Skip to main content

The human race is awesome.

Some will counter by calling humanity a cancer upon this earth. Fie. Nature, for all its beauty is not ethically pretty. Life feeds on life. The world-without-man is no guide for moral living. It is, by and large, amoral.

The awesome power of humanity is only further evinced by its impact upon the globe. Consider its scientific feats, its aesthetic achievements, its incredible willingness to crash in upon itself through war and economic strife. Humanity's arm is as God's. It's voice thunders across the globe. It is decked in majesty and excellency, arrayed with glory and beauty. It casts abroad the rage of its wrath. It looks upon every proud beast, and debases him, bringing him low, and hiding him in the dust; binding his face in secret. Even the Christian God would confess man is capable of bringing about his own salvation.

--Further rambling which may readily be ignored:--
But, while the human race is amazing, most humans are less impressive. Most humans kind of suck. So, if we have the power to save ourselves only as ourself, in the collective, will we also end up saving those undeserving bastards? And if we are unwilling to do so, do we damn ourselves as ourself? And if we are unwilling to do so, does this undo our murder of God? Does it reinvigorate the need for religion, amongst those with a desire for slavation? If we have answered the God of Job, can that constitute a denial of just such a deity? Are these seemingly conflicting conclusions stated as questions truly at odds?

No. We simply subvert the drive to worship, and find other things to congregate over. Even where a god may be resurrected, and given new purpose, we can supplant him with new clothes. Not quite as easy today as it was ten years ago, when we might have replaced deities with new cars and such, but money's tight right now.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

For Every Problem, a Solution (4)

God as depicted throughout the ages.  No Alanis Morissette, and, no, that isn't ironic.

An introduction to a book that doesn't exist:

Prose and verse are generally accepted as distinct writing formats with their own rules, styles, and grammars.  Though their borders are somewhat vague, they have come to be seen as something of a dichotomy in the eyes of the general public.  There are, however, at least 3 other popular approaches to writing as exhibited in picture-books, comicbooks, and plays.  Though sometimes given short shrift, these styles are accepted as literature.  They are included in libraries, book stores, and academic study.  Most importantly, they are read. In the general case, there is clearly writing being done in the creation of any one of these.  But what of the wordless comic or silent play?  Should we consider scripts written, but fully realized plays, comics, and picture-books, to be performance, art, or some other kind of non-literature?  These worries of theory are kinks to be worked out, surely, but they are not of immediate practical concern to the writer...

My room is a mess, my painting unfinished.

...and I still haven't found a good alternative to my scanner with its missing power-cord.  Almost finished with this painting, though.  I just need to put in a bus seat in front of and behind the passenger. Incidentally, the Seattle Metro buses have the ugliest upholstery I can remember seeing, and I spent five years working at a used furniture store.