That stifling horror of smoky dark thickness

[makesends]

I would like to know where this version of divine simplicity came from.

It is not a version of divine simplicity. It is a facet of it at best, and I may even be wrong about that. Can you show me better what I tried to bring up, or prove that it is of no consequence?

If it is entirely a personal opinion, then say so. If it was garnered from elsewhere, I'd like to know from where. Now that the matter of doctrine begetting incomplete thoughts and speculation has been clarified (would that have happened had I not asked? ), why do people do that when doctrine is designed to prevent that from happening? These are valid requests/inquiries. Think about them. Take whatever time is necessary to provide a cogent response.

Proverbs 27:17
Iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.


Make me work for it. I'll return the favor .

 

[Josheb]

That statement was corrected. At your suggestion, I subsequently said it was our use of doctrine that goes to incomplete thoughts, speculations and intuitions. In my opinion, that assertion needs no proving

And I was criticized instead of thanked.

—I think it self-evident pretty much all day long, for anyone who wonders why he wonders this and that about God and life and the universe.

I understand that's your pov. It is not self-evident. It is evident by looking at posters posts. Their posts are the evidence.

makesends said:
How is the assertion of the op the exact opposite of what doctrine does?

Yet, it also forms a stepping stone for us to begin to wonder about the why and how of those principles.

You're going to get tired of me asking you to prove your claims, you claiming they are self-evident, and me proving that too is wrong. How about you put just a little bit more thought into your own posts and either provide an example of what you mean or make sure your words mean what you're thinking.

Why the principles of a doctrine exist is established in the formation of the doctrine. How the doctrine is formed is a historical matter of facts wherein Christian leaders rigorously and prayerfully debate a matter in faith and goodwill. Many books have been written on both subjects. Reading a history on the four councils by which the doctrine of the Trinity was formalized will, for example, explain why and how the principles making the doctrine exist. Most doctrines work that way. Those that do not should be specified if the purpose is too discuss what people do with the doctrine after the doctrine exists.

Now, if you assert that Doctrine is designed to prevent speculation, maybe you can prove that it is designed to prevent further speculation.

Hmmm... this is the second time a shifting of the onus has been attempted. This one comes accompanied with a strawman move of the goalposts. I never said doctrine prevents further speculation. What I did say was doctrine prevents speculation by design because it establishes truth, not incomplete thoughts or speculation.

THAT is the sort of speculation I thought I had been talking about. When I consider that God is omnipotent, I think on the implications; they are not all yet established in theology and philosophy. And the implications go far and wide, built upon one another.

When it comes to the doctrine specified, omnipotence, I disagree and if you are going to claim all the implications of divine omnipotence are not yet established in theology and philosophy then the onus is on you to - at a minimum - provide an example, if not an evidential and explanatory proof for that position.

Speculation happens; thank God some people realize they are speculations, instead of proven fact.

Yes, speculation does happen and most of it is worthless dross not worth the time, space, or effort it consumes. In point of fact, one of most unsaid points of scripture is that the Bible is a history of human speculation that proves worthless. Did Eve think speculatively about the forbidden kiwi, why and how its principles existed? How about the fools who built the tower of Babel? Abraham siring a child with Hagar (if I have sex with my save God's prophecy will come true)? Jonah avoiding Ninevah (God's just going to save them if I do)? The Jewish belief there's no life after death?

Speculation is more prone to failure than not, especially when it is not exegetically founded and rationally constructed.

Forgive me, I'm not following you; I don't remember why you are quoting the word, "all", here. Later: my bad again. I see you are talking about me saying that all doctrinal truth induces speculation etc.

See: When you take the time to consider your own words you are completely capable of understanding.

That we do use it and wonder about it, again I say, seems to be self-evident—at least to me.

Yes, and that claim is an example of worthless speculation. You said you could go to other threads and provide examples. You probably could but if you did so you would 1) be proving it is evidenced by demonstrable examples (not self-evident), 2) proving to matter is what people do with doctrine, not the doctrine itself, and 3) much of it is worthless. More importantly, you've moved the goalposts again. No one has disputed people wonder about doctrine. The op does not say "wonder." It states "incomplete thoughts, speculations, and intuitions".

• I asked you a question about this "wonder" in Post #8. I do not read an answer.
• I asked a question about wonder in Post 15, too. I do not read an answer to that question, either. Instead, the subject was changed.

As a consequence of your failure to answer some very basic, very valid, legitimate, and fairly simple question we're digressing, and you and I are not taking up the matter of divine simplicity (a subject you've broached more than once). Did I not ask you to consider restating the question to be answered with succinct specificity that helps us help you? Your response was, "Is this op about doctrine, or what people do with doctrine?" and you have corrected and clarified the op is about what people do with doctrine, not doctrine itself.

So why are you not addressing what people do with the doctrine of divine simplicity? Whay are you not providing a source for what you have said about that doctrine? Why haven't you helped me (or others) understand where those views originated? Why so many attempts to put this on others when others may not wonder about divine simplicity? What about those who might think your wondering(s) is worthless speculation? Why broach "all doctrinal truth" if the specific doctrine with which you are concerned is divine simplicity? Why make snide comments about others if these questions are valid?

Doctrinal truth exists to identify facts and truth, not speculation. What people do with doctrinal truth may have absolutely nothing to do with the existence of or content of any doctrinal truth. So..... in a goodwill effort to move this conversation topically forward, why do people take what is intended to preclude incomplete thoughts and speculation and do the opposite?

Not all do. Some just want to know more about truth. And some seem to throw up smoke screens whenever more is mentioned.

How about you not throw up smokescreens about smokescreens that do not exist? How about you focus on your concern in your op and stop the snotty, unhelpful comments?

• Some do not wonder about what to do with a doctrine that establishes truth and the principles upon which that truth is established. Why do you suppose some do not wonder further? The answer might be beneficial to you and the concerns expressed in this op.
• What more truth do you specifically want to understand about divine simplicity?
• Are you willing to have your own wondering about divine simplicity examined so that you may know which to embrace, which to discard, and which may be exegetically reasonable platforms for further wondering (wondering upon wondering).

My mind isn't as fast nor as self-confident as yours.

Let's say that is true. If my mind is faster than yours and I am more self-confident than you.... then why are you not posting in a manner where you would benefit from my faster thinking and more confident posts? Why are you posting in the exact opposite manner?

I was hoping others could understand a little of what I was getting at and help me discuss it

And you are getting exactly that.

If you start with an examination of your own content you'll be able to discard any dross and know what to embrace with greater confidence. You'll have articulated your views so they are no longer "incomplete thoughts." If you do it well then you'll have also critiqued your sources, not just other posters' views and your own. You will have fulfilled your hope.

I asked what I asked for your benefit, not just mine and everyone else's, and I was not and am not trolling. So please stop mucking around and answer the questions asked when asked to the best of your ability.

1. I'll move on past the claim of self-evidence and ambiguity regarding what others do with other doctrines because those have been clarified.
2. I would still like to know the source(s) for the assertions God's intent and actions are not part of Him, according to "The Simplicity of God" as requested in Post #7. There are (or may be) problems with those assertions, and it will prove helpful to examine the source, especially if that source is you and not some article or book on the subject of divine simplicity.
3. Can you restate your specific point of inquiry as it pertains specifically to the matter of "The Simplicity of God" into a single question? "No," is an acceptable answer. "I do not know," is an acceptable answer. An actual thesis is an acceptable answer. Non-answers are not acceptable.
4. Most post-doctrine speculation is worthless, and it's worthless because the doctrine is either incorrectly understood, its content neglected or ignored, or the doctrine is disagreeable to the speculators. The doctrine of Total Depravity would be an example of all three. Most speculators don't correctly understand the doctrine. Others are selective with its assertions when they speculate. Some just don't like it. Is your understanding of the Simplicity of God correct? Have you correctly understood all of its assertions? The op does not evidence either.
5. What are some of the reasons people wonder about the implications of an established doctrine? And how is that relevant to the op if the op has the doctrine incorrect? What if you are speculating where no speculation is needed or justified?

You do not have to be fast or confident answering these questions, but you do have to show up and answer them.

I was hoping others could understand a little of what I was getting at and help me discuss it

Prove it.

Answer the questions asked. Answer them op-relevantly. How will others understand a little of what you are getting at if you do not answer valid, relevant questions??? Stop self-sabotaging your own op! Better establish your own views. Then assert them, defend them, or discard them as the conversation warrants. Divine simplicity is readily understandable in some ways but, in other ways, it requires us to abandon all anthropomorphic thinking. You have problems with time. You have expressed that fact in many threads. That alone is going to cause problems with divine simplicity. Since you and I largely agree but also have some disagreement about time you and I are likely to have areas of both agreement and disagreement regarding divine simplicity.


I do not care.


You take responsibility for your half of the conversation, and I'll do the same. No more snide comments, please. Prove your hope others can understand. Answer the questions asked.

