In my previous post I summarized the The Golden Legend version of St. George and the dragon but did not quote the original. This created some confusion since it wasn’t entirely clear what was directly in the legend and what parts were my own commentary. In the Golden Legend, St. George manages to wound the dragon with his martial skill after making the sign of the cross. But after he wounds the dragon, it is the princess who tames it with the magic of her girdle. Once she ties it around the dragon’s neck the nature of the beast is transformed:
Thus as they spake together the dragon appeared and came running to them, and St. George was upon his horse, and drew out his sword and garnished him with the sign of the cross, and rode hardily against the dragon which came towards him, and smote him with his spear and hurt him sore and threw him to the ground. And after said to the maid: Deliver to me your girdle, and bind it about the neck of the dragon and be not afeard.
When she had done so the dragon followed her as it had been a meek beast and debonair. Then she led him into the city, and the people fled by mountains and valleys, and said: Alas! alas! we shall be all dead.
Then St. George said to them: Ne doubt ye no thing, without more, believe ye in God, Jesu Christ, and do ye to be baptized and I shall slay the dragon.
Then the king was baptized and all his people, and St. George slew the dragon and smote off his head…
St. George’s power here as the hero (beyond his skill as a knight) is knowing what kind of magic will defeat the beast. He knew the sign of the cross would allow him to wound the dragon, but that another kind of magic was required to tame the dragon. This is very common for heroic tales. It very often takes a combination of martial skill as well as secret knowledge for heroes to vanquish the beast.
One thing that is confusing in the account is that St. George tells the princess to:
- Give him her girdle.
- Bind the dragon with her girdle.
This is an odd contradiction, but it makes sense when you consider the courtly love imagery involved. When a noble woman gave a knight her girdle it was a symbol that he had won her favor. Thus we have the princess demonstrating that St. George had indeed won her favor. But we also have the princess, through the magic of her virtuous femininity, taming the dragon. Courtly Love/Chivalry are all about the mysterious power of noblewomen to tame what is vulgar. Usually it is a knight who is tamed, but in this case it is the dragon. Nevertheless, the important part is that even though her two actions (giving St. George her girdle vs tying it around the dragon’s neck) are in contradiction in the plot, they are in harmony in message.
Here is an excerpt from the plot summary in Infogalactic, which struggles with the contradiction. First it says St. George puts the girdle around the dragon’s neck, and then immediately after it says “when she did so”:
Saint George by chance rode past the lake. The princess, trembling, sought to send him away, but George vowed to remain. The dragon reared out of the lake while they were conversing. Saint George fortified himself with the Sign of the Cross,[10] charged it on horseback with his lance, and gave it a grievous wound. He then called to the princess to throw him her girdle, and he put it around the dragon’s neck. When she did so, the dragon followed the girl like a meek beast on a leash.[citation needed]
The princess and Saint George led the dragon back to the city of Silene, where it terrified the people at its approach.
Pingback: St George and the dragon. | Dalrock
So you know that you’ve “won her favor” when she takes off her girdle (panties) and surrenders them to you.
The more things change, the more they stay the same!
Sounds like a backwards tale of what actually happens to the serpent.
There was enmity between the woman and the serpent (not taming)…and her seed crushed the head of the serpent (not wound).
At least for Christian men there has to be this rejection of worshiping women and instead worshiping the true God, the Lord Jesus Christ…lest we fall again.
And I’ll put it this way…a woman giving a man ‘favor’ doesn’t really mean much in the grand scheme of things. Getting favor from a man above you in authority means more…like a father.
“As soon as Jesus was baptized, He went up out of the water. Suddenly the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and resting on Him. And a voice from heaven said, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased!”
Pingback: The magic in the girdle. | @the_arv
“This is why we now have the custom of singing songs in praise of romantic love and women, and of a man getting down on one knee and confessing his love and devotion to a woman.”
Dalrock, how do you reconcile your thoughts with verses from Song of Solomon where he is singing songs of praise to his lover, such as “my dove, my perfect one is unique?”
Good clarification, although it seemed clear enough in the previous essay. Seeing that the eastern churches have a different story that does not contain magic girdles is eye-opening confirmation of Dalrock’s larger point about the cult of courtly twu wuv.
By the way, “cult” is not too strong a word to use, either.
There is a direct line between “girdle-power” of myth and “GrrlPower” of right now. That’s the point!
@Joe
So you know that you’ve “won her favor” when she takes off her girdle
Then you get tame and she cuts off your head.
If you ask Pastor Wilson about this connundrum, he will likely state that it was the “Aroma of Love” wafting up from the lady’s girdle/panties which tamed the dragon in this case.
Why does C.S. Lewis who cast Jesus as a Lion partaking in in Pagan Rituals get a free pass?
p. 152 of Prince Caspain – “The crowd and the dance round Aslan (for it had become a dance once more) grew so thick and rapid that Lucy was confused. She never saw where certain other people came from who were soon capering among the trees. One was a youth, dressed only in a fawn-skin, with vine-leaves wreathed in his curly hair. His face would have been almost too pretty for a boy’s, if it had not looked so extremely wild. You felt, as Edmund said when he saw him a few days later, ‘There’s a chap who might do anything — absolutely anything.’ He seemed to have a great many names — Bromios, Bassareus, and the Ram, were three of them. There were a lot of girls with him, as wild as he. There was even, unexpectedly, someone on a donkey. And everybody was laughing: and everybody was shouting out, “Euan, euan, eu-oi-oi-oi.”
Why all the hate for some fairly tame, arcane, obscure King Arthuresque fairy tales, and all the love for C.S Lewis?
Why do Churchians celebrate little girls riding Jesus “The Lion” in a fit of drunken revelry with Bacchus and Dionysus the god of wine and drunken, wild revelry?
Witness Prince Caspain p.192:
“Bacchus and the Maenads — his fierce, madcap girls — and Silenus, were still with them. Lucy, fully rested, jumped up. Everyone was awake, everyone was laughing, flutes were playing, cymbals clashing. Animals, not Talking Animals, were crowding in upon them from every direction.
” ‘What is it, Aslan?’ said Lucy, her eyes dancing and her feet wanting to dance.
” ‘Come, children,” said he. ‘Ride on my back again to-day.’ ”
” ‘Oh lovely!’ cried Lucy, and both girls climbed on to the warm golden back as they had done no-one knew how many years before. Then the whole party moved off — Aslan leading. Bacchus and his Maenads leaping, rushing and turning somersaults, the beasts frisking round them, and Silenus and his donkey bringing up the rear.” [Emphasis added.]
The book describes how the girls were told/asked to take their clothes off so as to better join the party. is that Christian?
Why does C.S. Lewis get a free pass?
Why are churchians getting their panties in a wad about a pair of panties belonging to a full grown lady in an obscure tale, while C.S. Lewis is asking/commanding children to disrobe?
Wut is up wit dat people? lzozolzoz
GBFM,
There is also Lewis’ disgraceful actions with a married woman: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2017/07/27/wilson-lewis-and-pseudo-christian-pedestalization-game/
Lewis gave us some incredible insight, but at the same time he seems as blinded by chivalry as anyone else. It is a paradox.
@GBFM – So, I take it that the Chronicles of Narnia don’t make your list of the Great Books? I did like his Abolition of Man, speaking of men without chests. I believe it should be read along with Nietzsche’s discussion of the Last Man. Also, I do like Lewis’s appendix in the Abolition of Man discussing the Tao and Christ throughout the ages.
@Sigma
There is a big difference between the bible’s embrace of sexual passion in marriage, and the courtly love tradition. The latter not only was developed as a parody of Christianity, but it also introduced a new distinction whereby the emotional aspect of sexual passion (romantic love) was separated from the physical aspect of sexual passion and was considered sanctifying. Note that Song of Solomon makes no such distinction. Sexual passion is a single concept, not dividing out physical passion from the emotional aspect of it. Also, while Song of Solomon depicts sexual passion in marriage as a wonderful thing (and indeed it is), it doesn’t present sexual passion as having a sanctifying quality.
“So, I take it that the Chronicles of Narnia don’t make your list of the Great Books?” Hello No! Homer, Virgil, and Socrates did NOT celebrate drunken revelry and bestiality-lite.
One major problem with C.S Lewis is that Christ does NOT need to be transformed into a magnificent LION to exalt and celebrate his soul. Let the Gospels and Christ define Christ. As a kid, I could not get into the books, as I said to my father, “lzozozozo but Jeuss is not a Lionz is he?”
And my father said, “No He is not a lion, son lzozozlzzlzlzloz.”
It is also interesting to note that C.S. Lewis, like the thousand thousand churchians he spawned, never seemed to quote the Bible, nor the Gospels, nor Jesus in his works.
