Charismatic Chaos

Provide the sources that show him claiming this so we can examine the context. And no he was not an expert on history. I fail to see why you think the claim is helpful or relevant.

Seemingly C.S. Lewis did not agree with you.C. S. Lewis on Inerrancy, Inspiration, and Historicity of Scripture

quote:

---

The point is that the whole Book of Jonah has to me the air of being a moral romance,

---

quote:

---

The universally admitted unhistoricity (I do not say, of course, falsity) of at least some of the narratives in Scripture (the parables), which may well also extend to Jonah and Job.

---

quote:

---

rule out the view that every statement in Scripture must be historical truth.

---

So he didn't know how to judge some parts of the Bible. The main point still stands. He knew most of it wasn't fiction but history.

quote:

---

So he didn't know how to judge some parts of the Bible. The main point still stands. He knew most of it wasn't fiction but histor

---

In other words his expertise only counts if he agrees with you. Maybe you should learn intellectual honesty. If only to avoid shooting yourself in the foot like this. Especially when you don’t even have a quote to support your point.

No one has ever questioned the fact that some parts of the Bible reflect actual history even though it is pretty much a fanciful and fictitious account. There were twelve Jewish tribes. There were two City States of Judah and Israel. There were periods when the Hebrews were a Theocratic people and periods when they were Monarchies. There is evidence that there were Jews in Egypt but then Egypt was a major cultural center and there were peoples from all over the Mediterranean there.But there is no evidence there was a Garden of Eden. That is pure fiction.There is no evidence of the Conquest of Canaan. That is pure fiction.There is no evidence of the Exodus. That is pure fiction. Job and Jonah and Cain and Able and Sodom and Gomorrah are all fiction.But that does not mean they are without value.

So you admit you were lying for Jesus? You made these outlandish claims about what C.S. Lewis said and you have absolutely know evidence to back up the claims. You have hit a new low even for you.
No one can trust anything you say, because your claims are rife with lies and dishonesty.
I know you do not wonder why no one trusts you. You know why. You are an admitted troll that will say anything to support your viewpoint. You believe that lying for Jesus is a just and right thing to do.
I wish I could say it amazes me that someone that claims such a moral high ground resorts so easily to such amoral behavior, but alas it does not, it is par for the course when dealing with fundies.

You're a little too....shall we say "generous" ? .with your accusations of lying. I remember Lewis, in "Mere Christianity" I believe, arguing with the modernists who called the Bible fiction, that he knew fiction and the Bible was not. I remember it as a blanket statement.

Amazing that you cannot present us with that quote.

For every Lewis quote fundies think supports their view, there are many more that do not.Here is a good site that goes through Lewis's non-fundie writings. Unlike Faith the person who wrote this uses actual quotes and gives the original source material.
CS LEWIS – The most beloved heretic – The Reluctant SkepticHere are a couple that are especially illuminating'

quote:

---

The earliest stratum of the Old Testament contains many truths in a form which I take to be legendary, or even mythicalhanging in the clouds

---

quote:

---

I have therefore no difficulty in accepting, say, the view of those scholars who tell us that the account of Creation in Genesis is derived from earlier Semitic stories which were Pagan and mythical.

---

quote:

---

The human qualities of the raw materials show through. Navety, error, contradiction, even (as in the cursing Psalms) wickedness are not removed. The total result is not the Word of God in the sense that every passage, in itself, gives impeccable science or history

---

quote:

---

Say what you like, we shall be told, the apocalyptic beliefs of the first Christians have been proved to be false. It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime. And worse still, they had a reason, and one which you will find very embarrassing. Their Master had told them so. He shared, and indeed created, their delusion. He said in so many words, ‘this generation shall not pass till all these things be done.’ And he was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else. It is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible.

---

quote:

---

The one exhibition of error and the one confession of ignorance [Mark 13:32] grow side by side. That they stood thus in the mouth of Jesus himself, and were not merely placed thus by the reporter, we surely need not doubt. The facts, then, are these: that Jesus professed himself (in some sense) ignorant, and within a moment showed that he really was so.

---

Lewis did not believe that the bible was inerrant. Though he was a very fervent christian he believed in evolution and that the people that wrote the bible and the Jesus character were fallible people.Still waiting on the quotes and sources that support Faith's claims.

Faith, even if there actually was such a quote from CS Lewis, it would mean little since everyone can look directly at what was actually written and see that the concept that the Bible is all historical is just nonsense. As I pointed out back in Message 275 ...

quote:

---

No one has ever questioned the fact that some parts of the Bible reflect actual history even though it is pretty much a fanciful and fictitious account. There were twelve Jewish tribes. There were two City States of Judah and Israel. There were periods when the Hebrews were a Theocratic people and periods when they were Monarchies. There is evidence that there were Jews in Egypt but then Egypt was a major cultural center and there were peoples from all over the Mediterranean there.

​

But there is no evidence there was a Garden of Eden. That is pure fiction.

​

There is no evidence of the Conquest of Canaan. That is pure fiction.

