Talk:C. S. Lewis/Archive 2

message: Under "Conversion to Christianity," this sentence doesn't seem right, "In doing so, Lewis also held a few 'fringe' beliefs that most self-proclaimed Christians would not advocate. In his famous book Mere Christianity, he seems to take a loose stand that one can lose their salvation, among other things."
First, I'd like to know what "other things." Did he not accept everything in the C of E's "Book of Common Prayer," and the Apostle's and Nicene Creeds? 
Second, is it not the case that the majority of Christians belong to a denomination that allows for the possibility of apostacy or "backsliding?" I know Calvinists, found mostly in Presbyterian and some Baptist churches, believe, "Once saved, always saved," but aren't they about the only ones? 68.215.209.144 06:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about: "On some theological matters he sides with Catholicism over Protestantism, although he was a member of the Anglican Church"? Martin 14:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backsliding 

message: ". . . Lewis also held a few "fringe" beliefs that most self-proclaimed Christians would not advocate. In his famous book Mere Christianity, he seems to take a loose stand that one can lose their salvation, among other things."
The idea that someone can lose their salvation is hardly a "fringe" belief within Christianity. A "fringe" belief, by definition is not believed by a majority, while in fact, Roman Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity and Anglicanism advocate this position (as well as a good portion of Lutherans and other various Christians) which means that well over half of Christianity believes it. This is only a "fringe" belief in Evangelical Protestant circles and thus shows an Evangelical Protestant POV. IamFingolfin 13:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the idea that someone can lose their salvation common in the Anglican Church? Doesn't sound like a terribly Protestant idea to me. Martin 14:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It's an issue on which Christians are divided. Lewis' view would certainly not be seen as 'fringe'. DJ Clayworth 15:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Anglicans are not generally considered to be the same as other protestents.  They are essentially catholics who believe in divorce, and view the monarch as God's rep on earth rather than the pope.  Rituals and materials are interchangeable, and often are in small towns where one group or the other has lost the use of their facility and books through fire or other disaster. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.72.131.222 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 10 May 2006.
I'm not sure the differences between Anglicans and non-Anglicans are quite as simple as that. Anglicans are certainly "closer" to Catholics in both theology and practice than some Protestant denominations (as one would expect given the raison d'être of the Anglican Church). Members of the Church of England believe in the British monarch as the Defender of the Faith, and as far as I remember, they accept the Pope is the successor to St. Peter (though they don't believe he has authority over all Christians), but I don't think Anglicans accept the British monarch as God's mouthpiece. Martin 00:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: They most certainly do not. (Most Anglicans do not live under monarchs in any case e.g. US Episcopalians.) Anglicans can be seen as both (a) catholics who reject the supremacy and infallibility of the bishop of Rome (hence their links with Old Catholics) and (b) protestants who retain traditional liturgical and sacramental forms including episcopal governance (hence their links with some Lutheran churches). They tend to have a more moderate stance on divorce than RCs but do not 'believe' in it (any more than RCs 'believe' in the annulment of marriage), and they reject the imposition of clerical celibacy. They also traditionally adopt Arminian (non-Calvinist) theological positions, which hold that God allows us sufficent free will to reject his salvation even if we had once accepted it (a rejection which he may foreknow, but does not predestine). Myopic Bookworm 08:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Anglicans cover a huge range of churchmanship. Some branches of the Anglican church have very similar beliefs to Catholics, but some would be closer to Lutherans or baptists. None "view the monarch as God's rep on earth". But I don't think the poster who posted that is coming back to read this. Anyway the sentence has been removed, so it's not important. DJ Clayworth 15:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Fringe" Beliefs? 

message: The section on Conversion to Christianity contains a sentence that makes very little sense to me.  In context, here it is:
This interpretation appears to be contradicted by a letter to a friend, in which he said: "all religions, no, mythologies to give them their proper name, have no proof whatsoever!" Later in his life, however, he began to believe in a deeper experience of some fundamentals of Western thought. 
At first I thought the last sentence was a non sequitur, then I thought it was POV, and now I think it's just generally nonsensical.  I'm not familiar with Lewis's conversion, though; this is actually why I was reading the article to begin with.  Does that sentence make sense to anyone else, or can I delete it?  JoomTory 00:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears fairly meaningless to me. Myopic Bookworm 09:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That sits well with me. -Shazbot85 18:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Deeper experience"? 

