A letter to God
- Thread starter pavlosmarcos
- Start date
Yo Jenyar,
Quote Jenyar:
"The high chair from which you call down your exalted standards of "acceptibility" is a throne on which many people had sitten before you. It is the chair on wich the prophets and kings who directed Israel's religion sat, and which ultimately belongs to God. It's the final clause you deny, isn't it?"
My high chair on "acceptability" is termed "my rightfull opinion", formed by conclusions the experience of life has taught me, and is my "honest perspective". I do not judge, I observe and form conclusions based on my observations. I certainly have not closed the book on learning and reserve the right to alter my perspective as I find new avenues of understanding. What I cannot, ever do, is blindly accept the actions and character of a god as "just" and "good", merely because a specific religion and its book requires and advocates blind faith. The god of my understanding is nothing like the Christian god, nor ever needs to be.
Allcare.
Quote Jenyar:
"The high chair from which you call down your exalted standards of "acceptibility" is a throne on which many people had sitten before you. It is the chair on wich the prophets and kings who directed Israel's religion sat, and which ultimately belongs to God. It's the final clause you deny, isn't it?"
My high chair on "acceptability" is termed "my rightfull opinion", formed by conclusions the experience of life has taught me, and is my "honest perspective". I do not judge, I observe and form conclusions based on my observations. I certainly have not closed the book on learning and reserve the right to alter my perspective as I find new avenues of understanding. What I cannot, ever do, is blindly accept the actions and character of a god as "just" and "good", merely because a specific religion and its book requires and advocates blind faith. The god of my understanding is nothing like the Christian god, nor ever needs to be.
Allcare.
Stretched,
Don't take what I said too personally. Any position of authority from which something is said is such a "high chair". Something we ascend to by experience or just by assumption. God is simply always a higher authority. I know you haven't closed the book, but you haven't written it either.
It is nontheless a position that you assume anachronistically in the OT, with 2000 plus years of knowledge, thinking and experience - much of which is the result (whether you like it or not) of what survived from Ancient Israel, through the Greco-Roman world and into the Christianity that shaped our present thought.
I don't advocate you accept an Old Testament mentality. Whether fundamentalist Christians admit it or not, they also reject some of it in light of progress. But it's that progress that we should evaluate critically, not the comparably poor understanding of ancient civilizations - whether they had God's help or not. Because God's help was never "good" for them. At least not by liberal standards: it enforced accountability and responsibility in response to God's commands and forgivenes.
Laws were a covenant, a handshake between God and man. You focus on the the human arm in the equation, and deny that it had (and has) any meaning than a fist shaking at the air. Because you don't recognize God's hand as either authoritive or binding. These aren't accusations of intolerance or contempt, they're statements that are true for many many people. Humanity is content with shaking it's own hand and clapping itself on the back. For what? Justice and goodness is not something we aren't, it's something we're lacking and forever compensating for. No offense, but rightful opinions are a dime a dozen. We need to move forward.
Don't take what I said too personally. Any position of authority from which something is said is such a "high chair". Something we ascend to by experience or just by assumption. God is simply always a higher authority. I know you haven't closed the book, but you haven't written it either.
It is nontheless a position that you assume anachronistically in the OT, with 2000 plus years of knowledge, thinking and experience - much of which is the result (whether you like it or not) of what survived from Ancient Israel, through the Greco-Roman world and into the Christianity that shaped our present thought.
I don't advocate you accept an Old Testament mentality. Whether fundamentalist Christians admit it or not, they also reject some of it in light of progress. But it's that progress that we should evaluate critically, not the comparably poor understanding of ancient civilizations - whether they had God's help or not. Because God's help was never "good" for them. At least not by liberal standards: it enforced accountability and responsibility in response to God's commands and forgivenes.
Laws were a covenant, a handshake between God and man. You focus on the the human arm in the equation, and deny that it had (and has) any meaning than a fist shaking at the air. Because you don't recognize God's hand as either authoritive or binding. These aren't accusations of intolerance or contempt, they're statements that are true for many many people. Humanity is content with shaking it's own hand and clapping itself on the back. For what? Justice and goodness is not something we aren't, it's something we're lacking and forever compensating for. No offense, but rightful opinions are a dime a dozen. We need to move forward.
