Comments on: C.S. Lewis’ Moral Argument for the Existence of God http://www.ministrymaker.com/c-s-lewis-moral-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/ Sat, 11 Feb 2012 07:32:43 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Brian http://www.ministrymaker.com/c-s-lewis-moral-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/comment-page-1/#comment-2909 Brian Mon, 03 Oct 2011 05:00:33 +0000 http://www.ministrymaker.com/?p=3026#comment-2909 You're syllogism is skewed because it doesn't take into account man's free will and particularly how it relates to the fall of man or original sin. I argue that there is a clear system...it is called the Bible...it is called the life of Jesus Christ...now how you interpret that is your choice (which of course is where man's free will and sin come into account (because people can interpret the Bible however they choose in order to defend their religion or belief, etc.) which if you ask me is sinful and should be considered blasphemy. It is just like politics and the Constitution...you have your strict constitutionalists and your interpreters. If you have ever met someone who really gets it...who really understands God's message and intent, they will tell you it doesn't matter what religion you choose or what path you take to get there...they will simply tell you to read the Bible and understand the life of Jesus. This is so because God only asks of us one thing...and that is to be genuinely sorry for your sins. Period. He understands that you will screw up and sin all along the way, but in the end, if you really are truly sorry for what you have done, and you did indeed strive to act as his son did, you are promised eternal life. That is his system. Just as politics gets corrupted, so does religion. You can't use figures like the Pope or other religious clergy to stand as the poster children of all religious thought...that would be like using Bush or Obama to stand as the poster children for all political thought...clergy get corrupted too. So your next point is going to be, if those people are easily corrupted, then what is there to say that the people who wrote the Bible and wrote of Jesus's life aren't corrupted then too? Maybe they were, maybe they weren't. That isn't important. What is important is that the Bible calls us to a common theme of goodness and asks us to work through, with, and for a Divine entity. That common theme is not corruptible in the sense that there is only one side to the issue. Something can only be corrupted if there is another side or something to corrupt it to. You can only believe in God. There is no other option...thus making there be no other option to corrupt it to. People who don't believe just choose not to, their belief or faith is already established by making the choice. Therefore, once you accept your belief...those corruptible entities don't matter. You’re syllogism is skewed because it doesn’t take into account man’s free will and particularly how it relates to the fall of man or original sin. I argue that there is a clear system…it is called the Bible…it is called the life of Jesus Christ…now how you interpret that is your choice (which of course is where man’s free will and sin come into account (because people can interpret the Bible however they choose in order to defend their religion or belief, etc.) which if you ask me is sinful and should be considered blasphemy. It is just like politics and the Constitution…you have your strict constitutionalists and your interpreters. If you have ever met someone who really gets it…who really understands God’s message and intent, they will tell you it doesn’t matter what religion you choose or what path you take to get there…they will simply tell you to read the Bible and understand the life of Jesus. This is so because God only asks of us one thing…and that is to be genuinely sorry for your sins. Period. He understands that you will screw up and sin all along the way, but in the end, if you really are truly sorry for what you have done, and you did indeed strive to act as his son did, you are promised eternal life. That is his system. Just as politics gets corrupted, so does religion. You can’t use figures like the Pope or other religious clergy to stand as the poster children of all religious thought…that would be like using Bush or Obama to stand as the poster children for all political thought…clergy get corrupted too.

So your next point is going to be, if those people are easily corrupted, then what is there to say that the people who wrote the Bible and wrote of Jesus’s life aren’t corrupted then too?

Maybe they were, maybe they weren’t. That isn’t important. What is important is that the Bible calls us to a common theme of goodness and asks us to work through, with, and for a Divine entity. That common theme is not corruptible in the sense that there is only one side to the issue. Something can only be corrupted if there is another side or something to corrupt it to. You can only believe in God. There is no other option…thus making there be no other option to corrupt it to. People who don’t believe just choose not to, their belief or faith is already established by making the choice. Therefore, once you accept your belief…those corruptible entities don’t matter.

]]> By: Jack Wellman http://www.ministrymaker.com/c-s-lewis-moral-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/comment-page-1/#comment-1890 Jack Wellman Fri, 25 Feb 2011 18:38:20 +0000 http://www.ministrymaker.com/?p=3026#comment-1890 Thank you for your comment Charlie. I actually know that God has provided a way for all mankind to know. Rom 1:20 says "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." Inexcusable means "without any defense" (compare Rom. 1:20). He has nothing to say, he is silenced (compare Romans 3:19); he is guilty and he knows it! I encourage you to read Romans chapters one and two. The fact that God is good and forbearing and long-suffering ought to lead men to repentance! Men ought to run to God seeking His mercy! But instead men despise God, harden their hearts and refuse to repent! Today, during this age of grace God's goodness and grace and mercy abound towards all men, but men still refuse to repent. In the tribulation period, God's severity and judgment and plagues will abound towards all men, but men will still refuse to repent (see Rev. 9:20-21). However, when a sinner does repent, whether now or then, there is great joy in heaven (Luke 15:7,10). The Gentiles do not have the written law of God. They do not have the law of Moses. But according to these verses they have God’s law WITHIN THEM, "written in their hearts." Although they have never seen a copy of the Ten Commandments, they know that it is wrong to murder, steal, lie, etc. And their conscience condemns them when they do such things. Here are two examples: 1) Acts 28:3-4. These barbarians never saw the Ten Commandments but somehow they knew that murder was wrong and that it was punishable by death! 2) Genesis 26:6-11. This heathen king had never seen the Ten Commandments yet he knew that adultery was wrong. Thank you for your comment Charlie. I actually know that God has provided a way for all mankind to know. Rom 1:20 says “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” Inexcusable means “without any defense” (compare Rom. 1:20). He has nothing to say, he is silenced (compare Romans 3:19); he is guilty and he knows it!

