| padib said: Apologies if the formatting isn't perfect I wasn't sure how to reply. It's great, actually.
It's close to that but not really that theologically speaking. We were created in an earthly paradise with the ability to choose evil, not inherently evil. We chose evil (let's remember the high theological complexity of the idea of free will) by the influence of a defiled heavenly being and were condemned to a fallen state (with a tendency to sin). Same idea, though. Because of another's choice, we're forced into the same fate. I had no choice in the matter. I'm born sick due to another's fault. Either a deity or a human. Is it not unfair that some people have determined for you that you are unwittingly born unworthy and predisposed to be full of sin. And the only way to absolve yourself of this awful and deplorable state is to acknowledge and be thankful of a sacrifice that you had neither asked for nor would, potentially, have needed if you hadn't been predisposed to sin in the first place. Let me put myself in your shoes, simplify the idea of free will as some pre-determined design by God, and agree that all this was part of a master plan. Hence the fallen state is the initial condition all along. It would resolve to what you said, except that the expectation wouldn't be for the child to be a pro athlete. The expectation would be that, with the parent's help (God in the metaphore), the child would be a godly athlete, capable of shattering records. Everybody has limitations though, regardless of effort or support systems put in place. The fundamental thing is still present though. A kind and guiding authoritarian, then. We are still born sick and commanded to be well, we're just assisted along the way- if and only if we believe it. The other important take away here is that, whether we agree with that theology or not, it's apparent that despite humamity's greatest efforts, we are actually sick when you look at the big and even the small picture. If you don't agree on the small picture, well you can always fall back to the big picture. As a species, honestly we are disfunctional. And I don't mean to bash humanity, I'm just calling for objectivity. We lie all the time, there is so much corruption in the world, people get hateful towards each other easily, we incessantly misunderstand each other and misconstrue each other (I'm the chief of this), I won't continue because I don't want to depress us. I can't say I subscribe to this. And I have to say I'm somewhat surprised; I always thought you an optimist. Would you agree that nature isn't binary. That things are not only good or evil, moral or not moral. I think the average human is far more moral than immoral, more good than evil. We're somewhere, and always will be, in between these notions of good and evil (we can use any terms here, really). As a species with such a wide breadth of variables, of course it'd be all around the board. I think we're definitely at a point in history where we're better off than we were before on most accounts (at leasty in the more developed parts of the world). Being prompted for self-reflection on how we can do better is perhaps my favourite tenet of most religions, but, of course, it isn't exclusive to it. So many of the progressions we've made in society have been in despite of organized religion.
The person still faulted, still sinned, still committed a crime. Only difference is that the person sacrificing themselves is willing to see the monster in the criminal and see that monster as a parasite instead of as the inherent nature of the person. The atoner can visualize the better person in that criminal and can help them break free from their spiritual shackles through the use of love. This is what I mean by solving the problem at the root. If our society was less disfunctional and more based on the ultracompassion of Christ, imho a personlike Charles Manson would not even exist and if they would they would be overcome by love. I understand that many criminals live with regret, seek forgiveness and can be deservedly reintroduced into society. However, I think there are others who cannot. As to the last part of the comment, I have no authority nor am I read or exposed enough into psychology and the motivations of some of these people to comment. I genuinely have no idea. Though I don't think people who are unforgiving to some criminals are actively disfunctioning society. (I spologize if I misread that, as this can be read as a bit aggressive. Not my intention) As for being able to absolve the criminal, it really depends on who is sacrificing. If the person sacrificing is the offended party, the absolution is much more potent. Suppose someone hurts me, or robs me. Suppose I choose to forgive that person and take the hit. Because I, as the offended party, choose not to retaliate, who is going to condemn the offender? I understand that sacrifice by the victim is, indeed potent. So who is now to condemn them? Well, society would be my answer. I know you believe that a Charles Manson, if shown that love, that sacrifice, would change. I, however, am not sold. I suppose this is where I'm the pessimist :P Imho the whole theology of atonement rests on something that is grossly misunderstood in christianity, that when we Sin, we above all sin against the holy creator. For that reason He would be entitled to atone for us because originally we would have sinned against Him. But that's the thing, I did not ask nor do I want to be commanded by his rules. I didn't ask for a sacrifice to be made on my behalf. I find the idea that I'm born to seek forgiveness is a unsavoury one.
Each philosophy has their heroes. You quoted Christopher Hitchens, he demans justice and demeans forgiveness. He assumes the inherent ability in humans to better themselves. With that in mind, I don't see people like Charles Manson disappearing anytime soon. They will simply be ostracized for not being good enough humans and their demons will grow.
I can only speak based on my own experience, based on what I hear and also based on how it's said. So far, it's my belief that faith in the goodness humanity is a lost cause and philosophies that rest on it are flawed. Just my conclusions of my own observations, if I'm wrong then I am. Again, I think the idea that we are lost sheep without a shepherd is a terrible thought. Every now and again I will be pleasantly surprised by the kindness and respect of a non-believer like you in this case, but in general I mostly see bashing and judgement. You noticed the use of the word cretinous, that's good. On the net is where I almost only exclusively see the type of behaviours you're talking about. I think both groups are so diametrically opposed that they immediately make judgments about one another. I don't say that whatsoever to discredit your own experiences, but from my perspective I would say it's the opposite. Someone had posted not long ago what categories of people one would trust as president. I think it was a long shot that atheists were by far the least trusted group. Though this represents only the US, it's a disconcertingthought that that many people think you so untrustworthy and of ill judgement. Also, when it comes to tolerance, in this world I mostly see it as a double-edged sword. The best example is the tolerance of homosexuality and homosexuals, but how much vitriol is aimed at people who consider homosexuality a sin. So the tolerance tought in secularism I have often observed to come at a heavy price. Yeah, the tolerance paradox is a tricky thing. We should call it 'intoleranception. I generally subscribe to whichever side is actually affected. In the homosexuality one, those who believe it a sin are not affected (they don't like it or believe in it, or whatever their case may be, but it doesn't actually affect them) by legal marraiges themselves, hence I am not on their side. Stole this from wikipedia, though it relevent:
I think that's a fair concern. For me,personally, I am stuck with creation. For that reason, when I look at my odds of finding truth, right now I prefer to look at explanations to these doubts I have about the texts rather than throw the baby with the bathwater so to speak. But I also have my doubts. Fair enough
I think that as Canadians, and I'm generalizing, we're typically relativistic. We don't like black and whites. I'm also a middle of the road kind of person, always willing to admit that I may be wrong. I also from time to time appreciate some strength and conviction but I generally always play devil's advocate to myself and others, in my mind. As for evidence, people often ask for a sign, but really the greatest sign ever given us is the world we live in. It surrounds us in full 3D, 24-7. I look at that and I have a very difficult time imagining how all this came to be without a creator. I really don't need a miracle when I have that. But everyone has their life story, often explaining what led a person to believe what they believe. Many people think I am christian because my parents were also. But look, he was raised in the synagogue and still could not integrate the faith of his parents. It goes to show how we all typically ask ourselves important questions about life and all come to certain conclusions usually based on our own questioning, at least I hope so. Fair enough
Took that one too far, my bad. I didn't think so. |
