C.S. Lewis on the atrocities of Joshua and God's goodness vs inerrancy

mcarans

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 10, 2018
539
226
47
Wellington
✟136,444.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
"...the atrocities (and treacheries) of Joshua...the dangers of believing in a God whom we cannot but regard as evil, and then, in mere terrified flattery calling Him ‘good’ and worshiping Him...whether the doctrine of the goodness of God or that of the inerrancy of Scriptures is to prevail when they conflict. I think the doctrine of the goodness of God is the more certain of the two. Indeed, only that doctrine renders this worship of Him obligatory or even permissible."

More here

What are your views on Lewis's thoughts?
 
  • Useful
Reactions: DennisTate

A_Thinker

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 23, 2004
11,911
9,064
Midwest
✟931,284.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
"...the atrocities (and treacheries) of Joshua...the dangers of believing in a God whom we cannot but regard as evil, and then, in mere terrified flattery calling Him ‘good’ and worshiping Him...whether the doctrine of the goodness of God or that of the inerrancy of Scriptures is to prevail when they conflict. I think the doctrine of the goodness of God is the more certain of the two. Indeed, only that doctrine renders this worship of Him obligatory or even permissible."

More here

What are your views on Lewis's thoughts?
I, in accord with Lewis here, have often considered that the Old Testament writings are, in some part, propaganda for Israel ...
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcarans
Upvote 0

Tolworth John

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 10, 2017
8,278
4,680
68
Tolworth
✟369,559.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
God discribed varrious people groups as 'evil' and ordered the Israelites to punish them.
In order to label Gods judgement as 'good or evil' we need to know what standard of judgement is being used.
If the standard found in the bible is going to beused it will lead to confirmation of Gods judgement.


Any other standard of judgement would have to have its qualifcation for being used to judge God tested.
 
Upvote 0

Anguspure

Kaitiaki Peacemakers NZ
Supporter
Jun 28, 2011
3,865
1,769
New Zealand
✟125,935.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
"...the atrocities (and treacheries) of Joshua...the dangers of believing in a God whom we cannot but regard as evil, and then, in mere terrified flattery calling Him ‘good’ and worshiping Him...whether the doctrine of the goodness of God or that of the inerrancy of Scriptures is to prevail when they conflict. I think the doctrine of the goodness of God is the more certain of the two. Indeed, only that doctrine renders this worship of Him obligatory or even permissible."

More here

What are your views on Lewis's thoughts?
I'm not sure if anything more than the fact the He is Creator of all makes worship of Him obligatory.
Of course on deeper thought this is what it means to Love (Agape) and to be "Good" and so that also is His nature.
As Creator He is the Giver and cannot take what He has not given.
So although "good" in some sort of anthropic comparison is a big understatement, it does express what He is.
I like Lewis' passage about Aslan the lion:
“Aslan is a lion- the Lion, the great Lion." "Ooh" said Susan. "I'd thought he was a man. Is he-quite safe? I shall feel rather nervous about meeting a lion"..."Safe?" said Mr Beaver ..."Who said anything about safe? 'Course he isn't safe. But he's good. He's the King, I tell you.”

― C.S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
 
Upvote 0

mcarans

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 10, 2018
539
226
47
Wellington
✟136,444.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Could you supply the source? This looks vaguely familiar, but I'd like to read it in context. Is it one of his letters to Arthur Greeves?
From what I have found, it is from Chapter 9, "Grief," p. 156-157, of Beversluis's unrevised edition of his book "C.S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion". It is from a letter Lewis wrote to Beversluis.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

mcarans

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 10, 2018
539
226
47
Wellington
✟136,444.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
God discribed varrious people groups as 'evil' and ordered the Israelites to punish them.
In order to label Gods judgement as 'good or evil' we need to know what standard of judgement is being used.
If the standard found in the bible is going to beused it will lead to confirmation of Gods judgement.


Any other standard of judgement would have to have its qualifcation for being used to judge God tested.
Which standard of judgement from the Bible - OT or NT?
Matthew 5:
"38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer."
"43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be children of your Father in heaven"
 
Upvote 0

Tom 1

Optimistic sceptic
Supporter
Nov 13, 2017
12,212
12,526
Tarnaveni
✟818,769.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
"...the atrocities (and treacheries) of Joshua...the dangers of believing in a God whom we cannot but regard as evil, and then, in mere terrified flattery calling Him ‘good’ and worshiping Him...whether the doctrine of the goodness of God or that of the inerrancy of Scriptures is to prevail when they conflict. I think the doctrine of the goodness of God is the more certain of the two. Indeed, only that doctrine renders this worship of Him obligatory or even permissible."

