Narnia

We are not doing that at all. My post was to point out that because Lewis was a Christian, Christian themes came out of his fictional story. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, there are Christian themes there all right. There are pagan themes there too. There are heretical Christian themes. Do you advocate mixing truth with error that good may come of it? How well do you know Lewis? He never abandoned his infatuation with Norse pagan myth and retained many of those pagan themes in his supposedly Christian work. Lewis was a Christian theological liberal at best and he was a Christian heretic impregnated with pagan and mystical notions at worse. Would you trust a theological liberal to write your Christian fiction with liberal and heretical Christian themes? Can you refute this?

This is a thin skin of truism with falsity underneath. This is as foolish as God making a rock too big for God to move. There are some things that God cannot do. He cannot sin. He cannot lie. Now, can God use lying or sin as a means to save people? Would God lower Himself to such means? Everything we know about God says NO! However, God can take the wickedness of men and turn it to good for His own glory. There is a discernable different between the two cases, so don’t confuse the two. Since we have God’s inspired Word, the Bible, why do we need a flawed, tainted movie to proclaim His truth. I have no objection to the genre (i.e. a movie) but it is the theological error that is objectionable. If we teach error with truth, how is the untaught lost person to discern truth and error? We are inculcating the error alongside truth. Even the cults have a grain of truth in their abominable teachings but it does not justify their error. Since JW literature contain some good Scriptures and truth about creationism, do you recommend distributing JW literature to teaching the doctrine of creation? Promoting Narnia with its error makes just as much sense although it is not as extreme as my aforementioned scenario.

Yeah, but it is not necessary. Why must we choose a theological liberal, whose theology we disclaim, to teach our theology to the unbelievers and children? It’s rather like hiring the fox to guard the henhouse.

BTW, the pagan themes and heresy is there too if you are astute enough to see them. Mixing truth with falsity just makes the falsehood more palatable. You have just made the error all the more deadly and dangerous.

What makes you think the Lord will use this movie? Is it faithful to the Scriptures? Does it call one to repentance? How is there a clear call to salvation?

 

So, therefore, we should never watch or read ANY book that contains any sin?

Let alone one that shows evil to be evil and good to be good?

It sounds like you are putting your values on everybody else. There is also certainly a big difference between the rituals spoken of in the Bible and the make-believe magic of riding on broom-sticks in movies.

Do I take it that you think Santa Claus IS evil?

 

What makes you think the Lord cannot or will not use this movie?

I assume, then, based on your arguments, that you would like to burn all books of fiction because all fiction contains bits of truth and lies.

 

What makes you think the Lord cannot or will not use this movie?

I assume, then, based on your arguments, that you would like to burn all books of fiction because all fiction contains bits of truth and lies. </font>[/QUOTE]You fail to answer my question by asking a question. My reply was to a another poster who posited that God would use the movie. Your question in reply is an inanity.

Furthermore, you presume wrongly. You have falsely attributed to me a position that I have never expressed nor believe. Obviously, you fail to understand my arguments.

Since your post was composed entirely of inanities, why should I answer your questions? Why should I take you seriously? What is the significance of your post other than you’re trying to make a fast point?

 

As often happens on Baptist Board, this thread has degenerated into repartee, wrangling over irrelevant points and polarization of viewpoints. IMHO, we have missed the better opportunity of intelligently discussing substantive points and arriving at a enhanced critique and understanding of the issues from all sides. I would like to see some intelligent debate over the following issues:

1. What was the influence of Charles Williams on C.S. Lewis’s view of magic especially as expressed in Narnia. Williams, as you know, was a heretical mystic who belonged to a branch of the Rosicrucians (Order of the Rosy Cross) for a time. Much of the core elements of Wicca and modern western occultism is said to have come from the precusor (Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn) of this order. Williams and Lewis along with other members of the Inklings were highly interested in magic, which was a hot item for discussion during their meetings at the “Bird and Baby”. What is the place of magic in Narnia? Is it Christian?

2. What elements of “coinherence” do we see in Narnia? This was the heretical teaching of Charles Williams that all religions contain the same central teachings. Lewis was immensely attracted to this dogma. In essence, it is nothing more than a variant of the modern Interfaith Movement.

3. What mystical elements of Charles Williams’s theology can we find in Narnia? Lewis called Charles Williams the greatest living theologian in his time and was endlessly intriqued by his mystical theology. Secular literary critics easily and quickly find Williams’s influence and presence in Lewis’s work but Christians are hopelessly slow in discerning Williams’s heretical theology in Lewis’s theology. Perhaps we are wearing blinders.

4. How much theological error can we tolerate before we reject and discard a so-called Christian work as heretical? This is a question that I would like to see those who argue for the good achieved by Narnia to answer. Do we ever rejected anything? If so, what is the point of rejection?

Now, let’s have some hardheaded discourse over issues instead of sappy sentiment and picky repartee.

 

Wow, so quick to get snappy.

I just thought it was an interesting anology since even given the anology I would have a different take. I for one, enjoy playing with snakes, especially the really big ones, usually given that a professional of some sort has assured me of the dangers.

If the Bible clearly condemns enjoying entertainment that uses Christian themes albeit skewed, then this movie, and the books underling it, were written and are being read in sin.

 

Inanity -- stupidity.......

My my do you have a way to putting things to a Christian brother.........

 

My wife has a ball python in her classroom. Does that count? It's never bitten anyone, well, except for its dinner.

 

What makes you think the Lord cannot or will not use this movie?

I assume, then, based on your arguments, that you would like to burn all books of fiction because all fiction contains bits of truth and lies. </font>[/QUOTE]Actually, based on the fact that your question is nothing more than an opinion, my answer is legitimate.

Would you like to try to impress us some more with your intellectual prowess?

 

With such a diverse background as: science, theology, philosophy, history, mathematics, hiking, camping, hunting; I would stay away from ANYTHING that might bite, including my wife's poodle.

 

Pete and Phillip,

Thank you very much for the kind comments.

 

Narnia, Like Star Wars, and some have said LOTR contains common mythical themes. Ressurection, redemption, good vs. evil, etc.

The fact that they are common to the true myth as well, the story of Christ, was probably not lost on Lewis, but I don't believe he was writing allegory, and I think his writings and the thoughts of his contemporaries prove that out. He was writing fiction, pure and simple. There ought to be a disclaimer at the start like the one on Law and Order. Any resemblance to actual people or events is coincidental.

Christian themes, perhaps, pure allegory in the spirit of such writers as Bunyan? I don't believe so. Tolkien despised allegory, and probably rolls over in his grave when people try to align the characters and themes in his writings to Christianity. Lewis and Tolkien were very similar in their writing style, and actually critiqued each others work. Lewis' stated goal was to write captivating children's fiction, not create a spiritual allegory.

That being said. The Chronicles of Narnia is reasonably good fiction, and the movie adaptation is very true to the spirit of the books. It is very well and tastefully done. The feel of it is much more fantastic than LOTR which intentionally had a more gritty, realistic edge to it, being targeted mainly to adults. The effects in Narnia push the feel of the movie towards fantasy, while still being very captivating, especially for children. Even the digital color grading makes the scenery and characters seem unreal in a sense, reinforcing the fairy tale feel of the story.

I don't know how anyone would think this movie or any other would be an effective use of church efforts, but it certainly is a great opportunity to enjoy some children's fiction, and without the language and innuendo that have become acceptable in even G rated movies. The violent scenes are tastefully done, and again very fantastic, a mature lower elementary age kid should be able to process the movie without too much trouble. All in all, pretty much the same as the books.

 

Agreed, otherwise, we would be forbidden from reading the scriptures. Plenty of Stuff in there that God would not condone.

Narratives are not necessarily dogmatic, some people have the inability to spiritually discern what is and is not acceptable, so they throw out the baby with the bathwater many times.

 

When you don't know, use your dictionary.

I stand by my usage. This, my friend, has been the inanest post of your several, especially in light of your subsequent attempts to razz me.

You can't goad me since I have no insecurities that you can touch. My character is untouchable and I don't need your agreement or approval. You have nothing to add for me and nothing to entice me. There is no hold that you can possibly have on me. Therefore, I leave you with a dilemma that you cannot solve. The ultimate disparagement is not disagreement or even ridicule but it is to take no notice of you. Henceforth, I serve notice to pay no attention to any and all of your posts. I will not reply and I will not engage you.

The nature of your posts indicate that I have riled you although unwittingly and unintentionally. You can’t persuade me that this isn’t so even though I think you will deny it. You seem to harbor some inferiority feelings since you attack me for intellectual pretensions in another post. I have made no such pretensions—that is entirely your own misconception. You don’t even know me. (BTW, you appear to mix up the posters’ identities at times.) If you can read my thoughts and intentions between a few lines on the Internet, then you are a better psychic than the goons on Psychic Hotline. I have no compulsion to impress you or anyone else.

