In general, I stay away from philosophical theologians because they tend to reverse engineer revealed truth in the Bible to fit what makes sense to them.
New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
You must log in or sign up to comment
24 comments:
I dont remember that part of the Lion the Witch, and the Wardrobe, but referencing occult or pagan concepts in literature doesnt necessarily mean those concepts are being promoted. Just because the Bible mentions Satan doesnt mean its encouraging Satanism, and its much the same for secular works including a devil as an antagonist. Lewis' work isnt meant to be a 1-1 allegory for Christianity, but it definitely has far more Christian undercurrents with Aslan as a blatant stand in for Christ than it does occult set-dressing. I have no idea why you are conflating Lucifer with sun worship either, he was always a personification of the planet Venus, and fittingly to, as it appears to be beautiful on the eye but in reality is an utter hell-scape.
Furthermore the pagan gods were referenced a lot in renaissance folklore and art, especially by Christians. Read Dante's Divine comedy, its one of the most Catholic works you can find and yet the third act, Paradiso begins with an invocation to Apollo, and praising him for flaying another demon alive. I think this is because the reianassiance poets did see Apollo as some sort of figure of Christ, especially with how much the Sibylline Oracles seem to contain references to Christ. Lewis was definitely a Christian, he just took a lot of inspiration from the reianassiance.
I think an important note on Paganism is that not all of the Pagan "gods" began as devils, some like Thor and Odin clearly were human heroes who were deified as was the custom of the ancients, but over time, devils co-opted their worship by providing false miracles in their name, in order to lead their followers astray from True Religion and into superstition. Thats why devils are so sinister, they'll take something wholesome and slowly twist it to their ends through trickery.
Furthermore the pagan gods were referenced a lot in renaissance folklore and art, especially by Christians. Read Dante's Divine comedy, its one of the most Catholic works you can find and yet the third act, Paradiso begins with an invocation to Apollo, and praising him for flaying another demon alive. I think this is because the reianassiance poets did see Apollo as some sort of figure of Christ, especially with how much the Sibylline Oracles seem to contain references to Christ. Lewis was definitely a Christian, he just took a lot of inspiration from the reianassiance.
I think an important note on Paganism is that not all of the Pagan "gods" began as devils, some like Thor and Odin clearly were human heroes who were deified as was the custom of the ancients, but over time, devils co-opted their worship by providing false miracles in their name, in order to lead their followers astray from True Religion and into superstition. Thats why devils are so sinister, they'll take something wholesome and slowly twist it to their ends through trickery.
I agree that just referencing the occult doesn’t make a work or author bad.
Lucifer is associated with many things, but the Sun is one of them. Many mystery religions worship the Sun, which is an exoteric front for the esoteric worship of Lucifer. Here is a quote from an author on the subject so you know I’m not just making it up:
> “The Illuminati and their subordinates, the Masons, honor the Deity of countless names. Yes, one of those names is Osiris, with his son Horus. But the Illuminati Deity is a concealed god who hides his true identity in a multitude of disguises and subterfuges. He is called “The *Sun*,” the “*Central Sun*,” “Hiram Abiff,” the one with the “Ineffable Name,” “Ein Soph,” the “Great Architect of the Universe,” “Abaddon,” “Mahabone,” and “Jahbuhlun.” Ostensibly the Illuminati worship a pantheon, a multiplicity of gods. But, not so. These are all fronts for the elite worship of Lucifer. He is their true god, the God of Light. As Albert Pike stated in Morals and Dogma, “Doubt it not.”
Excerpt From
Codex Magica: Secret Signs, Mysterious Symbols, and Hidden Codes of the Illuminati
Marrs, Texe
I feel like you didn’t read the article, which is fine, but it talks about and proves, in my opinion, that C.S. Lewis did not believe in the inerrancy of the Bible and also did not believe in redemption through Christ.
Lucifer is associated with many things, but the Sun is one of them. Many mystery religions worship the Sun, which is an exoteric front for the esoteric worship of Lucifer. Here is a quote from an author on the subject so you know I’m not just making it up:
> “The Illuminati and their subordinates, the Masons, honor the Deity of countless names. Yes, one of those names is Osiris, with his son Horus. But the Illuminati Deity is a concealed god who hides his true identity in a multitude of disguises and subterfuges. He is called “The *Sun*,” the “*Central Sun*,” “Hiram Abiff,” the one with the “Ineffable Name,” “Ein Soph,” the “Great Architect of the Universe,” “Abaddon,” “Mahabone,” and “Jahbuhlun.” Ostensibly the Illuminati worship a pantheon, a multiplicity of gods. But, not so. These are all fronts for the elite worship of Lucifer. He is their true god, the God of Light. As Albert Pike stated in Morals and Dogma, “Doubt it not.”
Excerpt From
Codex Magica: Secret Signs, Mysterious Symbols, and Hidden Codes of the Illuminati
Marrs, Texe
I feel like you didn’t read the article, which is fine, but it talks about and proves, in my opinion, that C.S. Lewis did not believe in the inerrancy of the Bible and also did not believe in redemption through Christ.
Bizarre that they would worship Lucifer as Abaddon, because thats the farthest place from the Sun, though ironically also where God keeps him imprisoned (though recently he seems to have been allowed out).
I actually missed the article the first time around, so I just got around to reading it. It raises some interesting points (some of which I was aware of, like Lewis being an Atheist earlier in life, and some of which I had suspicions of, like the involvement of the "Church" of England in the occult), but I have a few problems with it. One, it is clearly written from a Zionist perspective, and two cites the known Kookifier John Todd as a viable source of information (the chick style attacks during the Satanic Panic on the Church and D&D, both of which are as Christian as can be, were blatant misdirection from the actual Satanism of the jews and their goy cults). Another issue I have with it is that it suggests the use of pagan set dressing in fiction is somehow a sure sign of the occult, because a good deal of fictional works by Christians from the so called "dark ages" to the renaissance do exactly that. Christians have acknowledged from the start that the pagan "gods" are real, theyre just not actual gods, but either men deified by other men and lost to myth, or devils aping God to lead mortal men astray. Lewis' works are *meant* to be fictional, so him including some pagan concepts in them is not an immediate sign of un-orthodoxy because they arent meant to be taken literally. However, they are so blatantly Christian in their basis that I would argue any occult-seeming set-dressing is merely that, set dressing. Anyone who has read his Sci-Fi books, could tell you that Lewis was not a modernist either, because those books are excoriating critiques on modernism and scientism.
Also, this misquote of Lewis is especially egrigous:
>. According to Lewis “He [the devil] always sends errors into the world in pairs – pairs of opposites.” (p.186) They believe the universe comprises both good and evil in equal measure and that it is the task of the initiate to learn how to balance these two aspects of The Force and thereby create one’s own reality. This concept, that everything exists in pairs of opposites, is not found or even suggested anywhere in the Bible, but it permeates occult philosophy. For example, it is why witchcraft comprises both ‘good’ witches and ‘bad’ witches
The author is literally agreeing with what Lewis is saying and yet is claiming Lewis is wrong for saying it. This is my biggest issue with Evangelicals, they look for Devils where they arent and yet completely ignore (((them))) where (((they))) are.
I actually missed the article the first time around, so I just got around to reading it. It raises some interesting points (some of which I was aware of, like Lewis being an Atheist earlier in life, and some of which I had suspicions of, like the involvement of the "Church" of England in the occult), but I have a few problems with it. One, it is clearly written from a Zionist perspective, and two cites the known Kookifier John Todd as a viable source of information (the chick style attacks during the Satanic Panic on the Church and D&D, both of which are as Christian as can be, were blatant misdirection from the actual Satanism of the jews and their goy cults). Another issue I have with it is that it suggests the use of pagan set dressing in fiction is somehow a sure sign of the occult, because a good deal of fictional works by Christians from the so called "dark ages" to the renaissance do exactly that. Christians have acknowledged from the start that the pagan "gods" are real, theyre just not actual gods, but either men deified by other men and lost to myth, or devils aping God to lead mortal men astray. Lewis' works are *meant* to be fictional, so him including some pagan concepts in them is not an immediate sign of un-orthodoxy because they arent meant to be taken literally. However, they are so blatantly Christian in their basis that I would argue any occult-seeming set-dressing is merely that, set dressing. Anyone who has read his Sci-Fi books, could tell you that Lewis was not a modernist either, because those books are excoriating critiques on modernism and scientism.
Also, this misquote of Lewis is especially egrigous:
>. According to Lewis “He [the devil] always sends errors into the world in pairs – pairs of opposites.” (p.186) They believe the universe comprises both good and evil in equal measure and that it is the task of the initiate to learn how to balance these two aspects of The Force and thereby create one’s own reality. This concept, that everything exists in pairs of opposites, is not found or even suggested anywhere in the Bible, but it permeates occult philosophy. For example, it is why witchcraft comprises both ‘good’ witches and ‘bad’ witches
The author is literally agreeing with what Lewis is saying and yet is claiming Lewis is wrong for saying it. This is my biggest issue with Evangelicals, they look for Devils where they arent and yet completely ignore (((them))) where (((they))) are.
I didn’t know anything about John Todd so thanks for the heads up. Yes, the author is a dispensationalist, so you have to bear that in mind.
I agree that pagan set dressing does not mean a work is evil or occult, it just made me curious about Lewis’ beliefs.
I won’t argue with you about Christian themes in his works since I’ve only read 3 or 4 of the Narnia books. But, I do find many of his quotes regarding his faith and especially his lack of respect for the Word of God to be telling. It is very strange to talk about worshipping something other than God.
And yes, that quote was very deceptive, which is too bad because it was not necessary given the other quotes about Lewis’ beliefs.
I agree that pagan set dressing does not mean a work is evil or occult, it just made me curious about Lewis’ beliefs.
I won’t argue with you about Christian themes in his works since I’ve only read 3 or 4 of the Narnia books. But, I do find many of his quotes regarding his faith and especially his lack of respect for the Word of God to be telling. It is very strange to talk about worshipping something other than God.
And yes, that quote was very deceptive, which is too bad because it was not necessary given the other quotes about Lewis’ beliefs.
>It is very strange to talk about worshipping something other than God.
It depends on what type of "worship" is being talked about, because there are multiple forms, some of which can be applied to things outside of God. For instance, a respectful greeting to your superiors is actually a form of worship, but it isnt the Divine Worship that is reserved for only God.
It depends on what type of "worship" is being talked about, because there are multiple forms, some of which can be applied to things outside of God. For instance, a respectful greeting to your superiors is actually a form of worship, but it isnt the Divine Worship that is reserved for only God.
I would disagree with that, because polytheism is irrational. If there were multiple Supreme Beings, they would either be so in sync with one another that they would end up acting together as a single unified entity (at which point, it would be monotheism in practice), or they would simply be in a state of constant disagreement and conflict and nothing would ever get done, and no coherent form of order would develop.
Jews are also not monotheists, not the modern pretenders, who are Gnostics which serve every false divinity both above and below the earth, and certainly not the ancients, who fell into polytheistic paganism many times and were punished for it. Christians, and by extent Muslims, are the only true monotheistic religions with any major numbers (one could argue the Buddhists and Brahmins are also monotheistic, but their "god" is an unmanifested and unthinking unconscious bound to its own "creation").
The bible is the most ancient historical documentation we have (or at least was accepted as historical until the jews started subverting the sciences) and suggests that monotheism was the default state of men until men began declaring their ancestors to be divinities and started worshipping demons as they gradually descended in savagery.
Jews are also not monotheists, not the modern pretenders, who are Gnostics which serve every false divinity both above and below the earth, and certainly not the ancients, who fell into polytheistic paganism many times and were punished for it. Christians, and by extent Muslims, are the only true monotheistic religions with any major numbers (one could argue the Buddhists and Brahmins are also monotheistic, but their "god" is an unmanifested and unthinking unconscious bound to its own "creation").
The bible is the most ancient historical documentation we have (or at least was accepted as historical until the jews started subverting the sciences) and suggests that monotheism was the default state of men until men began declaring their ancestors to be divinities and started worshipping demons as they gradually descended in savagery.
Toast message
Furthermore, Christ, when he came to earth, performed specific miracles to show not just jews but pagans that he was the most powerful God and had all the powers of any of the other gods.
If you go further, you'll end up studying angels and find that angels would've been considered as gods outright by polytheists. Thus, it is not necessarily so that Apollo, for instance, is anything other than an angel that serves under Jesus.
Imagine I was a Christian in the first century, and I went into a town where they worshiped some of the "good" gods, and I told them about Jesus. They would immediately think, "Oh, he is telling us about another god, maybe even another instance where one of our gods showed up." Then I describe the miracles Jesus performed, they would get confused because one God performing all those miracles would defy all understanding of how gods work.
Then I would either have to tell them "You're gods are totally fake, and all those experiences you had with the gods was just fantasy, never happened."
Or, I could tell them, "Apollo et al are just angels, and Jesus is the real God, the God of gods, so to speak, and Apollo serves under him. The "evil" gods are opposed to Jesus but Apollo was merely his messenger."
Which do you think early Christian apostles and ministers were saying?
Why do you think it is significant that Christian churches were built on top of ancient holy sites dedicated to "false" gods, and why do you think it is that so many pagans converted to Christianity so rapidly?
If you get rid of the narrow-minded view that modern protestants and oftentimes, by infection, Roman Catholics have, you'll see that Christianity is way more interesting than you were told.
Read the Bible closely, and think very carefully about what is actually being said and who is saying it and who they are speaking to. They are NOT writing to a modern audience who has been raised in a strictly monotheistic culture where there is only one God and all the other "gods" are just imaginary.
I probably should get a few of his books and start reading. To be honest, I don't like going too academic on things.
>If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant, 3And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 4And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel: 5Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.
This is angels, saints, spirits, etc.
Does that mean God can command men to worship something in heaven other than himself? I think he can. To wit -- John 20:17/
Jesus says to Mary in John 20:17: "I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God." So, if Jesus is God, then there are at least 2 Gods. If we can worship Jesus, and we can worship Jesus' God, then we are worshiping 2 Gods. Should we have taken Jesus to the gates and tried to stone him for such heresy?
If you read this passage super-literally, then Jesus may be talking about THREE Gods: Jesus (himself), Jesus' God, and Mary's God (distinct from Jesus' God.) I don't subscribe to this interpretation, but it is the most literal interpretation.
I know that you probably subscribe to Trinitarian ideas of "three persons one substance" or whatever, but the truth is that idea is utter nonsense, as in, it makes no sense. Plus, such an idea, that God is one substance but three persons, is not found anywhere in the Bible. ALL the passages that talk about the "one"-ness of God are in fact referring to something OTHER than substance. Go ahead, look them up and tell me with a straight face that the authors of those passages was thinking about "one substance". In fact, the earliest Christian writers were more than happy to accept the fact that there were at least 2 separate and distinct Gods -- Jesus and his Father.
Assuming you are referring ONLY AND SINGLY to the Christ as being one other to worship then you are not immediately blaspheming. The host of Heaven is subservient to the King of Heaven, the Christ. Worshipping any other is death.
>Mary's God (distinct from Jesus' God.)
Now this is ridiculous blasphemy and frankly a stretch.
>I ascend unto my Father, and your Father;
i.e. The SAME FATHER.
>and to my God, and your God.
i.e. the SAME GOD.
He is not saying she is of different birth, as being a derivative of the seed of Adam is the entire point to God's incarnation as Jesus. Both being of man, they both return to the same beginning and father, which is GOD.
If you want to search out heathen prophecies to collaborate, Zoroaster prophesized the coming of God's incarnation. The Magi from the east following the star were probably Zoroastrian Magi from Persia. The Greeks were also receiving interesting oracles concerning the birth of God, however many are somewhat far fetched..
Anyway, yes there is one GOD. The human being speaks of this, being divided into three parts: heart, body and soul.
Historical Christianity is *so* much more complex than what we hear from either side, and diving into basically any unbiased academic writings of it cracks that egg wide open.
Why?
Because they are evil. The Angels will not have you worship them. The Saints (souls who have gone to Heaven) will only appear in visions. The spirits are metaphysical and only manifest themselves through the soul.
The Sumerian and Babylonian mythology is the devil's perspective of creation (the primordial Ocean, man of clay, the deluge. This is also where Lillith comes from.) While GOD was creating the elements, these foolish entities were bickering amongst themselves the most unintelligible stupidities. These gods do possess retarded abilities. The ancients did not consult oracles for thousands of years because oracles were unreliable, they did it because they were reliable. But, where the evil will speak truth, they will poison it with their lies.
The worship of lesser gods leads only to one thing. Nearly EVERY SINGLE pagan religion has done this.. Human sacrifice, mainly the divination of children. The Persians, the Greeks, the Germans, the Babylonians, the Carthaginians were particularly egregious butchers, the Iberians.
It is okay to Exalt the Angels and Ancestors. EXALT. You can command the seven spirits of God. He will send these Spirits when you request and they will exhibit their characteristics in your soul. You can burn incense to the God of Creation. You can offer him meat sacrifices on the fire, though he responds most favorably to spiritual sacrifices such as charity, and almsgiving. What does the God of all care for incense and meat? Nothing, really, but He appreciates the effort and will send the Spirit among you. Build him a shrine, but realize that nothing you make of your hands is a manifestation of God. God does not live in statues.
When you say "THE devil" I think you are obscuring a fact that there isn't just one devil but a very large number. I think in Greek the word you use for devil would be translated as demon. Jesus cast out literal evil gods from people, thousands at a time in one instance.
The trick with Christianity isn't just recognizing Jesus as THE God, but distinguishing good angels from evil beings. It's not a simple task, and people get confused.
GOD is not HIS name, it is an underwhelming description of a piece of his nature.
Do you have any reading you recommend that dives more into how much more interesting Christianity is?
The Bible itself is extraordinarily interesting. Even if you don't believe it is supernatural in origin, it still beats that pants off of every other piece of literature ever created.
I also feel like you didn’t read the article. Lewis does not believe in the redemption of Christ and Biblical inerrancy along with other tenets of the Christian faith.