limitations.

[Lisbeth]

And the legalists could hold that I didn't do wrong because I kept all the nitpicks.
I thought that was "because I picked all the nits." :D

[inked]

Lisbeth,

How many nits could a nitpicker pick, if a nitpicker could pick nits?



Infinit(e)s!!!

[Lisbeth]

I guess as one final note, I think we should spend more time in listening and understanding before we condemn other religions and people. To decide a case without hearing all the evidence is to prejudge.

[inkspot]

In the Space Trilogy, one of the characters says something like "I suppose there are two sides to every story," and the man he is talking to says something like, "Two sides to every story? There are hundreds of sides to everything until you know the truth, and then there is just one..."

I think that's probably a good reflection of all our ruminations about religion. We can listen and understand other people and religions, but in the end there will still be only one truth, one way to salvation.

[Lisbeth]

In the Space Trilogy, one of the characters says something like "I suppose there are two sides to every story," and the man he is talking to says something like, "Two sides to every story? There are hundreds of sides to everything until you know the truth, and then there is just one..."

I think that's probably a good reflection of all our ruminations about religion. We can listen and understand other people and religions, but in the end there will still be only one truth, one way to salvation.
And not one of us has got it right. Good thing we're saved by grace.

[TimmyofOz]

I aways wondered about this part to LB also. Interesting ther seems to be only one Calorman. So I wouldn't call following Tesh a good way to the new Narnia. Post Vatican II teaching is much like Lewis' teaching, but this was written before the Catholic council. I see the Calormen as a kind of Abram.

[inkspot]

And not one of us has got it right. Good thing we're saved by grace.

Amen!

Timmy, what do you mean that the one Calormene is like Abram?

[TimmyofOz]

He came to know the the true God in a land of pagans.

[inked]

Interesting observation, ToO! I had not thought of it in that manner even after reading TCON for 35 years! An excellent insight. :D

[narnia-fan]

WEll, I came on this discussion while searching for Narnia fanfiction, and as I noticesd it's been started up at least once after going silent for a few months and that even so it became pretty active again, I felt compelled to sign on and add my two cents. Oh, and appolagies if I repeat anything allready mentioned in a previous post;I only read some of it.l

Regarding the incident with the Colormen(e?) in the Last Battle, a few points:

1.) First, I don't think that Aslan was referring to anything specifically
related to religious worship, but rather to those general things
related to one's kindness and service country and their fellow man;At
least, I think we can safely assume the shedding of children's blood on
Tash's alter, which I believe is mentioned in the book, wouldn't be one
have been of those 'good things' acreddited as service to Aslan! :p
He seems to have simply been a common(and courageous, I might
add...) soldier doing his duty for 'king and country'.

2.) Second, It's worth noting that HE DOESN'T DIE; Yes, the metaphore
of the barn door to death is clear-nonetheless, he is never slain before
meeting Aslan, so one COULD argue that this takes place for him on
this side of death. Now, one could argue that the fate of the cynical
dwarves after they are thrown in by the Colormenes, as well as the
apparent belief by the two guarding the door on the inside that they
also were in a dark barn, raises problems with this interepretation, but
they may also suggest suggest something else about the colormene
(see below)

3.) Everything we read about this colormene-his reaction when he learned
how his people were to go about conquering Narnia, but especially his
strange, 'entranced' state and the apparently noteworthy look and
expression on his face as he entered his barn; his abillity to see what
'really' lay on the inside of the door, and, MOST IMPORTANTLY, his
immediate reaction when he sees Aslan, suggests that in some way
his heart was allready prepared. He DID seek the truth, and believed
immediately when confronted with it. Remember, Narnia IS a different
place; On the one hand, there's certainly no old-testament fire and
brimstone from the sky, no devinely endorsed massacres for the sake
of future generatons' lessons, but neither is there any equivellant to
the 'Great Commission', no 'descipleship', 'appostles', or 'church' per
se; and while there's a 'Father' and 'Son', there's little mention made
of a 'Holy Spirit'....(unless one can count that magical Narnian air that
can give old legs new strength and allow a child to learn swordplay
and lead an army in days;or was that from a little one-on-one time
with aslan...? ;) ) And then there's the context of the 'final
judgement' of all the inhabbitants of narnia, where some look on his
face and are filled with joy, and others turn and go into 'outer dark-
ness...

Having said all that, I still wouldn't put money on Lewis's meaning it that way. Nonetheless, I think a film could easilly include that scene giving more emphasis toward that meaning while still leaving a little ambiguitty for the audience to make up their own minds. And there'd be another good reason for keeping the scene in a film-one that may have prompted Lewis's inclussion of it in the first place, for that matter; while there are perfectly good reasons for all of the elemants of the Last Battle, it's understandable, at least in these times when we're all so much more aware of such things, that some people see and implicit racism there, concious or not (And who knows if a surpressed racism could have snuck into the decision-making of what form some of those 'logical elements' took? ...*meep*). This incident helps to mitigate against that view.

Thanks for your time!



Joel

[Thad]

Concerning Lewis' theology and The Last Battle:

First I must note that Christian Theology is too great of a topic to be completely covered in a single thread. That being said, I ultimately agree with Lewis' theology. Consider that God only allowed those into Heaven that had worshiped 'God' and believed Him to be the single Living God. A man grows up in a tribal community in the middle of the Amazon, completely sheltered from any other beliefs or ideas. We'll call this man Fred. His community belives in one god, whom they call 'Yur,' who rules the Earth with supreme authority. At age 20, he dies from an accident while working on the community's worship shelter and faces God. Because God only accepts those who worshiped Him ('God'), he sends the man into eternal damnation. Was this fair?

My arguments:
We all know that God is (a) Jealous God and that he forbids his people to worship idols. In the case of Fred, isn't he worshiping the same deity, although he is using a different name? After all, he is worshiping only one God, and has lived (unknowingly) by the Ten Commandments and with the love of Christ. Is it his fault that he never heard of 'God?' Is it also his fault that he never stumbled upon a Bible, conveinently translated into his language, complete with his name engraved in gold on the front cover?
God is a Just God as well and turning Fred away would be self-defeating. God is supreme and He controls everything that happens on the Earth and in the Heavens; therefore, it would be His fault that Fred had never seen or heard of Him. After all, he put Fred in the middle of the Amazon for a reason. If you do not agree that God would accept others into Heaven that call him by a different name, wouldn't getting into Heaven be merely a predestined lottery?

My final word is that God is much more than one language. Besides, if the Jews are his chosen people, we should be calling him Yaweh. There are many different names that represent one idea. I believe that it is the idea that matters, not the name.

In response to the mentioning of Plato's Allegory of the Cave, I do not think it relates to this topic. The Allegory of the Cave represents the stages that man goes through during his life. Plato saw this as intelligent enlightenment, but this could also be parallel to the rebirth of a man into Christ.

[waterhogboy]

You got some good points! Welcome to the site btw...

I think its important to remember that the only reason people are saved is because of God's grace - we have no way of getting into heaven ourselves:

Ephesians 2v 8-9

'For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no-one can boast.'

So - if Fred understands this, that he can never be good enough for God, and that he can only try to be the best he can, always knowing that it is on God he relies, I believe he will not be sent to damnation. However, if his community believe that through human sacrifice or suchlike they can earn Yur's respect, then I believe he will suffer damnation beacuse:
1. He believes he is intrinsically good enough to inherit eternal life
2. He is commiting a terrible sin (human sacrifice) without remorse or repentance

I hope that makes sense!??!

[unleavened]

I believe that the revelation of Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation. I'm not totally sure how that can happen out in the middle of the jungle, but do we ever have to know how things are done before God can do them?

1 soution: The Holy Spirit can establish the truth in people's hearts, so I see no reason why someone like Fred or the callerman couldn't go to heaven.

second solution: Perhaps Fred, by God's grace, dies with his heart ready to accept the truth, then when he finally found it he accepted it. That could work. Though I've had some fairly violent reactons to this theory.

I don't really know, but I know God is God, so whatever he does is best.

[Wallis]

Having just finished LB again, I noted that in the New Narnia, Calormene exists. This leads me to believe one of two options:

1. Calormene is peopled by people who were saved by Aslan.

2. Calormene is an empty place, that is, peopled by no one.

I lean very heavily towards option 1.

[Jene Sai]

I must defer to the brilliance of GrayCloak or the reverened Capstick on this issue...But as my mother says, "You might be suprised who you will see in heaven"...
...It is my personal opinon that God has preordained, before the begining of time, who will be saved and who (for lack of a more delicate term) will be damned. I don't pretend to know His methods of reaching men's hearts, but I believe Him perfectly cappable of saving those whom He has called (be they Telmarine, Calormian, Archenlander, or Narnia).

-JS

PS...If this doesn't make sense please forgive me...it is late and I am tired.

[unleavened]

Yeah, that pretty much covers it. Good work JS. It's funny how people can say exactly what I wanted to say but use so many less words.

[Wallis]

I'll let you know a little of my thinking--and IN NO WAY is this a put-down or attack, for everyone is entitled to their philosophy of life and religion.

But when people talk about predestined or preordained in reference to people who will be saved and/or not be saved, I get queasy. And I'll tell you why.

First, I think that it easily leads us into temptation to start judging people, if not individuals then groups of people as to their final destination.

Secondly, when I think deeply of this matter, how would I feel if I die and "St. Peter" at Heaven's Gate tells me: "Sorry, guy. But you were preordained NOT to enter Heaven. I know you believed that you believed, but God's LAW is Law."

My first reaction is "Why would I want to believe in such a God?" Then, "Such a god is not God at all!" My gut feeling is that God is Love, and God wants to call all of his creation back to Him, not just a few or a majority.

So, in conclusion, I prefer to look at each human being as being preordained to enter Heaven and treat them that way. I'll let the Holy Spirit touch the lives I come into contact directly and indirectly and let Christ do all of the judging of hearts. I feel that Lewis felt the same way.

[Jene Sai]

Please forgive me if I have offended you....I had no such intention.

I wish to go through your arguments sequentially:

1. Lord forbid that I should judge anyone...I have done enough in my short life for me to deal with, but it says clearly in the parable of the wheat field that there are tares amoung us....The question is: Is a tare a weed only at the harvest (refering to the second coming) or is a tare intrinsically a weed from the moment life began?....think about it.

