Discussion: Mere Christianity

[Sylvia Lee]

Let's discuss, for a moment, the other side of Human Nature: the part of Human Nature where greed and pride arise, and where people hurt and kill each other out of hate or greed or passion for blood.

Take a popular reality show, like Survivor (which, I'll admit, I've never watched, but I believe I've heard enough about it to get a general idea). I imagine that the contenstants start out friendly enough, just getting to know one another and making friends. But soon enough, the backbiting begins, the search for one anothers' weaknesses and taking advantage of those weaknesses to come out on top. "Friends" are betrayed and feelings are hurt.

In Lord of the Flies, the same sort of things happens: the dark side of Human Nature takes over until no humanity is left.

What is the difference between savagery and civilization?

Every great civilization throughout the history of the world has eventually fallen. And why? I believe that in every case it was primarilly caused by a failing moral code.

Was it inherent human nature that caused this decay, or was it something beyond ourselves?

If there truly is a human conscience within each of us prompting us to do good and act with fairness and kindness, then it makes sense that another opposing "law" would also exist: that because of our great potential to rise in goodness and greatness, so equally is our potential for decadence and the eventual fall.

So here's some inverted logic for y'all: by arguing the existence of the Devil, then can one argue the existence of God?

[Stanley Anderson]

[Monica]

[Stanley Anderson]

[nomad]

[rusmeister]

Well of course. But there is something universal that Lewis was putting his finger on, even if he used the wrong words or maybe not the best examples (try and do better!). And the question is, do you acknowledge that or not? If not, put the book down because nothing else will follow. At each stage of assumption, you either accept the logic or you don't, and if you don't, it's no good picking it up at a later point and then tearing down his arguments. Our sense of fair play is a fundamental starting point.
But Lewis said several times in those early stages of the argument something like "I am not within 1,000 miles of the God of Christianity." The UMC was stage one, and the chain that leads it to God is something like stage 4 or 5. (My copy has been in the hands of a Russian enquirer who wanted to read it in the original English for almost a year now, so I can't quote or be specific.)
So maybe we could collectively come up with a better way to express what Lewis was trying to express? (Although I doubt it) Because the problem seems to be much more in semantics than in logic. The UMC is just as visible today in the conduct between nations (in the various claims of, say, the American and Iranian governments, for example), as in Lewis's examples. Who says, of their own free will without any threat of force "We don't have a right to...(anything we think we have a right to)"?

Are my words helping my idea come through, or are they just getting in the way?

[WolfVanZandt]

I question whether there can be a good argument for God outside of direct experience. The same can be said of Mother Theresa, Jennifer Lopez, or Arnold Schwarzenegger (or however it's spelled). The problem is that they're all singular entities and pure logic doesn't do very well with singular entities.

[Badger]

[/img][/b]Dear Friends,
Are we here to discuss or to argue? If we are arguing. then we have [ or are in the process of] proving some part of Lewis' Law of Nature. In other words "why do things we do make sense? If they do there must be some form or "rule" or " Law" or we wouldn't agree that we disagree, agreed?
So let's move on into some really wonder filled area such as: what if there is a a son of God and he was actually here on this planet. If so, was he crazy or mean? If not then why are we text messaging and spending our time writing to this space at all? Oh perhaps, we're back to the Law of Nature.

yours in Christ
Badger in Miane

[Sylvia Lee]

I thought we were discussing...I certainly don't sense any hostility here, in any case.

I don't consider it wholly inapporpriate that were have spent so much time on the first chapter; after all, it is the first chapter, and establishes the foundation for the rest of the book.

If you want to move on, though, go ahead: share your thoughts on the next chapter and then we'll discuss it.

I would start, but my copy of Mere Christianity is currently packed away for the move in two days.

[rusmeister]

[nomad]

I definitely agree that there is a universal moral code. I have thought that Lewis' example of a man shipwrecked and floating out on the ocean, who hungers for food as proof that his race normally eats food, could be expanded. That man would look around him and see nothing but water. But out there somewhere, there is land. Out there somewhere, is home.

That may not live up to the logic required. It's an analogy and there is nothing in the man's condition to prove that there is land... except maybe that he can't survive long floating on the water. And the fact that he has legs made for walking and running... ok, so maybe it does live up to the logic requirement. Obviously I'm still thinking this one through.

On to the next chapter, then. I'm going to have to dig my copy out of a box, too.

[rusmeister]

Yes, nomad, that is exactly it!
That analogy is as solid evidence as you could ever hope to find that our thirst for meaning, justice and rationality is proof that it exists somewhere. A person who can't see that and I are always going to talk past each other.
It's nice to see there is still some common sense in occupied Thulcandra! :)

[nomad]

Glad you agree rusmeister. I think the difficulty in working from an analogy like that is that then you have to show how our spiritual selves are like that isolated man on the ocean. To me it is undeniably obvious that all mankind longs for something more. As Lewis points out (I think in MC, my copy is still in a box), everything in our experience is more than it appears to be. Even the simplest things are in fact quite complicated. And not just in the physical sense (I believe he used the example of a child at play). It would, then, be odd if everything in life were more than it seemed, and yet life itself was not.

Somehow, we know that there is more than we see in this world- that there is a more perfect standard of justice than ours. That there is a more perfect love. And we know we should try to measure up to that better standard. We want to experience that perfect love.

[WolfVanZandt]

In my experience, when people suspect that there's "something more" than they perceive, they avoid the issue. They're afraid of things that lie just outside their grasp.

And the idea of perfect love is terrifying because it would require an answer, and people aren't generally willing to answer that particular question.

[Kolbitar]