A Question.

[Lonlaz]

Hey everyone, I'd like to get some feedback here. I, with my problems
in life, often reflect on how much worse it could be. And if it does
become worse, I hold on the belief that the Universe has some sort of
personal pattern which in effect won't dole out any more adversity to
me than I can deal with. Now, I believe this is true, not because of
some sort of inner revelation, or because of empirical evidence, but
because it is what I need to believe to continue on. I hope that even
if worse comes to worse, and even if I am dealt out more pain than any
human can cope with that I will be able to find a bit of devine grace
in the end.

I am interested in everyone's thoughts on the matter, especially those
who do not believe as I do.

[frantheman]

Curiously, Lon, it was a number of experiences with intense personal
suffering in about a three year period around the turn of the
millenium which led me to personally abandon the idea of divine grace
(the personal part of my journey from belief to agnosticism/atheism).
Ironically, for the majority of recovering alcoholics seem to
experience the opposite, it was the process of stopping drinking and
rebuilding my life which put the capstone on this process.

Despite our feelings that it should be otherwise, in my opinion, we
don't get what we deserve - this can be understood both positively and
negatively! We go through the adventure called life and deal with
things as they come up. From this starting point, I personally believe
it is worth trying to make our lives and our world as tolerable, good
and beautiful as possible. There is no guarantee that we will succeed,
but I personally find the effort satisfying (and I would not rule out
that my personal formation within a religious context may have
something to do with this). The bad stuff, and, at the moment, I'm
experiencing quite a bit of it in the form of my partner's illness,
comes and we deal with it. And the good stuff comes, and we appreciate
it - maybe all the more because we know it doesn't have to be that
way.

What remain are freedom and responsibility - the foundations of
existentialism.

I wish you strength and serenity.

Francis

[Lonlaz]

Thanks Francis, I return wishes of strength and serenity and throw in
a some hope as well.

I suppose I don't think in terms of succeeding or failing by divine
guidance, just the strength to deal with success or failure. I
imagine the strength coming from a divine source, but much of that is
early training on my part. It seems that the same answers present
themselves with Athiesim vs Deists. God or no God, we still
perservere, we still find ways to live with each other, we still find
joy and pain.

I've always thought if there was a God (worth his/her salt), he would
rather you deny him and gain happiness than believe and suffer.

> > who do not believe as I do.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Pat]

On 22 May, 21:35, Lonlaz <lonlaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Francis, I return wishes of strength and serenity and throw in
> a some hope as well.
>
> I suppose I don't think in terms of succeeding or failing by divine
> guidance, just the strength to deal with success or failure.  I
> imagine the strength coming from a divine source, but much of that is
> early training on my part.  It seems that the same answers present
> themselves with Athiesim vs Deists.  God or no God, we still
> perservere, we still find ways to live with each other, we still find
> joy and pain.
>
> I've always thought if there was a God (worth his/her salt), he would
> rather you deny him and gain happiness than believe and suffer.
>

Absolutely!! Our happiness is God's happiness. But, rest
assured, there are enough people to go around to give God experiences
from throughout the spectrum, which, in my opinion, is what he's after
anyway--to live life in as many ways as is possible to do. What He
wants is for us to live differently from everyone else, i.e., to have
our own unique outlook and ways of expressing ourselves. Which He
achieves through the process of
Nature + Nurture/ Space-time
That is, through recombining and mutating DNA (Nature), God assures a
large degree of variance in the populace. That added to the fact that
we will always be nurtured slightly differently, either through
different parents or teachers and peers almost guarantees uniqueness.
But, cutting through all of Nature and Nurture is the simple fact that
we can't be in the same place at the same time as anyone else.
Geometrically, physically, we're granted a completely unique
perspective on the world.

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Ian Pollard]

I find the notion of God or the divine to be irrelevant when trying to face problems or pain in my life. This life, as I understand and perceive it, is a closed system; a singular reality, no need for, and no evidence of, divinity. For example, when I want to drive change in my life, and derive strength for this, I find the idea of looking to the supernatural to be very odd. After all, if your guess about God's nature is inaccurate, then this so-called "divinity" will appear to be a very fickle or erratic thing indeed! Sometimes it gives you what you pray and hope for, sometimes it shits all over you. Religious sorts all sorts ways of explaining their way out of this. It's called faith; the lie at any price. It either fuels anxiety in trying to second-guess it or makes people vacuous morons who invest no real emotion in their life. I feel sorry for both.

For me, the notion of the divine is an unreliable tool for dealing with problems in our reality. I prefer to deal with this reality, the only verifiable reality, in strictly human and non-spiritual terms. Metaphysical whimsy is a form of delusion and does not allow an individual to  really face or understand self-evident facts; worse, it can make people outright deny cause, effect, and result. Someone dying has "gone to a better place", someone with a serious illness is "facing a trial set for them by God", or someone with a propensity for murder is "doing the devil's work".

This is no basis for understanding or dealing with our world.

I don't say that I have a perfect solution, but I do gain enormous personal strength by unflinchingly trying to distil things down to their essential truths based upon the evidence we can rely upon. If someone dies, that person ceases to exist; if someone has a serious illness, the differential diagnosis will be genetic and/or environmental; if someone has a propensity for murder, we'll look to clinical psychology to find out what motivates them. All of these evidence-based views of our reality are far more satisfying to me than the weak band-aid of faith. Call me a cynic, but unless you're very easily satisfied, the whiff of bullshit starts to defile the flowery notions of divinity after a while. Give me something real. I want to feel it, my emotions define me, remind me that life is real and sometimes hard. To not feel pain or despair and resolve them is to have lead half a life.

I feel incredibly level facing reality in this way. Some things do hurt, and hurt like hell, but I am vastly more satisfied by a strictly this-worldly explanation and how this helps me resolve them.

xxxianxx

--
"The despotism of custom is everywhere the standing hindrance to human advancement. "

-- John Stuart Mill

[ornamentalmind]

Ian, said like a true Flatlander! ;-)

[Ian Pollard]

2008/5/23 ornamentalmind <ornamen...@yahoo.com>:

Ian, said like a true Flatlander! ;-)

No, on the contrary, show me a theory with some compelling evidence and I'll consider it. The gap-philosophy of God-myths (if we can't explain it, insert God) fail, for me, in this regard.

xxxianxx
 

[Pat]

On 23 May, 07:39, "Ian Pollard" <ian.poll...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/5/23 ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com>:

>
>
>
> > Ian, said like a true Flatlander! ;-)
>
> No, on the contrary, show me a theory with some compelling evidence and I'll
> consider it. The gap-philosophy of God-myths (if we can't explain it, insert
> God) fail, for me, in this regard.
>
> xxxianxx
>

Although I accept the premiss for my own reasons, the gap-
philosophy wouldn't square with me either. The most convincing
'evidence' is having experienced something for which you can think of
no other explanation. If one of those kinds of experiences hasn't
occured to you, you're not as likely to make that conclusion.
I've had a few experiences I can't explain, but I can explain a
few of them (all but a couple, really) without resorting to God. Most
recently were a couple of times I saw what appeared to be ghosts.
Both times, though, I was waking from dreaming and I'm 99.9% sure that
the ghosts were overlap dream images that crossed into waking when I
gained consciousness. Almost like retinal retention, I think I
carried over images from a dream and saw them with my eyes open and
watched them fade into the shadows, as full wakefullness took over. I
was convinced for about 5 seconds and then thought, wait a minute, I
know what just happened here.

[Lee]

Hey Lon,

I have a similar outlook on life, in that when things get bad, I
imagine how much worse things could be and that always makes me
buckup, get me head down and work through the problem at hand.

[Lonlaz]

Ian,

I will not justify my belief in God, or how it fits in with the world,
because I do not understand it myself. I do not see God as an all
father, punishing/rewarding, answering the requests of the righteous.

I don't turn to faith. When worse comes to worse. I do pray. Not to
make requests or make wishes, but to make a connection. And the
results are real, I have a new perspective, peace, and a feeling of
connection to everything. It's not a matter of self-delusion, it's a
matter of cause and effect. It is part of my reality. Would you have
me deny it, and its results to fit your world view?

And I do see my adversities as trials, as challenges. Either it is
unexplained random suffering, or an oportunity to learn more about
yourself and the world, and hopefully emerge changed with wisdom.

If I would have to hop on one foot and sacrifice a hamster to a graven
idle to have the same result, I would do it.

[Felix Krull]

Lonlaz, you pose a very interesting question, I think. This seems to
parallel what Molly was recently saying about 'trust'. But, whereas
Molly seems to trust in the physical embodiment of the grand plan in
this geopolitical space (almost a Marxian notion...historical
materialism made present), you seem to trust in a limited notion of a
grand plan, one oriented towards your own 'fate', a personal fate
determined by some preordained system. True?

If this is so, I think it opens some very interesting lines of
inquiry, not the least of which is the relationship you see between
your own personal fate and the geopolitical 'fate' (the fate of the
world..,though, perhaps, in a non-eschatalogical sense). Another line
of questioning, I feel, would begin with the application of your own
personal fate to your social lifeworld. How does such a belief affect
or effect interpersonal relationships? Etc.

