Divine Inspiration -or- Is C.S. Lewis a Blasphemer?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Divine Inspiration -or- Is C.S. Lewis a Blasphemer?

Post #1

Post by Purple Knight »

Question for Debate: Is it only ever possible for prehistoric goat herders to be divinely inspired, or may anyone* be?

* I mean anyone in the same way that Chef Gusteau from Ratatouille meant it: Not that literally anyone can cook (some people in fact cannot) but that a great cook can come from anywhere. In other words, anyone can cook means that a rat (in the context of Disney movies animals are people), or a poor person, or a skinny person, or a fat person, or even a French person, all might be good cooks, not that necessarily any or all of them are good cooks.

There seems to be, amongst those likely to believe religious claims, a bias against the new. Scientology seems kooky not because of any of its claims, but because it is new (and perhaps also that it was invented by a sci-fi author). Mormonism seems kooky because it is new.

Now, just full disclosure, I am never ever going to believe there were literally golden plates. That's the type of thing I would have to see to believe and might doubt even then. But does that mean that Joseph Smith can't be divinely inspired? Personally, if we're looking at Christianity in the context of it being true, I see no reason Joseph Smith can't have been divinely inspired. I don't see Joseph Smith as somehow less than anyone who wrote Genesis simply on the basis of him being born within recorded history. Nothing is weirder or more unbelievable that Joseph Smith has said than that which is in the Bible, especially considering Revelations.

C.S. Lewis also wrote... basically about God. He wrote books for children that contained a Jesus/God allegory and he writes lines for this character. It's a really fine line to tread here because you could easily say that if he wasn't divinely inspired, then he was a blasphemer. But that's not to say that intellect and study alone can't amount to divine inspiration (in fact saying it can't is dooming anyone who isn't supernaturally divinely inspired). Suppose C.S. Lewis accurately portrayed everything about God, Sacrifice, Good, and Evil that he chose to write about, and he did it with perfect accuracy because he was studious and learned. Well, if he didn't make a mistake I don't see how that can count against him, so, perhaps, there doesn't have to be anything supernatural about it whatsoever.

People may say that Jesus completed Christianity into its final, perfect form. But that doesn't mean that the people following the religion were complete. Regardless of whether any new prophets were prophesied, new prophets are needed. Because either tolerance and inclusion in the way we practice them now are the Devil, or at very least, the people practicing Christianity were incomplete before. We need to know whether homosexuality is still evil or not. We need to know how all the new, advanced morality fits into Christianity.

nobspeople
Prodigy
Posts: 3187
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
Has thanked: 1510 times
Been thanked: 824 times

Re: Divine Inspiration -or- Is C.S. Lewis a Blasphemer?

Post #2

Post by nobspeople »

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #1]
There seems to be, amongst those likely to believe religious claims, a bias against the new. Scientology seems kooky not because of any of its claims, but because it is new (and perhaps also that it was invented by a sci-fi author). Mormonism seems kooky because it is new.
I don't find them kooky because they're new, but because of their beliefs and actions. While being 'the new kid on the block' may be hard and may have its detractors due to that, I think these two beliefs are kooky to most not because they're new. :shock:
I see no reason Joseph Smith can't have been divinely inspired.
Aside from the belief of some that the divine doesn't exist, that's a good point to make. If the divine exits, anyone can be inspired by it. Or no one. That, itself, shouldn't turn away people (unless, I suspect, you're a firm believer in the concept of 'there's nothing new under the sun' in regards to Christianity).
It's a really fine line to tread here because you could easily say that if he wasn't divinely inspired, then he was a blasphemer.
Absolutely. I suspect most, if not all religious leaders were called that once or twice throughout history. So I'd wager it only matters what times says about them.
But that's not to say that intellect and study alone can't amount to divine inspiration (in fact saying it can't is dooming anyone who isn't supernaturally divinely inspired).
That's a loaded sentence. First, it would depend on what one believes is divine and who (or even if) that divinity continues to inspire people. And what does inspire mean? To create or to lead? If one is divinely inspired to paint a painting, so what? But if they're divinely inspired to lead people to a new belief, that gets more attention.
if he didn't make a mistake I don't see how that can count against him,
Why would it?
perhaps, there doesn't have to be anything supernatural about it whatsoever.
I know some more conservative Christians that separate the supernatural from things 'God'. Supernatural to them is bad, while God is not. I find that odd. :shock:
Have a great, potentially godless, day!

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: Divine Inspiration -or- Is C.S. Lewis a Blasphemer?

