• In total there are 50 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 49 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 1086 on Mon Jul 01, 2024 9:03 am

The Mything Link

Engage in conversations about worldwide religions, cults, philosophy, atheism, freethought, critical thinking, and skepticism in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4780
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2200 times
Been thanked: 2201 times
United States of America

Re: The Mything Link

Unread post

stahrwe wrote:Except that;
1) Lewis refers to the conversation with Tolkien as the factor;
2) You are not Lewis or, forgive me, at his level;
3) To claim that Lewis created the narrative to explain his conversion conflicts with the fact that he reported to conversation and his conversion within days.

Lewis' conversion was not a process it was an event brought about my the conversation; so, once again, drop all the diversion. Something in the argument presented by Tolkien was cathartic for Lewis and transformed his view of Christianity.

And, we still have not dealt with Tolkien's concept of mythology and explanation that Christianity was true. Of all people, Tolkien should have either dismissed mythology, or excused Christianity from being a myth. The fact that he did neither is significant. It is further significant that Tolkien and Lewis both recognized the Power of Myth and long before Joseph Campbell appeared on the scene. Their writings upend the perception that Campbell was a breath of fresh air.
For the sake of argument, I'll grant you that C.S. Lewis had a sudden conversion to Christianity one day. I'll also grant you that Tolkien was one of the most important writers of the 20th century. So what now? Please, connect the dots for us. The suspense is killing me.

Or are you saying simply that Tolkien believed Christianity was true, and so, QED. The proof's in the pudding. Is this a fair summary of your argument?
Last edited by geo on Sun Feb 03, 2013 8:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
-Geo
Question everything
youkrst

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
One with Books
Posts: 2752
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:30 am
13
Has thanked: 2280 times
Been thanked: 727 times

Re: The Mything Link

Unread post

LanDroid wrote:No it can't. The Church is a wall with breasts like towers? :?:
:lol: :RockOn: :lol:
User avatar
stahrwe

1I - PLATINUM CONTIBUTOR
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4898
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:26 am
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 315 times

Re: The Mything Linki

Unread post

The Song of Solomon was restricted material in old times. It was only to be read by those 30 years old or older. From the comments seen above I understand why. I suppose that in this day and age a level of maturity is more important than chronological age. The calendar may be in the third decade or beyond for some you but your level of maturity seems stuck in middle school. Perhaps your comments were posted to amuse you as you perceive that you are mocking the Bible. If so, I caution you - When you dismiss things and arguments based on your own prejudices or those you have imported from others you set yourselves up for failure. That being said, if you want to get into a debate on the Bible, I suggest that we reactivate the Bible Books discussion. The bump and run approach so popular here is ill suited to be productive for any of you.

As to the applicability of SoS 8:8-10 to the church, I refer you to Matthew Henry's Commentary, or similar commentaries on those verses.


Matthew Henry's Commentary on Song of Solomon 8:8-12

"The church pleads for the Gentiles, who then had not the word of God, nor the means of grace. Those who are brought to Christ themselves, should contrive what they may do to help others to him. Babes in Christ are always seen among Christians, and the welfare of their weak brethren is an object of continual prayer with the stronger believers. If the beginning of this work were likened to a wall built upon Him the precious Foundation and Corner-stone, then the Gentile church would become as a palace for the great King, built of solid silver. If the first preaching of the gospel were as the making a door through the wall of partition, that door should be lasting, as cased with boards of durable cedar. She shall be carefully and effectually protected, enclosed so as to receive no damage. The church is full of care for those yet uncalled. Christ says, I will do all that is necessary to be done for them.See with what satisfaction we should look back upon the times and seasons, when we were in his eyes as those that find favour. Our hearts are our vineyards, which we must keep with all diligence. To Christ, and to his praise, all our fruits must be dedicated. All that work for Christ, work for themselves, and shall be unspeakable gainers by it.
Here is what John Wesley had to say about these verses;

"[8] We have a little sister, and she hath no breasts: what shall we do for our sister in the day when she shall be spoken for?"

"We — These are still the words of the bride. The present church, which was that of the Jews, speaks of a future church, which was to consist of the Gentiles, which she calls little, because she was the younger sister, and then scarce had a being; and she calls her sister to intimate that the Gentile-church should be admitted to the same privileges with the Jews."

"She hath — No grown and full breasts, as virgin have when they are ripe for marriage, Ezekiel 16:7. This signifies the present state of the Gentiles, which as yet were not grown up, and wanted the milk or food of life, as for itself, so also for its members."

"When spoken for — In order to her marriage. How shall we supply that defect?"

"[9] If she be a wall, we will build upon her a palace of silver: and if she be a door, we will enclose her with boards of cedar."*

"If — This seems to be Christ's answer to the foregoing question of the Jewish church. Christ engages himself to provide for her, as suits best with her condition. If the Gentiles when they are converted shall be like a wall, strong and firm in faith; We, my Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost, as the principal builders, and my ministers as workers with, and under us, will build upon her a palace of silver, will add more strength and beauty to her, will enlarge and adorn her; and if she be as a door, which is weaker than a wall; if she be weak in faith, yet we will not therefore reject her, but we will inclose or (as many others render the word) strengthen or fortify her with boards of cedar, which are not only beautiful, but also strong and durable."


*the verse deliberately, or was it accidentally, or perhaps ignorantly, omitted by Youkrst in his initial posting.

"[10] I am a wall, and my breasts like towers: then was I in his eyes as one that found favour.

I am — These seem to be the words of the Jewish church. O Lord, by thy grace I am what thou wouldst have my sister to be, and therefore humbly hope, according to thy promise to her in that case, thou wilt build upon me a palace of silver.

Towers — Which stand out from and above the wall, and are an ornament and defence to it.

Then — When by his grace I was made a wall, he was well-pleased with me, and with his own workmanship in me."
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.
User avatar
stahrwe

1I - PLATINUM CONTIBUTOR
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4898
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:26 am
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 315 times

Re: The Mything Link

Unread post

As far as connecting the dots for you, I am not going to do so. That is not what this post is about. I submit you are stuck at the superficial. Lewis, an atheist was persuaded by Tolkien's arguments about myths and became a Christian. To claim that Lewis' conversion was inevitable is not a defensible argument. Nor can you support the claim that Lewis set aside his skepticism about Christianity. The fact is that he was persuaded that Tolkien's arguments were valid. We know that Lewis was an expert on mythology; So, an atheist, expert on mythology, accepted that Christianity was a true myth and became a Christian.

I submit that Lewis knew more about mythology than me or any of you and that given that, he became a Christian.

It is my belief that this decimates Acharya S/D.M. Murdock and her ilk.
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4780
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2200 times
Been thanked: 2201 times
United States of America

Re: The Mything Link

Unread post

deleted
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: The Mything Link

Unread post

It is my belief that this decimates Acharya S/D.M. Murdock and her ilk.
If that's the case, we would need to know why Lewis changed his mind. Whether or not he changed his mind is useless except as trivia fodder.

This same misunderstanding is represented in many forms. Mistaking the symptom for the illness. Mistaking the effect for the cause. That Lewis changed his mind tells us nothing about why he changed his mind. The 'why' is the only thing that matters. I pointed this out in my previous post that you ignored.

If you rely only on the fact that Lewis changed his mind, then it's a classic argument from authority, as other people in this thread correctly pointed out. It's fallacious reasoning.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
youkrst

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
One with Books
Posts: 2752
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:30 am
13
Has thanked: 2280 times
Been thanked: 727 times

Re: The Mything Link

Unread post

i'll let your tut tutting re: our jovial approach to scripture pass mostly un-noticed, save to say you may want to book in for surgery stahrwe to get that carrot removed :D

as for
stahrwe wrote:It is my belief that this decimates Acharya S/D.M. Murdock and her ilk.
i suppose you mean decimates mythicism, the view that the Lord Jesus Christ is mythological rather than historical.

so you are saying the fact that CS got saved after a chat with JRR about christianity being the one true myth unlike all the others, BAM!! he saw the light, this decimates mythicism and advocates literalism :lol:





Image
Last edited by youkrst on Mon Feb 04, 2013 9:07 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Vishnu
Intern
Posts: 167
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:28 pm
13
Has thanked: 222 times
Been thanked: 91 times

Re: The Mything Link

Unread post

Interbane wrote:If that's the case, we would need to know why Lewis changed his mind. Whether or not he changed his mind is useless except as trivia fodder.

This same misunderstanding is represented in many forms. Mistaking the symptom for the illness. Mistaking the effect for the cause. That Lewis changed his mind tells us nothing about why he changed his mind. The 'why' is the only thing that matters. I pointed this out in my previous post that you ignored.

If you rely only on the fact that Lewis changed his mind, then it's a classic argument from authority, as other people in this thread correctly pointed out. It's fallacious reasoning.
^For real. That reasoning is no more acceptable than if one of us had stated-
"I submit that [Dr. Robert Price, Rev. Tom Harpur, Fr. Thomas L. Brodie, etc.] knew more about [Christian] mythology than me or any of you and that given that, [they all] became [mythicists]"
Last edited by Vishnu on Mon Feb 04, 2013 7:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4780
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2200 times
Been thanked: 2201 times
United States of America

Re: The Mything Link

Unread post

stahrwe wrote:As far as connecting the dots for you, I am not going to do so. That is not what this post is about. I submit you are stuck at the superficial. Lewis, an atheist was persuaded by Tolkien's arguments about myths and became a Christian. To claim that Lewis' conversion was inevitable is not a defensible argument. Nor can you support the claim that Lewis set aside his skepticism about Christianity. The fact is that he was persuaded that Tolkien's arguments were valid. We know that Lewis was an expert on mythology; So, an atheist, expert on mythology, accepted that Christianity was a true myth and became a Christian.

I submit that Lewis knew more about mythology than me or any of you and that given that, he became a Christian.

It is my belief that this decimates Acharya S/D.M. Murdock and her ilk.
This argument has no logical consistency at all. It's sort of an appeal to two authority figures. You assume that C.S. Lewis is infallible or that Tolkien is infallible or maybe both are infallible.

Basically, if it was good enough for C.S. Lewis, it must be true.

(Premise) Tolkien is the world's most preeminent authority on mythology
(Premise) C.S. Lewis was persuaded by Tolkien that Christianity is true.
(Conclusion) Therefore, Christianity is true.

You are also being extremely vague. What aspect of Christianity is true? Does that "truth" as you see it imply a literal interpretation of the Bible or a metaphorical interpretation? Did C.S. Lewis believe that the earth was literally created in six days and that Noah put two of every kind of animal on the ark?
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: The Mything Link

Unread post

The "expert on mythology" part is a head-scratcher in itself. Proof of preeminence in that subject would be hard to determine. What are we trying to measure: encyclopedic knowledge, insight into the deeper meanings of myth, ability to create original literature with mythic themes? Further, why would the expertise be compelling evidence for authority on any other questions? Knowing so much about myth would seem especially unlikely to enable one to know with certainty that one myth is NOT a myth, not really, because unlike all the others it's true.
Post Reply

Return to “Religion & Philosophy”