Free Will? Gee, thanks a lot!

[Flores]

Lucy, you are very eloquent and right on the money in this post..

Originally posted by Lucysnow
"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" A. Crowley

I find Crowely's law just as good as any other.

That guy is so smart. We don't try to impose pediatrician medicine on adults, or gynacology on men. Laws should be natural and follow the contour of the object understudy. Law should be specific and catered and prepared uniquely for each person. It is exactly do what thou wilt be and not what thou I shall tell you aughta be.

Originally posted by Lucysnow
The only laws I believe come from god are natural laws (laws of nature) Why is it not enough for us to form our own morality? I tend to find religious people (not all but many) to be the worst of hypocrites adhering to none of their religions teachings except by being judgemental, intolerant and simply posturing piety. The ultimate freedom if there really is a god is to choose not to follow his law. If to sow what you reap is the same as cause and effect, action and consequence then fine but I do not believe there is a god who punishes based on list of sins. That is a ploy by religion to control and frighten the massess keeping us all meek and mild.

Nicely put, and just like the fact that god doesn't judge us based on a list of sin, god doesn't line up in groups based on church, mosque, or synagoge affiliation. The Quran gives a lot of rules, but at the same time recite the story of a woman who worked for a living as a prostitute, and fed a one hungry cat one day that was enough for her salvation. Another man who worked as a Sheikh or pastor and relied on his brother to feed him was sent to hell and his brother sent to heaven for carrying his duties....So nobody is qualified in this world to make an assessment about god laws and what constitutes salvation....Anyone that does that is a hypocrite blaphsemous that is playing god including moi when I misbehave.

 

[HonkyDick]

Originally posted by Jenyar
If eternal life was in a cup of water - exactly how much would you have to drink order to attain it?

Check the prescription.:bugeye:

 

[Mucker]

Whether he did all of those great (as in big) things or not, I don't know, but I think Freud may have been onto something with his thoughts of 'God' as being the longing for a father (figure). Not neccesarily in the traditional sense, but if it is part of God's plan that we should not grow joined to a main trunk (like the branches on a tree), but if we are to be spread like the seeds from plants or bushes, then 'God' might have given us the rules to follow when living, because we all need one true father when we leave or lose our first one.

 

[Jenyar]

Originally posted by Lucysnow
The ten commandments are not abhorrent, but very few keep them. The commandments do not hold any control over the desires of men, we generally pick and choose those that suit us and discard of them when convenient.

But if someone with authority makes a set of laws, and someone crosses just one of those laws, isn't guilty by the whole law?

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" A. Crowley

I find Crowely's law just as good as any other.

That means everybody is his own law and his own authority - Crowley will definitely not be there to enforce it.

Can someone do something that he doesn't want to do, by his own accord? And if someone does resist something they would otherwise have done - does that mean they break the law? If you follow that reasoning, you deserve punishment for resisting natural urges, say for instance being unfaithful to your wife. And since you are your own authority, if you do not punish yourself for resisting the temptation, justice will not have been done.

That doesn't sound like a law to me.

I guess if one believes in the bible and it being inspired by divinity then one is obligated to keep those laws and rules. Is it that people could not live well enough without those laws and rules? Society would create some law or taboo, some form of order without implicating god in the process.

I guess it comes down to a question of authority. You might make the rules of your house, but if they cross the rules of the city they are unlawful - likewise the city to the state, the state to the country, and we even have the UN and International courts.

This begs the question: was America wrong for going against UN resolutions? What are the implications when you consider yourself the highest authority?

The only laws I believe come from god are natural laws (laws of nature) Why is it not enough for us to form our own morality? I tend to find religious people (not all but many) to be the worst of hypocrites adhering to none of their religions teachings except by being judgemental, intolerant and simply posturing piety.

We should form our own morality. But what are the standards of the highest morality? The problem is that by the highest standards, everybody are hypocrites to some degree. Crowley's "law" of course denies this. Since you are the only measure - everything you do is automatically right by your own moral standards. There can be no universal standard. Doesn't nature have a universal standard? Aren't we violating the laws of nature by establishing moral standards - or at least denying its "authority"?

