spore vs jesus
Out of context: Reply #78
- Started
- Last post
- 107 Responses
- TheBlueOne0
@designbot re my phrase: "Jesus was far more violent than Hitler, speaking in the definition of passive, systemic violence"
I shall now explain my ignorance, as you say. But first remove the idea that violence has a moral value as purely negative.
There are two types of "violence" - subjective, immediate violence - the type we tend to think about when we hear the word "violence" - you know the application of force - punching, hitting, shooting, bombing, etc. And the threat of the immediate application of such. It is violence that has an obvious and immediate initiator subject - the mugger, the soldier, an army, a rioter.
then there is negative, systemic violence - violence in a system that is not immediate or applicable subjectively but exists objectively. The violence inherent in a system that keeps substinence farmers or factory workers in their positions, that keeps food away from starving people, etc. That is systemic violence. It effects individuals but doesn't come from a subjective place, but it is very real.
Jesus and christianity was very violent to the existing world order. It did not do so with subjective violence of course (although christianity embraces that later in it's development). Jesus and his message was an incredibly violent figure threatening to the Roman world order and it's Jewish client-state. That is why he was put to death, and he knew this. Now think of hiow much violence and disruption christianity caused the existing world at the time.
Now was this a positive change? Sure. But to the Romans, the threat of Jesus and christianity was to violently overhthrow their exisiting interests and civilization. Gahndi would be equally violent to British colonial rule. Both Gahndoi and Jesus wanted to overturn the social order - which in itself is a violent goal, although one may choose non-violent methods to achieve it, as they did.
Now, on the other hand Hitler utilized copious amount of subjective violence to basically reinforce an existing moral and value order.
For all the talk in this thread of "science", I mean one of the basics is "Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it." You want to change the trajectory of an exisiting society and you need to apply force. You need to change the underlying order. To one person that force is righteous and necessary, to another it is a violent upheaval to their world order.