“But the new rebel is a skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. . . . As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. . . . The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.”

@kellyjay said
“But the new rebel is a skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but ...[text shortened]... urposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.”

@kellyjay said
“But the new rebel is a skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but ...[text shortened]... urposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.”

@fmf said
We can perhaps wait for a poster who is "rebelling against everything" or who self-identifies as "an infinite sceptic" to come along and see what they say about about G.K. Chesterton's quote. Are you going to argue the writer's corner?

@divegeester said
Another hand-grenade OP obviously aimed at specific poster(s) in the forum but lacking the courage to name them.

At least it’s not using biblical scriptures referencing god’s enemies or rambling on about demons.

@suzianne said
"Obviously"? "Obviously" to you, perhaps, but then you do seem to act as if everyone in this forum posts for the same reasons you do, to attack others. It's just not true.

Again, it's a quote. No need to fluff your feathers and act all offended.

@suzianne said
Another obvious attempt to twist one's words back onto that person.

Except this is just a quote, man. Your frothing is useless. As is your twisting of the meaning of the words.

@kellyjay said
“But the new rebel is a skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but ...[text shortened]... urposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.”

@moonbus said
What Chesterton describes is the archetype of the hypocrite. Skeptics and rebels have no monopoly on hypocrisy. There are hypocrites among the faithful, too. For example, bishops who move predator priests around from parish to parish and cause evidence against them to remain buried until the statue of limitations expires, while condemning " in the strongest possible language" ...[text shortened]... criminal court system for justice, they have no right to preach any sexual ethic to the rest of us.

@kellyjay said
Hypocrisy is a human issue in every walk of life. Remaining consistent in argument from beginning to end is the goal, as well as life in general. Condemning requires a standard of just behavior, without that it’s simply a comparison of one moving ever changing standard to specific events that can be liked today, and hated tomorrow. Therefore the judgment passed is only a passing fancy nothing more.

@moonbus said
Still, some formerly-ethical precepts were repudiated or abandoned, and rightly so. Exodus 22:18, for example, did not merely go out of fashion.