The Key

[Purple Rain]

9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves. 12 Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.

Show me a motherfucking believer!

 

[Purple Rain]

Yeah, yeah. I don't have the fucking rank to ask about this....

 

[Queenmab321]

That may be the most offensive thing I've ever heard considering the people that have said in their heart that there is a "god" and then proceeded to hack some eight year old boy to death in Maluku - or burn Joan of Arc at the stake - or whatever else - or even just say that kind of shit about people who don't agree with them. Fuck religion. It is one of the greatest killers amongst humanity. It is a plague not a remedy.

When people butcher small children, for whatever reason, it makes me feel sick and outraged, but does the indignation I feel make it wrong for others to butcher small children? If not, why is it wrong?

 

[guanoloco]

I agree...religion is the pox...it's a plague. However, religion, IMHO, is created in the image of the human ego and deifies the unchecked ego...which is to say that if the ego could do what it wants the deities have this power and image...needing to be worshiped, all powerful, jealous, "righteous", stern, able to smite their "enemies" with horrible outcomes, judgmental, "chosen" children who err...merely look at Hubbard, setting himself up to be a god, and see if he manifests any of that?

These attributes are human and not divine. They are also shallow and demonstrate a character short on virtue and long on vice.

When I've talked with atheists and such it is these above characteristics they are negating...and rightly so...along with all of the irrational punishment drive inherent in religions.

None of that eliminates the existence of a god(s)/divinity/creator entity, though.

 

[MrNobody]

Which is a good segue to... "If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

I think the "church" of $cientology should be able to answer that, since they have surveillance cameras and microphones almost anywhere.

 

[degraded being]

Some of you may find the following passage from Spanish philosopher, Miguel de Unamuno food for thought:

“The wicked man hath said in his heart, There is no God." And this is truth. For in his head the righteous man may say to himself, God does not exist! But only the wicked can say it in his heart. Not to believe that there is a God or to believe that there is not a God, is one thing; to resign oneself to there not being a God is another thing, and it is a terrible and inhuman thing; but not to wish that there be a God exceeds every other moral monstrosity; although, as a matter of fact, those who deny God deny Him because of their despair at not finding Him."

I would hasten to add that I am an agnostic, and I'm not entirely sure that I agree with Unamuno. But, I think what he says may be true whether or not God actually exists. For if by "God" we refer to nothing more than that the universe may possess some human meaning outside ourselves, that our values may possess a sacredness capable of rendering our existence something more than a mere game, then the hope and faith that attends such a belief may be construed as a moral duty. The agnostic, it seems to me, at the very least leaves room for the transcendent. I think this can be an expression of both humility and hope. I find this in the dialogues of Socrates and in Kant's antinomies. Socrates appears to construct a bulwark of ignorance in the face of Sophist nihilism.

"For if by "God" we refer to nothing more than that the universe may possess some human meaning outside ourselves, that our values may possess a sacredness capable of rendering our existence something more than a mere game, then the hope and faith that attends such a belief may be construed as a moral duty."

If the universe possesses meaning "outside ourselves" how can that be talked about in our language? Our language, presumably comes from "inside ourselves". There would need to be an investigation about the spatial positioning of "meaning" as "inside" and "outside" "ourselves" Thinking about that might get someone to the transcendent. I would argue that anyone would need to transcend the silly language, because if they don't they are caught in their own projections.

But you do not see a necessity for transcendence, it is offered only as something that is second best in quality control of people who do or do not find meaning, or God.

Unamuno, in the quoted text quote comes across as a fearful judgemental person. If people don't do what he does then they are wicked. Ho hum.

And referring again to the highlighted comment that you made; you think people should do their moral duty and find their lives sacred and not just a game. Really? Is that the great meaning "outside ourselves"? Where does arrogance and control fit in here?

 

[Queenmab321]

I agree...religion is the pox...it's a plague. However, religion, IMHO, is created in the image of the human ego and deifies the unchecked ego...which is to say that if the ego could do what it wants the deities have this power and image...needing to be worshiped, all powerful, jealous, "righteous", stern, able to smite their "enemies" with horrible outcomes, judgmental, "chosen" children who err...merely look at Hubbard, setting himself up to be a god, and see if he manifests any of that?

These attributes are human and not divine. They are also shallow and demonstrate a character short on virtue and long on vice.

