The Sock of Poskett
The best is yet to come (spoiler alert)
- Jun 12, 2009
- 2,836
Mmmm, interesting. Tom Wright is usually worth listening to/reading. Still have plenty of time for Lewis though
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Which Religion Is The Most Attractive
- Thread starter StonehamPark
- Start date
Mmmm, interesting. Tom Wright is usually worth listening to/reading. Still have plenty of time for Lewis though
Mmmm, interesting. Tom Wright is usually worth listening to/reading. Still have plenty of time for Lewis though
You'll rethink your views on the trilemma though, promise me. Lewis is to Theology as ..er..someone crap is to something else..
Guy Crouchback
New member
- Jun 20, 2012
- 665
Lewis is to Theology as ..er..someone crap is to something else..
Just because some theologians found a couple of inconsistencies
in his writings (find me a Christian writer whose all books are
impeccable from theological point of view) doesn't make him "crap".
I don't often defend non-Catholic works on theology, but Lewis is worth
making an exception. Most of what he wrote on Church and faith is sound
and in accord with Catholic teachings (even though he was critical of some
aspects of Catholic faith).
spig100963
New member
- Mar 18, 2011
- 298
Sorry a bit late, am doing nights. I agree that we are not owed a sense of hope. I have not got a religious bone in me.
What I said about hope, really only applies in the poorest of countries. Ones where the average life expectancy is 30 odd.
Those people need something, a fairy tale or not, to cling on to. I have been to places I am convinced would be much worse off
without some belief in something.
This is why religion is spreading in the poorer places. It is easy for us not to be religious.
Goodnight am knackered.
Maybe crap was too strong a word, as I also enjoyed some of his writing, but the trouble is Lewis is held up as some example of the best of Christian Theology, and "Mere Christianity" as THE book on Christianity: however, Lewis was not the greatest thinker and in some areas he is now badly dated. Essentially he was an amateur. To be fair to him, he knew that. But a lot of Christians seem unaware of his limitations.
Guy Crouchback
New member
- Jun 20, 2012
- 665
Whilst I agree that religion is capable of making the suffering and poverty
more bearable, your overall theory on religion spreading in poorer countries
would seem to entail a measure of oversimplicity.
There are many countries that are far from being poor, most notably the USA,
and still a significant percentage of their citizens describe themselves as religious.
As for facility of not being religious in a rich country, you are quite right - the richer
the country is the easier it is for Satan to tempt people and distract their attention
from God to colourful trinkets: cars, computers, fancy clothes etc.
Last edited:
Guy Crouchback
New member
- Jun 20, 2012
- 665
I can certainly agree with that. There are many theologians who were/are more orthodox
and logically sound from Catholic point of view, but my overall judgement of Lewis is still
quite positive.
Seagull58
In the Algarve
It's irrelevant whether they believe in any of the miracles, apart from the resurrection of course. If they don't believe in God and Jesus Christ then they are not Christians. Living your life according to the principles of Christ menas you are living a christian lifestyle but you are not a Christian.
Seagull58
In the Algarve
I'm not dismissing those people or anyone else. The point is that they cannot be Christians and Atheists since to be a Christian is to believe in Christ as the Son of God. They are atheists who, supposedly, live their lives according to christian principles.
Seagull58
In the Algarve
If they follow some Christian practices but they do not believe in Christ they are not Christians. If I am circumcised and don't eat pork I am not necessarily a Jew or a Muslim.
If you follow the argument, you will see that someone made the claim that an atheist doesn't believe in God, or in FOLLOWING ANY RELIGIOUS PRACTICES. I was merely pointing out that the existence of "Christian Atheists" disproves the point about ATHEISTS NOT FOLLOWING ANY RELIGIOUS PRACTICES. I was actually saying these people are ATHEISTS, not that they are CHRISTIANS.
So, according to you, anyone who is baptised but no longer believes in God or Jesus is not a Christian. This means that the Church needs to stop claiming that 77% (or whatever the figure is) of the population are Christians, because many of this 77% are baptised but not practising or believing.
Seagull58
In the Algarve
Not pracising is not the same as not believing but to your first point;Yes, that is what I am saying. If you have been baptised but you do not believe in God or Jesus you cannot be a Christian. Indeed, the Church should not claim that 77% of the population are Christians but I expect the Church knows how many have been baptised but not how many do not believe. After all, if you have been baptised but decide you do not believe in God I doubt that you go to the Church and tell them to reverse the baptism. Therefore, they have no means of counting.
That is true, but they will be able to deduce from actual church attendance that the figure for genuine Christian believers is likely to be significantly lower than the 77%; so to carry on claiming we are 77% Christian when they know we are not is dishonest.