Acciones de libros

Comenzar a leer

Información del libro

Mere Christianity

Name: Mere Christianity
Rating: 4.5 (166 reviews)

Por C. S. Lewis

Calificaciones:

Calificar: 4.5 de 5 estrellas4.5/5 (166 calificaciones)

Longitud: 253 página4 horas

Descripción

In the classic Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis, the most important writer of the 20th century, explores the common ground upon which all of those of Christian faith stand together. Bringing together Lewis’ legendary broadcast talks during World War Two from his three previous books The Case for Christianity, Christian Behavior, and Beyond Personality, Mere Christianity provides an unequaled opportunity for believers and nonbelievers alike to hear this powerful apologetic for the Christian faith.

Editorial:: HarperCollins
Publicado:: Jun 2, 2009
ISBN:: 9780061947438
Formato:: Libro

Vista previa del libro

Mere Christianity - C. S. Lewis

Norris

Book One

Right and Wrong As a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe

1 The Law of Human Nature

Every one has heard people quarrelling. Sometimes it sounds funny and sometimes it sounds merely unpleasant; but however it sounds, I believe we can learn something very important from listening to the kind of things they say. They say things like this: ‘How’d you like it if anyone did the same to you?’—‘That’s my seat, I was there first’—‘Leave him alone, he isn’t doing you any harm’—‘Why should you shove in first?’—‘Give me a bit of your orange, I gave you a bit of mine’—‘Come on, you promised.’ People say things like that every day, educated people as well as uneducated, and children as well as grown-ups.

Now what interests me about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man’s behaviour does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of behaviour which he expects the other man to know about. And the other man very seldom replies: ‘To hell with your standard.’ Nearly always he tries to make out that what he has been doing does not really go against the standard, or that if it does there is some special excuse. He pretends there is some special reason in this particular case why the person who took the seat first should not keep it, or that things were quite different when he was given the bit of orange, or that something has turned up which lets him off keeping his promise. It looks, in fact, very much as if both parties had in mind some kind of Law or Rule of fair play or decent behaviour or morality or whatever you like to call it, about which they really agreed. And they have. If they had not, they might, of course, fight like animals, but they could not quarrel in the human sense of the word. Quarrelling means trying to show that the other man is in the wrong. And there would be no sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are; just as there would be no sense in saying that a footballer had committed a foul unless there was some agreement about the rules of football.

Now this Law or Rule about Right and Wrong used to be called the Law of Nature. Nowadays, when we talk of the ‘laws of nature’ we usually mean things like gravitation, or heredity, or the laws of chemistry. But when the older thinkers called the Law of Right and Wrong ‘the Law of Nature’, they really meant the Law of Human Nature. The idea was that, just as all bodies are governed by the law of gravitation, and organisms by biological laws, so the creature called man also had his law—with this great difference, that a body could not choose whether it obeyed the law of gravitation or not, but a man could choose either to obey the Law of Human Nature or to disobey it.

We may put this in another way. Each man is at every moment subjected to several different sets of law but there is only one of these which he is free to disobey. As a body, he is subjected to gravitation and cannot disobey it; if you leave him unsupported in mid-air, he has no more choice about falling than a stone has. As an organism, he is subjected to various biological laws which he cannot disobey any more than an animal can. That is, he cannot disobey those laws which he shares with other things; but the law which is peculiar to his human nature, the law he does not share with animals or vegetables or inorganic things, is the one he can disobey if he chooses.

This law was called the Law of Nature because people thought that every one knew it by nature and did not need to be taught it. They did not mean, of course, that you might not find an odd individual here and there who did not know it, just as you find a few people who are colour-blind or have no ear for a tune. But taking the race as a whole, they thought that the human idea of decent behaviour was obvious to every one. And I believe they were right. If they were not, then all the things we said about the war were nonsense. What was the sense in saying the enemy were in the wrong unless Right is a real thing which the Nazis at bottom knew as well as we did and ought to have practised? If they had had no notion of what we mean by right, then, though we might still have had to fight them, we could no more have blamed them for that than for the colour of their hair.

I know that some people say the idea of a Law of Nature or decent behaviour known to all men is unsound, because different civilisations and different ages have had quite different moralities.

But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own. Some of the evidence for this I have put together in the appendix of another book called The Abolition of Man; but for our present purpose I need only ask the reader to think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to—whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or every one. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked.

But the most remarkable thing is this. Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining ‘It’s not fair’ before you can say Jack Robinson. A nation may say treaties don’t matter; but then, next minute, they spoil their case by saying that the particular treaty they want to break was an unfair one. But if treaties do not matter, and if there is no such thing as Right and Wrong—in other words, if there is no Law of Nature—what is the difference between a fair treaty and an unfair one? Have they not let the cat out of the bag and shown that, whatever they say, they really know the Law of Nature just like anyone else?

It seems, then, we are forced to believe in a real Right and Wrong. People may be sometimes mistaken about them, just as people sometimes get their sums wrong; but they are not a matter of mere taste and opinion any more than the multiplication table. Now if we are agreed about that, I go on to my next point, which is this. None of us are really keeping the Law of Nature. If there are any exceptions among you, I apologise to them. They had much better read some other book, for nothing I am going to say concerns them. And now, turning to the ordinary human beings who are left:

I hope you will not misunderstand what I am going to say. I am not preaching, and Heaven knows I do not pretend to be better than anyone else. I am only trying to call attention to a fact; the fact that this year, or this month, or, more likely, this very day, we have failed to practise ourselves the kind of behaviour we expect from other people. There may be all sorts of excuses for us. That time you were so unfair to the children was when you were very tired. That slightly shady business about the money—the one you have almost forgotten—came when you were very hard-up. And what you promised to do for old So-and-so and have never done—well, you never would have promised if you had known how frightfully busy you were going to be. And as for your behaviour to your wife (or husband) or sister (or brother) if I knew how irritating they could be, I would not wonder at it—and who the dickens am I, anyway? I am just the same. That is to say, I do not succeed in keeping the Law of Nature very well, and the moment anyone tells me I am not keeping it, there starts up in my mind a string of excuses as long as your arm. The question at the moment is not whether they are good excuses. The point is that they are one more proof of how deeply, whether we like it or not, we believe in the Law of Nature. If we do not believe in decent behaviour, why should we be so anxious to make excuses for not having behaved decently? The truth is, we believe in decency so much—we feel the Rule of Law pressing on us so—that we cannot bear to face the fact that we are breaking it, and consequently we try to shift the responsibility. For you notice that it is only for our bad behaviour that we find all these explanations. It is only our bad temper that we put down to being tired or worried or hungry; we put our good temper down to ourselves.

These, then, are the two points I wanted to make. First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in.

2 Some Objections

If they are the foundation, I had better stop to make that foundation firm before I go on. Some of the letters I have had show that a good many people find it difficult to understand just what this Law of Human Nature, or Moral Law, or Rule of Decent Behaviour is.

For example, some people wrote to me saying, ‘Isn’t what you call the Moral Law simply our herd instinct and hasn’t it been developed just like all our other instincts?’ Now I do not deny that we may have a herd instinct: but that is not what I mean by the Moral Law. We all know what it feels like to be prompted by instinct—by mother love, or sexual instinct, or the instinct for food. It means that you feel a strong want or desire to act in a certain way. And, of course, we sometimes do feel just that sort of desire to help another person: and no doubt that desire is due to the herd instinct. But feeling a desire to help is quite different from feeling that you ought to help whether you want to or not. Supposing you hear a cry for help from a man in danger. You will probably feel two desires—one a desire to give help (due to your herd instinct), the other a desire to keep out of danger (due to the instinct for self-preservation). But you will find inside you, in addition to these two impulses, a third thing which tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to help, and suppress the impulse to run away. Now this thing that judges between two instincts, that decides which should be encouraged, cannot itself be either of them. You might as well say that the sheet of music which tells you, at a given moment, to play one note on the piano and not another, is itself one of the notes on the keyboard. The Moral Law tells us the tune we have to play: our instincts are merely the keys.

Another way of seeing that the Moral Law is not simply one of our instincts is this. If two instincts are in conflict, and there is nothing in a creature’s mind except those two instincts, obviously the stronger of the two must win. But at those moments when we are most conscious of the Moral Law, it usually seems to be telling us to side with the weaker of the two impulses. You probably want to be safe much more than you want to help the man who is drowning: but the Moral Law tells you to help him all the same. And surely it often tells us to try to make the right impulse stronger than it naturally is? I mean, we often feel it our duty to stimulate the herd instinct, by waking up our imaginations and arousing our pity and so on, so as to get up enough steam for doing the right thing. But clearly we are not acting from instinct when we set about making an instinct stronger than it is. The thing that says to you, ‘Your herd instinct is asleep. Wake it up,’ cannot itself be the herd instinct. The thing that tells you which note on the piano needs to be played louder cannot itself be that note.

