Successful Rebels to the End....

[variant]

Ok, you didn't get my playfulness.

Sure I did, I just answered the implied question in your snark anyway.

Which is of course, part of the fun.

 

[Received]

Sure I did, I just answered the implied question in your snark anyway.

Which is of course, part of the fun.

Pot, meet kettle.

 

[variant]

Pot, meet kettle.

Aren't you the kettle in that analogy?

 

[Received]

Aren't you the kettle in that analogy?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

But that is exactly what Lewis says in the text you quoted.

If you disagree with him, you should at least have said so.

Really?

Where?

 

[FireDragon76]

The fact that the doctrine is biblical doesn't change anything about my perception that it's manipulative. Does not god seek for you to do certain things and avoid doing others? Does he not use carrots and sticks in getting you to follow?

No. Christians are living under grace, not law.

Honestly, I don't find your ideas about God recognizable. It's not the God I worship.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

It's a very weak love that, after having the subject die and appear in spiritual form (therefore ascertaining with certainty that God is real), isn't able to win the sinner over.

Why?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

In the end, the great equalizer is objective evidence and some rely more on objective evidence than others.....

I agree.

And so would people like Allan Sandage.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Sorry for being completely cynical, but isn't that, in the end, what religion is: justifying one's behaviour by claiming that an unimaginably powerful being condones one's actions? You can do whatever you wish and absolve yourself of genuine accountability by appending the shallow claim that there is a supernatural being that just so happens to condone whatever action you've taken. You can then pretend that your actions are simply in compliance with the directives of that being, and that you are only ever accountable to that being.

That is not Christianity.

It might be your view of it, but that is not Christianity.

 

[keith99]

Sadly interesting, yes.
Lewis a just another average guy telling his tale of how he views a god. Or "the God." Nothing more or less. Reminds me of when I used to hang with Catholics and they would tout Christopher West as "Thee Authority" on how God wants humanity to treat his "gift" of sexuality. He's just a regular guy.

I don't put people on pedestals. I didn't do it as a Christian, either so I don't understand why many do.

The idea that Lewis was 'average' is pretty absurd. In his areas of expertise he was extraordinary.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

I take issue with this, from a number of angles, but I'm not yet sure how to put it to words, so forgive me if my comments are a tangled mess. Are you assuming that there is something that does endure forever, and whatever that something is you will call "God", or are you asserting that there is a God who endures forever? The first claim would suggest that you don't know what that something is yet. If you don't know what it is, and all you know is that it endures forever, how can you be certain that it is worthwhile pursuing as a goal? You might be pursuing something that, although it endures, actually isn't worthwhile at all. The second claim seems a little more straightforward, except that it requires justification: how do you know there is a God and that this God endures? Another interesting question is why must something endure forever in order for it to be worthwhile? Isn't that sort of attitude a signpost pointing directly to the path of nihilism? Doesn't it render the overwhelming majority of your goals in life utterly meaningless?

For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; 18 while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal. 2 Corinthians 4:17,18

 

[bhsmte]

I agree.

And so would people like Allan Sandage.

Bright guy, Sandage.

Does he claim to have objective evidence of God that can be verified?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Bright guy, Sandage.

Does he claim to have objective evidence of God that can be verified?

So as not to deviate from the intent of my thread, I will answer this in a new thread.

 

[bhsmte]

So as not to deviate from the intent of my thread, I will answer this in a new thread.

I read up on him a bit and he states God can not be proven to exist with scientific type evidence.

He states science has limits, which is stating the obvious, but he appears to believe on faith and or his personal interpretation of evidence which can not be deemed; objective and verifiable evidence.

By the way, if he did have objective verifiable evidence confirming a God's existence, the dude would be a little more famous than he is and would be referred to as proving God, like Darwin is to evolution.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

I read up on him a bit and he states God can not be proven to exist with scientific type evidence.

He states science has limits, which is stating the obvious, but he appears to believe on faith and or his personal interpretation of evidence which can not be deemed; objective and verifiable evidence.

By the way, if he did have objective verifiable evidence confirming a God's existence, the dude would be a little more famous than he is and would be referred to as proving God, like Darwin is to evolution.

can I ask you a question in the new thread I posted?

 

[Deidre32]

The idea that Lewis was 'average' is pretty absurd. In his areas of expertise he was extraordinary.

What's absurd is that he is seen as an expert in something that has no proof. Objectively speaking.