2. Many people have said that "we choose to believe in God"...I believe that God "chooses us", that He gently (or not so gently) removes us from our lives of sin and destruction and regenerates our hearts, claiming us for His own...Example: When you adopt a child, it is the adults who choose which child they will graciously take into their home and make a part of their family...it would be arrogant for the child to say that he/she choose which family would be lucky enough to adopt him/her....think about it.

Finally, I just want to add that a loving commitment to the Lord and the Holy Spirit moving in our lives are fruit of are being called to be a child of God...and anyone who believes in his heart that Jesus rose from the death and cofesses the He is Lord will be saved...they wouldn't believe in the miracle of resurection or admit Jesus's lordship if they were not redeemed from the world and regenerate of heart...

...Please don't be "queasy" or offended, these are my beliefs about the human/God relationship...and, quite frankly, it constantly amazes me that He would want anything to do with us insignificant insects.

-JS

[GrayCloak]

Well said JS...well said.

[Smog]

Ah *sniff* JS is becoming such a good little Infralapsarian, Monergistic, Effectual Calvanist... *sniff*

Anyway, well said JS, well said!

[Wallis]

Jene Sai, no offense taken. I am merely trying to stimulate some intellectual thought here.

Your comments are valid, since these have been formulated from your experience and your faith. I would not presume to question them, but--with your permission--I'd like to prod you a little bit. Put some of those thoughts to the fire, if you will.

Interesting analogy of the wheat and tares. Yes, a tare is a weed, but it is necessary for the sustainment of other creatures. I suppose that humans have eaten tares in the past when food was scarce. And, this parable--remember it is but a parable of the harvest--was meant, as Jewish teaching is custom in its approach and execution, as a warning to people that they will be judged at the harvest time as to being wheat or tares.

To make the jump as some people already being tares when they are born, IMHO, is to admit that God isn't really a loving God after all. He makes some to live "happily ever after" with Him. He makes others to languish eternally as some kind of sport.

I also don't want to dismiss the omnipotence of God. If we were to talk in this vein, then what would be the point of God doing anything, much less we humans. I mean, it's like being a writer (which I am) who has complete knowledge of every detail of the book. My character or characters are going to do things as I direct them. Now, what if one of my characters suddenly came to life, as it were, and told me in person that didn't like how I was directing my life and he/she did not see the point in continuing since the end was known (think ghastly as an extreme).

"You're gonna die, so I don't really care," could very well be one response. "I made you, and this is the way it's gonna be. You don't have any recourse. I am the judge and jury on the way things are gonna turn out."

So, in my hypothetical example above and in conjunction with my earlier comments, how would I feel if I believed so strongly that I was a stalk of wheat when all along God was laughing at me because I really was a tare.

I personally cannot believe in such a god. Please note the small "g." My God cares about every living soul and does His darndest (mostly through other people, you understand) to have each and every soul return the "touch."

One bugaboo I have is that we have one central, immutable fact for doctrine or dogma or whatever you would like to call it: Christ died for all. Not some or a few but all.

Then, over the last two millenia, we have had theologians pick this immutable fact apart like proverbial rabbis over one word in a particular Bible passage. These developing offshoots of the one immutable fact then become more dogma until we have created a Heinz 57 variety of Christian factions, sects, and the like. To protect one "brand" of Christianity, we build fences and walls to safeguard what our leaders tell us is the One and Only Way. And, when that happens, we naturally have people who will ardently proclaim that someone's belief is is error--and away we go back to the early days of the church when Christians were literally killing each other over an idea other than the one immutable fact.

[inkspot]

We had this discussion going over in the predestination vs. free will thread, and it got locked because of the rancor over the issue. I feel as you do, Wallis, that Christ died for all, and I think the Scriptures support this. But a lot of people feel the Scriptures indicate that there are those predestined by God never to come to faith in Christ. (Like you, I think that would be out of God's very nature as a loving God ...)

And I tried to defend the same viewpoint as you (that all Christ followers are in unity by our virtue of all believing that Christ died for us and our desire to live for Him) in the Scripture vs. Tradition thread, but again, there were those who would not allow that we could be in unity unless I accepted their denomination ... it is sad!!!

Back on topic ... it is clear that Lewis felt Calormenes could be "saved" in the vernacular we would use, and that there was virtue and merit in the Calormene country, too, or as you say, it would not have appeared in the true Narnia alongside true England, etc. I wonder if some nations/nationalities will be wiped out ultimately, as devoid of virtue, like Sodom and Gomorrah?

[Wallis]

You know, Sodom and Gomorrah bring up some very interesting ideas.

On other forums, we tend to go off the "deep end" on trying to discover why these two particular cities were "nuked," to use the term rather loosely.

We know that Abraham tried to barter with God in saving the cities. Perhaps a few people were saved from destruction by getting out, a fact that would not have been instrumental in the telling.

We know, too, that Sodom and Gomorrah belonged to a kind of federation of sorts, at least in the war that they lost and asked Abraham to settle accounts for them.

History, IMHO, paints nations with a broad brush. We need only to look at the wars in the 20th Century to get the feeling. For example, all Germans were Nazis, all Japanese participated in genocide, all Vietnamese were die-hard Communists, all Russians are die-hard Communists, etc., etc.

Yet, when the dust settles, we find a bitter truth (bitter in the sense that we have to unlearn what we were told by the government and the media) in that all the people of a nationality were not bad. All Germans were not Nazis, etc., etc.

Yet, when the Allies dropped their bombs, a whole lot of innocents died as well.

And still, God was there to welcome home those that had died. I think that Lewis was trying to communicate that message as well. He didn't broad-brush all of the Calormenes as evil. They operated within a system that was brow-beat into them, and yet I feel that he felt deep down that a good many of them were good people. And that's where I feel that the Love of God is supreme as depicted in the Last Battle as well as in the THAHB. (p.s., sorry. I'm out of the country for a few days, and I don't have my books within arm's reach, so I can't name names, as it were.)

Also, I agree that a previous thread was locked. It is not my intention to argue one way or the other. I was hoping for some intellectual discussion. Quite frankly, for me, it doesn't matter what people believe in regarding dogma beyond what I termed as the One Immutable Truth, which our thread starter eloquently stated in his first post. I'll back off on the side of keeping things cool here and the thread open.

Thanks!

[inkspot]

Interesting, Wallis -- you think there will be people from Sodom and Gomorrah in heaven, or maybe you think all people eventually will make it to heaven.

I tend to agree to some extent: could a whole nation be totally depraved? It seems unlikely as you point out with your reference to the Axis powers in WW II, not all were bad, but all suffered for the evil of those who were calling the shots.

This is kind of what I see in Lewis' Calormenes: there is much to admire in their society as a whole -- the architecture, their style of speech and story-telling, the pride and independence of some of the people. The same is certainly true of the nations that have declared themselves enemies of Christianity or of the USA: there is still something admirable in their culture, and people who aren't or wouldn't be enemies if they had a choice.

[Wallis]

I think it's safe to say (here at least) that I am not a "one-shot-in-life" kind of guy. I think the Grand Plan is much larger and more in-depth than that.

[unleavened]

I tend to agree to some extent: could a whole nation be totally depraved? It seems unlikely as you point out with your reference to the Axis powers in WW II, not all were bad, but all suffered for the evil of those who were calling the shots.
A whole nation apparantly can be depraved. Abraham dwindled the number down to 10, and not even that number where found. However, I believe this was an extremely rare case. I would not equate Callermine with these cities for that reason.

[benjamin_narnialover]

i'm just starting to read this thread, and i apologise if i say something that's been said already. i'm afraid i don't posses the patience to read all 14 pages.

goign back to the LB isn't there a scene where all the creatures and people in narnia and the surronding countries walk up to Aslan, and either turn and go into the stable or walk alone into the darkness? it's been a while since i read LB, but i was hoping that someone could clarify this. i was wondering if this could be a metaphor for what lewis sees happening when we die, or at judgment day. where even if you never heard of christ, you'll be given a chance for eternal life.

also i thought (but i'm really not sure about this) i read somewhere that paul wrote that those who had never heard of jesus would be given a chance to believe. has anyone else ever heard that?

[inkspot]

Welcome, Benjamin, I didn't see you post before.

We were discussing earlier in the Thread if the presence of a Calormene in the "true Narnia" at the end of TLB meant that Lewis thought people who did not know Christ would be allowed into heaven. I don't think that anyone brought up the idea that at the moment Christ is revealed, each person will then have the option to choose Him. (In TLB, we never see Emeth the Calormene face Aslan and be directed either into new Narnia or the shadows because he is already inside the new Narnia when that scene unfolds.)

The passage you are thinking of may be Romans 2:14-16 (here from "The Message" Bible):

"When outsiders who have never heard of God's law follow it more or less by instinct, they confirm its truth by their obedience. They show that God's law is not something alien, imposed on us from without, but woven into the very fabric of our creation. There is something deep within them that echoes God's yes and no, right and wrong. Their response to God's yes and no will become public knowledge on the day God makes his final decision about every man and woman. The Message from God that I proclaim through Jesus Christ takes into account all these differences."

The theory of "available light" relies on this passage to posit that those who have never had the light of Christ will be judged according to how they lived by what light was available to them -- whether they lived as best they could by whatever part of the law was known to them.

Others believe that there is no godly living outside of Christ, and those who have not accepted Him before death or judgment day will never have the opportunity to do so and will be doomed to a Christless eternity.

[Wallis]

Good answer Inkspot.

On the first question, this is Lewis describing Christ's parable of the Last Days, the Day of Judgment when he divides the "flock" into two groups: right hand and left hand. It is a very simple division: those who loved me by loving your neighbor and those who did not.

[Jene Sai]

Wallis...
...I'm sorry I did not get back to you on the predestination topic we were discussing....It is embarassing, but I forgot which topic the thread was in and had a horrible time finding it...I don't want this thread locked as previous ones have been...so maybe we should agree to disagree (at least until a predestination thread is reopened)...I don't know your history, but I am not a theologian by training; that said I doubt either one of us would change our minds on the issue...even though it might be fun to go a few rounds.

Back on topic...
...This is one of those issues that can be horrendous to get your head around..I will have to do quite a bit of study before I offer a definte opinion, but I would be will to say that I generally agree with you Inkspot...From what I have studied on the topic (and I do admit it is not extensive or indepth) I would agree that all will be given a chance hear the gospel and that those without knowledge of Jesus's Sacrifice will be judged according to their own individual knowledge of God's precepts and nature.

