-
UKIP Comes Out Fighting
May 8, 2013 | 15 comments
-
What Will Britain Turn Into?
May 1, 2013 | 31 comments
-
His Queeg Moment
January 29, 2013 | 120 comments
-
High Marks for The Hobbit
January 10, 2013 | 23 comments
-
So, What to Do? Ask Lady Houston
January 9, 2013 | 39 comments
Among the Intellectualoids
Diversifying C.S. Lewis
A politically correct Narnia, coming soon to a theater or cultural center near you.
(Page 2 of 2)
The Tisroc, who regards “our subjects” as “vile,” in The Horse and His Boy plots the death of his eldest son before the son can assassinate him, remarking: “I have eighteen other sons and Rabadash, in the manner of the eldest sons of kings, was beginning to be dangerous. More than five Tisrocs in Tashban have died before their time because their eldest sons, enlightened princes, grew tired of waiting for their throne.”
The state of Calormene law is indicated by the fact that “there is only one traffic regulation, which is that everyone who is less important has to get out of the way for everyone who is more important.” The Narnians, by contrast, though we do not hear much about their organized religion, try to live by Christian-like values and an idealized version of medieval chivalry, and to revere the Lordship of Aslan in actions as well as words.
The Calormenes regard peace with the Narnians as no more than temporary truces, are always trying to conquer Narnia and in the end, in The Last Battle, succeed. The Calormen names, such as Arsheesh, Ahoshta, Lasaraleen and Rabadash, are not specifically Muslim but have a kind of Arabic sound to them.
As Narnia represents the Christian and classical heritage of Europe (it has beings from classical pagan mythology such as fauns and dryads as well as “northern” fairy-tale creatures and talking animals), so Calormen represents perpetual the infidel threat to it. Buddhism, incidentally, is simply not mentioned in the stories at all (I am at least grateful that writing this has given me a chance to re-read them).
Further, it is made clear that Aslan-Christ is, under the Emperor-Over-Sea (God the Father), the only good God. No syncretism is possible. In The Last Battle a phony syncretic religion, running together Aslan and Task is concocted by Calormene crooks and slave-traders. A bewildered and exploited donkey wearing a lion-skin is presented as “Tashlan” to fool the Narnian animals into obeying the Calormenes. It is seen as a sign, literally, the “End Times” of terminal degeneration and decay ushering in the end of not just Narnia but Calormene and the whole Narnian-created universe.
The good Calormenes are saved at the end in The Last Battle not because Tash who they sincerely worshipped had any aspects of goodness, or identity with Aslan but because Aslan claims that any good action, even if done in another’s name, is his own. Lewis made the same point in The Screwtape Letters, in which the demon Screwtape complained that God saved the souls of men who died in a bad cause “on the monstrously sophistical grounds that they were serving the best cause they knew.” This is about as far from syncretism as it is possible to get.
About the Author
Hal G.P. Colebatch’s “Immram,” Counterstrike, is being published by Australian publisher Imaginites.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (122) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Hal G.P. Colebatch
More Articles From Among the Intellectualoids
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/12/06/diversifying-cs-lewis
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Appleby| 12.6.10 @ 6:36AM
I noticed that the second Narnia movie had moved considerably away from the book, and I am sure that is one reason it was not as successful as the first one and this one was very much delayed in its release. If this one has been presented as a michegoss of Politically Correct bibble-babble, it will be the last. I have always wondered how they planned to dance around the whole Muslim question; they did a very awkward dance in Prince Caspian, which was much remarked on the way out of the theatre by thos who had read the books.
Personally I would skip the movies and get my children the boxed set of the Narnia stories that were shown on PBS 12 years ago or so; they were done by the BBC and were faithful to the book in most cases. One of them starred Tom Baker from Doctor Who.
Lewis Tolkien | 12.6.10 @ 1:31PM
Actually, Appleby, the film makers really haven't gone all PC in this. They have kept a surprising amount of the Christian elements in the film (although they have changed some of the plot elements). I've seen several (obviously non-Christian) reviewers online complaining about this.
Frankly, I think the BBC versions simply look too cheap and fake to appeal to most modern children. This film should be much more impressive. Besides, this is not a typical Hollywood film. They've had numerous early screenings of it specifically for pastors. Conservatives and Christians in particular need to get out and support those few Hollywood films which promote traditional values and even contain some Christian themes in them. If not, Hollywood movies will only continue to get worse and worse.
Gretchen| 12.6.10 @ 2:25PM
The BBC versions may, indeed, look "cheap," (they are) but they are better acted, (especially the child who plays Lucy) and the music is better.
Ryan| 12.7.10 @ 8:44AM
They're also a product of their time. Very Doctor Who-ish feel to them.
andrew| 12.7.10 @ 7:14PM
I have very mixed feelings about this. If we are supposed to support films in the hope that Hollywood will give us more, it seems a very mixed blessing. I would much rather not ever have seen the LW&W or PC in the theatre, even though the first was pretty good. Hollywood or Disney or Walden or whoever are simply not capable of expressing Lewis's vision on the screen. Then leave them in the book.
I understand that sales of Lord of the Rings have dropped since the movies came out. Is that true? Is it worth it? I don't think so.
Thomas Sundaram | 12.6.10 @ 4:54PM
This is to say nothing of the fact that in order to bring to life a book that more or less revitalized childhood in all of its readers, Prince Caspian, the director decided it would be a great idea to do a very un-Lewis thing, to sex it up a little with the fling between Susan and Caspian.
What is really very surprising about what they did was that while I was in the theater watching, it was not surprising at all, it almost seemed natural to the portrayal of the Pevensie kids. But when I read the book, it is utterly out of place to posit such a relationship between Susan and Caspian. It's almost like profanity.
Funny you should mention Doctor Who: Craig Ferguson recently did a cold open to introduce Matt Smith, the young turk currently playing the role (and doing a wonderful job, I might add!) in which he explained the show to an American audience as "representing the triumph of intellect and romance over brute force and cynicism." I rather think that, simply as it may be put, Doctor Who is in the tradition of Lewis' mission: it seeks, through what is actually a remarkably chaste presentation, to reveal to human beings in a natural way the wonder at "the Love that moves the Sun and the other stars" inasmuch as that wonder is natural to a young child but lost as we grow older, and the possibility of a Miranda seems to fade into the breeze of time's caprices.
In many respects, we have lost any idea of innocence today. In relationships, teenagers view each other as isolated centers of force; there is no contact with transcendent beauty in the miracle of God's creation in love, just a bashing-together of frivolous, vile bodies, to use Waugh's brilliant term. Children are not introduced to people as people, in all their complexity and beauty and brilliance (it's no mistake that "brilliant" was the catchphrase of David Tennant, the last Doctor) but to people as bodies and pleasure objects. It's easy to be overwhelmed by this. But when we read Lewis, just for an instant, we are children again, playing at brave adventures, in our Father's garden. That's the magic of Lewis, and it is the magic of Christianity, the "deeper magic from before the dawn of time" of the Stone Table, the Cross of Christ and the Resurrection.
Alan Brooks| 12.6.10 @ 8:05AM
With Obummer in charge, no wonder the latest batch of Narnia is corrupted by PC trash. And C.S. Lewis was a friend of Joe Sobran's who was a flamboyant anti semite according to Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright as mentioned on various blogs
Wes in MT| 12.6.10 @ 8:37AM
Not quite sure what you meant by the comment about Joe Sobran. Are we now to take the word of Wright and Ayers? Or was this a cut at Lewis?Please clarify.
zionisticamerican | 12.6.10 @ 9:39AM
Your sarcasm falls flat as so much gibberish/drivel
Ken (Olod Texican)| 12.6.10 @ 8:16AM
Mr. Colebatch,
Thank you for that review. I do believe you used the wrong word in your title. I would have replaced "Diversifying" with a much stronger term.
"Eviscerating" comes to mind.
Patrick| 12.6.10 @ 2:02PM
Don't worry, by the time they get to filming "The Last Battle", Aslan will be in drag and Calormenes will be replaced with Tories.
JimH| 12.6.10 @ 2:13PM
I hope I don't give too much away. In The Last Battle, Aslan is impersonated (imlionated?) by a donkey. Maybe this was a prescient Democrat referance.
Hal G. P. Colebatch| 12.6.10 @ 8:53AM
I have never heard of any connection between C. S. Lewis and Joe Sobran. Lewis died in 1963. As for his being an anti-Semite, his wife, Joy Davidman, was a convert from Judism who had two children by a former marriage to a Jew. Lewis approached a Rabbi to give the children instruction in Judaism.
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.6.10 @ 9:14AM
Mr. Colebatch, (smile),
Please pay no attention to our resident certified schizophrenic. He spends most of his time here arguing with himself. heh.
Jeremiah| 12.6.10 @ 11:24AM
Right On Ken! Sid Vicious Brooks is an unbearable troll that pollutes every topic. As for the latest betrayal of C.S. Lewis' works, I think this video game makes more sense than anything else:
http://www.tapuz.co.il/North/i.....a_game.swf
after clicking on it, just click on the word in Hebrew under the picture and select your tools on the left. Enjoy.
carolinem| 12.6.10 @ 1:17PM
Doesn't the New Testament forbid divorce and remarriage?
Patrick| 12.6.10 @ 2:07PM
There are provisions in the New Testament for new converts.
However, you are correct regarding the vows of baptized Christians.
Doc Washburn | 12.6.10 @ 2:10PM
carolinem,
It depends. Check I Corinthians 7. I hope this helps.
bondservant| 12.9.10 @ 9:59PM
just as God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, there's no difference between OT and NT - God has always hated divorce, but provided a way out because of our sin nature. It's still sin, but so is a little white lie. God has never given us anything we can't do (what kind of loving father would?) - our inability to obey is because of that sin nature (and the reason we need a Savior). Anyone whose been divorced knows there are consequences to their actions (as there are to all our actions), even though a way out was provided.
Ryan| 12.6.10 @ 9:24AM
The final paragraph talks about Lewis's one major theological flaw - he more or less believed that if someone who wasn't a Christian followed the tenents of their religion that most adhered to Christianity, they were saved. It's a bit unBiblical. We CANNOT be saved apart from belief in Christ.
That being said, Lewis is otherwise VERY hard to argue with. His Mere Christianity should be required reading.
Franco| 12.6.10 @ 10:22AM
Only Christians cannot be saved apart from belief in Christ. Lewis--I have read every word of his--wrote from the disctinct POV of a Christian. God has many faces and created many sorts of people, all of them unique individuals with a different set of eyes. The idea that a good deed trumps all, regardless of the intent behind it, is a very old concept in Judaism.
Ryan| 12.6.10 @ 11:37AM
And Lewis was scripturally wrong;
Isaiah 64:6 "For all of us have become like one who is unclean,
And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment;
And all of us wither like a leaf,
And our iniquities, like the wind, take us away."
It was something that the Hebrews continually got wrong - as Christ pointed out with His statements about murder and lust in the heart towards the Pharisees who were all about doing "good deeds" with wrong motives.
And NOWHERE does either Judaism or Christianity allow for God to have "many faces." God extensively punishes any who don't worship Him in the entirety of scripture - Genesis to Revelation.
Franco| 12.6.10 @ 12:28PM
As I said, Christ is for Christians.
Do the right thing. Motives, like feelings, are fleeting.
Pray, sir, please pardon, in the face of your obvious grasp of the Truth, pity a poor ignorant heathen.
Ryan| 12.6.10 @ 12:34PM
As you said - Christ is for Christians.
What did I state that was patently untrue?
skip| 12.6.10 @ 1:08PM
1) "And Lewis was scripturally wrong;"
2) "God extensively punishes any who don't worship Him in the entirety of scripture - Genesis to Revelation."
When you state untruths you definitely go whole hog.
1) Lewis is the epitome of a Christian apologetic. If you differ in opinion on scripture with Lewis you would be well advised to reread both the scripture and the point Lewis was making.
2) Scripture makes obvious Christ is the sole judge of each and every human soul. It is up to Christ and Christ alone. Scripture repeatedly stresses that each and every human has fallen short of the glory of God, and does not deserve and has not earned salvation, driving the point home that no human action can change this. If you think humans who have lived and never heard of Christ their entire lives are definitively denied salvation you aren't paying much attention to scriptures. It is up to Christ.
Ryan| 12.6.10 @ 2:25PM
1. I know very well the point Lewis was making. He spells it out in Last Battle and in Mere Christianity. It just doesn't hold scriptural water. There's no real provision that there is a pathway to God through other religious practices - even those well-intentioned or resembling Christianity.
2. Agreed it is up to Christ alone; when it comes to those who have not heard of Christ, He will do what is Right and Just. I can rest on that.
It DOES leave open the possibility that, since they have NOT heard nor accepted the Gospel, then they are not covered by His Grace. There IS room in Scripture - such as John 3:18 - "condemned already." There just isn't anywhere explicit that God has "another way" for those who haven't heard His Word.
If I'm wrong, you need to point it out using scripture - particularly if you're a Christian. It is our authority, and the best way to hold if our beliefs are true.
Sean| 12.6.10 @ 5:19PM
The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.
Bill| 12.6.10 @ 4:47PM
Skip, your point 2 ("Scripture makes obvious...") is pretty mushy theology. I notice you don't reference any Scripture to support your assertion.
Joh 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."
Joh 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
Joh 1:12-13 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Mt 5:48 "Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect." This is God's standard for us. There is no balancing the good in one's life against the bad and the ones with "more" good than bad go to heaven. Read about the Great White Throne Judgment in Rev. 20 to see how much weight a person's "deeds" carry in Christ's final judgment.
Phil 3:9 ¶ and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith;
And how are we to be found in him, "having...the righteousness that comes from God"? When we believe, the Holy Spirit baptizes us into (or unites us with) Christ so that His eternal life and His perfect righteousness are imputed to us. See the Scriptures above and Romans Chapter 6.
Ryan| 12.6.10 @ 2:25PM referenced Joh 3:18. Here is the text:
"He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."
Peter said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved..." Ac 16:31.
All this sounds pretty clear to me: Without Christ there is no salvation from the penalty of our sins. On the other hand I have heard testimonies that convince me that if someone is to be saved by the will of God, that person will hear the Good News of salvation by faith in Jesus Christ regardless of where in the world they are located or in what culture they are living.
CalMark| 12.6.10 @ 5:56PM
So the Bible-quoters really seems to be saying:
"If you haven't heard of Christ and the Bible, even if you live a life that gave you no opportunity to do so, you're almost certainly going to Hell. The Bible says so."
Nice philosophy. So charitable. So...Christian. (NOT!)
skip| 12.6.10 @ 8:11PM
Here is some more Bible quoting.
"Rich and poor have this in common: The LORD is maker of them all." (Proverbs 22:2)
Maybe God is not omnipotent after all; He really should check with Obama before making these ridiculous claims. After all, Obama has vilified one of these two, and the ignorant masses might be confused enough by this passage to think they're both equally valid and do untold damage to Obama's class warfare and 'inequality under the law' campaign.
RCV| 12.6.10 @ 11:19PM
The Bible fundamentalists are idolators. Like radical Muslims, they have come to worship a book, instead of their Creator.
skip| 12.7.10 @ 2:10PM
...said the loud and proud liberal who loudly and proudly supports the party of over 50 million 'legal' murders of truly innocent Americans. Idiot.
RCV| 12.7.10 @ 5:30PM
It will be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a self-righteous little twerp like Skip to enter the kingdom of heaven.
skip| 12.7.10 @ 6:00PM
...said the 63 years dumb celebrator of his state recently reelecting governor moonbeam, call her maam boxer, waxman, pelosi, and a multitude of other despicable idiots like himself.
RCV| 12.7.10 @ 6:27PM
At least, skippie, I belong to a party that cares about human beings AFTER they're born. Even if they're not wealthy.
skip| 12.7.10 @ 7:44PM
Thank you for providing another statement proving liberalism is wholly lacking in intelligence and honesty. In the Christmas spirit I give the gift of allowing others to shred your ridiculous statement apart. It is not hard to do. Didn't that voice in your head suggest 'bad idea' as you typed those words? Every village needs its idiot. Thanks for volunteering.
RCV| 12.7.10 @ 11:27PM
If you're hearing voices in your head, Skippie, you should get some help.
skip| 12.8.10 @ 1:41PM
One can only be in awe of the intellect and honesty that shines through in your comment.
At 11:27 pm on 12/7, once again you rose above the common to enlighten one and all with your vast amount of wisdom, knowledge, and experience.
No wonder you are the recipient of such dirision and mockery; the miserable humans who despise liberalism are wallowing in their base human emotions by reacting against their innate inferiority laid bare by stalwarts such as you.
We are indeed honored.
Ryan| 12.7.10 @ 8:47AM
The problem is that it's a matter of speculation. The Bible is simply more or less silent on the matter. We really DON'T have room to draw a conclusion one way or the other.
Here's the result, though, that I present to you.
If God is Who we believe He is, then He will make a judgment that is Right and Just and Good concerning those who never heard His name. It's that simple.
skip| 12.6.10 @ 7:51PM
Bill,
When I posted 2) I had John 14:6 in mind. I figured anyone opining on the subject was probably well aware of that passage.
You lost me in your last paragraph. Everyone will be judged by Christ and Christ alone. I don't really think Christ will have any trouble ascertaining each person's moral fiber; and it seems ludicrous to me that Christ will, when judging, think to Himself 'well I would save him but he never heard of Me so he is screwed, there is nothing I can do about it'. I suspect this is where the Holy Ghost comes in. Whether or not anyone has heard of Christ, I believe the Holy Ghost is at work in them, and that based on the response by individuals to the Holy Spirit is the criteria Christ will use in judgment.
Those who have heard the Gospel are instructed to believe. Here I suspect Christ will judge on whether these individuals truly believe or not by whether their actions are consistent with belief or not.
Whether an individual has heard of Christ or not judgment is Christ's and Christ's alone.
Appleby| 12.7.10 @ 7:34AM
As I recall, this is covered in Mere Christianity, where Lewis opines that while we judge by what we as human beings can perceive, God (and through him Christ) judges on what we cannot know. *He knows if you are driving a wrecked machine* is the quotation I recall; that is, someone you condemn because he or she does not measure up may in the eyes of God be doing much better than you are, considering what s/he has to work with. Or as Christmas Present said to Scrooge: *In the eyes of God you may be far more worthless than millions like this poor mans child!*
It is not a good idea to go around presuming to speak for God. We are fortunate it is not for us to declare who is saved -- because all of us have a list and are on at least one.
Lewis Tolkien | 12.7.10 @ 4:22AM
Ryan, I know that you were merely responding to what Franco said, but if either of you believe that Lewis thought that good deeds alone could get someone to heaven, then you are misinterpreting Lewis.
Lewis pinpointed "grace" as the key distinction between Christianity and other religions and saw it as the path to salvation. In an example from his literary works, in Voyage of the Dawn Treader he writes that Eustace could not transform himself from a dragon back into a boy all by himself. Only by surrendering his efforts to Aslan and allowing Aslan to transform him was he in the end transformed.
Eustace was not originally a believer in Aslan, so it's not like he was governed specific rules and that there were different rules for actual believers. As an unbeliever he was bad and disfigured; the only way this changed was by his allowing Aslan to do whatever he wanted with him through Aslan's own unearned grace (Lewis talks a lot in his writings about truly surrendering your life to Christ to do with as he will). So Lewis was not saying that Christians are saved by grace and non-Christians are saved by works. Both are saved by allowing Christ to transform them through his grace (whether they realize Christ is the one performing this transformation or not).
Emeth, the Calormene, had been saved because he searched so honestly to find the true God in his heart. Aslan tells him, "Beloved...unless thy desire had been for me thou wouldst not sought so long and so truly. For all find what they truly seek." (Of course, he paraphrased Christ here: "Seek and ye shall find, ask and it shall be given unto you.") He says that Emeth will be "rewarded" because of his good deeds; he never specifically says that's why Emeth ended up in the New Narnia. Emeth honestly sought the true God and followed the direction that that God gave him, even though he didn't realize it was Aslan directing him.
Lewis spoke out against liberal Christians frequently and would have been appalled that anyone thought that he believed that works alone could get anyone to heaven.
Perhaps a children's book wasn't the best place to expound on a controversial and complicated theological point.
Ryan| 12.7.10 @ 8:50AM
Understandable point. I think that we are really starting to split hairs here.
We can probably agree on this principle that I stated earlier - God will do what is Just and Good according to His standards.
Incidentally...
"There was once a boy named Eustace Scrubb, and he almost deserved it."
KyMouse| 12.7.10 @ 4:41PM
Franco, the fact that blood atonement is needed for the forgiveness of sin is much older than "the idea that a good deed trumps all." God has never repealed Leviticus 17:11 -- "For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul."
In the third chapter of the Gospel of John, Messiah Jesus told his Jewish listeners that, on the cross, He would fulfill the role that Moses' bronze serpent played in the wilderness (see Numbers 21:4-9). When fiery serpents bit the ungrateful Hebrews, God required them to look up to the bronze serpent (which Moses raised up on a pole) in faith, if they wanted to be saved.
Jesus said, "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up; that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life." That story of the bronze serpent, familiar to the Jewish people around Him, is one of the Tenach's best images that foreshadow Jesus' sacrifice.
It was to His Jewish people that Jesus said, "If you believe not that I am He ["I Am" -- God], you shall die in your sins."
I hope you will read the Gospel of John for yourself -- and why not ask the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to reveal to you who Jesus is? He will do it.
Brian Mc| 12.6.10 @ 10:31AM
Agree...we've been getting ready to paint the downstairs and in the process of cleaning out non-essentials in order to make room for the task at hand I found my old copy of "Mere Christianity" and can't wait to break it open and give it another go...! Lewis' arguments in favor of the truth are groundshaking..."Lord, Liar, Lunatic"? All must choose.
