![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.markrkelly.com\/Blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/lewismc_500x715.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nThis is famous as one of the most popular \u2018apologetics\u2019 for Christianity. (Coincidentally, I did recently see a poll of the most popular books about Christianity of the 20th<\/sup> century, and this was #1.) I\u2019ve heard about it for years, mainly for its claim that Jesus was either really God, or a liar, or he was crazy. Therefore, obviously!<\/p>\n Unlike most books I read, I didn\u2019t come to this one expecting to \u2018agree\u2019 with it, or even to learn anything factual from it, but rather to learn what kind of arguments Christians find persuasive. In this book these arguments boil down to two types: not understanding why something exists in the natural world (in this case human morality), and so therefore God (this is the God of the Gaps argument), and second, making assertions without any factual basis (about God, Jesus, and that humans who believe will live forever) and then drawing from them abstruse, convoluted conclusions about rules for living and abstract concepts like the Trinity.<\/p>\n Key points (with my comments):<\/strong><\/p>\n Comments:<\/p>\n Edit next day, 5sep26:<\/p>\n \\\\\\<\/p>\n Detailed Summary<\/strong> [[\u00a0and comments ]]<\/span><\/p>\n Preface, p.vii<\/p>\n Author discusses differences between speech and print. Nothing here about denomination. Author is a layman of the Church of England. Differences among denominations are matters for experts. Not all are solved. This isn\u2019t about \u2018my religion\u2019 but about \u2018mere\u2019 Christianity. Thus numerous contentious points are avoided. And in Book III he avoids discussion of certain sins. Gambling. Birth-control. Some complain about his use of the word \u2018Christian.\u2019 Author responds by discussing the word \u2018gentleman\u2019 and how meanings change. Some words are now useless. Rooms and doors.<\/p>\n Foreword, p.xvii (by Kathleen Norris)<\/p>\n Context: It was 1942, middle of another war. Lewis served. Gave three speeches now in this book. Notions of modernity and progress had not brought an end to war. The problem is us. At the time many considered England to be part of a \u201cpost-Christian\u201d world. Lewis came to explain what Christianity is all about.<\/p>\n Book One: Right and wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe<\/strong><\/p>\n 1, The Law of Human Nature, p3<\/p>\n He describes the sounds of people arguing. Everyone seems to appeal to some standard of behavior that everyone should know about. Quarrelling. Trying to establish right and wrong. This used to be called the Law of Nature. Or, Law of Human Nature. It did not need to be taught. But haven\u2019t different civilizations had different moralities? No. They have all been very similar. Think what a really different morality would mean. Even when they break this real law, they appeal to it. So we\u2019re forced to believe in a real Right and Wrong. But none of us is keeping it. We fail to practice the behavior we expect from other people. We all have excuses for our misdeeds. This just proves how deeply we believe in this Law. Those are the two points: we believe in a Law of Nature; and yet we break it.<\/p>\n 2, Some Objections, p9<\/p>\n He\u2019s gotten letters. It\u2019s not just herd instinct. It\u2019s how we decide among our instincts. It often decides for the weaker instinct. Nor can we identify any instinct to be always good or always bad. The Moral Law is what enables us to direct the instincts. Others: isn\u2019t just a social convention, taught by education? No, no more so than the multiplication table. Two reasons: the law runs through all human cultures. And we believe that some moralities are better than others \u2013 thus moral progress. That requires there to be a standard, i.e. a Real Morality of Right and Wrong. There was nothing wrong with burning witches, since they really believed witches existed and were evil\u2026<\/p>\n 3, The Reality of the Law, p16<\/p>\n Go back to the first chapter, about how we don\u2019t follow the law. People aren\u2019t perfect? They\u2019re different than stones when they fall, then. \u2026 People realize that society wouldn\u2019t work without everyone playing fair and behaving decently. But how does that benefit them? This gets us nowhere, author says, p19; it\u2019s circular. The Law of Human Nature is about ought, not what is. (my words) It must be something real, not made up by ourselves. As if there is more than one kind of reality. Something above and beyond\u2026<\/p>\n 4, What Lies Behind the Law, p21<\/p>\n Smry. What does this mean about the universe? There are two views: the materialist, in which everything has happened by chance. [[ No no no. Evolution is not chance. ]]<\/span> The other is the religious view. A mind is behind the universe. Both views have been around, and ordinary science cannot determine between them. Why anything exists is not a scientific question. If science knew everything, it still could not explain why we are here. There\u2019s no objective way to detect this moral law. But we know that something is compelling us to behave in a certain way. Nothing like the God of Christian theology, not yet, but something like a mind. End note: also, not mentioned on the air: a Life-Force philosophy, or Creative Evolution, or Emergent Evolution. Shaw, Bergson. It comforts people, author says, calling the Life-Force wishful thinking.<\/p>\n [[ the obvious thing to be said here is that this is a false dichotomy; either god, he implies, or everything \u201chappened by chance.\u201d No. Complexity and life evolved via basic physical principles; even morality evolved to enable survival. ]]<\/span><\/p>\n 5, We Have Cause to Be Uneasy, p28<\/p>\n Author cautions he is not playing some kind of trick, that he\u2019s talking about religion all along. First, you can\u2019t put the clock back. [[ he means undoing a mistake, I think. ]]<\/span> The present state of the world suggests humanity has made a mistake and needs getting back. Second, this is not a \u2018religious jaw.\u2019 But we know that somebody or something provided this Moral Law. [[ Nope ]]<\/span> We know the universe as He made it, and we know the Moral Law which He has put into our minds. [[ He\u2019s jumping the gun \u2013 already using \u201cHe\u201d ]]<\/span> From that we know that the universe is interested in right conduct. This is not to say that God is necessarily \u2018good\u2019. (etc etc) Third, we need these facts to understand Christianity. To understand what it means to repent. We must understand the world as it is before we can understand that Christianity can provide comfort.<\/p>\n [[ So at this point he seems to be done justifying his belief in God \u2013 because morality \u2013 and pivots to rationalizing Christianity. There are a lot of steps missing in the middle. ]]<\/span><\/p>\n [[ Also, step back a bit. If human morality had to be defined by God, that it isn’t in some sense inherent in the nature of the human species, then it could have been different, yes? So, suggest an alternative morality that would work for human beings. ]]<\/span><\/p>\n Book Two: What Christians Believe<\/strong><\/p>\n 1, The Rival Conceptions of God, p35<\/p>\n You don\u2019t have to believe that all the other religions are wrong all through. But where Christianity differs from them, it is right and they are wrong, 35.7. [[ Sigh; how does he know? ]]<\/span><\/p>\n The first big division of humanity is between those who believe in God or gods, and those who don\u2019t. Next, of those who do, some believe in a god who is beyond good and evil. And others think God is definitely good and righteous. The former is Pantheism; the latter is held by Christians and others. Another difference is that the former think the universe almost *is* God; the latter, that God invented or made the universe. Yet things have gone wrong in the world God insists on putting them right. But why is it going wrong? What are these ideas of just and unjust? Author somehow concludes that atheism is too simple; if the universe has no meaning, we would never have found that out. [[ this is wordplay ]]<\/span><\/p>\n [[ Because ideas of good\/bad, just\/unjust, are human inventions at the simplest level, driven by us\/them tribal preferences. ]]<\/span><\/p>\n 2, The Invasion.<\/p>\n So atheism is too simple, author says, and so is the simplistic Christianity-and-water view, a boys\u2019 philosophy. Things are not that simple. People who want to attack Christianity do so by attacking this simple version. Reality is complicated, and odd. There are no obvious patterns in the arrangement of planets, for instance. You would not guess them. Just as you would not guess Christianity. The answer will not be simple.<\/p>\n So what is the problem? That there is much bad in the universe or meaningless; and that there are creatures like ourselves who realize this. Christianity says there is a good world that has gone bad. The other view is Dualism, a belief in two independent powers, one good and one evil. The problem with the latter is how to tell, is it just our preference? If one is actually good and the other bad, there must be some third thing, some standard or rule that one side meets and the other doesn\u2019t. Whoever made this standard must be God. Further, we don\u2019t know of anything that like badness for its own sake, except sadists, or in pursuit of something for which cruelty is useful. More simply: to be bad, He must exist and have intelligence, which are themselves good. \u2026 so dualism will not work. Christianity believes that the Dark Power was created by God and went bad. More like a civil war. So yes author does claim\u2026 the devil.