Finally, I think you should (or someone should) address the notion of
relativity inherent in your post. What is 'going bad' for you (what
does that mean?) In the States, the superrich are whining and
complaining of how it is 'going bad' for them if the next president
raises taxes (specifically a surtax). The social notion of 'going
well' and 'going bad' are relative terms. Should we feel morally
corrupt if we complain of our cold oatmeal while watching the latest
number of dead in Myanmar (Burma) or China?

Personally, as some might have guessed from my posts here, I do not
feel that the concept of 'fate' has any empirical, epistemological or
political value; mainly due to the ability of many to cajole others to
believe in some 'collective' fate (world domination... Hagee's notion
of the 'fate' of the Jewish people... the promised land... etc.). That
said, it does have obvious psychological and psychosocial value, in
that it offers individuals and collectivities a means of gaging and
constructing 'meaning'.

[Lonlaz]

Felix,

I suppose I do believe in a personal plan, though it's grandness is
limited to myself. I think I am given the opportunities to improve
myself through challenges and personal choices. The plan is more of a
path on which I try to stay on, but in fact don't know where it leads,
but I believe it to be somewhere good. I'm not sure my personal
'fate' is as important as the trip taken.

Perhaps there is a grander plan for everyone, but I don't pretend to
know it, and I assume everyone has their own paths to stay on. If
there is a grand plan, then I may be little more than a tiny spring in
a giant clockwork, and my place would to be the best spring I could
be.

As far as interpersonal, I'm a pretty spiritually private person, and
I'd like to express my ideas more openly, but I'm not entirely sure of
the reception. This is probably why I post here.

You do bring a good point about relative levels of suffering. My
suffering is relatively minor, things related to personal and social
relationships, adjusting to life changes. If there is a such thing as
lesser suffering and greater suffering, only the person expiriencing
it can decide it.

It is hard to sympathise with people who have it all, but if a rick
man commits suicide, you can conclude that his suffering is real
enough.

[ornamentalmind]

Ian, after my recent post about feeling ignorant and seeing intense
repetition of views, I hesitate to even respond here, yet will this
one more time.

Your response to my reference about the old book/story about Flatland
echoes my innuendo by apparently requireing all knowledge,
apprehension and wisdom to fit into a theoretical construct.

This is fine if one doesn't wish to check out other 'lands'.

So, since your request for a mental construct (theory) about something
(the divine) that IF known, clarly falls within a realm that is mostly
not compatable with said intelectual construct, other than perhaps the
structure of Mind itself...one possible example is my recent subject
on the brain scientist who had a personal experience of this)I fail to
see the function of even attempting to hand you a ray of light when
you have requested a book.

And even though upon rereading this it may appear to be condescending,
it is the best I can do at this time with limited motivation. I have
already posted about things like materialism of the gaps, pointed
toward the likes of Plotinus etc., in general done the very best I can
to share gnosis/theosis within a medium that by its very nature is not
that. I've even pointed out, by definition, the difference betweek the
gnostic and the agnostic.

So, I end as I started by saying I see little function in attempting
to do the work of the academy all over again.

On May 22, 11:39 pm, "Ian Pollard" <ian.poll...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/5/23 ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com>:

[ornamentalmind]

Sorry for the numerous typos! :-(

> > -- John Stuart Mill- Hide quoted text -

[Felix Krull]

Perhaps, Orn, one should begin by clearly distinguishing between
normative notions or theory and descriptive ones?

[frantheman]

Themes and arguments do tend to repeat themselves here, Orn, although
I don't think that's always a bad thing. There are new participants
and new perspectives on things. The two of us carried out a fruitful
discussion - as far as it went, anyway - about some of the themes
raised here by Lon not so long ago. I've been reading and posting on
the Eye for about half a year now, and some topics keep returning,
partly, I think, because they are so central and important. Suffering
is certainly one of them - after all, it's been a central theme
throughout the history of humanity and thought - from Gilgamesh, to
Buddha, to Job and so on.

I don't know if we are going to SOLVE much here on the Eye, but I also
don't think that that's so important. A lot of what this is about is
dialogue, a meeting of minds. We won't normally convince each other to
accept our differing viewpoints, but we sometimes will find harmony
and concordance. More importantly, for me at least, is the fact that
the encounters here, and the ideas and arguments we participate in and
follow, can help our own personal development, enrich our journeys.
Jeez, I'm starting to sound like Molly again - but maybe that's
something I'm learning a bit here! :-) And maybe that's the whole
point, in a way.

So, please, don't stop posting. I've learned a lot from you and will
probably learn more - even if I'm not always prepared to admit it
(maybe sometimes even to myself)!

Francis

> > -- John Stuart Mill- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
>
> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -

[frantheman]

On 23 Mai, 18:24, Lonlaz <lonlaza...@gmail.com> wrote:

> You do bring a good point about relative levels of suffering.  My
> suffering is relatively minor, things related to personal and social
> relationships, adjusting to life changes.  If there is a such thing as
> lesser suffering and greater suffering, only the person expiriencing
> it can decide it.
>

A friend of mine said to me a couple of years ago, when we were
discussing this subject, "There is no hierarchy in suffering". The
comment has been rattling around in my head ever since, a bit like a
koan!

Francis

[gabbydott]

Oh baby-Ian-father, let's do some roundness preparation.
"If someone dies, that person ceases to exist", you say. You don't
think that "Someone dying has "gone to a better place"". Fact is, that
when someone dies, usually others still remember that someone somehow
for some time. Usually in a better way. It's all very, very easy if
you don't forget breathing, you know.

[Pat]

On 23 May, 17:24, Lonlaz <lonlaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Felix,
>
> I suppose I do believe in a personal plan, though it's grandness is
> limited to myself.  I think I am given the opportunities to improve
> myself through challenges and personal choices.  The plan is more of a
> path on which I try to stay on, but in fact don't know where it leads,
> but I believe it to be somewhere good.  I'm not sure my personal
> 'fate' is as important as the trip taken.
>

Your personal fate IS the trip you take.

> Perhaps there is a grander plan for everyone, but I don't pretend to
> know it, and I assume everyone has their own paths to stay on.  If
> there is a grand plan, then I may be little more than a tiny spring in
> a giant clockwork, and my place would to be the best spring I could
> be.
>

Yup! And that giant clockwork requires all the springs to do
their bit.

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[archytas]

I just think a lot of human misery would disappear if we stopped
having to clock in as cogs in some wheel of ritual we don't need. I
can just about organise this for myself but wish social idiocy was on
the decline so I could spend less time defending myself from it.
Leibniz did these arguments to death. I can't even imagine what human
purpose might be, bit I do try and come up blank other than thinking
mankind as we know it is folly. Booze and cheap women used to be my
way out - but both carry health risks.

[Felix Krull]

> Yup! And that giant clockwork requires all the springs to do
> their bit.

However, if all really is 'fated', then there is no way that a spring
cannot do its bit. No matter what it does, it is doing what it is
'fated' to do... or am I not getting the meaning of 'fate'?

On May 23, 9:31 pm, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 23 May, 17:24, Lonlaz <lonlaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Felix,
>
> > I suppose I do believe in a personal plan, though it's grandness is
> > limited to myself. I think I am given the opportunities to improve
> > myself through challenges and personal choices. The plan is more of a
> > path on which I try to stay on, but in fact don't know where it leads,
> > but I believe it to be somewhere good. I'm not sure my personal
> > 'fate' is as important as the trip taken.
>
> Your personal fate IS the trip you take.
>
> > Perhaps there is a grander plan for everyone, but I don't pretend to
> > know it, and I assume everyone has their own paths to stay on. If
> > there is a grand plan, then I may be little more than a tiny spring in
> > a giant clockwork, and my place would to be the best spring I could
> > be.
>

>

[Lonlaz]

The thing is, I think the springs aren't currently where the springs
should be, and the cogs and pivots aren't where they should be
either. If we work on ourselves, we can get in the right place.
Unfortunately, for the machine to work it requires me to believe in
something like reincarnation.

[Felix Krull]

> The thing is, I think the springs aren't currently where the springs
> should be, and the cogs and pivots aren't where they should be
> either. If we work on ourselves, we can get in the right place.
> Unfortunately, for the machine to work it requires me to believe in
> something like reincarnation.

Sounds very Greek! I hope you don't end up eating your own
children! ;-)

[Pat]

On 24 May, 16:54, Felix Krull <jaw0...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >     Yup!  And that giant clockwork requires all the springs to do
> > their bit.
>
> However, if all really is 'fated', then there is no way that a spring
> cannot do its bit. No matter what it does, it is doing what it is
> 'fated' to do... or am I not getting the meaning of 'fate'?
>

Nope. You got it alright. But accepting one's fate is, for many,
emotionally problematic as it means that everything that happens is
necessary, no matter how horrible or beautiful it may seem. And, we
like to call upon our human frailty when we 'make mistakes', and, of
course, true mistakes are impossible in a fated universe.

[Felix Krull]

> Nope. You got it alright. But accepting one's fate is, for many,
> emotionally problematic as it means that everything that happens is
> necessary, no matter how horrible or beautiful it may seem. And, we
> like to call upon our human frailty when we 'make mistakes', and, of
> course, true mistakes are impossible in a fated universe.

