What Lies Behind The Law

In this chapter CS Lewis talks about why we should follow the moral law. He tells us that we simply are told to follow this moral law. One might think that they have no reason to try and benefit society unless it specifically benefits themselves. this is a big reason why many do not follow the moral law. They find that they might not recieve personal gain in doing so. Then there is no incentive. Why do something thats difficult for nothing? The answer given by CS Lewis is that we are simply told to do so. We are told to follow this moral law and we should, especially if we believe the world was created by a higher being. When we bring religion into the picture we have so much more responsibility. As Christians we are called by God to follow the moral law. We are called to act in accordance with what is best for society. There is no guarantee of personal gain here on earth, but we have already been promised eternal life. the least we can do is follow him faithfully. When we live in accordance with God's law we find that our lives are better than when we don't. Living according to God's law is hard, but worth it. But even if we didn't recieve the promise of personal gain we should simply live according to the moral law because we are commanded to do so.

The Reality Of The Law

This chapter explains how the moral law is an actual thing instead of something just made up by ourselves. CS Lewis writes that each man considers others to be doing decent things when it benefits himself. He shows how when you go to the train station and someone else takes the seat you wanted you are irritated by that because the action did not benefit you. Here he establishes that we consider good things that benefit ourselves. He goes on to say that what would be good is something that benefits the society as a whole. If it benefits everyone it is good. From here he goes on to explain how this shows that the moral law is an actual thing because it is something that doesn't simply model behavior. When you drop a rock it falls. That is called gravity. CS Lewis states that the rock can't simply think, "Oh I have to fall because those are my orders!" He states that the law of gravity is just simply something it does. When it comes to the moral law we know that men should be unselfish, for example, but this can't be based off of something we simply do because a lot of men don't. there are a lot of people that disobey this law everyday, but it is still included in the moral law. This shows that the moral law is not something made by man off of his observations like the law of nature is. It is something more that comes from something greater rooted within us. That is how we know it is good to be unselfish even though so many people are not. The goodness of the moral law is above human creation and observation.

Some Objections

This chapter explains what the Moral law is. It takes us through the logic of separating the moral law from a simple instinct. CS Lewis states that the instincts we have guide us through the moral law but instinct is not our moral law. He gives the example of a musical tune and how the moral law represents the tune. It tells us at whichever time which note is right to play and which note is not. Our instincts are guided along this tune. The tune we are supposed to play helps us by guiding our instincts so that we can make the song that we are supposed to play. Without our instincts it would be unable to know what is right or wrong. Without the moral law we would not have these instinctual desires. The moral law is not an instinct and CS Lewis makes this very clear. This helps us understand a bit of why we each know in our hearts that kiloling is wrong or that stealing is wrong. Our instincts are following a higher power instead of each one individual's personal instincts.

Law of Human nature

this chapter talked about the moral law being a standard. It talked about how every one knows certian things to be wiithin the moral law and certian things are immoral. One of the big things we discussed is whether the moral law is above God or not. Some stated that God did not create the moral law, otherwise everything he did would be considered moral. This could cause problems because then God could actually not be very moral at all, but he is just the only standard by which we can judge the morality of things. According to the Bible, God acts within the moral law. He is holy, and cannot sin. another interesting thing though is that in the Bible it does say that God created the law. The issue comes when you think about how can we know God to be holy if he can do anything he wants and it would be considered morally right. I personally believe that God created the moral law and told us what was right and what was wrong. That way we could see that there are no contradictions, and that God acts within this moral law. Its hard though to know the truth because it is true that Cain was charged before the law was made. God also destroyed the earth with a flood because of it's sin before the law was made. So is the moral law above God? I don't know to be honest with you. If it is then where did it come from? who decides whether this is right or wrong. Are we saying that god is not the ultimate authority? Maybe we'll know when we meet him in heaven. He'll have eternity to explain it.

guest speaker

The other day we had a guest speaker come in. He talked to us about not wasting our time here at calvin on things like schoolowork and studying. He told us how his GPA his first semester wasincredible but all he did was sit in his room and do homework. He said it was really great to get out and hang out with friends. He say the benefits of it and encouraged us to do the same. He told us not to waste our lives on our schoolwork. He showed us countless of activities we could do to get to know people and get involved with thepeople around you. He also told us not to forgat about God. We are farthest from God when we pour our lives into other things. He encouraged us to go to chapel, go to loft, and be involved in a church community. He told us that Calvin is one of the few schools that has those kinds of oppertunities. He encouraged us to take advantage of those oppertunities and go to those things. They can only be benefitial.

