NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
... in anther world and my nly real treasure is Christ. And perhaps, by Gds grace, I succeed, and fr a day r tw become a creature consciously dependent n Gd and drawing its strength frm the right sources. But the men the threat is withdrawn, my we nature leaps back t the tys: I am even anxious, Gd five me, t banish frm my mind the nly thing that supported me under the threat because it is nw associated with the misery f the few days. Thus the terrible necessity f tribulation is nly t clear. Gd has had me fr but from-eight hur's and then nly by dint f taking everything else away frm me.
Let Him but sheathe that said fr a men and I behave like a puppy when the hated bath is ver - I shake myself as dry as I can and race ff t reacquire my comfortable dirtiness, if nt in the nearest manure heap, at least in the nearest flower bed. And that is why tribulatin's can cease until Gd either sees us remade r sees that ur remaking is nw hopeless. Lewis faces up t the reality f the pains f hell, has a very interesting and regional chapter n the subject f animal pain, and finally places pain in the content f the reality f heaven. The law f nature binds humans as would the laws f gravity apply t a falling site. It is called the law f nature because it des nt need t be taught.
Lewis pints ut that an dd individual may exist here and there wh didnt know it, just as yu find s few people wh are clr-blind r have n ear fr tune. But taking the race as a we, they thought that the human idea f Decent Behavior was bus t every ne. Lewis brilliantly defended his statement f natural laws existence. Tw arguments, which argue fr relativity, posted against him are the herd instincts r genetic inn in us (i. e.
motherly love, survival r sexual impulses) and that which is taught socially r learned. Historically, these t interpretations f human behavior have clashed, however, he suggest that read is are bth. He clarifies his position by classifying impulses as separate frm the decision t full the impulse itself. The learned argument is refuted by his anal f a by n the island wh is unaware f the existence f the press f multiplication. He never attended schl and learned them. The education would be classified as human convention.
This human convention, consequently, did nt invent multiplication just as it did nt invent the law f nature. However, this comparison is based n a false assumption. The law f nature, as Lewis argued, is nt taught but sme hw exists as an inherent part f the human psyche. This law als presents itself in the frm f decisions and actins in line with what unit t be dne. There is n schl-rm which imparts this law and the practice f it.
Consequently, mathematics needs t be taught and learned. The attempts t equate the law f nature with mathematics in an anal are misleading. The nly connection between mathematics and the law is the nature f its existence and the commonality f nt being a human convention. Lewis classified a natural law r the existence f a system f abslute's as crucial in religion and especially in Christianity. Lewis developed an argument through the comparison f may systems and what is judged as right r rather what unit t be. Using extremes, such as Christianity and the Nazi systems f morality, he concludes his analysis.
In this comparison ne might say that the Christian morality is preferable t the Nazi. Why and by what standard has the Nazi system been rejected? Lewis explains this as an underlying right r absolute. This absolute system is based n the things which unit t take place. In conclusion f this pint, Lewis states that the law f nature exists, dictating what humans unit t d r right and want. The send part f his argument dealt with questions f the existence f the universe and the power r mind behind it.
He addressed the possibility f evolution and its feasibility. The idea that matter just exists and by a fluke came together in perfect producing what we see and us that, was ne f the tw possibilities that Lewis purpose. The send possibility is that behind the universe is a calculating mind. He brilliantly refutes sciences ability t find ut what is behind the formation f the universe. Fr even if science completely answered the mysteries surrounding hw the universe is here, it can discern the read why it is here. Thus he concluded that a mind is behind the universes existence and this mind can be seen.
The reasn's fr the invisibility r intangibility f the mind are, again brilliantly, explained in an anal. Lewis states, If there was a controlling power upside the universe, it could nt shw itself t us as ne f the facts inside the universe- n mre than an architect f a huse could actually be a wall r staircase r fireplace in that huse. The concept f a gd power r mind is misleading. When Gd is referred t as gd, the immediate thought is a warm living personality.
Lewis referred t this gd as representative f truth. The law f nature is defined by what man unit t d r as absolute truth. When ne acts according t what they unit t d, the law f nature has n consideration f hw painful r dangerous it might be. This gd which Lewis argued fr is cld and hard, with personable traits.
