C.S. Lewis & Mere Christianity (5 Key Themes)

📚 Join us on a captivating journey through the profound wisdom of C.S. Lewis as Alister McGrath, a Professor at Oxford University, celebrated author and theologian, delves into the five key themes that define Lewis's enduring legacy: hiddenness, faith, myth, imagination, and the problem of evil.
If you've ever wondered why C.S. Lewis, the author of Narnia, continues to captivate hearts and minds, this episode is for you!
Don't forget to like, subscribe, and hit the notification bell to stay updated on our content.
📍 SUBSCRIBE: www.youtube.com/@Practical.Wi...
🎧 Listen to the full interview on your favorite podcast platform:
Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast...
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/5D8I4Da...
Amazon Music: music.amazon.co.uk/podcasts/b...
Google Podcasts: podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0...
Summary:
5:40: 📚 C.S. Lewis’s journey from atheist to reluctant convert.
10:07: 📚 C.S. Lewis's understanding of Christianity as a story and his ability to speak to both non-Christians and Christians in their faith journeys.
15:10: 💡 Christianity is a true myth that can make sense of all other stories and engage people in a narrative.
20:22: 📚 The concept of chronological snobbery and the importance of revisiting old ideas and wisdom in his work.
25:07: ✨ The power of personal storytelling and the argument from desire.
30:01: 📚 C.S. Lewis about the destructive force of pride.
36:33: 😢 C.S. Lewis's response to the problem of evil is to learn to cope with it and live well in a suffering world, relying on the support of Christ who has experienced suffering before us.
39:51: 📚 Christianity provides a vision for transforming the suffering world.
44:39: 📚 C.S. Lewis and his impact on Christianity and culture.
49:46: 📚 What would the world look like without religion?
Huge thanks to @medialux company for their exceptional video production work which brought this discussion to life!
Click here to find out more about their outstanding work: www.medialuxproductions.co.uk/
#cslewis #faith #AlisterMcGrath #practicalwisdom #debate #interview #apologetics #narnia
HCMGGEW4C0S6GCAH

[@Practical.Wisdom]

Don't forget to SUBSCRIBE so we won't forever miss each other in the black hole of the KZbin algorithm: www.youtube.com/@Practical.Wisdom?sub_confirmation=1

[@ewencameron4269]

HOPE IN CAPITAL LETTERS for ourselves and our loved ones and our communities and countries and world and universe

[@juliereason112]

What a wonderful and fascinating interview. So many essentials were addressed in very satisfying ways. Thank you so much.

[@Callisto74]

Alister McGrath is a wonderful Christian commentator, scholarly, precise and fascinating.

[@hazmatzuki]

It's such a joy to watch these podcasts and listen to your guests, great minds. .Your dialogues flow naturally and I appreciate the way you document yourself for these meetings. I can't wait to see the podcast about communism. Good luck in everything you do!

[@Practical.Wisdom]

Thank you, I'm glad you enjoyed this conversation. I intend to publish an interview about Communism in early December. Thanks for your interest.

[@lidiaolcer6248]

Congratulations for the brilliant interview with the Oxford’s professor. Well spoken, with a lot of insights,and a lot to take home from this day . Well done,and keep up the great work 🎉

[@Practical.Wisdom]

Thanks very much for your positive comment! Glad you've enjoyed the interview. Stay tuned for the upcoming interview with John Lennox on AI.

[@lidiaolcer6248]

@@Practical.Wisdom❤

[@carmel-housechurch6552]

Such a great pleasure to see my good friend Sam Marusca engaging with Alistair McGrath on issues of such importance!

[@Practical.Wisdom]

I'm glad you enjoyed this conversation!

[@oviguitar]

Absolutely loved this episode! Insightful and captivating. Eagerly awaiting the next episode.

[@Practical.Wisdom]

I'm glad you found it useful! Our next episode is with John Lennox on AI. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

[@JeanRausis]

Amazing discussion, but I'm still waiting for the part on hiddenness.

[@Practical.Wisdom]

That's a fair point. Alister touched on that briefly at the beginning, but I agree we should have explored this in a bit more detail! Will try to talk about hiddenness in the upcoming conference with John Lennox on 2nd December.

