Lewisian Apologetics for Beginners

That's either CS Lewis or Tony Soprano.

Okay, so I hate CS Lewis. I always have. I hated CS Lewis when I was 5 and my mother was so excited to share one of her favorite authors with me* and I still hate him. First of all, I don't think he was much of a writer. I think his writing was clunky at best. It's not that I dislike British authors of that era. I like Tolkein and Orwell, two of his contemporaries, but Lewis' writing is like a clumsy elephant with an inner ear infection to me.

I get allegory, I really do. I like allegory. I write allegory myself. It's a proud tradition. However, with CS Lewis, I feel like a British intellectual is beating me over the head with a Bible while shouting I. AM. A. CHRISTIAN. YOU. SHOULD. BE. ONE. TOO. Subtlety, dude. You Brits are supposed to own that shit.

Which brings me to Lewis' Christian propaganda lesser known series , the Space Trilogy. This time, Lewis does scifi! I like early scifi . The first thing I did when I received a Kindle was load HG Wells' The Time Machine. That is good stuff. But Lewis takes Martians and Venusians and, well, humans, we're sinful. And wicked. And it's our fault. Oh, and in the third book, the part of evil is played by scientists and lesbians. How . . . nice.

What struck me most about the series is in the second book, Perelandra. In this book, our hero, Ransom (yes, the name is meaningful, and no, I am not opposed to meaningful names) is sent to Venus to stop the Devil from tempting the Venusian Eve.

First of all, this is how we know Venus is the new Eden:

The rafts or floating islands are indeed Paradise, not only in the sense that they provide a pleasant and care-free life (until the arrival of Weston) but also in the sense that Ransom is for weeks and months naked in the presence of a beautiful naked woman without once lusting after her or being tempted to seduce her.

Lewis, dude, get a grip. The Chronicles of Narnia end with the preteen protagonists dying in a train crash, which is good because it means they'll never be adults and have the sexy feelings. I am not kidding you. To Lewis, desire was the ultimate evil and better to die at the age of 12 then ever feel lust. The man probably danced at the funerals of stillborn babies.

You know how I know that my health has taken a turn for the worse? I stop having any interest in sex. Even on days when I'm in too much pain for sex to be achievable, I'm still interested in it, I still fantasize about it, I still find people sexually attractive. It's only when I'm a few hours away from an ER visit that I stop having any interest in sex at all.

Admittedly, I might very well be set to high when it comes to all things lusty, but sexual desire is normal**. It is human to feel desire, to think about sex, to fantasize about sex. Christianity twists this normal human condition around until it is the greatest of evils, and the greatest of good can be characterized by its lack.

It's not really Lewis, it's Christianity. Thinking about sex with a person other than your spouse is the same as actually fucking someone other than your spouse. It's right there in the Bible. Lewis just carried the idea out to its natural, and very disturbing, conclusion.

Then there is the dramatic ending to the book, in which Ransom punches the Devil. You see, Satan is gifted with the rhetoric and spends a good portion of Perelandra attempting to convince Eve to sin. Ransom tries to win with rhetoric, but he can't. So he punches Satan instead.

Stop and think about that for a second. God's champion, a well educated Brit, couldn't win in a rhetoric contest being judged by a woman who had never even met another person besides Adam. That's like trying to convince a small child of something. My mother once not only convinced a 3 year old that she had 3 legs, she had the girl looking for her third shoe***.

Satan is trying to convince Eve that she should go ahead and sleep in the place she is forbidden from sleeping. It's the only solid land on the planet. So tell her it's covered in spiders. Tell her the truth: that sleeping on bare rock sucks and she'll wake up sore. Tell her you'll buy her a pony if she doesn't. Or, better yet, tell her what happened to the humans on Earth when their own Eve made the mistake she is contemplating.

But no, God tells Ransom to punch out the Devil. I'm not kidding you. Might makes right, apparently. Or, rather, might makes truth. If you can beat the snot out of somebody, they must be wrong about things. Obviously. That, my dears, must be pure Lewis, because I don't recall Jesus going Rambo on the Morningstar.

So the next time someone throws some Lewisian apologetics at you, ask them if they'll accept atheism if you can beat them bloody. It's a CS Lewis approved argumentation technique, after all!



*Don't tell my mom. She's a really great person and she was so excited about it, so I read every Narnia book and told her I loved them all.

**Asexuality is also totally normal for people who are asexual.

***I can't imagine where I get my sense of humor from.

Satanic Priests of Atheism

this is your brain on apologetics

If you can cause me to simultaneously headdesk and facepalm* with the title alone, you're getting your own category in hell!

The New Satanic Priests of Atheism

1) Implies that there were old satanic priests of atheism.

2) Once you've put "atheism" in there, "satanic" and "priests" are naturally excluded. You'd have to redefine either atheism, or satanic and priest to mean something they do not, and at that point, you're not even speaking English anymore.

“Only two things are certain: the Universe and human stupidity; and I'm not certain about the Universe”-- Albert Einstein (1879-1955).