Here is a third way of seeing it. If the Moral Law was one of our instincts, we ought to be able to point to some one impulse inside us which was always what we call ‘good,’ always in agreement with the rule of right behaviour. But you cannot. There is none of our impulses which the Moral Law may not sometimes tell us to suppress, and none which it may not sometimes tell us to encourage. It is a mistake to think that some of our impulses—say mother love or patriotism—are good, and others, like sex or the fighting instinct, are bad. All we mean is that the occasions on which the fighting instinct or the sexual desire need to be restrained are rather more frequent than those for restraining mother love or patriotism. But there are situations in which it is the duty of a married man to encourage his sexual impulse and of a soldier to encourage the fighting instinct. There are also occasions on which a mother’s love for her own children or a man’s love for his own country have to be suppressed or they will lead to unfairness towards other people’s children or countries. Strictly speaking, there are no such things as good and bad impulses. Think once again of a piano. It has not got two kinds of notes on it, the ‘right’ notes and the ‘wrong’ ones. Every single note is right at one time and wrong at another. The Moral Law is not any one instinct or set of instincts: it is something which makes a kind of tune (the tune we call goodness or right conduct) by directing the instincts.

By the way, the point is of great practical consequence. The most dangerous thing you can do is to take any one impulse of your own nature and set it up as the thing you ought to follow at all costs. There is not one of them which will not make us into devils if we set it up as an absolute guide. You might think love of humanity in general was safe, but it is not. If you leave out justice you will find yourself breaking agreements and faking evidence in trials ‘for the sake of humanity’, and become in the end a cruel and treacherous

Ha llegado al final de esta vista previa. ¡Regístrese para leer más!

Comience sus 30 días gratis

Página 1 de 1

Reseñas

Go to 6boysandme's profile

The book I like to read to remind myself who I am and more importantly whose I am. Lewis understood what it meant to be a Christian and he helps me want to be a better one.

Go to orfishome's profile

Got better as it went along. Profound but simple truths unpacked in a way only C.S. Lewis can. Will take a second and third read to take it all in.

Go to nx74defiant's profile

Enjoyed his arguments in favor of faith and belief.I didn't go for his explanation of the trinity.

Go to swampygirl-1's profile

Even if we do disagree on a few points I really appreciate and enjoy Lewis' playful style of explaining things.

Go to brantelg's profile

Truly a masterpiece of Christian literature.

Go to xiuyun77's profile

favorite book

Go to kyronae_1's profile

The most amazing apologetic work I've ever read! C.S. Lewis is one of those authors who has truly mastered the art of the written word. With a pragmatic touch and an astounding ability to create clear and beautiful images from nothing, Lewis's written version of his radio broadcasts captures the true essence of Christianity in a way that few others have ever managed. Truly inspiring!

Go to kristelh_15's profile

Mere Christianity is a book by C.S. Lewis, an academic lay Christian who attempts to explain Christian theology in such a way as to avoid controversy among Christians. I really enjoyed his book and found it easy to follow because of his use of metaphor to explain Christian concepts. First of Lewis starts with concepts and leaves Christianity completely out of those chapters, then he discusses what Christians believe. In Book III, he discusses morality and virtues and explores social, sexual, marriage, forgiveness, Sin, Charity, hope and faith. The last section, Lewis explores God's being, the trinity, transformation and sanctification but he doesn't use those words. I enjoyed the discussion of the trinity and time verses dimension. In a way it reminded me of L'Engle's A Wrinkle in Time which I recently had read. His discussion of evolution took me quite by surprise. If I could, I would love to be able to ask him some questions about this chapter. I recommend this book for anyone that wants some clear explanations and I think this is a book I will keep on my shelf as a resource to go back to time and again.

