We can't all stay in Narnia forever.
I was just getting too old.

Yet in Narnia the children encountered Aslan who told them that now they were leaving Narnia, they needed to come to know him by the name he is known by in our world. I think you miss the point here of why Narnia was left behind---it was toward growing faith, not an absence of it.

TBG

I find this quote very interesting because it looks like you're saying that you would prefer to live in a world of only good and not a world of some good and some evil. But many Christians in this topic have said in the last page or so that you cannot see good without seeing evil. Could you elaborate further on this preference of yours?

Well, I was talking on the subject of Heaven. Once in Heaven, you've already seen good (and entered eternal happiness, for that matter!) and by what you were saying (or how I say it last night when I was dead tired ) in that Heaven is flawed in some way, I would disagree with it.

Wait, what the heck? As a Christian, you're arguing that we're not doing good works out of the love of God, but so that God will fix us up a nice place when we get to heaven?

I think I worded that wrong. What I was trying to say is that you should never be forced by an earthly source to do good works, but rather to do them for the love of God.

The passage makes it pretty clear that if you do your good works in secret and don't boast about them, you'll get your reward in heaven, not on earth. Now my question is this - wouldn't heaven be a bit unfair if not everybody was treated equally?

Not every work is done in public, and I agree with that. I especially agree that we shouldn't boast upon them. You will get an earthly award here- but that's exactly what it is- a temporary, earthly reward.

Everyone is treated equally in heaven.... which I'll say more on in a minute.

Some would be rewarded in heaven with who knows what because of all the good works they had performed in secret while on earth, and some would just barely scrape by means of deathbed conversion and have no special prizes waiting for them in heaven. By saying that we are storing up treasures in heaven, you have reduced life to a game in which the more brownie points with God you rack up, the better your heavenly experience will be.

Well, not every good work is done for God, to start. Frequently it is no more than just a selfish motive behind it. (sheesh, I explain things really badly when I'm up past midnight. )

Since Heaven is already perfect and profound happiness, I wonder what these "treasures" could be? Again, this is all based on faith, not on earthly or visual splendors.

"But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal" Matthew 6:20

Good works are done for the love of God.

Sorry if I confused you.

I think what she's saying is that she likes the social benefits of Christianity, even if she doesn't believe God exists. You should take that as a compliment, because not many atheists/agnostics will say that!

I know. But Christianity isn't a social network. And I'm glad that MLD was able to enjoy Christianity in social terms. But like I said before... that's not the point of Christianity at all. You can't say "I enjoyed Christianity" in terms of "I enjoyed the social benefits." (sorry if I sounded harsh. I'm really bad at wording things. )

This is where I think the argument "it's all part of God's plan and will make the world better eventually" is fundamentally flawed. The evil won't be used for the benefit of all of creation, it will only be used for the benefit of those who reject it. Those who are captured by evil are just doomed.

Even if God eventually creates a new heaven and a new earth where everything is perfect and all of the universe showcases his glory, he will never have full control of all of time and space because he screwed part of his creation over. People right now are being brought up in extremist Muslim countries and trained to kill for Allah, and once they die with their corrupt minds, they are going to hell and nothing can be changed. They have forever put a stain on the fabric of God's spacetime because, as far as I know, God does not undo the past.

Those who are captured by evil allow themselves to be that way. Even Orcs fought against Sauron at one point, this point being the Last Alliance mentioned in the Silmarillion. So yes, even the orcs fought for the good, they were not even captured by evil. Iluvatar works to benefit all of his creation, though some reject him (like the typical orc). Can we blame Iluvatar because of an orc who was captured by evil? The real one to blame is either Melkor himself or the one who fell to evil, not Iluvatar. By falling into evil you are therefore resisting Iluvatar, and working against him. It is the same with the Christian God. Those who fall into evil are working against God actively.

Is it hard for those being brought up in Muslim countries to have a different way of thinking? Surely it is, though it is not impossible. The apostle Paul tells us that the Holy Spirit will convict you, and it is in my faith that it will, and my experience proves that. I could have just as easily blown off my conviction, and I am sure that many Muslims do.

I'm sorry that happened to you. A taste of Christianity in a form like that merely proves that those "Christians" don't know what they "preach". Christians are supposed to be loving. By what you've said here, I wouldn't say that describes them at all. {affectionate hug}

Don't worry, I know enough about Christianity to understand that this isn't how Christians are supposed to act. Most of the time I find Christians to be great people. It wasn't judgment or ill treatment that turned me away from it, although I do know that often people are turned off by the way Christians act and how judgmental they can be.