I encourage you to read Romans chapters one and two. The fact that God is good and forbearing and long-suffering ought to lead men to repentance! Men ought to run to God seeking His mercy! But instead men despise God, harden their hearts and refuse to repent! Today, during this age of grace God’s goodness and grace and mercy abound towards all men, but men still refuse to repent. In the tribulation period, God’s severity and judgment and plagues will abound towards all men, but men will still refuse to repent (see Rev. 9:20-21). However, when a sinner does repent, whether now or then, there is great joy in heaven (Luke 15:7,10).

The Gentiles do not have the written law of God. They do not have the law of Moses. But according to these verses they have God’s law WITHIN THEM, “written in their hearts.” Although they have never seen a copy of the Ten Commandments, they know that it is wrong to murder, steal, lie, etc. And their conscience condemns them when they do such things. Here are two examples: 1) Acts 28:3-4. These barbarians never saw the Ten Commandments but somehow they knew that murder was wrong and that it was punishable by death! 2) Genesis 26:6-11. This heathen king had never seen the Ten Commandments yet he knew that adultery was wrong.

]]> By: Charlie http://www.ministrymaker.com/c-s-lewis-moral-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/comment-page-1/#comment-1139 Charlie Tue, 31 Aug 2010 18:43:05 +0000 http://www.ministrymaker.com/?p=3026#comment-1139 Here is a syllogism for you. If God exists and he wishes us to follow a system of morality, he would have made such a system clear to all that seek to follow him. No such system exists. People agree in principle that murder (defined as the unjust taking of life) for example, is wrong but they don't agree on what constitutes the unjust taking of life. How many times have Christians themselves disagreed? The Roman Catholic Church says capital punishment is wrong, other Christians disagree. Most Christians agree on the concept what is known as the "just war" but Christians disagreed on the "justice" of the Iraqi war and Quakers consider any kind of killing to be against God's commandment. Not so many years ago Christians had no hesitancy about torturing and killing other Christians with different theological points of view. To them it wasn't murder, it was defending their particular version of the faith. So we all agreed in principle that murder is wrong but what kind of divine lawgiver is it that gives you a principal which no one can agree on practice? Human beings have a lot in common with each other so it's not uncommon or surprising that they share some basic concepts one of which is that members of the society cannot be allowed to simply go around and take the life of another member without good reason. Society would collapse. But that "good reason" varies from situation to situation and culture to culture, century to century. That combined with the inability to find universal standards that apply everywhere and at all times, strongly implies that these values are evolutionary and circumstantial in nature, and are not absolute nor are they are not clear in implementation as they would be if they were attributable to any absolute divine lawgiver who intended us to follow them. I invite you to email me back with your thoughts. Thanks Here is a syllogism for you. If God exists and he wishes us to follow a system of morality, he would have made such a system clear to all that seek to follow him.
No such system exists. People agree in principle that murder (defined as the unjust taking of life) for example, is wrong but they don’t agree on what constitutes the unjust taking of life. How many times have Christians themselves disagreed? The Roman Catholic Church says capital punishment is wrong, other Christians disagree. Most Christians agree on the concept what is known as the “just war” but Christians disagreed on the “justice” of the Iraqi war and Quakers consider any kind of killing to be against God’s commandment. Not so many years ago Christians had no hesitancy about torturing and killing other Christians with different theological points of view. To them it wasn’t murder, it was defending their particular version of the faith.

So we all agreed in principle that murder is wrong but what kind of divine lawgiver is it that gives you a principal which no one can agree on practice?

Human beings have a lot in common with each other so it’s not uncommon or surprising that they share some basic concepts one of which is that members of the society cannot be allowed to simply go around and take the life of another member without good reason. Society would collapse. But that “good reason” varies from situation to situation and culture to culture, century to century. That combined with the inability to find universal standards that apply everywhere and at all times, strongly implies that these values are evolutionary and circumstantial in nature, and are not absolute nor are they are not clear in implementation as they would be if they were attributable to any absolute divine lawgiver who intended us to follow them.
I invite you to email me back with your thoughts.
Thanks

]]>