By attacked I mean those that have been designated as Zulus...Martha and Mary-Cathcart (our cat)...have laid on the couch or under a chair while Pvt. Bartlam has been shot and felled, in very dramatic fashion, at least 100 times. Of course, he's givin' better than he's got...poor Mary-Cathcart has no more lives left and Martha, in much less than dramatic fashion...seein' how she's mostly been layin' on the couch...has been downed several hundred times. It's a ratio The Boy will need to keep up if he intends to survive.
This all started when his cousins came over last weekend...a situation, by the way, that is akin to being attacked by Zulu. I couldn't take any more demands to watch Toy Story 3...much less another second of actually watching it...
"We're doin' somethin' different tonight."
"NO. Inna watch Toy Story 3...Toy Story 3."
"Nope. We're watchin' something else."
"NO NO Toy Story 3."
"No. Just watch you'll like it."
Trying to get Netflix pulled up...trying to find the movie...trying to fast forward, while he was still willing to argue about it and before he decided to move on.
"No...No..."
Silence...that's real movie magic.
Then they started taking sides...R. was for his side. He just wanted everybody to get out of his way.
I was on the side of oxygen...they were all laying on top of me trying to watch the little Ipad screen.
J. immediately identified with the Zulu...
"You can do a lot of stuff when you're wild like that...you can be crazy. How many of these British are there?...they don't stand a chance. They're all gonna die."
B...maybe it's Thomas and Chuggington, Pepe the Pig...or Adamparsons but, he immediately placed himself, and his little rage face, behind the sandbags with the "BritISSSH!"
I certainly remember the first time I saw it...and I've been living with it every since. My Daddy "made" me watch it too...it's one of his favorites.
I was maybe 10 and it floored me...literally, I got some pillows and laid on the floor so I could get closer to the tv. After the initial flush of excitement...it stayed with me. What happened there at the beginning? How did the British end up in Africa fighting these grand people...Zulus! Just the sound of it was intoxicating to me...what in the world were the British doing there in the first place, Afridis, Pathans...
When find yourself wounded on the Afghan Plain.
And the women come out to cut up what remains.
Just roll to your rifle and blow out your brains.
And go to your God like a soldier.
What boy could possibly resist that?
Ansar, Ashanti, Fuzzy Wuzzy, Dervish, etc., etc., and big degrees, bigger debt, a bad book habit, awards and offer letters...a Yale bumper sticker and monthly emails from Millsaps begging for money, and baaahhhhh.
The Boy's immediate response was to pull apart a plastic and foam putter...using the shaft as a rifle and handing me the head..."that's your officer gun Daddy." We've been in the Laager ever since.
He's started asking questions though...mainly he wants to know what happened to the Zulu. Of course, I'm happy to indulge in such conversations, especially with my Son...just try and stop me, but....I think we need to throw in a few conversations about individual rights and the centrality of property to those...maybe some law and tax talk..."M"orality and governments, etc. We need a tax lawyer in this family.
Martha did the taxes yesterday...I wish Zulu were all we had to deal with. Evidently having every dime of two months salary is not enough to fend off the yankee governments vampires. We owe 2,000 bucks in income tax..that's not counting scams like social security, the state income tax, sales tax, etc....doesn't include the property tax we pay so we can provide other people with the "right" of a public education...while we fork out thousands to educate our own child...or paying for the mess of a break-in that the cops, the cops we pay for, are too busy writing us tickets to bother with...etc.
Of course, we'll write the check. What else would middle class people do but, continue to take it...we're all to comfortable and settled and civilized to ever make a ruckus. Right? Just keep piling it on...surely we won't balk. Besides, it's all for the U.S.A of Ameeerika...and none of can resist the hypnotic power of the striped rag.
On second thought, maybe The Boy should just stick with the rifle.
Don't they say that nothing is certain but death and taxes? Our son thought Zulu was great when he first saw it, but luckily he was old enough to play it with his friends and not involve us....
ReplyDeleteI don't mind wavin around the pistol with him...it's fun.
ReplyDeleteAs his commanding officer I have ordered him, for his own good, not to try and bayonet his Moma again...:).
Sigh, taxes make me sad. Especially when my refund is lower than expected, WOMP WOMP.
ReplyDeleteOur goal is to zero out or, owe a little bit...they get enough our money.
DeleteThey don't need to hold any of it interest free.
I feel a rant coming on...Taxes... just a wee matter of the "social contract"... we are content to pay when we think it produces a civilised and cohesive society we are glad to be part of. It's when that society doesn't match our own aspirations that we resent contributing. Me? This left-winger would pay more - and no, I am not Warren Buffet...
ReplyDeleteYou pay for a private education for the wee one? We never have - but our comprehensive state system provides good high quality schools. There are no "private" Universities...
The private schools - like the private medicine and hospitals - are parasitic and a drain on the state. They don't train their own staff (the state does that and bears the expense), they cherrypick the best or the easiest, least expensive cases...
Maybe we are just fortunate here in Scotland. But social cohesion and stability depends upon the distribution of taxation proceeds... And a more equal the society (in terms of life choices, income distribution and etc) is a happier healthier society...
Zulu... I remember...classic British colonialism at its film best...in my house we rooted for the Zulus...
The boys were split on who to root for...if you put a gun to my head I'd throw in with the Red coats. Some foes make it easier than others. The Zulu were imperialists too...and strong ones. In fact the Bantu (xhosa, zulu, etc) and British (the Dutch and the pesky Boer) really sort of collided into one another over Koi and San territory.
DeleteMy studies focused so much on the sorta work-a-day imperialists (low ranking officers and officials) and their interaction with local population that my own view of the Empire is skewed toward the cosmopolitain nature of the enterprise...my reflexive response is to see these different peoples as parts of a whole....rather than in conflict. Even when they were fighting. I amire and despise them all equally.
As for the social contract...nobody ever asked me to signed one....and I certainly would not have at two and a half month's salary....probably be three by the end of the year. No ma'am. :)
I would never say never until you've lived in Hinds county. Though I do know some People who make an ideological point out of sending their kids to public schools. Rock on.
Of course, setting aside ideology, When it comes to this stuff...we are in two different universes. The way things are structured would probably be unrecognizable to you...in practice.
