Lewis and Demons

On Mon, 24 May 2004 19:34:56 GMT, "AJA" <ahnemann.TakeThisOut@optonline.net>
wrote:

 >James wrote, A Grief Observed:
  >> Lewis' deepest book.
  >> Rightly, he gets to the heart of the matter here. If God created this
  >> world, then He is as responsible for all the bad that happens as well
  >> as all the good.
 >
 >Responsible, in the sense that God participates in all the bad, or that God
 >has created it?

I was using it more in the sense of creator. If one buys into the
idea that there is a god who created this universe, then that god has
to be held accountable for all that takes place in it.
James<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Lewis and Demons 

"Steven Carr" <steven DeleteThis @bowness.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:40b1ce6a.10794144@news.demon.co.uk...
 > How can you 'get it wrong', when Lewis said that God created a
 > rational universe, and created us as rational beings, able to trust
 > our reasoning?
 >
 > So how can mistakes ever happen when God Himself guarantees our
 > rationality?

Who said we can (always) trust our reasoning. That doesn't seem reasonable.

Blessings,
Ann<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Lewis and Demons 

"Michael J Davis" <?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:UfUMIkF8YhsAFwJn@trustsof.demon.co.uk

 > How do you know anything, Steven? I would argue that we have been given
 > a rational mind which needs to be informed about heavenly things.
 > Deliberately to remain ignorant is to be culpable.

That's just it, Mike. <sarcasm alert> No one is guilty anymore of anything,
right? There is a _reason_ for everything. Repentance, forgiveness? For
what? "I did it my way!"

Blessings,
Ann<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Lewis and Demons 

On Mon, 24 May 2004 08:07:13 UTC, steven.DeleteThis@bowness.demon.co.uk (Steven Carr)
wrote:

 > On Sun, 23 May 2004 20:08:43 +0100, Andrew Rilstone
 > <spam.DeleteThis@aslan.demon.co.uk> wrote:
 >
 > <skip>
 >
  > >That said, he definitely did believe in the literal existence of demons,
  > >but said that it was "one of his opinions, not one of his beliefs" --
  > >i.e a non-essential element in his faith.
 >
 > He definitely believed in something, but it was not a belief?

Well, this may be easier for some people to understand than for others.
For my part, I find that there are many things that I believe or
disbelieve with widely varying degrees of firmness, and some appear to be
more fundamental than others. This even happens in objective, rational,
naturalist matters like the second law of thermodynamics and the impact
that apparently caused the Permian extinction. It might be even more so
in matters that don't allow of the same methods of hypothesis testing.
Hence, I suppose that a person could have a firm and (he thinks)
well-founded belief that demons exist, but still consider it a matter that
might be disproved without destroying everything else that he understands
to be true.

 >
 >...
 > By 'non-essential element', do you mean he would deny it if it was
 > opportunistic for him to do so?

Well, of course I can't answer for Andrew. But actually I can (how's that
for a word game?) -- he doesn't mean anything of the sort. What he does
mean might well be similar to what I said just above. But this belief of
mine could be refuted without a total destruction of my worldview.

 >
 > ...[snipped; see another posting]
 >
 > Meanwhile, a purely physical thing like a NAND gate happily obeys
 > logical rules perfectly and infallibly.....

Yeah, but it sure draws dull pictures (when not assisted by something
squishily imperfect, or by zowie new non-existent AI technologies
fantasized by the anti-squishy crew). And if you ask it for mercy, you're
really wasting your breath.

--
Dan Drake
dd.DeleteThis@dandrake.com
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.dandrake.com" target="_blank">http://www.dandrake.com</a>

Whoever tries to imagine perfection simply reveals his own emptiness.
--George Orwell<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Lewis and Demons 

On Mon, 24 May 2004 10:45:19 GMT, steven.DeleteThis@bowness.demon.co.uk (Steven
Carr) wrote:

 >On Mon, 24 May 2004 10:27:07 +0100, Michael J Davis
 ><?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote:
 >
 >
  >>Steven Carr <steven.DeleteThis@bowness.demon.co.uk> observed
/snip/

  >>I think you underestimate the power of the Holy Spirit in influencing
  >>Lewis writing. (Which CSL freely accepted, btw!)
 >
 >Lewis knew he was right because his invisible friend was helping him
 >out?