I suppose I should have rephrased that yes. I enjoyed the social benefits of Christianity. I still do, actually.

FoodForThought said:

Those who are captured by evil allow themselves to be that way. Even Orcs fought against Sauron at one point, this point being the Last Alliance mentioned in the Silmarillion. So yes, even the orcs fought for the good, they were not even captured by evil.

Are you sure about that? It's been a long time since I read the Sil, but that doesn't sound familiar.

Iluvatar works to benefit all of his creation, though some reject him (like the typical orc). Can we blame Iluvatar because of an orc who was captured by evil? The real one to blame is either Melkor himself or the one who fell to evil, not Iluvatar.

At the risk of getting OT, Tolkien says that the orcs were either elves or men captured and twisted by Mordor- that'a what gives many people problems with them; they didn't choose evil; it was imposed on them.

The Elves chose evil in Feanor's pride in making the Silmarils and in their desire to rule lands by themselves e.g. Galadriel.

Men had allready Fallen somewhere in the East; the Men that chose evil in the course of the story did so either out of fear, ambition or greed- the orcs, not so- they had been "made" that way.

Just a note in passing on something Dr. Elwin Ransom said on page 33 about

See also Ephesians 5, for a similar keystone passage on Christian vocation.

A brief G-rated editorial from the church basement:

Christianity has traditionally held a high view of vocation. Christians believe that the artisan, tradesman or professional has the opportunity and obligation to glorify God by striving for excellence at his or her craft. The primary duty of a Christian plumber, in other words, is to be a good plumber. And the primary duty of a Christian artist is to be a good artist. This is true whatever one's calling: doctor, lawyer, Indian chief, online copyeditor.

This teaching goes way back -- at least to Aristotle (as rechristened and adopted by Aquinas). But a competing understanding has arisen in American evangelical Christianity. From this perspective, the primary duty of every Christian regardless of vocation is evangelism. Everything else is just a means to this end.

According to this view, then, the primary duty of the Christian plumber is to spread the gospel. After all, what doth it profit a customer if a Christian plumber fixes their sink, but leaves their immortal soul in disrepair? This doesn't necessarily mean that such an evangelist-plumber will be incompetent at his trade. It's possible he could still be an excellent, if somewhat annoying, plumber. But excellence -- or even basic competence -- is no longer his priority. And he certainly does not believe, as craftsmen of the Aquinastotelian tradition did, that incompetence is a sin.

In this view vocation is unimportant. The standards of your craft become secondary to your duties as a member of the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith. This is particularly problematic for the Christian artist, whose art is now made a means to an end, i.e., propaganda.

This is one possible explanation for the utter inattention to craft some Christians appear to demonstrate. It's a rather charitable view, ascribing incompetence to a well-intentioned, but misguided, understanding of vocation and Christian duty.

I do think this devaluation of vocation helps to explain a lot of bad "Christian" art, including the dismally derivative world of "contemporary Christian music." But the presumption of charity ends when you cash the really big check. When you reap big money without putting in the effort that customers deserve, this is a form of stealing.

Thoughts?

FoodForThought said:
Are you sure about that? It's been a long time since I read the Sil, but that doesn't sound familiar.

Well, interpret for yourself!

All living things were divided in that day [Battle of Dagorlad], and some of every kind, even of beasts and birds, were found in either host, save the Elves only. They alone were undivided and followed Gil-galad. Of the Dwarves, few fought upon either side; but the kindred of Durin of Moria fought against Sauron.

This says ALL living things, which would imply orcs as well.

At the risk of getting OT, Tolkien says that the orcs were either elves or men captured and twisted by Mordor- that'a what gives many people problems with them; they didn't choose evil; it was imposed on them.

The Elves chose evil in Feanor's pride in making the Silmarils and in their desire to rule lands by themselves e.g. Galadriel.

Men had allready Fallen somewhere in the East; the Men that chose evil in the course of the story did so either out of fear, ambition or greed- the orcs, not so- they had been "made" that way.

The above quote should show that Orcs can indeed choose.

Is it hard for those being brought up in Muslim countries to have a different way of thinking? Surely it is, though it is not impossible. The apostle Paul tells us that the Holy Spirit will convict you, and it is in my faith that it will, and my experience proves that. I could have just as easily blown off my conviction, and I am sure that many Muslims do."Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It's not."