C.S. Lewis surfed the wave of decline, and owed his popularity to the fact that he served those conquering the West via the “long march through the institutions,” with Lewis leading the march through the Church, riding upon Aslan’s back with Bacchus.
I’ve seen this topic approached on other blogs…however I’ll bring it up here.
If chivalry is being used to gain favor with women by getting their girdle and garters is looked down upon as beta behavior…why is a man considered an alpha by using game to gain favor with women to get their girdles and garters?
Thanks Dalrock!
Another wonderful post I missed:
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2017/07/27/wilson-lewis-and-pseudo-christian-pedestalization-game/
@da GBFM zlzoolzlzzlzozlzloozozo
I’m one of those who never gave Lewis a free pass. The Bible says to not be a respecter of men.
Here’s the tip of the iceburg on Lewis:
http://jesus-is-savior.com/Wolves/cs_lewis-exposed.htm
Churchians hate it when you expose their idols, like Lewis, not to mention Beth Moore, Priscilla Shirer, Joyce Meyer (and countless others) and books like “Jesus Calling” and ALL of those heaven tourism books etc etc etc.
One of those guys actually recanted.
http://pulpitandpen.org/2015/01/13/the-boy-who-came-back-from-heaven-recants-story-rebukes-christian-retailers/
“Jesus Calling” actually made it into our house, given to my wife by a friend. I told her it was false teaching, then waited to see what would happen before I threw it out. The next day, I saw it in the trash.
I tell my friends that Christian bookstores are among the most dangerous places for Christians. They are full of false teaching.
Joe writes: “I tell my friends that Christian bookstores are among the most dangerous places for Christians. They are full of false teaching.”
Yes sir! Thanks for those links!
The Barnes and Noble “Christian” section is fairly laughable, other than the KJV Bible!
What gems in the way of modern books might one find there these days?
Dalrock’s collected blog posts would make such a book, although the powers that be would likely scoff at it, for they also scoffed at Jesus et al.
What other good modern Christian books are there?
A reminder of what Dalrock said in the previous post: “girdle” in these stories refers to a belt, worn by men and women. As in “girdle”, to encircle.
It is not the modern underwear.
earl
If chivalry is being used to gain favor with women by getting their girdle and garters is looked down upon as beta behavior…why is a man considered an alpha by using game to gain favor with women to get their girdles and garters?
What does “supplication” mean to you? Is it the same as “domination”?
Dalrock & All,
In the context of all these “false prophets,” are there any good modern Christian books?
I am divided on Eldredge, even though his book does a better job than many it seems to me:
What opinions might others have on his book series? Are there other modern books on Christianity worth our while? Thanks!
[D: I’m not familiar with it.]
I’m going to check that book out…
I highly recommend a Kindle of any sort. You can look at lots of books and download samples.
‘What does “supplication” mean to you? Is it the same as “domination”?’
Are you supplicating to a woman’s sexuality or dominating it with any of these antics?
I’ll tell you what’s not mythology, all these Democrat males who’ve left a string of children in their wake from intercourse with multiple “liberal” females (often with “daddy issues” from single-mother households). It looks like a legalized version of polygamy. Even when they take them one at a time; serial polygamy. Moral non-leftist taxpayers are billed, of course, for their remainder.
There’s nothing wrong with admitting a woman’s sexuality is a primary weakness for most men. If you know the source of your strength it puts things into perspective.
‘The LORD is my strength and my shield; My heart trusts in Him, and I am helped; Therefore my heart exults, And with my song I shall thank Him.’ Psalm 28:7
I remember going to a men’s retreat with Wild at heart theme. I like some of it but some sounds a little strange.
As a kid, I could not get into the books, as I said to my father, “lzozozozo but Jeuss is not a Lionz is he?”
And my father said, “No He is not a lion, son
Rev 5:5 5 But one of the elders said to me, “Do not weep. Behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has prevailed to open the scroll and to loose its seven seals.”
Your criticisms of Lewis are largely unfounded. A recurring theme through the Chronicles of Narnia is that Christ is the creator and is preeminent over His creation. And that includes things, activities and thoughts which have been corrupted in the fall. However, the corruption isn’t in their wildness, it’s in their misuse. (2 Cor 10:5) Those things are distinct. In fact Lewis pushes against the prissy temperance that women would impose, pretending to be pure. Much in line with Col 2:16-23.
Curiously, you bring up Eldridge’s book which talks about wildness. I like that book a lot, I think Eldridge brings up excellent points, and made an impact on a generation. However, I call his work “proto-red pill” because he tends to regress at times and pedestalizes women. He also blames fathers for the problems of their children, in that way he’s a lot like D Wilson and several others.
“Wild at Heart” is an important book, it’s a useful book, but it’s not a perfect book, and doesn’t get a free pass from me.
@LK
Yes. It is easy to confuse this not only because of our modern sense of the word girdle (as an undergarment), but also because not long after the tale was printed in the Golden Legend the association for St. George was switched from a girdle to a garter. Yet even the girdle has sexual implications. Depending on the style of the day, a woman’s girdle could hang low over her hips, with the tassles hanging down between her legs (not unlike the “dick belt” style many men wore when I was in college*). At other times the girdle was a high wide band that went just under the woman’s breasts. But no matter the style, the implication of her sexuality is there, especially given the context of courtly love.
Lastly, the idea of founding a chivalrous order around making sure women aren’t ashamed to drop their underwear in public is so absurd one would be forgiven for thinking I had made the whole thing up. That this is the most noble of the chivalrous orders really says it all.
*Edit: I can’t find any pictures of this, and googling the term has obvious problems. In the late 80s and early 90s some men would wear woven leather belts and direct the tag end downward at a 90 degree angle.
@Joe
I read the first third of your link to “C.S. Lewis Exposed”. It is remarkably slanderous, uneducated, and lacks anything like a context. In a word: Lies. Maybe it gets better further down, but I think I’ll never know.
@GBFM
Lewis is not Scripture and should never be treated as such. In his personal life, he struggled–and lost–with both being a momma’s boy, and with the corruption that is Chivalry. That being said, you have mischaracterized Lewis, his writing, and have ignored some of the Biblical Jesus. You, of all commenters, ought to see that Lewis in his fantasy gives weight to the Great Books by including their myths under the rubric that all evil is a corruption of some good thing; that there should be an uncorrupted virtue of every vice.
I can’t recall the specific scene you mention of the girls’ being told to take off their clothes. I suspect you are exaggerating, but I could be wrong. Regardless, I think there is something like a spirit of revelry which can be good. Jesus’ first miracle is the Wedding at Cana:
So Jesus’ first miracle is to provide 120-130 gallons of excellent wine to revelers, some surely beyond sober, at a party.
Secondly, surely you are aware that Jesus is the Lion of Judah? Lewis made ancient symbolism and prophecy mythical; an examination of what “Lion of Judah” might mean.
Alright…if you want an animal:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1%3A29&version=ESV
@GBFM
Hilarious. This is up there with your “Will you mow my lawn?” line.
Caldo writes: “Secondly, surely you are aware that Jesus is the Lion of Judah? Lewis made ancient symbolism and prophecy mythical; an examination of what “Lion of Judah” might mean.”
Where, in the Gospels, or in the Words of Jesus, dost Jesus state that he is a Lion?
Is it OK if I define Jesus by his Own Divine Words, instead of the words of adulterers and wine-bibbers?
So the rest of Scripture is not the Word of God?
Girdle and garter are cognate, and come from the Aryan (indo-European) to mean something that encircles. Other cognate words are garden, cohort, and apparently even Eucharist.
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/roots.aspx?type=Indo-European&root=gher-
To all the C.S. Lewis fanboyzlzlzozo,
Could you please cite one or two places where your god C.S. Lewis actually quotes the Words of My God Jesus Christ, instead of exalting children celebrating with Bacchas–the god of wanton drunkeness?
Thank you!
They’re citing Scripture now…not Lewis.
Is what John saying in Revelation not pointing out the Jesus is ‘The Lion of Judah’?
Earl
Are you supplicating to a woman’s sexuality or dominating it with any of these antics?
Which antics would those be?
This probably makes you uncomfortable and defensive, but only you can answer why that is.
@GBFM
The whole history of the books beyond the Gospels is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.
Though if all the bros here want to party with drunk gods and children while riding around on a Lion and calling him Jesus, I’m going to have to pass.
Second try…
@GBFM
Which of God’s divine words in the Bible aren’t the words of the Word Made Flesh, who in the beginning was the Word, and Who was with God, and Who was God, and who all Christians believe inspired the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God? Rev. 5:
That Lion, is Jesus.
Is it really your contention that Jesus did not inspire the inerrant Word of John’s Revelation?
Using chivlary to get into m’lady or using ‘bring the skittles’ to get into m’lady.
