• Saving God July 21 - 09:37 pm

HOW DO WE KNOW WE DO GOD'S WILL?

How do we know we do God's Will? It seems all the world's religions have this in common, that it is important, if not the explicit duty, of all devotees to do God's Will. In the predominant great religions of the Far East, in Hindu and Buddhist traditions, Jainism, even Sikhism, this will is expressed in right living, right thought, as taught by either the principal gods like Vishnu and Shiva, or by the Buddha and the eight fold path, or Guru Nanak. In those of the Middle East, the great religions of Moses, Christ, and Mohammed, and more recently Baha'u'allah; all have scriptures to which they refer to religiously to fathom what it is that God demands of them, and thus to obey. Christians have taken this to another level, especially after the Reformation, to interpret God's Will in a more direct relationship between man-woman and God. But how do we know we are doing this, that we are in a direct gnosis with God, in a secular way? Can a secular person not part of the world's religious complex also do God's Will? If so, how, since they have no 'Holy Book' to go by?

These are not idle questions, because in the manner of the world's religious beliefs such as they are now, men would persecute, and even kill each other, because of how they perceive another's failing to do God's Will. This is a serious matter, since then it interprets God's Will as inflexible, given to only 'One Holy' interpretation as correct, and all others as fallen. However, if this is so, then would it not also point to a God that is infinitely Intolerant, as opposed to One Being infinitely Merciful? Can anyone really define God, tolerant or intolerant, in what is His Will? What of blasphemy, is it a show of strength or weakness, to be punished or revered? Truly, who can punish in the name of God better than God? And is it possible for a true 'nonbeliever' to do God's Will? What of atheists? Can they do God's Will, even if it is unbeknownst to them? Is the God of all the religions Merciful even unto Atheists and Seculars? That is the challenge to philosophy: Can we know God's Will?

I bring up this subject of God's Will because I believe It is universal to all the world's religions. And the fact that the world has had religion for thousands of years, and that religions have been endemic to all parts of the globe, I think it is a serious question. Human beings want to believe. And when they do believe, are they all believing in the same God? Are all the prayers offered in each temple or church, each worshiping in their own particular manner, are they all praying to the same God? In other words, though we may worship under different banners, are we still all doing God's Will, even though we all do this differently? And then again, can a secular human being believe in God? Is this allowed? How about scientists and philosophers who may see the universe very differently from how described in Holy Books?

Lastly, if we were to achieve in our elusive goal, and we did God's Will, what would happen? What would the world look like? What is the 'Kingdom of God' on Earth about? And would we be better human beings for it, or even happier? Is happiness even a goal? What is it the world's Religions want in their pursuit to have all human beings do God's Will? Who can answer?

Ivan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Ivan!!

Awsome questions!  Well, where does one begin;).

The short answer to 'God's will' is the golden rule.  The even shorter answer is perhaps love; something philosophy appears quite silent on(?). But since pure love does not exist, as we will 'indirectly' see, man distorts its meaning-whatever that means.

There are all sorts of laws; cannon laws, divine laws, natural laws (using reason), ecclesiastical laws, so on and so forth.

"By law in the widest sense is understood that exact guide, rule, or authoritative standard by which a being is moved to action or held back from it. Daily experience teaches that all things are driven by their own nature to assume a determinate, constant attitude. Investigators of the natural sciences hold it to be an established truth that all nature is ruled by universal and constant laws and that the object of the natural sciences is to search out these laws and to make plain their reciprocal relations in all directions."

"Law is first a regulation, i.e. a practical principle, which aims at ordering the actions of the members of the community.  In a stricter and more exact sense law is spoken of only in reference to free beings endowed with reason."

" Aristotle, therefore, said long ago that law has a compelling force. And St. Paul (Rom., xiii, 1 sqq.) teaches that we are bound to obey the ordinances of the authorities not only through fear but also for conscience' sake. In what then does this obligation which law imposes upon us consist? Modern ethical systems which seek to construct a morality independent of God and religion, are here confronted by an inexplicable riddle. The utmost pains have been taken to construct a true obligation without regard to God. According to Kant our reason itself is the final source of obligation, it obliges us of itself, it is nomothetic and autonomous, and the absolute form in which it commands us is the categorical imperative. We are obliged to fulfil the law only on account of itself or because it is the law of our reason; to do something because another has commanded us is not moral, even should this other be God. This view is entirely untenable. We do not owe obedience to the laws of Church and State because we bind ourselves thereto, but because their superior authority obliges us. The child owes obedience to its parents not because it engages so to do but because the authority of the parents obliges it."

"Whoever asserts that man can bind only himself, strikes at the root of all authority and asserts the principle of anarchism. Authority is the right to issue to others binding, obligatory regulations. Whoever maintains that none can put more than himself under obligation denies, thereby, all authority= What is said of human authority is equally valid of the Divine authority. We owe adoration, obedience, and love to God, not because we engage so to do, but because God obliges us by His commands. The assertion that to do something because God has commanded us is heteronomy (subjection to the law of another) and therefore not moral, implies in principle the destruction of all religion, which in its essence rests upon the subjection of the creature to his Creator. "

Ivan, seems like one of the contentious issues relates to authority.  As we know, there are all sorts of 'authorities'.  Is the authority of reason and man's religious dogma enough to prevent acts of terrorism;). Apparently not. Is God's will to denounce Evil? What is Evil?  Do we know? Are we confused?

The question(s) becomes man's meaning of truth.  Where do we find the meaning of truth.  Can philosophy help us? Can the golden rule help us?  Can love help us? Can science help us?  Can reason help us? Why do we even need help? Why do we even search, (in a meaningless world) ?  Who needs religion? Who needs a necessary Deity? Why?

Help!  "I've fallen and I can't get up!"  

Can we?

Sincerely,
WJ

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
PARADOX

Hi WJ (&all),

The reason I ask these question is that the world religions seem to be rife with paradox. For example: the Golden Rule, which seems so simple, and yet all major world religions are replete with stories of wars, of destruction of cities and the killing of their inhabitants, of punishment, so that doing unto others as you would have them do unto you is voided; also God is merciful and compassionate, yet mercy seems mostly absent when dealing with the nonbelievers, or when dispensing punishment to transgressors, or excommunicating believers, even in taking another's life; and there is a double standard for men and women, where a man may sin by committing adultery, but women are stoned to death, where men who are chaste are closer to God, but women never so because they are 'unclean'. How does one reconcile these paradoxes in a reasonable way, other than accepting them through blind faith? All these trespasses against other human beings are committed in the name of God, which is another paradox. I too believe that rules and regulations are necessary in human community, but then freewill is subsequently swept away by systems that would bury our will under myriads of laws, all of which threaten hellish damnation if disobeyed, or otherwise punish, even unto death. So where is the compassion, the love that most religions believe in as the breath of God, the Word, or Logos? I think it is a very long way from religion as it had been practiced by humanity to a human belief where love and compassion are the signatures of God. In most religious teachings, what happens to us, good or bad, is the will of God, before which we are powerless; but then this is reversed by the fact that we have a responsibility to execute God's Will with our actions. Is this too not a paradox? Why not leave this too to God? If we take it all in our hands, then, and I say this tongue in cheek, what is there left for God to do?

I realize that human beings are imperfect in their relations with each other, and with God. We fail to do right, seek for ourselves at the expense of others, coerce, lie and cheat, abuse; and thus we need laws and rules to regulate us. But this goes against the grain of an omnipresent and all powerful God. Would it not stand to reason that such transgressions of human actions should be punished by God directly? But this does not seem to happen, at least not as far as we can tell, maybe not in this life, or perhaps it is done in some way that is inscrutable. It is humorous to think that we then must take God's Will in our hands and execute this on the behalf of this Omnipotent Being. Is this not another paradox? Perhaps God likes humor, except that there is scarce little of it in the holy scriptures, maybe none. Perhaps this may be blasphemy for some, but then the question is: Can anyone who is not a believer, someone outside the faith, be a blasphemer within the faith? Should this not be reserved for the true believers, with the rest of us on the outside exempt, since only they are burdened by their faith? There is one more thing regarding 'one's will versus God's Will'. In the Eastern traditions, this duality is resolved simply by suggesting that it is better not to have a will, or an ego, and instead to be totally subject to God; in the Western tradition this fails, or at least seems to contradict, since we are supposed to exercise a God given freewill to do His work, and thus take an active part in this work. So here is a dilemma, which is resolved cleverly in the Middle Eastern traditions, for there we surrender to God's Will, for God or Allah provides, while at the same time take an active part in making sure the laws of God are obeyed. In short, what has come down to us as the World Religions seems to be rather confusing, if not convoluted and self contradictory, which requires rather odd logic to understand. I would even add that this is in some ways abusive, since it offends reason, where philosophers are coerced into blind belief; thus we are tempted to dump it back in the laps of theologians who may be better equipped to handle it. Or maybe these paradoxes is the work of the Devil? This duality between good and evil goes back to Zarathustra, whose religious belief in the single Deity, Ahura Mazda, opposed the Devil, Angra Mainyu. It was a religion more contemporary with the ancient Egyptian beliefs, so that it predates even Judaism, the founders of the three great religions of Christianity, Mohammedism, and Baha'ism. Today's Zoroasters of Iran and India, still carry the tradition of Zarathustra. However, my idea of the Devil is a rather cynical view, that it is only a human invention to fill the void of our failure to fathom God's Will, so I reject it as being only a void of understanding. Instead, I think there must be some reasonable connecting path between the world of theology and truth, one which can guide us into better understanding of how it is that we do God's Will. Paradox does not have to be.

So this brings us back to Love and Peace. Can it be that the answer lies there? When we succeed in finding peace between human beings, where we find agreement rather than conflict, are we in some way closer to what is God Wills? Is some infinite justice served when peace exists, for example? Another way to look at it is this: Are we the end result of a vast universal mechanism, even of evolution, if you will, that has brought us to this point where we are conscious human beings aware of what we do? If so, then are we obliged to exercise our free will in such a way that it serves Peace, hence God's Will? Is there another Law that stands above all others to guide us in doing this? Is it enough to love one another, spiritually or otherwise, or is there one more condition that needs to be met to execute this greater peace? And finally, under whose authority do we meet this condition, this obligation? Do we need a manifestation of God to dictate it to us, or can it be germane to all humans equally in a secular way? The philosophical question then becomes: Can such a condition, a One Law, be responsible not to men but only to God? Would this mean that when things fail to materialize as expected, when the Law is disobeyed, this is from God? Do the world religions have this Law? If so, what is it?

And then again, what if the atheist is right, that there is not God's Will? But this I must discount as invalid, because of the persistent universal belief by nearly all of humanity for thousands of years. This includes not only prayer, but all the love and beauty lavished on our expressions of devotions to God, in all religions. They could not all be wrong for so long. So the question remains: How do we know we do God's Will? I ask this because I suspect there may be a philosophical answer. And if there is, then perhaps when this is understood, it executes for us what is God's Will without human interference or interpretation. Or put another way, to paraphrase with sincerest respect: "Render unto man what is man's, and render unto God what is God's."

I close in the spirit of an exciting philosophical exploration, into what is God's Will.

Take care, all the best,

Ivan
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Ivan!!

You are asking some very exciting questions!  If you can, please try to pick-up the book 'a Portrait of Jesus'.  It was a national best seller writen by an ex-priest, JF Girzone.

In it, he explains the concept of your peace and love, but more importantly, a compassionate approach [Jesus'] to the old religious leader's dogma and laws.
Excellent read!

I've always suspected that some 'organized religions give God a bad name'.  In the book, it supports this view from his analysis of Jesus' story,  of compassion towards the masses-human condition; compassion towards folks who fell short of the religious dogma and law at that time.  And, as you so well pointed out, some religious leaders of this day (like the scribes and Pharisees of latter day) are still wrapped-up in all the dogma. Check it out.

Anyway, I wish to talk more about these concerns when I have more time.  I also believe the theologian's would agree that that God also wants man to pursue wisdom and happiness.  As we know, early Greek philo-ethics advocates this.  Could this mean true happiness simply comprises the mere act of study and meditation in pursuit of this knowledge?  The problem, of course, returns us back to epistemology and truth.

Perhaps one should begin by trying to first define the concepts of love, peace an compassion.  Then, try explaining why it is a universal virtuous value for all human's to follow.  And if it is, see if our natural laws of conscience flush-out the good, bad, and ugly. I agree that there ought to be universal laws that guide all human affairs to effect the good of all mankind.  But, we also see that for some religions, good means a twisted sense of punishment, evil and death.

(Religion gives a God a bad name.)

(?)

Sincerely,
WJ

(Maybe by making this bold statement we'll get some reaction;)  Hint: psychology, religion and philosophy.

Total Posts: 123 | Joined Aug. 2001 | Posted on: 7:35 am on Nov. 10, 2001

-------------------------------------------------
It's a very big, infinite universe, and the search goes on...


(As posted: http://examinedlifejournal.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/topic.cgi?forum=14&topic=1 )

Humancafe writes:

<< What is it the world's Religions want in their
pursuit to have all human beings do God's Will?
Who can answer?>>

Well, as usual I will take a stab!

First- what 'religions want" is usually power,
which as nothing whatsoever to do with Gods will,
but rather man's.

Second, what God wants from us its to follow the
prime directive "love one another." The rabbi
Hill once (supposedly) said,m in response to a
scoffer to asked him to explain the Torah while
standing on one leg "do not unto others tat which
is hateful unto you--that is the whole of the
law-- the rest is commentary."

I tend to agree.

What would it look like, feel like? It would feel
like those sublime times when I have been at a
conference where we were all focussed on peace and
healing and were living this!!!

Of course happiness is a goal - and easily
achieved when we once look for it where God hid
it.. The one place we forget to look, as one
email message said rather cogently) -- inside. In
our own souls and hearts.

E.Carroll Straus, Esq.
Collaborative lawyer, Holistic Lawyer
CA Bar No. 110028

Hi Ivan and WJ (old buddies from wayback),

I guess I'd like to begin with WJ's conception of 'untenability' and that Philosophy seems to be silent on Love.

WJ wrote:

“According to Kant our reason itself is the final source of obligation, it obliges us of itself, it is nomothetic and autonomous, and the absolute form in which it commands us is the categorical imperative. We are obliged to fulfil the law only on account of itself or because it is the law of our reason; to do something because another has commanded us is not moral, even should this other be God. This view is entirely untenable. We do not owe obedience to the laws of Church and State because we bind ourselves thereto, but because their superior authority obliges us. The child owes obedience to its parents not because it engages so to do but because the authority of the parents obliges it.”

I was also interested to read that Philosophy isn’t seen to have any prospects for teaching or speaking about love. For me, that is true to some extent. But if one goes back to Socrates, we find Diotima’s speech in the Symposium. This to me is not unlike Jesus’ sermon on the Mount, in that the main topic is “LOVE”.

I had thought that the word God does seem to be problematic. True religious people, mystics and the like, through the ages (Islam included), have made it clear that God is not subject to predication. This still leaves room for unlimited predication involving all manner of full and open discourse on what we might call ‘traces of God’. This must include God’s will. However, use of the word God becomes, again, problematic. So we can come back a notch and find words which fit and which can be acceptable to all people. Words like  ‘sacred’, ‘loving’, ‘pure’, seem much more amenable to open discourse. I’ve listened to Interfaith groups exchange ideas in this way and it seems to work just fine.

Of course we all have our little ‘favoured’ method, or ‘way’. That should not be a problem. It’s all a path to the spiritual and the ‘pure’ and the loving and the good.  

For me, it comes down to finding a connection to ‘the way’. I see it as similar in to the Taoist ‘Way’. But it is most closely connected to the Buddhist Way (or Dharma). This, since it is an actual practice or way of life. For me it is a ‘way’ modelled by Jesus and Mohammed, and many holy people, both men and women, before and after.

It seems that ‘the way’ serves to condition one’s thoughts, and indirectly, one’s intention (or will). This conditioning, however, has only itself been enunciated, as a path open to all, by the Buddha. For those who have looked into this teaching, it becomes clear that there are indeed traces and connections to a purity of will, which can only be associated with a trace of the purity of God. It needs no categorical imperatives delivered from outside, because one’s view conditions one’s intention to speak and act. Where compassion for suffering or distress has arisen (as it should quite naturally), then the imperative does become somewhat lawlike, and internal. I think this works in well with Kant’s system, probably more as an underpinning to it, a kind explanation for the derivations of the categorical imperative (and Golden Rule).

The ‘immanent’ perspective here, deriving view and intention from internal connections, to me, gives a refreshing angle to Kant’s categorical imperative in its two most famous formulations:

1.“Act on the maxim that you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”. For me it is the universal law as delivered by ‘right view’, and conditioned by compassion and love. Any ‘act’ in this conxtext then is not some external law that applies to all people (the problem of universalizability), and thus rigid. Rather, it is quite open to the specifics of the situation, conditioned by not causing harm, and compassion.

2.“People should be treated as ends in themselves and not means”. This aspect, I feel, becomes something akin to a readily acknowledgeable commandment, given that the ‘dharma’ is accessible to all. Thus ‘dignity’ is equally provided to all just like the air we breathe.  

There is a beauty, and a paradoxical one, which I believe appeals to human notions of ambiguity, scepticism, and disbelief generally. That is, Buddha refused to engage in any metaphysical speculation, calling his teaching merely a path to human liberation. This is the very antipathy of other religions, which insist that their notion of God be the one that is first accepted before any other discourse can take place. So Buddha, in what I think is the most brilliant religious moves of all,  allows for entry into spiritual pathways, by actually limiting discourse on religious notions, focusing on that which relates to the activities of sentient beings. For me, ironically, this path has led me closer to God than any other…maybe spirituality must entail a certain irony in order to properly work in a person’s life. A leap of irony, rather than a leap of faith?

There is also an aspect here where an individual, given responsible and deep reflection can see where ‘the law is an ass’. There are many instances which I don’t need to enumerate here where the law of the land intervenes and our common sense tells us it is somehow unjust to apply it in certain circumstances.

Look forward to your responses,

Dave.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Total Posts: 12 | Joined Sep. 2001 | Posted on: 4:13 pm on Nov. 10, 2001 | IP

As posted on: http://examinedlifejournal.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/topic.cgi?forum=14&topic=1

(hmm..i tend to like Carroll's responses because they are succint)

--------------------------------------------------
Ivan::::::
if we were to achieve in our elusive goal, and we did God's Will, what would happen? What would the world look like? What is the 'Kingdom of God' on Earth about? And would we be better human beings for it, or even happier? Is happiness even a goal? What is it the world's Religions want in their pursuit to have all human beings do God's Will? Who can answer?
-------------------------------------------------

i can answer...but i could be wrong.

the "short" answer (my version) is that [God's] Will is TOTALLY different than "our" (humans) will (absoluteness principle).

so if we're trying to do something that is pretty much in opposition to our own position, we as humans might lose ourselves in the process of trying to satisfy [God's] Will, if we're 'doing it right'.

if we *did* [God's] Will, we should be 'like' [God] cuz [God] is doing [God's] Will, so if we did [God's] Will then we'd be like [God]. (at this point, of course, there'd be no *need* to do anything...but maybe "start over again")

the Kingdom (of [God]) on Earth is about synchronicity in my view.

ah, happiness (anyone ever seen that film?). i've made posts elsewhere about this very issue--why seek happiness--and my view is that happiness is "inferior" given that it does not appear to be "standard position" in terms of simple being (that is, maybe if i get excited, i get happy, but that in terms of simple existence, happiness does not appear to be key).

Carroll is spot on in her observation of religion (in my view); man controls religion (maybe though [God] is, in some sublime way, allowing for the insanity that is occurrent in world religions. maybe) in the now. these people could be giving the inspiration that they are for free, but no, there is a price: people have to become "members" of the church and they have to obey the rules of the church, not of [God] specifically (i say this from personal experience).

(and if anyone says they know [God's] rules/Will, just ask them to prove it. maybe they get violent about it, maybe they don't)

LOVE AND GOD'S WILL

My dear Friends!

It seems we are making progress by chipping away at this monolith question: "How do we know we do God's Will?" Thank you for all your fine thoughts, and give more!

I hear a recurring theme vis a vis World Religion which you express here. It is a word, a kind of Logos, that has permeated religion, same as it has moved us to act in ways that are at times extraordinary. The word is "Love".

This Love is the hallmark of all religious beliefs, as opposed to fear, which is a lack of faith. As mentioned by Dave, Love is something that is often absent from philosophical discussion, though it finds its way into religious thinking, especially as it applies to God, that 'God is Love'. Jesus' Sermon on the Mount is dedicated to this Love logos. For philosophers, however, Kierkegaard touches on the subject of love; Augustine argues for a love of God; Hume argues against self-love; Nietzsche's 'superman' was endowed with love for life in its entirety; and Aristotle contrasts love with self-love; but these do not go into love deeply, only to mention it almost in passing, so that Love is a kind of neglected stepchild of philosophy. If God's Will is Love, then it has yet to be fully discovered as to why this is so. How can we define Love?

In thinking about it, I have come to visualize Love as a 'soul to soul' connection. This may be why philosophers shy away from it, since the soul is not a comfortable domain lacking a proof of the existence of God. But I will jump over that and see if there is something here I can use. For example, if I hear a particularly beautiful and moving music, to me this is the soul of the composer, and then the conductor, and actually every member of the orchestra, speaking to me, to my soul. For that I have a response, and at the end of the performance, not being able to return music for music, I stand up and applaud, to which the performers feel joy in their hearts. We can experience similar love for things, like our house or car, or any object we hold dear, though they are not able to share their soul with us, so we lend them our soul. Animals are a natural, especially if they are cuddly and lovable, but human love is what attracts us the most. And when this is returned, it becomes a wonderful soul to soul connection. Now, this is not the same as a dysfunctional form of 'love', say a stalker, or Narcissist, or sex for money, for that kind of love is paradoxical, since it is either a self destructive closed loop, or even revolting. Self-love fails, though its opposite, selfless love, is usually lauded. And what of charity or altruism? To a strict Objectivist, these are treated with disdain, perceived either as a weakness or of ulterior motive, even as self seeking and selfish. But that is not true; selfless love is an act of giving, a sharing of the soul with another, which is a beautiful thing provided it is not oppressive, for then it turns ugly. So Love, seen this way, is likewise a giving, a sharing, but of a higher order, where the object of love is magnificence, an all embracing omnipotence, an alignment with the greatest possible imaginable order, in effect a Deity. And for that Love that we give, when we are lucky in this life, we get back its reflection on us. In the same way we lend our soul to an inanimate object by loving it, so a Deity can lend us Soul in a kind of agape, of an infinite Love. And for a fortunate very few, this is actually experienced... I wish it were more! For God to Love us, we need to Love, in the fullest sense of the word, not only our own soul, but all things around us, and each other. This seems to be the directive given to the world by Jesus, and it is also inherent in all the world religions, this Love of God, and love of each other.

But this still not enough. I see this as only a reasonable first step, though an extremely important one. Though this is inherent in all religions, at times it gets lost somewhere in the translation. What they also teach, in effect, is that to do God's Will, we need to obey a Law, one that connects us individually, and collectively, into how God manifests reality for us. God provides, not necessarily in the material goods that we crave, but in the sense that the universe is ordered for us, and thus we are an integral part of it through our existence, our Being in it. If we think of a circle, for example, it is a readily identifiable form, bounded by its circumference, a line closing in on itself; but now think of that circle as the shape left behind by all the rest of existence, by all of infinity converging on that circular line that forms the circle. This 'other' is a kind of inverse of what the circle represents, a kind of all encompassing presence, or force, that in the end defines what we can identify as a circle. It is that 'other' that is the universe ordered for us. We then exist like 'shadows' within this inverted reality that totally engulfs us, a kind of parody of Plato's cave, if you will; and within this inverse image of ourselves, we exist. But what is the Law that connects us to this image of ourselves? I think the answer lies in 'who we are'.

Let me show it from another vantage: If all we do, and think and feel, are a reflection of who we are, then that other universal inverted reality within which this 'whoness' is defined to us is also 'who we are'. Now this applies to each one of us individually, but it also applies to all the other individuals who share this living planet with us. So now we can think of other individuals, not only as they are represented by their physical body and being, what we can readily identify as their 'circle', but think of them as that other, the rest of existence that hugs them completely and thus defines them. And this is very exciting, because now when we interact with others, we are not only interacting with them as we see them, their physical being, but we are also interacting with their total definition of 'who they are' as they are in their reality defined Being. Love them, and you are loving not the them before you, but the Them that is all of existence. How cool! When you love another, you are loving all the rest of their being.

So here is what I think religions worldwide have been trying to explain to us, that 'otherness' that is our connection to God. So when we do things that damage that other, that being represented by the person to whom the damage is done, then we are damaging that Other, something in the fabric of 'who they are', and thus are offending, even perverting, the Love that is God. That, I think, is the Law. So when we revisit the Ten Commandments, or Jesus' "Love one Another", or Mohammed's admonitions to love another as you would love God, we can now see it as a Love that transgresses merely the physical form of the individual, for now we can see that we are Loving their total being. And when we fail in this, when we trespass on them, or in my parlance, 'when we force them against their agreement and coerce them', then we are failing God's Will. The result from that failure may still be mysterious to us, but I suspect it is what causes so much of the unhappiness we experience in this world. Why? It is because such trespass disconnects us from the Love that is God, and we are cast adrift within that total Being which is us. When that happens, we damage the soul. And when the soul is damaged, we fail in being who we are, the universe's otherness does not connect with our being properly, and God's Love becomes more illusive for us. It is not that this Love ceases to exist, but by trespass we become barred from it. So the Law, if I may state it formally, is that we do not coerce one another, do not force another against his or her agreement, except to correct such trespass.

Now, do all the religions reflect this Law? I suspect they do, though I am not a formal scholar of all religions. But would it not be wonderful if this was to be elevated in all the religions by their supporters to the level where it belongs? Would not religious scholars, and philosophers, seek to find in the scriptures where this Law applies, or is exemplified? I think the beauty of all the holy writings is their depth. And though they may be filled with paradox, we can glean from them what is powerful and meaningful to us. What if all the religious clerics were to find that in their holy scriptures this Law exists? Would it not be imperative for them to let all their adherents know? And if they did that, would they be doing God's Will? Or as WJ states, 'consciousness' is the key, that we become conscious of this Law, so that we can become subjects to this highest Authority. Would this bring us closer to doing God's Will? Philosophically, I think so.


Take care my good friends, it is lovely chatting with you, as always.

Ivan

(hm..hey Ivan, all--uh, i have a bit of attention span deficit disorder, and besides--i work during the week...anyway, it'd take me some time just to make a timely response, so i admit it: i skim a bit. THOUGH, i use the "collegiate" method of reading text *laugh*, which always garnered me at least a "C" on papers, though i usually got higher marks when i didn't rush...)

1st, Dave mentioned "The Way"...i just thought, how do we know this 'way' if it is that of a (sense of) Being that is absolutely foreign to us? not to challenge you, though i am trying to dig into the notion that somehow, we end up generating a view that there IS a certain "order" to things, and thusly, even our very path in Life has an order to it.

speaking for self, i like to follow my heart, even when it says, if only for a split moment, *dislike* that other being...it's dharma as it were. is it right or wrong? this can't be determined, but it 'is' and so--why would this be considered "bad", seeing as how i can't really do anything about something that is already past? maybe there is another lesson sitting there waiting for us to realize it (like how to let go of things in general, 'good' or 'bad')...

AW, Ivan, you mention "self-love" and you explain the dichotomized versions of other noted philosophy types, the (absolute) version considered "Love" (selfless love). self-love "loops back" in on itself (thusly, causing for a closed, non-expansive system, whereby the person *inefficiently* loves) and selfless love is open all the way--love what you will, even love your ENEMIES (which is a mind blower cuz once you 'love' your enemies, they really shouldn't be your 'enemies' any longer)

self-love (self-reference) is a "negative" instance and selfless love can be considered a "positive" occurrence.

at every moment that i feel nothing but hate and outward loathing for the other lives i come across when i leave my dwelling, the very next moment i question myself--literally--and say "who am I to feel/think this way about this other being?"

i tend to feel that Love is *deep* and it has sort of an elixir quality to it that can cause for near instantaneous healing of the mind and (soul).

tired, check back later :)

PEACE

Dear old Friends, WJ, Dave, Carroll, Metan, and All,

I think philosophy may show the path on which we can embark to do God's Will. But can it actually discover what that is? Or as WJ asked:

"Does God's will represent innate knowledge in all its forms (mathematical, logical, intuitive, emotional)?"

In other words, can we know God's will? To me, this is an especially challenging subject, one which I believe all world religions aim for. Can we aim for the same from a secular point of view? If we do God's will through Love, and the Law, do we know what it is we do? In effect, we are back to the original question: How do we know we do God's Will?

I think it is important at this point of this philosophical inquiry to state that indeed we do not. We may know when we are satisfying conditions where God's Will is able to become more manifest in our midst, but what that Will is still remains a mystery. It is like trying to fathom infinity, something we may possibly approach conceptually, but never actually get there. Perhaps our consciousness is not yet designed to do this. Though our innate knowledge, something that is instinctive and intuitive in us, may gravitate towards wanting to know God's Will, but nevertheless, we like all our predecessors are left in the outer courtyard, never to enter the holy sanctuary where that truth may lie. All the disciplines of knowledge we have to date accumulated contribute, but the actual knowledge, the gnosis or agape, of God eludes us. Which, to my mind, is a kind of warning signal so that when anyone claims that they are interpreting what is God's Will, one needs to be mindful or suspicious, for they then become a kind of 'false prophet'. Really, who can know God's Will?

But this is a sad thought, since this illusive knowing of when we do God's Will is what this universal human inquiry of the ages is all about. Can God be so mysterious that even millennia of seeking yields no results? Or is there some glimmer of hope that shines through the teachings of all world religions?

I think there is this hope, for every time we do something that is pleasing to another, that gives and illicits love, that we are on the right path, on the way. But this implies reaching out for more than ourselves, more than mere pleasure and self gratification; in fact, this reaching out implies a surrender, a sacrifice. Now, this is not so strange to religious tradition. In the Hindu tradition, the only way for a neophyte to learn is total surrender to his guru; in Buddhism, the sacrifice is the giving up of worldly passions; this is not unlike the traditions of monasteries of the Essenes, Coptics, Orthodox, Catholics, where he (or she) who enters the monastery life surrenders to the will of God and gives up worldly desire. I think it is also pivotal to Hebrew thought, where God loved the smell of roast meat from the sacrifice at the holy temple. Admittedly, this idea is now foreign to us, and not even practiced by today's Judaism, but so it is written. And finally, Jesus was perceived as the sacrificial lamb. All these point in the same direction, though the thought comes from so many corners of the world. And in Islam, it is merely surrender to God's will, a sacrifice of the self. So this is the lighted path as it has come down to us through the ages. Many things written in ancient scripture may no longer be meaningful to us today, but this idea of giving up of the self, of sacrifice, of selflessness, persists. And I think this is something we all can still relate to even today.

In effect, sacrifice is a kind of universal 'turning the other cheek'. And this is where philosophy can help: to identify when this sacrifice of the self is done in order to help, to elevate, to enliven, to illuminate, to unify, to love, and to turn an enemy into a friend. Imagine, a universal turning of the other cheek. But not in a self destructive sense, since that ends in defeat; rather in a positive sense, where one extends a helping hand with compassion, where one seeks and finds agreement where there is human struggle and strife. I once knew a man in the mountains of east Tennessee who looked like Abraham Lincoln, and had a calm steady way about him. He was a luthier and made mountain dulcimers. I no longer remember his name, but I do remember that he was the only one called upon to settle age old family feuding going on in those hills. He could do what no police or sheriff could do, bring peace, and for that he was well respected by all sides. I see sacrifice like that, that we can bring peacefulness to conflict, love where there is hate, hope where all is despair.

So we are back to Peace. Is this God's Will? It is beginning to look like it, no? But why is this the most difficult thing for humankind to achieve? How do we achieve peace, between each other, and at the level of the whole world? Do not all the world religions aim for this? God loves the peacemaker, so it is written.

Finally, when we achieve peace, what will happen? Is then when the world will manifest God's Will? Brotherly-sisterly love? Maybe nothing, except that: Peace.

And Peace to you, dear brothers-sisters. Smile!

Ivan :)

As posted: http://examinedlifejournal.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/forums.cgi?forum=14

(just a note--i'm in the part of asimov's "prelude to foundation" where Hari Seldon, the creator of 'psychohistory', and his protector Dors are studying a culture steeped in *tradition* and one in which the people--of "Mycogen"--insist that their 'culture/tradition' is not religion but all signs point to just such an idea)

--okay. i concur w/ the conclusion that "we do not know (that we are doing) [God's] Will".

i think that a few more heuristic type ?s can be asked: (can we know that we're NOT doing [God's] is the contrasting question that is obvious); can [God's] Will ever NOT be done (how "absolute" is [God's] Will)? is there a *purposeful* effect of such a Will? how are we 'defining' "will" (necessary 'desire'? how...)...and if anyone else has any such questions.

as far as 'will' goes, if [God] does indeed have desires such that they MUST be fulfilled, what does this mean (especially considering [God] is supposed to be able to do ANYTHING [God] would want to (or will to) do?

and considering that we may perceive that there is a *choice*--to either do The Will, or not--it would seem that the Will of [God] is categorically relevant in that, IF it takes precedence over all other wills, THEN [God's] Will will always be done and if subject beings CHOOSE AGAINST (freely...free will?) it, there could be punishment (IF punishment is covered by the capacity of [God's] Will, since Will implies 'Divine Law' at a point when we [God] is talked about in *holy* text--especially those of "orthodox(ed)" orientation); ELSE, IF [God's] Will turns out to be "will" in general/toto (this would include my 'will', your 'will', ALL wills), THEN [God's] Will is always being done (and no one is necessarily an adherent to such will, though [God] may in some way be considered to adherent to all will).

to me, it's interesting to note that, by virtue of the "10 Commandments", [God's] Will (a thing that is to "be done on earth as they are in Heaven"; not that this sentence can't be interpreted in at least a couple different ways) can be quelled and nullified (apparently--but if there *is* in fact 'punishment' for disregarding the Absolute Will of [God]...).

(again, it may serve us well to actually set forth definitions for will; in terms of the 10 commandments instance, Will would suggest a "definitive (but passive) desire" as opposed to "strong, active (engagement) of desire" like if "[God] Willed it.").

yet, "The Creation" (the '7 day' allegory of such) demonstrates [God's] strong and active Will. nothing could seemingly stop [God] at this point (while *active*)...(hmm--could 7th day "rest period" been when such an Absolute Creator went on *sabbatical*. sabbatical roots (Hebr.) to "Sabbath", which imfers 'rest'...but note that form "abba" in the midst of the word: ab- roots (Lt.) "from; away(--out of)", and this form *inverts* w/ -ba..hmm--sorry, nutty meandering).

so if while [God] is "resting" (away), the constituent beings of 'reality' can do whatever the hell we want to do, but that when [God] *wakes*...as [God] wakes, we sleep--this view sort of fits into the "giving up of the self" (selflessness) points that have been mentioned.

so--the "turning of the cheek" may not be effective of our interrelationships--that's, say, me and Ivan, or Ivan and whatever other parties--in the now: what if we're turning the other cheek for the sake of [God] (in some way)? EG: if you "hurt/bring harm to" me, depending on the principles (moralistic maybe, but whatever they may be based upon systemically), i can respond in a certain ways. if i decide to "turn the cheek"--erase any "virtue" that i may have that concerns my feelings of being hurt, which would thusly effect a looong strand of *judgement* ("this person who hit me *is a jerk*! *I should hit them back*!--both sentences involve judgements) which, if we're not supposed to judge, could lead us down an even looonger road of pain, suffering...hate--then i re-CREATE THE "PRE OFFENSE" CIRCUMSTANCES; this may mean that whether or not the person who hurt me and I were on "good" terms or not, the hurt just disappears.

this turning of the cheek is truely a mighty occurrence which keys w/ the oh so important term "TRANSCENDENCE".

-----------------------------------------
Ivan::::::"I think it is also pivotal to Hebrew thought, where God loved the smell of roast meat from the sacrifice at the holy temple. Admittedly, this idea is now foreign to us...Jesus was perceived as the sacrificial lamb"
-------------------------------------------------

could the sacrificial aspect of the 'meat' be what [God] might be loving? the idea that for [God's] sake this is being done, after all that has been done for All...(this is if [God] is Personifiable, as the anthropomorphic view suggests).

(*--it's very daunting when presented w/ the possibly necessary aspect of "self-dissolution": losing yourself to grow, move on--transcend. i can say that i'm still a bit scared to "lose myself", though i don't consider it as death absolute...just the potential death of me (if theory holds). i'm slowly getting over the fear by coming to the understanding that there is *only* Life. this is a Good thing and it makes me feel good to know this. yet though 'evil' may abound, the fact that Life and 'good' CAN BE is enough for me)

lastly, as for Peace: i've come up w/ a *nifty* little gem of a saying (like all those philosopher types do *smile*):

hope is not (ours) to take, peace is not ours to give

--this basically says that NOBODY can take something that anyone else maintains (if i have a belief or a HOPE of sorts, no one can take it from me--i have to "give it up"). peace in my view has to be *accorded* to (i can't make it stop raining, i have to either get mad about the definite position of rain...or go out and embrace it, understand it, and come to terms with *it*---to wit: humans have the 'power' to at least try and overcome the environment, but there just isn't the greatest hope for overcoming the entire environment--say, when the sun dies out, or something large slams into the planet, or when the earth opens up and swallows us whole, or we get burried in hot ash and lava...--so it might behoove us to come to terms (accord) w/ our environment, to prevent sustained hatred or ill-will/feelings...

the 'absolute' Peace though might have to be a position that is necessarily out of our individual hands...so we can only HOPE for PEACE (now 2 oppositional sides in a 'war' can have accord, but is there ever absolute trust on the part of both parties in the history of humankind?...the accord i'd be talking about is "absolutely binding", which mean that, since we sentient beings *tend* to be a little bit (potentially) evil, what we need to come into accordance with would best be ABSOLUTE in terms of the integrity of Its nature)

(rant done--work tomorrow)

Hi Metan,

Quite right, that we can only Hope for Peace, though it is in our hands to make this happen. After all, conflict is in our hands too! So we can run it forwards or backwards, and either hope or act, our choice. As far as your questions:

"i think that a few more heuristic type ?s can be asked: (can we know that we're NOT doing [God's] is the contrasting question that is obvious); can [God's] Will ever NOT be done (how "absolute" is [God's] Will)? is there a *purposeful* effect of such a Will? how are we 'defining' "will" (necessary 'desire'? how...)...and if anyone else has any such questions."

We will know we are not doing God's Will when the result is conflict and coercion, or forced disagreement, or so it seems. If these are the 'negatives', then the 'positives' must be agreement, goodwill, kindness, etc.

Take care, Ivan

ETHICS

Dear Brothers (& Sisters),

There is something I would like to address going back to an earlier post by WJ, as it regards 'authority'. This submission to religious Authority is universal to all world religions, it seems, for the opposite prospect is anarchy. But as WJ states in his post 9 November:

"Ivan, it seems like one of the contentious issues relates to authority. As we know, there are all sorts of 'authorities'. Is the authority of reason and man's religious dogma enough to prevent acts of terrorism? Apparently not. Is God's will to denounce Evil?"

Or as Dave points out 10 November, quoting Kant on ethics:

"'People should be treated as ends in themselves and not means'. This aspect, I feel, becomes something akin to a readily acknowledgeable commandment, given that the 'dharma' is accessible to all. Thus 'dignity' is equally provided to all just like the air we breathe."

Also, as WJ asks 12 November:

"Why then do human's feel a need for authority when we are free to think and act without it? Why should we even want to exist with a dependence on such authority to tell us how to act? Is here a universal force that causes us to think this way?"

And finally, 15 November:

"...perhaps the Darwinists would argue it's all about animal instinct for survival. Gibberish? I would say it is. As we've seen from our old arguments, ethics have not evolved. It's the same old argument since man appeared with his higher level of consciousness."

So now we are narrowing it down to Ethics, which I believe is one of the faculties we posses which raises us above the Darwinist instinct for survival. We as conscious beings are also potentially ethical beings, when we choose to be. But ethical in what sense? Do we have to turn to a religious authority to dictate this for us, what is ethical, or is there an authority that is already 'built in' for what we do? And when this 'authority' is called upon, are we then doing God's Will?

I think we are 'hard wired' to be ethical, when we consciously choose this. In fact, as opposed to the animals, we have to make a conscious choice to not be ethical. If a man is going to steal or cheat, he knows he is doing something unethical, and so he must make a choice to override that knowledge to make it acceptable to him. Call it innate knowledge, or intuitive, but I think we all have that capacity; it is what distinguishes us from those living creatures which are unconscious. We are conscious beings, so the natural 'ethics' that we carry in our awareness is something we all have access to, same as our ability to speak, or even smile. We all know how to do this, though we have to consciously choose to do so.

What we do not know, however, is whether or not what we do is consistent with that innate ethical knowledge. In other words, we are still easily confused, and thus because of this confusion we appear to be ethically fallen. World religions have done their best to guide us out of this confusion, but as we have seen from their inherent paradoxes, even they falter. So I think this is the essential quest, one that completes the trinity of Love and the Law: Ethics. But has ethics ever really been properly defined? And when we think we have defined it, does it then submit to a higher authority?

I would like to quote here something from a work in progress titled: "Ethics for a New Mind". This is from the second of the four sections which comprise the whole thesis:


"...Agreements exist all around us, all the time. We are creatures who find agreements instinctively. But because the Ethics of the past never clarified this for us, we had been living in a state of confusion that did not allow us to see clearly when we were being coerced. That is not to say that all agreements are Good; only that all agreements are the good we seek in making them. Whether they are then manifest into a good or not is not up to us, once the choices are made, but up to the reality which forms around those agreements. What manifests as a result of these agreements, the context within which they exist and materialize in reality, is then a judgment from reality. How we then respond to that reality based judgment then will lead us to conclude whether we have materialized a good or not. On the other hand, if coercion is forced upon us, we immediately know it is not a good, even if he who coerces may imagine that this coercions is 'for our own good'. When it is not something we voluntarily accepted, so what manifests around us from this coercion will be other than what we had chosen. Through coercion our free will is suspended, our ability to make conscious agreements is thrown into jeopardy, and when we finally break free and make agreements, they may already exist in a damaged state due to the prior coercions. In other words, whereas agreements manifest for us a reality condition for who we are, coercion manifests for us a reality condition for who we are not, or worse, they damage us. In the paternalistic relationships of Ethics based on ancient philosophy, none of this was made clear to us, so we lived in a perpetual state of confusion devoid of knowing when we were manifesting reality in relation to who we are, and when we were manifesting a reality in relation to who we are not. The two are radically different from one another. Agreements with reality exist all the time since we survive; but the Good of these agreements is when they are made in the image of 'who we are'.

Agreements also exist by extension. When a social order had been validated by public voting in a fair and democratic process, then the resulting decision of the vote is a binding agreement on that population who participated in this democracy. That does not negate the protection of our individuals rights from coercion, but participants in this democratic process agree to abide by it. The same can be said of children as wards of their parents, legal guardians, responsible elders, social and educational institutions, etc. Because children are not yet of an age, in many cases, where agreements can be sought and abided by, then the responsibility falls on those who are responsible for them. This does not give them the right to abuse the children, or handicapped persons, or pets, or animals or husbandry, or other wards; rather it puts the responsibility of agreement on those whose minds are mature enough, and evolved enough, to be able to make binding agreements. Even if the agreements are not formalized by contract, rather informal as no more than a 'given word' or 'hand shake' or merely an understanding; it is an agreement if both parties understood it this way. To then violate that agreement is a coercion, which then throws confusion into the agreement, and manifests the unhappiness of beings forced against their will. So this is always so, a balance between choices made in agreement as opposed to choices resulting from failed agreement, or forced dis-agreement, namely coercion. By extension, this principle then applies to members of groups, corporations, fraternities, clubs, educational institutions, military service, condominiums, etc., where the original agreement to join and abide by the rules of the organization then subjects the members to the agreements and rules of the group. So, unless someone disagrees with the group so strongly as to quit the group, their agreement is to abide by the laws and bylaws of the organization. Of course, under no circumstances can a group activate agreements that force others against their agreement, that coerce, except in the event to stop coercion. The police, military, legal and tax systems, all have the power to coerce; however, in a just and legal system, they may coerce only to enforce agreement or to prevent or stop coercion.

Why is all this important? It is important because it dispenses with the heavy 'top-down' moral structure of prior thinking on Ethics. The moral equivalent of the Good is reduced simply to Agreement; the philosophical enforcement of that Good is then no more than the enforcement of allowing the freedom to find agreement and being protected from coercion. Rather than a top-down morality, instead we have here a democratic process where each individual finds his or her right course of action in agreement with others, and is both free from coercion and is forbidden from coercing. Then each person is free to find their own happiness as it agrees with them to do so, and as it is found in agreement with others who are happy to share in this. This is a very uncomplicated Ethics for the new modern mind of man. But it comes with a 'caveat': this 'bottom-up' Ethics of Agreement works only for conscious minds..."


So this represents another way to see Ethics, not at something dispensed by dogma or authority, but as occurring naturally between human beings endowed with a conscious mind. The 'authority' then is no more than the social contract, or social agreement, that exists to enforce these agreements, and to protect us from coercions. And this is not as dictated to us from God, but rather as it is agreed upon by humans, of our own free will. Or as I had written earlier, 10 November:

"Render unto man what is man's, and render unto God what is God's."

In effect, God will judge whether or not our agreements are in His/Her Will. If they are, then what will manifest will be Love, which means we are touched by our own love come in our midst. And if this comes to pass, the result is that we will never need to turn the other cheek, since then all enemies will be our friends. And what does this mean? Peace. That is the final test of whether or not we do God's Will, Peace.

So now the equation is complete, and we can express it as a philosophical formula starting with the Golden Rule:

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, in agreement rather than coercion, for that is the Law; and love one another to manifest God's Will, for when this is so there will be Peace."

I think this formula would satisfy the wishes of all world religions, thus remain true to their scriptures, while at the same time open the way, or path, for all human beings who are secular, even non believers, to do God's Will. What will follow is a universal Peace. Can this ever come to pass? I think this is the ultimate ethical test of our human consciousness. But we must choose this, for it is an act of will. And if it happens, imagine the Joy!

So how can this come about without starting another world religion?

I smile... Who can answer?

With much Love and Peace. (Maybe the Sixties were not in vain!) *laugh*

Ivan :) :) ;)


Ps: After some thought, I think the answer to 'Who can answer?' is not religion, but 'All of us', all who can think and be conscious? Is this not the ultimate freedom?

(As posted: http://examinedlifejournal.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/forums.cgi?forum=14 )

Below is WJ's post preceding this one, 11/15/01, on the Examined Forum:


Hi Ivan, Dave, All!

Once again, thank you so much for your wonderful insite.
I believe the Philosophy of Religion covers the topic of Revelation.  Simply put, the principle applies to experience as the only method [within itself] to attempt understanding God. The non-secular version would be called Progressive Revelation. We yaked about that one before... .

So, on a micro scale, I believe one can personally get 'close' to understanding God's will.  But it certainly cannot be effectively understood through intellectual discussion. And whether there is one universal God (of understanding), along with the various religions, in my view, would be moot point.  Why?  Did we not propose or establish in some way that peace, love, and the disease of evil comprises this universal innate way of Being?  Innate in our thought process? If so, then it also comprises the basis for the smell-test.

That said, I agree that ultimately we cannot have complete understanding of God's Will.  In Chrisianity for example, I believe the interpretation of the following Scripture speaks to the dilemma: "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, and no mind has imagined what God has prepared for those who love him." 1 Corinthians 2:9

So, arguably, it returns us to revelation or experience  (that can be manifested in many ways).  Pragmatically as it were, it is a matter of reaching-out.  Quite simple really.  Ivan mentioned sacrifice.  Can looking outside of our love for our own selves (which is ok psychologically) by reaching out toward other's and recognizing the love they have for their own selves in some way capture  God's will?  I think so. Universally do we want love?  Yes.  Do other's want love?  Yes.  Does that mean we completely understand love?  No.  Then how is not understanding God's will any different when we cannot even understand our universal desires for existence-love?

If we don't love ourselves, why not end our lives?  Oops, perhaps the Darwinists would argue it's all about animal instinct for survival. Gibberish?  I would say it is. As we've seen from our old arguments, ethics have not evolved. It's the same old argument since man appeared with his higher level of consciousness. And science has yet to discover the truth about mind and matter. (I propose, just like we won't know God's Will completely, science will not be able to answer that one either.) Will our consciousness ever evolve to perfection?  What's perfection?  Does Religion have any answers?  Does philosophy have any? Does science have any?

You be the judge.  One has free-will to do so.

double smile:)

God bless, WJ

"try to stay light"
(sample from a 'house' song i'm listening to now)

one other "heuristic" question: if i ONLY KNOW ME, how can i KNOW YOU? *wicked smile*

mor3 later, i'm a bit inebriated.

metan01d

Greetins Ivan!

Speaking of love; here is one of many Hidden Words from Baha'u'llah (Baha'i writings):

"O SON OF BEING! Love Me, that I may love thee. If thou lovest Me not; My Love can in no wise reach thee. Know this O servant."

MetanO1d,

You KNOW ME only on faith. You gotta believe!

*double wicked smile*

Ivan

i *know* what you're getting at Ivan :)

what i'm saying is that since some sentient beings--certainly a lot of humans--feel that they are exclusively "themselves" (though i feel that even this 'knowledge' is VERY incomplete, given what a "full definition" of 'who/what a person is/(is not)' entails) and thusly, sense not another individuals 'existential' presence (the "I" part of them anyway). understand?

since all beings would *appear* to be shadows of 'their own creation' (whether it be a 'wise' Creation, replete w/ 'Creator', or simple 'formulaic happenstance'), what we see overall is the cast shadow, but that, as an "individual entity" (all "I's" or "I-ness"--consciousness as a singularized phenomenon), we could be what is potentially casting the shadow: one "grandly conscious" creature w/ eyes to see but which can not see itself true and full (for the most part).

to further 'clarify' (hopefully..i get muddled a bit)--when Ivan (or anyone else) uses the terms "brother(s)" or "sister(s)", i understand that on one level, we are all separate and distinct (distinguishable?) beings, hence, these terms would demonstrate the degree of our (inter)relatedness: beings who have the same general 'parentage', or, come from pretty much the same general place (eg, all beings have a common origin).

my experience w/ those who like to use the term is that they do so out of "fear" or w/ the express purpose to use/abuse another. "Hey brother, do you have another cigarette?"

the term can be abused itself, as it is used often just to garner that heartfelt sentimentalist(ic) response; to "soften up the person", such familial (type) terms can be used, though i think the user of such terms, IMO, is being more "self-suggestive" than outwardly so (sometimes, believing your own lie is more important than having the person you might be lying to believe the lie *laugh*). sorry for the "social engineering" rant--

--AW, i insist to others that say "brother" when they address/approach me (for *whatever* reason) that we are (possibly) (of) the SAME BEING. as a Mixmaster Morris vocal sample would suggest

"the you in you, is the same as the (you) in me"

since, i personally (try--i have to remind myself that the crows are me, and the roaches are me, and the embodied-beings that i don't necessarily *prefer* to like are me as well...there's a site where a guy has a good relational (personal story) about how he starting feeling about killing insects. i feel this myself

i-cynic.com (if it's still around. should be. it may be .org though, i lost this bookmark))--since i personally see the similitude inherent in all "persons". this helps me to put others in my shoes and myself in the shoes of others and to be more careful & thoughtful about my treatment of others (and myself even).

for me, i'd say it's a sort of "desire for unequivocated being."...i suppose

--but back to [God's] (potential) Will: is this something that is to be taken "in toto" as that it works on a "continuous" (and Absolute) basis? is It, in a way, 'non-discretely' applicable only, whereby, it may have no 'real' determinacy factor)?