message: I would like to erect this sentence up for discussion: "When he later wrote an account of his adult reconversion to Christianity". I hold that if Lewis was an atheist throughout his youth and up to his adult conversion, he could not be "reconverted", but rather he was simply "converted". If this raises no serious issue or discussion, I'm going to make the edit. -Shazbot85 05:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and edited it. If this brings up any discussion I'll gladly engage. I also made some other minor grammatical edits. No idea or fact changing involved. It's in the edit history if you want to review. -Shazbot85 06:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding was that Lewis was born into a practising Christian family, but he gradually grew away from the Christian faith. I'm not sure whether Lewis could be said to have been a Christian, so I don't know whether "converted" or "reconverted" is appropriate. However, he did refer to himself as a convert so perhaps that is the best choice. 01:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't deny that he was or that they were. However, your family being Christian doesn't make you a Christian, as Lewis would have well recognized, for there is no salvation through association, only faith. This is not the place for me to bash on "reconversion", but I truthfully don't think the term can be held up here as he was merely associated with Christianity through his family. -Shazbot85 03:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lewis himself always referred to it as a 'conversion" not a 'reconversion'. That should be a good guide for us. DJ Clayworth 03:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds solid to me. Anyone catch a wiff of the removal of the deviant sex claim? Check it on the edit page. I thought it was sourced fairly well, providing a link to a New Yorker article and a page for a Lewis biography. I dunno if the information they provide is nuetral or unbiased, however. If it's one thing I hate, it's philosophy students that vehemantly defend their philosophers from factual scrutiny. I'll be derned before I do it with one of my theologians or writers. -Shazbot85 03:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reconversion? 

message: What can we do to start improving this article to meet the standards of WP:WIAGA, or the GA (Good Article) standards. Give them a read if you already havn't and let's start picking through and get this article ready for review. -Shazbot85 15:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's Make a Push for a Good article Rating 

message: Why does this article make no mention of his personal life, but merely his career. I'm thinking of the fact that one of his step-sons converted to Orthdox Judaism, which must have had an interesting effect on Lewis. Dev920 22:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article does speak of his personal life. Conversion, career, early influences, all seem fairly personal to me. I was unaware of his step-sons' conversion to Orthodox Judaism. If you can source it and include it in a fitting manner, do so! -Shazbot85 00:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: His step sons were from a Jewish background.  One eventually embraced his roots and one embraced Christianity.  What does that have to do with Lewis? 24.165.7.61 07:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and then it stops there. It's like he became a writer and stopped existing as a person. And I would source it but I don't know where to put it. Dev920 00:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would start a new section for sheerly biographical information. Maybe plug it after or before the sections relating to his career information. -Shazbot85 00:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: User:24 is right. How come we never noticed this before? There seems to be no section about his Marriage to Joy Davidman. Did someone remove a section while we weren't looking? DJ Clayworth 14:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't know whether something fell out, but it seems a significant omission, so I've put something in. Myopic Bookworm 09:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yay! Dev920 11:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal life 

message: ===C. S. Lewis===
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.
*Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.See footnote
*Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
::Removed some stand alone years as I don't believe they really provide context for the article and most of them are linked elsewhere anyway. If someone disagrees about the lack of context feel free to revert but please explain why here so I'll have a better understanding. -Shazbot85Talk 15:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers Mal! Martin 02:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Auto peer review suggestions 

message: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.
*Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.See footnote
*Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
::Removed some stand alone years as I don't believe they really provide context for the article and most of them are linked elsewhere anyway. If someone disagrees about the lack of context feel free to revert but please explain why here so I'll have a better understanding. -Shazbot85Talk 15:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers Mal! Martin 02:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[C. S. Lewis]]

message: The article puts Lewis in :Category:People who have declined a British honour, but currently gives no details. A little Googling found that Lewis was offered a CBE (see Order of the British Empire) in 1951 by the new Churchill government, but declined on the basis that:
:There are always knaves who say, and fools who believe, that my religious writings are all covert anti-Leftist propaganda, and my appearance in the Honours List wd. of course strengthen their hands. It is therefore better that I shd. not appear there.
::—John G West Jr, citing Letters of C.S. Lewis by W.H. Lewis (ed)
See also this chronology.
We should either add something about this to the article, or delete the category tag. I prefer the former, but I can't see a good place to mention this.
What do other editors suggest doing? Cheers, CWC(talk) 12:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is currently a gap in Lewis' biography amounting to about 20 years; as it stands he converts to Christianity in the 1930s, then in the 1950s he meets Joy Gresham. The biography section should contain all the pertinent details of Lewis' life. As his Christian writings (and thus his conversion) influenced his decision to decline the honour, I would suggest adding it onto the end of the "Conversion to Christianity" section. As and when the biography is expanded in the near future, it can always be moved to a more appropriate section. Sound reasonable? Martin 22:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could someone who has a copy of Letters of C.S. Lewis verify the quote above, please? Thanks, CWC(talk) 10:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Declined a CBE 

