XPost: alt.books.cs-lewis   
   From: hayesmstw@hotmail.com   
      
   On 3 Oct 2005 19:56:31 GMT, Siwel Naph  wrote:   
      
   >Steve Hayes wrote:   
   >   
      
   >> Indeed they have, though they've been more inclined to throw   
   >> non-Buddhists into jail and fight wars against non-Buddhists. Take the   
   >> current situation in Sri Lanka, for example, or the history of Japan.   
   >   
   >Japan isn't pure Buddhist, and Sri Lanka, as Bree points out, is like   
   >Northern Ireland. Only I never heard of Buddhist terrorism or Buddhist   
   >mass-murderers...   
      
   Of course "pure" Buddhism only exists in your imaginary land beyond the   
   wardrobe, and can be found neither in Japan nor in Sri Lanka. The point is   
   that in Japan, when Buddhiasts were in power, they tried to force Buddhism on   
   the entire population through persecution etc. Such behaviour is of course,   
   contrary to the teachings of Buddhism just as it's contrary to the teachings   
   of Christianity, so you would not find it in either of the imaginary worlds   
   you poisit, though you do find it in the real world.   
      
   In fact Samuel Huntington, in his book "The clash of civilizations and the   
   remaking of the world order" posits that in the post-cold war world the   
   deivisuions will no longer be between the first and second worlds, with the   
   third world watching from the sidelines, but between different civilisations,   
   based on religion. The civilisations are Western , Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist,   
   Orthodox, Muslim, Sinic, African and Latin American.   
      
   There may be something to his thesis, because most of the conflicts in the   
   world since the end of the Cold War have been where those civilisations meet   
   -- Israel-Palestine, Bosnia, Chechnya, India-Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Kosovo,   
   Iraq, Afghanistan and so on.   
      
   Of course in your imaginary worlds beyond the wardrobe this would never   
   happen.   
      
      
      
      
      
   >   
   >> However, I understood that we are not talking about *real* instances   
   >> of mere Christianity or mere Buddhis, but about imaginary lands   
   >> through wardrobes where everyone is sincere and practises their   
   >> beliefs all the time, I I imagine such things would not happen there,   
   >> just as they would not happen in the merely Christian land through the   
   >> wardrobe.   
   >   
   >So you're saying ALL the past Christians who persecuted and fought wars   
   >against each other and other religions were NOT sincere? That sincere   
   >Christianity dove underground with Constantine and didn't RE-emerge till   
   >-- I don't know -- the Quakers?   
   >   
   >>>> mere Wicca,   
   >>>   
   >>>I'd worry.   
   >>   
   >> Why?   
   >>   
   >> "An it harm none, do what thou wilt" -- you'd come to no harm.   
   >   
   >Unless what I did/thought was defined as "harm" by the Wiccans...   
   >   
   >>>> mere ethical humanism,   
   >>>   
   >>>It TALKS a good game, but I think it's inherently unstable and would   
   >>>MUTATE into something else, possibly/probably very nasty.   
   >>   
   >> But not in the imaginary land on the other side of the wardrobe, where   
   >> everyone is *sincere* in their beliefs, and practises what they   
   >> preach.   
   >   
   >Being sincere in one's beliefs doesn't mean those beliefs can never   
   >change or be discarded. Lots of people SINCERELY believe in X, Y, and Z,   
   >then find their beliefs shattered by some life-event or new piece of   
   >information. I do not believe ethical humanism is stable.   
   >   
   >>>> or mere communism?   
   >>>   
   >>>I'd worry. Very bad record wherever and whenever it's been in power.   
   >>   
   >> But we're not talkingh about its record.   
   >   
   >But its record shows how its beliefs are put into action. Class-enemies   
   >and anti-revolutionaries are not REFORMED by communists, they are   
   >removed. Permanently.   
   >   
   >> We're talking about an   
   >> imagineary land on the other side of a wardrobe where everyone is   
   >> *sincere* about what they believe and practise what they preach.   
   >>   
   >> So there would be a society in which they would practise "from each   
   >> according to his ability, to each according to his need".   
   >>   
   >> So it seems that you are very quick to abandon your stipulations for   
   >> imaginary worlds, and your imaginary worlds would be very   
   >> inconsistent.   
   >   
   >You're confusing sincere belief with perfect/omniscient APPLICATION of   
   >sincere belief. My imaginary lands contain sincere humans, not sincere   
   >angels. Communists who sincerely believe in "from each according to his   
   >ability" are JUSTIFIED, by their sincere belief, in punishing those who   
   >do NOT -- again in their sincere belief -- contribute according to their   
   >ability. Christians who sincerely believe that homosexuality is sinful*,   
   >that women's place is subordinate*, that heresy is of the devil*, etc are   
   >similarly justified in THEIR punishment -- and more -- of homosexuals,   
   >"uppity" women, heretics, etc.   
   >   
   >*All these can be -- and have been -- justified from scripture.   
      
   --   
   Steve Hayes   
   Web: http://www.geocities.com/hayesstw/stevesig.htm   
        http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Methodius   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)