Thought is to man as is each inhale and exhale; we can no sooner restrict or find accusation within the thoughts of men than we can limit the amount of oxygen he consumes. In
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
A Sentence for Sayed Parwiz Kambakhsh
Saturday, August 25, 2007
The Abjectness of Mother Teresa
Beyond the wonder of the divine is the awe that follows the newly revealed angst of Mother Teresa. The actual revelation of Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu's faith shouldn't come as a surprise, but nevertheless, in all likelihood it will simply ratify the majority of believers' faith; it is also not a confirmation of faith but in the enduring concept as if the shadier belief seems the more irrational devotion is required. There are a couple of conclusions one can draw from the letters Mother Teresa had written over the course of her adult life which doesn't much differ from adolescent angst:
The first of which is the lack of faith and how this projects someone with such an avidity to absorb, or in Mother Teresa's case to siphon from sufferers, God's grace to no avail. This forlornness becomes a drive to seek out, by whatever means necessary, approval from the nonexistent. Especially in Mother Teresa's case, as she sat idle watching stagnant rooms full of people withering to death so she could selfishly indulge in divine delusion. There is also something to be said for the desperate longing for confirmation; where the succor of average secularists is from a human understanding of desperation there's the faithfuls' desperation for beatification by means of succor.
Doubtless, many believers will say that her questioning the existence of God is a mere trial of faith itself, but what is amiss, what they always miss, is the justification for their acts. It's hard to say whether Mother Teresa actually ever helped anyone but herself for vapid religious purposes, but assuming she had, she did so for the wrong reasons. In that she attempted to aid those ailing she only did so in order to somehow guarantee herself admittance to heaven, to God.
It is also apparent that though she highly questioned her faith in God, which for her honestly seems more of a cry for attention, she continued to force upon the impoverished and the ill, all the same, an appalling dogmatic adherence for something that she herself questioned. It was as if by taking in the ill and watching them die was an experiment to see if she'd bare witness to some divine act, whether by their immediate ascension into heaven or feel herself a vacuous euphoria for her selfish deeds.
When she wrote in one of her letters, "The smile is a mask or a cloak that covers everything..." she could not have gotten closer to the truth, thus unveiling a sick and unmerited desperation that religion infests within the psychology of insecure individuals in order to control them at some turn--if even just by swaying political votes.
The first of which is the lack of faith and how this projects someone with such an avidity to absorb, or in Mother Teresa's case to siphon from sufferers, God's grace to no avail. This forlornness becomes a drive to seek out, by whatever means necessary, approval from the nonexistent. Especially in Mother Teresa's case, as she sat idle watching stagnant rooms full of people withering to death so she could selfishly indulge in divine delusion. There is also something to be said for the desperate longing for confirmation; where the succor of average secularists is from a human understanding of desperation there's the faithfuls' desperation for beatification by means of succor.
Doubtless, many believers will say that her questioning the existence of God is a mere trial of faith itself, but what is amiss, what they always miss, is the justification for their acts. It's hard to say whether Mother Teresa actually ever helped anyone but herself for vapid religious purposes, but assuming she had, she did so for the wrong reasons. In that she attempted to aid those ailing she only did so in order to somehow guarantee herself admittance to heaven, to God.
It is also apparent that though she highly questioned her faith in God, which for her honestly seems more of a cry for attention, she continued to force upon the impoverished and the ill, all the same, an appalling dogmatic adherence for something that she herself questioned. It was as if by taking in the ill and watching them die was an experiment to see if she'd bare witness to some divine act, whether by their immediate ascension into heaven or feel herself a vacuous euphoria for her selfish deeds.
When she wrote in one of her letters, "The smile is a mask or a cloak that covers everything..." she could not have gotten closer to the truth, thus unveiling a sick and unmerited desperation that religion infests within the psychology of insecure individuals in order to control them at some turn--if even just by swaying political votes.
Sunday, July 1, 2007
“Another day," Forlornness of the seemingly inevitable.
Those that wake and writhe against will to the prospect of a new day, unlike birth, have a choice to commit against foreseen woe. In so far as one wakes either because the body has rejuvenated itself or that annoying contrivance of an alarm ricocheting from turbid apartment walls and rattling skull, eyes open and consciousness imbibes milieu with tainted taste of the new. There is a distinction of volition between the will to or not to wake and nascence upon severance of umbilical cord: In birth lies the only inevitability of will to wake with the innate urge to thrive. So it is with the comprehension of the fact that one is and the sardonic turmoil one can express toward a continuum of existence in saying, “Oh great, another day.” The irony in this, from the distinction of birth, is that one does have a choice; on a lower scale one may choose to wake, with crusted morning eyes, and declare their day, from the moment of percipience, as offal. For the ones that wake jovial and, more often than not, mindlessly ready for a day simply because they’ve little conception of it being any other way, this is not an issue. With limited options, one can roll out of bed bemoaning distress having yet experienced a day which will set the pace for the day; or they can just prevent this lingering effort that hardly gives impetus to grunt. They could just not worry to wake, to not have a following day in which they subconsciously await to begrudge themselves with orgasmic misery. The uselessness of doing this, but refusing to commit to the one defining decision of individual existence, suicide, is the desperate attempt to draw out momentary displeasure into a prolonged drama of the sort superficially absorbed by avenues of fiction. With the constant portrayal of characters imbibing sorrow and interacting among others with a definite quirk and along with its opposite, those striving for success and achieving only for the above mentioned to cripple in their shadow, a genuine individuality surpassing the glib cavorts of societies ideals remains abeyant. There is little resort for the mainstream and the intellectually defunct to authenticate themselves without drawing from the illusion of celebritism. The mirages of success and a beauty defined by and required for that success have been slowly engrained into the psychological development as necessity; it has become necessary, as comprehension by acceptance is easily malleable in nescience, in that it sets the inane standards for what people should become in order to fit in. In order to prevent the struggle for what is derived as success and acceptance, as they are constructed as contingent, one has to break from tradition, to repudiate the media fiasco of today, having learned from yesterday, and divulge into proper literature of human understanding in order to authenticate the individual. The languid attitude to wake will rekindle and that one defining choice of man deflates in the days it once held precedent.
Saturday, June 9, 2007
Pope Bush XLII
Where's the connection between a solitary religious icon and a leader of a great nation such as America? Well, there isn't one outside of a turbid confessional booth. It is a disgrace that the President of the United States should confide in a polarizing Christian leader, Pope Benedict XVI, his intentions and aspirations for the War in Iraq and the G8 meetings.
It is frightening that, because President Bush is Christian, he should feel it necessary to inform someone he is in religious "awe" of his dialogue with Vladimir Putin. Just as there is a vital separation of Church and State in America, there is a distinct separation between President Bush's personal religious beliefs to which he is welcome to discuss with Pope Benedict and his disclosure of imperative political intentions and happenings. Imagine for a second that President Bush is not a Christian and his beliefs are elsewhere, then whom is it that he would enter discourse on world matters? And why is it only then that the vast majority of Americans could be heard howling in disdain? Pope Benedict unabashedly distances himself from the War in Iraq and expels his only concern, which is the treatment of Christians, as if anyone else caught in the funeral fiasco that is Iraq well deserved the repugnant treatment endured. How horrible it is to have a President reciprocating a single concern--to repudiate human treatment in general and reduce it to a pool of those sharing his own beliefs.
Where President Bush baldfaced lies and misdirects the American people, the people whom he serves, it is degrading that he honestly discusses issues of extreme importance with a man that lays claim to infallibility. Not only this, but we can wager that where his conversation with Putin was probably disingenuous, his little talk with Pope Benedict was more open then it should have been. His absolute dereliction of America, where he relies on lame jokes to avoid genuine responses at press conferences and is quoted as saying, "Umm. I'll tell you in a minute." to privately convey information to the Pope which is owed to the American people is appalling.
