Boy, heaven, lies
There’s been a flurry of publicity over the fact that the boy featured in the book The Boy Who Came Back From Heaven now says the whole thing was a lie. The book has been pulled:
The best-selling book, first published in 2010, purports to describe what Alex experienced while he lay in a coma after a car accident when he was 6 years old. The coma lasted two months, and his injuries left him paralyzed, but the subsequent spiritual memoir ”“ with its assuring description of “miracles, angels, and life beyond This World” ”“ became part of a popular genre of “heavenly tourism.”
Earlier this week, Alex recanted his testimony about the afterlife. In an open letter to Christian bookstores posted on the Pulpit and Pen Web site, Alex states flatly: “I did not die. I did not go to Heaven.”
Referring to the injuries that continue to make it difficult for him to express himself, Alex writes, “Please forgive the brevity, but because of my limitations I have to keep this short. ”¦ I said I went to heaven because I thought it would get me attention. When I made the claims that I did, I had never read the Bible. People have profited from lies, and continue to. They should read the Bible, which is enough. The Bible is the only source of truth. Anything written by man cannot be infallible.”
I have neither followed the book nor read it (and yes, there have now been many jokes about the boy’s last name: “Malarkey”). Also, it’s clear from the boy’s recent remarks that his family has a belief in the Bible as the literal word of God.
Aside from all of that, however, it seems to me that any person who says “I did not die; I did not go to heaven” must be telling a self-evident truth. The literature is replete with tales of near-death experiences, but no one has ever actually died and lived to tell about it.
So Alex’s statement is about something obvious: of course he didn’t die and go to heaven.
But there were many people who had believed his earlier statement that he did just that. They were taking it on faith, because it would have had to have been a miracle, wouldn’t it? However, what they had every reason to believe was true (without any need for miracles) was that Alex Malarky had experienced something during his coma that led him to believe he’d died and gone to heaven. They had a right to think he was truthfully describing his own subjective experience, and doing so in good faith.
Now Alex Malarky is saying that was a lie, and that nothing of the sort had happened, even in his mind. That’s quite a betrayal of the readers. The impetus for the lie (or at least, the mechanism by which it reached wide dissemination) appears to have been his father, who actually had the book contract (the parents are divorced). But it’s a bit hard to tell at this point.
There are a lot of people who are very very interested in stories of near-death experiences. I’ve read a lot of the literature about the phenomenon—the more scientific literature, that is, or fiction such as Katherine Anne Porter’s masterpiece Pale Horse Pale Rider, which is based on her own experience during the 1918-1919 flu pandemic. It’s a fascinating subject, and represents—for most people who describe it, although not apparently for Alex Malarky—a very powerful and very real psychological and physiological experience, with difficult-to-explain elements.
People can take comfort from the narratives, and I’d be the last one to tell them not to. The phenomenon may or may not have bearing on what actually happens to us after death. But it seems apparent to me that such tales cannot be stories from people who have actually died. They can only tell us what happens in the subjective sense to some people who have come close.
[NOTE: As I was writing this post, a line from Edwin Arlington Robinson’s enigmatic poem “Luke Havergal” came to me: “Out of a grave I come to tell you this.”
The Malarky story also conjured up some lines from Wordsworth’s “Ode”, a poem I had to study in junior high:
Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting:
The Soul that rises with us, our life’s Star,
Hath had elsewhere its setting,
And cometh from afar:
Not in entire forgetfulness,
And not in utter nakedness,
But trailing clouds of glory do we come
From God, who is our home:
Heaven lies about us in our infancy!
Shades of the prison-house begin to close
Upon the growing Boy,
But he beholds the light, and whence it flows,
He sees it in his joy;
The Youth, who daily farther from the east
Must travel, still is Nature’s priest,
And by the vision splendid
Is on his way attended;
At length the Man perceives it die away,
And fade into the light of common day.
Which in turn conjures up this scene.]
If you read Alex Malarky’s statement, you can see it is from the point of view of a mainstream evangelical who claims that scripture alone is our source of information about God/Jesus/heaven. So if he told the truth before, he has motivation to lie now.
So he is lying one of the two times. Alternatively, he now has reason to believe that his previous experiences were an illusion.
Mormons are really in deep with this, don t they have a
dogma that says there are *spirit children* waiting to be born & Mormons should have as many children as possible to provided actual bodies for all these souls.
You can go to some really weird places when you let your mind free range or I guess you can channel it into poetry !:)
Sad though parents who exploit their kids, the baloon boy comes to mind & how he vomited on live TV because his dad had instructed him to be part of the ruse. And that poor child whose dad was setting her up to claim she had a solo flight across the USA, & died in the plane crash, & wasn t there somebody that was sailing around the world solo??? Good Lord!
I have read many of the books and accounts of near death experiences. One of the most interesting to me was, “Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon’s Journey into the Afterlife,” by Eben Alexander. A man of science who has studied the brain extensively provides a detailed account of his time when he was considered brain dead. There are quite a few books about near death experiences. For a list of many go here:
http://www.goodreads.com/shelf/show/near-death-experience
Having experienced my own transcendental (supernatural) spiritual experiences for which I have no explanation, I do not doubt these near death accounts. They have allowed a peek behind the curtain that separates us from knowing who we are and where we come from. I have no explanation for my own experiences except that at the time they occurred I was in a state of psychic despair or in a place that heightened my awareness of the beauty that surrounds us. I was, for that place and time, receptive to a message from somewhere that I cannot name. Some call it God, the Force, Allah, the Creator, He Whose Name Cannot Be Known, Shiva, and more. For those who have experienced such, it changes the way you see the world. At least it did for me. I saw with clarity that we are all the children of the Universe and we are all loved. Like any parent our Creator would like us to be good to one another and love Him/Her. That insight has made all the difference to me. It has given me a deep faith in God/the Creator/the Force that religious ceremonies, sacred texts, and inspired preaching never provided.
I think it takes some courage to relate these experiences to others because there is great cynicism about transcendental experiences. Most people wonder if such a thing isn’t just a figment of brain chemistry or just a made up account, like Alex Malarkey’s. Most people who have related near death experiences have stated it has given them a peace that they didn’t have before. I can say the same about my experience.
From Faulkner’s Light in August:
“And that was the first time Byron remembered that he had ever thought how a man’s name, which is supposed to be just the sound for who he is, can be somehow an augur of what he will do, if other men can only read the meaning in time.”
Perhaps one should be cautious about believing strange and fantastic tales imparted by someone named “Malarky.”
I believe that JJ’s spiritual experiences, as with some strokes and near-death experiences, are merely brain damage. I think the neurologist who wrote “stroke of insight” should know better than to read anything else into these experiences.
Religious people who rely on experiential evidence to weigh the credibility of their beliefs are all losers when someone lies like this. That type of lying is even more destructive than when a scientists falsifies an experiment since most experiences of this type are not reproducible.
Near death experiences may have nothing to do with the afterlife but they do provide insights into how the human mind works and that information does intersect with religion and the nature of mystical experiences.
“At length the Man perceives it die away,
And fade into the light of common day.”
My experience is quite different. As I age the possibility of a theory of everything becomes more and more unimaginable especially in light of Godel’s incompleteness proof. Logical positivism is dying. The old billiard ball physics has given way to quantum mechanics. There is still plenty of mystery in this Universe which leaves plenty of room for God.
“no one has ever actually died and lived to tell about it.”
Au Contraire! Christianity’s entire rationale is based upon the testimony of many who were visited by Jesus after he had died, i.e. “he rose from the dead”.
Either ‘doubting’ Thomas was a liar or he actually touched Jesus’ wound from the spear and he did so in front of witnesses, thus if he lied, he did so as part of a conspiracy of deceit.
