Sunday, April 08, 2007

Murdering tall poppies -- that's what Easter is about

Every religion has their own myths that go to the very heart of their beliefs. The Easter Myth is central to christianity, and intensely revealing. Bach's 'St Mathew Passion,' which musically dramatises Bach's dramatisation just how revealing the Easter Myth really is.

Just think, christians revere Christ as their ideal, and indeed Bach had his chorus praise him, worship him, and eulogise Him. This was their hero, the man that god sent to earth, and that same god went and had him killed.

That's the story. This, says Bach, is what christians revere: The murder of their ideal.

Such is the nature of the Easter Myth.

The clear insight that it seems Bach wants us to take about the myth of Easter is one of suffering and one of sacrifice, and in particular the very nature of that sacrifice: in the name of religion he shows us that the good (by christian standards) is sacrificed to the rotten; the constant to the inconstant; the talented and inspirational to the lumpen dross. The ideal to the worthless. In the name of God, then, the' good' just has to go!

Easter, for christians it seems, is a time to revere sacrifice. Oh yes, there's a 'rebirth' of sorts, but not one in this earthly realm, and not before a celebration of intense pain and suffering that supposedly bought redemption and virtue for those who possessed neither.

In other words, it struck me that the Easter Myth is not unlike Ayn Rand's Fountainhead, only in reverse. Unlike the heroes of Bach's Passion, Rand's heroes shun sacrifice. The ethic of The Fountainhead, one for which each of the leading characters fights for in their own way, is one in which genius has the right to live for its own sake. Contrast that with the Easter Story, in which The Good is revered for the act of suffering and dying for the expiation of others.

In my book, that's not really an ethic worthy of reverence.

LINKS: The Fountainhead - Objectivism Reference Center

TAGS: Religion, Objectivism, Ethics, Music, Books

Labels: , ,

41 Comments:

Blogger JC said...

Congratulations. You managed to miss three quarters of the story, which is the Resurrection. This shows Christ has mastery over death, and thus can grant eternal life, albeit in another realm.

So much of our literature follows much the same line, the struggles, often told in great depth, followed by triumph. The triumphs (or indeed the Resurrection) are often not elaborated on, because the goal is reached, and in the case of the Resurrection the goal is eternal life.

I'm slightly intrigued by Atheist and Skeptic interest or even exasperation with this and other religious beliefs when they are so obviously voluntary.

JC

4/08/2007 03:38:00 pm  
Blogger PC said...

"Congratulations. You managed to miss three quarters of the story, which is the Resurrection."

Perhaps you didn't read to the end?

"I'm slightly intrigued by Atheist and Skeptic interest or even exasperation with this and other religious beliefs when they are so obviously voluntary."

No intrigue necessary when the ethic of sacrifice is so all pervasive, and so anti-life.

4/08/2007 03:53:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

PC, with all due respect, what is your bizarre preoccupation with Christianity all about?

4/08/2007 05:02:00 pm  
Blogger JC said...

"Perhaps you didn't read to the end?"

Yep. You're stuck on the sacrifice bit and the gory details.

"No intrigue necessary when the ethic of sacrifice is so all pervasive, and so anti-life."

Like I said. You missed three quarters of the story, which is resurrection and life.

"I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?"

The suffering and death has it's place, but it's the resurrection that is the central tenet of Easter.

JC

4/08/2007 05:32:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I see you have annoyed the religious right - cuz of your (well intentioned but wrong) opposition to Bradford's amendment I think. These people are so disappointed they can't shoehorn you into the 'right wing intellectual' box.

BTW I think parents should not be allowed to send their kids to church before they are 15yrs old because they do not develop critical reasoning before this age-- and the damage is done otherwise. And the UK Greens suggestion we ban Catholic schools is also a good idea - they have a proven record of underachieving.

I think I'll have to join the Green Party...

This is Blog Against Theocracy weekend so well done.

4/08/2007 05:44:00 pm  
Anonymous James said...

Anonymous said...

PC, with all due respect, what is your bizarre preoccupation with Christianity all about?


Anon....what is Christianity s bizarre preoccupation with the rest of us who don't want a bar of your God and related silliness? Do your own thing by all means but take no for an answer and f**k off. Thanks.

4/08/2007 06:49:00 pm  
Anonymous Wicket said...

Anon said...
I see you have annoyed the religious right?

Damn right Ruth. And you seem to be annoying PC here.

4/08/2007 07:10:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't think I'm annoying him. I may be annoying YOU though.

I see a commenter at NZ Conservative claims Peter is promoting homosexuality.

You people are bizarre.

4/08/2007 08:06:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

james...

dear oh dear - Amateur attempts at abuse BTW. In future, try not to advertise the fact that you're a maladjusted child. We know.

4/08/2007 10:13:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

PC, you should take heed to this, from Lucyna's blog:

"Peter Cresswell does have a truth seeking mind"

Does he?? Well maybe so, but there's a lot of stuff on his site that someone as equally interested in truth but not a Libertarian may take issue with. For example the claim that the political spectrum proceeds from communism to fascism. This is an outdated view that is leftist in origin, and given the similarities of the two systems, quite inaccurate. That this is the basis for the Libertarians proclaiming themselves as neither of the left nor the right, it would seem their whole political direction (whatever that is) could be completely misguided.

Which makes them quite useless in the battle for freedom, as they don't even know which way to shoot. In the tug of war to save NZ's traditional Christian based culture from being trampled into the ground by global socialism, which end of the rope are they on?

Cresswell's preoccupation with religion is symptomatic of the larger problem with Libertarians, and that is their constant inner struggle with ideological purity, and this, along with unclear political objectives and a lack of strategy, is another facet of their organisation which makes them a waste of political time and energy.

Libertarians have some good people, its a pity their political confusion does not allow them to simply fight with pro family Conservatives against big government socialism.

4/08/2007 10:38:00 pm  
Anonymous James said...

"Libertarians have some good people, its a pity their political confusion does not allow them to simply fight with pro family Conservatives against big government socialism."

Perhaps its because once you really examine them you find they really aren't that different...? Both are collectivist whilst favouring a backstop of force to get their way.Both oppose the idea of a sovereign individual living life as he/she sees fit without reference to authoritarian control.God or Government....take your totalitarian pick...

4/08/2007 11:22:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Check yourself into the Reality Asylum James, pronto.

4/09/2007 09:25:00 pm  
Blogger Mitch said...

Speaking of amateur abuse...
Reality Asylum? That a bit contradictory isn't it?

Also Anon, WHY should James check into your "reality asylum"? Can you refute what he said? Or will you resort to lame one liners with me as well?

4/09/2007 09:44:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mitch, why are you Uberlibs so preoccupied with Christianity ?

You are tolerant towards every other religion. Why is Christianity such a bugbear ?

4/09/2007 11:05:00 pm  
Anonymous James said...

"You are tolerant towards every other religion. Why is Christianity such a bugbear ?"

Maybe because its the one most in our face in this part of the world and its history has been about repression of liberty? Inquisition, witch burnings,suppression of descenting ideas,sexual repression etc...of course Libertarians and hard core Christians will battle over these issues.Thankfully due to liberty rising and information becoming available to many more people Christianity was broken and sent to the basement where it can still snarl but lacks the claws to start killing and torturing again in the name of God.Look at Islam to see what Christianity was like when it held sway over our ancestors lives...no thanks.

Its not Libertarians that are taking on religion...its the Objectivist strain PC also promotes here.You can be a Libertarian and a Christian (but you will be tormented by contradictions)but being a Objectivist and a Christian...?.not possible as the former philosophically conflicts head on with the latter.

4/09/2007 11:45:00 pm  
Anonymous AngloAmerican said...

