I personally found Lewis's apologetics works quite unconvincing, but they seem to be very popular in Christian circles. What does LULZ think about this fine gentleman's arguments?
Meme Christianity
I personally found Lewis's apologetics works quite unconvincing, but they seem to be very popular in Christian circles. What does LULZ think about this fine gentleman's arguments?
His arguments are clever, mostly convincing to the already convinced, but he expresses his viewpoint clearly and without jargon. Whatever you think of his beliefs Lewis was a very talented writer, all his books are worthwhile.
He can be hit and miss IMO. I find he hits more often though.
The Problem of Pain was one that impressed me very much when I first read it.
If I were an atheist, he wouldn't have convinced me either. But his elaboration on some of the themes are amazing.
Lewis lived in a time of ever expanding complexity.
I feel we'll be entering a time of profound simplification.
He was a well spoken...
But I don't think it hurts to cut the crap out of the content of your speech, and speak plainly.
Holy hell - have you witnessed the waffle you all speak?! It must be a joke i'm not in on.
He was the ultimate midwit. His reason for losing his faith and becoming an atheist was unironically “if god real, why bad thing happen??”. Before he converted to Christianity he spent some time investigating other religions and his analysis of Hinduism is ignorant and embarassing for someone who went to Oxford.
There is not a single convincing religious argument, it's all just coping. Lewis does an admirable job but ultimately fails like the rest.
>le arguments
Wake up. Christianity is about following Christ's teachings. Not about arguing.
C.S. Lewis has a formless face. Nothing about his face looks distinct except his nose
You want good Christian apologetics, look no further. Rene Girard seems like the current endboss right now.
heard of him, never read
mimesis a shit though
any of the major biblical themes you could qualify with it have already been exegetically expounded upon centuries ago, and I'd bet some of those that haven't would be awkward to make coherent
applying it to Abel seems forced somehow, can't put my finger on it though, maybe it has to do with Cain being expelled from society rather than society somehow being built on his act of fratricide
what he does is read his own theory of mythos and sociology into the text as if he was the first person to notice the scapegoat, but it's just one possible reading and can't account for everything
his focus is on how it fits into his ideas about the fundamentals of human society, but the gospel message isn't just about human society as we know it
rather it's scope spans the whole of creation, the entire world is concerned with Christ's sacrifice
Jesus said he would separate father from son, mother from daughter, etc. If that's not deconstructing the the foundation of society as we know it and as Girard conceptualizes it mimetically I don't know what is; the big picture message here is that the way to life is greater than mere society or bonds of kinship. It takes on the entire cosmos, overthrows absolutely everything. The desire for union with God cannot be sated through imitation of things in the world. Mimesis requires an object to mimic, a relativistic relationship. God is absolute, how can you mimic that? That's why you have to leave familiar things like society behind to follow him.
While it's tempting to apply mimetic desire to explain elements like Adam being made in God's image and the Incarnation, it's not really going to give you anything substantually different or more profound than other much older commentaries. And I don't see it explaining very much about the mysteries of the book or other theological conundrums that havent been addressed before.
I like his "liar, lunatic, or Lord" argument against Christian atheism. Read about the ultracalvinism hypothesis and it makes sense - "secular humanism" is really just Christianity minus Christ, in other words just lunacy.
Imo he sucked for any serious insight. When he tried to go into academic philosophy he made an argument that was so cringe he was BTFO by a woman and he was so distraught by the event that he turned to writing children's literature and pop religion books instead. The woman was a Catholic btw.
Anscombe was based as fuck. She singlehandedly made virtue ethics popular again and somehow managed to become a protege of Ludwig "women are low IQ demons" Wittgenstein.
He is terrible arguing for the Trinity
This guy was walking tradcath meme bur in 40s and 50s
Pig man
>What does LULZ think about this fine gentleman's arguments?
He didn't even understand Jesus Christ, or His gospel. He seemed to think of Christianity as a sort of religious accessory to comfort him and for meaning. If so, then he's burning in a state of utter agony as we speak.
You can find a load of things he has said which were downright heretical and showed that he didn't understand Christ or the Bible.
•He denied the inerrancy of the Bible, and said that it was filled with myths.
•He denied penal atonement.
•He didn't believe that salvation was by Christ alone (he thoughts anyone could be saved, as long as they had some sort of love for a god).
•He said that Jesus' prophecy in Matthew 24:34 was "embarrassing", betraying a low opinion of Jesus Christ.
The fact that he's so beloved by modern Christianity is pretty insane. A few months ago, I tried to give Mere Christianity a read, but found that it was a very, very poor book.
>He denied the inerrancy of the Bible, and said that it was filled with myths.
Based. His political views were cringe though.
This thread is about Christianity, which is eternal salvation by belief in Jesus Christ. Why did you feel the need to bring up politics?