My emotions don’t matter…I’m engaging in debate for answers.
Now you are making me LOLlolzozlzzolzoz.
Why would there be a book that has defective words of God put into the same book as the Gospels…the Word made flesh? That would certainly lead to a lot of confusion. Unless that’s what you are trying to do.
@GBFM
You think the books of the OT are solid, the Gospels are solid, and that the words of pagan Greeks, Romans, Syrians, Persians, Babylonians, and so forth (the Great Books) are solid…but Acts through Revelation are bunk.
I see where you are coming from now, and I think we can have no accord.
You write,
“behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.”
John was speaking Metaphorically. C.S. Lewis cast Jesus as an actual animal, running around with the gods of wanton drunkenness, with kids on his back.
Is it any wonder Men are abandoning the modern C.S. Lewis “Jesus is an actual animal!” church?
What kind of Man laps up with sordid nonsense?
As it happens, one of my kids is currently reading Prince Caspian as assigned in school.
The scene where the girls are described as being told to “take off their clothes” is actually not at all a scene where they are told to take off their clothes:
“The first house they came to was a school: a girls’ school, where a lot of Narnian girls, with their hair done very tight and ugly tight collars round their necks and thick tickly stockings on their legs, were hearing a history lesson. The sort of “History” that was taught in Narnia under Miraz’s rule was duller than the truest history you ever read and less true than the most exciting adventure story.”
When one of the girls is rescued, she is is helped out of some of the “unnecessary and uncomfortable clothes that she was wearing.”
We didn’t get the impression that this was a stripping of any sort, but one could -I suppose- argue that there is nothing wrong with tight collars nor thick stockings. Perhaps implying the girl was somehow being oppressed by them is a problem. But the removal of what Lewis seemed to suggest was extemporaneous didn’t come off as sexual at all.
To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other. That is HUMAN excellence, and not the BEASTY BACHHUSS BEASTY EXCELLENCE that all the C.S. Lewis fanboyzyzyzzy are trying to replace Christianity with.
Could you please cite one or two places where your god C.S. Lewis actually quotes the Words of My God Jesus Christ, instead of exalting children celebrating with Bacchas–the god of wanton drunkeness?
Uh, it is you who keeps mentioning that one specific passage, and ignoring all else. And no-one here has called Lewis our “god”. Once again, that’s your label.
gbfm can’t get past the straw man arguments. LOLlolzozlzozz
I’d be more concerned about thinking some books of the Bible aren’t the divine insipired Word of God.
I don’t read C.S. Lewis…I’m sure it’s probably an interesting tale of fiction. I do take the entire Bible as the true Word of God.
John was speaking Metaphorically. C.S. Lewis cast Jesus as an actual animal,
in a storybook METAPHOR.
gbfm lost the argument and is now just playing for the lolzozlolzlolzzz
I learned more about C. S. Lewis via past Dalrock posts and comments than I had ever heard before.
This short biographical sketch seems even handed, addressing some of Lewis’s strengths, influences, and foibles. Insofar as his attitudes about women, chivalry, and the like; there is an interesting claim about Jane Moore, an older woman and mother of his deceased friend. She and Lewis shared housing accommodation for years.
“Moore has been much criticized for being possessive and controlling and making Lewis do a lot of housework.” [Insert LOL]
http://narnia.wikia.com/wiki/C._S._Lewis
> I see where you are coming from now, and I think we can have no accord.
Good Books for Men may not correlate with Great Books for Men.
@DrTorch
GBFM is a straw man argument, and that’s pretty much all there is to say about him.
@LP
Yep.
That’s what I would guess. Who would of thought a minor debate over a C.S. Lewis tale would have unmasked so much.
To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other. That is HUMAN excellence, and not the BEASTY BACHHUSS BEASTY EXCELLENCE that all the C.S. Lewis fanboyzyzyzzy are trying to replace Christianity with.
‘I’ll put a girdle round about the earth in forty minutes’ A Midsummer Night’s Dream Act 2 (i)
Sometimes daGBFM, a Lion is just a Lion.
Well a good way to start corrupting Christianity is to have doubts that Acts through Revelation might not be the divinely inspired Word of God.
Dear C.S. Lewis fanbozyzlzlzlzo,
Did C.S. Lewis give you gina tinggzlzlzozlo when you first read him?
Witness Lewis celebrating the God of Drunken Revelry alongside the Beasty Jesus in Prince Caspain, corrupting Children via celebrating wine and drunkenness p.192:
“Bacchus and the Maenads — his fierce, madcap girls — and Silenus, were still with them. Lucy, fully rested, jumped up. Everyone was awake, everyone was laughing, flutes were playing, cymbals clashing. Animals, not Talking Animals, were crowding in upon them from every direction.
” ‘What is it, Aslan?’ said Lucy, her eyes dancing and her feet wanting to dance.
” ‘Come, children,” said he. ‘Ride on my back again to-day.’ ”
” ‘Oh lovely!’ cried Lucy, and both girls climbed on to the warm golden back as they had done no-one knew how many years before. Then the whole party moved off — Aslan leading. Bacchus and his Maenads leaping, rushing and turning somersaults, the beasts frisking round them, and Silenus and his donkey bringing up the rear.” [Emphasis added.]
The book describes how the girls were told/asked to take their clothes off so as to better join the party. Is that Christian?
Is it any wonder Christianity is in decline at the moment, due to the vicious, corrupt, debased C.S. Lewis fanboyzlzlzozoz?
Tell you what GBFM…if I see a Church of C.S. Lewis…I’ll make sure not to join.
Which antics would those be?
This probably makes you uncomfortable and defensive, but only you can answer why that is.
Earl
Using chivlary to get into m’lady or using ‘bring the skittles’ to get into m’lady.
Moving your goalposts isn’t helpful, Earl.
My emotions don’t matter…I’m engaging in debate for answers.
Your emotions matter a lot, they are in part why you are still stuck at the same stage in this debate.
Earl writes:
“Tell you what GBFM…if I see a Church of C.S. Lewis…I’ll make sure not to join.”
So are you saying that C.S. Lewis has in NO WAY influenced the MODERN CHURCH?
Which modern churches have ever spoken out against C.S. Lewis?
C.S. Lewis does quote the Gospel in his appendix to the Abolition of Man. ‘Do to men what you wish men to do to you.’ (Christian. Matthew 7:12)
Also in the Appendix, here:
‘Verily, verily I say to you unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and
dies, it remains alone, but if it dies it bears much fruit. He who loves his life
loses it.’ (Christian. John 12:24,25)
Yes Damn Crackers! You got me! In his 100,000,000,000,000,000 pages of vapid degradation and masturbation, C.S. Lewis quotes the Golden Rule, common to every religion ever!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule
2 Antiquity
2.1 Ancient Egypt
2.2 Ancient India
2.2.1 Sanskrit tradition
2.2.2 Tamil tradition
2.3 Ancient Greece
2.4 Ancient Persia
2.5 Ancient Rome
3 Religious context
3.1 Abrahamic religions
3.1.1 Judaism
3.1.2 Christianity
3.1.3 Islam
3.1.4 Bahá’í Faith
3.2 Indian religions
3.2.1 Hinduism
3.2.2 Buddhism
3.2.3 Jainism
3.2.4 Sikhism
3.3 East Asian religions
3.3.1 Confucianism
3.3.2 Taoism
3.3.3 Mohism
3.4 Iranian religions
3.4.1 Zoroastrianism
3.5 New religious movements
3.5.1 Wicca
3.5.2 Scientology
4 Secular context
4.1 Global ethic
4.1.1 Humanism
4.1.2 Existentialism
lzoozlzlzozoz
earl @ 2:01 pm:
“I don’t read C.S. Lewis…I’m sure it’s probably an interesting tale of fiction.”
You aren’t missing much. The Narnia series is as painfully allegorical as the Left Behind series. All Christian fiction is like that. The entire genre is scared to deviate from actual Scripture so it constantly retells Scripture with different props.
I wouldn’t read Narnia again except as a “spot the Bible reference” drinking game.
@GBFM – Hey – I was actually interested in your problem with the Narnia Chronicles. As Dalrock posted earlier, it seems that his other less read Sci-FI trilogy, The Space Trilogy, probably has even more imagery that you’d object to.
Which church is the modern church?
What goalpost moving…I stated earlier the commonalities I see between chivlary and game as tactics to get into m’lady? Your job is to convince me otherwise.
Pingback: The magic in the girdle. | Reaction Times
Earl asks “Which church is the modern church?”
Your church is the modern church Earl, which is why you will never, ever, ever speak out against C.S. Lewis’s promotion of vulgar wantonness for children in the name of his beast-christ, and his most visceral and sordid beastifying of the Lord Jesus.
My church is 2,000 years old and is also the church that constructed the NT which includes the Gospel. I speak out against those who have doubts about the books in the NT.
Besides C.S. Lewis never became Catholic and seemed to have anti-Catholic undertones.
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/darmstrong/why-c.s.-lewis-never-became-a-catholic
From what I could find he was Anglican. Now if you want to get into the neverending Protestant-Catholic debate again….
Now which church do you belong to GBFM? Are they speaking out against C.S. Lewis? Where is this church of GBFM that men can go to…to hear the tales of why they shouldn’t accept the fictional tales of some Anglican author as the Gospel or something added to the Gospel. To which at this point I haven’t seen anyone make that claim.
Dear Earl,
As you are Catholic, I do hope that you won’t hold it against me that I belong to Jesus’s church:
“King James Bible:
For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”
http://biblehub.com/matthew/18-20.htm
Well no because as a Catholic I belong to Jesus’s church.
http://biblehub.com/matthew/16-18.htm
Thinking upon it a bit
This blog is kindof my church
As I suspect it is for many
Dalrock is the pastor
Though he would never take credit for this
You’re all my brothers
And while I won’t volunteer to sit next to Earl
I don’t mind sharing his pew
As long as he didn’t sneak in copies of
The Chronicles of Narnia
to read during the service.
lzoozlzlzlzol
I’d sit next to GBFM reading Revelation or Corinthians or Galatians…and know it would make him uncomfortable. LOLZ.
The Narnia series is as painfully allegorical as the Left Behind series
How dare he write an allegory that is so allegorical!
I’m not familiar w/ the Left Behind series, so didn’t realize it was allegory, nevertheless, it’s not a criticism of allegory to say it’s allegorical.
As soon as I fully understand The wonderful Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, I hope to read the rest of the Bible, where some tell me Jesus is a beasty beasty Lion celebrating Bachhus and wanton drunkeness with childrenz, which, truth be told, is of no interest to me, and is quite untoward, debased, and vulgar.
I can’t wait to see where you find the passage in Scripture where that statement is made. If you want I’ll save you the trouble…you won’t find it.
“@da GBFM zlzoolzlzzlzozlzloozozo
Thinking upon it a bit
This blog is kindof my church
As I suspect it is for many
Dalrock is the pastor
Though he would never take credit for this
You’re all my brothers…”
I kind of feel that way too. Sort of. More of what they now call a “community group” where we can talk freely and debate.
I tried a “Bible study” 3 times the last 3 years (a large, international organization that I won’t name). And while some might like that particular organization, I found it boring, and full of weak old men who apparently despise themselves. I left all three times because I could no longer stand to hear men talking about how bad they were/are, and how they don’t know how their wives put up with them, and they are so terrible etc etc ad naseum. I’ve never heard so much self flagellation. I got sick of it. I’m never signing up again.
And my Church… I see red flags. They are subtle, but they are there. I sometimes hate being discerning… I only stay there because I’m sick of looking for a Church that doesn’t compromise. I fear they no longer exist. I do speak up, respectfully, when the pastor makes fun of men. I don’t get answers. But I expected that, even though it’s not a large Church. I’ve also taught our Sunday School class as a sub. I hope to do more of that inserting the red pill now and then…
Sometimes I just want to put an announcement in my neighborhood association website… “Bible study. My house. No women allowed. Feel free to bring a cigar and your preferred drink, be it tea, beer, or Whiskey”.
Even wife gets discouraged from time to time with how men are treated.
Yes Joe!
As far as Bible Study Groups go, this blog is hands-down the best.
I think it owes a lot to Dalrock’s combination of Humility, Scholarship, Honor, and true and selfless dedication to the Word.
Dalrock never claims to be “The Only Man in the Room,” while putting men down, but rather he simply acts like a man–like far more men once did, not so long ago.
And the commentators here bring a lot of good insights and perspectives–far more than on any other blog.
So maybe Jesus was right in saying, “Those who say they are going (Wilson Lewis et al.) do not go, while those who say they are not going, do go.”
DrTorch @ 3:32 pm:
“The Narnia series is as painfully allegorical as the Left Behind series”
“How dare he write an allegory that is so allegorical!”
If Lewis intended it as allegory then all is well, I suppose. The series was pitched to me as Christian fiction so I read it hoping for a good story and was frustrated by cardboard characters and morality plays.
“I’m not familiar w/ the Left Behind series, so didn’t realize it was allegory,”
I’m being generous even at that. Judeo-Christianity is present in sickening amounts and the authors put in so little effort that their tale of the Apocalypse didn’t even climax. Think “Book of Revelation with group hugs”.
I’m not sure about this interpretation of the St. George story, but I’ll confess upfront that my knowledge of dragon myths is based entirely on Jordan Peterson podcasts.
As I understand it, dragons represent chaos and they hoard gold and virgins because, within chaos, there is the potential for wealth and new life. Therefore, I think the girdle is better understood as the thing that encircles the princess’s fertility, not her purity, and it’s by the twin forces of violence and procreation that St. George slays the dragon. This mythological account of an archetypal hero confronting chaos is not so different from the gospel, in that Christ also lays his life down for the church/bride, thus securing the salvation of future generations who will, as Paul puts it, “fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions,” by their fecund receptivity to the risen Lord.
One might respond that, while St. George seems to need the princess’s assistance, Christ’s victory cannot be stymied by human rejection, but the biblical response to human rejection is “from these stones to raise up children unto Abraham,” not to morph Jesus into an asexual organism that reproduces internally. In plain language, God chooses to leverage human receptivity in His overarching plan to “make all things new.” And just as St. George is the primary actor and final executioner of the dragon, Christ is the primary actor and final conqueror of evil.
I know this is a hair’s breadth away from the perversions of courtly love (and bridal mysticism, for that matter), but I don’t see any way around the fact that feminine, bridal, receptive, and fertile imagery is used by the authors of scripture to describe our participation in the ongoing drama of Christ’s victory.
OT Brothers, but I could use some prayer. In addition to all the marriage crap I’m dealing with, I ruptured my achilles tendon Sunday night (stepping out of my truck), going to have surgery on Friday morning to sew it back together, it was a complete tear, and it HURTS.
Ugh I’m still trying to get over from my pec tendon repair back in January.
More about girdles.
Women’s clothes have a tendency to get sexual or behavioral connotations. From ear rings to shoes. Girdles too. As the usually-right-about-boring-stuff Wikipedia says.
“Later, for women, the girdle became a sign of virginity, and was often considered to have magical properties. Monsters and all types of evil are recorded as being subdued by girdles in literature, a famous one being the dragon slain by Saint George. Marriage ceremonies continued this tradition of girdles symbolizing virginity by having the husband take the wife’s girdle, and prostitutes were forbidden to wear them by law in historic France. Often in literature, women are portrayed as safe from sexual or other attack when wearing a girdle, but suddenly vulnerable if it is missing or stolen.”
This context makes the St. George story more sensible.
This wasn’t new in Medieval Europe. In Greek myth, Hippolyta was given a magical girdle by her father, Ares, the god of war. It was a waist belt that signified her authority as queen of the Amazons.
Earl
What goalpost moving…
The goalpost moving where you shift from the topic to your own topic.
I stated earlier the commonalities I see between chivlary and game as tactics to get into m’lady?
No, you did not. You stated something else. Here it is for the third time:
Your job is to convince me otherwise.
How much am I getting paid for this job?
“Ought” and “is” are not the same thing, Earl. Why do you care what pickup artists and sluts consider to be “alpha” anyway?
Another thing I hope that all of us can keep in mind is that there are far more battles to be fought beyond this blog than in the comment section.
As Men we tend to enjoy argumentative discourse so as to arrive at Truth, both within ourselves and beyond. The sparring in a comments section is akin to sparring at the gym, whence training for a greater fight. This is a good thing, but let us never forget our far greater arguments with the ways of the world. Let us spar then, in preparation for greater battles.
I seem to have misplaced my ritalzzozlilinlzozl and have had a moment of clarity. I hope I can find my ritalzinzzlzoz soon.
Whether you are Protestant or Christian, think about how any of your comments would be received in any modern Church or in today’s university.
At least in the Church, be it Catholic or Protestant, there is generally the understood drive to follow Jesus Christ, and arguments take place in the context. And even if there is not, one is yet allowed to produce the Bible and offer support for one’s views, based on the precepts of Jesus, for the most part.
But then think about the myriad institutions where this is not even possible, as well as the rapidly declining number of churches where the Bible’s teachings are yet welcome.
At least on this blog, the Bible has never been rejected.
da GBFM does not appear to understand metaphor. The Chronicles of Narnia is metaphor.
Do a text search here and you can see which phrase da GBFM exaggerated regarding clothing:
https://gutenberg.ca/ebooks/lewiscs-princecaspian/lewiscs-princecaspian-00-h.html
White Guy @ 4:36 pm:
“OT Brothers, but I could use some prayer. In addition to all the marriage crap I’m dealing with, I ruptured my achilles tendon Sunday night (stepping out of my truck)… it was a complete tear… Ugh I’m still trying to get over from my pec tendon repair back in January.”
What do you do? Fight Club?
@Joe
“I kind of feel that way too. Sort of. More of what they now call a “community group” where we can talk freely and debate.”
Talking freely about girdles. I’ve watched the chivalrous girdle-giving/taking competition/dance in churches for decades. Chivalrous church beta males doing their utmost to follow Christ, live according to scripture, and wrongfully assuming the virtuous princesses are reading and following the same scripture to pursue Biblical marriage. Wrongful farcical assumption. Church girls playing the girdle game on the surface while following the feminist battle plan with promiscuity, career chasing, etc etc. Men going to church for the easy sex, laughing at the entire system. It’s a broken record.
I’ve seen the overt or tacit leadership approval of horrible feminist behavior of women in the church. A tsk tsk, forgive them their EAP behavior for they are at fault not for what they do. No thanks, I gave one house away to an unhappy EAP, one per lifetime is my limit.
Dalrock and his commenters have put everything together for many. I’ve guided many men to this blog mainly to glean teaching points for our sons to keep them from blindly stepping into a meat grinder. Biblical teaching points at that. Solving the problem of navigation through the chivalrous garbage in the modern church well enough to pursue a true faith in spite of it all.
Because they’re wrong.
Totally OT, but thankful for any advice.
I’ve spent the last week reading tons of the backposts. I was wondering if I could get any help with a weird situation. I’m married 10yrs. Formerly alpha-ish (Christian, virgin before my wife, but ‘spun plates’ by going on lots of dates and getting free coffee from baristas without ever asking, etc), but I’ve turned pretty beta in marriage.
My son has some really bad medical conditions. In the process of getting them figured out some doctor got pissed that we didn’t want to work with her so she called CPS. Super ugly story short, men with guns showed up to protect the social workers who stole my child. He was in foster care for a little over 2mos. Foster fam were Christians and figured out what was up. Worked with us to get our son back. Gotta love family court, we never had a hearing the whole time.
Medical issues continue. Suffice it to say that my wife (and I) had some…uh… negative feelings we needed to work through after all of this. Every knock on the door was scary.
So, not only is my son chronically ill (weak seed? I don’t think it’s from my side, but whatever), but I also failed to protect my child. I mean, I kept us all together and worked every angle during that absolute hell, but yeah, I felt emasculated.
So yeah. Our marriage is a bit rough. I don’t think shut-up-and-lift is going to be good enough to help me win back trust in my ability to protect our family. Honestly, as long as he’s not well, we are one phone call away from the same hell (Google Medical Kidnap to read stories that will drive you insane).
Do you guys have any advice?
White Guy, Lay off the steroids, or other Myostatin inhibiting compounds, that degrade your ligaments. ruptured my achilles tendon … pec tendon repair
Try researching some TB-500 and BPC-157, and switch to Ostarine or Ligandrol for a while to rebuild your soft tissue and connective tissue. I recommend Nutropicsource.com my rat told me their stuff is effective. Also their N-Acetyl Epitalon has made my rat feel younger and healthier.
To GBFM and others who are going on about allegories,
What do you all think about “Pilgrim’s Progress” is it a good book for men?
Son of Nun,
Sorry to hear about it. My brother had his disabled daughter stolen by our loving overlords once. The best advice he got was from a friend of a friend with an autistic boy who hits himself (that is, bruised). Do-gooders called CPS on those folks three times, so they were able to help my brother because they knew the system.
When did CPS take my niece? Two days after my brother’s wife passes away and three days before the funeral. A vindictive in law angry about their daighter passing away made the call to CPS.
The feminization of our society is far worse than people realize. Not only is the pastor the head of Christian families, the State the hisband of our wives, but “caring” social worker twats are the possessor of our children.
Sorry about not having advice. Based on the experience, I would say our country is third-world, and it depends on who you know. In this case, we had a judge friend that interceded to crack the CPS balls. Wasn’t about Right that solved it, but Might.
I’ve heard similar horror stories from Child Protection Services in other first-world countries. On the other hand, we also hear about terrible cases of child abuse and even murder where CPS did NOT intervene at all. It’s hard to get it right, it depends a lot on the person representing government that you’re dealing with. There is lots of room for human error.
Dear Dalrock. A woman discovers that men have it tougher than women…
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/paying-tinder-dates-unspoken-inequality-clair-maurice
GBFM,
I used to read a lot of Christian books, but I have not done so as much lately. It is an interesting question of how many would hold up to scrutiny. I have found several do not. It is kind of like watching things that were so funny years ago (Monty Python for example, for me) and finding they are not nearly as good now.
I bought Wild at Heart, but never read it. I suppose I should pull it up on my Kindle and at least skim through it.
Then you should only read the Bible, not any of the “great books” your name implies. All are not great by your standard.
Just when I start reading your replies, you show why I usually skip them.
American,
Liberals/Progressives can get away with just about anything and no one is concerned. They think standards are so good they decided to have two.
Cane,
That was non-alcoholic grape juice. Didn’t you know that? At least that is what some anti-alcohol preachers tell me. /sarc
Joe,
Most modern churches have men that are very blue pill. They almost completely ignore any errors on woman’s part.
An example is a recent one I was at that noted 1 Peter 3:7 – That a husband’s prayers can get hindered if he doesn’t treat his wife properly. I noted that this was in the context of the woman in 1 Peter 3:1-6. Many could not handle that they are two sides of the same coin, insisting only men were accountable.
They do have a small point that men can only fix themselves, but ignoring the context is very dangerous. How many men would even be comfortable with their wives calling them “lord” as it notes in the first part?
– 1 Peter 3:7 has the word “likewise” – directly connecting it to the previous passage.
– Ignoring the behavior of a wife puts the husband in an impossible situation.
I have been pushing myself to attend, but I am not sure I will continue to do so because I don’t want to always have to argue for stuff like this. I am fine with others not seeing everything my way, but differing so much on core principles makes it highly unlikely to build true connections.
It has been noted here before by others, but I told a past pastor that I would get more fellowship in a bar than I get in a church. That is a tragedy.
White Guy,
I pray you get the healing power you need to realign your body into proper functioning and that you have wisdom and peace as you work to that point.
Larry,
Completely off topic, but your comment reminds me of how All American Maid used her high-healed shoes in the old Tick animated show! Definitely not feminine there, though that seemed to be the point.
Son of Nun,
I pray you get wisdom. I went through a similar wringer after adopting and raising a sibling group.
Definitely do not blame yourself. The system is very messed up and almost unredeemable.
Do all you can to build and keep connections with your wife. Not sure how to do that properly, as my marriage ultimately did not make it. Having what little connection we had break didn’t help things at all.
Swanny,
The system makes me a bit paranoid to spend any time with my own granddaughter alone. Something that should be a good relationship is prone to horrible abuse today. The system needs to be completely broken and rebuilt.
Paul,
CPS is the same as many women: Many really bad ones get away with many things. Others who are doing the best possible are raked over the coals.
CS Lewis is like rat poison, 99.9% food/nutritious 0.01% poison.
Satan masquerades as an angel of light and Jesus himself says that if it werent some miraculous power by God, even tje elect would be deceived by his signs and wonders.
Or like the yeast of the pharisee, just a little bit of their teaching will spread throughout the whole dough/body.
No rat would eat the rat poison if it didnt think was food, it that 0.01% that is enough to kill it.
Why do “Christians” elevate men/humans over God?
Son of Nun @ April 25, 2018 at 9:15 pm:
“I kept us all together and worked every angle during that absolute hell, but yeah, I felt emasculated.”
That feeling of emasculation was feeling you weren’t in control of what was happening. (Very reasonable in this context.) Study the laws creating/governing the local CPS or even consult a lawyer or paralegal–not to file a lawsuit you probably can’t afford but to understand & quantify the threat you face. If money’s tight, call the police front desk and say CPS is getting involved, you have concerns, is there someone you can talk to, what are your rights & responsibilities. The goal is to chat for a couple hours with a guy in the know on how CPS operates and what you might do in response/preparation. Learn their checklists and procedures and think about how you can tweak that to your advantage.
Smart soldiers do reconnaissance.
Once you understand them and have a few tricks in your bag, the feelings of helplessness will leave and you’ll start getting your Alpha mojo back. Your wife will notice when you grin and say “here’s the plan.”