[@JeanRausis]

@@Practical.Wisdom Can't wait!

[@Practical.Wisdom]

@@JeanRausis If you happen to be in London, I hope you can come! More details in November.

[@Dannyyoo7]

Thank you Samuel for this kind of content🎉❤

[@Practical.Wisdom]

You're very welcome! I'm glad you enjoyed it. If there's anything else you'd like to see in future, feel free to let me know.

[@spencere]

Wonderful conversation, thank you!!

[@Clubbedcashew50]

Brilliant conversation thank you.

[@brycew2]

Very good discussion.

[@Practical.Wisdom]

thanks for watching!

[@maclinux19]

Love how the professor endorses the channel at 38:31 :).

[@Practical.Wisdom]

Thanks very much for noticing that!

[@matthewstokes1608]

Very happy to have subscribed. God Bless.

[@Practical.Wisdom]

Thank you very much for your interest! God bless.

[@randyrobinson2609]

What a great conversation!

[@Practical.Wisdom]

Thank you for your kind words! I'm glad you enjoyed it. Stay tuned for our upcoming episode with John Lennox.

[@marinamar742]

Great! Thank you!❤

[@Practical.Wisdom]

Thank you for your interest!

[@mahmoudalimardani5490]

If someone looking for hidden god, just look at the mirror.

[@zak992]

Sadly CS Lewis is not known to muslims or the muslim world, as a muslim I really enjoy his insights his wish to connect to God will resonate with your average muslim. There is a lot of common ground within all 3 Abrahamic religions but the point of departure for us is who christ was, for us he was indeed the messiah/God`s prophet but not divine/Son of God, our view of sin and the problem of suffering are also very different to how CS Lewis would articulate it, I enjoyed the podcast

[@Practical.Wisdom]

Thank you for your comment. I agree with you and, I think for our Muslim friends, Lewis can be a good gateway into what Christianity means. I tried to touch upon this briefly with Alister, but he is not very familiar with how or why Lewis isn't known in the Muslim world.

[@kennywong5857]

If God is not hidden then humans are no longer savable, because covenant specifies that humans need faith to be saved.

[@SmellofFemale]

Sola Fide 👍 "Salvation depends on the gratuitous election of God." For he distinctly compares with the whole of Israel, or body of the people, the remnant which was to be saved by God's grace. It hence follows, that the cause of salvation exists not in men, but depends on the good pleasure of God alone." -John Calvin

[@majm4606]

Imagine you're creating an AI for a robot. Your computer tells you there's a 100% chance (as you've designed it) that your robot will eat from from your garden. You hate that. You release the robot like that anyway. The robot eats your fruit and you're angry. If you wanted to act _perfectly good,_ would you: A. Create a system of _infinite, eternal punishment_ for the robot's crimes, OR B. Don't punish the robot for the crime -- in fact maybe own up to the fact that you're actually the one responsible here because you had 100% certainty of the consequence of your action? If you chose punishment, let's say your robot doesn't know you even exist. They don't have evidence. How would you let the robot redeem themselves: A. Send a human in your place to communicate your message (knowing humans often lie and scam other humans with similar religious stories). The human will tell the robot that the way to be redeemed is to have faith you, the creator, exist. The robot is certain faith _is not_ a reliable way of knowing truth (because it isn't) and that "just believe me" (just have faith) is a common method humans use when lying. But with option A you're saying "have faith in me" is the path to redemption. B. Communicate directly as yourself (so the robot knows you exist). Tell it exactly what it needs to do, which involves something similar to how real atonement works (doing nice things for you, community service, etc), OR C. Just forgive all the robots, because you're perfectly good, all-loving, and again: _it's your fault the mistakes happened._ You designed them!

[@kennywong5857]

@@majm4606You misread the Bible. You need to first know that ancient humans don't have the ability to convey a historical truth, not to mention a theory. That's why Noah's flood has been turned to myths in the different cultures. That is to say, humans inevitably will turn facts into myths. God has to embed truths into a story form for ancient humans to convey it as testimony. In the modern world, it's like how texts are first encoded for transmittion then later on decoded to make it readable. Eden story requires a key from the author for it to be decoded. You seems to have missed the big picture about what it is.

