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.
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.