This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
SteelHands · 61-69, M
Wasn't he charged with refusing to recognize the same gods as the state? And wasn't his apology about how by asking questions of thinking people that thinking people began to realize that it is better to question things than to make the error of thinking you know an answer that might be wrong?
Coppercoil · M
Sounds right to me. I think I may have dumbed it down a bit. either way he sure did get himself in trouble.the goid akways die youmg.. wait.. i think he was old. Also young water hemlock looks like wild carrot, so be careful if you forage.
SteelHands · 61-69, M
@coppercoil: I have read his Apology several times over the years and each time I gain a little insight. Actually the surface appearance was that he was thought dangerous for failing to ascribe faith in the State named gods. Actually he wasn't so godless a man that he was teaching there are no gods but it gets much deeper when you know much of the old writings have been "lost." His students continued to evolve on his basic quests for understanding. Plus the fact that he wasn't the slightest bit fearful of his fated sentence being carried out. It's clear to me that he was certain that there had to be a creator of some kind. He was the first creationist to point out that the human mind is incompetent to grasp or dimensions or define such, however.
These days the godless among us like to claim that he was an A-theist, and that he was a victim of rabid theological repression. The higher ups were just angry about the fact that they wanted to control the population by controlling the very definition of what God means. He was not infinitely intelligent. He was just AS intelligent as they were and they wouldn't stand for that. So they killed him.
These days the godless among us like to claim that he was an A-theist, and that he was a victim of rabid theological repression. The higher ups were just angry about the fact that they wanted to control the population by controlling the very definition of what God means. He was not infinitely intelligent. He was just AS intelligent as they were and they wouldn't stand for that. So they killed him.
Coppercoil · M
SteelHands · 61-69, M
And if you have time left over you might check on Epictetus as well. He says things like this...
Nay young man. For heaven's sake; but once thou hast heard these words, go home and say to thyself:--"It is not Noahkohol [Epictetus] that told me these things: How indeed should he? No, it is some gracious God, through him. Else it would never have entered into his head to tell me them--He that is not used to speak to any one thus. Well then. Let us not lie under the wrath of God, but be obedient unto "Him." Nay indeed; but if a raven by its croaking bears thee any sign, it is not the raven but God that sends the sign [i]through[/i] the raven; And if HE signifies anything to thee through a human voice, will[i]He[/i] not cause that man to say these words to thee, that thou mayest know the power of the Divine--How he sends a sign to one in one way and to others in another, and on the greatest and highest matters of all...signifies his will through the noblest messenger? What else does the poet mean:--
[center]
I spake unto him erst [b][i]Myself[/i][/b], and sent
Hermes the shining One, to check and warn him,
The Husband not to slay, nor woo the wife![/center]
Nay young man. For heaven's sake; but once thou hast heard these words, go home and say to thyself:--"It is not Noahkohol [Epictetus] that told me these things: How indeed should he? No, it is some gracious God, through him. Else it would never have entered into his head to tell me them--He that is not used to speak to any one thus. Well then. Let us not lie under the wrath of God, but be obedient unto "Him." Nay indeed; but if a raven by its croaking bears thee any sign, it is not the raven but God that sends the sign [i]through[/i] the raven; And if HE signifies anything to thee through a human voice, will[i]He[/i] not cause that man to say these words to thee, that thou mayest know the power of the Divine--How he sends a sign to one in one way and to others in another, and on the greatest and highest matters of all...signifies his will through the noblest messenger? What else does the poet mean:--
[center]
I spake unto him erst [b][i]Myself[/i][/b], and sent
Hermes the shining One, to check and warn him,
The Husband not to slay, nor woo the wife![/center]