In a message dated April 15, 1998, Pet564 writes:

Pet564:

I don't really see the advantage of having some ancient, primitive writings do all your thinking for you. Have you ever thought about investing in and independent mind of your own? (That might help address your feelings of intimidation, incidentally.)

Accepting claims on faith is never a means of establishing one's independence, intellectual or otherwise. In fact, it accomplishes exactly the opposite, subordinating one's mind to the level of an unquestioning, uncritical, sycophantic conformist, to the same degree that one takes his faith seriously.

Ask yourself: What would happen if an entire nation were to take this course, that all your neighbors, and all the people of a community were to just throw away their own reason in favor of some book (the Bible, Mein Kampf, Mao's Little Red Book… etc.)? Consider the consequences of universal conformity and self-sacrifice. There are examples in recent history that I could point out if you're stumped on this one…

The Christian doctrine refers to its followers as a flock of sheep. It is one biblical analogy with which I've always been in full agreement. Throwing out your own mind is the first step in abandoning your humanity, and becoming a willing sheep.

Which reminds me of a moral principle: Every time you sacrifice yourself, there will be someone there waiting to collect your sacrifice. Those who advocate self-sacrifice, invariably intend to benefit from your sacrifice. The altruist views all moral action in reference to the concept sacrifice: Either you sacrifice your own values, and are therefore a moral person, or you are the collector of others' sacrifices, and are therefore 'selfish' or 'greedy'. Collecting sacrifices is no more selfish than surrendering sacrifices: neither person allows man to achieve independence from others. The altruist's view of morality is a false dichotomy: Either you sacrifice values, or you collect the values that others sacrifice. According to this view, man is either a selfless sheep walking to his slaughter (images of Auschwitz come to mind), or he's a sniveling parasite. No other alternative, says the altruist, is possible to man: either man is victim, or he is victimizer. Every victimizer needs willing victims. Religion has had no problem supplying tyrants with willing victims through its spread of the unquestioned morality of sacrifice.

Acceptance of this false dichotomy can be found at the heart of every injustice man has ever known, and religion dignifies this approach through its dogma, and perpetuates its criminality through its practice.

The only position proper to man, is: Neither sacrifice your values, nor collect the sacrifices of others; be neither victim, nor victimizer.

Any problems with this approach?

Of course, in order not to be a victim or a victimizer, a sheep or a slaughterer, you will have to rely on your own mind.

Question authority.

Tindrbox

_________________________________