CoS Does NOT follow its own Disconnection Policy!

[Cat's Squirrel]

now that there is some fancy syllogism!

....tries to figure this out....

P1. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

P2. Love is the Law.

So the conclusion should be;

C. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of Love.

which is different from saying that Love should be under Will, because if it was, "do what thou wilt" would be under Will as well, which doesn't make sense. So I don't think it is a syllogism.

 

[JustSheila]

Yeh, Cat, the Do As Thou Wilt as senior to love has the person defining love as what he/she wills.

That's not love. Love isn't selfish or self-serving, and the Do As Thou Wilt can get pretty nasty in love relationships that way.

 

[SPsince83]

now that there is some fancy syllogism!

I know you know that is the law of Thelema, right?

 

[Maria Cuervo]

I know you know that is the law of Thelema, right?

I guess I do now. I find it wrong. Love is not under will.

 

[SPsince83]

I guess I do now. I find it wrong. Love is not under will.

I was being a smartass. Pure Crowley. Seemed fitting given the "source" of these discussions in the first place

 

[Northern Shewolf]

Maria, I think you've missed my point altogether.

Maria is a believer, so...she will espouse the christian ideal: do unto other what you would have done unto you - Love thy neighbour - Just these 2 sentences are enough to live a good righteous life.
Shewolf.

 

[MrNobody]

Yeh, Cat, the Do As Thou Wilt as senior to love has the person defining love as what he/she wills.

That's not love. Love isn't selfish or self-serving, and the Do As Thou Wilt can get pretty nasty in love relationships that way.

I believe I understand what you mean, but... if you help an otherwise obviously helpless person or animal, why do you do it? And, if you can come up with any reason, what was it? I ask because... well, here's the story:

One night, while I was driving home, I saw a crashed motorbike driver. I turned on the warning signals, secured the environment and then started to apply 1st aid. Fortunately, the people in the 1st car that stopped because of my warning signal, had a cell phone and called the emergency rescue team immediately. Later, I even helped the ER team to find the arm that guy had lost in his crash.

3 days later, I visited the hospital to see whether that guy had survived and if so, how he was doing. When I heard that that guy had died the night before, I felt kinda disappointed, because all my help had been fruitless. Was that selfish?

Yeah, it probably was. I could have just left him in the bushes he had ended up in and where he would have died a few hour later anyway - but, being the selfish guy that I am, I had to give him 2 1/2 days more or suffering. Just because I wanted to have the feel-good feeling of having helped someone. Right?

EDIT:

Ugh, I must have replied to the wrong one of Sheila's posts but it was one of her posts I meant. Apologies for being too tired to go and find it now.

 

[Hypatia]

I'd heard of a version that went "do as thou wilt an' it hurt no one".

That's better but it still isn't love.

 

[Cat's Squirrel]

I believe I understand what you mean, but... if you help an otherwise obviously helpless person or animal, why do you do it? And, if you can come up with any reason, what was it? I ask because... well, here's the story:

One night, while I was driving home, I saw a crashed motorbike driver. I turned on the warning signals, secured the environment and then started to apply 1st aid. Fortunately, the people in the 1st car that stopped because of my warning signal, had a cell phone and called the emergency rescue team immediately. Later, I even helped the ER team to find the arm that guy had lost in his crash.

3 days later, I visited the hospital to see whether that guy had survived and if so, how he was doing. When I heard that that guy had died the night before, I felt kinda disappointed, because all my help had been fruitless. Was that selfish?

Yeah, it probably was. I could have just left him in the bushes he had ended up in and where he would have died a few hour later anyway - but, being the selfish guy that I am, I had to give him 2 1/2 days more or suffering. Just because I wanted to have the feel-good feeling of having helped someone. Right?

EDIT:

Ugh, I must have replied to the wrong one of Sheila's posts but it was one of her posts I meant. Apologies for being too tired to go and find it now.

Very sad story. You have a good point about a person's motives for doing apparently altruistic things sometimes being unclear or compromised by wanting to feel like a "good guy", but in this case I think you did the right thing. If you'd just left him in the bushes where he was (and everyone else had done the same) he would certainly have died, most likely from loss of blood and in great discomfort. At least with being rescued he had a chance of surviving, and when he did die he would have been in hospital and as comfortable as they could make him rather than being out in the open with no pain relief etc.

