Getting spiritually Screwtaped Over – by C.S. Lewis

[Steve Petersen]

truth: that which is in accordance with fact or reality.

reality: the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

truth: that which is in accordance with fact or reality.

reality: the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

Is this in response to my OP or to one of the other posters here in this thread, Steve?

 

[Steve Petersen]

Is this in response to my OP or to one of the other posters here in this thread, Steve?

For anyone who cares to address it, lurkers included.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

For anyone who cares to address it, lurkers included.

Ok. But my thread here as to do with dealing with diabolical ploys, so I find that the interjection [just out of the blue] of your brief attempts to define 'truth' and 'reality' to be a kind of sideline or sidetrack. Are you presenting these here in connection with my OP, or in a disconnected fashion from the OP?

 

[Steve Petersen]

Ok. But my thread here as to do with dealing with diabolical ploys, so I find that the interjection [just out of the blue] of your brief attempts to define 'truth' and 'reality' to be a kind of sideline or sidetrack. Are you presenting these here in connection with my OP, or in a disconnected fashion from the OP?

It was triggered by this post.

No, but I can assert that your choice in selecting "2+2=4" as some kind of 'truth structure' that blows away or exhausts the human meaning of the English word 'truth' is fallacious and fairly arbitrary. Haven't we already gone in circles about all of this over the past few years, or is there something you feel we still haven't covered? Perhaps we need to cover just where you think Lewis' ideas about the ways in which we could be demonically deceived go wrong?

truth: that which is in accordance with fact or reality.

reality: the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

truth: that which is in accordance with fact or reality.

reality: the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

Ok. I see. Yeah, I disagree with this, and as I've said before to others here, when we try to conceptually uncover the essence of truth, I'm going to stand beside Pontius Pilate on this one, because discerning the so-called 'truth' as we humans like to call it is fraught with underlying and/or internal conceptual complications.

Hence, the reason we have epistemic relativity, and for any one Christian or even non-Christian to think that 'truth' or really human truth(S) are readily discernible is a mass folly, especially when it comes to evaluating the essence of the possible reality to which the Bible points, such as that which involves God and the Devil.

And it is for this reason that I investigate the essences of religious thought, and even to a lesser extent those essences we think we receive from 'science,' from the considerations that are inherent within philosophical hermeneutics and the position of either Critical Realism or Representational Realism.................rather than that of Direct Realism.

So, please forgive me if I say that I think your definition of 'truth' is beleaguered by conceptual complexities that make the seemingly simple act of laying out a definition of 'truth' (or knowledge) highly problematic.

And to some extent, the definition you've given of 'reality' is a little on the simple side, even if I can say that I otherwise generally agree with your definition.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Are you referring to a computer chip being implanted into either the right hand or forehead as the mark of the beast?

"Chips" may or may not come with the lunch that has been daily served up to humanity. But regardless, I'm pretty sure the Mark of the Beast has more 'Solomonic' psycho-social proportions to it than the usual spiel would have it............... !

Like this:

666: Hermeneutics and Christian Apologetics

and this:

My pessimism about our Social-Techno Future, OR: ...Enihcam Eht Ot Emoclew...

and some of this:

Contemplating the Existence of God in the Face of Evil

a full cup of this:

A Christian Apology to Hugh Hefner ... !

and a pinch of this:

A philosophical accounting of "Satan's little helpers" (i.e. Marketers)

and bake for 2,000 years to get this:

"Artificial" Apologetics for the Truth of the book of Revelation

 

[John Helpher]

Why does belief or faith need to be maintained? True things tend to handle themselves.

If you really believed that you wouldn't feel any need to be here, now, trying to maintain this idea.

 

[John Helpher]

I think Lewis hits on a pretty important point when Screwtape tells wormwood to keep his patient focused on the way they he feels about some particular idea rather than questioning whether the issue in contention is true or not true.

Yes, 2+2 is 4. Very good. That truth has been established. Now, on the the next truth, and the next, and then the next after that, etc...

 

[John Helpher]

lurkers included.

Spare a thought for the lurkers, won't you?

 

[John Helpher]

I'm going to stand beside Pontius Pilate on this one, because discerning the so-called 'truth' as we humans like to call it is fraught with underlying and/or internal conceptual complications.

I wonder how carefully you examined Pilot's role in the crucifixion of Jesus, to repeatedly align yourself with him. Pilot wasn't confused about the truth; he knew Jesus was innocent and actively sought to free him (for a time). Even his wife, who hadn't been involved at all up to that point, explained to him a dream she'd had which coincided with exactly what was happening with Jesus at that moment.

Pilot's rhetorical question asking what is truth was a cynical deflection from what he did not want to face; that freeing Jesus would mean the end of his political career and quite possibly his life, as the record shows there was much political unrest under his jurisdiction which the higher-ups were becoming increasingly more frustrated with. Going against the Jewish leaders and the crowd (who was being whipped into a frenzy by those same leaders) at that moment would have resulted in a riot, which would ,in turn, have reflected poorly on him. In his mind, he had too much to lose and so he dismissed his culpability with a rather glib comment about not knowing the truth and proceeded to kill an innocent man for political expediency.

No, my friend; do not so casually align your self with this example, mistakenly thinking that Pilot had taken some great, philosophical stance.

Hence, the reason we have epistemic relativity, and for any one Christian or even non-Christian to think that 'truth' or really human truth(S) are readily discernible is a mass folly, especially when it comes to evaluating the essence of the possible reality to which the Bible points, such as that which involves God and the Devil.

Remember Screwtape's strategy from the video? Keep people focused on their feelings about the concept of truth rather than getting down to the nitty gritty of discerning what actually is or is not true; that appears to be what you're doing now. You've taken a rather lofty position that humans just can't discern what truth is, though in reality you only have your own personal experience to go on; how can you possibly say that others are foolish for trying to discern truth just because you've decided Pilot, a politician trying to save his own neck, is the best example there is?

Jesus' teachings are the tools we can use to discern what is true or what is not. For example, consider the golden rule; it is golden precisely because, in order to properly apply it, you must consider the thoughts and feelings of the other person. If someone breaks into your home to steal your stuff, you know you'd feel bad about that. Thus, you can recognize that if you were to break into another person's home to steak his stuff, he'd probably feel bad about that. There is some truth there in recognizing that, while we have free will as individuals and will be held accountable as individuals before God, we still share the same basic morality with all humanity.

Most of us will require several lifetimes to really explore what is truth, but so what? That just makes the exploration so much more exciting. Yes, we'll have struggles along the way but you don't stop searching for gold just because there are so many worthless rocks in the ground.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I wonder how carefully you examined Pilot's role in the crucifixion of Jesus, to repeatedly align yourself with him. Pilot wasn't confused about the truth; he knew Jesus was innocent and actively sought to free him (for a time). Even his wife, who hadn't been involved at all up to that point, explained to him a dream she'd had which coincided with exactly what was happening with Jesus at that moment.

Pilot's rhetorical question asking what is truth was a cynical deflection from what he did not want to face; that freeing Jesus would mean the end of his political career and quite possibly his life, as the record shows there was much political unrest under his jurisdiction which the higher-ups were becoming increasingly more frustrated with. Going against the Jewish leaders and the crowd (who was being whipped into a frenzy by those same leaders) at that moment would have resulted in a riot, which would ,in turn, have reflected poorly on him. In his mind, he had too much to lose and so he dismissed his culpability with a rather glib comment about not knowing the truth and proceeded to kill an innocent man for political expediency.

No, my friend; do not so casually align your self with this example, mistakenly thinking that Pilot had taken some great, philosophical stance.



Remember Screwtape's strategy from the video? Keep people focused on their feelings about the concept of truth rather than getting down to the nitty gritty of discerning what actually is or is not true; that appears to be what you're doing now. You've taken a rather lofty position that humans just can't discern what truth is, though in reality you only have your own personal experience to go on; how can you possibly say that others are foolish for trying to discern truth just because you've decided Pilot, a politician trying to save his own neck, is the best example there is?

Jesus' teachings are the tools we can use to discern what is true or what is not. For example, consider the golden rule; it is golden precisely because, in order to properly apply it, you must consider the thoughts and feelings of the other person. If someone breaks into your home to steal your stuff, you know you'd feel bad about that. Thus, you can recognize that if you were to break into another person's home to steak his stuff, he'd probably feel bad about that. There is some truth there in recognizing that, while we have free will as individuals and will be held accountable as individuals before God, we still share the same basic morality with all humanity.

Most of us will require several lifetimes to really explore what is truth, but so what? That just makes the exploration so much more exciting. Yes, we'll have struggles along the way but you don't stop searching for gold just because there are so many worthless rocks in the ground.

On the one hand, brother John, I appreciate what you're attempting to tell me here. But on the other hand, I think you've misunderstood my intentions and my overall meaning in what I'm implying here as I interact with other posters.

