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.
19 comments:
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
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
Sean,
And I see it as entirely an apologetic tale, a hero myth, created by Luke.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And I disagree. The apparitions of the BVM at Lourdes and Fatima challenges anti-supernaturalism.
Ad astra! Sean
And I disagree. Apparitions are culturally conditioned projections. Hindus see Krishna and Kali.
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
Sean,
The apparitions were real? Who says? We have discussed miracles several times.
Paul.
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
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.
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
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.
Kaor, Paul!
Because it was appropriate to use an analogy from one of Anderson's stories in this blog.
Understood, what you said about "assessment," based on the works of writers who deny the supernatural claims of Christianity. The crucial point is this, if Christ is God as well as man, then it would not be impossible for Him to rise from the dead. We have to say either Yes or No to that challenge.
And I believe some, not all, anti-supernaturalist writers are "willfully obtuse." No other faith gets such endless, sustained attacks, esp. the Catholic Church!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Many believers are willfully obtuse. That cancels out. We just have to discuss reasons and evidence.
Many things are "not impossible." That is not enough. I need evidence, not a challenge to accept a proposition on insufficient evidence. I have analyzed the Gospel Resurrection passages and seen how I think such claims could have arisen. I have discussed this on another blog. We are just talking around the subject here.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Disagree, what you said about the Resurrection. The Four Gospels all agree on what matters, to say nothing of St. Paul stating in 1 Cor. 15 how he sought out eyewitnesses who had seen the Risen Christ.
It is not convincing to say "I do not know their origin, " the miracles recorded at Lourdes. The history, background, context, etc., of all that happened/happens there is that they were/are of divine origin thru the intercession of the BVM.
But, very well, you disbelieve such events were of supernatural origin. The only evidence you seem willing to accept would be of something hugely dramatic, such as the Earth's rotation being stopped, without harm to it or loss of the Moon, as in "A Chapter of Revelation." It reminds me of one of the characters saying that was actually a crude miracle, the only kind an age of spiritual savagery or barbarism could grasp--when subtler miracles like transubstantiation could not be grasped. Which I thought a very good point.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
It is not convincing? I am not trying to convince. I really do not know. You do not seem to understand that "divine origin" makes sense only to people who accept monotheism in the first place. When I say that I disbelieve in monotheism on philosophical grounds, you rightly point out that many people disagree with me philosophically. I do not deny that. Why should I? To hold a philosophical position is not to claim that everyone else holds the same position. But I can only state my position and why I think it. We go round in circles here. "...thru the intercession of the BVM" assumes not just Christian but specifically Catholic belief. I do not believe that people survive death, that there is original sin, that Mary was conceived without original sin, that Gabriel appeared to her, that angels exist, that she was a virgin mother, that she was assumed into Heaven, that there is a Heaven, that Mary has literally appeared to anyone. I do accept that some people have projected visions of her and of Christ and of other deities.
How does anyone know that transubstantiation occurs? I have not said anything about the kind of evidence that I would be willing to accept. People need to show me what they claim is evidence, not ask me what I would accept.
You disagree with me when I say that the Gospel accounts have not convinced me that a physical Resurrection occurred? But they have not convinced me. That is a fact. My discussion of this is in "Evidence for the Resurrection," dated Wednesday, 16 May, 2012, on my Religion and Philosophy blog.
The Gospels contradict each other and make statements that cannot be verified now. Paul claiming that he sought out eye witnesses is certainly not enough evidence to convince objective enquirers now. I can discuss all this in much more detail and have done.
I do not think that Catholic apologists fall back on Lourdes to the extent that you do. I think that people who try to argue that the Gospels present overwhelming evidence are trying to convince themselves. Remember, I was brought up in that tradition so I know it from the inside. I honestly believe that my daughter is far better off for not having been saddled with all those beliefs.
I feel that this whole style of argumentation is inappropriate. These are not matters in which anyone has any right to claim such certainty. We are spiritual savages and barbarians because (you think) we would be impressed by something dramatic but cannot grasp transubstantiation? Sure, flesh and blood looking exactly like bread and wine is hard to grasp while, also, eating flesh and drinking blood do not appeal to me.
I think that we need to start again from the beginning with a genuine understanding that there are indeed different views here and that no single view can quickly and easily be shown to be obviously right.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Yes, I do not understand your "I really do not know" as regards Lourdes. You must know how many believe the history, background, context of that shrine makes sense because they believe only divine could have caused the instantaneous cure of dying people who were brought there. You can deny the supernatural is real but you can't deny events happens there which challenges those who thine as you do. You have listed many of the Christians beliefs that you disbelieve in, but provided no evidence for vindicating those denials.
I "fall back" on Lourdes because it's no use citing the Scriptures or the Fathers to anti-supernaturalists. Those sources would make sense only for Catholics debating with Baptists, Lutherans, or other Protestants, because they all agree the Bible is normative for matters of faith. For anti-supernaturalists I have to cite places and events which have been recorded by unimpeachable witnesses. I mentioned transubstantiation simply as the kind of subtle miracle many boggle at today--while the Earth's rotation being stopped without harm to it would be far more difficult to ignore. Iow, the miracles at Lourdes are stumbling blocks for anti-supernaturalists.
I disagree with what you said about the alleged contradictions in the Gospels. I'll send you a link to an article at "Catholic Answers" which rebuts these alleged contradictions.
I disagree with what you said about "views." It reminds me of people who deny any views or opinions can be false, and deny anything can be objectively true. It can and has led to absurdities like saying it's wrong to say pointing out 2 +2 = 5 is false. Or nonsense like some men claiming to be women.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
If you do not understand "I do not know," then we are not communicating. I do know how many people believe. You know how many do not believe. That alone does not establish the truth either way. I do not DENY the supernatural is real. I do not deny that challenging events occur. I do not have to prove negatives. Someone who asserts a proposition has to demonstrate its truth. Anyone who does not accept the proposition is not obliged to disprove it. This is a very basic logical mistake that we have encountered before.
If, on other grounds, I think that monotheism is logically incoherent and that the origin of Christianity can be explained without a physical Resurrection, then the miracles at Lourdes remain as yet unexplained phenomena, not stumbling blocks.
I can point out contradictions in the Gospels. I will read the article that you sent but you must know by now that it will take more than reading a single article to change either my mind or yours.
You disagree that there are different views on this issue? I do not deny that any views or opinions can be false. I do not deny that anything can be objectively true. I do not say that it is wrong to say pointing out 2+2+5 is false. Gender changes are a completely different issue and one that I do not fully understand yet.
I have had to simply deny a lot of things that you have said here. Surely you do not believe that Catholic doctrines are so obviously true that everyone else should immediately accept them without any further discussion and that those who continue to point out that there are alternative points of view are equivalent to someone defending "2+2=5"?
There is something very wrong with the way these beliefs are being put forward here. Instead of simply discussing the issue, I am having to fight off all sorts of allegations of believing absurdities. I think that you have a problem with acknowledging and accepting that there are indeed different points of view here. This does not mean denying that any views can be false. It does mean that you cannot just assert the truth of your beliefs and get everyone else to accept them or accuse them of absurdity if they don't.
Can we either start again from the beginning on a legitimate basis of discussion or just drop the matter?
Paul.
One sentence got a bit mixed up there. Trying again: I do not say that it is wrong to point out that "2+2=5" is false.
By now I can anticipate replies. Maybe you didn't think that I believed absurdities, just that I reminded you of some other people who do believe absurdities? But that is irrelevant. Can we not just discuss reasons for or against particular views instead of denigrating the views either as absurdities or at least as reminding you of absurdities? We keep going all the way round the block just to get back to what should have been the starting point.
Post a Comment