Last edited:
Jenyar said:
Also: It is only in a strategic environment that ethical judgement can take place. Only in a strategic environment can agents be forced to make ethical judgements, and through that they can be autonomous.
In parametric environments, or when strategic environments are forcefully seen as parametric, ethical judgements don't take place: all judging blindly follows the written/set rules. Agents don't face moral dilemmas in such environments.
But think of the Jews that Schindler saved: Normally, if he wouldn't take up to help them, they would go strictly by their Jewish rules, and consider Nazis as enemies, including Schindler. But when he offered help, those Jews acted otherwise, they judged independently of their scriptorial rules.
Had they seen the war and the options that were offered strictly parametric, they would blindly follow their rules, and almost certainly face demise. But they didn't, something drove them to reject the ideal option (strictly following their rules), and accept the second-best option (go against the rules, accept help and maybe be saved). There was a moral dilemma, and they went for the option that gave hope for survival. In this sense, they acted autonomously.
In other words, Schindler challenged a sin, and that challenge enabled others to accept him outside his context. To see the sin as the enemy and not the psycho. Like a ray of light from an unexpected source.RosaMagika said:
I haven't thought about this, but could the only parametric world be spiritual?
We shouldn't. We should represent the sane, and challenge the idea that believing in God is for psycho's, and likewise that not believing in God is for psycho's. Be the ray of light that respects no darkness.
Yo Jenyar brother,
Well said dude, but...
Quote Jenyar:
"I know you haven't closed the book, but you haven't written it either."
In my opinion, every waking moment of my life I am writing the book. The book of my experience and understanding. The book from which I am compelled to read to others who ask questions pertinent to the content. This is the ONLY book I have that I can have complete faith in. This book is not rigid, this book does not judge, this book is compiled in love, this book seeks no reward. This book is a mirror for the darkness in my soul. This book is written in the hope that the epilogue is the opening chapter in an infinite scribbling of light.
Quote Jenyar:
" Because you don't recognise God's hand as either authoritative or binding. These aren't accusations of intolerance or contempt, they're statements that are true for many many people. Humanity is content with shaking it's own hand and clapping itself on the back. For what? Justice and goodness is not something we aren't, it's something we're lacking and forever compensating for. No offense, but rightful opinions are a dime a dozen. We need to move forward."
I recognise god’s hand as loving and omniscient, not authoritative and judgmental. Your Christian dogma lays a burden upon mankind that prevents him from accepting his human nature and striving to improve mankind’s lot. Your religions and their doctrines have divided mankind from day one, missionaries destroying ancient cultures in the name of righteousness, religious conflicts, Jewish persecution and so forth. Trying to ratify the underlying reasons for these events via Biblical interpretation and the consequences of "SIN" do not diminish or justify the pain and destruction they have caused. My small opinion in the vast morass of righteousness, religious or other, is the beacon of light that keeps the flame of my sanity burning against the enslavement of religions reach. I hear your wonderful arguments yet I can tell you are stuck in a box that deprives you of true honesty.
Allcare.
Well said dude, but...
Quote Jenyar:
"I know you haven't closed the book, but you haven't written it either."
In my opinion, every waking moment of my life I am writing the book. The book of my experience and understanding. The book from which I am compelled to read to others who ask questions pertinent to the content. This is the ONLY book I have that I can have complete faith in. This book is not rigid, this book does not judge, this book is compiled in love, this book seeks no reward. This book is a mirror for the darkness in my soul. This book is written in the hope that the epilogue is the opening chapter in an infinite scribbling of light.
Quote Jenyar:
" Because you don't recognise God's hand as either authoritative or binding. These aren't accusations of intolerance or contempt, they're statements that are true for many many people. Humanity is content with shaking it's own hand and clapping itself on the back. For what? Justice and goodness is not something we aren't, it's something we're lacking and forever compensating for. No offense, but rightful opinions are a dime a dozen. We need to move forward."