More here

What are your views on Lewis's thoughts?

The wider question about violence in the OT comes up from time to time on CF. If the Hebrews had not been willing to fight then there would be no Hebrews, we would probably never have heard of them as any written records came long after their loose initial formation as a people. They would have been subsumed into some other group or just wiped out altogether. Take away the willingness to use violence and there would be no Western civilisation either. I'm not aware of any sort of nation state, however loosely defined, that has managed to survive long term without being able to employ extreme violence against other groups. The Hebrew nation, one of the longest surviving cohesive ethnic groups in the history of the world, cohesive in the sense of maintaining some sense of religious and cultural identity, is actually one of the least violent cultures of history. If they hadn't been willing to kill at all however we wouldn't know anything about them, and if they hadn't been willing to fight against overwhelming influences then we wouldn't have the underpinnings of biblical teachings as part of the modern Western world. For my money, I'd rather live in one of the societies that has that underpinning than any of the alternatives. Although it certainly isn't an easy question to answer, given that all societies use violence to protect and define themselves, the only useful questions are about the end results of one group surviving rather than another. Moral outrage has zero relevance to the role of violence as an arbitrater of history.
 
  • Useful
Reactions: public hermit
Upvote 0

mcarans

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 10, 2018
539
226
47
Wellington
✟136,444.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The wider question about violence in the OT comes up from time to time on CF. If the Hebrews had not been willing to fight then there would be no Hebrews, we would probably never have heard of them as any written records came long after their loose initial formation as a people. They would have been subsumed into some other group or just wiped out altogether. Take away the willingness to use violence and there would be no Western civilisation either. I'm not aware of any sort of nation state, however loosely defined, that has managed to survive long term without being able to employ extreme violence against other groups. The Hebrew nation, one of the longest surviving cohesive ethnic groups in the history of the world, cohesive in the sense of maintaining some sense of religious and cultural identity, is actually one of the least violent cultures of history. If they hadn't been willing to kill at all however we wouldn't know anything about them, and if they hadn't been willing to fight against overwhelming influences then we wouldn't have the underpinnings of biblical teachings as part of the modern Western world. For my money, I'd rather live in one of the societies that has that underpinning than any of the alternatives. Although it certainly isn't an easy question to answer, given that all societies use violence to protect and define themselves, the only useful questions are about the end results of one group surviving rather than another. Moral outrage has zero relevance to the role of violence as an arbitrater of history.
There are other long surviving ethnic groups eg. The San people of southern Africa, who have lived as hunter-gatherers for thousands of years, are likely to be the oldest population of humans on Earth and probably one of the least violent. Out of the entire human population in the world today, 19% are Han Chinese. Han China is one of the world's oldest civilizations dating back thousands of years. The Han have of course used violence but given the long timeframe and size of the population, they are probably not the most violent.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: public hermit
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,158
1,805
✟794,647.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
This is a huge topic and I understand where CS Lewis is coming from but think it can be resolved.
We do not have lots of detains on how it actually happened.
God talks a lot about driving the people out before them, three times more frequently, God being in front of them, and we see how the Israelites defeated the Egyptians. After seven days of parading around Jericho how many people would have been on the wall mocking the Israelites and brought their kids along to see a group of "stupid" Jews marching around.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Tom 1

Optimistic sceptic
Supporter
Nov 13, 2017
12,212
12,526
Tarnaveni
✟818,769.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
There are other long surviving ethnic groups eg. The San people of southern Africa, who have lived as hunter-gatherers for thousands of years, are likely to be the oldest population of humans on Earth and probably one of the least violent. Out of the entire human population in the world today, 19% are Han Chinese. Han China is one of the world's oldest civilizations dating back thousands of years. The Han have of course used violence but given the long timeframe and size of the population, they are probably not the most violent.

Yes I wonder about pre-agricultural type societies, I suppose there were less disputes over territory and resources before we started building farming communities and cities, and staying in one place. The Han Chinese have been pretty good at dominating other cultures, they're a good example of how peace is usually achieved through the threat of being able to bring greater force to bear than your opponents.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Tom 1

Optimistic sceptic
Supporter
Nov 13, 2017
12,212
12,526
Tarnaveni
✟818,769.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
There are other long surviving ethnic groups eg. The San people of southern Africa, who have lived as hunter-gatherers for thousands of years, are likely to be the oldest population of humans on Earth and probably one of the least violent. Out of the entire human population in the world today, 19% are Han Chinese. Han China is one of the world's oldest civilizations dating back thousands of years. The Han have of course used violence but given the long timeframe and size of the population, they are probably not the most violent.

I'm sorry I've read this again but I'm not really getting what your point is.
 
Upvote 0

mcarans

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 10, 2018
539
226
47
Wellington
✟136,444.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I'm sorry I've read this again but I'm not really getting what your point is.
Just that the Hebrews aren't special in surviving with their culture intact for a long time nor in being less violent than say the Romans or British.
 
Upvote 0

Tom 1

Optimistic sceptic
Supporter
Nov 13, 2017
12,212
12,526
Tarnaveni
✟818,769.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Just that the Hebrews aren't special in surviving with their culture intact for a long time nor in being less violent than say the Romans or British.


Yes, as I said they are ‘one of’ the longest surviving coherent groups. If you look into Hebrew history in comparison with any of their contemporaries, you will find that there are a number of claims to uniqueness and longevity as a culture they can make.
Do you think that the Hebrew nation has been involved in the same level of violent conflict and the domination of other cultures as the Romans and the Brits? What are you basing that on?
 
Upvote 0

mcarans

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 10, 2018
539
226
47
Wellington
✟136,444.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Yes, as I said they are ‘one of’ the longest surviving coherent groups. If you look into Hebrew history in comparison with any of their contemporaries, you will find that there are a number of claims to uniqueness and longevity as a culture they can make.
Do you think that the Hebrew nation has been involved in the same level of violent conflict and the domination of other cultures as the Romans and the Brits? What are you basing that on?
No that's not what I meant. I just meant that there are other long surviving cultures that aren't violent or at least are not that violent.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Tom 1

Optimistic sceptic
Supporter
Nov 13, 2017
12,212
12,526
Tarnaveni
✟818,769.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No that's not what I meant. I just meant that there are other long surviving cultures that aren't violent or at least are not that violent.

Ah ok. Yes I wasn't suggesting that the Hebrew nation is the only one that could be thought of as an example of that, just that it's one that could.
 
Upvote 0

GingerBeer

Cool and refreshing with a kick!
Mar 26, 2017
3,511
1,348
Australia
✟119,825.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
"...the atrocities (and treacheries) of Joshua...the dangers of believing in a God whom we cannot but regard as evil, and then, in mere terrified flattery calling Him ‘good’ and worshiping Him...whether the doctrine of the goodness of God or that of the inerrancy of Scriptures is to prevail when they conflict. I think the doctrine of the goodness of God is the more certain of the two. Indeed, only that doctrine renders this worship of Him obligatory or even permissible."

More here

What are your views on Lewis's thoughts?
He was right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcarans
Upvote 0

Quid est Veritas?

In Memoriam to CS Lewis
Feb 27, 2016
7,319
9,272
South Africa
✟316,433.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
There are other long surviving ethnic groups eg. The San people of southern Africa, who have lived as hunter-gatherers for thousands of years, are likely to be the oldest population of humans on Earth and probably one of the least violent. Out of the entire human population in the world today, 19% are Han Chinese. Han China is one of the world's oldest civilizations dating back thousands of years. The Han have of course used violence but given the long timeframe and size of the population, they are probably not the most violent.
This is patent nonsense. The 'San people' are an abstraction created by Western Anthropologists. They are not a coherent culture, nor do we have any way of deciding they are 'one of the oldest'. We have no records of them prior to the Portuguese and Dutch coming to the Cape in the 16th and 17th centuries. This is merely an assumption based on the fact that the same 'people' lived in the area that long ago - whether there is cultural continuation, we have no way of knowing. Based on glyphs and so, there is not enough differentiation to decide continuance either.

Further, the San are hardly peaceful, either today or historically. Read this just the other day:

Trauma and violence in the Later Stone Age of southern Africa | Morris | South African Medical Journal

On the Han Chinese, this is even more erroneous. Firstly, the very fact they are 'Han' shows their genesis in the Han Dynasty from about 2000 years ago. They area similar grouping to the Romans, a small group that took over a large cultural area and whose name came to designate the whole. In like manner, Greeks used to call themselves Rhomaioi or Romans, up till the Greek War of Independance in the 19th century. Chinese history is very violent, with multiple dynasties like the Chin, Southern and Northern Song, Kin, etc. with periods of disunity. To assume they are not so violent is nonsense - they buried people alive in construction, they made large and continuous incursions into the Steppe and Takla Makan, not to mention periods of civil war and disunity. They had reached natural limits of extension on the Tibetan Plateau, the Jungles of Indochina and the cold steppe and deserts of central Asia. There was just a haughty culture of the Middle Kingdom, and lack of incentive to expand - a similar situation to 2nd century Rome say, that also stopped expanding. There was no new technology or crises to drive further expansion overseas or so, either.

