Friday, October 31, 2008
Questionable Logic
As I read C.S. Lewis' chapter upon Eros for the second time, his logical argument refuting nakedness as truly self-revealing appears to have a major logical flaw. Lewis' only supports for the natural nature of clothedness come from human convention - primarily language. According to Lewis, the word naked began as "a past participle . . . the naked man . . . had undergone a process of naking" (104). Human beings cannot trust language to provide deep and original insight into concepts, for language itself had a human origin. Even though the word "naked" was once a past participle, that has nothing to do with whether or not fallen humanity was correct in labeling the word as such. Bringing language - a human creation - into an argument about the natural nature of nudity does not seem like a wonderfully logical decision.
Eros and the Beloved as a Picture of God and the Church
Though Lewis expresses the importance of a sense of humor, I think the function of Eros in a love relationship has been grievously misconstrued by our culture. Eros is nearly always portrayed in relation to Venus, and though Venus is often born from Eros, it is important to consider Eros in itself. Lewis stresses this distinction, for by this very difference, we find the greatest danger in erotic love. Though it might seem that Venus poses the gravest threat of spiritual undoing, Eros holds the most potential for obsession. On this matter, Lewis’ appeal draws upon the ideas of St. Paul, “It is marriage itself, not the marriage bed, that will be likely to hinder us from waiting uninterruptedly on God” (96).
Indeed, Lewis is careful to describe Eros and Venus as separate entities. He specifies: “Sexual desire, without Eros, wants it, the thing in itself; Eros wants the Beloved” (94). Somehow, this image of Eros’ desire for the Beloved brings to mind images from the Scriptures in which God describes his relationship with his own Beloved. As the Lord speaks in Jeremiah 2, “I remember you [Israel], the kindness of your youth, the love of your betrothal, when you went after Me in the wilderness, in a land not sown…Yet my people have forgotten Me days without number.” Though I am not reading sexuality into this verse, the desire of God for Israel here resembles Eros much more closely than Charity. Though God is the personification of Gift-love, it is ironic that one of the most prominent metaphors God uses to picture his relationship with the Church involves Eros. God does not have need of us, but in the depths of his love for a thing created in his very image, he is fixated on the features and life of his Beloved. Even when the love is not returned, his desire is still for the love of his bride. This stands as a deep mystery – that the Godhead, perfectly complete in itself, allows itself to feel desire. I am undoubtedly opening a can of worms by this very suggestion, but in addition to the reality that we are created in the image of God, perhaps another of the reasons we are the crown of God’s created order is that we, as the Beloved, have the free will to return that love, as Need-based as it may be.
When I consider Lewis’ presentation of the loves, however, perhaps Affection is the best in the human sense, for unlike the non-necessity of Friendship or the unpredictability of Eros, Affection is a steady companion that tempers our days. As Lewis writes, “…Affection, besides being a love in itself, can enter into the other loves and colour them all through and become the very medium in which from day to day they operate” (34). Indeed, Lewis goes on to describe that this appreciative love adds “peculiar charm” both to Friendship and Eros. Though I am not even mentioning Charity in this post, Affection seems to be the means by which we navigate the other two Loves, in the sense that it provides a steadfast foundation.
Indeed, Lewis is careful to describe Eros and Venus as separate entities. He specifies: “Sexual desire, without Eros, wants it, the thing in itself; Eros wants the Beloved” (94). Somehow, this image of Eros’ desire for the Beloved brings to mind images from the Scriptures in which God describes his relationship with his own Beloved. As the Lord speaks in Jeremiah 2, “I remember you [Israel], the kindness of your youth, the love of your betrothal, when you went after Me in the wilderness, in a land not sown…Yet my people have forgotten Me days without number.” Though I am not reading sexuality into this verse, the desire of God for Israel here resembles Eros much more closely than Charity. Though God is the personification of Gift-love, it is ironic that one of the most prominent metaphors God uses to picture his relationship with the Church involves Eros. God does not have need of us, but in the depths of his love for a thing created in his very image, he is fixated on the features and life of his Beloved. Even when the love is not returned, his desire is still for the love of his bride. This stands as a deep mystery – that the Godhead, perfectly complete in itself, allows itself to feel desire. I am undoubtedly opening a can of worms by this very suggestion, but in addition to the reality that we are created in the image of God, perhaps another of the reasons we are the crown of God’s created order is that we, as the Beloved, have the free will to return that love, as Need-based as it may be.
When I consider Lewis’ presentation of the loves, however, perhaps Affection is the best in the human sense, for unlike the non-necessity of Friendship or the unpredictability of Eros, Affection is a steady companion that tempers our days. As Lewis writes, “…Affection, besides being a love in itself, can enter into the other loves and colour them all through and become the very medium in which from day to day they operate” (34). Indeed, Lewis goes on to describe that this appreciative love adds “peculiar charm” both to Friendship and Eros. Though I am not even mentioning Charity in this post, Affection seems to be the means by which we navigate the other two Loves, in the sense that it provides a steadfast foundation.
Lucifer
When reading about the pleasures of appreciation and the need-pleasures, I thought about different applications to for them other than alcoholics. Lewis talks about how an appreciation-pleasure can become a need-pleasure with the consequences being a terrible thing. I was wondering if something like that happened to the devil. He started out as the most beautiful of angels. He may have enjoyed the reputation or attention just like a person may enjoy a little wine every now and then. The problem was that maybe he started needing the attention and more of it just like an alcoholic starts needing an alcohol. Perhaps his need became so large that he challenged God and was thrown out of heaven.
The Naked Truth
It is Halloween, the time of the year when children get the opportunity to be, goblins, Gabriella, football players, and small dutch children for one night. What a fantastic time. Why not pretend to be someone else for a night, you have to where regular clothes the rest of the year, and be yourself every day. Is that true? that clothes define who you are? In the case of Halloween I'm sure that we can all agree that the answer is no. ( Unless you lack spirit) But I don't think that clothes define who someone is. I could be misinterpreting Lewis when I read that people are more themselves when they have clothes on. So does this mean if I wore a nascar shirt tomorrow that I am a nascar fan? Keep in mind I think Nascar is dumb. Or does it not have anything to do with the type of clothes you whear as long as you are covered.
I don't agree with either option, types of clothes don't define who someone is. As far as being covered, I don't think that it really maters that much. However, I will defend nakedness.
Lewis uses the word "Naking" I am sort of confused about it. He uses it in the context that Adam and Eve had to go thru the process of "naking" which I understand to be taking off clothes. But that simply isn't the case. God created people without clothes, and they were fine until they sinned. When they sinned they were ashamed, who wouldn't be they screwed up the only rule that the God of the universe provided to them. Were they ashamed of being naked? or just a little startled? I feel that maybe the whole being naked thing probably brought on some sexuall desires , which I think is where the whole being ashamed thing comes in, they didn't know it was wrong to feel that way before.
Flash forward a long long time, to the era of designer clothes, and hollewood. I think that being naked now is still a good thing, under the right cercumstance. Lewis uses the idea of the sence of community that takes place in a bath house. I can jive with this. It does bring around community, but it doesn't take away from self. I understand (I could be wrong) that Lewis thinks, that all the people in the bath house being naked takes away there individual identity. (all people are the same because every one looks similar) What I think Lewis is missing here is the sincear conversations you can have with someone when you are totally volnerable and open. Thats when you find out who people are, when they are open, and when you are open with them. Thats when you find the individual. Clothes make people feel secure, take that away and feel a little ashamed for awhile and pretty soon you feel comfertable. You actually gain self confidence because when people are taught that they need to cover themselves up all the time because being naked is bad, it makes them feel like whats under the clothes is no good.
I don't agree with either option, types of clothes don't define who someone is. As far as being covered, I don't think that it really maters that much. However, I will defend nakedness.
Lewis uses the word "Naking" I am sort of confused about it. He uses it in the context that Adam and Eve had to go thru the process of "naking" which I understand to be taking off clothes. But that simply isn't the case. God created people without clothes, and they were fine until they sinned. When they sinned they were ashamed, who wouldn't be they screwed up the only rule that the God of the universe provided to them. Were they ashamed of being naked? or just a little startled? I feel that maybe the whole being naked thing probably brought on some sexuall desires , which I think is where the whole being ashamed thing comes in, they didn't know it was wrong to feel that way before.
Flash forward a long long time, to the era of designer clothes, and hollewood. I think that being naked now is still a good thing, under the right cercumstance. Lewis uses the idea of the sence of community that takes place in a bath house. I can jive with this. It does bring around community, but it doesn't take away from self. I understand (I could be wrong) that Lewis thinks, that all the people in the bath house being naked takes away there individual identity. (all people are the same because every one looks similar) What I think Lewis is missing here is the sincear conversations you can have with someone when you are totally volnerable and open. Thats when you find out who people are, when they are open, and when you are open with them. Thats when you find the individual. Clothes make people feel secure, take that away and feel a little ashamed for awhile and pretty soon you feel comfertable. You actually gain self confidence because when people are taught that they need to cover themselves up all the time because being naked is bad, it makes them feel like whats under the clothes is no good.
We're just Cruisin' Along...
"To rise above it when it is fully satisfied and as little impeded as earthly conditions allow- to see that we must rise when all seems so well already- this may require a subtler conversation and a more delicate insight" (p136).
When Lewis says this, he is talking about the difficulty of rising above our natural loves...rising to charity; I think that his point is extremely true. When Jesus talks about the difficulty of the rich entering into Heaven He may not have been talking purely in the literal sense- perhaps what he means by rich is content. I think, at least in my own experiences, that it is hard to ask for help when everything is going alright. Lewis also points out that "frets and rubs" are not only beneficial, but also necessary. I certainly do agree with this- when I have a bad day, I seem to think about the "deeper issues" much more readily than when I am just cruisin' along.
When Lewis says this, he is talking about the difficulty of rising above our natural loves...rising to charity; I think that his point is extremely true. When Jesus talks about the difficulty of the rich entering into Heaven He may not have been talking purely in the literal sense- perhaps what he means by rich is content. I think, at least in my own experiences, that it is hard to ask for help when everything is going alright. Lewis also points out that "frets and rubs" are not only beneficial, but also necessary. I certainly do agree with this- when I have a bad day, I seem to think about the "deeper issues" much more readily than when I am just cruisin' along.
Does Need-love come from sin?
During our discussion today, I had a question that’s a little random (which is why I didn’t know whether or not to bring it up), so I thought I’d put it out there here. If I don’t get any comments, I’ll probably ask it in class anyway because I’m really curious about what you guys think.
So my question has to do with Need-love and Adam and Eve. In the end of The Four Loves, Lewis mentions that Need-loves “have no resemblance to the Love which God is.” (p.127) But then why did He create the female human? In the Genesis story, the account goes that God created Eve when He saw that Adam needed a companion. (I know there’s a couple creation variations, but as far as I know this is in at least one of them.) This, to me, demonstrates Need-love. Adam needed another person. However, if God is all we need (as most Christians would assert), then how can this be? And this was before the fall, so sin shouldn’t have factored in yet; we can’t argue that Adam was only human so he could need things he shouldn’t.
Need-love is one that God doesn’t seem to have, even according to Lewis, so it seems like it’s a twisted version of God’s love. And that sounds worse than I mean it because it gives the feeling that humans did it on purpose which I don’t think is the case. But if Need-love is something that God doesn’t have, then it follows (for me, at least) that humans only have it because we’re separated from Him. But that doesn’t make sense if Adam had it before sin even became a factor.
Or maybe we only have Need-love because we’re less than God. That would be true with or without sin so maybe that takes care of all these problems? But then, if we’re made perfect eventually, and this is considered a restoration to our true form, and God is all we need…it still goes back to the seemingly imperfect fact that we need other humans, too.
I’m sorry if this circular thinking came out confusing. I’m still trying to wrap my head around my own question, so feel free to leave comments that just ask more questions about what I’m even trying to ask. :) Thanks!
So my question has to do with Need-love and Adam and Eve. In the end of The Four Loves, Lewis mentions that Need-loves “have no resemblance to the Love which God is.” (p.127) But then why did He create the female human? In the Genesis story, the account goes that God created Eve when He saw that Adam needed a companion. (I know there’s a couple creation variations, but as far as I know this is in at least one of them.) This, to me, demonstrates Need-love. Adam needed another person. However, if God is all we need (as most Christians would assert), then how can this be? And this was before the fall, so sin shouldn’t have factored in yet; we can’t argue that Adam was only human so he could need things he shouldn’t.
Need-love is one that God doesn’t seem to have, even according to Lewis, so it seems like it’s a twisted version of God’s love. And that sounds worse than I mean it because it gives the feeling that humans did it on purpose which I don’t think is the case. But if Need-love is something that God doesn’t have, then it follows (for me, at least) that humans only have it because we’re separated from Him. But that doesn’t make sense if Adam had it before sin even became a factor.
Or maybe we only have Need-love because we’re less than God. That would be true with or without sin so maybe that takes care of all these problems? But then, if we’re made perfect eventually, and this is considered a restoration to our true form, and God is all we need…it still goes back to the seemingly imperfect fact that we need other humans, too.
I’m sorry if this circular thinking came out confusing. I’m still trying to wrap my head around my own question, so feel free to leave comments that just ask more questions about what I’m even trying to ask. :) Thanks!
On Charity...
In the last chapter of The Four Loves Lewis begins to discuss the love of God/our love of God. He sites many of his own reasons for leaving this as the last point of his book one of which being, “it is dangerous to press upon a man the duty of getting beyond earthly love when his real difficulty lies in getting so far”. I really enjoyed this point although I believe there is a tension between this and Lewis’ idea that all loves that are not from God or take the place from God are unworthy and unfulfilled. It would seem, under this light, that the difficulty in earthly love comes from not knowing divine love. I do agree with Lewis’ first point I just think there is a tension point there.
Moving on, the thing that really interested me in this chapter was Lewis’ description of heartbreak and hell. For a little while Lewis describes all the ways a person can become heart broken; broken marriage, lost friendship, even hobbies and nature. It seems that an attachment to anything in this world has the possibility of leaving one with a broken heart. The natural progression then, as Lewis points out, is to lot let your happiness depend on anything you may lose - I.e. let it depend on God, the thing that will not pass away.