I recognise god’s hand as loving and omniscient, not authoritative and judgmental. Your Christian dogma lays a burden upon mankind that prevents him from accepting his human nature and striving to improve mankind’s lot. Your religions and their doctrines have divided mankind from day one, missionaries destroying ancient cultures in the name of righteousness, religious conflicts, Jewish persecution and so forth. Trying to ratify the underlying reasons for these events via Biblical interpretation and the consequences of "SIN" do not diminish or justify the pain and destruction they have caused. My small opinion in the vast morass of righteousness, religious or other, is the beacon of light that keeps the flame of my sanity burning against the enslavement of religions reach. I hear your wonderful arguments yet I can tell you are stuck in a box that deprives you of true honesty.
Allcare.
OK Lone Ranger. But you're not the only one who is able not to let himself be bogged down by dogma in order to do God's will. In fact, if you were living in Jesus' time with that mentality you'd be at his side pointing fingers at Pharisees and Sadducees, and shouting Amen to parables like the Good Samaritan (who were essentially rejected by both the gentiles and their own religion). Don't think you're special for doing the right thing, and don't deride me for pointing to God's signature at the bottom. "The law was written in our hearts", after all.stretched said:
Opinions have a way of shaping the world, so take care not to brush them aside. I don't have to justify my position, I just agreed with you. Before, it was believers of mocked unbelievers for having no faith in God or gods, now it's unbelievers who mock believers for having no faith in science. Apart from misunderstanding both faith and science, people are still missing the point, which is that we are both able to see the importance of "being sane".MacM said:
Or is even that "just an opinion"?
Jenyar said:
Yes, and I think this is the crucial point in understanding man's freedom: A man can be free, and this means, act autonomously on what he deems right, only in strategic enviroments. Parametric environments do not pose moral dilemmas (at least I can't imagine they would), and therefore, little or no ethical judging is called for.
Now watch this brilliancy: God made man free, so that man could choose to either serve God, or not. That choice, that ethical judging can consequently take place only in a strategic environment, and survival is such a strategic environment. This is why we live here, to act on our autonomy. (Which is actually quite scary.)
Would the parametric world provide some reference, like Plato's "forms"? Or is it so separate as to have no bearing on the strategic? If there is any relation, would that make the strategic world necessarily parametric (i.e. ruled by parameters) - at least in principle?
In other words, do we play by parametric rules, even though we don't play on a parametric field (since "playing" is a strategic activity)?
I'm typing faster than I can think, but I'm reminded of Paul's speech in Athens (Act 17):
In other words, do we play by parametric rules, even though we don't play on a parametric field (since "playing" is a strategic activity)?
I'm typing faster than I can think, but I'm reminded of Paul's speech in Athens (Act 17):
"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; ...God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'
Like: only when our autonomy excludes God (let's call Him the "first strategist") from the strategic environment - playing in a two dimensional field in stead of a three dimenional one - does acting out our autonomy become scary, because we derive our ethical judgment from His mind ("in Him we live and move").
Jenyar said:
Our moral rules cannot be but parametric; that is, in our moral rules, we envision an ideal situation -- by "ideal" I don't mean 'most positive'; by "ideal" I mean a situation where all the parameters are known. All this comes from having to limit ourselves somehow when we formulate principles.
But in life, in the struggle to survive, we meet circumstances that may not have been foreseen in our rules -- and we have to apply combinations of rules, we must set priorities. Sometimes, we even act against some of our rules -- when we judge that blindly adhering to the rules would be our sure demise. -- And when we do all this, we act strategically.
Hold on, I'm not sure I understand this.
As far as I see, you are implying that all men already know that they derive their ethical judgement from His mind. This implication is not true. Not all men *know* where they derive their ethical judgement from. Some just have a "feeling for justice", but no clearly nameable justification for this feeling (which is odd, but common).
The reason why I think acting on our autonomy is scary is much simpler: Making ethical judgements yourself sets you apart from the "usual rules", apart from the "crowd" -- and it is this being apart that is scary.