On an actual personal level, President Bush should feel ashamed to have his wife gowned appropriately, as the Pope sees fit, in order to be considered presentable. This should enrage him as a man and as a husband to have his wife reduced to a vile object, as the Bible so emphatically professes of women. I suppose it's only fair that he should equally disrespect his wife and American Citizens, all the same.
It is frightening that, because President Bush is Christian, he should feel it necessary to inform someone he is in religious "awe" of his dialogue with Vladimir Putin. Just as there is a vital separation of Church and State in America, there is a distinct separation between President Bush's personal religious beliefs to which he is welcome to discuss with Pope Benedict and his disclosure of imperative political intentions and happenings. Imagine for a second that President Bush is not a Christian and his beliefs are elsewhere, then whom is it that he would enter discourse on world matters? And why is it only then that the vast majority of Americans could be heard howling in disdain? Pope Benedict unabashedly distances himself from the War in Iraq and expels his only concern, which is the treatment of Christians, as if anyone else caught in the funeral fiasco that is Iraq well deserved the repugnant treatment endured. How horrible it is to have a President reciprocating a single concern--to repudiate human treatment in general and reduce it to a pool of those sharing his own beliefs.
Where President Bush baldfaced lies and misdirects the American people, the people whom he serves, it is degrading that he honestly discusses issues of extreme importance with a man that lays claim to infallibility. Not only this, but we can wager that where his conversation with Putin was probably disingenuous, his little talk with Pope Benedict was more open then it should have been. His absolute dereliction of America, where he relies on lame jokes to avoid genuine responses at press conferences and is quoted as saying, "Umm. I'll tell you in a minute." to privately convey information to the Pope which is owed to the American people is appalling.
On an actual personal level, President Bush should feel ashamed to have his wife gowned appropriately, as the Pope sees fit, in order to be considered presentable. This should enrage him as a man and as a husband to have his wife reduced to a vile object, as the Bible so emphatically professes of women. I suppose it's only fair that he should equally disrespect his wife and American Citizens, all the same.
Sunday, April 8, 2007
Atheists and Easter
"Answers to the Atheists" by E.J. Dionne Jr.
http://richarddawkins.net/article,844,Answers-To-the-Atheists,E-J-Dionne-Jr-Washington-Post
It's unsettling how the initial statement that a vast majority are celebrating the death and resurrection of someone--wait, not just anyone right and not just Jesus, because if he wasn't, as the story goes, the son of God then it would deflate the poetic significance. Now, if we are going to celebrate anything in America and it must be associated with death, then let's instead, on a national scale, have a day of acknowledgment for the soldiers who currently sacrifice themselves for a country; one in which the habitants brush off a soldier's efforts and say it's his patriotic obligation and nothing more while they pay tithing and empty themselves of reason for a religion. A religion, I might add, that birthed impetus for war: the conflicting religious difference between Muslims and Christians, a president that said he was carrying out God's will by invading Iraq, and the Christian support for the war.
Yet, it's easier to delude oneself into attributing such divine importance--something to which they'll conveniently never have to prove, but simply have faith in. Just as when a husband tells his wife in the tremors of a bad marriage, "just have faith in me". Ah, but faith in something beyond, that doesn't directly come from another human is much easier, isn't it. Christians ultimately elude blame in having faith in God as it serves to be an untestable refuge for the hardships of life that people simply do not want full responsibility for.
In E.J. Dionne Jr.'s obvious defense of faith he fails to make an argument, thus he embarks on a diatribe and not even an impressive one. Dionne Jr. attempts to make comparisons with the arguments formed by what he calls the "neo-atheist" movement, but it quickly becomes reminiscent of childish mimicry: There is a sound argument against religious doctrine and especially the indoctrination of children and Dionne Jr., not surprisingly, retorts that Atheists suffer from a dogmatism of their own. Of course just what dogma Atheists adhere to is never stated and why not, because Christians don't want to admit, after the fact, that they are referring to reason, altruism, and intellectual honesty as dogma.
