Does loving your enemy mean not punishing him?
Loving our enemies has to be one of the hardest things we can do as Christians. I do not understand, outside of being God, how Christ hurl curses at the guards that beat him to within an inch of his life. I do not understand how he could stand in front of the crowd that was calling out, “crucify him!” and not argue back in his own defense. Quietly, and with love he looked on them with a heart of compassion and anguish for their actions. The question above takes this one step further and asks about punishment. How can we punish someone we are suppose to love, it sounds contrary to itself, however; using the argument that Lewis uses it can be understood. If we are to love others as we love ourselves, then we are also to treat others as we would treat ourselves. As Lewis says, “…loving myself does not mean that I ought not to subject myself to punishment- even to death. If you had committed a murder, the right Christian thing to do would be to give yourself up to the police and be hanged. It is therefore, in my opinion, perfectly right for a Christian judge to sentence a man to death or a Christian solider to kill an enemy.” (Lewis, 1952, p.118)
Lewis states that Christ did not preach anything new in regards to morality. What is the real job of every moral teacher?
I believe the real job of every moral teacher is to teach morality not as something that is new, but morality as it has always existed. New morality is adjusted morality to fit the culture of that time, and more often than not a skewed morality that has been tweaked to fit that people group or culture to make them feel better about themselves. I also think that a good moral teacher should help people understand that morals not only exist for the protection and betterment of others, but they also pertain to the wellbeing of the individual and the relationship between that individual and their creator. The metaphor of the sea worthy ship was useful in helping me understand that I may look good on the outside and may be going the right direction in the convoy of life, but If I cannot steer or control this vessel, what good am I to the convoy, better yet how much damage can I do to the other ships (people) around me if I don’t make sure the inside of me is taken care of as well.
Lewis states that charity (giving to the poor) is an essential part of Christianity. How can we gauge our level of charity according to Lewis?
I really appreciate what Lewis had to say about giving to the poor and to those in need, specifically when he said, “I do not believe that one can settle how much we ought to give. I am afraid the only safe rule is to give more than we can spare. In other words if our expenditures on comforts, luxuries, amusements, etc., is up to the standard common among those with the same income as our own, we are probably giving away to little. If our charities do not at all pinch or hamper us, I should say they are too small.” This is a great way of looking at it. I remember the story in the bible about Jesus sitting in the temple watching people. The Pharisees came in and gave an offering out of their overflow or out of their excess, but a woman came in and gave 2 small coins, all she had. Christ noticing her told his disciples that she had given much more than they because she had given everything she had and the Pharisees had given that which did not hurt them. This is a wonderful thing to consider the next time we give to the poor.
What are the two things we can do to make loving our enemies easier?
I think the first thing we can do is to understand that before we accepted Christ, we to were enemies to God. Yet He loved us not because of what we were or what we could do, but because of what we could become through Him. Not that our enemies will be come something through us, rather they will become something useful through God. The second thing that can make it easier for us to love our enemies is that we are commanded to love others as we love ourselves. We do not walk around hating ourselves. We may hate our situation or the things that have happened to us, but that is not self hate, that is a whole other matter. I believe there is a third issue we must consider that being the love of God for our enemies. We may feel that sense of hate or distain toward those who would harm us or have harmed us, but God still desires that person to be broken and surrender to Him and his will for their life. Because of our love for our father, we to ought to love those He loves.
In Lewis' mind, why is the command 'Though shalt not Kill' not a moratorium against fighting in war or the death penalty?
I found this a very interesting thought process. I did not realize, although I should have, that the Greek usage of the word “kill” is different from that of “murder”. The Greek word for “kill” is apokteinO and the Greek for murder is phoneuO. Christ used two different words in his teachings about killing. To murder with intent, with hatred, with disgust for the other person is wrong. Killing for reasons of war, or judgment carry with them different motives. We must not kill for the enjoyment of it or for the retribution of it. Some of us will find ourselves in situations where we must make that chilling and difficult choice, whether it be war or self defense, the underlying factor is that we recognize that, “Even while we kill and punish we must try to feel about the enemy as we feel about ourselves – to wish that he were not bad, to hope that he may, in this world or another, be cured: in fact, to wish his good.” (Lewis, 1952, p.120) Certainly this is difficult to contemplate, and I pray that I may never be faced with the situation where I have to choose.
