JK Rowling vs. History

[Belinda]

Well, I would suggest that "imitation" is a bit of a poor metaphor for what's going on. It seems to imply that the "imitator" is just sort of "trying hard" to behave like he or she thinks Christ would, and of course, is falling considerably short on that. It sounds like some kind of mere mimicry, or worse, a call to summon your resources so as to pretend to be Somebody who is far better than you could ever be.

"Try harder" is not the motif of Scripture. It's rather, "Realize the futility of your mere human trying, and appeal to God for relief from what you are; and when He rescues you, you can be better than you would otherwise be."

That's quite a different proposition. The motif is "salvation," not "try harder."

"Try harder" is like yelling at a drowning man to "swim harder."

Imitation is the best anybody can do when perfection is aimed at.

Humanly speaking, yes it is. And it's a failure every time.

Regarding the Doctrine of Salvation, it is not simply and solely a teaching that you only have to do good works, or proper rituals in order to go to Heaven.

It's the opposite, B. It's the teaching that no matter how hard you try, or how many good works you do, it's never good enough to put you into rightful harmony with a perfect and holy God. Or, as a wise woman recently put it to me, "imitation is the best anybody can do when perfection is aimed at." "Imitation" is not good enough.

More importantly it's teaching that humanity is so abysmally horrible that Christ is a personification of the good that some men do and are, which saves us as a species from complete degradation.

"Abysmally horrible"? That seems a bit hyperbolical, doesn't it? Let's just say what the Bible says: marred by "sin."

Man's not a devil, but nowhere near an angel either. He's a creature whose basic purpose is to have fellowship with a perfect God, but who, by way of sin, is not anywhere near where he/she needs to be. We're in a bad state, it's true: but we were created, as Genesis says, "in the image of God."

But "the good that some men do?" Well, the Bible talks about that, in Romans 3, and quoting the Torah, the OT directly, it says,

“There is no righteous person, not even one;
There is no one who understands,
There is no one who seeks out God;
They have all turned aside, together they have become corrupt;
There is no one who does good,
There is not even one.”
“Their throat is an open grave,
With their tongues they keep deceiving,”
“The venom of asps is under their lips”;
“Their mouth is full of cursing and bitterness”;
“Their feet are swift to shed blood,
Destruction and misery are in their paths,
And they have not known the way of peace.”
“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

That would seem to summarize the prospects that "the good that some men do" are going to get us out of anything. And again, in Ephesians, the Bible says, "For by grace you are saved, through faith; and that, not of yourselves. It is the gift of God, not of works..." That, too, would seem to slam the door on any thought that our deeds, or those of other mere humans, are going to bring our "imitations" up to the point where we become fit for company with God.

What the Bible says about that is that if it's ever going to happen, He's going to have to do it. Nobody else even has the potential.

I enjoyed your quotation from Romans 3 .I agree and it would be hard for any adult who reads the media to disagree. Thanks for that.

I also agree that it is now up to God to save us from out own folly and evil.Where we differ is what 'God' is.

The Divine Image
BY WILLIAM BLAKE
To Mercy, Pity, Peace, and Love
All pray in their distress;
And to these virtues of delight
Return their thankfulness.

For Mercy, Pity, Peace, and Love
Is God, our father dear,
And Mercy, Pity, Peace, and Love
Is Man, his child and care.

For Mercy has a human heart,
Pity a human face,
And Love, the human form divine,
And Peace, the human dress.

Then every man, of every clime,
That prays in his distress,
Prays to the human form divine,
Love, Mercy, Pity, Peace.

And all must love the human form,
In heathen, Turk, or Jew;
Where Mercy, Love, and Pity dwell
There God is dwelling too.

[Immanuel Can]

I also agree that it is now up to God to save us from out own folly and evil.Where we differ is what 'God' is.

Yes, I think that's true.

It seems you believe that God is a sort of human artifact: or at least, your reference to Blake seems to reinforce that idea.

Unfortunately for us all, a human artifact cannot "save" us from anything. If God is not a reality, then salvation will never come.


P.S. -- And actually, Nietzsche would agree...and would go the further step of pointing out that every human artifact is devoid of actual authority and warrant, and can be -- and should be -- ignored by the "overman," as soon as it suits him to do so.

