[Sesquipedalian]

1) Tash is not a representation of Allah, for the simple reason that Lewis agreed with Mikhael on the question of whether YHWH and Allah were refering to the same deity. (Although Lewis has a bit more nuance since Mik fails to appreciate the doctrine of the Trinity in shaping Christian understandings of God.)

2) Gnostics:  Gnosticism was/is a movement that can adopt to various religions.  There were Zoroastrian Gnostics, Neoplatonic Gnostics, Christian Gnostics, and more.  They should not be blanketed as subsets of Christianity.

3) Regarding the factual truth of the Bible: It is one of the strange side effects of "modern" philosophy (i.e. 17th- mid 20th century) to think that "truth" and "fact" are synonyms.  This is not the case.  Believers and unbelievers both get into trouble by assuming that these two terms are equivalent.  A "fact" is a certain type of "truth", but not the only kind.

Since we are beating on the old Genesis-1-vs-the-dinosaurs horse again, lets us that example:

Genesis 1 is written using the literary form and style of mythology (note, that is not a bad word).  The author intentionally chose that form and style.  This means that the passage is meant to convey a truth that is best conveyed in the mythological form and style.  It is mythology, and for a believer, it is divinely inspired mythology.  

When a believer or an unbeliever ignores the intended form and style, they are guaranteed to get themselves into trouble.  A "creation scientist" and a "bible debunker" are being equally stupid in the way they address Genesis 1, because neither is reading the text the way it was intended.  Its almost as bad as basing your calculus on Shakespearian verse, or throwing out Shakespeare because he isn't useful for solving calculus problems.

Ancient people were no stupider than we are.  An uneducated 1st century Jew in backwater Palestine might have believed that God sat literally on a big throne in the sky.  His educated counterpart in Jerusalem or Alexandria wouldn't dream of abusing the metaphor with such crass literalism.  

If you are going to deal with the biblical text, at least be as smart as a bunch of dead guys, and respect the form of the text instead of imposing your own agenda on it.

[Setekh]

Originally posted by Gank
Saying that because these places exist and are in the bible the rest of what the bible says is a fact is idiotic. What the bible says about god,jesus etc is not provable by anything other than god himself coming down and telling us.

Gank, I didn't say that the facts already proven proved the rest of the facts - and as a general pointer, you may want to refrain from ridiculing others' positions, because that's what leads to flame wars (all the more when others' positions do not justify ridicule, which they mostly do not, and especially here). I expect better of you. That aside, there is the point that Christianity holds that God has himself come down and told us. However, for hypothesis' sake, what would you say if he did, and that historical event was recorded? How would you react to that if (say) you actually took it as true? Or maybe, if such an event happened today in your town, how would you record it so that future people would be able to understand it - how would you prove to future peoples that what you record was not a lie or a fabrication?

[Setekh]

Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
Since we are beating on the old Genesis-1-vs-the-dinosaurs horse again, lets us that example:

Genesis 1 is written using the literary form and style of mythology (note, that is not a bad word).  The author intentionally chose that form and style.  This means that the passage is meant to convey a truth that is best conveyed in the mythological form and style.  It is mythology, and for a believer, it is divinely inspired mythology.  

When a believer or an unbeliever ignores the intended form and style, they are guaranteed to get themselves into trouble.  A "creation scientist" and a "bible debunker" are being equally stupid in the way they address Genesis 1, because neither is reading the text the way it was intended.  Its almost as bad as basing your calculus on Shakespearian verse, or throwing out Shakespeare because he isn't useful for solving calculus problems.

Ancient people were no stupider than we are.  An uneducated 1st century Jew in backwater Palestine might have believed that God sat literally on a big throne in the sky.  His educated counterpart in Jerusalem or Alexandria wouldn't dream of abusing the metaphor with such crass literalism.  

If you are going to deal with the biblical text, at least be as smart as a bunch of dead guys, and respect the form of the text instead of imposing your own agenda on it.

Well summed up.

[Nico]

Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
It is mythology, and for a believer, it is divinely inspired mythology.  

