Monday, July 27, 2009

The Chicken or The Egg?

He is all powerful. He is all knowing. He is your creator.

He loves you. He cares about you.

But if you don't obey everything he says to the letter, he'll make sure that after you do you are tortured and suffer for all of eternity.

This is one of, if not THE classic Chick or Egg questions.

Which came first? Humanities obsession with a religious "Loving Dictator"? Or their tenancy to follow a leader who through the people's own interest, enslaves them in suffocating rules, restrictions and in essence- slavery?

Did early man create and latch onto the idea of a father-like ruler who holds you to his breast with an iron fist, first allowing then forcing you to suck a tit that produces no milk or nutritional substance and then locks you in that hold now against your will all the while taunting that you eagerly begged for that just moments before?

Is it part of the human animal instincts to seek out one person who will dominate all the others and provide as well as enforce rules and justice?

Are humans really so incapable of surviving and existing in groups of any number without their appointing a leader to accept both the all responsibility and the blame- but by thereby also assuming all the power and control?

Is laziness the root of the problem here? Fear? Ineptitude?

Sheer 'efficiency' doesn't seem to provide the clarity I'm seeking.

I find it somewhat absurd and amusing that there is a required separation of church and state here in America- when governments and religions have so much in common.

Don't get me wrong.

I'm truly glad for the foresight that cause that clause to be added. God only know what trouble this country would be in if we were ruled by the double-fisted power of those things simultaneously.

You only have to look at any socialistic or communistic country to see the meager influence their general populations have and how the brutal totalitarianism rule inevitably turns to greed and self-serving.

"Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

You may have heard that quote before by historian and moralist John Emerich Edward Dahlberg Acton. What you've likely never heard is the rest of the statement.

"Great men are almost always bad men."

John... how right you are.

While this wasn't the direction I'd originally planned for this blog, this fell into my lap and I need somewhere to put it.

No comments: