Carrol, I appreciate your concern and to some
extent even share it, but the question here is related to
analysis of what has happened in the past with T.S. Eliot himself.
A lived religion (if it is honest and consistent with the religion's values)
generates experience inside a person that he can bring to his work,
which is different from what can be observed externally.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carrol Cox" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 3:15 PM
Subject: Re: Eliot on Charles Williams' mysticism
> > Peter Montgomery wrote:
> > Living a religion and understanding it are two different things.
> Perhaps, but the mass slaughters of the Religious Wars of the
> 166th-17th centuries were brought to an end essentially by an implicit
> agreement on the part of all that "living a religion" was a private
> matter, and that social relations would not be disrupted by inserting
> "living a religion" into general human discourse.
> Rembmer;, Christians make up a definite minority of the world poulation,
> and the relative military strentgth of the Christian nations is
> declining. Christian survival may well depend on keeping diccourse on
> "living a religion" confined to secttarian circles, while general human
> contexts, such as e-lists, deal only with understanding (abstractly)
> this or that religious doctrine.
> If I understand correctly the general thrust of CR's posts over the last
> year, the contradictions between him and several billion humans can only
> be resolved through bloodshed. Does he really want that?