Why do people leave the Faith. What are we doing wrong?

  • Thread starter Thread starter WilT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The thing is the only person who manipulated myself was ultimately me. Others just followed suit. But the fact remains. It was me. It was me who saw myself as a conflicted being that needed to put himself down for fear of desire. Even without the manipulator, the law remains unchanged. It didn’t twist nor bend anything. There are just some laws and some teachings I can no longer bear to follow because it’s just not what I want.

I know I’m a selfish, sexually depraved, and all-around go-getting bastard. My patience is thin and I grow sick of guilt.

But guess what? I’m all the better for it! 👍

The saints can look down on me all they will or pray with grievous tears, I’m done seeing myself as their object. Because frankly, that had always been my choice. Changing the way I viewed myself had really made such a difference in my life. Any moment when I feel otherwise is really just my old doubts, my old beliefs, banging at the door and crying to be let in… just so they could ruin my life again.

I say, nope. Nada. Forget it! I’m not doing this anymore! Feel free to slip in a few feel-good notes under the door but I’ll keep it locked until I finally get something better. 👍

It certainly does for me. 😛
As you enter a house, wish it peace. If the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it; if not, let your peace return to you. Whoever will not receive you or listen to your words—go outside that house or town and shake the dust from your feet. Amen, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.” Matt. 10:12-15

Once we have satisfied both ourselves and you that you have heard the Gospel and unequivocally rejected it, we can let you go about it and pray that you have a change of heart somewhere down the line. There is no point in arguing about it on and on; it would only frustrate us and annoy you.
 
Yes, this. I’ve tried to politely point this out a few times, but it’s brushed off.

Where’s the love for others that Jesus proclaimed? Where is the charity that St. Therese of Lisieux wrote so wisely about?
Our Lord never said that belief in the Gospel was optional, only that those with the office of preaching only needed to preach for as long as it was possible their message might be accepted. In fact, preachers were instructed to move on when the Gospel was rejected. I just posted this passage, but it answers your objection, as well:

As you enter a house, wish it peace. If the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it; if not, let your peace return to you. Whoever will not receive you or listen to your words—go outside that house or town and shake the dust from your feet. Amen, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.” Matt. 10:12-15
 
We cannot water down the faith in order to attract our brothers and sisters who would leave because the truth demands too much from them. Those souls cannot be saved by simply keeping them in the pews. We have to pray that the Holy Spirit will reach them, convict them, return them, heal them, console them, and rebuild them. Maybe they are afflicted with invincible ignorance or are not responsible for some reason that God hasn’t chosen to share with us. We can leave that up to God. Telling them that they have no need to accept the faith, no need to change their understanding, no need to avail themselves of the life of the Church, though, that is worse than doing nothing. We cannot do that. We can leave them alone and leave it up to God, but we must not tell them there is no concern at all about their sojourn out of communion with the Church.

A lot of people do not leave because the truth is too hard or demands too much or because they have not been given the grace to accept it, though. Some of us leave because the truth is obscured because those who do believe all the right facts are too lukewarm in responding to the truth.

We have to ask ourselves: Do we teach the truth, but in a condemning way that encourages despair? Do we teach it in an unbalanced way that distorts it? Do we teach the truth, but in words only, and do not live it–the poor going without hands-on care, the difficulties in struggling with emotional disorders is not acknowledged, the liturgies being conducted in a manner that is either sloppy or so concerned with externals that the rituals become gods instead of the means to worship the one true God as a single Body of Christ? Do we fail to make an effort to have so much as a human connection with our brothers and sisters, and then try to tell them that everything we do is meant to express the love of God for them, and expect that message to make sense? The list could go on and on, but that point is made. These are the losses that should concern us the most and offer us the best opportunity for making changes that are within our control.

The other group that we must not lose are those who seek the truth in good faith and are ready to conform their lives to it, but leave because of misconceptions. They think they know what the Church teaches, but they don’t get it quite right, and they say, “hey, that can’t be right,” and conclude that the faith is wrong or conclude that it does not require what it does in fact require. Good catechesis can help with that.
 
I would be grateful if you could explain why, because I disagree with you, my questions and opinions are dismissed as “Scattershot arguments!” It seems to be a common C.A.F trait to label others- e.g “Cafeteria Catholics” etc.
Reverting to the o.p - do you not feel that your reaction to my posts typifies some of the aspects of Catholicism which cause people to leave the Faith?
You pose a good question. After reading your first response I was left speechless as to how to properly understand your response and answer. I could not p(name removed by moderator)oint or follow it properly. It was a scattershot response I felt since it didn’t quite fit a logical sequence. You mentioned at one point you felt you were being labeled. I spoke about your response to my post only not of you. If I did my apologies, but don’t be so sensitive and critical if others respond to your response. Try not to personalize it. We comment on what you may say but not you as a person.
 