The Abolition of man

This one I found a bit difficult to understand, but i feel like he was trying to show how our craving at science is like a power struggle. He shows how man contributes to science and then considers himself to have conquered nature. Science and discovery is attributed to power. He explains that when we "conquer nature" we are really only setting ourselves up to rule or be ruled by others. Men don't conquer nature, they use it as a means of gaining power. CS Lewis gives the example of people buying things. When you buy a piece of technology you are exercising your power of that part of nature so to speak. But really, the sellers who control who gets it or not by the price are exercising a bit of power over them. This shows how we use nature as our means of attaining power. He later ties this into the concept of abandoning our instincs. Everyman has a basis for right and wrong. Even people without religion know not to kill people. CS Lewis states that in this quest to conquer science they forget about those instinctual values and push them aside to attain the power they wish to discover. This takes away the belly of man. Finally man has been abolished. The head, chest, and belly have all been lost. Man has become something else entirely.

The Way

In this essay CS Lewis describes how the next part of this book that is pushed is the idea of instinct. He states that the book leans us to rely on instinct. He gives an example of how instincts can't be used in all situations. He states that the Christian faith says, "no man has greater love than this: that he lay down his life for his friend." He states that if we use our instincts we would lose that. Our instincts don't encourage us to give our life up. We yearn for our own survival. We don't think of the survival of others. This instinctual system of thinking takes away our ability to reason and think things through. This then takes away our concept of morals. everything comes down to our basic instinctual needs. We don't need other people. When it comes to our survival verses theirs we would instinctually choose our own. We don't think about the well being of others. We lose everything that we stand for. The bible states, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." This falls apart if we rely on instinct. The whole idea takes away the head of man, or the ability to reason. The chest is already gone, now the head. What's next?

Men without chests

CS Lewis sets up a situation where the man consists of three parts, the head, the chest, and the belly. The head represents the reason of man and his ability to think logically. The belly represents the instinctual desires, such as eating. The chest is the go between of these two. It is what helps us use our instinctual desires and reason at the same time. CS Lewis describes a school book that takes certian authors sayings and describes them as emotional descriptions. He states that in essence they are taking away the connection between the reason and emotion. He states that they make them two completely seperate ways of thinking. They disregard one and then go to the other. CS Lewis thinks that we need both. In order for us to use each wisely we need to use them at the same time. He states that this book creates men without chests. These men cannot use reason and emotion. They use one without the other, and the other is disregarded. This, CS Lewis states, is the first step towards the abolition of man. This severed connection between the reason of man and the emotions of man can only lead to problems. CS Lewis states that we need to use both in order to be effective.

man or rabbit

in this essay CS Lewis poses the question of can a man be good without God. He believes that man cannot be good. he explains this by showing how the source is tainted. The man could have good intentions, but without knowing what the right or wrong way to live is you cannot live in a good way. I agree with what CS Lewis says. He makes it clear that man could have good intentions, like wanting to help but not knowing how. In the bible it states that our flesh wants to sin. Adam brought sin into the world and so we have inherited the sinful nature. When we accept Christ into our lives he comes to live inside of us. A little of us dies and a little of Christ shines through. When Christ comes to live in us a little bit we learn to be Christ like. as we fill our lives more and more with him we move away from sin and become "good men." Without Christ we don't have that potential. our every thought points toward evil. Its in our hearts. A man, no matter what he intends to do, can't ever become a really good man without Christ.

Priestesses in the church?