For example, does the horror of blood sacrifices touch on this?

Who said blood sacrifices are "horror"?

Start with your own presuppositions if you want others to better understand you. Start with your own presuppositions if you want to better understand you. It is what wise speculators of doctrine are supposed to do.

 

[Josheb]

The Simplicity of God teaches us that none of what we consider his attributes is without the others. They are not parts of him. Thus we need to understand that the power, burning purity and retribution against sin is entirely in keeping with his intent and actions towards those he made in his own image, and in keeping with his love, compassion and tender care, and vice versa.

Would you agree with the following three statements:

1. God does not have love; God is love.
2. God does not have hate; God is hate.
3. God does not have apathy; God is apathy.

Please explain any disagreement relative to the Doctrine of Divine Simplicity.

 

[makesends]

Would you agree with the following three statements:

1. God does not have love; God is love.
2. God does not have hate; God is hate.
3. God does not have apathy; God is apathy.

Please explain any disagreement relative to the Doctrine of Divine Simplicity.

I agree completely, but with one caveat, to which I think you'll agree: God's love, God's hate, God's apathy, are defined by God and what he does and is, and not by what WE think they are, nor even how WE think he is.

Divine Simplicity puts those in one, but that is only for OUR convenience, according to OUR attribution to him. It is not OUR thoughts that define him, NOR EVEN THAT DEFINE HIS ATTRIBUTES. He is what he is, and we go all over the place to try to describe it. Thank God that his Word, and reason, curb our enthusiasm and self-importance.

Now, can you bring us back around to the subject of the OP? Or have we not dealt with this tangent sufficiently? As I said, I am not, with this OP, defining Divine Simplicity, but asking if folks can help me describe this one facet of God's nature that hardly ever shows up in Doctrinal dissertations.

 

[makesends]

You're going to get tired of me asking you to prove your claims, you claiming they are self-evident, and me proving that too is wrong. How about you put just a little bit more thought into your own posts and either provide an example of what you mean or make sure your words mean what you're thinking.

I know it is beneath you to post about the poster, and not about the post.

 

[Josheb]

Would you agree with the following three statements:

1. God does not have love; God is love.
2. God does not have hate; God is hate.
3. God does not have apathy; God is apathy.

Please explain any disagreement relative to the Doctrine of Divine Simplicity.

Now, can you bring us back around to the subject of the OP?

That is the subject of the op.

I know it is beneath you to post about the poster, and not about the post.

Tu quoque is always and everywhere a fallacious response. It's also lazy.

The Simplicity of God teaches us that none of what we consider his attributes is without the others. They are not parts of him. Thus we need to understand that the power, burning purity and retribution against sin is entirely in keeping with his intent and actions towards those he made in his own image, and in keeping with his love, compassion and tender care, and vice versa.

Would you agree with the following three statements:

1. God does not have love; God is love.
2. God does not have hate; God is hate.
3. God does not have apathy; God is apathy.

Please explain any disagreement relative to the Doctrine of Divine Simplicity

The Doctrine of Divine Simplicity asserts (taken from AI)....

"Divine simplicity is the theological doctrine that God is entirely unified, without parts or internal divisions, meaning His essence is identical to His attributes and His existence is inseparable from His being. God does not possess qualities like love, justice, or power; rather, God is love, justice, and power. This concept emphasizes God's absolute transcendence and immutability, distinguishing Him as an infinite, simple Creator from finite, complex creatures.... God is not a composite being, meaning He is not made up of different attributes or components that are distinct from one another. God's being (essence) is the same as His attributes (what He is). God does not have attributes like love, mercy, or justice; God is love itself, God is mercy itself, and God is justice itself. The doctrine affirms God's absolute unity and perfection, where all of God's nature is perfectly integrated into one indivisible reality."​

Other definitions can be found HERE, at Wiki, HERE, at The Gospel Coalition, HERE, at Theopedia, HERE, at The Reformed Classicalist, HERE, at Ligonier, and HERE, at Tabletalk, HERE, at Monergismdotorg, and HERE, at Catholic Answers. That covers a sampling of sources.

The problem with Post #23 and your answer to the question asked is that God cannot simultaneously be love and apathy. He cannot be hate and apathy. Apathy is the absence of pathos or, in this case affect. He cannot simultaneously be absent emotional existence and simultaneously be emotional existence. This violates the Law of Contradiction.

