Balko is Depressing Me

That is one of my favorite Lewis quotes. Here is another (in the person of the demon Screwtape):

"You see the little rift? 'Believe this, not because it is true, but for some other reason.'"

Rather an odd quote from Lewis, as he seems to be describing his own religion.

I was referring to the quote in the body of the post.

Bill:

> Rather an odd quote from Lewis, as he seems to be describing his own religion.

To be fair--and I'm an atheist and Objectivist and am fundamentally opposed to any and all religion--not all of Christianity is or was in favor of a virtual theocracy. IMO, we're dealing with a very powerful minority of zealots indignant with the thought of people thinking and doing for themselves. Lewis was spot-on, and I think many Christians also understand that a rule on the basis of "God's law" would then be empowered to decide what "God's law" is--and change its mind on a whim. If only the Jerry Falwells of the world would realize this.

Query: Is this a sign that the age of United States as the reigning world super-power and cultural empire, is drawing to a close or is it a temporary glitch? All superpowers rise, and eventually they all fall.

Discuss amongst yourselves.

Dean,

Actually, I'm not referring to theocracy but to Christianity. What strikes me as odd about the quote is that the Christian God could easily be described as an "omnipotent moral busybody" and the idea of "torment without end" is clearly the Christian concept of hell. Yet Lewis seems to think these are bad things.

IMHO, one of the failings of the American experiment has been a too-heavy reliance on individuals; one that was only changed with the New Deal. While rugged individualism may have been the right ideal for the times of the Revolution, and as the country grew, by the 20th century we had to recognize that we are not a collection of states, but a unified nation, and that requires a different set of ideals and policies.

I am not suggesting we throw out the key concepts of the Revolution and the Constitution, but that we understand that all of us are better off with a smoothly functioning economic system, a reliable banking system, and a healthy and educated populace. We are also no longer a nation of people who stay in one place throughout our lives, and the free movement of labor from economically struggling areas to those where jobs are plentiful is a benefit to the economy, but people will not make that move unless they believe the same fundamental fairness and respect from our government and our fellow citizens will be available in all locations.

Certainly the "nanny state" can go too far, but that is typically a problem of the process of regulation, not the ideals behind it. Take helmet laws for instance - yes it is a burden on individual freedom to be forced to wear one, but if society is going to pick up the tab for a severely injured motorcyclist, society has a right to demand basic safety precautions.

Hmm...I wonder what C.S Lewis will have thought of corporate welfare (oh well, whatever, as if in XIX and early XX century england did not practize protectionism and had goverment helping their own big buisness...the premise that robber barons operate in a free market without the help of the state seems to me as a false one. Capitalism is not free market at all).

Lewis did not have what you you would call fundamentalist views of Heaven, Hell and purgatory. In the Narnia books, the Calormen man who worshipped Tash "correctly" is said to have *really* offered it to Aslan, which posits some sort of universal salvation.

In the Great Divorce, it is clear that you choose Hell, it is not forced on you.

He also likened purgatory to a trip to the dentist - necessary pain to improve you.

Besides, Lewis would say that there is a fundamental differance between a Loving Omni-X God who is a benevolent dictator and a fallen human one.

' it is clear that you choose Hell, it is not forced on you.'

see thats where he would lose me. Nobody can or could possibly 'choose' hell. Self preservation is perhaps the most important instinct we possess and I fail to see how anyone would knowingly choose to suffer without end.

But even if it was somehow possible the existence of such a place and the suffering that goes on there would speak ill of it's creator.

A universal salvation that embraces the human condition is much more salvageable for a omnibenevolent God.

You mean people do not do things contrary to self-preservation? People tend to be pretty short-sighted about things like that.

Of course they do, but we're talking about the extreme here. If a man falls on a grenade he does so to save another. If a man 'chooses' hell he is not doing anything but punishing himself. No benefit.

By and large when it comes to suffering and life or death people choose life and to diminish their own suffering. Unless of course their can be a benefit to others. Is this even debateable?

Do you know anyone who would willfully choose to suffer without end for no reason? It's not logical or realistic.

Do you think someone who has the power to stop such suffering and does nothing would be just?

I don't on both cases.

I agree with Uber. Choosing hell would be more the equivalent of seeing a grenade in the open field with no possibility of it harming anyone and going and jumping on it.

Jumping on a grenade or taking a bullet for your buddy is different.

To say someone wants to submit to an eternity of suffering without the benefit to another goes against human nature. Which is why Heaven is so appealing. You can live forever without pain and suffering with your loved ones.The ultimate self preservation experience.:-)

I was thinking more along the lines of smoking, alcohol, drug addiction and diving into murky waters.

Hell, in _The Great Divorce_ seems to be a cheerless place with a lot of sullen, bickering people. (Hey, sounds like where I work!) In _Screwtape_ it is the more classic version of Hell, so I don't really know what Lewis really thought about what Hell was *really* like.

'I was thinking more along the lines of smoking, alcohol, drug addiction and diving into murky waters.'

I don't think any of those things are even remotely hell-like, but then again who would choose a place or an eternity of sullen bickering people either.

This like many other religious ideas isn't real strong on the logic side.

"Which is why Heaven is so appealing. You can live forever without pain and suffering with your loved ones.The ultimate self preservation experience.:-)"

Yes, but the price of heaven is submission. Hell, as described in The Great Divorce is devoid of pain by also being devoid of pleasure (for Lewis' thoughts on pain and pleasure, I suggest "A Grief Observed" and "The Problem of Pain.")

But the pay off of hell as Lewis describes it is autonomy.

So I can easily image how someone might choose eternal exile from God if they could go on existing and retain more moral self-governance than a heavenly afterlife would grant.

In other words, heaven is free-chosen surrender to the will of Another, and hell is freely chosen rebellion- but either way, existence continues so either way the self (or at least a shadow of it in the case of hell) always remains.