Why do so many still quote this CS Lewis passage?
There are more than just these three “choices” of lunatic, liar, or Lord.
There are many other possibilities. Lewis himself may have thought this seventy years ago…but we have learned and discovered a lot since then and know that there are more than just these three options to describe Jesus.
OK, I’ll bite.

What has been “learned and discovered” about the identity of Jesus of Nazareth that C.S. Lewis and G. K. Chesterton did not know in 1950? That Sts. Peter and Paul did not know when they were martyred over their preaching about him?

What is* your* answer to the question, “But who do you say that I am?”

How do you answer this contention of St. Paul with those who question whether Christ really is the victor over death?
*Moreover, why are we endangering ourselves all the time? Every day I face death; I swear it by the pride in you [brothers] that I have in Christ Jesus our Lord. If at Ephesus I fought with beasts, so to speak, what benefit was it to me? If the dead are not raised:
“Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.” *1 Cor. 15:32
(Just for the record: Paul’s authorship of 1 Corinthians has never been seriously questioned.)

The people closest to the question did not seem to think there were all these options you are suggesting exist somewhere. What are these options, and what is the evidence for them?
 
What is* your* answer to the question, “But who do you say that I am?”
What are these options, and what is the evidence for them?
Gee, where to start. I say He’s a person that needs to come down here again, not to herald the apocalypse, but because He has a lot to answer since the last time He left.

What does it take for Him to get what I want? Or at least, let me have it? Why does He always act like He knows everything and all I am is just some infantile, ignorant insect whose personal desires are meaningless in the face of Natural Order? Why do I have to kneel down and just accept my whims are irrelevant? Is He really Christ or Cthulhu!?

Do I gotta do this to get His attention?


(Smite me! O Mighty Smiter!)

Are His followers just wrong? Or better yet, why must I always be wrong? What is so wrong about wanting my life to be heaven on earth? Why must I constantly contend with this nag your ‘Church’ calls a conscience? Why do I have to wait until I’m in my forties where I’m enduring yet another one of His intrusive, Divine Curve Balls? For what? So that the religious could convince me of a belief they deem ‘too demanding’ of oh-so-worldly me?

Because frankly, no matter how depraved or empty they claim it to be, this is my life. Not theirs. Not anybody’s. I’d rather be a ‘slave’ to my ‘passions’ and ‘lusts’ because at least my head is lighter and my heart isn’t as heavy.
 
Oh my goodness…a lot has been learned!
We’ve learned much more about how and when the gospels were written, first of all.
That they were written approx 40-70 years after Jesus died after stories were passed around by word of mouth…and then most likely written down by highly literate Greeks and not people who actually knew Jesus or where present for the events.
We’ve learned that not only do none of the original copies of the bible exist, but that the copies of the gospels/biblical canon we do have were made from versions copied by scribes that, when compared to the earliest copies we have and to each other, show thousands of errors.
We know that by examining the gospels, many words, quotes, events were added in later – anywhere from decades to centuries later (for example, the entire ending of the Mark gospel…and the “he who cast the first stone” scene).
Also by dating, we’ve been able to see how the gospels changed and evolved re how Jesus’ followers saw him.
We’ve learned that there were many myths/Gods before and during Jesus’ time who shared many of the same details–a virgin birth, the healings, etc.
We’ve seen other books that were not included in the biblical canon–some found in hidden cannisters and read for the first time in a dozen of centuries.
We know much more about how the religion was shaped and formed in those first few centuries and why-- and the context. That there were many different groups and beliefs about Jesus and the books and ideas of those groups were mostly destroyed on purpose.
We know much more about human psychology, about healing and biology.
We’ve learned more history to know that there was no empire-wide census that would have made Mary and Joseph go to Bethlehem from their hometown of Nazareth.

These points are just the ones at the top of my head, there are of course many more.
But these points alone conjure many, many questions about how accurate the writings in the biblical canon are.

So when Lewis says he can only be a liar, a lunatic, or a Lord…he is missing the many possibilities that…Jesus may have been misquoted, the writers may have written things down wrong, the scribes along the way changed wording and made mistakes, his followers may have misinterpreted Jesus words and what he meant, etc, etc.

