Where to go from here? I have deliberated upon this question, my children; I will disqualify the faith systems that I wish you to avoid, by virtue of their stupidity or the harm they cause to the human condition. Mostly I think they will undo themselves, I will hopefully point out the virtue of the tenant of the faith that is 'on the table'.
The best place for me to continue from is personal experience, the belief system that I am more familiar with by virtue of my own indoctrination. The delightful, the unquestionable yet whimsical; Roman Catholicism. Stunning in its simplicity, profound in its complexity. It is the embodiment of control through fear.
We know how it got started and 1.1 billion (2005) worldwide (and growing, their children have no choice, they are 'Baptised') lay claim to the truth it represents. It is a Christian faith; that is, Jesus was the bona fide 'son' of God. Not just his son, as we understand the father/son relationship, but Him, Himself also with another bit called the Holy Spirit (any other Catholics feel the urge to say 'Amen' every time you hear the words 'Holy Spirit'?) The Holy Trinity is explained thus;
"…three persons in one God, all three of whom, as distinct and co-eternal persons, are of one indivisible Divine essence, a simple being. The doctrine also teaches that the Son Himself has two distinct natures, one fully divine and the other fully human, united in a hypostatic union." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity
I think you would agree; only God could make any sense of that. (ooh, therefore he must be real!) But, unusually for a religious doctrine, the concept of trinity is not referred to by either God in the old, or Jesus in the new testaments'.
It is the sole work of Paul-Saul. He is the chap who used to mash up Christians for the Roman Empire, before he encouraged it to become 'Holy'. He was Turkish, but of Hebrew lineage, he didn't actually meet his God although this might have been possible when he was a 'young Turk'. He died about 65AD and aside from the 'road to Damascus' story not much will be known of him by most people. He wrote a big chunk of the post-messianic New Testament mostly in the form of letters to little pockets of isolated Christians or possible converts.
It is accepted that he wrote most of the bits he is supposed to have written, although it is all the word of God so it doesn't really matter. It is important for you to listen to his words to make your decision about Catholicism. The Holy Spirit (Amen) is not to be messed with;
"He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come." (Matthew 12:30-32)
Consider yourselves warned! These are the sins that the Papa and his boys currently are sure go against the Holy Spirit (Amen); Not accepting the 'truth', not trying to find God, Believing (presuming) that God gives you grace or that you don't need Gods grace, Despair, Envy, and impertinence. Impertinence is tricky to avoid, however, because it means two things. It means being cheeky (insolent) or being irrelevant (the opposite of pertinent, see). Some of us (me) will find not being irrelevant very difficult and I like cheekiness. Clearly I'm being a little impertinent here, but how does one not. The modern world makes a little impertinence necessary for sanity. All of the rules and regulations to govern people, who, by and large, don't need it, but tolerate it in the misguided hope that it will govern those that do need it, and they tend to ignore regulations.
Envy is here listed as a sin against the Holy Spirit, not everyday envy per se. it must be envy of another person's spiritual welfare. That means, don't get upset if you think that God loves me more than He loves you. Nor I am closer to Him than you are. I'm not closer, he does not love me more, nor am I closer to heaven by virtue of my spiritual wonderfulness. If I am, it's NONE OF YOU BUSINESS. Try to make it your business and straight to hell you'll go. Priests beware, it sounds like Paul is trying to damn you (perhaps Paul’s Damascene moment was the realization ‘Keep enemies closer’ in order to better destroy them).
The trinity is foremost but the catholics have a little extra in comparison to the other Christian groups because they consider the mother of god to be almost divine (but categorically, not quite) also. She can grant intercession through prayer. The point that needs to be cleared up is that she is not the mother of the Eternal God; just the mother of God made man, the bloke called Jesus. Theotokos they call her, it means; 'god bearer'. She was a Nazarene, as you would expect, and was 'assumed' bodily into heaven. Study of Mary is called, Mariology and there is a school called the Marianum specifically for the study of Mary. The Virgin birth is also a contentious point, given that not all of the gospels mention it. It is only Mathew and Luke that do so. She is the 'author' of the 'magnificat' although mostly, like her son, she plagiarized the old wisdom of the Torah (after reading the magnificat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnificat check out the book of Samuel (1Samuel 2:1-10) and tell me you don't agree). I'm not disrespectful of her for that as, 'these words of my own' could not defend their entirety from such an accusation. I mention it because the more I look into these things the more I realize that all wisdom is repeated (*Burp*). We don't really need much more guidance than 'do unto others as you would have done to you' or if you prefer;
''How would you like it done to you, eh? Well there you go then." (Me, Here).
The 'Immaculate Conception', is not the same as, for want of a better term, her rape by God. The Immaculate Conception refers to her. She is the Immaculate Conception because she is born without sin; she is born without sin so that God doesn't have to consort with a filthy sinner. Like asking a 'two-bit whore' to take a bath first, one would imagine. (I am so going to burn!). So, she is without sin so that He can be born via the sinless, otherwise, he is guilty of original sin. God cannot be guilty of original sin, and not clarifying this would represent a clear paradox, the early Christians therefore had to come up with rationality the fits perfectly. So Mary must be 'the immaculate conception, I just felt I needed to clear that up for you. I mean to say, how in Yoda’s name you are going to accept 'strewth, as our antipodean cousins abbreviate it, if it does not make sense.
Those are some of the main issues that make Catholicism differ slightly from modern Christian clubs. Also, it is almost as old as Jesus; it venerates Saints and Holy men and has a Woman in a high office. The Pope is God’s agent on the earth (and capable therefore of changing the rules). There is a hierarchy of Holy men; from lay minister to Pope (any Catholic can theoretically hold the position of Papa). It is also seriously loaded and owns its own country as well as major influence, economic, political and social, in about a quater of the worlds land masses. Some of mankind’s most impressive works of art and architecture are within its state boundary.
Despite all this it is guarded by men in stripy pantaloons, who also happen to be hardened soldiers that will happily lay down their lives for the safety of the Holy Father. It is neutral in war, by action, but deeply enmeshed in, often fairly cynical, diplomacy. The sins of ‘the church’ are legion, however, and there is much blood on its metaphorical hands. I’m going to draw this post to a close now because I’m sure to make more references to Catholicism in future posts as all subsequent branches Christianity, in someway, relate to it. As I said earlier I am most familiar with it, as a child I was considered for the catholic priesthood but thankfully my parents decided I should have a life with meaning.
Here are some, eyebrow-raising, quotes from the Pope over the years;
“It is the custom of the Roman Church which I unworthily serve with the help of God, to tolerate some things, to turn a blind eye to some, following the spirit of discretion rather than the rigid letter of the law.” Pope Gregory XII
“A dimple on the chin, the devil within.” Pope Paul VI
“Failing to be there when a man wants her is a woman's greatest sin, except to be there when he doesn't want her.” Pope Paul VI
“Somebody should tell us, right at the start of our lives, that we are dying. Then we might live life to the limit, every minute of every day. Do it! I say. Whatever you want to do, do it now! There are only so many tomorrows.” Pope Paul VI
“You must strive to multiply bread so that it suffices for the tables of mankind, and not rather favour an artificial control of birth, which would be irrational, in order to diminish the number of guests at the banquet of life.” Pope Paul VI
“See everything, overlook a great deal, correct a little.” Pope John XXIII
“Anybody can be Pope; the proof of this is that I have become one.” Pope John XXIII
“It is now for the Catholic Church to bend herself to her work with calmness and generosity. It is for you to observe her with renewed and friendly attention.” Pope John XXIII
“Love is never defeated, and I could add, the history of Ireland proves it.” Pope John Paul II.
“Stupidity is also a gift of God, but one mustn't misuse it.” Pope John Paul II
“The cemetery of the victims of human cruelty in our century is extended to include yet another vast cemetery, that of the unborn.” Pope John Paul II
There is no smoke without fire, however, and despite the good words, there is little wisdom in unquestioning faith. All that is said under the guise of being the word of God is the collective wisdom of mankind.
Bonne chance, mes amis.
Mr. Pat.
Monday, April 07, 2008
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Briefly
I am currently composing a new post. I saw this and needed it to be here.
Thank-you to who wrote it.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Gott ist tot
Upon recommendation, I am reading the GOD delusion by Mr. Dawkins. It's a little disappointing for me as I felt I was getting there all by myself. All that I have written so far is pre-Dawkinsian evolution, everything from this point should be considered as, 'awakened by'. That is how powerful the argument is presented, and you must read it. I command you!
Unfortunately this means I am going to change tack for this blog to continue, I was just getting my teeth into it.
For the most part, it's the clarity by which the traditional arguments are blown out of the water. Even whilst reading, the principles of my catholic upbringing were squirming to maintain a hold in my consciousness. The final proof came when a Christian, who I otherwise respect completely, agreed with new earth creationist theory. Whatever else I was, I could never believe that. The fact that anyone could hold this belief, particularly someone I respected the faith of, has poignancy to say the least.
Obviously my jocular attitude in claiming a new religion and godhood were for the discovery, fleshing-out perhaps, of my atheism. This is good and it worked for me. If by some chance reading this helps another to arrive at the same point, then it has, quite literally, doubled in value.
The most worrying thing is how to stop it. Now who's to say, that if we allow non-literal interpretation of the' good book (?)', and remember the new earth people justify changing the length of a day to 144 hours (God's 'day'), we can't come up with more freakish 'truths'. My example; if you say that God's creationist day is 144 hours as opposed to 24, and unless you are also of the 'flat earth' leaning (no really, they exist! http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm, I' m still not convinced that the author gives credit to this philosophy, they're 'avin a larf surely!), the earth rotates causing the phenomena known as day and night.
That would make gods year equal six years because the earth is an irregular globe (no really, it is). Now I can only think that in order for this to happen, earth would have to have been significantly larger (taking 144 hours/six days to rotate on it's axis) than it is now, or rotating at a much slower rate. It is beyond me to draw you the model in this case but it would be either six times larger (half the size of Jupiter) or six times slower. The speed thing has implications for the effects of gravity and so does the size, yet my feeble knowledge of such things baulks at the mere implication of such mathematical aptitude. Perhaps god reduced the planet after his work was done like some astronomical shrinky-dink, and put the passage of time on hold whilst the work was in progress. Omnipotence is the 'killer argument' for a pro-creationist, sadly as I have alluded to, however, because omniscience goes hand in hand with it, it also sanctions arbitrary massacre of all life during the flood and makes YHWH evil, from my moral point of view.
Imagine, having awareness that the seed you plant is going to grow big and strong, but also knowing that you will have to up root it and plant it elsewhere because it destroys your most prized Rose bush. The same Rosebush that you expressly gave it instruction to leave well alone (you can speak plant). You also know that, you will have to take a cutting and kill the plant at some point, because it will not grow into the plant you want (but you knew this before you planted the seed!). You know, also, that; at some point the cutting you take from it in order to start again, will kill your child when you ask him to see if he can fix it. For you his, and your, sacrifice (except that somehow you are you and your son at the same time) is worthy (in your 'grand scheme') because, although there are now four main branches of the same plant and each branch is extremely detrimental to the growth of the others they are totally incompatible with each others needs to the point of destruction, you love them all.
You knew this would happen; remember, way back in the beginning because, you are the garden and all that is in it, and all that the garden is growing into, for ever (Amen).
Each branch also now believes after your, self declared, favourite branch subjected your only child so a slow and painful death, that it is your only favoured branch and that it should destroy the other branches for not 'knowing' you properly. Each branch has the potential to know you and would clearly do as you ask, if only you were to come and give it a little love and perhaps stop the other branches and the rest of the garden from destroying its seeds. During the application of your grand scheme; the plant must not have awareness of this scheme nor should it ever develop knowledge of the scheme. Perhaps this is the reason, known only to you, that you must ignore the plant after it has killed your child, in the hope that some of the plants future seeds could become worthy of your intention for them. However, you must make the seeds pay, even though they are tiny seeds, for the destruction of your Rosebush millennia before. You know this because you can see all of the plant grow, and the results of all your interventions at the moment you design your entire garden, which, by the way, you created entirely, for the benefit of this one plant.
I like analogies, they are awakeners.
Even so god would also have to display a good working knowledge of the type of distraction necessary to hoodwink the plant for millennia, perhaps the fossil record is one of his distractions and he is giggling inanely at Darwin and Dawkins, perhaps not. I am reminded of the, sadly missed, Bill Hicks's 'oh my Me, I put pot everywhere' line. The problem for me is that accepting the possibility of intelligent design leads to a cat and mouse scenario with God the ever-elusive mouse, what is he hiding from? I am not scared of my children and would not hide from them or their questions, at all. They should always be answered, just remember that you have a duty as a parent to prevent misconceptions (such as morality comes from the Bible) arising. In this case God's 'Fatherly' obligations are remiss.
Like Dawkins's Burkha analogy, we must continue to widen the gap and fulfil our potentials. We remain alone but it's not necessarily bad, au contraire mon petits filous, begin by not seeking to know God or even the mechanics of the uni(multi)verse but by trying, striving to, simply; gnothi seauton - know thyself (from the oracle at Delphi).
Because it does, naturally, give you the best chance of happiness.
I'm sure the rest will follow.
As will further posts,
Mr. Pat
Unfortunately this means I am going to change tack for this blog to continue, I was just getting my teeth into it.
For the most part, it's the clarity by which the traditional arguments are blown out of the water. Even whilst reading, the principles of my catholic upbringing were squirming to maintain a hold in my consciousness. The final proof came when a Christian, who I otherwise respect completely, agreed with new earth creationist theory. Whatever else I was, I could never believe that. The fact that anyone could hold this belief, particularly someone I respected the faith of, has poignancy to say the least.
Obviously my jocular attitude in claiming a new religion and godhood were for the discovery, fleshing-out perhaps, of my atheism. This is good and it worked for me. If by some chance reading this helps another to arrive at the same point, then it has, quite literally, doubled in value.
The most worrying thing is how to stop it. Now who's to say, that if we allow non-literal interpretation of the' good book (?)', and remember the new earth people justify changing the length of a day to 144 hours (God's 'day'), we can't come up with more freakish 'truths'. My example; if you say that God's creationist day is 144 hours as opposed to 24, and unless you are also of the 'flat earth' leaning (no really, they exist! http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm, I' m still not convinced that the author gives credit to this philosophy, they're 'avin a larf surely!), the earth rotates causing the phenomena known as day and night.
That would make gods year equal six years because the earth is an irregular globe (no really, it is). Now I can only think that in order for this to happen, earth would have to have been significantly larger (taking 144 hours/six days to rotate on it's axis) than it is now, or rotating at a much slower rate. It is beyond me to draw you the model in this case but it would be either six times larger (half the size of Jupiter) or six times slower. The speed thing has implications for the effects of gravity and so does the size, yet my feeble knowledge of such things baulks at the mere implication of such mathematical aptitude. Perhaps god reduced the planet after his work was done like some astronomical shrinky-dink, and put the passage of time on hold whilst the work was in progress. Omnipotence is the 'killer argument' for a pro-creationist, sadly as I have alluded to, however, because omniscience goes hand in hand with it, it also sanctions arbitrary massacre of all life during the flood and makes YHWH evil, from my moral point of view.
Imagine, having awareness that the seed you plant is going to grow big and strong, but also knowing that you will have to up root it and plant it elsewhere because it destroys your most prized Rose bush. The same Rosebush that you expressly gave it instruction to leave well alone (you can speak plant). You also know that, you will have to take a cutting and kill the plant at some point, because it will not grow into the plant you want (but you knew this before you planted the seed!). You know, also, that; at some point the cutting you take from it in order to start again, will kill your child when you ask him to see if he can fix it. For you his, and your, sacrifice (except that somehow you are you and your son at the same time) is worthy (in your 'grand scheme') because, although there are now four main branches of the same plant and each branch is extremely detrimental to the growth of the others they are totally incompatible with each others needs to the point of destruction, you love them all.
You knew this would happen; remember, way back in the beginning because, you are the garden and all that is in it, and all that the garden is growing into, for ever (Amen).
Each branch also now believes after your, self declared, favourite branch subjected your only child so a slow and painful death, that it is your only favoured branch and that it should destroy the other branches for not 'knowing' you properly. Each branch has the potential to know you and would clearly do as you ask, if only you were to come and give it a little love and perhaps stop the other branches and the rest of the garden from destroying its seeds. During the application of your grand scheme; the plant must not have awareness of this scheme nor should it ever develop knowledge of the scheme. Perhaps this is the reason, known only to you, that you must ignore the plant after it has killed your child, in the hope that some of the plants future seeds could become worthy of your intention for them. However, you must make the seeds pay, even though they are tiny seeds, for the destruction of your Rosebush millennia before. You know this because you can see all of the plant grow, and the results of all your interventions at the moment you design your entire garden, which, by the way, you created entirely, for the benefit of this one plant.
