In order to vicariously atone for mankind's sins, Christ was subjected to trumped-up charges by the leadership of his faith and brought before the Roman Prefect, Pontius Pilate, who promptly declared him innocent. Nevertheless, to appease the angry mob that didn't think enough was being done to punish a blasphemer, Pilate ordered Christ to be flogged. When that wasn't enough for them, Pilate ordered Christ to be subjected to the death penalty.
Jesus is the most famous wrongly convicted man of all time.
___________________________
And there are, of course, lessons here for modern day advocates of the falsely accused. Even 2,000 years ago, the state bowed to the pressure of a committed interest group by sacrificing a wrongly accused man. Jesus was unfortunate but necessary collateral damage in the state's more important, politicized interest of appeasing a group of its inhabitants.
It is well to remember that God allowed his son to be executed by the state, not just murdered by a criminal acting on his own, in order to make a crucial point. Being killed by a criminal would not have manifested the community's rejection of the Messiah. The Divine Plan recognized that, all other things being equal, misconduct by the state in punishing an innocent man is qualitatively different, far more significant, and far worse, than the punishment inflicted on the innocent by a criminal acting on his own. It is one thing for a criminal to do a terrible thing to an individual; it is quite another for the government to do a terrible thing to an individual.
Just as Christians believe that all of us are responsible for Christ's death, so, too, all of us -- without exception -- have blood on our hands for the wrongful treatment of the modern day falsely accused.
Posts
10 comments:
I am not a Christian, but I thought this was a great post and enjoyed it greatly. I grew up in a very religious family and I do agree if more people lived by principles laid out in the book, the world would be a better place. Heck, if I had gone over the story of Joseph again perhaps I would have made wiser decisions to avoid my FRA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potiphar%27s_wife). Despite what seems to be a long vacation in the islands of doubt, I still find myself thinking back to basic principles of loving thy neighbor and thy enemy.
I think it's worth noting that the only way we will succeed is by expressing compassion for those who are misguided in being against us. I think FRS does a really good job at this. I think most people in the comments do too. Even the most radical feminists are human, and the only way we'll be able to reach out to them is through a calm, rational, and loving of humankind approach.
Yeah...a bit lovey dovey and abstract. But this is how I start typing when religion or philosophy gets brought up. And I think these are good sentiments to be expressed.
"Even the most radical feminists are human, and the only way we'll be able to reach out to them is through a calm, rational, and loving of humankind approach".
I'm not sure that plan of action can be successfully applied to the radfems.
"I'm not sure that plan of action can be successfully applied to the radfems."
You won't know til you try it.
PAUL E.
"You won't know til you try it.
PAUL E."
I have tried calmly reasoning and being decent with radfems. They are female supremacists. They are not operating on a rational and human basis. Extremists are extremists.
Perhaps some non-radical feminists can be reasoned with.
You try the nice-guy approach.
atlas - "Perhaps some non-radical feminists can be reasoned with."
The way I see it, the point of arguing rationally with an irrational (and ideologically stubborn) feminist is not so much to change that feminist mind, but for the effect it can have on those who observe the argument.
The reason that red-fem types seem to always ban those who rationally oppose them, IMHO, largely comes down to their fears of their readers being exposed to alternate views being expressed in a reasoned manner. They know all too well that they can only respond in over-the-top irrational ways to those things that their more curious readers could easily research for themselves. Thus, they feel the must silence their opposition rather than try to debate them.
Still, anytime you can get them to engage in some debate first (prior to their shutting it down), one can be very effective in creating some dissonance amongst their readers who begin to wonder why it is that they cannot offer up reasoned refutations.
"Even the most radical feminists are human, and the only way we'll be able to reach out to them is through a calm, rational, and loving of humankind approach".
Stuff it.
Here is a good video the person who made that quote to watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_uRIMUBnvw
I agree with slwerner. Feminism has adopted a politics of screeching outrage. If you have facts and truth on your side, you don't need to scream. You just need to say it in a way that people will realize it's the truth. We are not looking to convert those who won't be converted. We are after the hearts and minds of middle America.
I agree with slwerner and archivist. The real audience for our message are the non-radicals or middle America.
God bless you sir. It is not only a perversion of basic morality that allows women and girls to "bear false witness" against the innocent...It is also a perversion of the American law enforcement community that fosters it.
And yet many so-called Christians support a vile legal system that makes it easy to convict innocent men, as if their god wasn't the ultimate falsely accused male. It's hypocritical.
False accusations should be condemned heartily from every pulpit in the world.
Post a Comment