People become so familiar with the Christian story that they lose sight of its absurdities. It is quite bizarre that any one, let alone a god, need die for anyone else’s sins.

The only way to get your head around it all is to see the stories as a form of human communication where the players are metaphors for ideals. Like the Greek gods make sense and become very interesting when looked at in this way, each one representing a human psychological trait. Inside everyone is a little bit of Adonis, Aphrodite, Ares, etc. Christian concepts are in the same category except not as much fun.

In this sense even an Atheist can claim he believes in God – God as a metaphor for highest ideal. It makes sense then that we observe no physical deity. No deity can come and personally save you directly yet you can get the feeling of some higher order affecting your life. Sacrifice and prayer could powerfully influence behaviour or how people cope with things. All religious belief falls into this category, explaining why there are so many variations of the theme existing in the world today and why so many people believe in it so fervently. It works for people and most people are not willing or able to think about it deeply enough.

Even the Bible spells it out, “in the beginning was the Word”. It’s all just words, semantics.

4/10/2007 06:52:00 am  
Anonymous Falafulu Fisi said...

James said...
...not possible as the former philosophically conflicts head on with the latter.

This is absolutely correct. If any Christian can prove to me, that God Jehovah can and will break the laws of Physics as mentioned throughout the bible, today, then I will be a convert back to being a christian again. Laws of Physics collides head on with biblical claims. Take your pick? Laws of Phyics, underpinned by Philosophy and Logic or biblical myths that contradicts reality (Laws of Physics). I know which side I choose, and that is the former. It is verifiable and it is observable. Biblical myths are not repeatably verifiable, end of story.

4/10/2007 10:36:00 am  
Blogger Mitch said...

Anon said: "Mitch, why are you Uberlibs so preoccupied with Christianity?"

I, personally, am not preoccupied with Christianity. In terms of religion, I am far more concerned with the rising influences of Islam and Environmentalism, and all that it means for Western civilisation.

However, I firmly believe that religion is the root of all evil, and as such I wholeheartedly agree with and support PC et al in their battle against Christianity.

You also said: "You are tolerant towards every other religion."

Wrong. Actually I'm intolerant of ANY religion that isn't tolerant of me. Hence my intolerance (most particularly) of Islam and Environmentalism. Both of these religions (or proponents of them) are violently open about their desire to see an end to our successful industrialised Western society.

Note: one of the main reasons this evil is winning is because of the guilt that Christianity teaches us to feel when we are successful. Hence PC's preoccupation with it (or so I assume, pick me up if I'm wrong here PC).

Anon, I was merely picking you up on a very poor and contradictory attempt at abuse. By the way, you still haven't attempted to refute James' very valid "take your totalitarian pick" argument.

Mitch

P.S. Could you tell me what an Uberlib is? If I am going to be classified as one, I would like to know what it means.

4/10/2007 11:27:00 am  
Blogger Nigel Kearney said...

I thought Easter was named after Eostre, the Celtic goddess of fertility. Let us not forget the reason for the season.

4/10/2007 11:48:00 am  
Anonymous george said...

Either Jesus rose from the dead or he didn't.

Its binary.

Take your pick. Beleive that or not in all freedom.

If he didn't all Christians are fools.

If he did, all non beleivers are fools to ignore the rest of his claims and no tonnage of outraged bluster will change that.

Eternal life or Hell.

OTY

4/10/2007 12:19:00 pm  
Anonymous Sus said...

"Libertarians have some good people, its (sic) a pity their political confusion does not allow them to simply fight with pro family Conservatives against big government socialism."

I disagree. I'm perfectly happy to stand alongside anybody who promotes a concept of freedom.

Which is why I have spoken in support of such diverse parties as the Exclusive Brethren and Tim Selwyn in their respective rights to exercise free speech, Keith Locke in his call for sedition to be abolished and Sue Kedgeley in her opposition to the proposed legislation concerning nutritional supplements.

