Problems In Lewis' Theology

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

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

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

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

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

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

To the second i say that canabalism is always wrong, i can understand what drives people to do it in extreme situations but i still find it wrong and frankly plain disturbing
 
You didn't really deal with the arguments that I set forth :D .

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

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

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

I am very interested to hear your response.
 
A questions I always like to pose to atheists is "What if you are wrong?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is my first post

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

Now for my two cents....

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

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

I hope this has been interesting and/or helpful

God Bless
luv Lirimaer Senshi
 
Welcome Lirimaer!


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

TrueCrusader



PS. sorry if I spelled your name incorrectly.
 
Here's a section from The Last Battle, which was posted earlier by GrayCloak:

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

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

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

I hope this answers what you posted; please feel free to send feedback, whether you agree with me or disagree. :)
 
Interesting thought Lirimaer_senshi (welcome by the way). I will admit your view has some valid points, but I tend to have to agree with Capstick. True, Emeth was not dead, but where in this scene does he put his trust in Aslan? Where does he confess?

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

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

Lets talk about Horse and His Boy. I am listening to the radio drama of it right now, and I got to thinking about some theology stuffs in it. What is y'alls opinion on the part where Aslan scratches Aravis in the same manner in which her slave was whipped? Also what about when Aslan as a cat attacks Shasta, or rather scratches him, when Shasta mentions how he once hurt a kitten? What are your thoughts on these parts with the view of Aslan being Jesus?
 
AlwaysHis324, you've brought up one of my favorite parts of HB with Arivis!

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

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

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

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

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

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

I especially want to hear AlwaysHis324's take on this....
 
Lirimaer senshi, your name sounds very familiar... anime series or something?

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

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

Okay... now for the crushing rebuttall...
 
Sorry Y. Fish, but once again I have to completely disagree with you :D .

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

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

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

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

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

If anyone else can think of some important arguments I've missed, please post them.
 
-okay, personal promise to myself, this is the LAST post I'm making on this subject-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, thanks again for posting; as some of you may have guessed, I quite enjoy debating. I believe that we should all be commited to the search for Truth, and I hope that nobody has taken any of my remarks too personally, as none of them were meant to be personal. Hopefully, we can keep this discussion (or others like it) going, but it seems like people keep dropping off of the discussion. :)
 
Thanks for the complement, and thanks for posting (I was beginning to think that I'd scared everyone off). Hopefully, we can get some more people to take part in these discussions.
 
It is clear that Lewis was more open-minded than many other Christians.

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

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

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

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

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

(By the way, yes I am a fundamentalist; and no, I do not agree with your definition of a fundamentalist-I can be reasoned with :) ).
 
why not be a Buddhist, or a Muslim, or Hindu? Exactly, why not?

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