Except that you believe in Jesus not because He has given you any special revelation but simply because your parents and the people you grew up around believed in Jesus.

Like 97% of the people in the world. If you had grown up Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist, that's what you'd believe- to more than 19 ourt of 20 chances.

Have any of the believers here grown up in any other tradition?- how amazing, that the very thing that you are taught at your mother's knee happens to be true- and how sad that all those children brought up the same way are condemned to falsehood, for the crime of being born in the wrong neighborhood

If you (unlike Lewis) truly believe that God has chosen certain people based on their acceptance of the name "Jesus Christ", then you believe Heaven is mostly white people, and those lucky enough to be enslaved or conquered by white people.

Hmmm, Graymouser that last statement kind of got to me. I do believe that God chooses people, and it is us that need His "acceptance" and not the other way around. I also do not believe that Heaven is going to be mostly white people. The reason for this is because of what Jesus says in The Great Commission in Matthew 28. He tells us to go and teach, and baptize. This is the very reason why missionaries go to foreign countries. They are not going to "enslave or conquer", but to spread the word of Jesus Christ. These are just a few of my thoughts.

There are some major misunderstandings about Christianity that you have brought up here, Graymouser. Yes, a lot of people who grow up in a Christian home tend to believe in the Christian faith. But if that is where it stops, all it is another religion like Islam, Hinduism and those other you listed. But this acceptance of the name of "Jesus Christ" is different. True Christianity is not a 'religious' experience or belief system like any other. It is difficult for someone who is 'not in' to understand it but there is a difference between those who have accepted Jesus and those who live Christianity as a religion. There is a difference in character, attitude, and a way to get through the tough times.

People watch Christians far more than they watch Muslims, Hindus, and you name it. They want to know what makes us different. They want to know how we do it. You don't see those kinds of questions being asked of other groups or religions. You will notice that if a Christian does just about anything that might get any kind of public attention, it is torn apart by the media. The pastor who mentioned burning a Koran got an intense amount of scrutiny. Yet when a Muslim or anyone else disowns a Bible or Christianity, nothing happens. This is more than just one religion.

I will say I am personally blessed to have been born in a Christian home. It is not something to be taken lightly, though many including myself have. Why do some in America get this and others in Africa, China, India,... don't? I'm hardly one to be able to explain that, but no one really is. But I will say this, if you want to see what true Christianity is all about, take a look at the church in China, or Kenya, or India, or the Middle East. They may not have had the privilege of growing up in the Christian home or the financial wealth that we in America have. But they hold to what they believe when the are in the extreme minority and where just saying the name of Jesus or possessing a Bible can put you in prison or get you killed. And they continue to hold on to Christianity knowing full well what the cost might be. You don't see that with other religions very often if at all.

And I am very curious as how you think Heaven will be mostly white people? Because the depictions of Jesus in America and Europe are white? Revelation 5 describes a multitude beyond count of every tribe, every tongue, every nation singing praise to God. White people are the majority in America and Europe (though in the US, whites are approaching that 50% mark before the culmination of others races becomes the majority), but that's not the majority of the church. We just have a higher percentage of Christians per population today than the rest of the world. But you will find lots of Christians of every type of race you can think of. And what did Jesus physically look like? Not white. You will find that many churches of many cultures depict him like that culture. Europeans depict as white, while African churches tend to depict him as black, and so on. He was most likely one of many Palestinian Jews at the time. And from what I understand, he probably wasn't that great looking too from a human perspective. I've heard lots of possibilities so I won't settle on just what the pictures in my Bible show. That's just supposition.

And as I've been saying, there's more to the picture than just what we are seeing. Let's not jump to conclusions based on a few perceptions based on our culture or background. That includes me.

Hmmm, Graymouser that last statement kind of got to me. I do believe that God chooses people, and it is us that need His "acceptance" and not the other way around. I also do not believe that Heaven is going to be mostly white people. The reason for this is because of what Jesus says in The Great Commission in Matthew 28. He tells us to go and teach, and baptize. This is the very reason why missionaries go to foreign countries. They are not going to "enslave or conquer", but to spread the word of Jesus Christ. These are just a few of my thoughts.

No, Missionaries do not go out to "enslave or conquer" but it is a simple mathematical fact that if you believe in exclusivism most people saved "as of now" are white. Blacks make up a small but growing minority: Yellow people and brown people make up tiny scatterings.

