Wednesday, February 23, 2005

Original Sin vs. Enlightenment

Original Sin:
The concept of original sin has it that, in a word, man is no damn good. I agree: but also note that churches nevertheless use this and other truths as a misdirection. While the gulls are pondering the accusation, considering the evidence, the priests waltz right by as though they're exempt!
If man is no damn good, how can a church, made up of men, be any better? Oh, because the church has a direct line to God!
Horse petuties.

Enlightenment:
The history of Christianity is the history of men trying to get around this central axiom of original sin. The Renaissance so much as said, Ah! We've found Aristotle now: and Plato. Now that we've read both the Bible and Ovid, it's different.
Not satisfied with the wiggles of the Renaissance, we then had the Enlightenment! Men could order their own affairs: if only we got rid of the Church! Then: men could order their own affairs: if only we got rid of the King!

Then the Communists wanted to get rid of the Capitalists. The President wants to get rid of terrorists. Now pk is ready to get rid of Congress.

But pk believes that it still wouldn't work.

Man again might be a nice species if only we could go back to the savanna of two million years ago and run around in small numbers!

If God came, in person, swept church, king, and democracy aside, and said, From now on you will do only, and exactly, what I say, pk might still be ready to try to get rid of God.

No comments: