Yeah, I was with him until this part:
So, don't do bad stuff, where bad stuff is defined as 'whatever you want it to be case by case'.
If an entity grows, procreates, acts in the interests of it’s own survival, and dies, it is obviously a life form, and to kill it could be wrong for you to do. If you are supposed to be a killer(read god’s avenging angel), then it could be right for you(If you believe you are, seek help).
The reason I don’t define right and wrong for anyone else is that I am not god, I don’t know who the serial killers are, I can’t know right and wrong for you, only you can decide for you, only you will live the life of your choices.
I’m sorry if you need a box to feel comfortable in, step outside, live free of the constraints of those that taught them to you in order to control you.
Much to my chagrin, reality goes on whether you recognize it, or not. It doesn’t care about your opinion, it simply is. It is up to you to recognize it, not vice versa.
Thanks for taking the time for me.
Why substitude the word ‘Ok’, when what you really mean is ‘right’?
Oh, but you do, and your word games don't change that. The whole idea was that people get retribution in the hereafter for the good and the evil they do. If you aren't willing to say what is good and what is evil, then you have said nothing at all. I mean, how could a person possibly live by that? "If you do evil, you'll be punished, but there's no way to know what's evil....so best of luck to you!"
But luckily, you aren’t in this fix, because it is clear that a part of your system is all about proclaiming values and judgements, moral and otherwise:
Clearly, you think Jerry is unfortunate for living in his box, clearly you look down on those that taught him the beliefs he has. Judgement calls all of them. Now, you are self-concious enough not to apply terms like 'good' or 'evil' to living in a box or controlling others, but just because you avoid the terminology doesn't mean the judgements aren't there.
And what does this mean? The 'seek help' could easily be read as seek mental, professional help. If that's what you mean, then your 'supposed to be a killer' thing is just a token- you know you [i]have to [/i]say something like that in order to avoid proclaiming that killing things is wrong, but of course in reality you think that anyone who comes to the conclusion that they are 'supposed to be a killer' has something wrong with them. It's part word-game, part double standard. Now, if you meant something else by 'seek help', such as 'seek help from other killers on how to kill things in the best way you can', then nevermind.
EDIT FOR A POSITIVE SUGGESTION: If you are hesitant to say what is evil, then drop the word from your system altogether. The acknowledgement that killing things or consuming resources is a kind of ‘taking’ is non-controversial. That one has to ‘give’ something in proportion to what they ‘take’ to subsist works along your system of balance, it’s quite empty of moral judgements (save for one or two). All you would need is define what counts as ‘giving’, and you’d be all set.
I’m not sure I could add anything to what Ucc’s said here in the way of pointing out the irony in your post, anarchistangel.
I’m wondering if you see it at all.
Admittedly, this is a work in progress, and I’m sure you would agree that one often has difficulty in being subjective about one’s self, so yes, I may not have it all down pat, but that is what I am here for, to receive input, thank you for taking the time,…
I do have to make judgement calls about who I choose to associate with, I admittedly have prejudices against those that seek to use violence to control others, so who I choose to associate with is not necessarily in lock step with what is called for in my philosophy. I am not a saint, just an angel.
The best of luck is for you to make in choosing your choices, if what you choose to do is evil for you, it doesn’t matter that it is also evil for me, or not. It only matters that you have not acted according to your best interests.
Yes, I do feel for Jerry, he is not thinking for himself, he is accepting values that were taught to him, not ones arrived at through free thinking, and trial and error.
If you think you are god’s avenging angel you do need dianetic therapy. Or at least read the book so you can have a better understanding of why you think as you do.
If god is good 100%, he isn’t sanctioning the murder of any body. He is hoping that the misguided are exposed to the proper knowledge. What kind of ‘good’ god would kill his charges?
The analogy requires that the entity to the right be more pure than the driven snow.
Personally to attone for my past transgressions I strive to improve each life I touch by preaching self-reliance, and self-control.
They don’t have to take the advice, but having heard it, they at least have been exposed to the concepts.
Did you read down that link? Evil must remain as a choice in order for Good to exist as a concept. Without light, there is no dark.
Well, that is why your philosophy is not suitable. If you cannot live it, then it is not even worth considering.
