#Evil for Henry
3 messages in this thread
And there are those of us who hold serious reservations about those areas of
his teachings… Once you don't buy the christian precept that _everything_
he said was right on the basis of "he said it", there is quite a number of
items that make little or no sense once the veneer of ancient superstition is
removed. –Ben–
Ben,
After listening to him closely, Jesus' contemporaries decided that the
appropriate response to his teachings was death by torture. Honestly, now,
wouldn't you endorse the crucifixion of Jimmy Swaggart? and if faced with
the opportunity to spare the lives of Rev. Swaggart or a common thief, would
you have trouble making up your mind?
I don't recall suggesting anything Jesus is reported to have said was
"undeniably" beautiful, true, or good, and I believe I've been diligent in
bringing into the discussion powerful (though, again, not incontrovertible)
arguments to the effect that they are ugly, false, and bad. I haven't seen
any response from Henry to suggest which of these contra-Christian arguments
he agrees with, or how he disposes of the ones he finds lacking, or what
others he may consider decisive, so it's impossible for discussion to proceed
on the particulars.
I imagine a self-reliant person would find much to question in even the
barest Christian ethic. A Darwinist would find much to praise in Nietzsche's
critique.
I'd love it, though, if you'd weigh the two quotes that ommenced this
thread: Hitler's call to invest blood today for land tomorrow, and Jesus'
no-shilly-shallying call to love the enemy, and tell me which you find the
greater evil.
Easy – hitler's – the one we're encouraged to live by via government
indoctrination. "Die for your country" – " and so forth. Mind you, I said it
was a _greater_ evil (agreed, that is) not _the_ evil one. They are both
_very_ wrong, I think. And I wouldn't want swaggart crucified… he's no
worse than any other of his ilk – he just got caught. And truthfully, I don't
see what he's doing as all that bad… it's no worse than astrology, except
in scale… and no one is trying to hang astrologers. (Perhaps they
should…. hmmmm) He should be able to do what he's doing… I like that part
of the system. People like that serve a purpose, as far as I'm concerned.
Where would all those neurotic simpletons turn if they didn't have Jimmy, et
al? Pagan rites that involve human sacrifice? Jimmy is better, in that case.
Hell, probably half of Jimmys audience reads the astrology column every day
anyway… Now, as to the "turn the other cheek" part of this, Believe me, I
would, if I was allowed to drop my pants in public. <grin>. That is an answer
that has only one merit, at it's base (this is all MY opinion folks, btw…
it's NOT advice and it's NOT the "bottom line" – I don't think) it is only a
way for a moral coward to avoid responsibility… for those who can stomach
the idea of personal hardship/pain/death, this is a much more palettable
course than taking responsibility for dealing with a threat. Sure… if
you're totally passive, no one can say "it's your fault" with any conviction,
because it isn't – not any more than it is a rocks fault. If your position in
life is to do nothing, and you stick to that, then you're a rock, no more.
Personally, if someone wrongs me or mine, I think the _correct_ thing to do
is remove their ability to do wrong. I also think that the "legal" system is
a joke and is best when completely circumvented. That makes me a sociopath in
some peoples minds, at least my philosophy is sociopathalogical to them.
Howzat – can you get your teeth into that, Thomas? –Ben–