He was a mere mortal, like you and me. He wasn't any further to the 'truth' than anyone else. Just because someone claims to know truth, doesn't mean they do. Objectively speaking.

He was an incredible writer, I've read all of his works, but his view of a god is left up to interpretation, like so many other interpretations, which is why there are so many denominations.

 

[Deidre32]

That is why belief in a God requires faith, absent any objective evidence and also why there are so many different views on interpretation of the same, because people gravitate towards what suites them.

I have no issue with those who believe on faith, as long as they stay away from telling those that disagree with them, that they hate God, are not trying to connect with God, are being led by evil, or they have objective evidence to support their belief, because they don't.

Beyond that, if their faith makes them a better person, they should hold onto it.

Very well said. Especially your points in the second paragraph.

 

[bhsmte]

What's absurd is that he is seen as an expert in something that has no proof. Objectively speaking.

He was a mere mortal, like you and me. He wasn't any further to the 'truth' than anyone else. Just because someone claims to know truth, doesn't mean they do. Objectively speaking.

This is how it typically works:

When someone famous, well read or with credentials in their particular area agree with one's opinion, they will be put in a spotlight and used as support for that position. Again, both believers and non-believers do the same.

Here is the difference though, between experts on God and religion and experts in science. Science has verifiable evidence to support it's claims and a method to educate people with this same verifiable information. How do religious experts get trained? With the bible or whatever holy book they cling to as the core. Are holy books objective verifiable evidence of the claims they make? No, they are not, which is why there are so many variations of belief and interpretations of the same.

So in the end, the religious expert is going to have to rely on; personal experiences, subjective interpretations and all from a book which is questionably reliable. This is why, Christians protect the bible so much, because they know, if the core link in the chain gets sawed through, the house of cards comes tumbling down.

 

[Deidre32]

This is how it typically works:

When someone famous, well read or with credentials in their particular area agree with one's opinion, they will be put in a spotlight and used as support for that position. Again, both believers and non-believers do the same.

Here is the difference though, between experts on God and religion and experts in science. Science has verifiable evidence to support it's claims and a method to educate people with this same verifiable information. How do religious experts get trained? With the bible or whatever holy book they cling to as the core. Are holy books objective verifiable evidence of the claims they make? No, they are not, which is why there are so many variations of belief and interpretations of the same.

So in the end, the religious expert is going to have to rely on; personal experiences, subjective interpretations and all from a book which is questionably reliable. This is why, Christians protect the bible so much, because they know, if the core link in the chain gets sawed through, the house of cards comes tumbling down.

SO well stated, thank you. That's how have I it in my mind, but couldn't quite articulate it as you have.

It isn't to say Lewis wasn't a brilliant man. He was. But, anyone can school up on the Bible. It's a book that one has to take an immense leap of faith to believe, like frankly, I once did as a Christian.

But, objectively stepping back and viewing the book, much of what I read made no logical sense, had no evidence to support it, and required my blind obedience to its word without questioning it.

Becoming an ''expert'' in theology, not even sure what that means. lol Does it mean you are good at memorizing a religious book that is not factual and promoting it as truth to others?

 

[Ana the Ist]

No. Christians are living under grace, not law.

Honestly, I don't find your ideas about God recognizable. It's not the God I worship.

Well I'll keep it very simple for you then...that way you can recognize we're talking about the same god. God tells you how you should live (no sex before marriage)...what you should do (accept Jesus as your personal savior)...and the rewards for it (a personal relationship with god, acceptance into heaven). That would be the manipulation with a "carrot".

God also tells you how you shouldn't live (same sex marriage, being greedy and judgemental)...what you shouldn't do (question god's will, refuse his "gift" of salvation)...and the punishment for it (eternal hell). This would be the manipulation with a "stick" part.

I know you don't see it as manipulation...but that's what it is IMO. I've heard christians tell me that it's no different from "friendly advice" from a parental figure...which would be accurate if a couple things were different. 1. You were able to ask god "why" regarding any of his "advice" and get a clear answer....from my years of asking believers "why" I've really only found out that I'm not supposed to ask why...and they typically don't. 2. There were no punishment or reward for following. By incentivizing this "advice" with temporary and eternal rewards or punishment...it passes beyond anything that resembles advice and becomes manipulation (which in itself is a word that in this context covers both the concepts of bribes and threats).