A friend of mine posted these quotes on his blog (different 'site). I thought many of them sum up my view points quite adequately.
"The constitution is written for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."
-- John Adams
Did you notice? He didn't say "Christian." Wow, it's amazing. *rolls eyes* Everyone lives with some kind of religious views (be it secular humanism, postmodernism, atheism, New Age, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, liberal Christianity, fundamental Christianity,...the list goes on and on and on.), regardless of whether or not they want to admit it. Too bad we're a society of "if it feels right." I have this feeling that wasn't John Adams's idea of "morals."
"Those who do not read, do not think. Those who do not think will have their thinking done for them.
-- V.E. Masters
This one just makes me laugh. It is so true! And thanks to public educational institutions (K-12, college, etc), it's a whole lot easier to let someone else think for us. (Isn't that a sad indictment on the future of America...)
"Nations are like their gods. The ideas which a people entertains of the Supreme Power will mold their opinions and control their actions."
-- Jesse T. Peck
Oh yes, 100% true.
"Suppose there was no intelligence behind the universe. In that case nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. Thought is merely the by-product of some atoms within my skull. But if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to atheism, and, therefore, I have no reason to be an athiest, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I can't believe in thought, so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God."
--C.S. Lewis
C.S. Lewis is great. How can I disbelieve in God if I am using the ability He gave me, the ability to think and to move and to have my being, this very second? Goodness. I can't imagine a life without purpose. It would be so...purposeless. 
"If a man will not believe in God, the danger is not that he will believe in nothing, but that he will believe in anything."
--G.K. Chesterton
I want to laugh at this statement because of the irony, but at the same time a part of me grieves because it is so true. Choose what you will believe... but as for me, the God of the Bible is the only One worth my time.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
You begin by making the assumption that you serve a purpose. How do you know? I would argue that what we do here is without purpose. You assume that to exist is to have a purpose. I would argue that to exist does not imply purpose.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
My Creative Writing
Rest in peace
yourfuneralguy
http://www.lowercostfuneral/rbrianblog
CS Lewis and his hero Chesterton are two of the greatest minds the world has ever seen. Have you read these guys Nick. Do your homework dude.
Otherwise your philosophy of life may rest in peace.
I am certainly no expert on CS Lewis, but the things I've read of his have left me decidedly underwhelmed. Take that quote above:
Natural selection made our brains. An organism with a brain that can correctly assess the risk in a situation is more likely to leave descendants with his genes for a brain that can do just that. Everyone of my ancestors' brains were good enough at that to allow them to have offspring. Not a single one failed to do so. That is a long line in which the genes controlling our thinking abilities has been tested and found successful. So even if thought is the by-product of a flow of ions across neural membranes, I have pretty good reasons to trust my thinking.
Now suppose on the other hand that there was a creator who specifically designed our brain. Is there any reason to believe that he would necessarily design our brain to think clearly? Human video game designers create characters in their "universes" who have limited purposes. Their "thinking" is intentionally limited. So given our experience with video games ... an analogue for an intelligently designed universe ... postulating a designer gives one no more reason to "trust" one's own thinking than one has without it.
Cheers,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
What you've pointed out DB is what I see as the key flaw in all religions. It all goes back to the beginning with the first humans. God specifically created all of us with limited thinking and only when we ate from the tree of life, did we gain our thinking ability. It shows that God prefered robots to animals with free thought, thus making this God either a complete and utter prick, or a fantasy.
Rest in peace
yourfuneralguy
run the universe. If you thought about it you would believe. Tell me how you would do a better job running the universe?
Well, for the first place I would make the Universe a hell of a lot more convenient place for people to live with. Then, to whomever I might want some sort of recognition from, I would reveal myself to them.
And, I wouldn't make rules that people couldn't possibly keep.
Oh, and I wouldn't condemn anything to hell and pets would have longer lifespans.
That's the main stuff. Not being someone who rules the Universe, I wouldn't have much insight into the nitty-gritty of it.