This parallels the problem faced by Jews during WWII. They perceived
themselves being punished or fated to be pushed into the ovens. Due to
this there was much less resistance in the beginning than there might
have been.

How do you see this concept of fate working in a social world?

On May 25, 3:21 am, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 24 May, 16:54, Felix Krull <jaw0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Yup! And that giant clockwork requires all the springs to do
> > > their bit.
>
> > However, if all really is 'fated', then there is no way that a spring
> > cannot do its bit. No matter what it does, it is doing what it is
> > 'fated' to do... or am I not getting the meaning of 'fate'?
>

>

[ornamentalmind]

Even though I was quite young during WWII, I don't remember hearing
then nor since about the Jews that "...They perceived themselves being
punished or fated to be pushed into the ovens...".
In fact, quite the opposite. Many used as much 'resistance' as
possible throughout. The survivors have related that, in most cases,
the chambers were set up as as well as represented as being showers.

In any case, after many centuries of pogroms worldwide, I am surprised
at not only their determination throughout, but their overall
resilience.

[ornamentalmind]

Fran, thanks for the kind words. They helped me to find the fortitude
to continue for a while here. I'm on almost 40 different email lists
and numerous other websites. And, I do try to 'have a life' in
addition the online world.
I do agree that not much will be 'solved'. That is not my intent. I
merely wish to share and, not in an evangelical way. Those who wish to
use formal argumentation, I seldom engage.
Thanks again Fran! :-)

> > - Zitierten Text anzeigen -- Hide quoted text -

[archytas]

Many Jews in WW2 did not know what was going on until it was too late
- they were not unusual in that. Most people are pretty clueless
about what is going on in the world now.

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Keith MacNevins]

In theory and usually in practice theists don't have the problem you've described. Human purpose? Is that in conjunction with "meaning," or would it be something parallel to it ?(If that sounds a bit arcane it's because I'm making this up as I go).

--
Ambassador From Hell

[Keith MacNevins]

Give us one little clue.

[Keith MacNevins]

Were you a believer in your last lifetime? Do you know what, who you were in your past life? I think you were a merchant in the Middle East.

--
Ambassador From Hell

[Lonlaz]

Insult or compliment? Are you comparing me to the great prophet?

On May 25, 6:02 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Were you a believer in your last lifetime? Do you know what, who you were in
> your past life? I think you were a merchant in the Middle East.
>

[Keith MacNevins]

Not a compliment or an insult. A psychic impression.

--
Ambassador From Hell

[Pat]

On 25 May, 15:41, Felix Krull <jaw0...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >     Nope.  You got it alright.  But accepting one's fate is, for many,
> > emotionally problematic as it means that everything that happens is
> > necessary, no matter how horrible or beautiful it may seem.  And, we
> > like to call upon our human frailty when we 'make mistakes', and, of
> > course, true mistakes are impossible in a fated universe.
>
> This parallels the problem faced by Jews during WWII. They perceived
> themselves being punished or fated to be pushed into the ovens. Due to
> this there was much less resistance in the beginning than there might
> have been.
>
> How do you see this concept of fate working in a social world?
>

There's not too many ways to look at it. That which will be,
will be. Make no mistake about it and it's a bit of a no-brainer.
The problem with fate comes in conscious entities not accepting it.
Because we don't know where we're headed, it appears that our
destination could be anywhere, but, if space-time is a continuum,
then, within the whole, all our destinations are set and we will get
exactly where we're truly headed, with no deviations or delays.
Although it appears that we're railroaded, it's fair because we're ALL
railroaded; so, we can either enjoy the experience as best we can or
fret about it. Either way, we will do what we will do.

[Vamadevananda]

You know what, Keith, your post triggered a recall of Guru Nanak's
saying :

Think, think a million thoughts ; and, it all would still amount to
nothing.

Your thoughts speak more about yourself than about anything or anyone
else in the universe.

On May 26, 4:02 am, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Were you a believer in your last lifetime? Do you know what, who you were in
> your past life? I think you were a merchant in the Middle East.
>

> Ambassador From Hell- Hide quoted text -

[Vamadevananda]

I reiterate, Pat, they who do not accept their " fate," change it, not
only their own but oftentimes also that of others !

[must tatok]

in My mind there is no worse in this life just believe in that everythings in this world are curenly useful for our life also in worse. become faithfull man is better than unbeliever becauser the believer also couldnot able to prove on what theirs 

2008/5/22, Lonlaz <lonla...@gmail.com>:

[sana khan]

[Ankit Bansal]

I agree with you, but its not like stay quiet and your pain will be healed, the condition can be at the boom of the worse and against you and it generally happens in our day to day life, the only mantra to come out and avoid the pressure of that worse city is to struggle with enthusiasm to come over it,
A mathematics rule Probaility for anything can never be ZERO so is the ray of hope in th worst condition the only thing is matter of click, whether u can deal the situation or not.

In cricket we always say the miss hit was because of timing but who can manage to kiss the boundary line the batsmen itself who plays his shot at right time.

End is always happy, if not then show is still left that's what we want to prove what you think,
if u have so much power than hats of to you boss

[Keith MacNevins]

Very true. Personally, I would rather think a million thoughts that amount to nothing then a couple of thoughts that amount to nothing.

 

It is written: (something like this) In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God.

 

Just a thought.

 

I hope Guru Nanak didn't think too much. That would certainly have led his followers astray!

 

BTW I don't believe in reincarnation -- but I did in my previous lifetime!

--
Ambassador From Hell

[Pat]

On 26 May, 06:33, Vamadevananda <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I reiterate, Pat, they who do not accept their " fate," change it, not
> only their own but oftentimes also that of others !
>

No, I think they just make their fate like everyone else. And,
because all of our actions are so indelibly connected, we always
effect others; but that, too, is part of the bigger plan.

[Vamadevananda]

Indelibly connected, yes, but not indelibly fixed ... not indelibly
static in effect. You can dare, I may pronounce that there is
something you can do today which will change not only you, but
humanity too ! But, even to appreciate that, you would have to get
out of those ideas about matters being fated, future static, fixed.

You are making a mockery of the freedom on which this world is
created, in which souls are born, from which consciousness arises and
into which it sets.

I suppose its the kind of realisation one is covered with : mine is
with absolute liberation !

[Pat]

On 27 May, 04:54, Vamadevananda <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Indelibly connected, yes, but not indelibly fixed ... not indelibly
> static in effect. You can dare, I may pronounce that there is
> something you can do today which will change not only you, but
> humanity too !  But, even to appreciate that, you would have to get
> out of those ideas about matters being fated, future static, fixed.
>

Yet, I feel I can appreciate that within the context of fate.
Whilst I view that the future is immutable, in essence, that doesn't
mean that I know how it gets there, so my actions 'appear' to be free
and it 'seems' that I can make it up as I go along. I have no doubt
that my actions may have far-reaching effects, that would be the case
with or without true freedom of will.

> You are making a mockery of the freedom on which this world is
> created, in which souls are born, from which consciousness arises and
> into which it sets.
>

How was the world free with repect to its creation? Did it not
conform to physical law? I don't recall having the freedom of whether
to be born or not. While it's true that my non-recollection of such a
choice is not evidence that such a choice does not exist, I see no
evidence that we have such a choice. My beliefs on the origin of
consciousness (where it arises and into which it sets) allow for our
perception of freedom, albeit in a fixed paradigm. I'm afraid it
boils down to my being a believer in Einstein and his view of the
universe. If Einstein is right about space-time being a continuum
(and I believe he is), then our perception of free will is a function
of our lack of knowledge of the future coupled with a lack of
understanding of how to accurately predict the future. While I know
it vexes you, trust me, I don't think that way IN ORDER TO vex
you. ;-)

> I suppose its the kind of realisation one is covered with :  mine is
> with absolute liberation !
>

And mine is only with the added 'bonus' that my perception of my
absolute liberation is a result of Maya and that, in truth, there is
only Brahman. Any will I think may be mine, is Brahman's. When
Brahman acts, he acts all acts as one act. So, to Brahman, all is
already accomplished; but to us, who, due to the geometry of Brahman,
cannot experience 'all at once', we can only experience a sequence of
acts within the whole. Brahman is the integrated, we are the
differentiated. Free will appears because there exists an integral
difference between our form of consciousness and God's, as well as an
integral difference between our form of existence and God's. It is
the power of spiritual and physical differential calculus on an
integrated God that grants us free will, or, rather, our perception of
it.

[Felix Krull]

> Yet, I feel I can appreciate that within the context of fate.
> Whilst I view that the future is immutable, in essence, that doesn't
> mean that I know how it gets there, so my actions 'appear' to be free
> and it 'seems' that I can make it up as I go along. I have no doubt
> that my actions may have far-reaching effects, that would be the case
> with or without true freedom of will.

Since the end point is unknowable then it has no social and political
bearing on your current state or the state of the world. And, since
'fate' is a western concept (right?) you are not speaking of fate at
all, but rather, as you say, Brahman. All of this considered, then you
should work in this life to better the world for everyone--fight neo-
liberalism, the world-wide caste-system, corporate serfdoms, and so
forth. After all, such a religious outlook is a bit like Calvinism,
no? You show through your social actions what type of soul you are?