-JS

[narnia-fan]

Thanks for the welcome! :)

Regarding your comments earlier, wallis(and bearing in mind that at this
time I'm speaking as an undecided outsider, but was raised by believing
parents):Yes, the 'conservative' Christian community(that is, those that
generally believe in at least the general events described in scripture and
the appostles creed)probably should cooperate more often rather than
given churches competing with each other for custo-err...attendence( ;) ),
but doctrine, and therefore the doctrine of those in authoritty in the
church you may be involved in, DOES matter. Eternity(who does and
doesn't stand in danger of hell, and how do you know where you're going),
what God desires of you and how you strengthen your walk with him are
pretty big issues, not to be taken lightly! :)



Joel

[inkspot]

doctrine, and therefore the doctrine of those in authoritty in the church you may be involved in, DOES matter. Eternity(who does and doesn't stand in danger of hell, and how do you know where you're going), what God desires of you and how you strengthen your walk with him are pretty big issues, not to be taken lightly! :)
But surely all these things are outlined in Scripture? The Scripture clearly states what is necessary for salvation (avoiding hell): confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead. Galatians in particular makes clear that no other action is required, and if you indeed believe on Christ for forgiveness of sins, you can know you are going to heaven.

What God desires of you is one of my favorite verses, Michah 6:8. "He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justly, To love mercy, And to walk humbly with your God?" (NKJV) Or in The Message, "But he's already made it plain how to live, what to do, what GOD is looking for in men and women. It's quite simple: Do what is fair and just to your neighbor, be compassionate and loyal in your love, And don't take yourself too seriously--take God seriously."

And how to strengthen your walk with Christ is in the Scriptures, too -- all the epistles give directions ... So what need to argue amongst ourselves along denominational lines? We are all passengers on the same boat, all travelers on the same road ...

[Aunt Letty]

Does anyone know of Lewis' personal life? Was he a passive Christian (even though he was a great apologist) in his daily life? I read he was a member of the Anglican church but held no loyalty to any one denomination. Also, I read he was very tolerant of other religions. Of what he wrote how much did he actually practice? I know very little of Lewis and wondered if anyone had some info of this nature.
Can anyone recommend a good biography of Lewis?

[inked]

Several biographies are available at Christian bookstores and in the secular arena of bookstores. Lewis was not passive in his Christianity and his war-work and radio addresses are what formed the basis of his books now gathered in MERE CHRISTIANITY and MIRACLES. Of him, it was said that "he was the most thoroughly converted man I have known." Make haste to correct your lack of acquaintance with this "dinosaur" as he referred to himself. You'll not regret the time and effort.

The film work available for his life is of mixed quality. SHADOWLANDS has some defects worthy of mention, and does not give a rounded picture of the man whose lectures were attended to standing room only capacity crowds of students.

You might begin with the brief biography in CS LEWIS AND NARNIA FOR DUMMIES for starters. There are further suggestions there to a number of biographies. Also, try searching under his name and you will have access to many US and British and international sites with data.

Happy reading, AL!

[Jene Sai]

Inkspot mentioned all the major works, but I would also recommend GOD IN DOCK...it is a collection of essay and speeches by Lewis...I found them very insightful into his character and Christian walk.

-JS

[Wallis]

Hello, Narnia-fan!

The question of "where" your soul is going to go is already answered: Heaven.

Do you have faith? is the question. By Faith we are saved. Some folks like to call it Grace. So, the issue of where the soul goes after physical death is already answered. It is Faith that governs our actions and helps prevent us from committing the same sins over and over again. We will all die in sin, because our nature is sinful and will cause us to commit sin right up to the moment of death. But since Christ paid the bill en total and we have faith in that belief, then Heaven/Hell should be moot. We are going to Heaven. Period.

The focus should be on what to do during the lifetime we are allotted. We are all called to adminster (you can read "love" here) to one another, to show the Love of Christ to everyone regardless of backgrounds, faiths, attitudes, et al, which is how I see Lewis writing in all of his seven books. If one thing comes through in the Chronicles of Narnia is how the main characters are allowing the Love of Christ to flow through and among other characters, even those who are downright nasty or ignorant or (you fill in the blank).

So, I agree with posters who state that Christians should be cooperating with one another, but we should go one step further and that is cooperating with the whole world, even as Narnians cooperated with Calormenes and others who did not profess or believe in Aslan. The whole world is our village, and we are all neighbors. And we are called to love our neighbors--even those who would like to burn us at the stake! This life is but just a job, and our job is to show the Love of Christ. Retirement--which is assured--is our reward in Heaven, where we are definitely going.

[inkspot]

Right on, Wallis.

Micah 6:8. "He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justly, To love mercy, And to walk humbly with your God?" (NKJV)

[The Duck]

The way that I see that incident in The Last Battle is that the allegory refers to those people who have not heard the gospel. They are good soil that has not had any seed sown on it!
This world is very large and those of us in the West have great access to the gospel. But there are those who may be aware of the name of Jesus but have never actually heard the gospel, especially people who live in countries where there is no religious freedom.
I firmly believe that God desires mercy over justice, and I believe that Jesus would only turn away those who have chosen to turn their backs on him. I hope this theory makes sense.

[Wallis]

Yes, Duck.

[Aslan the Wise one]

The Theology that Lewis Belaved in is very instring to me....

[inkspot]

Bump this thread for a discussion of what Lewis was getting at in that Emeth story ...

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?

[Copperfox]

Concerning Emeth in TLB: no one seems to realize that Emeth need not be considered to have DIED before he met Aslan. If Emeth was still in mortal flesh at the time Aslan spoke with him, then Aslan was fulfilling his quest IN this life, just as in the real world thousands of living Muslims these days are finding Jesus Himself appearing to them in dreams and telling them to follow Him. Seen this way, Emeth does NOT represent a serious statement by Lewis that one could get saved after death, OR saved with no reference to Jesus--rather, as I've said elsewhere, that Jesus may be making Himself known to more people than we realize He does.

[MrBob]

"no one seems to realize that Emeth need not be considered to have DIED before he met Aslan. If Emeth was still in mortal flesh at the time Aslan spoke with him, then Aslan was fulfilling his quest IN this life"

Copper, That is a good question. The Pevensies, Jill, and Eustace were all in Aslan's land after having died. Caspian entered, as did Emeth, without having died. Could the dead and living both be the same in this place?

As to what Capstick wrote dealing with the Aslan-Emeth conversation, I agree with the conclusion that this does seem to represent a many paths to G*d belief. That is part of my own personal belief system, that there is no one path to G*d.

Realize that Emeth's belief in Tash never wavered. He was angered by everything, from the belief that Tash and Aslan (Tashlan) were one and the same and that his leader was playing along with it. He even became the first to voluntarily enter the stable so that he could get a look at Tash, even if it meant he would be struck down.

The issue of Tash vs. Aslan was easily explained away as in Narnia (the whole land) there were only two given religious deities: Aslan and Tash. All good is done through Aslan's name and all evil is done through Tash's name. They are opposites, as Aslan says in TLB. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for Earth. We have many more than two different religions. There is no such thing as opposites here in the nice simple Narnian way.

Here, we have Yhwh (Judaic G*d), Jesus, Mohammad, Buddha, Vishnu, Gaea, and many, many more gods both named and unnamed. We can't say that one religion is good and all the other ones are followers of evil deities. That would mean that more than half of the world are following a false deity no matter which single religion we say is good.

MrBob

[Parthian King]

Concerning Emeth in TLB: no one seems to realize that Emeth need not be considered to have DIED before he met Aslan. If Emeth was still in mortal flesh at the time Aslan spoke with him, then Aslan was fulfilling his quest IN this life, just as in the real world thousands of living Muslims these days are finding Jesus Himself appearing to them in dreams and telling them to follow Him. Seen this way, Emeth does NOT represent a serious statement by Lewis that one could get saved after death, OR saved with no reference to Jesus--rather, as I've said elsewhere, that Jesus may be making Himself known to more people than we realize He does.

That is actually a very good point, CF. I think most who have a problem here is the statement that everything Emeth had done in the name of Tash was really for Aslan. But you make a good case that the portal through which Emeth stepped need not be (and perhaps cannot be) a death.

Here, have some Hot Tamales...

Here, we have Yhwh (Judaic G*d), Jesus, Mohammad, Buddha, Vishnu, Gaea, and many, many more gods both named and unnamed. We can't say that one religion is good and all the other ones are followers of evil deities. That would mean that more than half of the world are following a false deity no matter which single religion we say is good.

Yes, we can say precisely that when it comes to saving knowledge, and, in fact, Lewis says this very thing in Mere Christianity. Even if other religions dimly reflect some aspects of the Divine, they are inferior to the full revelation of God Incarnate, Jesus Christ.

[Malacandra]

"no one seems to realize that Emeth need not be considered to have DIED before he met Aslan. If Emeth was still in mortal flesh at the time Aslan spoke with him, then Aslan was fulfilling his quest IN this life"

Copper, That is a good question. The Pevensies, Jill, and Eustace were all in Aslan's land after having died. Caspian entered, as did Emeth, without having died. Could the dead and living both be the same in this place?

MrBob

Supposedly neither Enoch nor Elijah died, but were translated bodily into Heaven. Caspian, however, was quite thoroughly dead long before The Last Battle. Also don't forget Reepicheep, who entered Aslan's Country while still alive and was there for a meet'n'greet at the end of TLB.

[MrBob]

"Caspian, however, was quite thoroughly dead long before The Last Battle."

Malacandra, where is the embarrassed smiley? I meant Tirian, not Caspian :(

And yes, Enoch and Elijah are suposed to have been taken straight to Heaven, but here in TLB, we are talking about such a motley crew of living people and beasts ascending living into Aslan's World. I would imagine that the living ascention would be reserved for a select few, not for everyone.

"Yes, we can say precisely that when it comes to saving knowledge, and, in fact, Lewis says this very thing in Mere Christianity. Even if other religions dimly reflect some aspects of the Divine, they are inferior to the full revelation of God Incarnate, Jesus Christ."

Parthian King, The different religions here are not opposites as they are in CoN. Accroding to TLB, Aslan is good and Tash is evil (read the devil). Suggesting that Yhwh is the opposite of Jesus is blasphemy as Jesus' Father was Yhwh according to Christian belief.

My post was saying that we cannot attribute "Aslan" or the only good religion to one single theology and every other religion is worshipping a "Tash" or evil being. Not even Aslan was that unforgiving. He mentioned that all good is done in his name.