We don’t even know for a fact how exactly most of those early Apostles died. That they were martyred is mostly legend. There are no reliable ancient sources about them being martyred, as far as all the books I’ve read on the subject have said (please let me know where it says differently, I’d like to read it…)

In answer to your “But who do you say that I am?” question…I’m not exactly sure what you are asking me…but when you read the scene in the Mark gospel–the earliest writing describing that moment, I think?–Jesus only tells them not to say to anyone that he is the Messiah. His response could mean a number of things, including that Paul is wrong.
Also…the definition of “Messiah” is something to question as well. Back then, the Jewish people used it to mean a warrior or political leader–which is what Messiah meant, the King of Israel–all the kings were “anointed” ones. The term Messiah was not so much meaning a divine son of God.

Re Paul and 1 Corinth…yes, there has been some debate about that one…]

And, the fact that Paul never even met Jesus…
That’s a whole other kettle of fish to get into.

.
On the “who do you say that I am?” question, I was looking for an answer from the Creed. Do you believe what the Creed says, or not?

OK, so in order for there to be more options, we have to assume that the New Testament may not be taken at face value because the true deposit of faith has been suppressed, forged, or both, that there was de facto falsification of both commission or omission going on in the early Church.

That is the trivial variation on the original possibilities. In your speculation, it was not Jesus who was the liar, but his disciples who were the liars (or hysterically fanciful, take your pick). By this supposition, Jesus was some kind of Hillel, but when he was assassinated, his followers started making things up. You are saying that you think that maybe they are lying about how the supposed eyewitnesses of this Jewish rabbi died, that maybe they are lying about what he did, and (one has to suppose) that they might even be lying about having seen this fellow Jesus actually curing the sick, actually feeding a multitude on nothing, and actually alive in the flesh after he was definitively killed by crucifixion. Or do you think that perhaps all the cures Jesus is credited with were cures of psychosomatic illnesses? That is merely a version of “He could not have physically healed people. I won’t believe it.”

BTW, why is St. Paul a “kettle of fish”? He was vetted rather thoroughly by the eyewitnesses to the mission of Jesus at the Council of Jerusalem, wouldn’t you say? Or do you also believe that episode never happened, or that it was misrepresented in service of someone’s advantage, rather than related truly?

These were all possibilities that occurred to C.S. Lewis. (If you do not think so, I think you do not know about the encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis of 1907).

The main point is that you’re not talking about why people are leaving the faith. You are talking about why people are refusing to believe the faith. If you believe the solution is for the Church herself to abandon the faith to the agnostic winds that pass themselves off as “scholarship,” then know you are talking about conceding the destruction of the faith, not its preservation. That is a possibility that has been rejected over and over again for centuries, not a new one.
 
Gee, where to start. I say He’s a person that needs to come down here again, not to herald the apocalypse, but because He has a lot to answer since the last time He left.

What does it take for Him to get what I want? Or at least, let me have it? Why does He always act like He knows everything and all I am is just some infantile, ignorant insect whose personal desires are meaningless in the face of Natural Order? Why do I have to kneel down and just accept my whims are irrelevant? Is He really Christ or Cthulhu!?

Do I gotta do this to get His attention?

http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lnezhz54qp1qf9jcfo1_500.gif
(Smite me! O Mighty Smiter!)

Are His followers just wrong? Or better yet, why must I always be wrong? What is so wrong about wanting my life to be heaven on earth? Why must I constantly contend with this nag your ‘Church’ calls a conscience? Why do I have to wait until I’m in my forties where I’m enduring yet another one of His intrusive, Divine Curve Balls? For what? So that the religious could convince me of a belief they deem ‘too demanding’ of oh-so-worldly me?

Because frankly, no matter how depraved or empty they claim it to be, this is my life. Not theirs. Not anybody’s. I’d rather be a ‘slave’ to my ‘passions’ and ‘lusts’ because at least my head is lighter and my heart isn’t as heavy.
I get you. This is Eve’s gambit. "But the snake said to the woman: “You certainly will not die! God knows well that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods, who know good and evil.” The woman saw that the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eyes, and the tree was desirable for gaining wisdom. So she took some of its fruit and ate it; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves. Gen. 3:4-7

I will leave you with this: When Adam and Eve had done this, it lead to the first question God asks in the Bible: "Where are you?
*When they heard the sound of the LORD God walking about in the garden at the breezy time of the day, the man and his wife hid themselves from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. The LORD God then called to the man and asked him: Where are you? He answered, “I heard you in the garden; but I was afraid, because I was naked, so I hid.” Then God asked: Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I had forbidden you to eat? * Gen. 3:8-11

It is not the position of Christianity that someone who rejects the faith and embraces their own desires is to be tarred and feathered when they come back. They are to be warned against leaving, because wandering your own way leads to enslavement, but once the person decides to come back, they are to be welcomed.