I've never heard Lewis say anything of the kind. In the MIRACLES
argument and similar, Lewis believed in rational thought (logic, math
etc) and somewhat in human tradition (what this group often calls the
813).


Mary<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Lewis and Demons 

"Steven Carr" <steven RemoveThis @bowness.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:40b1aa10.1523623@news.demon.co.uk...
 > On Sun, 23 May 2004 19:48:12 +0100, Michael J Davis
 > <?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote:
 >
  > >Steven Carr <steven RemoveThis @bowness.demon.co.uk> observed
   > >>Did C.S.Lewis believe that supernatural demons existed with the power
   > >>to attack our rational thinking and also the motivation to attack our
   > >>rational thoughts?
 >
  > >Steven, are you tormented? I see you have posted similar questions
  > >elsewhere. . .
 >
 > And got no sensible answers from you, or anybody else........

I think that's a little unfair. I (for instance) answered your question
exactly as you asked it: essentially Yes with some expansion. My reply, while
not profound, seemed perfectly "sensible" to me. While Mike's article here
does not directly address the question, he has done that elsewhere, as have
others.

If you then wish to raise subsequent points, then probably some people will
then address them; though I think we all acknowledge that the points you are
raising are difficult, at least for those who believe in the supernatural at
all, so probably none of us would claim to be able to give you definitive
answers.

I will have a go myself in one of the other subthreads of this hydra-like
thread.
Nicholas.
--
"Macbeth" is ... by a playwright who ought, at least on this occasion, to have
written a story, if he had the skill or patience. - JRRT, _On Fairy-Stories_
To email me, use vnicholasv RemoveThis @vinchbare-yv.vfsnetv.co.uk,
removing all occurrences of the letter "v".<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Lewis and Demons 

"Steven Carr" <steven.RemoveThis@bowness.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:40b1d094.11348085@news.demon.co.uk...
 >
 > On Mon, 24 May 2004 10:10:26 +0100, Michael J Davis
 > <?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote:
 >
  > >ISTR that in TSL the suggestion that 'bad things' are caused by demons
  > >is fairly well demolished in the words of the devils themselves. It is
  > >our feelings and reactions to them that the demons manipulate. It's
  > >that, at least, I would suggest matches CSL's belief. If not, it
  > >certainly matches mine!
 >
 > So if demons can manipulate our reactions, why did Lewis proclaim that
 > we could trust our reactions because supernatural beings exist?
 >
 > Had he been got at by the demons?

As I said in another article, I don't think you will find many Christians who
would claim to give you definitive answers to questions like these. My
opinion, FWIW, is that we are in danger of attributing too much power to
demons.

Assuming that the Christian understanding of demons is essentially correct,
one thing is certain: they (including their master, the Devil) are limited
beings, neither omniscient or omnipotent. They can attack and influence but
not control, at least in normal circumstances**. Their attacks on my reason
and reactions, for instance, are like attacks that might be put forward by
humans, perhaps differing in degree but not in kind.

So, for instance, I might be seduced by a persuasive but flawed mathematical
argument to believe something false; or caused by emotional blackmail by a
friend or relative to do something against my better judgement. In each of
those cases I cannot entirely trust my own actions. However, you wouldn't (I
imagine) argue that these cases prove that I cannot ever trust my reactions or
my reasoning, merely that both of these are imperfect.

I regard demonic attack in the same general category as malignant human
influence. It can influence, modify thought and behaviour, make me do things
that I shouldn't, and so on - but so can many other things on this planet.
I'm not exactly sure what Michael was saying above, but if he meant that
demons can manipulate our reactions and feelings in a way which somehow
overrides or bypasses our intrinsic free will, then I disagree.

**I'm leaving any discussion of demon-possession out of this. We can address
it separately if you wish.

Hope that's useful,
Nicholas.
--
"Macbeth" is ... by a playwright who ought, at least on this occasion, to have
written a story, if he had the skill or patience. - JRRT, _On Fairy-Stories_
To email me, use vnicholasv.RemoveThis@vinchbare-yv.vfsnetv.co.uk,
removing all occurrences of the letter "v".<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Lewis and Demons 

On Mon, 24 May 2004 23:03:51 +0100, "Nicholas Young" <from DeleteThis @spam.trap>
wrote:

>"Steven Carr" <steven DeleteThis @bowness.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:40b1d094.11348085@news.demon.co.uk...
/snip/

>> So if demons can manipulate our reactions, why did Lewis proclaim that
>> we could trust our reactions because supernatural beings exist?

