C. S. Lewis sounds absolutely magical. I’ve finished several of his books and now plowing my way through Pilgrim’s Regress.

Out of all the theologians, I think Lennox is easily the next CS Lewis

I’m currently playing this great man and I really appreciate this insight into Jack - thanks a million 🙌🏻

As an atheist my favourite Christian was C.S. Lewis. He was so unique and brilliant and he really made Christianity intellectual. I also really enjoy John C. Lennox and this story was hilarious.

Dawkins also declined a debate with Stephen C. Meyer. Meyer has said the invite remains open. 4 years and counting....

No trouble intended. I simply meant to provoke thought, not anger. Lewis, brilliant though he was, was content to be known as a "mere Christian," but was not known to back down from debate with anyone. Dawkins insists on debating only "real scientists" and refuses to debate William Lane Craig. I was just wondering whether he would have debated Lewis, or whether he would have felt such a debate to be beneath him. Personally, I think Lewis would have welcomed the opportunity and would have won.

Great man . ❤️💫Thank u all

Amen To THAT MY Friend.

hahahaha CS Lewis is brilliant, so is Lennox !

"...there was no time for questions." Hilarious.

rip lewis !!!!!!!!!!!

Do not try to start trouble kid, just because someone has a degree does not mean they are a "scientist" I'd rather listen to an intelligent man than a scientist.

I love you John Lennox. You have always been a powerful force for Christianity. However, I need to question the reverence a few very good Christian apologists I listen to have for Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien because of their powerful, hidden "Christian" messages. My spiritual crap detector has always been set off by such claims. When Christ created allegories to explain God's message, or His kingdom, these stories at least had verisimilitude - that is, they resembled real life, and the moral of the story was absolutely applicable to the men and women listening. When he told the story of the good Samaritan, for example, he didn't need to say, "Once upon a time there was a Fnarp from the planet Zod". Compare this to the stories of Tolkien and Lewis: Lions and witches, Hobbits and Golems. Basically these writers have begun with a certain moral premise, or outcome, and created a series of fantastical episodes and that lead to that outcome - at least for the anthropomorphic beasts that populate their fiction. Once we finish reading about magicians and spells and rings and mystical castles and quests for the source of good, we're supposed to have some epiphany: "Ah, this was a Christian message! That's it! I'm converting to Christianity!" Yet there are Tolkien and Lewis geeks out there who are members of their university Tolkien or Lewis Societies, wear all the costumes, recite entire chapters by rote, and have no intention of replacing their idols with God. In fact, they simply don't know God. So much for those powerful hidden messages in these books! It might as well be Monty Python. The same claim of "powerful Christian allegory" can be, and has been, made for The Shack, in which God is an old black woman, or even Star Wars. I was once told by some Christian that, despite all the blasphemous ridicule of God in The Simpsons, it was all worth watching because one episode portrayed the nerdy, embarrassing "Christian" Ned Flanders in a good light, and therefore it was worth wading through all the rest and tolerating its message. Those Christians who accept anything on face value just because it's labelled "Christian" need to wake up. Both Lewis and Tolkien wrote many wise words in favour of their beliefs, and we might say they were very clever because they covered those beliefs with a Christian cloak. But what were those beliefs really? I myself have read Lewis's stuff that comes across as Christian apologetics. It turned out my suspicions were correct: he believed in a mysticism that is anything but Christian, and was a member of the same society as Tolkien - a society that counted the evil Alister Crowley as member and founder. That's how they became friends in the first place. People actually think they're spiritually evolved because they "understand" the message of this literature, but intellectual apprehension of the meaning shouldn't be mistaken for spiritual insight. If people had spiritual insight, something would be stirred in them to make them question the origins and intentions of the literature they read, the shows they watch, the preachers they listen to, the doctrines they hold, and the traditions they follow because millions (billions!) of others do, or because it's part of their culture. We need to listen to Christ's warnings about being watchful, about deception, about our vulnerability once we stray outside Scripture. He told us that many would preach a false Christ. He told us that they would be very deceptive. He told us to beware of counterfeits. Satan is much cleverer than you and me, and that's why God wants us to cling to Him and His Word with faith that He, and He alone, can show us the Truth, through Christ.

I wonder whether Richard Dawkins would have deigned to debate C.S. Lewis, Dawkins being a real scientist and Lewis being a simple Christian and all.

A lot of believers do not know what C.S. Lewis believed. C.S. Lewis’ Beliefs In simple terms, C.S. Lewis was an Anglo-Catholic and though dead, remains a living spokesman for ecumenism - a link to ecclesiastical reunion. The following documented facts regarding his religious beliefs speak for themselves and raise some disturbing questions about his meaning of “Christian.” 1. Lewis believed in a “Christian” purgatory after death. “Death should not deprive people of a second chance…Lewis frankly admitted believing in purgatory. To him it was a place for souls already saved but in need of purifying - purging. Lewis felt that our souls demand purgatory. Who would want to enter heaven foul and dirty? Lewis thought of the dentist’s chair. ‘I hope that when the tooth of life is drawn and I am coming round, a voice will say, ‘Rinse your mouth out with this’ This will be purgatory.’” (Kathryn Lindskoog. C.S. Lewis: Mere Christian, 4th ed. Chicago: Cornerstone Press, 1997, p. 105). 2. Lewis prayed for the dead. “Lewis could never accept the Roman Catholic practice of praying to saints…however, he emphatically believed in praying for the dead. He believed that his prayers could somehow bless them. One must remember that Lewis believed in a temporary purgatory for the blessed dead as a kind of entryway to heaven” (Lindskoog 135 based on Lewis’ Letters to Malcolm, London: Collins p. 15, 107-110). 3. Lewis believed in mystical experiences. “Rational though he was, Lewis thoroughly believed in the mystical experience, a way to go out of this world before death … mystics from all kinds of religions have much the same mystical experience” (Lindskoog, p. 197). 4. Lewis did not believe in the total inerrancy of the Bible. “Although Lewis never doubted the historicity of an account because the account was miraculous, he believed that Jonah’s whale, Noah’s ark, and Job’s boils were probably inspired stories rather than factual history” (Lindskoog, p. 199). 5. Lewis believed that Roman Catholicism is a “Christian” religion. Regarding Mere Christianity, Lewis said: “I tried to guard against this [putting forth his Anglican beliefs] by sending the original script of what is now Book II to four clergymen (Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian, Roman Catholic) and asking for their criticism. The Methodist thought I had not said enough about Faith, and the Roman Catholic thought I had gone rather too far about the comparative unimportance of theories in explanation of the Atonement. Otherwise all five of us were agreed” (C.S. Lewis. Mere Christianity. New Jersey: Fleming Revell, 1982, p. 11). Continuing this thought, Lewis added that he “did at least succeed in presenting an agreed, or common, or central, or ‘mere’ Christianity” and congratulated himself in having helped to bridge the “chasm” between Protestant denominations and Catholicism: “If I have not directly helped the cause of reunion, I have perhaps made it clear why we ought to be reunited” (Mere Christianity, p. 12). “You will not learn from me whether you ought to become an Anglican, a Methodist, a Presbyterian, or a Roman Catholic. This omission is intentional. There is no mystery about my position…the best service I could do was to explain and defend the belief that has been common to nearly all Christians at all times” (Mere Christianity, p. 6-7). “And, whatever you do, do not start quarrelling with other people because they use a different formula from yours” (Mere Christianity, p. 284-5.) 6. Lewis accepted the Mass as being the same as Christian Communion. “There are three things that spread the Christ life to us: baptism, belief, and that mysterious action which different Christians call by different names - Holy Communion, the Mass, the Lord’s Supper …anyone who professes to teach you Christian doctrine will, in fact, tell you to use all three, and that is enough for our present purpose” (Mere Christianity, p. 108-09). In chapter 19 of his Letters to Malcolm, Lewis suggested that the Roman Catholic conception of the bread and wine becoming the actual body and blood of Christ might be just as valid as the Protestant view of the Lord’s Supper as a memorial. The conclusion? By including a so-called “Christian” purgatory in his beliefs, Lewis immediately destroys the Bible doctrine of the sufficiency of the righteousness of Christ imputed to the sinner’s account in salvation. By including Roman Catholicism under the umbrella of Christianity, and admittedly omitting its doctrines for the sake of unity, Lewis condones the heresies of the Mass, idolatry, Mariolatry, and salvation by works still taught and practised by that institution. These are not “merely” cosmetic differences between denominations as Lewis would have us believe; these make up the great divide between truth and error. According to the Scriptures, salvation by works sends souls to Hell! How can such a life and death truth be casually omitted? Lewis, alcohol, and other questionable issues “It is a mistake to think that Christians ought all to be teetotalers; Mohammedanism, not Christianity, is the teetotal religion” (Mere Christianity, p. 132). While awareness of Lewis’s confused Biblical perspective is of primary importance, one cannot ignore his tobacco addiction (Lindskoog, p. 187), pub frequenting, relationship with life-long mentor Roman Catholic nun, Sister Penelope, and even his questionable marriage of convenience late in life to American author Joy Davidman. Then, there is the use of profanity [including the Lord’s Name] in his allegory The Great Divorce, written fourteen years after his conversion. In addition, his chapter on “Hell” in The Problem of Pain raises some serious doubts as to his belief in a literal Hell. And there is the constant referral to sexual matters in Mere Christianity, but not one Bible verse is quoted in the first half of the book and only three partial verses in the latter half with no Bible reference in the entire book! With such a lack of supporting evidence, one wonders upon what foundation this “mere Christianity” is built? So why is Lewis so revered by some evangelicals today? In 1993, Christianity Today suggested this interesting reason why C.S. Lewis is so popular among some evangelicals. “Lewis’s concentration on the main doctrines of the church [which included Roman Catholic Church] coincided with evangelicals’ concern to avoid ecclesiastical separatism.” One wonders how serious-minded, discerning evangelical Christians can support a man with such fundamental flaws in his basic theology. Even Lewis himself admitted his own lack of knowledge in doctrine: “I should have been out of my depth in such waters: more in need of help myself than able to help others” (Mere Christianity 7). So why is Lewis - a man who devoted his life not to the study of theology but to ancient pagan mythology - revered as the greatest Christian apologist in our century? Simple. Many professing Christians have rejected their God-given heritage and are trading in the solid rock of the Word for the shifting sands of man’s intellectual conjecture. One look at the seminaries and Christian bookstores of our lands reveals the very evident shift. Sadly, even some fundamentalists are beginning to tread the same precarious ground of compromise. Today, the market is full of writers like Lewis. If ever we needed discernment, it is now. Every book needs to be tested on these grounds: “What saith the Scriptures?” If books are not in total agreement with the Scriptures of truth, we should avoid them. “If they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them” (Isaiah 8:20). Rev. Ivan Foster (The Burning Bush, May 2001) observed of C.S. Lewis: “A greater understanding of the man and his theology showed that he was not an advocate of the teachings of Holy Scripture but his own scholarly notions. It is a foolish glorying in worldly scholarship that makes some admire the man.” “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth…” II Timothy 4:3-4.

I put on a blind fold and tried to assemble a watch. It was easy. Used a pot of glue and sticky tape. Is that legit?

Reading so boring. can't lie. So mid. L reading