You are right e.f. - I just find it hard to think myself into that space. What you describe is different - foreign. We may share a language - but our cultures could not be more different. Tax is deducted at source here - for employees through Paye (Pay as you earn). In general terms, basic rate tax is 2o% (earning under £34370) mid rate is 40% (all earnings between £34371 and £150000) and 50% for anything above. On top we have National Insurance (really another tax) roughly 13.8%. On top of that VAT at 20% on most purchases (except most foodstuffs and childrens clothes). Council Tax (property related tax) averaging over £140 per month per household. Then Capital Gains and.... you get my drift. The thing that most pisses me off? Rich folk who have the cash to find tax avoidance schemes.
DeleteI can understand your perspective on the "Empire" and colonial powers. Its a bit schewed here - there are some Scots who believe they are the colonised and repressed and exploited poor English relative... Politics, eh.
I've come over all soapbox... I've had a too serious day...apologies...!
Just a quick stop east of Edinburg....lots to talk about here but, for the moment, don't apologize or hesitate to express your opinions on these matters. I know you're a pinko :) and you are free to be you here...don't think twice about it.
DeleteAre there really only gov. Controlled universities and colleges in Scotland?
DeleteI really didn't know that.
I'm butting in here, but to my knowledge there are only 2 private universities in the whole of the
DeleteUnited Kingdom and one of those has only just been set up in London. The rest get some of their funding from the government and the rest from fees and donors and they manage their own affairs.
That's not an entirely unfamiliar set-up. Even a lot of private universities use gov funds. Those dollars come with strings though. Even state universities charge tuition.
DeleteI found this parody trailer for a film of almost the same name based on a book by one of those insufferable so-called wunderkinds of the NY literally scene ... the Hogwarts reference is particularly amusing.
ReplyDeletehttp://youtu.be/fNV8JGyiQuA
The only reason I used the title is because it sounds like a movie I'd want to watch.
DeleteI blush to admit it, but I saw Zulu at the cinema when it was first released!
ReplyDeleteSP
A social contract works both ways and as far as I can tell, all Americans get out of yours is that goods, non-professional services and some real estate are cheap, while taxes remain quite high, all put together and compared to other places. I'd resent the level of taxation there too.
ReplyDeleteHow little tax I pay in Australia offends my pinko sensibilities but at least I know as I rattle along the pot-holed roads, pay tolls everywhere, and plan to emigrate before my children are school age so I don't have to choose between defying my pinko morals and sending them to private school and sending them to a public school where they'll get beat up and neglected - at least I know I'm getting my lack of money's worth.
You know, since you pushed my interest into the colonial period, I have read a good deal (both non-fiction and cheesy fiction) yet I think I have them summarised.
ReplyDeleteEvery single war for a hundred years seems to boil down to some upper class rich tit trying to make a name for himself abroad and the government doing its damnest to keep out of it and save cash, but not look weak... hmm, In fact, I think that was every war we have been in bar WW2.
Hmm, I got the boy a pressie I made him, reckon he was a bit young, but you started this thing, so I guess I'm gonna have to save up and git it sent over. You just tell, him Lieutenant-Colonel Adamparsons his C-in-C sent it.
I want to watch Zulu now.
DeleteI have lots to say to all of you but...because I can't smoke in this d**** room (what is the point of being on the road if I can't smoke a few indoors for a change) I can't do it...I'd end up going down stairs three times for every paragraph.
DeleteFreaking Starkville...a bong in every house but you can't smoke a square in a hotel room.
Tomorrow clowns...tomorrow.
Damn, I make the boy an awesome present, and one you'll play with more than him I'll warrant, and suddenly I get called a clown... jess thats gratitude for ya!
DeleteI hope someone was playing led zeppelin loud on loop in the next room, just to add that touch of something to your evening.
You get a big thanks (that actually occurred to me after I posted the quick response last night but I was too...what would ap call it...knackered to post again) and you are my favorite clown.
DeleteI'm yet another pinko Brit, happy to pay my share of taxes towards what I still like to think of as an imperfect but broadly cohesive society from which I take out as well as put in. I don't have kids, but certainly don't begrudge my taxes going towards educating other people's - at the end of the day we should all benefit from knowing that the generation coming up behind us are literate and numerate (although education per se is declining in value here, as the UK becomes ever-more dumbed down and mindlessly individualistic; the rot began in the 80s with a certain female politician.).
ReplyDeleteLike Mujer Libre, it's the ones who can amply afford to pay their fair share but who go through contortions to avoid doing so, who really piss me off.
And I've never seen 'Zulu'.
Couple of things just for clarification...so y'all know where I'm coming from but, before that...EVERY DIME OF MY AND MARTHA'S SALARY FOR TWO MONTH'S HAS GONE TO THE YANKEE GOV...WE'VE JUST BEEN POPPED FOR TWO GRAND MORE...JUST IN FEDERAL INCOME TAX! Just had to get that off my chest one more time before proceeding :).
ReplyDeleteI'm at the opposite end of the spectrum. I am a Libertarian with a very narrow definition of liberty. My time, efforts, and money are mine...with all the risk that entails. I like harmony and financial security but, for me they are secondary concerns. Equality before the law is essential to liberty...beyond that I don't even know what it means.
I despise qualified rights...like public education. Though I am loath to do it, I'll point out that I'm not against, nor do i deny the corporate benefits of, an educated populace. I just don't don't see how being beneficial translates into being a "right"....meaning we will seize your property and put you in jail if you don't pay for it.
That's a general point about qualified rights...and I can't get down with that and I don't care how it's structured I find it morally objectionable but, just for fun...here's how it works for us. We pay for schools locally...our property taxes (arbitrarily assed bynthe way...we just get a letter in the mail that says you now owe 100 dollars more a month...regardless of the actual value of your property. You see more of your money means better schools which will raise your property value...you see squierrely this is) pay for the schools in the district where we live...yet they are run in large part by national teachers unions and federal guidelines.
Surprise! This system is an abysmal failure.
I'm curious as to how you define liberty. Was that just the "equality before the law" thing? I'm guessing not, since in theory anyways, anybody with your income would be taxed "equally". . . I assume, and correct me if I'm wrong, the libertarian ideal is that each person in a society is free to be agents for themselves without question or interference or obligations to others within the society.
DeleteFor me the moral question there, however, is sugggested by you not knowing what liberty is outside of whatever your strict definition is. In a society where each person is free to use their own agency as best they might, what does that actually mean?
