Philosophy Now Forum

attofishpi wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:

attofishpi wrote:Why don't you just answer the original question. Do you think God would be morally justified to condemn a man to reincarnate as the beast, if this man raped and murdered a twelve year old girl?

I did not answer because I do not know what the beast is.

Reincarnated as something delicious such as a pig or cow.

Greatest I am wrote:I also do not believe in reincarnation.

I'm still confused by your posts. Are you an atheist?

Greatest I am wrote:If it is some type of balance of karma you are inferring then that man would need to be raped and killed and I cannot see a God playing such foolish balancing games.

No. I stated that a man may have lost his right to be man.

Greatest I am wrote:Give a question closer to reality and I will respond in kind.

Do you consider yourself an intelligent sentient being with enough understanding as to what is right and wrong when it comes to dealing with a twelve year old girl? If so would you accept that you no longer have the right to be a man if you raped and murdered this twelve year old girl?

Raping a girl makes one a callous criminal. If insane, he would not be found culpable due to mens rea and would not loose any manliness according to our current laws and I mostly agree with those laws. If the man is just a sane criminal then who can take away his right to be a man?

Rights are something we take. They cannot be given to us. They can be forcibly taken away but how does one take humanity out of a person without supernatural involvement?

If you believe in the supernatural then yes, you can return as a flee. I do not believe in anything supernatural.

To your question of what I am.

I am a Gnostic Christian. Here is a quick nutshell view. Think of me as more into Eastern theology than the Western one.

I am a Gnostic Christian, yes, but our beliefs are not what Christianity says they are. We lost the God wars and they distorted our belief system. The lies have been known since the findings of our scriptures and myths at Nag Hammadi.

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html

Gnostic Christianity is a teaching system from Jesus but not the one the church ever dares to teach. It frees us from religion and that is of course not what religions want. They never want the student to graduate as they might lose revenue and people.

Here is a bit of history as well as a nutshell version of how that freedom is gained.

Gnostic Christians are perpetual seekers after God. God here I define as the best laws and rules to live life with.

We believe that those laws and rules, as Jesus said, are found in our minds/hearts. I use the following to try to illustrate this notion. A bit of history and then a mindset and method to do what I promote.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02cia ... =PLCBF574D

The thinking shown below is the Gnostic Christian’s goal as taught by Jesus but know that any belief can be internalized to activate your higher mind.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbes ... r_embedded

This method and mind set is how you become I am and brethren to Jesus, in the esoteric sense.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdSVl_HOo8Y

When you can name your God, I am, and mean yourself, you will begin to know the only God you will ever find. Becoming a God is to become more fully human and a brethren to Jesus.

Regards
DL

Nobody said we can't be punished with a reward. Besides any punishment we enjoy is a reward, is it not? And any reward we do not enjoy is a punishment, is it not?

Jaded Sage wrote:

Nobody said we can't be punished with a reward.

True but no one showed how that would work. If you think someone will se punishment as a reward, give us an short example so that we can see how that works.

Besides any punishment we enjoy is a reward, is it not?

Yes, but then, as I indicated, it is not a punishment and has been poorly labelled and should have always been called a reward.

And any reward we do not enjoy is a punishment, is it not?

No. It could be neutral to us.

I do not enjoy the rain but it is not a punishment.

Regards
DL

attofishpi wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:An omnipotent god cannot be punished.
An ultimate being can not desire or need or want.
An omnipresent god cannot be "not here to defend himself"
God cannot be "him" or "her".

Thank you. Since you know this, I find myself puzzled by some of the things you have said about 'god'.
Which of these characteristics do you think apply to your god, and which do not?

I don't understand what you mean by 'your god' Are you questioning the characteristics that apply to God?

If you think that your version of god, is the only one, then that's the one I am talking about.

Greatest I am wrote:

Jaded Sage wrote:

Nobody said we can't be punished with a reward.

True but no one showed how that would work. If you think someone will se punishment as a reward, give us an short example so that we can see how that works.

Besides any punishment we enjoy is a reward, is it not?

Yes, but then, as I indicated, it is not a punishment and has been poorly labelled and should have always been called a reward.

And any reward we do not enjoy is a punishment, is it not?

No. It could be neutral to us.

I do not enjoy the rain but it is not a punishment.

Regards
DL

Right, but rain is not a punishment or a reward, because it is not something due us.

Okay...this is what I see happening...everyone who is either mad at God or doesn't believe in God, want to make out this fictional character to be an immoral omnipotent being. Okay...good...great...fine...whatever. What I am getting at is...

