XPost: alt.books.cs-lewis   
   From: toomuchspam@spammer.org   
      
   John McComb wrote:   
      
   >> This is what interests me. Why do people so easily misinterpret   
   >> messages that seem so plain? Then turn around and accuse US of the   
   >> same thing? It happens elsewhere, of course: with Nietzsche, for   
   >> example.   
   >   
   > What messages would those be then?   
      
   The messages of religious texts and traditions.   
      
   > And, while you're at it, who is 'US'? Who is accusing 'US',   
   > and just what are they accusing 'US' of?   
      
   "Right-thinking folk who do not believe Christianity requires us to   
   persecute heretics, imprison and/or burn witches and gays, say AIDS is   
   sent by God, etc. Of course, to those wrong-thinking folk who did/do   
   stuff like that, it's us who..."   
      
   > And what on earth does Nietzsche have to do with any of   
   > this?   
      
   Nietzsche's "messages" were misappropriated -- in the opinion of other   
   Nietzscheans -- by Leopold and Loeb (see Google) and the Nazis, among   
   others.   
      
   >> Why do you think these quarters are so obtuse?   
   >   
   > What?   
   >   
   > It's the 'reverence' that is obtuse, not the 'quarters'.   
      
   To the extent that a quarter's reverence is obtuse, the quarter is obtuse   
   itself. For one thing, it obviously doesn't notice that its reverence is   
   obtuse.   
      
   > The word quarters, used in this context, is intended to be   
   > deliberately ambiguous so as not to implicate any particular   
   > person or group. The remark is probably most pertinent to   
   > sincere Christians who are prone to fall into the trap of   
   > swapping the Gospel for favorite extra biblical texts   
      
   Why do they fall into the trap while others avoid it?   
      
   > and   
   > least applicable to newsgroup trolls.   
   >   
   > The heart of Christianity is the Gospel message. This message   
   > is recorded in scripture.   
      
   Which has been interpreted in contradictory ways by Mere Christians.   
      
   > Reverence of secular texts is   
   > idolatry, whether the intent of the writer is to be faithful   
   > to the Gospel or not. C.S. Lewis was a very sincere and   
   > devout Christian and nobody would have been more sensitive   
   > to the error of such a propensity than him. All of this is   
   > starkly obvious and all one needs to do is read his books   
   > to see it. To ignore it anyway and/or pretend that the   
   > author's real intent was in support of some feeble later day   
   > popular agenda is obtuse.   
   >   
   >>>I certainly don't think he   
   >>>would have been very enamored by the drift of this thread.   
   >>   
   >> In what ways, exactly?   
   >   
   > Please rephrase this question.   
      
   What would Lewis have objected to in the thread?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)