I know flying cannot be considered "sinning" against the law of gravity - it doesn't make sense. But if God established the laws of nature, and we can't escape them, doesn't it mean God is the highest moral authority as well?

The ultimate freedom if there really is a god is to choose not to follow his law. If to sow what you reap is the same as cause and effect, action and consequence then fine but I do not believe there is a god who punishes based on list of sins. That is a ploy by religion to control and frighten the massess keeping us all meek and mild.

That sound to me like saying there are laws, but we don't have to follow them. What exactly makes them laws?

Are you really free if the laws of nature all suggest that you aren't? Don't you consider death also to be a law of nature? Has nature kept you "meek and mild", or has it challenged you to live and explore within its limits?

 

[Jenyar]

Originally posted by HonkyDick
Check the prescription.:bugeye:

[...looks for prescription...]
It says "Drink the whole cup just before you die".

But containing eternal life means the water must be eternal itself - surely something terminable could not contain something interminable?

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Jenyar you asked: "But if someone with authority makes a set of laws, and someone crosses just one of those laws, isn't guilty by the whole law?"

If someone is religious and they accept god as their highest authority as someone or something invested in their personal conduct and they are guilty of a 'Thou Shalt Not...', then they are indeed guilty in their own minds of behaving below the standards of another. But the act of breaking the law also means that those standards are not their own.

You asked:
"That means everybody is his own law and his own authority - Crowley will definitely not be there to enforce it. Can someone do something that he doesn't want to do, by his own accord? And if someone does resist something they would otherwise have done - does that mean they break the law? If you follow that reasoning, you deserve punishment for resisting natural urges, say for instance being unfaithful to your wife. And since you are your own authority, if you do not punish yourself for resisting the temptation, justice will not have been done.That doesn't sound like a law to me."

Yes it means that everyone is his own authority and Crowley would not care to enforce standards on another. If you mean that it doesn't sound like a law because there is no one to ensure punishment if said law is broken, I would say there is. If one falls below their own standards that they have created for themselves then through sheer consequence of action they will pay, punishment can come from outside retribution but it also presents itself through conscience/shame/guilt. If someone resists breaking a law they would otherwise have committed for whatever reason they are not 'guilty'. Thinking of doing something and taking action on a thought are two different positions; the first has no consequences but the latter does. No I disagree that if one follows Crowelys 'law' and resists a natural urge that they are guilty of breaking the law and should punish themselves. Crowely's law does not imply partaking in any temptation just because it arises (in fact he emphasis Will not any passing feeling), it simply means being responsible for ones own desires and actions, one creates their own limits, if they are not sound of mind then they will not be sound in action but this is true whether they follow their own guidelines or those of an outside force. Also I think that if one is tempted to do something like sleeping with their neighbors wife, and they repress the urge and suffer emotionally or psychologically they would have made a decision to punish themselves, sacrifice themselves and their love to some lesser principle. They in fact condemn themself.

You ask:This begs the question: was America wrong for going against UN resolutions? What are the implications when you consider yourself the highest authority?

The States obviously does not think they were wrong. I believe I have outlined the implications of being ones own highest authority above.

You asked:We should form our own morality. But what are the standards of the highest morality? The problem is that by the highest standards, everybody are hypocrites to some degree. Crowley's "law" of course denies this. Since you are the only measure - everything you do is automatically right by your own moral standards. There can be no universal standard. Doesn't nature have a universal standard? Aren't we violating the laws of nature by establishing moral standards - or at least denying its "authority"? I know flying cannot be considered "sinning" against the law of gravity - it doesn't make sense. But if God established the laws of nature, and we can't escape them, doesn't it mean God is the highest moral authority as well?

Discovering aerodynamics is discovering one of natures laws. You speak of God in the last question as if god were something definite that has personal likes and dislikes and enforces those likes and dislikes on people, I do not agree with that in fact I don't think there is a 'personal' god, an entity who is watching everything we do and say taking notes and adding pluses and minuses, like a game where the award is heaven or hell. We can do whatever we like as long as we are willing to live with the consequences. You ask what are the 'highest standards of morality'? Well what are they? What are they for you? They will probably be different for me so there is no 'highest standard' or rather I should say no 'universal standard'. No I do not think we are violating the laws of nature by establishing a moral standard for ourselves. Some believe that the way to happiness and well being is to live up to someone elses standards, some just wing it and build one through trial and error ("oh if I only knew that doing this would have produced that'), some examine themselves and outline a strict set of personal standards. At the end of the day we live with ourselves, if we suffer from the consequences of our actions then it is not god whom suffers or society but ourselves. We cannot violate natures standards; even the bible began with a murder (cain and abel). If we owned our brutality and acknowledged the animal we are, every dark desire, murderous impulse, the depravity lurking behind the mask of civility then perhaps we would have a principle of universal humanity based on compassion, but if we do not examine ourselves in this manner we are doomed to hypocisy, self-deciept, finger wagging and pomposity. It is then my god against your god, my ideology against your ideology, I am righteous and you are not, I know how the world should look and behave and by god I will make everyone beat to my drum, etc. We fool ourselves into thinking we are somehow 'better' because we hold certain principles. Absolute bullshit if you aske me...I forgot you did.

You asked:That sound to me like saying there are laws, but we don't have to follow them. What exactly makes them laws?
Are you really free if the laws of nature all suggest that you aren't? Don't you consider death also to be a law of nature? Has nature kept you "meek and mild", or has it challenged you to live and explore within its limits?

I meant that statement in the context of if one believes in a religion based on a god who has given free-will but then says you are not free to do what you want. I personally do not hold the ten as my law and I do not live for a god or even for society. I am not at odds with my nature or the laws of nature so I do not feel a 'lack of freedom'. Death is an ever present fact and I hope that when the time comes I embrace it with grace, my arms wide open. Yes absolutely I believe that our intelligence, self-consciousness and awareness of nature challenges us to explore the limits of ourselves internally and externally.

"Better to live one day as a lion than a lifetime as a sheep" John Gotti

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Jenyar we have been using the term 'punishment', it is perhaps convenient but I think perhaps 'outcome' describes what we were discussing much more accurately.

Also though death is inevitable I do not think we can say with any certainty what occurs after death. What difference can the inevitability of death have on ones life if death is unknowable in the meantime from an experiential point of view?

 

[Jenyar]

Thanks Lucy. It's nice to be able to have a civil discussion

I just want to respond to a few things you said.

... in fact I don't think there is a 'personal' god, an entity who is watching everything we do and say taking notes and adding pluses and minuses, like a game where the award is heaven or hell. We can do whatever we like as long as we are willing to live with the consequences.

While I do believe in a personal God (for many reasons, but among them the obeservation that we are creations who are at the most basic and highest levels defined by personality and uniqueness), I do not believe God to be an entity who is just watching and taking notes like a cosmic examinator. The last sentence comes closest to my beliefs.

The difference is that I believe we are accountable to a higher standards than our own. Our own moral evolution proves to me that our natural inclination is to strive towards higher standards, and the ability to avoid consequences that are not immediately evident as 'bad'. At the same time, it is a curious development that we are also becoming more individualized - more unique at each moment. The more universal our laws, the more unique the manifestations of them.

So to me, the consequences are further separation between man and God - we are becoming gods in our own minds, while any form of law becomes relative to the point of redundance. I make it sound negative, but in my mind it is the natural consequence.

Where I extend this mode of thinking, is that because I believe in a personal creator God, these consequences extent beyond our physical existence - beyond death. You said yourself we have no idea what happens after death. The Christian view is that this hasn't precluded us from being aware of the consequences we will have to face. Unlike a person who did not know that there was a law - and therefore unaware that he was crossing it - it is evident (and your posts confirms this is true for you as well) that we have knowledge of the natural consequences of our actions. Crowley's law would not have had any relevance if only a few people were physically and mentally capable of following it.

