; "Image")
If there is one of you who has not sinned, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.
| Name | St. John |
| Life | 99 - 101 |
| Country | Palestine |
| Category | Idealism |
| Wikipedia | >> |
That is what the Lord asks of us.
When the hypocritical pharisees asked Jesus what he thought of Moses' law, ordering a stoning of the adulteress, his answer was the words above.
Christ, like his father, was omniscient. He surely knew about our biological inheritance. How can we, in genetic terms, understand his answer?
Can we not speculate something like this:
All genetically influenced characteristics in our human nature are likely to vary along a normal distribution curve. Of whatever trait we have, some have very much, others very little, and most a medium portion. Intelligence is distributed along such a curve. Another one might well exist for evilness.
We must also recognize that the word "normal" has two meanings.
It can mean that those in the middle of the curve are seen as normal and those at the extremes as not being normal. Mother Theresa showed unnormally little evilness. Shakespeare's King Richard III had unnormally much. This is the way in which the word "normal" usually is used.
The term can be understood in quite another way: anything that exists on a normal distribution curve is normal. Also the extreme ends of the curve are genetically normal in the sense of always recurring, in generation after generation. If we all are on the curve of evil, it follows that all of us have some evilness in us. Who among us has not sinned? Who is able to throw the first stone? That is how Jesus's words also can be interpreted.
In each generation, we find a few who, like Mother Theresa, strive to keep down all evil impulses. But we also find a few who, like Richard III, do not only find pleasure in throwing stones and bombs, but who also harbor omnipotent desires to gain the whole "world for me to bustle in".
As they are normally occurring, all societies must defend themselves against these extremely evil types.
We should perhaps do so, however, without too much hate and blame. Because if these evil types are genetically appearing in all societies and in all generations - Nero, Richard, Stalin - can we really put the blame for their evilness upon themselves? Are they not product of nature? Like God said to Job: "what are you complaining about; also Behemot and Leviathan are my creations!"
Thus there is no use to "dehumanize" the opponent, to look upon him as a bestial animal, to demonize him or to treat him as an all-guilty scapegoat, as has been the case throughout history. Tolstoy showed us how in the Chechen war in the 1850's each
of the three involved ethnic groups, Russians, Cossacks and Chechens, didn't consider the other two as human beings but as "worse than a Tartar".
They were all wrong; all of us are genetically, as Tolstoy concluded, "little Napoleons", ready to kill hundreds of men just to get a useless decoration or a small wage increase.
Neither does it help, however, to turn the other cheek. That can be cynically exploited, as Richard shows us.
This is, indeed, our problem today. With the proliferation of atomic weapons, we have one globally interdependent world. If we want it to continue, history tells us we must by necessity have a global policeman to protect us against atomic evil.
In a way, we are back to Plato's idea of a "philosopher king". As things have been, there is only one candidate for that job for the foreseeable future, the United States or, hopefully, a well-co-thinking USA and Europe in a NATO Superbrain.
In the world as it is, we must firmly guard against the normally occurring, extremely evil men taking over political power within our own nations. Where such men, in other nations, do take political power, we must be prepared to withstand them. Without a globally strong King, there will be atomic chaos.
Let me stress again: most of all, we in the West should guard ourselves from becoming corrupted by the kingly power that history has now given us. We must not become arrogant to such an extent that the rest of the world, in frustrated envy, turns into our terrorist enemy.
To be the global cop is an unavoidable dilemma for the United States or NATO. For two reasons, we should learn to withstand evil without too much blame or hate.
First, all of us have some portion of evilness in us. That should prevent us from throwing stones. Secondly, those who do throw stones might be genetically predisposed to do so.
When that is the case, we must, like a wise philosopher king, firmly prevent their evilness from exploding but, at the same time, pity them for the bad genetic inheritance they were given at birth through no fault of their own.
To ask us to love our enemies may be in vain. To ask the Jews to love the Germans, or the Palestinians the Jews is a bit too much.
But perhaps we could, finally, master the attitude of Plato's philosopher kings.
They were all wrong; all of us are genetically, as Tolstoy concluded, "little Napoleons", ready to kill hundreds of men just to get a useless decoration or a small wage increase.
Neither does it help, however, to turn the other cheek. That can be cynically exploited, as Richard shows us.
This is, indeed, our problem today. With the proliferation of atomic weapons, we have one globally interdependent world. If we want it to continue, history tells us we must by necessity have a global policeman to protect us against atomic evil.
In a way, we are back to Plato's idea of a "philosopher king". As things have been, there is only one candidate for that job for the foreseeable future, the United States or, hopefully, a well-co-thinking USA and Europe in a NATO Superbrain.
In the world as it is, we must firmly guard against the normally occurring, extremely evil men taking over political power within our own nations. Where such men, in other nations, do take political power, we must be prepared to withstand them. Without a globally strong King, there will be atomic chaos.
Let me stress again: most of all, we in the West should guard ourselves from becoming corrupted by the kingly power that history has now given us. We must not become arrogant to such an extent that the rest of the world, in frustrated envy, turns into our terrorist enemy.
To be the global cop is an unavoidable dilemma for the United States or NATO. For two reasons, we should learn to withstand evil without too much blame or hate.
First, all of us have some portion of evilness in us. That should prevent us from throwing stones. Secondly, those who do throw stones might be genetically predisposed to do so.
When that is the case, we must, like a wise philosopher king, firmly prevent their evilness from exploding but, at the same time, pity them for the bad genetic inheritance they were given at birth through no fault of their own.
To ask us to love our enemies may be in vain. To ask the Jews to love the Germans, or the Palestinians the Jews is a bit too much.
But perhaps we could, finally, master the attitude of Plato's philosopher kings.