WHOOPS
ALL posts normally posted in posterous for Christian Issues Digest did not post but can be found here in Blogger: http://whatdoyoubeleive.blogspot.com/ In the Next few days I will repost some of the ongoing series so there is no lapse
[The Classic Christian] MereChristianity: Book III. Christian Behaviour 5. Se...
MereChristianity: Book III. Christian Behaviour 5. Sexual Morality -C.S.Lewis
5. Sexual Morality
We must now consider Christian morality as regards sex, what Christians
call the virtue of chastity. The Christian rule of chastity must not be
confused with the social rule of "modesty" (in one sense of that word); i.e.
propriety, or decency. The social rule of propriety lays down how much of
the human body should be displayed and what subjects can be referred to, and
in what words, according to the customs of a given social circle. Thus,
while the rule of chastity is the same for all Christians at all times, the
rule of propriety changes. A girl in the Pacific islands wearing hardly any
clothes and a Victorian lady completely covered in clothes might both be
equally "modest," proper, or decent, according to the standards of their own
societies: and both, for all we could tell by their dress, might be equally
chaste (or equally unchaste). Some of the language which chaste women used
in Shakespeare's time would have been used in the nineteenth century only by
a woman completely abandoned. When people break the rule of propriety
current in their own time and place, if they do so in order to excite lust
in themselves or others, then they are offending against chastity. But if
they break it through ignorance or carelessness they are guilty only of bad
manners.
When, as often happens, they break it defiantly in order to shock
or embarrass others, they are not necessarily being unchaste, but they are
being uncharitable: for it is uncharitable to take pleasure in making other
people uncomfortable. I do not think that a very strict or fussy standard of
propriety is any proof of chastity or any help to it, and I therefore regard
the great relaxation and simplifying of the rule which has taken place in my
own lifetime as a good thing. At its present stage, however, it has this
inconvenience, that people of different ages and different types do not all
acknowledge the same standard, and we hardly know where we are. While this
confusion lasts I think that old, or old-fashioned, people should be very
careful not to assume that young or "emancipated" people are corrupt
whenever they are (by the old standard) improper; and, in return, that young
people should not call their elders prudes or puritans because they do not
easily adopt the new standard. A real desire to believe all the good you can
of others and to make others as comfortable as you can will solve most of
the problems.
Chastity is the most unpopular of the Christian virtues. There is no
getting away from it: the old Christian rule is, "Either marriage, with
complete faithfulness to your partner, or else total abstinence." Now this
is so difficult and so contrary to our instincts, that obviously either
Christianity is wrong or our sexual instinct, as it now is, has gone wrong.
One or the other. Of course, being a Christian, I think it is the instinct
which has gone wrong.
But I have other reasons for thinking so. The biological purpose of sex
is children, just as the biological purpose of eating is to repair the body.
Now if we eat whenever we feel inclined and just as much as we want, it is
quite true that most of us will eat too much: but not terrifically too much.
One man may eat enough for two, but he does not eat enough for ten. The
appetite goes a little beyond its biological purpose, but not enormously.
But if a healthy young man indulged his sexual appetite whenever he felt
inclined, and if each act produced a baby, then in ten years he might easily
populate a small village. This appetite is in ludicrous and preposterous
excess of its function.
Or take it another way. You can get a large audience together for a
strip-tease act-that is, to watch a girl undress on the stage. Now suppose
you came to a country where you could fill a theatre by simply bringing a
covered plate on to the stage and then slowly lifting the cover so as to let
every one see, just before the lights went out, that it contained a mutton
chop or a bit of bacon, would you not think that in that country something
had gone wrong with the appetite for food? And would not anyone who had
grown up in a different world think there was something equally queer about
the state of the sex instinct among us?
One critic said that if he found a country in which such striptease
acts with food were popular, he would conclude that the people of that
country were starving. He meant, of course, to imply that such things as the
strip-tease act resulted not from sexual corruption but from sexual
starvation. I agree with him that if, in some strange land, we found that
similar acts with mutton chops were popular, one of the possible
explanations which would occur to me would be famine. But the next step
would be to test our hypothesis by finding out whether, in fact, much or
little food was being consumed in that country. If the evidence showed that
a good deal was being eaten, then of course we should have to abandon the
hypothesis of starvation and try to think of another one. In the same way,
before accepting sexual starvation as the cause of the strip-tease, we
should have to look for evidence that there is in fact more sexual
abstinence in our age than in those ages when things like the strip-tease
were unknown. But surely there is no such evidence. Contraceptives have made
sexual indulgence far less costly within marriage and far safer outside it
than ever before, and public opinion is less hostile to illicit unions and
even to perversion than it has been since Pagan times. Nor is the hypothesis
of "starvation" the only one we can imagine. Everyone knows that the sexual
appetite, like our other appetites, grows by indulgence. Starving men may
think much about food, but so do gluttons; the gorged, as well as the
famish
[The Classic Christian] MereChristianity: Book III. Christian Behaviour 4. Mo...