When I've talked with atheists and such it is these above characteristics they are negating...and rightly so...along with all of the irrational punishment drive inherent in religions.

None of that eliminates the existence of a god(s)/divinity/creator entity, though.

"Buddha says: 'Do not flatter your benefactor!' Repeat this saying in a Christian church: right away it clears the air of everything Christian"! -Nietzsche

 

[Purple Rain]

When people butcher small children, for whatever reason, it makes me feel sick and outraged, but does the indignation I feel make it wrong for others to butcher small children? If not, why is it wrong?

Who am I to say it is wrong? Good old "god" commanded it done many times in the "good" book. I'm sure "he" knows best. It is abhorrent to me because I love life and the bringing of life into the world. I love beauty. And I can't bear to watch other creatures in pain.

16 At that time Menahem destroyed the town of Tappuah[a] and all the surrounding countryside as far as Tirzah, because its citizens refused to surrender the town. He killed the entire population and ripped open the pregnant women.

[a]The people of Samaria
must bear the consequences of their guilt
because they rebelled against their God.
They will be killed by an invading army,
their little ones dashed to death against the ground,
their pregnant women ripped open by swords.”

 

[Queenmab321]

And referring again to the highlighted comment that you made; you think people should do their moral duty and find their lives sacred and not just a game. Really? Is that the great meaning "outside ourselves"? Where does arrogance and control fit in here?

Is it wrong to butcher small children?

 

[degraded being]

Is it wrong to butcher small children?

Why do you ask?

 

[Purple Rain]

Speaking of the fear and all this pregnant women being ripped open righteous god stuff that I had to live and breathe as a child, when I was carrying my first child and people kept making horrible comments about me - even if my husband was walking beside me and even though I had that ring on my finger - because, you know, I was seventeen - I developed a terrible fear of other people that kept me from going out much. I was already isolated from my friends and family on the other side of the city without decent transport, but especially when the young men would make comments, you know, "Do you smell gas?" (as in having a bun in the oven) I became just so afraid of them. I used to imagine them ripping the child out of my womb until I just couldn't go out anymore. I was terribly crippled emotionally. I've just been afraid of everything my whole life.

 

[degraded being]

Is it wrong to butcher small children?

In pre colombian cultures I think it must not be wrong because a source of information
outside myself (television) informed me that these killings of children were done to appease Gods or somesuch.

Silly me. I was sitting there waiting for the voice over to talk about how psycho and cruel they were, but was assured, quite earnestly, almost reverentially actually, that this was to do with religion and you know, it was ancient, and you know it was about CULTURE -bow three times when you hear that word - and so I think I was supposed to go, "Oh well, I guess it's alright then"

I think the skeletons had some broken bones and they were talking about whether they threw them, alive, into the pit, or it happened when they were thrown in after they were dead. I was wondering if they at least poisoned them first with a fast acting poison so at least the suffering would be less, but i got the idea that Mr Voiceover knew more than he was willing to tell me and that if he let on, I might not be able to accept the reverence for ancient CULTURE and I might not see how it is really Ok....sort of....if you really really really understand CULTURE from an anthrpologists view point..to ummmm kill children.
Its not just in cults that people spin cognitive dissonance.

 

[Queenmab321]

In pre colombian cultures I think it must not be wrong because a source of information
outside myself (television) informed me that these killings of children were done to appease Gods or somesuch.

Silly me. I was sitting there waiting for the voice over to talk about how psycho and cruel they were, but was assured, quite earnestly, almost reverentially actually, that this was to do with religion and you know, it was ancient, and you know it was about CULTURE -bow three times when you hear that word - and so I think I was supposed to go, "Oh well, I guess it's alright then"

I think the skeletons had some broken bones and they were talking about whether they threw them, alive, into the pit, or it happened when they were thrown in after they were dead. I was wondering if they at least poisoned them first with a fast acting poison so at least the suffering would be less, but i got the idea that Mr Voiceover knew more than he was willing to tell me and that if he let on, I might not be able to accept the reverence for ancient CULTURE and I might not see how it is really Ok....sort of....if you really really really understand CULTURE from an anthrpologists view point..to ummmm kill children.
Its not just in cults that people spin cognitive dissonance.

So, do we or don't we possess a moral duty not to inflict suffering and death upon children? Is it arrogant to assert that such a duty exists? Does this duty belong to everyone or is it yours alone?

