new member...CS Lewis...be gentle.

[maxwel]

This is the post that lead me to remark on the irrational nature of the comment that Lewis is a heretic and false Christian: "The author C.S LEWIS was not nor ever was a christian, yet wolves in the pulpits and false psuedo christians love to quote him ( not the bible ) Quotes from heretic anti christ C.S LEWIS -
A - "Humans are amphibians,half spirit and half animal - C.S LEWIS
B - "I have the deepest respect for pagan myths, still more for myths in the Holy Scriptures" (PP pg 71 C.S LEWIS)
This is the attitude of a devil and a non believer, now its true that some believers may be naive or deceived, however the third option is that they themselves are lost pagans posing as believers just as C.S LEWIS did.
- Not only was C.S LEWIS a fraud and a wolf, so is every other beguiler who promotes him or any other deceiver associated with him. Any "pastor" who attempts to use C.S LEWIS quotes, books or movies to show spiritual truth is a wolf (dog packer)
- Many false psuedo christians like to quote anti christ C.S LEWIS, yet seldom ever quote the Bible, they expose themselves as clearly not serving the Lord Jesus Christ who says -" He that is of God heareth Gods words,ye therefore hear them not because ye are not of God" John 8 verse 47
- Concerning C.S LEWIS and the gullible dupes who quote and follow his " earthly,sensual,devilish" wisdom, Micheal Cruz notes ( JAMES 3 verse 15) - "C.S. LEWIS was a pretender. He pretended to be a believer. If people studied their bibles they would not believe the garbage these men put up."

The obtuseness of the out of context attack on Lewis lead me to the impression of an irrational, if not sick, interpretation of what Christians should consider as fundamental dogma. This, seems to me, to be a particularly vile example of the mote and beam parable expounded my Christ. I am, of coarse, no theologian and neither was Lewis, but his own words suggest he deserves far more charity than this person's comments allow: “Guesses, of course, only guesses. If they are not true, something better will be.” Since heresy and blasphemy have in times past lead to the torture and execution of those accused, I do not think that I am stretching the point when I say it is inconsistent with the all inclusive love of God for his creation, however imperfect man may be.

1. If someone made a post you disagree with, then you need to rebut their claims, and prove them wrong.

Suggesting someone is lacking the "all inclusive love of God" does NOT disprove the claims in their post.
If someone made a false claim, then you need to prove it was a false claim.

Being upset does not constitute a valid rebuttal.



2. If you're so concerned about defending C.S. Lewis, then defend him.

Prove the claims against him are false.
But merely voicing your outrage does not constitute a valid defense.

You don't get to win an argument just by being upset.



3. As far as I know, heresy is no longer punished by torture and execution.

So when you bring up torture and execution of heretics, and say THIS is the reason accusing someone of heresy is so bad... that's starting to border on silliness.

No one is going to be tortured or executed because they're accused of heresy on an internet forum in 2017.
You know this.
Therefore, bringing up torture and execution, and saying this torture and execution PROVES anything at all, is silliness.
Torture and execution doesn't prove anything at all because there IS NO TORTURE AND EXECUTION.


4. To reiterate a previous point I made, accusing someone of heresy isn't at all un-Christlike IF the accusation is true... because Christ often talked about false teachers, and how dangerous they were.

So the mere act of accusing someone of heresy isn't automatically wrong, as Christ did that very thing.
It isn't wrong at all IF IT IS A VALID CLAIM.

If you feel a claim of heresy is NOT valid, then you need to show some evidence, and rebut the claim.


5. As I've said before, I like C.S. Lewis just fine, but if you want to defend him, then you need to rebut the claims against him.

Voicing your outrages is not a defense.

Personally, I think people claim "heresy" far too often, and far too lightly.
But the mere fact I dislike it doesn't constitute a valid argument.
If I disagree with a particular claim, then I need to refute that claim...
and unfortunately you will have to do the same.

 

[donnadan]

I am sure that there are some biblical points to discuss in the Bible Discussion Forum. Glad to have you join us. Welcome to CC.

Thank you.

 

[donnadan]

1. If someone made a post you disagree with, then you need to rebut their claims, and prove them wrong.

Suggesting someone is lacking the "all inclusive love of God" does NOT disprove the claims in their post.
If someone made a false claim, then you need to prove it was a false claim.

Being upset does not constitute a valid rebuttal.



2. If you're so concerned about defending C.S. Lewis, then defend him.

Prove the claims against him are false.
But merely voicing your outrage does not constitute a valid defense.

You don't get to win an argument just by being upset.



3. As far as I know, heresy is no longer punished by torture and execution.

So when you bring up torture and execution of heretics, and say THIS is the reason accusing someone of heresy is so bad... that's starting to border on silliness.

No one is going to be tortured or executed because they're accused of heresy on an internet forum in 2017.
You know this.
Therefore, bringing up torture and execution, and saying this torture and execution PROVES anything at all, is silliness.
Torture and execution doesn't prove anything at all because there IS NO TORTURE AND EXECUTION.


4. To reiterate a previous point I made, accusing someone of heresy isn't at all un-Christlike IF the accusation is true... because Christ often talked about false teachers, and how dangerous they were.

So the mere act of accusing someone of heresy isn't automatically wrong, as Christ did that very thing.
It isn't wrong at all IF IT IS A VALID CLAIM.

