Lilbro.net

It's true that C.S. Lewis was a christian, he's written some very good books, one of them is called "Mere Christianity" which I've been planning to read but never have bought a copy of.

Tolkien was a Catholic that Lewis tried for years to convert. I cannot speak for his spiritual state because I did not know Tolkien's heart. Surely I do believe that some Catholics do believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God and that he is the only way to salvation, but the church as a whole teaches otherwise, that one can be saved by their works, by praying to the saints and to Mary (which the Bible doesn't teach). They hold tradition on an equal level with the Scripture and the Pope is infallible when upon his throne and then he is speaking ex cathedra, or from God himself. So I don't know about Tolkien, and neither did Lewis.

The book is indeed an allegory, I'm not sure if it was originally meant as such but all the way through the books I see the Bible "leaking" through into the writings, there are many parallels because Lewis just lived and breathed the Bible.
---
As we learned in Narnia....

Kara --- I have a book that is called a Christians Guide to Narnia. The reason the books are so special to me is because of the of the message. I hope as you read them we can discuss it all again. I never tire of talking about Narnia.


---

Well, Lynn. I have to books now, and I'm going to start reading them as soon as I finishe the book I'm reading (which is also large). I've always loved the stories from the Chronicles of Narnia, even though I haven't read them, because my mum & I used to watch the BBC mini-series that she taped over and over and over.

To Logan: I didn't know that Tolkien was a Catholic, but I think I can understand where Lewis was coming from. As you may, or may not know, Ben is actually a Catholic. Not that that's bad (a lot better than any other of my friends), but we've had a few talks about it, and the whole "Mary, mother of Christ" thing kinda weirds me out. Wouldn't that be contrary to what the bible says when it says nothing, not life nor death, nor height nor deapth, nor powers, or anything in all creation can seperate us from the love of God? Wouldn't praying to God through Mary kind of... nullify that idea. Mary was nothing more than human, was she?

Therefore, she wouldn't have juristiction over us, or be a mediator between us an The Lord. Wasn't that was Jesus was sent to earth for? That's why He died (like Asland did, to link the post to the topic), to save us from our sins and stand as our defence at the judgement before God.

Well, that's what I think anyway...
---
Here I am, Lord!
Send someone else...

Yes, and you would be correct Kara. I did know that Sheikah was Catholic and I do not mean to offend in any way but the Catholic Church does believe in a dual authority, the authority of the Bible and then the authority of an "infallible" church to make whatever additions they deem necessary.

You are correct in what you were saying, and might I point out that contrary to the Catholic church's teachings, Mary did have other children (Mark 6:3) and she also was a sinner and recognized her need for a saviour as well. In Luke 1:46 and following we see what Mary has to say, she speaks of glorifying God because of her Saviour and though she knew she was called blessed (and yes, what a blessing to be chosen to be the mother of our Lord!) this did not make her any better off, the Bible nowhere teaches that she was sinless, it is a belief that has come from the Catholic Church itself teaching that.

Also, Jesus did respect his mother (he told John to care for her as though she were his own mother) but at the same time, he said that those who did the will of his father (Mark 3:32-35) was his mother and brothers and sister. This was in response to his mother asking to speak with him. He recognized that though his mother was important to him, those who were Christians or believers, were just as important, he didn't immediately leave and say "yes, my mother is holy and you should all worship her as well."

This is just one of the points where the RCC is in error in accord with the Scripture, yet they appeal to their tradition and "common consent" to support this belief even though contradictory to the Bible. I would be perfectly willing to answer any questions you or Ben might have on the subject, if I can.
---
As we learned in Narnia....

Meh. I'm fine the way I am, and hey, Ben's "non-practising".

He has, however, attended Church again with me recently. We had an adult baptism (I'm a baptist) while he was there, but he admits he was more suprised by the fact that the Pastor wasn't a priest, and was married with children.

I intend that he comes with me again soon.
---
Here I am, Lord!
Send someone else...

That post was well stated Logan.

As you know Kara I am also a Baptist, I have enjoyed our discussions about Vacation Bible School and other things we share as Baptist, I was quite pleased to hear that you and Ben had gone to church together but I do not believe you mentioned a Baptism. That would be an interesting experience
for someone not raised with that practice. It is good that Ben is willing to go with you and that you two can discuss things of faith. Yes -- from his perspective it must have been quite different.

Good for you Ben !
---
Joshua 24 : 15

I do look forward to yet again being able to discuss my beloved Narnia books.

I learned of them from a comment --- Logan made --- I am so glad that a long time ago he said " as we learned in Narnia ".

I will be looking forward to your perspective and thoughts Kara -- My favorites are --- Voyage of the Dawn Treader and the Last Battle. Reepicheep and the BRAVE dogs of Narnia. I love those books.
---
Joshua 24 : 15

JJ, so did you rent them?

Ahh, no I haven't had a chance. : Plus my dad is always working, and we don't rent movies very mich anymore, so I hardly get a chacne to go to the video store. I am hoping to get my dad to take me this weekend :)




---
Every Day Is A Gift From God

Kara, as far as the "not being a priest" goes, well, technically, all believers are "priests" as implied by Revelation 1:6 and Hebrews makes it very clear that Jesus is our high priest, not a pope. When the veil was torn it signified the end of the priesthood as the Jews knew it and now EVERY believer has direct access to God.

So your pastor was a "priest" in a general sense, but not how he was thinking of it.

By the way, the belief that priests should be single and not married is also unbiblical, in several places it speaks of the apostles having wives. Paul apparently was not married but he said that he had a right to take a believing wife as the other apostles. The Gospels speak of Peter (according to the Catholic belief being the first Pope) as having a mother-in-law that Jesus healed, which necessarily implies that he had a wife! In the biblical principles set for those who will rule the church (elders) one of the characteristics is being the husband of one wife and having faithful children, not accused of dissipation or insubordination. Peter, in First Peter, calls himself a fellow elder, not a ruler of elders.

I can imagine why Sheikah would be surprised, but it is all founded upon biblical principles, not tradition.
---
As we learned in Narnia....

I know it is, my mother and I had a chat, and as far as she could remember, most of the apostles were married, expect for Paul, who was too busy, and John, who was probably too young (16, quite possibly - isn't it amazing who God chooses to spread His Word?).

Personally, I think that a pastor has every right to be married and have children. In fact, I think that God would see it as a good thing. Thus, the pastor's children will be brought up in a Christian home, and the pastor and his family can be a good example to other families in the community.

---
Here I am, Lord!
Send someone else...