RE: Would Jesus promote punishing the innocent instead of the guilty?
July 29, 2020 at 10:36 am
(This post was last modified: July 29, 2020 at 10:53 am by The Grand Nudger.)
I don't need a crystal ball to know that you had a mother and a father anymore than I would need a crystal ball to know that neither of the abrahamic books is attempting to teach anyone any sort of maltheism. You and I both can read the stories and come to that conclusion, and we both do, but that conclusion follows from a source exterior to either magic book in past, and in present.
To make it perfectly clear, it's not your assertions about the nature of the abrahamic god as you see it in the text that I'm attempting to correct you on. It's the item of your own establishment myth, where you got those ideas from and how and when they came to be relative to their competitors. Who flipped what on who, and when.
We could notice, for example, that in old magic book the chosen race is identified as those who struggle with god, or against god. We can see the intentional or unintentional skill here. It's a candid admission, but not a statement of moral conviction. We can posit that there has always been some acknowledgement that the interests of man and the interests of god can be in opposition, or that we have human difficulties adhering to the divine interests - but if you ever lose sight of divine interest superceding human interest you've lost the pulse of what any part of this narrative was expressing. That doesn't mean that your conclusion is wrong, it's simply and certainly not what the authors were trying to convey. We can realize that as an item of their establishment myth, the operative bit is that they are claiming some sort of equality with god. They are descendants of peers in at least one respect. That centers their tribe, that centers their worldview, that centers their authority, bridging the gap between man and the divine and providing them with heavenly warrant, and heavenly origins. These are the sorts of things that people found useful at the time (and, hell, to this day) when making territorial claims or asserting the legitimacy of their regime. That's the primary function of both magic books, and it would be ludicrous to insist that, in that context, there would ever be any attempt to teach you, the reader, some lesson about how bad it all is.
To make it perfectly clear, it's not your assertions about the nature of the abrahamic god as you see it in the text that I'm attempting to correct you on. It's the item of your own establishment myth, where you got those ideas from and how and when they came to be relative to their competitors. Who flipped what on who, and when.
We could notice, for example, that in old magic book the chosen race is identified as those who struggle with god, or against god. We can see the intentional or unintentional skill here. It's a candid admission, but not a statement of moral conviction. We can posit that there has always been some acknowledgement that the interests of man and the interests of god can be in opposition, or that we have human difficulties adhering to the divine interests - but if you ever lose sight of divine interest superceding human interest you've lost the pulse of what any part of this narrative was expressing. That doesn't mean that your conclusion is wrong, it's simply and certainly not what the authors were trying to convey. We can realize that as an item of their establishment myth, the operative bit is that they are claiming some sort of equality with god. They are descendants of peers in at least one respect. That centers their tribe, that centers their worldview, that centers their authority, bridging the gap between man and the divine and providing them with heavenly warrant, and heavenly origins. These are the sorts of things that people found useful at the time (and, hell, to this day) when making territorial claims or asserting the legitimacy of their regime. That's the primary function of both magic books, and it would be ludicrous to insist that, in that context, there would ever be any attempt to teach you, the reader, some lesson about how bad it all is.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
