There\u2019s a thing that keeps annoying me when someone brings it up, and that\u2019s the attitude of looking for good in everything, as if that, somehow, is a praiseworthy feature, and you\u2019re a good person if you do it. Also, the attitude of not condemning anyone because there\u2019s bad in everyone and good in everyone, and so on.<\/p>\n
Let me make a few illustrations.<\/p>\n
Let\u2019s take two big containers of ice cream, five litres or so. They are both freshly made and perfectly tasty. Now, we take a spoon of fecal matter \u2013 shit, if you like \u2013 and mix it into one of the ice cream containers. It\u2019s fraction of a percentage, two millilitres of shit per five litres of ice cream. A few hundredths of a percent, if my math is right. Now we randomize the containers so you can\u2019t tell which is which.<\/p>\n
I would like to do that in front of one of those people who tell me they like to see good in everything, and would never discard a person because of a \u201csmall flaw\u201d. Go, eat. It\u2019s 99.9% ice cream; by your definition, almost completely pure goodness. Me, I\u2019d throw both containers into the trash, because not only is the contaminated one pure shit, and not 99.9% ice cream, but the other is so suspicious by mere association that it\u2019s shit as well and needs to be disposed of.<\/p>\n
That\u2019s what mortal sin is. Not only is it so bad that every single fraction of it in something makes the entire mass shit, but it\u2019s even worse \u2013 the other positive virtues make the mass more dangerous and problematic, not less. The fact that 100% shit can look like 100% ice cream and can deceive an innocent person into eating it makes it worse. If you see dog shit on the road, you\u2019re not going to eat it. If you see a bucket of ice cream that contains 0.04% of shit, you might eat it, and for all intents and purposes it\u2019s not less bad than the shit that\u2019s self-evident and thus avoided. Likewise, positive virtues on an evil person make them worse, not better.<\/p>\n
What am I saying here? I\u2019m saying that lack of discrimination gets you doomed. Discrimination is the ability to understand what something is, in its nature. Discrimination is the ability to understand what needs to be understood in what context. An insect in amber makes amber more valuable. An insect in coffee makes coffee less valuable. Shit in a garden is useful. Shit in ice cream makes ice cream useless at best and dangerous at worst.<\/p>\n
So, we now have to understand that some people have all kinds of flaws, but they are great people. We also need to understand that some people can have only one flaw and lots of virtues, and they can be extremely dangerous and evil. Quantity isn\u2019t even a thing. You can\u2019t just make a quantitative analysis and say that a certain percentage of impurities is acceptable. No; sometimes a huge amount of impurities is not only acceptable, but improves the mixture. An example is penicillin mould in cheese. Sometimes, any amount of AIDS or hepatitis infected blood in the blood bank can make the entire batch useless and dangerous. Having a thin layer of ice on the road doesn\u2019t make it mostly road, it makes it black ice.<\/p>\n
In the end, the only criterion is what someone actually does. If a person is mostly virtuous but has a a slight penchant for genocide, you expect that person to be condemned, not 99% praised and 1% condemned. No, you want them 100% condemned, fuck their virtues. Nobody cares that Hitler had good ideas about preserving the environment, increasing employment, making great public roads and was a very good painter. The concentration camps kind of make his virtues moot. Also, you don\u2019t care if some great person had flaws. For instance, Ernest Shackleton<\/a> had all kinds of flaws, but if you got stranded with him in the middle of nowhere, he was the best person in the world to be stranded with, because he ended up getting everybody to safety, where others calculated with \u201cacceptable losses\u201d. He didn\u2019t have acceptable losses, which is why people he got safely out ended up being his friends for life. Sure, he drank too much and died in debt. People whose lives he saved couldn\u2019t care less.<\/p>\n Various spiritual people have different opinions on this. Jesus, for instance, said that the fruits are the only valid criterion of one\u2019s true spiritual significance. Not what virtues they have, not what flaws they have, not what they look like or what they say \u2013 just what the results end up being. If someone is a great person but gets everybody killed, is he truly a great person? Likewise, if one is all kinds of flawed but ends up saving everybody, is he truly flawed?<\/p>\n This puts things into perspective, and the quantitative model of spiritual advancement looks completely inadequate; you know what I mean, the idea that one is increasingly more pure as they approach God. In fact, that doesn\u2019t seem to be how it works at all. Someone can be all kinds of flawed, but if they get the important things right, they can be judged as perfect in the eyes of God. For instance, one of the criminals crucified alongside Jesus, the one who repented and prayed to Jesus to remember him when he gets to his kingdom. That\u2019s the first saint recognised by Christianity. On the other hand, one could look all kinds of pure, but if they hated Jesus during his life, it wasn\u2019t seen as one tiny speck of impurity on an otherwise good person. No, it was seen as a crucial giveaway, a sign that this person truly hates God and is destined for hell. All his other virtues and merits don\u2019t amount to anything at all \u2013 they are like an expensive rope on a dead and rotting ass: just worthless trash.<\/p>\n So, if you say you try to see good in everything, what you probably wanted to signal is being a good person that rejects evil and aspires towards the good. What I heard is something altogether different. So, have some of that 99.9% ice cream while trying to condemn God for creating hell that is full of people you would be compassionate enough to save, unlike God who condemned them. You are obviously a better person than God. Either that, or you don\u2019t know what you\u2019re talking about.<\/p>\n Compassion without discrimination results in evil. Love without discrimination results in evil. Wisdom without discrimination is folly. Without discrimination, you will condemn God and vindicate Satan. Without discrimination, you will end up eating shit ice cream all the way to hell.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" There\u2019s a thing that keeps annoying me when someone brings it up, and that\u2019s the attitude of looking for good in everything, as if that, somehow, is a praiseworthy feature, and you\u2019re a good person if you do it. Also, … Continue reading