For example, if a child with some aptitude and ambition doesn't go to school because his (or, more realistically if we look at the states where free obligatory education isn't available, her) parents can't afford or don't want to afford it, does that child have the opportunity to use her agency for herself without question or interference? Isn't that child utterly subject to the wishes and priorities of her parents despite being a discrete person with the 'liberty' to exercise her own agency? Can an illiterate person be a free agent? My belief is that it is nearly impossible to have agency in such a situation, and my moral belief is that preventing the damage to the illiterate person's 'liberty' is worth the damage done to my 'liberty' when the government garnishes my paycheque (which, even though I don't live in a libertarian society, I used my agency to negotiate with the knowledge that it would be garnished).
On a less moral level comes the question of practical existence in an industrialized and/or modern economy. I assume you wouldn't be the sort of person who believes that the governments of developed countries offer free education up to university level to try to be "nice", or just to exercise their power to keep their hands in your pocket. There is a question of simple necessity that is far more significant than moral arguments along the lines of "from each what he can, to each what he needs" or "what's mine is mine, what's yours is yours".
Around a century ago holders of capital had the 'liberty' to circulate it with minor interference, at least within the industrialized societies, and the result of that was the mass creation of welfare states, because the social conditions the 'liberty' of capital produced were dangerous and untenable for all concerned - including the private holders of capital.
And what do you think would be the consequences for you and your family if you had, say, an extra $20,000 a year and lived in a society wherein a great mass of the population was illiterate and innumerate? How would your feelings about your wife have been different if she had had parents who chose not to educate her? How easily would your son eventually find a partner he could talk to about things involving letters and numbers? Do you think having an extra $20,000 a year would let you prepare adequately for your old age, medical emergencies, and the prices medical practitioners could command if even orderlies had had to pay for a private education from their childhood?
I guess the ideal vision of a libertarian society is one where enough parents make good choices for their children that you DON'T have a mass of people who are illiterate and innumerate, generation after generation after generation, and a critical enough mass of people have the drive and ambition to provide products and services that those products and services are not prohibitively expensive. It's not a bad vision in itself but I find it as unrealistic and idealistic - and potentially misery-inducing - as full-fledged communism.
The other thing is...the differences in economic world view for lack of a better term. Our economy is largely a service economy. Most people are involved directly with the dollars they make. Martha (and for once I'm glad she doesn't really read the blog...she's in a very rude mood right now) works in financial planning and insurance for an individual...commission, my Daddy worked in insurance...commission, my brother -in-law works in real estate...commission, lawyers working on billable hours, accounts in private firms, restaurant owners, etc. I am a broker...I work to get products into distribution and then try and convince the operator, the owner, to use them.
ReplyDeleteWhen I leave an account I know what the operator can make off the product, what the manufacturing rep will make, and how much I've made for the company, etc. It's a very direct relationship with the process of turning one dollar into two. We don't work for people that have annual budgets...we have to create the money we're paid. Part of my last job was figuring out burden costs for the employees we would hire for a new account...we can do the job for x, we can pay the employee y, to do that will cost us z.
That coupled with the fact that we don't have a history with manufacturing and industry...not much of one. Unions have next to zero cultural presence...Birmingham Alabama and the steel industry. Maybe the shipbuilders on the coast. So the adversarial relationship between owner and worker doesn't really resonate generally speaking. "I was looking for a job when I found this one" is a common saying...the sentiment being if I don't like it I'll leave and deal with the consequences but, you don't own me so I ain't beggin for nothin'.
You don't have to cross the ocean to find people that have a very different outlook...just cross the Ohio River. Which is one of many reasons it's insane to keep trying to jam us into the same political body.
It's funny with the blog...the active readership is mostly pitchfork wielding commies while the silent readership is mostly cold blooded reactionaries. I love all y'all and you are all free to express yourselves without hesitation here...so long as all of you have seen Zulu. That is a requirement for readership
Oh, fascinating conversations and perhaps I really should add my twopenneth (minus tax) but I think so much has already been said, so wisely and so much better than I could too - so I shall just keep to the one burning question which has been bugging me since first reading this post... And that is: is there a story behind you calling your cat Mary-Cathcart?!! I'm dying to know! - but, hopefully, unlike a cat, my curiosity won't kill me...
ReplyDeleteWe wanted to give the cat a good Southern name...Mary plus Martha's (who isn't actually named Martha by the way) maiden (now her middle name) name.
ReplyDeleteShort of calling the cat Scarlet O'Hara or Dixie you can't get much more Southern that formula.
Have you seen Zulu C.?
P.S. I am dying to deal with the issue of reaching under the bed...if I can ever catch a break from working for the public. :)
Well, that's a great formula and a great name for a cat! You know, I actually googled it in case I was missing something. I found a classic painting of a(nother) Mary Cathcart, but had trouble making any feline connections... As for Zulu - I have a feeling my parents took us to see that at the cinema one time. We were also taken to see such greats as 'The Battle of Waterloo' and 'Cromwell' on the big screen. But I know that sounds like I had a deprived childhood, so I should add we did also get to see favourites such as the 'Herbie' films and 'Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory' :-)
DeleteBest name ever...We know a girl named Mary-Herschel.
DeleteWaterloo...Rod Stieger and Christopher Plummer...awesome. The only problem is that the lack luster response seems to have killed Stanley Kubricks plans to make a movie about Napoleon.
The best movie about the imperial war movie bar none is Tony Richardson's Charge of the Light Brigade.
Jess...
ReplyDeleteMy open mindedness is being put to the test by Pirates! I've just managed to get to my room after a ten hour day (a portion of which was spent as a slave) and I have to deal with you reds! And your assertions that I should be less uppity in my servitude. :)
You can't see it but i'm giving you all a big raspberry...
I've also just been accused, by association, of being an anarcho-capitalist...I like that...and been dismissed as a Neo-confederate...damn right! That was by a "conservative" republican radio host.
Anyway...the answer to most of these questions is implied in the above but, MARTHA'S always giving me a hard time about assuming an unjustified level of clarity for the expression of my thoughts. So...
Liberty...my time, my efforts, my life, are mine. By that I don't mean to Hell with everybody else, quite the opposite...your possession of your life is just as precious. What I mean is that any discussion of how we should organize ourselves should have that as it's guiding principal. Nobody owes anybody anything..nobody has a right to anything that has to be provided by someone else's time, efforts, etc. Obviously it follows that the further a government gets away from the individual....the more problematic it becomes.