> ...
>
> read more »

[Felix Krull]

> > You are making a mockery of the freedom on which this world is
> > created, in which souls are born, from which consciousness arises and
> > into which it sets.
>
> How was the world free with repect to its creation? Did it not
> conform to physical law? I don't recall having the freedom of whether
> to be born or not. While it's true that my non-recollection of such a
> choice is not evidence that such a choice does not exist, I see no
> evidence that we have such a choice. My beliefs on the origin of
> consciousness (where it arises and into which it sets) allow for our
> perception of freedom, albeit in a fixed paradigm. I'm afraid it
> boils down to my being a believer in Einstein and his view of the
> universe. If Einstein is right about space-time being a continuum
> (and I believe he is), then our perception of free will is a function
> of our lack of knowledge of the future coupled with a lack of
> understanding of how to accurately predict the future. While I know
> it vexes you, trust me, I don't think that way IN ORDER TO vex
> you. ;-)

I think the 'mockery' actually comes in when one considers the
traditional social function of religious worldviews--therein has
always rested the true core of desire to 'free-will.' Religion
(distinct from 'belief') as a formal system of knowledge, with an
inherently normative approach to society, has always had a social
function. Though my knowledge of Hinduism is *very* spare, I know it
can be argued that the same holds true for this religion. The problem
then arises that if one abandons the concept of free will within the
social setting, then caste systems develop (as did in India); or in
the surrender to forces larger than oneself the power of one's voice
to conflict with larger power structures is elided. If one 'believes'
in the ultimate determinism of the universe and all things within it
(something that can only be a belief because the past state of a
system as complex as the universe does not necessarily dictate the
future state), then the social performative power of religion, which
can be positive rather than oppressive (liberation theology), risks
evaporating. Happily, the social value of religion to fight for
positive change comes through now and then (the monks in Burma, for
example).

Personally, I feel that the belief in ultimate determinism, while
surely comforting for some, has no more instructive or emotional power
than Ancient Greek, early Christian, Hebrew, or African myths. Each
helps explain the working of consciousness, its excesses, its desire
to understand all, etc.

On May 27, 12:57 am, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 27 May, 04:54, Vamadevananda <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Indelibly connected, yes, but not indelibly fixed ... not indelibly
> > static in effect. You can dare, I may pronounce that there is
> > something you can do today which will change not only you, but
> > humanity too ! But, even to appreciate that, you would have to get
> > out of those ideas about matters being fated, future static, fixed.
>
> Yet, I feel I can appreciate that within the context of fate.
> Whilst I view that the future is immutable, in essence, that doesn't
> mean that I know how it gets there, so my actions 'appear' to be free
> and it 'seems' that I can make it up as I go along. I have no doubt
> that my actions may have far-reaching effects, that would be the case
> with or without true freedom of will.
>

>

> ...
>
> read more »

[Pat]

On 27 May, 13:44, Felix Krull <jaw0...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >      Yet, I feel I can appreciate that within the context of fate.
> > Whilst I view that the future is immutable, in essence, that doesn't
> > mean that I know how it gets there, so my actions 'appear' to be free
> > and it 'seems' that I can make it up as I go along.  I have no doubt
> > that my actions may have far-reaching effects, that would be the case
> > with or without true freedom of will.
>
> Since the end point is unknowable then it has no social and political
> bearing on your current state or the state of the world. And, since
> 'fate' is a western concept (right?) you are not speaking of fate at
> all, but rather, as you say, Brahman.

What? Since when is fate a western concept? The free will vs. fate
debate has been around for a long, long time and has moved in every
direction man has moved.

> > > > > > > > > > > > or effect interpersonal relationships? Etc.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »

[Pat]

Agreed. Although I'm not sure I'm comforted by my view. Einstein
says there are no missing points in space-time, which means that, in
our universe, the future is as much a part of the whole as is the
past. But that doesn't mean that any of us know what the next second
brings.

> > > > > > > > > > > > If this is so, I think it- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>

> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »

[Felix Krull]

Sorry, I meant to draw a distinction between the western concept of
fate (it is an English word, after all) and Brahman.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Pat]

On 27 May, 15:36, Felix Krull <jaw0...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry, I meant to draw a distinction between the western concept of
> fate (it is an English word, after all) and Brahman.
>

Well, Brahman is 'The One'. That is, the only thing that exists.
So, Brahman is consistent with the concept of space-time as a whole
and it is 'space-time as a whole' that 'causes' fate.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this- Hide quoted text -

[Felix Krull]

> Well, Brahman is 'The One'. That is, the only thing that exists.
> So, Brahman is consistent with the concept of space-time as a whole
> and it is 'space-time as a whole' that 'causes' fate.

According to Hinduism, yes. (Caveat: I have it on competent authority
that in Hinduism there is no 'fate'--man makes his own fate through
his actions...) However, you have not yet convincingly described how
fate (fatum) is caused (spoken). In Latin, the term means 'has been
spoken,' meaning agency. Where is the agency in space-time that
'causes' fate (instigates it)? Also, I feel it is incumbent on me to
point out that, where you have accused atheists (of which category
you, being a 'deist,' are surely one ;) ) of not being capable of
generating a 'purpose' for consciousness, it is not clear that 'space-
time as a whole' which 'causes' fate, offers such a purposeful reading
of consciousness.

On May 27, 9:31 am, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 27 May, 15:36, Felix Krull <jaw0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Sorry, I meant to draw a distinction between the western concept of
> > fate (it is an English word, after all) and Brahman.
>

>

> ...
>
> read more »

[Keith MacNevins]

I believe that could be, but I think it is not as simple as your explanation would infer. For instance, I am quite sure that I am a child of fate. Much of my life has been mapped out. But I am (at least to an extent) the author of this fate. My higher self made the arrangements before I was born. It is possible to deviate from this mapped out plan. But, as a psychic associate of mine told me, you cannot escape the fact of birth and death.

[Vamadevananda]

Death is our destiny, Keith, not fate ! Fate is a variable ...

On May 28, 9:05 am, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I believe that could be, but I think it is not as simple as your explanation
> would infer. For instance, I am quite sure that I am a child of fate. Much
> of my life has been mapped out. But I am (at least to an extent) the author
> of this fate. My higher self made the arrangements before I was born. It is
> possible to deviate from this mapped out plan. But, as a psychic associate
> of mine told me, you cannot escape the fact of birth and death.
>

> --
> Ambassador From Hell- Hide quoted text -

[Pat]

On 27 May, 22:06, Felix Krull <jaw0...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >     Well, Brahman is 'The One'.  That is, the only thing that exists.
> > So, Brahman is consistent with the concept of space-time as a whole
> > and it is 'space-time as a whole' that 'causes' fate.
>
> According to Hinduism, yes. (Caveat: I have it on competent authority
> that in Hinduism there is no 'fate'--man makes his own fate through
> his actions...) However, you have not yet convincingly described how
> fate (fatum) is caused (spoken). In Latin, the term means 'has been
> spoken,' meaning agency. Where is the agency in space-time that
> 'causes' fate (instigates it)? Also, I feel it is incumbent on me to
> point out that, where you have accused atheists (of which category
> you, being a 'deist,' are surely one ;) ) of not being capable of
> generating a 'purpose' for consciousness, it is not clear that 'space-
> time as a whole' which 'causes' fate, offers such a purposeful reading
> of consciousness.
>

You're fairly new to this forum and, because of that, you may not
be aware of my 'theory'. For it is in my theory that the link between
space-time and consciousness is made. However, that aside for a
moment, no agency is required for fate, it is a result of space-time
being a continuum with no missing points that affords fate. In space-
time, the past, present and future are already parts of the entirety
of space-time. The fact that the future is already present in the
whole of space-time means that it, for all practical purposes, 'has
been spoken'. It's as set as is the past, which 'has been spoken',
perhaps more obviously. Whilst I'll take that bent on the argument, I
dislike it because 'speaking' requires an agent whereas space-time
does not require it (it being agency that causes fate) out of
necessity; although I appreciate you taking it back through etymology,
as that's a favoured method of mine. Rather, it is the sheer power of
the geometry of the universe that grants fate; no agents need
apply. ;-)
Yet, I do promote an agency, but one that is also driven by the
geometry of the system rather than the usual theistic invention of a
God who exists outside of creation. But, to fully understand the kind
of agency I purport, one has to grasp my theory and that will take a
bit of reading on your part, if you don't mind. Sorry to push this
onto you, but I can tell that you don't know my full concept yet and
that is purely down to the fact that I haven't presented it to you in
full--hardly your fault. Of course, when I say, 'in full' I mean to
the point to which it has developed to this point in time. It's still
a 'work in progress', as are most theories. Unfortunately, mine is
rather difficult (read: impossible) to prove due to the constraints of
our scientific development; what the future brings could change that
and either back me up or prove me completely or partially wrong--like
any other theory must succomb to scientific advances in
understanding. Anyway, on with the show. The first part of my theory
concerns the physical aspects of creation, whereas the second part
develops how consciousness works and, through that consciousness, how
agency is implemented.
The first part of the theory can be found in the topmost post of
this thread:

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/Minds-Eye/browse_frm/thread/85e2b91621767983

The second part of the theory can be found in the topmost post of
this thread:

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/Minds-Eye/browse_frm/thread/e7ce9c7a646ab455/

These are the 'bare bones' of the theory and there are many
implications of various aspects of it. These I'm working on and, at
some point in time, I'll come out with a book that has fleshed out
most of those implications. The working title is "When Science Meets
Religion: An Axiomatic Unified Ontology", but don't look for it on
bookshop shelves yet. I expect the book to get mixed reviews, as it
will upset both the scientifically minded and the religiously minded
equally, as, if I'm correct, both would have to give ground to the
other. But, if I'm right, then they'll just have to deal with it--
it's not my universe. I'm hoping people won't blame me for fate in
the same way that we don't blame Newton when we fall down and hurt
ourselves. That said, though, we DO live in a world that has fanatics
of a 'kill the messenger' mindset.
Although I have no doubt you will, please, let me know what you
think!! ;-)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > know it, and I assume everyone has their own paths to stay on.  If- Hide quoted text -

[Pat]

On 27 May, 22:06, Felix Krull <jaw0...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >     Well, Brahman is 'The One'.  That is, the only thing that exists.
> > So, Brahman is consistent with the concept of space-time as a whole
> > and it is 'space-time as a whole' that 'causes' fate.
>
> According to Hinduism, yes. (Caveat: I have it on competent authority
> that in Hinduism there is no 'fate'--man makes his own fate through
> his actions...)

Understood, but your authority hasn't taken into consideration
the implications of there being only Brahman. If there is only One
thing in existence, Brahman, then it is THAT which acts and we could
only be agents of THAT. Therefore, when WE make our fate, it is
really Brahman that is making it. And, if Brahman can be understood
as the God of my theory, then it is through the geometry of this
universe that fate is assured, as that is how Brahman has accomplished
it.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > know it, and I assume everyone has their own paths to stay on.  If- Hide quoted text -

[Pat]

On 28 May, 05:05, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I believe that could be, but I think it is not as simple as your explanation
> would infer. For instance, I am quite sure that I am a child of fate. Much
> of my life has been mapped out. But I am (at least to an extent) the author
> of this fate. My higher self made the arrangements before I was born. It is
> possible to deviate from this mapped out plan. But, as a psychic associate

> of mine told me, you cannot escape the fact of birth and death....
>

I would say that, strictly speaking, on can't deviate from the big
plan. One can, though, misunderstand one's role or misunderstand
certain, if not the majority of, events. It is an inescapable truth
that 'that which will happen, will happen'; and it is as inescapable
as 'that which has happened, has happened'.

> read more »

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I suppose I do believe in a- Hide quoted text -

[Felix Krull]

Pat, I do not on principle argue against someone faith or believe (as
long as it does not invade their political reasoning to an inordinate
and oppressive extent). Indeed, the only meaningful *religious*
discussion is one carried on by two believers of the same, or very
similar, systems of belief. I would only point out some semantic
issues that I have with your expression of your belief system. The
first was 'fate', which I already drew as distinct to the west. This
notion of the English word 'fate' is traditionally limited to 'non-
systemic' agency, some being which directs a certain thought or
action. Our western notion comes mostly from Greek (and is largely
negative), ; however, the Anglo-Saxons had the concept of wyrd, which
is closer to the 'road map' idea; it seems to have been limited to the
heroic class, though. My point in this is to indicate that the word
'fate' is not really the word for you when you have the perfectly
valid word Brahman.

> Understood, but your authority hasn't taken into consideration
> the implications of there being only Brahman. If there is only One
> thing in existence, Brahman, then it is THAT which acts and we could
> only be agents of THAT. Therefore, when WE make our fate, it is
> really Brahman that is making it. And, if Brahman can be understood
> as the God of my theory, then it is through the geometry of this
> universe that fate is assured, as that is how Brahman has accomplished
> it.

Finally, again more semantical considerations. If there is no
consciousness or agent, and if you are speaking of 'space-time' or of
the universe, I fail to see how you are not simply speaking of
'reality' rather than some 'other' system. Thus you are drawing a
tautology : the universe is the universe...

I have not approached your system on any exegetical level, and, since
you have elaborated it in other posts, I will not ask you to reiterate
it here. Moreover, I am not sure I have the desire to delve into
something, putting so much work into it, which I personally (not a
universal normative statement!) can only in the end consider specious.
I do appreciate you sharing your thoughts, though.

On May 28, 1:31 am, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 27 May, 22:06, Felix Krull <jaw0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Well, Brahman is 'The One'. That is, the only thing that exists.
> > > So, Brahman is consistent with the concept of space-time as a whole
> > > and it is 'space-time as a whole' that 'causes' fate.
>
> > According to Hinduism, yes. (Caveat: I have it on competent authority
> > that in Hinduism there is no 'fate'--man makes his own fate through
> > his actions...)
>

>

> ...
>
> read more »

[Felix Krull]

My sincerest, deepest apologies, Pat! That sounded much much more
condescending than I intended! I will get to reading your theory, for
I truly value your past posts and your political approach (cf. Europe
and America discourse...). I am not sure, however, that I will find
time to comment extensively.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Pat]

On 28 May, 15:44, Felix Krull <jaw0...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My sincerest, deepest apologies, Pat! That sounded much much more
> condescending than I intended!

No worries, I didn't see it until I'd noticed that this was here
as well.

>I will get to reading your theory, for
> I truly value your past posts and your political approach (cf. Europe
> and America discourse...). I am not sure, however, that I will find
> time to comment extensively.
>

It's not as long as you might think. And, without it, you'll just
not know what I'm on about or why I'm saying what I'm saying.

As far as my seeming star-crossed usage of 'fate', I only call it
that because most people can relate to the term such that it implies a
set destiny as opposed to free will. Of course my own personal
shamanistic bent would prefer the course of the wyrd, but if I used
THAT term, I'd end up having to explain it to more people than not.
You, though, are the exception. One who would have understood wyrd
but complains about fate. ;-) And, my usage of Brahman is also in an
inclusive sense in that, once you've read my theory, you'll see that,
of all the Gods that have been described by men, it is Brahman that
comes the closest to the God that develops from my theory.
I wouldn't expect you to perform a full exegesis on my theory
anyway, as that's the purpose of my book. It's my job, really, to do
that first. But, that aside, I'll certainly entertain any feedback
you DO want to give. I don't think you'll find it specious, as I just
have a simple addition to already established theories (string theory)
that, whilst debatable, aren't specious in the least.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 25 May, 15:41, Felix Krull <jaw0...@gmail.com> wrote:- Hide quoted text -

[Keith MacNevins]

The definitions of words can be a bump in the road. Like the definition of atheist, or of karma, or of enlightenment. It is easy for me to think of fate and destiny as synonyms.

[archytas]

We could take a very different path in argument here. Fate may just
be a reaction to what society can't do for us as individuals, and an
Idol-reaction to baloney. There is some genetic-evolutionary element
to what we are we can confuse with fate, though when we innovate one
can say this is similarly fated in the genetic-evolutionary element
and subject to a competitive context. We all tend to be fatalistic
when shit happens and some of us get the chance to strive again.
I don't like the 'fate' of being subject to other people's wars and
crap relationships in work and society - but I also resist a fate of
the little cottage in Portugal in which to live and die away from such
crappy possibilities. Some never get the chance to make such a
decision on fate.

On 28 May, 17:39, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The definitions of words can be a bump in the road. Like the definition of
> atheist, or of karma, or of enlightenment. It is easy for me to think of

> fate and destiny as synonyms....
>
> read more »

> > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly where- Hide quoted text -

[Pat]

On 29 May, 05:09, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> We could take a very different path in argument here.  Fate may just
> be a reaction to what society can't do for us as individuals, and an
> Idol-reaction to baloney.  There is some genetic-evolutionary element
> to what we are we can confuse with fate, though when we innovate one
> can say this is similarly fated in the genetic-evolutionary element
> and subject to a competitive context.  We all tend to be fatalistic
> when shit happens and some of us get the chance to strive again.
> I don't like the 'fate' of being subject to other people's wars and
> crap relationships in work and society - but I also resist a fate of
> the little cottage in Portugal in which to live and die away from such
> crappy possibilities.  Some never get the chance to make such a
> decision on fate.
>

Yet, keenly, every choice we make decides our fate. {note the
usage of plural personal pronouns}

> > > > > fate is, for many,- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »

[Keith MacNevins]

The solution is to work towards a better world, and we certainly do have our work cut out for us. But, as is instructed in Taoism, and Buddhism if I am not mistaken, we should also try very hard to accept the state of the world, that suffering exists, inequities exist, and brutality exists. These things are essential just as rain is. In Taoism we're called to participate in the world, to do unto others as we would have done to ourselves, help the needy, and be compassionate and generous -- but not too much. Because (and this methinks from the Christian perspective) everything God made is good. God is good, and God is perfect. Only perfection flows from perfection. Evil is an illusion which exists to serve some purpose. A mystery to be sure, and not easy to accept such a statement. But I think it is reasonable to say it is the part of wisdom to avoid evil. To strive to choose the greater of two goods, or the lesser of two evils in our daily decision making. Not to be complacent because evil is illusion. Not to discount the suffering of others, or to fail to fight against atrocities. We try to avoid pain for ourselves and others, but at the same time we must accept that there must be explanations for injustice, suffering of innocents and the like, that in our present lives we can't easily explain, or fathom.