[@kennywong5857]

@@majm4606 The big picture is, Adam and Eve (first lineage of humans) fell due to lack of 1) obedience and 2) faith in God and His Word. Law is a measurement of obedience. The Judgment of Law will be carried out objectively on one's behavior in past. Law deals objectively, that is under valid witnessing, but only 1) the past, and 2) one's behavior. Humans as a whole, due mainly to the influence from the fallen angels (i.e., the effect from the snake to Adam and Eve) failed the test. As a result, no human can enter the Final Heaven (i.e., New Heaven and New Earth) by means of the Judgment of Law which is an evaluation of one's obedience. Either humans as a whole shall be destroyed by a flood, or God needs to provide an alternative to redeem humankind. Needless to say, through the self-sacrifice of Jesus Christ at a certain point of humanity, a series of Covenants are granted by God for the salvation of humankind. Ultimately, the New Covenant is a measurement of one's faith. Both obedience and faith are the fundamental elements for entities to live in an eternity with a sin-incompatible God. Humans failed the test of obedience while the New Covenant is a test of faith. The purpose is to identify those who can live with such a sin-incompatible God in eternity. That is, it serves as an open standard for the identifying of the righteous/God's sheep/God's Elect. Faith cannot be judged objectively the same as in the case of Law. The Judgment of Covenant is a subjective judgment from a fair and just God who is Jesus Christ. Only God can judge heart and faith precisely and justly, while the judgment is not limited to one's behavior and one's past.

[@kennywong5857]

@@majm4606Continue to decode. The way God chose to protect Adam and Eve is by means of making them as innocent as possible, such that they don't reckon "good and evil" to their consciousness. This way they are not subject to the judgment of Law. Satan on the other hand, is to bring Law to Adam and Eve's awareness, such that they not only made aware of Law but also broke it. Eden (earth as well) simulates an environment where humans co-exist with angels, this will be the environment of the future Heaven to be built. That's why both Eden and Earth are assessed with angels co-exist with humans in a way that the much intelligent and capable angels can influence humans. Under the circumstance, the fallen angels would cast a negative influence to humans, making them unsavable by Law. God on the other hand, provides redemption for humans through Jesus Christ. I simply tried to list some theories conveyed through an ancient story, or demonstrated the way how theories are embedded into a conveyable story.

[@Anna-mc3ll]

Thank you very much for sharing this great conversation!

[@Practical.Wisdom]

Thank you for your interest! Stay tuned for the upcoming episode with John Lennox on AI.

[@Anna-mc3ll]

@@Practical.Wisdom Thank you for your reply and for this information! When exactly will the next episode with Professor Lennox be released? Kind regards, Anna

[@Practical.Wisdom]

Thank you, Anna. The next episode is scheduled for release at the end of this month. Also, if you happen to be in London in December, you are kindly invited to the Practical Wisdom Conference with John Lennox on 2nd December. More details to come.

[@Anna-mc3ll]

@@Practical.Wisdom Thank you very much for this information! Are you going to announce the upcoming event on this channel or on your website? Kind regards, Anna

[@Practical.Wisdom]

Thank you, we are going to announce here on youtube, but you will find more information on our social media in due course. Thank you for your interest!

[@gregjones2217]

That which doesn't exist will always be hidden. Only the truth will become evident.

[@Practical.Wisdom]

Truth can be hidden too.

[@mahmoudalimardani5490]

Truth will shine for sure​@@Practical.Wisdom

[@SmellofFemale]

C.S. Lewis described the process of salvation and sanctification throughout his works as something that is both wholly dependant on the Christian and wholly dependant on God. The constant argument among Christians, specifically regarding Arminianism and Calvinism, is how contingent one’s salvation--or sanctification- is on God, and how contingent it is on humans. The extreme Calvinist would argue it is only and completely dependant on God, humans do not have the power to perfect themselves or the goodness to make the choice to live for God willingly. CS Lewis is an Arminianist and wrong.