One other bit of advice, document everything. Keep a diary, put every scrap of paper in a file, take notes on a pad whenever CPS calls or visits, ask stupid questions, request copies. It’s hard to know what’s important while stuff is happening and all government runs on paperwork. Control the paperwork, control the G-man.
I still don’t see it. The way I read the story is this:
St. George is representing the Christian ideal and Christianity here. The dragon is obviously the devil and the townsfolk are the pagans under the thrall of the devil, with the Princess representing the virtuous pagan (being that she is willing to sacrifice herself to save the townsfolk). St. George, with the power of Christ, wounds the devil, and the virtuous pagan girl gives him (now representing Christ) her virginity. Once she gives over her virginity to Christ, she can now snare the devil and instead of being controlled by him and under his boot, she is greater than him and has bound him up. That is, she has conquered temptation by handing over her virtue to God. As she leads the dragon back to the people, they see that the power of Christ and of virtuous living has conquered the dragon and are converted, and then St. George (again standing in for Christ) slays the dragon and ends releases them from slavery.
It is very Catholic in its understanding of men being partners with God in deatroying the devil and overcoming temptation, so I could see some confusion from Protestants, but I think it’s a bit of a stretch to suggest it is “woman worship”.
Though, at the risk of even furthering the anti-Catholic sentiment, in Catholic understanding and in Catholic Scripture, it is the woman (Mary) who crushes the head of the Serpent.
Skyler- I see the allegory you draw out, and while not terrible, it certainly has issues. A five-point Calvinist would reject it, since we’re totally depraved and can do no good on our own.
But not even at that extreme, it is overwhelmingly troubling. First, we have the virtuous pagan as a woman. Sure, the bride of Christ and all that, except that there are male townspeople too. So the metaphor makes no sense. You don’t see woman worship here? It’s pretty evident.
Second, “giving her virtue” to Christ. What does that even mean? Either she’s virtuous or she’s not. Frankly, “not” is the answer from the Scriptures. And it’s sad that St. George is very passive, while the woman is suddenly empowered to control the dragon. In fact, the woman does nothing more than that gesture, and she’s suddenly empowered. Certainly possible, but it’s all justification and no sanctification. And that’s for the virtuous woman, what about everyone else? I’m much more inclined toward Lewis’ pictures in Voyage of the Dawn Treader where Aslan has to use his claws, in a painful process, that peels off the dragonskin that has enchanted Eustace.
So while your summary is valiant and reasonable, it still leaves many problems, including woman worship.
I don’t see a problem with the virtuous pagan being a woman at all. Just having a virtuous character be female doesn’t suddenly make it suspect, especially when the “hero” of the story is a Christian male who is a knight (a traditionally masculine profession).
As for “giving her virtue to Christ” what I mean is this: she is going to sacrifice herself for the people (in the story ahe is chosen, but goes willingly and urges St. George to flee lest he be consumed also). Her virtue is oriented toward her people, and toward her father. She is acting virtuous but for the worldly reason, hence the only gain her virtue brings is a worldly benefit: her people live for a while longer. Once she hands over her virtue to Christ, now it is transcendent, she is oriented toward God and achieves a transcendent and divine reward: a control over sin. Being a woman, her “virtue” is largely seen as being tied up with her virginity, hence it is a symbol of virginity that she hands over. She is giving herself in a “marriage” to Christ, and now being his bride, she can force the devil to submit.
I don’t see St. George as passive. It is he who actively challenges the dragon, he who wounds it, and he who is ultimately responsible for slaying it. He takes a passive role insofar as she and the townspeople are concerned because he is never under the slavery of the dragon, it is they who are in bondage, and thus it is their vice and paganism that must be changed in order to be freed from the dragon. Christ is seen here as the ultimate authority over the dragon, but he is giving this power over to them if they make the active choice to accept it. His wounding of the dragon after performing the sign of the cross is to show them that the dragon cannot stand against Christ, after that he allows the princess to bind the dragon ONLY AFTER she has handed over her virginity (virtue) to Christ. Then he allows her to parade the dragon so as to show the townspeople that it is not the strength of his arm that allows him to resist the dragon, but the strength of his faith. The girl (physically weak) is shown as overcoming the dragon in the same way that God shows his strength through the weak, and his glory through the humble. It is necessary for the townspeople to see the girl leading the dragon so they understand that it is not by physical means they will conquer the dragon. That is also why it has to be a female who is the second main character. A townsman who overcomes a dragon could be written off as a hidden badass, but a princess could not be seen as overcoming through physical strength.
And the dragon is only slain after the townspeople convert. They are sanctified by their conversion. The girl has already converted, so whether the dragon lives or dies is irrelevant to her, she has (by the power of Christ) bound the dragon. The townspeople cannot escape the dragon unless they too convert.
I said in the last post and I repeat myself again: there is a danger in reading a pet theory into every possible situation. Feminism and woman worship are sinful and they are prevalent tendencies, but they can’t be used to explain everything.
RPPaul,
Everything done by men would fall under that category.
That is very true but my point is thst CS Lewis IS poison, he is a “fallen”angel of light. Dont glorify him. He had occult views and i would hypothesize thathis ocultic knowledge allowed him to write insightfully such as screw tape, where a knowledgeable Christians could come to a “i can totally see how it can go down like that, he really is a great “christian” writter” moment.
I have always had a bad feeling about “Christian” fantasy, especially as i get older amd have a better ability to put my gut react into words. Like Narnia, you mix two incomparable things, Christianity and the fantasy/magic world and then you let your kids read it and now its an unspoken accepted assumption that those two opposing things can be in harmony, which it can not
Skyler- the more you explain, the worse it gets. It’s not a good story, it’s not a good metaphor. The fact that it mixes in sexuality only confuses the issue. It most certainly worships the woman, as she tames the dragon while even the “Christian ideal” invoking Christ cannot. It’s that latter point that you cannot avoid.
RPP- If CS Lewis is a stumbling block to you, then stay away. But your comments are absurd.
DrTorch
Why do you elevate man above God? Look into Lewis. He had occult ties. That is why i mention the Bible stating that satan masquerades as an angel of light.
I just dont want my brothers in Christ to be deceived. There are many examples of people elevating people over God. Or elevating a pastor over God. Its even in the Bible. Some say i follow apolos or peter or paul 1Corinthians 1 and 3.
Im just saying follow God over the writings of man
Dalrock — “There is also Lewis’ disgraceful actions with a married woman: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2017/07/27/wilson-lewis-and-pseudo-christian-pedestalization-game/
Lewis gave us some incredible insight, but at the same time he seems as blinded by chivalry as anyone else. It is a paradox.”
Everybody is a paradox, including you and me. With sins and faults that don’t appear to line-up with their good works. Satan takes the worst forty minutes of your lives, and plays them on the Big Screen of heaven. It’s easy. Everybody gets condemned.
OT: here is another reason I am more outspoken than most about women raising kids instead of making a career – Betty Friedan’s solution to “the problem that has no name” is that women should manifest their potential in a career that exercises their talents and can develop their identity. What does a modern Christian man say to me usually? The bible is silent about working women.
From Friedan: The feminine mystique keeps housewives entrapped in the nameless problem by holding out only the possibility of being a good mother and wife.
I had a thought last night…was the third trumpet judgment the introduction of Courtly love into Christianity? It happened after the fall of the Roman Empire, the 2nd trumpet judgment possibly, and before the fall of Constantinople and start of Renaissance, the 4th trumpet possibly.
Think about how much damage the doctrine of Courtly Love has caused Christianity.
RPP- Why do you ask questions that bear false witness against me? You have no interest in following scriptures?
I’ve never seen any indication that Lewis had occult ties, nor have I ever heard anyone else state that. Yet somehow, you are privy to this secret information, and want to warn the world about it. The same guy who lied about me…would he lie about Lewis? Hmmm.
@John
Nah, I hold to the view that the fourth beast is the caliphate.
DrTorch
You are not looking even a little bit. Google his name and the word occult and read just the first few entries.
False wittnes? Im pointing out that you seem to defend Lewis as if he is infallible therfore that maybe you elevate men over Biblical doctrine, which is another eay to say you are putting human over God. Is that false? You actions speak that you are doing that.
Narnia is magic/sorcery/witchcraft, no different than harry potter. That is what i am pointing out. Lewis is a hateway for “Christians” into the occult.
Why do you bear false wittnes against me and accuse me of no desire to follow scripture? Maybe your last paragraph can be flipped on to you, lieing about me stating you cant find any connection with lewis to the occult? Hmmmmm
Lots of angels of light. Billy Graham was a free mason, if he is in heaven, a good case can be made that all his treasures in heaven are made of flammable stuff or not there at all. HHHHHHHU!!! BLASPHEMY!
That is what i mean about elevating humans over God. Graham and lewis are one of many examples. Their purpose in Gods plan is to get people introduced to the gospel, rather from sincerity or worldly profit, false motives or true. Philippians 1:18
Im just saying “watch out, dont get deceived.” The truth is in the details. You find the devil there because he is busy hiding and twisting it.
Gbfm’s lolzzlzoz always annoyed me but he had a really good point, maybe not my angle (Lewis is an intro to the occult, and the Myers brig Jung guy was into the occult too) its not secret knowledge, just maybe hidden from blind elevations of humans that keeps us from seeing it
Presuming a loyal wife, here IMO is the wise thing to do when CPS takes any kind of interest in your kids:
THAT NIGHT, one parent (usually the mother) drives out of state with all the kids under age 18, not to return to that state while still under age 18, no forwarding address as far as that state’s government ever gets to know. ASAP (may take a week or so), the father and all their belongings follow.
@RPP: “Narnia is magic/sorcery/witchcraft, no different than harry potter. That is what i am pointing out. Lewis is a hateway for “Christians” into the occult.”
Bollocks
@GBFM: “In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds.”
2Pe3:16 “He [Paul] writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the **other Scriptures**, to their own destruction.”
Calling the NT the work of very inferior minds, whereas the apostle Peter regards all the apostle Paul’s writings as Scripture, places you in the category ‘ignorant and unstable people .. (who distort Paul’s teachings) to their own destruction’. Good luck with that. I definitely cannot take you seriously.
Lewis is yeast of false teaching. Regardless of the make up of rat poison(99.9% of its makeup being actual food), it is still poison. Why do a lot of Christians defend him or any other human so much to the point that legitimate concerns and flaws are either ignored or discounted? Could it be from a desire to elevate humans over the Word of God?
Itching ears wanting to hear what it wants such as entertainment? To gratify flesh over spirit or do spirituality in our own image? Im guilty of it too as everyone. Im learing from my own flaws that God points out and im warning my brothers. Not that i achieved the state that God wants us to be, still striving forward to win the prize, but watch out for those tainted with occult views/ magic world. Satan is extremely cunning and subtle.
@RPP: “Why do a lot of Christians defend him”
It is the other way around: you attack and accuse him without giving substantial proof. People call out your moral flaw.
Paul
Its an easy search online with both his name and occult.
Magic and Christianity should not and do not mix.
Oh, its plausible deniability because its suppose to be allegory or whatever. Still doesnt change the fact that the stories are taking place in magic land.
I can better see now the wisdom why muslims wont have images of allah or mohamed.
Lewis with his fantasy land is encroaching on the second commandment, making images and idols, what ever the excuse of allegory or what not. Im just pointing that out.
A lot of people have been introduced to the gospels through his writting. Great, God works for the good of all those who love him…but satan masquerades as an angel of light and he appears much more so to people who dabble in the occult as Lewis did. Lots of circumstantial evidence/connections. It isnt a definate proof he wasnt Christian but people defending him as if he is infallible is just off and wrong.
Its the same as MLK jr. Lots of unsavorry stories about him. But they have to be hidden and swepted under the rug because it somehow discredits the civil right movement because he was a civil rights leader. Just because lewis was in Christian circles doesnt mean his flaws make the gospels wrong but people defend him and over look his flaws ss if they dont exist because they mistakenly believe that it makes the gosples a lie. If they admit his flaws, who knows how much the gospels can be wrong, you know, the gosples being for sinners and everything. Im speeking somewhat abstract here fyi
You’ve missed the symbolism. The dragon is the beast inside every man externalized. No man is any good to anyone especially God until he’s tamed his inner beast. The way he does that is by obediently loving God and the way he demonstrates that is selflessly loving a woman. For a man this isn’t possible apart from the Lord Jesus the Christ. And the cross. The problem is mankind sees everything through our immense self. We believe the sun revolves around the earth and God around us. St. George is nothing without the Lord. So essentially George is obedient to the Lord as a sleighs his inner beast for the love of a woman ehich demonstrates his love for God. George does what Adam failed to do.
Pingback: The love of a virtuous pagan woman tames the beast inside. | Dalrock
RedPillPaul @ April 26, 2018 at 11:40 pm:
“Narnia is magic/sorcery/witchcraft, no different than harry potter. That is what i am pointing out. Lewis is a hateway for “Christians” into the occult.”
We went through this in the 1980’s with Dungeons & Dragons. “We’re teaching kids to cast spells!” Strangely, the kids never got around to actually casting spells and in the meantime, some very unsexy, nerdy, Spergy kids were able to make new friends and learn to socialize, and some other kids found out that math was good for something after all.
A wizard reading a book to learn how to do something, that is not witchcraft. Women frivorcing their husbands with gov’t backing, that is witchcraft. The spirit of rebellion against God. If magic was real, which it isn’t, for men it would be only one source of power among many. We are already strong, smart and social; becoming zappy would be just another tool in our bag.
But women aren’t supposed to wield power. They’re supposed to respect and obey power, personified in Hubby, so women seizing power, in any form, in order to not depend upon Hubby is an unnatural act.
Harry Potter did not practice witchcraft. Hermione did. She used the welfare state, er, magic to become an equal among the boys.
Im pointing out that you seem to defend Lewis as if he is infallible therfore that maybe you elevate men over Biblical doctrine,
Weasel words aside, you’re lying.
I’m too busy now to address your other nonsense. Perhaps later.
Drtorch
You provide no substance. This is a courtesy response. You didnt look lewis and occult did you? Nope, you didnt.
Gunner Q
I get what you are saying and i use to feel the same way (about d&d)but the water did get hotter and we are all frogs in a pot.
The opposite of souron isnt Gandalf the whire, its Christ. Black and white magic are the two sides of the same coin. Lewis vs Tolkien/rowlling are the multiple side to the D&D dice.
I agree with your definition of women blowing up family is part of witchcraft
Gunner Q
Magic or dark powers are real. Egypt could copy some of the miracle Moses did.
The prophets of Baal clearly expected to be answered by fire and although the Bible doesnt say, they probably experienced greater “powers” than a manifestation of fire. I think they were not answered because God blocked them because it was a contest to prove who the True God is by whoever answered by fire (baal vs Elijah).
Sort of like the biggest lie is convincing devil doesnt exist, throwing magic and sorcery witchcraft as fairytale would be like that lie.
“Gunner Q, Magic or dark powers are real. Egypt could copy some of the miracle Moses did.”
I didn’t call them fake. I called them irrelevant. Per Scripture, God taught sorcery to Aaron in Exodus 7; he and the pagan Egyptians did the same “turn staves into serpents” trick. That means Aaron was a witch, right? As demon-worshiping evil as the Egyptians? But God chose Aaron for his first priest.
You yourself brought up the other example I was going to use, Mount Carmel. “Nuclear winter fireball” is generally considered an eighth-level spell. Before you claim it was God who cast that spell, be informed that in D&D clerics also rely upon divine power for their abilities, which can be lost if they cease to follow their patron deity.
If your faith is too weak to tolerate the fantasy genre then it is what it is, but please accept that most people can handle it safely. I assure you, if D&D truly was a gateway to dark forces then we’d already be neck-deep in demons and the living dead. We’re not, therefore your concerns are ill-founded.
GunnerQ
Noted, i bring it up as His Holiness is beyond what we can “safely” handle
@RPP : Its an easy search online with both his name and occult. Magic and Christianity should not and do not mix.
FIrst of all, you accuse, hence you prove. Sending people to google is not proof.
Secondly, most people who complain about Christianity and the occult have no clue what they are talking about. Their ignorance annoys me even more if they start accusing people without solid grounds. Have you ever heard of the “Malleus Maleficarum” and its impact on medieval Europe?
@RPP: Magic and Christianity should not and do not mix.
You know what currently probably the biggest mix-up of magic and Christianity is? It’s the Word-Faith movement. It is far more dangerous than Lewis will ever be. How many warnings do you see against Kenneth Hagin, Creflo Dollar (!), Kenneth Copeland, Benny Hinn, Joyce Meyer, Morris Cerullo, Oral Roberts, Joel Osteen, Rodney Howard-Browne etc. etc. ??
Summary of Word-Faith core belief:
“At the heart of the Word of Faith movement is the belief in the “force of faith.” It is believed words can be used to manipulate the faith-force, and thus actually create what they believe Scripture promises (health and wealth). Laws supposedly governing the faith-force are said to operate independently of God’s sovereign will and that God Himself is subject to these laws.” (https://www.gotquestions.org/Word-Faith.html)
This is magic at its core: trying to manipulate reality by using words (spells). It’s blasphemous because it teaches that God Himself is subject to this magic, and hence under control of “the believer”.