I’m certain about the stupidity of man because the Bible tells us we are all under sin, Furthermore the Bible teaches there are fools- when a person has said in his heart there is no God (cited twice Psalm 14:1; Psalm 53:1). That’s God’s position on the so called intellectuals of scientism. Einstein is considered one of the smartest humans to have lived- he believed there is something beyond us, that we would call God, he didn’t accept a personal god but one more in line with theosophy.

Well, fuck it. Einstein believed in something, so should I. Being a scientist and all.

Sin not only affects our moral aptitude of our mind and reasoning, we are unable to think correctly and make accurate judgments until we have the mind of Christ. No matter how intellectually smart one can only consider his works and not the one behind His works. for that they need revelation, input beyond a human source.

See? If you would just believe in Jesus, you would be able to understand why the Bible makes sense. If you would just believe in Jesus, you would see why science, with its experiments and falsifiable tests, is wrong. If you would just believe in Jesus, you would see that the universe is 6,000 years old even though all tangible evidence says otherwise.

Believe and then you'll have all the evidence you need for belief.

Humanist Manifesto H affirms: "We can discover no divine purpose or providence for the human species. ... No deity will save us; we must save ourselves." ('Humanist Manifiestos I and II, Paul Kurtz, ed., (Prometheus Books, 1973, p. 16.)

There's a humanist manifesto? Why was I not informed? Actually, contrary to the cite, the original Humanist Manifesto was published in 1933. It's authors were primarily Roy Wood Sellars and Raymond Bragg. Cite fail. Which is probably why I've never heard of it. I certainly do agree that no deity will save us, we must save ourselves.

So humanists consider themselves masters of their own destiny who have no purpose from a creator so they create there own.

Yes, we are the masters of our own destinies, there is no purpose from on high and so we do create out own. So do believers. They just sign the name of god to it and pretend that makes it somehow different.

An atheist is one that is sure in an absolute sense that there is no God that exists. This does not have to to be there conclusion from evidence (which is not on there side) but from a hope. Which often relates to not wanting to be responsible to a greater authority because they do not like what the authority has to say about them and how they need to live. An agnostic is one who accepts the fact that he has not (yet) found proof of God. A dishonest agnostic says, "I don't know and I don't want to know." An honest agnostic says, "I don't know but I want to know." One cannot be an “atheist” if they are being honest with their pursuit of the facts and science.

No, that's not the definition of an atheist. One can be an atheist that is absolutely sure there is no god, one can also be an atheist that, like me, has seen no evidence of a god and therefore believes there is no god. I am not absolutely sure there is no god , but then again, I am not absolutely sure that there are no unicorns or fairies, but I don't see anyone pointing that out as a character flaw on my part.

The definition of honest and dishonest agnostics is disingenuous. If one truly does not care either way, then it is completely honest to say, "I don't know and I don't care". Simply because you don't understand how one could lack concern for such issues doesn't make that person a liar.

Atheists do not use the mind or logic to arrive at their conclusion, they use didactic reasoning that eliminates certain facts and evidence to stack the deck in their favor to satisfy their own ego’s pride of being right?

So, the question mark means you're not so sure on this point? What? The author also apparently doesn't know what "didactic" means. Colour me surprised**. Didactic refers to a method of teaching and learning, not particularly to a method of reasoning.

What they do is like someone building a two story house and after the first story they stop building to state there is no second story. They purposely forfeit there pursuit of where facts lead because it will change their conclusion. They are willing to believe the record of history in nearly everything else except when it supports the Bible; then they ignore it, unwilling to continue their pursuit of knowledge of the “Holy One.” Again this proves the sinful condition of man and his severed relationship to his maker.

Stop hurting my brain! If I stop building the house after one story, there is no second story. That is absolutely true. A theoretical second story is not the same as an actual second story. As for historical proof? You have no historical proof that god created everything 6,000 years ago, and a great deal of historical proof that no such thing happened. And don't even get me started on the Israelites spending 40 years on a journey I could make in a week, on foot.

Many atheists were brought up in Christian homes and went to church. They asked questions that were not adequately answered or were dissatisfied with what they saw and it repelled them. Some claim that they did research and found none of the story or history to be true, as in the case of a now famous atheist Dan Barker who was a minister and now has the Freedom from Religion Foundation. He has written a book called “Godless” about him being an evangelical preacher that turned to one of Americas leading atheists. Barker claims that Christians took secular songs and melodies and made them into religious songs so he has returned the favor and has taken little town of Bethlehem and set it to words for a celebration of the winter solstice (which is really a pagan celebration).

Yes, the winter solstice is a pagan celebration, from which Christmas was born, asshat. The day of the year, the tree, all that pageantry that you've claimed for yourselves originally belonged to the pagans of Europe first. Same goes for Easter.

Often one will hear the words “there isn't enough evidence to believe in God.” An theist would be hardpressed to believe in any modern day achievements man has done applying this same attitude they have toward the Bible. Can they actually prove man went to the moon or do they have to take others testimonies by “faith.” Can they prove that invisible particles are what everything we see is made of?

