XPost: alt.books.cs-lewis   
   From: dd@dandrake.com   
      
   On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 09:23:37 UTC, Siwel Naph    
   wrote:   
      
   > No, my meaning of MC is supposed to be the same as Lewis's: the   
   > irreducible core.   
      
   Right.   
      
   Oddly enough, this long and rambling and rather hostile thread has   
   clarified my understanding of the original question, or at least given me   
   time to think about it.  So I'll now state what I understand it to mean,   
   and answer it without wasting space on irrelevant merely personal details   
   such as what I think X would have done compared to Y in circumstance Q.   
      
   IF there were a place entirely populated by believers in -- oops, back one   
   step.   
      
      
   IF there is such a thing as Mere Christianity (a position denied by many   
   people, including some on this list), which consists of the central common   
   core of *faith* held by (real, sincere) Christians always and everywhere;   
      
   And IF there were a land inhabited only by people who really hold to that   
   faith, whatever else they may believe along with it (but may I also   
   suggest that we should expect their other beliefs to be consistent with   
   MC?);   
      
   And IF ditto ditto Buddhism or some other religion;   
      
   And IF the adherence to Mere X was *all* you could know a priori about   
   these people, not knowing, even statistically, what particular geographic   
   or cultural or temporal background they might have apart from their Mere   
   X-ity, because the Mere X is what the question is about, not historical   
   accidents of European imperialism or whatnot;   
      
   Then: Would one be better off being dumped into the Mere Christian lands   
   or the Mere Buddhist (etc), or neither, or what?  Consider the answer   
   given that one might belong to some group we consider an outgroup.   
      
   [Having tried to be precise and unbiased, I notice that X can be taken as   
   a symbol of Chrisitanity. All right, Q then? No, that's a technical term   
   in NT studies.  Humpty Dumpty: When *I* use X, it's a neutral term, as in   
   algebra. See how hard it is to formulate things precisely?]   
      
   My last IF may be controversial. OK, anyway, this is the question I'm   
   answering.   
      
      
   Here's my answer:   
   It wouldn't make a rat's ass of difference.   
      
   *Everybody* is screwed up and does not begin to live up to the Teachings,   
   whatever they are, unless they're trivial.  A Christian would call this   
   Original Sin.  Others might call it Maya.  I don't know whether the   
   Christian theological explanation is right, but the effects that it refers   
   to are real.   
      
   I could claim to recruit Lewis to my side; see "The Sermon and the Lunch",   
   for instance.  Someone else might cite him on the other side. It doesn't   
   really matter, but I want to give Lewis credit for the degree to which he   
   clarified my thinking on these matters.   
      
      
   --   
   Dan Drake   
   dd@dandrake.com   
   http://www.dandrake.com/   
   porlockjr.blogspot.com   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)