XPost: alt.books.cs-lewis   
   From: bree@bree.com   
      
   On 3 Oct 2005 19:55:12 GMT, Siwel Naph  wrote:   
      
   >Bree wrote:   
   /snip/   
      
   >> 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.   
      
   Okay....   
      
   > THAT's the paradox I'm interested in.   
      
   /snip/   
      
   >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.   
      
   But you just said "Sincere  Christians have both condemned those things...   
   and supported them." So why would that be different in your MC world? Why   
   wouldn't they continue to disagree about this?   
      
   /snip/   
   >>>>>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.   
      
   Again, since MC is silent about these questions, maybe people would   
   continue to disagree, just as here.   
      
   /snip/   
      
   >>>>> "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.   
      
   It's a slippery slope tho: massive numbers of  pet animals being killed for   
   humans' convenience....   
      
      
   /moved/   
      
   >> 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.   
      
   Mm. Lewis said he wouldn't  altogether like the "Christian society" either.   
      
      
   Bree   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)