IE--what if [God] would have a will for both the positions of "war" and "peace"? maybe that [God]--as being "omniscient", in time and space i suppose--doesn't need both positions for contrasting (and 'dual-accentuation'; in terms of "war" and "peace", one offers a per contra 'define' for the other).

it would seem that only us living in "the now" would be able to utilize any and all contrasting (or even contrary, since philosophers *looove* to always find contradiction in others words and deeds *laugh*-i guess it makes some feel better. instead of actually finding the inherent 'weakness' of an arg to make it stronger, some philos just want to be proven 'right' in some way, even if it means polemicizing just for the sake of self-aggrandizement) positions.

"dualism" is helpful for us; polarization too, a good thing :)...when one chooses to make it so.

Happy Thanksgiving Ivan!!

(If I could stear the discussion away from coercion for just a bit, and then return to it. You
mentioned ethics viz. laws, which leads to a host of other thoughts about natural or intrinsic
kinds of laws and human nature.)

Therefore, what, I wonder, would the Darwinist's say to the human development of
*conscience*?

First, the simple definition of conscience is apparently something like:

" a. The faculty of recognizing the distinction between right and wrong in regard to one's conduct
coupled with the sense that one should act accordingly". Or " b. Conformity to one's sense of
right conduct".  [American Heritage Dictionary]

The next question(s) could be relating to unresolved differences between 'one's sense' of 'right'
conduct. And what is the meaning of the word "faculty"?
And, is this a 'psychologically' learned behavior,  or an naturally evolved feature of human
consciousness?

I'll offer, once again, a view from our sentience;  otherwise commonly known as, 'if it feels
good, do it'.

Is that sentience a guide?  I think it is.  Does it need more?  And, if not, why not?

Let's use love as a quick example.  This emotion makes us feel good.  So we tend want more;
like an addiction.  It's manifestations seem confusing though. The same force that causes us to
recognize it, also causes us to recognize its so-called 'virtues and vices', as we selfishly perceive
them to be (aka, the argument there is no such thing as perfect love on the planet).

So, this notion, in a sort of relativistic way, brings one to a sense of arbitrariness, or perhaps
simply an obscured clouded view, of what both 'conscience and love' really consist of naturally.
 But yet, our sentience is somehow driving our desires and needs for resolution, mainly because
of our volitional nature.  Our ned to act on our impulses coupled with our will to feel good.  To
be happy;  to be at peace.

How can we test any truth or validity to these things; to these concepts and ideas(?).  Perhaps
through consequence. Through human emotion and pain.  And, the why's associated with
emotion and pain. Can pain be a guide?  And if so, how can we use it to guide or make correct
our conscience?

Let us ponder that one, if we could, and report our findings....

God Bless,
WJ

(Edited by WJ at 10:01 am on Nov. 22, 2001)

Total Posts: 133 | Joined Aug. 2001 | Posted on: 8:52 am on Nov. 22, 2001 | IP
------------------------------------------------------------

Hi WJ, Dave, Metan, and all,

I just finished watching Dostoesvky's "Crime and Punishment", an ancient Soviet black and white with hardly legible subtitles, and since my Russian is rather poor, I had to squint while trying to piece together the disappearing text below with what was being said (I read the book, but that was a hundred years ago), so do not know if I got the whole of it, but it made me think of your post above, regarding Conscience and Love. Here are some thoughts on the matter.

Raskolnikov's theory is that for a man to rise above being an insect, to become a 'superman', he needs to rise above his conscience. To prove this to himself he embarks on killing an unsuspecting old pawnbroker woman, who often had loaned him money, whom he kills with an ax, and then kills her even more innocent kindly sister as well. To his surprise, his conscience bothers him immensely, to the point where it renders him ill and incoherent, until he finally confesses first to a young girl, Sonia, with whom he is in love, who happens to be forced into prostitution against her conscience by dire poverty, and finally to the police. So rather than becoming a superman, or in his words "a Napoleon", he finds that in the end his conscience reduces him to merely an insect, yet that is what he wanted, and now he can begin life in earnest, as a man.

I think this is very insightful of the author, that the soul, 'doosha' in Russian, persists and does not allow us to stray too far. We may commit acts that go against our conscience, but in the end our conscience wins. Even Raskolnikov's love is temporarily suspended by his cold hearted crimes and thoughts, but this love is reawakened by a desire for life, by Sonia with whom he is in love, and by her selfless love for him. So in this story the pain, the anguish, the love, all drive our inept hero into a madness of guilt, relieved only by his confession. But is this true to life, or is it the way Dostoevsky would want it to be? I do not know, and have no such experience with which to measure. However, there are reports of cold blooded killers who live without remorse. On the other hand, death row inmates find Jesus and repent before they are executed. So difficult to pin it down, I would think, and thus I am left with the feeling that conscience, and love, or pain, are as individual as the persons who experience them in this life. Are there rules that apply to all equally somehow? I cannot see how, except to say that we all experience love and pain and conscience, that it is somehow innate to us, but in such varying degrees that it may resemble more a statistical bell curve then a truism. This brings us around to a kind of moral 'relativism' which is so secular to our culture. 'Thou shalt nots' are then replaced with 'thou shalt, if this is right for you, and it doesn't hurt anybody', which is rather wimpy to say the least, not at all superman material. I would be happier with something of a stronger dosage, like defining the difference between agreement and coercion, for example, but I think the real test is what happens in life. Raskolnikov suffered for his crimes, but many criminals may not, and thus the deterrent becomes fear of punishment, which is not as direct as the self induced punishment suffered by our hapless hero. But does life punish? Do criminal acts drive us into remorse because Life wills it, or is it rather than a matter of remorse, that life gives us dire consequences instead? Or is it all up to us, to choose what it is we want from each other, and then stick to that? I think the latter is more how I see it. So if I were to write a novel like "Crime and Punishment", I would give it a different spin, not the protagonist racked by remorse, but rather the chain of events that destroy him for his acts. Maybe a good title would be "Crime and Rewards"? Of course, those 'rewards' would be much less desirable than anyone had expected.

In the end, there are no quick solutions that I can see to these difficult questions, only more questions. So thus each one of us must look into themselves to find answers, and make their choices in life, for good or ill, and then suffer their just 'rewards'.

Take care, God Bless, Ivan


As posted: http://examinedlifejournal.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/topic.cgi?forum=14&topic=1&start=7

i'll try to make this brief cuz i want to get drunk some more :)

WJ--as far as conscience goes: in my view, it's simply "YOU v. YOU" (absolute you versus Absolute You maybe?). the truest witness (as Dostoyevsky would probably attest to) is 'the self'.

after reading his "notes from the underground" (which the Channel 4 film "Naked" w/ David Thewlus and Katrine Catledge was 'based upon') i could understand perfectly what Dostoyevsky was getting at. though the forward to the book plays w/ the notion that it is not known if the characterization of the nameless narrator were "true-to-life" (1st person) or just purely fictitious. i don't know if part of that narrator was Dostoyevsky or not (though part of him was me...)--this is not important. what is important is the interaction between the character and himself.

this is the key of FDs writing (i wanted to read a couple of his other books, but i have a crap attention span and they looked a bit "dry" as my mother would say, so i passed). to relate the self to the self first and foremost, but to all selfness (thus, selves) and to MAKE the self *really* focus in on what is vital w/ regards to the self.

for me, when i do what i do, i understand there to be "consequences" for my actions (and thoughts) that may come in the form of emotional feedback. being "true" to oneself (which the narrator in NFTU was not, which is why he faced a lot of "pain" in his life experiences. constant hate, self-centeredness, envy, spitefulness...) is the key (in 'social engineering' as well). looking at the reactions of the self and pausing to reflect on circumstance would seem almost common-sensical...but alas, people tend to push ahead w/ their desires in order that *they* as a being may be fulfilled. and yes, the conscience *seems* to be sitting right there, yet though we may not grasp this, tapping it's foot, clearing it's throat every once in a while...waiting for us to turn our attention to 'it' so that some simple guidance may be given.

...and i honestly don't want to bother w/ ethics. i feel that the basic principles as to being a person in an environment full-up w/ other persons are so simple and apparent. there really shouldn't be people who go and massacre/enslave scores and mega-scores of other beings w/o having to make that next thought and put themselves in the position of the other.

it's downright mind-boggling and i don't want to think about it :(--•••• it. i see "self *correction*" as something that you have to WANT, not something that has a necessary mandate (i was thinking about "divine punishment" and heaven and hell a couple of days ago--again, i can see a point where there can be no punishment if it's "up to the individual" to realize what they did as being either right or wrong. imagine [God] passing "Judgement" on a person and the person's going "What?! What did I do 'wrong'?" unless our 'conscience program' is so *embedded* that it can't be refuted and thusly all 'crimes'--as there would be an absolute position of "necessary adherence" to "divine law"--are indeed punished)

i think the key is always for the individual to work on their own situation. this is the "common sense" approach because though a society can 'control' an individual member to a certain degree, it's more *efficient* for the individual to 'control/system check' themselves...

...but alas, when left up to the individual, they might get ideas (independently formed) to rebel against outer-authority (90vt, parents), whereas, the society--especially those at the "top"--would want to maintain the slavitude of the population. of course, an individual can also maintain themselves as a slave, as far as i see it. this is what's going on now; all the "world controllers" have done is consulted psychologists and *evil* social engineers as to the best way to control populations.

the simple answer (in my estimation): give 'em what they want! give them 90000000000 channels, big breast, mega quantities of food, all the gas and oil they can consume...whatever (these points may ideally change w/ respect to the particular culture).

pacify them; let them "feed" themselves greedily, selfishly, as they continue to have less and less of a regard for others around them (even their *own* kind--see Isaac Asimov's "Foundation" series, spec. Prelude to Foundation).

i always contend that people could care less about each other because if we did, we'd work together, MAKE ourselves as efficient as we *would need* to be (this might mean no big polluting factories, seeing as how they can potentially kill us faster than 'natural' causes) and sincerely care about each other.

{{Ivan}}"is this true to life, or is it the way Dostoevsky would want it to be?"

--i would say a bit too true.

Hi Metan, you write:

"the simple answer (in my estimation): give 'em what they want! give them 90000000000 channels, big breast, mega quantities of food, all the gas and oil they can consume...whatever (these points may ideally change w/respect to the particular culture). ...pacify them; let them "feed" themselves greedily, selfishly, as they continue to have less and less of a regard for others around them (even their *own* kind--see Isaac Asimov's "Foundation" series, spec. Prelude to Foundation)."

Think about it, keep us fat and happy! What a 'paradise' we've created ourselves, to the point where a statistically significant measure of the US population lives off junk food (and it shows!), and where one needs a Palm organizer to know which channels to watch. Pretty sad, isn't it? Whatever happened to Thoreau's "simplify"? It's enough to make me want to retreat into a hermitage and spend days in meditation as an antidote to today's overly consumeristic society: growth at any cost, pollutions when you can get away with it, keeping up with the Jones, or Garcias, or Hyuengs... There's got to be a better way than driving a population into civil docility through stuff, and more stuff. What are 'they' really afraid of? Is it a fear of allowing humans being who they are? Are we such a savage lot that we have to be mentally penned up like untrustworthy cattle? Is this the America our founding fathers envisioned? Who agreed to this consumer society? Alas, I am afraid that it was us, the TV ratings, the post Thanksgiving sales madness, the media's obsession with horror... we did it to ourselves. How can this be reversed? How can the world resume a more spiritual, a simpler life style? I think, though horrible it was, 911 was a wakeup call, and suddenly Americans started pulling together. We can do it, we still have the ability to perform selfless acts, to care, to love, to admire beauty and truth. Maybe this is overly idealistic, but we really need to redirect our national focus away from our GDP, and more towards a HDP, a Human Domestic Policy. The question is, would such a policy ever make it past our politicians? Do they care about doing God's Will? Is Peace not a nobler goal? I wonder...

"Pretty sad, isn't it? Whatever happened to Thoreau's "simplify"? It's enough to make me want to retreat into a hermitage and spend days in meditation as an antidote to today's overly consumeristic society"

->to a point--but i shouldn't need to remind that people have their own mind-brain machines: they can think for themselves (toward whatever ends).

one "easy" antidote is to use the mind to *imagine* a simpler existence--it's what i do. i've since been living simpler (though some would say i've always had a simplistic life-style anyway; i've never owned a home or new car); i "live for the weekends" as the saying goes (cuz i *choose* to work a few days during the week). i get wasted on my off days---oh, today i just finished sewing up a nice (though a bit snug) polar fleece cap, and i'm going to work on a fleece velcroed-mask too :)

the issue is that, once life gets to *seem* complicated, people then allow themselves to be tricked into panic mode, so what happens then?--some "authority" (a "credit broker", state worker, whomever) comes in and 'promises' that the "problems" in their lives (which were, in minor part, created w/ the help of the very same entities who now want to help alleviate the problems) can be rectified if they put more faith in the ingenuity of humankind (fiscally and 'scientifically' speaking).

my mother used to "fall" for this, but primarily cuz there were people out there preying on people like her (widowed, single-mother, hard-working, stressed out...). she'd buy those "self-help" tapes (like jonathon parker and dave del dotto) at $300 a set (!) just so she can listen to some supposed 'subliminal' message covered up by crashing ocean waves or birds (hell, for all she knew, the messages could have been "eat at McDonald's or you will die poor and lonely..."-though i think they did have a guy divulge the supposed message before the "session" noises started).

she wanted me to listen to that crap. i liked the "noise" aspect of the tapes, but i could care less about "success in life" or whatever they were telling me that i *needed* to live (silly me, i thought i needed oxygen-processing to live).