When everybody around drinks alcohol, and you refuse -- you have thereby set yourself apart from them, and you are scared of the consequences, a possible isolation and rejection by those people around you.
True, I have implied all men already know where they derive judgment from. In ancient times people might intuitively have thought "God" (while any property beyond a "just" God would have remained obscure). Today people are more careful and less inclined to jump to conclusions. It's a consequence of the game.
But anybody drawn to this feeling for justice of ours can quickly become aware that it has great consequences to the strategy. And anybody drawn away from this feeling must be aware that that, too, has consequences. But who gets excluded by whom? That's less important than the relationship that we see emerging: "good" and "evil". Why do we immediately group good with justice, and evil with injustice? Couldn't it, theoretically, strategically, all be relative, and stay that way?
I think our awareness of a parametric world (parametric ceiling) can't be denied, and our interaction with consequences (like guilt, punishment, mercy, innocence) can't be denied either. These aren't relative concepts. We intuitively feel that the parametric world is fixed, that some of these parameters can be known, and that knowing them is good. Those on the side of justice will continually seek to learn more (since the concept of justice is parametric itself) and to conform [right word? your opinion?] more to it. Those threatened by a fixed (or rather, "parametered") world will shy away from it - and end up with little parametric ceilings of their own (necessarily, because their shying away is already a judgment call based on a larger "judgment"). Little gods (and in ancient times: worshipping little silver and gold idols).
This is the most interesting conversation I've had since I can remember. Hope I'm not come across as too dogmatic.
But anybody drawn to this feeling for justice of ours can quickly become aware that it has great consequences to the strategy. And anybody drawn away from this feeling must be aware that that, too, has consequences. But who gets excluded by whom? That's less important than the relationship that we see emerging: "good" and "evil". Why do we immediately group good with justice, and evil with injustice? Couldn't it, theoretically, strategically, all be relative, and stay that way?
I think our awareness of a parametric world (parametric ceiling) can't be denied, and our interaction with consequences (like guilt, punishment, mercy, innocence) can't be denied either. These aren't relative concepts. We intuitively feel that the parametric world is fixed, that some of these parameters can be known, and that knowing them is good. Those on the side of justice will continually seek to learn more (since the concept of justice is parametric itself) and to conform [right word? your opinion?] more to it. Those threatened by a fixed (or rather, "parametered") world will shy away from it - and end up with little parametric ceilings of their own (necessarily, because their shying away is already a judgment call based on a larger "judgment"). Little gods (and in ancient times: worshipping little silver and gold idols).
This is the most interesting conversation I've had since I can remember. Hope I'm not come across as too dogmatic.
Jenyar said:
Being sane is indeed a subjective issue but one which must consider prevailing opinion. One Alien UFO abductee will seem entirely sane to another Alien UFO Abductee. But self proclaimed alien abductees do not hold a very well accepted condition as being sane by an overwhelming majority.
RosaMagika said:
Only if you first believe in a Omnipotent, All knowing, God that creates man for his amusement, knowing in advance which men will and will not oblige him by falling victum to his riddles, superstitions, temptations and frustrations of hardship posed by his other creations of ill health and harm.
Some plan and some God to praise indeed. :bugeye:
Jenyar said:
A very poor basis for a religion. Also I do not accept that "Sins" are an inherited trait. A new born baby that is crushed, burned or maimed has no sin to atoll for and no amount of wishy-washy mumbo jumbo about God having a plan or reason is insufficient. Such concepts demean any true God.
RosaMagika said:
First let me apologize for being blunt - HORSE SHIT. The biggest bunch of mumbo jumbo assembled anywhere.
Number one I do have questions but I would not expect nor accept your answer unless it had sound evidence and/or data. You have none and can have none.
The only possible answer would be a sign so clear and distinct and to the point - That is God himself - to appear and state "look folks I am real and this is what I want and expect".
Then and only then is there any basis to alter ones mind. You, nor any other human or the Bible, etc can even come close to claiming to know and understand the mind of God, his plans or wishes. It is a bunch of voodo, not worth a deck or Tarot Cards.