Open Question to Inviolable

[OllieFranz]

"C.S. Lewis"
Puddleglum: Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things - trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have.

Atheist: I would need to live in the world. A team of scientist would be ideal and at least ten years of research before I decide anything one way or the other.
Maybe then I will consider believing you.

Puddleglum: Now theres an open mind!

I've wanted to ask you this question for a while, ever since I first saw your signature, and the respect you hold for the writings of C. S. Lewis. But always, it was a bad time to derail whatever thread to ask an unrelated question. I have finally decided that if I want to ask the question without derailing the thread, I should ask it in a thread whose point was to ask the question. this it the thread, and here is the question:

Do you know what Lewis' public stance on homosexuality was? And why he took that stance? If you do know, that's something you should carefully consider.

 

[OllieFranz]

**Bump!**

Can anyone answer the question? (Hint I believe that I first read it in his unofficial autobiography -- his "Confessions" if you will -- Surprised By Joy)

 

[Inviolable]

Actually I don't know that much about him. The quote is borrowed.

What was it?

People mistake my stance on homosexuality because of what I say.
Which sounds contradictory, I know.

But people dont often let go of what they think matters to see the bigger picture. So that they can see what really matters.

I believe that's understanding. On both sides of the fence.

People can not get along until they have a common interest and to have a common interest you need understanding.

In these forums I often see people leaving that understanding to a concept that is always black and white. People debate on the subject as if it has to be one thing or the other.

I just choose the hetero side because I am one and more likely to understand that side.
But I do hope to see a day when neither side feels repressed.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Actually I don't know that much about him. The quote is borrowed.

What was it?

People mistake my stance on homosexuality because of what I say.
Which sounds contradictory, I know.

But people dont often let go of what they think matters to see the bigger picture. So that they can see what really matters.

I believe that's understanding. On both sides of the fence.

People can not get along until they have a common interest and to have a common interest you need understanding.

In these forums I often see people leaving that understanding to a concept that is always black and white. People debate on the subject as if it has to be one thing or the other.

I just choose the hetero side because I am one and more likely to understand that side.
But I do hope to see a day when neither side feels repressed.

I just replied to you in the other thread & I think the part I bolded is what I was hoping to understand in that thread. What does the phrase "bigger picture" mean to you? Your posts make it sound like your own personal subjective feelings that arise when you imagine something other people do are a bigger picture than the feelings and rights of gays that directly affect the way they live their own lives from day to day.

Obviously, I am not understanding. You've used a comparative term, "bigger." I want to understand why you think your feelings about other people are bigger than their own feelings about themselves.

 

[Inviolable]

I just replied to you in the other thread & I think the part I bolded is what I was hoping to understand in that thread. What does the phrase "bigger picture" mean to you? Your posts make it sound like your own personal subjective feelings that arise when you imagine something other people do are a bigger picture than the feelings and rights of gays that directly affect the way they live their own lives from day to day.

Obviously, I am not understanding. You've used a comparative term, "bigger." I want to understand why you think your feelings about other people are bigger than their own feelings about themselves.

I'm not holding my own wants and desires over some else' head to keep them down.
When I say understanding I mean hetero's need to understand as much as homosexuals, or vice verse.

You know if a homosexual could understand how hetero's feel and why they're rejecting them. They could explain it to the heteros and at the very least be one up on them.
But I haven't seen a single one even come close. And I've been here since 06. I'm not saying heteros are any different, but I do see a lot more of them at least trying.

 

[OllieFranz]

Actually I don't know that much about him. The quote is borrowed.

What was it?

In the chapter in which he describes his first going off to "Public" school (in America we call them "Prep" (short for preparatory) schools, but Lewis lived in the UK -- they are boarding schools geared to preparing you to get into the more prestigious colleges where, hopefully, you will go on to a high-powered career in the public eye), he talks about some of the school's traditions, which included "fagging" which is not what you probably think, and queening, which is.

At the end of the chapter, he brings up the subject again, explaining why he did no more than simply describe the situation with homosexuality and not condemn it. He says that it for the same reason that he does not speak out against gambling he is not qualified to talk about fighting those temptations, since he has never had to fight them. God in His mercy had never allowed those temptations to touch him (possibly because he would not have been able to defeat them, so this was God's way of escape [see 1 Corinthians 10:13]).

A paragraph from his book Mere Christianity gives a better idea of why the less tempted he was by a sin, the less he felt qualified to judge the sinner:

“A silly idea is current that good people do not know what temptation means. This is an obvious lie. Only those who try to resist temptation know how strong it is. After all, you find out the strength of the German army by fighting against it, not by giving in. You find out the strength of a wind by trying to walk against it, not by lying down. A man who gives in to temptation after five minutes simply does not know what it would have been like an hour later.” – Book III, Ch 11

​

I was simply surprised to find someone who clearly admired Lewis' writings coming down so strongly against gays without first testifying how he had managed to overcome his own homosexual temptations.