None of this is really new thought or anything but I found it interesting and a great backdrop for his next point. Lewis says the only way to protect ones heart then is to wrap it up carefully in selfishness and keep it there. Here is says it will not become broken but it will change. Lewis points out that when not allowed to love the heart will become dull, dead, motionless. Eventually, he describes this as hell by saying, “the only place outside of Heaven where you can be perfectly safe from all the dangers and perturbations of love is Hell”. If we describe hell as an absence of God and his presence I do think it is correct in assuming that it also entails the absence of love and a person living without love may be living in hell already.
Moving on, the thing that really interested me in this chapter was Lewis’ description of heartbreak and hell. For a little while Lewis describes all the ways a person can become heart broken; broken marriage, lost friendship, even hobbies and nature. It seems that an attachment to anything in this world has the possibility of leaving one with a broken heart. The natural progression then, as Lewis points out, is to lot let your happiness depend on anything you may lose - I.e. let it depend on God, the thing that will not pass away.
None of this is really new thought or anything but I found it interesting and a great backdrop for his next point. Lewis says the only way to protect ones heart then is to wrap it up carefully in selfishness and keep it there. Here is says it will not become broken but it will change. Lewis points out that when not allowed to love the heart will become dull, dead, motionless. Eventually, he describes this as hell by saying, “the only place outside of Heaven where you can be perfectly safe from all the dangers and perturbations of love is Hell”. If we describe hell as an absence of God and his presence I do think it is correct in assuming that it also entails the absence of love and a person living without love may be living in hell already.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Holy and Unholy Angels
"There is spiritual evil as well as spiritual good. There are unholy, as well as holy, angels." The Four Loves, 77
All of Lewis's chapter on friendship is pointing to the exultation and rehabilitation of friendship in the modern eye. We have made too little of friendship, calling acquaintances and companions our friends when really the relationship is so much more. Some of Lewis's arguments may be strictly semantics, but I think his points are valid.
Rather than recount these arguments, I find the end of his argument the most interesting. Labeling something as spiritual is not a qualitative statement: friendship may be good or bad. I appreciate Lewis's own acknowledgement here, especially regarding his earlier advocacy. Lewis finds very good reasons for treating friendship, like all other loves, with great caution. The most interesting is the third reason: no where in scripture is friendship a model for God's relationship with his people.
As we've discussed in and out of class, I don't entirely agree with this statement. I think that our "Jesus is my Homeboy" shirts are funny, but not without a foundation somewhere. The image of Jesus as friend is not a false one, but it is also not the only image. I think it has its weaknesses, like any metaphor, but it also possesses great truth, especially when in light of Lewis's argument. I'd like to think that Jesus and I are pursuing the same goal together; at least, on most days.
That's What He Said.
When I was reading the chapter on Eros, I basically had to shout out an "Amen!" to the part where Lewis talks about dirty jokes. Is anyone else with me on this? Please don't think my mind is in the gutter because it isn't, but where would our good friend Michael Scott (Dunder Mifflin, Scranton) be without "That's what she said." jokes? It seems like so often sex is a taboo subject, but it exists just like everything else exists, so why not joke about it. I believe that there is definitely a line that is often crossed, but there can be good dirty jokes. Lewis writes, "Banish play and laughter from the bed of love and you may let in a false goddess." Eros is a serious thing, but Venus? Maybe not so much. For so long I've been scared to think a slightly innapropriate joke is funny, especially while living in a conservative community like northwest Iowa. But now that I read this chapter, I feel much better about it. I guess I can always give the argument that if C.S. Lewis says its an ok thing, then it must be.
Eros
"Most of our ancestors were married off in early youth to partners chosen by their parents on grounds that had nothing to do with eros"
This stood out to me because I think we take for granted our freedom to love and to chose who to give our love too. I think it is good to remember that not so long ago people didnt get that chance. Like Lewis said, our ancestors had their partners chosen for them by their parents. How many of us today would like our parents to choose our partners? I know I wouldnt! I guess when I read that it really made me appreciate the freedom I have and I feel bad for those people who didnt get to choose.
"Sexual desire, without Eros, wants it, the thing itself, Eros wants the Beloved"
This stuck out to me as a young man. I think it is the "ideal" idea for how a young man is to judge whether or not he is ready for a true quality relationship. If all we feel is sexual desire, then the only thing we really want is the sex. That means you dont care about your partner, you are using your partner to fulfill that need and then they become an object. When you have Eros, you are in love with the person and everything about them. I just liked that little sentence. It means a lot to me and I think it is important to understand that idea.
This also goes along with what Lewis says next...
"We use a most unfortunate idiom when we say, of a lustful man prowling the streets, that he "wants a women". Strictly speaking a women is just what he does not want. He wants a pleasure for which a woman happens to be the necessary piece of apparatus.
---------
"The gnat like cloud of petty anxieties and decisions about the conduct of the next hour have interferred with with my prayers more than any passion or appetite whatever"
I appreciated what Lewis was saying here and he said this within context to what St. Paul was saying when he was talking about the distractions of marriage. Some of us, including myself, sometimes get the idea that the big passions in our life will destroy us. But Paul and Lewis seem to say that it is the smaller and petty things in life will end up distracting us more. I think thats a great point. Lewis even said it bluntly, its not the marriage bed that will disrupt our relationship with God its the marriage itself, with all its little distractions. And I never really much liked that verse...I mean come on...life is way to short to not enjoy something as beautiful as marriage and sex! I never really agreed with why Paul would ask us not to enjoy something like that...?
"It is a continual demonstration of the truth that we are composite creatures, rational animals, akin on one side to the angels, on the other tom-cats"
What a perfect description of what a man or woman is! We are half angelic and half animal. Or at least that is how I interpreted that sentence to mean. I have defninitley noticed times when I have acted on my "angelic" side and other times I have acted like an "animal". I think this is the constant struggle of being a human being. Spiritually we call it the spirit vs. the flesh. I just liked the way Lewis put that one!
Can Eros End?
C.S. Lewis talks a lot about Eros love, and most of the characteristics are lovely and heart warming. He talks about how when you are in love you are obsessed with that person, not even so much their personality or the way they make you feel, but simply their being. The first few pages where everything seemed wonderful my questions had to do with a time period. Does it take a while for Eros love to form? Can it be instant? Does it grow deeper over time? I feel like maybe Lewis would say that it can happen instantly since he talks about Eros almost like an aura about someone that one is attracted to more than then to their characteristics.
This led me to wonder about divorce and about people who have been in love more than once. Would Lewis argue that a divorced couple never really experienced true Eros? Or would he be ok with the idea of loving someone with Eros more than once? Lewis says that falling out of Eros is a form of dis-redemption. “Eros is driven to promise what Eros of himself cannot perform”. He argues that Eros needs to be ruled and worked on. I agree with what Lewis says here, mainly because I see it in the marriages around me, both those that work and those that don’t. Secondly, because it is biblical—Eros relationships take humility and grace. Eventually people pick up their ‘selves’ again realizing that the old self “be not so dead as he pretended” (pg.114). So Lewis says that Eros love is not perfect, in fact it is far from it. So is it possible? He answers “these lapses will not destroy a marriage between two ‘decent and sensible’ people” (pg.114). So there is hope! Eros makes the vows and it is our job to keep them!
This led me to wonder about divorce and about people who have been in love more than once. Would Lewis argue that a divorced couple never really experienced true Eros? Or would he be ok with the idea of loving someone with Eros more than once? Lewis says that falling out of Eros is a form of dis-redemption. “Eros is driven to promise what Eros of himself cannot perform”. He argues that Eros needs to be ruled and worked on. I agree with what Lewis says here, mainly because I see it in the marriages around me, both those that work and those that don’t. Secondly, because it is biblical—Eros relationships take humility and grace. Eventually people pick up their ‘selves’ again realizing that the old self “be not so dead as he pretended” (pg.114). So Lewis says that Eros love is not perfect, in fact it is far from it. So is it possible? He answers “these lapses will not destroy a marriage between two ‘decent and sensible’ people” (pg.114). So there is hope! Eros makes the vows and it is our job to keep them!
Falling Into Danger
In the past, I thought of the Eros that Lewis speaks of as something that should be completely controlled by reason: I thought that the person you fall in love with should/must meet specific criteria, the standards that we talk about when we talk about dating (blonde, has a nice car, goes to Bible study at least three times a week, etc.).
But what I read from Lewis is a different picture of how "falling in love" works. It really is like falling, like the force of gravity. Maybe, like Eugene said in class, you cannot choose. As Lewis says, you may feel Eros for a person whom you know may not lead to your permanent happiness, and yet you still want to be with your Beloved. Lewis says that if you haven't felt that way about a person, then you've never been really "in love". Eros calls you to give up everything--your parents' approval, success, sometimes even your conscience if you let it. Lovers only want the other; "People in love cannot be moved by kindness and opposition makes them feel like martyrs" (110).
So, this brings some questions to my mind: If Eros can be so potentially dangerous should we, as Christians, allow this danger in to our lives? Should we banish every hint of Eros before it takes its full effect and develops to the point that it could be dangerous or that we have no control? You could say, that would stop reproduction and things; however, as we know, there were days when marriages didn't depend on love like we think they should now--maybe we should go back to arranged marriages. At least that way you couldn't fall in love with an objectionable person, unless you wanted to commit adultery, that is.
Ideas to ponder...
But what I read from Lewis is a different picture of how "falling in love" works. It really is like falling, like the force of gravity. Maybe, like Eugene said in class, you cannot choose. As Lewis says, you may feel Eros for a person whom you know may not lead to your permanent happiness, and yet you still want to be with your Beloved. Lewis says that if you haven't felt that way about a person, then you've never been really "in love". Eros calls you to give up everything--your parents' approval, success, sometimes even your conscience if you let it. Lovers only want the other; "People in love cannot be moved by kindness and opposition makes them feel like martyrs" (110).
So, this brings some questions to my mind: If Eros can be so potentially dangerous should we, as Christians, allow this danger in to our lives? Should we banish every hint of Eros before it takes its full effect and develops to the point that it could be dangerous or that we have no control? You could say, that would stop reproduction and things; however, as we know, there were days when marriages didn't depend on love like we think they should now--maybe we should go back to arranged marriages. At least that way you couldn't fall in love with an objectionable person, unless you wanted to commit adultery, that is.
Ideas to ponder...
A Naked Argument
I gotta be honest, the discussion we had yesterday--nakedness--is still in my head. And I really haven't been able to come up with anything to follow the argument that, yes, God created Man and Woman naked, just like all the animals, but He also clothed them. But He only clothed them because they had sinned. Now, it wasn't technically a part of the Curse, but it was Adam and Eve's shyness that led to God cursing them in the first place. If you remember, after the Fall, they hide from Him while He is walking in the garden, He calls out to them, they come out and say that they hid because they were naked, and they were afraid. He replies, "Who told you that you were naked?" God proceeds to put two and two together and, long story short, curses the bejeepers out of 'em. Only after that does God clothe them with animal skins.
Literal or not, what are we supposed to take from this? How is this intended to grow us? Was God's use of clothing only a kind of, imperfect, but better-than-nothing remedy? Is wearing clothes comparable to Paul's idea of marriage? (e.g. "It's not sin if you do it, but it's really better if you don't.")
Or, in the same way that some people say that God intended for them to sin and need Jesus all along, did He intend for them to need clothes from the beginning? And, as Lewis says, do we "clothe" ourselves with nakedness when we join with that "one special person" as one flesh?
All we know for sure is that Jesus, the ultimate holy example and the One we are supposed to follow and imitate, wore clothes. I know that I could develop this thought much more and most likely take it places that it probably shouldn't go, but thinking of Jesus' example pretty much settles it for me.
Literal or not, what are we supposed to take from this? How is this intended to grow us? Was God's use of clothing only a kind of, imperfect, but better-than-nothing remedy? Is wearing clothes comparable to Paul's idea of marriage? (e.g. "It's not sin if you do it, but it's really better if you don't.")
Or, in the same way that some people say that God intended for them to sin and need Jesus all along, did He intend for them to need clothes from the beginning? And, as Lewis says, do we "clothe" ourselves with nakedness when we join with that "one special person" as one flesh?
All we know for sure is that Jesus, the ultimate holy example and the One we are supposed to follow and imitate, wore clothes. I know that I could develop this thought much more and most likely take it places that it probably shouldn't go, but thinking of Jesus' example pretty much settles it for me.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Friendship
I agree with Lewis that Friendship is unnecessary. Although we cannot imagine our lives without our friends, we do not need them to survive. We could argue that Friendship is beneficial to us, but not that we cannot live without it. Friendship is also unnecessary because it focuses on a common interest. As Lewis says, Friendship is side-by-side, not face-to-face as in Eros. Becoming too focused on an interest in Friendship, or even on one another as in Eros, may even become dangerous to one’s spiritual relationship with God. But then, could we argue that anything apart from God is unnecessary? Or even detrimental to our relationship with God?
The fact that Friendship is uninquisitive and uninterested in the affairs of one’s friends (their background, family, profession, etc.) can be understood as a way to reduce distraction from the most important thing in our lives—knowing God. I think of it almost as if we only have a certain amount of attention that we can devote to other things. If Friendship is as Lewis states, that it is focused on a common interest, then it does not use up much of our attention. Eros, on the other hand, since it is focused on an individual and, as a result, is also focused on what the individual does, takes more attention away from us and ultimately from God.
But Lewis writes that marriage is a danger to one’s spiritual life not because of Eros or Venus but because of the attention to trivial and mundane affairs (pp. 96-97). So maybe then you could argue that Friendship, since it is focused on a common interest and our interests are not necessary for survival, is actually giving attention to trivial affairs and this is why Friendship is unneccessary. But then Friendship would be considered a danger and objections would rise against this idea because Lewis defines Friendship as a Love. If Friendship is a Love and God is Love, then how can Friendship be dangerous? But God is dangerous in his wrath and justice.
I don’t know if I achieved any further discussion here and I might not be making any sense. I am simply trying to understand Lewis’ thinking about Friendship and Eros by working through my thoughts.
