Ideals vs Pragmatism

Ideas are what man is best capable of. His idealism pristine pure in its conception must be tested in real time and place with others. Me vs them. The ideals of others are not mine. My ideal as I conceived speak for me. No matter the ideas are somewhat rehashed to fit me. Just the same I am an entire world itself with a soul at its center. I cannot be otherwise.

But can my ideal hold its integrity for long pure? Unfortunately history of mankind doesn’t show from lives of anyone,- saint, sinner wise or fool included, as ever having succeeded. Pragmatism is what makes expediency come to the fore and make every moral value slip away unnoticed and unlamented.
Jesus came out of obscurity preaching ideas that sound very much that Communism seemed to offer: A Worker’s Paradise. So would Communism promise one.
Time presents opportunities with events at work, sometimes favorable for one and contrary. Circumstances are there always. Those who are totally committed to 'succeed' shall always find one point of time to act out. But is it the right one? Pragmatism got Lenin a closed train with the help of the Imperial Germany to persuade Russia to withdraw from the war. His pragmatism helped Bolshevik partisans to get controls over the country when all their sinews and nerves were strained to war effort.
Communism as a theory when practised by Lenin and Stalin will be so different. Or take Christianity for example. Did not the approach by Peter and Paul differ? The simple reason for their difference was the existence of Orthodox Jewish practices which both were well familiar with. Paul as a naturalized Roman citizen was sure his approach was more pragmatic in taking Christianity to far corners of the Empire. Whereas Peter claiming to the mantle of Christ chose another course. Ideals of any man must be tested against what has gone before. Thus even after the idea of Worker’s Paradise through Communism came a cropper, in Latin countries it will morph into Liberation Theology.The Church were not members of the Party. Even so it was easy for the Church to latch onto the Scriptures and some words of Jesus to give Communism a new change of clothes.
None of us is exempt from the slow contagion of ‘pragmatism’ somewhat a necessary compromise for anyone who wants to succeed. What success when by compromise soul of an idea has been killed? This is human condition. Why would Lenin work himself to death literally had he known Stalin would decimate the Party and set up a personality cult and change entire outlook of Communism within a decade?
benny

The Man of Sorrows

Is there anything by way of the antecedents of Jesus of Nazareth that can connect flawlessly with what followed, I mean by way of a movement? I beg to stick to the historical Jesus and not with what the synoptic gospels and the epistles are largely concerned with, which my reader according to his own preferences and persuasions may accept or reject. As much as I believe Jesus was the son of Joseph of Nazareth a carpenter, he subjected himself to the powers-that- be. He paid the tribute money (St.Mk 12: 17) with the scrupulous care of one who as any visitor to a kingdom would fulfill his obligations to the letter. His kingdom was not of this world and his many parables point out to this fact. It is true that he did forsee in Peter the making of a rock that shall bear the burden of his Church. (St. Matt 16:18-19) Would it mean he implied the Church of Rome or Papal dispensation would represent his command by any stretch of imagination? In fact Jesus, in the subsequent passages shows how his disciple was far from founding one. He calls St. Peter thus: “ Satan: thou art an offense to me:” Of course Peter was a man who thought and conducted himself like any other. Let us now draw our attention to the closing verses of the same chapter. We read that Jesus hinted of his soon coming in the glory of His Father( vs.28) and as such founding a church was not of the immediate priority. We can very well reject the claims of the Church of Rome that the Church was indeed what he had in mind.
There are no authentic evidences by way of archaeological sites or by scholarly accounts of contemporary historians whose impartial judgment we could rely on. Where he was born but in a manger; where was he buried after his death but in a borrowed tomb.
Notwithstanding these the world was never the same: the pagan world gave way to people of the Way. The pluses and minuses of the new belief are still with us. Did they make the world a better place or made it more crude and coarse?
To judge the role of Jesus( ‘My kingdom is not of this world’) by the manner his disciples fared subsequently cannot be fair. He cannot be blamed for if the Church amassed control into their own hands or interpreted the Word to suit their needs. He didn’t initiate the Crusades, Salem Witch trials or Inquisition. It would be apt to remember the Wildean epigram,”It is always Judas who writes the biography.”
Tailpiece: ‘Save me from my disciples! They are defending me to the point of dishonor’.

benny