Friday, 22 August 2025

Mediterranean And Mussulman

The Merman's Children, Book Two.

The Mediterranean is:

"...a narrow sea divided between Christian and Mussulman with naught of Faerie surviving." (IV, p. 94)

Islam is:

"...a faith which kindled still more zeal against Faerie than Christendom generally did." (I, p. 75)

Again, this narrative is much closer to that end of Faerie that Poul Anderson had predicted at the end of his FOREWORD to The Broken Sword.

I read, and might still have somewhere upstairs after a house move (in fact, it is here), a nineteenth century work of Roman Catholic apologetics by an American clergyman who:

described the Paris Commune as a "many-headed monster";

said that the Holy Land was "profaned by the foot of the Mussulman";

accused Protestants of "monstrous ingratitude" because they accept the Bible but not the early Church that formulated the Christian canon of scripture;

accepted a literal Adam and Eve and Annunciation by Gabriel to the Virgin Mary.

This demonstrates what I was told as a trainee Religious Education teacher in Manchester, that there is no unchanging religious tradition. A city centre Church incorporated a Centre for the Study of Religion in the Urban Environment which printed documents for different religious communities. We, a group of students, were taken on a tour which included a synagogue. We had access to nineteenth century Christian missionary material which, however, was not on public display because some of it was regarded as offensive. Nowadays, where they exist, Pagans are just another religious group.

Traditions will have changed again in the kinds of futures projected by sf writers.

11 comments:

  1. Kaor, Paul!

    THE MERMAN'S CHILDREN mentioned a group who were even more harshly opposed to Faerie than the Muslims, the Bogomils. A sect descended, I think, from the Manicheans.

    I think you are using the word "tradition" too loosely. There is a difference between the opinions of the author of this book and the way Catholic theologians define that word.

    Ad astra! Sean

    ReplyDelete
  2. Kaor, Paul!

    It is a matter of defined doctrine in the Catholic Church that angels, non-corporeal beings, exist. And that, for special reasons, the good angels can appear to men and women. Thus I see nothing implausible in the Archangel Raphael appearing to the BVM.

    Ad astra! Sean

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sean,

    And I see it as entirely an apologetic tale, a hero myth, created by Luke.

    Paul.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Kaor, Paul!

    And I disagree. The apparitions of the BVM at Lourdes and Fatima challenges anti-supernaturalism.

    Ad astra! Sean

    ReplyDelete
  5. And I disagree. Apparitions are culturally conditioned projections. Hindus see Krishna and Kali.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Kaor, Paul!

    I disagree, because St. Paul warned his converts Satan could pretend to be a good spirit, to deceive some. The apparitions at Lourdes and Fatima were real and authorized by God. And the miracles recorded at Lourdes are also challenges to anti-supernaturalism.

    Ad astra! Sean

    Ad astra! Sean

    ReplyDelete
  7. Sean,

    The apparitions were real? Who says? We have discussed miracles several times.

    Paul.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Kaor, Paul!

    I should have said the Church is cautious and reluctant about approving apparitions of the saints. At most the Magisterium will, after intensive investigation, declare an apparition not contrary to faith/morals and worthy of belief. So, yes, I believe the Lourdes/Fatima apparitions to be genuine.

    Those who deny miracles are of supernatural origin reminds me of how the Chinese Maoists reacted to the miraculous stopping of the Earth's rotation in "A Chapter of Revelation." The Maoists tried to claim the Earth's rotation stopped because of a quantum leap forward in ESP mental powers in mankind. A mass mind melding of the "peace loving" peoples of the world stopped the Earth's rotation. Absurd, strained, desperate, unconvincing.

    Ad astra! Sean

    ReplyDelete
  9. Sean,

    I do not deny miracles are of supernatural origin. I do not know their origin.

    If we disbelieve in monotheism on philosophical grounds and in Christianity on historical grounds, then we cannot simply accept miracles as caused by the Christian God and leave it at that. To say this is not absurd, strained, desperate or unconvincing. It doesn't convince you but, when discussing this, I am not trying to convince Catholics of anything. I am just trying to discuss the issue.

    Paul.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Kaor, Paul!

    Easy part out of the way first: it was the suggestion stopping the Earth's rotation was due to mass use of alleged ESP powers I dismissed as absurd, strained, desperate, etc.

    Attacks on the historicity of Christianity are not convincing. Few faiths have as much historical support as Christianity. The oldest parts of the NT alone goes back to within a few years of Christ's resurrection. And the earliest extra-NT Christian writings goes back to when some of the Apostles still lived. To say nothing of what non-Christians like Flavius Josephus, Pliny te Younger, and Tacitus said!

    I do not accept those philosophical arguments, not when other philosophers can propose counter arguments at least as convincing. Which makes me conclude philosophy alone cannot definitely resolve such issues.

    My view is one reason (besides divine mercy) for the miracles recorded at Lourdes is as a challenge to anti-supernaturalist beliefs. God's way of saying "I am real."

    Ad astra! Sean

    ReplyDelete
  11. Sean,

    But you compared the fictional Maoists to those who do not accept your view of miracles.

    I do not attack Christianity. I assess it. (We always seem to be at war here.) The Gospel accounts do not convince me that a physical Resurrection happened.

    You do not accept those philosophical arguments? But that is not the point. The point is that those of us who do accept those philosophical arguments cannot accept your interpretation of miracles. We always seem to be talking at cross purposes here. Of course other philosophers propose counterarguments. That is the nature of philosophy. We each have to work out what we ourselves think, not claim that one single argument settles the matter for everyone.

    I would be able to accept your view of miracles if I believed in God in the first place. This gets us precisely nowhere. But your insinuation is always that those who do not see it your way are willfully obtuse. Let's just discuss the issues objectively.

    Paul.

    ReplyDelete