Mind you, they all are, and I don't give more credits to Zeus than to God. Save for the fact that Zeus came first

[Sesquipedalian]

Originally posted by Nico


Mind you, they all are, and I don't give more credits to Zeus than to God. Save for the fact that Zeus came first

Well, not all.  Homer didn't think he was being divinely inspired, and as far as I know, no other Greeks really took his writings to be divinely inspired the way the Judeo-Christian tradition sees its writings to be.

But that little qualification aside, were you going somewhere with that?

[Nico]

Omer? How poor of an exemple. Fist of all, you can take the Ilyade and the Odyssey ( dunno how you say in english, couldn't care less ) are inspired from mythology, you know, just like the Passion is inspired from the bible. "Omer" did not create that story.
Second, Omer probably never existed. I don't remember the details, I studied that a long time ago, but nobody REALLY knows who wrote those stories.
And "as far as I know" doesn't work as a proof, man
As for divinely inspired, any 'true" christian who creates the smallest **** believes he was divinely inspired, and has no talent whatsoever, god did it through him ( a bit arrogant, btw, no? ).
I'm going somewhere? No, I was just pointing a fact. That's bad?

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
1) Tash is not a representation of Allah, for the simple reason that Lewis agreed with Mikhael on the question of whether YHWH and Allah were refering to the same deity. (Although Lewis has a bit more nuance since Mik fails to appreciate the doctrine of the Trinity in shaping Christian understandings of God.)

I appreciate the doctrine of the Trinity in shaping SOME Christian understandings of God. Whether or not I agree with the Doctrine of the Trinity is irrelevant, since I am not arguing my own belief. I'm discussing the beliefs of others who do.

3) Regarding the factual truth of the Bible: It is one of the strange side effects of "modern" philosophy (i.e. 17th- mid 20th century) to think that "truth" and "fact" are synonyms.  This is not the case.  Believers and unbelievers both get into trouble by assuming that these two terms are equivalent.  A "fact" is a certain type of "truth", but not the only kind.

Since we are beating on the old Genesis-1-vs-the-dinosaurs horse again, lets us that example:

Genesis 1 is written using the literary form and style of mythology (note, that is not a bad word).  The author intentionally chose that form and style.  This means that the passage is meant to convey a truth that is best conveyed in the mythological form and style.  It is mythology, and for a believer, it is divinely inspired mythology.  

When a believer or an unbeliever ignores the intended form and style, they are guaranteed to get themselves into trouble.  A "creation scientist" and a "bible debunker" are being equally stupid in the way they address Genesis 1, because neither is reading the text the way it was intended.  Its almost as bad as basing your calculus on Shakespearian verse, or throwing out Shakespeare because he isn't useful for solving calculus problems.

Ancient people were no stupider than we are.  An uneducated 1st century Jew in backwater Palestine might have believed that God sat literally on a big throne in the sky.  His educated counterpart in Jerusalem or Alexandria wouldn't dream of abusing the metaphor with such crass literalism.  

If you are going to deal with the biblical text, at least be as smart as a bunch of dead guys, and respect the form of the text instead of imposing your own agenda on it.

I agree with you, but I don't think your point is QUITE relevant. The discussion is currently predicated (in the purely logical sense) on an assumption of biblical literality--especially given we aren't talking about Genesis, but the later, non-metaphorical books, such as Leviticus and John.

Most specifcally we were discussing the accuracy of certain statements and quotes about Jesus, with regard to the doctrinal idea that Allah and God are the same. None of this is written in the mythological form, religious or otherwise. Thus, I contend that your point, though well thought out, is not relevant to the discussion at hand. Its like deciding that you having learned Shakespeare might help you whilst you take that calculus test this evening.

[Sesquipedalian]

Originally posted by mikhael

I appreciate the doctrine of the Trinity in shaping SOME Christian understandings of God. Whether or not I agree with the Doctrine of the Trinity is irrelevant, since I am not arguing my own belief. I'm discussing the beliefs of others who do.

Of course your agreement with the Doctrine of the Trinity or lack thereof is irrelevant.  So is mine.  By "appreciate" I meant only that at some points in the discussion I have noted some oversimplification in dealing with the Christian conception of the Deity.  

