C.S. Lewis: enemy of the Golden Rule

"Steve Hayes" <hayesmstw.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bls2j3t0b3nbr97tvsmgaetdltd1mf5p10@4ax.com...
If he had taken
> Christianity seriously, he would have been persecuted instead of funded.
> So
> he criticized the Marxist state only to defend the Gunboat-Mercantilist
> state.
> When Stalin made peace with Russian Orthodoxy, that church defended the
> Marxist state against the Capitalist state. Both exchanged their
> religious
> support for the local nationalism and civic religion of each one's nation
> for
> mutual power and fortune.
While not denying the cultural aspect of the practice of Christianity in
many parts of the world within many socio-economic systems, to accuse CSL of
somehow not having taken Christianity seriously is ridiculous. These modern
mind readers/quasi news makers always amaze me! Lewis' work for the radio
and other works was vetted by a variety of mainline Christian leaders, for
one. And for another, read what he writes about Communism/Marxism (if the
two equate at all) in for instance _Christian Reflections_. The writer is
stretching a 'theory' out of any recognizable or useful shape.
Blessings,
Ann
 >> Stay informed about: C.S. Lewis: enemy of the Golden Rule 

"BarryAC" <barrymalvina.TakeThisOut@caribsurf.com> wrote in message
news:13j8lhb9f0ai817@corp.supernews.com...
Good questions below (I guess). But having read most of CSL's works and
letters, biographies, etc. I can't believe he didn't know about all of what
you ask below and discuss such with his Inklings friends. He was, you know,
affiliated for some time with major universities and the staff of same.
I will have to dig some to see if I can find quotes in answer to your
questions? Perhaps you could give us your bottom line concern about CSL's
views? Ananchism by any definition would be anathema to Lewis. You could
more than infer such from his many works in which he discusses 'materialism'
as a way of life or worldview.

> What were his opinions of the writings of Tolstoy?

Letter 28 February 1949 from Magdalen College he admires Tolstoy as a writer
whose art could also teach. To Dom Bede Griffiths: Tolstoi is a favortie of
mine. On his writings dealing with 'affection'. "Nobility, generostityu,
liberalty, flow from him.": Though CSL disagreed that 'affection' would do
instead of Agape. Etc. This, in relation to his dislike of Thackeray who
is mentioned and criticized at greater length.
>
> Did he ever meet any notable anarchists?

Who would you name as a "notable anarchist"? It would help to have names.

> Did he ever express any views on the Spanish Civil War, 1936?
Very few references exist in print about political situations of his day, I
find. He barely mentions The Troubles, and mentions the World Wars only to
illustrate various points. Again some digging is necessary here.

> These questions arise in my mind because of my lack of knowledge of CSL
> and his life. Perhaps I might get some answers here, but of course I will
> continue to do my own searching. God bless.

And God bless you back. Keep reading CSL. Stuff about him lifted out of
thin poorly studied air is _never_ a good idea.
All the best,
Ann
 >> Stay informed about: C.S. Lewis: enemy of the Golden Rule 

"AJA" <ahnemann.RemoveThis@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:81_Yi.12$_H3.8@newsfe09.lga...
>
> "BarryAC" <barrymalvina.RemoveThis@caribsurf.com> wrote in message
> news:13j8lhb9f0ai817@corp.supernews.com...
> Good questions below (I guess). But having read most of CSL's works and
> letters, biographies, etc. I can't believe he didn't know about all of
> what you ask below and discuss such with his Inklings friends. He was,
> you know, affiliated for some time with major universities and the staff
> of same.
> I will have to dig some to see if I can find quotes in answer to your
> questions? Perhaps you could give us your bottom line concern about CSL's
> views? Ananchism by any definition would be anathema to Lewis. You could
> more than infer such from his many works in which he discusses
> 'materialism' as a way of life or worldview.
>
>> What were his opinions of the writings of Tolstoy?
>
> Letter 28 February 1949 from Magdalen College he admires Tolstoy as a
> writer whose art could also teach. To Dom Bede Griffiths: Tolstoi is a
> favortie of mine. On his writings dealing with 'affection'. "Nobility,
> generostityu, liberalty, flow from him.": Though CSL disagreed that
> 'affection' would do instead of Agape. Etc. This, in relation to his
> dislike of Thackeray who is mentioned and criticized at greater length.
>>
>> Did he ever meet any notable anarchists?
>
> Who would you name as a "notable anarchist"? It would help to have
> names.
>
>> Did he ever express any views on the Spanish Civil War, 1936?
> Very few references exist in print about political situations of his day,
> I find. He barely mentions The Troubles, and mentions the World Wars only
> to illustrate various points. Again some digging is necessary here.
>
>> These questions arise in my mind because of my lack of knowledge of CSL
>> and his life. Perhaps I might get some answers here, but of course I will
>> continue to do my own searching. God bless.
>
> And God bless you back. Keep reading CSL. Stuff about him lifted out of
> thin poorly studied air is _never_ a good idea.
> All the best,
> Ann

