Quote from: beejazzFirstly, no. The truth itself is ineffable. So while the Bible may be true to varying degrees, in that it is "useful" or "accurate" or even just "a very good read" the Bible isn't the whole truth.
Secondly, the Egyptian faith did not last 3000+ years. In the time between then and now it died. Call it Darwinism applied to memes if you will: Viable thought patterns live and reproduce while inviable thought patterns wither and die.

Jolly good. Time to cast aside the whole primitive atavism that is faith before it takes us down with it like a bad dose of ebola then. Time to evolve.

Quote from: beejazz"Because consciousness is an extremely rare..." ARBITRARY. You're attributing importance on the basis of scarcity. Why? Just because.

Value perhaps, not importance.  We like being conscious and aware for the most part.  The why doesn't particularly matter.  Supply and demand. Even on our own planet, a seat of life, we're a tiny minority of all the matter that makes up the earth the vast overwhelming majority of which is inert and lacks cosnciousness.  We're a couple of drips in a thin smear of life wiped thinly over the surface and with the ability to think and understand.  Shame to squander the opportunity.

Quote from: beejazz*groan* I've already said in this thread and others that morality is relative. That it is *subjective*. If you actually read the Bible (or many of my previous posts, because those are much lighter reading), you'd see alot less "thou shalt" and alot more "if:then." As in if you value x, then y is the way to go. What you value, where you want to go, etc... that's your business. Believe me, I don't just know poverty, I've also robbed my fair share of houses.
My point is not that faith in God is necessary. My point is that faith is necessary. One assumes things. One needs to know what one assumes and why one assumes it.

Again, faith is not necessary. One can, and should, operate on the basis of 'beyond reasonable doubt'.  Faith is irrational, belief without reason or evidence. I have read the bible, unfortunately.

Quote from: beejazzAnd what's so wrong with cherrypicking? Again, the stronger more relevant memes should survive. Remember, this Bible is a mess of many things, including history, philosophy, myth, and a bit of outdated legal code. I see no problem in chucking the latter. It might represent what was best for a society a couple thousand years ago, but lots of shit has happened since then.

What's wrong with cherrypicking? Well for one it demonstrates that your morality is not actually coming from your religion but from outside it.  You're not actually following your religion, you're already making your own decisions on morality and other issues independent from it and often contradictory to it but this process is crippled and weakened by the religious thought structure. If the bible is the word of god it should be perfect and relevent even today, if it isn't then god ain't perfect is he? And therefore - not god. As a moral codex it isn't even a particularly good one.

Quote from: beejazzYeah, Christian fundamentalists FTL. My complaint is with those who automatically equate Christianity (or any other religion) with fundamentalism. Saying "because fundamentalists are Christians, Christians are fundamentalists" is like saying "because robots are machines, machines are robots" there are screwdrivers and dishwashers and lightbulbs and stereos too... they're not all robots.

That's not what's being said here.
These beliefs are a) fucking stupid, b) demonstrably erroneus c) dangerous to the future of humanity but not everyone who says they're a believer is going to perform the extremes.  Still the perpetuation OF the religious meme furthers the danger, clouds judgement, blocks progress and creates a social environment that enables the more dangerous extremes.

My problem is with 'faith' overall, not just Christianity it just presents the most well known and relevent battleground, at least in the west.

Quote from: beejazzThese statements only serve to illustrate that you have no fucking clue what religion even is. RTFM.

What? Speaking about Christianity these are the core tenets of this belief.

* Creation
* Original sin
* Punishment/Reward
* Jesus
* Resurrection
* 'Salvation'.

All crazy as a sack full of rabid badgers.

Religion is a codified set of supernatural beliefs and codes of behaviour 'informed' by those beliefs.

1. A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

Perhaps you have a different definition in mind?

So, if you have faith, you are clinically insane?

There may have been a point before which there could be useful, intelligent discussion. But we passed that some time ago, and it was old Grim who dragged us past there and into the realm of plain old flameage.

Grim, in future I think you could just summarise your posts as, "me smart, you poopyhead!" It'd be much simpler, and save our reading over all the gloss.

Quote from: GRIMJolly good. Time to cast aside the whole primitive atavism that is faith before it takes us down with it like a bad dose of ebola then. Time to evolve.

Missing the point. Again.
Religion not only has survived since humanity's beginnings, but remains predominantly today. Because it works.

Like D20. You might have a problem with classes and levels, but you can't deny the system works. Because most people who buy into any system buy into that one. Which means that D20 serves its purpose well. You might also buy into GURPS or what have you. You may use a classless/levelless D20 variant. Still doesn't change the fact that D20 is viable.

Likewise, you have a problem with God. However, most people who see fit to buy into any school of thought see fit to buy into that one. Hell, God may even be a ridiculous premise. Doesn't change that religion works, in that it continues to survive because it serves its purpose well. I might be a Christian and ditch those parts of my faith I don't like, pick up a little Buddhism and Kabaalah (I can never remember if it's two "a" or two "b" with that one). Doesn't change that religion is viable. That's just my homebrew.

QuoteValue perhaps, not importance.  We like being conscious and aware for the most part.  The why doesn't particularly matter.  Supply and demand. Even on our own planet, a seat of life, we're a tiny minority of all the matter that makes up the earth the vast overwhelming majority of which is inert and lacks cosnciousness.  We're a couple of drips in a thin smear of life wiped thinly over the surface and with the ability to think and understand.  Shame to squander the opportunity.

Again, why? A resounding "just because." You want to live because you want to live. It would be a shame to do otherwise because it would be a shame to do otherwise.

QuoteAgain, faith is not necessary. One can, and should, operate on the basis of 'beyond reasonable doubt'.  Faith is irrational, belief without reason or evidence. I have read the bible, unfortunately.

Reason breaks down eventually into "just because." Evidence is often misleading. A man stands behind a curtain. You do not see him. Is he not there?

QuoteWhat's wrong with cherrypicking? Well for one it demonstrates that your morality is not actually coming from your religion but from outside it.  You're not actually following your religion, you're already making your own decisions on morality and other issues independent from it and often contradictory to it but this process is crippled and weakened by the religious thought structure. If the bible is the word of god it should be perfect and relevent even today, if it isn't then god ain't perfect is he? And therefore - not god. As a moral codex it isn't even a particularly good one.

Firstly... what's wrong with my morality preceding my beliefs? If anything, I have approached my morality "pre-faith" by your more narrow definition of faith and been able to extrapolate from it by the benefit of 3000+ years of experience.

Quotea) fucking stupid

Not.

Quoteb) demonstrably erroneus

Do you apply the same logic to sketch comedy? Seriously, if a comedian stands in front of you on a stage and spouts some absurd hyperbole, are you going to not laugh because it is demonstrably erroneous? No. Because you know that the statement is made with the explicit intent of pointing out the irony of the situation. By the same token, is demonstrable correctitude what religion is even about? Might it be that truth cannot be flatly stated, but must be similarly "pointed out?" Especially if the truth (about what works for society or what have you) is going to change constantly?

Quotec) dangerous to the future of humanity but not everyone who says they're a believer is going to perform the extremes.  Still the perpetuation OF the religious meme furthers the danger, clouds judgement, blocks progress and creates a social environment that enables the more dangerous extremes.

You said yourself morality precedes religion. Which is it?

QuoteMy problem is with 'faith' overall, not just Christianity it just presents the most well known and relevent battleground, at least in the west.

Then we are even more at odds. I am a vaguely religious existencialist.

Quote* Creation

Meh... not literally. I've got a couple of interpretations squirreled away somewhere. Frankly, though, I don't care as it has no bearing on my life.

Quote* Original sin

There's a quote somewhere in the OP that explains this quite thoroughly. Original sin defines humans as falible, not guilty or evil.

Quote* Punishment/Reward

Only on Earth. Hell is a translation error (also explained in the OP) and heaven was likely metaphorical.

Quote* Jesus

So. He lived. I don't trust John as far as I can throw him, but Jesus did once live. Whether he was the son of God or just an early Zionist I'll leave others to debate. (like I said, I'm closer to "vaguely religious" than "specifically Christian.")

Quote* Resurrection

Maybe ridiculous, but I hardly see how this is dangerous. You said yourself that death is "a waste." You don't have to be a doctor to hope to beat death.

Quote* 'Salvation'.

Could you point to maybe a specific problem?

QuoteReligion is a codified set of supernatural beliefs and codes of behaviour 'informed' by those beliefs.

Well, I don't feel particularly supernatural. *shrugs*

Quote1. A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

Perhaps you have a different definition in mind?

