All the world's a stage...
When the author walks onto the stage the play is over. God is going to invade, all right: but what is the good of saying you are on His side then, when you see the whole natural universe melting away like a dream and something else - something it never entered your head to conceive - comes crashing in; something so overwhelming that it will strike either irresistible love or irresistible horror into every creature.
... That will not be the time for choosing: it will be the time when we discover which side we really have chosen, whether we realised it or not.
C.S. Lewis
posted by MaxVel @ 5:19 PM
7 comments
7 Comments:
Yuck. I reject any kind of horror or intimidation. I find all threatening arguments in apologetics to be repulsive, personally. It's interesting, but all of the mystics I have read, from Christianity to Hinduism to Buddhism, etc, talk about irresistable love or peace or contenment. It draws in everyone without judging. The fear and threats seem to come from the legalistic crowd and those who are concerned about dividing people into worthy and unworthy, good and bad. Do you think that Presence ever instills fear? Or is that our own projection?
Hey there tiny. : ) nice to see you here.
Interestinly, I was just last night reading about this issue - fear as a motivation. Glenn Miller addresses it in part over at http://www.christian-thinktank.com/meorburn.html
{see esp: 'Secondly, about the motive of fear'}
Here's what I think is the crux:
"Fear itself is not a 'bad' thing; it is generally very positive in that it warns us of real dangers."
Glenn goes on to discuss two motives for 'warning' people: out of love and a concern for their well-being (a good motive); or out of a desire to intimidate or manipulate ( a bad motive).
To me the key question is, 'Is there a real danger that we should be concerned about?'.
I honestly think that there is: the danger of missing out on a close and loving relationship with 'the God who is real'.
If we don't have that relationship, then we perhaps indeed will respond to God's full, unveiled presence with horror - horror at our loss and horror at what we are and will be forever more, as compared to what we could have been..
To get back to what CS wrote, I think he's addressing those who think that they can just sit on the fence, or lead a 'good life' (by their own lights) and be all right.
That still requires the notion of dividing people into those who have the right religion (including the right prayers to the right beings) and those who do not. It only makes sense if one insists on accepting the idea of an eternal judgement of damnation. If there were a Presence that instilled irresistable love or comfort then that's that. When you experience it, any time you experience it, it would always be a positive experience. Else why call it "irresistable". There would be no need to divide people into "saved" versus "unsaved", just those who were called earlier than others.
I think we're not going to come to an agreement on this... but I very much hope that we can disagree on good terms. : )
I certainly don't want to divide people into 'saved' and 'unsaved'...nor do I think that God wants to reject anyone.
But I firmly believe that people divide themselves into such groups by their response to God.
Sadly, there are some people who choose to reject God, and simply will not accept God on any terms but their own.. such people cannot expect that God will somehow change them, against their will, into people that love and honour God.
"If there were a Presence that instilled irresistable love or comfort then that's that. When you experience it, any time you experience it, it would always be a positive experience."
And it is, for those that will bend their wills into conformity with God's good and perfect will. But there are those who just will not, who are determined on themselves first, second and last, at whatever cost to others. How should God give such people a 'positive experience' of Him? By endorsing their evil?
And it is, for those that will bend their wills into conformity with God's good and perfect will. But there are those who just will not, who are determined on themselves first, second and last, at whatever cost to others. How should God give such people a 'positive experience' of Him? By endorsing their evil?
Does the sun feel any less warm on a sunny day for a rapist than a child? Does the light from the sun have a different effect on plants we cultivate than those we call weeds?
No and no... those are two good examples of God's gracious providence to all humanity.
I'm wondering if part of our differing view here stems from a different concept of God... I believe that God is a very personal being - more personal than you or I even. And thus it follows that God is 'some-one' who we can (indeed must) relate to on a personal level. God has desires, plans and expectations.. He's not just some positive force flowing through the Universe.
I'm wondering if you see 'God' as more of an impersonal 'presence' or sense of well-being, connectedness etc.. ?
How does a personal view of (a) God require judgement? With human personality features would come the potential for (infinite) patience. Not to be inflammatory, but it seems to me judgemental models are all about people judging each other in their God's name. It has to do with having the right beliefs/affiliations or not. Take the standard Christian model. If you don't believe in Jesus the right way before you die, you go to Hell. Nevermind that after you die, if the Christian view of the afterlife is correct, it would be obvious Christ was Lord. If it *really* about accepting "God" on "Christian" terms, you would have the chance at that point to bow down and acknowledge Jesus. IMHO, the reason for theologically putting the burden of belief in life is for humans to judge and control other humans. Otherwise people in the Christian system would (and some do) accept the univeralist model, in which "accepting Jesus" isn't about getting a "Get out of Hell" card but about ending our own self-imposed isolation from God (in the previous analogy, hiding from the sun) and the resultant suffering.
Post a Comment
<< Home