I wonder what it would take to become a god.

Some rulers were gods in their time. An angry Rabbi from Galilee became a god a few centuries after he died and a Roman soldier became a superhero (didn’t set his sights high enough).

Even in the 20th century the leader of a secular political movement was believed to have the strength to lift tanks.

Recipe for Divinity

Take:

  • One set of Moral Codes Taking a familiar code and changing a few proper names is acceptable.
  • One or more books of scripture. Be sure to include in the scripture the edict that it is a sin to change the scripture. They’re going to do it anyway but this will slow the process down a little.
  • Throw in as many worshipers as you can find. Unfortunately you’re working with modern man’s reduced attentions span. You’ll be lucky if they remember your name fifteen minutes after you’re dead. So it’s important to establish a business model that produces new products that support your religion and vice versa.
  • And wrap it all up with a Big Death Nothing preserves celebrity like a controversial death.

Example: Ayn Rand

Moral Code?Check!
Scripture?Check! Check!
Body of Worshipers?Check!
Big Death?Ooo. Sorry, Ine, you died a mundane death of heart failure. But you never know, maybe you’ll get lucky and some future biographer will punch up your ending with a little mystery.

I’d still place pretty good odds at Ayn Rands ascension. And before anyone tries to tell me that there’s no way one can build a supernatural mythology around her concepts of individualism, rational egoism, and capitalism just remember; Jesus used to preach forgiveness and tolerance.

Filed under: LiveJournal Days,Uncategorized
Comments: (11)

11 Comments »

  1. I think you’re on to something here.

    Comment by kirinqueen — October 17, 2005 @ 9:28 am

  2. “There is but one god and Supply-Side Economics is his name.”

    Comment by tone_milazzo — October 17, 2005 @ 9:43 am

  3. So. What would you call yourself then, as a deity?

    Comment by keening — October 17, 2005 @ 10:18 am

  4. Oh, I’m not nearly self-absorbed enough to carry something like this through. And I’m too busy obsessing on Lost.

    Comment by tone_milazzo — October 17, 2005 @ 10:23 am

  5. An “angry” rabbi from Galilee? Granted, he did get angry with the moneychangers in his father’s house. But whores and even tax collectors didn’t usually make Jesus angry.

    On topic: Is it something against Jesus, Mao, or Rand that they attracted followers or against humanity in that we like to be blind followers rather than free-thinkers and leaders in general? [Note: for the sake of argument, I’m not casting value judgment on any of Jesus’, Mao’s or Rand’s teachings here.]

    (Glad that you could make it on Saturday!)

    Comment by radcapdotcom — October 17, 2005 @ 11:30 am

  6. I prefer to think of Jesus as angry and anti-establishment. A guy who actually read the scriptures and turned to the priests and shouted, “What the Hell are you doing to my religion!?!”

    Have you read Robert Pirsig’s Lila? He offered the opinion that most people need a moral code to know how to live and the closest America (and maybe the world) ever got to an intellectual society of free thinkers was the Lost Generation, post-WWI.

    They tore down the Victorian social conventions that had dominated since the Civil War, but intellectualism alone couldn’t hold a society together. The deterioration went on through the fifties and in the sixties and seventies we had a generation emerging that was raised without a strict moral code. In fact they were raised in an environment of “Tear down the rules”.

    A lot of good things happened in that era. Old conventions of racism and sexism were marginalized. But without a moral code eventually they descended into hedonism.

    Pirsig’s solution is for intellectuals to create a moral code that can be adjusted like the scientific method or a democratic constitution. So instead of a series of social revolutions there’ll be a society that adjusts gradually.

    Comment by tone_milazzo — October 17, 2005 @ 1:05 pm

  7. just to clarify… a “moral” code, is defined as ones relationship with one’s god. and an “ethical” code is how one relates to one’s society.

    granted, in this case i believe you’re lumping them together, but i think i see what you’re getting at.

    what i see is that human beings can only hold a coherent society for so long before breaking down. (societal entropy?) whether or not we have dieties i think is only tangential. the problem if i can quote a movie i think we’ve all seen is this : “it started with a good idea”. Humans are herd animals…they want to work together, but we’ve “evolved” away most of our instincts in that regard.

    i wonder if i’m still on topic…

    Comment by _ouroboros_ — October 17, 2005 @ 8:56 pm

  8. El Ron Milazzo, visionary of Tonetics,

    your spare cash + his teachings = rapid revelation.

    Reach enlightenment in less than 90 days, or your money back.

    Comment by modemx — October 18, 2005 @ 12:54 am

  9. This is the first time I’ve heard of morality necessarily being god-related (cf. moral, a.; ethic, a. and n.).

    Objectivist morality, for example, has nothing to do with a god (or society even, if you ask a Randian).

    Doesn’t really take away from your point.

    Comment by radcapdotcom — October 18, 2005 @ 4:44 pm

  10. according to popular view in most philosphy studies (philosophical??)
    moral and ethical are different… but i could be out of touch with recent ideas on the subject

    (p.s. rand is/was/awb WRONG, and that’s about the only thing that i believe is objective)

    Comment by _ouroboros_ — October 19, 2005 @ 12:59 pm

  11. Look at you; getting all smart all of a sudden.

    Comment by tone_milazzo — October 19, 2005 @ 1:05 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment