Humanities & Classics 3270
|
|
Sixties Forum
Humanities & Classics 3270 |
    |
|
In Reply to: My problem with Harris posted by Erin Anderson on May 14, 1998 at 17:44:54:
I think Harris's point was to discuss why people did certain things besides it was in their religion. I think it was his assertion that we do things, for a reason besides that it was inspired by God. I personally am not a big fan that the only reason something is done is because God said so. I think his search is for a more worldly explanation. Harris pointed out reasons why people may do things that help them survive. I am not saying that religion is being made up, to hoax people into surviving. I am saying that someone an elder or even God made this rule to promote increased survival abilities or use of the resources.
In your argument about regional issues you talk about Muslims not loving cows in India. I personally don't see how that supports your case. People just drop tradition because they move into a new area. That does not mean when traditions are being formed, the creators do not look at what is good for the local region. When the Hindu religion was formed, it was birthed in area that suggested it would be good not to eat the cows. When Muslim religion was formed the same for pigs. It was probably unhealthy for Jews to eat non-kosher meat. Their survival values got incorporated into the religion and now will stay there despite the fact that may no longer be necessary.
Another issue that I have with your statement is that you suggest "Messiahs" are not that common. I beg to differ highly. How many Messiahs have we seen in the United States in the last couple of years? I personally remember David Koresh, or Jonesboro, or the People who are now flying on their spaceship to Pluto in their Nikes. Almost every cult that exists today focus around some central figure who claims to be the Messiah, I am not saying that you are I may not feel based on our beliefs that he is. The fact is people believe they are, and I have no reason to believe it is any less common in the past.
Your next argument is why would they demand he be crucified. I think Harris covers that reason well. They where pissed that he failed and assumed he mislead them. They assumed he was their savior and would rescue them from the Romans, when that was not going to happen they certainly did not want to support him. This does not include the people that did not like and think he was the Messiah and wanted him killed to prove he wasn't. Making him a peaceful leader does not make it any more likely they would want him dead than if he is a military leader
I believe that the whole Caesar thing was meant to be sly and if the Romans or whoever did not understand what he meant all the better for Jesus. There is nothing to say it could not be about avoiding taxes or paying them. I believe Harris is making a speculation about what it could of meant, if you go under the assumption that Jesus was warlike and got the reputation as a man of peace later. I am not sure I buy into Harris's speculation but it is an interesting theory. To think that and pardon my sacrilegious attitude that we got Jesus's message all wrong. That we should be beating the crap out of each other and that over time it evolved into something about peace and respect. It then became political and became about beating the crap out of people who are different or don't share our beliefs. Bad things get done in the name of religion.
I guess I missed where Harris said if you disagree with him about his theories, then you are being illogical. I probably agreed with him so I did not see it. I guess I dislike that approach myself, especially since rational thought is based on ideas being challenged. If that is what you took out of the book then you should dislike Harris but that does not mean that he is wrong about his ideas.