| padib said: That's the feeling I got from the original quote. Clever guy who knows a lot of things and makes interesting remarks, but not the person I'd want to rely on for profound truths and overall wisdom. Here is my point of view on the quote:
I don't consider it irrational personally, we see a lot of imperfection in human nature, it's pretty known that humans are self-destructive. Without even going to the personal level, at the macro level, looking at the health of the environment and the amount of wars we already see an issue. But the very idea that we were created sick only to have to atone and seek forgiveness. It`s akin to us genetically predisposing a child to be short and unatheltic and then commanding them to be a pro athlete. We were alledgedly made this way and then commanded to be otherwise. Sounds irrational to me.
Actually, there is. The word sacrifice is basically abandoning something that is part of me to offer to someone else. It is inherently altruistic. The sacrifice of my innocent life for the atonement of a guilty person is perhaps the greatest known altruistic action in existence. It becomes necessary to appreciate the quintessence of that altruism, especially when we are familiar with the fallibility of our own selves. If I can make a mistake, I hope my neighbor will help build me back up rather than tear me apart. As children especially we are prone to fail, to let our emotions decide for us. We can become monsters and then realize how far we went. The person who can understand that we are fallible can help pick up the pieces when we are broken. The person who can't understand that will tear their neighbor apart. Despite how much he expects morally of humanity, humanity isn't capable of meeting his standard and needs forgiveness because we can all be much worse than we want to be, even if we don't know it. His point here is that it absolves people of personal responsibility. Jesus cannot assume my crimes for I am the one who committed them. There is no moral value in doing so. If your friend has killed someone and you decide to take his place in death as you believe he deserves another chance, does your sacrifice negate his moral crime? Altruistic? Sure. Well meaning? Yes. Brave? Definitely. Do any of those truths translate to a sacrifice of innocent life being able to absolve other moral atrocites? No. Those people are responsible. No other can assume their crime.
I'm canadian and don't believe in the death penalty. Same on both counts I believe that in certain native cultures, when a wrong was committed in a community the guilty party was asked to serve the affected people in order to understand his mistake. People like Charles Manson exist in a world where people put less importance on family and working together, both christian values. So do you not think these types of people exist in environments such as you describe? On another note, importance of family and working together are not simply just christian values but rather unviversal ones. Both society and the self obviously benefit when these are present. Rather secular values imho tend to underappreciate family and general respect for those around you (Christopher Hitchens being a good example of insolence rooted in rebellion and lack of respect for the beliefs of others). I can't buy into this as it grossly misrepresents what secularism is about. Perhaps your experiences paint your view, but one of the main tenets(I struggle to use this word) is to be pluralistic in every facet of society. That very idea promotes respect and tolerance of others and tolerance. I`m actually unsure of what he said that could be considered disrespectful. I know you`re an open-minded individual and and are preapared for discourse on whatever issue, so I don`t think it`s what he`s saying but rather how he`s saying it? This ultracompassion is actually what is needed in our society to avoid cases like Charles Manson from even existing. I can`t even pretend to know what could prevent something like Charles Manson. This part of the quote, though still related, is less about the original point. I should have edited it out at the beginning, sorry. If you'd prefer to drop this one, I'd fully agree.
Of course he will bash Christianity, that's the cool thing to do because Christianity lets itself vulnerable by virtue of its outreaching nature, which he demeans here. His judgement of Christianity for proclaiming a messiah is imho childish, so no comment and he immediately loses my respect. To be fair, he bashes Islam as much or more than he does Christianity. Ah, 'cretinous,' that answers the question above about how he said it. I concede that. To me, his only valid concerns are:
As for this:
I just completely disagree. Creation itself boggles my mind, so a few concerns as to the validity of some of the Old Testament laws will not shake that anytime soon. I can appreciate that. But if you question the validity of a few passages in a text, shouldn't the entire thing be suspect? On a seperate, but similar, note, I rather like his assured stance on things. It permits less skirting. Though I don't have it in me, as I am generally a middle of the road kind of person, I admire that firm, poised position. In reference, I like the last part of this quote:
That might give some basis on why he may, at times, come off as crass and overly bold. About this:
About 5 years ago I moved to Fredericton. Throughout my 3 years there I had a few roommates, having moved almost 4 times in the span of the first year, and then having a new roomate in my last appartment after one moved out of town. In total I had about 10 roommates. Some were fun, some were awesome, some were nice, some were jerks, some were absolutely boring, and some were depressing. I had these two army buffs living with me in my 2nd place, and they were mean. They made my life miserable by setting traps in the cupboards, putting locks on the tv, shooting me with a b-b gun, playing with a sharp knife around me while giving me stares, and other ridiculous things I really didn't deserve. Of all my roomies they weren't the most boring. There was another roommate I had. I soon learned that he was very atheist. Our relationship was going fine until I made the mistake of telling him I was a creationist. It's as if our relationship changed completely from that moment on. Not only that, but he was very much an a-hole who cared little about those around him. If I was kind to do the dishes, instead of appreciating it, he would say that if I want to do it it's my thing. If you guessed that he never did the dishes you guessed right. He also did not interact at all with me and John (the awesome roomie) despite being really cool in the interview and me knowing him from boxing class. When he left, I gave him a lot of stuff for free, and he didn't even thank me. I had also helped him move into the appartment and for that I really mostly got a cold shoulder all year long. Though I don't want to judge him, he really was my worst roomie. Not mean enough to be one of the army jerks, but just having no appreciation for others that he really was the most boring of all my roommates. That's who Christopher Hutchens reminds me of. The boring thing is a reference to his mother. It's something she always told him not to be. Meant to be lighthearted and is so subjective that it has no universal meaning here anyway.
At least that! |
