Reading Mere Christianity again

[groverat]

I forgot how much of an intellectual coward CS Lewis was...

Take this line from his bit about rival Christian sects:
Our divisions should never be discussed except in the presence of those who have already come to believe that there is one god and that Jesus Christ is his only son.

:wow:

It is absolutely astounding how secretive and dishonest such a prominent (but dead, sadly) popular apologist is.

Does this seem like a rational mode of thought?

[shetline]

Does this seem like a rational mode of thought?
It seems like a political mode of thought.

[Placebo]

That belief regarding the treatment of religion is perfectly rational when you think about what he must have been convinced of, that is, that all outside of Christianity were sinners and unworthy. Really doesn't shock me that much, I mean, put yourself in his shoes, and think about if you thoroughly and unshakeably believed what he did in regards to religion.

[Placebo]

That belief regarding the treatment of religion is perfectly rational when you think about what he must have been convinced of, that is, that all outside of Christianity were sinners and unworthy. Really doesn't shock me that much, I mean, put yourself in his shoes, and think about if you thoroughly and unshakeably believed what he did in regards to religion.

[Powerdoc]

This quote is typical from this kind of people, who consider themselves belonging to a family : the christian one. You are either in or out of this family, and the family is more important than any other thing.

[mydo]

Maybe he just means that only those people that believe in Christ can know and discuss divisions among Christians. He wrote that ages ago too. Don't judge him using modern standards.

[SDW2001]

I *hate* that argument.

We can make distinctions based on how someone or something fits into the sensibilities of a particular time. For example, in the 19th century "Huck Finn" might have been a progressive novel about race relations, but now it reads kinda racist. You can and frankly should make distinctions along those lines.

Historical context means a lot in arguments like this. It doesn't mean you have to accept or utterly ignore racist or inappropriate statements as made years ago, but it does help to understand the way "the culture" was at that time.

It would seem to me that the Lewis statement could be interpreted a number of ways, one of which you chose. Another one might be that "non-Christians may engage in the debate on divisions within the religion not for the purpose of exploring them, but for the purpose of denigrating Christianity itself."

No?

[midwinter]

He wrote that ages ago too. Don't judge him using modern standards.

Er, 1952 is hardly "ages ago." As Eddie Izzard would say "SURELY NOT! NO ONE WAS ALIVE THEN!!!"

[Frank777]

Mere Christianity is one of the classics I have yet to read, but this is fairly standard Christian etiquette.

In other words, he's saying not to derail a dialogue with non-believers by introducing in-house disagreements about minor things (such as the "proper" way to baptize or take communion.)

If you are about to save a drowning man in a lake, you don't stop and argue about who's got the better swimming techniques.

[SDW2001]

Mere Christianity is one of the classics I have yet to read, but this is fairly standard Christian etiquette.

In other words, he's saying not to derail a dialogue with non-believers by introducing in-house disagreements about minor things (such as the "proper" way to baptize or take communion.)

If you are about to save a drowning man in a lake, you don't stop and argue about who's got the better swimming techniques.

I haven't read it, but that was my first impression of the meaning as well. It all depends on your viewpoint.