<\/p>\n 3, The Shocking Alternative, p47<\/p>\n So Christians believe that an evil power presides over this world. Is this God\u2019s will? This is the problem with making things voluntary. God made creatures who had free will. [[ Again, he\u2019s jumping ahead and assuming his conclusion. ]]<\/span> And you can\u2019t do without free will. It\u2019s what makes anything good possible. And God thought it worth the risk. It\u2019s silly to wonder otherwise. We can\u2019t know what made the Dark Power go wrong. Perhaps he wanted to be God. That he gave that sin to the human race. Thinking we could create our own happiness outside God. Thus all human history. But it can never succeed. God made us, and he is our fuel. Human institutions always go wrong. Like cars, they eventually conk out. God gave us the sense of right and wrong; he sent human \u2018good dreams\u2019 like stories of a god who dies and comes to life again; and he selected one particular people to special attention. These were the Jews. [[ all very just-so stories. ]]<\/span> Then the shock: The man who turns up among the Jews making all sorts of claims. Very different than the stories of the Pantheists. A shocking thing. Especially the claim to forgive sins. Which is possible only if he really is God. We see his seriousness in the Gospels. This is why you can\u2019t just accept Jesus as being a moral teacher and not his claim about being God. There\u2019s a choice: either the man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or worse. He was not merely a great human teacher.<\/p>\n [[ As always, the excluded middle; the universe one either or, black or white, this or that. What about all those others who made such claims? Where does author get his impression of what God would be like in human form? ]]<\/span><\/p>\n 4, The Perfect Penitent, p53<\/p>\n The alternative is: Jesus was who he said he was, or he was a lunatic. Author accepts he was God. For what purpose? To teach. Or to suffer and be killed. In place of humans? The central Christian belief that Christ\u2019s death put us to right and gave us a fresh start. But how? Theories disagree; but even not knowing about vitamins and protein, we go on eating healthy meals. The mechanism doesn\u2019t matter. It is like physicists with their mental pictures vs their mathematical formulae. The death of Christ is like something unimaginable showing through into our own world. So the theories are secondary. But some are worth looking at. Christ taking punishment in place of us. Why didn\u2019t God just forgive us? Perhaps the sense of paying down someone else\u2019s bill. What was owed? Surrender the idea of behaving as if belonging to oneself. Apologize. Repent. Going back to God. And so on\u2026 thick. That\u2019s author\u2019s own view.<\/p>\n 5, The Practical Conclusion, p60<\/p>\n The next step in evolution has already occurred, but Christ introducing a new kind of man. Very different than the way our ordinary lives began. When told, some children don\u2019t believe it. An odd process you would never guess. [[ well, of course\u2026 ]]<\/span> Christ-life comes to us in three ways: baptism, belief, and communion\/mass\/Lord\u2019s supper. It\u2019s not up to the author to explain why these three things are needed. But why does he believe it\u2019s so? Because Jesus said so. Authority. As we believe in virtually everything. Science, history (note mention of evolution, 62.4). Just as you maintain your ordinary life, you must maintain your Christian life. It can be repaired. Christ is operating through themselves. (etc., a lot of just-so rationalizations for why god isn\u2019t here, for why he hasn\u2019t returned, because when he does the world will end.) You had better choose your side by then. He\u2019s giving you a chance.<\/p>\n Book Three: Christian Behavior<\/strong><\/p>\n 1, The Three Parts of Morality, p69<\/p>\n To many people morality is about stopping people from having a good time. No, morals are directions to keep the human machine from breaking down. Some speak of moral \u2018ideals.\u2019 But different tastes can be distinct ideals. But we can\u2019t all have different, private morals. That\u2019s why we speak of rules and obedience. Humans go wrong in two ways: by getting in each other\u2019s way; or by being dysfunctional themselves. Like a fleet of ships, or a band. But it\u2019s also about where the fleet is going, or what the band is playing. Thus there are three parts of morality. Many people think only of the first. Like thinking something can\u2019t be wrong because it doesn\u2019t do anyone else harm. But we must be concerned with that second thing, the morality inside the individual. It matters whether the ship he owns is in good shape or not. Because Christianity asserts that every individual is going to live forever. [[ An assertion without evidence or rationale. ]]<\/span> Living with character flaws forever would be Hell. So, three parts. The rest of this book will assume the Christian point of view.<\/p>\n 2, The \u2018Cardinal Virtues\u2019, p76<\/p>\n Here\u2019s a longer discussion that was too long for a talk on the air. In this scheme there are seven \u2018virtues,\u2019 four of them \u2018Cardinal\u2019 and the other three \u2018theological.\u2019 Prudence, temperance, justice, fortitude. Discussion. The second one was about more than not drinking. The others include more than their simple meanings. \u2026<\/p>\n 3, Social Morality, p82<\/p>\n Morality between man and man. Nothing really beyond the Golden Rule, which everyone has always known to be right. There is no particular social program at work. Still, the NT gives us a hint of what a Christian society would be like. Examples, p84. A combination of socialist economics and old-fashioned family life. A design for the human machine. There\u2019s an issue with the ancient advice not to lend money at interest, which seems essential to modern society. And charity is part of Christian morality. Would should give more than we can spare. Author thinks many people look to Christianity for support for their own views.<\/p>\n 4, Morality and Psychoanalysis, p88<\/p>\n How does Christian morality compare to psychoanalysis? [[ Very in vogue in the early 20th<\/sup> century, now mostly forgotten. ]]<\/span> Note that the philosophies of Freud and Jung contradict each other. And Freud, author says, is very ignorant talking outside his own specialty. And he\u2019s contradictory to Christianity. A moral choice consists of choosing, and of the feeling and impulses that prompt this choice. These may be normal, or abnormal; fear of spiders the first, desire of a man for a man the second. Psychoanalysis seeks to remove the abnormal feelings. The moral choice made is something psychoanalysis can do nothing about. The bad material is not a sin but a disease. Thus we are told not to judge. Christian morality is not a bargain with God. Rather it is what kind of creature you are turning yourself into. The right direction leads both to peace and to knowledge.<\/p>\n 5, Sexual Morality, p94<\/p>\n The virtue of chastity. Rules of propriety can change, depending on society. The Christian rule is: marriage with complete faithfulness, or total abstinence. An unpopular virtue. Our instinct to do otherwise must be wrong. A young man indulging whenever he liked could fill a small village. Or compare a strip-tease to a tray of mutton. But people are not starved for sex. And perversions of sex are numerous and hard to cure. Even the current state of sex is a mess. We must want to be cured. Rather we\u2019re encouraged to think that our desires are natural and healthy. This is nonsense. Etc etc. Lots of restraint is necessary. Or you\u2019ll ruin your life. etc . Anyway, unchastity is not the supreme vice. Of the Animal self and the Diabolical self, the latter is the worse of the two.<\/p>\n 6, Christian Marriage, p104<\/p>\n Now a more positive discussion. Christian doctrine on this subject is unpopular. The idea is that a man and wife are regarded as a single organism, like a lock and a key. And marriage is for life. Practices on divorce do vary. How this is related to chastity and justice. The idea of \u2018being in love\u2019 isn\u2019t consistent with a contract or promise. Even without love there are reasons to stay married: to provide a home for children, to protect women. And a matter of degree: being in love is good, but not the best thing. We realize the \u2018being in love\u2019 will not last forever. And our thoughts are influenced by books and plays and movies, more than real life. Thrills do not last; new ones will be found. And \u2018falling in love\u2019 is not irresistible. Christians should be careful imposing their views on divorce in the law. Next, why should the man be the \u2018head\u2019 of the marriage? The first follows from marriage being permanent; the second, because wives ruling over husbands is unnatural, 113.8. And a man is more just to outsiders; the woman fights for her children and husband against the rest of the world.