Gratillonius' makeshift militia of tribesmen, Bacaudae, former marines and former legionaries fights the Scoti at the site of Ys. Both Dahut and Nemeta intervene.
Dahut is recognizable and solid but now deathly cold and has become amphibious. Nemeta is not physically present but, like her deceased mother, Queen Forsquilis, is able to appear as a Sending in the form of a large eagle owl. Unlike mere mortals, Dahut is able to grasp the owl, harming its right wing, thus also injuring at a distance Nemeta's right arm. Dahut also seizes and drowns Maeloch who, until now, had thought that he was avenging his beloved and blameless princess, Dahut. Gratillonius, who now cannot deny his daughter's past wrong-doing, is shaken enough to seek counselling and instruction from Bishop Corentinus.
Like the Aenean Christian, Peter Berg, and the unnamed first person narrator in Poul Anderson's Technic History short story, "The Problem of Pain," Corentinus and Gratillonius discuss the theological Problem of Evil. Corentinus asks:
"'Who are we men, that we should hold the Almighty to account?'" (XV, 1, p. 289)
We are rational beings who have every right to analyse the nature of evil, whether accepting or rejecting the postulate of an Almighty.
16 comments:
Actually, I'd say we're rationalizing animals... 8-).
Maybe but we do achieve some pure reason in logic and mathematics.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
True, but I think some things will not be that easily explained, such as the cures recorded at Lourdes. I believe in the possibility of the supernatural, God, intervening in the world.
Ad astra! Sean
"...will not be that easily explained..."
If no one finds a scientific explanation, then the Catholic interpretation must be accepted? No. If no one finds a scientific explanation, then the phenomenon has not yet been explained.
Kaor, Paul!
This is merely your preferences speaking. You yourself brought to my attention a truly spectacular cure recorded at Lourdes: a man dying of advanced bone cancer was instantaneously cured when placed in the waters at Lourdes. A case confirmed by un-impeachably honest scientists and physicians. That certainly seems strongly indicative that something supernatural happened!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
This is merely your preferences speaking. Since I have all kinds of frequently stated reasons for not agreeing with monotheism, Christianity or Catholicism, I cannot accept any of them as explaining anything.
"...something supernatural..."? Something not yet understood in terms of natural laws.
Paul.
My friend's vicar healed him of a painful condition by praying and laying on of hands.
Kaor, Paul!
To paraphrase Shakespeare I believe there are more things in heaven and earth than any philosophy can explain. Unlike those who think otherwise I accept the reality of the supernatural.
Ad astra! Sean
Bear in mind the inherent -- instinctive -- human proclivity to project intentionality and personality onto their environment, whether it's actually there or not.
This is a by-product of our evolutionary history, in which our conscious intelligence mostly evolved to deal with other human beings -- who -do- have intentionality and personality.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
And I agree! I simply believe that those who believe the supernatural is real are not merely projecting intentionality and personality on a nothing, a literal "no thing." I also believe Catholics can make better arguments for that belief than other religious believers.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: I'm an outlier, in that I'm (as far as I can tell) an instinctive materialist.
Have been as far back as I can remember -- and my conscious memories go back to five or six, with flashes from earlier.
I enjoyed fairy stories with things like talking trees and so forth, but never believed them for an instant.
"Those things are just things", was the way I put it back then.
One of the fun things about writing IN THE COURTS OF THE CRIMSON KINGS was imagining a whole sub-species of humans who thought that way. The "Martians" in that book are essentially people who share my natural outlook on the world.
(One of the inspirations was a remark I often heard in my younger days: "Steve, it's like you're from Mars.")
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Many thanks for these interesting personal comments. St. Thomas the Doubter would sympathize with you. He would not or could not believe Christ had actually risen from the dead till he had seen and touched the Lord's wounds, which Christ, with gentle irony, commanded Thomas to do.
Astringent and acerbic as the hominins of your IN THE COURTS OF THE CRIMSON KINGS were, I loved that book and read it twice, and hope to reread it again. I can't help wonder if the religions and philosophies of Earth, far more varied than anything analogous on your Mars, might be rather a shock to those Martians!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But the story of Doubting Thomas is part of a document written to propagate a belief and was written long after the events that it purports to describe.
The Gospel accounts of the Resurrection appearances are completely inconsistent. Matthew, not knowing that the appearances were supposed to have been in Jerusalem, describes a single appearance, where he says that some doubted, in Galilee.
"'Go quickly now, and tell his disciples, "He has been raised from death, and now he is going to Galilee ahead of you; there you will see him!" Remember what I have told you.'" (Mt. 28:7)
"'Now go and give this message to his disciples, including Peter: "He is going to Galilee ahead of you; there you will see him, just as he told you.'
"So they went out and ran from the tomb, distressed and terrified. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid." (Mk. 16:7-8)
"'He is not here; he has been raised. Remember what he said to you while he was in Galilee...'" (Lk. 24:6)
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I disagree, because you keep missing the point: the Resurrection is what matters. Not the minor "differences" antisupernaturalists keep obsessing over. The Resurrection is what Christianity stands or falls on. Additionally, the Evangelists wrote their Gospels with somewhat different stresses and emphases in mind.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Missing the point? I agree that the Resurrection is central to Christianity but am not convinced of evidence for the Resurrection.
In a court case, if witnesses contradict each other, then their evidence does not hold up. To argue this is not to "obsess"! The "differences" are real differences and are not minor. Reread the four accounts of the women at the tomb and see how different they are. Mark has the women telling no one. John, writing later, goes into all sorts of details that are not in the Synoptics and the simplest explanation is just that he made them up as he did with Doubting Thomas.
Paul.
John made up the raising of Lazarus and the Last Supper discourse. There was no tape recorder or shorthand secretary there. He freely composes his last Resurrection appearance story which has Peter returning to his fishing job.
Someone who does not accept the Resurrection does not understand that the Resurrection is central to Christianity? Non sequitur.
Someone who claims to be Christian but does not accept the Resurrection does not understand Christianity? Yes.
I suspect that you conflate these two propositions.
Post a Comment