When reading section 6, we vicariously enjoy:
"...the decency of the twentieth-century Netherlands." (p. 521)
In the Ambrosia Surinam-Caribbean restaurant, on Stadouderskade in a quiet neighbourhood near the Museumplein, right beside a canal, the black cook discusses Everard's and Floris' meal in fluent English. Descriptive terms include "evanescence," "warmth," "light" and "savor." (p. 522) When they emerge, the mild air, smelling of spring, has been cleansed by rain and a canal boat passes with glistening wake.
In section 7, we return to the seasonal life of Germania in Roman times. Spring billows. Days warm and lengthen. Leaves grow. Grass glows. Birds clamour. Lambs, calves and foals are born. People blink, breathe and start to work.
"Yet they were hungry after last year's niggard yields." (p. 530)
I knew that "niggard" was inoffensive but had not realized how much controversy there had been about it.
An understandable misunderstanding.
12 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Even if springing more directly from the Calvinism which once predominated in the Netherlands, that 20th century decency was possible only because of Christianity. What I read lately about what is going on there lately makes it plain that decency is fading away. It will take a revival of Christian faith, a reconversion to Catholicism, to bring back more decency.
I get so impatient with insane, woke, Politically Correct lunatics and their fussing about harmless words like "niggard"! I'll have nothing to do with that kind of nonsense.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
The derivation of "niggard" had to be checked. In fact, it is a completely separate derivation.
I could say that I get impatient with people complaining about "insane, woke, Politically Correct lunatics"! (Except that I don't get impatient. I just move on.) Loaded language! Why is society so polarized? This kind of divisiveness - some of it even sounding like hate - does no one's cause any good.
Since I disagree with monotheism on philosophical grounds and with Christianity on historical and other grounds, I cannot support a revival of Christian faith. The world is certainly in bad shape right now - its global economic system is in long term decline while still determinedly destroying the environment ("Drill, baby!") - but I think that we CAN move forward but on the basis of understanding, not of faith. Decency only because of Christianity? There have been many good sceptics, atheists, agnostics, secularists, humanists, people of other faiths.
I think that we might negotiate a way forward rather than just adopting polarized positions?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I disagree, I have low tolerance for insane woke ranting about words like "niggard," not when all anyone has to do is look up such words in a good dictionary. I am not going to pretend that kind of nonsense is anything but foolishness.
You are not the first or last to think as you do about Christianity, esp. Catholic Christianity. But we have Divine assurance (Matthew 16) the Church will survive. It is the will of God that the Church continue its long, patient campaign to offer the means of salvation to all willing to open themselves to God. And the more that happens the more human civilizations will improve.
The problem with those "good" skeptics, secularists, atheists, etc., is that they have nothing to offer to mankind that reaches or touches the deepest longings or hopes of human beings.
Other faiths: After Judaism and Christianity I have the most respect for Zoroastrianism. I recalled the great respect Chesterton had for that faith in THE EVERLASTING MAN.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Disagree.
I think that the issue about "niggard" has been cleared up. The derivation of that word did need to be checked. Let's try to have some tolerance.
Of course I am not the first! Again, a mere assumption that Matthew is divinely inspired. Civilization is in a very bad way now. It won't be improved by religious conversions. It will be improved when we collectively take control of our destinies instead of leaving power in the hands of minorities.
Deepest longings and hopes? Whether everyone is somehow immortal is a question of fact, not just of hoping, then believing, it. What we can realistically hope and aim for is a better life for everyone on Earth.
I certainly do not accept any one religion in detail but Buddhism transmits a meditation practice that leads to insight and understanding.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I have seen too much foolishness and idiocy about piffles over things like "niggard" to have any tolerance for that kind of nonsense.
Yes, divinely inspired.
It was because of Christians who believed in their faith that we have seen massive improvements in human lives over the millennia. Not by any "collective" nonsense.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But you merely state that one set of documents is divinely inspired.
We are a social species and "collective" is not nonsense.
It is not because of believing Christians that we have seen massive improvements.
Is discussion possible instead of mere condemnation?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I believe there are divinely inspired Scriptures. You deny there are such things.
We are a social and clannish, tribalist, and nationalist species. To deny that is to denial the facts of history and real life.