[@Practical.Wisdom]

That's a really interesting point! I remember when I was a teenager (with strong Calvinist views) I read Mere Christianity and said to myself after a chapter: what is this? This is not sound Calvinist theology! And abandoned the book. Later in life, I discovered there's more to Lewis than his Arminianism.

[@SmellofFemale]

@@Practical.Wisdom he struggled with Pelagius. C.S. Lewis described the process of salvation and sanctification throughout his works as something that is both wholly dependant on the Christian and wholly dependant on God. The constant argument among Christians, specifically regarding Arminianism and Calvinism, is how contingent one’s salvation--or sanctification- is on God, and how contingent it is on humans. The extreme Calvinist would argue it is only and completely dependant on God, humans do not have the power to perfect themselves or the goodness to make the choice to live for God willingly.

[@SmellofFemale]

Learn. Pelagius (/pəˈleɪdʒiəs/; c. 354-418) was a Romano-British theologian known for promoting a system of doctrines (termed Pelagianism by his opponents) which emphasized human choice in salvation and denied original sin.[1] Pelagius was accused of heresy at the synod of Jerusalem in 415 and his doctrines were harshly criticized by Augustine of Hippo, especially the Pelagian views about mankind's good nature and individual responsibility for choosing asceticism.[2] Pelagius especially stressed the freedom of human will.[3

[@mccaboy]

Read pelagius yrself n see if his accusers were telling thevtruth

[@SmellofFemale]

@@mccaboy I know much about Pelagius. Pelagius (/pəˈleɪdʒiəs/; c. 354-418) was a Romano-British theologian known for promoting a system of doctrines (termed Pelagianism by his opponents) which emphasized human choice in salvation and denied original sin.[1] Pelagius was accused of heresy at the synod of Jerusalem in 415 and his doctrines were harshly criticized by Augustine of Hippo, especially the Pelagian views about mankind's good nature and individual responsibility for choosing asceticism.[2] Pelagius especially stressed the freedom of human will. But here, just for you.

[@mccaboy]

Have u read his own writings or what people say about him

[@SmellofFemale]

@@mccaboy the majority of all evangelical Christians is plagued by the Pelagius controversy. Up through Jacobus Arminius Erasmus the papacy trial of ML the world embraced humanism and universalism accepting Arminianism Dispensationalism Futurism theology but holding fast to 4 point Calvinism yet hiding that fact as not too be found out as frauds. Like Billy Graham. Crediting Billy Sunday for his salvation but not God. Billy Sunday made up the sinners prayer of invitationalism.

[@SmellofFemale]

@@mccaboy been aware of Arminianism since 95. Twas 27. Learned much over the years. The facts are as shared. CS Lewis believed man twas not dead but barely alive. He accepted the Pelagiusan controversy as he believed. Man is able to come to Christ in that faith precedes regeneration. But scripture teaches regeneration precedes faith. I merely pointed out that CS Lewis is was an Arminianist and 4 point Calvinist. Or, a 4 point Calvinist aka Arminianist.

[@bridgettenorris8750]

Here is Our God revealing Himself... Biblical scripture..in the Beginning was the WORD (LOGOS), and THE WORD BECAME FLESH AND DWELT AMONG US,AND WE BEHELD HIS GLORY AS THE ONLY BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER (GOD) Full of GRACE AND TRUTH. NKJ JOHN1:1-14. Before you read this scripture ask God to open your eyes of understanding..in. Jesus name Amen!

[@bridgettenorris8750]

Biblically God says LET US MAKE MAN IN OUR IMAGE, AFTER OUR LIKENESS AND LET THEM HAVE DOMINION OVER THE FISH OF THE SEA AND OVER THE FOWL OF THE AIR AND OVER THE CATTLE AND OVER EVERY CREEPING THING THAT CREEPS UPON THE EARH....,"OUR".. OMNIPRESENT IS FATHER SON and HOLY SPIRIT. ...... THIS IS THE KINGDOM WHICH DWELLS WITHIN THE BODY OF BELIEVERS...WHO BELIEVE IN JESUS CHRIST FAITHFUL OBEDIENCE TO THE FINISHED WORK ON THE CROSS...

