CS Lewis on why “dumb blue collar people” usually do not fall for the same terrible ideas that the “educated elite class” so often does:
“Why, you fool, it’s the educated readers who can be gulled. All our difficulty comes with the others. When did you meet a workman who believes the papers? He takes it for granted that they’re all propaganda and skips the leading articles. He buys his paper for the football results and the little paragraphs about girls falling out of windows and corpses found in Mayfair flats. He is our problem: we have to recondition him. But the educated public, the people who read the highbrow weeklies, don’t need reconditioning. They’re all right already. They’ll believe anything.”
– CS Lewis, That Hideous Strength
… Or Romans 1: “Claiming to be wise, they became fools.”
The clip of Dennis Prager alleging that animated child exploitation videos aren’t immoral has gone viral again, as part of a broader conversation on “Judeo-Christian ethics.”
Some have claimed that he’s a closeted pervert. That may be true, but he’s not unique.
He’s Jewish.
This is a teachable moment for Judeo-Christians to finally figure out that we do not, in fact, share a religion heritage, common worldview, or values.
Prager is just drawing from this Rabbinical ethical system and to Christians, it looks atrocious and evil. Which makes sense, because it is.
When Prager asked, “Who’s the victim?” about animated child exploitation films, he’s asking a Rabbinic question.
The Talmud is very clear that unless there is a person who can be paid restitution, it’s not a sin.
In Rabbinic Judaism, sin is transactional.
It’s not a sin because it’s unlike God, or because it offends God. It’s a sin only because there’s someone due a cash payment for quantifiable harm.
This is why Ketubot 11b doesn’t prescribe punishment for someone who molests a girl younger than 3, because “her hymen will grow back.”
No harm, no foul.
In Christian Ethics, something is sinful because it’s unlike God and offends his nature. But not in Rabbinic Judaism. Because Halakha requires a chavero - a specific person who was harmed and who can be repaid and can grant forgiveness before it can classify an act as a sin - it’s not technically immoral.
Rabbinic teaching withholds the label “sin” from bad thoughts, no matter how bad those thoughts are.
Tosefta Peah 1:4 states the rule as a direct maxim, “A good thought Hashem combines to action; a bad thought Hashem does not combine to action.”
This is exactly the opposite of Christian ethics, in which Jesus teaches that sin in the heart is just as much sin as sin in our actions (Matthew 5:27-28).
But Rabbis don’t study the Bible to learn more about God to become more like Him. They study the Scriptures to find loopholes in God’s Law, to learn how much they can get away with and the best way to evade consequences for their behavior.
Depression is just the repressed knowledge that you’re living beneath your potential and/or not in line with your inner conscience.
Anxiety is actually a form of entitlement.
HALDEMAN: There’s a genre of film they make. They’re called “edits.” Footage of you - the Checkers speech, the ‘62 concession, the helicopter, set to a kind of, uh, trancelike electronic music. The comments say things like “literally me” and “he just like me fr.”
NIXON: What’s “fr”?
HALDEMAN: “For real,” sir.
NIXON: And the…sweating? In the, the debate? They’ve seen the sweating?
HALDEMAN: They love the sweating. They consider it relatable. The consensus is that the sweating gives you “aura.”
NIXON: Aura, huh.
[EIGHT SECONDS OF SILENCE]
NIXON: Bob, I want to be very clear about something. In 1960 that sweating cost me the presidency of the United States, and now it’s giving me…what, aura? Where the [EXPLETIVE] was the aura in Cook County?
KISSINGER: History has a way of vindicating-
PRESIDENT: Henry, do you have edits?
[TWELVE SECONDS OF SILENCE]
KISSINGER: There are some.
@redeemed_zoomer Church makes rule that you can't leave for a different Church, even when it's corrupt and unrighteous. Sounds about the same as Catholicism