Go to dooney-2's profile

To begin with, I have to say outright that I admire C.S. Lewis. I enjoy his writing. I think his scholarly work was brilliant and I adore his fiction. I also think that his writings as a Christian apologist are in some ways the most difficult to place in his oeuvre, and it is these works that people, at least people I know, either tend to love or hate.I enjoyed Mere Christianity. I had read it before. If you are expecting sophisticated theology, or an intellectual defense of Christianity, this is not the book for you. It does not have the rigor of his academic works and I do not believe this was ever Lewis' intention. The book remains popular because it is a clear explanation of "mere" Christianity, as I believe Lewis understood it as a "mere" man. It reads like a series of brief chats. In fact I think the book was conceived as a series of talks to be given on the radio and expanded from that. The talks are meant to be simple. They succeed because I think they address many issues experienced by real people who are Christians or are struggling with Christianity. I think if one is struggling with the meaning of life or with how to live a good life and is open to the emotional sides of life aside from just the intellectual, there are parts of this book that are bound to resonate. This is one of the reasons for its continued success. Theologically, Lewis may not always pull off his explanations, he might not even explain something in a way that has since become accepted, but I feel he carries this off as he explains it as the current state of his own evolving understanding.That said, much that is said is dated, is written for a different time and world-view. This might be difficult for some people, although the fundamental principles remain the same several generations later. And as usual, Lewis makes me think, and reevaluate, both when I agree with him and when I don't.

Go to themadturtle's profile

It almost seems silly to write a review of such a wonderful piece of literature. This is, of course, a fantastic book. Whether you're a Christian or not, the book appeals on an intellectual level. Highly recommended.

Go to rickynicholes's profile

C.S. Lewis leads the reader along with him as he constructs Mere Christianity; reminding me of Jesus' parable in Matthew 7:24–27 in which a wise builder first constructs a solid foundation so that the rest of the structure may be safely laid upon it. Similarly, Lewis works as though he were constructing a house. The foundation is first laid of human nature and our relationship to the law. He builds on top that our relationship to our creator and then to each other. All the while, Lewis draws comparisons between our other options: if we are to think of ourselves as the judge of “good” or if we choose not to accept our creator as God etc., and brings about logic and reason. Having come from an atheist view and later choosing to follow Christ, Lewis brings about some hard truths which may come off as offensive, but for good reason.As Lewis prefaces Mere Christianity, he explains that the work started out as radio broadcasts he later wrote down – scribing them as though he were speaking them out loud. This is a valuable piece to Lewis' structure of the book and an insight to the flow of his work. I had read the book once before finding it difficult to follow and needing to re-read the bulk of it. More recently, I listened to the audio book while following along in the printed copy. I have found this to be tremendously clearer and recommend the method.“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: ‘I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic- on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg- or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”He speaks out of the lies we are told regarding sex, the worth-while risk God has taken on us for the sake of free will, and his opposition to imposing Christian morals on the rest of mankind. He finishes it up in the last section by talking about doctrine and reinforcing the “how”s and “why”s of Christianity. Within this book I have found some very meaty bits and amazing quotes which I had to refrain from plastering all over this post. You can most definitely google them or just read the work. Okay, there is one more that I feel is foundational and much on the contrary to the popular misconception of why Christians tend to resemble their Christ:“That is why the Christian is in a different position from other people who are trying to be good. They hope, by being good, to please God if there is one; or- if they think there is not- at least they hope to deserve approval from good men. But the Christian thinks any good he does comes from the Christ-life inside him. He does not think God will love us because we are good, but that God will make us good because He loves us; just as the roof of a greenhouse does not attract the sun because it is bright, but becomes bright because the sun shines on it.”I enjoyed this book a great deal and recommend it to anyone trying to figure out what following Christ is all about – whether from a following perspective or a more inquisitive perspective looking in.To see this review and others like it please visit the Booked and Convicted blog.

Go to ameliaiif's profile

For my C.S. Lewis Class...That's right, a whole class devoted just to the works of C.S. Lewis. Brilliant!

Go to endersreads's profile

I am a long time fan of C.S. Lewis and his master (his words), George MacDonald. I must say that I am a larger fan of both of their masters, Jesus, or Y'shua. Jesus laid into a few simple words immense mystery and simple understanding. Let us understand Mere Christianity is the work of a former Atheist turned Christian apologetic. The Christian and non-Christian alike should read this book so that they may better understand each other. If only the differing beliefs would study one another, en masse.... I find Lewis' prose to be distinctly intelligent and charming. Here for you is a chance to better understand the world in which we share and why many believe Y'shua to be the Creator Incarnate. God Incarnate. The concept shakes one. For anyone interested in theology, I highly recommend this book and along with it, D. James Kennedy's "Why I Believe" and Saint Augustine's "Confessions". The Bible and these 3 make a strong case for a One True Living God with the name of Yaweh.

Go to dreams_ark's profile

Sometimes faith needs a little logic. Here you can find some. And, as a bonus, what great history. Think about hearing this on the radio during a most fearful period.

Go to lmathews_19's profile

I really enjoyed this book and it really ministered to me when I read it. Lewis, in my opinion, is spoken of too highly but he is brilliant and should be read. This is basically a radio broadcast he did during WWII I believe. He has some really good thoughts on Christianity. It's more of a dialogue and there is very little Scripture references he uses. His chapter on pride should be read by all Christians everywhere...especially in the USA in the south.

Go to bibliostuff's profile

One of the most "resonating" books I have ever read.

Go to englishgeek13's profile

I absolutely loved this book! Before reading this I'd only read one other nonfiction book of his as well as the Chronicles of Narnia, so I was familiar with him. In this book, Lewis' tone is very conversational and down to earth, the result of part of the book being a transcription of a series of radio addresses Lewis was asked to give in the midst of the disillusion and horror of WWII. I found myself laughing often and really enjoying how simply he states some of the most profound truths of the universe. I was also challenged to open myself even more to the work that the Lord wants to do in my life, even when that means growing pains. Overall I would say that this book serves as a gentle reminder to Believers and as a simple challenge to those that are seeking. This is probably a book that I will read again, and I'll give it more attention than I was able to this time.

Go to pgchuis's profile

I had read this many years ago and seem to have internalized many of the main points. While each chapter follows flawless logic, the book as a whole (since it was cobbled together from radio talks etc) is not quite so coherent. Lewis is excellent on divorce, how much is expected from those blessed with "niceness", those who follow other religions and pretty dreadful on women (bless him!)I enjoy his brisk, uncompromising tone and wish I had had tutorials with him.

Go to britnaep_1's profile

I first picked up this book because I was intrigued by the title. Mere Christianity? I had never heard Christianity referred to as ‘mere’ before. Silly, perhaps, or all-powerful. But never such a tiny, harmless, powerful word such as ‘mere.’ I guess at first I expected this book to explain to me why I shouldn’t believe in Christianity; but it ended up being the most powerful argument I’ve ever read for why I should believe in Christianity. C.S. Lewis makes a smart move in starting out his book without any mention of Christianity. He begins instead by explaining the basic common morals of mankind, regardless of any religion. He points out that all people are guided by a similar set of internal morals. He argues that the very existence of these morals is proof that a higher power exists. From there, he slowly moves towards talking about Christianity by laying out the common beliefs of religions and compares them. When Lewis does talk about Christianity, it is no single sect of the religion. He clearly points this out in the foreword to the book, and this is where the word ‘mere’ comes from – it is the basic principles of Christianity he is talking about, not differences between, say, Catholics and Baptists. The rest of the book is Lewis stating what he believes to be these common beliefs, explaining them to those who may not be familiar, and then giving strong arguments to those who may not belief.Though this is a book seeped with religion, the parts I loved most about this book were the parts where no specific religion was mentioned. In fact, the only reason I gave the book 4 ½ stars instead of 5 was because of the instances when he did mention religious specifics such as marriage or homosexuality, and I disliked his thoughts out of personal reasons. Most of the book, however, seems less like a guide to Christianity and more like a guide to being a good human being, which is the fundamental point of all religions. Lewis explains things in a straight-forward, relatable and easy to understand matter; I think there are few authors who could handle the complex thought patterns he deals with in such an eloquent way. I would definitely recommend this book to anyone who believes in following the morally right way, regardless of their religion or lack thereof.

Go to cepheid36552_1's profile

This is a really great book, even for those who are already Christian. The analogies Lewis has come up with are often very profound and immensely helpful. This book definitely changed my life.

Go to fball_10's profile

One of the most important books I have ever read. Because it was taken from his radio addresses on the BBC during World War II, it is a much easier read than some of Lewis's other books. This is a must read.

Go to ngodfrey1's profile

As a young child I fell in love with C.S. Lewis. As an adult, I stumbled upon Mere Christianity. It is a beautiful, but tough read. I was able to re-evaluate my own understandings of faith and belief through the words of someone that had experienced the same doubts about religion. It addresses some the 'basic' principles of Christianity, such as morality.