Using TLB as a guide to Lewis' theological beliefs, it looks like he is saying that one's beliefs matter less than one's behaviour and actions. Good is good and bad is bad no matter the religion and all who are good at the end will be welcomed in the Light--as long as they want to believe.

The dwarves showed that aspect of the theology. They refused any more to believe in Aslan, but were not going to believe in Tash either. They were in it only for themselves, so they could not enter Aslan's Land as a belief in it was necessary. Instead, they ended up in a purgatory, a land of darkness where all they had to do was to believe again and they could see the world around them.

I have not read anything else by Lewis and, unless it is a good fantasy or fiction story, I probably won't.

MrBob

[Parthian King]

Parthian King, The different religions here are not opposites as they are in CoN. Accroding to TLB, Aslan is good and Tash is evil (read the devil). Suggesting that Yhwh is the opposite of Jesus is blasphemy as Jesus' Father was Yhwh according to Christian belief.

My post was saying that we cannot attribute "Aslan" or the only good religion to one single theology and every other religion is worshipping a "Tash" or evil being. Not even Aslan was that unforgiving. He mentioned that all good is done in his name.

Using TLB as a guide to Lewis' theological beliefs, it looks like he is saying that one's beliefs matter less than one's behaviour and actions. Good is good and bad is bad no matter the religion and all who are good at the end will be welcomed in the Light--as long as they want to believe.

The dwarves showed that aspect of the theology. They refused any more to believe in Aslan, but were not going to believe in Tash either. They were in it only for themselves, so they could not enter Aslan's Land as a belief in it was necessary. Instead, they ended up in a purgatory, a land of darkness where all they had to do was to believe again and they could see the world around them.

I have not read anything else by Lewis and, unless it is a good fantasy or fiction story, I probably won't.

MrBob

It would behoove you to read more of Lewis than merely the books from the CoN to get a bead on Lewis' theological beliefs. In reference to what you posted above, Lewis is saying nothing of the kind. He explicitly states elsewhere that while elements of truth may be found in other religions, that they are inferior to faith in Christ, and only faith in Christ can save.

If you feel that Christ shrugging off whether someone accepts or rejects His sacrifice on the cross is "forgiveness," you have understood little to nothing of who Jesus Christ was, and consequently what Christianity is. I encourage you to do some investigating in order to really discover the faith Lewis turned to and wrote about in these and other books.

But I am grateful to you for exposing the danger of reading too much into one or more books from the CoN. They are children's books, which while theologically rich for that genre, can nevertheless lead to serious misinterpretations of both Lewis and Christianity if not read in tandem with other things that Lewis wrote.

[inkspot]

Also, if we want to extrapolate theology only from TLB: Emeth isn't dead, and when he meets Aslan, he purposes to approach him and fall at his feet, even if it means his death. That is a pretty clear picture of a man forgetting all about any other god and throwing himself head-first into the jaws of the one true God.

We have no indication that in the world of Narnia/Archenland/Telmarine/Calormene there are only 2 faiths, Mr. Bob. We just don't have any details on any other kinds of worship which may take place. The Telmarines came as pirates from our world -- it is conceiveable they brought some faith (in God, Allah or some paganism depending where they were from) with them. It's just not mentioned in the tales.

What is made clear is that only faith in Aslan is acceptable to get you into his country. Which is an indication (made clear in his other works) that Jack Lewis believed only faith in Jesus would get you into heaven.

[MrBob]

"What is made clear is that only faith in Aslan is acceptable to get you into his country."

Is that really the case? Going back to Emeth, he went into the stable secure with the knowledge that Tash would be in there and would be glad even if he was slain by his god. Also at that point, he still felt that Aslan was the evil spirit and it was a hateful name to him.

Yet even as Emeth was secure in his beliefs, Aslan still allowed him into his country instead of the darkness of the stable. He was willing to let one who believed in the greatness of Tash, his opposite, to come in as he was fully and completely committed to his beliefs. It seems that the only ones Aslan disallowed were the ones who conspired and those who believed in the morphing of the two into Tashlan. Emeth was furious that they dared to link Aslan with the all powerful Tash.

MrBob

[inkspot]

Not to quote myself just for the fun of it, but ...
Also, if we want to extrapolate theology only from TLB: Emeth isn't dead, and when he meets Aslan, he purposes to approach him and fall at his feet, even if it means his death. That is a pretty clear picture of a man forgetting all about any other god and throwing himself head-first into the jaws of the one true God.
Every person who passionately serves any God other than the One True God, the Trinity, has an opportunity in this life, right up until their last breath, to accept Christ and be what we would call "saved" from their sins.
He was willing to let one who believed in the greatness of Tash, his opposite, to come in as he was fully and completely committed to his beliefs.
Yes, this is the wonder of Aslan's mercy: even someone who has believed all-out 100% in His opposite can still, while he has breath in his body, reject the false God and come to the true. This is what happened to Emeth: he served Tash right up until the moment he met Aslan, when he totally laid down his life to Aslan and forgot about Tash. This is what happens when you "convert" -- you forget about that bad god you were serving and totally throw yourself on the mercy of the One True God.

It's clear in the story, and further, it's very clear this is what Jack believed if you read his other books, the adult non-fiction books which expound his theology. There is no other way to read it, especially if you have explored Jack's life and works.

[MrBob]

"This is what happened to Emeth: he served Tash right up until the moment he met Aslan, when he totally laid down his life to Aslan and forgot about Tash."

Actually, he didn't. He still believed himself a follower of Tash even after meeting Aslan. As Emeth narrated to the others regarding his talk with Aslan, "But I said, Alas, Lord, I am no son of thine but the servant of Tash." This is when Aslan told him that all good anyone had done was in the name of Aslan, while evil deeds that are done in the name of Tash no matter what name is being invoked.

Emeth is not a convert until after the conversation, which at that point is a moot point. Belief is based on the lack of empirical data. Talking to Aslan and being told of the relationships of Tash and Aslan, Emeth no longer had to believe, he knew.

Now my arguments I must say are a representive of my own beliefs. I don't believe there is only one way to G*d. I see all who want to do good, no matter in whose name they use, as doing it in the eyes of G*d, no matter what they believe. Behaviour and the kind of person one is trumps names we call G*d or religious rites we perform.

MrBob

[SweetWaters]

I think the problem we encounter here is that "No man is good but God alone." MrBob, I agree with you that if someone didn't know what god was the real one but lived a life of good actions and motives, then he would get to heaven. The problem on earth (and in Narnia, as I suppose) is that it's impossible to live a good life apart from the one true God. God doesn't require only that we do some good actions in our lives; he requires that we are completely perfect for He can allow no unrighteousness into Himself. And while we may have some inkling of right and wrong in our present fallen state, we cannot live our lives to fullness apart from Him.

When my father, who is also a fan of Narnia, used to read these books to my siblings and me when we were kids, he would always stop at that part and talk to us about it and ask us if we thought it was right. The answer was always "No." We understood that the CoN were written by a man, not God; C. S. Lewis made mistakes just like anyone else. We shouldn't allow our love for one person's work to obscure our understanding of right and wrong.

[waterhogboy]

Not to quote myself just for the fun of it, but ...

Every person who passionately serves any God other than the One True God, the Trinity, has an opportunity in this life, right up until their last breath, to accept Christ and be what we would call "saved" from their sins.

Yes, this is the wonder of Aslan's mercy: even someone who has believed all-out 100% in His opposite can still, while he has breath in his body, reject the false God and come to the true. This is what happened to Emeth: he served Tash right up until the moment he met Aslan, when he totally laid down his life to Aslan and forgot about Tash. This is what happens when you "convert" -- you forget about that bad god you were serving and totally throw yourself on the mercy of the One True God.

It's clear in the story, and further, it's very clear this is what Jack believed if you read his other books, the adult non-fiction books which expound his theology. There is no other way to read it, especially if you have explored Jack's life and works.

I agree with this. Aslan knew that Emeth would come to accept him as his Lord, and so showed his mercy by giving all the time he needed to do it. The fact is by the end, he has rejected Tash and accepted Aslan, understanding salvation comes only through Aslan.

[supermeulen]

Do you think Aslan only accepted Emeth because he knew he would turn to him - like the election deal?

[MrBob]

SweetWaters, I've never talked to a mouse before!

"The problem on earth (and in Narnia, as I suppose) is that it's impossible to live a good life apart from the one true God."

The problem is not knowing who that is. The Calormene felt that they were worshipping the one true god in Tash. You simple believe that you believe in the true G*d or the absolute Truth of the Universe. Without knowledge of who the true Deity is, or even if there is one, everything comes down to actions and behaviour.

"We shouldn't allow our love for one person's work to obscure our understanding of right and wrong."

OK, technically that is exactly what Jesus did. Moses is said to have written the Torah and Jesus lived the Word of the Torah. He did use that one person's writing to influence his understanding of right and wrong.

I would also state that one should not let anything, religion included, to obscure one's understanding of right and wrong.

"The fact is by the end, he has rejected Tash and accepted Aslan, understanding salvation comes only through Aslan."

waterhogboy, as I stated before, talking directly to Aslan, Emeth no longer had to believe anything. He was a servant of Tash up until Aslan told him that his actions to Tash could only be accepted as actions for Aslan. After that, Emeth asked about the relationship between Aslan and Tash with a feeling af accepting Aslan. Aslan had to explain everything to Emeth before he could accept Him.

There was no epiphany of belief, only an epiphany of concrete understanding.

MrBob

[SweetWaters]

Well, MrBob, I think you'll find that we mice can be very vocal. :D

This is a huge subject with a lot of real-life implications, but I will try to deal with it as best I can.

OK, technically that is exactly what Jesus did. Moses is said to have written the Torah and Jesus lived the Word of the Torah. He did use that one person's writing to influence his understanding of right and wrong.
Don't kid me. Do you think Moses made up all that stuff about the smoke and thunderings on the mountain? The Jews called it Moses' Law, but it wasn't Moses' words; it was God's words. Moses was merely the instrument God used to speak through. Jesus knew every word of that law before Moses existed. But if you are saying that Lewis is the ultimate authority when it comes to theology, I beg you to remember: "It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man!"

