Tuesday, 11 April 2017
The Flood And The Change
The abbot refers to Noah's Flood and to Joshua halting the sun. Does he understand these stories literally? Not necessarily. He continues:
"'I always thought that the Flood was a metaphor, but after the Change, who knows?'" (p. 395)
The Change was when all technology stopped working. The abbot believes that this was a divine intervention, maybe preventing greater evils:
"'...without shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin.'" (ibid.)
Disagree. Pagans sacrificed animals and sometimes human beings to gods. Jews sacrificed animals to God. Christians believe... The Buddha taught that the best sacrifice is an offering not of flesh to the gods but of fruit to the poor.
The abbot continues:
"'Without the change, we might have destroyed ourselves altogether, or used genetic engineering and other forms of meddling to abolish genuine humanity from within, perhaps removing death itself, until there was no limit to the cruel empires of pride and lust that we could erect.'" (ibid.)
CS Lewis wrote The Abolition Of Man and a cautionary sf novel, That Hideous Strength.
The abbot frankly tells a Wiccan that her religion is not old and is false, erroneous, conducive to sin and childish. She responds with a childish gesture of defiance and the monks chuckle. What a healthy exchange! The abbot's ecclesiastical opponent, the antipope, has revived the burning of witches.
Sir Nigel, having visited Italy on behalf of King Charles, reports that a new Pope should have been elected by now, probably Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. Ratzinger? Sounds familiar. What did he do in our timeline? See here. Is it a divine sign if the same guy gets elected Pope in two timelines? But only God and the readers can see it.