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?   
   >>>   
   >>> 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,   
   >   
   > How so?   
      
   Unless he proved persecution etc was compatible with MC, he hadn't proved   
   MC was true. But it's understandable that he avoided the question.   
      
   >>unless he thought   
   >>persecution, cruel laws etc were just a matter of "taste": one Mere   
   >>Christian society might find them palatable, another not.   
   >   
   > As for 'cruel' laws, in the sense of 'cruel and unusual punishment',   
   > I'm afraid that's true: it is a matter of culture.   
      
   But Christianity isn't "culture": it's a divinely ordained system. Ask:   
      
   Does God disapprove of personal sins like murder, theft and rape? Yes,   
   and Christians have never believed otherwise.   
      
   Does God disapprove of institutional sins like persecution, torture and   
   cruel forms of execution? Yes, but Christians have often believed   
   otherwise.   
      
   Ask the same of Buddhism and you get the similar answers, but not so   
   glaring and I don't know that Buddhists have either tortured or executed   
   cruelly. My request for more information on "Convert or it's your head in   
   a basket" arguments in Japanese Buddhism has gone unanswered.   
      
   So Buddhism seems to have been better at avoiding institutional sin, and   
   Christianity could certainly have had more safeguards built into it.   
      
   > The same societies   
   > that gave painful punishment for religious crimes, also gave terrible   
   > punishment for shoplifting, violation of dress codes.... Some future   
   > society may think we were barbaric for putting people in jail for   
   > white-collar crimes; past societies might think we're crazy for ever   
   > letting murderers out, or not just executing them in the first place.   
      
   Remember that in Erewhon criminals are treated as ill and the mad as   
   criminal.   
      
   >>Yes, but why are persecution, cruel laws etc disputed?   
   >   
   > He left them out because they WERE disputed in the past. As you said,   
   > he was talking about all Christians from St Paul to now. It wasn't up   
   > to him to talk about why persecution was accepted then but not now.   
   > Culture, I'd say, and I think this seems to have been his view. (As   
   > you say, we may be missing some other points that the earlier ages had   
   > right; Lewis seems to have often thought so. :-)   
   >   
   >> Is it not clear that they are wrong?   
   >   
   > Not clear to everyone in all cultures.   
      
   But apparently clearer to Buddhists than to Christians, and to gay   
   atheists than to medieval Catholics.   
      
   > There are practices and   
   > beliefs that even most of our liberals would 'persecute' -- ie the   
   > sort of practices and beliefes that kill usenet threads. :-)   
   > Different ages have different views about what practices and beliefs   
   > fall into that category, and about what responses to them are 'cruel   
   > and unusual'.   
      
   Again, Christianity isn't supposed to be man-made [I originally wrote   
   'mad-made'. Hmmm.] like that.   
      
   > Ok. So, are you looking at a one and only MC  wardrobe world,   
   > including everyone from St. Paul to current Christians?  Vs a one and   
   > only Buddhist wardrobe world, including everyone from Gautama to   
   > current Buddhists?   
      
   No, you're looking at a variety of Mere X worlds, some pure, some mixed.   
   If all MCs were in one world in equal numbers, I shudder at what would   
   follow.   
      
   [cutting a lot here]   
      
   >>Hinduism seems to have absolutely everything, from effective atheism   
   >>to polytheism to monotheism.   
   >   
   > And so does Christendom, in the broader sense (ie including some   
   > groups that have dropped so many of the MC doctrines as to no longer   
   > qualiry as MC).   
      
   True. Unless they have a strong central authority -- i.e. can persecute   
   -- religions soon start mutate.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)