Problems In Lewis' Theology

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.
 
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 :)
 
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!
 
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.
 
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! :) )
 
....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
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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)
 
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.
 
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
 
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
 
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
 
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)
 
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.
 
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
 
Back
Top