XPost: alt.books.cs-lewis
From: toomuchspam@spammer.org
Bree wrote:
>
I wasn't consciously meaning to be sarcastic. I hope.
> And why didn't Lewis mention that tidbit of news? Instead of writing
> about the beliefs that had been common to ALL Christians at ALL times?
>
> Really, Naph, it seems hopeless to restore your meaning of MCs. I
> think you'd better drop the term and use some other term.
No, my meaning of MC is supposed to be the same as Lewis's: the
irreducible core. Which was reduced still further by some in the 20C.
> Not that I'm 100% sure of what you meant, either. Did you mean
> 'everyone who shares the basic beliefs Lewis listed, and attempts to
> follow any denomination of Christianity (such as RC, Chapel,
> whatever), now and in past ages'? In that case the word is
> 'Christians'. IE real people throughout the ages. Which is who Lewis
> was writing about.
"Christian" can mean those who conform but don't believe, or who exploit
but don't believe. MC doesn't mean that. The trouble as I see it is that
people naturally want to meet certain spiritual and psychological needs
in religion, but the religions they choose or are brought up with often
come with institutional histories that contradict their present forms.
Then tribalism and familial loyalty come in and it gets very
psychologically complicated.
I want to see if there's a religion that is (to be pretentious)
"invariable under transformation", i.e. doesn't change its attitude to
things like persecution and torture as you move thru space and time. I
don't think there is one, but Buddhism seems to come closest. So might
Quakerism, but Quakerism hasn't been put to the test, because it hasn't
had power and hasn't lasted for so long.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