As I am just as quick to oppose those who speak in favour of compulsion or prohibition.

I also disagree with the notion that non-atheist libertarians will be 'tormented by contradictions'.

I'm no atheist. But I remain a card-carrying Libertarian in spite of *any* personal beliefs I may hold.

Freedom is a very simple concept. You either believe in it totally, or the acceptance to have it compromised.

4/10/2007 12:32:00 pm  
Anonymous JC said...

"I, personally, am not preoccupied with Christianity. In terms of religion, I am far more concerned with the rising influences of Islam and Environmentalism, and all that it means for Western civilisation."

Western civilisation is of course, the living embodiment of Christianity, and by an amazing coincidence the heart and soul of human ingenuity, progress, human rights and just about the best of human endevour through the last 2000 years.

If you detest environmentalism, then look to secular Europe and secularists round the globe for their substitution of religion with their Kyoto God. Environmentalism is the State religion of the secular Left.

You are right to be concerned about Islam, but it's no accident that the secular Left countries are poorly represented in the Iraq Coalition.

Say what you like about Christians, they've been the springboard of human ingenuity in the past 2000 years, the ones most aware of the threat of Islam and those prepared to resist it.

JC

4/10/2007 01:27:00 pm  
Blogger PC said...

There's been many flagrantly untrue things already said on this thread (many of them in Redbaiter's one short post), but this is perhaps the most highly questionable:
"Western civilisation is of course, the living embodiment of Christianity..."

I grant you that it's widely believed, but I suspect the Classical Greeks might raise some objections to the proposition, as might several historians of both the Dark Ages and the Enlightenment.

4/10/2007 02:00:00 pm  
Anonymous JC said...

PC,

I'm not aware that my statement of the West being the living embodiment of Christianity can be seriously challenged, especially since I qualified it as in the last 2000 years.
The West, by definition, shares similar aspects of history, religion, values and traditions. It is influenced or shaped by Greco-Roman, Judeo-Christian cultures, by the Renaissance, the Enlightenment and the Germans.

But standing above all, the colossus and absolute binding point is Christianity. Even after the Enlightenment, people didn't suddenly ditch religion in favour of Athiesm, but remained basically Catholic or Protestant. Even today, Atheism is a minor percentage of populations in the West. The Enlightenment simply freed men to think outside the strict boundaries of religion, but hardly dented belief in religion.

As an example of how prevalent Christianity is and how little it effects productivity, take the US. This is a heavily Christian country that produced 173,771 patents in 2006. Check all Islamic countries since 1700 and you might get 1000.

JC

4/10/2007 04:26:00 pm  
Anonymous James said...

The rise of the West has mirrored the stripping away of Christianity from our everyday lives....not a greater embracing of it.Christianity put stumbling blocks in the way of nearly every advance in science,women's rights,the ending of slavery,medicine,etc


I'm not saying some aspects of Christianity aren't beneficial but then those aspects were already present in religions and philosophy's that far pre-dated it...What virtues and values did Christianity actually bring to man that wern't already in existence?

4/10/2007 05:20:00 pm  
Blogger Lucyna said...

James, what Christianity brought was the innate value and dignity of each human being for their own sake rather than what use they could be for others. That was revolutionary at the time. Actually, it still is.

4/10/2007 06:13:00 pm  
Anonymous JC said...

"The rise of the West has mirrored the stripping away of Christianity from our everyday lives....not a greater embracing of it.Christianity put stumbling blocks in the way of nearly every advance in science,women's rights,the ending of slavery,medicine,etc"

Rubbish.

"I'm not saying some aspects of Christianity aren't beneficial but then those aspects were already present in religions and philosophy's that far pre-dated it...What virtues and values did Christianity actually bring to man that wern't already in existence?"

You can get the main bits at Wikipedia, and that just for the Catholic Church. The contribution is enormous.

http://tinyurl.com/2os3fc

JC

4/10/2007 06:36:00 pm  
Anonymous Tim Wikiriwhi said...

