Ya-Kela thinks that ya-Valland has:
"...curious weaknesses.'" (p. 52)
He is blind at night, awkward in the marshlands, lacking either tail or webbed feet, and ignorant of dangers like dart bushes. Of course Valland is awkward and ignorant in this environment! That ya-Kela does not understand that is a limitation on his part, not on Valland's. In a city, if he ever visited one, ya-Kela would not know to look both ways before crossing a street.
More seriously, if the stranger is not after all "'...from God...,'" (p. 53) then ya-Kela:
"'...will plunge the first spear into ya-Valland.'" (ibid.)
Many on Earth would regard the Azkashi's devotion "'...to God alone...'" (p. 54) as admirable but we have learned from experience how this can go wrong. In London, an Evangelical preacher went to the assembly point of a demonstration in order to address Muslims with remarks like:
"They say that He is not the Son of God and what a blasphemy that is!"
Not a blasphemy, just a different belief!
(What constitutes respect or disrespect to the Lord is largely a matter of tradition. Someone who entered our meditation hall was shocked to see people sitting for meditation with their backs to the Buddha.)
Here at Blog Central, we, editorially speaking, are suffering from a mild cold, therefore reading and posting sluggishly. Also, we are still giving some attention to the less-read James Blish Appreciation blog.
Go with God. (As Blish's Jorn the Apostle says.)
14 comments:
Well, if beliefs directly contradict each other, they can't both be right. Though both may be wrong.
We are used to different versions of a story in the Bible, in the Greek myths, between the book and the film etc. I think differing beliefs are like that: Jesus is the Son of God or a prophet; the Buddha can be seen as an avatar of Vishnu etc.
Of course only one of the mutually incompatible beliefs, if any, can be true but there is no blasphemy involved in believing something different from someone else.
Kaor, Paul!
But Winston Churchill could have died during one of his visits to the US when he looked the wrong way crossing a street in New York City and was struck by a car. He was used to looking in a different direction in the UK.
On such whimsical accidents rests the fates of nations/empires!
I'm not a preacher, but I disapprove of how that evangelical Protestant behaved. He should have modeled his effort on how Peter and Paul proclaimed Christ.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Most Muslims would respect or at worst disregard a straightforward proclamation of Christianity. On that occasion, they argued back.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
No, most Muslims outside Western nations do not respect dialogue with Christians. The situation faced by Christians and other non-Muslims in Islamic nations ranges from the discriminatory to outbursts of violent persecution. In varying degrees all Muslim controlled nations impose the laws/customs of dhimmitude (second or third class citizenship) on Christians and Jews. Muslims who convert to Christianity in the dar-al Islaam do so at risk of their lives in many places.
It's a mistake to think the Muslims you know speak for all Muslims. They do not and cannot.
Besides Peter and Paul the model to follow in proselyting Muslims was the example set by the Catalan scholar Ramon Llul (or Lully), who lived c. 1232-1316. He advocated the study of Arabic and Muslim works of theology in European universities. Lully wanted Catholic missionaries to use only reasoned debates with Muslims and peaceful methods.
Ramon Lully was an interesting man. Besides his missionary zeal he was known for works touching on scientific matters, such as what we now games theory.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
No. (I just respond to that automatically now!)
No Muslims speak for all Muslims. In fact, no (fill in the blank) speak for all (fill in the blank). Traditions divide and split. SOME political movements combining Christians, Muslims, secularists etc aim to establish pluralist, multicultural societies where everyone is free and equal, e.g., no woman is forced to wear the hijab and no woman is prevented from wearing it.
Paul.
It helps to regard reality, and within that society, as an indefinite number of interacting processes rather than as a limited set of fixed categories.
Kaor, Paul!
The error you persist in is your refusal to take seriously the fact many, many ordinary Muslims believe in the teachings of Islam, including its barbaric laws and customs. And that includes the UK, given the proliferation of No Go areas and the quiet sneaking in of Sharia law.
It helps far more to face hard, unpleasant facts and not cling to futile hopes.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
There are no No Go areas and there is no sneaking in of Sharia law. These are falsehoods.
I am no more in error than you are and I am not persistently refusing to take anything seriously. I am simply disagreeing with you about it. I am facing facts and am not clinging to futile hopes. You are unable to describe the disagreement except on the assumption that you are right! If it were a self-evident, obvious and undisputable fact that I was clinging to futile hopes, then I would immediately stop clinging to them. We have got to have a better mutual understanding than this.
The main problem in the world at present is not members of one religious tradition believing in barbaric laws and customs but a competitive global economy whose political expression is imperial powers feeling entitled to bomb other countries and populations in order to further their own strategic and economic interests. Deliberately bombing power plants would be a war crime. However, I recognize that what I have just written is a minority view at least in your and my countries and I do not label it as a "fact" which you persistently refuse to take seriously. I have more respect for the processes of disagreement, discussion, debate etc.
If we could at last start a discussion on a level playing field, then we might have started to make some progress. (But even this is difficult because our views are in fact political expressions of opposed sides in a very real material conflict.)
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I don't believe you, and neither do many Britons. One being Fr. Michael Nazir-Ali, who was an Anglican before he converted to the Catholic faith and was ordained a priest. Nazir-Ali has deeply studied Islam, far more so than either of us, and he believes that's exactly what is going on, spreading of No Go areas and Muslims bullying non-Muslims.
Disagree, the main problem are ambitious powers wanting to displace the US/West. Maoist China dominating Earth would be no improvement. Nor do I care about those Iranian power plants, which are legitimate targets of war. The US/UK did exactly that against Germany in WW II, btw.
And we need competition to have a functioning economy, to allocate and reallocate resources of all kinds.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
For whether there are No Go areas in Britain, you don't have to believe either me or someone else. You need to find evidence and that evidence has to be gathered not from studying Islam but from British news reports. What is a No Go area? Are there parts of British cities that cannot be entered either by people who are not Muslims or by the police? Of course not.
Muslims bullying non-Muslims? It is mostly the other way around, especially with all this Islamophobia being whipped up.
Disagree. (Can we just discuss instead of "disagreeing"?) The main problem is ambitious powers wanting to displace the US? The US IS one of the "ambitious powers"! Of course Maoism dominating Earth would be no improvement. You do not care about power plants? They are legitimate targets? The US/UK did it in WWII so it's ok to do it against Iranians now, wreaking massive destruction and mass deaths and creating many more jihadists? This is just all the old problems, not any kind of solution.
We do not need economic competition that generates military conflicts on this scale. This is not reallocation of resources but their destruction and just at a time when everyone needs to cooperate to save the environment as they MIGHT just cooperate if there were an alien invasion.
And competition will be redundant when wealth is abundant and shared equally.
(Some of this we have said before.)
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Then we have to agree to disagree.
Ad astra! Sean
But we know that we disagree.
Post a Comment