If you change your mind, then, do not be afraid to come back. Do not be afraid to dare to believe that things could be different. That is what we most want you to know, before you go: You are wanted, you are sought, and we are seeking you because we believe this life we offer is a freedom, not a slavery. If you don’t agree, at least please believe that we mean well for you, and want good for you. Be well, and come back soon. We’ll leave the light on for you.
 
Last week the homily was about evangelization. The priest said the key is to narrow the gap between believers’ behavior and the example of Christ. All the areas he mentioned came under the category of “love of neighbor” e.g. forgiveness, mercy, helping the poor etc.

He said nothing about fault finding, or rooting out the imperfections of others. Thus, if the priest is correct, then the key to bringing people back to the Church is for the light of believers to shine brightly in this area – love of neighbor.

What I am wondering is: if some of this to needs to be done “collectively”, or in an organized fashion. Then the light of many is combined like a bright search light that is hard to ignore.

People are social animals and we all desire to “belong”. If people do not belong to something good, then they will belong to something bad. Also, people who organize for a common purpose can be very effective compared to people who are not organized. That is why a professional military can walk right over a population that is unorganized.

A lot of the evil in the world is organized. Examples include the Russian invasion of Ukraine, organized under Putin, and the brutality practiced by ISIS in Syria and Iraq.

Maybe the key to beating people who organize for evil is to organize for good so that the light of the good outshines the darkness of those that organize for evil. If people who organize for good include people of faith, then that will attract people to their faith.

Perhaps that his how the tide of “people leaving the church” is reversed – to organize for something good so the light of believers shines brightly – without excluding anyone from doing good regardless of his / her belief system.

Thus, I salute everyone who is trying to do good, especially if they are organizing with others, and especially if they are not afraid to tell others that they are Christian. One interesting example is the current ALS challenge.

It may not be the final answer but I think that those who participated in this should be commended because they are exploring in a very exciting direction – organizing for good.

I accepted the challenge even though I did not personally get “challenged” – just to show support for people who are doing something important.
 
Your light shines very bright, and very uplifting, thank you, you are exactly what the church needs!!!

Your not defensive, or trying to prove right or wrong!!

God bless
 
Oh my goodness…a lot has been learned!
We’ve learned much more about how and when the gospels were written, first of all.
That they were written approx 40-70 years after Jesus died after stories were passed around by word of mouth…and then most likely written down by highly literate Greeks and not people who actually knew Jesus or where present for the events.
We’ve learned that not only do none of the original copies of the bible exist, but that the copies of the gospels/biblical canon we do have were made from versions copied by scribes that, when compared to the earliest copies we have and to each other, show thousands of errors.
We know that by examining the gospels, many words, quotes, events were added in later – anywhere from decades to centuries later (for example, the entire ending of the Mark gospel…and the “he who cast the first stone” scene).
Also by dating, we’ve been able to see how the gospels changed and evolved re how Jesus’ followers saw him.
We’ve learned that there were many myths/Gods before and during Jesus’ time who shared many of the same details–a virgin birth, the healings, etc.
We’ve seen other books that were not included in the biblical canon–some found in hidden cannisters and read for the first time in a dozen of centuries.
We know much more about how the religion was shaped and formed in those first few centuries and why-- and the context. That there were many different groups and beliefs about Jesus and the books and ideas of those groups were mostly destroyed on purpose.
We know much more about human psychology, about healing and biology.
We’ve learned more history to know that there was no empire-wide census that would have made Mary and Joseph go to Bethlehem from their hometown of Nazareth.

These points are just the ones at the top of my head, there are of course many more.
But these points alone conjure many, many questions about how accurate the writings in the biblical canon are.

So when Lewis says he can only be a liar, a lunatic, or a Lord…he is missing the many possibilities that…Jesus may have been misquoted, the writers may have written things down wrong, the scribes along the way changed wording and made mistakes, his followers may have misinterpreted Jesus words and what he meant, etc, etc.

We don’t even know for a fact how exactly most of those early Apostles died. That they were martyred is mostly legend. There are no reliable ancient sources about them being martyred, as far as all the books I’ve read on the subject have said (please let me know where it says differently, I’d like to read it…)

In answer to your “But who do you say that I am?” question…I’m not exactly sure what you are asking me…but when you read the scene in the Mark gospel–the earliest writing describing that moment, I think?–Jesus only tells them not to say to anyone that he is the Messiah. His response could mean a number of things, including that Paul is wrong.
Also…the definition of “Messiah” is something to question as well. Back then, the Jewish people used it to mean a warrior or political leader–which is what Messiah meant, the King of Israel–all the kings were “anointed” ones. The term Messiah was not so much meaning a divine son of God.

Re Paul and 1 Corinth…yes, there has been some debate about that one. There are inconsistencies in the language, choice of words and contradiction in doctrine. Specifically, two passages that may have been inserted at a later date…1 Cor 11:2-16 and 1 Cor 14:34-35.

And, the fact that Paul never even met Jesus…
That’s a whole other kettle of fish to get into.

.
paul did meet Jesus!!
 
I’d like to add that another reason people leave the faith is that they simply do not put God first in their lives. They believe in God, but they believe - consciously or not - that they can sort of acknowledge Him and they’ll be fine. This group of people, which I think is probably very large, at least is full of candidates to return, should members come to the conclusion at some point that they will be much better off emphasizing Him rather than just kind of maybe believing in Him in principle but not really doing anything about it. This reason has nothing to do with Catholicism necessarily, but the role God plays in general.
I agree with this…and with most everything people here have been outlining.

Even though he’s not Catholic, Rick Warren’s famous phrase still holds…

“It’s NOT about YOU.”

Well said, Rick. Well said.

Applies to all Christians quite nicely.
 
I agree with this…and with most everything people here have been outlining.

Even though he’s not Catholic, Rick Warren’s famous phrase still holds…

“It’s NOT about YOU.”

Well said, Rick. Well said.

Applies to all Christians quite nicely.
This is true, but we must each remember that for each of us, it *is *about all of the rest of us.

"My children, I will be with you only a little while longer. You will look for me, and as I told the Jews, ‘Where I go you cannot come,’ so now I say it to you. I give you a new commandment: love one another. As I have loved you, so you also should love one another. This is how all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
John 13:33-35

Pope St. John Paul II said there is no love without the truth and no truth without love, that to try to have one without the other is a lie.
 
Pope St. John Paul II said there is no love without the truth and no truth without love, that to try to have one without the other is a lie.
Actually, this is the biggest contradiction I’ve seen in Christianity and why I’ve begun to think twice about letting so much of modern Catholic culture (and by that, I mean the one with heavily conservative stripes) impact my life.

I for one can’t bring myself to even care about other people when I refused to think about myself. I tried that. It’s like sharing something you don’t have. It’s pathetic. Did I do things above my own self-interests? Yes. Did I do the ‘right thing’ despite my clear distaste? Definitely!

And boy, did my life suck. Everyone hated me. No matter how much I did for them, it didn’t count. I deliberately chose to hide from the spotlight so others could have it. Guess what? Things only got darker. No limelight, no nothing!

Is this the kind of life for a Christian?

Then you can forget it. Stop using Satan as an excuse for self-inflicted depression under the guise of martyrdom. No ‘God’ or ‘Church’ is ever gonna be above me again.
 
No one is doing anything wrong.

People have the right to choose to believe a religion or in a god or not at all. There is nothing wrong in that.

For religions to survive they need to have relevance in people’s lives.
 
…I for one can’t bring myself to even care about other people when I refused to think about myself. I tried that. It’s like sharing something you don’t have. It’s pathetic
This is from the Screwtape Letters, where C.S. Lewis uses a letter from one demon to another to describe the difference between real humility, the virtue, and the impossible false kinds that actually kill love:

*MY DEAR WORMWOOD,

The most alarming thing in your last account of the patient is that he is making none of those confident resolutions which marked his original conversion. No more lavish promises of perpetual virtue, I gather; not even the expectation of an endowment of “grace” for life, but only a hope for the daily and hourly pittance to meet the daily and hourly temptation! This is very bad.

I see only one thing to do at the moment. Your patient has become humble; have you drawn his attention to the fact? All virtues are less formidable to us once the man is aware that he has them, but this is specially true of humility. Catch him at the moment when he is really poor in spirit and smuggle into his mind the gratifying reflection, “By jove! I’m being humble”, and almost immediately pride - pride at his own humility - will appear. If he awakes to the danger and tries to smother this new form of pride, make him proud of his attempt - and so on, through as many stages as you please. But don’t try this too long, for fear you awake his sense of humour and proportion, in which case he will merely laugh at you and go to bed.

