On this post about Padre Pio standing at the gates of heaven waiting for all his spiritual children, someone posting as ‘anonymous’ sent me a comment saying; “your ultimate goal is to fix your relationship with the gods and move on…. I may be that Real Second Coming… What I teach is the gods’ real way.”
The Olympians (see the picture to the left) are in control.
Except maybe it is a hoax – someone hiding behind their computer screen who might just be having a laugh writing a comment that is full of theories about pleasing gods by living a chaste life – I kid you not. And it is posted as anonymous – perhaps it’s too strong to say that I never really trust anonymous commentators. If one stands by what they write, they might take the ‘risk’ of putting their name to it. As Ezra Pound said; “If a man isn't willing to take some risk for his opinions, either his opinions are no good or he's no good”
One complexity with the blogosphere is that there is a lot of guilt-by-association. If a blogger publishes a comment that is strange and delusional, then is the blogger siding and agreeing with the commentator? This goes against the essence of proper debate where several different opinions may be heard, and just because one person voices a contrary, off-the-wall opinion it does not mean that the person hosting the debate is responsible for this opinion… Or does it? If I publish a comment from someone who says that we will go to Heaven ‘only’ if we follow the gods’ way, then am I leading other people who might read this comment astray? If I publish this comment, are people so gullible and impressionable that they would be misled into believing in these ‘gods’?