Mere Christianity

I read this book once. It was 30 some odd years ago, and I was a fry cook at a suburban restaurant. Of course I was not even a Christian back then, except through upbringing--my folks attended a United Methodist Church and I did'nt even attend any more...I believe I was around 25 years old. Today, ‎Saturday, ‎April ‎02, ‎2016, I was hanging out on the computer rather bored, browsing through old threads at EvC. I was rereading an old thread that was started in January 2007 by an old inactive member, sidelined. As I perused through the old posts, I saw myself, Ringo, jar, Jon, ICANT, and a few others of us who are also active at the present time. In the thread, I saw a link to an online copy of Mere Christianity and decided that rereading this old classic would perhaps be more productive than continuing re-reading the old thread...which was, by the way, the meaning of the Trinity. Thus I am starting this Book Nook thread and commenting on Mere Christianity as I reread it. Anyone who has read it is free to join in this discussion. Lets keep our discussion strictly on the book itself and the author, CS Lewis. Edited by Phat, : added subtitle

quote:

---

Born in Ireland in 1898, C. S. Lewis was educated at Malvern College
for a year and then privately. He gained a triple first at Oxford and was a
Fellow and Tutor at Magdalen College 1925-54. In 1954 he became Professor of
Mediaeval and Renaissance Literature at Cambridge. He was an outstanding and
popular lecturer and had a lasting influence on his pupils.
C. S. Lewis was for many years an atheist, and described his conversion
in Surprised by Joy: 'In the Trinity term of 1929 I gave in, and admitted
that God was God ... perhaps the most dejected and reluctant convert in all
England.' It was this experience that helped him to understand not only
apathy but active unwillingness to accept religion, and, as a Christian
writer, gifted with an exceptionally brilliant and logical mind and a lucid,
lively style, he was without peer. The Problem of Pain, The Screwtape
Letters, Mere Christianity, The Four Loves and the Posthumous Prayer:
Letters to Malcolm, are only a few of his best-selling works. He also wrote
some delightful books for children and some science fiction, besides many
works of literary criticism. His works are known to millions of people all
over the world in translation. He died on 22nd November, 1963, at his home
in Oxford.

---

Hopefully as I read this, I will gain better insights than I did 30 years ago.

Remember that the book is actually the result of three BBC broadcasts made during post Blitz England, a time before the invasion of Europe and when Germany (another Christian Nation) was having success almost everywhere. Surprisingly, today it is more prominent among Evangelicals than within the mainstream denominations.As is so often the case it really needs to be seen as three totally separate subjects, a case for Christianity (IMHO the weakest of the three); Christian Behavior and Beyond Personality, and not as one single book. The initial case is based on universal morality and in fact can be applied to many different religious and secular moral systems. But after that it wanders off into unsupported assertion and in many places direct fallacies; for example, that there is no substitute source of joy than God and that people cannot yearn for something that does not exist.It does end though with the basic mandate that to be a Christian is defined by what you do, by your behavior.

So far I am impressed with how what Lewis says is similar to some of our challenges here in the forum as we discuss our various clubs. Heck, I'm still in the preface!! Lewis really does touch upon the topics we also discuss. Remember when we argued over the meaning of a real or true Christian? This ties in with what you once said. It is better to call them "bad Christians" than to say that they were not real Christians! I think im gonna like this book!Edited by Phat, : added information as I read the bookEdited by Phat, : spellcheck

Remember that it is really three separate pamphlets that were based on three separate broadcasts, one topic broadcast each year for three years; 1942, 1943, 1944.Like the Bible you need to remember it is an anthology and NOT a book.

Which ties in with what jar has said: As a side note, I don't want anyone here at EvC to think that my belief system is simply copying jars belief system The reason that I quote jar so much is that he always challenged me and I had to learn the other side of the arguments in order to defend mine. An anthology, eh? I need to understand that word. You once called The collection of books known as The Bible an anthology of anthologies. Where you and I currently differ is that you ascribe most of it as mythology where I believe that it is wisdom from God, written down by men.Back To Lewis.

quote:

---

Contents

​

Book I. RIGHT AND WRONG AS A CLUE TO THE MEANING OF THE UNIVERSE

​

1. The Law of Human Nature
2. Some Objections
3. The Reality of the Law
4. What Lies Behind the Law
5. We Have Cause to Be Uneasy

​

Book II. WHAT CHRISTIANS BELIEVE

​

1. The Rival Conceptions of God
2. The Invasion
3. The Shocking Alternative
4. The Perfect Penitent
5. The Practical Conclusion