References
Lewis, C. S. (1952). Mere christianity. New York: HarperCollins
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Paper #5 - Sin, does it mean anything anymore?
The website article where I retrieved this information was from USA Today.com The basic premise of this article was to explore the topic of sin and whether or not it still hold any specific meaning in today’s culture. The article was given in a fair manner by not only supplying survey information against the validity of the existence of “sin”, but also providing interview and speech quotes for its existence and the dire need to understand that it has real consequences if not addressed in the proper manor.
Of the surveys submitted, it was clear that the concept of “sin” and its effects and ramifications on society has become a backburner issue. “David Kinnaman, president of Barna Research, a company in Ventura, Calif., that tracks Christian trends, draws a similar conclusion: "People are quick to toe the line on traditional thinking" that there is sin "but interpret that reality in a very personal and self-congratulatory manner" — I have to do what's best for me; I am not as sinful as most.” (Grossman, 2008,) by taking such a view we underestimate the power sin has in our lives and what that kind of mindset can actually cost us in the long run.
The article also examined how ministers in today’s society speak about sin. The comment was made that sin is taboo and it is not something that most people like to discuss, but today’s ministers also understand that it must be talked about in order for the rest of the story to make sense. One popular preacher has decided to not talk about sin, but rather to talk about change. Joel Olsteen was quoted as saying, "Most people already know what they're doing wrong. When I get them to church, I want to tell them that you can change." (Grossman, 2008,) For all practical purposes I agree that we should tell people they can change, however; I would say that most people understand that they can change; but what they need to understand is why they must change.
Mark Driscoll was also interviewed and his take on the taboo word of sin was this, “…a little talk of hellfire, so out of fashion these days, would do the world good.” He defines sin as "anything contrary to God's will. People assume the way they are is normal, not that something has gone terribly wrong, and this world is abnormal…without an idea of sin, Easter is meaningless." (Grossman, 2008,)
Sin must be recognized as the poison that it is. If it is not dealt with according to the plan laid out in the word of God, then it is truly not dealt with, only forgotten or ignored. That kind of mindset will only last for so long.
References
Grossman, C. L., (2008). Usatoday: Has the “notion of sin” been lost? Retrieved August
29, 2009, from http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-03-19-sin_N.htm
Of the surveys submitted, it was clear that the concept of “sin” and its effects and ramifications on society has become a backburner issue. “David Kinnaman, president of Barna Research, a company in Ventura, Calif., that tracks Christian trends, draws a similar conclusion: "People are quick to toe the line on traditional thinking" that there is sin "but interpret that reality in a very personal and self-congratulatory manner" — I have to do what's best for me; I am not as sinful as most.” (Grossman, 2008,) by taking such a view we underestimate the power sin has in our lives and what that kind of mindset can actually cost us in the long run.
The article also examined how ministers in today’s society speak about sin. The comment was made that sin is taboo and it is not something that most people like to discuss, but today’s ministers also understand that it must be talked about in order for the rest of the story to make sense. One popular preacher has decided to not talk about sin, but rather to talk about change. Joel Olsteen was quoted as saying, "Most people already know what they're doing wrong. When I get them to church, I want to tell them that you can change." (Grossman, 2008,) For all practical purposes I agree that we should tell people they can change, however; I would say that most people understand that they can change; but what they need to understand is why they must change.
Mark Driscoll was also interviewed and his take on the taboo word of sin was this, “…a little talk of hellfire, so out of fashion these days, would do the world good.” He defines sin as "anything contrary to God's will. People assume the way they are is normal, not that something has gone terribly wrong, and this world is abnormal…without an idea of sin, Easter is meaningless." (Grossman, 2008,)
Sin must be recognized as the poison that it is. If it is not dealt with according to the plan laid out in the word of God, then it is truly not dealt with, only forgotten or ignored. That kind of mindset will only last for so long.