My friend, you are now in a no-win situation. If you do not reply, then I have walked away with the last definitive word (pun intended). On the other hand, if you do choose to post a voluminous rebuttal, you will only expose and embarrass yourself against my smug silence. I did this simply because you were trying to play a cutesy little sophomoric game with me; so, I entered into the play and handed you a catch-22. Adios, amigo. It's been fun!

 

A good question here is how much is intentional theological symbolism and how much is part of the story flow. The real problem is that Charles Williams, with whom both Lewis and Tolkein had a close relationship and intellectual kinship, did write theology as fiction. Now, how much of this carries over to Lewis and Tolkein?

Generally, I agree but I do not accept the Lewisian concept of the Gospel as true myth. This is a deficit model. Myth is the result of mythopoeia, the myth-making process. The Gospel is the historical outcome of God acting in the space-time framework of mankind. It’s existence, meaning, and interpretation is independent of mythopoeia. The salvation plan was formed in the mind of God long before it was consummated in human history. This is an important procedural point since the Gospel had an intended meaning before it was fulfilled and myth assumes meaning in the process of making. Lewis was wrong—he forced the Gospel into his intellectual paradigm. We must remember that Lewis was a neophyte Christian who interpreted Christianity within his own pattern of academic thought and experience, not the converse. He had not orthodox Christian background and few, if any, orthodox Christian influences thereafter. Thus, we must be extremely careful of accepting seemingly new intellectual insights from his world saturated and infatuated with a love of myth and imagination. In theology, man’s imagination and creativity is not always a good thing.

Again, I agree. It is his cultic followers who try to find Christian significance in every symbol to their own obfuscation. There is no reconciling the symbolism or supposed symbolism completely with Christian doctrine. Lewis was writing about what he loved and enjoyed.

This is reasonable and balanced view but you must also deal with the current thinking. With the sanctifying of Narnia as an evangelistic tool, we must face the fact that Narnia is accumulating new meaning in the best deconstructionist fashion. If we’re good deconstruction theorists, we might say that old Clive didn’t know what he was writing. It matters much what people think it means. Now, we’re in deep water without a lifejacket.

Dave, take a deep breath and look around you. Folks everywhere are pushing this movie as the evangelism panacea much in the same passion as the Passion. It’s okay as a kid’s movie, although I dislike Disney, if we leave out the theology and supposed Christian symbolism.

What do you think?

 

Paid,

I appreciate the fact that you are discussing the theological aspect of Lewis’ writings and not his salvation. I think many on this side of the fence take exception to people making an outright declaration of another professing Christian’s salvation. That being said, you raise some important questions. I would argue that it’s ok to look for obvious Christian parallels and applaud the fact that Lewis was interjecting Christianity into his fiction. I don’t think that we (Christians) should look to Narnia or any fiction writing to fill in our theological gaps. I still hold firmly to the idea that we can watch Narnia and enjoy it without hesitation (so long as it does not affect your walk with God). I am still not sure if you oppose Narnia or just the idea that Narnia is an evangelism tool. For the sake of argument it might help to clarify this fact. God bless and I look forward to your response.

 

paid.... whatever

You post well written - but poorly thought out pieces of inanity - btw I am referring to the empty of sense - Since it appears you didnt fully read the meaning of inane. Since we all enjoy a good round of no it means this - no it means that - Ill throw my 2 cents in

INANE
1)in·ane adj. in·an·er, in·an·est
One that lacks sense or substance: interrupting with inane comments; angry with my inane roommate.
[Latin innis, empty, lacking sense.]
2) adj : complacently or inanely foolish [syn: asinine, fatuous, mindless, vacuous]
in·anely adv.

please see synonyms but Ill do a thesaurus check for you too

Main Entry: inane
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: stupid
Synonyms: absurd, asinine, birdbrained, daft, ditzy, driveling, empty, fatuous, flat, foolish, frivolous, futile, harebrained, idiotic, illogical, imbecilic, innocuous, insipid, jejune, jerky, lamebrained, laughable, meaningless, Mickey Mouse, mindless, nerdy, pointless, puerile, ridiculous, sappy, senseless, silly, trifling, unintelligent, vacant, vacuous, vain, vapid, weak, wishy-washy, worthless
Antonyms: intelligent, sensible


1) to answer your role of magic in Narnia read the whole series - only the bad, evil people use it - and the times that the good people use it - they are rebuked or in error. This supposed error on your part leads me to believe that yer obsession with Mr. Williams actually has little to no bearing with the discussion at hand.

2) As to God using lying - ummm read who shall make the king of Israel go up to war? its in the Bible. God may Himself not lie, but He definitely uses it. I dont understand it - but it clearly appears that He does

3) Why do we need a movie?

