.Co.NR link

Web Hosting Cheap PHP Plans

Tuesday, 6 April 2010

The Absolute Law

So from the last post, how do we know if there is a higher moral law or rule, that really exists? Well, why can we not live up to what we think is right and wrong? Why is this so? Some people may say 'because we are not perfect', but that is not the same question- I am questioning why we are not perfect. And if we were never meant to be perfect, why do right and wrong exist? Or rather, why is there a higher standard than what we can live up to if we were never meant to be able to live up to it? What I am saying is that deep down, we all seem to know that we should be better than we actually are; we should be perfect. (If we were perfect, we wouldn't have this thought that we should be better, because better wouldn't exist and so we know that we are not perfect). Since we know that there is a perfect standard, somebody must have set it, or lived it out in order that we feel we are not as good as that or them. It cannot have been man made, this law, because if there was no law and then we created it, we wouldn't know any better than what we knew and so couldn't create something better than that.
For example, people ought to be unselfish; not that people are unselfish, not that they like being unselfish, but that they should be. Therefore this law is not simply a fact about human behaviour, nor is it a 'mere fancy' as C.S. Lewis puts it. We cannot get rid of the idea and if it was just a fancy, most of the things we say about peoples' behaviour has no factual basis and is just nonsense. It is also not a statement about how we would like people to behave for our own convenience 'for the behaviour we call bad or unfair is not exactly the same as the behaviour we find inconvenient, and may even be the opposite.'
In conclusion, the law does not exist because of an absolute fact such as our behaviour itself, but it is not made up by us either, therefore there is a different kind of existence. It is above the mere facts of what people do, it is more set in stone than that, it just is, and is 'pressing on us'.

Monday, 5 April 2010


I am going to go back to basics with you, and talk about right and wrong, or in a broader sense- morality (conscious or unconscious).
We have all done it, do it, and will continue to do it throughout our lives, some more than others, but none the less unavoidable: arguing. Arguing means trying to show that the other person is in the wrong. And there would be no sense in trying to do that unless you and them had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are. As C.S. Lewis quotes about the Second World War: "What was the sense in saying the enemy were in the wrong unless Right is a real thing which the Nazis at bottom knew as well as we did and ought to have practised? If they had had no notion of what we mean by right, then, though we might still have had to fight them, we could no more have blamed them for that than for the colour of their hair."..." A nation may say treaties do not matter; but then, next minute, they spoil their case by saying that the particular treaty they want to break was an unfair one. But if treaties do not matter, and if there is no such thing as Right and Wrong--in other words, if there is no Law of Nature--what is the difference between a fair treaty and an unfair one? Have they not let the cat out of the bag and shown that, whatever they say, they really know the Law of Nature just like anyone else?"

These arguments are pretty faultless, and they both highlight the point that everybody is forced to believe in a 'right' and 'wrong'. Sometimes we get confused about what right and wrong is, just like we confuse our feelings, or a maths problem, but this does not mean they don't exist. My first conclusive point in this blog is that:
We all fail to do what is right and wrong.

We all fail to do even what we, as individuals, think is right and wrong, never mind a higher, global standard, if there is one. I will come onto this next.


The weasel abides.

Sunday, 4 April 2010

Saturday, 3 April 2010

What is a Woman?

Everything I knew about life I learnt from my friends, TV, magazines and my family. From this information and my own personal experiences I put together my own philosophy of life, and from this my identity formed as I grew up. A series of events caused me to analyse all these sources and I realised I couldn't trust any of them.

I couldn't trust them because they had all let me down.

I felt alone, which is strange, because every human being who ever was, is, or is to come is the same as me in this.

What if there was, in fact, a true definition of me, one which was above all these sources and was, well, the 'true' one? How would I find out? Well, I would have to contact the creator, the definer who gave me my definition!

I wanted to know who I was, and looked so deeply into it that I questioned whether I even knew what my role as a woman was, and truth is I didn't.

In this blog I am not discovering or revealing something new. It has always existed, from the beginning of time, before the creation of the world... whichever came first! It is the truth, but it is not everything. It is just part of the exploration of life- which I may create another blog on, but I felt a calling to do this first. For comfort, I am in no place in this blog going to give you answers which are formulated from my sole mind or experience. I am going to back it up with many sources which helped me, and work through it together. My main sources will be the book 'Mere Christianity' by C.S. Lewis, and the Bible book Genesis (New International Version). However, my thoughts will not start off with a Christian or religious influence at all, but a human one. So tell me, What is a Woman?