Thanks for the concern, but I do believe that truth exists. It's just that I'm more postmodern-ish in my view of it than are some of my fellow Christians; more specifically, I associate myself with an existentially laden, philosophically hermeneutical approach to faith rather than one that takes everything at ... simple, concrete, face value.

So, don't worry. I hear you, and I do apologize for any confusion that my rhetorical device in 'siding with Pilate' may have caused you. Just be sure that, on the spiritual front, I don't merely side with Jesus: rather, I bow before His Lordship.

Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. And you and I both, blessedly, know this.

 

[John Helpher]

Just be sure that, on the spiritual front, I don't side with Jesus: rather, I bow before His Lordship.

What does this even mean practically? You're not on his side but you bow before him? If you're loyal to him why even bother declaring that you're not on his side? This kind of watery sentence is probably why Jesus said to his would-be followers, "Why do you call me Lord, but do not obey me"?

It's just that I'm more postmodern-ish in my view of it than are some of my fellow Christians; more specifically, I associate myself with an existentially laden, philosophically hermeneutical approach to faith

Go back to the Lewis video you posted at 3:02. That's basically what's happening with this sentence; it is jargon. You say you bow to Jesus; okay what does that mean in a real sense? What do you think about his teachings? Should we obey them? Or do you think we should discuss them as some kind of philosophical set of ideas which may or may not have any existential, hermeneutical value which we may, or may not someday ever get around to thinking are worth giving more thought to?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think Lewis hits on a pretty important point when Screwtape tells wormwood to keep his patient focused on the way they he feels about some particular idea rather than questioning whether the issue in contention is true or not true.

Yes, 2+2 is 4. Very good. That truth has been established. Now, on the the next truth, and the next, and then the next after that, etc...

I agree with what Lewis is attempting to imply through Screwtape. However, I would probably say that it's also important to realize that being made in the Image of God doesn't, and shouldn't, displace the feelings we each may have in our own person as we engage the world (or the spiritual world) around us.

I think that in the case of Screwtape and Wormwood, in Lewis' satire on satanic influence, they're attempting to make their victims focus not only upon their feelings for some man-made phenomena, but to also label those phenomena euphemistically. In other words, the sins involved in man's overreach are being encouraged by Screwtape by influencing humanity to think of it's own creative capacities more highly than it ought to and cause people to think of their resulting deviations as: Bold, Courageous, Innovative, etc. etc. As if those kinds of labels exonerate any further axiological questioning we should do about our creative thoughts and inventions.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What does this even mean practically? You're not on his side but you bow before him? If you're loyal to him why even bother declaring that you're not on his side? This kind of watery sentence is probably why Jesus said to his would-be followers, "Why do you call me Lord, but do not obey me"?

Go back to the Lewis video you posted at 3:02. That's basically what's happening with this sentence; it is jargon. You say you bow to Jesus; okay what does that mean in a real sense? What do you think about his teachings? Should we obey them? Or do you think we should discuss them as some kind of philosophical set of ideas which may or may not have any existential, hermeneutical value which we may, or may not someday ever get around to thinking are worth giving more thought to?

If you'll notice, John, I actually edited what I wrote above to read more accurately as to what I want to say.

Let me also ask you a question here: ... why have you suddenly decided to 'land into me'? You do realize that this section isn't the place to take other, fellow Christians to task, right?

I would recommend that instead of landing into me, you try to get to know me first. Thanks!

 

[John Helpher]

If you'll notice, John, I actually edited what I wrote above to read more accurately as to what I want to say.

Okay, but you've still not clarified what it means to bow to Jesus, but to not be on his side.

Compare this statement...

I think that in the case of Screwtape and Womrwood, in Lewis' satire of satanic influence, they're attempting to make their victims focus not only upon their feelings for some man-made phenomena, but also upon their ingenuity to label those phenomena euphemistically.

With this statement...

I would probably say that it's also important to realize that being made in the Image of God doesn't, and shouldn't, displace the feelings we each may have in our own person as we engage the world (or the spiritual world) around us.

It's like you're saying, "Yes, I recognize the demon's attempt to make us focus on our feelings (as opposed to what actually is true) as a tactic, but John, have you considered that I have feelings"?

why have you suddenly decided to 'land into me'? You do realize that this section isn't the place to take other, fellow Christians to task, right?