I like analogies, they are awakeners.
Even so god would also have to display a good working knowledge of the type of distraction necessary to hoodwink the plant for millennia, perhaps the fossil record is one of his distractions and he is giggling inanely at Darwin and Dawkins, perhaps not. I am reminded of the, sadly missed, Bill Hicks's 'oh my Me, I put pot everywhere' line. The problem for me is that accepting the possibility of intelligent design leads to a cat and mouse scenario with God the ever-elusive mouse, what is he hiding from? I am not scared of my children and would not hide from them or their questions, at all. They should always be answered, just remember that you have a duty as a parent to prevent misconceptions (such as morality comes from the Bible) arising. In this case God's 'Fatherly' obligations are remiss.
Like Dawkins's Burkha analogy, we must continue to widen the gap and fulfil our potentials. We remain alone but it's not necessarily bad, au contraire mon petits filous, begin by not seeking to know God or even the mechanics of the uni(multi)verse but by trying, striving to, simply; gnothi seauton - know thyself (from the oracle at Delphi).
Because it does, naturally, give you the best chance of happiness.
I'm sure the rest will follow.
As will further posts,
Mr. Pat
Monday, January 21, 2008
Heaven sounds like hell.....
I offer my humble apologies for the length of time you have been waiting for the word of God. Three months is far too long to leave you, although I trust you are not exactly floundering without me. You would have let me know. Besides those Christians, Jews and Muslims have been waiting a tad longer, not that sufferance is a divine virtue or anything (that’s how flagellation got started.) I don’t want to move on from the subject but either you will have faith or you will not, I would prefer your default stance to be the latter. That’s the beauty of your new religion. You will NOT go to hell as a consequence of lack of faith; I don't think I'll have an opposite to heaven, it sounds hell to maintain and the fuel consumption must be astronomical. As a consequence, I'd have to tithe my people and the priests would be fat. I concur with Sartre;
"L'enfer, c'est les autres"; Huis Clos 1944.
Is this the same as saying that we are each, individually, inherently good?
You know if you or you actions are good or bad. Intention plays a big part and accountability does the rest. That's all there is to it. If you save the life of an old lady and in doing so kill a child it is not evil or bad, it simply is. There is no moral 'right' that cannot be objected to; in extreme circumstances everything is justifiable. Those that wish to behave immorally will convince you of their high moral code, it's the best cover. Just beware the wolf in sheep's clothing.
Why do we look for enlightenment, why do we believe that our spiritual journey is going to 'arrive' at some point? According to Darwinism, evolution knows no rest. On ward, mutating, ever striving for environmental perfection. The environment, however, will continue to shift subtlety and the process must begin over with a whole new set of variables (and they too are subject to the process). The miracle and wonder is that life and its evolutionary process picks itself up, dusts itself off, and gets on with it, eternally. Once evolved one level the target becomes one level higher/more suitable, and why should these 'transcendences', scientifically comprehended or not, have limit imposed upon them by we narrow-minded, linear-obsessive primates?
I find it so easy to dismiss the idea of God (Yoda-vav-hey (!)); it looks less likely that it is anything we can agree on. As discussed, we have historically used divinity to cover our lack of knowledge. We still do and I think it is acceptable, if a little bit of a cop-out. You can tell it's a yarn, however, when the pope changes the rules for non-baptised babies and purgatory (it did seem a little harsh).
Feel free to attribute me with responsibility for all the things that you have trouble comprehending, I will continue to have faith in your ability to comprehend. What needs to change, are our expectations of God. What you class as 'the spiritual' is merely a frontier of scientific exploration. And it is our sacrosanct attitudes to God and our religions that continue to pervert the course of our understanding on this subject. With things like this;
"Watch and pray, lest you enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak" (Matthew 26:41).
