The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe

[RobbyPants]

As a kid, I read The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe and thought it was an okay fairy tale. It wasn't until I was older that I heard it was a fairly obvious Jesus-story. By that time, I'd forgotten most of the particulars of the story, and just remembered the sacrifice and fight between good and evil. On our drive into town yesterday, we listened to it as an audio book. The similarities were very striking, but two things jumped out at me.

1) The professor (a very obvious author-insert) used Lewis' liar-lunatic-lord apologetic. He was talking about Lucy (before the kids believed her about Narnia), but that jumped out at me, as I know it's one of his favorite arguments.

2) Not only did the story catch a whole bunch of Jesus motifs, he even captured the pointlessness of the sacrifice. I've seen people complain about how Jesus' "sacrifice" was both not really a sacrifice (he knew he'd come back) and was done to make payment for an arbitrary system that could have just as easily been dropped. Aslan does the exact same thing in the story. Edmund was a traitor to the others and the White Witch (Satan) get automatically take ownership or all traitors. Aslan is powerless to stop this, because this rule is contained in "deep magic" referred to as "the Emperor's (God's) rules". Aslan decides to take Edmund's place, which the witch gladly agrees to. They kill him after torturing and mocking him, and then at sunrise, he comes back to life. He explains to the girls that another deep magic rule is that if someone innocent is sacrificed in someone's place, death will "work backward".

So, we basically have the exact same setup, here. Aslan "sacrifices" himself, knowing full well that he'll come back anyway, all to appease an arbitrary set of rules. In remaining so close to the source material, Lewis left his story open to the some of the same criticism of the crucifixion story.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Wasn't Aslan brought back because at least one person believed in him?

[RobbyPants]

Wasn't Aslan brought back because at least one person believed in him?

Maybe? It might be stated in another book, but I don't think it was mentioned in his super old and secret rules that he knew about and the witch didn't.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I just got that impression from the movie, so...

[Phaedrus]

C/P from AF.

I only read his book after I already knew about the connections. I must be younger than you, hehe.

The irony is that he was a relatively good fiction writer, but his writings on theology were absolute crap. A teacher gave me one of his books as a gift in high school (I was christian at the time), yet reading it just raised doubts. The book was Mere Christianity.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Full disclosure: I never read the books. I watched the British videos while I was Purdue, but I was at the time(s).

[jerry mcmasters]

C/P from AF.

I only read his book after I already knew about the connections. I must be younger than you, hehe.

The irony is that he was a relatively good fiction writer, but his writings on theology were absolute crap. A teacher gave me one of his books as a gift in high school (I was christian at the time), yet reading it just raised doubts. The book was Mere Christianity.

I read MC once when I was a young believer and as I was reading it to confirm what I already knew to be true, thought it was profound and amazing.  Then I picked it up years later when I had learned a smidgen about evolution and was stunned at how poor the arguments were.  I think part of what made it "deep" the first time through was reading it in Wise Educated Clever British voice, which was very persuasive to a young dopey American.

[airportkid]

... another deep magic rule is that if someone innocent is sacrificed in someone's place, death will "work backward" ...

Dickens' Tale of Two Cities would have been a far different book had Sydney Carton been a beneficiary of this rule.  Of the two tales, Dickens' is powerful, the tale of the lion in the closet not so much.

[julep]

Wasn't Aslan brought back because at least one person believed in him?

No...that was Tinkerbell.

When I was a kid the Narnia series was a great favorite. I read all the books many times, and read a lot of other CSL books, too. When I had a kid, I was looking forward to reading these books to him.

I couldn’t. I started in on them and found the style so heavy handed and condescending, the characters so flat and stereotyped, that I had to stop about halfway through the first book. There are some wonderful things in the books, and I couldn’t bear to read them again and lose all of my residual affection.

Although my son was eventually given a couple of sets of Narnia books and videos, he never got much into them. My son preferred Tolkien (as one should, Tolkien being a better writer and thinker).

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I just got the Harry Potter mega set. Color me eleven.

[Chas]

Wasn't Aslan brought back because at least one person believed in him?

Maybe? It might be stated in another book, but I don't think it was mentioned in his super old and secret rules that he knew about and the witch didn't.

The old rules were quite emphasized in the book.

[RobbyPants]

The old rules were quite emphasized in the book.

I remember that. I just don’t remember if the rules included belief being important.

[Vera]

Read it as an adult (in Sweden, right around the time I started deconverting. Coincidence? I think yes ). Was underwhelmed.dj

Read The Screwtape letters when much younger and deludeder... thought it a bit odd even then though I did try to take it seriously. Just let the old lady enjoy her toast, you mediocre creep.

Also, never forget he said this: ""There is no such thing as a sum of suffering, for no one suffers it. When we have reached the maximum that a single person can suffer, we have, no doubt, reached something very horrible, but we have reached all the suffering there can ever be in the universe. The addition of a million fellow sufferers adds no more pain "

I truly loathe him. Not to mention that he's such a crappy aplogist it truly boggles the mind how anyone can take him seriously, much less so tout him as a great and persuasive writer and thinker. Then again beggars can't be choosers - it's not like there's an abundance of great (or even semi-decent) apologists.

