RAMANAM
In the Name of The Father, and of The Son and of The Holy Spirit, Amen.
Yesterday Dr. Sanity discussed the problem of evil in an unusual way — not for her but for professional and lay persons generally. She acknowledges that evil is a concomitant of existence.
I offered a series of comments, first referring to a writer she quoted in regard to the Muslim Brotherhood and related matters:
“… even the peaceful ones, such as that espoused by Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, ….”
That phrase is a howler. Says that its author is either a terrorist or a madman. Also says that his thesis in this essay is unrelated to facts.
This post by Dr. Sanity deals with the phenomenon of Sin as distinguished from the phenomena of sins.
Christianity and Judaism — and Hinduism — recognize the phenomenon of Sin and the phenomena of sins.
Mohammedanism recognizes the phenomena of sins but not the phenomenon of Sin.
Elucidation of the distinction between Sin and sins requires an appreciation of the categories of ontological philosophy, which are expressed in myth and legend in the Bible, both Testaments, and the Vedas and Epic Poems of Hinduism.
Ontological discourse is rejected in “the West” and in the Mohammedan orbit and so the decisive distinction between Sin and sins must remain obscure and therefore, since even the obscure is an actor, an ever-present source of confusion and chaos in both of those realms.
Another aspect of the Sin-sins distinction is that because “the West” has rejected ontological discussion, it has rejected awareness of the phenomenon of Sin and the phenomena of sins, both.
This is why the distinction between Sin and sins is obscure and a source of chaos.
The concept of evil, comprising Sin and sins, has been rejected in “the West.” Mention it and you will be regarded as a mental case — and now a terrorist suspect.
So “the West” had gone Mohammedanism one better in its rejections. Mohammedanism rejects the phenomenon of Sin but acknowledges the phenomena of sins (though only as legally defined by scholars creating and administering shariah). But “the West” rejects Sin and sins completely, both sets of phenomena.
This differential between Mohammedanism and “the West” affords the former a pretext of moral superiority: it believes in the reality of sins whereas the immoral, decadent “West” condemnably rejects that reality. Therefore “the West” is a “beguiler,” Satan, who must be expelled from the Muslim orbit which, in principle, is the entire universe.
Mohammedans sometimes use the word “evil” but when they do they do not reference the ontological basis of it that is thoroughly treated in classical philosophy and Christian Theology.
There is in fact a plenary technical language for dealing with the problem of evil. Condemned to disuse today as “superstitious raving” by, you guessed it, evil people with evil intentions.
The rest of us are perfectly happy to accept the reality of evil, comprising as it does both the phenomenon of Sin and the phenomena of sins, and we know how to talk about it. We also know how to recognize it and call it what it is.
Some years ago a US Army Combat Brigade Commander commented to me in email from Iraq that he had never before believed that there is such a thing as evil but that now he does because he has seen it. He referred to AQ and JAM operators and their leaders and programs.
I am willing to surmise that there is not one person in the White House these days who believes in the reality of evil. I further surmise that one might walk for days through the halls of Congress and years through the halls of government bureaucracies and decades through academic faculties, law firms and courts to find one person who believes in the reality of evil.
After helping to defeat one evil, Nazism, Europe adopts another, Socialism? And Socialism is the root of Nazism as well as Communism! Yet, there it is.
After the collapse of one collectivist evil, the Soviet, the US electorate allows itself to be gulled and defrauded into setting up another collectivist evil, Progressivism, right on top of itself, as an enormous incubus? Yet, there it is.
The face of evil is real and does indeed keep changing; for, evil, as the Bard observed, “hath power to assume a pleasing shape.”
Not to harp on a point, but the only way to get a handle on this problem is with a lot of guns — and an outcome unlikely to improve the beginning — or a lot of ontological discussion — with an outcome hinging on the depth of insight, the skill of handling that particular technical language and a large enough protected area in which to pursue the purpose.
In a word, the electorate cannot correct their mistakes outside the protection of their Army and Logos Theology and here and here and here.
The name of the incubus on top of the US electorate is Caliphism.
Update 1: An American Renaissance.
AMDG