Statements like that should be countered with;
"I can resist everything except temptation." Oscar Wilde
That is where Yoda comes undone, you see, he is fighting a losing battle for our hearts as well (mostly our minds are well aware of the preposterous nature of Yoda's existence). Essentially our instructions are to avoid that which makes us happy because sufferance will bring you closer to the sufferance of God on your behalf. What utter bilge! You will be dead soon enough, why wait to see if there is eternal bliss in 'kill-your-kids-to-prove-you-love-me's' kingdom. On the basis of accepted interpretation of Christian heaven, endless delirium in the majesty of God, count me out. How dull; I love beer, if I were forced to drink beer all the time, even without the toxic effect of beer, I would get bored. Eternity is quite a while you know.
We here, quasi-religious, authors (perhaps I am more 'quasi' than anything else), postulate that spiritual power (from within, not from elsewhere) has bearing on interpersonal interactions and the environment. They say, 'we are connected, that much is clear, not simply by physical form but by desire and thought also'. Science, you see, would never dispute this; it would only provide the information currently at our disposal and either formulate theory to be explored or develop a method of enhancing 'the known'. Desire is derided as obstructive, particularly by some eastern philosophy, but desire does indeed move mountains and is probably the 'fuel' of transcendental thinking, anyway. It's the fuel of scientific research without a doubt. We are desire because we are flesh. The bible says it, (and that book, without the 'worship me or die' bloke, is a nice collection of useful, morally guiding, stories, who's origins have many sources from all over the 'middle-east'. All those prehistoric tribal groups contributed, from the cities of Babylon and Thebes to the foothills of the Caucasus mountain range. Way before Abraham shook his Dads workshop down), and so does Takuan Soho (Zen (Rinzai sect) monk 1573-1645). Although I do realise that even all 'the ten thousand things' stating a point does not make it true.
I would suggest that there is both healthy desire and desire that is not (greed, hedonism and lust for example, although I must allow debate on my valuation of good/bad healthy/unhealthy in this). When desire becomes engendered by the will of an individual it can bloom and find fuel subconsciously of the entity of its origin (by others perhaps, or the effects of the environment on the seed I plant for example). We should simply try to be aware of this and shift the focus of our desire to that which makes us happy. Desire never dies, its metaphorical fire is inextinguishable, transferable maybe, dampened or even transmuted. Besides, you want to feel good, what else have you got?
"The motivation for all personal behaviour is to produce a sense of "FEEL GOOD," a sense of inner peace and well being. To expect a person to go against his desire to feel good or as good as he can feel under any momentary condition is illogical and irrational. In the observation of human behaviour, one will notice every human act is a response to a personal need. People will do things which seem contrary to this concept, but the bottom line is they perceive some kind of payoff which will make them feel good. And the payoff is almost always emotional. When you ask people why they want to be financially independent, they might say that they could buy things without having to worry about where the money will come from. And when they worry, they don't FEEL GOOD. A drug addict, a compulsive eater, an alcoholic and anyone with a compulsive habit will continue with their habits because at the moment of action they believe and feel it will make them feel good."; Sidney Madwed
Anything that we can offer others from the point of, or as near to, altruistic intent, in the pursuit of happiness, as is humanly possible (Sharp intake of breath); is of benefit to the whole species.
No, I won't prove it now.
I can prove it; I intend to tell you all about it. For now, however, you will just have to take my word (oh my him, I sound just like Yoda).
Mr. Pat.
"L'enfer, c'est les autres"; Huis Clos 1944.
Is this the same as saying that we are each, individually, inherently good?
You know if you or you actions are good or bad. Intention plays a big part and accountability does the rest. That's all there is to it. If you save the life of an old lady and in doing so kill a child it is not evil or bad, it simply is. There is no moral 'right' that cannot be objected to; in extreme circumstances everything is justifiable. Those that wish to behave immorally will convince you of their high moral code, it's the best cover. Just beware the wolf in sheep's clothing.
Why do we look for enlightenment, why do we believe that our spiritual journey is going to 'arrive' at some point? According to Darwinism, evolution knows no rest. On ward, mutating, ever striving for environmental perfection. The environment, however, will continue to shift subtlety and the process must begin over with a whole new set of variables (and they too are subject to the process). The miracle and wonder is that life and its evolutionary process picks itself up, dusts itself off, and gets on with it, eternally. Once evolved one level the target becomes one level higher/more suitable, and why should these 'transcendences', scientifically comprehended or not, have limit imposed upon them by we narrow-minded, linear-obsessive primates?