The following post I sent to AJA, but it was intended for the whole group. I
trust Ann won't mind if I repost it now:

Thank you for your response, Ann. I am quite busy renovating our house at
the moment but I will give some quick responses to your questions.
Concerning your bottom line question, for one, I did not believe in the
existence of the devil. After reading some of CSL, I now do! His works which
I have read have brought me to a greater awareness of the supernatural, but
this is linked to my amateur interest in theology, esp. reading Hans Kung
"Does God Exist?" . Lewis's own spiritual development as described in
"Surprised by Joy" closely matches my own! (I have a tale to tell - I
obtained a copy of the paperback when the gardener at my school brought to
me a bag of books which had been thrown over the school fence. The one I
picked out was "Surprised by Joy"!)

Notable anarchists of the 1930's? The person who immediately springs to mind
is George Woodcock, and in his Fontana paperback ("The Anarchist Reader",
1977) he cites Alexander Berkman, Alex Comfort, Emma Goldman, Paul Goodman,
Errico Malatesta, and George Orwell amongst others, and these are names with
which I am somewhat familiar.

I am not sure I can go with your 'anarchism by any definition'! Kropotkin,
Proudhon, and Bakunin provided, I think, major intellectual challenges to
Marxism. God bless. BarryAC.
 >> Stay informed about: C.S. Lewis: enemy of the Golden Rule 

> Did he ever express any views on the Spanish Civil War, 1936?

Look at Lewis's two poems criticizing Roy Campbell. One has his name
in the title and the other is "To the Author of the Flowering Rifle".
Campbell was a Catholic and poet who fought on the side of Franco in
the Spanish Civil War. Lewis felt he was too pro-fascist, but not
because Lewis liked the communists. As Lewis ended one of those poems
(I am paraphrasing from memory):

Somewhere between the two warring camps there is a piece of no-man's
land.
There your father's house stood. There you should stand.


Back to the OP's article. The author is criticizing Lewis for holding
a belief regarding the place and nature of the state which most
Christians throughout history have taken: that the state properly has
a right to use deadly force both to keep internal order and in a war
and unless it is clearly for wicked purposes, citizens/subjects should
obey the authorities and participate in such actions. (Romans 13, of
course, see Henry V, the talk around the camp fire). (Also note that
nowhere in the New Testament are state agents, soldiers, governors,
etc. ever criticized for holding their offices or carrying out its
duties including using deadly force.)

The author at "strike-the-root", by maintaining that the Golden Rule
forbids all that, is the one out of step with Christian tradition,
though he does have a lot of company.

And by implying that Lewis only wrote what he did so that he could get
published and not be persecuted is simply ignorant slander.

Robert
 >> Stay informed about: C.S. Lewis: enemy of the Golden Rule 

Steve Hayes <hayesmstw RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote in
news:mmu9k3psq5ho7vv07r782fln7fde6do97r@4ax.com:

> On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 18:27:02 GMT, Roberto Abajo <replies RemoveThis @ng.only>
> wrote:
>
.....
>>>
>>> I won't quote it all, but here's a snippet:
>>>
>>...
>>> You can find the whole thing at:
>>>
>>> http://www.strike-the-root.com/72/lg/lg1.html
>>>
>>> Comments?
>>
>>My first comment is that the author appears to have dipped widely into
>>CSL's non-Narnian works without pausing to actually listen to the
>>proper sense of the words, as though building a case for the
>>prosecution. ("I'll be judge, I'll be jury," said the cunning old
>>Fury, "I'll try the whole case and condemn you to death.")
....
> Thanks very much for that.
>
> I think you've got it exactly right, and the examples you give are
> good ones.

Thank you. It's relatively easy to fight "ignorant slander", as it has
been called elsewhere on this thread, especially when propelled by anger.

RA
 >> Stay informed about: C.S. Lewis: enemy of the Golden Rule