The fact that Friendship is uninquisitive and uninterested in the affairs of one’s friends (their background, family, profession, etc.) can be understood as a way to reduce distraction from the most important thing in our lives—knowing God. I think of it almost as if we only have a certain amount of attention that we can devote to other things. If Friendship is as Lewis states, that it is focused on a common interest, then it does not use up much of our attention. Eros, on the other hand, since it is focused on an individual and, as a result, is also focused on what the individual does, takes more attention away from us and ultimately from God.
But Lewis writes that marriage is a danger to one’s spiritual life not because of Eros or Venus but because of the attention to trivial and mundane affairs (pp. 96-97). So maybe then you could argue that Friendship, since it is focused on a common interest and our interests are not necessary for survival, is actually giving attention to trivial affairs and this is why Friendship is unneccessary. But then Friendship would be considered a danger and objections would rise against this idea because Lewis defines Friendship as a Love. If Friendship is a Love and God is Love, then how can Friendship be dangerous? But God is dangerous in his wrath and justice.
I don’t know if I achieved any further discussion here and I might not be making any sense. I am simply trying to understand Lewis’ thinking about Friendship and Eros by working through my thoughts.
Christian Eros
I find myself agreeing with what Lewis states throughout this book and my brain is just not letting me contradict him just yet. Therefore, here is one of my thoughts on agreeing with Lewis.
The idea of Eros always registered in my head as the sexual desire between a man and a woman, which, as Christians, is something we should abstain from until marriage. However, Lewis definitely mixed up my thoughts after claiming that, “Eros, without diminishing desire, makes abstinence easier,” (97). Although this is not a key, defining phrase made by Lewis, it is a phrase that one needs to understand where Lewis is coming from in order to understand why he said it, which has helped to expand my definition of Eros.
The argument leading up to the phrase begins with Lewis stating, "Eros includes other things besides sexual activity," (91). He goes on to call the sexual component Venus, a component that should be downplayed so that one can focus on the idea that "Eros makes a man really want, not a woman, but one particular woman," (94). This seems to mean that, in Eros, a man's first desire is not to want the woman as a vessel for physical pleasure, but that he desires her in some unexplainable way. Moreover, “in Eros, A Need, at its most intense, sees the object most intensely as a thing admirable in herself, important beyond her relation to the lover's need,” (95). Therefore, if one desires a person for who they are, than abstinence becomes easier because the “nagging and addictive character of mere appetite” for that sexual desire is diminished.
Lewis does suggest that this desire can become an “obstacle in the spiritual life,” if taken too seriously, which seems to agree with the biblical idea from Paul that “it is marriage itself, not the marriage bed, that will be likely to hinder us from not waiting uninterruptedly on God,” (94). However, he does not agree with the idea that people should reframe from marriage. And neither do I, for God joined Adam and Eve together and without marriage, we could not fulfill God’s covenant to fill the earth.
I believe the ideas Lewis presents should be presented more often when Christians view and speak of Eros. Without this more in depth description, Christians may be misled to think that abstinence means keeping Eros out of their life until marriage and not know that abstinence flourishes if one has a true knowledge of and participation in Eros with another. By teaching this definition of Eros to Christians, it might also help Christians have a better sense of who is “the one”—the person right for them to marry—for they might realize that they have an unexplainable desire for a person that they have spent many hours. Yet, they would be willing to abstain from Venus by knowing that they have this connection and then, through marriage, the connection would be able to grow by adding Venus.
The idea of Eros always registered in my head as the sexual desire between a man and a woman, which, as Christians, is something we should abstain from until marriage. However, Lewis definitely mixed up my thoughts after claiming that, “Eros, without diminishing desire, makes abstinence easier,” (97). Although this is not a key, defining phrase made by Lewis, it is a phrase that one needs to understand where Lewis is coming from in order to understand why he said it, which has helped to expand my definition of Eros.
The argument leading up to the phrase begins with Lewis stating, "Eros includes other things besides sexual activity," (91). He goes on to call the sexual component Venus, a component that should be downplayed so that one can focus on the idea that "Eros makes a man really want, not a woman, but one particular woman," (94). This seems to mean that, in Eros, a man's first desire is not to want the woman as a vessel for physical pleasure, but that he desires her in some unexplainable way. Moreover, “in Eros, A Need, at its most intense, sees the object most intensely as a thing admirable in herself, important beyond her relation to the lover's need,” (95). Therefore, if one desires a person for who they are, than abstinence becomes easier because the “nagging and addictive character of mere appetite” for that sexual desire is diminished.
Lewis does suggest that this desire can become an “obstacle in the spiritual life,” if taken too seriously, which seems to agree with the biblical idea from Paul that “it is marriage itself, not the marriage bed, that will be likely to hinder us from not waiting uninterruptedly on God,” (94). However, he does not agree with the idea that people should reframe from marriage. And neither do I, for God joined Adam and Eve together and without marriage, we could not fulfill God’s covenant to fill the earth.
I believe the ideas Lewis presents should be presented more often when Christians view and speak of Eros. Without this more in depth description, Christians may be misled to think that abstinence means keeping Eros out of their life until marriage and not know that abstinence flourishes if one has a true knowledge of and participation in Eros with another. By teaching this definition of Eros to Christians, it might also help Christians have a better sense of who is “the one”—the person right for them to marry—for they might realize that they have an unexplainable desire for a person that they have spent many hours. Yet, they would be willing to abstain from Venus by knowing that they have this connection and then, through marriage, the connection would be able to grow by adding Venus.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Jesus is our Friend
So, the question was posited at the end of class Monday: Using scripture, can we find a basis for Jesus being our friend. I say, Yes. I will use Lewis' definition of Friendship and examples from the Bible to prove such.
First, Lewis defines friendship as people who are headed towards the same goal. They see the same truths. If this is the case, then it is obviously yes that we can be friends with Jesus. In fact, I'd declare it's an absolute MUST! Jesus died to save us, but he LIVED to show us the way. (John 14:6, I am the way the truth the life, no one comes to the father but through me.) If this is true, we, as Christians, are CALLED to be Jesus' friends. We are called to live a life of servanthood, like Christ, and to humble ourselves to those around us. Christ's life was about sharing the goodnews--and living the goodnews! I would say, if we are Christians, Christ and us have the same focus point. (Not heaven, but service) Lewis, in the Problem of Pain, argues that heaven should not be the reward- I agree! It is a "reward" because we have lived according to the covenant God created for us, but that's not the point. There's so much more, for example, following Christ. We are friends because the Christian view point is to serve others humbly, and that's what Jesus did too. Thus we are sharing the same view point. Additionally, Jesus says in John 15:14-15 "You are my friends if you do what I command. I no longer call you slaves, because a master doesn’t confide in his slaves. Now you are my friends, since I have told you everything the Father told me. "(NLT) We are no longer slaves to Jesus because he has confided/told us truth- he tells us what The Father told him. I found that interesting. So yes, there is support for being Friends with Jesus. And YES we should encourage young children to be friends with Jesus. As they grow up and mature they will come to experience Christ's love differently and know that he's not only a friend who will take them to heaven when they die, but also a friend, a healer, a savior..etc..
I would like to make a disclaimer: I do not believe we addressed friendship love in cooperation with the other loves. Lewis' definition of friendship requires no affection/eros/charity. But, I'd like to think that THAT isn't truly friendship. To have common interests does not constitute a friendship, but it helps to form and sustain one. Without affection and charity, I feel that Friendship has nothing to offer- no reason to form. So what if another person sees the same truth as you. If you don't care for anything but that truth, why do you care about the person joining you side by side? In any case, This ties back to Friends with Jesus. We, by Lewis' definition, must be friends with Jesus (if we are Christian) but I do not think we should JUST be friends with Jesus either. Affection, Charity, and Eros seem to involve investing in another person's life. Jesus invested his ALL in our lives; when we invest ourselves in him learning more about him, we know him more and care about his view of truth more. The truth we are seeking becomes more prominent and encourages Friendship. (if indeed, friendship can include the other loves.)
(Hopefully, this all made sense and I'm not talking in circles.)
First, Lewis defines friendship as people who are headed towards the same goal. They see the same truths. If this is the case, then it is obviously yes that we can be friends with Jesus. In fact, I'd declare it's an absolute MUST! Jesus died to save us, but he LIVED to show us the way. (John 14:6, I am the way the truth the life, no one comes to the father but through me.) If this is true, we, as Christians, are CALLED to be Jesus' friends. We are called to live a life of servanthood, like Christ, and to humble ourselves to those around us. Christ's life was about sharing the goodnews--and living the goodnews! I would say, if we are Christians, Christ and us have the same focus point. (Not heaven, but service) Lewis, in the Problem of Pain, argues that heaven should not be the reward- I agree! It is a "reward" because we have lived according to the covenant God created for us, but that's not the point. There's so much more, for example, following Christ. We are friends because the Christian view point is to serve others humbly, and that's what Jesus did too. Thus we are sharing the same view point. Additionally, Jesus says in John 15:14-15 "You are my friends if you do what I command. I no longer call you slaves, because a master doesn’t confide in his slaves. Now you are my friends, since I have told you everything the Father told me. "(NLT) We are no longer slaves to Jesus because he has confided/told us truth- he tells us what The Father told him. I found that interesting. So yes, there is support for being Friends with Jesus. And YES we should encourage young children to be friends with Jesus. As they grow up and mature they will come to experience Christ's love differently and know that he's not only a friend who will take them to heaven when they die, but also a friend, a healer, a savior..etc..
I would like to make a disclaimer: I do not believe we addressed friendship love in cooperation with the other loves. Lewis' definition of friendship requires no affection/eros/charity. But, I'd like to think that THAT isn't truly friendship. To have common interests does not constitute a friendship, but it helps to form and sustain one. Without affection and charity, I feel that Friendship has nothing to offer- no reason to form. So what if another person sees the same truth as you. If you don't care for anything but that truth, why do you care about the person joining you side by side? In any case, This ties back to Friends with Jesus. We, by Lewis' definition, must be friends with Jesus (if we are Christian) but I do not think we should JUST be friends with Jesus either. Affection, Charity, and Eros seem to involve investing in another person's life. Jesus invested his ALL in our lives; when we invest ourselves in him learning more about him, we know him more and care about his view of truth more. The truth we are seeking becomes more prominent and encourages Friendship. (if indeed, friendship can include the other loves.)
(Hopefully, this all made sense and I'm not talking in circles.)
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Lewis is my BFF
On Friday I admitted being somewhat wary of how strongly and completely I agreed with what Lewis had to say about love and affection. Some of his insights convicted me, others inspired me, and nearly all of them were true of love as I understood it, or at least as I thought I ought to. As I read of his experiences and observations a part of me sensed the revelatory "What you too? I thought I was the only one" so indicative of Lewisian friendship. Would Lewis and I to have lived in Oxford concurrently, I surmised we should have been good friends. And then I read his chapter on friendship. And I am now left wondering if I, in fact, have any real friends at all.
I take issue with several things that Lewis has to say regarding friendship, not the least of which is his laughable view of women. For now I would like to address the "shared interest" so essential to friendship as Lewis defines it. Much quoted is the line "Lovers are normally face to face, absorbed in each other; Friends, side by side, absorbed in some common interest" (p. 61). It is true that a common interest may bring together two who would otherwise not speak two words to each other. The common interest may initiate conversations, lead to intentional meetings and even bring about a society of sorts among those who share a love of it. But such an interest, I believe, can not be the crux of any truly loving relationship. Of course my views of friendship are, like Lewis', based on my own experience with it, but I do not think this such a bad thing.
In my experience friendship involves more intimacy than can be disclosed in a relationship that revolves around a common interest. In such a relationship it seems that the friends serve only as sounding boards or fellow enthusiasts who are not truly concerned for one another as individuals at all. They are as replaceable as a one-of-a-kind coffee mug. Its loss may be noticed, but a replacement will serve the same function, and soon the original will be forgotten altogether. In some sense it is the difference between livestock and pets. Friendship as I understand it requires personal investment and intimacy.
Where is the durability in a friendship that does not show interest in the personal life of the friend? On what basis will it be held together over a period of time if no emotion is invested in the person, but only in the interest? If you love me, will you not care about what happens in my life? Will you not inquire after me and learn of me even as you do our shared interest? If you do not, what is the likelihood that we will continue to meet week after week, month after month, year after year? I suppose it is possible that such relationships could occur. That correspondence concerning the interest and new insights on it could take place indefinitely. But uninterested friendship, though possible, does not seem ideal.
The only way I can reconcile what Lewis lays out with what I have experienced is to return to Lewis' claim that the various loves (Affection, Friendship, Eros and Charity) often mix together, interacting with one another. It may be that what I see lacking in Lewis' concept of Friendship is completed by affection or solved by a good dose of charity. Perhaps charity provides the longevity, or affection the love of the person's peculiarities that would otherwise be missing in friendship. If not, than I am not so sure that Lewis and I could share a friendship as either of us defines it.
I take issue with several things that Lewis has to say regarding friendship, not the least of which is his laughable view of women. For now I would like to address the "shared interest" so essential to friendship as Lewis defines it. Much quoted is the line "Lovers are normally face to face, absorbed in each other; Friends, side by side, absorbed in some common interest" (p. 61). It is true that a common interest may bring together two who would otherwise not speak two words to each other. The common interest may initiate conversations, lead to intentional meetings and even bring about a society of sorts among those who share a love of it. But such an interest, I believe, can not be the crux of any truly loving relationship. Of course my views of friendship are, like Lewis', based on my own experience with it, but I do not think this such a bad thing.
In my experience friendship involves more intimacy than can be disclosed in a relationship that revolves around a common interest. In such a relationship it seems that the friends serve only as sounding boards or fellow enthusiasts who are not truly concerned for one another as individuals at all. They are as replaceable as a one-of-a-kind coffee mug. Its loss may be noticed, but a replacement will serve the same function, and soon the original will be forgotten altogether. In some sense it is the difference between livestock and pets. Friendship as I understand it requires personal investment and intimacy.
Where is the durability in a friendship that does not show interest in the personal life of the friend? On what basis will it be held together over a period of time if no emotion is invested in the person, but only in the interest? If you love me, will you not care about what happens in my life? Will you not inquire after me and learn of me even as you do our shared interest? If you do not, what is the likelihood that we will continue to meet week after week, month after month, year after year? I suppose it is possible that such relationships could occur. That correspondence concerning the interest and new insights on it could take place indefinitely. But uninterested friendship, though possible, does not seem ideal.