C.S. Lewis put the issue more concisely than any before or since; “Christianity, if false, is of no importance, but if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important.”
Geoffrey Britain:
I’m not a Christian. I certainly understand that Christians believe that Jesus came back from the dead, but non-Christians—the majority of the world’s people—do not believe that.
However, even for Christian believers, isn’t Jesus a special case? I thought it was understood that when I wrote that no one had come back from death to tell about it, I was speaking of ordinary humans.
There are several accounts in the Bible (Old and New Testaments) of resurrections from the dead.
Elisha and the widow’s son, Jesus and the young woman, also his friend Lazarus.
Some might claim they were only in a coma that went unrecognized by primitive people (which is why a multi-day wake became important – although Jews and Moslems must bury by the end of the day of death IIRC).
Today, although we can chart brain-waves, heart-beats, and so forth, it is still possible to find accounts of “dead” people who spontaneously returned to “life” even if they don’t write best-sellers about their experiences.
neo,
What Christian’s believe and what non-Christians don’t believe are irrelevant, only the truth matters. Thus the C.S. Lewis quote.
Jesus is indeed a special case for Christians but that’s the point, his return (if true) establishes an entirely new paradigm vis a vis death.
Jesus was either telling the truth or a liar or deluded. If true, all is made anew. As the only person with the support of numerous witnesses that he came back from the dead, his testimony can only be ignored if one posits him to have been either a liar or deluded and those witnesses to be liars.
That Jesus is a special case and not an ordinary person does not diminish the veracity of the claim. Of course, neither can the veracity of the claim be proven. Which is not at all accidental.
Another book of interest as to the phenomena of transcendental experience is the book, “My Stroke of Insight,” by Jill Bolte Taylor. Dr. (Phd) Taylor, who is studies the brain, had a stroke that shut down the left hemisphere of her brain.
From the book’s synopsis: “A neuroanatomist by profession, she observed her own mind completely deteriorate to the point that she could not walk, talk, read, write, or recall any of her life, all within the space of four brief hours. As the damaged left side of her brain–the rational, grounded, detail- and time-oriented side–swung in and out of function, Taylor alternated between two distinct and opposite realties: the euphoric nirvana of the intuitive and kinesthetic right brain, in which she felt a sense of complete well-being and peace; and the logical, sequential left brain, which recognized Jill was having a stroke, and enabled her to seek help before she was lost completely.”
It took her eight years to recover. What she discovered through her experience was that our connection to the spiritual is through our right brain hemisphere. Our left brain hemisphere is what allows us to be rational, goal oriented, tool using, language oriented achievers. Our right hemisphere seems to be connected to our sense of creativity, beauty, love, and spirituality. Many of us, and I’m certainly one of them, are primarily left brain oriented. People who are creative, artistic, empathetic in the extreme, and deeply compassionate are more in touch with the right hemisphere of their brain. At least that is what Dr. Taylor’s experience strongly indicates.
What I get from this is that transcendental experiences could be the result of a breakdown of the barrier between the right and the left hemispheres such that for a time the world is experienced primarily from the right hemisphere.
To me, it seems that the right hemisphere is the portal to our spirituality. Some people are fortunate to have a balance between the right and left brain, such that they are creative, rational, goal oriented, and spiritual all at once.
It’s interesting to me that we have evolved in this way. It indicates to me that at some point humans were far more right brained and spiritual than we are today. Gradual increases in technology from language, tools, transportation methods, exploitation of natural resources, wealth creation, and the latest – information technology have all driven humans to be more left brain oriented.
There is much more to this than can be covered in a comment. I have tried to gather as much information as is I can to educate myself and draw conclusions I am comfortable with. But any scientific certainty about such things is still in the future.
Slightly OT, but mention of left and right hemispheres got me thinking of Julian Jaynes’ Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind.
Now there’s a book which will leave one always wondering. Brilliant thesis (obviously unproven … apologies to Popper, I know, I know).