message: I would like to pull most or all of the paragraph(s) on The Dark Tower out of this article, despite my hard work to make it readable and neutral.  What do you think of moving that whole section to the Space Trilogy page?  It's really not that important in the larger scheme of Lewis's life & work, and it takes up half the section.  Mdotley 15:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable. Martin 02:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Space Trilogy 

message: Concerning the recent removal of all links from the lead: After reading Wikipedia:Guide to layout, I'm not convinced that the intention of the phrase "Avoid links in the summary" is a prohibition on all links in the lead. It may very well be that the current lead was over linked (I couldn't say either way), but I don't think removing all of the links is necessary. After all, the example leads on Wikipedia:Guide to layout do have links in them, and Wikipedia:Lead section does not mention avoiding links at all. LloydSommerer 00:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can understand your objections, but in this article the lead functions as the summary, and Wikipedia:Guide to layout recommends avoiding links in the summary. Everything covered in the lead is mentioned in more detail later in the article, so it makes more sense to link from there. I guess there's no real problem linking to things if it's necessary (the dates should certainly be linked, and I'll do that now), but I feel it should be avoided if the topics mentioned are expanded upon elsewhere in the article. Martin 14:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've went and linked some items in the lead because I saw that it looked rather bare of them. Feel free to de-wikify some or all as is seen fit per MOS or whatever. --Mal 18:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links in Lead 

message: The author section states "(For more information about those works, see their individual articles.)". I think this should maybe be moved or deleted.--roger6106 14:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've made a few changes that I believe to be more in line with the Manual of Style. Martin 13:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks good to me.--roger6106 13:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  For more information... 

message: The sentencs referencing the bronze statue of Lewis seems like it should be moved or rewritten.--roger6106 14:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Granted, it could do with being expanded a bit, but what about it do you particularly dislike? Martin 12:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was reading the section "Legacy" and that line seems out of place. The section rapidly jumps from thought to thought.--roger6106 13:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I see what you mean; it reads more like a list than prose. There is also a C. S. Lewis mural in Belfast - next time I'm up there, I'll see if I can get a picture of it and we can maybe put them in a separate section. There are quite a few Lewis-themed memorials and events in Northern Ireland as I'm sure you can imagine. Martin 16:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statue of Lewis 

message: I propose we remove the Toynbee comments for the reasons listed above, she is not qualified to have an informed opinion. Pat Mustard 16:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I have almost no respect for her views with regards CS Lewis, but to remove her opinions of the Narnia books based purely on this would be editorialising. Polly Toynbee is the most widely read newspaper columnist in the UK, so if she expresses her opinion of something in one of the UK's most popular newspapers, it should get a mention, regardless of the validity of her views. It is up to the readers of the article to make up their own minds; we should not be doing it for them. Martin 21:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polly Toynbee Criticism 

message: The order of the subjects are confusing and out of order timewise.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Guolin (talk • contribs) 00:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In what way? The article is divided into a biography section and a section dealing with his career. Each of the two sections is pretty much chronological. Martin 02:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline 

message: I'm trying to find a formulation that communicates the very common understanding in modern secular academia that Jesus didn't claim to be God without overstating the case. To say that "some scholars" reach such a conclusion is to understate the case. There's all manner of off-track, minority ideas that "some scholars" conclude. Jonathan Tweet 18:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However, your citation only shows that one self described group of "liberal theologians" hold that view. Your current version seems balanced to me. 12.24.233.2 19:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that the Jesus Seminar is rather off track for an article on Lewis. At any rate, the basis of the trilemma is, "assuming that Jesus said what the Gospels say he did," which makes irrelevant any findings of a group that begin by denying that assumption. I'm not RVing what you've done, but I hope you can find some better (and more relevant) formulation.Sturgeonslawyer 19:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lewis doesn't say, "assuming Jesus said what the Gospels say he did." He just assumes it and bases his argument on it. Jonathan Tweet 00:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether or no he explicitly states it (and I don't have my copy of MC handy to check it), it's pretty clear that this is the assumption under which the trilemma proceeds. Given that the Gospels are the only available witness for what Jesus may or may not have said or done, I think (and believe Lewis would agree) that a bunch of "experts" voting two thousand years after the fact isn't much help in deciding which of these things he did or didn't say. Certainly the Jesus Seminar, fifty years after Lewis, is of no relevance to an article on Lewis.
The trilemma gets a pretty good going over on another page. Let's cut the elaboration from this page and move all the arguments pro and con to the trilemma page. Jonathan Tweet 02:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  trilemma and the claim to be God 

message: ----
This is a pejorative term to both C.S. Lewis and Christianity. I don't see why his writings on christianity should presuppose that a. he was engaging in some form of reconstruction of christan history or apologism, and b. that christanianity is indeed in merit of apologists. A title such as Christian writings, or something more eloquently put but similar in meaning and scope should suffice.
05:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "Christian apologist" is not a perjorative see Christian apologetics and Christian apologist for the meaning. Paul August ☎ 06:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issue with christian apologist heading. 

