Vinnie

Interesting. When did intellectual faith become a soteriological criterion? Despite any false impressions the more literalist groups may give, I highly doubt that they think "believing problematic ideas" is required for salvation and if you don't believe the "iffy" statements you will roast in the fires of hell. A few (a minority) may hold a view like this but the way you are pawning it off makes it seem as if it represents Christianity as a whole or even a substantial part (which it doesn't!). Even the literalists know "that even the demons believe and shudder." As an ex-preacher you should know that as well.

Once we see past your caricature the conservative Christian position becomes more plausible. Adolf Hitler cannot just believe a fact. Hitler would have to have trully repented. That is more an "action" than a "mere belief" to me. That Hitler may be in heaven may be troubling to some Christians but we are told not to judge for a reason.

C.S. Lewis 'Mere Christianity' page 86-87:

Any preacher or ex-preacher should know this as its very basic. Or do you feel the need, for whatever reason, to willingly misrepresent the belief system you are arguing against?

Vinnie

Amos

The difference between heaven and hell is that in heaven we reform ourselves while in hell we reform others.

[ September 22, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

Steven Carr

Once again, the moral nihilism of Christianity shows itself.

The hypocritical thing about this passage from Lewis, is that Lewis argues that without Christianity, atheists cannot say that the Nazis were bad. Indeed Lewis wrote 'Mere Christianity'
in order to argue that.

But consistency is not a Christian virtue.

Steven Carr

Lewis wrote :-

'That is why Christians are told not to judge. We see only the results which a man's choices make out of his raw material. But god does not judge him on the raw material at all, but on what he has done with it. Most of the man's psychological make-up is probably due to his body: when his body dies all that will fall off him, and the real central man, the thing that chose, that made the best or worst of this material, will stand naked.'


More gibberish from Lewis.

Where did 'the real central man' come from? Did it just spring up out of a vacuum? Surely the 'thing that chose' was created by God , and is a part of the 'raw materials', so disparaged by Lewis. Does God not create souls?

Or does Lewis think that we create ourselves?

lpetrich

This belongs more appropriately in Misc. Religious Discussions or Rants, Raves, and Preaching

Vinnie

Lewis may heave felt that Chritianity provided an objective morality whereas naturalistic philosophies couldn't. This hardly constitutes moral nihilism. Try the beginning of the book where he appeals to the law of human behavior. Then again, maybe you could define "bad" and/or "evil" according to your world view and explain why Nazi's fit in such a category?

Speaking of gibberesh

A lot of Christians would argue thus: An action is born out by heredity, enviroment and free will. It is quite simple:

H + E + FW = A

As far as I can remember/understand, Lewis is saying that God can see what we did and takes into account our heredity and enviroment. He knows our "heart" so to speak.

So I am going to go out on a limb here and take a wild guess and say no, Lewis probably did not subscribe to the idiotic notion that we created ourselves.

Vinnie

Steven Carr

Claiming that we can't tell if we are better people than Himmler counts as objective morality?

Steven Carr

Heredity is what we inherit. If God created 'the real central man', then 'the real central man' *is* our heredity.

Vorkosigan

Can we be quite certain how we should have behaved if we had been saddled with the psychological outfit, and then with the bad upbringing, and then with the power, say, of Himmler?

Himmler was the son of a pious and authoritarian Roman Catholic schoolmaster, the former tutor of the crown prince of Bavaria. Yes, pretty clearly a bad upbringing.

Ted Hoffman

I read Mere Christianity when I was 22 (thanks to my GF). That was as close as I ever got to getting converted to christianity (Aaah, the power of women!).

Lewis takes the liberty of reading Gods mind and exposes God's thought process with impunity. The same God that killed many people because one of them touched some crap that was on the back of an animal, is supposed to understand that peoples biochemical make-up and background can affect their actions! and forgive them on that basis!

Lewis was persuasive, but readership gullibility is critical to the points he makes. I was a credulous, swooning reader and he took me almost completely - especially how he addressed the aspect of pride.

I think I will have to ask for it and reread it.