Geoffrey Britain:
I am making two points. The first is that it is only of transformational importance to believers (except, of course, for its historic repercussions), and furthermore (as you say) it is unprovable at this point. People either believe it or they do not. The majority of the world does not.
The second point I’m making in this thread is that when I said no one had died and come back to tell about it, that is still true for ordinary people—whether you believe Jesus did it or not.
Unless, I suppose, you believe that the Lazarus story is literally true.
Geoffrey Britain:
I fail to see why Jesus’ claim of coming back from the dead would have any relevance to other people’s claims of coming back from the dead. Jesus promised eternal life in heaven, but I never heard that he promised that other people could come back from the dead and tell us about it.
To me, whether or not Jesus was resurrected and the meaning of near-death experiences seem unconnected to each other.
The relevance Jesus to other people’s claims of coming back from the dead (or near death experience) is that if Christianity’s claim is true, it lends credence to near death experience claims, assuming of course that the people reporting them are sincere and rational.
No, he did not claim specifically that other people would come back and I don’t believe that I implied that.
If Jesus was resurrected and came back, it is intimately connected to the meaning of near-death experiences because it establishes the possibility of life after death (which is of rather great import to us all) and people who have reported near-death experiences generally report a feeling of great calm and peace. Which is certainly in keeping with what Jesus taught.
There is no connection if Jesus was not resurrected but a profound connection if he was…
Geoffrey Britain:
I actually see no connection at all. I’ll explain.
Many religions involve a belief in life after death. Christianity is hardly unique in that regard, and belief in Christianity (according to the other religions) would not be required for there to be life after death. So belief in life after death is not necessarily, primarily, or exclusively, connected with Christianity. Belief in Christ’s divinity and resurrection is, but that’s a separate thing (although for Christians the two beliefs are connected).
Many people who believe in life after death don’t believe in ANY organized religion, much less Christianity. They believe in a spirit world that is irrespective of religion. So a lot of people who are interested in, and believe in the veracity of, near-death experiences make no connection between them and Christianity.
In addition, in my reading about near-death experiences, quite a few people who have them say the experience has enhanced their general spirituality but not their belief in organized religion. On the contrary, they are less interested in organized religion of any sort after their experience than they were before it.
Lastly, it is certainly possible to believe that people relating near-death experiences are lying are mistaken or hallucinating, which still believing in organized religion (Christianity or otherwise) and the afterlife. One can belief in Christianity or any other organized religion and the afterlife and still not believe that such people are relating a real experience of death.
Therefore to some believing Christians the two—Christ’s resurrection and return to reveal himself to disciples, and near-death experiences of regular people—would be connected. But they wouldn’t be connected to some believing Christians, and they wouldn’t be connected to anyone else.
The death is the only fact in our life.
Whatever your believe and thoughts about death and life after that you will see sooner or later by yourself without stories.
Looking at the mother’s blog, it seems as if Alex Malarkey has been trying to tell people that the book is false for years now, but that he wasn’t able to catch anybody’s attention long enough for the word to really get out. Furthermore, he and his mother haven’t seen any of the profits from the book, even though it seems like they could certainly use them for Alex’s ongoing treatment.
It perhaps wasn’t intended to be self-serving, but frankly the whole thing looks like the father’s doing. He wrote the book and he got the contract, and his wife* and son have both been protesting it.
My mother and I were actually talking about the whole Near-Death Experience phenomenon a few days before this came to light, and discussing how using “modern-day miracles” as validation for one’s faith always seems to do more harm than good. I’m glad the truth came to light in this instance, but it’s saddening that so many people were pulled in by this in the first place.