The only way I can reconcile what Lewis lays out with what I have experienced is to return to Lewis' claim that the various loves (Affection, Friendship, Eros and Charity) often mix together, interacting with one another. It may be that what I see lacking in Lewis' concept of Friendship is completed by affection or solved by a good dose of charity. Perhaps charity provides the longevity, or affection the love of the person's peculiarities that would otherwise be missing in friendship. If not, than I am not so sure that Lewis and I could share a friendship as either of us defines it.
Monday, October 20, 2008
God as V?
Have you seen the movie V for Vendetta?
Last week, my roommate and I watched that enjoyably dramatic and angsty movie. There's a part in the movie where a girl named Evey is arrested and tortured by the British government. Her head is shaved and she lives in a cold dark cell when she's not being interrogated. It's not a fun time. Her interrogators want to know the location of V (a violent but articulate and lovable terrorist), but Evey refuses to give them any information. One last time, they threaten her with death if she again refuses to compromise: She says she'd rather die. Her captor says that she is now truly free and leaves. What? She tentatively walks out of her cell and emerges into V's underground home. She discovers that her whole captivity was set up by her supposed friend V. He is the one who tortured her and shaved her head and threatened her. V says that he did it out of love and without enjoyment to free her from her constant fear, and he did. She's not afraid anymore. But does the ends justify the means? You know, V really loves her; he wasn't malicious in the way that people often think of God when they picture him doing what V did.
I'd never thought of this before when watching this movie, but in light of our discussion and Lewis's beliefs on the purpose of pain...could God be like V? Ultimately, God has complete control over all our circumstances, like V did over Evey's. Could it be that God uses things in our lives like V did? Is He the one torturing us all for our good? We often say that God allows these things in our lives rather than causing them, like V did. And I believe this because, in the end, Evey doesn't really accept that V did this to her. He understands why but she doesn't; how could someone she trusted put her through so much pain? Anyway, the last time I watched that movie, the idea of V as God just grabbed me. I don't think that God really works the way V did, but it's interesting to think about.
Last week, my roommate and I watched that enjoyably dramatic and angsty movie. There's a part in the movie where a girl named Evey is arrested and tortured by the British government. Her head is shaved and she lives in a cold dark cell when she's not being interrogated. It's not a fun time. Her interrogators want to know the location of V (a violent but articulate and lovable terrorist), but Evey refuses to give them any information. One last time, they threaten her with death if she again refuses to compromise: She says she'd rather die. Her captor says that she is now truly free and leaves. What? She tentatively walks out of her cell and emerges into V's underground home. She discovers that her whole captivity was set up by her supposed friend V. He is the one who tortured her and shaved her head and threatened her. V says that he did it out of love and without enjoyment to free her from her constant fear, and he did. She's not afraid anymore. But does the ends justify the means? You know, V really loves her; he wasn't malicious in the way that people often think of God when they picture him doing what V did.
I'd never thought of this before when watching this movie, but in light of our discussion and Lewis's beliefs on the purpose of pain...could God be like V? Ultimately, God has complete control over all our circumstances, like V did over Evey's. Could it be that God uses things in our lives like V did? Is He the one torturing us all for our good? We often say that God allows these things in our lives rather than causing them, like V did. And I believe this because, in the end, Evey doesn't really accept that V did this to her. He understands why but she doesn't; how could someone she trusted put her through so much pain? Anyway, the last time I watched that movie, the idea of V as God just grabbed me. I don't think that God really works the way V did, but it's interesting to think about.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
What is the point??
In class, we discussed Lewis' view of Heaven. I agree with Lewis in saying Heaven is not the point, but it does not negate the reward of it. I'd like to expand a little bit more on what I said in class. The whole point of this Christianity thing, since the new covenant was formed, is for us as believers to follow Christ. Back in Jesus' time, there was a tradition for Rabbi and pupils. A prestigious Rabbi would seek out pupils, and the sought would choose to accept the honor. The Rabbi would assume the responsibility of teaching and the followers would drink in their every word. They did EVERYTHING the rabbi said/did/experienced. They were covered in the dust of the rabbi- that's how close they followed. We should expect nothing less when we look at Jesus' disciples/followers. They followed Jesus as their teacher, just as an follower would a rabbi. The disciples did NOT preach the good news of heaven, but the Good news of Christ! They preached about CHrist's birth, life( including good works), death and ressurection. All these things contribute to the "point" of this Christianity business. The disciples sacrificed and died to themselves daily, to live like Christ. This is another thing Lewis mentions- in heaven, we are with God, which is why we need to surrender ourselves daily, so we can be with Him.
So, alot of this might not make sense when reading through it, but, it's something I've been thinking about as I read the book. Again, I'm not providing an answer, but a viewpoint. I think Lewis would agree with my viewpoint.
So, alot of this might not make sense when reading through it, but, it's something I've been thinking about as I read the book. Again, I'm not providing an answer, but a viewpoint. I think Lewis would agree with my viewpoint.
Is Pain Part of Perfection?
In The Problem of Pain, Lewis represents the pre-fall state of humanity as a perfect existence; God's ideal creation. For Lewis, humanity spoils this creation, creating a fallen and sinful world. All of Lewis' ideals about the pre-fall world operate under the assumption that God could do nothing but create the perfect planet. I do not believe that God is as restricted as Lewis - perhaps subconsciously - portrays Him. The Bible states that God created a good world, but that does not necessarily imply that the state of affairs needed to be absolutely perfect and heavenly. In fact, our class discussions have revealed the philosophical possibility that even pain can be a piece of a good creation; suffering can be a part of a wonderful and loving divine design. I think Lewis accidentally boxes God into his human conception of perfection, which cannot conceive of an entirely good creation that contained pain or suffering of any kind. God's initial sinless creation was indeed perfect, but I am absolutely open to the possibility of seemingly negative and incomprehensibly designed happenings being a vital aspect of a completely good and utterly perfect creation.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Ouch!
I really enjoyed Lewis' idea on pain. I like the idea that we have pain for a reason. It is easy to see the pain, but hard to see the good. There are so many examples for us to learn from because of the pain that preceded us and also from the pain the is to come. It helps us while we are here on earth and also for our souls. It allows us to improve ourselves and become more understanding of the pain of those around us. The pain the we receive allows us to become more sympathetic and understanding to those around. For instance, the pain that I went through as a child has given me the knowledge to help those around me today. I had never read the Problem of Pain until this class and it was gratifying to read someone else confirming my thoughts on how pain is beneficial to people in the world. I don't have the answers to the pain that occurs which seems to serve no purpose, but maybe it does in ways that we don't see just yet. Maybe the pain in the world, is helping to build someone that will become a great leader for the world or helping someone to become the influential figure for someone else.
Anyways, I just enjoyed this read, for the most part.
Anyways, I just enjoyed this read, for the most part.
God has done more to rescue us from hell than we could even imagine; yet he cannot save those who do not want to be saved. Lewis says, “So much mercy, yet still there is hell.” The question that I have been asking myself for a few days now is if the cross is therefore effective for everyone or just those who want it to be. Jesus died on the cross for us, to save us, to redeem creation…so much mercy! Death on the cross was suppose to be the ultimate sacrifice, so if it was, then the cross should be fully effective to save everyone. Nevertheless, there is still a hell. So does that mean the cross isn’t fully effective? Maybe I am totally missing the point and just talking in circles. I do not know what else to think about this.
locked from the inside?
Lewis's belief that "the doors of hell are locked from the inside" (PoP, 130) has really been troubling me. I really don't understand how this could be true. I know that Lewis is trying to make the point that a person's unwillingness to submit themselves to God is what put them in hell, and I agree. But can we really assume that is what is keeping them there? I think if these people saw Jesus face to face and he said "I never knew you" they would be struck by Christ's glory and know for certain that they had missed it. I think they will realize that the sovereign God of the universe truly exists and that surrendering their self-will for His service would have been definately worth the sacrifice. But it will be too late. If hell truly is a lake of fire and a place with weeping a gnashing of teeth like the bible says it is, I don't think people will "enjoy forever the horrible freedom they have demanded. I think it will be horrible, but I don't think there will be enjoyment or freedom.
And what about when the Bible says "that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord" ? I could be wrong, but I have always thought that "under the earth" was talking about hell. Lewis thinks that souls in hell will not want to surrender themselves to God, but I think that they will want that more than anything else, but they will never be able to do so because they are eternally separated from Him.
And what about when the Bible says "that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord" ? I could be wrong, but I have always thought that "under the earth" was talking about hell. Lewis thinks that souls in hell will not want to surrender themselves to God, but I think that they will want that more than anything else, but they will never be able to do so because they are eternally separated from Him.
Animals
In chapter 9 nine of the problem of pain C.S. Lewis addresses the problem of animals experiencing pain. In this chapter he distinguishes between plants and animals. He even mentions that perhaps animals have some sort of a soul and that they fell before humans did. I came up with a perhaps different idea of looking at the problem of animal pain. Maybe animals are not different from plants. C.S. Lewis said that plants were fine destroying one another because they weren’t high enough of a life form. If animals were on the same level of plants there would be on problem of animal pain. It would just be the way that God made the world. A reason for this line of thinking is the matter of worship. We humans are supposed to worship God and follow his will. As far as we know, I can’t say for certain, animals don’t have to do anything for God. They just live their lives without any code of morals or any expectations. Animals can then be compared to plants that also have nothing expected of them other than to grow and feed the “higher” life forms. It could be that animals perform the same function for us humans; the creature created in his image. In the same way that C.S. Lewis states that he is no theologian, I am nowhere near one either. I’m just trying to maybe look at the animal pain issue in a different light.
Shadowlands
After watching the movie, especially in the end I was blown away by Lewis. This movie, was able to capture the true meaning of love and what it is to love, and the sheer gratitude of grief and pain, that come with the loss of such a loved one. The way Lewis was portrayed, was actually exactly how I had pictured him in my head, the way he thought and articulated every word he said. The man who was able to write such a profound book, yet struggle when attacked by the same problems of pain he wrote about, yet he was able to find his faith and restore it in a child. I don't know but Shadow land was more than I could have ever imagined it to be, how he wrote about the pain he felt, how he could no longer go to the places they had been, and how her essence had swallowed him, and wrapped him in a cloud of grief. He was able to work his was through it and find the bright truth which allowed him to find his peace and to remember her face again.
Thinking About Things That We'll Never Understand
It seems funny to me that we dedicate so much thought and effort to the art of thinking, especially to thinking about things we'll never understand. I point to myself just as much as anyone on this point. Lately I've been struggling with the point of it all. For example, I've dedicated a lot of thought to the subject of time. How it works, where we fit in, the difference between God's time and ours, etc. But it occurs to me that no matter what conclusion I come to, it doesn't matter because there's no way to know for sure how it works, nor would it matter if we did! So again I say, what's the point?!
And in class today we were talking about heaven and hell and what they're like and what we're gonna do and all that stuff. And I think it's ok to think about stuff that we'll never have an answer for. (Heck, I do it all the time!) But when I think about the debate between Creation vs. Evolution (I get asked about it whenever anyone finds out I'm a biology major), my answer has always been, "I believe that God created the world. Simple as that. I don't care how, I don't care when, I don't care why, because there's no way for us to ever know any of those things for sure so why waste so much time and effort and money on wondering?"
But this disagrees with why I'm ok with dedicating so much time and effort into thinking about heaven and hell or time and space or God and Satan, or life and death. So should I care more about creation vs evolution, or care less about time and space? Why do we "philosophize" at all?
Or... is that another thing we'll never understand?
And in class today we were talking about heaven and hell and what they're like and what we're gonna do and all that stuff. And I think it's ok to think about stuff that we'll never have an answer for. (Heck, I do it all the time!) But when I think about the debate between Creation vs. Evolution (I get asked about it whenever anyone finds out I'm a biology major), my answer has always been, "I believe that God created the world. Simple as that. I don't care how, I don't care when, I don't care why, because there's no way for us to ever know any of those things for sure so why waste so much time and effort and money on wondering?"
But this disagrees with why I'm ok with dedicating so much time and effort into thinking about heaven and hell or time and space or God and Satan, or life and death. So should I care more about creation vs evolution, or care less about time and space? Why do we "philosophize" at all?
Or... is that another thing we'll never understand?
"Would a perfectly good God respect a creature's freedom so much that he'd allow its damnation?"
This question, which was suggested on one of our handouts, is something that I recently I have both thought about, and struggled with.
Back in the day, when I was not challenged in my beliefs and had everything in line, this question would have been answered simply. However, after reading POP, and looking at the parent- child example, questions have been raised.
Ok, so God's love for us is bigger than the love of any human, so much bigger that we can even fathom. Yet, it appears that the parent is more proactive in their love for their children. The parent loves their child through all of their mistakes, yet cares enough to intervene when the child is suffering, or endangering their life. To me, this is a love that is deep.
I really do not understand this. All my life I have been taught that when you love someone, sometimes you need to let them go through the tough times before they improve. However, it appears that God is not only allowing us to suffer, but also he is not intervening. Of course he could intervene indirectly, through some person or event. But that still may not have an affect; why doesn't he make us see? Well, perhaps the problem doesn't lie with God, it lies with us. Perhaps God does intervene when we go to far, but we don't see it? Who is at fault here, it is our problem if we've gone too far and don't understand?
This question, which was suggested on one of our handouts, is something that I recently I have both thought about, and struggled with.
Back in the day, when I was not challenged in my beliefs and had everything in line, this question would have been answered simply. However, after reading POP, and looking at the parent- child example, questions have been raised.
Ok, so God's love for us is bigger than the love of any human, so much bigger that we can even fathom. Yet, it appears that the parent is more proactive in their love for their children. The parent loves their child through all of their mistakes, yet cares enough to intervene when the child is suffering, or endangering their life. To me, this is a love that is deep.
I really do not understand this. All my life I have been taught that when you love someone, sometimes you need to let them go through the tough times before they improve. However, it appears that God is not only allowing us to suffer, but also he is not intervening. Of course he could intervene indirectly, through some person or event. But that still may not have an affect; why doesn't he make us see? Well, perhaps the problem doesn't lie with God, it lies with us. Perhaps God does intervene when we go to far, but we don't see it? Who is at fault here, it is our problem if we've gone too far and don't understand?
