What new insights did you gain that you hadn't thought of before, or frequently?

Often Christian writings can come across as useful reminders of things we already knew. There will be plenty of that here, but often, due to Lewis's talent, put in an excellent way, or with some new angle or insight.

In these first sections, what strikes you?

What is thought provoking?

Is there something that can apply to your life?

There were several things I found insightful & thought provoking in these first couple of sections.  This is my first time with C.S. Lewis beyond the first couple of Narnia books.  He's quite the deep thinker.

Just a couple to get the ball rolling.

I was fascinated by his discussion about man's innate sense of right & wrong being more than just instinct or social conventions.  The way he explained the natural law, or moral law, as a sense of what one should do rather than the instinctual desire to do a thing was something I'd never heard before.  It makes good sense too.  My experience tells me he's right when he says that the moral law often tries to get me go against my instinctual desires.

I appreciated the point he made that just because something is taught by parents / teachers / society, doesn't mean that it was made up by man.  His assertion that one evidence that moral law is essentially universal is that the moral codes of different cultures & different times are similar is interesting as well.  I have no experience or education in this area.  Anyone know how accurate this claim is?

One other thing I liked was the way he addressed the term "Christian".  I work with a man from India who will occasionally give a few of us a hard time when we are sarcastic or not obviously nice & say, "I thought you were Christian."  Now I tell him I am, I'm just not a good Christian!

Thanks for kicking things off, Aaron!

Natural law is a fascinating subject, and I think a very helpful thing to discuss even with non-Christians. It's pretty foundational to many of the concepts on which our country was founded. It's also a great way to come at the abortion debate, as well as gay marriage, transgenderism, homosexuality, etc. It draws from what we know in nature, and of human nature, without even a direct appeal to God. Yet nature itself is a form of divine revelation -- God has revealed things about Himself and about us just by our nature.

That's why, I think, we DO find that in all times and places, people have many parts of their moral code in common. To be sure, every civilization has corruptions in its morality, but that seems to speak to our failures, in the Fallen condition. Yet all societies agree that things like murder and rape or stealing are generally bad, and honor and integrity is good, but throughout history, most groups have held a higher moral code for those within their "tribe." Beyond the tribe, often there are many justifications for terrible moral behavior. And even within, we find many problematic things -- honor killing, ruling classes exploiting others, etc.. Yet there is still a nagging sense of conscience.


In addition to the commonality of a moral drive, there is also that idea of the commonality of myth, what Joseph Campbell called the "monomyth." Which also interestingly lines up with the idea that all mankind recognizes echoes of some common truths. We Christians would say that it all really ultimately centers around God, and Christ.


As for your experience of "not being a good Christian," I think it's interesting that the secular culture, which often really has no standards or morality, does hold Christians and Christian churches to a higher account, a higher moral standard. And rightly so, because that's what we profess. However, the very significant point lost many times in that is that what separates (or should) a Christian from a non-Christian in moral conduct is that the Christian KNOWS that we are doing wrong, doesn't like it or want to be, and wants to change. Whereas the common culture just says "do what you want."


It's really the difference between a hypocrite--who says one thing, does another, and (crucially) tries to deny or get away with that--and the person who admits wrongdoing.

What do you think of Lewis's approach, trying to engage a sort of "post-Christian" or skeptical culture, while also appealing to all nominal Christians while trying to avoid getting bogged down in theological differences?

Sounds like you've gotten fairly far already I actually have just started listening again myself, and am in the introductory material still. I'll comment more when I get into the meatier stuff.

From this section, I enjoyed his emphasis on refraining from the struggles with others. While we do have different views, unless we agree on the rules and a starting point the discussion will be unprofitable. He used the illustration of choosing a doo from a hallway. How do you choose your door? Will you look down on those choosing a prettier door? Or will you pray for them and have rational discussion about the differences of belief.

I also appreciated his pointed discussion on our not keeping the laws of nature. Lewis mentions I’m chapter 2 a third impulse/instinct. I couldn’t help but relate that to the Holy Spirit in his description. Also from this section, the idea that truth needs more than just an individuals idea to be proven. It needs physical evidence to differentiate itself from perceived differences in an arguement.

Lewis is excellent about making distinctions, identifying what might be missed in someone's argument, and then drawing that out with a useful analogy or appeal to humanity experience.

He also takes the best arguments or critiques of his position, states them fairly, and then addresses them. St. Thomas Aquinas was famous for this, and it makes up a major part of the Summa Theologica. He was noted for often making the other side's case better than they were making it themselves. That's fairness and intellectual honesty, and courage!

Too often these days, most of the "argumentation" we encounter is really just people yelling at each other, tearing their opponents down with ad hominem attacks, and often completely mischaracterizing the other side's position, and then imputing demonizing motives.

Usually people take the weakest arguments of their opponents, or just attack straw men or throw out red herrings. Or move the goal posts (change topic anytime an uncomfortable point is me) This is extremely common in the abortion debate, and very common in political discourse in general.

We need to recapture civil dialogue, like Lewis demonstrates, where you listen and respond in an honest attempt to pursue the truth together.

Sent from Topic'it App