[Keith MacNevins]

But what about the parents of a child who, through no fault of their own -- gets cancer, suffers greatly, and dies? They made no obvious, apparent choices to create such a fate for themselves or their beloved child. At least it is very counter-intuitive to say otherwise. Some will say it is due to karma. One example is a person who suffers from deprivation and poverty may have been miserly and selfish in a former incarnation. Is it that simple? We will not know for sure in this life.

--
Ambassador From Hell

[Pat]

On 29 May, 05:38, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But what about the parents of a child who, through no fault of their own --
> gets cancer, suffers greatly, and dies? They made no obvious, apparent
> choices to create such a fate for themselves or their beloved child. At
> least it is very counter-intuitive to say otherwise. Some will say it is due
> to karma. One example is a person who suffers from deprivation and poverty
> may have been miserly and selfish in a former incarnation. Is it that

> simple? We will not know for sure in this life....
>

Ahh, you just reminded me of one of my favourite songs from my
youth, "And When I Die" by Blood, Sweat & Tears. The second verse
goes: My troubles are many and as deep as a well. I swear there ain't
no heaven and I pray there ain't no hell. I swear there ain't heaven
and I pray there ain't no hell, but I'll never know by livin, only my
dyin' will tell...

Without knowing every event in the lives of your hypothetical
people, it's impossible to tell what events and choices led to what
events and choices. Hypothetically, I'll say you forgot to mention
that the parent who got cancer grew up in a home that was filled with
the second-hand smoke of their parents. So the parents' choices
helped create the fate. That's why I pointed out the use of plural
pronouns. When I said 'we', I meant all of us, and when I said 'our',
I meant to imply the effects can reach any of us. Looking at each
individual case will not, necessarily, make the big picture apparent.

> read more »

> > > > > > > > > > > > difference between our form of consciousness- Hide quoted text -

[Keith MacNevins]

It is exasperating trying to come up with the perfect example. There is always a counter-argument. I strive to be open-minded, and to embrace that which makes the most sense to me. As a young man I rejected the Holocaust as being something God could allow to happen and be worthy of being called "good." It took much soul-searching and study of various religions, philosophies and writings by classical thinkers like Benedict Spinoza, Descartes, Kant, Hume, Locke, Berkely, William James, Freud, the existentialists, and other famous authors. I came to a point where I had to either reject God's existence or compromise. That there are explanations for suffering and things like man's inhumanity towards man. I believe it makes perfect sense now that God's perspective is the one true monopoly on truth. Therefore there may very well be perfectly good explanations for suffering and evil.

[Pat]

On 29 May, 06:27, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is exasperating trying to come up with the perfect example. There is
> always a counter-argument. I strive to be open-minded, and to embrace that
> which makes the most sense to me. As a young man I rejected the Holocaust as
> being something God could allow to happen and be worthy of being called
> "good." It took much soul-searching and study of various religions,
> philosophies and writings by classical thinkers like Benedict Spinoza,
> Descartes, Kant, Hume, Locke, Berkely, William James, Freud, the
> existentialists, and other famous authors. I came to a point where I had to
> either reject God's existence or compromise. That there are explanations for
> suffering and things like man's inhumanity towards man. I believe it makes
> perfect sense now that God's perspective is the one true monopoly on truth.
> Therefore there may very well be perfectly good explanations for suffering

> and evil....
>

Of course there are. We can learn how to not suffer and learn how
to not do that which is perceived to be evil. When I was 4, my
parents took me to see the Ice Follies. One of the bits was about
'101 Dalmations', which, at that time, I was unfamiliar with. I was
reading the programme that my mother had bought and it mentioned
Cruella DeVille as the 'Necessary Evil' in the story. I queried my
father about what was meant by a 'necessary evil' and he explained
that, in order to tell stories with meaning, there is often a conflict
involved and, in order to create that conflict (which can, later, be
resolved) there needed to be something or someone to struggle
against. It made perfect sense to me and I think it applies to evil
in general. It exists to be overcome and so that we can learn and
grow. But the learning and growth are more important than the evil.
It's how we deal with evil, and/or the perception of evil, that is the
key.

> read more »

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that my actions may have far-reaching effects,- Hide quoted text -

[archytas]

God doesn't need rejection - but dumb ideas and practices do. One can
have faith in doing the right thing and keep god in some form whilst
recognising organised religion works in mysterious ways!

> > > > > > > > and- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »

[Pat]

On 29 May, 11:13, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> God doesn't need rejection - but dumb ideas and practices do.  One can
> have faith in doing the right thing and keep god in some form whilst
> recognising organised religion works in mysterious ways!
>

god may not require rejection per se, but He does thrive on give-
and-take; thus equal and opposite reactions, yin vs. yang and such.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all, but rather, as you say,- Hide quoted text -

[Vamadevananda]

I don't see why I have to " accept " shit. I may pour my scorn on it
and pass on, but I don't have to accept it. Ever !

On May 29, 9:30 am, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The solution is to work towards a better world, and we certainly do have our
> work cut out for us. But, as is instructed in Taoism, and Buddhism if I am
> not mistaken, we should also try very hard to accept the state of the world,
> that suffering exists, inequities exist, and brutality exists. These things
> are essential just as rain is. In Taoism we're called to participate in the
> world, to do unto others as we would have done to ourselves, help the needy,
> and be compassionate and generous -- but not too much. Because (and this
> methinks from the Christian perspective) everything God made is good. God is
> good, and God is perfect. Only perfection flows from perfection. Evil is an
> illusion which exists to serve some purpose. A mystery to be sure, and not
> easy to accept such a statement. But I think it is reasonable to say it is
> the part of wisdom to avoid evil. To strive to choose the greater of two
> goods, or the lesser of two evils in our daily decision making. Not to be
> complacent because evil is illusion. Not to discount the suffering of
> others, or to fail to fight against atrocities. We try to avoid pain for
> ourselves and others, but at the same time we must accept that there must be
> explanations for injustice, suffering of innocents and the like, that in our

> present lives we can't easily explain, or fathom....
>
> read more »

> > > > > > > > > > > cannot experience 'all at once', we can only- Hide quoted text -

[Pat]

On 29 May, 16:03, Vamadevananda <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't see why I have to " accept " shit. I may pour my scorn on it
> and pass on, but I don't have to accept it. Ever !
>

Well, you may not have to but, it seems, I do. Tomorrow is the
court hearing for the possession order on my house. I regard that as
pretty much 'shit', but I've no choice but to accept that it's
tomorrow. But, from the landlord's point of view, it's not shit at
all. Nevertheless, I'm shitting MYSELF over it. Yet, with a smile on
my face. ;-)

> > > > > > > know- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »

[Felix Krull]

> The solution is to work towards a better world, and we certainly do have our
> work cut out for us. But, as is instructed in Taoism, and Buddhism if I am
> not mistaken, we should also try very hard to accept the state of the world,

However, it should be taken into consideration that both religious/
philosophical systems which you mention developed under extreme
despotism and largely in reaction to the total lack of political
agency allotted the people. The 'evil' was, for the most part,
political evil against which the single religious person had no power.
Such a situation would naturally lead to the belief that the universe
is composed of good and evil in equal amounts as a way of explaining
the lack of political / moral resistance.

On May 29, 12:30 am, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:

> that suffering exists, inequities exist, and brutality exists. These things
> are essential just as rain is. In Taoism we're called to participate in the
> world, to do unto others as we would have done to ourselves, help the needy,
> and be compassionate and generous -- but not too much. Because (and this
> methinks from the Christian perspective) everything God made is good. God is
> good, and God is perfect. Only perfection flows from perfection. Evil is an
> illusion which exists to serve some purpose. A mystery to be sure, and not
> easy to accept such a statement. But I think it is reasonable to say it is
> the part of wisdom to avoid evil. To strive to choose the greater of two
> goods, or the lesser of two evils in our daily decision making. Not to be
> complacent because evil is illusion. Not to discount the suffering of
> others, or to fail to fight against atrocities. We try to avoid pain for
> ourselves and others, but at the same time we must accept that there must be
> explanations for injustice, suffering of innocents and the like, that in our
> present lives we can't easily explain, or fathom.
>

> ...
>
> read more »

[Felix Krull]

> Without knowing every event in the lives of your hypothetical
> people, it's impossible to tell what events and choices led to what
> events and choices. Hypothetically, I'll say you forgot to mention
> that the parent who got cancer grew up in a home that was filled with
> the second-hand smoke of their parents. So the parents' choices
> helped create the fate. That's why I pointed out the use of plural
> pronouns. When I said 'we', I meant all of us, and when I said 'our',
> I meant to imply the effects can reach any of us. Looking at each
> individual case will not, necessarily, make the big picture apparent.