This is why I appreciate Narrative...
Before the meat and potatoes of this post begins, I appetize with an unfortunate, hilarious story. I have labeled all my assignments with acronyms: hence, when I have to read a chapter in "Problem of Pain," I see "POP" and when I have to read "A Grief Observed," I read "AGO." The hilarity of this lies in my eyes reading "AGO" and my brain understanding "TGD." And so, I have spent all week reading "The Great Divorce," and not "A Grief Observed."
We'll get there as a group, but I wanted to say that reading Lewis's narrative on the nature of heaven and hell entirely clarified his philosophical apologetics in my mind. Seeing Lewis wrestle with the nature of the human decision, its timing, its inevitability, its psychology, was astounding. Having written this, I also realize that this book is not the one assigned.
After watching much of "Through the Shadowlands" and reading of Lewis's own wrestle with grief in "AGO," I truly appreciate "The Problem of Pain" so much more. This book is no longer an impersonal intellectual's romp through the nature of suffering. This man had to deal with suffering, too. He was not immune. "A Grief Observed" reads poorly, not because the author was a poor writer, but because he chose to write in the midst of chaotic agony, rather than from the collected retrospective. This observation is present, not past.
I've complained before about my struggle with philosophy. However, this book showed me that philosophers are still human, still spiritual, still broken. Their thoughts are not neutral, but stem from personal experience, from narrative. I still prefer stories, but I have a new appreciation for the mind of the philosopher.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
"We are very shy nowadays of even mentioning heaven. We are afraid of the jeer about 'pie in the sky', and of being told that we are trying to 'escape' from the duty of making a happy world here and now into dreams of a happy world elsewhere." (Problem of Pain, 148-9)
I like what Lewis gets at though when he talks about feeling something, and then looking at your friend who is experiencing the same thing but feeling something completely different. I think maybe that is what heaven will be like. It will be good for everyone, but my heaven might be a little different than your heaven. Everyone is different, every soul is different, but we all fit together kind of like a puzzle. Lewis writes, "Your place in heaven will seem to be made for you and you alone, because you were made for it - made for it stitch by stitch as a glove is made for a hand." (152). That is a cool statement, one that makes me feel even better about my place in eternity.
Reflections on Heaven
I decided to write my blog on the last chapter of The Problem of Pain. I am going to make some comments on some things that stuck out to me.
"You may have noticed that the books you really love are bound together by a secret thread. You know very well what is the common quality that makes you love them, though you cannot put it into words, but most of your friends do not see it at all..."
I can really relate here and I think a majority of our class might as well. If I think of all the books or stories we love...I can really see that they are bound together by a secret thread. Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Narnia, the Matrix: these are my favorite stories. I can see that each of them possesses a common quality that I look for and love in stories. Heroes, swordfights, training, good vs. evil, saving the princess, love, adventure, and self-sacrifice. All these things tug at my heart and fulfill some longing inside of me.
"Are not all lifelong friendships born at the moment when at last you meet another human being who has some inkling of that something which you were born desiring..."
I think this statement gives us a clue into why we have close relationships in life and what causes these relationships to form. It is beautiful how God fulfills our desires by sometimes giving us other persons who share our desires and we can fulfill those desires together through God. There is much else to say about this I just felt like this really helped me to understand why I desire certain things in life and it was enlightening.
"We cannot tell each other about it. It is the secret signature of each soul, the incommunicable and unappeasable want..."
I really liked the parts of the chapter that talked about the soul and the uniqueness of the soul. This part related to me because I have felt this unfulfilled longing all my life and I think the key to the individuality of my soul lies there in that unfulfilled longing. It is something that I cannot communicate and if i tried to communicate it I could only voice it to God. Most of the time its just a groaning sound. Like "God heal me" or "God save me". And in those moments I have come to know my soul and know that my first love is God and he loves me. There is a lot I could say but I just thank God that there are writers like C.S Lewis who were good enough to explain these christian ideas in a way that the common man can understand.
"...a soul is but a hollow which God fills..."
This simple quote really showed me why I feel like crap when my relationship with God isnt going swell. You may have heard a depressed person say "I feel so empty". I know that I have felt this emptiness before in my life. I am thinking that I felt so empty because the God who is supposed to fill me up isnt there. There is an actually emptiness. I thought that was interesting to think about. It seems simple yet its profound.
So that about sums up my thoughts on the Heaven chapter. And I am looking forward to heaven!!! This place sucks!!!
"You may have noticed that the books you really love are bound together by a secret thread. You know very well what is the common quality that makes you love them, though you cannot put it into words, but most of your friends do not see it at all..."
I can really relate here and I think a majority of our class might as well. If I think of all the books or stories we love...I can really see that they are bound together by a secret thread. Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Narnia, the Matrix: these are my favorite stories. I can see that each of them possesses a common quality that I look for and love in stories. Heroes, swordfights, training, good vs. evil, saving the princess, love, adventure, and self-sacrifice. All these things tug at my heart and fulfill some longing inside of me.
"Are not all lifelong friendships born at the moment when at last you meet another human being who has some inkling of that something which you were born desiring..."
I think this statement gives us a clue into why we have close relationships in life and what causes these relationships to form. It is beautiful how God fulfills our desires by sometimes giving us other persons who share our desires and we can fulfill those desires together through God. There is much else to say about this I just felt like this really helped me to understand why I desire certain things in life and it was enlightening.
"We cannot tell each other about it. It is the secret signature of each soul, the incommunicable and unappeasable want..."
I really liked the parts of the chapter that talked about the soul and the uniqueness of the soul. This part related to me because I have felt this unfulfilled longing all my life and I think the key to the individuality of my soul lies there in that unfulfilled longing. It is something that I cannot communicate and if i tried to communicate it I could only voice it to God. Most of the time its just a groaning sound. Like "God heal me" or "God save me". And in those moments I have come to know my soul and know that my first love is God and he loves me. There is a lot I could say but I just thank God that there are writers like C.S Lewis who were good enough to explain these christian ideas in a way that the common man can understand.
"...a soul is but a hollow which God fills..."
This simple quote really showed me why I feel like crap when my relationship with God isnt going swell. You may have heard a depressed person say "I feel so empty". I know that I have felt this emptiness before in my life. I am thinking that I felt so empty because the God who is supposed to fill me up isnt there. There is an actually emptiness. I thought that was interesting to think about. It seems simple yet its profound.
So that about sums up my thoughts on the Heaven chapter. And I am looking forward to heaven!!! This place sucks!!!
Death through Sin
As I’ve been reading the blog and reflecting on Lewis’ perspectives, I am quite averse to the idea of pre-Fall animal carnivorousness. If animals were killing each other before humans even came into existence, this significantly changes what sin represents. Indeed, if death entered the world before sin, I think this brings into question the purpose for which purpose Christ’s death was necessary.
For these reasons and others, the second of the three points Lewis makes on animal pain is particularly problematic to me: “For one result of man’s fall was that his animality fell back from the humanity into which it had been taken up but which could no longer rule it” (139). Though I’ve frequently agreed with Lewis’ assessment of the problem of pain, I wholeheartedly disagree with him on this second point; here, ascribing to his view necessitates wholehearted acceptance of a macro-evolutionary process. As I mentioned above, this is not just a question of origins but of why Jesus had to die.
What am I even talking about here? Romans 5 states the situation in this way: “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned….For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in the life through the one man, Jesus Christ.” While animals are not mentioned, these verses speak of sin entering the world, a noun which suggests more than just humanity. Romans further indicates that the entire creation suffers because of Adam’s sin: “For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time” (Romans 8:20-22). Why would the entire creation be groaning and waiting for liberation unless the sin of Adam first brought upon it the curse of death as well? Also, if the creation had already been corrupted, why would God have cursed the earth after man’s fall?
As I’m writing this post, I am aware of the many legitimate questions and protests that could be raised against this view, but since there are reasons to believe and disbelieve any argument, please bear with me in this one. If we argue that death entered the world before sin – if even in the form of animal death and associated suffering – we are unraveling the reasons that Jesus had to die. If we tear apart those reasons, we are tearing apart the very foundation of our faith. The sacrifice of Christ was necessary, because nothing else could overcome the death that came into the world as a result of Adam’s sin.
Before I end, I would like to mention two tangential ideas that came to mind after reading others’ posts. First, in regard to Lewis’ idea of Satan corrupting creation, how much authority are we ascribing him by suggesting he was given corruptive power over an evolving creation when he fell? In this, I think Lewis asks far more questions than he is capable of answering.
Second, an item was raised a few posts below concerning God’s response to animal suffering. In class on Monday, Rascal said that he would be very angry if God allowed his mom’s friend to die of cancer but aided an animal in pain. While I completely understand the question in point, I don’t think that God’s decisions to intervene in the world require such an “either-or” choice or a decision process at all, because the actions of God emanate from Who He is. There is a never a conflict in the mind of God whether He should intervene in the life of a cancer patient or heal an injured dog. I think Lewis would agree with this. As he described in Chapter 2, “…Divine freedom cannot mean indeterminacy between alternatives and choice of one of them. Perfect goodness can never debate about the end to be attained, and perfect wisdom cannot debate about the means most suited to achieve it” (26). Though it is sometimes so painfully hard to understand why God works the way He does, I think we confine God by trying to transpose our human understanding of decision-making onto His. Amid all the things that we do not know of God and His world, however, I think we can know with certainty that His care for His creation is so intimate that not a sparrow falls to the ground without His knowing. How much greater His care must be for man, whom He formed in His image and gifted with the freedom of will!
For these reasons and others, the second of the three points Lewis makes on animal pain is particularly problematic to me: “For one result of man’s fall was that his animality fell back from the humanity into which it had been taken up but which could no longer rule it” (139). Though I’ve frequently agreed with Lewis’ assessment of the problem of pain, I wholeheartedly disagree with him on this second point; here, ascribing to his view necessitates wholehearted acceptance of a macro-evolutionary process. As I mentioned above, this is not just a question of origins but of why Jesus had to die.
What am I even talking about here? Romans 5 states the situation in this way: “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned….For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in the life through the one man, Jesus Christ.” While animals are not mentioned, these verses speak of sin entering the world, a noun which suggests more than just humanity. Romans further indicates that the entire creation suffers because of Adam’s sin: “For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time” (Romans 8:20-22). Why would the entire creation be groaning and waiting for liberation unless the sin of Adam first brought upon it the curse of death as well? Also, if the creation had already been corrupted, why would God have cursed the earth after man’s fall?
As I’m writing this post, I am aware of the many legitimate questions and protests that could be raised against this view, but since there are reasons to believe and disbelieve any argument, please bear with me in this one. If we argue that death entered the world before sin – if even in the form of animal death and associated suffering – we are unraveling the reasons that Jesus had to die. If we tear apart those reasons, we are tearing apart the very foundation of our faith. The sacrifice of Christ was necessary, because nothing else could overcome the death that came into the world as a result of Adam’s sin.
Before I end, I would like to mention two tangential ideas that came to mind after reading others’ posts. First, in regard to Lewis’ idea of Satan corrupting creation, how much authority are we ascribing him by suggesting he was given corruptive power over an evolving creation when he fell? In this, I think Lewis asks far more questions than he is capable of answering.
Second, an item was raised a few posts below concerning God’s response to animal suffering. In class on Monday, Rascal said that he would be very angry if God allowed his mom’s friend to die of cancer but aided an animal in pain. While I completely understand the question in point, I don’t think that God’s decisions to intervene in the world require such an “either-or” choice or a decision process at all, because the actions of God emanate from Who He is. There is a never a conflict in the mind of God whether He should intervene in the life of a cancer patient or heal an injured dog. I think Lewis would agree with this. As he described in Chapter 2, “…Divine freedom cannot mean indeterminacy between alternatives and choice of one of them. Perfect goodness can never debate about the end to be attained, and perfect wisdom cannot debate about the means most suited to achieve it” (26). Though it is sometimes so painfully hard to understand why God works the way He does, I think we confine God by trying to transpose our human understanding of decision-making onto His. Amid all the things that we do not know of God and His world, however, I think we can know with certainty that His care for His creation is so intimate that not a sparrow falls to the ground without His knowing. How much greater His care must be for man, whom He formed in His image and gifted with the freedom of will!
Trails of thought.....
When reading A Grief Observed by C.S. Lewis I often felt like I was having a conversation with him. It is apparent that his writings here are much more trials of thoughts in a journal (or something like it) than the well thought out arguments he lays in other books. I felt like there are many times when Lewis is actively arguing with himself through the book and yet, he brings up some very interesting points.
“Talk to me about the truth of religion and I will listen gladly. Talk to me about the duty of religion and I’ll listen submissively. But don’t come talking to me about the consolation of religion or I shall suspect that you don’t understand.”
On first read, I really resonated with Lewis in this sentiment. I think it is commonplace for someone experiencing great loss to become annoyed and frustrated with all the religious consolations thrust upon them -- even from the most well meaning people. Lewis, however, not only expresses frustrations with these sort of sentiments but takes it to another, somewhat depressing, level. I am still not sure what to make of his arguments; are they merely a ranting of a sorrowed man or is there some sort of deeper truth in them?
Lewis seems to argue that it is ignorant and unbiblical to believe of any sort of reunion of souls in heaven and that a relationship separated by death is separated forever. He also says that the idea of death being a release from pain and a sudden movement from earthly disease to heavenly healing could quite possibly be unsubstantiated. Some of Lewis arguments here seem to be persuasive and more than just the ravings of a grieved person. I am quite unsure of what to think of these assertions, however, as they seem to contradict a lot of beliefs of heaven I hold dear. The presence of pain and suffering in heaven is a difficult concept.
“Talk to me about the truth of religion and I will listen gladly. Talk to me about the duty of religion and I’ll listen submissively. But don’t come talking to me about the consolation of religion or I shall suspect that you don’t understand.”
On first read, I really resonated with Lewis in this sentiment. I think it is commonplace for someone experiencing great loss to become annoyed and frustrated with all the religious consolations thrust upon them -- even from the most well meaning people. Lewis, however, not only expresses frustrations with these sort of sentiments but takes it to another, somewhat depressing, level. I am still not sure what to make of his arguments; are they merely a ranting of a sorrowed man or is there some sort of deeper truth in them?
Lewis seems to argue that it is ignorant and unbiblical to believe of any sort of reunion of souls in heaven and that a relationship separated by death is separated forever. He also says that the idea of death being a release from pain and a sudden movement from earthly disease to heavenly healing could quite possibly be unsubstantiated. Some of Lewis arguments here seem to be persuasive and more than just the ravings of a grieved person. I am quite unsure of what to think of these assertions, however, as they seem to contradict a lot of beliefs of heaven I hold dear. The presence of pain and suffering in heaven is a difficult concept.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Carnivory--God planned or Satan induced?
Note: Although these ideas stray from the problem of pain, as I searched for an idea to blog about, my mind kept getting stuck on how Lewis connected animal carnivory to the fall. He seemed to reject the idea that God biologically programmed animals that way. As a result, I have a blog with questions that came out of my thinking.
Gen 1:29-30 says, “And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has breathe of life in it—I give every green plant for food. And it was so,” and God said the same for humans (NIV). I believe that most people translate this verse as saying God made plants for animals and people to eat and nothing else. However, when I read this verse or its context I cannot find God telling us—humans and animals—to never eat meat. It is true that eating meat in the Old Testament was seen as unclean. (I’m unsure if this was all meat or only some). Yet, Lewis seems to be saying that any kind of carnivory that scientific evidence shows before humans entered into the world was of Satan’s corrupting. I have difficulty acknowledging this idea.
I first hesitate to believe that animals were only herbivores from an idea even Lewis mentions, the idea that if all animals ate plants, they would end of dying from the lack or plant resources so why would God create animals to live in a place where they’re eventually going to starve if they lived off of one food source?
Secondly, for me Lewis’ suggestion that Satan caused animals to live by destroying others for food before the human race entered into the world seems to give Satan too much credit for our biological make-up. My science classes have shown me that even though it is possible not to eat animal meat to get the nutrients I require, the human body needs 20 amino acids to function properly. However, the human body only creates 10 of those essential amino acids but animal meat contains the other 10 amino acids the human body desperately needs. This makes me wonder why would God want humans (and animals) to be herbivores alone when animal meat is the best source of protein for our bodies. Why can carnivory not be the nature that God intended for an animal?
Lewis also writes that because animals fell when Satan fell, the animals began to devour each other, which caused God to instill an excessive sexual impulse into the animals to keep up with their carnivory, but why is this impulse connected with animal corruption? Did God not make humans have an impulse to reproduce as well?
Gen 1:29-30 says, “And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has breathe of life in it—I give every green plant for food. And it was so,” and God said the same for humans (NIV). I believe that most people translate this verse as saying God made plants for animals and people to eat and nothing else. However, when I read this verse or its context I cannot find God telling us—humans and animals—to never eat meat. It is true that eating meat in the Old Testament was seen as unclean. (I’m unsure if this was all meat or only some). Yet, Lewis seems to be saying that any kind of carnivory that scientific evidence shows before humans entered into the world was of Satan’s corrupting. I have difficulty acknowledging this idea.
I first hesitate to believe that animals were only herbivores from an idea even Lewis mentions, the idea that if all animals ate plants, they would end of dying from the lack or plant resources so why would God create animals to live in a place where they’re eventually going to starve if they lived off of one food source?
Secondly, for me Lewis’ suggestion that Satan caused animals to live by destroying others for food before the human race entered into the world seems to give Satan too much credit for our biological make-up. My science classes have shown me that even though it is possible not to eat animal meat to get the nutrients I require, the human body needs 20 amino acids to function properly. However, the human body only creates 10 of those essential amino acids but animal meat contains the other 10 amino acids the human body desperately needs. This makes me wonder why would God want humans (and animals) to be herbivores alone when animal meat is the best source of protein for our bodies. Why can carnivory not be the nature that God intended for an animal?
Lewis also writes that because animals fell when Satan fell, the animals began to devour each other, which caused God to instill an excessive sexual impulse into the animals to keep up with their carnivory, but why is this impulse connected with animal corruption? Did God not make humans have an impulse to reproduce as well?
More than Merely Happy
The thing that irks me most about philosophically arguing, (in an intellectual and non-violent manner), is that as soon as I have my position figured out and am ready to defend my opinion, I am made aware of a significant flaw in my reasoning. Often it is just moments after the light turns on and the "ah-hah" escapes my mouth that someone asks, "But how do you explain...?" and I must reluctantly go back to the drawing board. Such has been my experience time and again as I've grappled with the Problem of Pain. There are times I want to "throw in the towel," accept that there is pain in the world and give up looking for reasons and explanations as to why. For some reason, though, this is not acceptable. Why not? I don't know.
Why do we need to make sense of pain? Arguably because it doesn't jive with the world as we think the world ought to be - good. But we when say "good" isn't what we really mean self-serving and comfortable? In Hume's Dialogues the character Philo explains "...neither man nor any other animal is happy; therefore, he [God] does not will their happiness." He uses this as a part of his argument that says (in an oversimplified manner) that an omnipotent and omniscient God would be capable of making a world in which the creatures are happy, but the creatures are not happy, thus such a God must not exist.
I don't think this is necessarily true. It isn't that God can not make a world in which we are always happy, but that he does not. If the world was supposed to exist for the sole purpose of making man happy don't you think it would? You can argue that it did initially, that a world in which man is unhappy is merely a result of sin, but even that argument fails if we are to maintain that at Creation the omniscient God knew of the pain that was to come (which is another argument in itself). What I'm trying to get at isn't that God intended pain, but rather that God may not have created the world, even in its original state, for man's happiness (as we currently understand happiness that is).
The Westminster Catechism suggests that man's chief end is to "glorify God and enjoy him forever," not "to be happy on earth and without any pain." If this is true, than wouldn't God create a world in which such a purpose could be lived out? Didn't he? Lewis suggests that one of the reasons we have a problem with pain is that we have a false understanding of what God's goodness and human happiness really are. Divine goodness is not kindness. To say God is good is to say he loves us, but not that his goal for us is to live pleasurable comfortable earthly lives "God wills our good, and our good is to love Him." Nowhere in that statement does it say that either our good or loving God come without pain.
As Lewis explains God's goodness he employs four analogies of love. Consider an artist with a work in progress: The beloved object may fail to understand the transformation in progress, a transformation which may require pain, the use of which the beloved also may not understand. The transformation is necessary if the object is to be perfected. We argue if such perfection is necessary, but only because we misunderstand the purpose of the beloved. "After all, a great painting primarily benefits its artist." Wielenberg says this in objection to the painter analogy, pointing out that the beloved itself gets little happiness out of the deal, but I would posit that this is the point entirely. Man does not exist for his own happiness, but for God's glory.
This is not to say that glorifying God is a miserable existence. Quite the opposite, to glorify God is the greatest joy we can experience, but it is happiness as we fail to understand it, happiness as we do not seek it. And so God must, if he desires for us to both be happy and fulfill our intended purpose of loving him freely, use pain to draw us to himself. "God, who has made us, knows that our happiness lies in Him," says Lewis. "Yet we will not seek it in Him as long as He leaves us any other resort where it can even plausibly be looked for. While what we call 'our own life' remains agreeable we will not surrender it to Him."
We have sealed our own fate by maintaining the idea that a self-centered life leads to true happiness. What other option does God have but to use pain to open our eyes to our false happiness?
I cannot (and would not attempt to) explain away all the existence or reason for all pain. I am, however, suggesting that there are things more important than living in a pain-free world - the great good of genuine human happiness that comes when one's chief purpose is glorifying God for example. I think Lewis would agree - in fact it was from him that I learned it - that the self-surrender of the will and transformation of the person is of a value and significance that far outweighs the pain that enables it.
Why do we need to make sense of pain? Arguably because it doesn't jive with the world as we think the world ought to be - good. But we when say "good" isn't what we really mean self-serving and comfortable? In Hume's Dialogues the character Philo explains "...neither man nor any other animal is happy; therefore, he [God] does not will their happiness." He uses this as a part of his argument that says (in an oversimplified manner) that an omnipotent and omniscient God would be capable of making a world in which the creatures are happy, but the creatures are not happy, thus such a God must not exist.
I don't think this is necessarily true. It isn't that God can not make a world in which we are always happy, but that he does not. If the world was supposed to exist for the sole purpose of making man happy don't you think it would? You can argue that it did initially, that a world in which man is unhappy is merely a result of sin, but even that argument fails if we are to maintain that at Creation the omniscient God knew of the pain that was to come (which is another argument in itself). What I'm trying to get at isn't that God intended pain, but rather that God may not have created the world, even in its original state, for man's happiness (as we currently understand happiness that is).
The Westminster Catechism suggests that man's chief end is to "glorify God and enjoy him forever," not "to be happy on earth and without any pain." If this is true, than wouldn't God create a world in which such a purpose could be lived out? Didn't he? Lewis suggests that one of the reasons we have a problem with pain is that we have a false understanding of what God's goodness and human happiness really are. Divine goodness is not kindness. To say God is good is to say he loves us, but not that his goal for us is to live pleasurable comfortable earthly lives "God wills our good, and our good is to love Him." Nowhere in that statement does it say that either our good or loving God come without pain.
As Lewis explains God's goodness he employs four analogies of love. Consider an artist with a work in progress: The beloved object may fail to understand the transformation in progress, a transformation which may require pain, the use of which the beloved also may not understand. The transformation is necessary if the object is to be perfected. We argue if such perfection is necessary, but only because we misunderstand the purpose of the beloved. "After all, a great painting primarily benefits its artist." Wielenberg says this in objection to the painter analogy, pointing out that the beloved itself gets little happiness out of the deal, but I would posit that this is the point entirely. Man does not exist for his own happiness, but for God's glory.
This is not to say that glorifying God is a miserable existence. Quite the opposite, to glorify God is the greatest joy we can experience, but it is happiness as we fail to understand it, happiness as we do not seek it. And so God must, if he desires for us to both be happy and fulfill our intended purpose of loving him freely, use pain to draw us to himself. "God, who has made us, knows that our happiness lies in Him," says Lewis. "Yet we will not seek it in Him as long as He leaves us any other resort where it can even plausibly be looked for. While what we call 'our own life' remains agreeable we will not surrender it to Him."
We have sealed our own fate by maintaining the idea that a self-centered life leads to true happiness. What other option does God have but to use pain to open our eyes to our false happiness?
I cannot (and would not attempt to) explain away all the existence or reason for all pain. I am, however, suggesting that there are things more important than living in a pain-free world - the great good of genuine human happiness that comes when one's chief purpose is glorifying God for example. I think Lewis would agree - in fact it was from him that I learned it - that the self-surrender of the will and transformation of the person is of a value and significance that far outweighs the pain that enables it.
Animal Pain and Suffering
Rascal writes, “Now, the reason I think this chapter is silly is, even if animals have pain, why would God pay attention to them, if he loves us more.”
This statement makes me uncomfortable because God created animals and why would God not care for something that he created? Part of our role as humans is to rule over the animals (Gen. 1:26). If we are to rule over them we should care for them for God rules over humans and he obviously cares for us. God may love us more (since humans were very good instead of simply good), but that does not mean that God would not care for all of creation—even stating that he loves us more is a recognition that he loves something less than us (but I don’t think we can judge how much God loves something). And if we love something, shouldn’t we care if the thing we love is in pain?
And what about God’s interferring with the serpent? Yes, the whole incident occurred because of the serpent’s deception toward Eve, but God tells the serpent in Genesis 3:14 that the serpent is cursed above all livestock and wild animals. God punishes the serpent for his actions just as he punishes Adam and Eve for theirs.
Rascal also writes later on, “My question is, does God change the rules and perform miracles, for the sake of animals? I sure hope not. If He does, He would be a little like the people that give their money to those commercials with Sarah McLachlan in them to save dogs or something, when there are PEOPLE dieing. Not such a good thing.”
I don’t know how to respond to the statement that we shouldn’t give money to animal charities while people are dying because it is hard to reconcile all the different types of suffering that exist. By stating that animal charities are not worth while, is that also stating that donating money to research for cancer is not worthwhile when that money could potentially the lives of children who are starving to death or those who suffer from HIV in Africa?? And it seems that by asserting animal charities are not worth our time and effort one is also saying, maybe inadvertantly, that animals are not worth our time and effort. Does this mean animals have no purpose? Who are we to judge why God created animals and whether we shouldn’t just let them all die in pursuit of the survival of humans?
Again, part of our role as humans is to rule over animals and this role is God-given. Lewis writes in PoP, “Man was appointed by God to have dominion over the beasts, and everything a man does to an animal is either a lawful exercise, or a sacriligeous abuse, or an authority by Divine right” (142). Therefore, we should care about animal suffering just as we should also care about human suffering for God calls us to love our neighbor. I think it is easy to get caught up in the idea that God loves only humans because we focus so much on God loving all humans rather than a select few. What about God loving all creation? After all, if God did not love the rest of creation, where would we be? The world we live in would cease to exist as we know it.
This statement makes me uncomfortable because God created animals and why would God not care for something that he created? Part of our role as humans is to rule over the animals (Gen. 1:26). If we are to rule over them we should care for them for God rules over humans and he obviously cares for us. God may love us more (since humans were very good instead of simply good), but that does not mean that God would not care for all of creation—even stating that he loves us more is a recognition that he loves something less than us (but I don’t think we can judge how much God loves something). And if we love something, shouldn’t we care if the thing we love is in pain?
And what about God’s interferring with the serpent? Yes, the whole incident occurred because of the serpent’s deception toward Eve, but God tells the serpent in Genesis 3:14 that the serpent is cursed above all livestock and wild animals. God punishes the serpent for his actions just as he punishes Adam and Eve for theirs.
Rascal also writes later on, “My question is, does God change the rules and perform miracles, for the sake of animals? I sure hope not. If He does, He would be a little like the people that give their money to those commercials with Sarah McLachlan in them to save dogs or something, when there are PEOPLE dieing. Not such a good thing.”