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
He never limited man's thinking he did not expose Adam and Eve to sin. Genesis 3:5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." God in the begining gave man the choice to do what was right or what was wrong and they chose to become 'wise' by eating the fruit. He never 'limited' their knowledge or ability to learn, they were like children you were just begining to understand what the world was. Please don't call God a prick, even if you dont believe in Him can you please just resepct Him? Or at least take into consideration how that hurts others because of the pain that causes God when he knows you say things that hurt Him?
Why were they not allowed to "be like God, knowing good and evil?"
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
My Creative Writing
I don't think he wanted them to be in pain or go through pain. He knows what sin does to humanity and I know he wanted to shelter them from that, but gave them the choice if they wanted. And we will never know what he had planned if we had not taken fruit from that tree. For all we know we could still be walking in the garden with Him. Which is something to add, we talk about how we never see Him anymore but it is simply because He cannot tolerate sin and God wanted to be in communion with us. But he gave us the choice. So I guess there are two main reasons why he did not want them to know about evil. One: he wanted them to be free from sin and the pain and heartache it brings. Two: He wanted to meet with us and be a part of our lives on a more physical scale.
I'd rather be smart with a little pain than live in ignorance.
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
You have good quotes, albeit Lewis's assumes that a power has to control the universe and it has to be God, not which God does he point out though and he didn't live with the idea of an intelligent universe that seems higly likely but it doesn't need a God to make it intelligent. His argument is based badly for today. He assumed God gave us thought and that God exists. We know that God forbid eating from the tree of life and knowledge which scholars believe to be the beginning of thought when adam and eve ate from it. Which tells us that God preferred robots to free thought beings.
Master's is right in many senses and it can go to all religions especially Abrahamic religions that at one time forbade certain books from being read and still does but only on a church to church basis. It is the same for Islam and Judaism, but not so for Buddhism.
While I believe in a God, it isn't Lewis's God. Lewis's writings give off a deistic viewpoint that most church scholars don't perceive or would rather keep quiet. We must question Lewis's true beliefs. They pertain to most Christian beliefs but some of his writing are anything but Christian.
Rest in peace
yourfuneralguy
http://www.lowercostfuneral.com/rbrianblog
You cannot argue with his logic. ( which of course you did not do, you argued against Christian teaching a particularly biased trick) What is the basis of your statement... Anything but Christian works?
If he created works that are not Christian,
I have not heard of them resting in peace.
Ditto...
I'll check out "some of his writing [that] are anything but Christian" if you'll give me the titles. Until then, I have reason to doubt that your [son_of_disaster's] information is correct.
For proof, I give you the quote that you used. It supports the idea of a Supreme Being, not the Christian God.
Hang on a sec. You're looking at the wrong quote. The "Supreme Power" quote was by Jesse T. Peck, not C.S. Lewis.
No I'm not. Lewis uses only the word God, and I substituted Supreme Being because that is the vibe Lewis gives off, because he does not give off the Christian God vibe like his other writings would suggest is his beliefs. He still makes an excellent case for a God, but not a Christian God.
Explain to me why he wrote "Mere Christianity" then...
Or better yet, the allegorical "Chronicles of Narnia," where Aslan, like Jesus Christ, dies to reverse the curse...
You're missing the point. This quote is based solely on a view of a deity existing, but never specifies the deity. I hate repeating myself but I just did, you could have seen my response to restinpeace is the same as what I've put forth.
I'm not debating his Christianity or beliefs, I am debating the use of that quote for purely a Christian viewpoint, which it isn't. I never said he was a deist, I said some of his writings only discuss God and can be used by all religions.
The basis is that statement that he made. It is not from a Christian standpoint but from a standpoint that a deity of some point exists. Lewis has these statements occasionally even though the vast majority of his writings are Christian, but he helps any arguments for God. You can argue with his logic, but I don't have the skills to. DB and Percivale probably do, but I don't at this time.
I can and do argue with Lewis's logic. It's circular. Why? Well, it presupposes god and presupposes the fact that he can't trust his mind. Because, if he cannot trust his mind without god, then how can he trust his conclusions that god exists?
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
Thanks for this blog, it was really deep and put words to many of the feelings and beliefs I hold to be true.
For those of you who disagree with C.S. Lewis, I reccomend There Is A God by Anthony Flew, it's written by the world's most notorious (arguable) atheist. Although he does not accept the afterlife, or a God of Christianity, Judaism, etc...he does renounce his life-long belief of atheism.
I've read Flew. He's a Deist like me. That's why I can disagree with Lewis, who was also a long believing atheist. Flew and Lewis make impeccable cases for a God, but only a God, not a God of religions.
(1) The name is Antony, not Anthony. There is no H in the name.
(2) I am a long-standing atheist and prior to his conversion, I had never heard of Antony Flew. Suddenly, he is the "world's most notorious atheist"?? A far as I can tell he has an influential essay that says that default presumption is atheism ... a statement that he still stands by. Other than that I don't think he has been that influential, especially compared to Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, or Daniel Dennett.
(3) According to Flew he came by his belief in a DEISTIC (not theistic) God because of claims by Michael Behe (a biochemist) and Gerald Schroeder (a physicist). Flew is a philosopher with no expertise in either area. He is on record as saying that he thought Behe's and Schroeder's views were that of mainstream biology and physics. They are not. Flew had not even read any of the numerous critiques of their views. When informed of this, Flew admitted, "I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction." LINK
(4) While that book lists Flew as first author not a single word was actually written by Flew. It was written by evangelical Roy Abraham Varghese (who is also listed as an author) and by Bob Hostetler (who was not listed), an evangelical preacher. The reason Flew didn't write any of it is because he is 81 years old and is in the early stages of Alzheimer's. Varghese and Hostetler are in my opinion immoral scum of the earth who are more than happy to take dishonest advantage of a man with failing mental capabilities to further their agenda. LINK
Cheers,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
immoral scum of the earth
This is why I love you, DB.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
My Creative Writing
right on!
"C.S. Lewis is great. How can I disbelieve in God if I am using the ability He gave me, the ability to think and to move and to have my being, this very second? Goodness. I can't imagine a life without purpose. It would be so...purposeless. Stifled Chuckle"
The quote uses circular logic. It presupposes that god exists, because, if god didn't exist, how could he trust the conclusion that god exists?
"I want to laugh at this statement because of the irony, but at the same time a part of me grieves because it is so true. Choose what you will believe... but as for me, the God of the Bible is the only One worth my time."
That quote is ridiculously untrue. The fact that I don't believe in god doesn't mean that I wander around blithely accepting whatever theory is thrown at me.
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
I really like the quote from John Adams. Very smart man.
Rest in peace
yourfuneralguy
http://www.lowercostfuneral/rbrianblog
One really has to be a deist before he can accept the Christian God. Son of disaster may be on his way to the Christian God. I am not evangelizing, everyone has the right to choose their own God! Lewis believed this. If he did not his arguments would be worthless, and he knew it.
CS Lewis brought people to Deism first then To Christianity.
Mat the great mind and soul of CS lewis rest in peace.
lol, no. Deism is entirely different than Christianity and Christianity is full of itself. You don't have to be a deist before being a Christian. I was Christian, got baptized the whole nine yards. Started using some logic and reason and saw that Christianity was like all the other religions and so they all contradicted themselves on who's God was better. Why should I believe something that other groups also claim?
I respect Lewis for not condeming nonbelievers to hell, unlike the majority of Christians. Lewis brought people to Christianity, but he wasn't afraid to write in a way that accepted all religions. Deism is an entirely different beast and my view of Agnostic Deism shows that I am anything but convinced in the hypocrisy that I witness in the Abrahamic religions.