CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

i finally am getting around to rereading this book, and remembering now why i loved this book. It takes Christianity down to its roots, but it has been a while since i read it last time so alot of it is fuzzy just wanding what you all thought of it.

I have to read this. Lewis is the man

I'm in the middle of it, I need to pick it back up and finish it. It is a very good book, and I highly recommend that everyone read it.

It's so basic when it comes to Christianity that any Christian can read it regardless
of theological point of view.
Btw:Lewis became more of an Anglo-Catholic later in life.

Yes, this is probably one of my favorite books. It is fairly simple, but it covers the ground it sets out to cover rather well.

Unfortunately, some of the arguments from the book are repeated by Christians who don't really understand what Lewis meant. For example, I've seen atheists say the "Lord-Lunatic-Liar" argument is faulty because it fails to consider that Jesus could have merely been a good teacher... thus completely missing the point.

Man it has been a while sence i have read it than, but the more i read it the more that is comming back to me of the first time i read it. i do like his point of the law of nature in man. the fact that there is a law that we all seem to try to ahear to or try to get others to.

Mere Christianity is a good book. It really sums up and explains Christianity better than most books. I have to read it again sometime.

uc pseudonym wrote:Unfortunately, some of the arguments from the book are repeated by Christians who don't really understand what Lewis meant. For example, I've seen atheists say the "Lord-Lunatic-Liar" argument is faulty because it fails to consider that Jesus could have merely been a good teacher... thus completely missing the point.

Would you mind please expanding on that statement if it is at all possible? I'd just like to make sure I understand what you're getting at (which I'm sure I'm not).

Certainly; I was afraid I was too brief with it the first time.

It is likely you are familiar with Lewis's "Lord-Lunatic-Liar" argument, but I can explain if you are not. In any case, the very point of the argument is that it shows that (given Jesus' statements and the sources) the only possible options are the three listed. I think that this is a good argument.

However, some Christians repeat the ending statement as if it is an argument in and of itself; they state none of the logic that precedes it. This has occured to such an extent that the atheists to which I referred were not even aware that there was an argument, and merely thought that people were claiming that these were the only three options. Their argument was that Lord-Lunatic-Liar is faulty because it fails to consider that Jesus could have been merely a good teacher or been canonized by the church. This flies directly in the face of what the argument is meant to show.

[quote="uc pseudonym"]However, some Christians repeat the ending statement as if it is an argument in and of itself]

I'm sorry, but I still don't understand exactly what you mean (its things like these that sometimes make me wonder if my brain is working as it should). I have heard the argument against the trilemma and I understand where they're coming from. But I'm confused about what point you're trying to make. I don't know why I'm not understanding what you're trying to say, but that's the simple truth of it.

well he did never give you the arguements for Lord-Liar-Lunitic...i will try i don't know how good of a job it will be....first off waht Jesus claimed, to be God, With a jew that was down right unheard of and couldn't be. in other religions you could be a part of God, or what not. but to make that statement as a jew was that He was not saying part God...but God. also there was His statement that He could forgive sins. no you could only forgive something if it has been done to you. only God the one that all sins transgress against can forgive a persons sins. Christ then says that He is humble and weak, yet if he is a mear man those are the farthest atrobutes of His on the list. by saying those things He left us with only three options cancaling out Great moral teacher, leaving "Lunatic...Devil of Hell...Son of God" i took that last quote from his book, i hope i help and if i made you more cofused i am sorry, UC might be able to exsplain it better, but the book is the best exsplainer.

I'll try to explain.

Some atheists (not all, but some) haven't read much of the Bible, so they don't know about the numerous claims where Jesus stated to be Lord.

Therefore, when a Christian who hasn't read the book (but has heard the argument) states that Jesus was either a Lunatic, a Liar, or God, the atheist will say, "But that statement denies the possibility that Jesus could merely have been a good moral teacher."

Without having read the rest of the argument before that one statement, many Christians are at a loss as to how to respond to the atheist when they say that.

Hope that's clearer. ^^;;

* slaps forehead

Oh, now I understand! Thank you for clearing that up, Kae!! I can't believe I didn't see that. Suddenly its like a fog has cleared. Thank you. And thank you, Sword Guy, but I am familiar with Lewis argument. Its just that I really failed to see the point Kae made more clearly.

Thank you for the explanation, kaemmerite. I wouldn't have tried that angle for a while, so you probably saved all of us some time.

Mere Christianity has to be one of my favorite books in fact I started to read it again several days ago. I love how he clearly show that God does indeed exist just by going through the logic of it. I do find that some people take his teachings out of context and in so doing the teaching is lost.

hey Retten i was just wonding what chapter you are on.

I need to read this book. 'The Screwtape Letters' has got to be one of the deepest and funniest books I have ever read, so I'll probably enjoy this.

This is such a great book.

I bought a copy of it at the Book Fair and felt so guilty... It was only a dollar, but suppose someone else needed to buy it? And I'd already read it.... T.T

Such is my life. I will try to read it again someday to make up for buying it.

Michael wrote:I need to read this book. 'The Screwtape Letters' has got to be one of the deepest and funniest books I have ever read, so I'll probably enjoy this.

It has a distinctly different flavor, but I imagine you will enjoy it nonetheless. As this thread has largely been about Lewis, I would recommend The Great Divorce, which in some ways is similar to The Screwtape Letters.

personaly i perfer The Great divorece. althought i guess i should get the screwtape letters a second chance. but i could not find the great divorce, i was about to read that instead of mere christianity, but i am glad i didn't...but now i hope i can find the great divorce

I've been trying for some time to get my hands on the Great Divorce. But that has been easier said than done in these parts.

