After watching the three movies of The Chronicles of Narnia I have come to the conclusion that Narnia can be called whatever you want to call it, but it is not a series that has been inspired by God. There is no possible way that it could be. This is my reason why…

            I believe that the Bible and God are the final authorities, and anything that defies them or preaches otherwise is, in essence, evil. With that said, I would like to show you a few things to support my statement about Narnia.

            In the book The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, Lucy is given a task to enter an invisible mansion and recite a spell to turn Dufflepuds, a wizard, and Aslan visible again. In the Bible spells like these are referred to as “familiar spirits”, “mediums”, “the fire”, etc.

            “There shall not be found among you anyone who makes is son or his daughter pass through the fire, or one who practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer,” Deuteronomy 18:10

            Aslan makes Lucy do this as a “trial” or “test of her faith”. However, this verse specifically says that no one should give a trial to someone in this manner.

“Give not regard to mediums and familiar spirits; do not seek after them to be defiled by them: I am the LORD your God.” Leviticus 19:31

After Lucy’s trial is complete a wizard is revealed and the four children must consult him to find their next destination. Again, this is forbidden by God.

            “or one who conjures spell, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. For all who do these things are an abomination to the LORD, and because of these abominations the LORD your God drives them out from before you.” Deuteronomy 18:11-12

            In The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe Susan is sent back to the White Witch’s lair to bring the creatures back to life after being turned to stone. This also is an abomination. Before anyone takes anything for an allegory or says, “But it’s supposed to symbolize…” first take a look at what is being used to symbolize it. For example: many people say that Harry Potter is an allegory, yet any well discerning Christian would know better than to fall for that. Why, however, should we not call Harry Potter an allegory? A true Christian would say, “Because it strongly uses magic and magic is forbidden by God.” But Harry Potter symbolizes the good and the light in the world, so wouldn’t that cancel out all the bad magic. I mean after all the magic in Harry Potter is being used for good. Again, a true Christian that knows the Bible would say, “God forbids the use of magic.” That same Christian, however, will turn right around and praise Narnia for being a great allegory. What is the difference between the two? Because Narnia’s hero looks more like a Christ Savior than Harry Potter? This is foolishness and not just by my definition.

            “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.” 1 John 4:1

            As I stated before, I believe that anything that deifies God and/or the Bible or contradicts them or anything like that is, in essence, an appearence of evil.

            “Abstain from all appearance of evil.” 1 Thessalonians 5:22

            Narnia is not in any way, shape, or form inspired by God. The God that the Bible speaks of, and the God that I know and follow, does not press a point in the Bible as far as the subject of witchcraft is pressed, and then turn around and inspire a story that relies on the use of magic. If you think for one second that He would do such a thing, then I pray for you.

            “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.” Galations 1: 8-9

Written by Math Ew!


Views: 836

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

You're changing the word.  The Bible says "to take captive".  There's a big difference between being a captive, and being captivated.  Your definition of captivated is fine.  But to be taken captive is basically to be taken prisoner.  When you are taken captive, it means that it was done against your will.  In this context I believe that it roughly translates to "Don't let anyone deceive you", since I kind of doubt it was talking about someone physically taking us prisoner.  Thus, my point stands.  The fantasy that we read and watch today is acknowledged as fiction, so nobody is being taken captive because nobody believes that magic is real.

Sorry, I should have specified more.  I wasn't trying to draw any spiritual references.  The movies I was referencing are all in the R rated, horror/slasher/crazy violent genre.  Think more toward 300, Immortals, or Django Unchained (if you've heard of those). I was looking more for the reason you don't watch those kinds of movies than I was the Paranormal kinds.

C.S. Lewis was a Christian, but as Ed said (hehe, Ed said), he did not write Narnia as any sort of allegory.  Yes, all sorts of parallels can be drawn, but Lewis never said "I wrote this to represent the story of Christ".  He didn't have to.  As a Christian author, you write books like that and your readers are gonna find parallels.

But I'm not even really defending Narnia.  I don't even really care about Narnia.  It never has been in my favorite books list.  What I'm taking up is your statement that ALL magic is evil and, basically, from the devil.  THAT, I disagree with strongly, and it's THAT which I'm arguing against. 

Mixing magic with God is a dangerous thing.  Mainly because there are so many Christians out there who hate any and all magic with a passion.  Also because you don't want to equate the work of God with magic.  I myself never even read the actual Narnia books though, so I'm not going to argue the issue of Narnian magic.  Just the magic I know.

You're point doesn't stand. "To captivate" doesn't have to mean that you have to be descieved. It simply means that it could facinate you to the point of wanting it and learning more and more about it. I'm captivated by God, but that's not a bad thing. Fiction captivates the reader in the story. Which is exactly what Narnia does. That's fine, except that even though C.S. Lewis didn't mean for it to be an allegory in the way that people think it is. It's been misunderstood. You will most likely not ind anyone who will say "Narnia showed me something about this so I went to the Bible or spoke to God about it." You will most likely hear "Narnia is such a great story and it teaches us about the Gospel stroy in a fun way so that we can learn from it." This is rediculous. My point is that the word captivate has so many ways of being defined and you've restricted it to a certain definition. I believe that the word in that context in the scripture is talking about any kind of captivation that could harm your relationship with God.

My point stands just fine.  Your point is invalid, because you are changing what the Bible says.  Nowhere in that verse will you find the word "captivate".  The WORDS used are, in fact, "to be taken captive".  As I have pointed out, there is a big difference between the two.  You are ignoring this difference, and choosing to change the words set down by God.  The only reason someone would need, or even want to change the Word of God would be to support a point that is flawed. 

I went and looked in my Bible to confirm these words.  Did you? 

Yes and captive and captivate go hand in hand. One has to do with the captor and the other has to do with the captive. They have the same definition, just different view points. I'm not changing anything in the Bible.

Answer me this. HOW would you be "taken captive"? In what way(s) would that happen? List all that you can please.

First, let me start with a sci-fi example.  I'm reading a message on a tablet, mind control initiates through some program and bam, I'm taken captive.

I'm walking down the street and a guy jumps out and chloroforms me. Bam, I'm taken captive.

I'm chillin a work and a co-worker comes over with some incriminating evidence against me and with demands.  Bam, he takes me captive (although probably not many people would use that terminology there).

On the run from the police, they catch me, bam, I'm taken captive.

I was born a captive to my parents (til I turn eighteen, but let's not go there).

I am a captive to my faith, for I fear God.

Serfing the web, seeing sites I shouldn't see, going back to see more, and then more, and then more, and bam, captive to pornography.

Now let me provide examples of how I would be "captivated".

Walk into a room, see a gorgeous girl, walk over and start talking to her.  Bam, she's captivated me.

Talking with this random dude and he starts going on about starving children in Africa and before I know I'm just as on fire about it as he is.  Gonna feed those kids no matter what it takes!  Bam, he captivated me.

Reading a book, getting really engrossed in the character's lives, and then sad when the end comes and I have to leave them.  Bam, it captivated me.

Hears a song for the first time and it totally latches onto my heart, making me cry or laugh, and instantly putting it in my favorites.  Bam, it captivated me.

Notice the differences between those sets of examples, if you would.  The first, the ones in which I am taken captive, they all are events that occur against my will.  The second, the ones in which I am captivated, are all ones which I'm embracing quite willingly. 

Thus, there is a big difference between the words.  They sound similar, but after that, their paths diverge dramatically.  And those examples are how the words are used.  Nobody is going to say "Oh yeah, this dude came up and grabbed me and totally captivated me", they're gonna say "He took me captive". 

The difference between the words is plain, and clear.  So if God meant "Don't be captivated" I am positive that He would have used that word.

It seems to me, Matthew (or Math-ew! Whichever), is that the problem you are having is that you think that the magic forbidden in the Bible is the same as in Narnia. I am going to say this again. And I REALLY hope you listen. The magic that God tells us is wrong, is different than the magic in Narnia.

How so? What definition are you using? I really hope you listen too because what I am going to say it very important.



Most likely the reason you say that the magic is different is because the world has given magic certain "bad" levels. You're using the worlds defenition of magic which says that there are harmless good kinds and bad kinds. That WILL NOT stand as an excuse before God.

No, all magic is not evil.  Reading about it for fun is not a sin in any way.  What IS a sin is CHANGING the Word of God to fit your own agenda.  Something God specifically addresses.  Check it out.  Jesus himself speaking here.

Matthew 5:19: "Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Matthew 18:6-7: "If anyone causes one of these little ones--those who believe in me--to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.  Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble!  Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come!"

The bold type is my own addition, for emphasis.  Be careful what you preach, brotha, because God ain't gonna be happy with the person who misrepresents Him. 

Well then if we didn't read the stuff that the person is writing that would cause us to stumble. Then we wouldn't stumble.

I agree with your third sentance. But I'm not so sure about the second one. Would Jesus sit down and read a story about magic and spells for fun? Defenatively not. So if we're supposed to by like Jesus then we shouldn't be reading about magic or anything that God condems even if we aren't "partaking" in it we or even if it is just for fun. Because Jesus wouldn't.

"He that saith he abideth in Him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked." 1 John 2:6


"Pattern yourselves after me [follow my example], as I imitate and follow Christ (the Messiah)" 1 Corinthians 11:1


"Lean on, trust in, and be confident in the Lord with all your heart and mind and do not rely on your own insight or understanding." Proverbs 3:5

That last one is pretty straight foreward. I keep saying that this whole "good magic bad magic" is coming from the wrong source. And there in the Bible it backs that up. Don't trust YOUR OWN understanding. And by that He means if it didn't come from Him or the Bible.

Jesus wouldn't do anything here "just for fun".  But, supposing he did, I would say yes, he might.  He might well pick up a book of fantasy and read through, chuckling at how humans attempt to mimic His might.  Because that's what magic is.  The magic in most fantasy stories today.  Something people wish was real.  But it isn't.  Christians know this because they know that God is Almighty.  Those who don't believe in God know this because it breaks the laws of nature that humans have created.  Either way you cut it, everyone knows it's for fun.  A distraction.  Something enjoyable to take up a few spare hours.

Love is magical. Love must be evil. =( 


That's a metaphore. It is not saying that love IS actually a magical force. It's stating that Love feels weird and good. But in what world does magic feel like that? Whoever made up that metaphore must of had some issues or must have never known what magic actually was.


© 2022   Created by Christopher Miller.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service