These comment areas on Not PC’s Antichrist raves are haunted by atheists who have no intention of reasoning through rebuttals by Christians.
The utter crap slung in defense of atheism!... such as “witch burning” or calling God a “Totalitarian”…or the narrowness of denying metaphysical truths that transcend Newton’s laws of physics, shows these people refuse to truly think.
There is no point in my posting any argument here as I know it will fall on Blind Minds.
I’ll save my pearls for when I see a real truth seeker here, or when I see a brother being cut down by something other than trite regurgitated irreligious rubbish.

4/10/2007 10:27:00 pm  
Anonymous James said...

Lucyna

"James, what Christianity brought was the innate value and dignity of each human being for their own sake rather than what use they could be for others. That was revolutionary at the time. Actually, it still is."

Gag! Excuse me...?! You are kidding right? Christ's message as seen in the Bible is a clarion call to self sacrifice and subservience to God.It what you say is true then please explain the need for all the fighting over and resistance to the advances I described ,science,medicine,women's rights etc...


Come on JC....just answer the question."pre-dated it...What virtues and values did Christianity actually bring to man that weren't already in existence?"

If there were none then Christianity is just a new cobbling together of many older ideas....so what's all the fuss about?


Tim...is it your potty time..?

4/11/2007 11:06:00 am  
Anonymous jc said...

"Come on JC....just answer the question."pre-dated it...What virtues and values did Christianity actually bring to man that weren't already in existence?"

Christianity didn't have to be first in virtues and values to attain it's pre-eminent position.. just the one to put a whole lot of good ideas together, codify them and basically stick with them better than previously.
Off the top of my head, three stand out for me.

First, the Christian God is subject to his own natural laws, he is not incandescent or capricious and able to make major changes to the Universe or the planet except as they follow his own natural laws. So, no stopping the sun in the sky on a whim, unless there can be shown that there's a natural reason for it. This is a good stopper of superstition.

Second, Christianity gives us our first example of separation of Church and State.. "Render to Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God the things that are God's" is perhaps the most important principle we got from Christ.

A third point, pretty much unique in the East at that time was the monotheism of the Jews, the concept of only one creative force or God, rather than a plethora of capricious deities. Christianity continues and cements that concept. It was an amazing strength of Western civilisation as it allowed us to develop outside of just our own families and our tribes into the concept of nationhood, international relationships etc under the same God.

"If there were none then Christianity is just a new cobbling together of many older ideas....so what's all the fuss about?"

Fair question. To me it's the codification of a way of life into the Bible, a central earthly authority through the Pope, a reverence for logic and reason and the ability to get back on track after schism.

A rugby analogy might be the French, they are often rated the most talented of all the rugby countries, but because they are three parts inspiration and just one of logic, they don't have the consistent records of the All Blacks who have the better blend.

JC

4/11/2007 04:25:00 pm  
Anonymous James said...

"First, the Christian God is subject to his own natural laws, he is not incandescent or capricious and able to make major changes to the Universe or the planet except as they follow his own natural laws. So, no stopping the sun in the sky on a whim, unless there can be shown that there's a natural reason for it. This is a good stopper of superstition."

I submit the blatant contradiction JC has posted here as all I need to offer in reply...the little matter of God being God as described in the BIBLE seems disposable at the drop of a hat to some people....

4/11/2007 06:53:00 pm  
Anonymous Falafulu Fisi said...

JC said...
So, no stopping the sun in the sky on a whim, unless there can be shown that there's a natural reason for it. This is a good stopper of superstition.

But this is where the Laws of Physics collide head on with biblical myth such as Joshua stopping the Sun in mid-day just to prolong the daylight so that they could finished off the enemy. I truly believed this Joshua's story when I grew up and attended regular Sunday School. I thought at the time that Joshua's long day was the power of God. Now, I realized that this sort of miracle that human could overide the Laws of Physics at will by just praying or asking God (Jehovah) directly, must be dismissed as absurd.