In this article CS Lewis explains why he believes there shouldn't be priestesses in the church. He describes the way the male role had been set down for Christianity. He explains that the male role is not interchangeable with the female role. Christ is the bridegroom, Jesus is the son of God, and so on and so forth. I really liked his analog of the ball. He stated that if we had a male leading and he wasn't very good, replacing him with a woman doesn't help anything. They have different roles. The man should go to dance classes and become better at his role, but he should not simply be replaced. I agree with CS Lewis in that women would not be ordained. In class it was mentioned that there is a big difference between teaching and being an ordained preacher. I really liked that because it distinguished the fact that women can teach, they just shouldn't be ordained. I personally believe that if there is a controversial issue we should go to scripture. There is a verse that says do not do anything to cause your brother to stumble. If it is going to cause someone to fall if you made a woman a minister then it shouldn't be done. Because it states it in the Bible and people go there for their source of truth it should not be contradicted. Otherwise it can cause people to question what is really true.

the light in the tool shed

In this article CS Lewis describes the difference between looking at something and looking along it. He starts it with the analogy of seeing a light in a dark toolshed and it just looks like a ray of light and a bunch of dust. He then goes on stating that when he walked up and looked directly along the light it was a whole different experience. He could see the sun and all the toolshed faded away. What he was trying to explain here is that when we are experiencing something it is entirely different than when we are watching someone else experience it. When you watch someone else experience it you summarize it to a simple "chemical imbalance" or whatever. When your actually experiencing it, you feel like it's real. There's no chemicals involved, only the experience to you. I think what CS Lewis is saying is that we shouldn't discredit things that people are experiencing with scientific facts to explain it. I believe CS Lewis is stating that we need both the experience and the scientific view in order to really understand it to it's full potential. When we throw out one or the other we loose that potential. It become's only an experience, or simply a chemical and it no longer retains that meaning to us. CS Lewis is encouraging us to use both our experiences and the facts in order to truly comprehend these kinds of things.

inner rings

I really liked this article by CS Lewis because it helped me realize how common these inner rings are. Everyone wants to get in them. I thought it was interesting to find that CS Lewis sated that we do nothing good to get into these rings. I once was friends with these two pretty cool guys, but they were outcasts just like me. I wanted to get into the inner ring with some of the cooler guys. Once I started talking to some of the guys that were in the inner ring, they began to make fun of my other friends. I began to join in for acceptance, and eventually treated them with complete contempt. I had made some new friends and I was in the inner ring, but I had become a completely different person. I did terrible things to them and hated them thoroughly. It was horrible. When I look back at that I realize much that statement is true. CS Lewis states that we finally get in but we have in turn become a monster. We have gone against all that we stood for in order to gain acceptance.

friendship

CS Lewis describes friendship to be the most spiritual of loves. He states that out of all the loves this is the least corrupted. To have friendship one must be centered with their friend around a common interest. He explains that when a relationship is started between a man and a woman they are looking towards each other. When a friendship is started they are side by side looking towards a common interest. This is why friendship is best carachterized by male-male relationships or female-female relationships. CS Lewis states that the friendship between a man and a woman is always compromised by the thought of being more than just a friendship unless they are extremely ugly so that there is no possibility of attraction there. This was interesting to me because I found it to be true in my life. When I become friends with a girl the possibility is always there. At times it can even make things awkward. The only time it works is when I am completely unattracted to them like Lewis comments on.
Another interesting thought mentioned in this article is that friendship is not necessary for survival. Humans must have a mate in order for us to reproduce, but friendship is not at all necessary. CS Lewis writes that friendship can be compared to the existence of this earth. God did not need it to survive but made it anyway. Friendship is not necessary but is made to make survival wortwhile.

Eros

I found it intriguing that CS Lewis described the Eros as completely toward the person emotionally in the sense that it wouldn't even matter if she was a woman or not. CS Lewis is stating that there is nothing sexual about it. When a person falls in love with another with eros they are in love with who they are, not with what they look like. He also describes that venus, the sexual love, is within eros for the perfect marriage. When two people are married they need to have that attraction there. If it isn't there then it is almost as though they care for them more as a close friend and not as a spouse. This is important to keep in mind. If there is no attraction there then there is no appeal to get married. It would change nothing in the realtionship and maybe even make it awkward.
CS Lewis brings up the point that Venus can exist outside of eros. The two are connected but do not have to be. One can have a sexual attraction without being in love with the person. This made sense to me. Living in a Christian home and growing up in Christian School, I was always under the impression that sexual attraction like that was bad and a sin. When I grew older I began to understand that it was a nessesary part of life. When CS Lewis describes it as going hand in hand with the other aspects of love in a relationship it really helped me understand what place the sexual attraction has in the life of a Christian.