Go to ltw_2's profile

Mere Christianity is very simply that: a straitforward explanation of what Christianity really is. In an age when philosophical and theological modernism seeks to alter and even destroy the essence of Christ's teaching, Lewis makes plain what are the essential and unchangeable tenets of the Christian faith. To those who argue in favor of updated modernist versions of Christian beliefs, Lewis is telling them by inference, that their versions are not true Christian views. His way of explaining Christian doctrine is so logical as to seem irrefragable. But whether or not one accepts these views as truth, Lewis is declaring that this is what Christianity really is. Each one of us is free to take it or leave it. This treatise of C.S. Lewis is an enormously important book for anyone seeking to understand basic Christianity. It is written in a style that gets to the heart of an idea he is expressing, almost instantly. You don't need to have any sophisticated understanding of theology to grasp the explanations he offers. His treatment of the three Theological Virtues (Faith, Hope and Charity) and the four Cardinal Virtues (Prudence, Temperance, Justice and Fortitude) is very good. And everyone should know what he has to say about the Great Sin (Pride), which is so destructive to the self. The chapter entitled "Let's Pretend" explains how and why we should seek spiritual self-improvement, and I'll bet that there are ideas in this section that you never thought about.

Go to goblin67's profile

Lewis is considered the great apologist of the 20th century, and this book is his great apologetic work. While I find Chesterton's Orthodoxy to resonate more with my sensibilities, Mere Christianity is well-worth reading (and re-reading.)

Go to xaglen_1's profile

Mere Christianity, originally given as a series of radio lectures, is an intelligent, popular-level overview of basic Christian teachings. If you're looking for academic philosophy, look elsewhere. If you're looking for what you'd get from a conversation with an articulate friend, dig in.Lewis is particularly good at helping unearth the assumptions that underlie and the implications that flow from our everyday beliefs about life, particularly about morality.The book is from another generation and is dated in places, but it nonetheless resonates with many readers today. Highly recommended.

Go to xuebi-1's profile

With this introduction to Christianity, Lewis proves he is one of the greatest Christian writers, and Mere Christianity rightly takes its place as one of the most accessible works both by Lewis and on Christianity. Though not by any means an apologia for Christianity, it reminds its readers of the truly important matters of faith and makes often complex theology attractive and exciting. An essential book for any Christian on any stage of their journey in faith, and for those too who are sincerely inquisitive about the claims of Christianity.

Go to tabascofromgudreads's profile

Some really good parts, great insight and intuitions, but overall I was surprised by the constant use of absolutely made-up and custom-made logic to try and defend Christian dogmas. This annoyed me, because all through the book there are so many strong points and intuitions.

I will bring here just a couple of examples of his made- up logic: when Lewis explains the reasons behind man's "free will", he wants to answer the question: "how can anything happen contrary to a being with absolute power?" , and he makes the example of a mother who tells her children what to do, but they often don't do it. That, in itself, is a wrong sillogism, because a mother has no absolute power over her children. But then he says that free will is the only thing that makes possible love and beauty etc. while "a world of automata would hardly be worth creating". Why?? Why would it hardly be worth creating? Who knows what God considers worth or not worth creating? That is one of the many statements that Lewis makes that seem to be coming out of his own personal logic rather than proper, strict logical reasoning.

Other reviewers have highlighted the several logical fallacies in this book, so I'll stop here. Thanks for reading.

Go to the7ken7petersen's profile

What an incredible book. Britain is suffering a monumental decline in religious belief: if this book were to be compulsive reading for each secondary pupil, that trend would be reversed in an instant. Lewis does not push Christianity: how often do these type of books contain phrases such as, "you would therefore be stupid to doubt the existence of..."? Not here. The book is a carefully thought out argument in favour of a deity. He makes it very clear, at the beginning of the work, that he is not going to force the correctness of his Anglican beliefs but merely point out the inevitability of a creative entity.One of the surprising side issues of this book is that it contains the clearest explanation of the concept of time that I have come across. The idea that time is not a linear progression is one that is prevalent in all scientific talk currently and, each time that it is explained, it becomes more confusing. Lewis gives this a perspective which is both believable, and understandable.The only book which could be perfect (for me) is one written by myself, so, inevitably, there was one issue upon which I would have to disagree with the great man: the subject of women, where Lewis affirms the Old Testament concept that women should obey their man. This is a paragraph, or so, in a book of 200 pages and, I would like to believe that this is a view that he would have amended with more serious thought.

