In article <1181929241.950761.16720@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com> Wide
Eyed in Wonder <writingken@yahoo.com> writes:

On Jun 15, 12:12 pm,

In article <1181925196.107251.278...@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com> Wide
Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> writes:

On Jun 14, 11:28 am,

In article <4671431d$0$8947$4c368...@roadrunner.com> "Christopher
Morris" <Drac...@roadrunner.com> writes:

"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1181824715.051371.138430@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

On Jun 14, 5:59 am, "Christopher Morris"
<Drac...@roadrunner.com>
wrote:

"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote in
messagenews:1181739210.370675.134540@e26g2000pro.googlegroups.com...

C. S. Lewis (author of the Narnia books) makes a good point
in his
book, Mere Christianity (book 1, chapter 2)....

"...if we really thought that there were people going about
who had
sold themselves to the devil and received supernatural
powers from him
in return and were using these powers to kill their
neighbours or
drive them mad or bring bad weather - surely we would all
agree that
if anyone deserved the death penalty, them these filthy
quislings
did?"

Now, that may be a bit harsh, but he makes a good point. If
I use the
internet to arrange a contract killing of another or to
arrange others
to poison a group, I would still be held to blame for the
crime. Why
do we think witches should get off because they used a
different
medium.

Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.com

Ken witches do not worship your God Satan; we do not
acknowledge the
existence of your God Satan. He is your God and not ours thus
it is up to
you if you wish to worship him or not.

You are arguing with C.S. Lewis, not me. However, the point
that a
crime is a crime, even if originated by witchcraft is indeed
valid.

Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.com

Actually, I am arguing with you since you missed Mr. Lewis point
as you miss
so many others. The point here was if it happened but it is in
fact a
function of a very over active Christian imagination.

Yeppers. You'll notice that Ken's post moves from Lewis'
subjunctive
language -- "if we really thought that were people..." -- to the
declarative: wondering why "we think that witches should get
off". As if there is much of a "we' believing in that tradition
of witchery any more.

Just missing the point, or just doesn't care? As always with
Ken, you just can't tell. But I will note that immediately
before the passage that Ken quoted, Lewis wrote "...surely the
reason
we do not execute witches is that we do not believe there are such
things", and immediately after the quote wrote "...it may be a
great advance in knowledge not to believe in witches".

-- cary

Neither of you even read the passage it came from...no surprising.

Oh?

Then how do you think that I quoted portions of the source
material which you had ...um, selectively... failed to
include.

Lewis was using it as justification for the Witch killing in England.
JUSTIFICATION.

No, he wasn't. He quite clearly was not. Go and read it again.

Thus, he believed them true witches, otherwise, his
point is invalid and argument weak.

Does the term "hypothetical argument" spark any recognition?

The fact that you did no research yet conclude things absolutely
shows
a very unscientific and very prejudice mind at work.

I did enough to expose your selective quoting, did I not?

-- cary

"It may be a great advance in knowledge [for society] not to believe
in witches: there is no moral advance in not excluding them when you
do not think they are there."

Who exactly is being intentionally and morally protected by this
imposed ignorance that Lewis suggests?

Oh, for...

1) Lewis argues that there is an intrinsic sense of absolute
morality. His terms are "the natural Law of Behavior"
and "Decent Behavior". He thinks these are both
absolute and intuitive.


2) He notes that some people disupte this by arguing
that different people have different ideas of
morality, and thus Lewis must be wrong.


3) As an example, he says that someone once challenged
him by saying that we once thought it was right
to put witches to death, and now we find that
to be a horrifying idea. Thus, it is argued,
Lewis' alleged "Natural Law" is contradicted
in the real world -- because people's idea of
what is right and what is wrong has changed.


4) Lewis counters by saying that it is not our inherent
sense of absolute right and wrong which has changed.
what has changed is not absolute morality, but the
facts of the case: NOW WE KNOW BETTER THAN TO BELIEVE IN
WITCHES, and so our in-built moral sense now correctly
informs us that putting "witches" to death would
be immoral.

In other words, if our superstitious ancestors had
been right about witches, then putting them to death
for wicked acts would not set off our moral
smoke alarms, and so our change in attitude
does not reflect a change in morality, it
grows from the fact that MOST OF US ARE NOW
SMART ENOUGH TO REALIZE THAT OUR WITCH-BURNING
ANCESTORS WERE MURDEROUSLY IGNORANT.