<\/p>\n 7, Forgiveness, p115<\/p>\n Maybe this one is the most unpopular. Forgive our enemies in a war? We need to start with something simpler. Loving your enemies doesn\u2019t mean thinking them nice, any more than we love ourselves by thinking we are nice all the time. \u2026 Makes a distinction between kill and murder; the former is fine. He admires the idea of a knight. We kill when necessary. Again he repeats that the basis for this thinking is the belief that man lives forever. 119b \u2026<\/p>\n 8, The Great Sin, p121<\/p>\n Is pride, or self-conceit. Opposite of humility. The central evil. We dislike it in other people. It\u2019s competitive. People are prideful of being better in some way than other people. And prideful people will take what is yours just because they can. Power. Pride is enmity to God. The sense that we are better than someone else means we are being acted on by the devil. This vice isn\u2019t about our animal nature, but a spiritual vice, direct from Hell. Pride is spiritual cancer. Misunderstandings: Pleasure in being praised is not pride. And, being \u2018proud of\u2019 someone is about admiring. God wants you to know him. And the humble man\u2026<\/p>\n [[ He\u2019s not thinking big enough here. Isn\u2019t thinking that oneself is of personal interest to God, the creator of the universe, a rather extreme kind of pride? ]]<\/span><\/p>\n 9, Charity, p129<\/p>\n The three \u2018theological\u2019 virtues are faith, hope, and charity. There\u2019s more to charity than forgiveness. Today it means alms, but it once had a wider meaning. Love, in the Christian sense. About wishing well. \u2026 Act as if you love your neighbor. \u2026<\/p>\n 10, Hope, p134<\/p>\n Another theological virtue. It means looking forward to the eternal world to come. It isn\u2019t escapism. You can\u2019t want just health or civilization; you have to aim higher. There are two ways of dealing with this. The fool\u2019s way, who blames things themselves. The way of the disillusioned \u2018sensible man,\u2019 who learns not to expect too much. (This would be fine if we did not expect to live forever.) And the Christian Way, where we realize if we have desires, there must be something to satisfy them. Even living forever. Author dismisses those who mock heaven as spending eternity playing harps. (But offers nothing else.)<\/p>\n 11, Faith, p138<\/p>\n Two senses. First, belief in the doctrines of C. And this is a virtue. Author realizes the human mind is not ruled by reason; he can understand that anesthetics work fine, but still be panicked down on the table. We accept things on evidence that we can later doubt. As for Christianity [[ what \u2018evidence\u2019?? ]]<\/span> one can believe in it and then find oneself wanting something that it prohibits. Faith is upholding your beliefs in spite of changing moods. You must recognize that your moods do change. Then to keep reminding yourself of C doctrines, e.g. by praying. \u201cWe have to be continually reminded of what we believe.\u201d Of those who\u2019ve lost their faith, most simply drift away, rather than been reasoned out by an honest argument, 141.6. In a higher sense humility is involved. One must consciously try to practice C virtues. \u2026<\/p>\n 12, Faith, p144<\/p>\n This chapter may not be understandable to anyone not already a Christian. Maybe someday later you\u2019ll realize what it means. Even author is unsure if he has it right. Faith in the higher sense. [[ There\u2019s this endless presumption; how does he *know* that God wants this that and the other? ]]<\/span> \u2026 The debate about actions vs faith. Both extremes are nonsense. You can\u2019t separate the two. A puzzling line from the Bible. \u2026<\/p>\n Book 4, Beyond Personality: or First Steps in the Doctrine of the Trinity<\/strong><\/p>\n 1, Making and Begetting, p153<\/p>\n Warning: theology. The science of God. [[ Science? I do not think the word means what he thinks it means. ]]<\/span> Theology is like the map of the Atlantic. Mere religious experiences lead nowhere. Theology is practical. Without it your ideas about God will be out-of-date. Many plain religious ideas are obsolete, like believing the earth is flat. For example, the idea that if we did what Christ taught the world would be a better place is true enough, but beside the point. Real Christian writing talks about something quite different. Things about sons of God and being saved for our sins. Becoming sons of God. Begotten of God is not about virgin birth. Everything is like God in some way. Author distinguishes two types of greatness: Bios, from the material world; and Zoe, from the spiritual world. Christianity is about changing from having Bios to having Zoe.