I find it so easy to dismiss the idea of God (Yoda-vav-hey (!)); it looks less likely that it is anything we can agree on. As discussed, we have historically used divinity to cover our lack of knowledge. We still do and I think it is acceptable, if a little bit of a cop-out. You can tell it's a yarn, however, when the pope changes the rules for non-baptised babies and purgatory (it did seem a little harsh).
Feel free to attribute me with responsibility for all the things that you have trouble comprehending, I will continue to have faith in your ability to comprehend. What needs to change, are our expectations of God. What you class as 'the spiritual' is merely a frontier of scientific exploration. And it is our sacrosanct attitudes to God and our religions that continue to pervert the course of our understanding on this subject. With things like this;
"Watch and pray, lest you enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak" (Matthew 26:41).
Statements like that should be countered with;
"I can resist everything except temptation." Oscar Wilde
That is where Yoda comes undone, you see, he is fighting a losing battle for our hearts as well (mostly our minds are well aware of the preposterous nature of Yoda's existence). Essentially our instructions are to avoid that which makes us happy because sufferance will bring you closer to the sufferance of God on your behalf. What utter bilge! You will be dead soon enough, why wait to see if there is eternal bliss in 'kill-your-kids-to-prove-you-love-me's' kingdom. On the basis of accepted interpretation of Christian heaven, endless delirium in the majesty of God, count me out. How dull; I love beer, if I were forced to drink beer all the time, even without the toxic effect of beer, I would get bored. Eternity is quite a while you know.
We here, quasi-religious, authors (perhaps I am more 'quasi' than anything else), postulate that spiritual power (from within, not from elsewhere) has bearing on interpersonal interactions and the environment. They say, 'we are connected, that much is clear, not simply by physical form but by desire and thought also'. Science, you see, would never dispute this; it would only provide the information currently at our disposal and either formulate theory to be explored or develop a method of enhancing 'the known'. Desire is derided as obstructive, particularly by some eastern philosophy, but desire does indeed move mountains and is probably the 'fuel' of transcendental thinking, anyway. It's the fuel of scientific research without a doubt. We are desire because we are flesh. The bible says it, (and that book, without the 'worship me or die' bloke, is a nice collection of useful, morally guiding, stories, who's origins have many sources from all over the 'middle-east'. All those prehistoric tribal groups contributed, from the cities of Babylon and Thebes to the foothills of the Caucasus mountain range. Way before Abraham shook his Dads workshop down), and so does Takuan Soho (Zen (Rinzai sect) monk 1573-1645). Although I do realise that even all 'the ten thousand things' stating a point does not make it true.
I would suggest that there is both healthy desire and desire that is not (greed, hedonism and lust for example, although I must allow debate on my valuation of good/bad healthy/unhealthy in this). When desire becomes engendered by the will of an individual it can bloom and find fuel subconsciously of the entity of its origin (by others perhaps, or the effects of the environment on the seed I plant for example). We should simply try to be aware of this and shift the focus of our desire to that which makes us happy. Desire never dies, its metaphorical fire is inextinguishable, transferable maybe, dampened or even transmuted. Besides, you want to feel good, what else have you got?
"The motivation for all personal behaviour is to produce a sense of "FEEL GOOD," a sense of inner peace and well being. To expect a person to go against his desire to feel good or as good as he can feel under any momentary condition is illogical and irrational. In the observation of human behaviour, one will notice every human act is a response to a personal need. People will do things which seem contrary to this concept, but the bottom line is they perceive some kind of payoff which will make them feel good. And the payoff is almost always emotional. When you ask people why they want to be financially independent, they might say that they could buy things without having to worry about where the money will come from. And when they worry, they don't FEEL GOOD. A drug addict, a compulsive eater, an alcoholic and anyone with a compulsive habit will continue with their habits because at the moment of action they believe and feel it will make them feel good."; Sidney Madwed
Anything that we can offer others from the point of, or as near to, altruistic intent, in the pursuit of happiness, as is humanly possible (Sharp intake of breath); is of benefit to the whole species.
No, I won't prove it now.
I can prove it; I intend to tell you all about it. For now, however, you will just have to take my word (oh my him, I sound just like Yoda).
Mr. Pat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