AW--my life/the living of it is simply irrelevant in the grand scheme of things (my view). as i say 'life is not the same as living'. who knows, maybe living is the way in which we "touch" Life...but it's always touch and go, in any case.

in relying on the mind in this way (cuz if you can't call upon the 'resolve' to do so in the physical, hey, at least you could 'see' your way to simplification in some way by using your mind) one doesn't have to go live among the "bush people" or even actually rid themselves of all "possessions" (i'm quite used to throwing/giving away/selling *cheap* my possessions)--just the knowledge that 1) one came in to the world naked/blind and 2) that when it is *really* thought about, this may be the condition that drives us out (nakedness is deeper than dermal-coverage--nakedness of "soul", being, whatever: getting back to the "truth" of existence, not just personal, but--Existence) should be enough to give them hope that they can indeed overcome themselves, desires included...hell, w/o gluttony how would we 'understand' the essence of restraint. i'm still a glut to a degree, and i don't necessarily want restraint. my will is being exercised but i acknowledge my actions and their entailments, and i'm fine w/ this. i'm ready/able to transcend w/o a moments notice because the mind is such that...

...and maybe you're not "hearing/understanding" me--when we say "america (US)" what's being said is "NOT the rest of the world"...this is still pretty selfish in my book. but, i'm not trying to be to judgemental, just logical, truthful...

i care about ALL people, even those i may *despise* because i KNOW i'm no "better" than them and all i want to see is that pain and suffering stop for all individuals. the easiest way for this is for all individuals to work from their own perspective:

if one is an "oppressor", they say 'i shall not oppress any more' and if one is oppressed as such, they say "you know what--i'm not going to take it 'personal', my oppression..maybe my oppressors have in fact been oppressed and they are just *reflecting* their total-environment; in this case, i should try and understand them, and not let my heart be hardened by my own egotism." (or simply and not *piously* "i forgive you because, although what you're doing is not necessary, it's still being done...and it's not really important anyway, because Life is Inherently Eternal *and* transitional..."

(too much of a rant? sorry, i'm on this 'stream-of-consciousness' kick)

and you say it yourself Ivan, Human Domestic Policy--we're all Humans (on the surface).

admit it damnit, you love everyone everywhere? :)

take care--it's free

metan01d

Dear Metan,

You write: "in relying on the mind in this way (cuz if you can't call upon the 'resolve' to do so in the physical, hey, at least you could 'see' your way to simplification in some way by using your mind) one doesn't have to go live among the "bush people" or even actually rid themselves of all "possessions" (i'm quite used to throwing/giving away/selling *cheap* my possessions)--just the knowledge that 1) one came in to the world naked/blind and 2) that when it is *really* thought about, this may be the condition that drives us out (nakedness is deeper than dermal-coverage--nakedness of "soul", being, whatever: getting back to the "truth" of existence, not just personal, but--Existence) should be enough to give them hope that they can indeed overcome themselves, desires included..."

Why, you are a natural 'sadhu'! *smile* Have you ever been to India? I remember one time going into a former Maharaja's Palace in Benrares, which now is a museum, and seeing a sadhu walk by, stark naked except for some gray ash smothered all over his body, followed by a small entourage of devotees. It seemed so incongruous to see a naked man with a top knot walking around amongst all the wealth of the former days of the Raj, and it made me want to laugh, not at his nakedness, but at all the faded glory of those days gone by! I recommend a trip to India to anyone searching, because (I've been three times) it is one of the most liberating experience an Occidental can have... (then again, I work as a financial consultant for a major Wall Sreet company, so all things are possible.) *laugh* But do I really love all human beings? ... Had to think about it... No, not always. There are those whom I cannot love, so can offer them only my understanding. But if I know them well enough, and understand why they are the way they are, even very unlovably so, at least I can forgive them for being who they are. It is a loss, alas, that not all can be loved, but often the loss is theirs too. Usually, this is because they come from 'fear', and if we give into this fear, then we are buying into their loss, so it is important to see that and not fall for this trap. So if we can't love them, then at least we can try to understand them... and that's relatively easy!

Take care, good friend, write again!

Ivan

HAVE WE FOUND GOD'S WILL?

Cross Post: the Examined Life OnLine Pbiloslophy Journal Forums: http://examinedlifejournal.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/topic.cgi?forum=14&topic=1&start=14

davet84
Newbie    
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi again guys,

This is a neat thread, we are a long way from Formal Logic and Determinism here!! Although, as I wrote that, I started to wonder...yeah...the logic is informal at best...cheers to that!!

We know that we are all connected and share human history. I think it was mentioned in one of the posts about how human experience tends to show us (generally) what is good.  I think that human history should be considered as an extension to one's personal history. What was it Goethe wrote 'a person is not fully human unless they draw upon 3,000 years of human history'.

Thus the lessons contained in history become sources for reflection on one's own path in life. We don't need to resort to Evolution theory too much with that. Evolution can simply be the source of the reminder that we ARE connected, not just to other humans but to all of life.

WJ mentioned the idea of 'if it feels good do it'. That phrase reminded me of the Nike line 'just do it'. In response to WJ's question, 'does it need more?', I would reply 'yes'.

One lesson that comes across from Ivan's presentation of the 'Crime and Punishment' story, I feel, is that there should be agreed upon precepts as to human conduct.

Raskolnikov's actions as an adult would seem to indicate that in his younger years he did not fully reflect on the necessary prohibition that one should impose on oneself to 'not kill'. A problem in his upbringing?

I think that, even in an open democracy, people can agree upon some basic precepts which all parents ought to instil in their children. We largely come to know about some of these through religious Commandments, School rules,  the Laws (no parking is about sharing limited resources etc). Where they do not become instilled early, there arise societal problems as well as problems in areas like personal guilt and remorse later in life. Unfortunately personal guilt and remorse don't help the victims of serious misbehavior.

With the modern lapse in religious observance, there was also (it seems to me), a lapse in knowing some of the valuable ethical codes which people have identified through history. Why can't Interfaith dialogues extract some of these? If people have problems with the authoritarian or theistic aspects of religion, then they may still find value in the various precepts that the religions have recorded.

There are perhaps six 'precepts' that I would identify as useful. The first three are no go zones. If people break those then they will be societal pariahs. Society has a long history of dealing with societal pariahs. The Law is a reality in human life.

The other four on this list are matters for serious reflection given that history reveals them as perennial sources of human suffering.

1. No Killing
2. No Stealing
3. No Sexual Misconduct
4. Seriously reflect upon the value of Love as a guiding principle in life
5. Seriously reflect upon the effects of coercive behavior (we thank Ivan for this one)
6. Seriously reflect upon communicative acts
7. Seriously reflect upon the effects of intoxication, especially in relation to the poisoning of young minds.

Apparently, as is often conveyed in the adult learning arena, humans have a problem remembering more than seven items in any list. So if we would want to add any others, I suppose they would have to replace what is there, or risk the excuse 'that was precept eight and I couldn't remember it!'.

Beyond precepts, there is dialogue.

Do you think that precepts should prevail upon relativism?

Dave.  

------------------------------------------------------------------

Total Posts: 14 | Joined Sep. 2001 | Posted on: 1:22 pm on Nov. 24, 2001 | IP WJ


Member    
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Guys!!

Boy have you all grown!  Ivan's posts have been really insiteful, to say the least (I think that mystical experience in the desert helped him!).  Anyway, to the both of you:  I'm not worthy, I'm not worthy!

I like the idea/concept of Love, Conscience, and Pain!

One thought I come away with that I feel compelled to 'summarize', is the whole idea behind the Law.  It seems then (like parent-child relationships) the law is there to protect us from ourselves.

I shall repeat: The Law is there to protect us from ourselves.

So, perhaps to answer Dave's question about relativism, it seems those who don't understand the law, need instruction, in order to protect them from themselves!

(Does this mean (religious) free-will and determinism equal reality because all consequences (pain) are the same?  Or that free-will exists because albeit the consequences of pain are universal, our experience of it differs (our experiences of love, conscience and pain)?  Another topic altogether, I suppose.)  I suppose relativism here, is more germain.

So, my feeling is we have used our natural human reason (together)and have surmized that a Law (such as the precepts from Dave or the law of Love from Ivan) have value and are universal.  These tend to have good consequences; they tend to bring peace and happiness. Perhaps we have tapped into the mind of God!

;)

Either that, or by some strange coincidence, we have by chance concluded that we/some humans need that 'something more' in their life to ensure an absolute form of happiness! The world then, and the humans in it, apparently need(s) ethical instruction.

Notice my use of the word 'absolute'; yikes!!

God Bless, and peace, to my brothers,
WJ

PS, Thank all of you too, for this thread.  Perhaps we should turn to 'evil' as an absolute;)  Evil =sadness and pain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Total Posts: 135 | Joined Aug. 2001 | Posted on: 9:15 am on Nov. 26, 2001 | IP Ivan Alexander



Junior Member    
----------------------------------------------------------------
HAVE WE FOUND GOD'S WILL?

Dear WJ, Dave, and All,

Indeed this thread has been a joyous celebration!  At the risk of sounding immodest, I humbly submit that though we may not know what it is that is God's Will, we can at least say that we have some idea of the conditions where this Will becomes manifest for us.  God's Will is an absolute, an absolute condition of the state of existence and the universe, but this Will is also fluid, as it applies to us, and it is fluid enough for us to punch holes in it.  These 'holes' are us, our little independent human wills, who can interact both with the Will of God, or even against it.  This allows us a fluid motion within the immutable, the omnipotent, the grave reality, of all past world religious beliefs, that nevertheless gives us enough wiggle room to allow us to be ourselves.  And that is the grandeur and beauty of God's Will, as we have here described it, that it is Big enough to allow us to be ourselves, the 'who' we are.

Indeed, when I first presented the question: How do we know we do God's Will? I had no clear idea of where this dialogue would go, and had no agenda of my own.  Merely, it seemed a logical philosophical question to ask in a forum on World Religions.  It was an open ended question, one which in being asked gave us answers to which we all three contributed with our thoughts and feelings.  It could not have been otherwise, for one mind alone could not see it all; it took a joint effort.  And from this, I think, we can draw a lesson, that it is more powerful to find points of contact with our minds where we can see agreement, as opposed to becoming locked in contentious debate over points of minutia.  To me, this is philosophy, the evolution of ideas, the meeting of minds.  In this respect, I think this thread on God's Will served its purpose with success, and the result were ideas that came together into a whole.  In fact, I would even take it to another level, though if only by loose analogy, but our ideas may have mirrored the Christian idea of the Trinity:  the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; the Law, Love, and Ethics.  And from these then follow Peace, Faith, Hope, and all the lesser descendants of these powerful ideas that are the hopes of all humankind.  God's Will, when seen this way, is infinitely generous to us, for it allows us to be ourselves in a very big universe, to explore, to feel, to understand, and to identify the 'who we are'.  So we are the little wills within a much greater Will, and is this not the most wonderful thing?  I think it is.

So this seems to be the fruits of our dialogue, as I see it.  Maybe my near-disastrous experience in the desert acted to loosen something in me to ask these question, a kind of knock on the head, but the answers we formulated came from all of us, and that is the best of it: because each of our ideas inspired the others to think more deeply.  However, there remain unanswered questions:  Do we know when the choices we make, the agreements we form, are in God's Will, or against It?  Are there those in the world that are forever blind to this, and can never know what is God's Will, doomed to always be in conflict?   Or is there salvation even for them who appear doomed?  Can the greater Peace that reflects when we do God's Will really come to pass?  Is it no more than a matter of consciousness, of how aware human beings are, those who can find agreement where there is coercion?  Or, is it the other way around, that simple people are closer to God's Will?   What about pain, loss, fear?  Or are we deluding ourselves into a false security, that the love we feel, the goodness we seek, are all inventions of impotent minds who, like Dostoevsky's Raskolnikov, are only insects, not real men?  I will dare to say, to take that ultimate risk, and answer to dispel this negative.  The answer is:  "Yes!" we are truly Men, Women.  We are all those wonderful things we seek and desire as conscious human beings for ourselves, and each other, and for the future generations who will follow.  To paraphrase a great moment in human history, we in this Forum (thank you Mitch!) took a small step in asking our questions, but in doing so, we took a giant leap into the mysteries of Who we Are as human beings.  We are those wonderful points of light, of life, that exist within the even more beautiful and greater fabric that is our greater universe.  We are Love, and Mind, and Spiritual beings, and more.  And when we do it right, we do God's Will.

Take care, my dear Brothers (and Sisters), in Peace.  It is a wonderful thing we do when we seek the Truth.  Thanks all for your help.  It has been a joyous celebration!

With Love and heartfelt good wishes, God Bless,

Ivan


ADDENDUM

Why did the Ancients not come up with this idea of God's Will?  They had brilliant minds, Greek philosophy was already conceptually advanced, so why did they not see this?  I think the answer lies in one word:  Slavery.