You have already made a judgement on Jerry, for whatever reasons, you don’t know him. Jerry is God’s child. Now whether he eats meat, or whether he kills people or whatever you have decided is wrong (for yourself) that fact cannot be changed. The fact that he is your brother. I don’t believe that God is judging him - “well now see Jerry, he can’t get into Heaven”. No, God whispers to him through the voice of his children, through the beauty of a flower through our loving hearts - God says for us all to come home regardless of our so called right and wrongdoings. The choice and the judgement is ours and ours alone. Reserve your judgement for yourself, Jerry will take care of his own.
My goodness dear. These are your words coming out of your mouth.
Ok, if God is 100% good… God is not good my dear, God is God. The only place that God fits into your circle is right in the centre, beyond good and evil. It is in man’s best interest to centre himself and align with God, not to keep swaying on the pendulum of good and evil. Good and evil are man-made.
Playing this game only leads us into judgement about what is good and what is evil. This judgement takes you away from what is true. Sure you can be 100% good. But that doesn’t make you pure. Purity exists in your heart - in your heart you are already pure. Tuning into that purity means removing good and evil. Removing day and night. I will venture that day and night don’t actually exist in Heaven. That Heaven exists within your own heart as a frequency and the only way to arrive is to vibrate on the same frequency. Hence people are able to enlighten themselves and still physically be here on earth. Jesus was here, Mohammed was here, Buddha was here, existing in Heaven and on earth at the same time. Why? Because they were able to override the human frequency and tune into God’s frequency.
My dear 'angel, you really do need to be very sure of your message. If you are influencing people in anyway whatsoever and claiming that to be truth, you had better make damned sure it is truth. The consequences of passing on false knowledge as God’s word is larger than you can imagine.
A
Excuse me, sporty, but have we met before? 'Cause I think I would have remembered. Is there some relationship that we have had that has enabled you to arrive at this conclusion about me? What is your knowledge of me based on? Maybe you’ve read my 1,040+ posts, perhaps?
I’d be very interested in how you came about this description.
Okay, wait a minute -
There.
The interest has passed.
Never mind.
Thanks for your participation here at ILP.
No, Jerry we haven’t met, nor have I read any posts outside this thread.
But that doesn’t stop me from seeing that you brought negative to our conversation. Instead of suggesting improvements, or just acknowledging what is right with my proposal, you dismiss it out of hand. Which is your absolute right, but you will live in a world free of dissent, the dissenters spot you pretty quick, and move away. But don’t think I don’t wish the best for you, I want you to have as perfect a life as possible.
LA,
My inability to be perfect in all ways doesn’t disprove the simple logic of my supposition. Nor does the logic of an all forgiving god fly, if that’s the case, I would think that there would be more pilaging and plundering, but bad things do happen to bad people, it’s the simple logic of moving along the scale.
The philosophers that you mention have had a lasting impact on the earth because they were great thinkers, and because others saw advantage in propagating their organizations, but not one of them has brought peace to the world.
They lived lives of leisure, their best postulations were made early, then they coasted on the ability to sell their message.
I do recognize the peril of putting myself in the posistion of ‘god’, that is why I stess that you must think for yourself. What I say is in no way an edict, I don’t want to be responsible for you, as I would be if you took my advice. You must think for yourself, I can only tell you what has worked/not worked for me.
Like Jerry said, how could you possibly know that, and secondly, even if you’re right, why is that something to feel bad about?
What do you mean when you say God is good? The above makes it seem like you are willing to take the plunge and admit that murder is always wrong, for everybody- since God never sanctions is. So you do have some objective standards for what evil is after all. That’s a good thing.
It also requires there to be such a thing as objective 'pureness' to which the entity conforms or exemplifies. That puts the onus on you to say exactly what makes something, which is why the "what's evil for you may not be evil for me" thing doesn't work. What's evil, is whatever doesn't resembled that 'pure as the driven snow' Being at the right end of your scale.
I could have, of course, just simply made wild, speculative generalizations about you based on my reading of exactly one post of yours. But that seems to be more your strategy.
Good luck with that.
[size=75][Note to self No134][/size]
[size=84]Do not tell Jerry how to live his life.
Do not tell Jerry how to live his life.
Do not tell Jerry how to live his life.
Do not tell Jerry how to live his life.
Do not tell Jerry how to live his life.
Do not tell Jerry how to live his life.
Do not tell Jerry how to live his life.
Do not tell Jerry how to live his life.[/size]
anarchistangel,
Your proposed simple religion is doomed from the beginning. As others have pointed out, by saying what it is, you’ve also created what it isn’t. Value judgements are an intrinsic part of your proposal, even if they are only implied. Good and evil? While you attempt to avoid judging others (except Jerry), you’re stuck with saying how one would know good from evil. (Uccisore’s point) It might be good to note that good and evil are adjectives - good thing, bad thing. All religions must of necessity define that which is good and that which is bad. To suggest that this can be arrived at between myself and God implies that I already know that which is good and that which is evil in every circumstance I may find myself - from the very beginning to the end of my life. I might be willing to agree with that, but it has absolutely nothing to do with religion, but with spiritual sensitivity, and as liquidangel observes, spirituality transcends concepts of good-evil which can only exist in the world of duality -ie- religion.
It might be a good idea to look at the apriori assumptions within your proposed religion. It may not be quite as simple as it appears…
JT
You are right, Jerry, I can only assume from your choice of words, I intend no offense.
The native amerikan tradition express the sanctity of all life, you chose the christian ‘animals have no souls’, this line of logic could only come into being had it been told to you by some authority you accept as valid, when clearly these things are alive, you wish to dismiss them as irrelevant, another learned behavior.
The objectivity of this outline is absolute, everything you cause affects others in some way, this either results in an improvement in their existence, or a detraction.
There are no personalities, there is only the absolute good, the absolute evil, and the place that you occupy somewhere in between.
It doesn’t matter if you accept this as a valid theory, or not, it goes on regardless.
I just feel obligated to point out that the major religions have been allowed to grow as large as they have because the have sanction of those who use violence to get their way. It isn’t because their brand of hoops gets you into heaven any faster, it’s because their sermons fall in line with the powermonger’s scheme. Religion opiates the masses, it keeps them pondering impossible/irrelevant trivia. It gives them something to argue about.
This precludes them from the posistion of ‘good’ when one assumes that each individual wants full control of their own lives, to be free of violence, and threats of violence.
Not many folks get the connection, how long do you think christianity would have lasted if Jesus had said taxation is robbery?
Wake up to the reality,…maybe you like having others do your thinking for you, ask the millions of germans what that will get you. Even when you surrender your thoughts to another to think for you, you are still on the hook for what you cause.
Uccisore, I can’t determine right from wrong for anyone but myself, nor can you.
I have found through years of sad living that if it’s wrong for you to do it to me, it’s wrong for me to do it to you. A very simple concept that is hidden from most folks. It’s fine to 'hang ‘em high’, until they come for you.
Would somebody please explain the blasphemy of value judgements?
One knows ‘right’ from ‘wrong’ in their lives because ‘wrong’ choices lower survival values. If you chose to violate the ‘rights’ of others, bad things will happen to you, it’s not real complex. If you don’t like how your life is treating you, make better choices.
If life was as simple as for you to know every outcome in advance, there wouldn’t be much challenge to it.
Life is a test of who you are over the course of your lifetime, the good and the bad add up to your sum, what happens next is anybody’s guess.
Thanks to all of you for taking the time.
I trust I can get some positive remarks as well?
You know, I don’t mean to sound like a broken record and within the context of any specific animal rights point you’re trying to make, I really don’t care. But there’s a larger issue here, and I and several other members have pointed it out to you apparently to no avail.
So I will ask you once more. From where do you get your presumed ideas of what I do or do not believe? And while you’re at it, maybe you could also explain from where you get your presumed ideas of how I came to believe what I believe.
I make my assumptions based on the terms you use.
The posistion you have taken, only humans have souls, only human life has value, is a posistion taken by certain segments of society, christians being among them. When you take that posistion I know you are standing in line with the series of thoughts that lead to that conclusion, simple really, if not totally accurate.
So, Jerry, have you thought this out for yourself, or have you joined in lockstep with some perceived hero of your’s?
Are you sure that you want to subordinate the value of other creatures to your own without at least acknowledging their sacrifice?
Thanks for your time, Jerry.