Lewis Tolkien | 12.6.10 @ 1:47PM
"We CANNOT be saved apart from belief in Christ."
Ryan, Lewis believed this too; he just had a very unorthodox view of what that meant. He believed that God has placed in each of us a moral and spiritual compass leading back to him (this is part of the Natural Law, or Tao as Lewis calls it). Each person can choose to allow this inner Godlight to lead him to Christ or not.
The thing is, Lewis felt that you could accept Christ on a spiritual plane through an honest and dedicated search for the true God, inspired and led by the Tao, even if you were never expossed to the Christian message. What he believed was that an Amazonian tribesman who never heard the name Christ mentioned could still accept Christ spiritually even if he did not fully understand that it was an entity called "Christ" that he was accepting. I know some might see this as splitting hairs, but Lewis would have said that he still believed Christ was the only way to God and heaven.
Ryan| 12.6.10 @ 2:27PM
I get the argument; I simply think that Lewis was trying to err on the side of the idea that it may be unjust for God to condemn someone who hasn't heard of Him.
Unfortunately, that's a human "it's not fair" version of justice, not necessarily God's.
But, as I stated in an earlier post, God will do what is Just in HIS eyes, not our own.
skip| 12.6.10 @ 2:52PM
My point was well made by Lewis Tolkien.
We are splitting hairs.
Nowhere have I ever got the notion Lewis hinted God was even remotely unjust.
Ryan| 12.6.10 @ 3:44PM
No, but I think what Lewis believed was, at best, extraBiblical in nature. There's just no precedent in scripture for it.
And I just may have been projecting the all-too-human thought that God couldn't send someone to Hell who hadn't heard of Him. IMHO, that's where a viewpoint like Lewis' came from.
skip| 12.6.10 @ 7:57PM
Without a specific example to go on we're at an impasse.
I really suspect there is no such example.
Merry Christmas.
CalMark| 12.6.10 @ 6:02PM
Ryan,
You're saying that people stuck in an existence where Jesus Christ and the Bible will never penetrate, too bad. "God's Justice" is that you aren't saved. That means (don't tiptoe around this, please) you're damned to Hell. Or are you saying that these people don't have souls, and so are not real people, and their salvation is irrelevant?
There are lots of backward parts of the world where Christianity has never been heard of. You seem to be saying that God created hundreds of millions of people who are inherently damned, through what it pleases you to call "God's Justice. "
Muslim fundamentalists say essentially the same thing: all infidels, regardless of mitigating circumstances, go straight to Hell.
So, tell me, Mr. Christian: how do you differ from the Muslim fundamentalists?
Ryan| 12.7.10 @ 8:53AM
Wow, that's reading a lot into what I didn't write.
I'm simply stating that there's no precedent in scripture, and we cannot presume that God works the way we would want Him to.
Mark| 12.6.10 @ 9:49PM
Do you mean to tell me that a man who loves Truth and Light does not love Christ? Even if that man does not know the name of Truth, he can love Him even more than you do, Ryan.
Ryan| 12.7.10 @ 8:55AM
The issue is that we CANNOT knowand love Truth apart from Christ. The Bible is pretty clear on that matter.
That being said, it IS silent more or less about those who never heard His name. Can we draw a conclusion where scripture is silent?
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.7.10 @ 7:26PM
Really good thoughts expressed here.
Thank you all.
Ryan, I will address your last thought here.
Scripture is NOT silent.
The apostle Paul said we all see through a glass darkly....but one day we will be known...as we are known.
God counts our hairs...and knows our hearts. I am content with that.
Sadly, many people live their entire life here without the son/daughter relationship with God that only Jesus offers.
Therefore, the great commission. "Go ye therefore into all the world..."
Lewis Tolkien | 12.7.10 @ 3:44AM
Although you may be right that this sort of "it's not fair" thinking is what inspired Lewis to believe this way, it is certainly not what he actually wrote.
Lewis merely believed that the Bible wasn't the only way that God communicates with people. He believed that Christ speaks directly to people's hearts, whether they have specifically heard of him or not, and that people can choose to accept the guidance that Christ is giving them on a spiritual plane. This he saw as still accepting and following Christ just as if you had accepted the specific Gospel message.
I simply wanted to make clear in my earlier post that Lewis specifically believed that this was a form of accepting Christ and that Christ was the only savior. Therefore, Lewis would have agreed wholeheartedly with Jesus's saying, "No man cometh to the father but by me."
So, no, the Bible doesn't specific support what he says, but he wouldn't interpret anything in the Bible as going against what he said either. (And if you understand his reason-based arguments about why there must be a God and why there must be pre-set standards of right and wrong, I think you'll see why he's arguing this point too.)
Patrick| 12.6.10 @ 2:49PM
The story of Emeth, the just Calormene, is meant as an allusion to the problem of those who have died without the opportunity to hear the Gospel. Those who have been exposed to the Good News are, of course, judged in a straightforward manner as is to be expected.
There are different categories, and the problem is answered differently between different denominations, and sometimes even between synods and parishes.
1.) Those who have died prior to the Crucifixion. Gospel accounts (and the Apostle's Creed) make it clear that Christ did descend to hell in power and glory to ransom the just dead from damnation.
2.) Those who die before entering the age of reason. Some say they all go to heaven, others state that they are judged in unknowable ways according to Christ's discretion.
3.) The remote barbarian. Simply put, there are vast geographic expanses and millions, even billions of people that missionaries cannot reach, even today, that have died, or will die without so much as hearing the name of Christ.
4.) Those who have heard the Gospel in a manner so distorted, so obscured, or so damaged that their acceptance or rejection is meaningless. This is regarding those who have received a pinch of Truth hidden within a heap of poison. Consider those who only know Jesus through the teachings of the Marcion, Arius, Mohammad, etc.
Curly Smith| 12.6.10 @ 9:39AM
I don't think Liam Neeson got the rewrite. The "Dawn Treader" clearly represents the importance of allowing gays to serve openly in the military. It's not even a strained allegory, the ship represents the navy (military), the swords are phallic symbols, and the lessons represent a society coming of age through tolerance and self-awareness. It's not like the subtlety so deftly on display in "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" which, contrary to Liam's limited and linear intellect, really represents man's perpetual struggle against nature and the realization that only through tax increases and carbon credits can man and nature successfully coexist. Darn! I think I just earned an Ivy League Degree!!
dennis2j| 12.6.10 @ 10:20AM
"...by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Universitatus Committeatum E Pluribus Unum, I hereby confer upon you the honorary degree of Th. D...that's Doctor of Thinkology." You've earned it!
Too Many Tims| 12.6.10 @ 9:53AM
Liam Neeson played the crappiest Jedi ever. Who gives a sh*te what he thinks?
skip| 12.6.10 @ 1:13PM
The idiot actually thought little Ani Skywalker was the one who would bring balance to the force?
Yeah that really worked out well.
Too Many Tims| 12.6.10 @ 2:58PM
"Hey kid you're coming with us and your mom's staying here as a slave. We Jedi got big plans for you."
No wonder he ended up killing them and burning the Jedi palace.
Citizen Jerry| 12.6.10 @ 10:25AM
If "Voyage of the Dawn Treader" is a success, as is indicated, the next in the series is "The Silver Chair," which makes and even more overt Christian statement.
I just wonder -- Will Aslan have a new voice by then?
Patrick| 12.6.10 @ 2:52PM
Maybe not a new voice, but certainly a lisp.
