The Gods--All of them! (Religion)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, December 05, 2010, 05:52 (5100 days ago) @ dhw

Dhw, your high words deserve justice on my part. -> Matt asked me two questions: 
> 1)Why do we only value our weak gods? My response was that the god of the Jews, Christians and Muslims is omnipotent, which I do not regard as being a sign of weakness.
> 2)Which is more noble out of Alexander the Great and Jesus Christ ... and why? I answered Jesus Christ, because I consider his attempts to create a more humane world to be more noble than Alexander's ambition to conquer the world. I also defined "noble" as a concept that entailed high moral standards.
> -What is 'high' standards? To what do you owe these standards? Those you agree with?-> You think I'm "playing coy" or am "somehow childish". I don't know why a direct answer to your questions constitutes coyness or childishness, but I'm happy to discuss the questions you are now raising. However, first I must protest (very mildly and amicably) at the fact that you expect me to read your mind when you ask such questions. Your first one now emerges as an attack on what you consider to be Christ's "weak" teachings, and has nothing to do with "our weak gods". (Was Christ even a god?) Your second requires a discussion on the meaning of "noble" and "great", in which case the question was pointless without definitions. I gave you mine, but you didn't give me yours until now.
>
The question of whether christ was a god is a red herring between us. As defined by christians--wose world we have inherited--christ is god. And my recent rereading of the bible has reiterated that indeed--our culture here in the u.s. is decidedly christian.
 
> So let's look at your understanding of the three key terms in your questions: weak, noble, and great: "all the things we value today are opposite values of those characteristics that demand what we consider to be "strong" leaders; we deny those things (envy, greed) that are necessary to become "great"."
> 
> If you truly believe that greatness and nobility consist in personal ambition, envy, greed, disregard for the lives and wellbeing of other humans, plus (according to one website about Alexander) paranoia, megalomania, belief in his own divinity, and a penchant for murdering his friends, I can't argue with you. I would, however, like to ask if you consider Hitler - a "strong leader" who shared many of the above attributes - to have been a great and noble "hero", and if not, why not? I myself would measure greatness and nobility by the contribution people make to the sum total of human happiness. That may sound weak to you, but I do not regard altruism, empathy, generosity, charity, considerateness, respect for human life and happiness as marks of weakness. Sorry if that sounds sanctimonious. As regards your list, free will and predestination don't enter my definition of "virtue"; I think war should be restricted to self-defence and is not justified by personal or national ambition; "meekness" needs defining, but I'm all for a balance between self-confidence and humility; I think confrontation should be avoided except as a last resort (e.g. self-defence). The fact that ambition, greed, envy etc. are "part of the human character and psyche" does not, in my view, make them great or noble. Lust is also integral to our character and psyche, but I do not regard rape as a great or noble action. 
>-War. My great break with Bhudda. War, if engaged when you feel you are about to be attacked, is mandatory. End of story. Each nation is entitled to its defense.
 
You seem to equate lust with rape. Why?

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"