I've always heard of Mere Christianity, but hadn't quite known what it was about. You've all inspired me to see if I can read it sometime. I've also heard of the Screwtape Letters, but can anyone give me a brief description about the Great Divorce?

The Great Divorce is a story, an allegory, if you will, of a person who has a vision of the afterlife. This includes Purgatory/Hell (he has an interesting thought about that) and mostly Heaven. It doesn't have direct life applications like The Screwtape Letters but it has many interesting ideas regarding life after death.

To really appreciate Divorce you really have to research the following
subjects:
Universalism
Refegerium
Jeremy Taylor
George MacDonald

The central concept is that keeping the least bit of Hell prevents us from
expierencing Heaven.

Note:Lewis,as far as I know,wasn't a Universalist.

Thank you for the info, UC and Mitsuki. What I've read of C.S. Lewis has mainly been his Narnia series, but I've wanted to read some of his deeper books for a while, and those three - Mere Christianity, Screwtape Letters and Great Divorce - sound like a good place to start.

Hi guys,

Swordguy explains the trilemma pretty well.

I just want to add that before this argument can be used some may contend that you must show that God exists first (else option 3 does not make sense). Since if God does not exist, one could argue that Christ's supernatural feat was nothing more than the product of advanced alien technology (this is a very controversial claim, but for the sake of covering all bases in an argument it is a logically possible option that one should consider beforehand and be prepared to counter).

However if you're an apologist of the "evidentialist" camp, you could argue that the resurrection is such a "one-off and unique" event that the only reasonable conclusion is that it is an act of God. Apologists of the "classical" camp, if I recall correctly, say you must show that God exists (using some other argument such as the Kalam cosmological argument) prior to presenting the trilemma to do things the "proper way".

Apologetics is an interesting and helpful area to look into; if any of you have strong convictions about wanting to reach out to your friends who are genuinely looking for truth but feel barred by intellectual obstacles, pray to God, talk to your church leaders and see if this is something God wants you to do.

I agree that "Mere Christianity" is a very good book. Apart from this, you may like to try Lee Strobel's titles such as "The case for Christ", "The case for faith", and "The case for a Creator".

A handy reference to have is Josh McDowell's "The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict".

For more in-depth questions try "Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview" by J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig (Inter-Varsity Press).

On a last note, sometimes I post reviews of books I read on my website. Many of these are non-fiction and are to do with Christianity. If you are interested in checking out the reviews, visit:
http://wokjai.mybesthost.com/reviews/index.html

[Note to Moderators: Feel free to chop this last bit out if it violates any "advertisement" conditions and please PM me so I don't do this again. Thanks. ]

Cheers.

Ultra Magnus wrote:I just want to add that before this argument can be used some may contend that you must show that God exists first (else option 3 does not make sense). Since if God does not exist, one could argue that Christ's supernatural feat was nothing more than the product of advanced alien technology (this is a very controversial claim, but for the sake of covering all bases in an argument it is a logically possible option that one should consider beforehand and be prepared to counter).

However if you're an apologist of the "evidentialist" camp, you could argue that the resurrection is such a "one-off and unique" event that the only reasonable conclusion is that it is an act of God. Apologists of the "classical" camp, if I recall correctly, say you must show that God exists (using some other argument such as the Kalam cosmological argument) prior to presenting the trilemma to do things the "proper way".

That is another detail that seems to be often forgotten: arguments (excepting extremely thorough ones) do not exist in a vacuum. They have a specific context in which they should be used, and need to change if used in a different context. The trilemma has little significance to someone who does not believe Jesus ever existed.

Ultra Magnus wrote:[Note to Moderators: Feel free to chop this last bit out if it violates any "advertisement" conditions and please PM me so I don't do this again. Thanks. ]

Thank you for being concerned about the rules. Given that this was on topic, doesn't earn you money and isn't bothering anyone, I see nothing wrong with it.

UC - oh yeah, you're right about the trilemma being invalid if the person doesn't believe Christ existed in history. Thanks for the reminder.

I recently read an article about the "Jesus Myth" where experts say that Jesus never existed - the article points out that msot of these "experts" are experts in fields other than theology or archeology and states that these people who wish to prove that Christ never existed is biased either religiously or philosophically. It also provides some quotes by non-Christian historians:

Greco-Roman historian Michael Grant, who certainly has no theological axe to grind, indicates that there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for a large number of famous pagan personages - yet no one would dare to argue their non-existence. Meier [Meie.MarJ, 23] notes that what we know about Alexander the Great could fit on only a few sheets of paper; yet no one doubts that Alexander existed. Charlesworth has written that "Jesus did exist; and we know more about him than about almost any Palestinian Jew before 70 C.E." [Chars.JesJud, 168-9] Sanders [Sand.HistF, xiv] echoes Grant, saying that "We know a lot about Jesus, vastly more than about John the Baptist, Theudas, Judas the Galilean, or any of the other figures whose names we have from approximately the same date and place."

And let's not forget his Dr. Ransom books and his Narnia books. These are good reads too.

It's interesting when people say "Jesus never existed" given the large amount of documentation on Him.

How do you define "solid proof" though? Prove to me that Julius Caesar existed. Prove it. You can't. You can only look through the documentation of the era and prove that people wrote about him, and assume that because he was written about, he must have existed.

It is the same with Jesus.