What is good?

Not what is god.

Is everyone so cynical that they can't admit anything or amyone is good at all? Are you all just copy cat nietczche/whatever people think is cool or hip to be?

Jesus Christ...can't you Fuckin get that if God is not good, then we need another go to thing that describes good....as if there is a word then there is a 'thing' that made us create the Fuckin word in the first place or we wouldn't have even understood the concept 'good' .

So fine...no one here wants to think of a God that is good....okay fine....God is exactly like satan....(.rolling my Fuckin eyes ) then tell me all you Einsteins....who or what is good? Can you bastards pick a fucking thing and stick with it? Or is it beyond your capabilities?

Jesus Fucking Christ.

artisticsolution wrote:Okay...this is what I see happening...everyone who is either mad at God or doesn't believe in God, want to make out this fictional character to be an immoral omnipotent being.

I think this is because of all the contradictions and absurd stories of who/what this god is. It's very convoluted. Isn't it understandable that a lot of people might not see/accept any sense or truth in such a concept?

artisticsolution wrote:Is everyone so cynical that they can't admit anything or amyone is good at all?

Well, there are definitely people who seem to feel elevated (themselves) by putting everything down. But there are also people (like me, for instance) who see value in pretty much everything, without believing in some sort of god.

You seem to be saying that god is a symbol of "good" -- and that if we reject that, then we need another symbol for good... or what have we got? Is that right? I think people are too tempted to choose and worship symbols, and forget to be present and look all around themselves. There is so much to appreciate and value within and around us all the time. When we create or impose idols or gods... they become a tool that is misused by mankind to separate and condemn. It makes sense that a lot of people are going to reject that. What is natural and "good" doesn't need a specific universal symbol... because it is everywhere... and it is a unique experience for each person.

Jaded Sage wrote:[

Yes, but then, as I indicated, it is not a punishment and has been poorly labelled and should have always been called a reward.

And any reward we do not enjoy is a punishment, is it not?

No. It could be neutral to us.

I do not enjoy the rain but it is not a punishment.

Regards
DL[/quote]

Right, but rain is not a punishment or a reward, because it is not something due us.[/quote]

We are all born free of debt or deserving of reward.
We are not due anything by anyone.

We choose our judges based on competence and honesty.

God is neither, if I go by what is written, and he is not even here to be chosen.

Regards
DL

artisticsolution wrote:Okay...this is what I see happening...everyone who is either mad at God or doesn't believe in God, want to make out this fictional character to be an immoral omnipotent being. Okay...good...great...fine...whatever. What I am getting at is...

What is good?

Not what is god.

Is everyone so cynical that they can't admit anything or amyone is good at all? Are you all just copy cat nietczche/whatever people think is cool or hip to be?

Jesus Christ...can't you Fuckin get that if God is not good, then we need another go to thing that describes good....as if there is a word then there is a 'thing' that made us create the Fuckin word in the first place or we wouldn't have even understood the concept 'good' .

So fine...no one here wants to think of a God that is good....okay fine....God is exactly like satan....(.rolling my Fuckin eyes ) then tell me all you Einsteins....who or what is good? Can you bastards pick a fucking thing and stick with it? Or is it beyond your capabilities?

Jesus Fucking Christ.

Work on your Tourette.

What is good?

That is a decision you alone can make is it not?

I do not like pain and would say that it is not good, while an S & M will say it is.

Can you not decide for yourself what is good?

As to why many are here looking at God. Why do you only see the negative aspects and ignore the good aspects?

Proverbs 3:12 For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

Regards
DL

artisticsolution wrote:What is good?

Not what is god.

Adding God to the many names of the nameless:

I say that man is the measure, and God is the supposition. Man can accurately measure man, but not God, since by most definitions God has access to what man does not know, and man can’t measure what he doesn’t know.

To be consistent with what is possible for man to know, and still keep God within the scope of the question, then the emphasis of the enquiry must shift to man, and once the morality of punishment is understood in terms of man, then one has a better chance of second-guessing God.

In shifting the emphasis, the question becomes, Is it moral for man to be punished by God? Yes it is. Man’s understanding of morality cannot encompass God’s understanding of morality, since God knows what man does not.

Is it possible for man to know what is good? Yes it is.

Good always and only exists within situations. Good can only be found in the present within a situation, where the totality of all that you’ve ever known about the universe is found. Tales of goodness told from changing memory and from hypothetheticals that are used to form strategies of behavior, rely not on the totality of conditions, but rely on select conditions that man’s judgement considers relevant in defining goodness.