They could not imagine a world without slavery, since it was totally interwoven into their economic structure.  For slavery to exist, 'authority' had to be obeyed, or else society would court rebellion and chaos.  So this was the insurmountable obstacle that kept thinkers in ancient times from coming to see God's Will as an expression of human agreements, of each person's will expressed voluntarily without bending to the demands of authority, of being able to form agreements freely.  The fact that we have a world that functions more on the basis of contract, where we contract our labor, our talents, and goods, in a market exchange gives us leisure to see God's Will as an expression of our agreements.  But because slavery had to be preserved, a consummately coercive system, the Ancients could never allow themselves the luxury of postulating a world of free human beings interacting through agreements.  This alas is still true in many parts of the lesser developed world, where society is ruled by force, by dictatorship of both secular and religious authorities.  To dissent is simply not allowed, or it is blasphemy, dead end, and it shows in their coercive Medieval way of life.  Coercion is not comensurate with advanced society, as Communism proved in recent history.   We need not carry the legacy of slavery any more.  We should be grateful to have achieved a society by consent rather than by dictatorship, and for that we are blessed to have the opportunity, if we choose, to do God's Will.

-----
It's a very big, infinite universe, and the search goes on... it starts here.  
http://www.humancafe.com  
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Total Posts: 54 | Joined Aug. 2001 | Posted on: 7:20 pm on Nov. 27, 2001 | IP

no Ivan, i've never been outside of north america...

XPost:::"Thus the lessons contained in history become sources for reflection on one's own path in life. We don't need to resort to Evolution theory too much with that. Evolution can simply be the source of the reminder that we ARE connected, not just to other humans but to all of life."

--i was just thinking about "evolution" today, along w/ some other *related* issues (time travel and how to accomplish this *efficiently*) and my own experience--i used to have "premonitions" of future events. when i was younger, it was *stronger*. here's how it would happen:

i'd have a 'dream' but when i woke, i couldn't remember the specifics at all but i knew i had a dream of sorts. a period down the road, i'd be doing something--and then a *feeling* would come upon like "this has happened before" accompanied by a 'tingling' of sorts. (when i got older, i actually tried on a couple of occasions to "change the future--cuz i figured if i knew what the event felt like...--but of course, and please don't think me strange for saying this cuz it will sound "sci-fi'ish"..of course, the future i got was what i got (there's no changing the future *laugh*...unless...).

anyway, i thought about how some say that "thought is faster than light" and i was thinking, what if thought is the "fastest" thing (instanteous is the ideal 'speed')? then my mind tripped off to the idea that all minds belong to the set of Mind..and so, there must be a sort of "Master Mind"--an Absolute set of minds...then i got off into the "mind over matter" creedo, and thought of a nice proof for this...

AW--on evolution. (i also thought about [God], the Absolute Being that is to have, i suppose, the Absolute Mind...or maybe even *BE* the Absolute Mind *smile*). let's say there's a Being that has 'access' to ALL time-space (the singer Seal says that "time is the space between us" in song); this is to say, there is no event that can be "outside" of the dom-ain of said Being. the Being actually forms the boundary of all such 'moments', but later for this--if all events are knowable/can be known, what does this say about any certain evolutionary processes?

for one, it says that the "1st step(s)" (neigh, all steps) of an evolution are known as well as the "last"--finding either a 1st or last step might make a mind within the system go bonkers, but in theory, they should be there (even if they're an infinite 'distance' from each other).

so evolution might be something that we don't need to necessarily worry about. primarily because it might end up being a process that "ciphers" itself *wink wink*...and then, maybe all of "us" are 'mini-evolutions' (or devolutions...is either one worse than the other?).

i've said enough.

Xpost:::"I think that, even in an open democracy, people can agree upon some basic precepts which all parents ought to instil in their children. We largely come to know about some of these through religious Commandments, School rules, the Laws (no parking is about sharing limited resources etc). Where they do not become instilled early, there arise societal problems as well as problems in areas like personal guilt and remorse later in life. Unfortunately personal guilt and remorse don't help the victims of serious misbehavior."

--i contend that a 'democracy' means that "majority rules", so that whatever the 'popular "precepts"' are, these will be the ones instituted w/ regards to the populous. i'll keep it short: i don't agree that ANYONE (or two or three...) PEOPLE SHOULD BE "AGREEING" ON WHAT IS *RIGHTNESS* FOR THE CONDUCT OF THOSE IN THE PRESUPPOSED "SOCIETY". again, i am anti-authority (to a degree--an Absolute one), and i don't think even parents should be telling the children in their charge what to do or what is right: every individual should--ideally, i'm sorry, i think ideals are better than "relying on ones understanding"--be charged w/ using *dynamic thinking* to come to, what should be a highly similar conclusion (again, ideally and based on theory, that there is a "unique" Authority that maintains a 'balance' for our existence..of course, this theory is limited cuz proof of the cornerstone principle of the theory--[God]--can't be *found*...it might, however, depend on what one is looking for and what one decides, or is "divinely inspired" to call it) based on sound enough principles (1:1 relationships: "do unto others as you would have done unto you", as well as the reflective/reflexive principle--funny, that some math principles can double as social principals. does Asimov know this?).

religion is supposed to be "us all *bonded* with our 'spiritual Essence'" but alas, not many (including maybe me, to an extent) don't check their egos at the door in order to pick up on whatever it is that would make us feel a true physical unit.

to skip around in thinking a bit--maybe it's like my mother used to tell me, that people are "too smart for their own *good*." :)

take it easy

metan01d (green is the color of my aura)

Dear Metan,

RE "AW--on evolution. (i also thought about [God],
the Absolute Being that is to have, i suppose, the
Absolute Mind...or maybe even *BE* the Absolute
Mind *smile*). let's say there's a Being that has
'access' to ALL time-space (the singer Seal says
that "time is the space between us" in song); this
is to say, there is no event that can be "outside"
of the dom-ain of said Being. the Being actually
forms the boundary of all such 'moments', but
later for this--if all events are knowable/can be
known, what does this say about any certain
evolutionary processes?"

I think this is a tricky part of postulating
'evolution' in an All Knowing Being: If it's All
Knowing, then why not have a 'fait accompli' so
that all possible evolutionary forms are already
existent? This would be so, were it a static
system; but I think it is a dynamic system, so it
changes over time. In my concept of
'interrelationship' made famous *laugh!* by Habeas
Mentem, the universe interacts with itself at the
limit of infinity, so that from that infinity
relay back to any particular within itself a new
definition of itself. This means that as each
thing changes in relation to its circumstances at
the point of its existence, and is thus registered
in that being, in its physical biology and mind,
then that too is registered at the infinity
totality (wherever that is!) and then redefines
the particular being. This, based on what we know
of evolution, happens incrementally and very
slowly over time, but there seems to be evidence
that sometimes it happens very fast. But this can
only happen in a dynamic universal existence, as
opposed to a static one. So it bends the mind a
little, but we have to see reality as a dynamic,
interactive system, and not one merely predesigned
or predetermined. Then again, try seeing it from
God's point of view: Wouldn't it be more Fun to
have a universe that can experience change and
even surprise? What will humans think of next!
We'll keep the Old Man guessing...

Cheers, Ivan

fast..slow--in relation to what?...what is the "frame-of-reference" w/ regards to these "rates"?...this is totally a rhetorical question, but it points to the fact that--again, even definability is outside of us (Gödel, Incompleteness Theorem). to even guess at it is utter nonsense (i've been thinking about this over the past few days; days i've been trying to "discern the mechanics of [God]"--i get flustered and i *know* that i will never 'know' just how the hell the 'system' is put together. but in the back of my mind, i can understand that it must be put together some kinda way...so i keep searching foolishly for a 'solution'... :( )

not to seem snide or anything IVan, but---the whole point is that:

WHATEVER IS (possible), IS. (given, this statement is in it's simplest terms)

i don't know if [God] is "Absolute"--and at the 'point of infinity'. i don't know. (would [God] even 'know'?).

i'll be honest w/ you--right now...i think i'm ••••••• being "haunted" by some ••••••• spectre. this may sound 'weird' but...think back to your desert story...

••••--i come home and i feel this "hair-raised" sensation. the quick of the story of how this began:

i was having some half-sleep/half-wake dreams (as usual) and i dreamed 3 times that i was at work. each time, the dreams got "darker"...when i woke slightly from the last dream, i felt a strange sensation that i'd never felt before and it freaked me the hell out. i *think* my eyes bugged and i felt like there was a slight 'pressure' on my throat. also, i felt like i was being "paralyzed", though i didn't *try* to move--my entire body surrounded by a force field.

it wasn't as traumatic as it may seem (it pissed me off more than anything)..i've been thinking for the past couple of days that it was an "attemp to possess" me by--who the hell knows what other entity.

basically, i get a 'hair-raising' sensation when i walk into my room---and yes, i'm trying to determine if it's just "psycho-somatic" but...--and when i have on (white) light, nothing happens.

also, i was having, not suicidal thoughts, but i *actively* thought that i didn't care if i lived or died...i've heard in the past that when a person's "spirit" is low, things can happen...

and i'm not one to "believe" in things: i've had experiences in the past (i have deja vu myself) and i don't believe in anyway--i just take the experience and try to build up a system of strong 'supposition' that can possibly explain why what might be happening is happening)

it is strange and i don't know what's up--but i'm what you would call a "warrior" so...i'll handle it or die trying.

i'll talk (or write) to you all later

metan01d

-----------------------------------
i don't know if i finished the point about [God] and "2nd guessing" such a being but...

trying to 'outthink/outguess' [God] may just be impossible..unless of course, you're [God], then you've got a whole other set of problems w/ You Yourself being "outguessable" simply by the virtue of *existing*...

this is what i speculate---------------------------

Hey Man!

"i'll be honest w/ you--right now...i think i'm ••••••• being "haunted" by some ••••••• spectre. this may sound 'weird' but...think back to your desert story..."

You're 'waking up', this is how it feels before you connect with your greater consciousness, like a force field around you, a cocoon of thoughts, feelings, which may be scary at times, but hang in there! Keep it secular, my advice, but then one day you get to 'connect'. And it's cool... Eat right, excercise, have healthy positive thoughts, and you're on your way!

Joy, Ivan

okay...but what if some *other* entity (cuz i'm not the only entity in the omniverse) is trying to take over my physical functioning?...

it's all so easy to you, isn't it?

oh well, guess i'll go it alone, like i've always done.

take care--EOP

metan01d

Well, alone is cool... but friends are better.
I don't believe in evil spirits, and am also in
the belief that even if someone sends their evil
vibes, they are only effective if you empower
them. So, no worries.

Remember what was posted over the Oracle at
Delphi:

"KNOW THYSELF"

God Bless.

DOES PRAYER HAVE POWER?   Can human prayer effect
change in reality?


'Prayer' is one of the rituals that all world
religions hold in common.  Through prayer human
beings seek to petition or otherwise communicate
with that invisible spiritual world that all
belief systems accept as reality beyond our
material world, usually called God.  As St. John
Damascene (De fide orth. 3.24) said:  "Prayer is
the raising of one's mind and heart to God or the
requesting of good things from God."  Or in Fr.
Joseph Girzone's (A Portrait of Jesus) words:
"That is the secret of intimacy with God --
constancy in prayer, because it develops within
the soul a communion and a sharing of thoughts and
feelings between the soul and God, which, over a
period of time, can change a person's whole life."
 

It seems prayer in most religious rituals is
directed towards a divine Being, but not
necessarily so.  In Buddhist mantras the prayer
may be directed only to the cosmos, to the eons,
and recited in the same way the water wheels in
the Himalayas send prayers to heaven by spinning
in a stream.  For some, prayer is a matter of
ritual rote, whereas for others it is a deep soul
searching voice.  In Muslim prayer, the call to
Allah is more of a remembrance of what it is we as
Believers are summoned to believe.  However, at
Hindu temples, I have seen supplicants walk
clockwise three times around sacred shrines while
praying to the god within.  In Baha'i prayers, the
believers have a certain recitation they must make
upon rising, midday, and upon the day's end, not
unlike the five daily prayers demanded of Muslims,
except there is no requirement to face Mecca.  
Prayers offered at a temple or synagogue, or
before a Christian shrine, or to Jesus, invoke a
combination of rote prayer and personal requests.
 Prayer is endemic to all religions, though not
all pray in the same way; some prayers are
chanted, or sung, while others are whispered, or
read aloud.  The question I have regarding prayer,
no matter how one prays, and whether one prays on
command of the Scriptures as a demand of God, or
as a personal demand from God for health, for
financial security, for removal of despair, for
peace, to conquer an enemy, or just for
thankfulness:  Can human prayer effect change,
either in ourselves or more specifically in our
personal situation, as it is manifest in the world
that surrounds each one of us?  In effect:  Does
Prayer have Power?

I ask this question because I do not know the
answer, and have found scarce philosophical
writings on it.  In fact, I suspect that even
religious texts are relatively silent on the
efficacy of prayer.  But people pray everywhere
all the time.  Why?  If it has no effect, then why
pray?  But if it does have effect, then why does
it?  If prayer has power, where does this power
come from?  Is it from God, or some Holy Spirit,
or is the power from Man?  Can there be some
secular cosmic reason why people pray, and their
prayers are answered?  Lastly, can an atheist
pray, and would such prayer be answered?  If so,
by what God?  Or is prayer only a human salve to
soothe our fragile uncertainties in an otherwise
harsh and at times cruel existence?  I suspect,
however, that it is more than that, and that we
humans have not yet explored the full potential
and power of prayer.