So, either you do not yet adequately understand the Doctrine of the Simplicity of God, or you do not yet adequately understand basic logic (the set up in Post 23 should have been recognized instantly but I suppose I should allow for a few mistakes since you do not think as fast as me). The more salient point is that you were presented with a line of inquiry explicitly and directly related to the Doctrine of Divine Simplicity and the response was,

Now, can you bring us back around to the subject of the OP?

Do you want to discuss your own op, or not? If so, then stick to the op and keep the personal content out of your posts. "You do it, too," is not a valid response.

Post #6 specifically and directly pertains to the subject of this OP. A cogent response has yet to be provided.
Post #7 specifically and directly pertains to the subject of this OP. A cogent response has yet to be provided.
Post #8 specifically and directly pertains to the subject of this OP. The response it received is marginal at best.
Post #9 specifically and directly pertains to the subject of this OP. A cogent response has yet to be provided. The op explicitly asserts a God to whom we show little fear. This poses a huge problem if content like Ps. 89:7 is pitted against content like 1 John 4:8 and we cannot have that conversation if the questions asked are never answered and addressed.
Post #10 specifically and directly pertains to the subject of this OP. A cogent response has yet to be provided. The label "muddled," may not be appreciated, but it is accurate, and the ensuing digression proves it. Why on earth would someone claiming to want to discuss something not post an improved thesis?
The numbered list of Post #22 specifically and directly pertains to the subject of this OP. A cogent response has yet to be provided.
Post #23 specifically and directly pertains to the subject of this OP and the answer it received is wrong.


Please do not ask me to bring us back to the subject of the OP when the only one sabotaging this conversation is you. This op, according to Post #20 is about how doctrine "also forms a stepping stone for us to begin to wonder about the why and how of those principle," and every occasion when I have broached that matter (in agreement or disagreement) it is ignored. The Doctrine of Divine Simplicity is an accepted doctrine of formal Theology (the nature of God) but it is not without its problems. Some would argue it creates a false dichotomy between what God "is" and what God "has," even as it attempts to integrate the two. In other words, some of the questions I asked practice the stated purpose of this op (wondering, speculating) but that was not recognized (or, if it was observed it was then ignored in favor of non sequitur).

How about you bring us back around to the subject of the OP? It is your op, after all. Start by answering some of the very valid and relevant inquiries and points I've posted. Start by restating your thesis, your specific point of inquiry or commentary to be discussed.



.

 

[Josheb]

At the risk of belaboring points already made...

This forum in particular is intended for that purpose. And I do not like to speculate in such a place.....

That is abundantly clear by now. Do it anyway.

But it seems to me that there is something missing from our notions modern day, of God's character that was assumed in earlier times, as being, not in antithesis to his love, compassion, tender care and positive intent toward those he made in his own image, but in antithesis to what WE consider to be his love, compassion, tender care and positive intent toward those he made in his own image.

Are you aware this concern has been decisively addressed in Christendom, and addressed decisively in multiple ways? If not then what "seems" to you is not about anyone else but you. I'm guessing, but I will venture to say most members of this forum do NOT confuse or conflate their considerations of love, compassion, etc. with the divine reality AND they know their perceptions and experiences are a shallow, woefully inadequate version thereof. If I am correct, then that entire paragraph is incorrect AND everything built on it is, likewise, incorrect, AND, therefore, in need of some degree of amendment. Unless you now already know what to amend the discussion here and now will serve that purpose...... but you'll have to show up for that conversation and you are not doing so.

The Simplicity of God teaches us that none of what we consider his attributes is without the others. They are not parts of him. Thus we need to understand that the power, burning purity and retribution against sin is entirely in keeping with his intent and actions towards those he made in his own image, and in keeping with his love, compassion and tender care, and vice versa.

I asked for a source. Earlier in this very post I posted several sources for that doctrine. It took me less than a minute to post all those links. I did it fr the benefit of this thread. At least one of those links includes some questions or criticisms of the doctrine. That link was provided intentionally (whether the arguments presented are valid or not). You have yet to present anything remotely comparable.

One part of our humanity that is not of itself sinful, is the necessary self-determination (No, I did not say 'self-determinism') of the individual, to, as it is said, pursue happiness, self-preservation and other important things such as service and love for God and others. But that necessary part of us, perverted by the sin nature, reduces in one's mind the power, aseity (or self-ness), sovereignty and pertinence of God within and over all fact, because of the perceived importance of our own wonderful concepts.

That first sentence is incorrect. Sin has adversely affected every aspect of human existence, including self-determination. If some aspect of human existence was to be cited then I would venture the imago deo is a much better option but even then, sin has adversely affected how we live out the divine image within us.