The sermon and the lunch

I found this article very interesting because I grew up in a pastor's home. I sometimes saw this to be true in lots of homes that we went and visited and even in our own home. I found it interesting when he stated that it wasn't because the preacher was insicere. It was the fact that he was preaching on an ideal home situation that did not exist. I really liked the way he described this. in my home I always saw that my dad was really doing this for the right reasons and he was very sincere. I saw that people didn't listen to him because he would do this very thing. Reading this helped me understand why some people who have good things to say are ignored by people. I think it also has to do with being hypocritical. I saw a lot of people who were completely different people once they left the church. When I saw this I would immediately ignore them in the church. I never could listen those people because they were not fit to be preaching these things in my mind. I would stonewall and block them out completely. This can cause lots of problems. I think this is why people need to live according to the word. How is a nonbeliever going to ever come to Christ if christians are not the kind of people one would want to have anything to do with?

vocation in the kingdom of God

In this chapter Plantinga touches on the fact that our whole purpose here on this earth is to strive for the kingdom of God. He describes how those in miserable circumstances search for it with that much more hope and passion. He pushes us to strive for it with the same passion. He states that everything we do is pushing us toward or away from the kingdom. He urges us not to be comfortable with the world we live in to where we don't want the kingdom to come back just yet but to push for the coming of the kingdom at all times and in all circumstances. He urges us to have that passion for the kingdom. He also tries to emphasize the point that the kingdom should be our only desire. We should not be happy with the things of this world but always yearn for the coming of the kingdom. Later on he spoke of how the best place for us to leasrn of this was through christian schools. I don't know if it was merely propaganda but I don't think he really thought this through. If you are at a christian school you are completely surrounded by things of God that you would not see at a public school, but there are some benefits of going to a public school as well. One of the things I have noticed is that public schools have so much more of reality. They can help one strengthen their faith if they can overcome. this is very important I think because otherwise when you graduate and you go out into the real world and all of the sudden are surrounded by all these things that were just taken out of the equation earlier. I do think there are benefits to both. I really think it depends on where you are at within your faith.

Learning in the war time

I liked the point he made of living for things that don't matter. he states that we should not live to save lives. We could die to save lives but by no means should we live for it. He describes the person that does as a monomaniac or obsessed. I believe the point he is trying to make here is that everything we do should be to live toward the prospect of going to heaven. He states early on in the essay that all people live each day as moving towards heaven or hell. I believe he is stating that when people live for material things of this world they achieve nothing. The only things that they may achieve are lost as soon as they leave this earth. He quotes the scripture that states whatever you do, do it for the glory of God. He is pointing out the fact that living for God is the only thing that we should be doing. To die for you country is noble, but to live for your country is wrong. To spend your life commited to something that is not God is useless. Only god can make your life worth having. This really stood out to me because I realize I do this in my own life. I tend to make God the basic overseer that is there only to let me know when I;m doing something I know I shouldn't. I have that view and then I devote my life to my own agendas. I live for myself. After reading this it made me really consider what i need to do to live my life for God and not for myself.

letter eight and nine

In this letter screwtape teaches wormwood about the use of troughs. He explains that every human needs God. God created them like that. God wants people to serve him and become like sons. Satan wants them to brought like cattle to hell and used for food. This is why we have troughs. It is a time when we feel separated from God. Screwtape describes these as extremely dangerous. He states that if a person is in a trough and still obeys then their hope is lost. They are done for. He explains that they need to use these troughs to bring the person against God. He shows that when they go through these troughs it is a great time to tempt them with sexual sins. They are weak and much more willing to give into these sins during troughs. He also explains how they can use their ideas of religion against them. He explains the use of easily despairing Christians to make them unsure of Christianity. He says they can also bring the hopeful ones down by making them think that all is well. He states that they eventually become comfortable with it all and believe that this is where they should be. He describes this as a moderate religion. He also states that a moderate religion is just as good as no religion at all. This is extremely good to know because it allows us to look into our own lives and see when we are living moderately. When we do this we are living outside of God's kingdom. It's a good thing to be aware of. It's also good to know that troughs are generally normal. When we come to expect them it is easier to deal with them. Then when the next one comes it won't be nearly as hard as the first one was.