[@johnshannon9656]

God isn't hidden; God is just not a material phenomenon.

[@Practical.Wisdom]

That's a very good way of looking at it!

[@dennisabordo6043]

Answer me this? There is an entity whose reasoning and every intellectual discourse leads to the destruction of their very existence. This entity can not be described as a simpleton. On the contrary, it is sentient and sensually alive, and over the accumulation of time, it sees perfectly the futility of its endeavour. It can not stop reasoning, and it doesn't want to stop its reliance on its intellect. How would you describe that entity?

[@Practical.Wisdom]

The entity described in your question seems to represent a paradoxical or self-destructive and free intellectual being.

[@dennisabordo6043]

@Practical.Wisdom We are exactly both, and perhaps that makes us human but children. The maturity that we seek can not be attained through intellectualism but only through acceptance. Here is something to look upon: A twig is detached from a live and flourishing tree. From that moment forth, that twig is dead. It still has chlorophyll in its leaves, still breathing and still photosynthesising, but it is still dead, though it doesn't know it. Like that twig and yet unlike a twig, we, as humans, can re-establish our connection to the main stock, The Tree. Not by physical appendages as a twig might require, but through righteousness and faith. This latter is our path to life, and in that twig existence, can it now be seen why a baby, as innocent as a baby is, is still dead? ....and would need to establish its own connection to the main stock to live.

[@Stupidityindex]

Theology is weak sauce, so don't go postal like some temple Jesus or Jan. 6 for a loser president. Much to do about nothing, theology is weak sauce. One might expect a deity, if there were such a thing, would be known by everyone or is fudging the title a bit. The fraud of religious people is revealed by the failure rate of prayers in a children's hospital & the lack of mountains moving by verbal commands. Theologians grant themselves the title without any input from a deity & then use fantasyland vocabulary in academic settings, usually as a podium jockey with clergyman dress. But if I can't use my weak argument, then I don't have an argument at all. Those arguing God, get their knowledge of deity from the same place they get understanding of reason. Rather than a beacon of inspirational light, they are avoided like the old woman with too many cats. It was secular law & order ending the inquisitions & witch killing. Nothing fails like prayer in a children's hospital & even Jesus Christ proclaims faith is worthless if you can't get magic mountains to move when you practice verbal-command landscaping. No wonder Freud wrote the antidote to Christianity is literacy. These are the wolves in sheep's clothing, you know them by their works: Who has honor while suggesting a reality-God? As if we did not have the saying: God helps those helping themselves, because the fiction is known for a perfect record of nothing-doing. Moreover, it cannot be moral or ethical to suggest there is a god. As if one should respect the suggestion, we all travel with one foot in fantasyland, using a fantasyland vocabulary. It is religious vocabulary fascism finds useful. Law is authorized from fantasyland & the workings are a mystery, unknown to the non-believers among the oppressed.

[@1733Athalia]

So humans keep innovating and progressing because they don't understand the comfort of the Christian message? Let's try an experiment. Let's ask the Christians closest to you a simple question: if you had to give up one of these which would it, The Sermon on the Mount or your automobile?

[@Practical.Wisdom]

Interesting point! Let's go a bit further than that, let's say around 1800s when Christians were asked a simple question: if you had to give up one of these, which one would it be, the slave trade or the Sermon on the Mount?

[@reverendbarker650]

A survey taken recently indicated many christians didn't actually know who delivered the sermon on the mount.

[@jaggedstarrPI]

​@@reverendbarker650That's not quite the same thing as saying, "A recent survey had trouble identifying many Christians" but it's close. ;-)

[@majm4606]

Just feels like ignoring reality. * our drive to improve ourselves was just caused by evolution. (Turns out when an organism has an instinct to constantly better its situation, _it improves that situation better than those that lack that instinct._ * religion doesn't change that. It might promise an infinite reward to make someone delude themselves into feeling better about the future, but religious people aren't magically exempt from seeking improvement. (They're still humans.) * In fact there seem to be more people who are satisfied with very little that _aren't_ Christians than _are._ But this might just be me seeing how Christians in the US act (where consumerism is moderately strong), while I myself am quite content to live with quite a meager set of things * as for God's hiddeness, that's just the easy way for religious leaders to control their followers. _'God's hidden, but I know their intent, so do what I say'_ Obviously it only gets you so far (as a leader you're always tethered to the Bible's core teachings), but equally obvious is that within those boundaries there's a _huge_ range of Christian teachings. (And the vagueness of the Bible -- the fact that it supports _all_ those teachings -- is just one more reason we shouldn't believe it.)

[@Practical.Wisdom]

Very good points! Totally agree with your first two points. Still trying to make sense of point 3 (although I think it's more universal and not specific to a country only). On point 4, hiddenness, philosophers agree that a system can only be explained by something outside of that system (Wittgenstein). And so it makes sense that, if our world didn't create itself from nothing, we won't see what caused this world into being. If time, space and matter came to be at some point in the past (we all agree on that), and thus had a beginning, it is only natural that it was caused by something outside of time and space, i.e. we can't see it. This is also known as the Kalam cosmological argument and William Lane Craig does a good job at explaining it in his books. Here's what C. S. Lewis said about this: 'We want to know whether the universe simply happens to be what it is for no reason or whether there is a power behind it that makes it what it is. Since that power, if it exists, would be not one of the observed facts but a reality which makes them, no mere observation of the facts can find it. . . . If there was a controlling power outside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts inside the universe-no more than the architect of a house could actually be a wall or a staircase or a fireplace in that house.'

[@majm4606]

​@@Practical.Wisdom Well the opening point he makes is about dissatisfaction, yet clearly no idea eliminates that, Christianity or otherwise. That's because the explanation of dissatisfaction is fairly straightforward (points 1-3). Point 3 was just me observing that as a non-believer I _feel_ like I'm generally a little more satisfied than the average believer I see (certainly more satisfied than back when I was a believer myself). The Wittgenstein comment mostly just seems to openly contradict an uncaused god (and exceptions one might make for an uncaused god always, as far as I've seen, would potentially apply to uncaused _other_ things too). "World" generally refers to a planet, which is not a very productive (or precise) term for conversations like this. "Universe" refers to the thing ~13.8 billion years old, where we don't know how it originated (or even that it definitely _did_ have an origin). "Everything"/"reality" are words I use when I want to include absolutely everything (since we certainly don't know our universe is the extent of everything). But of course evidence is required to know anything, and we don't have evidence of anything outside our universe, so anyone claiming to _know_ things exist beyond our universe simply has no real foundation for that belief. Either (A) everything or (B) not everything had a cause. If A then an uncaused god is impossible. If B, then a god isn't necessary (and logical necessity is the heart of cosmological style arguments, like the Kalam). So either way, cosmological arguments don't provide a logical foundation for believing a god exists. And that's being generous and assuming they conclude with a god (many versions don't). Another major mistake of Craig's version is the timeless/etc part. Imagine Gary simulating a universe on a computer. Gary occupies space, experience time, and is made of matter. It isn't the time/space/matter _of his universe,_ and so Craig could say the cause of our universe can't be made of the time/space/matter _of our universe,_ but the example of Gary's Simulation proves Craig wrong to say the cause must be timeless, spaceless, and immaterial.

[@schnulloman]

He was interesting until he started talking about the writings of atheists. Then he just did exactly what he accuses them of doing, which was to insult and ridicule them to disguise the weakness of his own position.

[@Practical.Wisdom]

No, he's not radical and not insulting or ridiculing anyone. He said the new atheism was sold as a major shift in the history of humanity, but it turned out to be an 'ephemerable cultural trend'. Alister actually engaged with atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens or, more recently, the Cosmic Skeptic in a very meaningful way.

[@paullever9219]

Lots of stories and dropping famous names doesn’t prove that any gods exist… maybe some actual evidence would be fine, over thousands of years and not one god proven to exist…hmm makes one think… Why is god hidden…😂😂😂😂 great question? Which god.

