Corgan Sow

I am a recovering ex-Christian now reading debates, articles and stuffs from atheists and apologetics. C.S Lewis should be a good author to read because he was a former atheist turned Christian.

Well, after reading some tons of pages from "Mere Christianity", I should say he wasn't a "true" atheist in the first place.

But the following quotes....it is hard to imagine he died a Christian, since he's making all this explanation up.

From "The Shocking Alternative", pgs 48-49;

Here comes a contradiction, from same pg 48;

And Hell was supposedly seperation of God from sinners. To create Hell is actually diminishing the privilages of Free Will.
THE BEST PART;



Here, this guy is actually advocating blind faith!

There is even a passage saying God gave Adam and Eve to let them exercise oppurtunity to be like Him. Being a God.

So, why was Lucifer banished, while God's lesser beings gets the oppurtunity?


Oh, and the end...you know what happened. Think of a child which you give him an aritematic sum to solve. If he/she can't answer it correctly ONCE, well, you can roast this kid in a oven...to death.

Maybe we ought to thank Lewis for representing the common answers that Christian apologists gave.

Corgan Sow

CORRECTION: There is even a passage saying God gave Adam and Eve Free Will to let them exercise oppurtunity to be like Him. Being a God.

Kent Stevens

If god was omnipotent he would know exactly the consequences of things. He would not take risks or gamble, because he knows the outcome of every chance event. I might take a risk if I take out a lottery ticket with a certain number. God being omniscient would not take out a lottery ticket if he knew it would lose. God would have known exactly who he was going to create to be evil. Free will let's God off the hook from creating the evil in the univers as well as the good.

Apologetics such as with C.S.Lewis is scary. It makes you wonder if lawyers could give articulate rhetoric to defend the existence of Santa Claus.

diana

Hi Corgan. Followed this over from the other thread. Hope you don't mind.

I've been reading Mere Xnty for several months now. (It's my bathroom reading, see. Unless I take it into a room that's more conducive to long-term study, it'll take me a while yet.)

I've noticed how fond he is of analogies, which is a poor way to make an argument, at best. His whole book seems to rest upon "you have a sense of right and wrong, like everybody else in the world, and that sense of right and wrong couldn't have come from you, so it must have come from God." The rest is pure assertion and one analogy after another.

I'm keen to discuss any passage from the book anyone wishes to take on, though. I've heard so much about this book from well-meaning Xns that I've dedicated myself to reading it. I'd like to think I got something more from it than mere toilet diversion.

d

Vorkosigan

That's about what it is worth.

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000067&p=" target="_blank">Mere Xtianity thread</a>

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000078&p=" target="_blank">Problem of Pain</a>

Tercel

Are you another of these Calvinist Atheists? (Believing in the perserverence of the atheists)
What makes a "true" atheist and why wasn't Lewis one?

Well I'd guess he did write it himself and didn't do a copy+paste of someone elses work... but I doubt that's what you mean... ???

Er... normally I'm good at spotting contradictions... so the fact that I'm not spotting any here is making me feel kinda dumb.
Can someone explain to me where the contradiction is? You even have permission to use words of one syllable if you want...

Er... How is this comment related to the quote? Or is it related to a different part of the book?

Methinks you're misreading the passage. He's saying you shouldn't criticise God's actions, not that you should believe in God without evidence.

Lewis giving common answers? I'm inclined to doubt that: Some of Lewis' answers seem pretty liberal to me.

Maverick

This thread is probably more appropriate in Misc. Religion Discussion.

Maverick - BC&A Moderator

Corgan Sow

Can you do any better than taunting me with senseless rambling?

He merely interpreted God's intentions with his own flawed analogy. I don't even know if there is hypothesis in that book.



The common Christian illustration, rather explanation, is that Hell seperates God from sinners because He is Holy. I do not see why you cannot understand this is literally a conflict for a person like myself. Why eternal damnation because God allowed Evil? This is not fair play.

Take the law of morality. If this is God's purpose or not, cast our bias aside and say yes. Give mortals the free will to have sex, I illustrate. Then one uses that advantage to commit adultery. Naturally, if proven of his offense, that adulterer is sentenced to prison or stoned to death. Christians claimed that no matter how "minor" the sin is, the price is eternal damnation.

If the Bible has a law where sinners were to be purged for purification, like Catholic's Purgatory, there is no need for such uncomfortable conflict (but I can't find that in the Bible). Instead, it is contrasting with Jesus telling a congregation to cast the first stone to an adulterer. Your excuse will be God is Holy, so He can stone her.

If God is indeed loving, why mortals are more capable to be more compassionate than God? Any freethinker can give much more honarable sentence than Hell! Hell is the reason Christ wins followers, and Hell is the reason Christ is "shunned".


You shouldn't criticise Allah's action, or Krishna, or Odin, to say.

Layman

Umm. Did you read Tercel's post?

He wants to know how Lewis' comments were allegedly contradicting each other. He wasn't asking why atheists struggle with the concept of eternal punishment.

Honestly, the most rambling of posts was the first one. How were those two statements contradictory? And why does any of this suggest that Lewis wasn't really an atheist? And then why does the author who just claimed Lewis was never really an atheist claim that he really wasn't a Christian when he died?

And if he really was knowledgeable about Lewis why does he talk about roasting someone to death as if Lewis believed in a literally "flaming" hell with no chance to get out? Perhaps he should read The Great Divorce.

Layman

And how!