References
Grossman, C. L., (2008). Usatoday: Has the “notion of sin” been lost? Retrieved August
29, 2009, from http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-03-19-sin_N.htm
Paper #4 - What Christians Believe
In book one, Lewis makes the statement that his, “…argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how ad I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called in unjust?” (Lewis, 1943, p.38) This argument alone is a great concept for one to investigate.
Romans 5:12-13 says, “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 before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.” (NIV) Because the law was brought into the world to expose our sin, begs the question or argument that our sin is in contention with something. The notion that our sin needs to be pointed out and exposed, suggests that our sin goes against a presupposed condition, that condition being goodness or right standing with a higher power (God). If the Law was given by God or determined by God to hold us accountable of our sin, and to bring us back to our previous position with Him, it stands to reason that God is good, sin is bad and the law helps us determine between the two. Without the law how would one know that they are in sin?
Chapter two speaks about good verses evil and how people view the two. Lewis states that the moment we say one is wrong and the other is right, we insert a third qualitative element that determines the difference between them. “But since the two powers are judged by this standard, then this standard, or the Being who made this standard, is further back and higher up than either of them, and He will be the real God. In fact, what we meant by calling them good and bad turns out to be that one of them is in a right relation to the real ultimate God and the other in a wrong relation to Him.” (Lewis, 1943, p.43) How could we know good to be right unless there is something to match it up against? Without light, one would not know what darkness is.
In chapter three, Lewis speaks about some people that say things like, “I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.” Lewis so wittingly points out how absurd and shallow this statement is. Understanding the context of this statement and the ramifications of such a claim do much to back up the claim. A “great” moral teacher would never be so foolish as to claim to be something he is not let alone God. It would go against his morality to do so.
Lewis goes on in chapter four about how we need God to help us walk the road of redemption back to him because the very “badness” that took us away or separated us from God, keeps us from walking that road on our own. But because that road of surrender, repentance, and dying to our sinful nature go against God’s character and nature, he could not walk that road. It then became necessary for God to become man thus the birth of Jesus Christ. Although fully God, He lived as man in the flesh, subjected to the same temptations and suffering that we are. Through Christ in the flesh, God was and is able to walk us down that road of redemption. Christ acts as the tour guide to show us the way, and walk with us as we go.
Finally in chapter five, Lewis makes the fundamental distinction between salvation by works verses salvation by grace through faith. It is important for us to understand this because it is a bedrock teaching of Christianity. “…the Christian is in a different position from other people who are trying to be good. They hope, by being good, to please God if there is one; or, if they think there is not, at least they hope to deserve approval from good men. But the Christian thinks any good he does comes from the Christ-life inside him. He does not think God will love us because we are good, but that God will make us good because He loves us; just as the roof of a greenhouse does not attract the sun because it is bright, but becomes bright because the sun shines on it.” Lewis, 1943, p.63) It is through the life of Christ that lives in us that God would be willing to grant us salvation and remove our deserved punishment of death and eternal separation from Him.
Resources
Lewis, C. S. (1952). Mere christianity. New York: HarperCollins
Romans 5:12-13 says, “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 before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.” (NIV) Because the law was brought into the world to expose our sin, begs the question or argument that our sin is in contention with something. The notion that our sin needs to be pointed out and exposed, suggests that our sin goes against a presupposed condition, that condition being goodness or right standing with a higher power (God). If the Law was given by God or determined by God to hold us accountable of our sin, and to bring us back to our previous position with Him, it stands to reason that God is good, sin is bad and the law helps us determine between the two. Without the law how would one know that they are in sin?
Chapter two speaks about good verses evil and how people view the two. Lewis states that the moment we say one is wrong and the other is right, we insert a third qualitative element that determines the difference between them. “But since the two powers are judged by this standard, then this standard, or the Being who made this standard, is further back and higher up than either of them, and He will be the real God. In fact, what we meant by calling them good and bad turns out to be that one of them is in a right relation to the real ultimate God and the other in a wrong relation to Him.” (Lewis, 1943, p.43) How could we know good to be right unless there is something to match it up against? Without light, one would not know what darkness is.