If I missed something that you wanted answered, please ask again. I don’t always read what you have written(I read what I think you wrote.), nor is what I have written necessarily what you have read. It may lose or gain things in the translation.
What specific terms did I use that caused you to make the assumptions you made?
I may or may not hold this position. What have I said here under this topic that stakes out my position with regard to this issue?
I think this describes the way anybody takes a position, doesn’t it? What does it really mean?
How has it become clear to you that I am doing this?
The reference was to other life forms having as much value in their lives as any other life forms. including trees, who may not run, or play much, but are clearly still alive.
Yes, all things have been mapped out by the people before us to greater/lesser acclaim. It is just a matter of deciding which camp you fall into.
By dismissing my assertion on those grounds,…
But if anyone believes that their role in life in to be a murderer, you feel comfortable proclaiming that they need mental help? Why? What's the difference between murder and stamp collecting?
Also, what makes you think you can determine right from wrong for [i]yourself[/i] anymore than anybody else? I mean, I know it's popular to say stuff like that, but really when you think about it, why assume that?
It’s not the blasphemy of value judgements, it’s the blashphemy of contradiction you are falling into. It’s “wrong” for me to decide what’s right or wrong for someone else? How more self-contradictory can you get? So far, you’ve declared
1.) It’s wrong for other people tell others what’s right and wrong.
2.) It’s wrong for other people to kill.
3.) There is an almighty pure Being, and being like It is what’s right.
4.) Jerry is pathetic for having beliefs that resemble (to you) Christianity.
In fact, it seems to me that you are quite the moralist, quite the pronouncer of how others ought to live their lives. That’s fine, we all do it. What’s not fine is you trying to say that deciding for others what’s right and wrong isn’t good, even as you go about doing that very same thing.
Er, you really think so? There’s nobody out there in the world, who does all sorts of horrible things to people- way worse than anything you or I would ever do- and laughs about it all the way to the bank? What about dictators? Crime lords? Abusive spouses? All these and more oftentimes live to a ripe old age, and die happy.
Also, one last thing:
You harp on Jerry because something he said reminded you of something you hear Christians say, and since all Christians are mindless sheep, you feel bad for him. Has it ever occured to you that these days, there is an equally large flock bleating “Baaaa, don’t push your morals on other people,” and “Baaaaa, free-thinking blah blah blah” and you sound like just another one of them?
But your assertion was that I “dismiss (other life forms) as irrelevant, another learned behavior,” one that I presumably picked up from “some authority (I) accept as valid,” choosing the “Christian ‘animals have no souls’ logic.”
How did you get all of that from this:
“Sounded good until the red meat thing. And the paper.”
And how does my dismissal illustrate to you that I do not “acknowledge their sacrifice”?
Can you see my problem with all of your assumptions? Uccisore’s right on the money about the hypocritical value judgments. But it’s even worse than that. You’re making value judgments without even knowing (or bothering to try to understand) the position(s) of the one your judging against.
Thank you for illustrating that for me, I agree that I was high handed in my approach to Jerry.
Sorry, Jerry,…
So, back to the topic, it seems that I am the only one willing to agree that this simple religion is a panacea, yet I’ve not read any specific reasons that the logic is not sound.
Why won’t suscribing to this simple life guide return earth to the paradise it was when no man ruled another?
It was a series of logical progressions from your dismissal of the assertion on the grounds that red meat is meant to be eaten. I like it, too, I just recognize that all life forms deserve respect, they are as alive as everybody else. I will continue to eat meat.
The reference was to being god’s avenging angel, and I would guess that the odds of that being the case are slim, though not impossible. The assertion that one should seek help if confronted with the notion that he/she could go around killing in ‘god’s’ name reflect those odds. I, of course, would be wrong, if I were wrong.
The difference between stamp collecting and serial murder is the lives involved. If you are to be a serial killer, and I advised you against that, I would be wrong, and I would suffer the consequences of having given bad advice, but those odds I’m willing to take, I don’t think that the ultimate good in the universe, and hence ‘god’, would be sending people to do the work of his chief nemesis.
As for being popular, never have been, probably will be in the future, but I think for myself.
I give credit to Ayn Rand, Kurt Saxon, L. Ron Hubbard where credit is due, but they have failed to bring world peace, either.
Thank you both for having taken the time,…