<\/p>\n 2, The Three-Personal God, p160<\/p>\n More about the difference between making and begetting. \u2026 there are three ways to move in space. You build figures in higher dimensions from shapes in lower ones. This is like the Christian account of God. Theology started with the man who claimed to be God. And then people discovered God inside themselves. So a three-part god. Theology is a kind of experimental science, author says. But it\u2019s up to God to show Himself. Horrible religions in horrible nations are like looking at God through a dirty lens, 165t. Many make up simple religions and are forgotten, because we are not making up Christianity, it is fact. [[ What can one say here? Of course he\u2019s making it all up. What facts? ]]<\/span><\/p>\n 3, Time and Beyond Time, p166<\/p>\n It\u2019s fine to skip chapters that are of no use to you. This chapter may be an unnecessary complication. About prayer. How can God pay attention to so many people at the same moment? Like when we are busy and have too many things to do. But God is not in Time. He has all eternity. It is like being a writer, knowing what a character is doing. God does not live on a timeline, but on an entire page. Author figured this out to remove a common objection to C. Further, God knows what we will do tomorrow, he sees what you do in your entire life. [[ So much for free will ]]<\/span> But if this is bothersome, author says, don\u2019t think about it. [[ There are in fact psychological studies that indicate that people who believe such things \u2013 that they\u2019re being watch over constantly \u2013 behave better, more \u2018morally.\u2019 So there\u2019s a utility here to an idea that isn\u2019t necessarily so. ]]<\/span><\/p>\n [[ It\u2019s as if he\u2019s started out with some premises (e.g., the Jesus really was God), and discovered they\u2019re inconsistent with each other unless he invents an increasingly elaborate fantasy framework to rationalize the premises. This is a long way from deducing that God exists because innate morality. ]] [[ At the same time he\u2019s hedging. \u201cWhat I believe to be the truth\u201d 168.3 \u201cAlmost certainly\u201d God is not in time, 167m. Perhaps this is crucial. He is admitting that this is how he\u2019s rationalized the evident incoherence of religious claims\u2026 ]]<\/span><\/p>\n 4, Good Infection, p172<\/p>\n Consider two books, one on top of the other. They\u2019ve always been there. The Father and Son always exist. Etc. It\u2019s not that God is love; it\u2019s that love is God. Unlike in all the other religions, the Christian God is dynamic. The union of Father and Son is itself a person. A spirit. The Holy Ghost. This matters more than anything else in the world. Once a man unites with God, he will live forever. How does this happen? By being \u2018infected\u2019 by the idea of God, via Jesus Christ. [[ Again, endless fantastic rationales. ]]<\/span><\/p>\n 5, The Obstinate Toy Soldiers, p178<\/p>\n The present state is that we live natural lives that are self-centered, and we want to take advantage of others the exploit the world. We would resent being raised into a spiritual life that would kill our fun. [[ Again, the familiar conservative assumption that people are by nature bad. ]]<\/span> Like a child making his toy soldiers come to life. the tin soldier would resent it. Jesus lived a whole human life\u2026 \u2026 What he did can be expressed in different ways: Christ died for our sins; Father has forgiven us; washed in the blood of the Lamb; Christ as defeated death. All are true. Don\u2019t quarrel with people who use a different formula than yours.<\/p>\n 6, Two Notes, p183<\/p>\n About the previous chapter. Why not beget many sons, instead of making toy soldiers who had to struggle to come to life? [[ Why the whole roundabout process? ]]<\/span> Partly because the human race had already turned away from God. [[ Why? ]]<\/span> Partly because it\u2019s nonsensical to ask how something could have been different. And the author finds this difficult to think about. Second question, How things that are parts of a single organism can be different from one another. A Christian is neither a totalitarian nor an individualist. It\u2019s the devil trying to trick us about one idea in order to draw us toward its opposite.<\/p>\n 7, Let\u2019s Pretend, p187<\/p>\n What difference does all this theology make? Consider prayer. How it\u2019s a kind of pretending. Some kinds of pretense lead up to the real thing. \u2026\u00a0 You begin to notice your sinful acts. In reality God does everything; we allow it to be done to us. \u2026<\/p>\n 8, Is Christianity Hard or Easy?, p195<\/p>\n So that is what Christianity is all about. First it\u2019s about the natural self learning about morality and avoiding \u2018wrong\u2019 things and doing \u2018right\u2019 things despite his propensity to do otherwise. And still has a chance to do what he wants. This may lead to unhappiness. Christ says: give me all. Get over your natural self. You\u2019ll get a new self. This is both hard and easy. Just as the State exists to promote ordinary human happiness, the Church exists to draw men to Christ. The Bible says the whole universe was made for Christ. We don\u2019t know if the plan applies to other creatures anywhere. Perhaps intelligent creatures on other worlds would do the same.