If you feel a claim of heresy is NOT valid, then you need to show some evidence, and rebut the claim.


5. As I've said before, I like C.S. Lewis just fine, but if you want to defend him, then you need to rebut the claims against him.

Voicing your outrages is not a defense.

Personally, I think people claim "heresy" far too often, and far too lightly.
But the mere fact I dislike it doesn't constitute a valid argument.
If I disagree with a particular claim, then I need to refute that claim...
and unfortunately you will have to do the same.

First point; I did not say that anyone was "lacking" the all inclusive love of God. I simply meant that the commenter was ignoring or maybe even denying it. By calling Lewis a devil in disguise because he does not understand what the man is saying or simply did not even try, he does not put forth a rational argument. Second point; I am sorry if the example of what he said is not a, glaringly obvious, out of context obfuscation to any who have read the works of Lewis, as you say you have. Maybe I misunderstand your criticism but I truly thought that it was obvious from the post how vile and ridiculous his ad hominin attack was. "Personally, I think people claim "heresy" far too often, and far too lightly.
But the mere fact I dislike it doesn't constitute a valid argument.
If I disagree with a particular claim, then I need to refute that claim...
and unfortunately you will have to do the same." I agree -- let's start with " "Humans are amphibians, half spirit and half animal - C.S LEWIS"
Here is the full quote -- Humans are amphibians-- half spirit and half animal. (The Enemy's determination to produce such a revolting hybrid was one of the things that determined Our Father to withdraw his support from Him.) As spirits they belong to the eternal world, but as animals they inhabit time. This means that while their spirit can be directed to an eternal object, their bodies, passions, and imaginations are in continual change, for as to be in time means to change. Their nearest approach to constancy, therefore, is undulation-- the repeated return to a level from which they repeatedly fall back, a series of troughs and peaks. If you had watched your patient carefully you would have seen this undulation in every department of his life-- his interest in his work, his affection for his friends, his physical appetites, all go up and down. As long as he lives on earth periods of emotional and bodily richness and liveliness will alternate with periods of numbness and poverty. The dryness and dullness through which your patient is now going are not, as you fondly suppose, your workmanship; they are merely a natural phenomenon which will do us no good unless you make a good use of it. C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters The commenter conveniently leaves out the fact that this a satirical story with a plot and characters that are used to address theological issues, primarily those to do with temptation and resistance to it. What would one think that a demon would say about creatures he held in such contempt. This is either an example of purposeful out of context criticism or a shallow understanding of what Lewis is trying to communicate.

 

[maxwel]

First point; I did not say that anyone was "lacking" the all inclusive love of God.

Of course you did.

I do not think that I am stretching the point when I say it is inconsistent with the all inclusive love of God

Ok, I just quoted where you said the thing you just said you didn't say.

This is getting silly.

Do you really intend to keep saying things, and then immediately say you didn't say them?

Really?




If you continue to deny and contradict your own words,
it's unlikely people in a debate are going to take you seriously.

 

[maxwel]

donnadan,

When you make a complex post showing multiple quotes, and you don't use any of the quotation features, it's virtually impossible to follow what you're saying.

I recommend you take a few minutes to look over these functions, so your points will be easier to follow.
If you have trouble with something technical, just ask anyone, and they'll be happy to help you.

For that matter, feel free to ask me in public or in private, if you have any questions about using the forum.
I'm perfectly happy to help you in any way I can so you can better argue with me.

: )


God Bless,
Max

 

[donnadan]

donnadan,

When you make a complex post showing multiple quotes, and you don't use any of the quotation features, it's virtually impossible to follow what you're saying.

I recommend you take a few minutes to look over these functions, so your points will be easier to follow.
If you have trouble with something technical, just ask anyone, and they'll be happy to help you.

For that matter, feel free to ask me in public or in private, if you have any questions about using the forum.
I'm perfectly happy to help you in any way I can so you can better argue with me.

: )
God Bless,
Max

Sorry for the messy running together of my comments. You are correct in assuming I don't know how to navigate this site and I am no typist, for sure. How do I correctly use the quote features you mention?

Why are you calling my attempt at explaining my comment, "silly"? To me that seems overly pedantic. Are you saying that you do not see the difference between *someone* lacking a quality and that quality being ignored in *something*? If not, then I guess I lack clarity -- but you do know what I am actually saying -- right?

 

[maxwel]

Donnadan,

Here are a few quick tips to help with your posting.


Reply with Quote

At the bottom of each commenter's post, there is a button on the right called "reply with quote".

If you click "reply with quote" button, it will copy that post into your new post.
You will then see that post inside 2 brackets, this [ and this ].

The brackets are code, and will not show up when you post the new comment.
What will show up when you post the new comment is text box, which highlights the quotation, and then your own text will show up separately, outside of this text box.

Be sure that when you write your own comment, you stay OUTSIDE of those brackets.
Usually when people use the "reply with quote", they reply BELOW the quote, and are careful to not type anything within the brackets.


Editor Toolbar

You can also use the editing controls to make your post easier to read.
When you write a new post, the box you type into is called the "editor", and the buttons at the top of this box are called the "editor controls" or the "editor toolbar".

You can use the editor toolbar to control font size, color, and other editing features.
Mousing over each button will give a popup that says what it does.



Let's continue our discussion of the thread topic after you have a little practice with the editing controls, so you can better explain your views.