In chapter three, Lewis speaks about some people that say things like, “I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.” Lewis so wittingly points out how absurd and shallow this statement is. Understanding the context of this statement and the ramifications of such a claim do much to back up the claim. A “great” moral teacher would never be so foolish as to claim to be something he is not let alone God. It would go against his morality to do so.
Lewis goes on in chapter four about how we need God to help us walk the road of redemption back to him because the very “badness” that took us away or separated us from God, keeps us from walking that road on our own. But because that road of surrender, repentance, and dying to our sinful nature go against God’s character and nature, he could not walk that road. It then became necessary for God to become man thus the birth of Jesus Christ. Although fully God, He lived as man in the flesh, subjected to the same temptations and suffering that we are. Through Christ in the flesh, God was and is able to walk us down that road of redemption. Christ acts as the tour guide to show us the way, and walk with us as we go.
Finally in chapter five, Lewis makes the fundamental distinction between salvation by works verses salvation by grace through faith. It is important for us to understand this because it is a bedrock teaching of Christianity. “…the Christian is in a different position from other people who are trying to be good. They hope, by being good, to please God if there is one; or, if they think there is not, at least they hope to deserve approval from good men. But the Christian thinks any good he does comes from the Christ-life inside him. He does not think God will love us because we are good, but that God will make us good because He loves us; just as the roof of a greenhouse does not attract the sun because it is bright, but becomes bright because the sun shines on it.” Lewis, 1943, p.63) It is through the life of Christ that lives in us that God would be willing to grant us salvation and remove our deserved punishment of death and eternal separation from Him.
Resources
Lewis, C. S. (1952). Mere christianity. New York: HarperCollins
Paper #3 Creation Museum
Question: Explain what you believe is the Christian view of creation. Why do you think this article attacks a Christian worldview of the nature of Creation? What is your response in defense of the Christian worldview and why is it crucial?
Scientific American Magazine is dedicated to helping readers be informed about science and it advancements by helping people “focus on the future of science and technology.” That statement in and of itself does not indicate anything bad, because we need science and technology. It only becomes an issue when science and technology are glorified and the “focus” becomes more about justifying and preserving our existence through science rather than recognizing our existence is of God and living our lives in accordance with that understanding.
In the Scientific American article/podcast titled, “Saddle up that stegosaurus, a visit to the creation museum.” College professor and expert on natural history museums, Stephan Asma is interviewed by Steve Mirsky of Scientific American about a recent visit to the Creation Museum. It is apparent in this interview that Asma does not hold a Christian worldview. In the interview, while talking about Ken Ham, the curator of the Creation Museum, Mirsky talks about a fascinating conversation that was had between Asma and Ham about creationism, and Asma had this to say. “…I think, if you don’t enter into the creationist logic too far, it is really easy to go well, you know, crazy, crackpot, insane. But if you actually try to, like I did, have a reasonable conversation with somebody like Ken Ham, you feel that there is a kind of logic there. It just begins from very bizarre premises.”
The beginning is where the story starts. It is where the foundations are laid to a solid worldview. Without a solid foundation the worldview we build will one day come crashing down around us. Asma clearly believes that the Christian worldview has a bizarre foundation. I believe however, that if Asma would continue to have those reasonable conversations with the like of Ham, he too would begin to understand that it is his foundation that is bizarre and needs to be rebuilt.
Resources
Scientific american magazine. (2009). Scientificamerican. Retrieved August 20, 2009,
from http://scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=FDACA16A-E7F2-99DF-323D104DD12EFCAE
Scientific American Magazine is dedicated to helping readers be informed about science and it advancements by helping people “focus on the future of science and technology.” That statement in and of itself does not indicate anything bad, because we need science and technology. It only becomes an issue when science and technology are glorified and the “focus” becomes more about justifying and preserving our existence through science rather than recognizing our existence is of God and living our lives in accordance with that understanding.
In the Scientific American article/podcast titled, “Saddle up that stegosaurus, a visit to the creation museum.” College professor and expert on natural history museums, Stephan Asma is interviewed by Steve Mirsky of Scientific American about a recent visit to the Creation Museum. It is apparent in this interview that Asma does not hold a Christian worldview. In the interview, while talking about Ken Ham, the curator of the Creation Museum, Mirsky talks about a fascinating conversation that was had between Asma and Ham about creationism, and Asma had this to say. “…I think, if you don’t enter into the creationist logic too far, it is really easy to go well, you know, crazy, crackpot, insane. But if you actually try to, like I did, have a reasonable conversation with somebody like Ken Ham, you feel that there is a kind of logic there. It just begins from very bizarre premises.”
The beginning is where the story starts. It is where the foundations are laid to a solid worldview. Without a solid foundation the worldview we build will one day come crashing down around us. Asma clearly believes that the Christian worldview has a bizarre foundation. I believe however, that if Asma would continue to have those reasonable conversations with the like of Ham, he too would begin to understand that it is his foundation that is bizarre and needs to be rebuilt.
Resources
Scientific american magazine. (2009). Scientificamerican. Retrieved August 20, 2009,
from http://scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=FDACA16A-E7F2-99DF-323D104DD12EFCAE
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Paper #2 - The Law of Nature
Professors comments are italicized
Do you agree with Lewis in his observation of the existence of a Universal “Law of Human Nature,” an innate sense of right and wrong? Do you agree with Lewis when he says that none of us are keeping the Law of Nature? How do you think Lewis would respond to contemporary proponents of moral relativism?
Concerning Lewis’ statement of the “Law of Human Nature”. I would have to agree with him. You can see evidence of this just about everywhere you go. The vast expanses that separate humanity here on earth cannot seem to separate us in this one truth. The Law of Nature is written on our hearts. Genesis 1:26 says this, “Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them role over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground” (NIV). 1 Samuel 16:7, also says, “But the LORD said to Samuel, "Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart" (NIV). This does not mean that we look like God in the physical sense; rather our moral compass is designed to reflect that of God’s.
In other words, if God is unconcerned with what we as humanity look like on the outside, and is more concerned with what is at the core of us, what we believe to be true in our hearts. It makes sense then to say that God instilled in us the moral capacity to know between right and wrong and to reflect what his moral values are. Good argument
I would also agree with Lewis that no one is keeping the Law of Nature. As much as we would like to believe that we are decent people, we all break the moral law, and I believe it is due to a vast amount of reasons, but chiefly among them is sin. The Law of Human Nature; a certain way in which we believe we are to behave, is another way of quoting Philippians 2:4, “Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others” (NIV). From the beginning, God has placed this instinct into our hearts, yet on a daily basis we are most often more concerned about ourselves than with others.
Moral relativism simply means that morality is relative to an individual or a specific culture, and that there is no over-arching moral standard for humanity. I think Lewis would take issue with this viewpoint. I also believe he would approach it by asking them to explore, “the moral teachings of, say the, ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans. What will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own” (Lewis, 1952. p.6).
Reference
Lewis, C. S. (1952). Mere Christianity. New York: HarperCollins
Good use of Scripture to validate your points.
William McGuffey, author of the McGuffey's Readers, which were the mainstay of America's public school system from 1836 till the 1920's, wrote: "Erase all thought and fear of God from a community, and selfishness and sensuality would absorb the whole man."
Apart from a God consciousness, I wonder, can anyone really ever know what is moral or not…that is, if all we have within us is selfishness and sensuality, can moral thought even exist ???
Do you agree with Lewis in his observation of the existence of a Universal “Law of Human Nature,” an innate sense of right and wrong? Do you agree with Lewis when he says that none of us are keeping the Law of Nature? How do you think Lewis would respond to contemporary proponents of moral relativism?
Concerning Lewis’ statement of the “Law of Human Nature”. I would have to agree with him. You can see evidence of this just about everywhere you go. The vast expanses that separate humanity here on earth cannot seem to separate us in this one truth. The Law of Nature is written on our hearts. Genesis 1:26 says this, “Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them role over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground” (NIV). 1 Samuel 16:7, also says, “But the LORD said to Samuel, "Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart" (NIV). This does not mean that we look like God in the physical sense; rather our moral compass is designed to reflect that of God’s.
In other words, if God is unconcerned with what we as humanity look like on the outside, and is more concerned with what is at the core of us, what we believe to be true in our hearts. It makes sense then to say that God instilled in us the moral capacity to know between right and wrong and to reflect what his moral values are. Good argument
I would also agree with Lewis that no one is keeping the Law of Nature. As much as we would like to believe that we are decent people, we all break the moral law, and I believe it is due to a vast amount of reasons, but chiefly among them is sin. The Law of Human Nature; a certain way in which we believe we are to behave, is another way of quoting Philippians 2:4, “Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others” (NIV). From the beginning, God has placed this instinct into our hearts, yet on a daily basis we are most often more concerned about ourselves than with others.
Moral relativism simply means that morality is relative to an individual or a specific culture, and that there is no over-arching moral standard for humanity. I think Lewis would take issue with this viewpoint. I also believe he would approach it by asking them to explore, “the moral teachings of, say the, ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans. What will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own” (Lewis, 1952. p.6).
Reference
Lewis, C. S. (1952). Mere Christianity. New York: HarperCollins
Good use of Scripture to validate your points.
William McGuffey, author of the McGuffey's Readers, which were the mainstay of America's public school system from 1836 till the 1920's, wrote: "Erase all thought and fear of God from a community, and selfishness and sensuality would absorb the whole man."
Apart from a God consciousness, I wonder, can anyone really ever know what is moral or not…that is, if all we have within us is selfishness and sensuality, can moral thought even exist ???
1st Paper for Defending the Christian Faith -"TRUTH"
Here is my first "short" paper for my new class "Defending the Christian Faith", with the bonus of my Professors comments in italicized text for those of you who are crazy enough to sit down to read my stuff. LOL
The source I used for this summary is a website I stumbled on while searching for an article on “Truth”. This website is created and updated by a self proclaimed Satanist and aggressive liberal named Vexen Crabtree. The website is comprehensive in nature and has a lot of information on it concerning Satanism and Atheism.
Here is a general summary of what he believes and what the website is about. “The basics of Satanism have always existed. The only thing that is new is the formal organization of a religion based on the universal traits of man. For centuries, magnificent structures of stone, concrete, mortar, and steel have been devoted to man's abstinence. It is high time that human beings stopped fighting themselves, and devoted their time to building temples designed for man's indulgences.” Dangerous stuff huh? Another reason why my kids do not have a computer in their bedroom…it is in the family room in plain view…the possibility of stumbling across such junk is too easy!
Even though times have changed, and always will, man remains basically the same. For two thousand years man has done penance for something he never should have had to feel guilty about in the first place. We are tired of denying ourselves the pleasures of life, which we deserve. [...] Why not have a religion based on indulgence? Certainly, it is consistent with the nature of the beast. We are no longer supplicating weaklings trembling before an unmerciful "God" who cares not whether we live or die. We are self-respecting, prideful people - we are Satanists!" “The Satanic Bible, Book of Lucifer 3:para 37-38” Lord, help us.
It is very disturbing to read through this information and imagine that people actually subscribe to this to called “truth”. As I juxtapose this kind of information with what we read in the bible or even what we are currently reading now for class, I can’t imagine pouring my life into such nonsense as Satanism. They obviously want to believe in something, to worship something; I just think their worldview is messed up and for lack of better understanding and knowledge; they subscribe to what makes them feel good about themselves.
I also believe and understand that most of these groups follow more of a secret society format, so I ask why, if they claim this to be the truth, does it have to be a secret. Why not proclaim it to the world that these “truths” they claim are real, why operate in secret? I believe it goes back to what Lewis had to say about the Law of Nature. They know what they are doing is wrong, they know that the majority of society will not subscribe to such folly and evil, therefore they keep it on the down low and under the bleachers so to speak. Their guilt compounds their desire to make them feel better about themselves. Folks that subscribe to these kinds of cults and “religious” societies are misguided and uninformed and that is where Christianity comes in.