letter one

I found it interesting that Screwtape suggested that jargon was the best way to bring someone away from "the enemy." This makes sense because the truth would lead them to finding Christ. He comments that argument is useless to them and that they need to use alternative means to accomplish their goals. He suggests using distractions as well. This explains a lot to me because distractions are what makes it hardest for me to have my time with God. Screwtape relates a story that the man he was after nearly found God but he pointed out that he was hungry. This distracted him enough to allow him to think that those things like religion are just a waste of time. I also found it interesting that he pointed out that their job was not to teach. They need to keep their patients in the dark. Once he begins to reason and think about the things he is taking in their argument is lost. Their goal is to avoid letting him think about his situation at all costs. Let him think he is fine.

Show and Tell

For show and tell I brought in an article discussing the funding by exxon of facts disprooving global warming. The supporters of global warming stated that it was all biased material because it was funded by a group who had an interest in it. This showed the real life application of bulverism. They never disprooved any of the theories. They just simply showed why they would be wrong. CS Lewis wrote, "I call it 'Bulverism.' Some day I am going the write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father - who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than the third - 'Oh, you say that because you are a man.' 'At that moment,' E. Bulver assures us, 'there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume your opponent is wrong, and then explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the national dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall.' That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century." This shows how Bulverism came about. This article showed that it is still very much alive today.

Our English Syllabus

In our english syllabus, CS Lewis talks about coming to a school expecting to just take in what the teacher is telling you. He states that this is a terrible way to go about things. If you come into a class expecting only to learn what the teacher knows then you will never do anything that he hasn't. Nothing new will come of you. If you come in with a desire to learn and a longing for knowledge, you will learn all there is to learn. Lewis encourages us to come with a desire to learn. Don't take classes you have absolutely no interest in. He is saying that you will come away with nothing from thise classes. If you have a desire to learn about these things then you will learn a lot.Lewis defines the line between a college and a grade school. A college is a place to learn. The proffesors want to learn just like the students do. He states that if a school were to lose its students it would no longer be a school. A college would not have the same fate. It would still be a college. So learn what you want to learn or you won't learn at all.

no right to happiness

In this essay by CS Lewis he comments on the thought that we all have a right to our happiness. He states that this is not true. He makes the point that if we had a right to happiness then there would be no law. If a man decides that he is happy when he kills people then we would have to allow it. So then He states that it is a right to happiness within the law. He states that this is a dangerous position to have. When someone wants to have happiness they will bend the rules to get it. He points out that couples who are happy are the ones who have a good sense of right and wrong. I believe that we don't have a right to happiness, but I don't believe we should not hope to find it. I think that in christ we are offered happiness as a gift, not an obligation. I don't think that our happiness is necessarily deserved, but I do think that it can be attained. If you notice from the example given, CS Lewis describes a man who left his wife because she didn't look so good anymore. This man marries out of selfish motives, and when it came down to the point where he thought he could be happier he took the oppertunity thinking of himself. Lewis touches on this by describing it as self pity. He states that this man pities himself so much that he feels no pity for his wife. the ends justify the means he might argue. This selfishness will leave us feeling empty and will never be enough. We will toss people aside in order to attain our own goals. I think that if we try to find happiness in the world we won't ever find it. This relates to plantinga and weight of glory. The beauty we find in the world is promise of what is to come. we cannot be satisfied until we reside in christ. That is how we find satisfaction. It's not a right to happiness, it is a gift of happiness.

