Rating: 
Summary: Great Book
Review: Explains so many deep concepts very clearly. Anyone interested in understanding Christianity should read it, even if they're not interested in becomeing a Christian.
Rating:
Summary: Comprehension
Review: I would definitley recommend this book to everyone, not Christians exclusively. I would offer one suggestion before you begin. This is not a book that you can read through easily and half-heartedly. I would seriously consider reading it more than once. The first time I read it, I thought it was great but I needed to read it twice to understand a lot. I would also recommend reading The Screwtape Letters as well as any other books by Lewis.
Rating: 
Summary: Merely the same things rehashed
Review: I recieved this book as a gift from someone I thought to be an open-minded, good person. This book has nothing new in it. It is worthless. It is just another example of a poor deluded SOB trying to convince himself that he really likes the cage he was tricked into entering.
This book is prosylazation. Prosylatizers, I have found, try to convert people because they are insecure about their faith, and think that by converting the world they will be secure in their faith. The truly faithful person does not prosylatize, for if one is secure in one's faith, why preach? If I could give this book a NEGATIVE FIVE, I would.
Rating:
Summary: The defense of the faith
Review: In his "Preface to Paradise Lost", Lewis wrote the following:"The first qualification for judging any piece of workmanship from a corkscrew to a cathedral is to know *what* it is - what it was intended to do and how it was meant to be used. After that has been discovered the temperance reformer may decide that the corkscrew was made for a bad purpose, and the communist may think the same about the cathedral. But such questions come later. The first thing is to understand the object before you: as long as you think the corkscrew was meant for opening tins or the cathedral for entertaining tourists you can say nothing to purpose about them." This is a splendid piece of writing, but the idea presented is no way an original one - Plato and Aristotle said the same, said it clearly, and said it over two thousand years before Lewis did. If you had been able to confront Lewis with this fact, he might have said "Exactly." This brings us to one of the great themes of Lewis's writing, evident nowhere more so than in "Mere Christianity": the defense of traditional wisdom against prejudice of our age that would reject it for no other reason than that it is traditional. Lewis often encountered those who complained that his ideas were old-fashioned, and his standard reply was that theirs would soon be as well, so in that they were equal. I admit I couldn't help but smile at the complaint by one Amazon reviewer that Lewis's ideas on sexuality were "decades old". The complaint is quite mistaken: the ideas are not decades old but thousands of years old. And it is here that we have part of the answer to the problem of understanding the kind of thing "Mere Christianity" is: it is nothing new. It is in fact very, very old. What Lewis is defending is not his own personal belief system, but the Christianity that is the common heritage of mankind. The threat to it comes not from hard-core atheists, who receive the barest of notices from Lewis, but the general modern tendency to subject traditional Christianity to the death of a thousand cuts - discarding one ancient doctrine after another, on grounds often no better than mere chronological snobbery - that modern people aren't supposed to believe that kind of thing anymore This is why Lewis, in what has been often described as the most important defense of Christianity in the twentieth century, spends a mere fifteen pages in arguing for the existence of God. The important task is not to defend a vague theism, which is the position Lewis found from experience that his audience already believed, but to rebuild what little of traditional Christianity modernism has left them - some vague belief in "a higher power", and "some purpose to all of this" into that concrete set of specific beliefs that are the historical core of Christianity. While the defense of historical Christianity is one part of understanding what "Mere Christianity" is, the other part is that it is intended to be accessible to anyone. This requires that Lewis be both clear and brief - a combination brutally difficult to achieve, as any writer who has attempted it will attest. Lewis's success in this can be measured in two ways: first, that his work has indeed found a very wide readership - millions of have read it; second, his work is often recommended by those whose knowledge of traditional Christian theology is broad and deep. The size of the readership attests to the accessibility of the work, and the expert recommendations attest to the accuracy of its message. There is one other thing that is important to note about Lewis's success: Lewis could afford to be brief because what he was explaining was not his own theology, but our common intellectual inheritance. The reader who is dissatisfied with the depth of this or that point in "Mere Christianity" will have no difficulty in finding sources that go into the same thing in much greater detail. Calvin wrote line-by-line commentaries on all of scripture. Thomas Aquinas's "Summa Theologica" is over 6,000 pages long. The collected works of Augustine fill more than 40 volumes. So, to return to the question with which this review began: what kind of thing is "Mere Christianity"? The answer is that it is a brief exposition of traditional Christianity for a modern audience. In the sixty years since it was published, the nature of the modernist challenge to Christianity has not substantially changed, nor has a clearer, more accessible response to that challenge yet been written. Some have complained that the work has "gaps" or that it skims over this or that point, but that is a complaint that fails to understand what kind of thing this is. What they are asking for, whether they know it or not, is a completely different book. Properly evaluated, on the basis of the kind of thing it is, it is trivially easy to give the highest recommendation to "Mere Christianity": it is on a topic of the greatest possible importance and the presentation is outstanding.