So this is why I ask:  Does prayer have power?
 What is the evidence that Prayer works?  Who can
answer?


Praying for Peace in the New Year, and Good Will
in God's Will, God Bless,

Ivan

-----
It's a very big, infinite universe, and the search
goes on... it starts here.  
http://www.humanc
afe.com  
-------------------------------------------------

Total Posts: 66 | Joined Aug. 2001 | Posted on:
7:36 pm on Dec. 29, 2001 | IP

http://examinedlifejournal.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/t
opic.cgi?forum=14&topic=2

my answer:

love God (all of His creation) as much as you can. love your Self and your self will be diminished to the degree that you do.

Hi all!

My favorite 'personal' topic! Well, there is much to learn and do with the phenomenon of what prayer can do. Kind of like certain philosophy; there remains much in human life to do and experience.

In a pragmatic way, simply talking to God is a great way to start. Some say that other endeavor's in life are also quite like prayers themselves. Musician's have analogized their performances as 'a prayer'. (It's kind of like how Ayn Rand defines music.) It is a sort of a pouring-out or purging of one's inner consciousness; one's inner needs to effect happiness, contentment, love and purpose. (It works for me. Either that or for 20 some years, it has all been just a coincidence;)
Personally I pray everyday.

I think that the Being God welcomes us to ask for these things. To perform a test in seeking understanding of truth and happiness. The pathway to this discovery [of Being] is through prayer. Try it, you just might like it!

Who else would you wish to have with your consciousness on this sojourn of [conscious]human life? Care to take Pascal's Wager?

Thanks Ivan! Keep up the good work around here!!!

Walrus
------------
If you must, I'm a Postmodernist. If you will, I'm a Christian. Hail Brutus, I'm plain ol' Spiritual!

All!

Wow, what a stroke of luck;). I was praying this morning in the usual manner asking for meaning, and I stumbled on this from a new website that I discovered: http://www.spirituality.com/

"Our spirituality [that which is within us—that something which tells us there is more to who we are] is proof of our connection to the divine—which is Love itself. Love isn't so much a physical emotion dependent on a particular person or environment, as it is a spiritual quality each one includes and expresses as the child of God. It is this Love, which is always with us and active within us, that enables us to both feel loved and to love others. The more I've thought about this and accepted this idea, the easier it has been to get busy loving even when it seemed difficult to care about another and show it. I've learned that loving others blesses me just as much as it blesses them, maybe even more."

--------------

Indeed there is something more. It is our mission to go out and seek, share and enjoy that something! Find your passion in life, then share it with others!

Walrus

dear daorley ,

Welcome! good thoughts.

Yes, to love God is sublime, but to love Self when not Narcistic is also a love God, since we are children of God. No? I believe it was St. Augustine, in the tradition of Epictetus, who claimed that self love is more an evil than a good. However, seen from the point of view that a love of Self is also a love of God, then such love does not detract but enhances our love of God, since this also empowers us to love All.

Love and joy, in an 'intuitive' search of Truth.

Ivan

Ivan, I did come up on a discussion that the
subject of interest was God's will,the devil and
hell. My research and studies show that we put to
much thought,that is far from Reality. The
consciousness of our mind directs as well as
dictates our direction to the Infinite . God is a
man given word. The world has had so many Gods
that most people of the worlds live in fear. This
does not need to be. Many scholars agree with me
that if we train our minds in consciousness as we
learn for the 21st century together; we will all
have a true knowledge.

To this very day, disagreements over another
man/woman has brought death, rapes,tortures, that
come from morons and illiterate imbeciles. Every
nation of this world has good and intelligent
people. All have something to offer.

Allow me to give a good description of what our
worlds God really is:
" Lifes active living kinetic force of energy with
intelligence that mankind will never understand.
Only up on our death when our spirit joins with
the vastness of the Cosmic Ocean (Infinity) will
we gain more knowledge. I will continue with this
after I receive replys from the forum as your self
Ivan.

I do not reply to un-needed polemics
nor foul language. To all the good people that
reply.........................

I offer my most heart felt Peace,Love, Joy and
Compassion.


P.S. No religion on this earth has ever brought
us peace. (only war)

revvonbaron@,

I concur with your notions, and have no doubt about what you write is true. I too have been down the path that leads no place, and I lived that path for thirty-eight years. It took me twelve years to forget everything I had learned to that point, and for my mind to open its doors again. It then took another two years before I began to realize that all of my previous ideas and thoughts about God were totally errant, or flawed. At first, I did not know what to think or believe, but a quick study of World History began to open my eyes and ears to two facts; Religions are not about God, or the Works of God; Religions are all about the Power of Authority, and the means to control other people.

A reader

Religions are a giant,with investments
within every major stock market.
They have some of the worlds largest
real estate holdings. This also includes
commodities,weapon industry,and anything
that make the Hiearchy rich. This all true and backed by a friend that is a pastor of 35yrs
within the ortodoxy.

Rev.Von Baron Geuder

FOUNDING PRESIDENTS NOT CHRISTIAN
by William Edelen

One of my favorite months is February. Why? Because it's Presidents month, which gives me an annual opportunity to make a dent in the historical and religious ignorance of the knee jerk right-wingers of this country who spend all their time perverting American history by claiming that the bible and Christianity were at the foundation of this nation. What total hogwash. Once a year, then, I get to bring a few undisputed facts to their attention.

THE ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA, 1968, vol.2, p.420, quote: "One of the embarrassing problems for the nineteenth-century champions of the Christian faith was the fact that NOT ONE of the first six presidents of the United States was a Christian. They were Deists."

In Deism, there is no personal God, only an impersonal "force" or "energy" or "nature's God" or "providence." In Deism, the bible is nothing but literature, and bad literature at that. Jefferson and Paine both called it "a dunghill." Other founders used similar language. In Deism, Jesus was nothing more than a nomadic teacher. I will now let these men speak for themselves:

GEORGE WASHINGTON: "Being no bigot, I am disposed to humor Christian ministers and the church." Looking for servants, he said: "I will be happy to have Atheists, Jews, Christians, or Mohammedans." In 1831, Episcopalian minister Bird Wilson said in a sermon: "Washington is no more than a Unitarian, if anything." Washington refused to take communion, looking upon it as superstition. He refused to ever kneel in church according to his wife and minister, James Abercrombie. The Treaty of Tripoli, under Washington, Article 11 begins: "As the government of the United States is NOT IN ANY SENSE founded on the Christian religion ..." This Treaty was ratified by the senate in 1797 under John Adams, without a SINGLE OBJECTION.

THOMAS JEFFERSON (author of the Declaration of Independence): "I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women, and children since the introduction of Christianity have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. And to support roguery and error all over the earth."

JAMES MADISON (author of our Constitution and Bill of Rights): "A just government instituted to perpetuate liberty, does not need the church or the clergy. During almost fifteen centuries, the legal establishment of Christianity has been on trial. What have been its fruits? These are the fruits in all places: pride and indolence in the clergy ... ignorance and servility in the laity ... and in both clergy and laity superstition, bigotry, and persecution." Madison passionately objected to state supported chaplains in Congress and the military, as well as the exemption of churches from taxation. And rightly so. They should be taxed.

JOHN ADAMS: "The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus has made a convenient cover for absurdity." Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli, which states that the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion. Episcopalian minister Bird Wilson, in a sermon of October 1831, summed up the religion of our founding presidents in these words: "Among all of our Presidents, from Washington downward, not one was a professor of Christianity."

ABRAHAM LINCOLN: Not a founding president but a giant who shared exactly the same religious views. "Christianity is not my religion and the bible is not my book. I have never united myself in any church because I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian doctrine and dogma." Lincoln never joined any church and was never baptized, looking upon it as superstition. His wife said: "my husband is not a Christian, but is a spiritual man, I think." The most magnificent Pulitzer-Prize biography of this giant is Carl Sandburg's "Abraham Lincoln." And as Sandburg put it: "His views were such as would place him entirely outside of Christianity."

Thomas Jefferson put in one succinct sentence what they all believed. "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by a supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." (letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823)

Why are these facts of American history not being taught in our High Schools? What forces are at work in our society to keep historical truth from our young people? We get all hot and sweaty about censoring movies and television. A far more lethal virus that is at work is the censorship of the religious views of our first six presidents, our Founding Fathers. Why is this not being taught? Why is your minister not telling you about it, assuming he is historically literate?

The genius Goethe said it best: "Nothing is more terrifying than ... ignorance in action."

Paper God Writer?

CHALLENGE: I propose that God AS WE UNDERSTAND HIM cannot be omnipotent.
I will prove this by using the Bible, or Koran, which are believed to be divinely inspired by God, His Word.

PROOF: If God were omnipotent, His writing of the Bible, of Koran, would have been perfection. In reading the Holy Books, however, many passages are repetitious, difficult to understand, sometimes irrelevant to us today, and finally flawed in terms of plot and continuity. I dare say that Joseph Conrad or Virginia Woolf, or Omar Khayam, would have done a better job. So the divinely inspired writers were flawed in understanding God's message, because they were merely men flawed in their understanding, and thus delivered us a less than Omnipotent Word of God. If so, then God Failed in making that message perfect, and thus failed in being omnipotent in so doing. Therefore, as we understand God, He is not omnipotent.

CONCLUSION: God should have hired ghost writers, like Woolf or Conrad or Omar, to write the Holy Books, which would have been much better and consistent reading, rather than hiring the 'paper God writers' of old.

----------------------------------------------
Next Challenge: If God were omnipotent, would He have created a Hell?

DESIDERATA

Go placidly amid the noise and haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence. As far as possible without surrender be of good terms with all persons. Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even the dull and ignorant; they too have their story. Avoid loud and aggressive persons, they are vexations to the spirit. If you compare yourself with others, you may become vain and bitter; for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself. Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans. Keep interested in your own career, however humble; it is a real possession in the changing fortunes of time. Exercise caution in your business affairs; for the world is full of trickery. But let this not blind you to what virtue there is; many persons strive for high ideals; and everywhere life is full of heroism. Be yourself. Especially, do not feign affection. Neither be cynical about love; for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment it is perennial as the grass. Take kindly the counsel of the years, gracefully surrendering the things of youth. Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune. But do not distress yourself with imaginings. Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness. You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should. Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be, and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of the life keep peace with your soul. With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy.

(Found in Old St. Paul's Church, Baltimore, dated 1692. I only add it here for all who do not know it. Be peace. Anna)

The Pledge of Allegiance.

The word "God" is also a secular word. It should not be the exclusive domain of religion. The San Fransisco Federal Court ruling is absurd, for it oversteps its bounds by inputing a religious content into a pledge of allegiance for a secular world.

Ivan

In response to query in NY Times Forum dated June 27, 2002, Issues Before the Supreme Court:

"Humancafe-
O.K. I'm interested. In what sense is "God" a secular word?" (#s 868 & 870).

The word "God" in a secular sense can be understood as a kind of metaphysical code word, so that rather than saying something like "the infinite mystery of a big Bang universe capable of creating within its chaos modified reality that may also be interactive with human consciousness at some level beyond reason", etc., it would seem that a secular use of the word God makes perfect rational sense, without having to invoke traditional religious beliefs.
Having said that, it is a rather curious fact that the idea of God is rather persistent in human history, being virtually universal throughout the planet for a very long time. Regardless, using the word "God" in an otherwise secular pledge of allegiance should not be the religious/atheist conflict the US circuit court made it out to be. Thus my point, that God is also a secular term and not the explicit monopoly of religion.

A response to: What is God's Will? By Ivan W.
Ivan:
Your question is well put. Let me first simply accept the situation of life and history as you put it. To answer "What is God's Will", I took the question: What is the purpose of life? It took me a bit over thirty years to discover the purpose of life. But, once I knew this, the answer to what is God's Will was apparent. The "key" is the discovery that God is composed of Neutral Spiritual Energy, and thus an absolute, unchanging, and permanent. But God is also without form, as we could understand form. So, the purpose of life is for Souls, or aspects of God, to explore and experience Creation [which is the projection of God] in order to experience God in His manifested form. Having done this, the Soul is then returned to God in full knowledge. The Will of God is therefore what is. Peace

Dear Minder,

Welcome!

I like your answer:
"The "key" is the discovery that God is composed of Neutral Spiritual Energy, and thus an absolute, unchanging, and permanent."

I think this line captures a lot. The key word, for me, is "neutral", that God as this universal energy does not favor, but rather projects equally for all living things. That humans have a higher consciousness is not that we are "favored" by God more than other living things, but merely that we have that responsibility: to have a fuller knowledge. Some may think it a curse instead, but I am most glad to have the chance to discover, and to know.

As you say in your other post (New 'old' philosophy), knowing is a fine balance between the outer world and inner self. I would take it to the next step, that it is to know the outer self and inner world. When we get there, we are one more step closer to Consciousness.

Thanks for contributing your fine ideas.

Ivan