Al Adab| 12.6.10 @ 10:40AM
It's Hollywood folks, Those who believe in nothing will believe in anything.
Seek| 12.6.10 @ 11:20AM
It's not the job of a film studio, here or anywhere else, to function as a celluloid megachurch. Enjoy the movies instead.
Al Adab| 12.6.10 @ 3:18PM
True enough Seek. I understand the next Hollywood blockbuster is a remake of The Seven Commandments.
skip| 12.6.10 @ 8:21PM
As long as they include the most important one:
"Thou shalt honor thy father and mother, father and father, or mother and mother, as the case may be."
TG| 12.6.10 @ 10:50AM
As a fan of the books and films, I've always wondered how they plan to address the muslim/arab/Calormene issue. It seems to me that regardless of how successful VDT is, the Silver Chair will follow and finally the series will wrap up with the Last Battle. The other two stories (Magician's Nephew and Horse and His Boy) have continuity issues and would seem difficult to convert to full length movies. Maybe they'll be done as a short synopsis at the beginning of Last Battle? Who knows, either way the films have served as a good introduction to Lewis for my young girls. Perhaps they'll graduate onto some of Lews' more substantive works as they get older.
Ryan| 12.6.10 @ 11:39AM
Which is a bit sad - MN and AHHB are the BEST are the best, most original stories of the lot.
I never much liked Last Battle other than the "further up and further in" part.
Lewis Tolkien | 12.6.10 @ 2:10PM
Acutally, the producers of these movies have already said they want to film The Magician's Nephew, and one of the producers even said that Tilda Swinton is eager to reprise her role as the White Witch (Jadis) in that story. So if these films keep making money, it appears that the moviemakers want to do The Silver Chair next and then The Magician's Nephew. I really hope they have the guts to do A Horse and His Boy after that.
Gretchen| 12.6.10 @ 2:33PM
"The Magician's Nephew" contains some of the most beautiful, lyrical passages in the entire "Chronicles" -- the part where Aslan sings Naria into existence.
LarryK| 12.6.10 @ 10:54AM
Liam Neeson is an As(ss)lan
sam`| 12.6.10 @ 12:40PM
hilarious!
Ella| 12.6.10 @ 11:19AM
Aslan is a worthless lion, much like Christ, Muhammad & Buddha - so, yes, I see a connection.
Buckeyeman| 12.6.10 @ 11:32AM
My very religious sister had a veritable cow over the"witchcraft" in the "Harry Potter" movies and wouldn't let her kids see them. Then she gushed over the "Narnia" books and the first movie, despite its "wicked witches and other supernatural evil creatures" (Why, you might ask? Because C.S. Lewis was a "CONVERT!"). This (reasoning?) was all based on these silly notions of Aslan symbolizing Jesus and the White Witch symbolizing the devil and the halfmanhalfgoat thing symbolizing whateverthehellIdon'tknow.
If J.K.Rowling was an evangelical Christian instead of a hesitant, doubt-plagued one (like me) then my sister and millions of others would love her and find deep hidden spiritual meaning moving through the dark halls of Hogwarts.
To me, these are just children's stories like Peter Pan, Robin Hood, and Winnie the Pooh, and not worthy of this much agonizing analysis.
I, for one, just don't get it. If you want to teach children about Jesus, then why not just teach them about......Jesus.
Ryan| 12.6.10 @ 11:42AM
I'm a pretty big fan of the Potter and Narnia (and LotR) books, and see your point. The one big difference between Narnia/LotR and Potter, though, was that idea that magic was actually minimally used in the former and extensive in the latter. Tolkien, in particular, avoided it because he considered it a pretty dangerous idea.
Dai Alanye | 12.6.10 @ 2:39PM
I'm still trying to figure out what anyone sees in Harry Potter. I don't like the books, am disgusted by the movies. It's as if Rowling decided to throw everything into her pot of stew, then jump an entire school of sharks while carrying it. Is there no exaggeration this woman is incapable of?
It's plain Harry Potter doesn't reference Christianity because the story is all bilgewater, growing murkier volume by volume.
buckeyeman| 12.6.10 @ 3:46PM
I agree that the Harry Potter movies have gotten "murkier" as you put it. The earlier ones were OK for what they were - Children's stories, like Jack and the Beanstalk, or Hansel and Gretel, and so on. It's a matter of individual taste as to whether one finds any one of these fantasy stories entertaining. Don't forget that all of them carry some kind of moral lesson, whether biblically based or not.
Perhaps my main gripe is the high minded selectivity I see expressed by so many in judging these things. My sister doesn't like the use of witchcraft by Rowling, but it's fine and dandy if C.S. Lewis uses it because there are these supposed hidden Christian "messages" embedded in the Narnia stories ( but why hide them in a story about a magic closet and a lion and a witch?).
Ryan, just above, warns about the "dangerous idea" of magic. But is not the bible full of magic, not to mention virtually every fairy tale and fantasy movie we've ever heard? Why is one OK and the other one evil?
Ryan| 12.7.10 @ 8:57AM
Ummm...supernatural activity by God and "magic" in its classical definition aren't the same thing...and practicing magic is condemned in scripture.
the permanent newbie| 12.6.10 @ 4:26PM
You haven't read Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows yet, have you? Pity. I can't imagine a Christian being anything but thrilled and satisfied with her conclusion. Read and see for yourself. (Disclaimer: Not a Christian myself.)
Buckeyeman| 12.6.10 @ 11:38AM
And HEY!,........... Isn't "CALORmene" a deftly hidden symbol for Global Warming? (Calor is the Latin word for heat, for those of you who recently "graduated" from and American public school)
Dave Williams| 12.6.10 @ 1:11PM
Please, folks, let's grow up a little. No one is "saved." When you die, ALL of you dies -- that's it, game over, and there is not the slightest shred of evidence (still less proof) to the contrary. Terrifying? Yes. Get over it, and try to live your lives with bravery, dignity, and yes, even joy.
Sigh| 12.6.10 @ 1:23PM
Poor Dave. Dave, there is not a shred of evidence that God and the afterlife do not exist, nor is there any proof. Even if one isn't a believer, doesn't make sense to err on the side of caution? Suppose we're right and you're wrong?
P.S. Remember, no one believed in bacteria and germs and the size of the moon and distance of the stars until rather recently. One day God-detecting technology will appear and you will eat your hat.
Anthony| 12.6.10 @ 4:08PM
Unfortunately, not a very convincing argument, Sigh. To err on the side of caution is what I would label as cowardice Christianity.
If indeed all that Christianity stands for is true, then I doubt Sigh, that you will get much credit for your practicality.
I am reminded of a complete reprobate I was familiar with, who was a lowlife skunk; a mean-spirited womanizer, gambler,boozer, and a racist. He probably hadn't stepped foot in a church other than for a wedding or a funeral. Picture the classic mafia thug.
He discovered that he had cancer, and overnight, in a heartbeat, he became a devout Catholic. He went to church daily and became a new man. He was PETRIFIED of what his '40s Catholic unbringing warned him of heaven and hell.
I asked him once about his lifestyle turn around and he was candid with me. He was taking no chances. He's been dead 10 years.
I often think of him when the subject of what God's judgment will indeed be, if there is such justice. I struggle, like most folks I suspect, but I do believe that a just god will indeed judge one by the body of ones actions and thoughts, rather than their "piousness".
I would think playing it safe would be just about the worse insult you could do to God.