I don’t know how to respond to the statement that we shouldn’t give money to animal charities while people are dying because it is hard to reconcile all the different types of suffering that exist. By stating that animal charities are not worth while, is that also stating that donating money to research for cancer is not worthwhile when that money could potentially the lives of children who are starving to death or those who suffer from HIV in Africa?? And it seems that by asserting animal charities are not worth our time and effort one is also saying, maybe inadvertantly, that animals are not worth our time and effort. Does this mean animals have no purpose? Who are we to judge why God created animals and whether we shouldn’t just let them all die in pursuit of the survival of humans?
Again, part of our role as humans is to rule over animals and this role is God-given. Lewis writes in PoP, “Man was appointed by God to have dominion over the beasts, and everything a man does to an animal is either a lawful exercise, or a sacriligeous abuse, or an authority by Divine right” (142). Therefore, we should care about animal suffering just as we should also care about human suffering for God calls us to love our neighbor. I think it is easy to get caught up in the idea that God loves only humans because we focus so much on God loving all humans rather than a select few. What about God loving all creation? After all, if God did not love the rest of creation, where would we be? The world we live in would cease to exist as we know it.
Animals
I don't know how I feel about the chapter of animal pain. I think that in order for this to be a worth while argument we need to decide if animals have souls. Personally I don't believe that animals have souls. I think that some of them have developed minds and that they do feel pain, however I don't believe that they are capable of believing in a Divine being. It's my belief that when I go to heaven and see my dog Jack that it will be because it would make me very happy, not because Jack was a good dog. At any rate I think that we can all agree that animals are not at the same level as we are, as far as importance to God, or intellect or whatever. ( I hope) Now, the reason I think this chapter is silly is, even if animals have pain, why would God pay attention to them, if he loves us more.
Lewis says in early chapters that God is held in his own set of rules. The world is a sort of chess game that God can't go around changing rules for all the time but can on occasion change things a little. My question is, does God change the rules and perform miracles, for the sake of animals? I sure hope not. If He does, He would be a little like the people that give their money to those commercials with Sarah McLachlan in them to save dogs or something, when there are PEOPLE dieing. Not such a good thing. I think the reasons animals feel pain is because that is the way that god created the world. He made it so that sometimes rocks fall, and sometime those rocks fall on us or animals I guess.
Lewis says in early chapters that God is held in his own set of rules. The world is a sort of chess game that God can't go around changing rules for all the time but can on occasion change things a little. My question is, does God change the rules and perform miracles, for the sake of animals? I sure hope not. If He does, He would be a little like the people that give their money to those commercials with Sarah McLachlan in them to save dogs or something, when there are PEOPLE dieing. Not such a good thing. I think the reasons animals feel pain is because that is the way that god created the world. He made it so that sometimes rocks fall, and sometime those rocks fall on us or animals I guess.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
The Fate of Judas
"Now the fact that God can make complex good out of simple evil does not excuse - though by mercy it may save - those who do the simple evil. [...] Offenses must come, but woe to those by whom they come. [...] But in doing such evil, he is used by God, without his own knowledge or consent, to produce the complex good - so that the first man serves God as a son, and the second as a tool."
The above paragraph made sense to me when I first read it. That God could make complex good out of simple evil really made sense - there are examples of this all over the place. The reason why I'm blogging about it now, is that my viewpoint has changed, and I was hoping that by posting this, maybe you could help me figure this out.
The same night I read Chapter 7, I was also reading the book of Acts. The following passage really stuck out considering what I had previously read in The Problem of Pain: "With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out." (Acts 1:18).
As a child, I had a strong sense of what was fair and what was not. Evidentally, I have retained some of this, because after reading the verse in Acts, a voice in my head was screaming "That's not fair! Why did it end that way? What did Judas do to deserve such a horrible death??" Besides the obvious being that Judas turned Jesus over to the Pharisees, I find it extremely unfair that Judas died for his "wickedness" after simply following God's will and fulfilling the prophecy of Jesus' death.
"As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him." (John 13:27) So yes, Satan was working through Judas when Judas was doing his traitorous acts. And therefore, Judas should rightfully be sent to hell. But I find it troubling to say that it was God's will that Judas go to hell when the very reason he did what he did was to fulfill prophecy. Did Judas really have a choice in this matter? The Bible makes it sound like Jesus knew who was going to deceive him before it happened. Therefore, according to the Trinity, God knew who the traitor was going to be.
The way Lewis words this situation, in Chapter 7, sounds like Judas didn't know the full consequences of what he was doing. But in doing such evil, he is used by God, without his own knowledge or consent, to produce the complex good. I realize that at this point, Lewis may not be speaking explicitly of Judas, but the connection could plausibly be formed.
Matthew 27:3-5 illustrates Judas' remorse when he finds out what will happen to Jesus because of his actions. According to the story in Matthew, Judas ends his life by hanging himself. This obviously shows that Judas was sorry for his actions. And yet, Acts still uses the word "wickedness" when referring to Judas.
So I guess the summation of this long-winded, rambling entry is this: Because Judas was doing what he did to fulfill a prophecy, and showed remorse after the fact, will he ultimately end up in hell based on his actions? And if so, can it be said that it was God's will for it to be this way?
When I type, my thoughts don't always come out in a logical order. So, if any (or all) of this is confusing to you, please let me know! I will try and make it more sensible for you. Please tell me your thoughts on this matter - I would appreciate some feedback.
Friday, October 3, 2008
I have not ever really had to think about kindness in the way we have been talking about with Lewis. So often, we mistake kindness with niceness. Niceness is likability, but kindness goes much deeper. To me, honesty is necessary for kindness. Honesty with ourselves requires us to get out of our comfort zone, be vulnerable, and allow hurts to affect us. It is rare for me to experience this kind of honesty because, as most humans, I do not want to admit my faults. It is uncomfortable to be weak and dependent on something else without my guard up. Niceness does not need any of this for it to be effective. Nice relationships are nice, loving, and caring. However, do they deeply care about the situations and hurts we are going through? Maybe they do, maybe not. Kindness to me is true love. True love is being honest with ourselves, with others, and with God. The truest love is a love that gives what is best for the person, not necessarily what that person wants. With God, I know that what He wills is what is best and what is best is not always what we want. His love is the truest, purest love there is. With that love, this honest kindness comes hand in hand and we cannot separate the two.
Does God Love Us More?
A question was raised in our hand out today: Why do we need to be made more fully lovable? As God's Beloved creatures, why aren't we already as fully lovable as a creature can be? The next question raised was Can you love someone more?-- this I would like to answer from my opinions and experiences.
Can you Love someone more? Can God love us more?
No. I have personal experience to back this up. God, as far as I know, loves fully and absolutely. He cannot love you more or less because of who you are or where you are in life. What I do believe happens is you experience MORE of God's love as you learn and grow. There's only so much a mind can grasp as one tries to comprehend God. (which we will never fully be capable of!) This summer I learned how to experience joy in all circumstances. I saw God loving me through Joy instead of just in tragedies. Thus, I experienced more and different love of God. As we learn and grow- through pain and struggles- we learn more about God's love- as we are growing into better people. We, as Christians, grow in our faith walks, learning about and experiencing God. We never fully understand God's love but we keep getting piece after piece when we open and learn. Thus, WE are accepting more of God's love, not God loving us more. To become more lovable means to understand more about love. This comes only through experiences.
I have been gifted with compassion for people. I love people--I genuinely care for all types of people because my heart aches when they ache, rejoices in their joys, etc. This is a gift from God. When I say things in class and they sound angry, it's out of passion, which arises from my compassioin/love for people. I'm still new at this Christianity thing- it's hard, it's uncomfortable, but it's good. This love we experience is newer understanding of God and his love for us.
An important thing I'd like to add is God's love cannot change (for more or for less) because God does not change. He is eternal, everlasting, unchanging, constant. God's correcting actions allow us to learn about his love through our experiences, so we experience more love- God doesn't change in his Loving us.
One thing that is slightly irrelavent, but that I'd like to add is a comment about something Victoria was saying today. I understand your argument about "making the world a better place" and "fixing the problems" by candidates, and I agree- it is annoying when they say they're going to do all these things, when in reality they're not because they forget or they don't actually care. I think one key thing you missed from your argument today was the we CAN make the world a better place- no, not perfect, but better- because we have the choice to do good. God made us to have free will, so we can choose to do good things: good for environment, other people, etc. We can have a better society because we CAN choose to be GOOD, but we will never achieve perfect because no one is perfect all the time, we always sin. (sorry for the long bad sentence) Additionally, we must try to do good for the world, whether it's just walking with someone home from school, or flying over to japan to do ministry work- we are called to serve God and Mankind, therefore we can choose to follow the call. Anyways, enough Tangent, Good night, and I'm open to discussions-- :) Especially if anything needs clarification
Can you Love someone more? Can God love us more?
No. I have personal experience to back this up. God, as far as I know, loves fully and absolutely. He cannot love you more or less because of who you are or where you are in life. What I do believe happens is you experience MORE of God's love as you learn and grow. There's only so much a mind can grasp as one tries to comprehend God. (which we will never fully be capable of!) This summer I learned how to experience joy in all circumstances. I saw God loving me through Joy instead of just in tragedies. Thus, I experienced more and different love of God. As we learn and grow- through pain and struggles- we learn more about God's love- as we are growing into better people. We, as Christians, grow in our faith walks, learning about and experiencing God. We never fully understand God's love but we keep getting piece after piece when we open and learn. Thus, WE are accepting more of God's love, not God loving us more. To become more lovable means to understand more about love. This comes only through experiences.
I have been gifted with compassion for people. I love people--I genuinely care for all types of people because my heart aches when they ache, rejoices in their joys, etc. This is a gift from God. When I say things in class and they sound angry, it's out of passion, which arises from my compassioin/love for people. I'm still new at this Christianity thing- it's hard, it's uncomfortable, but it's good. This love we experience is newer understanding of God and his love for us.
An important thing I'd like to add is God's love cannot change (for more or for less) because God does not change. He is eternal, everlasting, unchanging, constant. God's correcting actions allow us to learn about his love through our experiences, so we experience more love- God doesn't change in his Loving us.
One thing that is slightly irrelavent, but that I'd like to add is a comment about something Victoria was saying today. I understand your argument about "making the world a better place" and "fixing the problems" by candidates, and I agree- it is annoying when they say they're going to do all these things, when in reality they're not because they forget or they don't actually care. I think one key thing you missed from your argument today was the we CAN make the world a better place- no, not perfect, but better- because we have the choice to do good. God made us to have free will, so we can choose to do good things: good for environment, other people, etc. We can have a better society because we CAN choose to be GOOD, but we will never achieve perfect because no one is perfect all the time, we always sin. (sorry for the long bad sentence) Additionally, we must try to do good for the world, whether it's just walking with someone home from school, or flying over to japan to do ministry work- we are called to serve God and Mankind, therefore we can choose to follow the call. Anyways, enough Tangent, Good night, and I'm open to discussions-- :) Especially if anything needs clarification
All things pass with time.
I'm curious to know what everyone thinks about sin and time. In our age, it is believed that in time we are absolved of our sins. I don't know if I believe that it is time that absolves a person of their sin. I can see that forgiveness from one person to another becomes easier with time, but does that absolve someone of their sin? Can a sin be between a person and person or is it only between the person and God? I know that we can't forgive them of all their sins, but do we have some power to bestow grace upon them, which earns them favor with God. Because of our forgiveness can we lighten the degree of their sin? Some people believe that sin is sin. There is no degree of sin. One sin is as deep as all the others. I am filled with so many questions that I should stop now and start more blogs instead of writing it all in one place.
Getting back to the idea of time and sin. I mentioned in class the idea that we aren't the same person we were 1 year ago or even 1 month ago. Can we still be held responsible for the sins that we have committed in those times? I believe that we can. We may be given grace, but we still need to hold responsibility of our sins. Yes, feel the grace of God, be forgiven, but remember your sins. Do not let them weigh your mind to the extent that you can not forgive yourself, but only remember the lessons from your sins. Let them be a teacher to make you better. Well, I shall leave it at this for now. Good day and Good luck.
Eugene
Getting back to the idea of time and sin. I mentioned in class the idea that we aren't the same person we were 1 year ago or even 1 month ago. Can we still be held responsible for the sins that we have committed in those times? I believe that we can. We may be given grace, but we still need to hold responsibility of our sins. Yes, feel the grace of God, be forgiven, but remember your sins. Do not let them weigh your mind to the extent that you can not forgive yourself, but only remember the lessons from your sins. Let them be a teacher to make you better. Well, I shall leave it at this for now. Good day and Good luck.
Eugene
Another take on Human Wickedness: and the Problem of Blessings
First I’d like to talk to say I have a lot of respect for Both C. S. Lewis and Jordan, even though I am about to disagree with them.
"love may cause pain to it's object, but only on the supposition that that object needs alteration to become fully lovable." ((Page 48)
Jordan brought up the point that sometimes as humans we get mad at or blame God for the bad things that happen to us, and that the blame shouldn’t be put on Him, but should instead be put on ourselves, for being sinners. But if we do this then we are treading into a dangerous area in theology. We tread dangerously close to becoming a glory based religion, were by works we can earn blessings. When we can never earn any blessings and God only gives them as gifts. And if God can only give blessings, and we can’t earn them then it stands to reason that we can’t “earn” curses as well.
Also let us remember my favorite story from the bible, Job. Who was “One who was perfect and upright, and one who feared God and eschewed evil.” And yet the Lord allowed a lot of pain to happen to him. So I am unsure as to whether or pain is always about being changed. But that doesn’t mean that God is bad just because He allows pain. I think that the idea that Lewis gives us that God can’t have free creatures, while at the same time protect them from harm.
"And when men attempt to be Christians without this preliminary conciousness of sin, the result is almost bound to be a certain resentment against God as to one always inexplicably angry." (Page 50-51)
This is another point were Lewis treads dangerously closely to creating a theology of glory. Which might I point out is what Islam is. Now in a theology of glory, then once again the better we are the more blessed, and conversely the more pain we suffer the worse people we must be. And this doesn’t fix the problem of pain it creates a problem with blessing. Because then do people who have easy lives, do they not need to be changed? Are they perfectly “lovable” in God’s eyes? No because we are all sinners.
I say all this not claiming I have the answers, but just thinking I have some issues with the arguments I was hearing.