It was because of the faith of Christians that really massive improvements in human lives occurred. On page 182 of Witt and Richards THE HOBBIT PARTY, the authors quote this from Lewis' MERE CHRISTIANITY: "If you read history you will find that the Christians who did most for the present world were just those who thought most of the next. The Apostles themselves, who set on foot the conversion of the Roman Empire, the great men who built up the Middle Ages, the English Evangelicals who abolished the Slave Trade, all left their mark on Earth, precisely because their minds were occupied with heaven. It is since Christians have largely ceased to think of the other world that they have become so ineffectual in this. Aim at heaven and you will get Earth "thrown in": aim at earth and you will get neither."
I would have added that one of the earlier examples of how convinced Christians brought improvement to the world was how their protests finally brought an end to the barbarity of Roman gladiatorial games. Buddhists did not end the slave, nor did the Muslims. The latter, in fact, were among the most stubborn and long lasting of all slave traffickers.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But that certain texts are divinely inspired scriptures is a mere unsupported statement.
The facts of history and real life are that we are a social species and are capable of transforming material conditions in ways that completely change social relationships and individual perceptions, motivations, expectations etc. This does not involve denying past and present conflicts. Many people oppose the international conflicts fostered by our present rulers who maintain stockpiles of instruments of destruction instead of cooperating urgently to prevent environmental collapse.
In all of Lewis' works, he assumes without defending the highly questionable proposition that individual consciousness continues indefinitely after physical death.
I do not take sides in a contest between Christianity, Buddhism and Islam and I do not accept any of these religions in its entirety although I am philosophically closer to Buddhism and know from experience that it transmits a meditation practice that leads to insight and understanding.
Paul.
"how convinced Christians brought improvement to the world was how their protests finally brought an end to the barbarity of Roman gladiatorial games"
IIRC in one of the two episodes on Gladiators in this podcast series https://historyonfirepodcast.com/, it is stated that Christians objected to the Gladiator contests as much for the idea that Gladiators could influence their fate without God, as for the cruelty. Something that surprised me and made their objections less praiseworthy in my view.
Kaor, Paul and Jim!
Paul: Not unsupported, it's only that Christians believe to be evidence for trusting the Scriptures is denied by those who think as you do.
Again, you cling to views about human beings, their societies, nations, politics, etc., that I don't believe in. Impasse, IOW.
Your comment Lewis is unconvincing. I can just as easily that around and say people who think as you do make "...the highly questionable proposition that individual consciousness does not continues indefinitely after physical death." Philosophical arguments alone cannot definitely resolve questions, pro or con.
Missing my point, it was Christians, not Buddhists or Muslims, who did the most to stamp out slavery. And some Muslims want to revive slavery.
Jim: I'm a bit puzzled, I did a quick google of the history of Roman gladiatorial games, and I saw nothing about that use of "fate." Rather the decline of gladiatorial games was a long process, with Christian writers like Tertullian and St. Augustine criticizing them, and Christian Emperors from Constantine onwards increasingly setting limits on the games or expressing dislike for them. Culminating with the Emperor Honorius banning them, first in AD 399 and again in 404.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
What evidence?
I don't CLING to views about human beings. I have argued for those views extensively but I feel that the arguments are neither properly considered in detail nor adequately responded to. People behave differently in different circumstances. Primitive tribalism is one factor in our heritage but not an all-consuming factor over-riding everything else. The material and social conditions in which populations do interact peacefully CAN (not inevitably WILL) be identified, encouraged and extended. Competitive sport is enjoyed by many people who do not riot if their team loses, would regard it as unsporting and as destroying the spirit of sport to do so. Bad social conditions and alienation, not sporting competition as such, cause football hooliganism.
Missing my point. I am not in a competition between Christianity, Buddhism and Islam over slavery or anything else.
You cannot just as easily say that it is highly questionable that individual consciousness does not continue indefinitely after physical death! Highly questionable? We can just assume indefinite survival without having to present any evidence for it? You turn all the rules of evidence on their head.
Someone who makes a positive assertion, such as that there is survival, is obliged to present some reasoning or evidence to back up that assertion. They cannot just challenge others to disprove the assertion. This is a fundamental logical point. If we do not both understand this, then any rational argument or consideration of evidence becomes impossible.
We are not trying definitely to resolve such questions, just to clarify them as far as we can. Right now, they are completely unclear because you do not understand the basic question of the onus of proof.
I know a guy who scoffs at the suggestion that there are no hidden cities on Mars just because we can't see them! I am supposed to disprove Martian cities? He is not obliged to present any evidence for them? That is the position that you have got into by saying that my comment on CS Lewis is unconvincing.
Paul.
Sean: I think I should check that podcast again, especially any references given. I may have misremembered it, or expressed it badly.
Post a Comment