 

[degraded being]

So, do we or don't we possess a moral duty not to inflict suffering and death upon children? Is it arrogant to assert that such a duty exists? Does this duty belong to everyone or is it yours alone?

Duty Schmuty. "Good morning children, much as I would love to inflict suffering and death upon you, I shall not. For it is my duty not to do so, and a Lady always does her duty."

 

[Purple Rain]

I get the feeling that's some horrible trap trick question that you can't win no matter what you say that I'm not smart enough to answer - like some chessmaster setting up checkmate many moves in advance.

 

[Queenmab321]

I get the feeling that's some horrible trap trick question that you can't win no matter what you say that I'm not smart enough to answer - like some chessmaster setting up checkmate many moves in advance.

It's that damn Socratic method. I apologize. I'm in school and have very limited opportunity to post at length.

I think you may have read into my Unamuno post somewhat more than I intended to say. I am not a Christian nor, for that matter, am I a theist. I don't believe the bible was inspired by God. So, I don't advocate it's teachings. I do believe, however, that the bible, like any great work of literature, contains within it poetic metaphors that reveal genuine truths about the human condition. For example, whereas I believe the Genesis account of Creation has little or nothing to offer with regard to human origins, I believe it's story of the Fall expresses truths that relate to what may be a universal longing for and feeling of alienation from an aboriginal state of innocence.

I am not a disciple of Unamuno, though I find many of his ideas interesting, especially his treatment of Don Quixote which I think provides some insight with regard to Hubbard. You may find his Wikepedia page helpful if you care to look.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_de_Unamuno

If one were to imagine a spectrum with dogmatic religious belief at one end and materialism at the other, you would find me far over toward the materialist end. I suspect that morality is, after all, a thoroughly human affair. However, an implication of materialism is that there is and there can be nothing objectively wrong about murdering innocent children. The most a materialist could say is that he possesses a moral sensibility (likely the product of biological and social evolution) that renders such crimes intensely repugnant and that those who perpetrate such crimes, being human, are likely to possess a similar moral compass. That is to say, they probably know better, and are, therefore, guilty of breaching a moral duty they share internally with the rest of us.

I think what Unamuno was getting at in the passage I quoted, is that for most of us the materialist view is profoundly unsatisfying. Because we feel our morality with such intensity, we are prone to project it out into the world so that we may nurture the conceit that certain actions are evil in themselves, whether or not we or others believe them to be so. Religion is a virtually universal human phenomenon. I take from this fact not that any religion is true in any literal sense, but that our predisposition to believe something must be rooted in more or less intractable psychological phenomena which may provide insight with regard to the ways in which we make sense of the world and especially how we are to handle those facts of life, having to do largely with morality, that fall outside the preview of science.

 

[Purple Rain]

It's that damn Socratic method. I apologize. I'm in school and have very limited opportunity to post at length.

I think you may have read into my Unamuno post somewhat more than I intended to say. I am not a Christian nor, for that matter, am I a theist. I don't believe the bible was inspired by God. So, I don't advocate it's teachings. I do believe, however, that the bible, like any great work of literature, contains within it poetic metaphors that reveal genuine truths about the human condition. For example, whereas I believe the Genesis account of Creation has little or nothing to offer with regard to human origins, I believe it's story of the Fall expresses truths that relate to what may be a universal longing for and feeling of alienation from an aboriginal state of innocence.

I am not a disciple of Unamuno, though I find many of his ideas interesting, especially his treatment of Don Quixote which I think provides some insight with regard to Hubbard. You may find his Wikepedia page helpful if you care to look.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_de_Unamuno

If one were to imagine a spectrum with dogmatic religious belief at one end and materialism at the other, you would find me far over toward the materialist end. I suspect that morality is, after all, a thoroughly human affair. However, an implication of materialism is that there is and there can be nothing objectively wrong about murdering innocent children. The most a materialist could say is that he possesses a moral sensibility (likely the product of biological and social evolution) that renders such crimes intensely repugnant and that those who perpetrate such crimes, being human, are likely to possess a similar moral compass. That is to say, they probably know better, and are, therefore, guilty of breaching a moral duty they share internally with the rest of us.