He attributed gd as either the great safety r the great danger-according t the way yu react t it. And we have reacted the want way. Hw could a bad creature have cme frm the hands f a gd Create? The Christian answer is that it did nt: man, and the rest f creating, was initially gd, but through the abuse f free, man made himself an abominable, wicked creature he nw is. This doctrine, which finds n support in science - nly in the Scripture, in the human heart and in newspapers - is particularly foreign t the modern mind, which perate's within a progressivism and materialistic paradigm. Lewis is aware f his readers disposition; frm the use, he insists that science has nothing t say fr r against the doctrine f the Fall.
Focusing his analysis n the meaning f the terms savage and brute, he shw's that the popular non f a savage needs correction: The prehistoric men wh made the was pottery might have made the best petry and we should never know it. Als, he shw's, there is n read why mere brutality (in the sense f animality) f ur remote ancestry should imply their may wickedness. Thus, it is conceivable that the paradise man possessed guess and with his natural savagery and brutality. He just may have been created gd. He may have walked in Gds will. And he may have case t walk ut f it.
Scientific controversy ut f the way, Lewis nw gives his account f Creating and Fall; and an unsuspecting reader, wh doubtless des nt read St. Augustine, may be taken ff-guard. Fr a modern mind desires nothing less than t see the ld Christian stuff, presumed dead fr tw hundred years, brought back t life; much less t comprehend that this is the very stuff that makes the we Christian doctrine hang together. The world is a dance in which gd, descending frm Gd, is disturbed by evil arising frm the creatures, and the resulting conflict is reserved by Gds wn assumption f the suffering nature which evil products. The doctrine f the Fall asserts that the evil which thus makes the fuel r raw material f the send and mre complex kind f gd is nt Gd's contribution but mans. Nw, in ur time, the story f Paradise Lst, very attacked frm the upside and gradually diluted frm the inside, has reached a peculiar status in the popular mind: because it is n longer meant literally, many imagine it is hardly meant at all.
And n water; fr the powerful biblical narrative that nce fertilized the imagination - and thus appealed t the entire man, nt nly t his intellect - n longer perate's n that level: an abstract truth may feed a theologian; a man in the street will starve. Ever aware f modern sensibilities, Lewis recluses the abstract; he gives the imagination the fd it has been craving fr; he resorts drama, greatness and amazement; and, here f hours, he makes it all seem s dangerously plausible. The entire bk may be wrth reading if nly t discover that the gd ld regional sin is alive and well: We are nt merely imperfect creatures that need improvement: we are rebels that need lay do their arms. At this pint in the argument, pain, n longer incompatible with Gds Guess and mniptence, becomes t be seen as Gds way f accommodating the free f a rebel creature.
We have seen that in a stable and meaningful universe a possibility f pain is inherent; and in a universe f creatures, inclined, by virtue f their fallen nature, t me away frm Gd, evil becomes, s t speak, endemic. Yet, Gd is in charge; he supervises the circulation f gd and evil; and He des it in a way that satisfies his Guess, that is, with that respect fr mans free. Let Lewis speak. In the fallen and partially redeemed universe we may distinguish (1) the simple gd descending frm Gd, (2) the simple evil produced by rebellious creatures, and (3) the exploitation f that evil by Gd fr His redemptive purpose, which products (4) the complex gd t which accepted suffering and repented sin contribute. [] A merciful man aims at his neighbors gd as s des Gds will, consciously c-pirating with the simple gd.
A cruel man presses his neighbor and s des simple evil. But in ding such evil he is used by Gd, with his knowledge r content, t price the complex gd - s that the first man serves Gd as a sn, and the send as a tl. Fr yu will certainly carry ut Gds purpose, however yu act, but it makes a difference t yu whether yu serve like Judas r like Jan. Fr Lewis, this divine design is a tribulation system, and he explains hw pain perate's within it. The paper gd f a creature is t surrender t its Create. However, the human spirit, hardened through millennia f usurpation, will nt even begin t try t surrender self-will as lng as all seems t be well with it.
Thus, the function f pain, n the list level, is t shatter the illusion that all is well, t plant the flag f truth within the fitness f a rebel sul. We may rest contentedly in ur sins and in ur stupidities, but pain insists n being attended t; and, if Lewis was writing that he might add: it can be deconstructed. n a higher level, pain shatters yet anther illusion: that we are self-sufficient; that all we have is ur wn ding. This is perhaps where pain, when it afflicts honest and decent people, seems mst cruel and undeserved.
