[Peter]
If so, where do you draw the line? How come you are not out there
helping the poor now, instead of reading all this self-indulgent
philosophizing?
[Arlo]
First off, let me say that I don't (and I'm not saying you do) see
this as an option between hedonism and asceticism. And in criticizing
the uncompassionate materialism of "assembly-of-god" brand
christianity, I am not suggesting that everyone should embrace
austerity. Clearly, no matter you or I stand on this spectrum there
will be people more hedonistic than us on one side, and more austere
on the other. I recognize that I am somewhere in the middle, although
I try to keep my lean towards the simple, compassionate and
Buddhistic side. My overarching concern is not that Western culture
makes hedonism or materialism alluring, but that the forces that are
supposed to balance this are actively legitimizing it instead. Thus
for someone like Hall, who would argue that the majority will always
be "selfish" (as opposed to "selfless"), the legitimacy to "theology"
was in constraining the selfish desires of man and channeling (or
trying to) human energy towards selfless enlightenment. What we are
seeing today is the complete opposite, the forces operating under
the guise of "theology" are leading men away from selfless
enlightenment and towards selfish desire. And they do so by pandering
to materialism, xenophobia and power. And in doing so they have
usurped the names and words of christianity while leaving all its
meaning to vanish into dust. (Many could argue, of course, that this
has been the case since the Roman Empire appropriated Christianity
from the Jews. (its a strong argument I'd generally agree with))
[Peter]
but your: In "the old view" (of Christianity), you were tasked to
help the poor, feed the hungry and shelter the homeless.Do you think
that is our responsibility?
[Arlo]
I think that (mostly) all of our historical spiritual messengers
brought a message of compassion. And yes, I think it is our
responsibility to alleviate the suffering of all living beings as
much as possible. And no, I don't think saying "I suffer because I
don't own a Ferrari, so you have to buy me one" counts as
"suffering". It does not take much empathy to look at the condition
of another living creature and feel compassion for its pain (I say
living creature, not "only humans", to emphasize the Buddha's
teachings of compassion for all living things). How we respond, of
course, points again to the spectrum above. I could do more, sure.
But I try. And that's really all I'd expect from most people. But
when the dialogue challenges empathy from the start, begins with the
orientation that the creature who suffers does so because God is
punishing it, and your lack of suffering is evidence of God's favor,
you preempt the entire encounter. You are no longer asking "are you
doing enough" but saying "I should do nothing". This is not merely
turning a blind eye, it is staring at those who suffer with contempt
and derision.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