Dionne Jr. is right about the frustration toward religious moderates, but sneakily reforms that consternation for religious moderates into the claim that Atheists find religious moderates frustrating because they don't fall into a stereotype. The frustration obviously lies in the leeway that moderates attempt to give religious belief, because it's belief, without actual regard for the consequences of detrimental doctrine. It is difficult for Dionne Jr. and others to concede simple points like these, because they are points embodied with sound reasoning and honesty.
It's clearly time for the people that have truly nothing to say, such as those like Dionne Jr. try, to simply stop talking and listen...just listen and think about the issues without the weight of guilt baring down upon them. The deep seeded fear that people have when honestly questioning the validity or even the actual need of their beliefs is an elucidation of the malignant hold religion has.
As far as a connection to Easter Sunday goes, it is just another day. The sad thing is that the majority of people need days such as today, holidays, to grant some great significance to their lives. It is very difficult to find value in every single day, thus an importance within ourselves, but so long as we are aware of the fact that we imbue our lives with value it's a step forward. Take time on Easter Sunday to acknowledge the lives of others and the resplendence of existence instead of completely shifting focus from this beauty in order to celebrate a belief in an event that lacks value, sense, and validity.
http://richarddawkins.net/article,844,Answers-To-the-Atheists,E-J-Dionne-Jr-Washington-Post
It's unsettling how the initial statement that a vast majority are celebrating the death and resurrection of someone--wait, not just anyone right and not just Jesus, because if he wasn't, as the story goes, the son of God then it would deflate the poetic significance. Now, if we are going to celebrate anything in America and it must be associated with death, then let's instead, on a national scale, have a day of acknowledgment for the soldiers who currently sacrifice themselves for a country; one in which the habitants brush off a soldier's efforts and say it's his patriotic obligation and nothing more while they pay tithing and empty themselves of reason for a religion. A religion, I might add, that birthed impetus for war: the conflicting religious difference between Muslims and Christians, a president that said he was carrying out God's will by invading Iraq, and the Christian support for the war.
Yet, it's easier to delude oneself into attributing such divine importance--something to which they'll conveniently never have to prove, but simply have faith in. Just as when a husband tells his wife in the tremors of a bad marriage, "just have faith in me". Ah, but faith in something beyond, that doesn't directly come from another human is much easier, isn't it. Christians ultimately elude blame in having faith in God as it serves to be an untestable refuge for the hardships of life that people simply do not want full responsibility for.
In E.J. Dionne Jr.'s obvious defense of faith he fails to make an argument, thus he embarks on a diatribe and not even an impressive one. Dionne Jr. attempts to make comparisons with the arguments formed by what he calls the "neo-atheist" movement, but it quickly becomes reminiscent of childish mimicry: There is a sound argument against religious doctrine and especially the indoctrination of children and Dionne Jr., not surprisingly, retorts that Atheists suffer from a dogmatism of their own. Of course just what dogma Atheists adhere to is never stated and why not, because Christians don't want to admit, after the fact, that they are referring to reason, altruism, and intellectual honesty as dogma.
Dionne Jr. is right about the frustration toward religious moderates, but sneakily reforms that consternation for religious moderates into the claim that Atheists find religious moderates frustrating because they don't fall into a stereotype. The frustration obviously lies in the leeway that moderates attempt to give religious belief, because it's belief, without actual regard for the consequences of detrimental doctrine. It is difficult for Dionne Jr. and others to concede simple points like these, because they are points embodied with sound reasoning and honesty.
It's clearly time for the people that have truly nothing to say, such as those like Dionne Jr. try, to simply stop talking and listen...just listen and think about the issues without the weight of guilt baring down upon them. The deep seeded fear that people have when honestly questioning the validity or even the actual need of their beliefs is an elucidation of the malignant hold religion has.