I think you are being patently unfair to those poor parents, Pat!
Clearly, in today's hyper-healthy world, they are not smokers.
However, they did unwittingly use plastic bottles to feed the little
tyke, bottles produced in China on an assembly line that, on one side,
creates plastic bottles with phthalates for the States and, on the
other, produces the same bottles without phthalates for Europe; and
which chemicals lead to extreme hormonal confusion in the organism,
producing cancerous cells, and eventually leading to the horrendous
malignancy raging through the poor child's system. Be careful to
include the true 'we' of global capital! ;)

On May 29, 1:10 am, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 29 May, 05:38, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > But what about the parents of a child who, through no fault of their own --
> > gets cancer, suffers greatly, and dies? They made no obvious, apparent
> > choices to create such a fate for themselves or their beloved child. At
> > least it is very counter-intuitive to say otherwise. Some will say it is due
> > to karma. One example is a person who suffers from deprivation and poverty
> > may have been miserly and selfish in a former incarnation. Is it that
> > simple? We will not know for sure in this life....
>
> Ahh, you just reminded me of one of my favourite songs from my
> youth, "And When I Die" by Blood, Sweat & Tears. The second verse
> goes: My troubles are many and as deep as a well. I swear there ain't
> no heaven and I pray there ain't no hell. I swear there ain't heaven
> and I pray there ain't no hell, but I'll never know by livin, only my
> dyin' will tell...
>

>

> ...
>
> read more »

[Felix Krull]

> That there are explanations for
> suffering and things like man's inhumanity towards man. I believe it makes
> perfect sense now that God's perspective is the one true monopoly on truth.
> Therefore there may very well be perfectly good explanations for suffering
> and evil.

Of course there are! Corporate profit!

On May 29, 1:27 am, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is exasperating trying to come up with the perfect example. There is
> always a counter-argument. I strive to be open-minded, and to embrace that
> which makes the most sense to me. As a young man I rejected the Holocaust as
> being something God could allow to happen and be worthy of being called
> "good." It took much soul-searching and study of various religions,
> philosophies and writings by classical thinkers like Benedict Spinoza,
> Descartes, Kant, Hume, Locke, Berkely, William James, Freud, the
> existentialists, and other famous authors. I came to a point where I had to

>

> ...
>
> read more »

[Vamadevananda]

I don't see what's there to accept or reject in that, Pat, in terms of
holding the landlord guilty !

You had obligations you did not meet. And, the landlord has his rights
in the matter ; he has the right to possession of his house. There is
nothing shitty about the situation, except the personal one. With
that, I empathise.

You have to accept only one thing : you did not or could not meet your
obligations. Even you appreciate, you should have !

> > > > > > > > no- Hide quoted text -

[Pat]

On 29 May, 17:53, Vamadevananda <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't see what's there to accept or reject in that, Pat, in terms of
> holding the landlord guilty !
>

I don't hold him guilty in any sense. It's more the other way
around for the very reasons you state below. I'm pretty sure I feel
more sorry for him than he does for me. But I'll be able to tell for
sure after tomorrow. Although I don't doubt that he regrets the
situation.

> You had obligations you did not meet. And, the landlord has his rights
> in the matter ;  he has the right to possession of his house. There is
> nothing shitty about the situation, except the personal one. With
> that, I empathise.
>

That's all I was referring to. It's shit for me, but that's just
something I'll have to deal with (accept). That was my point, it's
shit I have to accept. I understand how it came to this, and, I
think, that helps me accept it more easily. It's another page of my
life to turn over to see what happens next.

> You have to accept only one thing : you did not or could not meet your
> obligations. Even you appreciate, you should have !
>

Absolutely. I was just hoping it wouldn't boil down to immanent
homelessness. I'll let you (and anyone who reads) know how I get on.
I expect(!) either the landlord or myself with be happy with the
outcome. One happy, one sad regarding the same event. What could be
more fair from God's perspective, who gets to enjoy(!) both. ;-)

> > > > > be- Hide quoted text -

[Pat]

On 29 May, 17:02, Felix Krull <jaw0...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >      Without knowing every event in the lives of your hypothetical
> > people, it's impossible to tell what events and choices led to what
> > events and choices.  Hypothetically, I'll say you forgot to mention
> > that the parent who got cancer grew up in a home that was filled with
> > the second-hand smoke of their parents.  So the parents' choices
> > helped create the fate.  That's why I pointed out the use of plural
> > pronouns.  When I said 'we', I meant all of us, and when I said 'our',
> > I meant to imply the effects can reach any of us.  Looking at each
> > individual case will not, necessarily, make the big picture apparent.
>
> I think you are being patently unfair to those poor parents, Pat!
> Clearly, in today's hyper-healthy world, they are not smokers.
> However, they did unwittingly use plastic bottles to feed the little
> tyke, bottles produced in China on an assembly line that, on one side,
> creates plastic bottles with phthalates for the States and, on the
> other, produces the same bottles without phthalates for Europe; and
> which chemicals lead to extreme hormonal confusion in the organism,
> producing cancerous cells, and eventually leading to the horrendous
> malignancy raging through the poor child's system. Be careful to
> include the true 'we' of global capital! ;)
>

Indeed. Those hypothetical bastards! ;-)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with or without true freedom of will.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »

[ornamentalmind]

For the record, 'my' Buddhism and Taoism doesn't quite match yours
Keith. That aside, even the Platonists and NeoPlatonists had clear
knowledge when it comes to virtue.

On May 28, 9:30 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The solution is to work towards a better world, and we certainly do have our
> work cut out for us. But, as is instructed in Taoism, and Buddhism if I am
> not mistaken, we should also try very hard to accept the state of the world,
> that suffering exists, inequities exist, and brutality exists. These things
> are essential just as rain is. In Taoism we're called to participate in the
> world, to do unto others as we would have done to ourselves, help the needy,
> and be compassionate and generous -- but not too much. Because (and this
> methinks from the Christian perspective) everything God made is good. God is
> good, and God is perfect. Only perfection flows from perfection. Evil is an
> illusion which exists to serve some purpose. A mystery to be sure, and not
> easy to accept such a statement. But I think it is reasonable to say it is
> the part of wisdom to avoid evil. To strive to choose the greater of two
> goods, or the lesser of two evils in our daily decision making. Not to be
> complacent because evil is illusion. Not to discount the suffering of
> others, or to fail to fight against atrocities. We try to avoid pain for
> ourselves and others, but at the same time we must accept that there must be
> explanations for injustice, suffering of innocents and the like, that in our

> present lives we can't easily explain, or fathom....
>
> read more »
>

> > > > > > > > > > > cannot experience 'all at once', we can only- Hide quoted text -

[ornamentalmind]

"...We will not know for sure in this life. "

I for one haven't given up the search for such knowledge.

On May 28, 9:38 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But what about the parents of a child who, through no fault of their own --
> gets cancer, suffers greatly, and dies? They made no obvious, apparent
> choices to create such a fate for themselves or their beloved child. At
> least it is very counter-intuitive to say otherwise. Some will say it is due
> to karma. One example is a person who suffers from deprivation and poverty
> may have been miserly and selfish in a former incarnation. Is it that

> simple? We will not know for sure in this life....
>
> read more »

> > > > > > > > > > > > difference between our form of consciousness- Hide quoted text -

[Keith MacNevins]

Hey, like the journey is the destination. We are all readin' and a writin' and that is the goal right here and right now -- touch down. God set up this stage upon which we are as actors in a play. It is a mystery, but we do have some tantalizing clues. What would we do if we had everything we needed, no challenges, no goals, including nothing to post at a talk group? No story we've ever read has had a story to tell if there were no problems, no challenges or hurdles. Sin is something to resist. Evil is something to rise up against. We would have no heros without "dragons" of a sort to slay. No one need go to school or university or bother to excel at a career if there was nothing to accomplish.

 

 

On 5/29/08, Pat <PatrickDH...@hotmail.com> wrote:

[Keith MacNevins]

It is worthwhile to pursue the impossible dream IMO.

[Vamadevananda]

No, Pat, you both could have been happy. But, for that, someone has to
put in extra effort, make the right anticipations, make the right
choices, and do things that would pre - empt failure.

One can still fail. And that would be acceptable to me, while I move
on !

> > > > > > > > wrote:- Hide quoted text -

[Keith MacNevins]

I confess I got that idea from the late Joseph Campbell. He related on a PBS TV show that he once visited a guru (possibly from India) and he asked the guy why brutality must exist. The guru just gave him a single line to contemplate, to the effect of,

"Just say 'yes' to brutality that it exists."

Mr. Campbell came to understand that it is necessary to accept what comes with being alive and part of this world. What is life anyway, he said, other than "Eating other life?" We have all heard the phrase that there can be no light without darkness. Would we appreciate light if there was no darkness?

[Keith MacNevins]

There are many denominations in Christianity and very dissimilar ones. It is not strange if there are different sects in Buddhism. Some Buddhists are theists but many Buddhists would say they are atheists. Taoism is in a category all its own IMO.