I think what Unamuno was getting at in the passage I quoted, is that for most of us the materialist view is profoundly unsatisfying. Because we feel our morality with such intensity, we are prone to project it out into the world so that we may nurture the conceit that certain actions are evil in themselves, whether or not we or others believe them to be so. Religion is a virtually universal human phenomenon. I take from this fact not that any religion is true in any literal sense, but that our predisposition to believe something must be rooted in more or less intractable psychological phenomena which may provide insight with regard to the ways in which we make sense of the world and especially how we are to handle those facts of life, having to do largely with morality, that fall outside the preview of science.

Well, I would agree that most of our ideas about what is right and wrong are a product of our socialisation, and that if we were socialised differently we would think differently. I do feel that there are some things that are so built in to me - like, for example, when somebody cuts down a tree. I know it's not morally "wrong" to cut down a tree, and you know I love few things in the world like a blazing fire. On my birthday my ex made me a fire in the backyard and just the other night as well. And I just sat out there and watched it for over an hour - did nothing else except gaze into the flames and enjoy the heat on my cheek. But then there are these two oak trees in his backyard that he is going to cut down - so he can have a garden and all sorts of sensible reasons like that. And I can't bear to think of it. I lie on the back deck and look up through the leaves worrying about it and mourning it. There's this horrible grief. In fact, pretty much every time I've ever moved on from a place has been after someone cut down a tree that I loved. So what is that? It's not a moral thing - just this terrible sense of grief and loss and awfulness about cutting down these beautiful gentle giants. I am probably crazy, I guess. And I can't help projecting how I might feel myself into stories or situations with others - particularly the helpless. I even anthropormorphise like my car and my computer and stuff.

And, you know, I eat meat - I love meat - but there's this feeling that if I had to kill it myself I couldn't - unless it was a raw survival situation.

As far as the killing of children, well that's so general - even defining what counts as a child can be difficult. Sometimes a mother's life is at risk for example - or like in MASH where the mother suffocates the baby because its crying is about to get everyone on the bus killed - or the mother who suffocates her child at birth because there is already not enough to feed the three older children. It's very complicated, isn't it, and not something you can make a blanket statement about. What of the children that killed Jamie Bulger? Who could blame his mother if she wanted to blast them to kingdom come?

I have never read Don Quixote although I do love the musical - well, the music from the musical anyway, and what I can gather of the story. I always related to the idea that in his madness he saw this woman as beautiful who was so scorned by the rest of the world, and thought nothing of herself. And what little self-esteem or personal power she did have came from her hatred and her right to choose that kind of life - like Julia Roberts said in "Pretty Woman":

Why did you make me get all dressed up?…If you were going to tell everyone that I’m a hooker, why didn’t you just let me wear my own clothes? I mean, in my own clothes, when someone like that guy Stuckey comes up to me, I can handle it! I’m prepared!

So all of those issues resonate with me, but I have no idea if the book is anything like it. I'll have to read it someday maybe and check out your Unamuno link. My ex used to talk to me a lot about philosophy and I just never feel smart enough. But you know if something sits right with you or not, even if you can't say why.

Thanks for sharing what you did in your post. It was a really interesting read for me, and I know how long it takes to write posts like that and how much time a message board can suck up when you are studying.

 

[Telepathetic]

Hell, I was enjoying the post but then, I ran into Jesus...

TP

 

[Queenmab321]

Well, I would agree that most of our ideas about what is right and wrong are a product of our socialisation, and that if we were socialised differently we would think differently. I do feel that there are some things that are so built in to me - like, for example, when somebody cuts down a tree. I know it's not morally "wrong" to cut down a tree, and you know I love few things in the world like a blazing fire. On my birthday my ex made me a fire in the backyard and just the other night as well. And I just sat out there and watched it for over an hour - did nothing else except gaze into the flames and enjoy the heat on my cheek. But then there are these two oak trees in his backyard that he is going to cut down - so he can have a garden and all sorts of sensible reasons like that. And I can't bear to think of it. I lie on the back deck and look up through the leaves worrying about it and mourning it. There's this horrible grief. In fact, pretty much every time I've ever moved on from a place has been after someone cut down a tree that I loved. So what is that? It's not a moral thing - just this terrible sense of grief and loss and awfulness about cutting down these beautiful gentle giants. I am probably crazy, I guess. And I can't help projecting how I might feel myself into stories or situations with others - particularly the helpless. I even anthropormorphise like my car and my computer and stuff.

And, you know, I eat meat - I love meat - but there's this feeling that if I had to kill it myself I couldn't - unless it was a raw survival situation.