Further Chinese Civilisation is 2000 odd years old, but that is not representing a period of limited change at all. The Jewish culture is very conservative, maintaining their calender and Hebrew and such. The difference between the Chinese in the Tang that welcomed Nestorian Christians and Manichees while supporting Taoists vs the Nationalistic Ming, are stark. Chinese civilisation was a dynamic changing entity, about as different between epochs as an Englishman of Anglo-Saxon times was from a 19th century Imperialist, though both still on the same cultural continuum. The Jews by contrast, have maintained a cultural cohesion and conservatism that almost beggars belief by comparison. We are just ignorant of differences in Chinese periods, so we lump it all together; and the cachet of the 'Inscrutable Orient of Ancient Lineage' is a potent myth the Chinese aren't ashamed to assume.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: mcarans
Upvote 0

Quid est Veritas?

In Memoriam to CS Lewis
Feb 27, 2016
7,319
9,272
South Africa
✟316,433.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
From what I have found, it is from Chapter 9, "Grief," p. 156-157, of Beversluis's unrevised edition of his book "C.S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion". It is from a letter Lewis wrote to Beversluis.
So looking into the context, Beversluis wrote Lewis disagreeing with his system of Theodicy and answer to the question of Evil - to which this letter was a response, and based thereupon Beversluis wrote his book on Lewis and Reason in religion. At heart, Beversluis seems to have argued that in order to understand God, we must be willing to abandon our normal moral standards, as our standards are in effect a fallen form and what God decrees is good regardless. In essence, you must be willing to abandon Rationality for Faith in the Goodness of God.

I think Lewis' answer a very good one. We may not see why it was not good, but that neither means it wasn't, nor that we are utterly incapable of doing so. Reason often gives Inductive answers that can be valid or not; you can't assume all your reasoning is necessarly Deductive. One can have Faith in God's goodness without having to suspend the principles of Reason.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcarans
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

mcarans

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 10, 2018
539
226
47
Wellington
✟136,444.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
This is patent nonsense. The 'San people' are an abstraction created by Western Anthropologists. They are not a coherent culture, nor do we have any way of deciding they are 'one of the oldest'. We have no records of them prior to the Portuguese and Dutch coming to the Cape in the 16th and 17th centuries. This is merely an assumption based on the fact that the same 'people' lived in the area that long ago - whether there is cultural continuation, we have no way of knowing. Based on glyphs and so, there is not enough differentiation to decide continuance either.

Further, the San are hardly peaceful, either today or historically. Read this just the other day:

Trauma and violence in the Later Stone Age of southern Africa | Morris | South African Medical Journal

On the Han Chinese, this is even more erroneous. Firstly, the very fact they are 'Han' shows their genesis in the Han Dynasty from about 2000 years ago. They area similar grouping to the Romans, a small group that took over a large cultural area and whose name came to designate the whole. In like manner, Greeks used to call themselves Rhomaioi or Romans, up till the Greek War of Independance in the 19th century. Chinese history is very violent, with multiple dynasties like the Chin, Southern and Northern Song, Kin, etc. with periods of disunity. To assume they are not so violent is nonsense - they buried people alive in construction, they made large and continuous incursions into the Steppe and Takla Makan, not to mention periods of civil war and disunity. They had reached natural limits of extension on the Tibetan Plateau, the Jungles of Indochina and the cold steppe and deserts of central Asia. There was just a haughty culture of the Middle Kingdom, and lack of incentive to expand - a similar situation to 2nd century Rome say, that also stopped expanding. There was no new technology or crises to drive further expansion overseas or so, either.

Further Chinese Civilisation is 2000 odd years old, but that is not representing a period of limited change at all. The Jewish culture is very conservative, maintaining their calender and Hebrew and such. The difference between the Chinese in the Tang that welcomed Nestorian Christians and Manichees while supporting Taoists vs the Nationalistic Ming, are stark. Chinese civilisation was a dynamic changing entity, about as different between epochs as an Englishman of Anglo-Saxon times was from a 19th century Imperialist, though both still on the same cultural continuum. The Jews by contrast, have maintained a cultural cohesion and conservatism that almost beggars belief by comparison. We are just ignorant of differences in Chinese periods, so we lump it all together; and the cachet of the 'Inscrutable Orient of Ancient Lineage' is a potent myth the Chinese aren't ashamed to assume.
If the Hebrews had been successful militarily, do you think they would have behaved any differently to any other successful military power of the time for example by not continuing to attempt to expand by force?
 
Upvote 0