quote: "Then I fell at his feet and thought, Surely this is the hour of death, for the Lion (who is worthy of all honour) will know that I have served Tash all my days and not him. Nevertheless, it is better to see the Lion and die than to be Tisroc of the world and live and not to have seen him. But the Glorious One bent down his golden head and touched my forehead with his tongue and said, Son, thou art welcome. But I said, Alas, Lord, I am no son of thine but the servant of Tash. He answered, Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me. Then by reasons of my great desire for wisdom and understanding, I overcame my fear and questioned the Glorious 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 because he and I are one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the services which thou hast done to him. For I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath's 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 by Tash his deed is accepted. Dost thou understand, Child? I said, Lord, thou knowest how much I understand. But I said also (for the truth constrained me), Yet I have been seeking Tash all my days. Beloved, said the Glorious One, unless thy desire had been for me thou shouldst not have sought so long and so truly. For all find what they truly seek."
posted
I think it's true, but I think it's a truth that is hard or impossible for us to apply at all accurately as human beings. I think the flip side of that (a person seeking Aslan in name but acting as if he were seeking Tash) is a warning many (Fred Phelps are you listening?) would do well to heed.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think it's true, but I think it's a truth that is hard or impossible for us to apply at all accurately as human beings.
In my philosophy, it is exactly because we are human beings that it is true.
Why do you think it is 'hard or impossible'?
quote: I have trouble with this.
Can you elaborate?
Keep in mind, please, that I normally don't write long posts until the middle of threads. Sometimes I make acceptions, but that's just the way I normally seem to work.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not least because I often start threads before i go to bed and don't get a chance to post again in them until I get off of work the next day. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:In my philosophy, it is exactly because we are human beings that it is true.
Me, too, although I suspect I have different reasons why humanity makes this true than you do.
quote:Why do you think it is 'hard or impossible'?
Exactly because we are humans. It requires a level of objectivity that I'm not altogether sure a human being is capable of to identify those who are in the position of the well-meaning Calamoran who thought he was serving Tash.
But God, he's got no problem making that call for each of us.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have trouble with it because it smacks of universalism. Basically, that salvation is available outside of Christ, or that one can belong to Christ without knowing it while simultaneously completely embracing a different religion. It also seems to open the door to "works righteousness," or salvation by works. A person can be a muslim or buddhist or whatever and be very kind and do lots of good things, but it would bring him no closer to salvation. You don't belong to Christ by giving him "service", but by accepting his free gift to you.
Now, a person can become a Christian and yet not immediately apply that label to him/herself. But I believe that sooner or later, the Holy Spirit would show him/her the contradictions and a decision would have to be made. I do not believe that someone can be wholeheartedly committed to a religion that does not recognize Christ and yet still belong to Christ.
One of the few points upon which I disagree with Lewis, and I'm not sure I've explained myself well, but there it is.
Posts: 609 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find it interesting that growing up, a rebel atheist I must add, I had always refused to read the Narnia books because I'd heard so much about the Christian allusions. But if that's an example of Lewis' religious philosophy, I might have to read the series now.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats. And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat. I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in. Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat. I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink. I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not, sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
I'd say that Jesus would consider it true too.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Basically, that salvation is available outside of Christ, or that one can belong to Christ without knowing it while simultaneously completely embracing a different religion.
I totally believe this (insofar as I am theist at all). *shrug*
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I accept that one comment as proof that Lewis was wrong on this.
You mean that if he can write something that brings an atheist even a little bit closer to the fold, it must be wrong?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
For me it fits in with the LDS belief that all who _would_ have accepted the fullness of the Gospel if only they had known about it will have the chance to accept it in the next life.
God is no respecter of persons, and looks upon the intents of the heart.
It's also a good passage to show to those who claim the Chronicles portray an entire human ethnic group as evil. Emeth, Aravis, and the entire city of Tashban (implying if not outright saying a good portion of the population) all made it into Aslan's Country. There were many Narnians in the last book who didn't.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like the explanation in Perelandra better, about the great dance, though I don't think the two are mutually exlusive. I think that the Last Battle version was an oversimplification but the best Lewis could do at the time.
quote:I accept that one comment as proof that Lewis was wrong on this.
You mean that if he can write something that brings an atheist even a little bit closer to the fold, it must be wrong?
Oh, buy a sense of humour, will you? It was a joke and not intended as in any way serious. See, I even put a smilie at the end of it to prove to indicate jokeness. What more do you want?
Posts: 609 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If, taken as strict allegory, the passage was meant to say that Muslims and Christians worship beings who are opposites, but “good” Muslims are really worshipping Christ because Allah is so vile that nothing good can be done in his name, then I disagree.
And, frankly, I do think Lewis meant the Calamorans to be Arabs and their religion to be Islam. The physical characteristics, description of clothing, titles, weapons, architecture, etc point pretty strongly in that direction.
If we ditch the allegory, and take the passage as just saying that all people who are truly seeking God will find God, then I agree.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
All who are truly seeking God will find God, no question about that. "Seek and ye shall find."
However, if one is truly seeking, one will eventually find Christ. At which point one becomes a Christian, and must eventually reject those parts of other religions that explicitly contradict or deny Christ. Regardless of what name you call yourself.
As I said, you cannot embrace Islam or Hinduism or whatever and yet belong to Christ. At one point you will realize that you are no longer and can no longer be anything but a Christian.
Posts: 609 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dh: I have trouble with it because it smacks of universalism. Basically, that salvation is available outside of Christ, or that one can belong to Christ without knowing it while simultaneously completely embracing a different religion. It also seems to open the door to "works righteousness," or salvation by works. A person can be a muslim or buddhist or whatever and be very kind and do lots of good things, but it would bring him no closer to salvation. You don't belong to Christ by giving him "service", but by accepting his free gift to you.
It does seem to me that Aslan isn't so much talking about salvation, as about service. The Calornian has never accepted Aslan into his life, so he isn't saved until those last moments when he sees the glory of the Lion. (It's been a while since I read the books, but it seems to me that the conversation takes place before the people realise that they are dead.) But he has been doing good works, and that serves Aslan's purposes, even when done by someone not saved yet. Possibly Lewis is a bit closer to Mormon than to orthodox Protestant doctrine on this; it seems to me that anyone who had tried to live righteously, as the Calornian did, would be given a second chance at the time of death, in the Narnia universe. which isn't the case by a lot of Protestant doctrines.
Incidentally, what is the position of your church on people who never had a chance to hear the Christian version of reality in their lifetimes, but nevertheless lived rightly?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
See my comment about "works righteousness".
I really have no idea what the official doctrine of my church is on those who haven't had a chance to hear the gospel. I'm not exactly clear on my own position yet either. The bible, on the one hand, says that we are "without excuse", and that "there is no other name by which we are saved" than the name of Jesus Christ. On the other hand, it also says something about gentiles who, while not having the law, do things that the law requires because the law is written on their hearts. I suppose I would have to sit down and have a good think and pray about this.
But I do know that my responsibility is to witness to those that God sends me to and puts across my path. The whole of humankind is not my responsibility, and I am quite sure that God has plans for them. What those are, I couldn't say.
Posts: 609 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think this is a salvation by works doctrine either. It's salvation by grace, but you can seek out and find grace without realizing that you are doing so. (Contrary to popular belief, Catholics do not really believe that you can earn salvation.)
-o-
quote:Oh, buy a sense of humour, will you?
I suppose this was a joke too, was it?
What a Christian discussion style you have. Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
dh, I think you are missing my point. Aslan is not saying that Tisroc has been saved by his good works. He is saying that Tisroc has served Aslan by his good works. There is a marked distinction; unless you are a Manichaean, even Satan serves God by his works, in some twisted and obscure fashion, right? Now, Tisroc, unlike Satan, is also saved because, at the last moment of his life, he accepts Aslan, as you suggested would happen to any 'in-their-heart-Christian' a few posts back. But that is not relevant to the question of service.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: I don't think this is a salvation by works doctrine either. It's salvation by grace, but you can seek out and find grace without realizing that you are doing so. (Contrary to popular belief, Catholics do not really believe that you can earn salvation.)
-o-
quote:Oh, buy a sense of humour, will you?
I suppose this was a joke too, was it?
What a Christian discussion style you have.
I'm sorry you don't like it. I didn't realize getting mildly annoyed was un-christian.
Posts: 609 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: dh, I think you are missing my point. Aslan is not saying that Tisroc has been saved by his good works. He is saying that Tisroc has served Aslan by his good works. There is a marked distinction; unless you are a Manichaean, even Satan serves God by his works, in some twisted and obscure fashion, right? Now, Tisroc, unlike Satan, is also saved because, at the last moment of his life, he accepts Aslan, as you suggested would happen to any 'in-their-heart-Christian' a few posts back. But that is not relevant to the question of service.