[@Practical.Wisdom]

Yes, Christians don't have 'proof' of the 2+2=4 kind. But there is a lot of abductive evidence that makes it more likely than not that there is something beyond us. In fact J. Warner Wallace wrote a book in which he answers this objection.

[@CastleKnight7]

Not content with being illusory home universes, we co-created the “physical” universe based on the rules of survival. Any game is better than none. Or is it?

[@Practical.Wisdom]

Intriguing idea! Our perception of the physical universe is shaped by survival indeed, but whether any game is better than none remains subjective.

[@908381stud]

"The map isn't really London!" ... Of course it's not, but it describes the terrain in ways that individual encounters with reality could not until the advent of satellites. Theology ≠ God, but it critiques and gives meaning to the aggregate experiences of the divine from millions and billions of data points.

[@SmellofFemale]

God is Sovereign, not man.

[@SmellofFemale]

C.S. Lewis described the process of salvation and sanctification throughout his works as something that is both wholly dependant on the Christian and wholly dependant on God. The constant argument among Christians, specifically regarding Arminianism and Calvinism, is how contingent one’s salvation--or sanctification- is on God, and how contingent it is on humans. The extreme Calvinist would argue it is only and completely dependant on God, humans do not have the power to perfect themselves or the goodness to make the choice to live for God willingly. This is why CS Lewis is wrong. Augustine is the closest to Paul. CS Lewis teaches faith precedes regeneration. Co-operative grace. We're all dead. If dead, how do I make myself alive to co-operate with God? Am I able to quicken myself to life?

[@KSK99]

Everyone is telling God is there. But God don't know what to tell someone his own life. People mythology and imagination. Just let live life with your family and friends. No God just think it's True.

[@iainrae6159]

A more interesting question is why God created billions of galaxies in the first place ? Yet to have a satisfying reason put forward by a 'believer'.

[@Practical.Wisdom]

It's a hard question. But on the other hand, why is there something rather than nothing?, as Leibniz puts it, starts from the premise that we expect there to be nothing (or nothing else but us?). Why would we expect there to be nothing? To explain why something exists we must appeal to the existence of something else.

[@iainrae6159]

​@@Practical.Wisdom Thankyou for your comment. The religious view of ' there must be something' is rather vague and does little to show a supernatural God type being of the Christian variety is responsible. I find it curious why a God type being bothered in the first place. Each to his own I suppose. Wishing you well and thanks for your view.

[@zandvoort8616]

The notion that a Dawkins and atheists are aggressive is just not the case at all and a weak argument against.

[@Bigchurchmusic]

Interesting claim, I would like to see the evidence for it.

[@Practical.Wisdom]

Certainly, there are numerous atheists and agnostics who approach these questions with respect and a willingness to engage in meaningful dialogue, individuals such as yourself, the Cosmic Skeptic, and many others. However, I think it's fair to say that the emergence of the New Atheism movement in the 2000s, which coincided with the rapid growth of the internet, led to a more pronounced trend of ridiculing and mocking Christians and their beliefs, marking a departure from earlier, less confrontational approaches.

[@majm4606]

@@Practical.Wisdom We should cleanly distinguish between mocking _Christianity_ vs. mocking _Christians._ Personally my posts don't rely on mocking very much overall, but when I do mock it's _the idea, not the person._ After all, the entire point of having a conversation with them is to try to help them disconnect from this really terrible idea they believe (an idea they can't substantiate the truth of with evidence). What I'm saying is in general mocking _Christianity_ is far more common (even apart from my own conversations).

