Body vs. Soul
In his interview with Marvin Olasky in this week's issue of WORLD magazine Peter Lawler makes this pointed statement,
We are obsessively prohibitionist when it comes to the body but indifferent when it comes to the soul.
I find this to be an intriguing statement, both within and even apart from the immediate context of the interview question at hand.
I am curious to know what others think of this. Do you agree with his sentiment? Why or why not?
2 Comments:
Frankly I don't understand what he is talking about. Pardon my ignorance, but prohibitionist is someone against selling alcoholic liquors right? What does it mean in this context? What does he mean by 'soul'? Oh I do hope you explain. I look forward to your answer.
Anonymous~
Maybe this will clear it up: This statement by Mr. Lawler was in response to a question posed by Mr. Olasky:
"Why do we ask kids and adults to say no to drugs, drunkenness, and obesity, but consider it almost impossible for them to say no to premarital and extramarital sex?"
I believe his point is that we are quick to advocate prohibiting (in the sense of disallowing in our own life or speaking against the use of such things in the lives of others) those things we see as destructive to our bodies - i.e. drug abuse, alcoholism, obesity - but we readily subject ourselves to the influence of those things that affect our soul - i.e. premarital and extramarital sex, destructive music, etc. - believing that either
a. our physical bodies are not affected when we partake of such things,
b. our soul is not affected when we partake of such things, or
c. the affect of such influences upon our soul is not worth taking into consideration when making lifestyle decisions (or any combination of the above).
Does that make more sense? This is my understanding of what Mr. Lawler was stating. You can read the whole interview here.
Post a Comment
<< Home