The problem is not knowing who that is. The Calormene felt that they were worshipping the one true god in Tash. You simple believe that you believe in the true G*d or the absolute Truth of the Universe. Without knowledge of who the true Deity is, or even if there is one, everything comes down to actions and behaviour.
I beg to differ. Tash was only the chief of a plethora of gods that the Calormenes worshiped. Besides which, Emeth did indeed have a knowledge of Aslan, and he had rejected him. Without the guidance of Aslan's spirit it is impossible to serve Aslan. "And salvation is in none other, for neither is there another name under heaven which is given among men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12) Again, "No man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Spirit." (I Corinthians 12:3) If one is to take these Scriptures literally, Emeth was not saved at the time; and thus his works were unacceptable to Jesus: his righteousness was indeed as "filthy rags." (Isaiah 64:6)

I have not read anything else by Lewis and, unless it is a good fantasy or fiction story, I probably won't.
In that case, you really ought to try reading Till We Have Faces. It is quite good fiction!

[inkspot]

Just giving this a bump because some of the same discussion was begun over in the HP and the Bible thread, where it doesn't actually fit in.

I think the problem with trying to extend the Emeth story to solid theology is that it is just a children's story. Lewis wasn't making theology here, and he would say that he never got around to making any theology; he was a layman and an apologist, which would mean he explained the Gospel in ways others could understand it, and he defended it, but he did not himself make theology. And he made clear in other works that he was in agreement with his Anglican church on the basic issues of salvation, the most critical being that Jesus Christ was the only way to God -- thus making all other religions false.

To call any other religion's god a demon is just bad, and at worst, blasphemy. Of course, in my belief, you can't call on anyone for good but the one true G*d no matter what name you use. Remember even in "The Last Battle", Emeth is talking about what Aslan said to him regarding Tash: '...no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not ville can be done to him."

I believe in that statement that Aslan tells to Emeth to a point. All good deeds, no matter which name of a deity that is used, is done under the one true G*d. All evil deeds, no matter which name of a deity is used, are done by the person himself as there is no devil, demon, or evil god.
Who, then, is to decide which deed is evil and accountable to the devil and which is good and accountable to God? For in one person's religion, a specific deed is good, and the same deed in another faith is evil. In fundamentalist Islam, a suicide bomber's attack is good; to Christians, it is evil. If it is true it makes no difference which religion you follow, then is the deed good or evil? It seems you are saying that only when God reveals Himself to all will we know whether we have been doing good or evil. If it should turn out that fundamentalist Allah is the one true God, and suicide bombing is good, then are all the good deeds I have done in Jesus' name evil? This leads nowhere ...

The reason we know that Christ is the only way to God is that He Himself said it was so. If you do not believe Him, you do not have to believe Him, but what you cannot do is believe Him and then also believe that there is another way to God; if you bellieve Christ, that option is not open to you.

Emeth, as has been noted in this thread, came to Aslan, rejected Tash, and was then accepted by Aslan. There is nothing in his story which indicates any committed follower of Tash would have been acceptable to Aslan.

[EveningStar]

In LWW Aslan says, in reference to the White Witch's claim to be the rightful queen that, "All names would soon be restored to their rightful owners."

Emeth worshipped the person that was Aslan but thought his name was Tash. My question is this...if you had a word processor file of the Bible and used search and replace to change every occurance of "God" to "Satan" and vice versa, and someone grew up reading that as his copy of the Bible and accepted the person he called "Satan" as the carpenter's son who was also fully the Son of God....would he go to Hell when he died because he didn't know how to spell it?

[inkspot]

No, but if you grew up understanding that who you thought of as "Satan" was the Son of God whose sacrificial death made atonement for your sins, and if you had confessed your sins and accepted his forgiveness, you would be worshipping Christ by whatever name you called Him. This is not the same thing as saying that if you worship another god, God will still accept you for salvation -- because if you worship another god, according to Scripture, you have not wholly trusted Christ, and Christ is the only way to salvation. Does this make sense? Do you see what I mean? It isn't the name "Jesus" which saves -- I understand that was a common Hebrew name in its time. It is the recognition that God on the cross made perfect atonement for sin and the acceptance of your forgiveness because of that act which saves.

Believing in that, and yet calling Jesus by a different name -- John or Bob or Satan -- would still result in salvation. But believing in any or every other god or demon, as Mr. Bob suggests, can never lead to salvation, according to the Scriptures. And if you believe in Jesus, according to Scripture, you cannot simultaneously still trust in other gods and be saved. Because Jesus said He was the only way. So the system Mr. Bob proposes of believing sincerely in whichever god you're used to, doesn't work according to the claims of Christ.

[MrBob]

"I think the problem with trying to extend the Emeth story to solid theology is that it is just a children's story."

inkspot, I am using the story of Emeth as an allegory, not as a proof of solid theology.

"Who, then, is to decide which deed is evil and accountable to the devil and which is good and accountable to God?"

Well, G*d for one. And ultimately, G*d is the only one who you will have to answer to. And all deeds done with a heart of good, meant to help the world for good are, IMO, deeds that are good. Killing of innocent people for the sole reason of killing, is not good no matter what the reason. Whether that be the suicide bombers of Islam, killings in all kinds of holocausts, dropping of the atomic bombs, etc.

"If it should turn out that fundamentalist Allah is the one true God, and suicide bombing is good, then are all the good deeds I have done in Jesus' name evil?"

Absolutely not. Assuming that the first supposition is correct, it does not have anything to do with your own deeds. Unless Allah does not expect anything but suicide bombing as good, which is far from what the Islam religion preaches, then all your good deeds will count for Allah. Of course, Allah is simply the Islam form of the original G*d found in the Torah, known as the Old Testament by Christians. So all three names represent the same Being. Eloheim, Adonai, Yahweh, G*d, Allah, Jesus, Father, He seems to have many names already. If a Christian performed acts in the name of Eloheim, the Old Testament (Torah) G*d, would that mean that Jesus would not count them as services done to Him? If a Christian prayed to the Creator of Adam and Eve, but did not call Him Jesus, is he not praying to a Christian G*d?

"Emeth, as has been noted in this thread, came to Aslan, rejected Tash, and was then accepted by Aslan."

No, Aslan accepted Emeth first after he came to Emeth. While talking with Aslan, Emeth said, "I am no sone of thine but the servant of Tash." Note the present tense. He never renounced Tash until he understood the relationship between Aslan and Tash. After that, he realized that his oath was with Aslan, not Tash.

EveningStar's post illustrates the point a lot. If Jesus' name was not Jesus, but Larry, you would be praying to Larry. If you are praying to the good Being, does it matter what name you use? Why should names be so static? G*d does not have a name, yet He answers to all names.

MrBob

[inkspot]

"Who, then, is to decide which deed is evil and accountable to the devil and which is good and accountable to God?"

Well, G*d for one. And ultimately, G*d is the only one who you will have to answer to. And all deeds done with a heart of good, meant to help the world for good are, IMO, deeds that are good.
By this reasoning, then, the suicide bombing "meant to help the world for good" is going to be accepted by [the god of your choice] as a good deed done in his name. This being the case, then none of us have any reason to protest any killing, so long as the person who did the killing did it because he believed it was to "help the world for good." This is nonsense. Pol Pot thought he was creating utopia with the killing fields in Cambodia. Did God then judge his deeds as good? His murder of a million and half people, was that acceptable to God because it was to "help the world for good"? That's ridiculous.
Killing of innocent people for the sole reason of killing, is not good no matter what the reason.
Quite, but various people have killed innocent other people -- not for the sake of killing, but because their belief told them that was the way to a better world. (see Pol Pot above.) So you are saying that it is your belief that you are doing right which makes God accept your deeds which others would judge as evil? If I understand what you are saying, it is that as long as I believe the evil deeds I am doing are for the betterment of the world, then God finds them acceptable. But I find this to be a terrible belief and utterly reject it.

"If it should turn out that fundamentalist Allah is the one true God, and suicide bombing is good, then are all the good deeds I have done in Jesus' name evil?"

Absolutely not. Assuming that the first supposition is correct, it does not have anything to do with your own deeds.
I don't understand what you are saying here. i thought we were discussing the idea that as long as you sincerely believe in some god, then your good deeds are acceptable to some god?

Unless Allah does not expect anything but suicide bombing as good, which is far from what the Islam religion preaches, then all your good deeds will count for Allah.
But if Islam is the way, then my relying on Jesus as God and the Son of God is a sacreligious deed to Allah. The Koran makes clear that Jesus was a man and a prophet, and I am blaspheming every time I pray to Him as if He were God. So how can Allah accept any of my deeds, whether good or evil, as his own?
Of course, Allah is simply the Islam form of the original G*d found in the Torah, known as the Old Testament by Christians. So all three names represent the same Being. Eloheim, Adonai, Yahweh, G*d, Allah, Jesus, Father, He seems to have many names already. If a Christian performed acts in the name of Eloheim, the Old Testament (Torah) G*d, would that mean that Jesus would not count them as services done to Him? If a Christian prayed to the Creator of Adam and Eve, but did not call Him Jesus, is he not praying to a Christian G*d?

EveningStar's post illustrates the point a lot. If Jesus' name was not Jesus, but Larry, you would be praying to Larry. If you are praying to the good Being, does it matter what name you use? Why should names be so static? G*d does not have a name, yet He answers to all names.
I will say, as I said to ES above:
if you grew up understanding that who you thought of as "INSERT GOD NAME HERE" was the Son of God whose sacrificial death made atonement for your sins, and if you had confessed your sins and accepted his forgiveness, you would be worshipping Christ by whatever name you called Him. This is not the same thing as saying that if you worship another god, God will still accept you for salvation -- because if you worship another god, according to Scripture, you have not wholly trusted Christ, and Christ is the only way to salvation.
According to Christian belief, only your acceptance of the sacrifice of God's Son as atonement for your sins makes you acceptable to God. The name is not important at all, but if you are worshiping Allah as a Muslim, then you are embracing the idea that Jesus was mere man and prophet and rejecting his sacrificial death. If you are worshiping any of the Hindu gods, then you are defying Jesus' message that He alone is the way to God. So, for Christians, we have to say, as Christ, said, that he is the only way to God, and worshiping any other god disqualifies you.
No, Aslan accepted Emeth first after he came to Emeth. While talking with Aslan, Emeth said, "I am no sone of thine but the servant of Tash." Note the present tense. He never renounced Tash until he understood the relationship between Aslan and Tash. After that, he realized that his oath was with Aslan, not Tash.
Exactly my point: he had been worshiping Aslan all along by another name, just as I said in my quote above about "insert god name here." Emeth is the perfect picture of someone who had believed on Christ, but just did not know the name of Jesus. He believed on the Great Lion, but he just did not know the name of Aslan.