[Belinda]

I also agree that it is now up to God to save us from out own folly and evil.Where we differ is what 'God' is.

Yes, I think that's true.

It seems you believe that God is a sort of human artifact: or at least, your reference to Blake seems to reinforce that idea.

Unfortunately for us all, a human artifact cannot "save" us from anything. If God is not a reality, then salvation will never come.


P.S. -- And actually, Nietzsche would agree...and would go the further step of pointing out that every human artifact is devoid of actual authority and warrant, and can be -- and should be -- ignored by the "overman," as soon as it suits him to do so.

WE also disagree about salvation. Salvation from what?

[Immanuel Can]

WE also disagree about salvation. Salvation from what?

Firstly, salvation from the disaster we are bringing on ourselves, politically, environmentally, socially and morally. But that's just at the largest level.
Then, there's salvation from sufferingn, from pain, from sickness, decline, decay and loss. That's there, too.
Thirdly, there's salvation from ourselves. Because God help us, we're not what we ought to be. And we all have plenty of things to repent of in our pasts, even from the time were were young up to the last five minutes.
Finally, there's salvation from death itself.

And any kind of "salvation" that forgets even one of those is a whole lot less than "salvation."

[Belinda]

WE also disagree about salvation. Salvation from what?

Firstly, salvation from the disaster we are bringing on ourselves, politically, environmentally, socially and morally. But that's just at the largest level.
Then, there's salvation from sufferingn, from pain, from sickness, decline, decay and loss. That's there, too.
Thirdly, there's salvation from ourselves. Because God help us, we're not what we ought to be. And we all have plenty of things to repent of in our pasts, even from the time were were young up to the last five minutes.
Finally, there's salvation from death itself.

And any kind of "salvation" that forgets even one of those is a whole lot less than "salvation."

I agree that God(defined as per William Blake) saves us from ourselves being not what we ought to be including our crimes against humanity, crimes against the natural environment,and crimes against the welfare of other animals.

I disagree that God can save us from climate change, pain, death, and loss.
God (defined as per William Blake) can and does help us to have the right attitude to deal with these ourselves.

[Immanuel Can]

I agree that God(defined as per William Blake) saves us ...

Blake's "god" IS, essentially, "man." As such, it can save us from nothing.

Man is his own problem. His greed, callousness, selfishness, lust and cruelty are the things he needs to be saved from. His own mortality is his limit: when he dies, he dies. He cannot save himself from that, either. And you be the judge of how he's presently doing in "saving the world" from himself.

Man is his own problem. He's not his own solution. He can no more get himself out of being himself than he can lift himself by his bootstraps.

[Belinda]

I agree that God(defined as per William Blake) saves us ...

Blake's "god" IS, essentially, "man." As such, it can save us from nothing.

Man is his own problem. His greed, callousness, selfishness, lust and cruelty are the things he needs to be saved from. His own mortality is his limit: when he dies, he dies. He cannot save himself from that, either. And you be the judge of how he's presently doing in "saving the world" from himself.

Man is his own problem. He's not his own solution. He can no more get himself out of being himself than he can lift himself by his bootstraps.

Sometimes people make it happen. Sometimes people create good events.It is these good events that save mankind from degradation.
It is by now obvious that man is not going to save Earth from destruction, but this fact does not cancel out the fact that many people have sometimes been good.

[Immanuel Can]

It is by now obvious that man is not going to save Earth from destruction, this fact does not cancel out the fact that many people have sometimes been good.

The problem is our understanding of the status of the two, good and evil.

"Many people have sometimes been good," you say. Well, many liars, cheats, perverts and murderers have been good -- at least, largely, since everybody sort of lives a vaguely "good" life, and if only to set up victims for their various crimes when they did want to commit them.

What credit do we deserve for being "good"? If the good is only what we ought to be doing anyway, why would we expect special appreciation for finally doing what it was always our minimal duty to do?

But that man is not going to save himself, his neighbour or his planet is by now very clear. There is apparently enough human badness around to produce misery and extinction. So whatever "good" may be found, we'd better be realists, and set it off against that fact.

That's why man needs to be saved. He is not going to save himself. And telling him to "try harder "is merely like yelling to a drowning man to "swim faster."