​

There is no evidence of the Exodus. That is pure fiction. Job and Jonah and Cain and Able and Sodom and Gomorrah are all fiction.

​

But that does not mean they are without value.

---

quote:

---

I remember Lewis, in "Mere Christianity" I believe, arguing with the modernists who called the Bible fiction, that he knew fiction and the Bible was not. I remember it as a blanket statement.

---

Please explain why something you think Lewis said is better than actual quotes.You tell us that Lewis’ opinion is worthless because he didn’t know how to judge parts of the Bible, But you give us no reason to think that his judgement is any better with regard to the rest - nor can you even confirm that he really did say that. (I believe I remember the quote and he was only talking about the gospels - yet Matthew’s nativity story is pretty clearly fiction).

I just finished reading "Mere Christianity". What a painful slog through nothingness.
I could find nothing in there that resembles anything close to what you claim. Do you really think we will not examine your claims. After I finished reading it I did a word search to see if I missed something in my reading.
I searched, history, fiction and bible. There was nothing that resembles your claims.
Care to try again?
Care to retract the claim?

OK...stupidity like how? That original (or inborn) sin is stupid? The evidence is pretty clear that humans by nature are always looking out for #1. We can argue the point, however. The reason I believe it is because I felt it from both entities. While wise enough to know I cannot get away with saying the devil made me do it, I recognize my inner nature somewhat well by now. Deep down I question a lot. Rarely do I doubt, unless I find something unfair and have prayed about it repeatedly. And even then, I will admit that having two spirit beings is helpful. If its yes, I praise God. If its no, I curse satan. How do you expect me to "defend" God? It makes much more sense for an uncaused first cause to be God than it does simply chemicals. The whole reason Intelligent Design was named as such is because of this. The absence of evidence does not automatically equate to evidence of absence. You seem to think that reality is "founded" on human discovery and verification. Evidence is great for what its worth....in material terms. Evidence can verify your chemicals. Evidence cannot verify a spiritual realm. I think that deep down you dismiss the possibility of a spiritual realm because you can't put a timestamp of Evidence on it. "Many are called yet few are chosen. Narrow is the path to righteousness and few find it. Broad is the path towards independence... Yes, they produce material well being. We are talking about the realm of the mind and philosophy. Some things have left a mystery for now. We don't understand multiple universes, but there is some hypothetical evidence that they could exist. Perhaps since we have no math formula to allow God to be properly hypothetical, you simply threw the concept away. Is the idea of a "good" God creating evil (or the possibility of evil) illogical as well? I have an argument for that which you may have heard a bazillion times. How many times have you seen participants line up in a race with Carl Lewis and then all decide they can't win? So what led you to think that God didn't exist? Seems a bit as if we replaced Him with ourselves.Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

Not really. We feed our children. We take care of the old and sick. Well, it would be stupid to create imperfect humans and then blame them for being imperfect. And it's stupid to believe that God is going to "save" us from Himself. Your feelings can't be trusted. No it doesn't. And Intelligent Design is really, really stupid. It's a creationist scam - and you're about two inches from becoming a full-blown creationist as crazy as Faith. It is. That's because you define your "spiritual realm" in that way. The problem with it being "beyond evidence" is that it's then categorized along with everything else that is unevidenced - the Tooth Fairy, unicorns, the Flintsones.... Without evidence, you can't distinguish silly, childish stories from anything else. It isn't deep down. It's right on the surface and in plain English. I reject your God for the same reason you reject the Tooth Fairy and unicorns and the Flintstones and Zeus. First, you might try quoting that passage honestly:

quote:

---

Matthew 7:13-14 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

---

I don't know where you get the idea that independence is akin to destruction. What translation are you using?Second, you might try looking at the conrtext, e.g. the next verse:

quote:

---

Matthew 7:15-16 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits.

---

That would be your apologists. And it would also be you and Faith. Do you want to think that through again? Critical thinking - or any other kind of thinking - is in the realm of the mind. And the Tooth Fairy and unicorns and the Flintstones and Zeus. Why do you make one exception? Of course. Yes = no is illogical. Pretty often. I, for one couldn't beat Carl Lewis and wouldn't try.But why do you lower your God to just another participant? There are certainly people who could beat Carl Lewis today. Do you really want to make your God somebody who could be beaten by Satan tomorrow? Well, we're pretty sure that we ourselves exist. And we're pretty sure that we have to do things ourselves because God isn't doing them for us. So there's no practical reason to think that God exists.

OK, I'll buy that. I've experienced enough to *know* that there is another realm but not enough to verify what that realm is. I naturally attached its meaning to the dogma.Evil was created by God. We don't know why, but since He claims we can avoid it, we try our best usually. The fact that we sometimes allow it is a clue to this puzzle.God is good. Not "complete" as jar suggests. That's simply too threatening. Which is another clue.Satan only exists because God gave him the right to rebel. Apparently the whole concept of free will vs authority is being tested.Humans are the product of our genetics and our decisions. The problem here is that God is God before humans even were. Thus, we cannot limit God as we do our other unevidenced creations. God is a human creation and yet not a human creation. IF God exists, He came first.