KoM, I may indeed be missing your point. I may also be missing whatever point Lewis was trying to make. But, as far as I have understood it, I have voiced the trouble I have with what it seemed to be implying to me. I may be mistaken. I'll have to think further on this.
Posts: 609 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw your razzing smiley. Nonetheless, you were making a point. Your tongue was in your cheek, but you were still indicating that the attractiveness of the quote to someone looking for a "light" Christianity was an indication of a problem you had with it.
Am I wrong?
I responded to what I saw as the underlying message in your tongue-in-cheek post. My response may have been pointed, but I don't think it was rude. (In fact, I believe it was in-kind.) Certainly, it did not deserve the overly harsh--and insulting--response you gave it, suggesting that I "buy a sense of humor." There is nothing wrong with my sense of humor, thank you very much.
(It is an oft-criticized debating tactic here to score points but stick a smiley on the end of it, and then claim, if anybody questions you, that you were just kidding. I'm sure you can think of just who is frequently accused of that very thing.)
I was pretty dumbfounded by your reply. Maybe it's just my sense of humor lacking again. I wonder what the heck I ever did to you. I am not aware of ever having had a negative interaction with you, but suddenly you are jumping all over me and insulting me. If you have a problem with me, come out and tell me what it is. Or don't. I can write you off as simply a jerk. But I'm stunned by your posting style, and disappointed in myself for having misjudged you.
MULTIPLE EDITS to get my feelings exactly right.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: I saw your razzing smiley. Nonetheless, you were making a point. Your tongue was in your cheek, but you were still indicating that the attractiveness of the quote to someone looking for a "light" Christianity was an indication of a problem you had with it.
Am I wrong?
I responded to what I saw as the underlying message in your tongue-in-cheek post. My response may have been pointed, but I don't think it was rude. (In fact, I believe it was in-kind.) Certainly, it did not deserve the overly harsh--and insulting--response you gave it, suggesting that I "buy a sense of humor." There is nothing wrong with my sense of humor, thank you very much.
(It is an oft-criticized debating tactic here to score points but stick a smiley on the end of it, and then claim, if anybody questions you, that you were just kidding. I'm sure you can think of just who is frequently accused of that very thing.)
I was pretty dumbfounded by your reply. Maybe it's just my sense of humor lacking again. I wonder what the heck I ever did to you. I am not aware of ever having had a negative interaction with you, but suddenly you are jumping all over me and insulting me. If you have a problem with me, come out and tell me what it is. Or don't. I can write you off as simply a jerk. But I'm stunned by your posting style, and disappointed in myself for having misjudged you.
MULTIPLE EDITS to get my feelings exactly right.
Wow. My turn to be stunned. Let me assure you that you are reading way to much into my one little sentence. It really was only a joke. There was no underlying whatsit at all, and I certainly wasn't employing any debating tactic or somesuch thing. All I saw was that I had made what seemed to me to be a light-hearted joke, and then somebody (namely you) was trying to make it into a serious thing and making it say things I hadn't said. That's why I got annoyed.
As for my posting style, well, I'm afraid all I can do is apologize if it seemed ruder than I intended. Perhaps I can work on that. It doesn't change the fact that I am still annoyed by you making such a huge fuss over something that was, really, just a joke. I'm sorry you didn't find it funny.
Posts: 609 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not to intrude on a private debate, but....
I think the difference between this passage and "Universalism" is that once the Calormene knows the truth about Aslan and Tash, he knows who he really wants to serve and chooses Aslan. He doesn't try to get away with continuing to serve Tash (or his own self) because "it doesn't matter as long as I'm good". He had been "deceived by his fathers" into worshipping Tash, but when he was presented with the truth he chose to follow it.
For me to believe in a just God, there must be room for those who didn't know anything about Jesus to have a way to be saved. Even if they don't know who Jesus is, but they try to live the best they can according to what truth they know, then eventually they will be brought to know more truth. The kind of person who will accept truth when they receive it (meaning the Savior) is the kind of person who will be saved by Him - even if their understanding only comes at the end of life. (Or even after - yes, I'm LDS.)
The kind of person who DOESN'T try to live according to the truth they have wouldn't accept more truth if it was presented to him. And that's why our works are important - not because they save us, but because they say something about how fully we have faith in the Savior and accept the things He asks us to do. (Or how we WOULD accept those things if we knew them.)