Plantinga

In the first chapter of plantinga he describes our longing for god by comparing it to the hope we have for things of beauty. He writes that when we see, hear, or feel things that are beautiful, we want to join up with them or "get in" them. He states that this is really our longing to get in God. This ties in with CS Lewis' wieght of glory because CS Lewis describes that same sort of longing for some kind of God. We see the beauty of His handiwork everyday and we try to connect with it but when we remember or go back to where it happened all we find the object because the beauty we saw was a glimpse of God or of heaven. According to Plantinga this innate feeling of hope is within all of us. He also states that it is useless without works, just like faith. In essence, if we have true hope for what is to come then we must live our lives accordingly spending every waking moment striving towards that moment when we will meet our Father in heaven face to face.

chronological snobbery

In the short quote Lewis makes on Chronological Snobbery he talks about the thought that anything that is outdated is useless. Basically any sort of fact or practice that is old is not useful or reliable. This ties in with Bulverism extremely well because it is tossing things aside based on inferences that tell nothing of whether it is reliable or not. Just because something is old does not make it unreliable. Last time I checked the Bible is pretty old, but it is still the basis for our lessens in Christianity. If we discredited anything that was old we would never be able to establish scientific law or any sort of "plumb line", so to speak. There would be no standard because as soon as that standard was old it would be tossed out. This too is prevelant in society. People will insist that they have a new way of thinking without even considering that the old may still hold true. They don't disprove them, only discredit them. This is a problem we must be wary of in our everyday lives.

Weight Of Glory

In the weight of glory, CS Lewis comments on the fact that we are promised something greater, yet we don’t realize the effect that has on us. We don’t realize that our love for beauty is born out of a desire for what is to come that is given innately to each one of us. We don’t realize that this desire for beauty and a desire is a glimpse of heaven. He tells of a man who will try to regain that memory he received through a flower or music, but when he goes back all he finds is the object. Lewis explains that this is because the object itself is simply that—an object. We begin to search for that sense of awe in the object. Lewis states that that is almost like our promise of heaven. The fact that we hunger for a better place shows that there is one, just like a man who hungers for bread in a world full of people can know that there must be something to eat or we wouldn’t be hungry. Lewis then goes on to explain that our promise in the bible involves receiving glory. Lewis explains that he does not understand this. He relates it to being placed above others, a quality not very fitting of heaven, or being a light bulb. As he goes on he discusses how he came to the realization that glory is merely acceptance by God. He sees that what we do on earth is to earn our glory or favor from God. When we earn favor and glory we are accepted and “recognized” by God on the Day of Judgment. The simple fact that everything we do pushes us towards or away from glory is where our “weight of glory” comes in. We have the burden of bringing others into this glory so that when the day comes God will look down on them and will say, “Well done, my good and faithful servant.” If they do not have glory they will be wiped from the memory of the all-knowing God, so to speak. They will lose their place in reality ending in complete separation from everything we know. As Lewis says, “All day long we are, in some degree, helping each other to one or other of these destinations.” We need to live our lives on earth so we and those around us can partake in the glory of God.

Bulverism

In the article about bulverism CS Lewis comments on the way people don't look at whether one is wrong or right only why he would be wrong or right. I someone has an idea and can prove it to be true, all one must do is to explain briefly that he has had bad ideas in the past that weren't true either. Then the person's reputation is ruined and he is said to be unreliable. No one prooved he was wrong. They didn't have to. All they had to do was show why he could be and people ate up every word of it. This tactic is seen and used in countless situations. When I was young I would get into arguments with my parents who happen to be very well educated. Anytime the argument seemed to be going in a direction that wasn't to there favor they would just simply state that I was not even cose to as smart as they were. I didn't have the smarts or experience that they did so any argument I had was unreliable. This is used in schools, campaigns, and even commercials. CS Lewis uses this argument in terms of religion. He states that people discredit his religion based on inferences and opinions. He states that there is no sort of evidence as to whether his religion is true or not, but it is still regarded as false by others. CS Lewis states that one cannot base judgements on anything but facts. Otherwise reason is thrown out the window. Without reason any sort of logic is lost and everything has to be decided on incomplete facts which could lead to chaos. We should be troubled by how commonly bulverism is used, and we should watch carefully for it in our own lives.