The source I used for this summary is a website I stumbled on while searching for an article on “Truth”. This website is created and updated by a self proclaimed Satanist and aggressive liberal named Vexen Crabtree. The website is comprehensive in nature and has a lot of information on it concerning Satanism and Atheism.
Here is a general summary of what he believes and what the website is about. “The basics of Satanism have always existed. The only thing that is new is the formal organization of a religion based on the universal traits of man. For centuries, magnificent structures of stone, concrete, mortar, and steel have been devoted to man's abstinence. It is high time that human beings stopped fighting themselves, and devoted their time to building temples designed for man's indulgences.” Dangerous stuff huh? Another reason why my kids do not have a computer in their bedroom…it is in the family room in plain view…the possibility of stumbling across such junk is too easy!
Even though times have changed, and always will, man remains basically the same. For two thousand years man has done penance for something he never should have had to feel guilty about in the first place. We are tired of denying ourselves the pleasures of life, which we deserve. [...] Why not have a religion based on indulgence? Certainly, it is consistent with the nature of the beast. We are no longer supplicating weaklings trembling before an unmerciful "God" who cares not whether we live or die. We are self-respecting, prideful people - we are Satanists!" “The Satanic Bible, Book of Lucifer 3:para 37-38” Lord, help us.
It is very disturbing to read through this information and imagine that people actually subscribe to this to called “truth”. As I juxtapose this kind of information with what we read in the bible or even what we are currently reading now for class, I can’t imagine pouring my life into such nonsense as Satanism. They obviously want to believe in something, to worship something; I just think their worldview is messed up and for lack of better understanding and knowledge; they subscribe to what makes them feel good about themselves.
I also believe and understand that most of these groups follow more of a secret society format, so I ask why, if they claim this to be the truth, does it have to be a secret. Why not proclaim it to the world that these “truths” they claim are real, why operate in secret? I believe it goes back to what Lewis had to say about the Law of Nature. They know what they are doing is wrong, they know that the majority of society will not subscribe to such folly and evil, therefore they keep it on the down low and under the bleachers so to speak. Their guilt compounds their desire to make them feel better about themselves. Folks that subscribe to these kinds of cults and “religious” societies are misguided and uninformed and that is where Christianity comes in.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Time with C.S. Lewis
I am currently studying C.S. Lewis in class, and I am going through his book Mere Christianity. I will be posting my papers here as some of you have asked to see what I am learning about. This paper is meant to pull one substantial observation from each of the five chapters of book two of Mere Christianity and comment on it.
In book one, Lewis makes the statement that his, “…argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how ad I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called in unjust?” (Lewis, 1943, p.38) This argument alone is a great concept for one to investigate.
Romans 5:12-13 says, “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 before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.” (NIV) Because the law was brought into the world to expose our sin, begs the question or argument that our sin is in contention with something. The notion that our sin needs to be pointed out and exposed, suggests that our sin goes against a presupposed condition, that condition being goodness or right standing with a higher power (God). If the Law was given by God or determined by God to hold us accountable of our sin, and to bring us back to our previous position with Him, it stands to reason that God is good, sin is bad and the law helps us determine between the two. Without the law how would one know that they are in sin?
Chapter two speaks about good verses evil and how people view the two. Lewis states that the moment we say one is wrong and the other is right, we insert a third qualitative element that determines the difference between them. “But since the two powers are judged by this standard, then this standard, or the Being who made this standard, is further back and higher up than either of them, and He will be the real God. In fact, what we meant by calling them good and bad turns out to be that one of them is in a right relation to the real ultimate God and the other in a wrong relation to Him.” (Lewis, 1943, p.43) How could we know good to be right unless there is something to match it up against? Without light, one would not know what darkness is.
In chapter three, Lewis speaks about some people that say things like, “I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.” Lewis so wittingly points out how absurd and shallow this statement is. Understanding the context of this statement and the ramifications of such a claim do much to back up the claim. A “great” moral teacher would never be so foolish as to claim to be something he is not let alone God. It would go against his morality to do so.