But there are other profitable ways of fixing his attention on the virtue of Humility. By this virtue, as by all the others, our Enemy wants to turn the man’s attention away from self to Him, and to the man’s neighbours. All the abjection and self-hatred are designed, in the long run, solely for this end; unless they attain this end they do us little harm; and they may even do us good if they keep the man concerned with himself, and, above all, if self-contempt can be made the starting-point for contempt of other selves, and thus for gloom, cynicism, and cruelty.

You must therefore conceal from the patient the true end of Humility. Let him think of it not as self-forgetfulness but as a certain kind of opinion (namely, a low opinion) of his own talents and character. Some talents, I gather, he really has. Fix in his mind the idea that humility consists in trying to believe those talents to be less valuable than he believes them to be. No doubt they are in fact less valuable than he believes, but that is not the point. The great thing is to make him value an opinion for some quality other than truth, thus introducing an element of dishonesty and make-believe into the heart of what otherwise threatens to become a virtue. By this method thousands of humans have been brought to think that humility means pretty women trying to believe they are ugly and clever men trying to believe they are fools. And since what they are trying to believe may, in some cases, be manifest nonsense, they cannot succeed in believing it and we have the chance of keeping their minds endlessly revolving on themselves in an effort to achieve the impossible. To anticipate the Enemy’s strategy, we must consider His aims. The Enemy wants to bring the man to a state of mind in which he could design the best cathedral in the world, and know it to be the best, and rejoice in the, fact, without being any more (or less) or otherwise glad at having done it than he would be if it had been done by another. The Enemy wants him, in the end, to be so free from any bias in his own favour that he can rejoice in his own talents as frankly and gratefully as in his neighbour’s talents - or in a sunrise, an elephant, or a waterfall. He wants each man, in the long run, to be able to recognise all creatures (even himself) as glorious and excellent things. He wants to kill their animal self-love as soon as possible; but it is His long-term policy, I fear, to restore to them a new kind of self-love - a charity and gratitude for all selves, including their own; when they have really learned to love their neighbours as themselves, they will be allowed to love themselves as their neighbours. For we must never forget what is the most repellent and inexplicable trait in our Enemy; He really loves the hairless bipeds He has created and always gives back to them with His right hand what He has taken away with His left.

His whole effort, therefore, will be to get the man’s mind off the subject of his own value altogether. He would rather the man thought himself a great architect or a great poet and then forgot about it, than that he should spend much time and pains trying to think himself a bad one. Your efforts to instil either vainglory or false modesty into the patient will therefore be met from the Enemy’s side with the obvious reminder that a man is not usually called upon to have an opinion of his own talents at all, since he can very well go on improving them to the best of his ability without deciding on his own precise niche in the temple of Fame. You must try to exclude this reminder from the patient’s consciousness at all costs. The Enemy will also try to render real in the patient’s mind a doctrine which they all profess but find it difficult to bring home to their feelings - the doctrine that they did not create themselves, that their talents were given them, and that they might as well be proud of the colour of their hair. But always and by all methods the Enemy’s aim will be to get the patient’s mind off such questions, and yours will be to fix it on them. Even of his sins the Enemy does not want him to think too much: once they are repented, the sooner the man turns his attention outward, the better the Enemy is pleased, Your affectionate uncle

SCREWTAPE *

There is a third way.
 
I trust you are aware that “The Screwtape Letters”…is satirical fiction?
Some of Lewis’ work does resonate with me, even now. But to be honest, his reflection of modern Christian conservatism is still all too perfect sometimes. (It doesn’t help when Narnia is basically a fantasy that hits you over in the head with a Bible.)
 
I trust you are aware that “The Screwtape Letters”…is satirical fiction?
I don’t understand your question. Are you under the impression that I think the book is made up of real letters that C.S. Lewis had captured from a literal bureaucrat from Hell, or have you not read the book?

My point is that the self-abasement of Christianity does not put you any lower than you actually are. It is supposed to knock you off of a false pedestal that only alienates you from God, others and yourself because you cannot even get closer to yourself by lying to yourself all the time. True humility does not make you falsely believe that God prizes your society any less than anyone else. Loving truly does not take away our need to be loved by others in return.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top