Post #3

Post by Purple Knight »

nobspeople wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 1:26 pmThat's a loaded sentence. First, it would depend on what one believes is divine and who (or even if) that divinity continues to inspire people. And what does inspire mean? To create or to lead? If one is divinely inspired to paint a painting, so what? But if they're divinely inspired to lead people to a new belief, that gets more attention.
So, I'm using divine inspiration in a way that means (and I try to show that it ought to mean this) you're simply correct [in this context, about the religion]. If the Bible was lost and someone rewrote it and just happened to get every word correct, even if it was because he guessed, then, as I conjectured, I don't see how that would count against him. I'm not using it to mean the person has been called to do any specific thing, though they might be that also, but only, they legitimately have that knowledge, and it is correct knowledge.

Now, Christians largely believe the Bible is correct, including Genesis, and nobody saw Genesis. Even the bits Adam and Eve saw, well, I have every reason to believe Adam and Eve were illiterate. So someone with no firsthand knowledge of any of this had to write it down. And how would he do so correctly? How would he be divinely inspired? Unless it was just a correct guess, which is incredibly unlikely, he had to be made aware by some supernatural process (or process we don't understand), of what exactly happened. This is usually, I would think, what people mean by divine inspiration.
nobspeople wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 1:26 pmI don't find them kooky because they're new, but because of their beliefs and actions. While being 'the new kid on the block' may be hard and may have its detractors due to that, I think these two beliefs are kooky to most not because they're new. :shock:
Are the beliefs of Mormonism really any crazier than those of Catholicism? Remember, Catholics believe that bread and wine is literally pieces of Jesus. Literally. They're also the ones who believe in the supernatural, but that it's bad. I dated a Catholic and she stole my crystal ball. It was just a novelty item I'd bought at the Renaissance Faire with nicely-twined pewter dragons round the base, and she said she'd done it to protect me, and I read the Catechism and it actually backed her up.

Are the beliefs of Scientology even that crazy, or do we merely think of them that way because they contain elements we generally think of as science-fiction? If there are souls (fundamental premise of most religions), why should aliens not have them? In general, not even religiously, why should there not be aliens? Cephalopod intelligence evolved separately from our own intelligence, so there's no reason to think sentient life is even that uncommon. If they can find bacterial fossils on Mars and if intelligence can evolve on our planet, twice, separately, I see no reason to doubt there are aliens.

bjs1
Sage
Posts: 898
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2020 12:18 pm
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 225 times

Re: Divine Inspiration -or- Is C.S. Lewis a Blasphemer?

Post #4

Post by bjs1 »

Purple Knight wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 1:14 pm Question for Debate: Is it only ever possible for prehistoric goat herders to be divinely inspired, or may anyone* be?
None of the Bible was written by prehistoric people. That is a tautology since prehistoric means, “Before a written record.”

The vast majority of the biblical writers were not goat herders.

To the general concept: There are different kinds of inspiration. A modern person can be inspired by God, but not in the way that the biblical authors were inspired. That is, someone can write something that is true about God, and even by led by the Holy Spirit, but that does not make it Cannon.

Lewis almost certainly would have said that his writings were not inspired the way that the Bible was inspired. Lewis actually did say in one of his letters that his writing were not perfect.

I think that a reasonable person can understand the difference between an allegorical work of fiction and an inspired scripture, and that something can be true without being inspired in the way that the Bible is inspired.
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.
-Charles Darwin

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: Divine Inspiration -or- Is C.S. Lewis a Blasphemer?

Post #5

Post by Purple Knight »

bjs1 wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 2:20 pm
Purple Knight wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 1:14 pm Question for Debate: Is it only ever possible for prehistoric goat herders to be divinely inspired, or may anyone* be?
None of the Bible was written by prehistoric people. That is a tautology since prehistoric means, “Before a written record.”

The vast majority of the biblical writers were not goat herders.
Fair point.
bjs1 wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 2:20 pmA modern person can be inspired by God, but not in the way that the biblical authors were inspired.
Why not? Is it just because it won't be canonised? If so, by whom? As far as I know Mormons have their own canon.
bjs1 wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 2:20 pmI think that a reasonable person can understand the difference between an allegorical work of fiction and an inspired scripture, and that something can be true without being inspired in the way that the Bible is inspired.
Yes, something that is intended to be allegorical is different than something intended to be factual. (However, as I've said elsewhere, if the tale really gets across what it means to, it doesn't matter whether it happened or not, but that's a thread for another day.)

Some people well intend to add to the Biblical accounts. Joseph Smith for instance. They're either divinely inspired or they're blasphemers. I don't see how you can split that hair any other way and get some sort of middle category, though feel free to prove me wrong.

bjs1
Sage
Posts: 898
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2020 12:18 pm
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 225 times

Re: Divine Inspiration -or- Is C.S. Lewis a Blasphemer?

Post #6

Post by bjs1 »

Purple Knight wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 2:33 pm Why not? Is it just because it won't be canonised? If so, by whom? As far as I know Mormons have their own canon.
Fair enough. Perhaps it would be better to say that within orthodox Christianity the Cannon is closed. A person can add to the cannon or remain within orthodox Christianity, but not both.

Purple Knight wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 2:33 pm Some people well intend to add to the Biblical accounts. Joseph Smith for instance. They're either divinely inspired or they're blasphemers. I don't see how you can split that hair any other way and get some sort of middle category, though feel free to prove me wrong.
I agree that a person who tries to add to the Cannon is either divinely inspired or a blasphemer. You used Lewis as an example. Lewis did not attempt to add to the Cannon.

Smith did. If he committed blasphemy are not depends on how loose we are with the word. (Smith claimed to speak for an angel, not for God). Knowing Smith’s story makes it difficult for me to believe that he received genuine Divine inspiration.

South Park, of all things, got the history more or less correct:
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.
-Charles Darwin

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: Divine Inspiration -or- Is C.S. Lewis a Blasphemer?

Post #7

Post by Purple Knight »

bjs1 wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 3:38 pmI agree that a person who tries to add to the Cannon is either divinely inspired or a blasphemer. You used Lewis as an example. Lewis did not attempt to add to the Cannon.
No he didn't, but he also didn't have God do anything God probably wouldn't do. That he didn't add anything is why I'm saying he might be divinely inspired (that is, at least not have got anything wrong) just by being intelligent, thoughtful, studious, and learned.
bjs1 wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 3:38 pmSmith did. If he committed blasphemy are not depends on how loose we are with the word. (Smith claimed to speak for an angel, not for God). Knowing Smith’s story makes it difficult for me to believe that he received genuine Divine inspiration.

South Park, of all things, got the history more or less correct:
It tends to, oddly enough. They hit the nail on the head with Alcoholics Anonymous too. Off-topic, but it's a cult, and it makes people drink more. If anything South Park was too generous.

Now I will never, ever, in any universe, believe there were golden plates. I don't know why he thought saying there were would do him any favours. But the story itself? It's weird and frankly racist but not a whole lot crazier than anything else. He may well have been a shyster and most of what happened would lead one to believe he was. But does that mean he can't be divinely inspired? That, I don't know. I know a lot of people did listen to him, and it does seem logical for God to pick someone people would listen to. If he gave some new story to an honest person it would probably just die.

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3247 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: Divine Inspiration -or- Is C.S. Lewis a Blasphemer?

Post #8

Post by Difflugia »

nobspeople wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 1:26 pmI don't find them kooky because they're new, but because of their beliefs and actions. While being 'the new kid on the block' may be hard and may have its detractors due to that, I think these two beliefs are kooky to most not because they're new. :shock:
I see where you're coming from, but it's not like orthodox Christianity is any less kooky. Whether the perceived difference is because new religions are unfamiliar or old religions are familiar, that's just two ways of saying the same thing. The creative hypostasis of God being incarnated as a human being by way of a virgin giving birth is isn't less weird than Thetans being the spiritual remains of ancient aliens that were chained to volcanoes and blown up by nuclear bombs.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

nobspeople
Prodigy
Posts: 3187
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
Has thanked: 1510 times
Been thanked: 824 times

Re: Divine Inspiration -or- Is C.S. Lewis a Blasphemer?

Post #9

Post by nobspeople »

[Replying to Difflugia in post #8]
I see where you're coming from, but it's not like orthodox Christianity is any less kooky
I can't disagree with that entirely :approve:
The creative hypostasis of God being incarnated as a human being by way of a virgin giving birth is isn't less weird than Thetans being the spiritual remains of ancient aliens that were chained to volcanoes and blown up by nuclear bombs.
Yes and no. I suppose it's where one comes from. It may 'seem' more or less kooky to an individual based on their experiences, but overall, absolutely. Kooky.
:P
Have a great, potentially godless, day!

User avatar
Mithrae
Prodigy
Posts: 4304
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:33 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 190 times

Re: Divine Inspiration -or- Is C.S. Lewis a Blasphemer?

Post #10

Post by Mithrae »

Difflugia wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 7:54 pm I see where you're coming from, but it's not like orthodox Christianity is any less kooky. Whether the perceived difference is because new religions are unfamiliar or old religions are familiar, that's just two ways of saying the same thing. The creative hypostasis of God being incarnated as a human being by way of a virgin giving birth is isn't less weird than Thetans being the spiritual remains of ancient aliens that were chained to volcanoes and blown up by nuclear bombs.
Really? Several cultures have had stories of gods either having a divine/human son or personally taking on a form of flesh. One likely impetus behind such stories - bridging the gulf between god and men - has philosophical merit, particularly to anyone who's ever wondered what it's like to be a dog or cat or the like. By contrast as far as I know scientology is totally unique and seems totally random.

Post Reply