Totally agree with you Paul. It is sort of in line with a wicked generation looking for signs. The deeper i research “flaws” in Christianity, the more i see ocultic/new age influences that have infiltrated the church.
Like the Toronto outpouring/blessing as a sign of revival and self esteem movements when we should actually hate ourselves and have ourselves die (hard to do, i dont always carry my cross, many time not even close to daily). Job with God acknowledging him as righteous, says he hates himself when God answered him.
I dont want to seem like i have my undies in a bunch and seem like a prude. Example …video games dont kill people, or horror movies are just visual rollercoaster, magic movies dont bring witchcraft into the home, violent music…shove your advisory warning mrs. Gore ect… I use to discount this stuff very so. But i also realize that Christianity isnt as stong or prevalent as 10, 20, 30 years ago. The overton window has shifted a lot
jburroso,
What the hell is the matter with you? You are preaching pure heresy. Shame on you. There millions and millions and millions of men on this planet (tens of millions, hundreds of millions) who could absolutely do God’s work and obediently love God without so much as having even one woman in his life. God is for everyone. Men loving women and marriage is NOT for every man. There are some men who most certainly should never marry. Ever. According to your heresy, these men are no good to God.
You are a horrible person. You need to change. What you have said is not the least bit Christlike.
My comments were in response to the conversation on the meaning behind the symbolism in legend of St. George and the slaying of the dragon specifically.
To your point can a man demonstrate love for God outside of a relationship with a woman. Yes. The Apostle Paul demonstrates this quite clearly.
Outside of a one on one encounter with the Lord Himself I would say a bride is a man’s best opportunity to demonstrate his love for God. As Hosea demonstrates for us. And as Jesus demonstrated for us.
On your observation there are tens of millions of men who demonstrate love for God we can agree to disagree. Religion has so thoroughly made trite the act of loving God any example of a man loving God you mat sight would be frankly laughable. The Apostles demonstrate what it is to love God – and what they show us is it must cost you your life.
You provide no substance. This is a courtesy response. You didnt look lewis and occult did you? Nope, you didnt.
Why should I? I have actually read Lewis, so I know you’re writing nonsense. How about that? But I did read some, and it largely was the tripe I anticipated.
But in the end, your ridiculousness comes from a lack of understanding about what you’re talking about. The sorcery and witchcraft in the Bible refers to a few things
https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/witch-witchcraft/
Including necromancy, divination (of the future) and (pharmakeia) is the ordinary Greek one for “sorcery,” and is so rendered in the Revised Version (British and American), though it means literally the act of administering drugs and then of giving magical potions. Supernatural curses were also an element of ancient magic.
If you want to know what pharmakeia looks like, here is a well known article:
http://www.kirasalak.com/Peru.html
Clearly it’s popular in modern times, even among atheists.
And you can see what this guy writes
https://gizmodo.com/a-beginners-guide-to-doing-drugs-in-the-outdoors-1686617842
So look at Lewis, did he promote divination or necromany? No, it was explicitly evil characters who did. Pharmakeia? Not at all.
In fact very few humans did sorcery in his Narnia books, and those who did magic, human or not, were usually villains.
It’s clear why the Bible warns against witchcraft. It is either used to avoid faith in God (divination, necromancy) or to have “religious” experiences apart from the Holy Spirit, and with no worship of God. Flying broomsticks and invisibility spells aren’t in this category. Interestingly, curses seem to get some validity (both in their existence and legitimacy) in Scripture (Prov 26:2, 2 Tim 4:14).
Funny that your crowd picks on Harry Potter as well, which again shows your whole ignorance on the subject. Rowling is not Christian, but it’s clear that a good portion of her “magic” is simply modern technology translated to fantasy. A wand that lights up by saying “lumos”? Pfft, we call them “flashlights.” Magic mirrors that let you communicate w/ someone far away? Skype, facetime, VTC, etc.
No we can not agree to disagree. You are just wrong. Pure and simple, you are wrong. And that is the end of it.
Like Thomas Ball?
@Paul& RedPillPaul
The reason magic is banned is because all such magic aside from that which is provided by God to work miracles originates from demons and evil spirits.
God alone is to be our spiritual Patron. And not some other spirit. Magic is an act of worship.
He alone will provide the powers to work his will. That is why all those who practice the magic arts will burn in the eternal fire.
The power of God is distinguished from arcane arts is that it doesn’t involve any incantations or special inscriptions and elaborate ceremonies but merely obedience to God’s direction to work.
Touching staff to water, raising said staff, tapping the rock.
Likewise other than certain instances miracles are confined to certifying prophecy and the breaking of new ground by the Gospel.
Otherwise generally we are to rely on our ingenuity and technology generally to make our way in life aside from prayer and righteousness.
Socery = drug use ?(without reading your link). If that is the case, then maybe i was already aware of that
What good will me citing thing online if you wont believe what is written in them anyways. Not that far from “citation”
He introduces you to magic world that one is better of being ignorant to.
Why did God make us ignorant to good and evil when he created man.
Here is a secular example. Eddie murphy’s comedy bit on taking half from divorce. He isnt promoting divorce but makeing aware half the population to be aware of a messused up way to play tje game. Plausible deniability right? Considering the world promotes what it wants to rather directly or indirectly.
@RPP: [Lewis] introduces you to magic world that one is better of being ignorant to.
OK, so someone reads Narnia, how is one better off ignorant? Just drop it.
Like we were better off not having the fruit from the tree of knowledge.
Paul was a pharisee and he probably knew a lot of the “legends” and “mysteries” but he never preached the gospel from his knowledge of that stuff, he regards it as garbage. The sect of the pharisee are the root to modern kabbalah.
I havent read nor seen nararnia book/movies since they come out but remember a theme that white magic is on the side os Aslan. They are not in harmony. That is the lie that “Christians” gulp up without questioning. The duality theme of newage
@RPP: I havent read nor seen nararnia book/movies
Reasoning from ignorance is not going to convince anyone that Lewis is evil.
Lewis has proven his worth as a defender of the Christian faith.
It is sin to accuse people without ground.
@RPP: The sect of the pharisee are the root to modern kabbalah.
No, they are the root of modern Rabbinic Judaism
They are the root to both, you wont find them coming from the sadducees because they dont believe in the supernatural and angels and such.
Satan masquerades as an angel of light. If ot were not for the implanted Holy Spirit, we would be deceived by his signs and wonders, hence Jesus starting if it were possible. Meaning if Enoch, or Elijah, or Daniel or Job or Moses el, with everything they knew and experienced of God, if even they didnt have the deposit of the Holy Spirit, they too would be deceived.
Lewis wrote some good things that aligned with scripture. Even Benny Hinn can give some sermons that are scriptural once in a while, the writings that are unique to them contains the poison. White magic helping Aslan an such. Even Baccuss has a “god thats been reborn” angle
@RPP
You cannot proof the Pharisees are the root of Kabbalah
“Satan masquerades as an angel of light. If ot were not for the implanted Holy Spirit, we would be deceived by his signs and wonders”
We have been given more than that:
“Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.”
“the writings that are unique to them contains the poison”
You fail to provide any proof, you not even have read it. Yet you keep repeating your accusations without ground. I’m done with this. Provide proof or be silent.
His fantasyland books. Revelations mentions from Jesus own mouth the synagogue of satan who are jews but are not.
Tolkien is better than lewis because atleast he doesnt have christ fonicate with white magic powers as if Jesus needed white magic to come to his aid. Its a subtlety that is implied
What good will me citing thing online if you wont believe what is written in them anyways.
It’s not good at all. You act like everything on the internet is true, and that everyone should turn off their brains and listen to a few nags who know what’s best for all of us. Even when it’s clear you don’t know what you’re writing about. Col 2 was written for people like you, and the internet authors you cite.
You mean Colossians 2:8? Wouldnt Lewis be guilty of that relying on a lot of greek mythology characters to build his world?
I dont think everything on the internet is true but you must think snoopes and wikipedia is the final say in stetting the “record” straight.
In any place in his narnia bioks does it ever say that Christ came in the flesh and Jesus is Lord? Nope, you may say it is implied allegoricaly.
You still probably didnt look up ehat was suggested. There are, circumstantial evidence that he belonged to or associated with a coven and different writers guilds that wrote unbiblical things. You probably think free masons are saved when they put their version of the bible and jeeish eritings and the koran on the same level, such as the ending in the movie “book of eli”
Im warning of the subtlety of the devils schemes. Even Obama says Jesus is Lord as the demons believe God is one.
You can ignore at your peril
Wouldnt Lewis be guilty of that relying on a lot of greek mythology characters to build his world?
Not at all, but thanks for proving again you have no idea of what you’re talking about, including any understanding of the Scriptures.
Got another fan boy of lewis.