*Also according to Beth Malarkey’s blog, she and Alex’s father are still married and aren’t planning to divorce. See the most recent post here: http://amomonamission.blogspot.com/
One last thing–an excerpt from a post Beth Malarkey wrote in September 2013:
“…on the pastor and his son that came to visit the hospital after Alex’s back surgery… They never came again and did not come to minister to Alex or I when we were unable to leave the house. They are from the church that claim to be my family’s church. They were not involved in our lives around the time of the car accident or the immediate years after it. Alex nor I have been to their building since fall of 2009, and are not in communication with them. My husband does still go there and takes two of our children. I know that a person from there handled promotions of the book even though there was clear communication that Alex and I were opposed to it and why. I do know that Alex begged the pastor to tell his congregation that the book was wrong and to stop it. Alex placed that request while he was lying on a gurney in E.R.. The pastor did not even acknowledge Alex’s words[.]”
The whole post is long, but worth reading: http://amomonamission.blogspot.com/2013/09/alex-malarkeya-timeline-of-truth.html
Tara says
“using “modern-day miracles” as validation for one’s faith always seems to do more harm than good.”
Point well taken. That point can be generalized to state:
“Relying on other people’s experiences including other people’s reports of modern day miracles seems to do more harm than good.”
The last name is spelled “Malarkey”, apparently. See your link to The Washington Post.
There are easier ways to learn about death and life.
The Roman Catholics refused to be reformed of varous Pope indulgences and other excesses, so now they have a bunch of Protestant and other Christian heresies to contend with. Not sure that was worth Luther’s theses, all in all.
Spellchecker:
Thanks, fixed!
Neo seems to be insistently standing on thin ice.
a) She is not a Christian, she avers, and thus her knowledge and understanding of Christianity may be limited and/or biased.
b) Depending upon the opinions of the majority of the world’s human population seems a poor way to determine the validity or truth of anything.
c) She seems to brush off, or at the least not to address the profound remark of CS Lewis, quoted by GB, which really rang my bell about a year ago, and started me on a road of spiritual and religious discovery. Lewis’s is a thought that merits deliberation for much longer than a shrug of the shoulders. Lewis was a remarkable thinker, and a Catholic.
@ don carlos, actually CS Lewis remained an Anglican
though he is frequently referred to by Catholic intellectuals.
How does Christian heaven differ from Jewish heaven? Where in the New Testament is there anything indicating Jesus said heaven was different?
@MollyNH
Merci.
G Joubert:
Traditionally, Judaism does not focus on the afterlife, and has little to say about heaven.
See this.
Don Carlos:
Apparently you did not read or did not understand my remarks in my previous comment here.
C.S. Lewis’ remarks indicate that if in fact Christ rose from the dead it is a matter of ENORMOUS import. I certainly agree with that! But to those who do not believe that he did, it is of no import because it did not happen (although it is of import in the historical sense because belief in its truth led to Christianity).
I am not a Christian. Therefore I am in that group that does not believe in Christ’s divinity and rising from the dead. Such a group’s superior numbers do not make me (or that group) correct or incorrect in our beliefs. I am not saying—nor would I ever say—that if a majority of people believe something it must be true! Christ’s divinity is not a popularity contest. I am merely pointing out that it is certainly not self-evident for the majority of people.
My point is that belief or disbelief in the veracity of accounts of the afterlife from those who have had near-death experiences and told about them is a separate issue from belief in Christ’s divinity and resurrection. You can believe in the former without believing in the latter, you can believe in both, you can believe in the latter without believing in the former, and you can believe in neither. They are unlinked, except for those who believe in both and who link those beliefs.
neo, that’s an interesting site, LOL Moses teaching torah
constantly.
The recent *flap* about Francis saying the little boy would see his dead pet dog in heaven….
animal lovers rejoiced but theologians emphatically said
No animals in heaven.
It made me recall my Catholic school upbringing when we asked the nun the *heaven* questions she
gave an answer worthy of Solomon.
Heaven will be what you want it to be, for you !
So yes the little boy will see his dog & no heaven will not be inundated with everyone’s pets !
Neo:
Not for the 1st time, you charge me with faulty reading. Which I dispute. I am at the point that I comment here only rarely, because I do find frequent differences between your views and mine, and that is more than my faulty reading.