The following, which seems almost entirely removed from our modern lexicon, is what I wish to discuss here: In the past, there was a general attitude toward life that admitted to the comprehension of the God of such things as the Angel of Death, and what CS Lewis described somewhere as, (as I remember it), a smoky, dark, stifling, viscous, engulfing, inescapable thickness of holiness. This is not just a lightning bolt and over with.

This discussion will of necessity involve speculation. I have heard little teaching on the matter. But my intuition tells me that it has a emanant truth to it—that there is something there, that, though in the hundreds of years past was a concept dealt with superstitiously, (just as it would be now, were we to consider it true), it should nevertheless be attributional toward the God to whom we show little fear.

What I would like to hear, is scripture passages with references that sound something like that. I would also enjoy reasoning that deals with this. To me, this too, speaks to God's superiority to all things, and that all fact descends from him, and is about him. I don't know if you will get that from it, but I would still like to hear responses to the question: Where do we see this, or read of this, in Scripture. And is it something he does, or something he is?

Please provide me with one single example of you expressing your desire to hear what I have to say. Do you think it might help everyone interested in discussing "that stifling horror of smoky dark thickness" if you provided a link to Lewis' commentary? Or are we to imagine for ourselves what he meant and then assert what are bound to be a few strawmen into this discussion? Or simply clarifying and defining the concept as you intend it to be discussed so that we all have a shared understanding? You want to read scriptures that "sound something like that." Why? Why tale some of the most obscure passages in scripture and attempt to "reason" through them (code for "speculate") when everyone here knows the exegetical rule: the literal interprets and explains the figurative?

I don't know if you will get that from it, but I would still like to hear responses to the question: Where do we see this, or read of this, in Scripture. And is it something he does, or something he is?

The entirety of scripture, the existence of scripture itself is an example. The Bible, the compilation of what is considered an imperfect version of otherwise impeccable divine revelation, is like no other book ever written. The book itself, somewhat like God from whom the revelation came, is transcendent.

And if you wanted to hear everyone's thoughts on the matter, you'd have answered some of the questions I asked, and we'd then be having the conversation this op claims to desire.

For example, does the horror of blood sacrifices touch on this?

As I have already asked, who says blood sacrifices are a horror?

God does horrible things, and He requires horrible things of others; Therefore, according to the Doctrine of Divine Simplicity, God is horror (but we show little fear).​

I assume the problem with that argument is understood..... relevant to this op.

This op asks people to provide verses in the Bible that pertain to one specific theologian's figurative description of horrible dark thickness so those passages can be reasoned through but some the most basic inquiries about that endeavor will not be answered. My posts are not the problem here, @makesends. My questions may not have been anticipated but they are op-relevant and deserving of cogent responses. If you cannot provide us with a summary statement that better articulates the basic point of inquiry or comment (why seek out highly figurative and symbolic passages to reason through?) then at least provide a link to the Lewis comment so we can get some context. Set an example of op-relevant participation. It is your op, after all.

 

[Josheb]

@makesends,

Are either of the following Lewis quotes that to which the op refers?

"She would not answer me. Her face flushed. Her face, and her whole body, were the answer. 'Oh, you ought to have been one of Ungit's girls,' said I savagely. 'You ought to have lived in there - in the dark - all blood and incense and muttering and the reek of burnt fat. To like it - living among things you can't see - dark and holy and horrible....'"​

"I did not need a slave to teach me. It is very subtle. But it brings no rain and grows no corn; sacrifice does both. It does not even give them boldness to die.... Much less does it give them understanding of holy things. They demand to see such things clearly, as if gods were no more than letters written in a book... Holy places are dark places. It is life and strength, not knowledge and words, that we get from them. Holy wisdom is not clear and thin like water, but thick and dark like blood...."​

from "Till We Have Faces"​

Are either of these (or both) the reference?

 

[Josheb]

My OP was never intended as a treatise on Divine Simplicity. It was only to reference a facet of it that I consider poorly represented in modern Christendom, and would like to hear from members here, thoughts on the question.

Yep. That was understood from the beginning. Being a reference to a facet of that which was considered poorly represented in modern Christendom... questions were asked about the reference the op provided, and no cogent response was provided. Why mention a reference if it's example is not open for discussion. The same questions could have been asked about divine omnipotence (another mention specified) or any other doctrine.

What we know and reason is not sufficient for making such self-assured claims.

I know it is beneath you to post about the poster, and not about the post.

According to you, what you know and reason is not sufficient for making such self-assured claims .