[Chas]

The old rules were quite emphasized in the book.

I remember that. I just don’t remember if the rules included belief being important.

I will have to check the text.

[jerry mcmasters]

I truly loathe him. Not to mention that he's such a crappy aplogist it truly boggles the mind how anyone can take him seriously, much less so tout him as a great and persuasive writer and thinker. Then again beggars can't be choosers - it's not like there's an abundance of great (or even semi-decent) apologists.

If I'm in a really charitable mood I can make at least one excuse for him, which is that he was writing a long time ago (I know, it's not much of an excuse).  As I recall the linchpin of Mere C wasn't his famous (and dumb) trilema point, but was the idea that there is in each of us a moral compass, an innate understanding of good and bad, fair and unfair, and he had no way to account for it so...must be God-planted, ergo, God exists.  Most of the little book is him obsessing on how peculiar this knowledge is and how it affects us.  The obvious answer to this, basic evolutionary psychology, evolved group behavior in mammals, etc., was probably around in the 1950s, but it was a concept not readily accessible to a stuffy lit professor...?

[Gwaithmir]

I recall reading Mere Christianity back in the early 1980's. It should have been titled Mere Christian Bullshit!

[Paleophyte]

I've never read his apologetics and have no desire to. I like my brain cells too much for that.

I recall Narnia being decent fiction. Not brilliant, but several steps above some of the mass market paperback dreck out there. The "hidden" Christian subtext amuses me. For me it simply points out the obviously fictional nature of Christianity and in Narnia's case at least it's a decent read.

[Dancefortwo]

Charlotte's Web is also supposed to have Christian undertones.  The spider dies and sacrifices herself so her baby spiders will eat her body, or something like  that.   I haven't read the story in a long time so I could be wrong.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Charlotte's Web is also supposed to have Christian undertones.  The spider dies and sacrifices herself so her baby spiders will eat her body, or something like  that.   I haven't read the story in a long time so I could be wrong.

Various bugs do that in nature, so the concept didn't need the Christ metaphor to be real.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I wonder if burying the Christ metaphor so deeply wasn't CSL's realization that the books wouldn't sell if it was more overt?

[Dancefortwo]

Charlotte's Web is also supposed to have Christian undertones.  The spider dies and sacrifices herself so her baby spiders will eat her body, or something like  that.   I haven't read the story in a long time so I could be wrong.

Various bugs do that in nature, so the concept didn't need the Christ metaphor to be real.

I looked up Charlotte's Web and the baby spiders don't eat her body but their birth kills Charlotte.  Even so,   a lot of Christians like to connect Jesus to anything a everything.   There is the miracle of the spider writing "Terrific" and "Some pig" in her web to save Wilbur from becoming bacon  so Christians are all over that with quotes from the bible, suggesting that we don't see miracles all around us.     https://atheisttochristian.wordpress.com...ottes-web/   This blogger is a dolt.  Here's another connection.  Wilbur the pig eats from a manger so this guy makes him into a Christ figure.     

http://moralpremise.blogspot.com/2007/01...-myth.html

[jerry mcmasters]

Charlotte's Web is also supposed to have Christian undertones.  The spider dies and sacrifices herself so her baby spiders will eat her body, or something like  that.   I haven't read the story in a long time so I could be wrong.

I remember both having to read the book as a kid and watching the movie, enjoyed both.  The sacrifice is that Charlotte expends crazy energy in an effort to save the pig.  Then the additional energy of having the little spider kids finishes her off.  It could be a Christ-analogy, but only by really stretching it, in the sense that ANY occasion of one person being willing to sacrifice their life for another is a Christ-analogy, which is ridiculous.

[Cheerful Charlie]

I truly loathe him. Not to mention that he's such a crappy aplogist it truly boggles the mind how anyone can take him seriously, much less so tout him as a great and persuasive writer and thinker. Then again beggars can't be choosers - it's not like there's an abundance of great (or even semi-decent) apologists.

If I'm in a really charitable mood I can make at least one excuse for him, which is that he was writing a long time ago (I know, it's not much of an excuse).  As I recall the linchpin of Mere C wasn't his famous (and dumb) trilema point, but was the idea that there is in each of us a moral compass, an innate understanding of good and bad, fair and unfair, and he had no way to account for it so...must be God-planted, ergo, God exists.  Most of the little book is him obsessing on how peculiar this knowledge is and how it affects us.  The obvious answer to this, basic evolutionary psychology, evolved group behavior in mammals, etc., was probably around in the 1950s, but it was a concept not readily accessible to a stuffy lit professor...?

Basically here, he was channeling Kant. The Only Possible Argument in Support of a Demonstration of the Existence of God. 
Kant's book was the basic idea that underlies modern day pre-suppositionalism, or TAG, the Transcendent Argument for God.  It is easy enough for a Christian apologist to graft this onto  evolution, guided evolution for example, and many "sophisticated" Christians do exactly that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Only_P...nce_of_God

[Chas]

We're back from the shadows again, out where an indian's your friend Where the vegetables are green,
and you can pee right in the stream, (And you know that's important!) we're back from the shadows again!

Ah, Firesign Theater.