XPost: alt.books.cs-lewis   
   From: toomuchspam@spammer.org   
      
   Bree wrote:   
      
   >>> 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.   
      
   Using the central beliefs of sincere Christianity. Which do NOT include   
   condemnation of -- OR support for -- religious persecution, torture,   
   painful punishment and execution, racial/gender inequality... Sincere   
   Christians have both condemned those things... and supported them. THAT's   
   the paradox I'm interested in.   
      
   >>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? :)   
      
   Well, they judge everything they do by M.C./Mere X-ism. If it fits -- in   
   their sincere-but-not-infallible opinion -- they allow it; if not, they   
   don't.   
      
   > Or is this a stable several generational-th society based on MC that's   
   > really doing a good job per the book?   
      
   In the sincere opinion of those who inhabit the world it's doing a good   
   job.   
      
   > 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..?   
      
   Yes. Like Lewis himself.   
      
   >>>>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.   
      
   No, but they COULD be, and it would still be a M.C. world. It could also   
   be a world full of warfare between competing versions of M.C.   
      
   >>> 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.)   
      
   Aren't Thai prisons v. bad? I must admit I feel positive about Buddhism,   
   but I distrust the media's portrayal of it -- there is a great deal of   
   bias AGAINST Christianity, and a corresponding bias FOR non-Christian   
   religions.   
      
   [cut]   
      
   >>>>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.   
      
   Yes, and I think they take the prohibition on taking life TOO far.   
   Allowing an animal to die in pain when its life can be ended painlessly   
   follows the letter but not the spirit of non-violence, IMO.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)