MacDonald (as selected by Lewis)

[Mervin_Bitikofer]

I wondered if that wouldn’t catch some attention from some science-minded folks here. Maybe you should say more about what you make of it.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@Mervin_Bitikofer

To the merely scientific man all this is pure nonsense, or at best belongs to the region of the fancy. The time will come, I think, when he will see that there is more in it, namely, a higher reason, a loftier science, how incorrectly soever herein indicated.

My thought (or non-articulated impression, really) had to do with the artistry in all of created reality and not merely the physics. Lewis’ “the great dance” comes to mind (now that you want me specify something ; - ).
 

He mentions it in Perelandra,

“What is this that we feel, Tor?’ said Tinidril.

‘I don’t know,’ said the King. ‘One day I will give it a name. This is not a day for making names.’

‘It is like a fruit with a very thick shell,’ said Tinidril. ‘The joy of our meeting when we meet again in the Great Dance is the sweet of it. But the rind is thick—more years thick than I can count.’

‘You see now,’ said Tor, ‘what that Evil One would have done to us. If we had listened to him we should now be trying to get at that sweet without biting through the shell.’

'And so it would not be “That sweet” at all, said Tinidril.”

 
…and also sans ‘great’ in The Problem of Pain (I found it when I was looking for the former),

The world is a dance in which Good, descending from God, is disturbed by evil arising from the creatures, and the resulting conflict is resolved by God’s own assumption of the suffering nature which evil produces.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

A longer bit:

Here is a wonderful excerpt from Perelandra which describes the mystical experience of seeing directly into “the Great Dance” of the multi-dimensional spacetimeconsciousness continuum that is the true cosmos:

“In the plan of the Great Dance plans without number interlock, and each movement becomes in its season the breaking into flower of the whole design to which all else had been directed. Thus each is equally at the centre and none are there by being equals, but some by giving place and some by receiving it, the small things by their smallness and the great by their greatness, and all the patterns linked and looped together by the unions of a kneeling with a sceptred love. Blessed be He!”

“All that is made seems planless to the darkened mind, because there are more plans than it looked for. In these seas there are islands where the hairs of the turf are so fine and so closely woven together that unless a man looked long at them he would see neither hairs nor weaving at all, but only the same and the flat. So with the Great Dance. Set your eyes on one movement and it will lead you through all patterns and it will seem to you the master movement. But the seeming will be true. Let no mouth open to gainsay it. There seems no plan because it is all plan: there seems no centre because it is all centre. Blessed be He!”

“Yet this seeming also is the end and final cause for which He spreads out Time so long and Heaven so deep; lest if we never met the dark, and the road that leads nowhither, and the question to which no answer is imaginable, we should have in our minds no likeness of the Abyss of the Father, into which if a creature drop down his thoughts for ever he shall hear no echo return to him. Blessed, blessed, blessed be He!”

And now, by a transition which he did not notice, it seemed that what had begun as speech was turned into sight, or into something that can be remembered only as if it were seeing. He thought he saw the Great Dance. It seemed to be woven out of the intertwining undulation of many cords or bands of light, leaping over and under one another and mutually embraced in arabesques and flower-like subtleties.

Each figure as he looked at it became the master-figure or focus of the whole spectacle, by means of which his eye disentangled a1l else and brought it into unity–only to be itself entangled when he looked to what he had taken for mere marginal decorations and found that there also the same hegemony was claimed, and the claim made good, yet the former pattern not thereby dispossessed but finding in its new subordination a significance greater than that which it had abdicated. He could see also (but the word “seeing” is now plainly inadequate) wherever the ribbons or serpents of light intersected, minute corpuscles of momentary brightness: and he knew somehow that these particles were the secular generalities of which history tells–peoples, institutions, climates of opinion, civilisations, arts, sciences, and the like–ephemeral coruscations that piped their short song and vanished. The ribbons or cords themselves, in which millions of corpuscles lived and died, were things of some different kind. At first he could not say what. But he knew in the end that most of them were individual entities. If so, the time in which the Great Dance proceeds is very unlike time as we know it.

Some of the thinner and more delicate cords were beings that we call short-lived: flowers and insects, a fruit or a storm of rain, and once (he thought) a wave of the sea. Others were such things as we also think lasting: crystals, rivers, mountains, or even stars. Far above these in girth and luminosity and flashing with colours from beyond our spectrum were the lines of the personal beings, yet as different from one another in splendour as all of them from the previous class. But not all the cords were individuals: some were universal truths or universal qualities. It did not surprise him then to find that these and the persons were both cords and both stood together as against the mere atoms of generality which lived and died in the clashing of their streams: but afterwards, when he came back to earth, he wondered.

And by now the thing must have passed together out of the region of sight as we understand it. For he says that the whole solid figure of these enamoured and inter-inanimated circlings was suddenly revealed as the mere superficies of a far vaster pattern in four dimensions, and that figure as the boundary of yet others in other worlds: till suddenly as the movement grew yet swifter, the interweaving yet more ecstatic, the relevance of all to all yet more intense, as dimension was added to dimension and that part of him which could reason and remember was dropped farther and farther behind that part of him which saw, even then, at the very zenith of complexity, complexity was eaten up and faded, as a thin white cloud fades into the hard blue burning of the sky, and a simplicity beyond all comprehension, ancient and young as spring, illimitable, pellucid, drew him with cords of infinite desire into its own stillness. He went up into such a quietness, a privacy, and a freshness that at the very moment when he stood farthest from our ordinary mode of being he had the sense of stripping off encumbrances and awaking from trance, and coming to himself. With a gesture of relaxation he looked about him. . . .

(C.S. Lewis, Perelandra, pp. 218-219. Ed. note: I’ve added a few paragraph breaks for readbility.)

[Mervin_Bitikofer]

(27) Religious feeling

Our Lord says, “I can do without the life that comes of bread: without the life that comes of the word of my Father, I die indeed.” Therefore he does not think twice about the matter. That God’s will be done is all his care. That done, all will be right, and all right with him, whether he thinks about himself or not. For the Father does not forget the child who is so busy trusting in him, that he cares not even to pray for himself.

In the higher aspect of this first temptation, arising from the fact that a man cannot feel the things he believes except under certain conditions of physical well-being dependent upon food, the answer is the same: A man does not live by his feelings any more than by bread, but by the Truth, that is, the Word, the Will, the uttered Being of God.

As found in “The Temptation in the Wilderness” sermon.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@Mervin_Bitikofer

For the Father does not forget the child who is so busy trusting in him, that he cares not even to pray for himself.

(Have I ever mentioned the importance being childlike before God? ; - )

[Mervin_Bitikofer]

(28) Dryness

If, by any will of God–that is, any truth in him–we live, we live by it tenfold when that will has become a word to us. When we receive it, his will becomes our will, and so we live by God. But the word of God once understood, a man must live by the faith of what God is, and not by his own feelings even in regard to God. It is the Truth itself, that which God is, known by what goeth out of his mouth, that man lives by. And when he can no longer feel the truth, he shall not therefore die. He lives because God is true; and he is able to know that he lives because he knows, having once understood the word, that God is truth. He believes in the God of former vision, lives by that word therefore, when all is dark and there is no vision.

As found in “The Temptation in the Wilderness” sermon.

[Mervin_Bitikofer]

(29) Presumption

“If ye have faith and doubt not, if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done.” Good people, amongst them John Bunyan, have been tempted to tempt the Lord their God upon the strength of this saying, just as Satan sought to tempt our Lord on the strength of the passage he quoted from the Psalms. Happily for such, the assurance to which they would give the name of faith generally fails them in time. Faith is that which, knowing the Lord’s will, goes and does it; or, not knowing it, stands and waits, content in ignorance as in knowledge, because God wills; neither pressing into the hidden future, nor careless of the knowledge which opens the path of action. It is its noblest exercise to act with uncertainty of the result, when the duty itself is certain, or even when a course seems with strong probability to be duty.

[Footnote: In the latter case a man may be mistaken, and his work will be burned, but by that very fire he will be saved. Nothing saves a man more than the burning of his work, except the doing of work that can stand the fire.]

But to put God to the question in any other way than by saying, What wilt thou have me to do? is an attempt to compel God to declare himself, or to hasten his work. This probably was the sin of Judas. It is presumption of a kind similar to the making of a stone into bread. It is, as it were, either a forcing of God to act where he has created no need for action, or the making of a case wherein he shall seem to have forfeited his word if he does not act. The man is therein dissociating himself from God so far that, instead of acting by the divine will from within, he acts in God’s face, as it were, to see what he will do. Man’s first business is, “What does God want me to do?” not “What will God do if I do so and so?”

As found in “The Temptation in the Wilderness” sermon.

[Terry_Sampson]

@Kendel

The thought of rewards, at least as I can conceive of them, is nothing compared to restoration and reconcilliation of all things in all ways. Unfettered goodness.

• Exactamundo! Reminding me of my recent attempt to convey a deeper understanding of the concept of the transitive verb “to redeem” to someone by providing a Collins-dictionary list of examples. Because most of the examples involved “financial terms” [e.g. currency/money/common alternates, the individual concluded that “redemption” = “financial transaction”, and “Jesus the Redeemer” = “Jesus, the Banker”. Unfortunately, the individual completely glossed over what I thought was the most salient of the examples: i.e. “to redeem” = “to fulfill a promise/pledge”, money doesn’t have to be involved at all. A spouse can, upon their death, be said to have redeemed their wedding promise(s).
• More to your point, tagging the goal of a relationship between God and humans with the word “rewards” can, and often does lend itself to characterizing the goal of a relationship with God as striving for a reward from a rewarder when, IMO, Proverbs 10:25 tells me otherwise: “When the storm has swept by, the wicked are gone, but the righteous stand firm forever.” Sticking with God ends up with a human survivor.

[MarkD (A Whateverist, not a Christian)]

@Terry_Sampson

characterizing the goal of a relationship with God as striving for a reward from a rewarder

Between the marriage of my childhood (briefly in my early 20’s) and my actual marriage I was inspired/driven to think some about the purpose of relationship. In part we want to really know an other more than superficially. But I came to realize that being known by an other was as important or even more so. You can know another without a feeling of belonging but if another knows you (and doesn’t flee) then there is belonging. If you feel God knows you and you are honest in that relationship that can have similar though different value.

[Terry_Sampson]

@MarkD

being known by an other was as important or even more so.

Absolutely! I agree wholeheartedly. Where’s the fun in being a stand-up comedian, if you can never find an audience?

[MarkD (A Whateverist, not a Christian)]

My sense of humor ranges from off beat to silly. My wife is fond of saying the trouble with my humor is it isn’t funny. I think that’s the funniest thing she says.

[Kendel]

Precisely!
  

[Mervin_Bitikofer]

(30) Knowledge of God

To say Thou art God , without knowing what the Thou means–of what use is it? God is a name only, except we know God .

That was a short one today (from Lewis.) I’ll also include below the entire paragraph from which that thought was extracted, for those who want more context. And as always, nothing beats just following the link and reading the entire sermon.

But as this temptation in the wilderness was an epitome and type of the temptations to come, against which for forty days he had been making himself strong, revolving truth beyond our reach, in whose light every commonest duty was awful and divine, a vision fit almost to oppress a God in his humiliation, so we shall understand the whole better if we look at his life in relation to it. As he refused to make stones bread, so throughout that life he never wrought a miracle to help himself; as he refused to cast himself from the temple to convince Satan or glory visibly in his Sonship, so he steadily refused to give the sign which the human Satans demanded, notwithstanding the offer of conviction which they held forth to bribe him to the grant. How easy it seems to have confounded them, and strengthened his followers! But such conviction would stand in the way of a better conviction in his disciples, and would do his adversaries only harm. For neither could not in any true sense be convinced by such a show: it could but prove his power. It might prove so far the presence of a God; but would it prove that God? Would it bring him nearer to them, who could not see him in the face of his Son? To say Thou art God , without knowing what the Thou means–of what use is it? God is a name only, except we know God . Our Lord did not care to be so acknowledged.

As found in “The Temptation in the Wilderness” sermon.

[MarkD (A Whateverist, not a Christian)]

@Mervin_Bitikofer

To say Thou art God , without knowing what the Thou means–of what use is it? God is a name only, except we know God . Our Lord did not care to be so acknowledged.

In French there is a verb savoir that means “to know’ regarding simple facts and another connaitre for knowing more complex ‘things’ such as people and places which you never know entirely but can become more familiar with as the relationship endures and deepens. I think what is indicated by “God” requires a still more extensive expansion of what it means “to know”.

As with persons you can have a relationship with God but unlike with persons you cannot record the conversation on audio or video tape. That doesn’t mean you can’t have one. Maybe you can but that isn’t my experience. The way I think of it is as parallel play with a silent partner. There isn’t a back and forth sort of exchange just a sense of meeting whatever the world brings alongside one that knows more but doesn’t speak. I think of insight, inspiration and intuition as a kind of wordless premonition of how that one is sizing up out situation.

[Terry_Sampson]

@MarkD

savior

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the french word that you’ve mixed up with the English word “savior” is “savoir”. “à savoir” translates to “to know”. The french word for “savior” is “sauveur” (masculine) or “sauveuse” (feminine).

[MarkD (A Whateverist, not a Christian)]

In other hands that would surely have been a gotcha moment. Thanks for not roughing me up.

[Kendel]

Good one, Mark.
German makes this same distinction with “wissen” for facts (Wissenschaft is the word for “science”) and “kennen” for persons or things you can be familiar with but can never fully apprehend.
In fact, I had a book or something called, Gott Kennen.
Wait! I bet that’s the German title for J.I. Packer’s book (Knowing God).

[Terry_Sampson]

For You Are My God By John Foley,S J

1. You give marvelous comrades to me:
   the faithful who dwell in Your land.
   Those who choose alien gods
   have chosen an alien band.

2. You are my portion and cup;
   It is You that I claim for my prize.
   Your heritage is my delight,
   the lot you have given to me.

3. Glad are my heart and my soul
   Securely my body will rest
   For you will not leave me for dead
   Nor lead your beloved astray

4. You show me the path for my life
   In your presence the fullness of joy
   To be at your right hand forever
   For me would be happiness always

[Mervin_Bitikofer]

Beautiful song!

[Mervin_Bitikofer]

We’ll, … I didn’t know any of that either.