Book III. Christian Behaviour 4. Morality and Psychoanalysis -C.S.Lewis
4. Morality and Psychoanalysis
I have said that we should never get a Christian society unless most of
us became Christian individuals. That does not mean, of course, that we can
put off doing anything about society until some imaginary date in the far
future. It means that we must begin both jobs at once-(1) the job of seeing
how "Do as you would be done by" can be applied in detail to modern society,
and (2) the job of becoming the sort of people who really would apply it if
we saw how. I now want to begin considering what the Christian idea of a
good man is-the Christian specification for the human machine.
Before I come down to details there are two more general points I
should like to make. First of all, since Christian morality claims to be a
technique for putting the human machine right, I think you would like to
know how it is related to another technique which seems to make a similar
claim-namely, psychoanalysis.
Now you want to distinguish very clearly between two things: between
the actual medical theories and technique of the psychoanalysts, and the
general philosophical view of the world which Freud and some others have
gone on to add to this. The second thing-the philosophy of Freud-is in
direct contradiction to Christianity: and also in direct contradiction to
the other great psychologist, Jung. And furthermore, when Freud is talking
about how to cure neurotics he is speaking as a specialist on his own
subject, but when he goes on to talk general philosophy he is speaking as an
amateur. It is therefore quite sensible to attend to him with respect in the
one case and not in the other-and that is what I do. I am all the readier to
do it because I have found that when he is talking off his own subject and
on a subject I do know something about (namely, languages) he is very
ignorant. But psychoanalysis itself, apart from all the philosophical
additions that Freud and others have made to it, is not in the least
contradictory to Christianity. Its technique overlaps with Christian
morality at some points and it would not be a bad thing if every parson knew
something about it: but it does not run the same course all the way, for the
two techniques are doing rather different things.
When a man makes a moral choice two things are involved. One is the act
of choosing. The other is the various feelings, impulses and so on which his
psychological outfit presents him with, and which are the raw material of
his choice. Now this raw material may be of two kinds. Either it may be what
we would call normal: it may consist of the sort of feelings that are common
to all men. Or else it may consist of quite unnatural feelings due to things
that have gone wrong in his subconscious. Thus fear of things that are
really dangerous would be an example of the first kind: an irrational fear
of cats or spiders would be an example of the second kind. The desire of a
man for a woman would be of the first kind: the perverted desire of a man
for a man would be of the second. Now what psychoanalysis undertakes to do
is to remove the abnormal feelings, that is, to give the man better raw
material for his acts of choice: morality is concerned with the acts of
choice themselves.
Put it this way. Imagine three men who go to war. One has the ordinary
natural fear of danger that any man has and he subdues it by moral effort
and becomes a brave man. Let us suppose that the other two have, as a result
of things in their sub-consciousness, exaggerated, irrational fears, which
no amount of moral effort can do anything about. Now suppose that a
psychoanalyst comes along and cures these two: that is, he puts them both
back in the position of the first man. Well it is just then that the
psychoanalytical problem is over and the moral problem begins. Because, now
that they are cured, these two men might take quite different lines. The
first might say, "Thank goodness I've got rid of all those doodahs. Now at
last I can do what I always wanted to do-my duty to the cause of freedom."
But the other might say, "Well, I'm very glad that I now feel moderately
cool under fire, but, of course, that doesn't alter the fact that I'm still
jolly well determined to look after Number One and let the other chap do the
dangerous job whenever I can. Indeed one of the good things about feeling
less frightened is that I can now look after myself much more efficiently
and can be much cleverer at hiding the fact from the others." Now this
difference is a purely moral one and psychoanalysis cannot do anything about
it. However much you improve the man's raw material, you have still got
something else: the real, free choice of the man, on the material presented
to him, either to put his own advantage first or to put it last And this$
free choice is the only thing that morality is concerned with.
The bad psychological material is not a sin but a disease. It does not
need to be repented of, but to be cured. And by the way, that is very
important. Human beings judge one another by their external actions. God
judges them by their moral choices. When a neurotic who has a pathological
horror of cats forces himself to pick up a cat for some good reason, it is
quite possible that in God's eyes he has shown more courage than a healthy
man may have shown in winning the V.C. When a man who has been perverted
from his youth and taught that cruelty is the right thing, does some tiny
little kindness, or refrains from some cruelty he might have committed, and
thereby, perhaps, risks being sneered at by his companions, he may, in God's
eyes, be doing more than you and I would do if we gave up life itself for a
friend.
[Last Call] [The Last Generation Report] News from "Now the End Begi...