For example, you stated that the Father is supposed to have created the world.  However, both the Son and the Spirit are also credited with creation of the world in the Bible.  Making too strong a division between the three persons causes one to fall into tri-theism, rather than trinitarian monotheism.  Of course, there is also the danger of overcorrecting and falling into modalism, but that dosn't seem to be your tendency.

But all of this was originally meant merely as a comment about Lewis's view.  Whereas you, Mikhael, argue without qualification that the Christian god and the Muslim god are the same, Lewis would say (and does, though I admit I'd have to research to find the location again) that the terms may refer to same objective entity, but that that entity is understood differently in the different religions.  Islam's radical simple monotheism developed in part as a reaction against Christian trinitarian monotheism.  Thus, the two are markedly and intentionally different.

I agree with you, but I don't think your point is QUITE relevant...

Actually, point 3 of my post was addressing the discussion between Gank and Setekh.

[Sesquipedalian]

Originally posted by Nico
Omer? How poor of an exemple. Fist of all, you can take the Ilyade and the Odyssey ( dunno how you say in english, couldn't care less ) are inspired from mythology, you know, just like the Passion is inspired from the bible. "Omer" did not create that story.
Second, Omer probably never existed. I don't remember the details, I studied that a long time ago, but nobody REALLY knows who wrote those stories.
And "as far as I know" doesn't work as a proof, man
As for divinely inspired, any 'true" christian who creates the smallest **** believes he was divinely inspired, and has no talent whatsoever, god did it through him ( a bit arrogant, btw, no? ).
I'm going somewhere? No, I was just pointing a fact. That's bad?

Ah, I think I see the problem, Nico.

The techincal term "divinely inspired" has a different meaning that the usual meaning of "inspired."

The everyday meaning of "inspired" includes such ideas as:
                  -  to produce or arouse (a feeling, thought, etc.): to inspire confidence.
                  -  to fill or affect with a feeling, thought, etc.: to inspire a person with distrust.
                  -  to give rise to, bring about, cause, etc.: a philosophy that inspired a revolution.

"Divinely inspired" is different:
                  -  to communicate or suggest by a divine or supernatural influence.
                  -  to guide or control by divine influence.

[Note: Definitions take from the Random House Webster's Dictionary, College Editon, 1992]

When Jews, Christians, and Muslims say that their Scriptures are divinely inspired, they mean that they are in some form or another a communication from God.  They do not mean that someone was so overwhelmed with love and wonder of God that they decided to write something about it.

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
Of course your agreement with the Doctrine of the Trinity or lack thereof is irrelevant.  So is mine.  By "appreciate" I meant only that at some points in the discussion I have noted some oversimplification in dealing with the Christian conception of the Deity.  

For example, you stated that the Father is supposed to have created the world.  However, both the Son and the Spirit are also credited with creation of the world in the Bible.  Making too strong a division between the three persons causes one to fall into tri-theism, rather than trinitarian monotheism.  Of course, there is also the danger of overcorrecting and falling into modalism, but that dosn't seem to be your tendency.

That's a rather broad rewriting of the Old Testament there, Sesq. Tripartite Godhead isn's something I recall from the Old Testament--though I admit I could be wrong. In fact, the notion of The Father and the Spirit being seperate doesn't ring true with what I recall of the Old Testament at all, let alone the addition of a Son. Only in the New Testament, IIRC, is God triune. Further, at no point is the Christ mentioned in any way as a part of the Creation.

I don't understand your 'WTF' smiley up there.

But all of this was originally meant merely as a comment about Lewis's view.  Whereas you, Mikhael, argue without qualification that the Christian god and the Muslim god are the same, Lewis would say (and does, though I admit I'd have to research to find the location again) that they may be the same objective entity, but that they are understood differently.  Islam's radical simple monotheism developed in part as a reaction against Christian trinitarian monotheism.  Thus, the two are markedly and intentionally different.