Lewis goes on in chapter four about how we need God to help us walk the road of redemption back to him because the very “badness” that took us away or separated us from God, keeps us from walking that road on our own. But because that road of surrender, repentance, and dying to our sinful nature go against God’s character and nature, he could not walk that road. It then became necessary for God to become man thus the birth of Jesus Christ. Although fully God, He lived as man in the flesh, subjected to the same temptations and suffering that we are. Through Christ in the flesh, God was and is able to walk us down that road of redemption. Christ acts as the tour guide to show us the way, and walk with us as we go.
Finally in chapter five, Lewis makes the fundamental distinction between salvation by works verses salvation by grace through faith. It is important for us to understand this because it is a bedrock teaching of Christianity. “…the Christian is in a different position from other people who are trying to be good. They hope, by being good, to please God if there is one; or, if they think there is not, at least they hope to deserve approval from good men. But the Christian thinks any good he does comes from the Christ-life inside him. He does not think God will love us because we are good, but that God will make us good because He loves us; just as the roof of a greenhouse does not attract the sun because it is bright, but becomes bright because the sun shines on it.” Lewis, 1943, p.63) It is through the life of Christ that lives in us that God would be willing to grant us salvation and remove our deserved punishment of death and eternal separation from Him.
Resources
Lewis, C. S. (1952). Mere christianity. New York: HarperCollins
In book one, Lewis makes the statement that his, “…argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how ad I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called in unjust?” (Lewis, 1943, p.38) This argument alone is a great concept for one to investigate.
Romans 5:12-13 says, “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 before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.” (NIV) Because the law was brought into the world to expose our sin, begs the question or argument that our sin is in contention with something. The notion that our sin needs to be pointed out and exposed, suggests that our sin goes against a presupposed condition, that condition being goodness or right standing with a higher power (God). If the Law was given by God or determined by God to hold us accountable of our sin, and to bring us back to our previous position with Him, it stands to reason that God is good, sin is bad and the law helps us determine between the two. Without the law how would one know that they are in sin?
Chapter two speaks about good verses evil and how people view the two. Lewis states that the moment we say one is wrong and the other is right, we insert a third qualitative element that determines the difference between them. “But since the two powers are judged by this standard, then this standard, or the Being who made this standard, is further back and higher up than either of them, and He will be the real God. In fact, what we meant by calling them good and bad turns out to be that one of them is in a right relation to the real ultimate God and the other in a wrong relation to Him.” (Lewis, 1943, p.43) How could we know good to be right unless there is something to match it up against? Without light, one would not know what darkness is.
In chapter three, Lewis speaks about some people that say things like, “I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.” Lewis so wittingly points out how absurd and shallow this statement is. Understanding the context of this statement and the ramifications of such a claim do much to back up the claim. A “great” moral teacher would never be so foolish as to claim to be something he is not let alone God. It would go against his morality to do so.
Lewis goes on in chapter four about how we need God to help us walk the road of redemption back to him because the very “badness” that took us away or separated us from God, keeps us from walking that road on our own. But because that road of surrender, repentance, and dying to our sinful nature go against God’s character and nature, he could not walk that road. It then became necessary for God to become man thus the birth of Jesus Christ. Although fully God, He lived as man in the flesh, subjected to the same temptations and suffering that we are. Through Christ in the flesh, God was and is able to walk us down that road of redemption. Christ acts as the tour guide to show us the way, and walk with us as we go.
Finally in chapter five, Lewis makes the fundamental distinction between salvation by works verses salvation by grace through faith. It is important for us to understand this because it is a bedrock teaching of Christianity. “…the Christian is in a different position from other people who are trying to be good. They hope, by being good, to please God if there is one; or, if they think there is not, at least they hope to deserve approval from good men. But the Christian thinks any good he does comes from the Christ-life inside him. He does not think God will love us because we are good, but that God will make us good because He loves us; just as the roof of a greenhouse does not attract the sun because it is bright, but becomes bright because the sun shines on it.” Lewis, 1943, p.63) It is through the life of Christ that lives in us that God would be willing to grant us salvation and remove our deserved punishment of death and eternal separation from Him.
Resources
Lewis, C. S. (1952). Mere christianity. New York: HarperCollins
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)