Rating:
Summary: An excellent introduction to the faith
Review: A good balance between religion and theology. A thorough knowledge of the Bible is not necessary to get a lot out of this book. Lewis has a very flowing and conversational style, and he has a great ability to illustrate his points with helpful examples.
Rating:
Summary: Too Bad He's Gone, He'd Answer You
Review: I was most interested in Optimus Maximus, though I disagree with two points. Still I said the essay was helpful. I think most people would find it so. But--pullease, sir!-- Christianity is NOT complex. It can be stated in three paragraphs known as The Apostles' Creed. You needn't tell me that many Christians do not know this Creed, and therefore find the many books written ABOUT Christianity complex. Of course. When one is discussing a world view one ought to go back to the earliest statement of it. Regarding the other point, I have found that many Christian women, including my wife, do not at all mind obeying their husbands. It relieves them of a great deal of heavy thinking and gives them more time to do the things they like,--such as spending time with the children, knitting, cooking gourmet meals, and gardening. My wife cordially detests the women of NOW, refers to them as the "hairy-legged ones" and numerous other nasty epithets. Not all of today's women, especially Christian women, feel "liberated" by twentieth-century mores.
For me, the value of Lewis's book is its use as a handbook to provide a language by which to speak to Christians of other persuasions. I have given away more copies than I care to count. You will remember his preface in which he says that he has found those at the center of each denomination in tune with each other more that they are with those on the periphery of their own denomination. I find this is true. As a traditional Episcopalian, I have more in common with James Kennedy, a traditionsl Presbyterian, Adrian Rogers, a traditional Southern Baptist, and Alan Keyes, a traditional Catholic, than I have with many of the bishops of my own church, who would not find MERE CHRISTIANITY at all palatable. I think the book was not so much written to convert non-Christians as to inform them about basic doctrine and to re-inform Christians when they have strayed into heresy. Just my opinion.
Rating:
Summary: Keeping it simple, like it's supposed to be.
Review: For all of his well deserved reputation as a brilliant thinker and writer, C.S. Lewis demonstrates it best by resisting the urge to 'sound brilliant.' In the three books that comprise "Mere Christianity," Lewis shows off his mastery of discussing the simplicity of the gospel in simple terms without losing one iota of his intellectual or philosophical punch. Quite the opposite is true, in fact -- his lack of ostentation only adds force to arguments about a subject which shouldn't be all that complicated, but for some reason always seem to come out that way. One of the reasons Lewis was able to achieve this balance was that the book is actually derived from transcripts of a series of radio talks which Lewis presented in England during the WW2 years. As a layperson, lacking advanced theological training, and speaking to an audience of laypersons, Lewis delivered his talks with none of the jargon that typically accompany this type of discussion. In fact, when the talks were "cleaned up" and adapted into book form, Lewis intentionally chose to retain the folksy, familiar manner of speech that had characterized the original presentation. Lewis tackles a broad variety of subjects without hinting at too many "doctrinal distinctives," things that tend to be particular to one denomination or another. His focus was on the common ground that the great majority of Christians can agree on. I was particularly impressed with his powerful apology for the existence of God. The classic ontological and teleological arguments are laid aside as Lewis proves with undeniable clarity and reason the logical necessity of God based on the innate human sense of right and wrong. Even the hardest skeptics will be challenged by this simple yet brilliant presentation. Whether you're a believer or a naysayer, this book will expand your mind.
Rating:
Summary: Well Done, a mere lay person
Review: I am impressed with Lewis' ability to articulate Christianity as a mere lay person. As a Chinese with Taoist's understanding of the world and way of thought processing, I find his arguments highly acceptable. I also enjoy different opinions, so I read the negative reviews. To my disappointment, all those argued that Lewis' was illogical proved themselve illogical with their own words. Some are even rude, which proves their own stupidity. Yes, the Truth, the Tao, The Way, the Christ, is fuzzy, "revealed and hidden at the same time." It is even more difficult for the linear thinkers (black-or-white thinkers) to grasp it, because it is grey. Only a few people in each generation are gifted with articulating this Truth with such a high level of clarity. C. S. Lewis is one of them in Mere Christianity.
