XPost: alt.books.cs-lewis
From: bree@bree.com
On 2 Oct 2005 21:38:18 GMT, Siwel Naph wrote:
>Steve Hayes wrote:
>
>> On 2 Oct 2005 14:20:06 GMT, Siwel Naph
>> But the wardriobe that Lewis write about did not lead to a land where
>> everybody practised anything.
>
>Yes, true, but I needed a Lewis-y hook for my heading.
Ok, so it's not really about Narnia, but about MERE CHRISTIANITY. Ok.
To really make sense of all this, you might have to compare best case with
best case, worst case with worst case, probability of each.... MC isn't
about making a Christian nation or anything like that; it's about living in
the very mixed world we're in.
/snip/
>In my imaginary lands, everyone is SINCERE in his/her beliefs. That's why
>they're imaginary...
And how long have they been there? Long enough to lose their bad habits
from this world? Are many of them still 'in recovery' so to speak? :)
Or is this a stable several generational-th society based on MC that's
really doing a good job per the book? If so see the bit where he talks
about what a 'Christian' society would be like. He says some people would
find it too 'leftist' and some would find it too old-fashioned. Iirc it was
economically leftist but socially conservative..?
>>>If I were a minority denomination, a homosexual, a Jew, a black, a
>>>Muslim, a woman, etc, my apprehension would be even higher. "Mere
>>>Christianity" is ELOQUENT about core theological doctrines, but SILENT
>>>about whether it's right or wrong to use severe forms of
>>>punishment/execution, to wage war against other Christians, to grant
>>>women and minorities equal rights, etc, etc.
I'd probably worry about that too. Some of the people who quote MC and
other Lewis books the most ... well, I wouldn't want to live in a nation
they ruled, using their interpretations.... Still, quoting a lot in our
world, doesn't mean they'd be in power in a posited MC utopia.
>> "as you would that others do to you, do so to them."
>>
>> If people *practised* that mere Christianity,. it would cover not only
>> the waterfront, but the ocean and the hinterland as well.
>
>But that's "Mere" Golden-Rule-ism, which is SUPPOSED to be common to all
>great religions.
>
>>>But... would anyone be AS apprehensive about going thru wardrobe two,
>>>into the land where everyone practised "Mere Buddhism"? Would anyone
>>>be apprehensive at ALL? (Maybe this is my realtive ignorance of
>>>Buddhism speaking here.)
>>
>> In *practice* there seems to be little difference between Buddhism and
>> Christianity, though there are some differences in theory (or
>> theology, if you prefer).
From my experience of living in Buddhist countries (Thailand, Sri Lanka) as
an ordinary non-religious person (not in an ashram/monastery situation),
I'd take the Buddhists every time. (Aside from accidental problems such as
food, language, etc.)
Aside from the usual third world problems (and quite a legacy of trouble
from the Brit Empire, which brought some Tamils in as plantation workers,
resulting now in a situation kind of like Ireland), these are the nicest,
sanest people and institutions I've known. I rather think the Buddhist
doctrines and practices have a lot to do with that. (For a sample, find a
Thai restaurant. :)
>As I said, I'm relatively IGNORANT of Buddhism, but have Buddhists ever
>fought wars against each other or thrown each other into jail, and worse?
Not over doctrine, sfaik. Of course they sometimes have territorial
disputes or clash about political power or something.
>>>One could increase the number of the wardrobes to include "Mere Islam"
>>>(I'd be apprehensive, particularly if etc), "Mere Judaism" (ditto),
>>>"Mere Hinduism" (less apprehensive in SOME ways), "Mere Jainism" (less
>>>apprehensive),
Lovely people and religion, from my experience. A little hard to live up
to, maybe.
Bree
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