*

What is good and evil does not depend upon one’s personal preferences. Through suffering people know the distinction and ignorance is the cause of not recognizing the distinction within situations.

Recognition of good and evil should not be confused with designating good and evil.

The potential for good and evil exists within every situation and whether or not either manifests depends on conditions … which are human and exist within every situation.

Punishment for past behavior, in order to influence the future behavior of another or oneself, is the motivator for a lot of human-relationship activity. To succumb to the motive force of punishment, and also when acting to avoid punishment, cages the mind when the rules of man are too numerous and contradictory to comprehend. A lot of the habitual use of punishment that is born of conditioning ends when one realizes, profoundly enough so that one never forgets, that all action is to benefit the living, not the dead. This remembrance inhibits, or at least serves to pause in human beings, doling out punishment on behalf of the dead, in the name of resentment and retribution for the dead.

Punishment in the name of society is to deter future evil behavior against society, such as murder and theft of property.

The God of personal preference that is PC madness ramps up to define “good,” so people can say: That which offends me is bad, therefore punishment to the offender is good. That which does not offend me is good, and requires no punishment. - Walker

“Awareness, on the other hand, arises from a state of knowledge which the individual him or herself possesses. Because of this, laws and rules sometimes correspond to the inherent awareness of the individual, and sometimes do not. However, if one has awareness, it is possible to overcome the situation of being bound by compulsion to follow rules and laws. Not only is this so, but an individual who has awareness and keeps it stably present is also capable of living in peace under all the rules and laws there are in the world, without being in any way conditioned by them.”
– Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche

Greatest I am wrote:We are all born free of debt or deserving of reward. We are not due anything by anyone.

We are born in debt to our bodies. We owe them food, clothing and shelter. We are born in debt to our psyches (minds). We owe them orthodoxia (correct understanding) and ataraxia (peace of mind).

See how food can be a punishment or a reward. If we are impoverished and starving, hunger, the punishment for not paying the debt of food owed the body, is harsh; the debt itself is horribly inconvenient, and it becomes a severe and painful punishment as the body slowly wastes away. How gruesome! On the other hand, if we are well to do, eating is a great reward, and so is the enjoyment of it; indeed, for many of us, it is a most favorite activity. The same one thing can be either punishment or reward.

The same holds true for the rest.

Walker wrote:Adding God to the many names of the nameless: I say that man is the measure, and God is the supposition. Man can accurately measure man, but not God, since by most definitions God has access to what man does not know, and man can’t measure what he doesn’t know.

To say that there are many names for a nameless something (though I understand the usage) is, when one looks at it, a troubling statement. It would mean that each and every 'name' (concept of) God, in all cultures, at all times, is more or less the same thing. This is not borne out when one looks more closely into the specifics. For example, the Jewish-Christian god-concept is not really the same as the Hinduesque god-concept, or in any case it is in the differences that the distinctness is found.

Though you might also mean that it can never be 'named' since 'it' must be something far beyond the possibility of definition. This makes sense.

And when you say 'man is the measure' you likely also mean man is the measurer. And the definer. I note in this, or think I do, the 'nominalism' (nomin = name) which has so influenced our thinking today. Man is the measure, man is the measurer, and he assigns a word. And if that is the case there is no universal category to which he refers. Therefor, everything is pushed back on man, his perception, his choices, and his arbitrariness. So yes, in that context, god must certainly be nameless: essentially unnamable. But further: simply a category on man's thinking. Not really existent.

It also occurs to me that - and though I see what you are getting at - it is not impossible that man may not be able to measure man. Just as he is inhibited, say, by the necessary constraints of defining at any universal level (since it could be said to be arbitrary), must it not be assumed that he is similarly constrained at any level of definition? So, he is measureless even by his own self.

To be consistent with what is possible for man to know, and still keep God within the scope of the question, then the emphasis of the enquiry must shift to man, and once the morality of punishment is understood in terms of man, then one has a better chance of second-guessing God.

I don't know your thought well but I note some contradictions here. By your own apparent definitions, and perhaps by those generally accepted, man cannot know much. If that is so, 'God' would by definition be outside his scope. But then if it shifts to man, it shifts even more so to the shaky ground of man, and thus the question becomes circular and unresolvable. It seems to suggest that when man realises he is the measure and the measurer that he will better understand 'god', but it is just as likely that any definition of god will simply fall away as man is incapable of saying anything about god!

But I certainly admit that the notion of a god who punishes, which connotes an angry parent punishing a child, is terribly problematic and hard to sustain.