 

[Hypatia]

Very sad story. You have a good point about people's motives for doing apparently altruistic things sometimes being unclear or compromised, but in this case I think you did the right thing. If you'd just left him in the bushes where he was (and everyone else had done the same) he would certainly have died, most likely from loss of blood and in great discomfort. At least with being rescued he had a chance of surviving, and when he did die he would have been in hospital and as comfortable as they could make him rather than being out in the open with no pain relief etc.

Plus, it sounds like Mr. N's help gave the person a little bit more time to live. Maybe that affected that person or his family.

 

[SPsince83]

I'd heard of a version that went "do as thou wilt an' it hurt no one".

That's better but it still isn't love.

What I wrote was the Law of Thelema. It is the basis for OTO and by extension COS. It can be found in The Book of The Law by Aleister Crowley.

The tongue in cheek part was reference to Paul stating there is no law other than love. No law means do what thou wilt is fine. Or not. Whatever. And love, being difficult to define precisely, has been interpreted in many many ways by many many people. It all resides in the mists of grand thought surrounding questions of origin and existence. People have been arguing them since pre-history and we are no closer than ever to agreement of the whichness of the why. Maria sees theology and philosophy, I see physics and biology, and who is to say who is right? Maybe both of us, maybe neither.

Pythagoras noted about Pi's inability to close a circle that was already closed that the missing factor existed in all things that have frequency and wave length. The musical overtone series, for example, gets more out of tune the higher you go, but within the key and in any select octave it will be in tune with itself, as the error is too small to notice. If you have ever seen a triple rainbow, you will see each spectrum invert and be weaker progressively. It's been called Pythagoras' Comma. The fact that irrational and unreal numbers can be shown to have an actual effect in the material world can be hard to understand. The square root of negative one is IMPOSSIBLE yet it can rotate a point 90 degrees. And this is all shit that was known before quantum mechanics and particle physics turned it all inside out. Newtonian physics still works in the workaday world, but Einstein exposed the underlying factors. Maps work even though there are no true Euclidean spaces. And so on.

The upshot of it is I was just pulling Maria's leg. She's smart and fun and gets jokes and shit.

 

[Hypatia]

SPsince83, I enjoy your posts and Maria's, too.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

What I wrote was the Law of Thelema. It is the basis for OTO and by extension COS. It can be found in The Book of The Law by Aleister Crowley.

The tongue in cheek part was reference to Paul stating there is no law other than love. No law means do what thou wilt is fine. Or not. Whatever. And love, being difficult to define precisely, has been interpreted in many many ways by many many people. It all resides in the mists of grand thought surrounding questions of origin and existence. People have been arguing them since pre-history and we are no closer than ever to agreement of the whichness of the why. Maria sees theology and philosophy, I see physics and biology, and who is to say who is right? Maybe both of us, maybe neither.

Pythagoras noted about Pi's inability to close a circle that was already closed that the missing factor existed in all things that have frequency and wave length. The musical overtone series, for example, gets more out of tune the higher you go, but within the key and in any select octave it will be in tune with itself, as the error is too small to notice. If you have ever seen a triple rainbow, you will see each spectrum invert and be weaker progressively. It's been called Pythagoras' Comma. The fact that irrational and unreal numbers can be shown to have an actual effect in the material world can be hard to understand. The square root of negative one is IMPOSSIBLE yet it can rotate a point 90 degrees. And this is all shit that was known before quantum mechanics and particle physics turned it all inside out. Newtonian physics still works in the workaday world, but Einstein exposed the underlying factors. Maps work even though there are no true Euclidean spaces. And so on.

The upshot of it is I was just pulling Maria's leg. She's smart and fun and gets jokes and shit.