In fact, if Lewis had meant what you are implying, Mr. Bob, that all gods are the one god, then he would have endorsed the "Tashlan" concept, that Aslan and Tash were both the same thing, so you could worship them both at once. But in fact, that "Tashlan" concept was horrifying to both believers in Aslan and true believers in Tash! Emeth hated the concept as much as Rilian did. It was only those who believed in neither Tash nor Aslan who tried to say it was good to worship them both together as one.

[MrBob]

Whoa, whoa, whoa inkspot! Let's slow down. You seem to be misunderstanding my two ideas. My first statement was And ultimately, G*d is the only one who you will have to answer to. That means that in truth, we can not know, only believe, what G*d wants from us. It is why we have so many religious disagreements.

My second statement, And all deeds done with a heart of good, meant to help the world for good are, IMO, deeds that are good was meant to represent my own opinion regarding what i believe in, not what I believe what G*d wants from us.

As for specific people, and regarding my own beliefs, killing, especially innocent people who are absolutely no threat to you, for genocidal, holocaustal, political, or an attempt to gain your own utopia, is not a deed done with a heart of good or meant to help the world for good.

"The Koran makes clear that Jesus was a man and a prophet, and I am blaspheming every time I pray to Him as if He were God. So how can Allah accept any of my deeds, whether good or evil, as his own?"

Yes, the Koran states many things, just as the Bible does, but only G*d knows the truth. If the Allah of the Koran is the correct One and you are praying to whom you believe to be the same G*d, then you are praying to Allah as well even if you do not use His name. And every deed done in Jesus' name is therefore a deed done in Allah's name.

"According to Christian belief, only your acceptance of the sacrifice of God's Son as atonement for your sins makes you acceptable to God."

That's where I disagree with Christian belief. Many paths lead to G*d.

"Emeth is the perfect picture of someone who had believed on Christ, but just did not know the name of Jesus. He believed on the Great Lion, but he just did not know the name of Aslan."

Actually, he believed in Tash, but was a good man within his religion. The above statement is exactly what I am trying to get you to understand. G*d can accept those who worship with goodness even if rejecting a specific religion, including Christianity.

"In fact, if Lewis had meant what you are implying, Mr. Bob, that all gods are the one god, then he would have endorsed the "Tashlan" concept, that Aslan and Tash were both the same thing, so you could worship them both at once."

Wrong. Tash was akin to Christianity's Lucifer. Belief in an evil deity is much different than belief in a good deity. My all-gods-are-one-god concept is that all the gods that are worshipped as good (or a collection that has both good and bad, but as a whole are seen as good) is necessary. Worshipping evil is another story altogether. And worshipping that both good and evil are the same, and thus interchangeable, is bad.

Tash and Aslan were opposites. Aslan could only accept good deeds and Tash could only accept evil deeds no matter the names used. Tashlan was a misbelief that two opposites were the same, and can be seen in religious hypocracies all over the world in all religions.

MrBob

[PrinceOfTheWest]

You make good arguments, Mr. Bob, but a lot of them hinge on a concept which my theological world refers to as invincible ignorance. Emeth would be an example of invincible ignorance regarding Aslan because 1) he'd been raised in an environment devoid of true knowledge of Aslan, and 2) he'd been "inoculated" against learning the truth by incorrect teaching. Therefore he was less culpable for not explicitly serving Aslan, and his deeds were accepted in the spirit they were offered, even though they were offered to the wrong object.

This is why your attempt to use Emeth as Exhibit A in your argument that all paths lead to God breaks down. The fact that Emeth did not know is important. If he had known, in the sense of having things completely explained to him, then he would have been accountable for his actions in light of that knowledge. This is why, when he finally met Aslan and had his situation explained, he totally "switched allegiance."

Thus you, and anyone who has heard Christ's claims yet still chooses the "many paths lead to God" view, are responsible for your responses. When Jesus says, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Light; no one comes to the Father but through Me." (emphasis added), then you will have to decide how you will deal with that sweeping claim. If you face Christ at the Judgment, and He asks you why you followed other ways than Him, you won't be able to claim ignorance, because you've just had it explained to you.

[Copperfox]

Many paths lead to God? Many paths in the sense of many different experiences, yes; but many paths in the sense of mutually contradictory ideas, NO. Emeth is regarded as seeking Aslan because he sought in Tash those qualities which actually belonged to Aslan; but many belief systems in our world are prizing different qualities than those of the actual God.

The Hindu and Buddhist paths cannot lead to the real God, because the real God is one Who believes in distinct individual personality, while Hinduism and Buddhism both make it the supreme goal to eliminate individual identity. Various other beliefs also cannot lead to the true God because they also contradict important facts about Him.

[inkspot]

Thanks to PoTW and CF for their excellent responses, very well said.

Let me reiterate, that to base fine points of theology on the Emeth story is dubious at best because CON constitute children's stories. For Lewis' real thoughts on this matter, we would have to look to his other works. Mere Christianity comes to mind.

But as this Emeth story is the place we're hanging our hats in this thread, let me answer Mr. Bob also with a couple specifics not addressed by CF and PoTW.

Actually, he believed in Tash, but was a good man within his religion. The above statement is exactly what I am trying to get you to understand. G*d can accept those who worship with goodness even if rejecting a specific religion, including Christianity ...
Wrong. Tash was akin to Christianity's Lucifer. Belief in an evil deity is much different than belief in a good deity. My all-gods-are-one-god concept is that all the gods that are worshipped as good (or a collection that has both good and bad, but as a whole are seen as good) is necessary. Worshipping evil is another story altogether. And worshipping that both good and evil are the same, and thus interchangeable, is bad.

Tash and Aslan were opposites. Aslan could only accept good deeds and Tash could only accept evil deeds no matter the names used. Tashlan was a misbelief that two opposites were the same, and can be seen in religious hypocracies all over the world in all religions.

It seems to me you are at cross purposes with yourself here. In the first quote you say that Emeth was out and out worshiping Tash (in response to my aversion that although Emeth called his God "Tash," he was really worshiping Aslan). Then in your next quote you say that Tash was, in fact, the allegorical representation of Satan (Lucifer) so that anyone worshiping him was in fact worshiping the devil and not God. I do not see that you can have it both ways, if you are still going to claim that you do not endorse the "Tashlan" merging of gods that Lewis repudiated.

Either Emeth was worshiping Aslan and calling him "Tash" in ignorance, or
Tash and Aslan are the same and "Tashlan" is an acceptable amalgam of gods in Narnia.

You cannot logically, it seems to me, say that a person is 100% sold-out to worshiping the devil and the opposite of God (as you say Emeth is) and at the same time say his deeds are acceptable to God and the opposite of the devil. I suppose I am not understanding you. :o


My second statement, And all deeds done with a heart of good, meant to help the world for good are, IMO, deeds that are good was meant to represent my own opinion regarding what i believe in, not what I believe what G*d wants from us.

As for specific people, and regarding my own beliefs, killing, especially innocent people who are absolutely no threat to you, for genocidal, holocaustal, political, or an attempt to gain your own utopia, is not a deed done with a heart of good or meant to help the world for good.
I am glad to hear this, of course, but I cannot help but notice that in both these statements, there is the caveat "IMO" or "my own beliefs," which leads me to believe that if other people have a different opinion, and different beliefs, then their sincere belief that genocide or holocaust will make the world a better place will also be acceptable to their god. If it is just a matter of opinion or belief, then there is no way for you to say their opinions or beliefs are worse (or better) than yours. In a matter of opinion, there can be no right or wrong.

This is what you run up against if you allow that all paths lead to God, because some of those paths are bloody and vile. Yet the people on them are sincerely believing that, in their opinion and according to their beliefs, it is the way to God.

Yes, the Koran states many things, just as the Bible does, but only G*d knows the truth. If the Allah of the Koran is the correct One and you are praying to whom you believe to be the same G*d, then you are praying to Allah as well even if you do not use His name. And every deed done in Jesus' name is therefore a deed done in Allah's name.
But the Bible and the Koran, and any religion worth its salt, make clear that their route is the only route to God, so how can all be true? And how can an infidel to Islam find herself accepted by the God that ordered death to all infidels? If you actually believe no religion is true, then your theory works. But if you actually believe all religions are true, then your theory falls apart, because they all claim to be the only way, and so they cannot all be true.

[EveningStar]

First off....

I am disturbed to see the WORSHIP of Tash being equated to the WORSHIP of Satan, even though I can see Tash being equated to Satan. There is no sign that the Calormenes thought their supreme being was the rebel, the father of lies, or the doer of evil. They were not consciously worshipping an anti-God.

With that said....

Let me cast a little light on "believe on the name" since everyone is really hung up on what believing on the name of Jesus means. There were commonly accepted beliefs around the world that written language and proper names were PROPERTIES of something, so much so that practitioners of magic would filch personal possessions of a victim in order to "bind the spell to them" the same way you could paint over a glass mirror by putting on a primer first to make the paint stick. It was a common practice in Biblical days to travel under an assumed name, to burn fingernail parings and hair clippings in order to avoid a supernatural assault. Thus believing ON THE NAME of Jesus does not mean...among other things...

1) Variations in spelling like Jesu or Yeshua are dangerous
2) The name of Jesus is like your password to Dancing Lawn--case sensitive and you'd best not forget it or you can't access godskingdom.com when you die

Believing ON THE NAME of Jesus means accepting the personhood and teachings of Jesus. It's like, for lack of a better comparison, right clicking on Christ and choosing "Properties" from the popup menu. If you thought the infant child of Mary and Joseph was Fred, you wouldn't go to Hell when you died, so the name of Jesus is not a CONTEXT-SENSITIVE PASSWORD to authenticate you at the Gate of Heaven. So how many things would Emeth likely believe about this person he worshipped under the name of Tash:

1) He created the world (Jesus did, Gospel of John Chapter 1)
2) He loves the world (John 3:16-18)
3) He enforces justice with mercy
4) He is all knowing
5) He set the good example

We have these five properties of what Emeth called Tash. Considering that Emeth was equating the name Tash with the person God, and given these five properties, wasn't he worshipping God?

Let's deal with the obvious rebuttals....

Rebuttal 1: But Tash wasn't a thing like Jesus

Answer 1: True, but the REAL Christopher Columbus wasn't the idealistic explorer held forth in the 1960s when I was growing up. By admiring him as a child, was I admiring his despotic treatment of fellow colonists, his attitudes about indiginous populations, or his condoning of slavery? OBVIOUSLY NOT. Those things were not generally made known.