God Bless and Keep you,
Victoria Howie
"love may cause pain to it's object, but only on the supposition that that object needs alteration to become fully lovable." ((Page 48)
Jordan brought up the point that sometimes as humans we get mad at or blame God for the bad things that happen to us, and that the blame shouldn’t be put on Him, but should instead be put on ourselves, for being sinners. But if we do this then we are treading into a dangerous area in theology. We tread dangerously close to becoming a glory based religion, were by works we can earn blessings. When we can never earn any blessings and God only gives them as gifts. And if God can only give blessings, and we can’t earn them then it stands to reason that we can’t “earn” curses as well.
Also let us remember my favorite story from the bible, Job. Who was “One who was perfect and upright, and one who feared God and eschewed evil.” And yet the Lord allowed a lot of pain to happen to him. So I am unsure as to whether or pain is always about being changed. But that doesn’t mean that God is bad just because He allows pain. I think that the idea that Lewis gives us that God can’t have free creatures, while at the same time protect them from harm.
"And when men attempt to be Christians without this preliminary conciousness of sin, the result is almost bound to be a certain resentment against God as to one always inexplicably angry." (Page 50-51)
This is another point were Lewis treads dangerously closely to creating a theology of glory. Which might I point out is what Islam is. Now in a theology of glory, then once again the better we are the more blessed, and conversely the more pain we suffer the worse people we must be. And this doesn’t fix the problem of pain it creates a problem with blessing. Because then do people who have easy lives, do they not need to be changed? Are they perfectly “lovable” in God’s eyes? No because we are all sinners.
I say all this not claiming I have the answers, but just thinking I have some issues with the arguments I was hearing.
God Bless and Keep you,
Victoria Howie
Does God Limit His Own Power
Since never reading anything by CS Lewis before, the Problem of Pain has been how can you say, one of the most amazing book i think i have ever read, though it has made me think a lot, the early chapter, made me begin to wonder, Lewis talks about how God can do all things that are possible, but many people believe that God is all powerful, since never been brought to the idea that can can't do all things that made me wonder, does he limit his own powers. has he made things so that he can only act in certain ways, so that he does not overdo it or something. Did God by making us a free-willed person purposefully disallow himself from being able to rid all evil, i am not saying that he cant but to take away all evil and pain, but if he did he would be breaking his own laws, and rules the ones that have been there since the fall of man. So is God all powerful, and has just limited his own power by his own laws, or is he just able to do the things that are possible to cognitively create.
A God Who Feels
In our discussion of Lewis and The Problem of Pain today, the question of God’s immutability emerged. Some argued that if God is perfection, any deviation from perfection constitutes a negative change. As is the case with most matters, I would argue that God’s perfection is not as clearly cut as that. In His perfection, I believe God chooses to make Himself vulnerable. If only by the act of creating humans free, God made himself vulnerable, and with this, I think Lewis may agree.
Before I go any further, I must clarify my terms. As brilliant as the human intellect may be, I find danger in trying to explain God through a human understanding of words such as “perfection,” “emotion,” “vulnerability.” The fullness of God’s perfection is incomprehensible to an imperfect human mind. Though God interacts with His creation in ways that we may partly begin to understand, His vulnerability exists within a different framework than what we can comprehend. When I use the word vulnerable, I am meaning susceptibility to emotion, yet again, these very words extrapolate human experience upon God. Is our God truly susceptible to emotion? I find that the Biblical narrative creates a powerful image of a God Who feels. Genesis gives us a portrait of a Creator designing ex nihilo and later regretting the creation He had made on account of its depravity. Exodus and other books follow with images of a God filled with holy anger against sin and acting in righteous judgment against injustice. Job creates a picture of a God who can be compelled to answer the created from a whirlwind; Jeremiah crafts an image of a God grieved by His unfaithful bride. While pictures of a God who feels are scattered throughout the Old Testament, I think the case for a God who experiences emotion becomes most powerful in the figure of Christ. In the Gospels, we see portraits of a weeping God, One moved by compassion for the brokenness of His people, and One filled with righteous anger. We see images of a God moved by the widow’s two mites, by the gift of oil broken over His feet. If one ascribes to a consistently Trinitarian view of God, it is necessary to recognize the experience of Christ as the experience of the Godhead. If it were not so, Christ could not be fully God, and consequently, not a sacrifice perfect enough for our redemption.
Is the Godhead truly susceptible to emotion? I will not venture to definitively answer that question, but in order for God to be the God He says He is, I think it necessary for Him to feel. To me, vulnerability to pain does not make God less God; it makes Him more God. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer said, “God lets himself get pushed out of the world on to the cross. He is weak and powerless in the world and that is precisely the way the only way, in which he helps us . . . the Bible directs us to God’s suffering; only the suffering God can help.”
Is suffering possible for a perfect God? The person of Jesus Christ seems to suggest that it is not only possible but necessary.
Before I go any further, I must clarify my terms. As brilliant as the human intellect may be, I find danger in trying to explain God through a human understanding of words such as “perfection,” “emotion,” “vulnerability.” The fullness of God’s perfection is incomprehensible to an imperfect human mind. Though God interacts with His creation in ways that we may partly begin to understand, His vulnerability exists within a different framework than what we can comprehend. When I use the word vulnerable, I am meaning susceptibility to emotion, yet again, these very words extrapolate human experience upon God. Is our God truly susceptible to emotion? I find that the Biblical narrative creates a powerful image of a God Who feels. Genesis gives us a portrait of a Creator designing ex nihilo and later regretting the creation He had made on account of its depravity. Exodus and other books follow with images of a God filled with holy anger against sin and acting in righteous judgment against injustice. Job creates a picture of a God who can be compelled to answer the created from a whirlwind; Jeremiah crafts an image of a God grieved by His unfaithful bride. While pictures of a God who feels are scattered throughout the Old Testament, I think the case for a God who experiences emotion becomes most powerful in the figure of Christ. In the Gospels, we see portraits of a weeping God, One moved by compassion for the brokenness of His people, and One filled with righteous anger. We see images of a God moved by the widow’s two mites, by the gift of oil broken over His feet. If one ascribes to a consistently Trinitarian view of God, it is necessary to recognize the experience of Christ as the experience of the Godhead. If it were not so, Christ could not be fully God, and consequently, not a sacrifice perfect enough for our redemption.
Is the Godhead truly susceptible to emotion? I will not venture to definitively answer that question, but in order for God to be the God He says He is, I think it necessary for Him to feel. To me, vulnerability to pain does not make God less God; it makes Him more God. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer said, “God lets himself get pushed out of the world on to the cross. He is weak and powerless in the world and that is precisely the way the only way, in which he helps us . . . the Bible directs us to God’s suffering; only the suffering God can help.”
Is suffering possible for a perfect God? The person of Jesus Christ seems to suggest that it is not only possible but necessary.
God's Ridiculous Love
In chapter VI (Human Pain), Lewis writes of three functions of pain. One function is to turn our thoughts toward God, to remind us that we need Him. Pain allows us to see that the happiness we have without Him is a "false happiness." No matter how successful or well-adjusted or respectable a person seems to be, any happiness they have without God is not the truly human life that we were created to experience. Lewis tip-toes through the explanation that God "troubles" these seemingly happy people in order for them to realize how much they are missing in Him; "He makes that [their happy life with their families] less sweet to them" (85 in my book). Lewis goes on to say that God accepts people coming to Himself even for the most selfish or potentially insulting reasons: This is what I would like to focus on.
It's beautiful to me that God would accept us often vile, selfish, arrogant creatures at the risk of his own respectability. Why do people often come to God? As a last resort, to avoid hell, to have some moral structure to their lives, because that's what they've been taught to do. Often, even in our class, we've discussed coming to God and Christianity as if it was assumed that the point of all this is to avoid hell--nobody wants to experience all that weeping and gnashing of teeth. But even this God accepts. Using the marriage metaphor, I know that I wouldn't want someone to marry me simply to avoid some kind of pain or because his family wanted him to or just because he wanted to be married. All of these I would find insulting or even dehumanizing--like he is treating me as a means to an end. I want him to love me, not because he is being forced by fear or circumstances but because he wants to. How often do we do this with God? "God, I'll love You if You give me this and this and this. I'll come to You if You can somehow keep me from burning eternally." And yet, even through this weak and selfish plea, God accepts us and loves us. He just wants us, even if it seems to cost Him his dignity, even if we (as we usually do) treat Him as so much less than He deserves. What great love! What great mercy! What great grace!
Let us be careful to remember that the point of Christianity is not simply to avoid hell (the fire and brimstone kind), but to know, love, and be loved by the God who created us. Jesus praying: "Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent" (John 17: 3).
It's beautiful to me that God would accept us often vile, selfish, arrogant creatures at the risk of his own respectability. Why do people often come to God? As a last resort, to avoid hell, to have some moral structure to their lives, because that's what they've been taught to do. Often, even in our class, we've discussed coming to God and Christianity as if it was assumed that the point of all this is to avoid hell--nobody wants to experience all that weeping and gnashing of teeth. But even this God accepts. Using the marriage metaphor, I know that I wouldn't want someone to marry me simply to avoid some kind of pain or because his family wanted him to or just because he wanted to be married. All of these I would find insulting or even dehumanizing--like he is treating me as a means to an end. I want him to love me, not because he is being forced by fear or circumstances but because he wants to. How often do we do this with God? "God, I'll love You if You give me this and this and this. I'll come to You if You can somehow keep me from burning eternally." And yet, even through this weak and selfish plea, God accepts us and loves us. He just wants us, even if it seems to cost Him his dignity, even if we (as we usually do) treat Him as so much less than He deserves. What great love! What great mercy! What great grace!
Let us be careful to remember that the point of Christianity is not simply to avoid hell (the fire and brimstone kind), but to know, love, and be loved by the God who created us. Jesus praying: "Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent" (John 17: 3).
Where's the line?
In chapter two of The Problem of Pain C.S. Lewis talks about God interfering with the creation. He explains how sometimes God does disturb the free will and natural laws to perform miracles. In class it was discussed that if God sometimes intervenes with a person, why not stop terrible atrocities from happening. Hitler’s taking over of Germany and the Holocaust was mentioned. I see a bit of a problem with this thinking. It makes me wonder about natural disasters like hurricane Katrina. Should God have stopped the hurricane from wiping out New Orleans? What about serial killers or school shootings? Should God intervene at those times as well? At what level of atrocity should God intervene and stop it from happening? The question I would ask is where would God draw the line?
Heaven on Earth
A world without pain. Ahh . . . how wonderful does that sound? What would you give in order to have a perfect, pain-free world? Your freedom?
Imagine for a moment, if you will, what the world would look like if there was no pain, and therefore no cause of pain - no sin. A perfect, unblemished world. Now imagine that the world is only this way because the inhabitants (us) have no free will; are controlled by a higher being and are simply doing what they are told.
Would you be willing to give up the right to make your own choices? According to Lewis, free choice and a world without pain do not walk hand-in-hand.
When we were talking about this in class, there was one thought that kept nagging at me and even now seems to be the only logical thing for me to blog about. Here's my question for you: If God were to control every aspect of our lives, if we lost our free will, would humankind still find it necessary to believe in Him? Would humankind still need Him?
Isn't our "choice" to follow God part of what makes our faith so sweet? Isn't it the knowledge that he doesn't need us and still loves us, isn't that what makes us want to be better people, to try and repay the debt that Jesus cancelled for us? If God were a puppeteer, in one essence we would need him, but we wouldn't really "need" him. Does that make sense? It's really hard to transfer from my brain to computer screen.
It's my belief that if we didn't have the "choice" to follow God, that we wouldn't want him. I think that we might even come to resent him over time, if this were the case. By giving us the choice of belief or no belief, God makes it so that when we do choose to follow Him, it is something that we want with our whole hearts.
Like it or not, it is those moments of pain, grief, (insert negative human emotion here), that we are drawn closer to God, that our faith is strengthened.
If you have made it through the above ramblings, congrats! Here is my point: A world without pain would be, in my opinion, a world without God. A world without reason to believe in a higher being because everything is being provided for us and we don't have to struggle is a world that I wouldn't want to live in. It is in pain and times of turmoil that we cry out to our God and find love. I would rather live in a fallen world and have a tested and steadfast faith than live in a perfect world and go through the motions of life with a timid, inexperienced faith.
Feel free to ask me anything about my post, as I'm not entirely sure it makes any sense to anyone except myself.
Imagine for a moment, if you will, what the world would look like if there was no pain, and therefore no cause of pain - no sin. A perfect, unblemished world. Now imagine that the world is only this way because the inhabitants (us) have no free will; are controlled by a higher being and are simply doing what they are told.
Would you be willing to give up the right to make your own choices? According to Lewis, free choice and a world without pain do not walk hand-in-hand.
When we were talking about this in class, there was one thought that kept nagging at me and even now seems to be the only logical thing for me to blog about. Here's my question for you: If God were to control every aspect of our lives, if we lost our free will, would humankind still find it necessary to believe in Him? Would humankind still need Him?
Isn't our "choice" to follow God part of what makes our faith so sweet? Isn't it the knowledge that he doesn't need us and still loves us, isn't that what makes us want to be better people, to try and repay the debt that Jesus cancelled for us? If God were a puppeteer, in one essence we would need him, but we wouldn't really "need" him. Does that make sense? It's really hard to transfer from my brain to computer screen.
It's my belief that if we didn't have the "choice" to follow God, that we wouldn't want him. I think that we might even come to resent him over time, if this were the case. By giving us the choice of belief or no belief, God makes it so that when we do choose to follow Him, it is something that we want with our whole hearts.
Like it or not, it is those moments of pain, grief, (insert negative human emotion here), that we are drawn closer to God, that our faith is strengthened.
If you have made it through the above ramblings, congrats! Here is my point: A world without pain would be, in my opinion, a world without God. A world without reason to believe in a higher being because everything is being provided for us and we don't have to struggle is a world that I wouldn't want to live in. It is in pain and times of turmoil that we cry out to our God and find love. I would rather live in a fallen world and have a tested and steadfast faith than live in a perfect world and go through the motions of life with a timid, inexperienced faith.
Feel free to ask me anything about my post, as I'm not entirely sure it makes any sense to anyone except myself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)