 

[Inviolable]

In the chapter in which he describes his first going off to "Public" school (in America we call them "Prep" (short for preparatory) schools, but Lewis lived in the UK -- they are boarding schools geared to preparing you to get into the more prestigious colleges where, hopefully, you will go on to a high-powered career in the public eye), he talks about some of the school's traditions, which included "fagging" which is not what you probably think, and queening, which is.

At the end of the chapter, he brings up the subject again, explaining why he did no more than simply describe the situation with homosexuality and not condemn it. He says that it for the same reason that he does not speak out against gambling he is not qualified to talk about fighting those temptations, since he has never had to fight them. God in His mercy had never allowed those temptations to touch him (possibly because he would not have been able to defeat them, so this was God's way of escape [see 1 Corinthians 10:13]).

A paragraph from his book Mere Christianity gives a better idea of why the less tempted he was by a sin, the less he felt qualified to judge the sinner:

“A silly idea is current that good people do not know what temptation means. This is an obvious lie. Only those who try to resist temptation know how strong it is. After all, you find out the strength of the German army by fighting against it, not by giving in. You find out the strength of a wind by trying to walk against it, not by lying down. A man who gives in to temptation after five minutes simply does not know what it would have been like an hour later.” – Book III, Ch 11

​

I was simply surprised to find someone who clearly admired Lewis' writings coming down so strongly against gays without first testifying how he had managed to overcome his own homosexual temptations.

Lewis and I live in different times. I'm sure back in Lewis' day they considered homosexuality to be a choice.
So he would've compared it to gambling and not have spoken out.
Where as I cant compare it to gambling and just tell people how I feel.

 

[Crazy Liz]

I'm not holding my own wants and desires over some else' head to keep them down.
When I say understanding I mean hetero's need to understand as much as homosexuals, or vice verse.

You know if a homosexual could understand how hetero's feel and why they're rejecting them. They could explain it to the heteros and at the very least be one up on them.
But I haven't seen a single one even come close. And I've been here since 06. I'm not saying heteros are any different, but I do see a lot more of them at least trying.

You seem to be complaining that nobody understands how you feel. I haven't seen you come close to explaining how you feel well enough for anyone to say we understand how you feel. Maybe that's a limitation of written language without facial and body language or voice cues, which tend to communicate emotion better than words.

My question to you might be a different one: Why do you think your feelings should affect what other people are allowed to do, no matter how strong your feelings?

 

[OllieFranz]

The only comparison he made between homosexuality and gambling was that he'd been spared the temptations. And that is the reason he could not judge those who hasd faced the temptations.

On the other hand, he was outspoken about heterosexual immorality, because he knew that temptation. He knew it very well, and even had a nickname for it "the little brown girl."

But he never knew her "brother" and felt he was unqualified to exhort someone to fight against a temptation that he himself had never fought against.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say "in Lewis' day they considered homosexuality to be a choice." I see two completely different -- almos opposite -- ways to read that statement and either way, I can't follow the logic to your conclusion.

If you mean that they (the general public in Lewis' time) had no concept of orientation and that that concept makes a difference in how you respond to gays, then I'm confused about why that is a reason to judge them more harshly. From our perspective, Lewis was not tempted because he was straight. All straight Christians should be as honest in not understanding homosexual attraction.

If you mean that they were more accepting of homosexuality, that would not be the general public; it would only be a small minority of the upper classes, mostly gay men themselves, and would not be in accord with Lewis' own beliefs. He refused to judge gays despite the fact that he thought the practice was immoral, not because his feelings were soft on the issue, but because he felt it would be hypocritical since he did not know how strong the temptation could be for those who faced it.

If you do not mean either of these two interpretations of your statement, I am at a loss, and need to ask for clarification.

 

[littlebird]

I know this was an open letter - so I hope you don't mind my jumping in.

CS Lewis is a wise man... you know that Ghandi saying "I would have become a Christian had I ever met one " I think CSLewis is that type of Christian ... a geniune Christian ...who did his best to Love as Christ loves.

His approach to homosexuality should be studied by Christians. Non of us are called to judge another ...especially when we have not had to carry their cross ...instead we should help them carry their cross with our love.

I do not personally with in my self of my own accord "feel" that homosexuals are any more sinners than myself ...but then that's not saying much since i am a sinner! The issue of homosexuality almost kept me from returning to the church until God gave me grace to understand and accept the churches magisterium on the matter. I do know understand thechurches teachings and I believe them with my whole heart ...but I think what most people think about what that means our response should be is way off.

Yes if someone close to you is in sin (I should say you think someone close to you is in sin ...since we can not judge anyone ) then by all means kindly and gently tell them ... it does not mean harass strangers on the internet ...people you stand little chance of pursuading and lots of chance of actually putting a wedge between them and God. Admonishment has a proper form and protical ...it is prescribed in the Bible. What happens on these forumns does not fit the recipe God gave us for pointing out sin in another.

LOVE one another.

 

[Texas Lynn]

I just choose the hetero side...

I see this sort of phrase as indicating you see heterosexuals and homosexuals are somehow in competition. I don't understand that if that's what you mean.