I follow a strict interpretation of the bible (i.e., authorial intent) just like I do of the constitution, and this doesn't lead me to these ridiculous claims. Lewis wasn't an occultist.
That's what I meant: some things in the Bible are allegory, some are tales told to impart certain lessons on the listeners, and some relate to cultural values that may not be necessary/relevant with modern technology/civilization (such as 'don't wear clothing with more than two types of materials" when modern T-shirts can have 3 or more by themselves).
It depends what you mean by "occultist". His friend Cecil Harwood was an Anthroposophist, and Charles Williams certainly had unorthodox ideas, tried to practice them and used them in his writings.
Jesus isn’t a lion. Ra, the Egyptian sun god, is a lion by way of an ancient pun.The lion is the king of the jungle, the strongest of those who live outside of God’s law, whose legitimacy is guaranteed not by God’s will but by his own might. The lion is lucifer, not Jesus (who is typically portrayed as a lamb, no? Not as a predator!).
Symbols have meaning, anon. (((They))) laugh and laugh at us as we hold up their many satanic/pagan symbols as Christian symbols. Further, there is no need to analogize the bible since the bible stands on its own.
I am not saying we should burn these books or anything. There is nothing wrong with reading, even enjoying the written ideas of the (((enemy))). It is important, however, that you also understand.
Uhhh..this cite also calls the perseverance of the saints false doctrine. Says Gods unconditional love for his children (those Christ died for) is false doctrine. You need to dump this source becuase your error on CS Lewis seems to stem from trusting a false authority and misreading scripture.
Source or shush.
His sources are probably based on strict interpretation of the Bible, mostly like this.
"C.S. Lewis: The Devil's Wisest Fool"
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Wolves/cs_lewis-fool.htm
They also have similar complaints about Harry Potter, Dungeons and Dragons, etc.
I follow a strict interpretation of the bible (i.e., authorial intent) just like I do of the constitution, and this doesn't lead me to these ridiculous claims. Lewis wasn't an occultist.
It is a sign of how far down we have fallen that this is getting downvotes.
There is always need for some moderation in all things, even the Bible.
That's what I meant: some things in the Bible are allegory, some are tales told to impart certain lessons on the listeners, and some relate to cultural values that may not be necessary/relevant with modern technology/civilization (such as 'don't wear clothing with more than two types of materials" when modern T-shirts can have 3 or more by themselves).
If you take it all literally, you can become too obsessed with it, like the people who were so obsessed with Star Wars that they created a real-life religion based on the Jedi Order after people listed their religion as "Jedi" on the 2001 census.
It depends what you mean by "occultist". His friend Cecil Harwood was an Anthroposophist, and Charles Williams certainly had unorthodox ideas, tried to practice them and used them in his writings.
Jesus isn’t a lion. Ra, the Egyptian sun god, is a lion by way of an ancient pun.The lion is the king of the jungle, the strongest of those who live outside of God’s law, whose legitimacy is guaranteed not by God’s will but by his own might. The lion is lucifer, not Jesus (who is typically portrayed as a lamb, no? Not as a predator!).
Symbols have meaning, anon. (((They))) laugh and laugh at us as we hold up their many satanic/pagan symbols as Christian symbols. Further, there is no need to analogize the bible since the bible stands on its own.
I am not saying we should burn these books or anything. There is nothing wrong with reading, even enjoying the written ideas of the (((enemy))). It is important, however, that you also understand.
Uhhh..this cite also calls the perseverance of the saints false doctrine. Says Gods unconditional love for his children (those Christ died for) is false doctrine. You need to dump this source becuase your error on CS Lewis seems to stem from trusting a false authority and misreading scripture.
nods head