| Subject: Baltic Ave |
Author:
Damoclese
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 12/29/02 11:39pm
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "Water works and the Electric company." on 12/28/02 9:34pm
>
>Doesn’t mean it’s necessarily right. Do I think it’s
>unjust that all those martyrs were killed? Yes! I
>respect them for not renouncing what they believed to
>be true in the face of death, just as I respect those
>who maintained they were not witches even though it
>meant their death sentence. But I certainly don’t
>think it’s right for such people to be murdered in the
>first place!
The witches and the martyrs bring up and interesting point. Witches were thought to be a public nuissance, as were religious agitators. What these people were presented as was something inherently evil and menancing to society. It is seldom that martyrs can be killed by a government without either explicit or implicit agreement by the goverened, otherwise the risk of revolution runs great. So the question arises, were these people in the generally accepted defintion of the word "murdered" truly murdered during their own times? Or is it only with retrospect without the corroborating propaganda and zeitgeist that we can pounce upon these concpets as "murder"? If the latter is the case, how do we know it was murder to begin with? (this would have obvious implications for your claims about disagreeing with their "murder" as well).
>
>>Jesus died in a situation not wholly
>>different from the scenario you proposed, hence, is
>>divine justice in error? What of sacrificing someone
>>for the better of the whole?
>
>That was a little bit different. For sake of
>argument, let’s suppose Christianity is true and that
>Jesus was the Son of God who suffered and died for the
>souls of mankind. This was a noble thing in that
>Jesus willingly drank from the cup of suffering
>and willingly suffered for humanity’s welfare.
>Ever see Star Trek II? It’s a similar concept. (If
>you haven’t seen the movie, do so; it’s arguably the
>best Star Trek film ever made, and very good movie in
>general). This is far different from the cold-blooded
>murder of someone who wishes to live in the scenario I
>described.
Your wording is true, but I think a greater distinction should be drawn. It is true that Jesus was ultimately willing to die, but I think it is evident that he would have preferred not to, and only prayer via God managed to convince him of the need.
Other martyrs (socrates for example) willingly drank hemlock.
I do not think it was the case that either Socrates or Jesus desired to die in some martyr sort of cause. I imagine if you asked either of them "Hey, would you prefer to die or go on living believing as you do" they probably both would have chosen the latter.
Not even Spock chose to die. If there had been some way for Jim to come in and rescue him without getting a radiation sort of death, I'm sure he wouldn't have objected too much to the notion, and we would have been spared star trek three, and the accursed star trek five.
So, I'm not sure the cold-blooded scenario is any different other than the participants have advanced knowledge of a fate they know is imminent unless they do action X. Either way is a denial of the life of something that would probably choose to go on living.
Damoclese
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 