‘Allahu Akbar’ Shouted Before Muslim Kills 2 US Airmen
MAR 2ND
Another Muslim killer
My, my, what a surprise…another Muslim terrorist killing in the name of Allah. And speaking of Ft. Hood, watch Obama and company sweep this under the rug, as well. After all, it’s not a terrorist attack, just another “man-caused disaster”, right Janet?
“A gunman shouting “Allahu Akbar” opened fire on a bus carrying U.S. airmen in Frankfurt, Germany, killing two and wounding two others before his gun jammed and he was subdued, officials said. An ethnic Albanian from Kosovo was taken into custody and the FBI was heading an investigation because U.S. citizens were killed and to determine whether the shooting was an act of terrorism.
Undated file photo of the Frankfurt Airport in Germany
President Obama made an unscheduled appearance to say, “I am saddened and I am outraged by this attack” and U.S. investigators would work with German authorities and “spare no effort” to ensure that “all of the perpetrators are brought to justice.” He added that the killings were a “stark reminder of the extraordinary sacrifices” of American servicemembers. Sources told ABC News that the gunman boarded a shuttle bus at the Frankfurt airport. The bus was marked United States Air Force and was carrying 13 or 14 people, plus the driver.” source – ABC News
Farrakhan: Jews Are Pushing The US Into War
MAR 2ND
Achtung, Juden!
“Let them all be confounded and turned back that hate Zion.” Psalm 129:5
Attention all Jews, Louis Farrakhan wants you to know that he is on to you. In the past, he’s figured out that you all control Hollywood, every bank throughout the entire world, and that you drink the blood of gentiles in ritual sacrifices. And now he has the “big story” – you Jews are nothing more than a “cover for Satan”, you “control the US government”, and, oh, did I mention you control all the banks? So my advice to all of you Jews out there is to put your Yellow Stars back on, get on the train, and keep quiet. Because when jackass Louie Farrakhan has something to say, you better listen.
To call Louis Farrakhan a jackass would be an insult to donkeys the world over.
“Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan said Jews and Zionists are “trying to push the US into war” and are a cover for Satan, at the group’s annual meeting near Chicago on Tuesday. “President Obama,” Farrakhan said, “if you allow the Zionists to push you, to mount a military offensive against Gaddafi and you go in and kill him and his sons as you did with Saddam Hussein and his sons, I’m warning you this is a Libyan problem, let the Libyans solve their problem among themselves.” Farrakhan called Muammar Gaddafi “my brother” and “my friend.” He also accused American Zionists of attempting to push Israel into war with Iran, adding that “Zionists dominate the government of the United States of America and her banking system.” One panel at the conference, titled “The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews,” claimed that Jews were disproportionately involved in the slave trade and accused them of controlling the media.
“Some of you think that I’m just somebody who’s got something out for the Jewish people,” Farrakhan said. “You’re stupid. Do you think I would waste my time if I did not think it was important for you to know Satan? My job is to pull the cover off of Satan so that he will never deceive you and the people of the world again.” source – JPost
The song remains the same
Louie Farrakhan comes with nothing new, nothing that the past 2,000 years of irrational, unnatural, satanic hatred of the Jews hasn’t already covered. But it is important to hear what he has to say, and know that a lot of people agree with at least some of what he has to say. Sadly, and ashamedly, I know people who call themselves Christians, followers of the Jewish Messiah Yeshua Ha’Maschiach, who also hate the “zionists”. Do you even know what a Zionist is? Click here to find out. The legacy of Adolf Hitler is not dead, it’s alive and well in the hearts and minds of every one who harbors in their heart this irrational hatred of a single, ethnic, race of people.
By all popular definitions of the term “Zionist”, it is someone who believes that the land of Israel has been promised to the Jew by God, and that it is their eternal homeland. Certainly when you read the bible you see that that is how God views it as well.
In Genesis 12:3 we read this:
“And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.” God told Abraham that He would bless all those who would bless the Jewish people – BUT – He goes on to say that He will curse all those who, like Farrakhan, curse the Jews. So let me ask you this – whose side are you on? Will you stand with me to bless God’s chosen people, or will you stand with Farrakhan and curse the Jews? The choice is yours, but I am here to warn you that it comes with vast, eternal consequences. Let me tell you where I stand personally. I am on the side of the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob, so that means I have a love for His people, the Jews. That also means that I have a love for the “apple” of God’s eye, Jerusalem, and Israel. I will stand with the Jews and defend Israel against all her enemies, even if that enemy is you. I am a follower of Jesus Christ, andI am a Zionist who believes that Israel was given to the Jews by God for ever. That’s what the bible says. Read it.
Whose side are you on?
How the bible views the future of Israel and the Jews
“For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this [is] my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.” Romans 11:25-27
Posted via email from ..................The Last Call Digest
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)