Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Sat May 01, 2021 12:19 am
He has couched this in moral terms. He didn't have to do so. But he did.
he has not made, by his own admission, a moral claim. He has simply described
what he perceives as the current threat in course to his own life: the ideophoby. You (=Peter Kirby) have not to confuse the realism of the mere description
of a such external threat with a moral
claim imparted to others.
As to Skribna, see this precise point:
With the exception of Nietzsche, all of the above individuals exhibit a glaring weakness: they are loathe to criticize anyone. No one comes in for condemnation, no one is guilty, no one is to blame for anything. For the earliest writers, I think this is due primarily to an insecurity about their ideas and a general lack of clarity about what likely occurred. For the more recent individuals, it’s probably attributable to an in-bred political correctness, to a weakness of moral backbone, backbone, or to sheer self-interest. In recent years, academics in particular are highly reticent to affix blame on individuals, even those long-dead. This is somehow seen as a violation of academic neutrality or professional integrity. But when the facts line up against someone or some group, then we must be honest with ourselves. There are truly guilty parties all throughout history, and when we come upon them, they must be called out.
There are exceptions, of course. Hitler, Nazis, or Islamic “terrorists” are still open targets, for example.
From the POV of moral nihilism, one may fully
subscribe that quote. Hardly so for Skrbina, since otherwhere he says that we should
not live under a lie, hence implying a moral
judgement, the same one he doesn't like to apply (why?) in the case of "Hitler, Nazis, or Islamic “terrorists”
At any case, he is particularly persuasive in his criticism of Aslan's view on Paul:
Paul does not appear in the book until very late, and then plays only a relatively minor role. He correctly notes that Paul’s Jesus is “almost wholly of his own making,” but never quite manages to place any blame on Paul at all. On Aslan’s reading, Paul is always an innocent and upright fellow, just doing his best to build a church as he sees fit. Paul never lied. In Aslan’s world, no one has any malicious intent, no one ever does anything bad or wrong, no one is to blame for anything.
(p.107, my bold)
The problem here is not only of Aslan's view, but of all
mythicists and historicists of my knowledge. Even when the (once mythicist) Roger Parvus said me that Simon Magus/"Paul" could be a real liar in his approach to the Pillars before him, he is not giving as reason behind the Magus the precise intention of a hoax
, but the mere will of power and authority in the field of prophecy among rival prophets.