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

What credit do we deserve for being "good"? If the good is only what we ought to be doing anyway, why would we expect special appreciation for finally doing what it was always our minimal duty to do?

I 'd not use the term 'ought' with regard to doing good. I think of doing good as a species of love . True, love is often a product of hardship and soul- searching, and old- fashioned or modern prayer helps with choosing the good. I think of duty as duty to oneself as well as duty to others. If there were an omniscient Being then He would forgive stupidities and fears, and be delighted with the fruits of courage, reason and ordinary human kindness.

There is apparently enough human badness around to produce misery and extinction. So whatever "good" may be found, we'd better be realists, and set it off against that fact.

But He does not do arithmetic.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel Can wrote:

What credit do we deserve for being "good"? If the good is only what we ought to be doing anyway, why would we expect special appreciation for finally doing what it was always our minimal duty to do?

I 'd not use the term 'ought' with regard to doing good.

Do you think people ought to do things that are indifferent or neutral? Or do you think they ought to do evil?

Of course they ought to do the good, whatever it is. If that's not it, then the word "ought" applies to nothing.

If there were an omniscient Being then He would forgive stupidities and fears, and be delighted with the fruits of courage, reason and ordinary human kindness.

So sins are merely "stupidities and fears," and are totally excusable, you say. Well, I must ask, is genocide merely a case of "fear"? Is rape merely an act of "stupidity"? Is pedarasty unilaterally excusable? And all without any concern for justice in any case?

But "courage, reason and ordinary human kindness" are meritorious, you say -- so wonderful that God Himself ought to be "delighted" with them; though, as above, you insist there's no reason we "ought" to do them?

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

What credit do we deserve for being "good"? If the good is only what we ought to be doing anyway, why would we expect special appreciation for finally doing what it was always our minimal duty to do?

I 'd not use the term 'ought' with regard to doing good.

Do you think people ought to do things that are indifferent or neutral? Or do you think they ought to do evil?

Of course they ought to do the good, whatever it is. If that's not it, then the word "ought" applies to nothing.

If there were an omniscient Being then He would forgive stupidities and fears, and be delighted with the fruits of courage, reason and ordinary human kindness.

So sins are merely "stupidities and fears," and are totally excusable, you say. Well, I must ask, is genocide merely a case of "fear"? Is rape merely an act of "stupidity"? Is pedarasty unilaterally excusable? And all without any concern for justice in any case?

But "courage, reason and ordinary human kindness" are meritorious, you say -- so wonderful that God Himself ought to be "delighted" with them; though, as above, you insist there's no reason we "ought" to do them?

The word 'ought' seems to connote payment of a debt, quid pro quo,and that is what concerns me about it. I prefer a word that includes not counting the cost. God is not a supernatural weighing machine.

I condemn rape, child abuse, and genocide. These acts are caused by stupidity or fear if not actual mental illness or learning difficulty. Sometimes a whole population is infested with stupidity, fear, and delayed moral maturity. I am sure God would know all the causes of so-called "sins".

[Immanuel Can]

The word 'ought' seems to connote payment of a debt,

You're correct. It's a contraction of the expression "owe it."

quid pro quo,

No, debt is one-sided. Quid pro quo is two-sided.

God is not a supernatural weighing machine.

That's odd: I had you pegged as somebody who thought justice was important.

I condemn rape, child abuse, and genocide. These acts are caused by stupidity or fear if not actual mental illness or learning difficulty.

That's what you think? A rapist is somebody who is stupid, a genocidal person is mentally ill, and a child abuser has a learning difficulty?

I'm curious about your strange tendency to magnify good and downplay evil. It's as if you think the former is entirely to the credit of mankind, and the latter utterly excusable. I can't figure out if you think human beings are responsible for their choices or not.

[Belinda]

The word 'ought' seems to connote payment of a debt,

You're correct. It's a contraction of the expression "owe it."

quid pro quo,

No, debt is one-sided. Quid pro quo is two-sided.

God is not a supernatural weighing machine.

That's odd: I had you pegged as somebody who thought justice was important.

I condemn rape, child abuse, and genocide. These acts are caused by stupidity or fear if not actual mental illness or learning difficulty.

That's what you think? A rapist is somebody who is stupid, a genocidal person is mentally ill, and a child abuser has a learning difficulty?

I'm curious about your strange tendency to magnify good and downplay evil. It's as if you think the former is entirely to the credit of mankind, and the latter utterly excusable. I can't figure out if you think human beings are responsible for their choices or not.

If there is a candidate for an objective moral tenet it is take responsibility for own choices. . That does not imply blaming oneself or someone else who has made the wrong choice. Blame is useless and what matters is being better in future and learning from errors when possible. But it does imply praising someone who has made the good choice.

Some choices as you will agree are downright evil and have to be condemned by society and punished by society to express repugnance and condemnation. God, however is not a human judge and knows how even the most revolting criminal fits into His plan.( As you know I don't believe such a Person as God exists, but I do believe if the Absolute is personified it is a useful thought experiment.)

[Immanuel Can]

The word 'ought' seems to connote payment of a debt,

You're correct. It's a contraction of the expression "owe it."

quid pro quo,

No, debt is one-sided. Quid pro quo is two-sided.

God is not a supernatural weighing machine.

That's odd: I had you pegged as somebody who thought justice was important.

I condemn rape, child abuse, and genocide. These acts are caused by stupidity or fear if not actual mental illness or learning difficulty.

That's what you think? A rapist is somebody who is stupid, a genocidal person is mentally ill, and a child abuser has a learning difficulty?

I'm curious about your strange tendency to magnify good and downplay evil. It's as if you think the former is entirely to the credit of mankind, and the latter utterly excusable. I can't figure out if you think human beings are responsible for their choices or not.

If there is a candidate for an objective moral tenet it is take responsibility for own choices. .

Says who?

...it does imply praising someone who has made the good choice.

Why should you "praise" somebody who makes "a good choice"? Surely it's the mininum expectable. And "praise" is only for things that are exceptional; so you must realize that means that good choices are not what the average person makes.

And why should one give "praise," but never condemn evil? That's a pretty skewed equation, for sure.

Some choices as you will agree are downright evil and have to be condemned by society and punished by society to express repugnance and condemnation.

Rightly so. And I think we'd both agree that rape, genocide and child abuse would be among such things. But absent a God, it's not possible to say why those things are wrong. And if and when, as with so many such matters, society forgets how wrong they are, I guess you must suppose they won't be wrong at all.

God, however is not a human judge and knows how even the most revolting criminal fits into His plan.

You make God into a conspirator with wickedness. That's certainly no God I know.

[Belinda]

You're correct. It's a contraction of the expression "owe it."


No, debt is one-sided. Quid pro quo is two-sided.


That's odd: I had you pegged as somebody who thought justice was important.


That's what you think? A rapist is somebody who is stupid, a genocidal person is mentally ill, and a child abuser has a learning difficulty?

I'm curious about your strange tendency to magnify good and downplay evil. It's as if you think the former is entirely to the credit of mankind, and the latter utterly excusable. I can't figure out if you think human beings are responsible for their choices or not.

If there is a candidate for an objective moral tenet it is take responsibility for own choices. .

Says who?

...it does imply praising someone who has made the good choice.

Why should you "praise" somebody who makes "a good choice"? Surely it's the mininum expectable. And "praise" is only for things that are exceptional; so you must realize that means that good choices are not what the average person makes.

And why should one give "praise," but never condemn evil? That's a pretty skewed equation, for sure.

Some choices as you will agree are downright evil and have to be condemned by society and punished by society to express repugnance and condemnation.

Rightly so. And I think we'd both agree that rape, genocide and child abuse would be among such things. But absent a God, it's not possible to say why those things are wrong. And if and when, as with so many such matters, society forgets how wrong they are, I guess you must suppose they won't be wrong at all.

God, however is not a human judge and knows how even the most revolting criminal fits into His plan.

You make God into a conspirator with wickedness. That's certainly no God I know.

God can't be a conspirator with evil because good is the default and evil is absence of good.

Indeed and it is skewed that you should praise good and not blame the person who is evil. You blame the evil act but not the person who committed the evil act.You praise the good act and the person for making the better choice. At the least this skewedness produces better results than punishments such as prisons and floggings.