NEWS FLASH!
In the wake of the publication of the Book of Judas the Iscariot clan which has been forced to live in relative obscurity in Argentina for nearly 2000 years are confering with attorneys to determine the viability of any legal action that could be taken against all christendom for defamation of character and the resultant emotional distress suffered by Judas' progeny.
The clan's designated spokesperson, Kenny Iscariot addressed a large contingent of media reps with a terse and emotional statement:
"Enough is enough. We knew the truth would finally win out. Our patriarch, Judas, would never have fingered his pal and saviour, Jesus, to the Romans. Certainly not for a handful of coins. Judas had, in fact, been doing quite well in palm frond futures. Of course the whole crucifixion thing put an end to that. His business never recovered being that it was built entirely on trust. In our efforts to get this case into a courtroom, be assured it's not "the bag of silver" we're after. We seek justice for Judas, and exoneration of the Iscariot name, so that we can once again hold our heads up high. Thank you."
It is unclear just where any such case might be heard, here in Argentina, Israel, or perhaps Rome. Attorney Martin Slobberman of Gideon, James & King, the firm representing the family, stated that the case could be brought "wherever christians gather." It is speculated that a court victory for the plaintiffs in this case could cost christians hundreds of billions in reparations what with nearly 2000 years of inflation and accumulated interest. Also, there is some speculation that all jewry could join in such a suit as co-plaintiffs. An announcement from the Knesset may be forthcoming.
This is Matt Fisher in Buenos Aires. Back to you, Mark.
2 comments:
This is in response to "Let's be Objective, Shall we?"
Dear Terry,
That statement of Ayn Rand is one of my favorites too. Observe the art of expressing an idea through
perceptual concretes: "Wings" for intelectual freedom and "ball and chain" for intellectual slavery.
You might have heard the saying: "A picture is worth a thousand words" but in her book, "Introduction to
Objectivist Epistemology", Ayn Rand, while describing the nature of words as concepts, says, "A word is
worth a thousand pictures". Consider her definition of the word: Concept; "A concept", She writes, "is a
mental integration of two or more units possessing the same distinguishing characteristic(s), with their
particular measurements omitted".
That is to say, the word "Furniture" designates every "movable man-made object intended to be used human
habitation," and "which can support the weight of the human body or support and/or store other, smaller
objects". Unlike the former statement, which sounds like an overstatement, a word is in fact, worth a
thousand pictures, and probably many more.
You may have questions regarding the concepts of "unit", "measurement" and "distinguishing
characteristic", since it is uncommon for people to have a thorough understanding of Epistemological
concepts. I refer you to the above-mentioned book (whether you have these questions or not!).
One of the reasons I am posting this comment is the fact that it is so very rare to find a person still
making a conscious and persevering effort to seek answers to fundamental questions. It is still rarer to
find someone as old as you are to do that; to evaluate and correct beliefs held for decades. I admire you all the more for that fact.
Do not be discouraged by the fact that you haven't found answers. It is no mean achievement to know that
there are "questions" to be answered in the first place.
You seek to clear your "mental cobwebs"; you could begin by reassessing your negative self-description as
an "atheist". Consider someone teaching a child by pointing at an object and saying : "that is not an
apple". What is the child supposed to learn? It could be an orange, an aeroplane, a rock or anything
else. It is an epistemological error to try describe things by saying what they are not.
Of course "Atheist" means a person, who does not believe in the existence of God; and the term will
certainly convey to the reader, the message: Terry does not believe in God, that means, whatever beliefs
I suppose Believers to have, Terry does not have. That is a very important distinction but an inadequate
one. By merely stating what you are not, you do not say what you are nor why you are not what
you are not. You may have logical reasons (the adjective 'logical' is superfluous, but still), say, you think the idea of "Primacy of Consciousness" is absurd and hence any theist explanation for the nature of existence is fallacious at the root. A much better self-description would be: "A man of reason". Thus, you will give out a message that you believe only that, which can be rationally explained. This subsumes atheism, adevilism and the like.
I have observed another trait of yours in the way you state your beliefs: Self-doubt or more precisely,
inadequate conviction in your beliefs. The statements like: "My goal is to stimulate discussion...If at
times I offend, so be it. You can't please everyone." and "...I am a non-believer, contrary to the vision
many may have about such folk...", you are needlessly and incorrectly concerned about what others might
think about you. Do not judge yourself by what others think about you. Set rational, objective standards
of judgement and then proceed to judge yourself and others by them. It is not an innocent error that
Christianity commands: "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged.", by outlawing judgement, it enshrines
bilnd faith in whatever the religion demands.
I, logically, must speak about myself here, but I think such a description would be more appropriate in a
personal email rather than in an online blog post. I will galdly email you if you want me to.
Just give me your email address.
Ravish,
You've given me a lot to absorb. Thanks for the interest. It's rather late as I write this. I've been working until now, and have to make an early appointment in the AM. I will respond to your comments soon.
TLS
Post a Comment