<\/p>\n 9, Counting the Cost, p201<\/p>\n Be ye perfect, said the Lord. Author recalls toothaches and going to the dentist. The Lord will give you the full treatment. He won\u2019t be satisfied until you\u2019re perfect. It isn\u2019t right to be humble and prefer to be ordinary. God has a plan. He meant what he said.<\/p>\n 10, Nice People or New Men, p207<\/p>\n If this is true why aren\u2019t Christians obviously nicer than non-Christians? First, if he doesn\u2019t seem nice, then his \u2018conversion\u2019 wasn\u2019t honest. And brings dishonor on C. But it\u2019s not to be expected anyway. The world is more complicated. Some people in other religions sense the ideas of C and so are C\u2019ns without knowing it. Ancient pagans, perhaps. But supposes we compare two real people, one C and the other not. [[ And of course this part isn\u2019t true at all, in the current world ]]<\/span> But we can\u2019t know what either person would be like in different circumstances. Further, every person needs saving as much as any other; niceness is beside the point. And so on. Anyway some Christians are still nasty. Perhaps Jesus attracted \u2018awful people.\u2019 Thinking your life is good may make you less interested in seeking Jesus; perhaps this is what the line about the rich entering the Kingdom was about. Similarly the nasty people might think their only chance in life is Christ. Being nice doesn\u2019t mean your soul has been saved. What God is doing is like turning horses into winged creatures. It\u2019s easy to find stupid arguments against C. But you know in your heart this is an evasion\u2026<\/p>\n 11, The New Men, p218<\/p>\n So the making of New Men is like turning a horse into a winged creature. It\u2019s a transformation. Like insects transformed by rays from outer space. [[ What?? ]]<\/span> Perhaps the Christian idea is like evolution [[ which he seems to acknowledge ]]<\/span>. What is the next step for humans? A superman? The heavily armored creatures of thousands of centuries ago gave way to little animals with better brains. Evolution isn\u2019t about getting bigger or brainier. A common mistake. The next step will go off in some other direction. Perhaps by something other than evolution. And perhaps very few people will notice. The Christian view is that the Next Step has already appeared. To being sons of God. This Next Step will come from outside nature. 1, Not by sexual reproduction. 2, It will be voluntary. 3, Christ was the first instance of the new man. 4, This step occurs in a flash of lightning compared to the development of man on this planet, despite the many times outsiders have thought C was dying. 5, The stakes are higher.<\/p>\n This new step is being taken. Certain individuals. Like a secret holy society. They are not all the same. Imagine describing light to people living in the dark. The light would show they are not all the same. Or someone who\u2019s never tasted salt, thinking it must make everything taste the same way. The more we let Christ take us over, the move truly ourselves we become. The only real personalities are in God. You must give up your self. You can\u2019t think about yourself.<\/p>\n Text ends 227<\/p>\n Final comment:<\/span><\/p>\n So let me see if I have this right. An eternal omniscient God created humanity only 6000 years ago, or so, but created them with free will and therefore flawed, to the point he had to destroy the first batch, except for Noah et al, and then “redeem” humanity from their sins by instantiating himself as a son and having that son gruesomely crucified in order to “forgive” and redeem humanity. While according to Lewis, this redemption is still underway, as people find God and ascend to some kind of unification with God. And when this finishes, what then?<\/span><\/p>\n Perhaps the eternal God will try again? If He’s omniscient, why didn’t he get it right the first time? What was He actually trying to accomplish??<\/span><\/p>\n All of this has a much, much simpler explanation. Which has happened over and over against through human evolution and history.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" (First published 1952. This edition: HarperOne, trade paperback, 2001, xx + 227pp) This is famous as one of the most popular \u2018apologetics\u2019 for Christianity. (Coincidentally, I did recently see a poll of the most popular books about Christianity of the … Continue reading \n
\n
\n