Yes, we totally can prove that man went to the moon. There are heaps of evidence of that one. And those invisible particles? They're not invisible once you have things like particle accelerators, and oh, yeah, freaking math. Just because you don't understand something, that doesn't mean no one does.

Hilariously, after listing atheist books, movies and websites:

The atheists established internet discussion forums--Internet Infidels,”The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold”. [unless one is grounded in what they believe I do not recommend visiting these sites].

Well, yeah. You might learn something. That's never good. I spend all day long encouraging you to read the words of believers, he doesn't want believers to see anything we have to say. The truth will set you free, but it won't put more money in his pocket, I suppose.

*While my forehead doesn't hurt, this didn't work out well for my hand.

**A particularly virulent shade of chartreuse

pic link

Why Would They Die for a Lie?

cult, christianity, death, proof, stupid, apologetics, witness, evangelism,

One of the most annoying arguments for Christianity is Why would Jesus' apostles have died for a lie? In other words, Christianity must be true because people have died for it.

First of all, I haven't seen any credible historical proof that the people named as apostles in the Bible actually existed, or wrote anything they are said to have written, when it was claimed to be written. We don't have any original writings and every bit of evidence I have seen tends to be self referential or lacking in backup documentation. For example, I can prove that George Washington existed because we have his original writings as well as the original writings of literally dozens of people who knew him. They all agree on the basic facts of George's existence. We can't say the same for Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. (Never mind why the other apostles' writings didn't make it into official canon.)

What we are left with, in this argument, is whether or not people are willing to die for lies. Yes, they are. This has been proven countless times. Jonestown, Heaven's Gate, the Solar Temple are all proof of this fact. So, if you are making the argument that "People have died for it, it must be true", you need to go find yourself some cyanide Koolaid and a comet, or risk eternal suffering.

Apologetics

apologetics, witness, evangelism, christian, god, atheism, atheist
In a nutshell, this is my problem with Christian apologetics:

What Christian apologetics actually attempts to prove:

There is a Supreme Being.

This Supreme Being (hereinafter "god") is both omnipotent and omniscient.

God requires/desires worship.

God is capable of, and does, reward worship and punish nonworship.

The correct form of worship is Christianity.

The correct form of Christianity is the apologist's particular brand of Christianity.

I've never seen anyone successfully prove all that. I've seen some arguments for the existence of god that look really good if you're unfamiliar with science and logical argumentation, but what about the last two steps? Proving god doesn't prove that your particular church has gotten it right. Realistically, the arguments from Muslims, Jews, Hindus and anyone else are as convincing as the Christians'. They've all got holy books, supposedly written by god, so that's no help. They've all got holy men and women, holy shrines, holy ceremonies- how is one to choose?

If you take a step back from whatever you were raised with, it boggles the mind.

The Problem with Christian Apologetics

dogma, religion, christian, christianity, evangelical, evangelism, evangelist, witness, witnessing, bible, god, jesus, stupid, apologetics
You know what the problem is with Christian apologetics? (Well, other than "christian".) Christian apologetics require some thought and understanding on the part of the proselytizer, which causes two problems: (a) most people just aren't educated enough about their belief system to do more than parrot the apologetic, and (b) religion isn't really something most people can't examine that closely and remain comfortable with it.

(a) allows someone like me to mercilessly pound the proselytizer into submission. Not a good way to get converts.

(b) sows the seeds of your own doubt. I was raised christian. Five years ago, if you had asked me if I believed in God and Jesus and heaven and hell, I would have said yes. I really did believe in those things. Then I actually read the bible cover to cover. My faith was dead before the end of Genesis.

Apparently, there is a new movement afoot in the evangelical community: no apologetics, no explanations, no attempt at rational discourse at all. Since I can't think of any reason to assume that simply telling people you believe a thing might convert them, I can only assume this is to protect believers from the consequences of thinking.

From the Rapture Ready bulletin boards:

Kamatu: God said it, I believe it, that settles it

For the Christian believer, this is the core of their apologetic. Nothing more is needed, except some study if you find a passage hard for you to understand. if you don't have trouble with large swathes of the bible, it doesn't mean what you think it does. seriously, stop and think about this. the most recent passages were written 2000 years ago, by a people whose culture was entirely unlike our own, in an entirely different language. It was then translated multiple times by many different people. Shakespeare is beyond most people, and he wrote in english, around 500 years ago. As a Christian, any defense of the faith (as required in 1 Peter 3:15* and Jude 3**) does not require some kind of fake "neutral" ground. explaining your religion now qualifies as fake neutral ground? One example I've seen repeatedly is a demand to "not use the Bible", but how can we as Christians give up what is to be the rule and guide of our faith? no, i don't want you to give up your "rule and guide", but trying to convince me of god's existence using a book i find no more special than the dictionary isn't terribly helpful. It is not our job to open the heart of the unbeliever, simply our duty to present the reason for the faith that is within us and contend earnestly. wait, are you presenting reasons or not? "god said it" is not a reason. It is God's prerogative to bring conviction on them that they might be saved.

nothing like a little dogma to start my week.

*But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

**Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

I have come to the conclusion that bible verses rarely have anything to do with what the believer says they do.