message: I added a summary paragraph in the biography section. This paragraph lets the reader get a read on Lewis's personal life in one bite, much better than making them work through the very detailed biography proper. I make no pretenses to have done an excellent job, and it would not surprise me if I've made errors. Jonathan Tweet 05:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  biography lead paragraph 

message: In Surprised by Joy there is a comment on the pederastic practices at his school, which he names "Wyvern" but I see here that the school he went to was actually named "Wynyard". Any thoughts on this discrepancy? Also any thoughts on including his defense of pederasty in this article? Haiduc 03:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems very peripheral to make special mention of such a passing side-issue in his autobiography, given the number of books he wrote on various subjects. It's not even a major source of comment, like the question of anti-Semitism in G. K. Chesterton. It might be worth mentioning in an article on Pederasty. Myopic Bookworm 12:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  his defense of pederasty 

message: In September 1913 Lewis enrolled at Malvern College, where he would remain until the following June. Later he would describe its culture as a "burning desert of competitive ambition" relieved only by the "oasis" of pederastic loves between upperclassmen and the younger students, which he refused to criticise. (Lewis 1966, p. 107) After leaving Malvern he moved to study privately with William T. Kirkpatrick, his father's old tutor and former headmaster of Lurgan College.
I'm looking at this reference, and don't see how it supports saying "which he refused to criticise". What he said was that there were worse things to criticise than that. Can anyone point to another reference? or can this be removed? LloydSommerer 12:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be happy to see the removal of that last clause, which seems gratuitously loaded speculation, confusing "absence of criticism" with "refusal to criticize". He may have failed to criticize it explicitly, but the present wording implies that he condoned it, which is quite different and not clear from my reading. I cannot tell whether Lewis thought that transient homosexuality among schoolboys was (a) so obviously reprehensible as to need no explicit criticism from him, or (b) so obviously understandable in the context, harmless, and in tune with ancient Greek culture, as to need no criticism at all. (The equivalent homosexuality among schoolgirls is practically celebrated by many writers, rather than criticized, though I am not aware that Lewis commented on it.) Myopic Bookworm 12:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not aware of "oasis" having a neutral or deprecating connotation. My formulation of "refused to criticize" was meant as an understatement. In reality, his calling it an oasis is clear and obvious praise and can be described as such in the article. Haiduc 13:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, he is not "praising" pederasty: he is contrasting the emotional relief of a personal relationship with the emotional "desert" of rivalry and competition. Myopic Bookworm 13:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the statement cannot be in any way interpreted as a blanket endorsement of pederasty anytime anywhere. However I do not see how you can possibly divorce the nature of the relationship from his positive valuation. The whole point of the passage is the implied surprise that this love, though blameable and "upside down" (a pun if I ever saw one) is still divine. Haiduc 17:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To my mind, what is presented is not strictly incorrect, but it is misleading.  The problem is that the initial material from the chapter isn't presented. Lewis explicitly gives the reasons why he does not criticize pederasty. But even without criticizing you still get passages like "...is why I can't give pederasty anything like first place among the evils of the Coll.", "Because those of us who do not share the vice feel for it a certain nausea...", ..."that pederasty, however great an evil in itself...", and "...the one oasis (though green only with weeds and moist only with fetid water)...".  Even quoting "upside down" is misrepresenting Lewis if you don't also continue as the passage does with "...upside down, blackened, distorted and filthy...". I think we are distorting Lewis' views if we leave the article as is. LloydSommerer 22:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So "which he refused to criticize" could actually say something more like "relationships which he criticized but refrained from condemning outright". Myopic Bookworm 22:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think with that we may be getting closer to the actual sense. How about, "which he criticized and yet welcomed as a relief to the otherwise oppressive school atmosphere"? Haiduc 22:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: If we really must include this, then I think we need to put it into context a bit more.  I would suggest: Later he would describe Wyvern, as Lewis styled the school, as so singularly focused on increasing one's social status that he came to see the pederastic loves between upperclassmen and the younger students as "the one oasis (though green only with weeds and moist only with fetid water) in the burning desert of competitive ambition. [...] A perversion was the only thing left through which something spontaneous and uncalculated could creep."(Lewis 1966, p. 107ff) I tried for a long time to summarize this part of the book, and couldn't come up with anything that worked anywhere near as well as Lewis's own words. LloydSommerer 04:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a very elegant and honest solution. Thank you. Haiduc 05:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  pederastic 

message: I was just wondering if any of you had access to original copies of any of the chronicles of narnia books. If you could upload the images for the cover art on the respective pages it would be much appreciated. Thanks. b_cubed 03:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Narnia