There are some major misunderstandings about Christianity that you have brought up here, Graymouser. Yes, a lot of people who grow up in a Christian home tend to believe in the Christian faith. But if that is where it stops, all it is another religion like Islam, Hinduism and those other you listed. But this acceptance of the name of "Jesus Christ" is different. True Christianity is not a 'religious' experience or belief system like any other. It is difficult for someone who is 'not in' to understand it but there is a difference between those who have accepted Jesus and those who live Christianity as a religion. There is a difference in character, attitude, and a way to get through the tough times.

I'm certainly not saying that all people who are brought up in Christian homes end up as Christians- only that, if you are an exclusivist, you have to admit that the vast majority of people who are going to Heaven were brought up in Christian homes, which means they are white Europeans. If you believe accepting Jesus while you are alive is crucial, you can't buck the math- so far, Heaven is mostly honkies- not saying that may not change, given the plunging rates of Christianity among Westerners as opposed to the faith of Africans.

People watch Christians far more than they watch Muslims, Hindus, and you name it. They want to know what makes us different. They want to know how we do it. You don't see those kinds of questions being asked of other groups or religions. You will notice that if a Christian does just about anything that might get any kind of public attention, it is torn apart by the media. The pastor who mentioned burning a Koran got an intense amount of scrutiny. Yet when a Muslim or anyone else disowns a Bible or Christianity, nothing happens. This is more than just one religion.

One reason for that is we are operating from within a Western (still) Christian-based culture. We do have a double standard- we expect more of Christians.

The pastor who burned the Koran is a perfect example. While I think it's a dumb thing to deliberately insult anybody's religion, the fault for those deaths belong to the Muslims who committed the murders. When atheist professor PZ Myers deliberately desecrated a consecrated communion wafer, the response was: angry e-mails.

I will say I am personally blessed to have been born in a Christian home. It is not something to be taken lightly, though many including myself have. Why do some in America get this and others in Africa, China, India,... don't? I'm hardly one to be able to explain that, but no one really is. But I will say this, if you want to see what true Christianity is all about, take a look at the church in China, or Kenya, or India, or the Middle East. They may not have had the privilege of growing up in the Christian home or the financial wealth that we in America have. But they hold to what they believe when the are in the extreme minority and where just saying the name of Jesus or possessing a Bible can put you in prison or get you killed. And they continue to hold on to Christianity knowing full well what the cost might be. You don't see that with other religions very often if at all.

Nonsense. Shia Muslims are murdered every day in Sunni majority countries, yet hang on ( and vice versa). Hindu Tamils in Sri Lanka don't become Buddhists; Kosavar Muslims in Serbia didn't become Christians.

If you want to ask someone what it means to hold onto their religion in the face of more than a thousand years of oppression, I suggest you ask God's Chosen People. After all, for much more than a millennium you Christians subjected them to pogroms, expulsions, ghettos, massacres, auto-da-fes, civil exclusions, and every other form of prejudice imaginable.

And I am very curious as how you think Heaven will be mostly white people? Because the depictions of Jesus in America and Europe are white? Revelation 5 describes a multitude beyond count of every tribe, every tongue, every nation singing praise to God. White people are the majority in America and Europe (though in the US, whites are approaching that 50% mark before the culmination of others races becomes the majority), but that's not the majority of the church. We just have a higher percentage of Christians per population today than the rest of the world. But you will find lots of Christians of every type of race you can think of. And what did Jesus physically look like? Not white. You will find that many churches of many cultures depict him like that culture. Europeans depict as white, while African churches tend to depict him as black, and so on. He was most likely one of many Palestinian Jews at the time. And from what I understand, he probably wasn't that great looking too from a human perspective. I've heard lots of possibilities so I won't settle on just what the pictures in my Bible show. That's just supposition.

Oh yes. A few years ago, I was helping a private school I know to negotiate a lease from a Catholic Nunnery. While we were in the chapel, my partner ( a Taiwanese) quietly asked me why they had a shrine to Kuan-yin (Buddhist Goddess of Mercy). I explained that that was Mary, the Mother of Jesus, and he said, "Wow, I always thought she was a white person like you foreigners"

And as I've been saying, there's more to the picture than just what we are seeing. Let's not jump to conclusions based on a few perceptions based on our culture or background. That includes me.

Nope, I'm just talking about the fact that if you (unlike Lewis, or the Catholic or Anglican Church) believe that (as I believe the Black Glove has said) that you have to accept the name of Jesus in this life, then, as a matter of pure math, the saved are, at this moment, mostly white people.

