tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post116412394298719603..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Babinski and Reppert on Man or RabbitVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1164644286719027182006-11-27T09:18:00.000-07:002006-11-27T09:18:00.000-07:00The person who is in an indecisive frame of mind, ...The person who is in an indecisive frame of mind, where they aren't quite sure what to believe, is not the kind of person Lewis was speaking against in his essay. He really is talking about a very limited sort of case.<BR/><BR/>Also, the 'punishment' Lewis talks about in this essay, is not from God. ("We need not inquire whether God will punish [this kind of man] for his cowardice and his laziness; they will punish themselves.") He also makes it as clear as he possibly can that God still loves the 'rabbit', and intends to help the rabbit be more than a rabbit. There is no 'roasting in hell' in this essay. That wasn't the sort of thing Lewis went in for. (At worst, there is a purgatorial process. _That_ might be considered offensive. {shrug} The imagery is certainly painful sounding.)<BR/><BR/>People ought not to comment on Lewis unless they're actually competent to do so. Ed's screed is harmful precisely because he paints himself as being familiar with the work, when a minute's check will reveal that he's going out of his way to read things that simply aren't there into what Lewis wrote, as part of his attack on Lewis. It practically amounts to libel. (Nor did he mea culpa for his obvious error. He simply ignored the correction and moved along.)<BR/><BR/><BR/>I grant that Ed's reply to Victor is better than most of what I've ever seen from him. What's sad, though, is that Ed refuses to recognize that he could be agreeing _with Lewis_ on much of what he wrote concerning agreements with Victor.<BR/><BR/>(i.e. the erroneous anti-Lewis screed was just the kind of "fanaticism" that Ed decries and detests as another kind of decadent barbarism. It's all very well to detest such a thing, but when he stops doing it himself, I'll be more impressed.)Jason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1164262039717698422006-11-22T23:07:00.000-07:002006-11-22T23:07:00.000-07:00VICTOR writes 'When students write papers about Mo...VICTOR writes <BR/>'When students write papers about Mormonism, I find that often they don’t really want to argue that Mormonism is true, or criticize arguments against it.'<BR/><BR/>CARR<BR/>Are these the sort of people that God hates, according to Lewis - people who don't honestly look at the evidence?Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1164228215053699252006-11-22T13:43:00.000-07:002006-11-22T13:43:00.000-07:00'Honest rejection of Christ, however mistaken, wil...'Honest rejection of Christ, however mistaken, will be forgiven and healed <BR/><BR/>... But to evade the Son of Man, to look the other way, to pretend you haven't noticed, to become suddenly absorbed in something on the other side of the street, to leave the receiver off the telephone because it might be He who was ringing up, to leave unopened certain letters in a strange handwriting because they might be from Him this is a different matter.'<BR/><BR/>So Muslims who honestly preach that Christianity is false, that Jesus was never executed at all, that somebody else was executed in his place, they will be forgiven.<BR/><BR/>But Muslims who doubt Muslim apologetics, and who think that Christians might have one or two arguments going for them, but are not sure who to believe, - they will roast in Hell? <BR/><BR/>While Christians who refuse to open books by sceptics because they think it might shake their faith, they will also roast in Hell for not being honest?Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1164148588859811752006-11-21T15:36:00.000-07:002006-11-21T15:36:00.000-07:00By the way in the realm of "convenient rationaliza...By the way in the realm of "convenient rationalizations" that Walters raises, exactly what is so "convenient" about admitting inconclusiveness, doubts, etc.? <BR/><BR/>It's "convenient" for everyone alike to believe and disbelieve what they happen to believe and/or disbelieve. <BR/><BR/>As for myself, I suppose it's also convenient for me to no longer attend church, except on special occaisions like for family or friends. But aside from that it's hardly more convenient for me to live my life than for you to live yours with your own beliefs, and I lack church-dogmas and assurances concerning the afterlife. <BR/><BR/>I'm also aware of a range of beliefs and doubts among Christians themselves. Not all Christians are Lewisianians. There's Barthians, universalists (a view Barth seemed partial to himself), moderates, liberals, ultra-liberals, and of course conservatives and some ultra-conservatives who sneer at Lewis and/or who can't even accept that an honest man would dare to disagree with them concerning the Trinity. <BR/><BR/>What I am speaking about is in some sense reflected in Dr. Price's experience in a coffee house decades ago when he was practicing friend-evangelism, and said at one point he looked up at the people there and recognized that all the people in that coffee house were not merely "saved" or "damned." Price began to consider what he and his theology really had to offer people whose behaviors already were far from horrid. He'd offer them a chance to read the Bible and go to church like he did. But did they all really need that? That's when Price's deconversion apparently began. (Eric Hoffer explains to some degree what Price went through psychologically, leaving the mass movement, the fold he was involved in.)<BR/><BR/>Note, my response to Vic appears above this one.Edwardtbabinskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13036816926421936940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1164147388270812432006-11-21T15:16:00.000-07:002006-11-21T15:16:00.000-07:00My response address doesn't seem supportable in bl...My response address doesn't seem supportable in blogger.com, it's the third comment right after Vic's at my blog. But here it is in full: <BR/><BR/>Vic,<BR/>We'd have to discuss what exactly you mean when you claim that atheists and Christians agree "the subject matter [of Christianity] is important." Exactly what "subject matter" are you talking about? I don't suppose you are speaking about Christian dogmas, but more like questions of historicity which Lewis himself spent relatively little time studying or discussing in his works. (Who exactly is the "ostrich" in that case?) <BR/><BR/>Secondly, you mention postmodernists who "avoid the question of what is true and only ask what 'works for me.'" I don't think you are saying all that you think are saying, and proving even less via such a statement, because there is a little postmodernist and pragmatist ('what works') in all of us, believers and non-believers alike. <BR/><BR/>There are probably just as many Christians whose Christianity seems to be of the "works for me" kind, as there are dreaded "postmodernists." I think Lewis was himself a "works for me" kind of guy, judging by the superificality of his engagement with the historical approach to Biblical studies. <BR/><BR/>And on the good side, finding out "what works" is often acknowledged as a means for deciphering what is true, especially in the realm of experimental science. <BR/><BR/>Lastly, Vic, I would like to remind you that you have gone so far as to acknowledge that an atheist's life can have meaning, and also that many atheists and theists share a love of truth. <BR/><BR/>Since you are at that point, I don't see what may hinder you from eventually acknowledging that people are people, not "saved" or "damned," but people all round. <BR/><BR/>And it seems to me that people tend to seek what's true about themselves and their lives and interactions with others, via pragmatism, via daily experiments, both conscious and unconscious input, via exploring their own lives and experiences and considering and reconsidering everything they have read or been taught in their lives. I suspect a large part of the process of seeking truth, including what works, even takes place when you sleep, or inside the unconscious portion of your brain each waking day. <BR/><BR/>I suspect that one thing atheists and Christians share most is their love of intellectual engagement and their disdain for a world of mere barbarism. The philosophers and Christians of the ancient Hellenistic world also agreed in that respect. <BR/><BR/>Lastly, fanatics/fundamentalists appear to me to be a form of barbarism as well, that both you and I disdain. Fanaticism/fundamentalism is yet another form of decadence. <BR/><BR/>Somewhere in the middle between mere barbarism on the left and fanatical fundamentalisms on the right is where I think most thinking people lay, along with the best chances of future human progress.Edwardtbabinskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13036816926421936940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1164147126698277532006-11-21T15:12:00.000-07:002006-11-21T15:12:00.000-07:00Vic, Jason, and others,My response is here. Also s...Vic, Jason, and others,<BR/>My response is <A HREF="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2006/11/c-s-lewis-man-or-rabbit-essay-from-god.html#c116414566125249360" REL="nofollow">here</A>. Also see <A HREF="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2006/11/c-s-lewiss-man-or-rabbit-and-eric.html" REL="nofollow">C. S. Lewis's "Man or Rabbit?" and Eric Hoffer's "The True Believer"</A>Edwardtbabinskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13036816926421936940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1164144258094362222006-11-21T14:24:00.000-07:002006-11-21T14:24:00.000-07:00Jason:"So, your mind will erase what I just said a...<B>Jason</B>:<BR/><BR/><I>"So, your mind will erase what I just said and replace it with something totally ridiculous, so you can question my motives."<BR/><BR/>Yep; it really happens. {s}</I><BR/><BR/>Happened to me this morning! Customer calling about <I>this</I> and <I>that</I> wasn't done, how I promised all these things. When in reality the signed documentation I sent back to him showed quite the opposite to be the case. So instead of working with him, I decided to take some time and post on the Internet. :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1164132611765988292006-11-21T11:10:00.000-07:002006-11-21T11:10:00.000-07:00Goodness, did _that_ rant start falling apart...Wh...Goodness, did _that_ rant start falling apart...<BR/><BR/>When Lewis writes "Honest rejection of Christ, however mistaken, will be forgiven and healed" (i.e. God won't eternally condemn someone who is honestly in error), Ed wants to know "And what exactly is wrong with believing that God wouldn't eternally condemn someone honestly in error? Lewis presupposes the opposite."<BR/><BR/>Frankly, this starts to look like willful misreading. Ed _doesn't_ consider himself to be in the ostrich category, Lewis writes that honest rejection _will_ be forgiven and healed--why not conclude 'oh... okay, so Lewis is saying that Jesus Himself is saying I will be forgiven and healed anyway despite my dissent'?<BR/><BR/>The obvious first answer is that then Ed wouldn't be able to attack Lewis. (Lewis has nothing bad to say about category 1, Ed declares himself to be in category 1, thus Lewis couldn't be saying anything bad about Ed--but that wouldn't make for much of a fight. Therefore, completely reverse the meaning of what Lewis wrote. _Now_ Lewis is attacking Ed. Self-defense has been established: proceed to flame Lewis at will.)<BR/><BR/><BR/>There's a Dilbert cartoon I kept hanging over my computer for years (until we moved my desk over away from any wall.) Dilbert is explaining to someone that no known battery technology can handle this load and be that size. "That wasn't what you wanted to hear," he tells the irate customer. "So, your mind will erase what I just said and replace it with something totally ridiculous, so you can question my motives."<BR/><BR/>Yep; it really happens. {s}Jason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.com