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Interestingly enough, this character's name, "Emeth", means "truth" in some language... I forget which.
I think this is absolutely indicative of Lewis's Theology. For more, read The Great Divorce, which should, BTW, also address dh's concerns about Universalism and about works based salvation.
Perelandra is more detailed, yes, but it was about 15 years older than The Last Battle, so it wasn't a matter of "the best Lewis could do at the time" but a matter of trying to encapsulate a complex concept in a children's story.
Finally, dkw, I never took Tash to be representative of Allah. The Calormenes are, I think, more representative of Carthage and Baal-worship, but they are NOT directly allegorical at all. I think Mr. Squicky hit it on the head with his reference to the parable of the sheep and the goats, and I think this tale was Lewis's application of that theological point to his story arc.
Edit: in case you couldn't tell, I say "true".
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will say this, as an atheist... if I'm wrong and there IS a god, I sincerely hope he is the sort of god Lewis seems to intimate he is in this passage. Otherwise I'm going to be in the awkward (and paradoxical) position of telling him to stuff his paradise where the sun don't shine.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it is true, insofar that people who do their very best to follow the highest will be judged as someone who has done their very best to follow the highest.
However, even still, to gain all that the father has he would need to be baptized because that ordinance had not taken place. He would get a chance to accept it, along with everyone else who had not had the opportunity in life.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Odd as it is to see myself typing this...I think KoM had it right. Everything, even evil, serves God's plan...and he wasn't saved until he accepted Aslan.
So it actually makes sense, at least according to what I was taught as a RC. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
baptism can occur after death? Not questioning your statement, just hadn't ever heard that before
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, those who didn't have an opportunity to get baptized during this life will have the chance to accept in the next. The baptism is done for them by proxy here, after they have died.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: All who are truly seeking God will find God, no question about that. "Seek and ye shall find."
However, if one is truly seeking, one will eventually find Christ.
It would be nice if that were true. Because there are a lot more truly seeking truth-seekers out there than are currently within the Christian community, and it'd be lovely to think that all these people might not wind up being punished by a bastard God. As David's pointed out, a God who didn't do this would be a despot, and a God not worthy of worship.
-------
smitty, Katie's talking specifically about the Mormon Church, which reconciles their belief that Mormon baptism is essential for salvation with their belief that even people who were never exposed to Mormon doctrine can be saved by permitting Mormons to, in life, perform baptisms for the dead on their behalf -- and largely unrequested -- so that, if they're right about the afterlife, those souls will have the opportunity to be saved.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, I'd never heard that, and it would clear up a lot of issues I've had... most of the sermons I hear are "get baptized now, before it's too late!"
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
*nod* The Mormons are rather unique in that approach. Most Christian denominations that believe baptism is required for salvation believe that this baptism must occur before death, and consequently believe that a significant percentage of the human beings who have ever lived are doomed to Hell.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The baptisms are not automatic - the person still needs to accept them after. People don't change fundamentally when they die, so I personally suspect that someone who has the chance in this life and refuses will do the same in the next, but it is good to know that the atonement is available for everyone. Baptism is absolutely necessary, but those who didn't have the chance are not doomed because of that.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, now that you mention it, I do recall that - that's why my Grandma started attending a Mormon church, for a while.
Every church is so different, which is why I'm between churches again. So many little rules in each one that seem to overtake the faith in general.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, it is. I personally don't know if I've been baptized (My mom and dad retreated from organized religion when they ran into problems with "Well, a ____ baptism doesn't count in this church, you need OUR baptism"), but I've never been a part of a church long enough to feel comfortable enough to join... I would like to think that salvation doesn't depend on a particular ritual...
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is complicated that baptism as it is pragmatically practiced is both a covenant with the Lord to follow and the way to join an organized religion. The Mormons are also one of the churches that believe that baptism must be done with the authority of God, and that authority isn't found in other churches.
Baptism is necessary, but it isn't sufficient in itself. Baptism without that change of heart and repentance and personal renewing is like it never happened. And for whatever reason (to be honest, I'm not entirely clear why), that personal renewal and devotion without baptism isn't sufficient either. That begs the question of sufficient for what, though. A life without baptism isn't sufficient for inheriting everything the father has, but the lack of it isn't going to send anyone to fiery pits.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
