The Gods--All of them! (Religion)

by dhw, Sunday, December 05, 2010, 13:36 (5102 days ago) @ xeno6696

MATT: Dhw, your high words deserve justice on my part.
Alas, they do not get it. -MATT: Why do we only value our weak gods?
dhw: The god of the Jews, Christians and Muslims is omnipotent, which I do not regard as a sign of weakness.
You then attacked the "meekness" of Christianity, and I complained that this had nothing to do with your question or my answer. Instead of responding to my complaint, you have focused on a mere parenthesis: (Was Christ even a God?) But this won't lead us anywhere, so let's drop it.-MATT: Which is more noble out of Alexander the Great and Jesus Christ ... and why?
I answered Jesus Christ, as I thought his attempts to create a more humane world more noble than Alexander's ambition to conquer the world, and I defined "noble" as a concept that entailed high moral standards.-MATT: What is 'high' standards? To what do you owe these standards? Those you agree with?
That is a fair question, and both of us on a different thread have agreed that there are no objective standards. The most we can hope for is a consensus in each particular society. I took the trouble, though, to give you a list which you have quoted and then ignored, and I asked you a leading question, which you have also ignored. I have no choice but to repeat the arguments:-"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 do not regard altruism, empathy, generosity, charity, considerateness, respect for human life and happiness as marks of weakness."-The direct question which I asked you was whether you consider Hitler ... a "strong leader" who shared many of Alexander's attributes ... to have been a great and noble hero, and if not, why not?-MATT: War. My great break with Buddha. War, if engaged when you feel you are about to be attacked, is mandatory. End of story. Each nation is entitled to its defense.-This was your response to my statements: "I think war should be restricted to self-defence, and is not justified by personal or national ambition." And: "I think confrontation should be avoided except as a last resort (e.g. self-defence)." My statements and your own provide no justification for wars of aggression (viz. Alexander and Hitler).-In your advocacy of what you consider to be the virtues of greed and envy, you pointed out that they are "part of the human character and psyche". I argued that in my view that did not make them great or noble (your terms), and went on: "Lust is also integral to our character and psyche, but I do not regard rape as a great or noble action."-MATT (in response): You seem to equate lust with rape. Why?
Perhaps you are under pressure and are only able to skim these admittedly rather lengthy posts, as I can't believe you're unable to connect my statements, but I must obviously spell the meaning out to you:-If your neighbour steals your most prized possessions (greed), burns down your beautiful house (envy) and rapes your wife (lust), will you defend him by saying that greed, envy and lust are "part of the human character and psyche" and his actions are therefore great and noble?