​

Book III. CHRISTIAN BEHAVIOUR

​

1. The Three Parts of Morality
2. The "Cardinal Virtues"
3. Social Morality
4. Morality and Psychoanalysis
5. Sexual Morality
6. Christian Marriage
7. Forgiveness
8. The Great Sin
9. Charity
10. Hope
11. Faith
12. Faith

​

Book IV. BEYOND PERSONALITY: OR FIRST STEPS IN THE DOCTRINE OF THE
TRINITY

​

1. Making and Begetting
2. The Three-Personal God
3. Time and Beyond Time
4. Good Infection
5. The Obstinate Toy Soldiers
6. Two Notes
7. Let's Pretend
8. Is Christianity Hard or Easy?
9. Counting the Cost
10. Nice People or New Men
11. The New Men

---

I am currently in Book I.

In Book One, The Law of Human Nature, Lewis touches on a variety of subjects concerning human nature, morality, and the difference between instinct and impulse. In other words, all humans have a similar moral law. I feel that this passage touches on the dogmatic Christian principles of free will and original sin. Looking down the road, Lewis gets into those in more detail later on.Lewis also defends the accusation that critics would make concerning the relative nature of moral law over different cultures at different times. As a sidenote, I find that I am getting a lot more out of this book than I did 30 years ago, when we likely smoked some pot and discussed Christianity philosophically in an offhanded and non urgent manner. I suppose there is nothing like age to give one a sense of urgency on spiritual matters and to heighten ones awareness of some sort of judgement in the grand scheme of things. At least thats how I view it.Lewis covers a wide variety of topics in Book One. For example, he says He touches on everyday behaviors of people and reflects his take on morality from a Christo-centric perspective. Lewis sorta reminds me of jar when he talks about Right and Wrong. Lewis hypothetically asks where the whole universal sense of fairness originates from. He concludes by saying He observes that though everyone agrees on such a universal standard, everyone also breaks that standard at one time or another. Thus, Lewis is evidently influenced by Romans in the New Testament. He explains: Its always nice to get Christian teaching from an educated man. In my mind it really stands out from the propaganda that many of the TV hucksters slang on TBN and The Church Channel.I will finish up Book One without commenting on every chapter and report back after rereading Book Two. Edited by Phat, : clarification

That quote mine from Romans is simply reflecting a theme common throughout the Bible stories. Remember Genesis 2&3. Mankind gets the gift of the knowledge of right and wrong but then must learn to use that gift and often, repeatedly, fails.

I have recently gotten around to studying mere Christianity after all these years, mainly because I got it on Audible and can now listen to it over and over while I drift off to sleep. This is my main way of studying now. (Since my eye is healing I cannot read).Lewis describes the basis of Christian Belief concerning repentance and accepting Jesus (rather than throwing Him away as the liberal activists seem to suggest)From Book II: What Christians Believe--- The Perfect Penitent jar of course disagrees, saying that Christ's life was more important than His death and that the onus is on us entirely to do the right thing as if we are even capable of it. Secular Humanism affirms that we are. I disagree and expect that the critics will, in fact, see that the Historic view of Christianity that lewis proposes is, in fact, the correct one. That is ringos hangup. He insists on keeping his ability to judge God.

​

Very well, then, we must go through with it. But the same badness which makes us need it, makes us unable to do it. Can we do it if God helps us? Yes.

​

We mean God putting into us a bit of Himself, so to speak. He lends us a little of His reasoning powers and that is how we think: He puts a little of His love into us and that is how we love one another.

​

When you teach a child writing, you hold its hand while it forms the letters: that is, it forms the letters because you are forming them. We love and reason because God loves and reasons and holds our hand while we do it. Now if we had not fallen, that would be all plain sailing. But unfortunately, we now need God's help in order to do something which God, in His own nature, never does at allto surrender, to suffer, to submit, to die.

And jar dismisses the Theology of the Fall as "marketing", a fact Lewis evidently didn't see. Or perhaps jar was unduly influenced by Socratic Professors who encouraged Logic, Reason, and Reality and that the truths of literature were all relative and that Christian Belief was not absolute, as Lewis seems to suggest.

Nothing in God's nature corresponds to this process at all. So that the one road for which we now need God's leadership most of all is a road God, in His own nature, has never walked. God can share only what He has: this thing, in His own nature, He has not.

​

But supposing God became a mansuppose our human nature which can suffer and die was amalgamated with God's nature in one personthen that person could help us. He could surrender His will, and suffer and die because He was man, and He could do it perfectly because He was God.

​

You and I can go through this process only if God does it in us, but God can do it only if He becomes a man. Our attempts at this dying will succeed only if we men share in God's dying, just as our thinking can succeed only because it is a drop out of the ocean of His intelligence: but we cannot share God's dying
unless God dies; and He cannot die except by being a man.

​

That is the sense in which He pays our debt, and suffers for us what He Himself need not suffer at all.

​

I have heard some people complain that if Jesus was God as well as man, then His sufferings and
death lose all value in their eyes, "because it must have been so easy for him."

*cough* jar, *cough*.

​

Others may (very rightly) rebuke the ingratitude and ungraciousness of this objection; what staggers me is the misunderstanding it betrays. In one sense, of course, those who make it are right. They have even understated their own case. The perfect submission, the perfect suffering, the perfect death were not
only easier to Jesus because He was God, but were possible only because He was God.

​

But surely that is a very odd reason for not accepting them?
The teacher is able to form the letters for the child because the teacher is grown-up and knows how to write. That, of course, makes it easier for the teacher, and only because it is easier for him can he help the child.

​

If it rejected him because "it's easy for grown-ups" and waited to learn writing from another child who could not write itself (and so had no "unfair" advantage), it would not get on very quickly.

​

If I am drowning in a rapid river, a man who still has one foot on the bank may give me a hand which saves my life. Ought I to shout back (between my gasps) "No, it's not fair! You have an advantage! You're keeping one foot on the bank"? That advantagecall it "unfair" if you likeis the only reason why he can be of any use to me. To what will you look for help if you will not look to that which is stronger than yourself?
Such is my own way of looking at what Christians call the Atonement. But remember this is only one more picture. Do not mistake it for the thing itself: and if it does not help you, drop it.

​

I posted this bit from the book because it encapsulates and describes what Faith and I always argue to be the standard Christian Belief which w were taught and which jar rejects. jar has yet to explain why the Christians who marketed that belief were dishonest, why it is "pitiful and disgusting" and where Lewis was dishonest and/or got it wrong.

​

Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

---

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"We, humans, are engaged in an ongoing war of ideologies. I see it in this microcosm of EvC Forum just as I see it in the governments and attitudes of people throughout the world. Take your pick: Oppression or Seduction .
"~Thugpreacha

​

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

​

As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so the denial of God is the height of foolishness.
? R.C. Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith

How do you decide which god is the right one?

Only the real One can change you. The rest are just imitators---they have no ability to change anything, but another way to tell is that the fakes ill attempt to deceive you and tempt you with fleshly lists and desires. The imitators do not have the power to give you joy and peace of mind. Once you taste the real, you can more clearly see the imitation. (In my opinion, anyway)

I wasn't asking how you do it. I was asking why you get to do it and then call it a "hangup" when I do the same thing. I don't see you or Faith as being filled with joy and peace of mind.

Dang! You won too! I will admit that you have a point, though I don't see myself as lacking joy and peace of mind except for the fact that I am recovering from an operation and am grumpy because I am getting old. I miss running around like a 20 year old, full of energy. And perhaps I have given up on humans too soon. I really expect God to rescue me just like my Mom did for many years when I failed. She would always be there to bail me out. Now, she is nearly gone and I have no one. To have it preached to an old man that only we humans can do it sounds a bit late. I should have been taught this 30 years ago. And I have not by any means given up on God. I don't think humans can do it by themselves. You and perhaps jar disagree, pointing out that only humans can and must do it. Which to a tired old man is a depressing thought. I need God. I need a rescuer. And I believe that everyone will soon see that this is true for all of us. I suppose upon further reflection that if we changed "judging God" with "testing the spirits" I can see your point. Edited by Thugpreacha, : added

I have told you many times, I don't claim that humans "can" do it by themselves. I'm saying that humans are the only ones who are doing it. You can pretend that God is doing it through them but that isn't honest. Fundamentalist Christian theology is built on the idea that God will fix everything "some day", which is a tacit admission that He isn't doing it now.

I can and will claim that and will insist that I am being as honest as I can. Granted I don't have objective evidence, but as I have said before, objective evidence is not possible when it comes to validation of belief, and this fact in no way makes a belief claim "dishonest." I have had several incidents where someone who never calls me called on a day that I needed something which they then provided, be it a ride, or a word of knowledge regarding a specific situation, or even money. Granted skeptics will chalk it up to coincidence and may claim that it has to be that way because there is "no objective evidence" for my possible explanation but I will not hold my faith or belief to that standard. This is not being dishonest. I have seen enough to convince me.