The Pernicious Doctrine Of Repentance

I've wondered from time to time whether and to what extent the success of Christianity can be attributed to the doctrine of repentance--that is, the fact that it provides that sins may be forgiven.  I don't know of any religion or cult prevalent at the time Christianity began to spread which made a similar, equivalent claim in describing its benefits.

The popular mystery cults which existed at the time promised salvation, but not because you could, through them, obtain God's or the gods' forgiveness for the wrongs you committed if you became a convert and asked to be absolved.  Instead, salvation was forthcoming if you were properly initiated into the mysteries of the god and obtained thereby the knowledge required to be united with the deity.

Of course, merely asking for absolution isn't sufficient in itself to assure a sinner is forgiven.  The sinner must be sincerely sorry for the sins committed. The sinner must feel genuine remorse. 

In addition, the sinner must turn away from the way of sin and towards God.  Some Christian sects actually require proof of the sinner's change of heart in the form of good deeds and by doing what's required by scripture.

Thus is forgiveness attained, and responsibility and punishment avoided. Years of misdeeds are forgotten, and are no longer of any account.

This strikes me as unjust. I think that in most if not all cases someone who fears punishment, particularly eternal punishment, and believes it forthcoming for one reason or another, will certainly sincerely regret that he/she/they murdered, cheated, stole, etc. and genuinely wish the various wrongs committed had never taken place.  There's little possibility that someone believing in and facing Hell will simply pretend to remorse, thinking God will be fooled by a display of sadness.

It's also likely that a sinner facing damnation

will eagerly do all that can be done to establish his/her/their faith and demonstrate a desire to do good in whatever future remains.  There's nothing special or significant about believing Christians sincerely regretting their sins in such circumstances. It's almost certain, therefore, that all will be absolved.

 

It's an attractive prospect for sinners.

My point is that granting forgiveness for past sins or wrongs merely because it's requested minimizes the responsibility of the sinners and wrongdoers, and the significance of the misdeeds themselves, no matter how sincere the request may be,  Nor should forgiveness be granted merely because those that did wrong want to do good in the future, for the same reason.

The doctrine of repentance therefore gives those who do wrong to others, harm others, or are cruel and unjust, the hope if not the assurance that all will be forgiven as long as they appropriately seek forgiveness sometime in the future.  You may be as bad as you like now, as long as you become good.

Augustine wrote that he asked God to help him be pure, "but not yet."  The doctrine of repentance in effect allows that we should be good, but need not be good "yet."  If we're good eventually, we may be evil now.

"What Power Has Law Where Only Money Rules?"

 

I've mentioned Gaius Petronius Arbiter a/k/a Titus Petronius Niger, author of The Satyricon, Suffect Counsel of Rome, courtier of Nero, on more than one occasion in this blog.  He's mentioned by Tacitus and others, so there's credible evidence he existed.  He appears as a character in the novel Quo Vadis, which formed the basis for a movie of the same name.

He was known as the "arbiter of elegance" in Nero's court and a voluptuary, but also was competent and vigorous in performing his public duties.  He eventually fell afoul of the Emperor, like Seneca, and took his own life in a most remarkable way, slowly bleeding to death by opening his veins but stopping the flow of blood using tourniquets to prolong his life while enjoying conversation and banter with friends and writing a description of Nero's misdeeds which he sealed and had delivered to the Emperor after his death.

I qoute him in the title of this post.  It's a perceptive statement by a fascinating man intimately familiar with the rich and powerful oligarchs of a great empire ruled by a meglomaniac.

The ancient Romans had a high regard for law.  They generated a vast amount of written law through the centuries.  Much of current European law derives from that of Rome.  A knowledge of law was considered essential to a successful career, and many prominent citizens acted as advocates (such as Cicero).

The Roman respect for law wasn't limited to written laws.  Romans also revered the mos maiorum, the unwritten code of the customs and traditions they considered peculiarly Roman, such as duty, respect and discipline, which governed the conduct of their ancestors.

When Petronius wondered whether the law had any power where money ruled (implying that it did not), he was therefore maintaining that money had profoundly corrupted and undermined Roman society; had in fact perverted it.  The power of money had changed what it meant to be Roman.

It's become a cliche that the United States is failing and falling as the Roman Empire did and for similar reasons. Like all clichés, it's too simple, but there are similarities.  The U.S. was founded in large part by lawyers.  The Constitution is a legal document--essentially a set of laws.  The rule of law was essential to its creation and forms the basis for its continuance.

It's rapidly devolving, however, because plutocrats have usurped the administration of the government and have no respect for the law to the extent that it serves to thwart their power and influence and the realization of their desires.

The Supreme Court has assured that the nation's government can be bought by sanctioning its purchase as a Constitutional right, and narrowing the definition of bribery, in effect holding that politicians may be paid in return for their services except in rare circumstances.

So we may well ask Petronius' question now, 2000 years after he posed it, and come to the same conclusion he did.