I will respond by saying that Christianity is obviously about a great deal more than whether or not Jesus was resurrected.
Second, what CS Lewis said. He did not say: if true, Christianity is of ENORMOUS (your caps) importance. Lewis said it is of INFINITE importance.
Since you are not a Christian, in the CS Lewis context you fall into the group that may be said to deem Christianity of “no importance”; at the least, of no personal importance.
Don Carlos:
You are once again ignoring my main point, which has to do with near-death experiences and their relation to Christianity.
And the word “enormous” in caps was not meant to be a direct quote of what C.S. Lewis said, it was meant to be an indication of understanding that if true, Christ’s resurrection would be enormously (with great emphasis) important. But of course you find fault with that as well.
Nor am I trying here to have a discussion about the meaning of Christianity or of Christ in general. Of course Christianity is about more than whether Christ was resurrected—when did I ever indicate that’s all it’s about? Why would you feel you have to state that it’s not all about that?
Your arguments against me are often about things I have not said and points I have not made, and ignore what I’m actually saying. I have no doubt that you and I disagree on many things, but that’s not necessarily a problem. The problem is that you have a tendency (demostrated over time, not just in this thread) to either misread or misunderstand or ignore the points I’m making.
Neo:
Will you agree there is a difference between “enormous” and “infinite”? That the shift in the force of Lewis’ statement from the word “infinite” to “enormous” diminishes the nature and vigor of his statement?
To me, the use of “enormous” in Lewis’ context shifts Christianity into the “moderately important” class that Lewis says it can never be. Lewis makes it a binary, a yes or no.
Don Carlos:
Of course there’s a difference between “enormous” and “infinite.” And, by the way, there’s a difference between “enormous” and “ENORMOUS.” By the latter, I meant to convey an ENORMOUS enormousness, not to minimize it.
I was writing quickly and summarizing, not writing an essay on exactly what Lewis had said—I was mentioning Lewis only because others had, and trying to tie the whole thing into the near-death experiences which were the focus of my post.
Let me also say that, for non-Christians, the “infinite” importance of Christ’s divinity or non-divinity is not apparent. Most non-Christians who are religious believe in God, and if Christ was part of God (as a Trinity, for example), it would not, as non-Christians see it, change God’s essential nature.
You may not agree, but Pope John-Paul II in 1980 embraced what is known as “dual-covenant theology.” As far as I know, this has been official Catholic doctrine ever since:
Neo-
I agree with John Paul the Great, not that my agreement matters.
Who am I, to know whether you wrote something quickly? I merely respond to words on a screen, sometimes quickly, sometimes not.
Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation, Book V
CHAPTER XII
” There was a master of a family in that district of the Northumbrians which is called Cuningham, who led a religious life, as did also all that belonged to him. This man fell sick, and his distemper daily increasing, being brought to extremity, he died in the beginning of the night; but in the morning early, he suddenly came to life again, and sat up, upon which all those that sat about the body weeping, fled away in a great fright, only his wife, who loved him best, though in a great consternation and trembling, remained with him. He, comforting her, said, “Fear not, for I am now truly risen from death, and permitted again to live among men; however, I am not to live hereafter as I was wont, but from henceforward after a very different manner. ….
… He that led me had a shining countenance and a bright garment, and we went on silently, as I thought, towards the north-east. Walking on, we came to a vale of great breadth and depth, but of infinite length; on the left it appeared full of dreadful flames, the other side was no less horrid for violent hail and cold snow flying in all directions; both places were full of men’s souls, which seemed by turns to be tossed from one side to the other, as it were by a violent storm; for when the wretches could no longer endure the excess of heat, they leaped into the middle of the cutting cold; and finding no rest there, they leaped back again into the middle of the unquenchable flames. Now whereas an innumerable multitude of deformed spirits were thus alternately tormented far and near, as far as could be seen, without any intermission, I began to think that this perhaps might be hell, of whose intolerable flames I had often heard talk. My guide, who went before me, answered to my thought, saying, ‘Do not believe so, for this is not the hell you imagine.'”
http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/bede-book5.asp
Don Carlos:
I think I would have said the same thing whether I had written it quickly or slowly and with great care. You are once again focusing on a tangential issue.
I will try to make it clear: I was not quoting Lewis verbatim, nor was I trying to. I was paraphrasing his statement in the manner that I understood it, which did not involve making a distinction between “ENORMOUS” and “infinite.” I was talking about what his statement indicated to me.
Here is the context in which I originally used the word “ENORMOUS”:
Not a quote from Lewis–it was my statement of his message, couched in a way that I could agree with it.
Neo:You are cross talking. You make a most peculiar distinction in the meaning of words when you write “which did not involve making a distinction between “ENORMOUS” and “infinite.” I was talking about what his statement indicated to me.” Do you try to get the intent of the writer or do you reword the writer’s message to fit your own ends?
Ad hoc redefinition is hardly clarifying except to the initiator thereof. You lose a great meaning between ENORMOUS and “infinite”. Your ENORMOUS becomes Lewis’ “moderately important” which he says it cannot be, so you’re flipping him off.
Don Carlos:
I don’t think “cross-talking” means what you think it does.
I think you are using the term “cross-talking” incorrectly. (See also this).
For some unknown reason, you continue to misunderstand what I’m saying. This is my last attempt to make it clear to you.
In this thread, my focus was not to present or analyze C.S. Lewis’s writings or philosophy or religious beliefs. I was only bringing him up in response to another commenter who was quoting him in the context of the discussion of the veracity or near-death experiences, and I was responding to that commenter in terms of the analysis and discussion of those near-death experiences.
Therefore, I was trying to see what sense I could make of the Lewis quote in terms of the discussion of near-death experiences. I was trying to do my best to relate to it (as a non-Christian) and find some element of it that I might be able to agree with rather than disagree with. I was interpreting it in a way I could see as relating to that discussion.
For some reason you seem to believe I should have instead turned my comments into some sort of analysis of exactly what Lewis said and what Lewis meant in the theological sense. Why? I didn’t (and still don’t) see what he said as relevant to whether near-death experiences are true in terms of what actually happens after death. Believing Christians may believe in the veracity of modern-day reports of near-death experiences or think them false, and still believe in Christ and heaven. Non-Christians may believe in the veracity or falseness or modern-day near-death experiences, and believe or not believe in heaven, unrelated to whether they believe in Christ’s divinity. The two seem unrelated to me.
Lastly, my quoting John Paul II and his statements on the two covenants was supposed to convey—at least, if a person agrees with what John Paul II said—than to Jews, whether or not Christ came back from the dead would not be of “infinite” importance, because the Jews would be saved without believing in Christ’s divinity. So even if Christianity were true, why would it be infinitely important to a Jew? Also, to those Christians who believe that believers in other religions can go to heaven, why would Christ’s divinity and return from the dead be “infinitely” important to those believers in other religions?
Finally, it is quite extraordinary that you write:
“Your ENORMOUS becomes Lewis’ “moderately important” which he says it cannot be, so you’re flipping him off.”
Actually, two things are wrong with that statement. The first is that “ENORMOUS” is not the same as “moderately,” even though both differ from “infinitely.” The second is your use of the expression “flipping him off,” which means giving someone the finger. There is nothing the least bit disrespectful about what I’m saying about Lewis. I am hardly giving anyone the finger.
I see that you wrote that C.S. Lewis’ remark: “…really rang my bell about a year ago, and started me on a road of spiritual and religious discovery. Lewis’s is a thought that merits deliberation for much longer than a shrug of the shoulders.” To me, THAT seems to be the source of your anger—that the Lewis statement was intensely meaningful and important to you, and you think it’s been slighted here in some way.
Hello everybody, here every one is sharing
these experience, thus it’s pleasant to read this blog, and I used to pay a
visit this web site everyday.