Go to michael_rose-1's profile

I found it a breeze to read. He admits his status as a layman, and tries to make the broadest appeal. I doubt he has or will convince anyone of his position not already inclined to take it, and I don't always agree with his reasoning myself (regardless of whether or not I agree or disagree with any conclusion he draws). In full disclosure, I only became aware of this book through Christopher Hitchens, whom I now know only quoted from the beginning chapters of this book. He certainly wasn't convinced, but that's to be expected. I'm glad to have read it for myself.

Go to ragwaine's profile

Kind of preachy, not enough qualiters, he's so sure he's right that he talks down. Interesting though.

Acciones de libros

Información del libro

Mere Christianity

Descripción

A Year with C. S. Lewis: Daily Readings from His Classic Works

The Screwtape Letters: Annotated Edition

The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

The Pilgrim's Regress

The Abolition of Man

God in the Dock

Miracles

An Experiment in Criticism

The Discarded Image: An Introduction to Medieval and Renaissance Literature

Weight of Glory

The Cost of Discipleship

Miracles

The Cost of Discipleship

The Abolition of Man

Orthodoxy

The Problem of Pain

The Screwtape Letters

Christian Reflections

Orthodoxy

S Lewis vs the New Atheists

Heaven

Orthodoxy

Orthodoxy

Forgotten God: Reversing Our Tragic Neglect of the Holy Spirit

Orthodoxy

Orthodoxy

Orthodoxy

Sarah Bowen: Spiritual Rebel

Answering Objections to Developing an Evidential Faith: Cold Case Christianity Broadcast #87

The Ageless Wisdom, Pt 2 - Conscience & Justice: Spiritual Activism

Awakening the Spiritual Wisdom Body: The strong heart of the Teacher gives us access to our power to step into our own self-mastery and sovereignty.

Neoplatonism: Melvyn Bragg and his guests discuss the ancient philosophical school of Neoplatonism.

BVOV - Jan2116 - Believe The Word: Believers Voice of Victory Audio Broadcast for Thursday 01/21/2016The foundation of the Christian faith is to trust God and believe the Word. Join Gloria Copeland and Pastor George Pearsons as they bring foundational truth from God’s Word...

293 - Convenient Mindfulness: 2-Minute Guide To Selective Spirituality: How Can We Decide When To Be Mindful?

A Guided Liberation Meditation, You do not need to Understand what is said.: A Guided Liberation Meditation, You do not need to Understand what is said.

Prison Ministry #270: We chatted with Rev. Rodney Lemery and Program Administrator Beth Murray about what’s new with the Prison Ministry program. The VUU streams live on Facebook every Thursday at 11 am ET. We talk about social justice, Unitarian Universalism, religion,

Carmen Harra - Erasing Negative Imprints: In this guided meditation with Carmen Harra, you'll discover a new inner peace where happiness thrives. Relax while learning how to erase any negative imprints the past has left within you. Eliminate fear with the realization that you are the...

048: Health and Fitness Has Become a Religion. And That's a Terrible Thing by Nia Shanks

The Secrets of the Self: Bhakti Yoga

Believe You Me!

The Execution

For Some, 'Faith' Has Little To Do With Jesus

The Art of Spiritual Surrender and Releasing Attachment to Outcomes

What Is The True Religion Of A Poet?

7 Steps of Spiritual Fitness

Sunday, November 10

Monday, October 21

Poetry Rx: I Loved My Friend

Friday, August 30

Mighty Men Of The Lord It Is Time!

Monday, December 3

Thursday, December 5

The Politics Of Cake

Monday, September 16

Christian Families Made Homeless By Persecution Praise God For Safe New Places To Live

Letters To The Editor

HOW TO HAVE GREAT FAITH Part l

Hats Of Faith

5 Tips to Raise Godly Children in a Secular World

HOW TO HAVE GREAT Part lll

Monica A. Coleman, PhD

Court’s Burden In Keeping Religious Harmony

Court’s Burden In Keeping Religious Harmony

Tuesday, April 23

Wednesday, January 9

Friday, September 21

Faith-Based Farming

Tuesday, September 10

FAITH Is Aught Not Caught

Vista previa del libro

Mere Christianity - C. S. Lewis

1

The Law of Human Nature

2

Some Objections

Reseñas