The retribution stops here
Diues et Lazarus.
Lazarus the Begger sits outside a rich man’s gate hoping for a few alms, but even although the dogs lick the beggar’s sores, the rich man doesn’t spare Lazarus a shekel.
The rich man dies and finds himself the Hell. He sees Lazarus with Abraham and asks the latter to send the former with a drop of water on the tip of his finger to cool his tongue. But Abraham reminds the rich man that he knew the good things in life while Lazarus only knew the bad and now they’re getting their just desserts. Such a punishment seems fitting, but just as the rich man is being tormented for his treatment of Lazarus, will Abraham be punished for his treatment of the rich man?
Speaking of beggars, they were out in force in town today, but I wasn’t about to dispense any largesse to them. I work on the principle of fair distribution. If I give to one, why am I not giving to all? None of them seem to have any greater merit than any of the others. I have no control over how these people use the money; whereas if I give money to a charity, it’s used for a specific purpose. I’ve also seen fake beggars, such as some Irish women in Manchester who’d beg near the university using their children as bait, but who I’d seem armed with pushchairs as I walked along the road to the Apollo Theatre. Nor do I have enough money to give to all of them unless I want to impoverish myself in the process and end up being Timon of Athens.
I’ve never really thought about punishment for the tormentors of the damned. It seems that while the god of the Christians is meant to be infinitely merciful, his minions can be as sadistic as they like. Such behaviour seems to satisfy human sadism, and Abraham can then claim that he was only obeying orders because God made him do it. That’s another reason why gods and demons can’t possibly be real. We imbue them with human attributes because we have no evidence to say what their actual attributes would be. If the god of the Christians is so merciful, then surely no one would go to Hell. They wouldn’t be admitted to Heaven, but they wouldn’t be punished either. God might be indifferent towards them, neither rewarding them because they don’t deserve it nor punishing them because he’s infinitely merciful.
The discussion at the back of the book tells of a Norwegian ship rescuing some asylum seekers from Indonesia. They wanted to be taken to Christmas Island where, because it is Australian territory, they could claim asylum. The Australian government refused to allow this to happen and suggested that the Norwegian government should take responsibility for them. In effect, this would make it difficult for any ship to rescue refugees because while rescuing refugees might be the decent thing to do, any ship’s captain has practical considerations, which means that landing them somewhere is probably the best option.
The British government’s rule that asylum seekers should only be allowed in if the UK is their first port of call is a little similar because they want such people to be someone else’s problem. It may not be an unreasonable rule because, perhaps, many asylum seekers probably have some stereotypical notions of the UK which are completely misleading. When they get there, they’re likely to find an unwarm welcome even if they’re allowed to stay. In the current economic climate with the UK now being a Third World country, asylum seekers may be even less welcome.
The rich man dies and finds himself the Hell. He sees Lazarus with Abraham and asks the latter to send the former with a drop of water on the tip of his finger to cool his tongue. But Abraham reminds the rich man that he knew the good things in life while Lazarus only knew the bad and now they’re getting their just desserts. Such a punishment seems fitting, but just as the rich man is being tormented for his treatment of Lazarus, will Abraham be punished for his treatment of the rich man?
Speaking of beggars, they were out in force in town today, but I wasn’t about to dispense any largesse to them. I work on the principle of fair distribution. If I give to one, why am I not giving to all? None of them seem to have any greater merit than any of the others. I have no control over how these people use the money; whereas if I give money to a charity, it’s used for a specific purpose. I’ve also seen fake beggars, such as some Irish women in Manchester who’d beg near the university using their children as bait, but who I’d seem armed with pushchairs as I walked along the road to the Apollo Theatre. Nor do I have enough money to give to all of them unless I want to impoverish myself in the process and end up being Timon of Athens.
I’ve never really thought about punishment for the tormentors of the damned. It seems that while the god of the Christians is meant to be infinitely merciful, his minions can be as sadistic as they like. Such behaviour seems to satisfy human sadism, and Abraham can then claim that he was only obeying orders because God made him do it. That’s another reason why gods and demons can’t possibly be real. We imbue them with human attributes because we have no evidence to say what their actual attributes would be. If the god of the Christians is so merciful, then surely no one would go to Hell. They wouldn’t be admitted to Heaven, but they wouldn’t be punished either. God might be indifferent towards them, neither rewarding them because they don’t deserve it nor punishing them because he’s infinitely merciful.
The discussion at the back of the book tells of a Norwegian ship rescuing some asylum seekers from Indonesia. They wanted to be taken to Christmas Island where, because it is Australian territory, they could claim asylum. The Australian government refused to allow this to happen and suggested that the Norwegian government should take responsibility for them. In effect, this would make it difficult for any ship to rescue refugees because while rescuing refugees might be the decent thing to do, any ship’s captain has practical considerations, which means that landing them somewhere is probably the best option.
The British government’s rule that asylum seekers should only be allowed in if the UK is their first port of call is a little similar because they want such people to be someone else’s problem. It may not be an unreasonable rule because, perhaps, many asylum seekers probably have some stereotypical notions of the UK which are completely misleading. When they get there, they’re likely to find an unwarm welcome even if they’re allowed to stay. In the current economic climate with the UK now being a Third World country, asylum seekers may be even less welcome.
Tomorrow’s dilemma is about talking monkeys and their rights. Not only that, but we’re almost half way through the dilemmas.
Comments