Well, here Ima do my cherry-picking thing again: "A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe..." So far okay, though I would not equate cause with creation... The Beginning is kind of irrelavant either way. Likewise for purpose... I can't think of very many religions that say "the universe is for such and such."
"esp" As in not necessarily part of the definition, but often the case "when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies" Uh... "superhuman agency?" Anyway, I'm hardly a traditionalist on my take on God. I'd hardly consider His "superhumanity" or"agency" to be the primary qualifiers.
"Usually containing... observances..."Off and on. Mostly in the form of independant study. I don't particularly like the local church scene.
"Often containing a moral code..." BINGO! This is where I loot the temple, so to speak. Now, there's a distinction for me between "ancient law" and "modern relevant" for me. For example, the whole not-eating-shellfish. Ancient law. It was put in place because they didn't have refrigeration and nothing good will come of salting lobster. Now, the thou shalt not kill bit remains pretty relevant, as you explained yourself.
As for #2... No. Not in my case, anyway.

Quote from: GRIMIndeed it probably is.
Why do you need an externally defined why? Isn't existing and having self determination, finding your own why, enough? How greedy.

I am "finding my own why".  Admittedly I'm taking an off-the-shelf package and customising it rather than building my own, but I'd call that laziness rather than greed

You mentioned meme-infected earlier.  Well yes, ideas do appear to propagate in a similar way to diseases and I've been a victim of a couple of particularly bad ones during my life.  Which is why I've voluntarily infected myself with a good or at least a benign one.  Apart from anything else, it's boosted my immune system

Quote from: GRIMThat's how the religious meme gets to people though, fear of the sheer scale of the universe, fear of insignificance, fear of death.

Well duh! I'd rather live in a world where I can see myself gradually becoming the person I was always meant to be as part of a plan that was set in motion before the world was created than one where I can't.  Have you read "The Silver Chair" by CS Lewis.  There's a bit where the heroes are basically dungeon-crawling through the Underdark when they're captured by the Big Bad.  Using magic and argument, she makes them doubt their memories of the surface world until Puddleglum says that even if Narnia is a fantasy, it beats her Underdark reality cold and that he'd rather spend his life searching for Narnia even if it doesn't exist.

Quote from: GRIMSo you're redefining absent to mean something is there still?

Definition 4, though the example it uses is rather ironic

Quote from: GRIMWhat? Speaking about Christianity these are the core tenets of this belief.

* Creation
* Original sin
* Punishment/Reward
* Jesus
* Resurrection
* 'Salvation'.

I can see a huge "No True Scotsman" fallacy approaching, but I'll play:

* Creation: If you mean "creationism" this is not and never has been a central tenet of any of the the big three Christian groups (Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican)
* Original sin: I'm pretty sure that you don't know what Catholics mean by this phrase, but, even so Orthodox and most Anglicans don't believe it
* Punishment/Reward: the idea that God will reward you if your good and punish you if your bad? Not Christian, never has been
* Jesus: Yep, I believe that he was who he said he was - totally God and totally human
* Ressurection: General or specific? Doesn't matter, I believe in them both
* 'Salvation': Not sure what you mean here

Quote from: JimBobOzSo, if you have faith, you are clinically insane?

There may have been a point before which there could be useful, intelligent discussion. But we passed that some time ago, and it was old Grim who dragged us past there and into the realm of plain old flameage.

Grim, in future I think you could just summarise your posts as, "me smart, you poopyhead!" It'd be much simpler, and save our reading over all the gloss.

If you believe your reading comprehension is only up to that level, sure.
Now, why do you believe the comparison to be invalid?
What is the real difference between a man who believes invisible machine elves are telling him to flash his genitals and one who believes a two-thousand year dead carpenter from the middle east wants him to pave the way for his calamatous return?

Why does one set alarm bells ringing and not the other?

EDIT: Will have to come back later for the rest but there's nothing new there really.

Quote from: GRIMIf a man believes the world was created in seven days 6,000 years ago by an invisible sky wizard who cares for every living thing,

I believe the term you're looking for here is "Great Sky Pixie".

Or, "magic deer".

RPGPundit

Its a curious irony that a Children's book writer was easily, hands down the greatest intellectual defender of christianity in the 20th century.

RPGPundit

If you like your children's fiction with a touch of racism and misogyny then yes.

Quote from: RPGPunditIts a curious irony that a man most famous today as a Children's book writer was easily, hands down the greatest intellectual defender of christianity in the 20th century.

FIFY He much prefered the "Out Of The Silent Planet" trilogy

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalIf you like your children's fiction with a touch of racism and misogyny then yes.

There are seven Narnia books.  In five of those the bad guys have white skin (and more than a touch of the Aryan ideal about them), in two of them the bad guys have brown skin.  In one of those the heroine also has brown skin and marries a bloke with white skin (incidentally, that book was published in 19-fricking-54) and in the other Lewis goes out of his way to demonstrate that not all people with brown skin are baddies

As regards the misogyny, would you give a nine-year old girl an adults weapon?  By the time of the Last Battle, Lucy (now an adult) is commanding the only unit that doesn't break

Go on, bring up Susan. I dare you

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonIn five of those the bad guys have white skin (and more than a touch of the Aryan ideal about them), in two of them the bad guys have brown skin.

  So because the Nazis fought the Americans and British, Hitler couldn't be a racist?  I think the fact that the book was written in 1954 says all that needs to be said on the matter.  Lewis shows a deep distrust for people of other races, seeing them as filthy and dispicable people.  The fact that Narnia's black people were descended from white people only makes things worse really... as if to suggest black people are degenerate white people.

  In it's day all fine and dandy, but we're living in more enlightened times and I think that these aren't the kinds of books that should be given to easily-influenced kids.

  As for Susan, I've heard the counter-arguments and I'm not convinced.  Neither in the detail (lipstick and highheels supposedly not being symbols of mature female sexuality but of commercialism) nor in the allegorical (Susan's crime being turning away from God).

  Ultimately he was a conservative, small minded little man who lead his ivory tower existence without ever looking beyond received opinion on race, women's right or religion.  In this respect he was rather typical and it's this sheer mediocrity that ultimately condemns him.

That and the fact that the Narnia books are shit of course.  The only good thing about them is that they got the same actress who plays Big Suze in Peep Show to play one of the girls in the catastrophic film version they made.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalSo because the Nazis fought the Americans and British, Hitler couldn't be a racist?

Buzz! Godwin violation.  25 yard penalty!

If you want to accuse a writer of a particular form of prejudice, you need to find a pattern.  If someone of a particular skin colour was always evil (Tolkein) or was always described using negative language (Lovecraft), you'd have a case.  I'm pointing out that you don't.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalI think the fact that the book was written in 1954 says all that needs to be said on the matter.

So what? All childrens fiction written before (let's be generous) 1960 is unsuitable for modern children?

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalLewis shows a deep distrust for people of other races, seeing them as filthy and dispicable people.

Have you read the "Out of the Silent Planet" trilogy?

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalThe fact that Narnia's black people were descended from white people only makes things worse really... as if to suggest black people are degenerate white people.

Wa-wa-wa? Are you sure that you're not confusing this with Tolkeins' (black) orcs, which are degenerate (white) elves.  I can see a strong argument for that being racist

Assuming that the Calamoreans are descended from the couple in "The Magicians Nephew" (and not all humans in that setting are), is it ever stated that the couple are both white?

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalIn it's day all fine and dandy, but we're living in more enlightened times and I think that these aren't the kinds of books that should be given to easily-influenced kids.

I bet you love Politically Correct Fairy Tales

Quote from: Mr. Analytical(lipstick and highheels supposedly not being symbols of mature female sexuality but of commercialism)

IIRC Lewis has Jill criticise Susan for only being interested in "parties, nylons and invitations", but lipstick and highheels are symbols of the commercialism of sexuality (and Dr. Greer would agree with me).  High heels hobble women and arch the pelvis, emphasising the buttocks and vulva and as for (particularly bright red) lipstick - well!

Not that I'm really complaining, but if someone is being encouraged to buy a particular object in order to make themselves more sexually attractive then it can go too far.

Lewis was concerned about this (it's a theme in at least one of his short stories) and in his bumbling, pre-second-wave-feminism way he's waving in the direction of the issues that Greer et al would explore a decade later.

Women in Lewis's books are armed, they take a central role in conflicts, they lead men and, certainly by the later books, this is not treated as anything unusual ("war is an ugly business", yes, but it's an ugly business anyway).  This is at a time when Flash Gordan's squeeze is screaming in a corner

Don't you see how revolutionary this is? Ten years later Ulhura is never issued with a phaser and when she kisses a white man it's a possessed alien.  And this was supposed to have been a huge step forward for human rights?

Even today Xena and Buffy are presented as something unusual because they are strong, confident, armed women (Agent Scully was always in a subordinant role to a man) and when was the last time you saw an interracial couple on TV where this isn't an "issue".  But Jill is given the same equipment as Eustace; Lucy takes charge of a military unit; the hero and heroine of the "Horse and his Boy" get married and all of this is presented as something quite usual.  Normal.  Just something that people do.

The religious allegory in "Lion" is ham-fisted; I think it's the weakest of the books because of this.  But racism and sexism? It's not in the texts.

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonBuzz! Godwin violation.  25 yard penalty!

  Actually it's not.  Firstly, Godwin's law applies only to debates the point at which either side compares the other's position to that of the nazis.  Secondly, it was a point about the nature of racism, referring to a prominent racist is perfectly valid.

QuoteIf you want to accuse a writer of a particular form of prejudice, you need to find a pattern.

He has a RACE of black people who are depicted as slimy, disgusting and largely evil.  That's at least as bad as Tolkien and even nudges towards Howard and Lovecraft.

QuoteSo what? All childrens fiction written before (let's be generous) 1960 is unsuitable for modern children?

  If that fiction was written by someone without the wit or foresight to re-evaluate the beliefs he was brought up with then absolutely.  Besides which, Lewis wrote the Narnia books as a kind of Pilgrim's Progress for kids so that when they went to sunday school they'd be familiar enough with the concepts of christianity to not do the reasonable thing and go "Hang on! that's bollocks!".  Lewis' books not only reek of the misogyny and racism of his era, they're also intended to help recruit children to christianity.  Aside from Mythusmage's "Daddy stuck his fingers up me!  What fun!" I can't think of a more inappropriate cocktail of out of date and wretched thought to expose your children to.

QuoteWa-wa-wa? Are you sure that you're not confusing this with Tolkeins' (black) orcs, which are degenerate (white) elves.  I can see a strong argument for that being racist

Wikipedia
suggests that the Calormenes were descended from the same stock as the first King of Narnia.  The first King of Narnia was an english taxi driver.  So clearly, the black Calormenes are degenerated white people (if you put two and two together).

In those days I can see this kind of view being acceptable; white people go brown when they're in the sun so if a bunch of white people went off to live in a hot climate they might go black.  The link between change of colour and moral decay being no accident.  These views reek of the kind of casual racism that would have been quite common in Lewis' world.  But it's not acceptable now, by today's standards Lewis is a racist much like Tolkien, Lovecraft and Robert E. Howard.

QuoteIIRC Lewis has Jill criticise Susan for only being interested in "parties, nylons and invitations", but lipstick and highheels are symbols of the commercialism of sexuality (and Dr. Greer would agree with me).  High heels hobble women and arch the pelvis, emphasising the buttocks and vulva and as for (particularly bright red) lipstick - well!

  ...and yet now, as in those days, there were so common so as to be universal.  As girls become women they discover sex and in the process adopt the culturally-determined trappings of someone who is sexually active.

  Lewis is a misogynist because he considers what is perfectly normal young adult behaviour to be incompatible with having a relationship with God.  In short, women are whores and God wants you to punish them.  This is, of course, without touching on Lewis' non-fiction writing in which he says that men are (I think it was) "The head" and women should do as they say within a relationship.

  Again, these views were not uncommon among the more "traditional" elements of 50's society but society has moved on and these views are clearly misogynist.  Even in those days they would have been seen by many as old fashionned.

  Greer's no help to you here, she believes that female circumcision carried out on teenaged girls is morally acceptable (so she's not exactly a solidly liberal voice).  She's also writing in a completely different social context.  Even if she did back you up, I'd argue that her position's misogynistic too.  Just as I'd argue that those feminists who believe that women need their own special kind of maths and who equate the rights of mothers with the rights of women are misogynistic.

  He looked at a completely normal, mainstream activity which all women went through at the time and declared it to be incompatible with having a close relationship with God.  Either that makes him a misogynist or it makes God a misogynist and I'm happy to argue both.

QuoteDon't you see how revolutionary this is? Ten years later Ulhura is never issued with a phaser and when she kisses a white man it's a possessed alien.  And this was supposed to have been a huge step forward for human rights?

  Not really.  It was a huge step forward for notoriously racist, misogynistic and prudish American TV.  Interacial relationships in written literature even feature in Shakespeare, by the time Lewis appeared they were neither revolutionary nor even all that surprising.

QuoteEven today Xena and Buffy are presented as something unusual because they are strong, confident, armed women

  AGAIN, that's TV (genre TV at that) and it's PR spin aimed at dispelling the idea that fantasy's only for guys.  Buffy isn't exceptional because it empowers women, it's exceptional because of the amount of subtext it manages to pack into a genre formula.  Neither series can really be described as revolutionary simply because they have female leads and they REALLY aren't revolutionary when weighed against the history of literature.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalHe has a RACE of black people who are depicted as slimy, disgusting and largely evil.  That's at least as bad as Tolkien and even nudges towards Howard and Lovecraft.

He also creates TWO races of WHITE people that are universally depicted as brutal, tyrannical and evil.

And that's just in the Narnia books - the bad guys in the "Out of the Silent Planet" trilogy are colonialist white Englishmen.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalWikipedia suggests that the Calormenes were descended from the same stock as the first King of Narnia.  The first King of Narnia was an english taxi driver.  So clearly, the black Calormenes are degenerated white people (if you put two and two together).

Why are you assuming that an English taxi driver and his wife were both white? That's a little racist of you

That's Wiki for you.  There's nothing in the text to suggest this.  They could easily have come through the same portal as the Telmarians, or even a different portal

Quote from: Mr. Analytical...and yet now, as in those days, there were so common so as to be universal.  As girls become women they discover sex and in the process adopt the culturally-determined trappings of someone who is sexually active.

Lewis is a misogynist because he considers what is perfectly normal young adult behaviour to be incompatible with having a relationship with God.  In short, women are whores and God wants you to punish them.

Let's look at the passage in question:

Quote"Oh Susan!" said Jill. "She's interested in nothing nowadays except nylons and lipstick and invitations. She always was a jolly sight too keen on growing up."

"Grown-up, indeed," said the Lady Polly. "I wish she would grow up. She wasted all her school time wanting to be the age she is now, and she'll waste all the rest of her life trying to stay that age. Her whole idea is to race onto the silliest time of one's life as quick as she can and stop there as long as she can."

Her only interests are "nylon, lipstick and invitations" and she apparently intends to stay that shallow for the rest of her life.  Is it misogynistic to suggest that there might be more to life than this?

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalThis is, of course, without touching on Lewis' non-fiction writing in which he says that men are (I think it was) "The head" and women should do as they say within a relationship.

The end of chapter 6 of "Mere Christianity".  Prefaced by him saying that he shouldn't really be talking about this because he isn't married, but he's doing it because no discussion of Christian ethics would be complete without discussing marriage.  He's blatently not throught his ideas through and is regurgatating traditional teaching about headship within marriage (which is misogynistic) and trying to lighten it as much as he feels can.  Complete balls-up of a passage; he shouldn't have written it.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalGreer's no help to you here, she believes that female circumcision carried out on teenaged girls is morally acceptable (so she's not exactly a solidly liberal voice).

It is a very interesting chapter.  Basically she compares genital mutilation in the developed and developing worlds and (among other questions) asks if we in the developed world allow the ritual genital mutiliation of male babies and actually recommend the genital mutilation of female babies in certain circumstances why do we condemn even the most minor forms of FGM in the developing world (one form of "FGM", if carried out by an American gynacologist would be viewed as an operation to improve the patient's sex life)

Answer me these questions:

Would a racist have depicted interracial marriage as a good thing?
Would a misogynist have shown women as competent warriors and military leaders?

But you're biggest charge is that of indoctrination - it strikes me that you're just trying to find other reasons to hate the books (and him by inference).  Well yes, they're dedicated to the original Lucy, they're about what he believes and they're an attempt to communicate why he believes this and the positive aspects of his faith.  All non-trivial literature, particularly that directed at children can be viewed as indoctrination.  Are only atheists allowed to do this?

Y'know, I was going to avoid this tar pit of a thread, but I just wanted to point out that for once in a religious debate the Magical Sky Pixie crowd seems to be much more reasonable and rational than the Dead is Dead crowd.

I mean, seriously, if I was keeping score I'd be having to hand out almost every point to the religious nutcases and a big fat goose-egg to the rational nutcases.  

I say: take a deep breath, you'll have a nice solid answer in a few short years anyway. :eek:

Quotesuggests that the Calormenes were descended from the same stock as the first King of Narnia. The first King of Narnia was an english taxi driver. So clearly, the black Calormenes are degenerated white people (if you put two and two together).

I know this has nothing to do with religion, but weren't other gates coming into Narnia mentioned? I specifically remember an entire human kingdom descended from pirates. Their consolation on finding this out was being told that they were still of noble blood because they were all "sons of Adam and daughters of Eve." While it shafts all the non-human sentient creatures more'n a little, I don't see it as being so bad for the blacks.

It's been a while though... so what do I know? *shrugs*