Not to be a problem but it is hard for me to reconcile philosophy to theology. Even worse, not sure what my theology is exactly. Other than 'Christian'. The problem of texts, interpretation, variations.... I keep all that in suspense, as undecideable. I am sure traditional Christians would not be happy with me. I am barebones about it. I just can't tritely assert much beyond an untranslatable, unprovable faith in the beyond, thus my own problematic understanding. I am too painfully aware that poets dream impossible dreams..... Actually I am used to being scolded lol. I don't think specific rules apply to me other than Christ's exhortation to love. Philosophy is endlessly fun but it gets a bit agonistic and more about logic than love. Although I do love it.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Maria, you sure bring up some interesting perspectives. So very true!

It annoys the heck out of me that COS masks these interrogations as "church confessionals" and pretends there is anything in common with the Catholic Church about it, beyond the medieval torture during the Crusades when they were hunting witches and heretics.

But that wasn't New Testament, either, and Jesus' concept of confession was never about intimidation and torture.

One of my Jewish friends once told me, "I wish I were Catholic."

Puzzled, I asked him why he'd say such a thing.

He said, "Because in your religion, all you have to do is believe and you are forgiven. There is no judgement, no amends, no guilt. You say a few prayers as penance, turn to Jesus and you're forgiven. You believe, say you're sorry and it's over. What could be easier?"

It took literally years for me to reconcile that concept. Could someone do horrible things all their lives, then just before they die, ask to be forgiven and have a clean slate? Every Christian I asked said yes, but that made no sense to me.

Then it finally dawned on me one day how it all worked and what a gorgeous, singular concept for a religion.

It wasn't about saying the words. It was about having a true change of heart and humility, admitting one was flawed and accepting that there was a person or power far more good and perfect than one's self and desiring with all one's mind, heart and spirit to become better, more good, and to put the work and effort into it.

To the atheists - having a role model of integrity is a bit similar. Sociology studies say that the worst, most violent criminals do not answer to anyone for anything and consider themselves to singularly set their own rules and laws. They see themselves as above society and others, answerable to no one but themselves. These are the characteristics of a psychopath.

So if someone has a true change of heart in a true confession, the past is erased. It's gone. It's forgiven, they are not judged and they do not have to carry the guilt.

Christianity is truly a beautiful religion. How many of us have enough love in our hearts to heal another's heart and past?

Sure, there's a lot of controversy and discussion about how people should pay legally and make things up and what is right or wrong. But here I'm only talking about the spiritual aspect, and it's quite a beautiful, pure concept.

Scientology is nothing like that. As you pointed out, it's more of an exercise of of medieval Inquisition, torture, blackmail and corporate control.

Sorry for the delay in replying to your wonderful post.

I admit my interpretation is not Jewish so my view of the Old Testament is biased. According to my own reading and limited understanding, I understand from the Old Testament that God continually wanted his people to submit to him and obey. If only they did that His favors rained on them; He helped them and kept promises. But often they did not obey. Due to the fall, certain legal issues, causality, came into play, which the messiah would rectify. But even for the Christian the form remains the same as for the Jewish person - one submits to God and accepts him. In case of the Christian, accepting Christ. By submitting, the law that had been in place, causality itself!, is overturned. Thus now there is only divine love. Love is a power much different than causality (to which Adam and Eve were now subject and would thus die). Thus Christians say they are not of this world. The two worlds are metaphorized in the tree of life and the tree ok knowledge, each world subject to a different logic. So yes, if a person does what God had been asking ever since the fall, believe in me, then regardless of their life if the belief is truly sincere, the laws accruing due to the fall are obviated. That is it. Other Christians might disagree on these details a bit, and the Jewish version of the trees is radically different; and the purpose and meaning of the trees nothing like what I just described. This disjunction of explanations always makes me hesitant to be too assertive about the version. Each can read and interpret as they can. Whether or not one understands a theology perfectly is for me nor relevant since humans will always misinterpret. Love and forgiveness anyone can understand and no interpretation is needed, regardless of a person's logical belief. It is a good start for anyone to learn to be forgiving and to avoid keeping track of sins. It is a good friend and a gift who does not judge. Rare too.

You are so right about Scientology; they cannot forgive and can never trust and must always police. It is so ugly.

