To Whom It Offends

Gods and Kings so great that they fold under the mere weight of opinions like oragami seek to erect laws which threaten violence against their kingdom and call any opinion they find disdainful a blasphemy. It is known by a wise few that blasphemy is anything the powerful wish to find themselves outraged by, and then cry havoc and let loose the dogs of war against all opinions that offend their crystalline sensitivities, while whipping their devotees into a rabid enthusiasm, that lustful hate, which condemns the other and demands undeserved adoration from those they seek to intimidate. Paper Gods and Kings want nothing more than to be the gaolers of opinions, because they know that razor sharp opinions lent by minds just as sharp could cut them down like straw, for they are not made of sterner stuff--they crumple and fold so easily--paper Gods and Kings. Oh, woe! Their followers weep fanatic crocodile tears at the mere thought of their exalted idol's contortions under the weight of any little trifling contention. Oh, woe betide anyone whose words provoke, these paper thin Gods and Kings to which blasphemy offends. Thus our flimsy paper potentates use their great power to press all opinions into the flattest and most unimpressive form--the form of imitation--opinions as flat as those of folding paper Gods and Kings.



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Discussing the Historicity of Jesus with a Christian Agnostic

Image
Steven Jake, the author of the up and coming blog  TheChristian Agnostic , [1]  wrote a rather thorough response to my lengthy comment asking him about the state of the evidence regarding the historical Jesus. I am pleased he took the time to write a thorough response. I only feel that such a thorough response deserves my own more detailed response as my initial comment was merely that—a comment. So without further ado I will address some of Steven Jake’s comments and concerns. Initially Steven Jake (henceforth SJ) posted a quote from New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman claiming that there is an abundance of evidence for a historical Jesus. I merely contested this claim asking for what evidence we have that would be considered historically reliable. As I see it there is none. That doesn’t mean, however, I don’t think there  wasn’t  a historical Jesus, just that we cannot prove if there was or wasn’t and so I remain agnostic as to the historicity of Je...
Read more

Conflating Atheism and Agnosticism is a Mistake

Image
In a discussion over at Bud's blog Dead Logic , a reader asked a question I have been hearing more and more recently. It's a good question, so I thought I would do my part to try and answer it. Doesn't admitting to being an agnostic instead of an atheist FEEL like you're being wishy-washy, or not fully committing to your "belief"? ... I understand that it's only honest to say that we CAN'T be sure, but I sure do hate to show weakness (real or perceived) in an argument. Not at all.  Agnosticism deals with knowledge.  Atheism deals with belief.  The Agnostic position cannot assume whether a thing like a God could exist or not given the lack of sheer evidence for such a things existence. Therefore knowing with any given certainty just isn't possible. The agnostic then makes the claim that a definitive answer with regard to "knowing" of God's existence cannot be given either way. Atheism, however, can state with assurance t...
Read more