Then you would look at it with the lens of trying to figure out what is wrong in almost every step along the way? And probably the most important thing in his book, or in any book for that matter, is that when I put it down, I was determined to be a better person, to fix up deficiencies in my life. It's great to believe in something passionately, but it's important and vital to know WHY you believe it.

I am not a Bible scholar or something but recently I've finished the Holy Bible (Revised Standard Edition) from cover to cover. As an atheist who has seen first hand all the good Christian values have brought to societies, I was expecting something that would bridge the gap between my thinking this was more out of the innate good in men and the impact of "god" in this outcome.I was aware of this book in my childhood but never read it until now, because I'm working with two C.

He tries distinguish this difference by saying that the the second one is that one “tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to help, and suppress the impulse to run away.The virtue/vice lists and the trinity concept - these are frameworks that have been placed on the practice of religion, more of a way of talking about morality than anything else. e. Manichaeism) whereby the existence of evil is explained by there being two equal forces in the Universe which are in perpetual contention, the Good one and the Bad one. It’s not overly long, certainly not bogged down in theological doctrines that won’t make any sense to a person who does not belong to a specific Christian denomination or who isn’t even a Christian. Book description at the Wayback Machine (archived 24 December 2007), originally from [CSLewisClassics.

As a pretty dedicated church goer myself, I must candidly say that unless the book is actual scripture itself, it might as well be one of those desperately snobbish self-help books full of zippy motivation quotes and the same principles you find in all other books of the same genre, just worded slightly differently. Does he not say essentially that the evidence for moral law comes from our ability to know right from wrong? Due to the timing of the fourth set of talks (10:20 pm), Lewis said he could not do them all live and would have to record some. It did not persuade me to convert, certainly (Christ's preaching did that), but it played a significant role in my journey, and I have yet to encounter another modern apologetic quite as simultaneously accessible and "clever. This explanation (naturalistic) can also explain why certain historical figures have responded to moral dilemmas based on their social norms at the time and place they lived in.He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. Lewis talks about Christianity being a process of producing a particular kind of new man, instead of a group of people who follow a set of rules. I think a copy of Mere Christianity should be provided free to every impressionable schoolchild in the country.

Mere Christianity is such a classic work, and having been read by millions over the past sixty years plus years, it is difficult to say anything new about it. Its audience is not just Christians, but also non-believers, folks who would like to investigate the faith of Christianity, what it entails, and what it doesn’t. As the years have rolled on though, a different society, with different needs and expectations has arisen that sees the world a little different than the British society, in the midst of all the moral and spiritual challenges that happened in the World War II years.I know that these could be acceptable during his time but I just got a bit annoyed when I was reading the book. Surely we would, us avuncular old shitbags in cardigans puffing on our pipes and living in the real world as we do. But she recommended it to me, and I had it on a trip, and for hours and hours I read, mesmerized in a way that few thrillers can even achieve. The chat fizzled out, as these things so often do; I think many struggled, not with the ideas but with the language, finding it dated and inaccessible.