posted on 09/04/2007 1:36:27 PM PDT
I dont believe in Satanic possession, because I dont believe in Satan, but these men gave me an insight into how someone not completely stupid might come to believe in such a thing.
In philosophical terms, you can't have color without matter. Likewise, you can't have goodness without the person. So, let me guess, is it completely stupid to believe that absolute goodness exists without the person? Those interested in the contemporary view of good and evil may be interested in Chantal Delsol's Icarus Fallen. She says there is a prevalent understanding of what is really evil, but not what is really good.
posted on 09/04/2007 1:49:59 PM PDT
posted on 09/04/2007 1:52:23 PM PDT
(Fred Thompson '08)
To: logos; Dumb_Ox; annalex; IronJack
posted on 09/04/2007 1:53:53 PM PDT
I always find Theodore Dalrymple worth reading. Thanks for posting this.
posted on 09/04/2007 1:57:49 PM PDT
by American Quilter
(doug from upland--doing the work American journalists won't do.)
With a name like Theodore Dalrymple, anyone would have a lifetime to appreciate the finer things...
posted on 09/04/2007 2:29:01 PM PDT
by Old Professer
(The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
Good post! This is a keeper. My wife, working in juvenile justice, knows a truly evil four-year-old.
posted on 09/04/2007 2:46:49 PM PDT
To: ventanax5; aculeus; Billthedrill; AnAmericanMother
Bump for a piece that deserves more readers than it’s had.
posted on 09/04/2007 6:31:24 PM PDT
Perhaps one of the reasons that contemporary secularists do not simply reject religion but hate it is that they know that, while they can easily rise to the levels of hatred that religion has sometimes encouraged, they will always find it difficult to rise to the levels of love that it has sometimes encouraged.
Dalrymple is as good as essayists get.
posted on 09/04/2007 9:58:28 PM PDT
(Expel the priest and you don't inaugurate the age of reason, you get the witch doctor--Paul Johnson)
What I'm seeing from the responses to this piece is that selflessness is one of the prerequisites for "good," if not its very definition. Why is that? What is it about denying one's Self in the service of others that earns the practice such applaud? Why is THAT particular virtue singled out as the yardstick by which ultimate goodness is measured?
I'm truly curious if any of the participants on this thread have an opinion on that.
posted on 09/05/2007 5:31:45 AM PDT
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson