George Bush used the rhetoric of human rights and democracy to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, does that call democracy and human rights into question? I don’t know what televangelists have to do with Christianity started by Jesus Christ except that they steal his image and warp it. How is Jesus responsible for cooping his rhetoric in the opposite direction of its intended purpose? Jesus was loving, serving, helping the poor. These self-serving televangelists have nothing to do with that. Are you responsible for teachers or communicators who abuse their power? This cuts both ways. These televangelists that present a warped view of the message of Jesus don’t need less Jesus but more Jesus. They need more of the loving, serving, helping the poor that lies at the heart of Christianity. Jesus threw out the money changers out of the church.
“Safety and happiness can only come from individuals, classes, and nations being honest and fair and kind to each other.”
“The human mind has no more power of inventing a new value than of planting a new sun in the sky or a new primary colour in the spectrum…”
“If naturalism were true then all thoughts whatever would be wholly the result of irrational causes…it cuts its own throat.” (in “A Christian Reply to Professor Price”)
“The essence of religion, in my view, is the thirst for an end higher than natural ends…” (in “A Christian Reply to Professor Price”)
“Every object you see before you at this moment—the walls, ceiling, and furniture, the book, your own washed hands and cut fingernails, bears witness to the colonization of Nature by Reason: for none of this matter would have been in these states if Nature had had her way.”
“Unless thought is valid we have no reason to believe in the real universe.”
“In the moral sphere, every act of justice or charity involves putting ourselves in the other person’s place and thus transcending our own competitive particularity.”
“If you are really a product of a materialistic universe, how is it that you don’t feel at home there?”
“No doubt Pain as God’s megaphone is a terrible instrument: it may lead to final and unrepented rebellion. But it gives the only opportunity the bad man can have for amendment. It removes the veil; it plants the flag of truth within the fortress of a rebel soul.” CS Lewis, The Problem of Pain
“Your life is a continuum where wholeness is on one end and destruction is on the other. Each decision you make is moving you one direction towards wholeness and peace with God, or away from Him.” CS Lewis
“Affliction is often that thing which prepares an ordinary person for some sort of an extraordinary destiny.” C.S. Lewis
“The stamp of the Saint is that he can waive his own rights and obey the Lord Jesus.” C.S. Lewis
“It would seem that Our Lord finds our desires not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.” C.S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory.
Reading here might be helpful (link)
1. What is real: Is there a god? Is morality an actual thing, or only a trick of our genes or culture? Similarly, is there such a thing as “love” or only hormones and conditioning? Similar questions are asked about consciousness and beauty, among others.
2. Universals questions: do properties exist? And do they exist independent of things that hold them, or only in instantiations of things? Does a red ball possess “redness”, or is it just an example of a particular ball that happens to be red?
3. Identity questions: When I say “Look at that beautiful tree!” and you respond “what is a tree?”, I will say, “you know, that thing with leaves and a trunk!” Then you respond “what’s a trunk?” and I say, “the long, straight piece of wood that holds up the tree.” Then you say, “what is a “piece of wood?” and on it goes. Is there such a thing as a “tree” or are we just running in circles with word games? This is obviously related to #1.
4. Modality questions: does anything exist necessarily, or is everything dependent on something else for existence? Is it really logical to say “some things are impossible?” or is it more accurate to say, “nothing is impossible if you postulate sufficient preconditions?”
CS Lewis’ Wager:
Aim at heaven and you will get earth thrown in.
Aim at earth and you get neither.
– C. S. Lewis
This would work well with Lewis’ quote on Joy, which John Piper quotes in “Don’t Waste Your Life.”
* This is also a reason that agnosticism isn’t true or should be rejected.
It would obviously help to have a fuller development of the case for Christian ethics, meaning, character, etc..
Friendship, Ethics, and Utilitarianism:
Friendship is unnecessary, like philosophy,
It has no survival value; rather it is one of those
things that give value to survival.
– C. S. Lewis
Our Spiritual Beings & Identities:
You don’t have a soul.
You are a Soul.
You have a body.
– C. S. Lewis
On the Search for Truth:
If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end;
if you look for comfort you will not get either comfort
or truth only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin,
and in the end, despair.
– C. S. Lewis
The Importance of Christianity:
Christianity, if false, is of no importance,
and if true, of infinite importance.
The only thing it cannot be is moderately important.
– C. S. Lewis
On Christianity, Humility, and Pride:
A man who is eating or lying with his wife or preparing
to go to sleep in humility,
thankfulness and temperance, is, by Christian standards,
in an infinitely higher state than one who is listening
to Bach or reading Plato in a state of pride.
– C. S. Lewis
For example, eliminativists like the Churchlands, Stich and (possibly) Dennett are ontological naturalists who avoid being representational naturalists by failing to accept the reality of knowledge and intentionality. Conversely, a Platonist might accept that knowledge and intentionality are to be understood entirely in terms of causal relations, including, perhaps, causal connections to the Forms, without being an ontological naturalism
Here are two sets of New Testament Bible verses which are sometimes cited.
This isn’t citing that slavery is good, but that people who aren’t at the top of the hierarchy should still respect those who are at the top of the hierarchy. Second, slavery here is likely referring to something closer to a nanny than. Don’t professional sports players who are beholden to their CEOs–shouldn’t they play their hardest and respect their boss. Shouldn’t all workers do the same or find another job.
5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, 8 because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.
9 And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.
Just looking at 5 through 7 is missing large thematic issues with your interpretation, which I’ll point out at the end. [this is commonly done with the verses about women in Ephesians without looking at the verses about husbands that are right next to them]
This one is likewise out of context. This is an allegory. This is about the consequences of sin and temptation being hell. A failure to understand that we aren’t just living for ourselves, but living for God causes us to realize that our lives aren’t our own–we are beholden to higher purposes:
42 The Lord answered, “Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom the master puts in charge of his servants to give them their food allowance at the proper time? 43 It will be good for that servant whom the master finds doing so when he returns. 44 Truly I tell you, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 45 But suppose the servant says to himself, ‘My master is taking a long time in coming,’ and he then begins to beat the other servants, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk. 46 The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers.
47 “The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.
Why take these verses out of context? What ideology did the person who passed these verses long have? What was their agenda for their reader?