The inevitability of death therefore has tremendous relevance from an experiential point of view: we are able to experience an undeniable reality - a law - indirectly. We can see natural justice played out before our eyes again and again, knowing that it awaits us, but being able to lead a conscious life ahead of it. God's judgement is no less fair/unfair than the experience of death.

Knowledge of good and bad, knowledge of life and death - we already have the first one, and we are staring at the second one right in front of us.

It is then my god against your god, my ideology against your ideology, I am righteous and you are not, I know how the world should look and behave and by god I will make everyone beat to my drum, etc. We fool ourselves into thinking we are somehow 'better' because we hold certain principles.

"The righteous and unrighteous face the the same death". No one can be better because of their principles - but some principles are better than others. The danger is egotism, which is just as possible with Crowley's law (thelema) than any other principle of living. It is people who are dangerous, not laws (at least not ones that allow morality).

If one falls below their own standards that they have created for themselves then through sheer consequence of action they will pay, punishment can come from outside retribution but it also presents itself through conscience/shame/guilt.

My problem with this is not so much that I doubt the ability of some to follow it, it is that it does not prevent misuse. As a law, it would not hold up in court because it is ambiguity incarnate. Our daily experience show that natural consequences are not sufficient to enforce moral justice. In fact, most people who see nothing wrong with a life of crime live above the law. Unless of course, you see the jsutice system as a form of natural consequences. But that means the country's laws preside over you own laws, and have authority over them. And if the justice system adopted thelema as it's own code of conduct... well, I'm sure you can understand my problem with it.

I meant that statement in the context of if one believes in a religion based on a god who has given free-will but then says you are not free to do what you want. I personally do not hold the ten as my law and I do not live for a god or even for society. I am not at odds with my nature or the laws of nature so I do not feel a 'lack of freedom'.

That is perhaps because you have accepted your boundaries. Isn't it a bit hypocritical to claim freedom from moral authority because you are convinced God does have the authority to judge you according to standards He built into nature itself, but accept death as causing no limit to your freedom to live? Isn't death the ultimate injustice? It is enforced without mercy (in your perspective), it goes against every fibre of your will, your every heartbeat is a revolution against it, and yet you accept it without question?

"Better to live one day as a lion than a lifetime as a sheep", but who is the lion really, and who are the real sheep?

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Hello Jenyar, you wrote:While I do believe in a personal God (for many reasons, but among them the obeservation that we are creations who are at the most basic and highest levels defined by personality and uniqueness), I do not believe God to be an entity who is just watching and taking notes like a cosmic examinator. The last sentence comes closest to my beliefs.

Well in a way I am not really an athiest because I do believe in god but not a god with any specifity. I am willing to call the entirety of existance that is both knowable and unknowable as god. Everything is and I don't know why it is and so I call it god. If god were personal then we all could blame him for all the trouble that man is affected by (famine, war, injustice, disease). Why would a personal god allow his faithful to suffer? It is in nature that some animals survive and others perish to ensure the continuation of all species. When a Leather- Back Turtle spends all night laying eggs into the sand and the next day dozens of cute little turtles struggle to reach the ocean before they are eaten, and then once in the ocean struggle again not to be eaten, just to discover that most of them will be anyway it isn't personal. Don't you think we have created a myth about god so we can psychologically and emotionally cope with the troubles we find ourselves in? I know you will say that humans are a higher animal, but we are an animal nontheless, higher in evolvement and at the top of the food chain. I believe that because we see ourselves outside the circle of natural life, with no respect for any other species which is evident in how we destroy nature for our own ends. Monotheism has built up a myth that tells us that all the universe, our entire planet and everything on it exists for us, that god created it all for us. Monotheism has separated us from all of nature and therefore god, we do not see ourselves as part of a whole. The irony is that without the support of nature and the planet we are unable to survive as a species. Many believe science will 'cure' all of the problems we have created in nature but I don't belive that. Mind you I do not believe science is bad or all the comforts we benefit from, I just think that if we thought differently about ourselves as humans on this planet we would be in agreement with nature and not at odds. It is this relationship between creativity, science and dominance that has allowed us to see ourselves as gods. How is it that you experience a personal god? Does one need to be religious to have that experience? How does this god manifest itself so you are aware that it is aware of you? A personal god means we are special, do you believe that all humans are special to god?

You wrote:Crowley's law would not have had any relevance if only a few people were physically and mentally capable of following it.

Do you mean that there are only a few people who can follow Crowley's law or that not even a few could follow it? Don't you think that the reason Crowley's law would be difficult to follow is because independence is not fostered in society (school, family, religion etc)? We would have to be raised in a fashion that built personal awareness, responsibility, consequence, respect and the self-nurturance.

You wrote:The righteous and unrighteous face the the same death". No one can be better because of their principles - but some principles are better than others. The danger is egotism, which is just as possible with Crowley's law (thelema) than any other principle of living. It is people who are dangerous, not laws (at least not ones that allow morality).

Wouldn't you admit that many whom think they are special, believe they are special because they have a personal god, also suffer from egotism (Jim Jones for example)? Yes people are very dangerous and not the laws. I do not keep the sabbath holy, but I also have not killed. If I were in a desparate situation where killing were necessary for my own survival then perhaps I would, but I do not need the ten commandments to tell me that to take the life of another on a whim or out of vengence is wrong.

You wrote: My problem with this is not so much that I doubt the ability of some to follow it, it is that it does not prevent misuse. As a law, it would not hold up in court because it is ambiguity incarnate. Our daily experience show that natural consequences are not sufficient to enforce moral justice. In fact, most people who see nothing wrong with a life of crime live above the law. Unless of course, you see the jsutice system as a form of natural consequences. But that means the country's laws preside over you own laws, and have authority over them. And if the justice system adopted thelema as it's own code of conduct... well, I'm sure you can understand my problem with it.

There are not any laws that prevent misuse of the law itself. Secular law has no more hold over the actions of man than religious law, but secular law was created by society and is agreed upon by society and can change, religious law is said to come from god himself. Crowley's law is a law of personal conduct. I am not sure if this is religious law but Jesus supposedly said "love thy neighbor as you love yourself", considering how so many people do not love themselves how are they to then love their neighbor? Religion does not foster self-love (I mean a healthy self-love) but love directed away from self towards god. Dont you think that if the statement had read "Learn to love and respect yourself and then treat your neighbor in like" it would reap better results?

You wrote: That is perhaps because you have accepted your boundaries. Isn't it a bit hypocritical to claim freedom from moral authority because you are convinced God does have the authority to judge you according to standards He built into nature itself, but accept death as causing no limit to your freedom to live? Isn't death the ultimate injustice? It is enforced without mercy (in your perspective), it goes against every fibre of your will, your every heartbeat is a revolution against it, and yet you accept it without question?

"Better to live one day as a lion than a lifetime as a sheep", but who is the lion really, and who are the real sheep?

Death is built into nature and even the highest mountains eventually wither away. The cycle of life includes death. I have absolutely no proof that god wrote anything or created any moral authority. Why is death an injustice? You say this personal god is a moral authority why would a moral authority include an injustice into the natural way of all things? It is all this fear of hell, fire and brimstone, eternal punishment, god's wrath etc.,that has created a fear of the inevitable. Death is whatever death will be, I think it will probably be the end of ego, thought, identity. Death is nothingness. Maybe it is something else but we know nothing of that. It is a very large ego that thinks it is special enough to not be limited by death. Fighting against the ultimate eventuality of death is a fight to continue our ego. It is interesting that traditional tribal groups have had none of this fight against the inevitable, being in-tune with the cycle of life they accept death; but then again they don't have a wrathful god waiting for them on the other side do they?
The lions are those who are afraid to be who they are, to live the way they want to live without apology or permission. The sheep are those who's pleasures depend on the permission of another, who conform themselves to what others have said is acceptable, who apologize profusely for things they wholeheartedly intended to do.

 

[TheEnd]

I've never actually believed in free will. All things, as I see them, are depedant on other things...i.e, this only happens because that happened...