XPost: alt.books.cs-lewis   
   From: hayesmstw@hotmail.com   
      
   On 15 Oct 2005 13:51:03 GMT, Siwel Naph  wrote:   
      
   >Steve Hayes wrote:   
   >   
   >>>I assumed that the Japanese Christians first converted by non-Japanese   
   >>>Christians converted because they accepted Christianity in the form   
   >>>presented to them by the non-Japanese Christians, and then used the   
   >>>same arguments on their fellow Japanese. It seemed a reasonable   
   >>>assumption, but I have no hope that either of you will confirm or deny   
   >>>that it was.   
   >>   
   >> It can be dangerous to make too many assumptions.   
   >   
   >As someone ignorant of Japanese history, I was assuming; you, as someone   
   >knowledgeable, actually know. I assume.   
      
   I am not, and never claimed to be, a fundi on Japanese history. I know a few   
   things about it, but if you ask me for more details, I'd have to do some   
   research. Since it is you who want to know the details, you should be able to   
   do the research.   
      
   >>>> If you have some factual knowledge that is relevant to the topic   
   >>>> under discussion, but sweeping statements like the ones you made are   
   >>>> simply not worth answering.   
   >>>   
   >>>It would have saved me time if you'd said this earlier, and there were   
   >>>other questions you overlooked (e.g. whether you believed in Hell in   
   >>>the traditional sense).   
   >>   
   >> I'm not sure what "hell in the traditional sense". It's not really a   
   >> subject I've taken much interest in since the age of 13,   
   >   
   >Then you don't believe in hell in the traditional sense.   
      
   If you say so.   
      
   After all, you are the self-proclaimed expert on "traditional Christianity",   
   not so?   
      
   >> when I stayed   
   >> with a friend who had a copy of Dante's "Inferno" with illustrations   
   >> by Gustav Doré. At that age I treated it more like a Renaissance comic   
   >> book, but I'm not sure how "traditional" Dante's version was.   
   >>   
   >> I also don't seem to have, or can't locate, a copy of "Mere   
   >> Christianity", so perhaps someone else who's reading this and has one   
   >> cold tell us what Lewis says about hell there.   
   >>   
   >> But I suppose my understanding of hell now, when i think about it,   
   >   
   >When you think about it?!   
      
   Mostly when people like you ask me about it.   
      
   >> is   
   >> shaped by St John Chrysostom, who said:   
   >   
   >What about what Christ said?   
   >   
   >"Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them   
   >from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather   
   >than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire."   
   >   
   >That could be used as an argument for torture.   
   >   
   >> Let no one bewail his poverty, for the universal kingdom hath   
   >> been revealed. Let no one weep for his iniquities, for pardon   
   >> hath shone forth from the grave. Let no one fear death, for the   
   >> Saviour's death hath set us free. He that was held prisoner of it   
   >> hath annihilated it. By descending into Hell, he made Hell cap-   
   >> tive. He angered it when it tasted of his flesh. And Isaiah,   
   >> foretelling this, did cry: Hell, said he, was angered when it   
   >> encountered thee in the lower regions. It was angered, for it was   
   >> abolished. It was angered, for it was mocked. It was angered, for   
   >> it was slain. It was angered, for it was overthrown. It was   
   >> angered, for it was fettered in chains. It took a body, and met   
   >> God face to face. It took earth, and encountered Heaven. It took   
   >> that which was seen, and fell upon the unseen.   
   >>   
   >> O Death, where is thy sting? O Hell, where is thy victory? Christ   
   >> is risen, and thou art overthrown. Christ is risen, and the   
   >> demons are fallen. Christ is risen, and the angels rejoice.   
   >> Christ is risen, and life reigneth. Christ is risen, and not one   
   >> dead remaineth in the grave. For Christ, being risen from the   
   >> dead, is become the first-fruits of those who have fallen asleep.   
   >> To him be glory and dominion unto ages of ages. Amen.   
   >>   
   >> I suppose that is traditional, but I'm not sure what Lewis has to say   
   >> about it.   
   >   
   >Hell is mentioned, but it's not really described, and he doesn't say no-one   
   >is going there because of Christ's victory over it.   
      
   Well no. I did check some references to hell in a catechism i have, and most   
   of them were concerned with Christ's descent into hell to get people out of   
   it.   
      
   I have read "Descent into hell" by Charles Williams a couple of times, but it   
   is my least favourite of his novels, and I don't really understand it. "War in   
   heaven" is more my cup of tea.   
      
   >>>If mere Christianity states that Christianity is the one true religion   
   >>>and all must convert to it because of this, it's the core of   
   >>>traditional Christianity. If not, it isn't.   
   >>   
   >> Well maybe there is something to that effect in "Mere Christianity",   
   >> though I doubt it (and perhaps someone who has the book can confirm   
   >> whether it has or not. But I certainly don't know of anything of that   
   >> sort in traditional Christianity.   
   >   
   >Then what is TC's attitude to other religions, e.g. paganism, Judaism,   
   >Islam?   
      
   Perhaps you should tell me -- after all, you are the fundi, and so whatever I   
   say will probably be wrong in your eyes.   
      
   >> At the risk of saying something that has tended to become a distorted   
   >> cliche, and therefore of being misunderstood, traditional Christianity   
   >> isn't a religion at all.   
   >   
   >You'll have to explain that.   
      
   Ah, well perhaps you haven't heard the cliche, which is at least a start.   
      
   The best explanation I've seen is in a paper read by a friend of mine, now a   
   retired Anglican bishop, but at the time he read it a very young priest.   
   Probably a bit long to post here, but I'll be rash.   
      
      
                             RELIGION VERSUS GOD   
      
                                                               John Davies   
      
   The purpose of this paper is to suggest:   
      
     a)	that religion is in itself a highly dangerous thing   
      
     b)	that the faith of the Bible and the Church is not religious   
      
     c)	that insofar as religious characteristics enter the faith and life   
        of the Church they are hostile to its true nature and must be   
        eradicated.1   
      
   It is stupid to use the word `religion' to mean Christianity. It is a   
   misuse of words even in Europe and the UK. In this country it is highly   
   discourteous to the non-Christian religious people. Here we see clearly   
   that either Christianity is just one religion among many or it isn't a   
   religion at all.   
      
   Let us make a tentative definition of `religion'. Religion is an attempt   
   by man to escape from his circumscription by making and maintaining an   
   association with a presupposed superhuman or transcendent reality. I   
   avoid the word `God' in the last phrase so that the definition will   
   include not only theistic religions and animisms but also the yearnings   
   of the Buddhist and the ethical humanist, and the group loyalty implied   
   in African ancestor worship, and the pseudo-Christian nationalism that   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)