Ryan| 12.7.10 @ 9:00AM
That's precisely why I am uncomfortable with "Paschal's wager."
And you're precisely right about scripture - we ARE judged by our actions and thoughts. Everyone is.
The issue there is that God demands perfection, for for Him to allow imperfection, He must lie about imperfections.
skip| 12.6.10 @ 1:25PM
Christianity is either true or it is not true.
A person either believes Christianity or does not believe Christianity.
If Christianity is not true and a person does not believe Christianity, there is no ultimate price to pay.
If Christianity is not true and a person believes Christianity, there is no ultimate price to pay.
If Christianity is true and a person believes Christianity, there is no ultimate price to pay.
If Christianity is true and a person does not believe Christianity, there is an ultimate price to pay.
You have choosen poorly.
A person's intelligence and honesty is suspect when a gamble this costly is taken so casually.
ad| 12.6.10 @ 2:00PM
Skip, in Nazi Germany, people were thrown in concentration camps or killed unless they believed in Nazism.
By your own argument, you would have been a convinced Nazi, until the moment Germany was overrun, when you would have suddenlybecome a convinced democrat.
Or a convinced communist, depending on where in Germany you happened to be at the time.
skip| 12.6.10 @ 10:58PM
Uh, what?
Twenty readings and I still don't follow your posts, can't make any logical connections.
I can't respond to a post I can't understand as anything but a non sequiter.
RAMIII| 12.6.10 @ 2:15PM
Good presentation of the argument. However in 1 Corinthians 15 Paul states that if there is no resurrection from the dead, we (those who believe in Christ) are among all people the most to be pitied. . . . Just saying.
Tim the Enchanter| 12.6.10 @ 3:40PM
Skip- much more succinctly put by Pascal in his "Wager". An epitome of brevity and wit.
Buckeyeman| 12.6.10 @ 4:28PM
Skip,
With respect, I find this argument to be very shallow and unpersuasive. Having faith in a supreme spiritual being is not like buying flood insurance where one could argue that there isn't much lost if the insurance policy is purchased but no flood occurs. Beyond that, your reasoning is rather poor.
What if Christianity is not true but Mormonism IS TRUE?(or pick your favorite religion from the list of thousands, and, yes, I do know that Mormons claims to be Christians, kind of - so substitute Zoroastrianism if that makes you feel better) Your third assertion would then be quite incorrect. By my calculations close to 4.8 billion of earth's population are not Christians so this is a rather significant flaw in your argument.
For the sake of this discussion I'm going to assume that you are not a Mormon. Moroni either gave the golden tablets to Joseph Smith and helped him translate them or he didn't. What is your basis for not believing this story (six million Americans claim that they do)?
Why have you chosen one story to believe, to the exclusion of all others. The best answer to this question would be that you had received a personal vision from God. That would make sense (to you), except it hasn't happened to me so it cannot be used to persuade me. Or, as is often done, you could tell me to just read the Bible and all will be revealed, except that intellectual honesty would require me to read every other religious tome to see what THEY would reveal to me. A friend once asked me "Well, why don't you just try believing for a while and see what happens". (scream)
I just checked "answers.com" and read that there are "more than 30,000 Christian faith structures". Many are quite similar, of course, but some are quite dissimilar. How do you know which one is true?
My observation is that most people adopt the faith they were raised with and then believe it to the hilt. Is this a proper basis for faith and the correct way to answer the most important question in any of our lives?
I do agree with your last sentence.
skip| 12.6.10 @ 8:48PM
It is shallow and unpersuasive to point out the terrible fate that awaits an individual who is an unbeliever if in fact Christianity is true?
I would think in the light I presented the options it would cause many a sleepness night if the unbelieving individual possesses any intelligence and/or honesty whatsoever.
You cannot deny the premise can you? Christianity is either true or not and individuals either believe or not.
I presented it in this light to get the attention of any unbelievers certain of their position.
Unbelievers, when you get to the bottom of it, stand by their position as a matter of faith do they not?
As far as Christianity versus all other religions, are you serious?
Name one religion where the leader/founder of that religion stated they were God. Where the leader/founder claimed the only way to true happiness was through themself and themself alone.
That separates Christianity from all others.
I am sure Christ is saddened by the many denominations of Christianity; if the denomination emphatically states Christ as God and Savior that denomination has got the most important priority correct.
As far as most people adopting the faith they were raised with, it's a good thing salvation is up to Christ and Christ alone is it not?
Every argument I've used thus far I have blatantly plagiarized from a fellow named Clive Staples Lewis by the way.
allan| 12.7.10 @ 3:18AM
Two travelers meet in a swamp.
Tom: Gee this place stinks.
Sally: It's not so bad. You get used to it. I'm happy here.
Tom: There's gotta be a way out!
Sally: Think so? See that tree? I climbed to the very top and had a good look round. Swamp far as eye can see.
Tom: Well I'm not staying.
Sally: Best to be a realist, boy. Enjoy life as it comes. See this bit of slime? Quite beautiful, in its own way.
Tom: Sometimes, I get a breath of fresh air. I'm sure of it.
Sally: Not a chance.
Tom: Others have felt it too! It comes from the North. Past the tree.
Sally: Here. Do something useful. Skin these frogs. Wanna stay for breakfast?
Tom: Thanks for your kind offer, but I'm outta here.
Sally: The tracks through this swamp? All the same. I've tried a few. Ended up back here, every time. But if you want to trudge all day through the mud, that's your business. Sure you don't fancy some frog?
Tom: Nope. See ya later.
Sally: Sure will, honey.
(With apologies to my favorite hero, Puddleglum.)
Ryan| 12.6.10 @ 2:29PM
If that was the case, what reason do I have to not kill someone if I can get away with it, or steal from others?
cnx| 12.6.10 @ 6:15PM
Why are Christians so violent? Many express the desire to start killing people as soon as no one is watching.
skip| 12.6.10 @ 8:55PM
To point out how unintelligent and dishonest it is to believe that secular relative morality of human origin is superior to religious absolute morality of divine origin.
ad| 12.6.10 @ 1:53PM
it is equally obvious and quite unmistakable that they are meant to be Muslim-like: they are warlike, live in the hot, desert-like country, are swarthy, wear turbans and run the slave-trade.
They are not "muslim-like". They are "Arab-like".
Calormen is a pagan version of the Arabian Nights.
Ryan| 12.6.10 @ 2:29PM
I almost forgot about that. I believe Lewis loathed Arabian Nights, and that's why he painted the Calormenes in a particularly dark light.
lsu| 12.6.10 @ 6:22PM
Sound like Texans to me.
Jim Wilson | 12.6.10 @ 2:43PM
Just because an actor has an opinion doesn't mean his opinion flavors the movie. Let us not forget we're talking about an ACTOR; somebody tells him what to feel, what to say, how his face should look, what his 'motivation' is, etc. He is an order taker who works in another's vision. He is an effective and successful liar, making himself seem to be something he is not, and is it any wonder those who make their living in such a way lose their connection to reality? Neeson can say whatever he likes, and it has no bearing on anything. It's probably not even his opinion originally, but was aped from somebody else who helped him reconcile working with a pack of apologists. There should be a corollary to 'love the sinner, hate the sin,' which is 'admire the acting, ignore the actor.' Good advice regarding any artist.
Tim the Enchanter| 12.6.10 @ 3:38PM
After I saw what they did to Prince Caspian, I don't plan on seeing any of the succeeding movies. LWW was reasonably close to the book; Prince Caspian was so radical a departure, one would almost not recognize it as coming from the book of that name. I think I'll pass, and if I need a Narnia fix in the meantime, there's always the books!
PD| 12.6.10 @ 4:58PM
Lewis specifically argued (I think in Mere Christianity) against viewing Christ as simply a great moral teacher - that is where Lewis' "Trilemma" comes from - Liar, Lunatic, or Son of God. According to Lewis' logic, based on Christ's own statements, the possibility that Christ was simply a great moral teacher is foreclosed. Indeed, he plays with this point with Lucy in LWW when Peter and Susan disbelieve her about the existence of Narnia (She's not mad, and she's not a liar, so we must assume she's telling the truth).
gene hauber| 12.6.10 @ 5:26PM
Maybe ALL christian families should tell liam neeson to take a hike for HIS phony pc interpretation of C.S. LEWIS' work by BOYCOTTING THIS FILM.
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.6.10 @ 7:28PM
God and I are laughing softly at this discussion.
God is just.
God is forgiving.
God does not expect us to be perfect.
He gave us permission to be "un-perfect".
A Christian enjoys a "son/daughter" relationship with God during our lives here. Pretty wonderful.
Bottom line.................. We either die to this life and our bodies become dog-food...
"Or perchance to dream".
Personally, I dream of eternity.
What jobs may I be handed...in a galaxie far away?
Classical Liiberal| 12.6.10 @ 10:21PM
It is blasphemy and libel to assert God will consign to eternal punishment all who reject certain philosophical propositions about his nature. This arrogance comes straight out of Plato's "Laws" where for the punishment for religious disbelief s death. If God s God, there s a special place n Hell for those who say the only way to Him is through beliefs about the ontological status of Jesus. Perhaps the bliss of the saved atheists will be increased by witnessing the punishment of the True Believers .To his credit, C.S. Lewis saw the problem and proposed a solution. So, HL Mencken will owe hm an apology and there will be an end on it.
Ryan| 12.7.10 @ 9:04AM
What "certain philosophical positions" are you talking about? What is your standard for blasphemy?
skip| 12.6.10 @ 10:41PM
Don't Mess With Texas.
I wonder why the Canuckistanis and TedRs and DReds and RCVs and Alan Brookss and other liberal trolls never seem to discuss the fact that of the major population states (CA-TX-NY-FL-IL-PA-OH-MI-NJ) they are all in the economic toilet except for Texas, which by the way, has very limited regulations, reduced taxes, and a POSITIVE job growth rate. Oh, and relatively unrestricted gun rights. And tort reform. Might there be a connection?
Your God sounds a little lovey dovey; just to verify:
There are a number of nazis, fascists, socialists, and/or communists thrown in hell, correct? Permission to be un-perfect doesn't mean everyone makes it to heaven?
I see God as loving, but also am constantly reminded He said He was a jealous God, and that vengence should be left to Him.
He created everything, including animals. I have seen what lions do to their prey. Animals are violent, unfeeling, predators eating each other live. God created this. I don't see the touchy feely lovey dovey thing0as much as most do.
And I am petrified what job if any I would be given in the unlikely event I pass muster and avoid the fire and brimstone.
Man I miss Zentner's Daughter.
Ted R.| 12.6.10 @ 11:55PM
So... the advantages (you claim) that Texas (at this point in time) enjoys over other major states in the Union is proof, case-closed, of the truth of the Texas world-view? Think you've swilled too much of that weak Texas Tea.
The God of your dark fantasies is nothing but a glorified Father-figure. Nobody is in hell, because there is no hell.
All the animals (including yourself, Skip) are beautiful machines. And - as it happens - where there is beauty, there is danger, also. Nature is definitively stamped by the forces of competition. It is practically inevitable that these forces of natural competition turn violent; what's different about the realm of human animals, is that we can sublimate our violent tendencies into creative, cooperative action. And that, in the end, is the very reason why we are the most adaptive, most competitive, most successful species.
For whatever reason - it's fear, I suppose - you discard this simple, true accounting of events for fantastic stories. For my part, I cannot understand why anyone would forsake truth on account of fear.
Lewis was a peddler of a political ideology that becomes less relevant by the hour. Nietzsche smashed the pretentions of that ideology, and gradually, the rest of the world is waking up to his insight: Christianity is nihilism in its purest form.
skip| 12.7.10 @ 2:20PM
How about we make a date.
On December 6, 3010 at 11:55pm.
And you can tell me again "Nobody is in hell, because there is no hell."
Maybe Clive Staples can be there and you can tell him what a peddler he was, and less relevant and nihilistic.
Maybe Friedrich can be there too.
Must be a terrible burden being exponentially more intelligent and honest than Lewis.
skip| 12.7.10 @ 3:00PM
Here is a 'fantastic story':
Humans are capable of distinguishing right from wrong and truth from lies and philosophical abstractions of staggering complexity. But all humans, after a mere blip of time, compared to the the universe around them, become just ash and dust. Cease to be. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao suffer no different fate than anyone else. All actions and thoughts by all humans ultimately matter not one bit. Even all the accumulated ash and dust of former humans will cease to be in about 5 billion years when in the process of the sun consuming the last of its fuel literally engulfs the earth in itself. There is no discernable reason for all the actions and all the thoughts and feelings of all the humans in the big picture, in true reality. Just sad pointless existence for a very short length of time.
Here is a 'fantastic story' of 'forsaken truth on account of fear':
Some humans use intelligence and honesty to discern that humans are such beautiful 'machines' that they are immortal, that the divine creator values humans so much they are made gods themselves, and their actions, thoughts, and feelings are so important they matter forever, and that ideals strived for are actually obtained and not just abstractions.
But some humans discard this simple true reality and consider humans the mere nothingness of the 'fantastic story' above, and in the process lose the ideal and much more. Over nothing more, really, than fear; fear of reality, fear of intelligence, fear of honesty.
I hope to witness that cosmic end to the earth.
You will have been nothing for over 5 billion years by then; well, that is not true as you will have been nothing even in the short temporal existence where all your actions and thoughts and feelings were by your own definition completely meaningless.
Ted R.| 12.7.10 @ 5:27PM
Lewis was certainly clever; and from what I've read, was led to Christianity by a combination of intellectual persuasion and existential doubt. For my part, I've been persuaded of the falsity of Christianity; and though we cannot be absolutely certain (in an objective sense) of the truth of any religion, I have never found the lack of a definitive answer a good excuse to believe wild stories. I don't think it's intellectually or morally responsible.
As for ultimate meaning in life, well, in my view it is the atheist who believes in ultimate meaning, and the Christian who does not. The atheist understands that our time is brief, yes. But we also see that the values we hold are not of merely instrumental value. They are not there as a mere means to get us to some happy-hunting ground. Instead, we hold them, and uphold them, in order to make life fulfilling while we have it. To make the lives of others, those to come after us, creative and fulfilling as well.
It is the Christian ethic which is fundamentally selfish. You think that you are so important that you deserve to live forever. You think that if you don't live forever, the value that we place on the lives that come after us, can be set at naught. Because you believe in a heaven and a hell, you all to often throw away your life for almost no cause, and you certainly are going to be more willing to dispatch with the lives of others.
As a Christian, you cannot assert that there is ultimately ANY connection between your conduct of life, and your eventual fate. Indeed, for all you know, I could be rewarded and you could be punished, no matter what either of us did. This is a morally perverse belief - it is nihilistic, in fact. But for some reason millions choose to throw away their freedom and responsibility on this Lie.