Trust our 'reactions'? Lewis's argument was about 'rational thought,' ie
logic, geometry, etc, not about 'reactions'.

Mary
 >> Stay informed about: Lewis and Demons 

> More precisely, no one in this time-bound universe really knows what
> it would mean to be a being 'outside of time.' The phrase is
> essentially unintelligible.

Ever read _Einstein's Dream_? Or Joshua Burton's communications to this
group (which may still exist somewhere in cyberspace)? The mathematicians
may not "know", but there _is_ a lot of informed speculation going on. That
is if one doesn't believe things written in the Psalms...

Blessings,
Ann
 >> Stay informed about: Lewis and Demons 

> >Responsible, in the sense that God participates in all the bad, or that
God
> >has created it?
>
> I was using it more in the sense of creator. If one buys into the
> idea that there is a god who created this universe, then that god has
> to be held accountable for all that takes place in it.

God has held God accountable. He sacrificed Himself for it. As I wrote
before, redemption and reconciliation are built into the system from before
time. That is not the same as saying that God created evil. But
professional theologians are better at explaining that. Doesn't exactly fit
into these word-bites.

Blessings,
Ann
 >> Stay informed about: Lewis and Demons 

On Tue, 25 May 2004 02:24:00 GMT, "AJA" <ahnemann.TakeThisOut@optonline.net>
wrote:

>> >Responsible, in the sense that God participates in all the bad, or that
>God
>> >has created it?
>>
>> I was using it more in the sense of creator. If one buys into the
>> idea that there is a god who created this universe, then that god has
>> to be held accountable for all that takes place in it.
>
>God has held God accountable. He sacrificed Himself for it. As I wrote
>before, redemption and reconciliation are built into the system from before
>time. That is not the same as saying that God created evil. But
>professional theologians are better at explaining that. Doesn't exactly fit
>into these word-bites.
>

Not really interested in debating whether or not God has held himself
accountable. My original intent in posting on this thread was to laud
Lewis for his insight that ultimately a creator God has to be held
responsible for His creation.
The meaning of His 'sacrifice' is one best discussed by His followers.
This non-Christian can find little to say about it.
James
 >> Stay informed about: Lewis and Demons 

 >steven@bowness.demon.co.uk (Steven Carr) writes:

 >How can you 'get it wrong', when Lewis said that God created a
 >rational universe, and created us as rational beings, able to trust
 >our reasoning?

Where did Lewis say that? But, in any case, God also gave us the capacity to
choose, reason doesn't function automatically, we have the capacity to reason,
but even with perfect logic, if the information we get is wrong or incomplete
we can err. Or we can choose not to apply our ability to reason.

 >So how can mistakes ever happen when God Himself guarantees our
 >rationality?
 >

That doesn't seem to me to be an honest question. Who claims such and where?


Daryl
And when He knew for certain, only drowning men could see Him.
He said all men shall be sailors then, until the sea shall free them.
(Leonard Cohen)
(remove nopax for e-mail)<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Lewis and Demons 

 >steven@bowness.demon.co.uk (Steven Carr) writes:


 >If Christians proclaim that God has actually created freewilled beings
 >who have never chosen evil, why do they also deny that God can create
 >freewilled beings that never choose evil?

define your idea of free will, and explain how you get it if you can't choose.

 >God's foreknowledge meant he knew the free will actions of Gabriel and
 >Michael and infallibly knew they would never commit evil.

How do you know that means that. Are you quoting scripture, Lewis? Or is this
just something you are saying? They still were able to choose, and perhaps
their choice was not known until they were actually created

 >So why create Satan in addition, knowing in advance that Satan would
 >choose evil?

Who said he knew before the act of creation. Once it was done it would have
consequences, the choices became evident but prior to the creation, I just
don't know.




Daryl
And when He knew for certain, only drowning men could see Him.
He said all men shall be sailors then, until the sea shall free them.
(Leonard Cohen)
(remove nopax for e-mail)<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Lewis and Demons