Brian Murphy

Doug Lauer 12/10/2016 Good Morning, As Marty has reminded us, we will be discussing Mere Christianity, Chapter 1 on Saturday, December 9th. There are PDF copies available on the Internet so you don’t even have to purchase the book. If you need a link to a PDF version just let me know in a separate email. To perhaps help you in your reading, please reflect on and and answer the following questions related to Chapter 1: Chapter 1: The Law of Human Nature  1. What is it that we can learn from people disagreeing or quarreling? (para. 1-2)  2. What are some of the different names Lewis says this can or has been called? (para. 3)  3. How is the Law of Human Nature different from other laws of nature? (para. 3-4)  4. Why in the past have people called this Rule about Right and Wrong the Law of Nature? (para. 5)  5. On what basis have some denied that the Law of (Human) Nature is known to all men? (para. 6) 6. How does Lewis respond to this denial? (para. 7-8)  7. Agreeing that Right and Wrong are real or objective and not merely a matter of taste, preference or opinion, what is the next point Lewis makes about our human Law of Nature? (para. 9-10)  8. Put Lewis’s final summary into your own words: (para. 11). This can be described a sentence or two. As you can tell I have a supplemental resource for this book that could help all of us get more from our reading as we frame the reading in the context of answering some simple questions about what we have read. Perhaps this will help us focus and stay on topic for some portion of our time together? Please feel free to share some additional insights that go beyond the scope of these question. Yes Vince, there will be a quiz and the dogs eating your homework has been tried before. Extra Credit Question (Just in case you have not been doing your homework) At the end of the first chapter in Mere Christianity, Lewis lays out the scope of his argument: “First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in” (p. 21). All cultures, he says, have a moral code and those codes are remarkably similar. Is he correct in inferring from this observation the existence of a Universal “Law of Human Nature,” an innate sense of right and wrong? How do you think Lewis would respond to contemporary proponents of moral relativism? Hope to see everyone on 12/9. Blessings, Douglas Lauer / Outreach Department doug.lauer@thechapel.life o: 330.315.5472 | c: 330.620.3471 Akron Campus / 135 Fir Hill, Akron OH 44304 Show more