Your Daily Lewis.

[blearyeyedme]

"It is not for societies or states, that Christ died, but for men."

- C.S. Lewis. The Weight of Glory, "Membership" (1945), para. 16, p.117.

Comments

[blearyeyedme]

Personally, and without any other knowledge of what you're speaking nor any research on the matter, I don't disagree with the basic idea. So let me wing it and rattle some stuff off the top of my head...

The Christian view of the soul isn't that it's completely a bag of changing stuff, nor is the soul itself dependent on actions that change who we are and what we think and say and do, etc. It's a thing. It's our 'self.' It's the part of us that is what's "made in the image of God." Certainly we can think and feel and so on.. and all of that is what makes up our soul--the abilities therein--, but just because we think and feel differently, and change with every action made, doesn't negate the idea of a soul, or a 'self,' any more or less. We can change; our perceptions, and ideas, and modes of thinking can change and do so, but that doesn't change what the soul is--that self which gives us the ability to do so. The abilities themselves never change. We can still love and hate even through the changes. The soul, though "changed" by what we feel and think and do and say, nevertheless remains a soul. Just as humans, though clothed differently, have different beliefs in total, and are of different races and kinds and shapes, are nevertheless human beings. Though not necessarily physical, look at the soul as a physical thing, and the changes we make in our lives, the things we think and feel and do to affect the soul as the clothes and beliefs and colors of the human species. It still remains a soul, and we remain human beings.

Hope that makes sense...

Again, that's what came off of the top of my head. I'm still not sure I understand the idea presented. So if I'm way off, let me know and we'll go from there. Either way... I'd like to hear more about this idea.

Cheers!
fenton.

[malatusis]

I've been giving this a lot of thought recently, thanks for the response, I tend to agree with you for the most part.

This contention is influenced by Sam Harris, in his book The End of Faith, which I read a little while ago. It's not perfect, and he is teetering on the edge of some sort of atheist dogmatism himself, though it makes some salient points.

Either way... I'd like to hear more about this idea.

Straight from Sam:

"The core truths of Buddhism, the truth of selflessness, for instance. It’s simply a fact that it is possible to realize that the ego, as you presently feel it and conceive of it, is an illusion. You can experience the continuum of consciousness without the sense of self. This experience can be had without believing anything on insufficient evidence. You can simply be taught to look closely enough at your experience, to de-construct the sense of self, and then discover what the consequences are of that happening. And the consequences turn out to be very positive. There’s a whole discourse in Buddhism about the relief of psychological suffering, the transcendence of self, and the nature of positive human emotions like compassion and loving kindness. These phenomena have been mapped out with incredible rigor in Buddhism, and one doesn’t need to swallow any mumbo jumbo to find this discourse useful."

The whole interview can be found here:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/itemtest/20060403_sam_harris_interview/

I would repeat that my views aren't as strong as his, nor do I agree with him about everything. Also, isn't the (roughly) 'lack of pride, all glory be to God' idea getting at a similar thing? Whether this modified Buddhist approach to spirituality really is as wonderful and world-beating as Harris says, I'm really not sure.

Given as you are fantastic at defending your point of view, I'd be interested once again to see what you think :)