Rebuttal 2: Does this mean I'm saying all religions are basically the same?

Answer 2: No. They differ sometimes widely in areas such as WHY God made the world, WHY God made man, and WHAT God expects from man. Emeth believed that God made the world for a noble reason and expects men to be courageous and honest. No doubt he also had a number of other beliefs that God regarded with feelings ranging from amusement to downright anger. Personally I believe that human beings in general all have God alternatively laughing and throwing things. The question is not whether this is so, but whether at the end of the day God lets us back in the house or locks us out in the cold.

[inkspot]

I am agreeig with you, ES, although I must not be making it very clear.

My point was that Mr. Bob had said Tash was the Narnia equivalent of Satan, and that Emeth worshiped Tash -- not Aslan -- exclusviely, but at the same time Aslan regarded that worship as his own. I do not think Tash is the representation of satan in Narnia; I do not think there is one specific person embodying Satan.

And I do not think the name by which you call Jesus is important, as long as you are worshiping Him; hence Muslims who choose to follow Issa after having a dream of an angel or of Christ Himself are, of course, following Jesus. The name is not the critical thing.

For Christians, the critical thing is belief in the embodiment of God on earth in the person of the Son, and the fact that His death provided atonement for our sins. This is what the Bible says must be believed in order to be "saved" -- that is, to be brought into fellowship with God.

Emeth's story is not adequate to explain it, for in Narnia, there was no Jesus and no sacrificial death to atone for the sins of all. There was Aslan, doing what Jesus might have done in another world, so there is no way to say Emeth needed to believe Christ was the embodiment of God, etc. That doesn't work in the Narnia story, in Emeth's case.

The point is, in Narnia, Emeth had to reject Tash and choose Aslan. In our world, according Christian orthodoxy, a person must reject all other faiths and embrace Christ.

As long as Jesus has made the exclusive claim to be the only way to God, the idea that "every path" leads to God cannot be incorporated into Christianity, nor would Islam or Judaism like such an idea incorporated into their exclusive worldviews.

[EveningStar]

Believe it or not Inky, I did not write that post especially to you. :D

It's like when I kid about with my pastor. He asked me if I felt his sermons spoke to me directly. To which I said "Every time you mention sin, you're looking me right in the eye." :p

[inkspot]

Believe it or not Inky, I did not write that post especially to you. :D

It's like when I kid about with my pastor. He asked me if I felt his sermons spoke to me directly. To which I said "Every time you mention sin, you're looking me right in the eye." :p
LOL! My husband always tells our pastor, "It's really good of you to preach specifically to me, but you could go ahead and speak to the rest of the congregation once in a while ..."

[MrBob]

Ahh, too much to respond to :eek: :eek:

I also have little time to do so, therefore, it will be handled a little now and the rest probably on Saturday night.

"Emeth would be an example of invincible ignorance regarding Aslan because 1) he'd been raised in an environment devoid of true knowledge of Aslan, and 2) he'd been "inoculated" against learning the truth by incorrect teaching. Therefore he was less culpable for not explicitly serving Aslan, and his deeds were accepted in the spirit they were offered, even though they were offered to the wrong object."

Prince, I have, in the past, argued with ohers who stated that there is an age limit for people who are not Christians and where they will go in the afterlife. Some were stating that everyone over the age of 10 or 12 (or whatever age they personally believed) who were not Christian would go to Hell when they died no matter their life or their family's belief system.

I would assume by your above message that you do not believe that those who do not live in areas where Christianity is taught or accessible go to Hell or not into Heaven when they die.

"When Jesus says, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Light; no one comes to the Father but through Me." (emphasis added), then you will have to decide how you will deal with that sweeping claim."

Just curious, Prince. You, as a Christian, believe that Jesus is the Father as well as the Son. So tell me this. If I, as a Jewish person, believe in just the Father, would I still be going the Way, the Truth, and the Light? After all, The two are the same being in your belief system.

Another question regarding the Emeth story and spirituality in general. When the dogs saw Emeth, they were surprised to see a Calormene. Now I refuse to believe that there were no other Calormene who were as good as Emeth so where were they? How many Calormenes made it into Aslan's Land at the end? And what happens when people die? Our souls ascend, but what happens to those who live a good, moral life who don't happen to live in Christianity by choice Do they just get bypassed even if others who are Christian lived a life a bit less moral than they?

Who would you rather know in Heaven? The Dhali Lama, a man of peace or Pat Robertson, a man who speaks of wanting a certain world leader assassinated? By the way, I do have a certain distaste for Pat Robertson as I live way to close to him.

MrBob

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Prince, I have, in the past, argued with others who stated that there is an age limit for people who are not Christians and where they will go in the afterlife. Some were stating that everyone over the age of 10 or 12 (or whatever age they personally believed) who were not Christian would go to Hell when they died no matter their life or their family's belief system.

I would assume by your above message that you do not believe that those who do not live in areas where Christianity is taught or accessible go to Hell or not into Heaven when they die.I'm trying to untangle the several levels of negations in this statement to figure out precisely what you're assuming about my beliefs. Let me state it as plainly as possible, given that it is a subtle matter. When Jesus makes that statement, I take Him at His word. I do not make any assumptions about what happens to anyone else, for I don't know. Two of the attributes of God are infinite justice and infinite mercy, so He will not condemn anyone unjustly. But at the same time, if the matter were just a question of "well, all you have to be is well-intended and don't do anything too atrocious, and you'll be okay", then why did Jesus command His disciples to go to the ends of the Earth to preach the Gospel? And why was St. Peter almost begging his audience on Pentecost - all of whom were reasonably moral and well-intentioned men - to accept the Gospel lest they be destroyed?


"When Jesus says, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Light; no one comes to the Father but through Me." (emphasis added), then you will have to decide how you will deal with that sweeping claim."

Just curious, Prince. You, as a Christian, believe that Jesus is the Father as well as the Son. So tell me this. If I, as a Jewish person, believe in just the Father, would I still be going the Way, the Truth, and the Light? After all, The two are the same being in your belief system.

Well, considering that Jesus was a Jew, and was talking to Jews when He said that, do you think He would have bothered to say it if what they were already doing was sufficient? If simply following the Jewish law was adequate for coming to the Father, why wouldn't Jesus have simply said, "be better Jews" (as all the other rabbis of the time were saying)? And why would He have inaugurated a New Covenant? Of all the startling things He did on that startling night, that was the most shocking. Claiming to establish a new covenant order - and not only that, but to claim to be the blood sacrifice that instituted it - was so outrageous as to be abhorrent. If you're even somewhat educated in your own tradition, MrBob, you know how important the Covenant was to Jewish outlook. The call on the Jewish people throughout history, right up until John bar Zechariah, was to be faithful to the covenant they had been given, which was made with God at Sinai. For Jesus to claim to institute a New Covenant - one that superseded and fulfilled the existing one - well, Jesus would have had to be God Himself to do that.

[Copperfox]

Jewish persons would do well to note that the "ekhad" in "Adonai ekhad/God is one" does not mean a mathematical single unit; it means a UNITY OF more than one entity. "Ekhad" is also used to signify the unity of a husband and wife, even though they do not altogether lose their separate identities. Thus, far from excluding the possibility of the Trinity, "Adonai ekhad" allows for it.

[MrBob]

"Emeth is regarded as seeking Aslan because he sought in Tash those qualities which actually belonged to Aslan; but many belief systems in our world are prizing different qualities than those of the actual God."

So Copperfox, as long as you are seeking the qualities in G*d, are you following the path to Him no matter what religion you are following or name you are calling Him? For me, that is yes. It is also a yes for those who are seeking the qualities that are still positive attributes, but not those that are necessarily that of the Christian G*d.

What if there were just many different Heavens for each religion for those who did, in fact, do good by Him. And just like in TLB, you can look from your Heaven to see other heavens the same way that Lucy could see from Aslan's Land her own parents in their Heaven.

"You cannot logically, it seems to me, say that a person is 100% sold-out to worshiping the devil and the opposite of God (as you say Emeth is) and at the same time say his deeds are acceptable to God and the opposite of the devil. I suppose I am not understanding you."

inkspot, I suppose I am not making myself clear enough. :confused:
Sometimes, I can't follow my own logic. What would the professor say about that?

Emeth worshipped Tash thinking he was a good god. He did not know that the Tash was the evil god and that Aslan was the good god. His worship was for the idea, not the specific god himself as it happened.

"I cannot help but notice that in both these statements, there is the caveat "IMO" or "my own beliefs," which leads me to believe that if other people have a different opinion, and different beliefs, then their sincere belief that genocide or holocaust will make the world a better place will also be acceptable to their god."

Let me reiterate my major idea in this issue:

My first statement was And ultimately, G*d is the only one who you will have to answer to. That means that in truth, we can not know, only believe, what G*d wants from us. It is why we have so many religious disagreements.

I have never stated that any specific deed will be or will not be acceptible to any person's god. I refuse to speak for Him. All I can state are my own beliefs and that I don't believe that any good god will accept any kind of murder, no matter what the reason, even if they believe it is what their god wants. According to my beliefs, the only thing that matters to G*d is what is in your heart and mind in all your acts, deeds, and behaviours.

"But the Bible and the Koran, and any religion worth its salt, make clear that their route is the only route to God, so how can all be true?"

Well of course religions say that. It is how they gain and keep their flocks. It is not something that I believe. No one single theology is the one true path to G*d. He is much too complex for any one religion to encompass. I think any religion that states that they are the one and only path is being arrogant.

MrBob

[Copperfox]

So Copperfox, as long as you are seeking the qualities in G*d, are you following the path to Him no matter what religion you are following or name you are calling Him? For me, that is yes....

What if there were just many different Heavens for each religion for those who did, in fact, do good by Him? And just like in TLB, you can look from your Heaven to see other heavens the same way that Lucy could see from Aslan's Land her own parents in their Heaven......

MrBob

All of my allowances for the ignorant are on the assumption that they ARE ignorant, as opposed to knowingly rejecting the truth because they like something else better. Jesus, a few lines after John 3:16, said, "This is the judgment, that light has entered the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For whoever does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds be exposed." As I have posted elsewhere long before now, I believe that anyone who is honestly searching like Emeth will eventually be contacted by the Holy Spirit in this life, although the rest of us may not be aware of it happening. Note that Emeth was not definitely stated to have DIED before he saw Aslan. If Emeth HAD known what Aslan was like, and had still preferred Tash, it could no longer be said that he was sincerely seeking.