 

BTW Methinks Socrates would (quite possibly) have three words for you, buddy:

"What is virtue?"

 

On 5/29/08, ornamentalmind <ornamen...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Keith MacNevins]

Ah, but for argument's sake let us assume there is a God. Wouldn't God be able to do anything he willed to do or to have happen? Maybe Divine Justice is real. Maybe there is karma, and even reincarnation. George W. Bush will be incarnated again, be born to a low income couple, and at the age of 18 he will find himself a soldier in a war that has no justification.

--
Ambassador From Hell

[Keith MacNevins]

I would respond with a quote from the Bible.

 

"There is nothing new under the sun."

 

On 5/29/08, Felix Krull <jaw...@gmail.com> wrote:

--
Ambassador From Hell

[Vamadevananda]

On May 30, 8:34 am, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I confess I got that idea from the late Joseph Campbell. He related on a PBS
> TV show that he once visited a guru (possibly from India) and he asked the
> guy why brutality must exist. The guru just gave him a single line to
> contemplate, to the effect of,
> "Just say 'yes' to brutality that it exists."
> Mr. Campbell came to understand that it is necessary to accept what comes
> with being alive and part of this world.

I can understand someone accepting one's helplessness when witnessing
or suffering brutality. But why, and how, does one have to accept
brutality itself ! The difference I am driving may be subtle, perhaps
too subtle for some, but it's important.

What is life anyway, he said, other
> than "Eating other life?" We have all heard the phrase that there can be no

> light without darkness. Would we appreciate light if there was no darkness?...

It would be more appropriate to say : there can be no darkness without
light. Darkness is defined as absence of light ! And, yes, we would
understand darkness if we never had light.

>
> read more »

> > > > > > > > such a- Hide quoted text -

[Vamadevananda]

Sorry, we would not be able to understand darkeness without exposure
to light.

> > > > > > > > > fate.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »

[Felix Krull]

> Ah, but for argument's sake let us assume there is a God. Wouldn't God be
> able to do anything he willed to do or to have happen? Maybe Divine Justice
> is real. Maybe there is karma, and even reincarnation. George W. Bush will
> be incarnated again, be born to a low income couple, and at the age of 18 he
> will find himself a soldier in a war that has no justification.

And he'd be able to give me nice cup of coffee, too! But I gotta do
that for meself! As for the bush, I think it best to let that thing
dissolve into dust.

On May 29, 11:45 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:

> ...
>
> read more »

[ornamentalmind]

*** whistles a few bars of John Lennon's "Imagine" ***

On May 29, 8:22 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey, like the journey is the destination. We are all readin' and a writin'
> and that is the goal right here and right now -- touch down. God set up this
> stage upon which we are as actors in a play. It is a mystery, but we do have
> some tantalizing clues. What would we do if we had everything we needed, no
> challenges, no goals, including nothing to post at a talk group? No story
> we've ever read has had a story to tell if there were no problems, no
> challenges or hurdles. Sin is something to resist. Evil is something to rise
> up against. We would have no heros without "dragons" of a sort to slay. No
> one need go to school or university or bother to excel at a career if there

> was nothing to accomplish....

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since the end point is unknowable then it has no- Hide quoted text -

[ornamentalmind]

Personally, I seldom tilt at windmills any more.

On May 29, 8:24 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is worthwhile to pursue the impossible dream IMO....
>
> read more »

> > > > lack of- Hide quoted text -

[ornamentalmind]

Keith, your thought is noted. And, dear old Soc. quite clearly (via
Plato of course) addressed virtue on numerous occasions, as do I in my
private practice which, as much as possible, I bring to my daily life.

On May 29, 8:40 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There are many denominations in Christianity and very dissimilar ones. It is
> not strange if there are different sects in Buddhism. Some Buddhists are
> theists but many Buddhists would say they are atheists. Taoism is in a

> category all its own IMO....
>
> read more »

>
> BTW Methinks Socrates would (quite possibly) have three words for you,
> buddy:
> "What is virtue?"
>

> > the- Hide quoted text -

[ornamentalmind]

Justice is a virtue, by the way.

On May 29, 8:45 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ah, but for argument's sake let us assume there is a God. Wouldn't God be
> able to do anything he willed to do or to have happen? Maybe Divine Justice
> is real. Maybe there is karma, and even reincarnation. George W. Bush will
> be incarnated again, be born to a low income couple, and at the age of 18 he

> will find himself a soldier in a war that has no justification....
>
> read more »

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 27, 12:57 am, Pat <- Hide quoted text -

[Pat]

On 30 May, 04:26, Vamadevananda <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No, Pat, you both could have been happy. But, for that, someone has to
> put in extra effort, make the right anticipations, make the right
> choices, and do things that would pre - empt failure.
>
> One can still fail. And that would be acceptable to me, while I move
> on !
>

Well, as fate would have it, I went into court this morning,
sober and sombre and emerged sober and sombre; but as victor on the
day. It seems that, since they served me my notice on the same day
that the notice itself declared that the notice period began, they
were, effectively, one day short of giving me a 'clear' 2 months. So,
the judge rejected the possession order and advised them to take
advice with a view to properly executing the notice. The bottom line
is, it seems I got lucky and have to say to all, thanks for your
supplications!! Now I need to render a bit of thanksgiving to the
gods for my extra time and pray for one of these interviews to become
fruitful. Thanks again, all, and especially Vam and Neil, for your
help; I'm sure your positive influences have aided me no end!

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > direction man has moved.- Hide quoted text -

[Molly Brogan]

Congratulations on your victory, Pat. I see this as the beginning of
your fruition.

I know I may be late to the party here, but:

"I confess I got that idea from the late Joseph Campbell. He related
on a PBS
TV show that he once visited a guru (possibly from India) and he asked
the
guy why brutality must exist. The guru just gave him a single line to
contemplate, to the effect of,
"Just say 'yes' to brutality that it exists."

I interpret that to mean - nothing passes through your consciousness
without your consent. If you believe brutality exists - it does for
you. To hammer through this concept, for most of us, means letting go
of a life time of experience and that first introduction to brutality.

> ...
>
> ra"d more »

[Pat]

On 30 May, 15:36, Molly Brogan <mbro...@mollybroganenterprises.com>
wrote:

> Congratulations on your victory, Pat.  I see this as the beginning of
> your fruition.
>

Cheers!! Although the real victory will come when I can pay back
all my creditors.

> I know I may be late to the party here, but:
>
> "I confess I got that idea from the late Joseph Campbell. He related
> on a PBS
> TV show that he once visited a guru (possibly from India) and he asked
> the
> guy why brutality must exist. The guru just gave him a single line to
> contemplate, to the effect of,
> "Just say 'yes' to brutality that it exists."
>
> I interpret that to mean - nothing passes through your consciousness
> without your consent.  If you believe brutality exists - it does for
> you.  To hammer through this concept, for most of us, means letting go
> of a life time of experience and that first introduction to brutality.
>

As that was Keith's quote, I'll assume Keith was your intended
audience for this.

> > > > > > > > > reading- Hide quoted text -

[Felix Krull]

> If you believe brutality exists - it does for
> you.

I am not sure how one could possibly argue that brutality does not
exist. I am sure all of the people in Burma, brutally oppressed by
their government, should really be enjoying themselves? If you wish to
believe that no one is brutal to you, then that is a personal matter.
To deny the existence of brutality in the face of vicious crimes
committed by capital, governments, etc, is socially reprehensible. For
shame!

On May 30, 10:36 am, Molly Brogan <mbro...@mollybroganenterprises.com>
wrote:

> Congratulations on your victory, Pat. I see this as the beginning of
> your fruition.
>
> I know I may be late to the party here, but:
>
> "I confess I got that idea from the late Joseph Campbell. He related
> on a PBS
> TV show that he once visited a guru (possibly from India) and he asked
> the
> guy why brutality must exist. The guru just gave him a single line to
> contemplate, to the effect of,
> "Just say 'yes' to brutality that it exists."
>
> I interpret that to mean - nothing passes through your consciousness

> ...
>
> read more »

[Keith MacNevins]

We don't have to bow or nod to brutality. We just need to accept that life here as flesh and blood beings is not perfect. That the next world is, according to the Christian faith anyways, a better world for us. A lot of people who hate brutality don't let the ugliness of the world stop them from having children, and bringing more people into this ugly world that is full of brutality. Why is that?

On 5/29/08, Vamadevananda <atewa...@gmail.com> wrote:

--
Ambassador From Hell

[Keith MacNevins]

Pretty weird. If an intelligent adult thinks that brutality only exists if you believe it exists, then they should be child psychologists and counsel abused children.

--
Ambassador From Hell

[Keith MacNevins]

We are all dust, and to dust we shall return.

On 5/29/08, Felix Krull <jaw...@gmail.com> wrote:

--
Ambassador From Hell

[Keith MacNevins]

I do believe Socrates said something like, "The unexamined life is not worth living."

It is quite an exercise to really analyze what virtue is. Is it a virtuous society that punishes criminals? What if we could rehabilitate without punishment? Is society virtuous if they allow cruel and unusual punishment if it is cruel but becomes so commonplace that it is no longer unusual?

--
Ambassador From Hell