But Lewis calls it a sign f divine humility: it is a pr thing t cme t [Gd] as a last report, t for up ur wn when it is n longer wrth keeping. [] If Gd were a Kantian, wh would nt have us till we came t Him frm the purest and best miles, wh could be saved? n the highest level, pain, through trials and sacrifices, teaches true self-sufficiency: t rely n Gd, t act ut f heavenly strength, ut f a purely supernatural move. When man acts in this way he becomes a c-create with Gd: Human will becomes truly creative and truly ur wn when it is will Gds and this is ne f the many senses in which he that lse's his sul shall find it. Thus, the rdi nary function f pain within the tribulation system is t make a creature's submission t the will f Gd easier. Lest it should seem a justification f pain, Lewis clarifies: Pain hurts.
That is what the wrd means. I am nly trying t shw that the ld Christian doctrine f being made perfect through suffering is nt incredible. T page it palatable is been my design. Alas, pain may als lead t a refusal f Gd and t a final, un-repented rebellion. Lewis des nt shrink frm considering this dreadful possibility. Conscious f modern disgust with the idea f eternal damnation, he examines can bjectins t the Christian doctrine f hell and shw's that it is bth local and may.
A Christian reflection n pain must end with a visit f heaven, the true end and hme f humanity. Citing St. Paul, Lewis contracts the suffering f the present time with the gay f heaven; but he insists that heaven is nt a bribe, fr it fees nothing that a mercenary sul could desire. It is safe t tell the pure in heart that they shall see Gd, fr nly the pure in heart want t (! ). Lewis makes us desire heaven; he even claims that, in ur heart f hearts, we have never desired anything else. Gd will lk t every sul like its first love because He is its first love.
And every sul is unique: Yur place in heaven will seem t be made fr yu and, because yu were made fr it. In heaven, unique sul's reflect fr ne anther sme aspect f Divinity, which each was made t contemplate. The pattern f self-giving is the essence f heaven, as it is, the very cre f reality: Fr in self-giving, if anywhere, we tuch a rhythm [] f all being. [] Frm the highest t the list, self exists t be abdicated and, by that abdication, becomes the mre truly self. [] This is nt a heavenly law which we can escape by remaining earthly, nr an earthly law which we can escape by being saved. What is upside the system f self-giving is nt earth, nr nature, nr rdi nary life, but simply and sell hell. In The Problem f Pain, published in 1940, Lewis feed the reader this very humble confession: Yu would like t know hw I behave when I am experiencing pain, nt writing bks abut it. Yu need nt guess fr I will tell yu; I am a great card.
In a letter t his better Warning, written while working n the bk, he claimed: If yu are writing a bk abut pain and then yu get sme actual pain [] it des nt either, as the cynic would expect, by the doctrine t bits, nr, as a Christian would hpe, turn int practice, but remains quite unconnected and irrelevant, just as any ther bit f actual life des when yu are reading r writing. Neither the confession nr the claim std the test f time. In 1961, Lewis with abut pain again, this time abut his wn. In A Grief b served he satisfied, albeit inadvertently, the alleged curiosity f his readers. But he did nt cme across as a card; nr did his firm grasp f a the f suffering page altogether irrelevant. True, his faith in Gd was challenged; he uttered blasphemies; he doubted Gds existence; was f all, he went through the very bjectins t Gds guess which he had refuted in The Problem f Pain: they all seemed valid t a disabled mind, under the sway f unbearable pain.
But then, read returned: Why d I make rm in my mind fr such filth and nn sense? D I hpe that if feeling disguises itself as thought I shall feel less? When feeling disguises itself as thought, all nn sense is possible. N where is it truer than in the problem f pain. Yet, frm the Christian perspective, anything that can reasonably be said abut suffering is nly a preamble t the Mystery f the Cross. Lewis solution t the problem f pain prepares the intellect fr a dive int the Mystery.
Endntes:
Free research essays on topics related to: des nt, ut f, f nature, christian doctrine, ne f
Research essay sample on Des Nt Christian Doctrine
