|Latest||First||Next||Previous||About This Site (and me)||Home page||Table of Contents||Contact|
You Want The Messiah? You Canít Handel The Messiah
Following on from the previous post on the subject, in this post, I discuss the logical inconsistencies of species survival and a messianic era.
I suppose the first question we have to answer is:
What does a messianic era entail?
We have all sorts of ideas about that. Abstract concepts such as peace and harmony and tranquillity are frequently bandied about, as are notions such as "the lion will lie with the lamb" (gee, bestiality and paedophilia, sounds charming!). Seriously, when is the only time that happens? In death. At all other times, it is an unsustainable proposition. The lion must eat or die (despite what Disney cartoons might suggest) and I donít think that Lambert the Sheepish Lion announces the advent of a messianic era. Letís assume that a messianic era is underlined by the basic philosophy, "Be excellent to each other Ė and party on dude."
Under that assumption, forcing people to do so means that they lose their free will to choose good and evil, which is a death to humanity. But even that not withstanding, there is no black and white. There is no absolute good and absolute evil. Everything has tradeoffs. What happens if you have a choice between saving an individual or preventing a possible catastrophe? On the one hand you can chose to save one individual from certain death, but a catastrophe might occur. On the other hand, if you try to avert the catastrophe, the individual is dead. Which is the right answer? Neither. In both cases you have let something bad happen which you could have averted. Unless people are no longer people, the brother of the person you let die will feel resentful, and it is only natural if he harbours negative emotions. And what of all the people who suffered in the catastrophe you let happen because you were saving a single life? And once people start harbouring negative emotions, it interrupts peace and harmony and tranquillity and people are no longer excellent to each other. It can exist ephemerally, much as it does now, but cannot be a permanent state.
The only way people can not hold you responsible for the consequence of your choice is if they fully accept that you donít have free will in your actions. But, the only way people would accept that in you is if they accept that in themselves. And people will only divest themselves of the idea of free will if they absolutely have to, at which point, they are no longer making their own choices and hence are no longer living, thinking beings. Iíd be very surprised if I donít write something on free will in the not too distant future though.
My favourite procrastinations
The Head Heeb - Jonathan provides a balanced view on various Israeli and (former) colonial states in less developed regions of the world.
The Bladder - a sports satire site. Well worth a look.