Ok, here it is. I am really enjoying this even though nobody has been joining us. I will try to generate some interest in others, feel free to do the same.
Let us never forget that "...the LORD your God is a consuming fire..."(Deut 4:24) and that He is the Lord of the heavenly hosts!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Ok, so I have the first comment here. By the way, it was nice to have a little break to get caught up on things, but I am also excited about getting back into the conversation.
I love how so very little of this chapter has anything to do with pacifism. The strength of this paper is without doubt his discussion of the relationship between Conscience and Reason. I feel that this conversation is extremely appropriate to the popular objection that we should not legislate morality. The idea is that since everyone can't agree on what is moral, or whose morality we should use, we should therefore not legislate it. But what exactly would we be legislating then? This has been discussed in much detail before so I won't bother you with a discourse on it (unless you want more thoughts on it later, let me know). However, I will comment on how I think this chapter applies to this discussion. While we may disagree on some fine points of morality, we certainly all must agree on those points which Lewis refers to as intuition and those who disagree with such points must be labeled as a "moral idiot" (p. 69). As he so perfectly states on p. 70, "there is a process whereby early associations, arrogance, and the like turn the remote conclusion into something which the man thinks unarguable because he does not wish to argue about it." The reason that many don't want to have deep conversations about morality is that 1) they don't want to think deeply about it, 2) since they have never thought deeply about it they fear that they have nothing to support their position, and 3) they might be wrong and don't want to deal with having to rework their worldview. To be honest, I don't like talking too much about Reformed vs. Arminian vs. whatever... because I know I haven't thought deeply enough about these and everytime I do...well...it hurts and I need to rework my theology. The same is the case with the young earth/old earth stuff. I must be careful not to think of my positions as intuitions, and I must hold my positions with open hands in case I am wrong. Did that make sense at all?
Well, that should get us started. Feel free to leave this topic and advance another to discuss.
Post a Comment