XPost: alt.books.cs-lewis   
   From: toomuchspam@spammer.org   
      
   Can't find your reply on this server, so apologies for the reply being   
   out of sequence.   
      
   Steve Hayes wrote:   
      
   > >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.   
      
   But you've not been able to produce an example of "Convert or it's your   
   head in the basket" arguments either. I suggest that Catholic martyrs in   
   Japan wanted ascendency for the Catholic church because that's what   
   Catholic martyrs everywhere else wanted, and often got.   
      
   > >> 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?   
      
   If you can produce an example of my proclaiming myself an expert, I'd be   
   glad to see it. When I look at traditional Christianity, I see a great   
   deal of time and emotional energy devoted to the subject of hell right   
   thru life.   
      
   > >> 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.   
      
   And what exactly are people like me?   
      
   > >> 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."   
      
   You didn't comment on Christ's words.   
      
   > >> 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.   
      
   What exactly do you mean by "fundi"? Was Hilaire Belloc a fundi when he   
   wrote the following?:   
      
   Christendom would have to fight for its life, of course, against   
   outward unchristian things, that is, against Paganism. The nature   
   worshippers of the high Persian civilization to the east would attack us   
   in arms and try to overwhelm us. The savage paganism of barbaric tribes,   
   Scandinavian, German, Slav and Mongol, in the north and centre of Europe   
   would also attack Christendom and try to destroy it. The populations   
   subject to Byzantium would continue to parade heretical views as a label   
   for their grievances. But the main effort of heresy, at least, had   
   failed_so it seemed. Its object, the undoing of a united Catholic   
   civilization, had been missed. The rise of no major heresy need   
   henceforth be feared, still less the consequent disruption of   
   Christendom. ...   
      
   I shall later describe the historical origin of the thing [Islam], giving   
   the dates of its progress and the stages of its original success. I shall   
   describe the consolidation of it, its increasing power and the threat   
   which it remained to our civilization. It very nearly destroyed us. It   
   kept up the battle against Christendom actively for a thousand years, and   
   the story is by no means over; the power of Islam may at any moment   
   re-arise.   
      
   Mohammedanism was a : that is the essential point to grasp   
   before going any further.  It began as a heresy, not as a new religion.   
   It was not a pagan contrast with the Church; it was not an alien enemy.   
   It was a perversion of Christian doctrine. It vitality and endurance soon   
   gave it the appearance of a new religion, but those who were contemporary   
   with its rise saw it for what it was_not a denial, but an adaptation and   
   a misuse, of the Christian thing.   
      
   > >> 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.   
      
   I have heard the cliche "By their fruits shall ye know them."   
      
   > 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.   
      
   The Anglican church is currently shrinking very fast, and friendly   
   commentators have expressed very grave doubts about even its short-term   
   future. The only parts bucking the trend are the evangelical ones. Which   
   parts does your friend belong to? Is he against "gay priests", for   
   example? Are you? I'm not myself, but I have grave doubts that   
   introducing them will help the Anglican church recover its lost ground.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)