One of the things that can cause problems in these discussions is an assumption that everybody wants the same results...I have no thoughts on results. The only result I'm concerned with is the maximization of liberty as described above.
I'm not stupid...I know that bad results are bad results and good results are better but, i'm not aware of any system that's produced predictable results...except that currupt people find a way to be corrupt, people under pressure find angles to work...and I've never seen one that produced equality.
In other words, I'm not predicting utopia if everyone would just agree with me...for once damn it. On the other hand I don't believe people would eat rotten meat If the government didn't tell them not to. An educated populace is a good thing...and I don't think people would ignore the benefit without the government waving a gun in their face to remind them.
As an aside, I'm sure I haven't presented my self as an overly generous person but, I would hope that over these years of blogging I have not given anyone the impression that I am stingy and mean. I don't want my personal feelings about generosity to be confused with what I feel my legal obligation should be.
What I mean by equality before the law is simply that if 65 is speeding it's speeding for rich and poor alike. That's all.
Capital 100 years ago? The capital around here was dirt...that's how you got Tabasco on your table. ( quick aside...there's a curious habit in the teaching of American history. You have the war between the States and then you fast forward to the progressive movement with unions and all that up north. There's no talk of reconstruction or the role the war played in the industialization of the Midwest). You got blues, rocknroll and country music because Europeans like to kill one another and it takes a lot of cotton to do that.
Sue me for being opaque...I'm running out of steam here and you people are relentless for my money. I'm almost ready to offer up myself to the firing squad..guilty of exploitation and privilege...even though I come from poor crackers.
"I'm not stupid...I know that bad results are bad results and good results are better but, i'm not aware of any system that's produced predictable results...except that currupt people find a way to be corrupt, people under pressure find angles to work...and I've never seen one that produced equality."
DeleteAnd I've never seen a pig that could butcher, cure and fry itself for breakfast, but they're still better to eat than bean curd. How's this for predictable results: the states that come closest to what I'd describe as functional equality, in the sense of a degree of social mobility that looks like a meritocracy over multi-generational time, all have three things in common.
They're relatively small in population terms (or at least the administrative units within them are). There are lots of *enforced* rules (with the consequence that internal corruption indicators are low; laws, as you alluded to, are enforced with a more even hand than most of us are used to). They also all feature free and obligatory education until the late teens, and I believe they all also subsidize university education.
This goes beyond a political discussion, this sort of thing, because the states in question exist. And they run the gamut from downright corporatist to raving pinko, and the taxation gamut from minimal to massive. In fact, this sort of thing forces us to take off political scientist hats and our cynical hats, and put on our historian hats and look at things that have actually happened.
I think that's why you've touched a nerve, talking down public education. Having a belief in people's time, efforts and life being their own combined with taxation and public education being managed very poorly in your jurisdiction isn't really an argument against taxation and public education, so much as an argument for it not to be done poorly. Not when the evidence points to a well-run taxation and public education system being fundamental in the states whose citizens have the most freedom to use their time, efforts and life on their own terms.
A disclaimer: my paternal family was at least as poor as poor crackers, my guess is considerably poorer, and my father had to leave school as a child because of family pressures (some of his sisters spent even less time in school). He used his time and efforts to become literate as a young adult in night classes, which were subsidized. My mother, who is middle-class, wouldn't have selected a long-term illiterate mate, even one like Dad who looked like Elvis's better looking brother, so I confess to having a bit of an interest in the question, my existence having depended on it. Now my father pays whopping great Canadian taxes. He complains about it, but he pays, and a damn sight more than he could have if he hadn't been able to access subsidized education.
Now hand over your wallet and bow to the inevitable Leviathan. No raspberries and smiley faces for you, you cog in the infernal machine.
My uncle used to get a real kick out talking about his old girlfriends in front of my cousin, his daughter...because she would immediately come to the defense of her mother and say something nasty about the old flame.
DeleteHe'd laugh and tell her to watch her mouth..."that woman could have been your mother."
I don't know how much more direct I can be about this one Martha...I am not making an argument...I am making a moral statement.
In fact I know at some point I said...I don't care how it's structured but, for fun here's how it works for us...
I don't see how just because something is beneficial I should be forced to participate...or that because something is beneficial The gov. has to do it.
I want to shut the machine down...sell it off for parts on the black market. How can any Pirate not want in on that action?
Pirate! My aunt fanny.
Plllllllllllllllllll!
Fair enough, and lucky for you since at this point I think the system you're living in is already being sold for parts.
DeleteJust don't come crying to the pinkos when the ninjas use their agency to come get you in a post-structural world. We'll be too busy arguing over who gets to hold the clipboards while everybody else labours. Not to mention how to blow YOUR hard-earned money on caviar and capitalist-baby-pie.
Anyways, I think you're mixing up "beneficial" and "expedient". I guess you could do a word swap and ask why governments should have to do things that are expedient, but I don't know why you would. That's sort of like asking why rabbits would enjoy carrots when they can just piss off and die instead.
As for you, it's all consensual, you being forced to pay into "beneficial" programmes, you know. If you wanted to opt out of your social contract, which I agree is a remarkably crap one, it'd take about two weeks to get permanent residency here and to start enjoying the teeny tiny taxes. You're white and speak English, right? Done. Just remember, it's Australia and it sucks. It sucks worse than taxes.
You ma'am are confusing "expedient" with "imperative" and rabbits with human beings...typical, typical.
DeleteI think you're starting to pull my leg now :).
As for this business of a consensual social contract...it's as laughable to an unreconstructed Southroner as Pax Britannica was for our Zulu friends.
It may, in fact it is my hope that it does, come to leaving...but, we ain't goin nowhere.
I can only wish you and your Ninjas luck trying tryin come in here and tell people what to do...the last bunch that tried that left in frustration and did their ,best to forget our existence...until they needed us to fight yet another war of "liberation."
Your constant moaning about Australia is not going to quiet the pinko guilt your feeling for having moved half way round the world to avoid Canadian taxes.
Obviously, I am pulling your leg at this point :).
There's supposed to be smilie after that last comment and another raspberry.
ReplyDeleteAdam. You and your generosity and thoughtfulness (take a picture I'm being unfacetiously nice here) and interesting points about imperial wars have not been forgotten here....it's just hard to type with one hand on my wallet.
ReplyDeleteWe'll start a full on imperial post shortly.
I'll look forward to it. I find myself interested but a bit null about other the other conversations going on here, you know I have some random sympathies here. I have mixed feelings about political attitudes and stances (health care aside). It stems from a level of Mysanthropy really. I can be very philathropic, but think our intrinsic characteristics will inevitably create situations where some humans will act a certain way, and any system will be rendered corrupt and faulted. At what point you try to correct this, facilitate solutions, or let the whole thing run totally free, I can never decide. Generally, I'd consider myself distrustfull of organisations, with some pinko sentiments... an unusual combination I grant you, but then again it is me. :-)
DeleteMs. Jessica's been a good sport and carried the load for the pinkos...a burden which she bore with magnanimous dignity...her only complaint being that it wasn't heavier and carried on behalf of more people.
ReplyDeleteJoin me in the call to let it run wild Adam...you know you want to...set it free...everyday will be like Space Mountain!
Finally off the road for a day or two (looks like New Orleans is next on my hit list)...maybe we can get to our Victorian friends.
Phew....! There has been a lot going on here in my absence...
ReplyDeleteQuestion - as a Christian, do you think Christ was a Pinko or a True Blue Capitalist?
(I did a dissertation on that one...)
PS like the cat name e.f.
Ding! Ding!
ReplyDeleteI suppose I won't be getting a Championship Belt when all this is over but, I do want one thing...I want credit for singlehandedly reviving the pejorative Pinko in the Western conscience.
Let me say this again...and again I am loath to do so but, I think it's fair considering this thing is now longer than Hiawatha...I am talking about my legal responsibilities.
For what it's worth I take my responsibilities as a Christian seriously. I'm not going to be tacky and talk about how we as a family meet those but, we understand what's expected of us...neither of us is very stingy by nature anyway.
What I reject is one person's "right" to the time and efforts of another.
As for Christ...my guess is he'd be a theocrat. In fact, it seems illogical that God could be anything else :).
I've seen some bumper stickers recently that say "God is not a Republican." I don't know...it had never occurred to me that might be.
I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on it though...especially since you've already done the leg work.
As for Mary-Cathcart....if you google the name, as C did...and scroll down a little ways, you'll see her sprawled across the couch.
Haha e.f. - you make me smile.
ReplyDeleteI see generosity and caring in all that you say on this blog - and even generosity of spirit when responding to people. So you are down as a good guy in my book. (just politically challenged) (said with a wink and a smile).
The proper answer is too long but it boils down to "he is a pinko". (surprised?? - bet not...)
“But the poor person does not exist as an inescapable fact of destiny. His or her existence is not politically neutral, and it is not ethically innocent. The poor are a by-product of the system in which we live and for which we are responsible. They are marginalized by our social and cultural world. They are the oppressed, exploited proletariat, robbed of the fruit of their labor and despoiled of their humanity. Hence the poverty of the poor is not a call to generous relief action, but a demand that we go and build a different social order.”
― Gustavo Gutiérrez
“The God of Exodus is the God of history and of political liberation more than he is the God of nature.”
― Gustavo Gutiérrez, A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics, and Salvation
Christ is calling us all to build a different social order - he is leading out of repression and ending inequality.
Read Leonardo Boff. Sobrino or Segundo. Or the work of the black liberationists. Christ is a revolutionary - overturning the tables of the pharisees and seeking to give voice to the dispossessed (Isa 61-1).
I'm an interested atheist. Religion fascinates me. But Christ was a real man (that is the bit that my tricky child cannot understand - he cannot accept the historicity of Christ whilst I cannot accept that the human Christ was anything other than human). And he was a man preaching liberation from oppression - bringing a message of social transformation...
Come on now councillor...except for the flattery. We love flattery...in fact, we wish we could use coercive force to demand flattery from everyone. We deserve it.
ReplyDeleteI need primary source material for this one...not secondary ideological sources. You gonna have to show me in scripture where Jesus advocates for using the gov monopoly on the legitimate use of force to confiscate the property of one person and give it to another.
I will grant you this...I will sign on for any system, if you can get God to run it. :)
I know the primary source cannot offend - so forgive me quoting from the synoptic gospels.
ReplyDeleteChrists attitude to the rich and to the need to give away possessions - Matthew 19:16-24 (see also Mark 10:17-25 and Luke 18:18-25) -
16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 17 And he said unto him, Why do you ask me about what is good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. 18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, 19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? 21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. 22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. 23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. 24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
This is a Christ who is unambiguously stating that you must redistribute your possessions - give away your belongings - else there can be no salvation for the rich man.
And there is more (googe refused to post it in one-go)...
DeleteMatthew 25:31-46 - Christ identifies with the hungry, the poor and the sick, and states that good or evil done upon "the least of [God's] brethren" is evil done to God himself. Jesus is saying not only that individuals are to be judged by their treatment of the needy but also that nations are judged on the basis of their economic systems:
31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory; 32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats; 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35 For I was hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in; 36 Naked, and ye clothed me; I was sick, and ye visited me; I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. 41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink; 43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in; naked, and ye clothed me not; sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. 44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungered, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment; but the righteous into life eternal.
The most interesting of the scriptural sources for me is -
Leviticus 25:35-38: "If one [...] becomes poor [...] help him [...] so he can continue to live among you. Do not take interest of any kind from him, but fear your God [...] You must not lend him money at interest or sell him food at a profit. I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt to give you the land of Canaan and to be your God." and Acts 4:32-35, "All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had [...] there were no needy persons among them [...] the money [...] was distributed to anyone as he had need." As well as Acts 2:42-47, "They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching [...] to the breaking of bread [...] everyone was filled with awe [...] all the believers were together and had everything in common [...] they gave to anyone as he had need. Every day they [...] ate together with glad and sincere hearts [...] " This is the Law of Moses. That means it is a commandment. Therefore communal property is compulsory. Not voluntary. It is a fundamental prerequisite to Christian grace...
Christ the Red. Christ the true Communist. Believing in communal possession. Not individualistic dog-eat-dog capitalism...
There is something very strange about an atheist using the bible to argue a theist into socialism...
DeleteHaha.
"You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me."
DeleteWould - yes it would - be churlish of me to point out that: "Only letters I need are U S A!" takes more than the three linguistic units - two consonants: "U", "S", together with the single vowel "A" - to articulat in a well - let alone half-arsed - formed semantic combination; never mind form the notional content of that thought?
