In my last post I addressed the notion of replacement theology because frankly, there are many Christians who, for whatever reason (a reason that does not come from the scripture they claim to follow) believe God is vindictive, demands certain rituals and rites that, if not met by the believer, will result in angering their God and incurring his wrath. I further pointed out that an outworking of this idea resulted in a lot of torture and death, to the Jew first, but then also to the perceived heathens, many of which were even their fellow Christians. this assumption of God's vindictiveness clouds their view of God. no better example of this today is the Westboro baptist Church. Islam follows a vindictive God by it's own definition. their God does indeed demand certain rites and rituals, the enforcement of those rites and rituals, and any Muslim cleric will tell you so, so no need for me to say anything more about that nor is there any need for you to take my word for it. there is a lot of argument between a wide range of opinion as to the nature of God amongst Humans, can a person or group attempt to rise above this noise and circumnavigate this argument by other means? Atheism says there is no God, but then, is this not a logical fallacy? what proof is there of this claim? one would have a time trying to explain his very existence. how can one "know" there is no God? Agnosticism is no better logically, atheism claims there is no God, Agnosticism claims God can't be known, same difference then. (a christian answer to these here)
How about Humanism then? can we not sidestep the issue completely and just focus of Humanity? would this not be a more noble exercise? Humanism's claim is that Humans are the ultimate of everything, the ultimate of intellect, ability, knowledge, we are the SHIT! as the new slang term goes. o.k, let's examine that. many humanists like to make the claim that most of what's wrong in the world is religion, yet, make the claim that humanism is not a religion, and is in fact, a philosophy above religion itself. is this true? actually, Humanism would in fact qualify as a religion in any dictionary, look at the definitions. so, setting God aside, could humans be "the shit" even by their own definition? If humans were "the shit" would we not have all the answers to all our questions? could we not create a utopia by our own means and by our own standard? would not all human endeavors be met with amazing joy and success? after all, this popular humanist culture has busied itself by finding all the fault with the world and demanding "change". is "change" the road to nirvana? many people want "change" in our present health-care system today, many people want "change" in our political dialogue today, let's examine these two points. obviously, if ya want change, that is because you find fault with the present system, right? so, what's wrong with the present system? one argument is that health-care is too expensive and that only rich people can get access to decent health-care. o.k, lets look at the solution to this passed by congress. that solution now in place is a piece of legislation that is over 2600 pages long that creates a whole new bureaucracy to oversee health care when implemented in a couple of years. so, rather than your doctor having the personal freedom to run his own business, he will now have to acquiesce to the apparent greater wisdom and knowledge of the state when administering his service to his patients. and those patients, will have to acquiesce to the greater wisdom of the state for their treatment. so, rather than a patient paying a doctor for his services, the patient now has to pay for the doctor and all his staff, and the bureaucracy and all their expenses as well, and all this in the name of greater efficiency! with two exceptions to this rule, one is that the state that imposed this plan on the people exempted itself from this plan, and two, the state also reserves the right to issue waivers to whomever will donate to or support the emperor who so wisely "gifted" this oh so great plan to his subjects (but not himself). If humanism is so great, why can't we find a better plan? why do people demand their doctor neighbors businesses be co-opted by the state? why do they think this a good idea? would they be alright with this if they were doctors? and howabout the much complained about "lack of civility" in political discourse today? many people decry some of the talking heads as being intolerant, we had a good example of this a few weeks ago when Congresswoman Giffords was shot. before the bodies of the slain were even cold there was an outcry about the "tone of political debate", and even the assertion that political debate was the culprit of this heinous crime. according to many in the news the fault of this crime was placed, by name, on Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin. yes folks, the people who so decry the "tone of political debate" actually specifically named these two as the perpetrators of this crime. yeah, they are really sincere about their concern over the "tone of political debate" aint they? a congresswoman gets shot in the head, many people die including a little girl, and the knee-jerk reaction is to blame those who don't agree with them in things political. no regard for the victims, little or no concern if the actual perpetrator of the crime is found or gets his just punishment. even the sheriff that should have been in charge of getting to the facts of the case was more concerned with bandying about his opinion about Rush Limbaugh then doing his job. thankfully, the feds saw this and fixed it. but now that sheriff certainly did do the defendant, the actual perpetrator a real favor. all the defense attorney need do is play the interviews of the dumb ass sheriff to the jury. what more need he add? after all, isn't the opinion of the sheriff not worth something?
Ben Franklin's definition of democracy is "two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch".
Tyranny can fit within that definition, can it not? many people today confuse fact and opinion, and think if you can get enough people to agree on a point, then that consensus is "fact" (look out, Rush!). If humanism were some road to truth, than this would be true, would it not? wouldn't the consensus be "right"?
Why would some people see it right to trample the rights of others? is not a burgeoning bureaucracy tyranny? why don't people think doctors should be able to operate their businesses as they see fit? If people were inherently good, as humanism claims, why the need for ever larger and more expensive government? what's missing? that this has to be?
If people were inherently good, why do people so love to vilify others? despite the facts?
Remember Orwell? his tome "1984"? do we not have many of his definitions today? like "newspeak" and "doublethink"? is not the vilification of others today not unlike the idea of "thoughtcrime" in that book? Makes me wonder...