The question to ask about such ridiculous claim from the bible (which is full of those ones), is if Laws of Gravity was suspended when Joshua stopped the Sun? Perhaps, Tim Wikiriwhi can explain? If Joshua did it over 2000 years ago, then why isn't anyone of those religious people around the world these days is able to do the same thing? Perhaps, such biblical capability for someone like the Pope to stop the Sun or something similar? Or the Pope can stop climate warming? The answer is obvious, in those biblical days, the human knowledge was very primitive, and any story could have passed on, from person to person where it changed rapidly. Once a whole village knew about such adventure, fantasy became the facts and the real facts disappeared.

4/11/2007 08:04:00 pm  
Anonymous AngloAmerican said...

…..something other than trite regurgitated irreligious rubbish. – Tim

You’re not likely to encounter much more that trite irreligious or religious rubbish on a religion bashing Not PC post. If it is not fun I would suggest that you look elsewhere to cast your pearls of wisdom. I don’t think anyone is going to change their minds here. Tim, you could have a look at the site One Cosmos that has merged evolutionary theory with Christianity and has a small, fervently Christian, following. I like reading the posts there just for the interesting use of words and I think you would really enjoy it.

4/12/2007 07:32:00 am  
Anonymous JC said...

James and Falafu,

There is no contradiction here. We have no reason to believe the sun stood still and every reason to believe that that the writer was being fanciful or misinterpreted. You won't find the Catholic Church supporting a literal belief of this passage, because it's not reasonable to do so.

JC

4/12/2007 12:50:00 pm  
Anonymous James said...

"There is no contradiction here. We have no reason to believe the sun stood still and every reason to believe that that the writer was being fanciful or misinterpreted. You won't find the Catholic Church supporting a literal belief of this passage, because it's not reasonable to do so."

Does that not then go for... burning bushes that talk,Seas parting,The entire earth flooding,All kinds of animals being taken onto a boat in pairs,a virgin birth followed by a return from the dead...etc...?

Cheery picking the Bible will get you very tangled JC....

4/12/2007 06:36:00 pm  
Anonymous jc said...

"Does that not then go for... burning bushes that talk,Seas parting,The entire earth flooding,All kinds of animals being taken onto a boat in pairs,a virgin birth followed by a return from the dead...etc...?

Cheery picking the Bible will get you very tangled JC...."

Only if I believed the Bible was inerrant, which I don't. But I still see it as an immensely important book that connects the Western and Eastern worlds to their past.

JC

4/13/2007 09:04:00 am  
Blogger PC said...

So can you tell us, JC, which Bibilical miracles you do choose to accept, and why?

After all, they're all pretty "fanciful," aren't they?

If miracles aren't possible, then what makes your god God?

If your son of a god didn't rise from the dead, what makes your god God?

And if you say miracles are possible, then what of science?

Seems to me it's either one or the either. And only one view is reasonable.

4/13/2007 09:41:00 am  
Anonymous jc said...

"So can you tell us, JC, which Bibilical miracles you do choose to accept, and why?"

I choose to accept none of them as fact, and all of them as part of a record of the time, in the same way that I accept what the BBC tells me about the poor downtrodden Palestinians.

"After all, they're all pretty "fanciful," aren't they?"

Not for that benighted part of the world.. then and now.

"If miracles aren't possible, then what makes your god God?

If your son of a god didn't rise from the dead, what makes your god God?"

First, if I can't afford a personal trainer or a guru then I most certainly can't afford a personal God. If there is a creative force that kicked off and maintains the Universe, then we all have some sort of relationship to it, whether active or passive, and we can do nothing more than acknowledge it in some way. Miracles or resurrection have no relevance to such a being because it already exists and has no need to prove anything.. it's deeds of creation are already manifest.