The Age of the Pimp

 

A pimp isn't merely a person who obtains or manages customers for prostitutes.  A pimp can be a procurer of most anything or anyone that will satisfy the desires of those seeking their gratification.  A pimp is a panderer, a fixer, a facilitator.  Those skilled in identifying desires and arranging the satisfaction of them are the most able pimps.  Those whose customers are wealthy are the most successful.

We've been witnesses to the career of a demigod, perhaps even a god, of pimps.  There's nothing in his history which indicates he had extraordinary physical or mental talents, and yet he became extraordinarily successful in making money for himself and others and catering to the wishes and lusts of the rich,  powerful and famous.

His remarkable life seems to serve as irrefutable evidence that it is who you know, not what you know, that's important.  But perhaps that's not entirely true, as it's what he knew about those he knew that enhanced his life in an unusual and disturbing way, and may have led to his death as well as the exploitation of many innocents.

He was assisted in that exploitation by a host of notables from all over our long suffering planet. Their numbers are legion. They include heroes of all political persuasions, united in depravity.

What was it that made him King of the Pimps? The times I think.  Plutocrats believe that money buys anything and anyone.  Perhaps he believed he was a plutocrat along with his many friends.  But he misjudged his place.  Subject to the same desires, his usefulness ended as he indulged them himself without including his customers in indulgence, and so became vulnerable individually, unable to implicate his clients in the same misdeeds he was caught in.  Also, perhaps, his accusers didn't fear him as much as they feared those he enabled.

We're in the Age of the Pimp because the very wealthy need pimps to serve them.  They're not interested in people of substance or worth. They have all they need and more.  What they want isn't what they have already.

They want what they don't have, which is innocence.  They lost it long ago.  They understand they can no longer possess it, so they seek to corrupt those who do.  They want to take the innocence of others.  In that way, they assure that their corruption extends to us all.  We become a part of it.

The Goon Squad

 

"Goon Squad" was an appellation used to refer to groups engaged in pro-union or anti-union violence. Since those days, it has come to be used to refer to any group of enforcers or thugs hired to use violence for most any purpose.

It has occasionally been used to refer to excessively violent police.  I assume some have used it to refer to those employed by ICE to capture and detain illegal immigrants, though I'm not sure.

I think enforcing the immigration laws is appropriate. I don't think those who have violated those laws should be protected from their enforcement.

But "Goon Squad" seems an appropriate moniker for the armed, masked ICE agents we've seen unnecessarily pummeling and even killing those who protest against ICE's presence in their cities.  It's also been reported that they obtain personal information regarding protesters, presumably to more easily punish them somehow in the future.

According to the Cato Institute, only 5% of the illegal immigrants detained and deported by ICE have a history of criminal violence.  The claims made that the violent and clandestine conduct of ICE agents justifies extreme measures therefore lacks credibility.  So does the claim that those who protest such measures are aiding violent criminals.

One must wonder why the regime now in power decided to use armed, masked men wearing paramilitary outfits to enforce the immigration laws.  It's difficult for me to believe that those who oppose the conduct of these agents do so to protect violent criminals, or that a majority of them are champions of illegal immigration. I think it's more likely that their opposition is motivated by the fact that the tactics employed purportedly to enforce immigration law more and more begin to resemble the tactics of Ernst Rohm's Brownshirts.

The fact that this regime automatically claims that protesters are "domestic terrorists" and are responsible for their own deaths is contemptible, but is characteristic of fanatics generally and so is to be expected in these unfortunate times.

Whom the Gods Would Destroy

 

It's hard not to think that something will be destroyed.  For that matter, it's hard not to hope that something will be destroyed, and soon. What that something is isn't clear, and is a matter of debate.What's all too clear, though, is that consistent with the saying which begins with the words making up the title of this post, the gods are making many of us mad. 

For some of us the madness takes the form of a smug, insistent ignorance combined with what seems a kind of reflex of falsity.  Deceit or denial has become an automatic response to any criticism or inconvenient event or information.

What's remarkable about this--what suggests it is a form of madness--is (1) the extent of the ignorance and the flaunting of it though it would be a simple matter to remedy it; and (2) the fact that the deceit is obvious and blatant, and the denial so easily refuted.  But none of this matters to the ignorant, the deceitful and deniers.  They don't seem to care that what they say and do is preposterous and even laughable, or would be laughable in other circumstances.

I think they would care if their intent was fraud or malfeasance. A rational person with such intentions wouldn't pursue them so stupidly.  As that's the case, the likelihood is that those acting so stupidly are irrational or so colossally stupid as to be irrational.  They still may have malicious intent.  But they may not be intelligent or sensible enough to realize they look ridiculous.

For others the madness made by the gods consists of facilitating the madness just described, either actively or by ignoring it.  It's mad to join in or encourage madness, particularly when what's caused by the madness is reprehensible and despicable.  That's the case here and now.

If those the gods destroy are those they've driven mad described in this post, then it's probable that the world will be safer, the sadly disminished reputation of this nation, once hopefully called a city on a hill or beacon, and now an ugly wreck run by entitled brats and their self-satisfied, brown-nosed lackeys will be restored.  But who's to say the gods haven't given up on our Glorious Union, and think it so irredeemably corrupt as to merit destruction?