Lord Mhoram wrote:Third grade? Seriously? I haven't exactly seen graduate seminar level analysis from you, rusmeister. I've seen some quotations, some hyperlinks, and some condescension. I'm way more sympathetic to your cause than almost anybody else in here and I'm steaming mad. I've read CS Lewis extensively (I used to moderate a forum on him), I've been ingrained with Christian theology since I was literally in the first grade (guess I've only advanced a couple years since then), and even though I no longer consider myself a Christian I do not consider myself a moral relativist. But there are certain ways to go about discussing these issues. For evidence, take a look at the way these threads have been derailed. This one, in fact. We're not talking about Christianity at this point. We're talking about your debating style, when we could be discussing the actual issue at hand (admittedly a murky one in this thread, but still). Learn to accommodate.
Now, I realize you are sympathetic to the thought of Christian apologists like Chesterton and Lewis. But as has already been brought up, neither of them was even Orthodox. That's not at all a minor issue; in fact, your adherence to Orthodoxy seems to color your entire worldview. Which makes sense, that is what religion is supposed to do and there is nothing at all wrong with that in my view. Yet when we question why the fact that your favorite thinkers, whose point of view you seem to privilege above all else, don't adhere to your own denomination, and you dismiss it as minor, well, that seems inconsistent to me at least. Furthermore, even if they were entirely in line with your own positions (which they are not contrary to your claim, as we've established), this doesn't mean quotations entails debate. It just doesn't. Lewis and Chesterton were intellectuals, interpreters, thinkers. They were not gurus or divine. Knowing what I do about CS Lewis, I think he'd be reluctant for his adherents to base their entire theological beliefs upon his writings alone (or even coupled with another thinker or two). There ought to be a pastiche of beliefs. Perhaps you do have that sort of intellectual collage in your own system, but it has not been adequately presented to us if so. Furthermore, once you've developed a diverse range of sources for your beliefs, it becomes necessary for you to articulate that diversity in your own words.
What I am trying to say is that no matter how eloquent your intellectual standard bearers are, you simply cannot display critical thinking by quoting them alone. It's impossible. Imagine if all Chesterton had done was quote the Bible and written below his block quotations, "Ah yes, this is simply how it is. For more information, read the rest of the New Testament." No one would read him. What we're asking you to do, essentially, is be an apologist for your own beliefs.
In the ongoing triage of the mass of posts to respond to...
I appreciate your courtesy and thoughtfulness in replying and your patience. I'll try to tackle the misunderstandings as best I can.
The first thing that comes to my mind is, "If the shoe fits, wear it." I made general comments about a cumulative effect, and did not target, even indirectly, any particular poster.
I know that you are one of the more sympathetic posters, and I already knew you had prior familiarity with Lewis, if not the extent.
One of the central problems is the mass of thought that needs to be dealt with to defuse the mass of incomplete or false understandings about Christianity. here, you bring a complaint about my "debate style". If someone brings up a typical complaint against Christianity, such as, "I don't understand why a loving God would send anyone to hell" or "If God were just and omnipotent, He wouldn't allow all the suffering in the world", etc., my responses would entail all sorts of stuff about free will, the nature and understanding of hell in Eastern vs Western thought. That stuff has already been discussed. Why on earth should I have to type out chapters and books for you when they already exist, and the answers are precisely the same as I would give? (And where they differ, I would clearly state those differences.)
What happens, in fact, is that the difficult path of learning by reading books is rejected, and people here deliberately limit themselves to what I have time to post - a drop in the bucket of Christian theology. So many people here believe they already know the answers, I try to offer something in line of explanation, that often includes references elsewhere - and the specific reason for referencing Lewis and Chesterton is that they are modern thinkers who know that they are addressing people who do not believe. What's the good of referring you to, say, St John Chrysostom, if the things he is talking about are head and shoulders above the modern apologists, but would not address the bases on which you do not believe?
C+L were not gurus or divine - I have said so myself, so it would be wrong to take or present that as my position. There IS a pastiche of beliefs - where we differ. But if one denies the existence of first base, you can't hardly talk about getting to third. C+L both got to third base, so the points were I differ with them can be dealt with when one gets there.
Perhaps the seeming inconsistency might not seem so inconsistent if I refer to my belief, which is that varying faiths and belief systems are closer to or farther from what we call "the fullness of the Truth". (I call it "the dartboard") Thus, my view is that ancient pagans had important truths, Judaism has more - and is closer to 'the bullseye', Christianity has even more (now your in the inner rings), Catholic yet more than Protestant, and Orthodoxy in the very center. Lewis deliberately avoided the divisions of Christianity - which you with your experience should know well - and this is both his great strength, by which many are open to hear what he has to say, when they refuse point-blank to read the Gospels, and his great weakness (this deserves a separate thread). Chesterton came even closer. His mistake was based largely on ignorance of the Orthodox Church - which is painfully apparent in his writings, with only a few sparse references based on Catholic info sources. But if you will not hear what they have to say, what good is trying to talk about those things? It seems that you are looking for inconsistency while remaining ignorant of our enormous common ground. Again, my theological views are not based on these men - what those men did was enable me to accept the beliefs that I now hold - that I did not make, but rather see to have made me. If you are ready to examine Orthodox Christianity more directly and do not have, or are willing to hold your doubts in abeyance, by all means dispense with the apologists and learn directly from the Church, and what it has to say about itself - if you ( a general, plural 'you') listen only to its enemies, you are hardly less partial than its adherents. If the ONLY defender you admit is me, that really says that you don't really want to learn why some intelligent people, in spite of everything, do believe this stuff, and even have refutations for anything you can bring against it. Like Christ said in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus,
There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: and there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, and desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; and in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: for I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
(Luke 16:19-31)
I think I have said a great many things here to express that diversity in my own words, in what time I can steal or borrow to say things to people with whom I do share love of the Land (and Mordant, although not the Gap).
I am sorry that I do not have the gifts of my teachers of great wit, humility and humor ( (Lewis had the first two, Chesterton all three). Perhaps if I did, you would not perceive insult where none was intended (ie, I'm to blame for such lapses). I apologize where it was taken.
(*cleaning glasses*)
