Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8950 total)
30 online now:
DrJones*, nwr (2 members, 28 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,268 Year: 22,304/19,786 Month: 867/1,834 Week: 367/500 Day: 0/66 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Mere Christianity
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 13387
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1 of 22 (781247)
04-02-2016 5:47 PM


Has anyone read this?
I read this book once. It was 30 some odd years ago, and I was a fry cook at a suburban restaurant. Of course I was not even a Christian back then, except through upbringing--my folks attended a United Methodist Church and I did'nt even attend any more...I believe I was around 25 years old. Today, ‎Saturday, ‎April ‎02, ‎2016, I was hanging out on the computer rather bored, browsing through old threads at EvC. I was rereading an old thread that was started in January 2007 by an old inactive member, sidelined. As I perused through the old posts, I saw myself, Ringo, jar, Jon, ICANT, and a few others of us who are also active at the present time. In the thread, I saw a link to an online copy of Mere Christianity and decided that rereading this old classic would perhaps be more productive than continuing re-reading the old thread...which was, by the way, the meaning of the Trinity. Thus I am starting this Book Nook thread and commenting on Mere Christianity as I reread it. Anyone who has read it is free to join in this discussion. Lets keep our discussion strictly on the book itself and the author, CS Lewis.

Edited by Phat, : added subtitle


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Thugpreacha, posted 04-02-2016 6:03 PM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 13387
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 2 of 22 (781249)
04-02-2016 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Thugpreacha
04-02-2016 5:47 PM


Re: Has anyone read this?
quote:
Born in Ireland in 1898, C. S. Lewis was educated at Malvern College
for a year and then privately. He gained a triple first at Oxford and was a
Fellow and Tutor at Magdalen College 1925-54. In 1954 he became Professor of
Mediaeval and Renaissance Literature at Cambridge. He was an outstanding and
popular lecturer and had a lasting influence on his pupils.
C. S. Lewis was for many years an atheist, and described his conversion
in Surprised by Joy: 'In the Trinity term of 1929 I gave in, and admitted
that God was God ... perhaps the most dejected and reluctant convert in all
England.' It was this experience that helped him to understand not only
apathy but active unwillingness to accept religion, and, as a Christian
writer, gifted with an exceptionally brilliant and logical mind and a lucid,
lively style, he was without peer. The Problem of Pain, The Screwtape
Letters, Mere Christianity, The Four Loves and the Posthumous Prayer:
Letters to Malcolm, are only a few of his best-selling works. He also wrote
some delightful books for children and some science fiction, besides many
works of literary criticism. His works are known to millions of people all
over the world in translation. He died on 22nd November, 1963, at his home
in Oxford.
Hopefully as I read this, I will gain better insights than I did 30 years ago.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Thugpreacha, posted 04-02-2016 5:47 PM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31783
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 3 of 22 (781250)
04-02-2016 6:09 PM


Remember the origin and the setting.
Remember that the book is actually the result of three BBC broadcasts made during post Blitz England, a time before the invasion of Europe and when Germany (another Christian Nation) was having success almost everywhere. Surprisingly, today it is more prominent among Evangelicals than within the mainstream denominations.

As is so often the case it really needs to be seen as three totally separate subjects, a case for Christianity (IMHO the weakest of the three); Christian Behavior and Beyond Personality, and not as one single book. The initial case is based on universal morality and in fact can be applied to many different religious and secular moral systems. But after that it wanders off into unsupported assertion and in many places direct fallacies; for example, that there is no substitute source of joy than God and that people cannot yearn for something that does not exist.

It does end though with the basic mandate that to be a Christian is defined by what you do, by your behavior.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Thugpreacha, posted 04-02-2016 6:21 PM jar has responded

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 13387
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 4 of 22 (781251)
04-02-2016 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by jar
04-02-2016 6:09 PM


Re: Remember the origin and the setting.
So far I am impressed with how what Lewis says is similar to some of our challenges here in the forum as we discuss our various clubs. Heck, I'm still in the preface!!
CS Lewis writes:

When two Christians of different denominations start arguing, it is usually not long before one asks whether such-and-such a point "really matters" and the other replies: "Matter? Why, it's absolutely essential."


Lewis really does touch upon the topics we also discuss. Remember when we argued over the meaning of a real or true Christian?

Now if once we allow people to start spiritualising and refining, or as
they might say "deepening," the sense of the word Christian, it too will
speedily become a useless word. In the first place, Christians themselves
will never be able to apply it to anyone. It is not for us to say who, in
the deepest sense, is or is not close to the spirit of Christ. We do not see
into men's hearts. We cannot judge, and are indeed forbidden to judge.
It would be wicked arrogance for us to say that any man is, or is not,
a Christian in this refined sense. And obviously a word which we can never
apply is not going to be a very useful word.
This ties in with what you once said. It is better to call them "bad Christians" than to say that they were not real Christians! I think im gonna like this book!

Edited by Phat, : added information as I read the book

Edited by Phat, : spellcheck


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by jar, posted 04-02-2016 6:09 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by jar, posted 04-02-2016 8:00 PM Thugpreacha has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31783
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 5 of 22 (781255)
04-02-2016 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Thugpreacha
04-02-2016 6:21 PM


Re: Remember the origin and the setting.
Remember that it is really three separate pamphlets that were based on three separate broadcasts, one topic broadcast each year for three years; 1942, 1943, 1944.

Like the Bible you need to remember it is an anthology and NOT a book.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Thugpreacha, posted 04-02-2016 6:21 PM Thugpreacha has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Thugpreacha, posted 04-02-2016 10:08 PM jar has not yet responded

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 13387
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 6 of 22 (781258)
04-02-2016 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by jar
04-02-2016 8:00 PM


The writings Of C.S. Lewis
Lewis writes:

We must therefore stick to the original, obvious meaning. The name Christians was first given at Antioch (Acts xi. 26) to "the disciples," to those who accepted the teaching of the apostles. There is no question of its being restricted to those who profited by that teaching as much as they should have. There is no question of its being extended to those who in some refined, spiritual, inward fashion were "far closer to the spirit of Christ" than the less satisfactory of the disciples. The point is not a theological, or moral one. It is only a question of using words so that we can all understand what is being said. When a man who accepts the Christian doctrine lives unworthily of it, it is much clearer to say he is a bad Christian than to say he is not a Christian.

Which ties in with what jar has said:
jar writes:

In discussions at EvC and at other places, when the more horrific acts are brought up, one response I often hear is “They were not real Christians” or “That is not what Christ taught.” I disagree with the former, and agree with the later. I also think that using either as an excuse or as a way to shirk responsibility is dishonest. Granted it is not what Christ taught but it IS what Christians did, and in every case I examined, the people were honest, sincere and believed strongly that what they were doing was right and that it was the Christian thing to do. They were all sure that they were morally right.

As a side note, I don't want anyone here at EvC to think that my belief system is simply copying jars belief system The reason that I quote jar so much is that he always challenged me and I had to learn the other side of the arguments in order to defend mine.

jar writes:

Like the Bible you need to remember it (CS Lewis radio lectures) is an anthology and NOT a book.

An anthology, eh? I need to understand that word.

Websters writes:

Anthology..noun-a published collection of poems or other pieces of writing.
2) a collection of selected literary pieces or passages or works of art or music

You once called The collection of books known as The Bible an anthology of anthologies. Where you and I currently differ is that you ascribe most of it as mythology where I believe that it is wisdom from God, written down by men.

Back To Lewis.

quote:

Contents

Book I. RIGHT AND WRONG AS A CLUE TO THE MEANING OF THE UNIVERSE

1. The Law of Human Nature
2. Some Objections
3. The Reality of the Law
4. What Lies Behind the Law
5. We Have Cause to Be Uneasy

Book II. WHAT CHRISTIANS BELIEVE

1. The Rival Conceptions of God
2. The Invasion
3. The Shocking Alternative
4. The Perfect Penitent
5. The Practical Conclusion

Book III. CHRISTIAN BEHAVIOUR

1. The Three Parts of Morality
2. The "Cardinal Virtues"
3. Social Morality
4. Morality and Psychoanalysis
5. Sexual Morality
6. Christian Marriage
7. Forgiveness
8. The Great Sin
9. Charity
10. Hope
11. Faith
12. Faith

Book IV. BEYOND PERSONALITY: OR FIRST STEPS IN THE DOCTRINE OF THE
TRINITY

1. Making and Begetting
2. The Three-Personal God
3. Time and Beyond Time
4. Good Infection
5. The Obstinate Toy Soldiers
6. Two Notes
7. Let's Pretend
8. Is Christianity Hard or Easy?
9. Counting the Cost
10. Nice People or New Men
11. The New Men



I am currently in Book I.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by jar, posted 04-02-2016 8:00 PM jar has not yet responded

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 13387
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 7 of 22 (781269)
04-03-2016 8:35 AM


The Law of Human Nature
In Book One, The Law of Human Nature, Lewis touches on a variety of subjects concerning human nature, morality, and the difference between instinct and impulse.
Quarrelling means trying to show that the other man is in the wrong. And there would be no sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are; just as there would be no sense in saying that a footballer had committed a foul unless there was some agreement about the rules of football.
In other words, all humans have a similar moral law.
Each man is at every moment subjected to several different sets of law but there is only one of these which he is free to disobey.
I feel that this passage touches on the dogmatic Christian principles of free will and original sin. Looking down the road, Lewis gets into those in more detail later on.

Lewis also defends the accusation that critics would make concerning the relative nature of moral law over different cultures at different times.

If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own.

As a sidenote, I find that I am getting a lot more out of this book than I did 30 years ago, when we likely smoked some pot and discussed Christianity philosophically in an offhanded and non urgent manner. I suppose there is nothing like age to give one a sense of urgency on spiritual matters and to heighten ones awareness of some sort of judgement in the grand scheme of things. At least thats how I view it.

Lewis covers a wide variety of topics in Book One. For example, he says

Selfishness has never been admired.
He touches on everyday behaviors of people and reflects his take on morality from a Christo-centric perspective. Lewis sorta reminds me of jar when he talks about Right and Wrong.
CS Lewis writes:

Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining "It's not fair" before you can say Jack Robinson.

Lewis hypothetically asks where the whole universal sense of fairness originates from. He concludes by saying
It seems, then, we are forced to believe in a real Right and Wrong.
He observes that though everyone agrees on such a universal standard, everyone also breaks that standard at one time or another. Thus, Lewis is evidently influenced by Romans in the New Testament.
Romans 3:21-22 writes:

But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God...

He explains:
I am only trying to call attention to a fact; the fact that this year, or this month, or, more likely, this very day, we have failed to practice ourselves the kind of behavior we expect from other people.
Its always nice to get Christian teaching from an educated man. In my mind it really stands out from the propaganda that many of the TV hucksters slang on TBN and The Church Channel.

I will finish up Book One without commenting on every chapter and report back after rereading Book Two.

Edited by Phat, : clarification


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by jar, posted 04-03-2016 8:46 AM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31783
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 8 of 22 (781270)
04-03-2016 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Thugpreacha
04-03-2016 8:35 AM


Re: The Law of Human Nature
Phat writes:

He observes that though everyone agrees on such a universal standard, everyone also breaks that standard at one time or another. Thus, Lewis is evidently influenced by Romans in the New Testament.

That quote mine from Romans is simply reflecting a theme common throughout the Bible stories. Remember Genesis 2&3. Mankind gets the gift of the knowledge of right and wrong but then must learn to use that gift and often, repeatedly, fails.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Thugpreacha, posted 04-03-2016 8:35 AM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 13387
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 9 of 22 (866937)
11-17-2019 3:28 PM


What Humans Must Change: (Lewis The Honest Apologist)
I have recently gotten around to studying mere Christianity after all these years, mainly because I got it on Audible and can now listen to it over and over while I drift off to sleep. This is my main way of studying now. (Since my eye is healing I cannot read).

Lewis describes the basis of Christian Belief concerning repentance and accepting Jesus (rather than throwing Him away as the liberal activists seem to suggest)

From Book II: What Christians Believe--- The Perfect Penitent

CS Lewis writes:

We are faced, then, with a frightening alternative. This man we are talking about either was (and is)just what He said or else a lunatic, or something worse.
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. God has landed on this enemy-occupied world in human form.
And now, what was the purpose of it all? What did He come to do? Well, to teach, of course; but as soon as you look into the New Testament or any other Christian writing you will find they are constantly talking about something different—about His death and His coming to life again. It is obvious that Christians think the chief point of the story lies here. They think the main thing He came to earth to do was to suffer and be killed.

Now before I became a Christian I was under the impression that the first thing Christians had to believe was one particular theory as to what the point of this dying was. According to that theory God wanted to punish men for having deserted and joined the Great Rebel, but Christ volunteered to be punished instead, and so God let us off. Now I admit that even this theory does not seem to me quite so immoral and so silly as it used to; but that is not the point I want to make. What I came to see later on was that neither this theory nor any other is Christianity.

The central Christian belief is that Christ's death has somehow put us right with God and given us a fresh start.

jar of course disagrees, saying that Christ's life was more important than His death and that the onus is on us entirely to do the right thing as if we are even capable of it. Secular Humanism affirms that we are. I disagree and expect that the critics will, in fact, see that the Historic view of Christianity that lewis proposes is, in fact, the correct one.

Theories as to how it did this are another matter. A good many different theories have been held as to how it works; what all Christians are agreed on is that it does work. I will tell you what I think it is like.

All sensible people know that if you are tired and hungry a meal will do you good. But the modern theory of nourishment—all about the vitamins and proteins—is a different thing. People ate their dinners and felt better long before the theory of vitamins was ever heard of: and if the theory of vitamins is some day abandoned they will go on eating their dinners just the same. Theories about Christ's death are not Christianity: they are explanations about how it works. Christians would not all agree as to how important these theories are.
My own church—the Church of England—does not lay down any one of them as the right one.
The Church of Rome goes a bit further. But I think they will all agree that the thing itself is infinitely more important than any explanation that theologians have produced. I think they would probably admit that no explanation will ever be quite adequate to the reality.

But as I said in the preface to this book, I am only a layman, and at this point, we are getting into deep water. I can only tell you, for what it is
worth, how I, personally, look at the matter.

In my view, the theories are not themselves the thing you are asked to accept. Many of you no doubt have read Jeans or Eddington. What they do when they want to explain the atom or something of that sort, is to give you a description out of which you can make a mental picture. But then they warn you that this picture is not what the scientists actually believe.

What scientists believe is a mathematical formula. The pictures are there only to help you to understand the formula. They are not really true in the way the formula is; they do not give you the real thing but only something more or
less like it. They are only meant to help, and if they do not help you can drop them.
The thing itself cannot be pictured, it can only be expressed mathematically.
We are in the same boat here. We believe that the death of Christ is just that point in history at which something absolutely unimaginable from outside shows through into our own world. And if we cannot picture even the atoms of which our own world is built, of course, we are not going to be able to picture this.
Indeed, if we found that we could fully understand it, that very fact would show it was not what it professes to be—the inconceivable, the uncreated, the thing from beyond nature, striking down into nature like lightning. You may ask what good will it be to us if we do not understand it. But that is easily answered.
A man can eat his dinner without understanding exactly how food nourishes him.
A man can accept what Christ has done without knowing how it works: indeed, he certainly would not know how it works until he has accepted it.

We are told that Christ was killed for us, that His death has washed out our sins, and that by dying He disabled death itself. That is the formula. That is Christianity. That is what has to be believed.
Any theories we build up as to how Christ's death did all this are, in my view, quite secondary: mere plans or diagrams to be left alone if they do not help us, and, even if they do help us, not to be confused with the thing itself.
All the same, some of these theories are worth looking at.
The one most people have heard is the one I mentioned before —the one about our being let off because Christ had volunteered to bear a punishment instead of us. Now on the face of it, that is a very silly theory. If God was prepared to let us off, why on earth did He not do so?

And what possible point could there be in punishing an innocent person instead? None at all that I can see, if you are thinking of punishment in the police-court sense. On the other hand, if you think of a debt, there is plenty of point in a person who has some assets paying it on behalf of someone who has not.
Or if you take "paying the penalty," not in the sense of being punished, but in the more general sense of "standing the racket" or "footing the bill," then, of course, it is a matter of common experience that, when one person has got himself into a hole, the trouble of getting him out usually falls on a kind
friend. Now what was the sort of "hole" man had got himself into? He had tried to set up on his own, to behave as if he belonged to himself. In other words, fallen man is not simply an imperfect creature who needs improvement: he is a rebel who must lay down his arms.
Laying down your arms, surrendering, saying you are sorry, realizing that you have been on the wrong track and getting ready to start life over again from the ground floor—that is the only way out of a "hole." This process of surrender—this movement full speed astern—is what Christians call repentance.

Now repentance is no fun at all. It is something much harder than merely eating humble pie. It means unlearning all the self-conceit
and self-will that we have been training ourselves into for thousands of years. It means killing part of yourself, undergoing a kind of death. In fact, it needs a good man to repent.

And here comes the catch.

Only a bad person needs to repent: only a good person can repent perfectly. The worse you are the more you need it and the less you can do it. The only person who could do it perfectly would be a perfect person—and he would not need it.
Remember, this repentance, this willing submission to humiliation and a kind of death, is not something God demands of you before He will take you back and which He could let you off if He chose: it is simply a description of what going back to Him is like.
If you ask God to take you back
without it, you are really asking Him to let you go back without going back. It cannot happen.

That is ringos hangup. He insists on keeping his ability to judge God.

Very well, then, we must go through with it. But the same badness which makes us need it, makes us unable to do it. Can we do it if God helps us? Yes.

We mean God putting into us a bit of Himself, so to speak. He lends us a little of His reasoning powers and that is how we think: He puts a little of His love into us and that is how we love one another.

When you teach a child writing, you hold its hand while it forms the letters: that is, it forms the letters because you are forming them. We love and reason because God loves and reasons and holds our hand while we do it. Now if we had not fallen, that would be all plain sailing. But unfortunately, we now need God's help in order to do something which God, in His own nature, never does at all—to surrender, to suffer, to submit, to die.


And jar dismisses the Theology of the Fall as "marketing", a fact Lewis evidently didn't see. Or perhaps jar was unduly influenced by Socratic Professors who encouraged Logic, Reason, and Reality and that the truths of literature were all relative and that Christian Belief was not absolute, as Lewis seems to suggest.
Nothing in God's nature corresponds to this process at all. So that the one road for which we now need God's leadership most of all is a road God, in His own nature, has never walked. God can share only what He has: this thing, in His own nature, He has not.

But supposing God became a man—suppose our human nature which can suffer and die was amalgamated with God's nature in one person—then that person could help us. He could surrender His will, and suffer and die because He was man, and He could do it perfectly because He was God.

You and I can go through this process only if God does it in us, but God can do it only if He becomes a man. Our attempts at this dying will succeed only if we men share in God's dying, just as our thinking can succeed only because it is a drop out of the ocean of His intelligence: but we cannot share God's dying
unless God dies; and He cannot die except by being a man.

That is the sense in which He pays our debt, and suffers for us what He Himself need not suffer at all.

I have heard some people complain that if Jesus was God as well as man, then His sufferings and
death lose all value in their eyes, "because it must have been so easy for him."

*cough* jar, *cough*.

Others may (very rightly) rebuke the ingratitude and ungraciousness of this objection; what staggers me is the misunderstanding it betrays. In one sense, of course, those who make it are right. They have even understated their own case. The perfect submission, the perfect suffering, the perfect death were not
only easier to Jesus because He was God, but were possible only because He was God.

But surely that is a very odd reason for not accepting them?
The teacher is able to form the letters for the child because the teacher is grown-up and knows how to write. That, of course, makes it easier for the teacher, and only because it is easier for him can he help the child.

If it rejected him because "it's easy for grown-ups" and waited to learn writing from another child who could not write itself (and so had no "unfair" advantage), it would not get on very quickly.

If I am drowning in a rapid river, a man who still has one foot on the bank may give me a hand which saves my life. Ought I to shout back (between my gasps) "No, it's not fair! You have an advantage! You're keeping one foot on the bank"? That advantage—call it "unfair" if you like—is the only reason why he can be of any use to me. To what will you look for help if you will not look to that which is stronger than yourself?
Such is my own way of looking at what Christians call the Atonement. But remember this is only one more picture. Do not mistake it for the thing itself: and if it does not help you, drop it.

I posted this bit from the book because it encapsulates and describes what Faith and I always argue to be the standard Christian Belief which w were taught and which jar rejects. jar has yet to explain why the Christians who marketed that belief were dishonest, why it is "pitiful and disgusting" and where Lewis was dishonest and/or got it wrong.

Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"We, humans, are engaged in an ongoing war of ideologies. I see it in this microcosm of EvC Forum just as I see it in the governments and attitudes of people throughout the world. Take your pick: Oppression or Seduction .
"~Thugpreacha

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

“As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so the denial of God is the height of foolishness.”
? R.C. Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith


Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by ringo, posted 11-17-2019 3:32 PM Thugpreacha has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17679
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 10 of 22 (866938)
11-17-2019 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Thugpreacha
11-17-2019 3:28 PM


Re: What Humans Must Change: (Lewis The Honest Apologist)
Phat writes:

That is ringos hangup. He insists on keeping his ability to judge God.


How do you decide which god is the right one?

"If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you...."
-- Rudyard Kipling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Thugpreacha, posted 11-17-2019 3:28 PM Thugpreacha has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Thugpreacha, posted 11-17-2019 3:42 PM ringo has responded

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 13387
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 11 of 22 (866939)
11-17-2019 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by ringo
11-17-2019 3:32 PM


Re: What Humans Must Change: (Lewis The Honest Apologist)
Only the real One can change you. The rest are just imitators---they have no ability to change anything, but another way to tell is that the fakes ill attempt to deceive you and tempt you with fleshly lists and desires. The imitators do not have the power to give you joy and peace of mind. Once you taste the real, you can more clearly see the imitation. (In my opinion, anyway)

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"We, humans, are engaged in an ongoing war of ideologies. I see it in this microcosm of EvC Forum just as I see it in the governments and attitudes of people throughout the world. Take your pick: Oppression or Seduction .
"~Thugpreacha

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

“As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so the denial of God is the height of foolishness.”
? R.C. Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by ringo, posted 11-17-2019 3:32 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by ringo, posted 11-17-2019 3:52 PM Thugpreacha has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17679
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.1


(2)
Message 12 of 22 (866940)
11-17-2019 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Thugpreacha
11-17-2019 3:42 PM


Re: What Humans Must Change: (Lewis The Honest Apologist)
Phat writes:

Only the real One can change you. The rest are just imitators---they have no ability to change anything...


I wasn't asking how you do it. I was asking why you get to do it and then call it a "hangup" when I do the same thing.

Phat writes:

The imitators do not have the power to give you joy and peace of mind.


I don't see you or Faith as being filled with joy and peace of mind.

"If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you...."
-- Rudyard Kipling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Thugpreacha, posted 11-17-2019 3:42 PM Thugpreacha has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Thugpreacha, posted 11-17-2019 4:35 PM ringo has responded

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 13387
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 13 of 22 (866946)
11-17-2019 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by ringo
11-17-2019 3:52 PM


Re: What Humans Must Change: (Lewis The Honest Apologist)
Dang! You won too!

I will admit that you have a point, though I don't see myself as lacking joy and peace of mind except for the fact that I am recovering from an operation and am grumpy because I am getting old. I miss running around like a 20 year old, full of energy. And perhaps I have given up on humans too soon. I really expect God to rescue me just like my Mom did for many years when I failed. She would always be there to bail me out. Now, she is nearly gone and I have no one. To have it preached to an old man that only we humans can do it sounds a bit late. I should have been taught this 30 years ago. And I have not by any means given up on God. I don't think humans can do it by themselves. You and perhaps jar disagree, pointing out that only humans can and must do it. Which to a tired old man is a depressing thought. I need God. I need a rescuer. And I believe that everyone will soon see that this is true for all of us.

Phat writes:

That is ringos hangup. He insists on keeping his ability to judge God.

ringo writes:

How do you decide which god is the right one?

I suppose upon further reflection that if we changed "judging God" with "testing the spirits" I can see your point.

Edited by Thugpreacha, : added


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"We, humans, are engaged in an ongoing war of ideologies. I see it in this microcosm of EvC Forum just as I see it in the governments and attitudes of people throughout the world. Take your pick: Oppression or Seduction .
"~Thugpreacha

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

“As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so the denial of God is the height of foolishness.”
? R.C. Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by ringo, posted 11-17-2019 3:52 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by ringo, posted 11-17-2019 4:48 PM Thugpreacha has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17679
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 14 of 22 (866951)
11-17-2019 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Thugpreacha
11-17-2019 4:35 PM


Re: What Humans Must Change: (Lewis The Honest Apologist)
Phat writes:

I don't think humans can do it by themselves. You and perhaps jar disagree, pointing out that only humans can and must do it.


I have told you many times, I don't claim that humans "can" do it by themselves. I'm saying that humans are the only ones who are doing it. You can pretend that God is doing it through them but that isn't honest. Fundamentalist Christian theology is built on the idea that God will fix everything "some day", which is a tacit admission that He isn't doing it now.

"If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you...."
-- Rudyard Kipling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Thugpreacha, posted 11-17-2019 4:35 PM Thugpreacha has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Thugpreacha, posted 11-17-2019 6:41 PM ringo has responded

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 13387
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 15 of 22 (866953)
11-17-2019 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by ringo
11-17-2019 4:48 PM


Re: What Humans Must Change: (Lewis The Honest Apologist)
ringo writes:

You can pretend that God is doing it through them but that isn't honest.

I can and will claim that and will insist that I am being as honest as I can. Granted I don't have objective evidence, but as I have said before, objective evidence is not possible when it comes to validation of belief, and this fact in no way makes a belief claim "dishonest." I have had several incidents where someone who never calls me called on a day that I needed something which they then provided, be it a ride, or a word of knowledge regarding a specific situation, or even money. Granted skeptics will chalk it up to coincidence and may claim that it has to be that way because there is "no objective evidence" for my possible explanation but I will not hold my faith or belief to that standard. This is not being dishonest. I have seen enough to convince me.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"We, humans, are engaged in an ongoing war of ideologies. I see it in this microcosm of EvC Forum just as I see it in the governments and attitudes of people throughout the world. Take your pick: Oppression or Seduction .
"~Thugpreacha

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

“As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so the denial of God is the height of foolishness.”
? R.C. Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by ringo, posted 11-17-2019 4:48 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by ringo, posted 11-18-2019 10:48 AM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019