ReplyDeleteYou are the only person I know who can make a joke funnier by explaining the punchline.
DeleteThe wealthy man...obviously this is not a spot to say "Jesus" doesn't say the rich have an obligation to the poor. Fortunately, I'm not arguing any such thing. Though, I think the man's wealth is emphasized for another and more important reason...having to do with the Jewish belief in a corallation between material wealth and Heavenly favor...in short, Not even this man is going to heavan. Putting all that aside...there's no call here for the man to go out and confiscate the property of others.
ReplyDeleteThe communal passage...we are constantly being reminded, and for good reason, of our communal responsibilty to one another. We are members of a living body, the Church...and we are responsible for it's health. Yet, I've never heard a call from the pulpit...nor do I see one here to force people into doing anything.
I'm not trying to be a pain in the butt here or play semantic games...there is a serious issue having to do with the nature of sin, where the responsibity for sin lies and how the problem of sin is to be solved. We see this in the issue of national salvation...or salvation through economics.
Let's set aside for a minute the ambiguities of a term like nation.
Take my own example here...the IRS has assigned a certain amount of generosity to me and Martha...but, obviously I resent it.
Is my sin covered because I have been forced to be generous? Or do I still have an issue because in my heart I'm "stingy"? Think about it in light of what Jesus said about adultry and lust.
I think a nation full of greedy people is doomed (do I have to point out again that I'm not trying to turn greed into a virtue?)...but, it can't be saved by forcing people to be generous.
There's no salvation in violently converting South American natives to Christianity or starving to death Ukranian farmers.
Just back from the South... after a weekend of FUN.
ReplyDeleteYou know - this is meat and drink to me e.f. - I live to debate and argue and discuss and...basically I am a pain in the arse to the power N and/or I am ODD and/or I am BORING. Which is my polite way of asking - do you want me to quit the heckling? I suspect we will be forever a continent (at least) apart on the above points... neither of which, of course, means there are not plenty other things we can appreciate about the other.
(tho (I obviously suffer argument-OCD) JC is calling you to renounce your attachment to material and to love your neighbour - he is saying (and said repeatedly to his disciples) you have to set aside your worldly desires and to trust in Him to provide. He is saying that the poor are closer to Him than the rich. As for SIN - the bible tells you that He will forgive sin for which you REPENT. You can act - outwardly - as a "Christian", but if you aint feeling it in you heart and soul then you will not get into Heaven...)
I don't find you to be any of those things and I don't mind this discussion at all.
DeleteThough I would like to point out...just in case it's been forgotten in the hoopla, I never challenged anybody to an argument or, as far as I can tell, ever made an argument in the first place. For the better part of a week I have been defending an unfalsifiable statement. I don't like the amount of money confiscated from my check...that's not arguable :).
I've tried to be good natured about all this and I've treaded lightly not wanting to be an ungracious host but, you lunatics need to know...in my neighborhood certain pleasantries and courtosies are expected before a man is lectured in his own front room...you savages :).
I don't disagree with what you're saying above. Where I'm having a problem...and forgive me if I'm repeating myself but, where do find Jesus advocating the seizure of property?
That Jesus demands we give freely is indisputable..."love thy neighbor as thyself." I just don't see this as a justification to use the force of government to redistribute wealth.
As an aside...the issue of sin. Sure I want to go to heaven but, sin poses a problem for the here and now...a kind of philosophical problem that I would think theist, atheist, agnostic, barely conscious, and all would be curious about. Why do we do things we know are wrong. I'm going to go out on a limb and say we all do it...I think even Adam has done the wrong thing maybe once...maybe. He may be the exception.
You would never answer 4 + 4 = 5 and yet we do it all the time morally.
Thats the problem with socialism, at its furthest reaches, what is going on in your own front room does become peoples business, and that is the bit that don't sit well with me either. For what it worth, I don't like paying taxes either.
Delete"Why do we do things we know are wrong"
Me and thee have been there before as you know, I have observed this more keenly recently that ever. Can't really label it sin from my perspective though, just grade b instincts :)
The present should be in the post soon, waiting on some drying! I'm gonna need to pester you for an address again, 'cos you know I'm shit at that sort of thing. Message the ipad or email is grand.
Also... I am the exception, not sure Emma would agree but she married me so who's fault is that!
To talk of instincts is only to describe the issue. We don't have to call it sin. Let's call it Bono. Even if you take the Christian view of Bono...it sounds very much like instinct. Bono is hardwired in human nature.
DeleteThe fact remains we can recognize Bono for the scourge it is...that's the interesting issue. That we can look beyond it.
We'll leave the rest for later...I'm in a Vidalia Louisiana MackDonalds parking lot.
Sure it describes the issue. If instincts and their emotional stimuli/drives are used to explain the mental behaviour and cognitive processes of an animal, then I can rationalise it. We are experiencing conflicting emotional drives/instincts, both of which have benefits to our development as an individual and/or species, socially or biologically, and we are responding to those. The feelings we get, are balancing out the long term and short term, personal and social consquences. By this logic there ain't nothing more to understand. Doesn't matter if this is infidelity or talking out the rubbish, though the strength of the feedback will naturally vary with these two examples! :-).
DeleteIn this manner Bono is us attempting to label and rationalise this and make more clear cut, something very fuzzy. Bono is tempting because its usually the instinct thats not going to 'win' in a moderate well balanced person, least not most the time, and not over larger issues, but the triggers to respond to that 'desire' are still firing off to get us to do so, leaving the conflict we feel.
Works for me, maybe not for Bono's like you! :-) Git that adress here asap too, before the laager ges broken through!
Well balanced, moderate...where are you getting these judgements?
DeleteI tried to call you today...might have been too late. I'll email tonight or in the morning. I've got to stop at some point.
not a judgement, just searching for some words to express a long term univerally favourable outcome for the creature/species in the fight to thrive and survive. Some animals go all or nothing, sometimes is succeeds, sometimes it fails and they go extinct. We are not ants, like clones, or individual facets of a singular system, we thrive, no more than that, we have unique abilities to adapt, change and think, go off track if you like, as a survival mechanism. However, thats going to throw up spurious behaviour, alongside a genius (the extreme in one direction) your going to get; murderers, rapists. That is not balanced, as the resulting behaviour benefits no one, not even themselves in this system. That is an extreme example of our behaviour, and whilst we may all have the capcity for murder (someone messes with our kids), we have checks that prevent us from indulging this when someone scratches our car for example. Thats all I mean by balanced. Not sure if I got the concept across there, but I'm tired.
DeleteI saw your call, was about 9pm and we were online with headsets on, sorry man! Orcs gotta die :-P
Natetin - JC said that in response to Judas who was criticising Mary (could be Magdalene) who used expensive perfume to annoint JCs feet, rubbing them with her hair. Judas pretended to be thinking about the poor - He said - "Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages." (300 denarii)
ReplyDeleteThis wasn't because he cared about the poor - but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.
JC knew that. His response was out of care and concern and to protect Mary. The statement also cross-references Deuteronomy.
Sleeping yet?
Okay, the posting of that quote was merely a flippant impulse; so I guess it's fair game to call me out on it. Having said that, I don't believe your take on the perfume incident bears the interpretive spin to which you put it. Yes, Judas is supposedly a reformed thief, which, one supposes, qualifies him as being competent at estimating the market value of certain commodities; however, it's an unsubstantiated inferential leap from that observation, to the conclusion that his "past" as a thief lead him to mention the value of the perfume - and the realisation of that value at market would mean the subsequent gains in the coffers entail more monetary power to feed the poor - was a subterfuge whereby he (Judas), instead, would be the beneficiary of said gains.
ReplyDeleteJust because he has history as a thief doesn't automatically justify the claim that he was necessarily prone to picking the "good" purse, unless, of course, there's some other textual evidence to support this elsewhere in the gospels - I am unaware of such evidence, but stand willing to be corrected (I'm afraid the Deuteronomy reference escapes me).
Another story that seems to support the seemingly "unchristian / anti-socialism" actions of Jesus; I paraphrase from memory, is a Mary and Martha story where one of the aforementioned is preparing hospitality for Jesus in the kitchen, while the other chats to him in the lounge and, subsequently, complains to Jesus that this is unfair; to which he says and, again, I paraphrase as the exact words escape me, "she is enjoying the guest".
My point is that, it seems to me at least, a less forced reading suggests Jesus' actions allude more to a "spiritual" truth which rises "above" such concerns of "fairness", "equitable distribution of wealth" or, indeed, the possibility of imminent treachery, and that is the truth of our being - the fact of it - is central and that other concerns are contingent - ever changing; that is not to say they are not important and should not be addressed; rather one should not overlook oneself as a self - an agent in the world responsible to oneself and others.
Now I'm being a dick and going beyond textural justification; however, when Jesus says "I", instead of taking that to refer to himself only, consider how it changes the meaning of his words when you take the "I" or me" to refer to all "I-s" or "me-s"; that is, any one that can refer to themselves.
"You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me."
One is not defined by poverty.
"I am the way."
"Do unto others as you would ..." I take to be a more subtle statement than: if I find it acceptably, then so should others.
My feeling is that Judas could be more appropriately taken for expressing a naive proto-Marxism, when he points out the profits from the sale of the perfume could be more equitably distributed than by wiping JC's feet. And JC's rejoinder is to point out that the focus on the material distribution of goods does not address our fundamental non-material reality; our "presence" if you will.
PS: I don't believe in God or don't don't believe in God, I find the notion of God unintelligible, i.e. I have no idea what it means to refer to God and, therefore, form an opinion on the alleged existence of God ;-O.
At the risk of sounding like a (pancake) tosser - admittedly not an accusation entirely without merit - read Kafka's "The Trial" which takes the literal observation that there is a God-like position from which judgment can be passed and goes on to outline what that would (nonsensically) imply in action.
Just home from a day exploiting the legally unqualified... tiring work.
ReplyDeletenatetin-
The perfume incident - all down to scripture. Not my take - but from John 12, 1-11. Judas, according to John, was a thief known to be taking from the purse. The cross-referencing is of Deuteronomy 15 - i.e. Christ (who is being painted retrospectively as Messiah by the synoptic gospels) is demonstrating his knowledge of the Hebrew scriptures and Gods promise to Israel.
Personally? I am a) a believer (that God does not exist) and b) aware that scripture has been used to justify everything (death, torture...)...
But Jesus did exist. And he was into redistribution in a big way. If you are interested, read about Leonardo Boff etc.
I read The Trial years back - then again, as a judge I am at peace with the idea of passing judgement...
Now I am off to bed - fully aware that I haven't answered anything - but too tired to attempt any more just now.
e.f. - you poor man - you didn't start the argument at all - I think that might have been me...I am seeking your forgiveness...(but laughing as I type).
When you say Jesus did exist, do you know if there are any documents of references to him from the first century AD? A genuine question here, as I have never found anything later, than 3-400 years after his death specifically refering to him, which lets face it, if later Dark Age and medieval histories and mythologies are anything to go by means little. As someone who daily sees evidence from people lives from the past, including requisition orders for under pants on Hadrians wall, I am always baffled about why there is no sign of jesus in some way, shape or form.
Deletesorry - I missed this!
DeleteBut answered via my own blog...
You have a job I envy, Adam. Requisitions for underpants... makes me wonder - boxers or y-fronts?
You are of course in no need of forgiveness...around here anyway :).
ReplyDeleteIf you want to score some points though...get Nat to further expound on his first person God theory.
Nat's one of the few people that strikes me as never wasting a thought...I am at ease with the way his mind works but, this one has always been a little confusing to me.
I'm gonna get back to your place shortly...I just gotta sit for a minute or two. It's been a very long week and a half and I just, for the first time I can remember, took one look in a hotel room and went straight to the desk for a refund.
There's only two things I can imagine happening in that room...one involves a hooker. The other a pistol with one bullet.
Part One
ReplyDeleteIndeed it does say: "He [Judas] did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it." I should further qualify my previous observations - somewhat late in the day - that I just rode roughshod over this without due qualification and, crucially, was careless when I referred "your spin" when I should have said "the spin", since, quite fairly, you were merely pointing out what's in the print. However, I stand by my spin, if one can both spin and stand at the same time. Let me my say right of the bat: I doubt very much the above quote is authentic in the sense that: how did its scribe know what was going on in Judas' mind at the time (bearing in mind the gospels were written up years after Jesus' death)? Also, what is the evidence for this ongoing purse theft in this or in the other gospels. And, finally, why was nothing done about it? - if your concern is for the equitable distribution of wealth, why would you let a thief near it? It would seem odd to take on wider establishment and its greed and hypocrisy, if you can't, don't or wont sort it out in your own back yard?
Apparently Jesus says to Judas:“It was intended [my emphasis] that she [Mary] should save this perfume for the day of my burial." I doubt very much he said any such thing, but, for the moment, let's suppose he did: I guess the "standard" reading would see this as a barely veiled reference to Judas' betrayal and his - Jesus' - subsequent death as a consequence (by the way, if you buy into that, it would also seem reasonable to assume he would know that Judas would regret his actions and commit suicide through the guilt of it (which raises a further suspicion that Jesus is using Judas - his weaknesses - to further this so-called "burial" prophesy, which would seem pretty callous on his part)). Just an afterthought here, because I'm not sure of the chronology: had Judas, at this point, already supposedly “sold out” Jesus or was that to come later? If it was the later, again, it wouldn't it seem doubly cruel not to reach out to Judas? In any case, I see Judas as an essentially tragic figure; not a monster.
Nonetheless, let's move on to what Jesus said next: “You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me.” Doesn't that strike you as an odd thing to say as a follow-up thought to “she should save this perfume for the day of my burial”? Since, by definition, mention of his burial would already suggest that he would not “always be around” and, on top of that, as if to add insult to injury, “Yessiree, but there's always going to be poor people!” Wouldn't it be more in character - indeed, why would Jesus, religious rebel, challenger of convention, suddenly seem entirely comfortable with some “washing of feet convention” - to have that perfume go to help other people – poor people – some of whom, no doubt, would be saved from death's door by the proceeds of its sale? Isn't he all about sharing the love? Note that Jesus does not say Judas is wrong, even if he new he was on the take, not everyone else did – or no one mentioned it – so why didn't Jesus say that was a laudable intention, however … ?
Part Two
ReplyDeleteNow, I am aware that there's a line of reasoning which goes: it was necessary for Jesus to be crucified to save us from our sins, but doesn't that make him merely a pawn of pre-destination? Well, “yes” some say, but that's so he could free us all from sin – wipe the slate clean for the rest of us so-to-speak. The problem I have with this, is that it would suggest, prior to the death of “Christ” - tough luck to those that went before his death and, also, what kind of example is Jesus' life to live by if he was a slave to fate?
What I'm getting at is, the whole framing of this perfume incident as a prefiguring the crucifixion seems to me to be largely backward engineered. So, let's just – for the sake of curiosity – strip the story of all the betrayal-crucifixion connotations and see what's left: Jesus hangs out with his crew at Mary and Martha's who are laying on a “thank-you” spread after the healing of Lazarus and Mary decides to wipe expensive perfume on his feet with her hair. Why does Mary do that? She could have shut up and saved it for herself. It's out of love, it's clearly meant as a special gesture. Then Judas pipes up and says, “Why waste this perfume, we could sell it and give the dough to the poor – right?” Now Mary could have chimed in with, “Hell, yeah, what I thinking” but she doesn't. She could have gone on to say, “Look you guys, I've been thinking, inspired by Judas' words: why are we hanging about here when we could sell everything and devote every living second to the poor? Every passing second is a missed opportunity for a second chance!” She doesn't. Jesus could have beat Judas to the idea of redistribution of the gift, but he doesn't. What is one's duty here – I mean as a human being? Is it not to oneself, as well as others? And if you aren't capable of helping yourself, how can you help others. If you cannot love - respect - yourself, what about anyone else? You will not always be around and nor will the rest of you-s. Mary was acting out of love; so was Jesus – Judas acting from a perceived ideology he had wrongly placed on Jesus.
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
Conversely:
“Do unto you as you would have others do unto themselves.”
Another wise man, Krishnamurti, says, “You are the world” - you are a reflection of the world and the world is a reflection of you.
Socrates says: “Know thyself” - otherwise, how is one to know another?
Got to rush off now!
Natetin - thanks for indulging me and my scripture-addiction.
ReplyDeleteYou are 100% correct - the Gospels were written entirely retrospectively. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not JCs contemporaries. It is fascinating (to me) to note that the Gospel narrative of JCs life is constructed so as to have Christ fulfill the mass of Messiah prophecies and promises that the Jewish Bible made about the Messiah who would come to save the nation of Israel. (the contemporary Jews, in the main, rejected JC's claim that he was their Messiah - hence we have two separate religions from that point on). There is however authority to assert that the parables of Christ etc are authentic - consistency amongst scripture and other extant documents point to authenticity.
Of course there is also the problem that translation from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English also brings... The virgin birth was a famous religious motif in older and contemporary religions of the area. Only two of the gospels tell it - and they even tell it differently from each other.
In relation to the perfume incident and your perfectly plausible paragraph on it - the only thing I can add is the motive figures high in Christianity. You can give to the poor but without purity of motive you are on a hiding to nothing (God can see your motive and will punish those who give with an impure heart).
A Christian world is a distributive world - where property is communal. That is incontrovertible. Of course, distribution is pointless if not done for the "right" reason - with a glad heart and without any thought of self-gain.
You cannot call this distribution "charity" - because charity depends upon inequality and is what the Pharisees (whom Christ came to repudiate) administered.
I am not Christian (or anything remotely religious) - but I support a lot of JC's exhortations - which seem to me the basis of a civilised and caring society.
Thing is, I cannot help but agree with Blaise Pascal. "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
e.f. - the "hire by the hour room" is one I've encountered a couple of times... I was too young and innocent to demand a refund the first time and spent a night on a lumpy stinking mattress, itching and scratching, and jumping at every door slam and tread outside my room. Eventually I wedged a chair against the handle... Never been so happy to get out of a place!
Y'all are killing me with this stuff.
ReplyDeleteI've spent many a night in a King's Cross B&B. When I'm by myself I don't care but, this room was frightening.
At the risk of derailing the conversation, the heated debate between the members of the Ben Affleck fan club....
ReplyDeleteIf Jesus was just a fella...not divine...by what authority does he tell a man to give up his possessions? or to tell a pious man that he is more wretched than a sinner for that matter.
What gives this any of this any authority?
Hahahaha - like it e.f.
ReplyDeleteWhat gives him "authority" is the fact that for the last 2000 years his words have proved the foundation for "the West". Whether I like it or not his philosophy, his ethical and moral stance has formed my world. Makes good sense to recognise this - and to use it...