We might add to Screwtapes advice to Wormwood, "Make them feel like an exploration of truth is actually a personal attack; make them feel like they're being landed into; make them feel like they're being taken to task, and in the swirling hurt feelings resulting from these thoughts, the truth will remain unexplored. This worked well enough in Jesus' day when we convinced the religious authorities, (in a rather embarrassingly whiny attempt, I may proudly note), to lament to Jesus, 'teacher, thus saying thou also accuse us.' Heh, the fools genuinely believed their hurt feelings would be enough to convince Jesus that he should stop correcting their faults and truth be told, with most people this tactic works, but not with Jesus. Harrumph! One might get the impression that he practically enjoyed belittling people (the sneaky trickster!), referring to one woman as a dog, to others as goats and pigs, and even to one of his most trusted followers as Satan himself! (Baghhh! The nerve of that man, using our father's name as some kind of truthful rebuke)! Closer inspection reveals that it was not enjoyment which inspired these insults (what a waste), but rather an insidious attempt to shock people out of the banal, insipid loyalty to social respectability which we've so carefully lulled them into over the centuries. Just as we have them stupidly stumbling through the miasma of everyone being nice and polite and caring for each others feelings, along he comes with some brutish insult snapping them out of it! It is our good fortune that this rarely works, though, due to our efforts to strengthen their pride. And this is where the enemy, in his effort to give these repugnant creatures free will, as left us a good deal of wiggle room. It doesn't take much effort at all to convince a human that he's been treated unfairly. A twisting of his innate, god-given sense of justice, (that why should he, as the sole arbiter of justice from his own perspective, not be the ultimate beneficiary of such justice?), will as surely keep him from recognition of truth about himself as the deepest, darkest prison of hell.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Okay, but you've still not clarified what it means to bow to Jesus, but to not be on his side.

Yes, I did clarify with my edit above. Did you not bother to look at the edit I made? Maybe look at that first before we commence any further dialogue here, brother John. Hermeneutics, John. Hermeneutical circles. Keep going. Keep going.

 

[John Helpher]

Yes, I did clarify with my edit above.

I don't see any clarification there about what it means to bow to Jesus but to not be on his side. I'm guessing you believe you've offered a clarification

As if those kinds of labels exonerate any further axiological questioning we should do about our creative thoughts and inventions.

Is this the clarification? It looks like jargon.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't see any clarification there about what it means to bow to Jesus but to not be on his side. I'm guessing you believe you've offered a clarification

Yes. All I had to do was add the adverb "merely," and viola, the intended meaning is changed.

Is this the clarification? It looks like jargon.

Nope. That's not what I was referring to.

Also, at this point, I'd suggest you stop attempting to 'take me down,' brother John.

Thanks.

 

[John Helpher]

Yes. All I had to do was add the adverb "merely," and viola, the intended meaning is changed.

I dunno, but this sounds like word games. I had the impression that you opened this thread for meaningful discussion, but you're just playing around with this stuff now. If you want good discussion, then make your arguments clear. You said this confusing thing about bowing to Jesus but not being on his side and now you're talking about your use of the word "merely" somehow clearing it all up.

Also, at this point, I'd suggest you stop attempting to 'take me down,' brother John.

We might add to Screwtapes advice to Wormwood, "Make them feel like an exploration of truth is actually a personal attack; make them feel like they're being landed into; make them feel like they're being taken to task, and in the swirling hurt feelings resulting from these thoughts, the truth will remain unexplored. This worked well enough in Jesus' day when we convinced the religious authorities, (in a rather embarrassingly whiny attempt, I may proudly note), to lament to Jesus, 'teacher, thus saying thou also accuse us.' Heh, the fools genuinely believed their hurt feelings would be enough to convince Jesus that he should stop correcting their faults and truth be told, with most people this tactic works, but not with Jesus. Harrumph! One might get the impression that he practically enjoyed belittling people (the sneaky trickster!), referring to one woman as a dog, to others as goats and pigs, and even to one of his most trusted followers as Satan himself! (Baghhh! The nerve of that man, using our father's name as some kind of truthful rebuke)! Closer inspection reveals that it was not enjoyment which inspired these insults (what a waste), but rather an insidious attempt to shock people out of the banal, insipid loyalty to social respectability which we've so carefully lulled them into over the centuries. Just as we have them stupidly stumbling through the miasma of everyone being nice and polite and caring for each others feelings, along he comes with some brutish insult snapping them out of it! It is our good fortune that this rarely works, though, due to our efforts to strengthen their pride. And this is where the enemy, in his effort to give these repugnant creatures free will, as left us a good deal of wiggle room. It doesn't take much effort at all to convince a human that he's been treated unfairly. A twisting of his innate, god-given sense of justice, (that why should he, as the sole arbiter of justice from his own perspective, not be the ultimate beneficiary of such justice?), will as surely keep him from recognition of truth about himself as the deepest, darkest prison of hell.