Becuase people wont read the Bible - because pigheaded fools bash people with it - ALL THE WHILE IGNORING THE FUNDEMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF LOVE

God's justice SPRINGS from His love - Love is the foundation or cornerstone from which all of His other attributes spring!

4) Why must we choose a theological liberal?
because the fundies wont do it!

you claim the movie is flawed and tainted and yet stray away from posting examples - all opponents do. Post em and Ill smack em down -

POST EXAMPLES FROM NARNIA OR SHUT UP - its really that simple - Heck even I got tons of opinions but I limit myself on this board. If I can do it - I think you can do it too - maybe - if we're lucky...

 

Thank you, Solaris, just because I didn't want to make a mistake (AND besides my lack of time), my reference was indeed--&gt; Microsoft's Thesaurus.

The definition WAS 'stupid'.

Need is say more. . . . ?

 

So, therefore, we should never watch or read ANY book that contains any sin?

Let alone one that shows evil to be evil and good to be good?

It sounds like you are putting your values on everybody else. There is also certainly a big difference between the rituals spoken of in the Bible and the make-believe magic of riding on broom-sticks in movies.

Do I take it that you think Santa Claus IS evil? </font>[/QUOTE]I am offering Scriptural reasoning and you're being subjective by suggestion.

Doesn't the Bible clearly make evil-evil enough to be understood? Do you also think to parallel Scripture with fiction is okie-dokie, as long as you are entertained, even though the risk of alienating the less suspecting and the juvenile mind? Haven't you yet realized Santa doesn't exist as the lies are told to innocent children and tears down their trust in the very parents who "LIED" to their children?? Don't you believe there should be more consideration by all Christians to make distinction the rule and not the alternative? Is a tainted truth still the truth? or is 99% truth/1%lie ok with you? Would you be willing to drink 99% water and 1% cianide? Would you still eat a steak that had fecal matter only on one side? Has the devil ever told 99% truth and slipped in 1% lie to deceive anyone before?

 

Thank you for your excellent example of inanity. Words, as I presume you know, have both connotative and denotative meanings. It is not enough just to look up the denotative meaning in the dictionary, much less widely fetched synonyms from a thesaurus, and argue over usage. There is an art, knowledge and understanding of what you read in the Wörterbuch, much more what you find in das Synonymwörterbuch. If I have to explain that although naïve means childlike it greatly differs in usage from childish which means like a child as well, then I have no effectual means of communicating with you or other posters. You may compliment a beautiful lady by telling her that she has childlike eyes but you may insult her as well by the synonym childish when applied to her behavior.

Re-read my original post. I did use inane or inanity (i.e. void of substance or content) as properly intended. It was not synonymous with stupid, a crude denigration of one’s intelligence. When the individual misconstrued the word usage, I simply and kindly pointed out his error and defended the implication against my Christ-like attitude and spirit. If I understand your post, you are maintaining the other poster’s charge about my Christian spirit. Is this the point?

Well, it is certainly suggestive when anyone can judge another person’s attitude and spirit from a single word usage, especially when the word is incorrectly interpreted. It is also highly ironic that those advocating and talking about love are so critical and judgmental when another is perceived in opposition to their own cherished view. Love is not something you talk about but it is what you do. Furthermore, I find at least two contradictory sentiments in your rambling post: “Becuase people wont read the Bible - because pigheaded fools bash people with it - ALL THE WHILE IGNORING THE FUNDEMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF LOVE.” Your shouting: "POST EXAMPLES FROM NARNIA OR SHUT UP" is hardly an example of loving speech. It seems that you are criticizing me for referring to another’s comments as being inane meanwhile you are ranting about “pigheaded fools,” presumably in reference to me.” I cannot find in the Bible a commandment against calling a comment empty or useless but I can show you where Jesus said not to call your brother a fool. BTW, God’s attributes are not founded in His love. My God is not a one-dimensional Being.

Finally, I have neither the time nor inclination to provide you with a pedantic analysis of details in Narnia. I am not interested in the symbolism, whether conscious or unconscious, of the thorn in Aslan’s paw. Such details are analogous to coding in computer programming as opposed to writing algorithms. I’ve had my fill of coding but algorithms still fascinate me. Likewise, I am more interested in the overall theological influence and significance than this detail or that detail. Having read C.S. Lewis, Charles Williams, et. al., I presume you have done the same before adding your two cents. Therefore, it is not needed for me to point out a horde of details that you should be able to understand my arguments and make the connections yourself regardless whether you agree or not. Otherwise, I’m wasting my time.