Any questions?


-- cary

In article <1181929241.950761.16...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> writes:

On Jun 15, 12:12 pm,

In article <1181925196.107251.278...@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com> Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> writes:

On Jun 14, 11:28 am,

In article <4671431d$0$8947$4c368...@roadrunner.com> "Christopher Morris" <Drac...@roadrunner.com> writes:

"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1181824715.051371.138430@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

On Jun 14, 5:59 am, "Christopher Morris" <Drac...@roadrunner.com>
wrote:

"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote in
messagenews:1181739210.370675.134540@e26g2000pro.googlegroups.com...

C. S. Lewis (author of the Narnia books) makes a good point in his
book, Mere Christianity (book 1, chapter 2)....

"...if we really thought that there were people going about who had
sold themselves to the devil and received supernatural powers from him
in return and were using these powers to kill their neighbours or
drive them mad or bring bad weather - surely we would all agree that
if anyone deserved the death penalty, them these filthy quislings
did?"

Now, that may be a bit harsh, but he makes a good point. If I use the
internet to arrange a contract killing of another or to arrange others
to poison a group, I would still be held to blame for the crime. Why
do we think witches should get off because they used a different
medium.

Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.com

Ken witches do not worship your God Satan; we do not acknowledge the
existence of your God Satan. He is your God and not ours thus it is up to
you if you wish to worship him or not.

You are arguing with C.S. Lewis, not me. However, the point that a
crime is a crime, even if originated by witchcraft is indeed valid.

Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.com

Actually, I am arguing with you since you missed Mr. Lewis point as you miss
so many others. The point here was if it happened but it is in fact a
function of a very over active Christian imagination.

Yeppers. You'll notice that Ken's post moves from Lewis' subjunctive
language -- "if we really thought that were people..." -- to the
declarative: wondering why "we think that witches should get
off". As if there is much of a "we' believing in that tradition
of witchery any more.

Just missing the point, or just doesn't care? As always with
Ken, you just can't tell. But I will note that immediately
before the passage that Ken quoted, Lewis wrote "...surely the reason
we do not execute witches is that we do not believe there are such
things", and immediately after the quote wrote "...it may be a
great advance in knowledge not to believe in witches".

-- cary

Neither of you even read the passage it came from...no surprising.

Oh?

Then how do you think that I quoted portions of the source
material which you had ...um, selectively... failed to
include.

Lewis was using it as justification for the Witch killing in England.
JUSTIFICATION.

No, he wasn't. He quite clearly was not. Go and read it again.

Thus, he believed them true witches, otherwise, his
point is invalid and argument weak.

Does the term "hypothetical argument" spark any recognition?

The fact that you did no research yet conclude things absolutely shows
a very unscientific and very prejudice mind at work.

I did enough to expose your selective quoting, did I not?

-- cary

"It may be a great advance in knowledge [for society] not to believe
in witches: there is no moral advance in not excluding them when you
do not think they are there."

Who exactly is being intentionally and morally protected by this
imposed ignorance that Lewis suggests?

Oh, for...

1) Lewis argues that there is an intrinsic sense of absolute
morality. His terms are "the natural Law of Behavior"
and "Decent Behavior". He thinks these are both
absolute and intuitive.

2) He notes that some people disupte this by arguing
that different people have different ideas of
morality, and thus Lewis must be wrong.

3) As an example, he says that someone once challenged
him by saying that we once thought it was right
to put witches to death, and now we find that
to be a horrifying idea. Thus, it is argued,
Lewis' alleged "Natural Law" is contradicted
in the real world -- because people's idea of
what is right and what is wrong has changed.

4) Lewis counters by saying that it is not our inherent
sense of absolute right and wrong which has changed.
what has changed is not absolute morality, but the
facts of the case: NOW WE KNOW BETTER THAN TO BELIEVE IN
WITCHES, and so our in-built moral sense now correctly
informs us that putting "witches" to death would
be immoral.

In other words, if our superstitious ancestors had
been right about witches, then putting them to death
for wicked acts would not set off our moral
smoke alarms, and so our change in attitude
does not reflect a change in morality, it
grows from the fact that MOST OF US ARE NOW
SMART ENOUGH TO REALIZE THAT OUR WITCH-BURNING
ANCESTORS WERE MURDEROUSLY IGNORANT.

Any questions?

-- cary