C.S. Lewis, The Case for Christianity

@kellyjay said
“If there was a controlling power outside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts inside the universe -no more than the architect of a house could actually be a wall or staircase or fireplace in that house. The only way in which we could expect it to show itself would be inside us as an influence or a command trying to get us to behave in a certain way. And that's just what we do find inside us.”

― C.S. Lewis, The Case for Christianity

KJ, it seems the writings of Lewis function effectively in the area of exhortation, or in some capacity of reinforcing Christian narratives within the minds of believers. But, taken as any sort of evidential case his writings are embarrassing.

On the other hand, I do appreciate some of the refreshing concessions that he makes. Take, for example, the excerpt quoted below my text, which is a famously bad argument that Lewis put forth. Of course I see a famously bad argument, but I also see some correct assessment on his part as well. He admits: if Jesus existed and was merely a man and said the things that are commonly attributed to him, then Jesus was almost certainly not a great moral teacher. Correct, and that is the refreshing part. Now, the difficult part is to actually show that Jesus existed and said the things that are commonly attributed to him and yet the antecedent of that conditional does not hold (such that one wouldn't have to accept the consequent). That's where Lewis' intellect takes a holiday.

Here's the excerpt with the famously bad argument (Mere Christianity):

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. 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 the 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. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. ... Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God.

@lemonjello said
KJ, it seems the writings of Lewis function effectively in the area of exhortation, or in some capacity of reinforcing Christian narratives within the minds of believers. But, taken as any sort of evidential case his writings are embarrassing.

On the other hand, I do appreciate some of the refreshing concessions that he makes. Take, for example, the excerpt quoted bel ...[text shortened]... nge or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God.[/quote]

Welcome back!

I think that some people concede the "great moral teacher" bit simply to soften the blow of the upcoming disagreement.

@LemonJello

well said

@lemonjello said
KJ, it seems the writings of Lewis function effectively in the area of exhortation, or in some capacity of reinforcing Christian narratives within the minds of believers. But, taken as any sort of evidential case his writings are embarrassing.

On the other hand, I do appreciate some of the refreshing concessions that he makes. Take, for example, the excerpt quoted bel ...[text shortened]... nge or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God.[/quote]

When you say that CS Lewis is making a bad argument, do you believe that to be absolutely true or is it merely an expression of your subjective opinions?

@dj2becker said
When you say that CS Lewis is making a bad argument, do you believe that to be absolutely true or is it merely an expression of your subjective opinions?

Does it matter?

@fmf said
Why have you treated KellyJay's quoting of C.S. Lewis differently?

Suzy sticks to Left wing theologians

YouTube

Pretty deep stuff.

Such writings of CS Lewis as below just can't compare though.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”

@whodey said
Such writings of CS Lewis as below just can't compare though.

I imagine C.S. Lewis' preaching-to-the-choir/begging-the-question prattle appeals to you.

@whodey said
Suzy sticks to Left wing theologians

[youtube]eSko2ixEB8U[/youtube]

Pretty deep stuff.

Such writings of CS Lewis as below just can't compare though.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty ...[text shortened]... age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”

So he actually was a twot then.
Another nasty piece of work hiding his own pathology behind the mask of religion.

@kevcvs57 said
So he actually was a twot then.
Another nasty piece of work hiding his own pathology behind the mask of religion.

Are you responding to that actual quote? I'm not seeing anything wrong with it. A narcissistic dictator, oppressing for the sake of their idea of what is right, would be worse than a robber baron who's just in it for the money. You've far more chance of mercy from the robber baron.

The catch is what the context of this statement is. Does he then go on to criticize some perfectly reasonable cause?

@DeepThought

The quote was from an essay of Lewis on the humanitarian theory of punishment of which Lewis was an opponent.

@deepthought said
Are you responding to that actual quote? I'm not seeing anything wrong with it. A narcissistic dictator, oppressing for the sake of their idea of what is right, would be worse than a robber baron who's just in it for the money. You've far more chance of mercy from the robber baron.

The catch is what the context of this statement is. Does he then go on to criticize some perfectly reasonable cause?

There is something wrong with it if you are really a fascist prick dictator at heart, so I can see why it offends some, mostly Leftists.

@whodey said
There is something wrong with it if you are really a fascist prick dictator at heart, so I can see why it offends some, mostly Leftists.

How does it "offend" anyone?

@whodey said
Suzy sticks to Left wing theologians

[youtube]eSko2ixEB8U[/youtube]

Pretty deep stuff.

Such writings of CS Lewis as below just can't compare though.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty ...[text shortened]... age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”

This largely reflects my attitude about living in a society that lacks separation of church and state, except for the claim that it's better to be ruled by robber-barons. That would probably suck just as badly.

@bigdoggproblem said
This largely reflects my attitude about living in a society that lacks separation of church and state, except for the claim that it's better to be ruled by robber-barons. That would probably suck just as badly.

The Founding Fathers came from the Church of England which was essentially an extension of the state as they controlled the pulpit. This is something the Founding Fathers correctly were afraid of and avoided. But the Left has gone overboard, as they do with everything else, forbidding any religious expression whatsoever on government owned property and forbidding children to pray in schools.

Likewise, the Pope was essentially a ruling politician sharing his despotic misery to the rest of his subjects along with meaningless Crusades.

The common thread here is the state.

As I've said before, it used to be that man claimed to be a god to rule over others, then when that no longer worked he claimed to speak for God, and when that no longer worked he said there was no God, making himself a god of sorts again.

Leftism/secularism is by far the most successful worldwide religion today and has infiltrated the church with the Pope giving damning sermons on the evils of building walls while basically ignoring the mass genocide of abortion, at least according to official Catholic positions on abortion. But it should not be a surprise because the Pope was strangely silent during the Holocaust as well to help appease the National Socialists in order to save their own skins and Vatican treasure.

@whodey said
The Founding Fathers came from the Church of England which was essentially an extension of the state as they controlled the pulpit. This is something the Founding Fathers correctly were afraid of and avoided. But the Left has gone overboard, as they do with everything else, forbidding any religious expression whatsoever on government owned property and forbidding children t ...[text shortened]... well to help appease the National Socialists in order to save their own skins and Vatican treasure.

I'm not sure your claim that "children are forbidden to pray in schools" is completely accurate. Mainly, "secularists" such as myself are opposed to officially-sanctioned prayer in schools. It is not OK, to me, for the teacher to pause class and lead the kids in a prayer of any kind. But it's fine to have a "moment of silence" in which kids can pray, if they want to, in their own way.

Edit: I am a strong proponent of religious freedom. I see the above as helping to protect those freedoms.