C.S. Lewis statement.... (page 4)

Shining One

Hamster,
Christianity is not the parody you see through history. That is human attempts to live within their idea of religion. Christianity is a personal relationship with Jesus. It is living one's life as Christ commanded, not as we believe He commanded. You can't lay the decadence at the foot of the cross.
The savior of the world came and died that we may live, and live more abundantly. It is a practical yet difficult way to live. The promise is that the Lord of glory offers life eternal to those who would call on His name for salvation. He paid the price but if I want to have my account cleared for eternity then my obligation is to accept that life. I can do nothing to earn my salvation. It is a gift, that's what they don't tell you in Watchtower World. They deny that, they deny Christ and they rob people of eternal life.
God Bless you,
Rex

DanTheMan

dickheadedly sarcastic one minute:

Your boys have just been checkmated but they refuse to admit it! Sorry to burst your bubble.

all pious and holy the next:

The savior of the world came and died that we may live, and live more abundantly. It is a practical yet difficult way to live. The promise is that the Lord of glory offers life eternal to those who would call on His name for salvation [...] God bless you

lol!

the_classicist

As a Christian, I find YEC claims as laughable. I don't think I believe in "intelligent design" either; not many see beauty and order in khaos, though.

I haven't read the Chronicles of Narnia, but it's on my list. I just bought it in one volume.

All that being said, the totality of reality is not scientifically observable.

troucul

who names their kid Clive Staples? What the hell is all that aboot? maybe that's why he went by C.S., because 'Clive Staples' was too gay

hmike

Hi Rex,

Here is the problem I see that we’re dealing with when it comes to statements like this from Lewis...

Skeptics are taking increasingly less for granted. Logical discussions begin with some kind of "given"--something all the parties agree upon as a starting point. The starting point for apologetics seems to be getting pushed further and further back. When the Apostle Paul made his statements on Mars Hill, or to any Gentiles, he was living in a time when the existence of gods or a single god was acknowledged by most people. Religion was a part of everyday life. It was even easier when he spoke to the Jews because they worshipped the God of Moses, so he didn’t have to lay any groundwork there--he could just proceed directly into his teaching about Jesus as Messiah. Even today, when discussing the Bible with devout JWs or Mormons, the given is that the Bible is reliable revelation from God. But with the modern "enlightened" atheist, there is no way we can start there.

C. S. Lewis was presuming that his audience was at least willing to accept that that the Bible contains accurate, historical quotations of Jesus, even if the miracle accounts were fabricated. Today, we have skeptics who are not even willing to concede that there was ever a Jewish man named Jesus--even secular historical accounts are considered suspect. For them, the Gospels contain no reliable historical information about Jesus--it’s all myth and legend. So, for them, this kind of statement is meaningless. Apologetics is being pushed back to where we have to begin at the most fundamental level, perhaps with the subject of how reliable the Bible texts are. The starting point may need to be establishing the Bible as a credible record in the mind of the listener or reader, since subjective experiences are understood based on Scripture and not the other way around.

Persuasive evidence is different for everybody, which should be clear to anyone who has had anything to do with jury trials, or has followed the high profile cases of the past decade plus (at least beginning with the OJ trial). When juries are selected, while each side in the case wants jurors who will be sympathetic to their presentations, there is also an intention to select people who will use what is considered normal, reasonable standards of judgment in weighing the evidence. Most of the population is in a region near the middle of this skepticism distribution curve. Outside this region on one side would be those I would call hyperskeptics--people whose standards for proof would be so high that it would be hard, or even impossible, to persuade them of anything. On the other end, there would be the hyposkeptics--people who could never maintain a position. Their position would vacillate to whichever side had presented the latest argument.

Someone on this board once wrote (probably not original with him) that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. (What this has done is skew the curve to the side of the hyperskeptic.) How, exactly, should the claims and evidence correlate? What happens when the quality or quantity of evidence required exceeds that which can be provided? At what point is the skeptic’s requirement so severe that he or she excludes any possibility of satisfaction? Taking a Biblical account at face value for the moment, what if Thomas, when meeting the risen Jesus, had said, "Sure I can see you and touch you, but this is all some kind of trick or illusion. I need more proof"? I’m sure that even if Jesus satisfied all reasonable expectations for evidence of his existence to the general public, many would still not accept it. I’m sure because some people doubt there even is such a thing as reality as most of us accept it.

Jesus and the Bible writers warned about being hyposkeptical--accepting claims too easily. At the other end is the error of being hyperskeptical--setting up conditions for proof way beyond what can be met. What determines how a person consciously or unconsciously sets their standards of evidence? Anyone who is at either end should maybe consider "Why?"--what are the real underlying reasons?

Satanus

Maybe rex is a sunday school teacher

S

Quotes

Tarnished One said:

====================
A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice.
======================

If you (and C.S.Lewis) are forcing me to choose a false dichotomy, I will have to go with: "lunatic". I don't believe in Hell Devils, so the only choice for me is "lunatic".

BTW, I too enjoyed "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" which my third grade teacher read aloud to the class when I was about 7 or 8. I only just found out, thirty years later, that this story is a huge allegory of the Biblical Christ story (the Lion is Christ, gets resurrected; the Witch is the devil, children become kings and co-rulers of the Kingdom, etc etc.) Man, do I feel silly! I now wonder if this was my teacher's way of slipping religion into a secular classroom.

~Quotes, of the "Narnia" class

the_classicist

When the Apostle Paul made his statements on Mars Hill, or to any Gentiles, he was living in a time when the existence of gods or a single god was acknowledged by most people

I don't know about that. I think there's always been atheists, just closet ones. For example, you see in Greek literature every once in a while: "the gods, if they really do exist,..." (Paraphrase from Plato's Republic). Even in the Psalms it talks about those who don't believe in God. So I don't think theism was as rampant as many atheists would think.

hmike

Classicist,

Understood. I didn't mean that everybody believed or worshipped. However, your statement from Plato: "the gods, if they really do exist,..." shows at the very least he paid lip service to the possibility of the existence of gods. The modern atheist wouldn't go that far.

hamsterbait

Actually, Romans 2:12-16 shows that even those who don't know the name of Jesus can be saved by God
The crucial thing is that they follow their conscience as they truly see it to be. This is a fundamental teaching of the RC.
As for "doing as Christ commanded" vs "as we belive Christ commanded" - Everything is filtered through our own mind and belief systems.
The Baal worshipers believed that Baal commanded they sacrifice children.
Abram believed that YHWH commanded him to kill Isaac. You choose for yourself if it is the voice of God or the Devil... How do you decide? S.O. you believe is the rep. of God tells you so?? God tells you? You believe the words of a book, where the writers say "God told me this??"

What if you answered the phone and the voice says "this is God speaking. believe this and you are saved. deny it and go to hell" - Why should I not with hold my assent? Can't I refuse to accept something I cannot personally know?

You choose to accept your own emotions as Christ calling you.

Personally, if I went into a church, prayed fervently for divine guidance, and God spoke to me, I would sign myself into a psychiatric ward prontinto. And which God do you want to bless me - the one who sends millions to eternal torture and misery, or the one who will fertilise paradise with the blood of dead babies or one that looks like an elephant or one that lives in carved coconut shells in Haiti? Are you making that choice for me too??

HB

C.S. Lewis statement....

Share this