XPost: alt.books.cs-lewis   
   From: toomuchspam@spammer.org   
      
   Bree wrote:   
      
   >>Why is MC silent on what are (to me) very important things like   
   >>persecution of other Christians, cruel laws, freedom of conscience,   
   >>etc but eloquent on (to me) very-but-less important things like   
   >>doctrine?   
   >   
   > Lewis said (in OHEL iirc) "Things need to be treated at length, not in   
   > so far as they are great, but in so far as they are complicated."   
      
   But did he ever treat them elsewhere? And did he agree that one was more   
   important than the other in the order I've given?   
      
   >>Why is MC silent on what are (to me) very important things like   
   >>persecution of other Christians, cruel laws, freedom of conscience,   
   >>etc but eloquent on (to me) very-but-less important things like   
   >>doctrine?   
   >   
   > How could he talk about persecution in MC, when obviously many   
   > Christians have done it, and many now oppose it? He was talking about   
   > things Christians have AGREED on (through the ages), not about things   
   > they have disagreed on.   
      
   Okay, but he was missing a step in the logic, unless he thought   
   persecution, cruel laws etc were just a matter of "taste": one Mere   
   Christian society might find them palatable, another not.   
      
   >>I can understand it if correct doctrine is essential to ensure people   
   >>get to heaven, as some MCs have believed. But that isn't part of MC:   
   >>Lewis himself didn't accept that.   
   >   
   > But he wasn't pushing his personal opinions on disputed topics. He was   
   > talking about the undisputed topics.   
      
   Yes, but why are persecution, cruel laws etc disputed? Is it not clear   
   that they are wrong? Unless, as I said, correct doctrine was essential   
   for heaven... which Lewis did not believe.   
      
   >>Mere Buddhism too would throw up contradictions, but I don't think   
   >>they're as glaring,   
   >   
   > I expect you're right -- which might be a fault of Christianity, but   
   > not of Lewis, who is being honest and not trying to explain away those   
   > faults.   
   >   
   >   
   >>and some Mere X's would be uniformly bad.   
   >   
   > Probably so would some Mere Buddhist worlds. I don't see much point in   
   > looking at fringe cases far out on the end of any of the curves,   
   > Christianity's or Buddhism's or X's.   
      
   I meant that all worlds espousing something like "Mere Nazism" or "Mere   
   Stalinism" would be bad, tho some would be worse than others.   
      
   > Now that's clear, it could be fun to settle down to a comparison of MC   
   > and 'Mere Buddhism'. But first catch your 'Mere Buddhism'?   
   >   
   > For starts ... Buddhism began in India among Hindus, as a sort of   
   > short cut or alternative way to get off the round of reincarnation (or   
   > at least get rid of the pain of it). Hinduism has overall been pretty   
   > tolerant. Missionaries spread Bh south to Sri Lanka, north to Nepal   
   > and Tibet, east to China and Japan (with some time lag I suppose).   
   >   
   > So we'd need to look at what sort of cultural 'material' they were   
   > spreading through, for one thing.  Each culture is going to keep some   
   > of its own 'baggage' of tolerance or intolerance or whatever. (See MC   
   > about 'material', cruel or neurotic people not becoming normal but   
   > just a little better than they were.)  So look at whether they became   
   > more or less tolerant (or whatever) after being converted than they   
   > were before.   
   >   
   > Of course that brings new questions:   
   >   
   >        If Christianity is what it claims to be (direct line to the One   
   > Omnipotent Truth), why isn't its performance record clearly better   
   > than that of the heathens, in spite of the less promising material?   
      
   Yes, tho it's difficult to know exactly how we'd compare one with   
   another, because you can't re-run history and give one region a different   
   religion to see how much better or worse that religion would have done.   
   But you say, the difference after conversion from one religion to another   
   is one pointer.   
      
   >        Why did God choose the less promising material in the first   
   >        place?   
   > Etc.   
   >   
   > One flaw I see in Lewis's popular writings overall: he occasionally   
   > mentions the Far East, eg quoting Confucious in the Appendix to THE   
   > ABOLITION OF MAN. But when he settles down to compare the Jews and   
   > 'the Pagans' (as in PILGRIM'S REGRESS) he usually seems to be talking   
   > about a rather a close neighborhood of Pagans, not extending very far   
   > from the Mediterranean and the North Sea.  The mentions I've seen of   
   > Hinduism and Buddhism in MC and the other popular books seem very   
   > shallow. (I haven't read his correspondence.)   
      
   In SBJ he says his final big "theistic" choice wsa between Hinduism and   
   Christianity, but it seems obvious that he was rolling with loaded dice.   
      
   > One caveat: Hinduism and Buddhism have their own different divisions.   
   > Some of them in practice seem not much different than some of   
   > Christianity: "Have faith in the name of Krishna/Amitabha Buddha and   
   > He will take you to the Pure Land he has prepared for you, wiping out   
   > your sins by His grace."   
      
   Hinduism seems to have absolutely everything, from effective atheism to   
   polytheism to monotheism. And e.g. Tibetan Buddhism looks pretty   
   polytheistic at times.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)