The "different Heavens" described in "The Last Battle" were NOT a turf division among different deities, but were ALL the territories of THE ONLY Deity there is.

As for it being arrogant to say there is only one way: if you say that there is no such thing as a single right way that can be known to us, THAT is as much a specific position to take as any other position. It is a dogmatic insistence that reality has one specific nature, the nature of us not being able to find out its nature accurately. "Tolerant" persons, who refuse to agree that there can be a knowable right way, claim to be above the fray; but in reality, they have their own horse in the race every bit as much as the rest of us have.

[EveningStar]

The idea that many different paths lead to God is an article of faith just as the idea that only one path leads to God. Let's put it this way...neither position can be scientifically proven, but both of you are willing to bet your immortal soul on your respective positions. That's faith in my book.

[inkspot]

So Copperfox, as long as you are seeking the qualities in G*d, are you following the path to Him no matter what religion you are following or name you are calling Him? For me, that is yes. It is also a yes for those who are seeking the qualities that are still positive attributes, but not those that are necessarily that of the Christian G*d...

Emeth worshipped Tash thinking he was a good god. He did not know that the Tash was the evil god and that Aslan was the good god. His worship was for the idea, not the specific god himself as it happened.
If I am not mistaken, in CON we read that Tash is a cruel god which demands sacrifices, and we see his representation in TDL, he is horrid -- if Emeth truly thought Tash was good, then he must have been the only person in Calormene or Narnia that thought so, which means he must have been the worst student ever in Sunday school because he had learned nothing about Tash at all. If, however, Emeth rejected everything he learned about Tash and decided to worship a good God who represented love, compassion and kindness, and just call that God he made up in his head "Aslan," then he never was worshiping Tash, he was always worshiping Aslan, and then we are right back to the point I agreed with you and ES on: it does not matter by what name you call Jesus, as long as you are worshiping the Son of God made flesh whose sacrificial death paid for your sins.

Think of it this way ... a Muslim child rejects all the precepts of Islam, and decides that Allah actually sent His Son here to become flesh and die on the cross as a sacrifice for our sins, and he lives his life according to the precepts of this compassionate and loving God, accepting forgiveness of sins by the atonement of Allah's Son. He is a Christian. But he never was a Muslim, was he? He never was worshiping the same Allah that Mohammed worships.

My first statement was And ultimately, G*d is the only one who you will have to answer to. That means that in truth, we can not know, only believe, what G*d wants from us. It is why we have so many religious disagreements.
Here is where a specific faith such as Christianity (or Islam, or Judaism, what have you) has an advantage over you, because we have an ultimate authority who specifically has told us what is pleasing to God. Why would you think a faith of complete uncertainty ("I will never know what God wants, so I am completely on my own here ...") is better than one where God has given you the tools you need to live a God-pleasing life? Why would our faith be "arrogant" in comparison to yours?

I have never stated that any specific deed will be or will not be acceptible to any person's god ... According to my beliefs, the only thing that matters to G*d is what is in your heart and mind in all your acts, deeds, and behaviours.
Again, you seem to me to be asserting that two opposite things:
1. I do not speak for God, but
2. In my version of God, it doesn't matter what you do as long as you have the right motives for doing it.

You are, of course, speaking for God, at least what you believe God to be llike, and you are at the same time negating your belief that things like murder and genocide are wrong, because you have left open this door: "the only thing that matters to G*d is what is in your heart and mind in all your acts, deeds, and behaviours." So, in essence, if Khmer Rouge-style or Sudanese-style genocide is done with the right heart, at least in your belief system.


Well of course religions say that. It is how they gain and keep their flocks. It is not something that I believe.
So every religion (except yours) is founded on a lie. This seems like a pretty sweeping statement for someone who claims that all religions lead to God, etc. I think it has more integrity to say "my way is the only way" than to say: every way leads to God, but only my way of believing that every way leads to God is founded on the truth -- everyone else's is founded on a lie.

As ES and CF has shown, you are every bit as exclusive in your pantheistic way as we are in our Christianity. :p The only difference is that we are not afraid to say so up front -- in fact, Jesus urged us to do so in order to bring people to His saving grace.

[MrBob]

Not wanting to hijack the other topic...

(message by inkspot from Is it wrong-His Dark Materials-Phillip Pullman (http://www.narniafans.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1907&page=14) )


"It just struck me funny that you were able to declare absolutely that whatever they believed was wrong, whereas you say that you do not know what God might find to be pleasing, and in fact that no one can know it, but that at the same time, all paths lead to God"


I guess I am trying to say too much and it is getting jumbled up. The first and most important fact is that no one knows what G*d knows. If you knew that much, you would be a god as well. Therefore, no one can know what G*d wants from them with absolute certainty (heck, we can't know if there is a G*d with absolute certainty). This is where faith and religion comes in. This is why faith and religion are so vital even if one's faith states that there is no higher being.

That said, I do not know what G*d expects from me. Instead, I have my own faith and belief about what He expects. This goes for everyone who has a personal faith that believes in Him. I use my own belief and faith, which I would never say is absolutely true, to decide what actions and behaviours are good and bad. They are my own opinions only and should be taken as such.

As for the final thought that all paths leading to G*d, I have stated that, in my own personal faith, only the paths of goodness lead to G*d. But of course, as I have iterated vehemently above, no one can know the true path and nature of G*d, but everyone can believe in the path and nature of Him. Therein lies faith and religion and all of the great blessings of belief.

This is why I do not like it when religions try to pass off their religious beliefs as facts and guarentees. No one can make that statement except for G*d Himself. I hope that helps the understanding of my messages.

Another topic totally different than this:

Did Lewis believe in the concept of Limbo. It seems to be where the Dwarves in "The Last Battle" go when they lose their own faith, when they become Dwarves for themselves. Up to that time, they had lived a life walking with Aslan but when they stopped, they were destined to live in the Stable in darkness for eternity(?) .

MrBob

[Copperfox]

The short piece "Screwtape Proposes A Toast" seems to confirm that Mr. Lewis believed in Limbo. Anyway, I think that's where I saw the reference.

[EveningStar]

The dwarves remained in that state from choice. They were given an open ended invitation to come in but isolated themselves. That is not the same as Limbo, which is a place one is sent by another.

[Malacandra]

That has a sort of a parallel with The Great Divorce, really. The people in the grey town had the option of leaving it at any time, which would make the town only Purgatory for them; but for those who preferred to stay, it was Hell. On the other hand, Lewis makes it clear that he is only storytelling, and nothing in the book should be taken as a literal commentary on the hereafter. His Purgatory/Hell and Vestibule of Heaven are only a setting for some parables about the choices people make.

The question concerning the dwarfs (<--correct spelling: "dwarves" was a neologism by Tolkien to be applied to Middle-Earth's Khazad only) is, of course, whether they had made themselves permanently incapable of opening their eyes and seeing Paradise, or whether they might at some future date stop being stubborn. But again, better to treat it as a barbed comment who would rather disbelieve amid self-caused misery than open their eyes to the Glory, than as any kind of statement on the next world.

[Copperfox]

Yes, Malacandra, the state those dwarfs put themselves into can be seen in real life even with people who have not done such evil as they did, who are no more sinful than the "built-in minimum." There are people who are AFRAID TO HOPE that the promises of the gospel could be true, fearing to be disappointed. So they "protect" themselves by refusing to hope for happiness.

[KimPierri]

Hi

I think this theology of Lewis is beutiful. If this statement were real christianity, i might have continued to have been christian. LEwis talk about a good god, not the egoistic god of the bible.

When i discovered that the christian god would punish good people and reward evil people after what they called thier god, i left the church. I can not call such a god a good god.

I have embraced the gods of my ancestors and rejected the middle-east gods. They seem to create to much hate and self-righteousness.

Im no expert of christianity, but i am interested in religion. As far as i understand, there is nowhere in the bible, that says, that we are going to meed oneanother in the afterlife, only jesus. Have i heard right?

Kim

[inkspot]

As far as i understand, there is nowhere in the bible, that says, that we are going to meed oneanother in the afterlife, only jesus. Have i heard right?
No, the Bible implies people who have gone on to be with the Lord meet and recognize each other. Jesus told of a dead beggar who was comforted in the afterlife by dead Abraham, and Paul speaks of a great "cloud of witnesses" who have gone before us, even now surrounding us and encouraging us. There are distinct people in the afterlife, we will meet and know each other.

What is your faith now that you have switched from Christianity, if I may ask?

[Copperfox]

KIMPIERI:

You are indeed not an expert in Christianity; but that's all right, I probably knew even less about it than you when I was the age that I guess you are now.

I see that Inkspot got in ahead of me on the subject of Lazarus meeting Abraham in Heaven. On the matter of us seeing each other up there, let me add that God is NOT so crazily egotistical that He cannot stand for anyone ever to pay any attention to anyone but Him. (What He cannot accept is for FALSE GODS to be worshipped, because these false gods cannot hurt Him but they can hurt people.)

Now for a bigger issue: what do you mean when you say that God punishes good people? While none of us down here is ENTIRELY good, it's true that some are in various ways much better than others. There can be MANY reasons why these more-good people may have it harder in life than the less-good people do:

1} God may be calling on His righteous children to endure temporary suffering because the situation that causes the suffering is producing a very important good result for someone else.

2} God may have to humble and correct one of His children who is indeed very good in most respects, but has ONE fault still not removed. That one fault may be that the person is too proud of his goodness!

3} God may be training His child to be able to sympathize with others who have gone through suffering. This is true of a famous Christian woman named Joni Eareckson Tada, who is crippled; by her disability, she became able to minister to others with disabilities.

4} God may have a lesson to teach us that we are not yet wise enough to understand the explanation for. When my deceased first wife and I were raising our daughter, there was a time when she got about fifty wood splinters in her bare legs. I had to hold our poor little girl still by force, while her mother took out all the splinters. Our daughter was unable to understand why Mommy was doing something that caused pain, because she was too young to understand the danger of infection from the splinters; but her not understanding did not change the fact that she DID need the splinters taken out. Now, as an adult, she understands perfectly what was going on back then.


C.S. Lewis himself experienced much pain and sorrow: he was abused in a boarding school as a boy, and wounded as a soldier in World War One, and both his mother and his wife died of diseases. But he left us a testimony of trust in God. I urge you to read his book "The Problem of Pain," which talks about the same issues that are turning you away from Christianity. But meanwhile, you must know that the Christian members of this forum are NOT going to hate you and reject you for your present opinions.