Even if there was no such being, I would still heartily support the concept as a regulating force. Humans have wisdom, and from the time they organised and accepted overlordship of some kind they knew they had to have a "higher power" to keep some sort of control over the leaders. We could use some of that right now.

"And if you say miracles are possible, then what of science?

Seems to me it's either one or the either. And only one view is reasonable."

I've no particular view one way or the other. Almost by definition, a miracle is something that cannot be explained by science, which means what appears miraculous today may become explainable tomorrow with more knowledge.

That's what was so awesome about the Greeks way back. They could use a rare logic to solve scientific and math problems, and the same logic to explore the intangible, put the meat and bones on Christianity and convert to it. Their genius lay not just in scientific achievement, but exploring the metaphysical without the constraint of proof.

JC

4/13/2007 12:30:00 pm  
Anonymous JC said...

"Does that not then go for... burning bushes that talk,Seas parting,The entire earth flooding,All kinds of animals being taken onto a boat in pairs,a virgin birth followed by a return from the dead...etc...?

Cheery picking the Bible will get you very tangled JC...."

Only if I believed the Bible was inerrant, which I don't. But I still see it as an immensely important book that connects the Western and Eastern worlds to their past.

JC

--
Posted by jc to Not PC at 4/13/2007 09:04:35 AM

4/15/2007 09:50:00 pm  
Blogger PC said...

So can you tell us, JC, which Bibilical miracles you do choose to accept, and why?

After all, they're all pretty "fanciful," aren't they?

If miracles aren't possible, then what makes your god God?

If your son of a god didn't rise from the dead, what makes your god God?

And if you say miracles are possible, then what of science?

Seems to me it's either one or the either. And only one view is reasonable.

--
Posted by PC to Not PC at 4/13/2007 09:41:30 AM

4/15/2007 09:52:00 pm  
Anonymous jc said...

"So can you tell us, JC, which Bibilical miracles you do choose to accept, and why?"

I choose to accept none of them as fact, and all of them as part of a record of the time, in the same way that I accept what the BBC tells me about the poor downtrodden Palestinians.

"After all, they're all pretty "fanciful," aren't they?"

Not for that benighted part of the world.. then and now.

"If miracles aren't possible, then what makes your god God?

If your son of a god didn't rise from the dead, what makes your god God?"

First, if I can't afford a personal trainer or a guru then I most certainly can't afford a personal God. If there is a creative force that kicked off and maintains the Universe, then we all have some sort of relationship to it, whether active or passive, and we can do nothing more than acknowledge it in some way. Miracles or resurrection have no relevance to such a being because it already exists and has no need to prove anything.. it's deeds of creation are already manifest.

Even if there was no such being, I would still heartily support the concept as a regulating force. Humans have wisdom, and from the time they organised and accepted overlordship of some kind they knew they had to have a "higher power" to keep some sort of control over the leaders. We could use some of that right now.

"And if you say miracles are possible, then what of science?

Seems to me it's either one or the either. And only one view is reasonable."

I've no particular view one way or the other. Almost by definition, a miracle is something that cannot be explained by science, which means what appears miraculous today may become explainable tomorrow with more knowledge.

That's what was so awesome about the Greeks way back. They could use a rare logic to solve scientific and math problems, and the same logic to explore the intangible, put the meat and bones on Christianity and convert to it. Their genius lay not just in scientific achievement, but exploring the metaphysical without the constraint of proof.

JC

--
Posted by jc to Not PC at 4/13/2007 12:30:54 PM

4/15/2007 09:57:00 pm  

Post a Comment

Respond with a polite and intelligent comment. (Both will be applauded.)

Say what you mean, and mean what you say. (Do others the courtesy of being honest.)

Please put a name to your comments. (If you're prepared to give voice, then back it up with a name.)

And don't troll. Please. (Contemplate doing something more productive with your time, and ours.)

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home