In shifting the emphasis, the question becomes, Is it moral for man to be punished by God?

Except that man, his existence, and existence itself, must necessarily be described as his punishment. It is this 'punishing reality' that is really being referred to, is it not? If one then speaks of some additional, some ancillary 'punishment', it would be an added or a specific punishment that rises up out of the general punishing reality.

But the notion of punishment of this order becomes problematic. Except that I suppose we function within the understanding to greater or lesser degrees. The idea of 'instant karma' is a curious one. I have often wondered if it is ourself, our own psyche, that creates those events that we then see as 'instant karma'. Jung and the psychology schools have some curious things to say about 'accidents'.

Is it possible for man to know what is good? Yes it is.

This is where I sense contradictions in your position. Man can only arbitrarily decide what is 'good' if he is the sole namer of it. But he cannot describe good as a universal category and thus he cannot really speak about it. In fact, it is just as likely that he cannot know what is 'good' - not ultimately - since he is stuck, limited and captured within his local and limited perspective. He can only gropingly say that thus-and-such seems good or seems bad. He can condemn, say, the most obvious acts of horror and call them 'evil' but then the cosmos itself, every day, every moment, commits destructive acts that pale anything he has done or will ever do.

Good always and only exists within situations. Good can only be found in the present within a situation, where the totality of all that you’ve ever known about the universe is found. Tales of goodness told from changing memory and from hypothetheticals that are used to form strategies of behavior, rely not on the totality of conditions, but rely on select conditions that man’s judgement considers relevant in defining goodness.

Except that you seem to employ or avail yourself of a perspective - philosophical or spiritual - which indicates a stance somewhat outside of the problem, and thus looks like a universalising statement, and in that sense denies your own premise!

What is good and evil does not depend upon one’s personal preferences. Through suffering people know the distinction and ignorance is the cause of not recognizing the distinction within situations.

Again, this seems contradictory to me. The opposite would have to be said. If man is the measure and measurer, and if he is necessarily limited, and only can speak from situations, and from bias, then it does depend on his preferences. And 'suffering' (in the sense that you mean which I take to be Buddhist overall) is simply a part of the platform. But what can a Buddhist ethic do when faced with that? Is the answer that all he can do is control his own reaction? Remain dispassionate? Disconnected? Disinterested? My impression is that Buddhism embodies strategies to minimise suffering by detachment. Perhaps this is the best we can do, speaking realistically. But it can also lead to quietism which is problematical.

The God of personal preference that is PC madness ramps up to define “good,” so people can say: That which offends me is bad, therefore punishment to the offender is good. That which does not offend me is good, and requires no punishment. - Walker

Yet to define, say, an 'anti-PC position', is to approach once again the Question from a meta-perspective. It is as if one says: Local definitions are too limited and will lead to the madness of PC specificity. And perhaps we move from a nominalist perspective once again toward a universalist position?

It is hard really to say what one is speaking about when on refers to the PC. I tend to see what is 'evil' in PC as arising from Marxian impositions, and from a desire to topple hierarchies and level the ground. In its way, then, it is certainly 'anti-naturalism' and is in that sense quite related to Jewish and to Christian 'impositions'. 'PC' these days means almost Maoist!

Walker wrote: Recognition of good and evil should not be confused with designating good and evil.

Hi Walker,


I don't like to think in terms of good vs. evil. I tend to believe there is no evil, there is only mental illness to various degrees.

'Good' is the natural healthy state of man. It is what mankind is before polluted with ideas and thoughts from the mentally disturbed. Mental illness is handed down through generation, imo. Sometimes through physical abnormalities in the brain and sometime through emotional trauma.

God is just a word/concept for goodness, like santa claus. It irks the hell out of me when people take a word/concept and try to change the meaning because of their emotional state. We already have a thing that is evil...and we call it satan. If we leave our emotions out of it, we can clearly see that there is no Body, for either God or Satan. There is no evidence such a being truly exists. They are just words that people like to beat up on instead of reality. It is the shallowness that really irks me. The fact that they think a supernatural being is responsible for their suffering, instead of looking around them or looking in the mirror. Noooo....for them, It's easier to create a monster.

And then, to take something, that is supposed to be a symbol for good, and twist it around to take on the characteristics of evil, tarnishes the last hope, so to speak. It is no different than all the people responsible for 'holy wars'. It is the same misguided shallow thinking. Anyone can harm in the name of goodness...it's called terrorism. It's called, trampling the snow. Stop and think for a moment. I know it's hard to admit, because it is human nature to think we are doing good. It is human nature to want to blame our mentally unhealthy actions on others. But it's also really lazy thinking to think one is being clever to simply switch out meanings of words in order to make sense of the world around them.