As far as a connection to Easter Sunday goes, it is just another day. The sad thing is that the majority of people need days such as today, holidays, to grant some great significance to their lives. It is very difficult to find value in every single day, thus an importance within ourselves, but so long as we are aware of the fact that we imbue our lives with value it's a step forward. Take time on Easter Sunday to acknowledge the lives of others and the resplendence of existence instead of completely shifting focus from this beauty in order to celebrate a belief in an event that lacks value, sense, and validity.
Monday, April 2, 2007
"The God Debate"
The initial problem with such a debate is that it shouldn't occur in the first place. A man should not have to argue for the nonexistence of something. It is unfortunate that the concept of anything supernatural should predominate what is natural. But, the concept of the supernatural and god in particular is articulately fabricated so not to fall subject to evidence. How convenient! That is just what has fallen subject to debate. A careful conception of something that was created with foresight enough not to be empirically proven does not make it infallible. It's longevity over time does not reinforce its claims and, in fact, because most religious text has been written so long ago it births just impetus to reevaluate and, in most cases, repudiate it's primitive claims. I'm happy to see that most of the debates on theism aren't solely focused on disproving that which hasn't been proven, God. The focus has been taken to the heart of the issue which is the detrimental effects religion has on the individual, thus society as well as a perpetual political push from conservatives.
With the recent debate between Sam Harris and Rick Warren it should become clear to any honest reader that Rick Warren's defense for his beliefs are as vacuous and ambiguous as the text which they depend. Sam Harris presented his argument with sincerity and reason and was even hesitant to express a personal attack when prompted by the moderator where as Warren wasted no time. Rick Warren didn't need permission to resort to ad hominem argument, for he did this on his own when he cast Harris into a stereotype of being an "angry" atheist. He then went on to claim that he's never met an atheist who wasn't angry! Maybe he's just ignorant to the fact that being obstinate in light of having agreed to debate an issue is frustrating? That may be giving him more than he deserves.
Substitute only where Warren uses religious terminology with the names and beliefs of your favorite fairy tale story or cartoon character and his justifications are only different in that he would publicly be considered mentally ill with the latter. The "debate" then eerily becomes reminiscent of an exchange of dialogue between a psychiatrist and patient. Warren says, for the sake of appeasing, that he would concede any of Sam's points were they not made on "presumptions". For all Warren does not know, he knows full well that he agreed to have a debate to which he defends nothing but presumptions without fail.
Rick Warren flaunts his lack of research and lack of education in general with every one of his vapid responses to honest questions. In response to whether there is a life after death Warren retorts, "If death is the end, shoot, I'm not going to waste another minute being altruistic." With this Warren is ultimately claiming that morality is attributed to God and that if there was not a God and he were to suddenly discover this truth, then he'd either commit suicide or go on a murderous rampage. A question to his and anyone else's stability should be raised when they make the claim that they are only moral because a book happens to mention it. If they cease to sense the vice in certain appalling acts, then they are simply not set to be in a society. Honestly, who would want to be around individuals that would consider an immoral act of such severe degree merely because they will not be rewarded or punished in an afterlife for their current choices? As Albert Camus explicates in The Myth of Sisyphus, when one detaches from the indoctrination of religion there is an extinction burst; man loses everything he's come to learn in the world by repudiating what he sees as vapid claims, but then he has a choice to authenticate his life and the world he finds himself in and in return will redeem an exquisite value, his existence.
As could be expected, Warren ends his version of a debate with the infamously erroneous Pascal's Wager. This wager holds no ground for a debate, let alone reinforcement of belief. What it does do is show the true colors of one who uses it. It is basically a throwing up of one's arms in defeat and mumbling, "well at least if there is a God, then I believed in him, therefore I wont suffer any repercussions." Truly though, if there is a God, then it must value something, anything above insipid belief. A fear of death and a hell that is unfortunately ingrained within most as children is no excuse to believe in a god. Richard Dawkins finely elucidates in The God Delusion, what if the god you believe in happens to be the wrong god and amidst such confusion you are thrown to the bowels of hell for this simple mistake!
With the recent debate between Sam Harris and Rick Warren it should become clear to any honest reader that Rick Warren's defense for his beliefs are as vacuous and ambiguous as the text which they depend. Sam Harris presented his argument with sincerity and reason and was even hesitant to express a personal attack when prompted by the moderator where as Warren wasted no time. Rick Warren didn't need permission to resort to ad hominem argument, for he did this on his own when he cast Harris into a stereotype of being an "angry" atheist. He then went on to claim that he's never met an atheist who wasn't angry! Maybe he's just ignorant to the fact that being obstinate in light of having agreed to debate an issue is frustrating? That may be giving him more than he deserves.
Substitute only where Warren uses religious terminology with the names and beliefs of your favorite fairy tale story or cartoon character and his justifications are only different in that he would publicly be considered mentally ill with the latter. The "debate" then eerily becomes reminiscent of an exchange of dialogue between a psychiatrist and patient. Warren says, for the sake of appeasing, that he would concede any of Sam's points were they not made on "presumptions". For all Warren does not know, he knows full well that he agreed to have a debate to which he defends nothing but presumptions without fail.
Rick Warren flaunts his lack of research and lack of education in general with every one of his vapid responses to honest questions. In response to whether there is a life after death Warren retorts, "If death is the end, shoot, I'm not going to waste another minute being altruistic." With this Warren is ultimately claiming that morality is attributed to God and that if there was not a God and he were to suddenly discover this truth, then he'd either commit suicide or go on a murderous rampage. A question to his and anyone else's stability should be raised when they make the claim that they are only moral because a book happens to mention it. If they cease to sense the vice in certain appalling acts, then they are simply not set to be in a society. Honestly, who would want to be around individuals that would consider an immoral act of such severe degree merely because they will not be rewarded or punished in an afterlife for their current choices? As Albert Camus explicates in The Myth of Sisyphus, when one detaches from the indoctrination of religion there is an extinction burst; man loses everything he's come to learn in the world by repudiating what he sees as vapid claims, but then he has a choice to authenticate his life and the world he finds himself in and in return will redeem an exquisite value, his existence.
As could be expected, Warren ends his version of a debate with the infamously erroneous Pascal's Wager. This wager holds no ground for a debate, let alone reinforcement of belief. What it does do is show the true colors of one who uses it. It is basically a throwing up of one's arms in defeat and mumbling, "well at least if there is a God, then I believed in him, therefore I wont suffer any repercussions." Truly though, if there is a God, then it must value something, anything above insipid belief. A fear of death and a hell that is unfortunately ingrained within most as children is no excuse to believe in a god. Richard Dawkins finely elucidates in The God Delusion, what if the god you believe in happens to be the wrong god and amidst such confusion you are thrown to the bowels of hell for this simple mistake!
Real-life Crucifixion, A Real Delusion
Following the example of historically debated events, reporter Dominik Diamond seeks to mimic the crucifixion of Christ in order to reinforce his faith, thus reach God. Now, clearly the only thing reinforcing him will be the nails through his palms and the vertical ascent on a cross will be as close as he will come to his Sky God. The question must be raised, as Diamond raises himself on a cross, regardless of what particular faith is held, for there are many, what sane man that is actually content with his belief would subject himself to such barbarism? And without media attention would this act even be considered in the first place?
Surely one would not commit himself to unnecessary self-mutilation were he not first to justify it on religious belief and certainly not without the attention it shall draw, whether positive or negative. Flags immediately go off in anyone studying psychopathology; this is reminiscent of individuals suffering from a multitude of mental illnesses and inflict harm on themselves because of an internal conflict from which the basis itself is incoherent. In a moment of psychosis, if a man had a grand idea to perpetuate the harm he does to himself in private by an extreme act in public, it would be because of those he may influence or just by having witnesses to amplify the affect. If it was publicly announced beforehand, then precautions would be taken and the man would be subject to clinical tests. Here you have Dominik Diamond planning to do just that, but it is hesitantly approached, because he has the justification of faith, of religion. Only with religion can one mutilate himself before others and have those very same witnesses attribute a sense of the divine to such an act.
Many inane inferences can be drawn from the context of the Bible, but such is the Bible. For example, we live in a society that, retroactively, criticizes suicide not because it brings a tragic end to one's existence, but because it is read somewhere as being immoral. Forget about Judas for a second; now, what if the story of Jesus Christ's death was slightly different in that the only way for him to imbibe, claim and die for mans' sins was for him, upon unfathomable divination, to take his own life? I mean, what a story! He takes his own life to atone for mans' sins by committing a sin, thus coming full circle! What effect would this then have on the religious community? I loathe to make wild assumptions, but would that alone aggrandize a general view on suicide as opposed to how it's seen now?
In any case, the point is that what is read, especially in text written thousands of years ago, should not be taken literally or even allegorically. It is of no value for a man to base his choices and actions in life. Its only use should pertain to discussions of literature. One does not kill because the Bible says not to, which is a contradiction amongst many actually. Most men do not kill, because they have a sense of disapprobation toward such an act. We need not resort to some piece of literature to know better. There is a dire distinction to be made between what one does from evolved altruism, from social contract and from a book that makes the grandest of claims which it, incidentally, happens to get wrong. Diamond's delusion is a manifestation of a direct influence from the Bible. Though not all that share his faith share his exemplary devotion to his faith, they still derive their choices from the same source. So, how about those that wouldn't go to that same extent make the distinction I hinted at and then reap justification for embracing life instead of from the Bible, which in fact somehow justifies every atrocious act.
Surely one would not commit himself to unnecessary self-mutilation were he not first to justify it on religious belief and certainly not without the attention it shall draw, whether positive or negative. Flags immediately go off in anyone studying psychopathology; this is reminiscent of individuals suffering from a multitude of mental illnesses and inflict harm on themselves because of an internal conflict from which the basis itself is incoherent. In a moment of psychosis, if a man had a grand idea to perpetuate the harm he does to himself in private by an extreme act in public, it would be because of those he may influence or just by having witnesses to amplify the affect. If it was publicly announced beforehand, then precautions would be taken and the man would be subject to clinical tests. Here you have Dominik Diamond planning to do just that, but it is hesitantly approached, because he has the justification of faith, of religion. Only with religion can one mutilate himself before others and have those very same witnesses attribute a sense of the divine to such an act.
Many inane inferences can be drawn from the context of the Bible, but such is the Bible. For example, we live in a society that, retroactively, criticizes suicide not because it brings a tragic end to one's existence, but because it is read somewhere as being immoral. Forget about Judas for a second; now, what if the story of Jesus Christ's death was slightly different in that the only way for him to imbibe, claim and die for mans' sins was for him, upon unfathomable divination, to take his own life? I mean, what a story! He takes his own life to atone for mans' sins by committing a sin, thus coming full circle! What effect would this then have on the religious community? I loathe to make wild assumptions, but would that alone aggrandize a general view on suicide as opposed to how it's seen now?
In any case, the point is that what is read, especially in text written thousands of years ago, should not be taken literally or even allegorically. It is of no value for a man to base his choices and actions in life. Its only use should pertain to discussions of literature. One does not kill because the Bible says not to, which is a contradiction amongst many actually. Most men do not kill, because they have a sense of disapprobation toward such an act. We need not resort to some piece of literature to know better. There is a dire distinction to be made between what one does from evolved altruism, from social contract and from a book that makes the grandest of claims which it, incidentally, happens to get wrong. Diamond's delusion is a manifestation of a direct influence from the Bible. Though not all that share his faith share his exemplary devotion to his faith, they still derive their choices from the same source. So, how about those that wouldn't go to that same extent make the distinction I hinted at and then reap justification for embracing life instead of from the Bible, which in fact somehow justifies every atrocious act.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