The amazing thing is that never (or almost) has a people with literacy and a written code accepted another religion.

Exceptions are the formerly Christian people of the Near East and North Africa who became Muslims ( which took hundreds of years) and the South Koreans, where between a third and a half have accepted Christianity- though I suspect they are Christians for the same reason Poles are Catholic.

Other than that, the vast majority of people remain in the religion of their parents.

Yes, but in a naturalistic way

Naturalistic in the sense of not positing anything beyond matter. Of course multiverse theory, string theory, and the like are a) unverifiable (and unfalsifiable) and therefore metaphysical b) lacking in any interesting explanatory power. What phenomena do they explain? These are huge hypotheticals which, when compared to the ontologically simpler theistic paradigm, violate Occam's razor.

On Occam, theism, and the possibility of investigation of multiverses

http://preposterousuniverse.com/writings/dtung/

Science can't talk about miracles because they are unrepeatable events caused from outside the material world. If you grant the existence of God, there's nothing impossible about miracles. In calling the possibility of miracles into question, you also beg the question against theism.

True enough- but that means if miracles are possible, their effects should be evident. Or, as the French naturalist writer Zola said, when shown all the black eyeglasses and canes presented at Lourdes as evidence of healing, "where then are all the glass eyes and wooden legs?"

Do you accept the miracles attested to by the Catholic Church, BTW? And if not (philosophically, of course, not just "not my denomination") why not?

I have neighbors who will swear to the miracles performed by the spirit of a dog who died at his master's grave 200 years ago- I have seen people diagnosed with cancer healed by the faithful Dog Spirit- do you believe in Dog?

As for ID folks, what they are doing is exactly the kind of argument given by St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century:

1. Some things in nature which lack intelligence act for an end (Thomas cites “natural” or celestial bodies). That is to say, they act in such a way as to achieve some good result.
2. Since they lack intelligence, these things must be acting in this manner by design and/or direction.
3. Design and/or direction implies a designer and/or director.
4. Therefore these things are designed and/or directed by an ultimate designer and/or director whom we call “God.”

Yes, it is, exactly- but, as it happens, science has progressed somewhat since the 13th Century- called the leeches in lately?

To elaborate on what I said earlier, you have to look at how music/art/literature (and morality, which is how this started) in their earliest forms might have had survival value in small groups of hunter-gatherers on the savannahs of East Africa- that's one question, the question of origins.

Why do we appreciate them now? Because this big sack of gray jelly on top of our spinal cord has evolved to become an incredibly flexible mechanism (by biological standards) to help us succeed in both the physical and social encounters we face.

I'm still not convinced of how my appreciation for the music of Ralph Vaughan Williams has survival value. I simply enjoy it.

It doesn't. Which I've pointed out. Twice.

This theory just seems a bit absurd---what if humans, instead, have a basic aesthetic sense.

Because to say humans enjoy art because they have a basic aesthetic sense has as much meaning as to say that opium causes sleep because it has a dormitive power.

A ridiculous story about how stimulae activate certain parts of the brain does nothing to explain why I find a particular piece of music or art beautiful---it simply indicates some connection between mind and body. The trouble is that equating the mind with the brain in this way transgresses the bounds of sense (to use Wittgenstein's terminology). Seriously, do we speak of "mind surgery"?

You mean chopping, slashing, and electro-prodding the brain doesn't affect the mind?

How about "cranial imagery." When you say "great minds think alike" don't you really mean "great brains think alike"?

Ummm, yes.

Try, for a moment, to replace every piece of mental terminology with a piece of neuroscientific terminology and you'll see just how ridiculous it is to equate the mind with the brain. When neuroscientists do this, they're talking nonsense.

Why would anyone want to do this? Anymore than one would replace a discussion of where one wants to go with a discussion on kinesiology. Movement is what our body does; mind is what our brain does. No body, no movement; no brain, no mind.

The trouble is that we as humans just can't think in accordance with a consistently naturalistic paradigm. Our language is loaded with terms that naturalism can't explain without being ridiculous and talking nonsense.
TBG

There's a lot we humans can't think in accordance with- odds, for one- see Tversky, Amos.

Not to mention the Universe, famously described as " not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose."

No surprises here. Our language is loaded with terms that are very suitable for dealing with the social ramifications of dealing with our fellows, and the pragmatic ways of dealing with our immediate surroundings- that's what it evolved for.