Own your shit.

(not saying you don't own your shit walker...just talking to a general problem that I see.)

"Man can only arbitrarily decide what is 'good' if he is the sole namer of it. But he cannot describe good as a universal category."

I believe a person can and I will.

Good is whatever the observer decides is good. Good or evil are arbitrary as good and evil are subjective and not objective so every observer can and does decide by what he observes.

A distant observer of a supernova explosion will see it as good as it replenished the stuff of planet forming materials.

An observer that is close enough for his destruction will look at the same event and say that it is evil as it will kill him.

It is all subjective.

Regards
DL

Lacewing wrote:

artisticsolution wrote:Okay...this is what I see happening...everyone who is either mad at God or doesn't believe in God, want to make out this fictional character to be an immoral omnipotent being.

I think this is because of all the contradictions and absurd stories of who/what this god is. It's very convoluted. Isn't it understandable that a lot of people might not see/accept any sense or truth in such a concept?

artisticsolution wrote:Is everyone so cynical that they can't admit anything or amyone is good at all?

Well, there are definitely people who seem to feel elevated (themselves) by putting everything down. But there are also people (like me, for instance) who see value in pretty much everything, without believing in some sort of god.

You seem to be saying that god is a symbol of "good" -- and that if we reject that, then we need another symbol for good... or what have we got? Is that right? I think people are too tempted to choose and worship symbols, and forget to be present and look all around themselves. There is so much to appreciate and value within and around us all the time. When we create or impose idols or gods... they become a tool that is misused by mankind to separate and condemn. It makes sense that a lot of people are going to reject that. What is natural and "good" doesn't need a specific universal symbol... because it is everywhere... and it is a unique experience for each person.

Hi Lacewing,

Sorry, not ignoring you...just thinkin about your post is all.

I understand what you are saying about the contradictions in the bible, however, we have a guide of how to know the importance of what action is worse better than another. Which is how brilliantly the bible was written in my opinion. The bible is written in a way to show how to get back to good when your thoughts drift of toward an unhealthy path. The fact that most can't see this, shows the problem with shallow black and white thinking. It also is a good indicator to point out ones own weakness in thinking, imo. At least, that is how I always have viewed human nature when comparing it to the bible's standards.

I could write a whole book on the subject, but from an agnostic's point of view no one would read it...lol. To the theist, I am an atheist, and to the atheist I am a theist....there is no winning...lol.

Suffice to say there are confusing stories in the bible for sure...but the one thing that remains consistent throughout is the 10 commandments. I believe they are called commandments for a reason. People have diluted the meaning of this very important word "Commandment". It is why they can read the bible and then think, "huh, it says here God wants us to kill the homosexual, well...who are we to go against God." They allow their own unhealthy minds take over, they don't even try to give it further thought of what it means to be good...or in other words...to be healthy. The commandments play a huge role in this, as it clearly says, "love thy neighbor". That is the commandment. it is not just a verse. Again, they allow their unhealthy attitude to get in the way of reason.

I could go on and on about how people misinterpret the bible, (if one is inclined to believe it in the first place) but it usually goes along the lines above.

One that really irks atheists, is the Commandment that says, thou shall have no other Gods before me. But it should only be a problem if you believe in God. So I never understood atheists giving a flying fuck. But if I was inclined to read the bible, and inclined to think of a God as my father who is the ultimate good...then I would try to understand that commandment by thinking in terms of what would be a healthy state of mind. And the only thing I can come up with is , the idea that when we love someone, we don't want that person to love another the way they love us. We want a pure love, not an adulterated love. Make sense to me, as I would not want my husband love another woman more than he loved me. My guess is most people feel the same. There is something called loyalty, and it's a little better than being a fare weathered friend...don't you think?

Just saying. I realize the bible and God are not a popular thing in today's day and age. But to tarnish the idea because a whole group of mentally unhealthy people who hold it up as a reason for their unhealthy behavior is no reason to make God responsible for their actions. It is ludicrous. It is naive. Not saying that you are naive, just pointing out a general problem I see.

If the world was mentally healthy, I doubt they would read the bible and interpret it the way they do. That's all I am saying.

You can't get to right/good by thinking wrong/bad. You can't get to emotionally healthy thoughts by thinking emotionally unhealthy ideas. You can't get to be healthy by eating unhealthy either. It is only logical.