[@leebennett1821]

God is Mans invention a tool to make him feel special in an Uncaring Universe God is a cope for people who cannot overcome the fear of their non existence

[@Stupidityindex]

Theology is weak sauce, so don't go postal like some temple Jesus or Jan. 6 for a loser president. Much to do about nothing, theology is weak sauce. One might expect a deity, if there were such a thing, would be known by everyone or is fudging the title a bit. The fraud of religious people is revealed by the failure rate of prayers in a children's hospital & the lack of mountains moving by verbal commands. Theologians grant themselves the title without any input from a deity & then use fantasyland vocabulary in academic settings, usually as a podium jockey with clergyman dress. But if I can't use my weak argument, then I don't have an argument at all. Those arguing God, get their knowledge of deity from the same place they get understanding of reason. Rather than a beacon of inspirational light, they are avoided like the old woman with too many cats. It was secular law & order ending the inquisitions & witch killing. Nothing fails like prayer in a children's hospital & even Jesus Christ proclaims faith is worthless if you can't get magic mountains to move when you practice verbal-command landscaping. No wonder Freud wrote the antidote to Christianity is literacy. These are the wolves in sheep's clothing, you know them by their works: Who has honor while suggesting a reality-God? As if we did not have the saying: God helps those helping themselves, because the fiction is known for a perfect record of nothing-doing. Moreover, it cannot be moral or ethical to suggest there is a god. As if one should respect the suggestion, we all travel with one foot in fantasyland, using a fantasyland vocabulary. It is religious vocabulary fascism finds useful. Law is authorized from fantasyland & the workings are a mystery, unknown to the non-believers among the oppressed.

[@clarkelaidlaw1678]

Christopher Hitchens made him look ridiculous.

[@Practical.Wisdom]

Lennox made Dawkins look ridiculous too, but I don't think that's relevant. It's not about 'winning' a debate, but rather, telling the Christian story, as C. S. Lewis puts it.

[@colski3333]

God is not hidden at all. Pple are hidden. Scared of love so they make religion. Hide from the Obvious.

[@AM_o2000]

However intellectually capable Lewis may have been, his writings are riddled with fallacies, and it's on these that he must be judged. _Mere_ _Christianity_ (for instance) is overly reliant on arguments by flawed analogy, arguments by assertion, non sequiturs, ad hominems ('Every sane and sensible man...', 'only a fool would think...'), ad lapidems, straw men, ignoratio elenchi, etc. He sidesteps what might be called the 'emotivist challenge' in his discussion of the 'law of human nature', presenting an argument by assertion followed immediately by a non sequitur. He offers an ad populum fallacy when suggesting that atheists must be wrong because they are in the minority. A particularly bad argument is that if Jesus weren't the son of God, then his claim to forgive all would have been madness, ergo Jesus must have been the son of God, whereas on a hierarchy of probability, the madness explanation (or any other, such as Jesus being misquoted, mistaken or duplicitous) would be infinitely more probable. I could go on, but you'll have gathered from the above that my impression is either that he was a pedestrian thinker or that he wrote like one.

[@Practical.Wisdom]

That's a fair point. You're right in that Lewis didn't consider himself a theologian, but quite a pedestrian thinker. I think we also need to put this in its context. Mere Christianity is not a philosophy treatise. Rather, it is based on a series of very short radio talks on the BBC entitled 'Right and Wrong: a clue to the meaning of the Universe'. I do think though that he was a very talented writer and his background in philosophy and medieval literature helped. Alister McGrath talks about these things in his comprehensive biography of Lewis: A Life.

[@ewencameron4269]

I wonder if the writer of the reply will be read and respected by millions of people and provide hope for Lithuanians Have a little humility and less pride sport

[@AM_o2000]

@@ewencameron4269 Pride or not, audience or not, I'm right. You're offering an ad populum fallacy too.

[@musik102]

The answer is simple. God doesn't exist, and of course something that doesn't exist can not be hidden. See, I told you the answer is simple.

[@Practical.Wisdom]

Thanks for making it so simple. There are, though, things we can't see that exist.

[@musik102]

@@Practical.Wisdom Tell me one being, that we know exists, but can't see?

[@Practical.Wisdom]

Certainly, it's an intriguing question. I was thinking more of the existence of non-material entities, such as the human mind. We know that the mind exists, but we cannot see it in the same way we can see physical objects. Our thoughts, emotions, consciousness, and intellect are all aspects of the mind. The existence of the mind points to a realm of reality that transcends the purely physical, and it's an interesting subject for exploring the limits of our understanding and perception. This raises questions about the nature of consciousness and the relationship between the physical and the non-material aspects of our existence.