You are incorrect about Islam's interpretation of God. They interpret God as unitary, the Father AND the Holy Spirit. Jesus was merely a prophet. It is, admittedly, simpler than the Christian doctrine, but is not incompatible with it and does not render Allah and the Christian God  incompatible or irreconcialable.

I don't believe God (or gods) are defined by those who follow or believe. If He (or they) exist, then they inspire the believers and not the other way around. If the believers define them, then They are small petty things.

[Sesquipedalian]

Originally posted by mikhael

That's a rather broad rewriting of the Old Testament there, Sesq. Tripartite Godhead isn's something I recall from the Old Testament--though I admit I could be wrong. In fact, the notion of The Father and the Spirit being seperate doesn't ring true with what I recall of the Old Testament at all, let alone the addition of a Son. Only in the New Testament, IIRC, is God triune. Further, at no point is the Christ mentioned in any way as a part of the Creation.

First to note, I am speaking in terms of what Christian doctrine teaches, and thus out of that perspective, when dealing with this topic.  Thus, the triunity of God is taken as a given.  (If we choose to question the doctrine of the Trinity, that opens a whole other discussion.)  That being the case, we can move on to look at whether all three persons are considered to be active in creation.

The Father's role is obvious and uncontested.
The Son's role is evidenced in such passages as Colossians 1:16-17, Hebrews 1:10-12 (in which Ps. 102 is understood to refer to the Son and not only the Father), and John 1:3.
The Spirit is directly mentioned in the Genesis account, and there the instrumentality of the Spirit seems to be what is intended.  Within this (pre-trinitarian) text, the connection between "God" and "God's Spirit" is very strong--to say his Spirit was there is to say he was there (and thus speaking things into existence).  The trinitarian view, derived from other sources, subsequently reads this in such a way that the Spirit (as another person within the Godhead) is seen as also an active player in creation.

You are incorrect about Islam's interpretation of God. They interpret God as unitary, the Father AND the Holy Spirit. Jesus was merely a prophet. It is, admittedly, simpler than the Christian doctrine, but is not incompatible with it and does not render Allah and the Christian God  incompatible or irreconcialable.

I am quite familiar with Islam's interpretation of God.  To say Jesus is merely a prophet is incompatible with the Christian doctrine.  Thus, on a certain level the views are incompatible, Lewis would say.  On another, they are not, as he would also say.  [Note: whether I agree with Lewis or not has not been expressed, just in case that has been at all unclear]

I don't believe God (or gods) are defined by those who follow or believe. If He (or they) exist, then they inspire the believers and not the other way around. If the believers define them, then They are small petty things.

It seems that I edited the quoted post while you were writing in order to clarify the very point you raise.  I was speaking of interpretations--God as they see him--when discussing the differences.

[Krackers87]

dammit, those bastards..

why doesent anyone ever recognize the Magicians nephew?

Its part of the series, and the most important one if you ask me.

[mikhael]

We've been discussing it since the beginning of the thread, Krackers. It was the first Narnia book I read, and indeed, by far the most important.

I'll respond to Sesq tomorrow. I'm tired.

[Sesquipedalian]

As you will.

[Carl]

BUMP

http://www.apple.com/trailers/disney/the_chronicles_of_narnia.html

[Rictor]

weta are like, holy or something.

[Sandwich]

Saw that trailer the other day... looks like a cross between the hardcore fanatasy world of Tolkein and the children's-level fantasy of Lewis - which is awesome IMO. Completely children's-level depictions of the Narnia world have already been done in film; this will add that much-needed "realism" to it.

[diamondgeezer]

Streaming traielrs can go **** themselves

__________________
Diamond Geezer owns the complete chronicles of Narnia in a single volume

[Killfrenzy]

Yeesh.......by Rind-sama isn't it possible to actually discuss a piece of our childhood being turned into a movie WITHOUT it becoming a huge exercise in religious debate?

Okay, I know that the Narnia series is allegory, but I really don't care! I first came across Narnia when I was about five, and I still love it to bits as a CHILDRENS FANTASY STORY, which funnily enough, it is.

Analysis is one thing, but as soon as it detracts from the enjoyment of the books as stories, then that's going too far.

[übermetroid]

link to quick overview of the book?