I know it is beneath you to post about the poster, and not about the post.

Nice red herring. No one can or will ever provide evidence I have ever thought, implied, or stated any such standard. In point of fact, what I did post is an encouragement to take whatever time was necessary to provide a cogent response and post to the best of your ability. Post 21 quotes me doing so. I will acknowledge I missed Post #2. Knowing the reference helps address the reference because those words were spoken by the pagan Priest, not someone regenerate. That example means the op is built on something NOT representative of modern Christendom. Neither modern, nor historic, Christendom sets doctrine based on pagan viewpoints. That, in fact, is the antithesis of what sound doctrine does. It is the opposite of Christian thought and practice. It is the opposite of what you and I and everyone here in this thread out to be doing.

The character of the Priest in "Till We Have Faces," is a priest of Ungit, which is what we Christians would call the devil, or Satan. The Priest is a priest of the devil. He's a pagan priest. The larger passage states,

"'We are hearing much Greek wisdom this morning, King,' said the Priest. 'And I have heard most of it before. I did not need a slave to teach it to me. It is very subtle. But it brings no rain and grows no corn; sacrifice does both. It does not even give them boldness to die. That Greek there is your slave because in some battle he threw down his arms and let them bind his hands and lead him away and sell him, rather than take a spear-thrust in his heart. Much less does it give them understanding of holy things. The demand to see such things clearly, as if the gods were no more than letters written in a book. I, King, have dealt with the gods for three generations of men and I know that they dazzle our eyes and flow in and out of one another like eddies on a river, and nothing that is said clearly can be said truly about them. Holy places are dark places. It is life and strength, not knowledge and words, that we get in them. Holy wisdom is not clear and thin like water, but thick and dark like blood. Why should the Accursed not be both the best and the worst.'"​

The book, "Till We Have Faces" is "a myth retold." Which myth is being retold? Is it Christianity? No! Christianity is not a myth!!! Lewis has taken the mythology surrounding Venus/Aphrodite allegorically. The words of the Priest are those of a pagan's understanding of the gods, not representative of Christendom's understanding. The words of the Priest are wrong. Holy places are not dark places and they do impart knowledge and words. Life and strength and knowledge and words are not mutually exclusive conditions. Holy wisdom is what the Christian possesses. According to James, God's wisdom is pure, peace-loving, gentle, reasonable, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial, and free of hypocrisy. Proverbs states God gives wisdom, knowledge, and understanding. James states that if a person is lacking knowledge all he need do is ask without doubt and it will be given. The epistolary writers repeatedly reported the mysteries of God in Christ have been revealed, not obscured. The natural man, like the Priest, cannot understand the things of the Spirit.

Perhaps the inability to articulate is at least partly due to having mistakenly thinking the Priest is saying something representative of Christendom when the exact opposite is true. To the degree that pagan ignorance was thought a valid and efficacious view of the God of the Bible it would be understandable why you would think the thoughts expressed in this OP. Had my questions been answered when asked we might have sorted this out much earlier.

Now, can you bring us back around to the subject of the OP? Or have we not dealt with this tangent sufficiently?

Waiting on you.

The reference to Lewis' "Till We Have Faces," like the reference of divine simplicity and divine omnipotence, is only to reference a facet of what is considered poorly represented in modern Christendom. The problem is the Priest's words are not representative of anything in Christendom when it comes to what other Christians do with doctrine. The Priest's words are an example of what non-Christians do, not what modern Christendom. In point of fact, that discrepancy is very much what Lewis' books is all about. Lewis believed God and His holiness was illuminating and he made comparative distinctions between the Christian and non-Christian throughout many of his books. You stated you wanted to hear from others. You have heard from me, but you are not listening. If you want to be brought back to the subject of the OP, then I have provided PILES of content for that very purpose.


Pick something and discuss it. I think faster than you and am more confident in my views so ask me anything and I will answer the question asked when asked to the best of my ability. If you do it correctly I won't have any reason to use your own words against you .

In the past, there was a general attitude toward life that admitted to the comprehension of the God of such things as the Angel of Death, and what CS Lewis described somewhere as, (as I remember it), a smoky, dark, stifling, viscous, engulfing, inescapable thickness of holiness.

That is incorrect. You've misunderstood what Lewis was saying. That misunderstanding needs to be corrected and then replaced with something scripturally factual and truthful. That, in turn, might lead to a better understanding of Christendom's doctrines and what people positively and negatively do with them (no matter which doctrine is selected as a reference).


Pick something op-relevant and discuss it.