The Gods--All of them! (Religion)

by dhw, Monday, November 29, 2010, 11:28 (4889 days ago) @ xeno6696

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.-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.-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. -The remainder of your post once again emphasizes the influence Alexander had on the world's history, which I have not denied, any more than I would deny the influence of other strong leaders, some of whom I listed in my earlier post. And although "how we ended up where we are today" is relevant as far as influence goes, we will never know how we would have ended up without Alexander, and so a) there is no point in speculating, and b) it does not make one iota of difference to my idea of what constitutes weakness/strength, nobility and greatness.