As far as the killing of children, well that's so general - even defining what counts as a child can be difficult. Sometimes a mother's life is at risk for example - or like in MASH where the mother suffocates the baby because its crying is about to get everyone on the bus killed - or the mother who suffocates her child at birth because there is already not enough to feed the three older children. It's very complicated, isn't it, and not something you can make a blanket statement about. What of the children that killed Jamie Bulger? Who could blame his mother if she wanted to blast them to kingdom come?

I have never read Don Quixote although I do love the musical - well, the music from the musical anyway, and what I can gather of the story. I always related to the idea that in his madness he saw this woman as beautiful who was so scorned by the rest of the world, and thought nothing of herself. And what little self-esteem or personal power she did have came from her hatred and her right to choose that kind of life - like Julia Roberts said in "Pretty Woman":



So all of those issues resonate with me, but I have no idea if the book is anything like it. I'll have to read it someday maybe and check out your Unamuno link. My ex used to talk to me a lot about philosophy and I just never feel smart enough. But you know if something sits right with you or not, even if you can't say why.

Thanks for sharing what you did in your post. It was a really interesting read for me, and I know how long it takes to write posts like that and how much time a message board can suck up when you are studying.

Purple, I found your comments about the beautiful trees touching. When I was seventeen my father died suddenly. We had an enormous oak in our back yard that I had climbed throughout my childhood. A week or two after my father's death the tree was struck by lightening and killed. It is rare, at least for me, that the universe provides so vivid, apropos and poetic a metaphor. My father was strong and kind and, like that oak tree, seemingly invulnerable. I have to remind myself that no matter how old I get or how battered I become, the world remains young. I try to look to at the world look through the eyes of my children. I like the Bob Dylan line, "He not busy being born is busy dying."

 

[degraded being]

It's that damn Socratic method. I apologize. I'm in school and have very limited opportunity to post at length.

I think you may have read into my Unamuno post somewhat more than I intended to say. I am not a Christian nor, for that matter, am I a theist. I don't believe the bible was inspired by God. So, I don't advocate it's teachings. I do believe, however, that the bible, like any great work of literature, contains within it poetic metaphors that reveal genuine truths about the human condition. For example, whereas I believe the Genesis account of Creation has little or nothing to offer with regard to human origins, I believe it's story of the Fall expresses truths that relate to what may be a universal longing for and feeling of alienation from an aboriginal state of innocence.

I am not a disciple of Unamuno, though I find many of his ideas interesting, especially his treatment of Don Quixote which I think provides some insight with regard to Hubbard. You may find his Wikepedia page helpful if you care to look.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_de_Unamuno

If one were to imagine a spectrum with dogmatic religious belief at one end and materialism at the other, you would find me far over toward the materialist end. I suspect that morality is, after all, a thoroughly human affair. However, an implication of materialism is that there is and there can be nothing objectively wrong about murdering innocent children. The most a materialist could say is that he possesses a moral sensibility (likely the product of biological and social evolution) that renders such crimes intensely repugnant and that those who perpetrate such crimes, being human, are likely to possess a similar moral compass. That is to say, they probably know better, and are, therefore, guilty of breaching a moral duty they share internally with the rest of us.

I think what Unamuno was getting at in the passage I quoted, is that for most of us the materialist view is profoundly unsatisfying. Because we feel our morality with such intensity, we are prone to project it out into the world so that we may nurture the conceit that certain actions are evil in themselves, whether or not we or others believe them to be so. Religion is a virtually universal human phenomenon. I take from this fact not that any religion is true in any literal sense, but that our predisposition to believe something must be rooted in more or less intractable psychological phenomena which may provide insight with regard to the ways in which we make sense of the world and especially how we are to handle those facts of life, having to do largely with morality, that fall outside the preview of science.

At the risk of presenting babble......
Basic survival? Making sense of things = being able to predict = being able to kill or gather food or not be killed for food; and being able to deal with nature. Is there a point where thinking, for basic physical survival, changes mode and whatever is conceived of as the thinker -at that point, no longer a physical being, but a mind-object or spiritual being (as people like to think of it), now has IT's survival to consider. How IT is to survive depends on psychological/social predictions. On a personal level IT does not know that IT is a mind object and tries to figure out who or what made it and what ITs creator expects. If IT can do that IT can survive - or so it thinks.