Rating:
Summary: This is one great book
Review: In case there was any question C.S. Lewis proves in Mere Christianity that he is one of the greatest theological thinkers of the 20th century. If the Case for Christ left you wanting more then this is where to go. Every great sermon should include at least one quote from this book. If it's not on your bookshelf then you're missing out.
Rating: 
Summary: Good writing, but fails to make his case
Review: I feel out of my league critiquing Mr. Lewis. I certainly recognize he is a gifted writer. All I am trying to do is say why, at least for me, he didn't prove his case. The book is divided into four books, and at this time I'm only intending on commenting on the first two. The reason being that the latter two books are for Christians. The first two are for those that are contemplating Christianity. Lewis starts out his argument for the existence of God by first attempting to prove the existence of what he calls "The Moral Law". It seems that a reader's perception of the strength of Lewis' argument for the existence of God completely stands or falls based on whether said reader is convinced by the argument of the existence of this purported Law. Lewis argues that it seems that everybody has some innate understanding of a proper, moral behavior. He says that if we didn't, it would make no sense to say that Nazi's behaved "badly". Saying they behaved "badly" only makes sense if you have a fundamental understanding of what it would mean to behave well. My first complaint is that I feel he trivializes the differences of morality amongst different cultures. He agrees that there are differences but says "these have never amounted to anything of a total difference... Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you should not simply have any woman you liked." Considering how much to do Christians (including Lewis himself) usually make of the properness of the biblical "one man, one woman" concept, it seems odd to have him say that isn't a real difference. Lewis neglects to mention that some cultures have found it acceptable for men to kill their wives if they find them displeasing. This isn't a real difference? However, I do agree that at least most cultures have had some form of "The Golden Rule". In fact, Lewis himself later refers to "The Golden Rule of the New Testament (do as you would be done by)". So, if I accept that at least most cultures have had some form of this, the question then becomes, where did it come from? Lewis discusses two naturalistic possibilities, instinct and learned behavior. Lewis dismisses these. To dismiss instinct, Lewis discusses the scenario where somebody sees someone in trouble. They may have the instinct to run away to protect themselves. And he says they may have the instinct to help the other person. Yet somehow the person must make a choice between the two instincts, and the means that one employs to make that choice must be The Moral Law. It seems to me that it is more likely to be learned behavior even though Lewis dismisses that possibility. I shouldn't say that Lewis completely dismisses that The Moral Law as being learned behavior. In fact, he agree that it is, much like the multiplication tables are something that you learn. But we couldn't have arbitrarily made up the multiplication tables. Nor, he argues, could we have arbitrarily decided The Moral Law. For evidence of this, he again reiterates his claim that all cultures have had similar morality; and if morality were arbitrary then that wouldn't be so. As I've said, I'm not convinced this is the case. But I have agreed that most cultures have had some form of The Golden Rule. So Lewis would say that I'm agreeing with him. Well, not really. Is there any other possible explanation for the universitality of The Golden Rule? I think there is. For my own self preservation, it seems obvious that I would want other people to not to decide to arbitrarily kill me. It also seems obvious that I would have no reason to have such expectation of other people, if I won't likewise arbitrarily go kill them. It doesn't seem to me that it requires a God to have told me this. Granted, in today's society, the concept of treating others as you would have them treat you sometimes seems to be in amazingly short supply. Yet I'd still say that it really shouldn't take a rocket scientist, let alone God, to figure this out. Lewis accepts some desire to help others is instinct. He calls it the "herd instinct". I'd prefer to call it "empathy". Many Christians ask why would this evolve? If we evolved, wouldn't we evolve primarily the instinct to save ourselves? However, Lewis doesn't ask this question and accepts that we do in fact have such an instinct. But he believes that the self-preservation is a stronger instinct and that therefore if someone chooses to help someone instead of saving themselves, it must be because of The Moral Law. However, he doesn't seem to offer any proof that the self-preservation instinct would be stronger than empathy. But even if he is correct and self-preservation is the stronger instinct, the combination of learned behavior plus the "herd instinct" seems to me to be quite capable of being stronger than the self-preservation instinct, at least in some individuals in some situations. Maybe I can't prove that my explanation is correct. But I assert that Lewis has not proven it to be wrong.
| 