Even your "I betcha" future wager is morally puerile. This is how you attest to how Christianity affords us ultimate meaning and purpose - by anticipating the suffering I will undergo for having chosen wrong! Of course, you are not alone in this. Even intellectually astute Christians like Lewis indulged in this kind of theological Schadenfreude. It is a belief simply unworthy of adults. But as Nietzsche saw, we are now in the Twilight of the Idols. It is time to Break the Spell of religion.
skip| 12.7.10 @ 6:20PM
The atheist values a life of fulfillment for himself and for others present and future.
And I'm the puerile one.
Good grief.
Pray tell, what conclusions of the life of Jesus Christ has your intelligence and honesty led you to, with or without Nietzsche's pre-mental collapse ruinations, er, ruminations?
Ted R.| 12.7.10 @ 10:45PM
Let me get this straight: You actually think that the fact that
"The atheist values a life of fulfillment for himself and for others present and future."
is a morally unworthy motive??
And you wonder why I call Christianity nihilistic!
Jesus was not particularly original in his moral teachings. And he certainly had predecessors who were possessed of deep moral insight - Socrates, Buddha, the author of the book of Job. The evidence suggests that Jesus had a touch megalomania - unsurprising for an apocalyptic cult leader - and perhaps also a martyr complex (also fits the profile).
But, best to be charitable with the dead. Of Jesus' question, "Who do you say I am?" I would simply answer: Jesus was good man who died for no reason.
skip| 12.8.10 @ 2:10PM
Man that was too easy.
You know zilch about Lewis or you would know he obliterated your last statement as wholly lacking in intelligence and wholly lacking in honesty.
"Jesus was (sic) good man who died for no reason."
Impossible.
The only intelligent, honest choices are Jesus is who He said He was, Jesus was a liar, or Jesus was a raving lunatic. If Jesus is who He said He was then He is God, if Jesus was a liar He was not a good man as He has misled billions of people over several thousand years, or Jesus is so utterly crazy considering Him a good man is not relevant .
(And Megalomania? How is it Jesus comes across so humble in the Gospel?)
It is simple to decide by using one short verse of scripture.
(Luke 10:18) He replied, I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven."
All one has to do is determine whether Jesus was telling the truth or not. Did Jesus witness the expulsion of Lucifer from God's presense in heaven? Or not?
You have exposed your unintelligence and dishonesty by your claim Jesus was a good man.
If I'm wrong no harm. If you're wrong you are screwed. Who is really the intelligent one? Whose 'faith' is really nihilistic?
Merry Christmas, may God bless you, the Holy Spirit guide you, and Jesus Christ have mercy on your soul.
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.7.10 @ 7:55PM
Sorry, Ted.
All of your nana nana is simply a child not believing that stove really...really...is hot.
Reality is Reality. If you choose to live in darkness, then darkness is what your future in eternity holds.
I'm probably the best educated Christian you will encounter here.
We humans are the only "sentient" animals here on earth to the best of our knowledge.
We understand our beginning, and look toward our end here.
Finally, it is the ole' matter/energy equation. A little bit of sentience doesn't just disappear. It converts to...?????
I am fascinated to discover the bloom of energy that will happen when my "matter" converts to energy.
Jesus Christ taught that. My next novel will be titled "The Son Of Man".
It is a story about the very last human being alive at the "end" of time.
In the mean time, please, open your mind to your Creator and enjoy life to the fullest.
David D.| 12.6.10 @ 11:25PM
That's okay, I thought Liam Neeson did a horrible job as Aslan anyways. His voice simply doesn't have the power to reflect the character.
It make sense he would be so unconnected with the books to think that, he was unconnected with the character as well.
michaelle| 12.7.10 @ 2:13PM
Its sad-now lets twist C.S. Lewis intentions-what a dope this man is. He can't respect C.S. Lewis.
joshMshep | 12.9.10 @ 2:49PM
Poor argument, Mr. Colebatch. One actor's stupid comment does not mean that the film itself in any way reflects "political correctness."
Those of us who respect our Judeo-Christian heritage would do well to see the new film, which Douglas Gresham (stepson of C.S. Lewis) has policed throughout the film production process to ensure it stays true to the original themes.
Your #1 way to influence Hollywood is through your dollars. And the Narnia series is one to support - on opening weekend, if possible.
Vasu Murti | 12.9.10 @ 3:11PM
Would C.S. Lewis have supported PETA?
Christian writer C. S. Lewis put forth a rational argument concerning the resurrection of animals in The Problem of Pain. His 1947 essay, "A Case for Abolition," attacked vivisection (animal experimentation) and reads as follows:
"Once the old Christian idea of a total difference in kind between man and beast has been abandoned, then no argument for experiments on animals can be found which is not also an argument for experiments on inferior men.
"If we cut up beasts simply because they cannot prevent us and because we re backing up our own side in the struggle for existence, it is only logical to cut up imbeciles, criminals, enemies, or capitalists for the same reason.
"Indeed, experiments on men have already begun. We all hear that Nazi scientists have done them. We all suspect that our own scientists may begin to do so, in secret, at any moment.
"The victory of vivisection marks a great advance in the triumph of ruthless, non-moral utilitarianism over the old world of ethical law; a triumph in which we, as well as animals, are already the victims, and of which Dachau and Hiroshima mark the more recent achievements. In justifying cruelty to animals we put ourselves also on the animal level. We choose the jungle and must abide by our choice."
I can't help but wonder if C.S. Lewis were with us today, if he would be an animal activist.
My friend Ruth tries to be consistent in her approach to nonviolence, and in addition to protesting unjust wars and ministering to persons on death row, she takes part in sidewalk counseling outside abortion clinics.
I told Ruth during the mid-'90s, that just as she and other pro-lifers can't understand the mindset of people protesting war, the death penalty, claiming to espouse nonviolence, etc. but ignoring the killing of the unborn or failing to see it as violence...
...similarly, those of us who are pro-animal can't understand the mindset of those who are quick to condemn abortion as violence but fail to see the killing of animals as violence.
Ruth is sympathetic to animal issues, albeit from a social justice perspective; the advantages (economic, environmental, nutritional, etc.) for humans in taking up the cause. She speaks neither for her church nor the entire pro-life movement. However...
Bruce Friedrich, who spent a number of years working in a soup kitchen, sent me a copy of his essay Veganism and Nonviolence at the end of 1995.
In his essay, Bruce points out that many Catholic Worker types like to think of themselves as nonviolent, but don't realize the nonviolence that goes into a hamburger and/or a glass of milk.
Bruce told me he distributed copies of his essay to the different Catholic Worker houses throughout the United States. After finishing his degree at Grinnell College, Bruce went to work for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), and has been with them ever since.
Again, I can't help but wonder if C.S. Lewis were with us today, if he would be an animal activist.
Tina| 12.9.10 @ 3:37PM
Muslims don't have human sacrifices?! Think suicide bombers and "honor killings." Don't know how TEXAS got involved in this discussion, but God blessed Texas with His right hand and sent down angels from the promised land, as the song goes. I'm a native Texan, of course! At this point in time, I am more proud of my Texas than I am of my nation.
Kimber| 12.9.10 @ 6:20PM
HOGWASH CS Lewis was a Christian. I am tired of the PC run a muck in this country. What a liar... I am not going to let some LIBERAL taint my feelings