Really pulled the punches when it came to usury. Greed is so normalized even cs lewis has to defer to an economist
@kcstafford2784 Says:
I really enjoy these thank you
@josmoyo Says:
The trouble is not charity but so called charitable organizations. The likes of which often have o we 95% of donations go to “administration costs”. The answer is at the individual level with no set amount but what your heart compels. For God loves a cheerful giver.
@reuben.l.murray Says:
What an exceptional work!! THANK YOU!!! May.God bless you 🙏🏻
@RoninofRamen Says:
The reference to his marriage to Joy Gresham (nee Davidman) around 10:20 was a nice touch.
@CSLewisDoodle Says:
(3:26) "Our business [as Pastors] is to present that which is timeless (the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow Hebrews - 13.8) in the particular language of our own age. The bad preacher does exactly the opposite: he takes the ideas of our own age and tricks them out in the traditional language of Christianity. Thus, for example, he may think about the Beveridge Report (The 1942 'Beveridge Report' was the plan for the present Social Security system in Britain) and talk about 'the coming of the Kingdom (of God)'. The core of his thought is merely contemporary; only the superficies is traditional. But your teaching must be timeless at its heart and wear a modern dress.
This raises the question of Theology and Politics. The nearest I can get to a settlement of the frontier problem between them is this: - that Theology teaches us what ends are desirable and what means are lawful, while Politics teaches what means are effective. Thus Theology tells us that every man ought to have a decent wage. Politics tells by what means this is likely to be attained. Theology tells us which of these means are consistent with justice and charity. On the political question guidance comes not from Revelation but from natural prudence, knowledge of complicated facts and ripe experience. If we have these qualifications we may, of course, state our political opinions: but then we must make it quite clear that we are giving our personal judgement and have no command from the Lord. Not many priests have these qualifications. Most political sermons teach the congregation nothing except what newspapers are taken at the Rectory [pastor's residence]" (Christian Apologetics).
@Geronimo_Jehoshaphat Says:
Best channel on YouTube by far.
@jasonverulo8475 Says:
As a Christian, I can honestly say that I think you are doing God's work with these videos, which is just about the highest praise a Christian can give.
@kekeliahiable6775 Says:
So grateful for these. Thank you🙏🏾
@justgopherit3454 Says:
These are simply amazing! I absolutely can not get enough of C.S. Lewis, and the way these videos are put together makes them not only insightful but yet very entertaining as well. I hope you continue to make many more!
@prometheon123 Says:
I love that C.S. Lewis quoted the great Samuel Johnson, another great moral intellectual.
@steveseidel100 Says:
Best channel on YouTube
@rickparker1144 Says:
My son has started sending me these...
I love them!
Thank you for your labor of love in producing these.
Im a new subscriber.
@daviddad7388 Says:
Your work is a real blessing. Thank you so much 🥰
@EcstaticTemporality Says:
“The longest way around is the shortest way home.”
@allanlindsay8369 Says:
Thank you for yet another wonderful, inspiring exposé of CS Lewis work..
@fraimework Says:
brilliant stuff honestly and yet so simple to comprehend
@Dartagnan4012 Says:
"only quacks"
*Looks over at Nietzsche*
@BladeOfLight16 Says:
To suggest the beginning of an answer to the question Lewis didn't try to, I think the key point in terms of lending for interest is to lend only to people and at amounts such that being able to pay it back is feasible. It is difficult for me to see anything wrong with a bank providing a loan to someone with a steady and sizable income so that they may purchase a home, even at some reasonable level of interest. One might argue that one of the key differences between our modern world and the ancient cultures who reviled loans is the fact that the Western world is so pervasively wealthy that we barely understand what real poverty is like. It is, however, wrong to deny the borrower leniency if they fall upon difficult times through no fault of their own, and that is an area at which our economic system (with its gargantuan, impersonal businesses) fails.
As a real world example of the principle in our modern world, we can blame the 2008 financial crisis directly on violating the principle of usury: loans were given for amounts and at rates that the banks _knew_ the borrowers could not afford. However, we can and should note that they did not do so alone: activists pressured them to do so with threats of lawsuits accusing them of racism, and government enabled them by buying up many of the loans through its programs. That does not mean we should ignore the contribution of personal greed to the problem, but neither should we ignore the external forces that drove them toward it as well.
@Hugebull Says:
Beautiful, simply and absolutely beautiful.
I hope you draw these until you are black in the face :)
@chessversarius2253 Says:
The charity part is really challenging... To give so much, that you sometimes have to abstain from things you wanted for yourself, that is very unfamiliar to say the least... But... most likely not wrong.
@Eunice.Aceto75 Says:
Thank you for uploading. Always a pleasure and good food for thought!
@joshuasusanto4258 Says:
Absolutely excited to watch this
@mdonahue1922 Says:
Wow. Thank you for this animation of articulation. 💕
@gavinkennedy6853 Says:
Simply perfect. This has arrived right on time to answer a prayer request. What a blessing!
@masterarcher89 Says:
Glad to see you are doing more of these again. C.S.L. had a very unique way of both making you uncomfortable and encouraging you at the same time.
@DaBigArmyDude Says:
Never stop making these, man! They breathe life into well worn texts.
@CSLewisDoodle Says:
More from C.S. Lewis on Collectivism vs Individualism:
“The secular community, since it exists for our natural good and not for our supernatural, has no higher end than to *facilitate and safeguard the family, and friendship, and solitude* . To be happy at home, said Johnson, is the end of all human endeavour. As long as we are thinking only of natural values we must say that the sun looks down on nothing half so good as a household laughing together over a meal, or two friends talking over a pint of beer, or a man alone reading a book that interests him; and that all economics, politics, laws, armies, and institutions, save in so far as they prolong and multiply such scenes, are a mere ploughing the sand and sowing the ocean, a meaningless vanity and vexation of spirit. Collective activities are, of course, necessary; but this is the end to which they are necessary.
"Great sacrifices of this private happiness by those who have it may be necessary in order that it may be more widely distributed. [As in WWII] All may have to be a little hungry in order that none may starve. But do not let us mistake necessary evils for good. The mistake is easily made. Fruit has to be tinned if it is to be transported, and has to lose thereby some of its good qualities. But one meets people who have learned actually to prefer the tinned fruit to the fresh. A sick society must think much about politics, as a sick man must think much about his digestion: to ignore the subject may be fatal cowardice for the one as for the other. But if either comes to regard it as the natural food of the mind - if either forgets that we think of such things only in order to be able to think of something else - then what was undertaken for the sake of health has become itself a new and deadly disease. There is, in fact, a fatal tendency in all human activities for the means to encroach upon the very ends which they were intended to serve...It does not, unfortunately, always follow that the encroaching means can be dispensed with. I think it probable that the collectivism of our life is necessary and will increase; and I think that our only safeguard against its deathly properties is in a Christian life; for we were promised that we could handle serpents and drink deadly things and yet live" ('Membership').
"To the Materialist [atheist] things like nations, classes, civilisations must be more important than individuals, because the individuals live only seventy odd years each and the group may last for centuries. But to the Christian, individuals are more important, for they live eternally; and races, civilizations and the like, are in comparison the creatures of a day. The Christian and the Materialist hold different beliefs about the universe. They can't both be right. The one who is wrong will act in a way which simply doesn't fit the real universe. Consequently, with the best will in the world, he will be helping his fellow creatures to their destruction" ('Man or Rabbit').
“Christianity thinks of human individuals not as mere members of a group or items in a list, but as organs in a body—different from one another and each contributing what no other could. When you find yourself wanting to turn your children, or pupils, or even your neighbours, into people exactly like yourself, remember that God probably never meant them to be that. You and they are different organs, intended to do different things. On the other hand, when you are tempted not to bother about someone else's troubles because they are "no business of yours," remember that though he is different from you he is part of the same organism as you. If you forget that he belongs to the same organism as yourself, you will become an Individualist. If you forget that he is a different organ from you, if you want to suppress differences and make people all alike, you will become a Totalitarian. But a Christian must not be either a Totalitarian or an Individualist." ('Mere Christianity', Two notes).
“Where the tide flows towards increasing State control, Christianity, with its claims in one way personal and in the other way ecumenical [non-denominational] and both ways antithetical [opposite] to omnicompetent government, must always in fact (though not for a long time yet in words) be treated as an enemy. Like learning, like the family, like any ancient and liberal profession, like the common law, it gives the individual a standing ground against the State. Hence Rousseau, the father of the totalitarians [collectivists], said wisely enough, from his own point of view, of Christianity, ‘Je ne connais rien de plus contraire à l'esprit social’ ( I know nothing more opposed to the social[ist] spirit).” ('On the Transmission of Christianity', 1946).
A political “party must either confine itself to stating what ends are desirable and what means are lawful, or else it must go further and select from among the lawful means those which it deems possible and efficacious and give to these its practical support. If it chooses the first alternative, it will not be a political party. Nearly all parties agree in professing ends which we admit to be desirable - security, a living wage, and the best adjustment between the claims of order and freedom. What distinguishes one party from another is the championship of means. We do not dispute whether the citizens are to be made happy, but whether an egalitarian or a hierarchical State, whether capitalism or socialism, whether despotism or democracy, is most likely to make them so...” ('Meditation On The Third Commandment – You shall not take the Lord your God’s name in vain')
“A great many popular blue-prints for a Christian society are merely what the Elizabethans called "eggs in moonshine" because they assume that the whole society is Christian or that the Christians are in control. This is not so in most contemporary States. Even if it were, our rulers would still be fallen men, and, therefore, neither very wise nor very good. As it is, they usually are unbelievers. And since wisdom and virtue are not the only or the commonest qualifications for a place in the government, they will not often be even the best unbelievers. The practical problem of Christian politics is not that of drawing up schemes for a Christian society, but that of living as innocently as we can with unbelieving fellow-subjects under unbelieving rulers who will never be perfectly wise and good and who will sometimes be very wicked and very foolish” ('The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment').
More notes in the video description above.
LATEST COMMENTS