 

[Terril park]

Not to be a problem but it is hard for me to reconcile philosophy to theology. Even worse, not sure what my theology is exactly. Other than 'Christian'. The problem of texts, interpretation, variations.... I keep all that in suspense, as undecideable. I am sure traditional Christians would not be happy with me. I am barebones about it. I just can't tritely assert much beyond an untranslatable, unprovable faith in the beyond, thus my own problematic understanding. I am too painfully aware that poets dream impossible dreams..... Actually I am used to being scolded lol. I don't think specific rules apply to me other than Christ's exhortation to love. Philosophy is endlessly fun but it gets a bit agonistic and more about logic than love. Although I do love it.

Something that may help is a book " The Five Gospels." A group of biblical
scholars made a new translation of the bible and then approx 240 voted
on everything Jesus alledgedly said. They came up with 91 sayings they agreed he
actually said via fairly scientific means. Such that sayings that were around
before he was born were discounted, sayings that challenged current orthodoxy
and were iconoclastic were favoured.

"Jesus' sayings and parables cut against the social and religious grain. "
[from the book]

For example the good Samaritan helps one from a group he would be
expected to despise.

My father was one of the scholars. I may not claim to be a Christian
but I like his 91 sayings and am very Christian friendly.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Five-Gospels-Really-Authentic/dp/006063040X


PS the fifth gospel is the sayings gospel of St Thomas.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Something that may help is a book " The Five Gospels." A group of biblical
scholars made a new translation of the bible and then approx 240 voted
on everything Jesus alledgedly said. They came up with 91 sayings they agreed he
actually said via fairly scientific means. Such that sayings that were around
before he was born were discounted, sayings that challenged current orthodoxy
and were iconoclastic were favoured.

"Jesus' sayings and parables cut against the social and religious grain. "
[from the book]

For example the good Samaritan helps one from a group he would be
expected to despise.

My father was one of the scholars. I may not claim to be a Christian
but I like his 91 sayings and am very Christian friendly.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Five-Gospels-Really-Authentic/dp/006063040X


PS the fifth gospel is the sayings gospel of St Thomas.

Thank you for this Terril, it looks good!

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Moved here:
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...-Apollo-1973&p=1033297&viewfull=1#post1033297

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Hypatia, I was posting it to Apollo and posted here in error. So sorry. At the moved link we were talking about the theory of relativity.....

 

[SPsince83]

Not to be a problem but it is hard for me to reconcile philosophy to theology. Even worse, not sure what my theology is exactly. Other than 'Christian'. The problem of texts, interpretation, variations.... I keep all that in suspense, as undecideable. I am sure traditional Christians would not be happy with me. I am barebones about it. I just can't tritely assert much beyond an untranslatable, unprovable faith in the beyond, thus my own problematic understanding. I am too painfully aware that poets dream impossible dreams..... Actually I am used to being scolded lol. I don't think specific rules apply to me other than Christ's exhortation to love. Philosophy is endlessly fun but it gets a bit agonistic and more about logic than love. Although I do love it.

The closest I seem to be able to get to any traditional religious concepts is some mix of Tao, Zen and the Gnosis. I examined a lot of these concepts for the first 10 years or so that I was out plus readings of the bible, and assorted random wanderings. Once I finally shed myself of belief in the imperceptible I started simply existing. All there is is here and now. Books and Geology and Biology and Physics point to the past and confirm its probable existence. When convergent lines of inquiry point to the same result, reasonable belief can ensue. I can, for example use conversations here to help eliminate solipsism. Even in the relatively small sample set that is the regular visitors here have divergent views and their data can be confirmed or falsified, they post huge varieties of music, live in different places ad have many stories to tell. I'd have to be one clever bastard to figure all that shit out myself AND create a world of avatars and it all gets so tiring thinking about these questions.

Love is a tough one. I certainly care about my friends and family. I care about the universe in general. I love all the new discoveries happening in particle physics, evolutionary biology and cosmology even though my math is waaaaaaaaayyyy out of practice for detailed study. Love Christ? Well...........without the fall, there is no need for redemption. If Genesis doesn't count, being old testament and all, then there is no original sin and no need for a messiah. If genesis DOES count, then I don't accept the negation of any part of the old testament. Either it is ALL the Holy Bible or it isn't. There are as many views of christianity as there are christians it seems. Anyone can call himself one regardless of what one believes. Leaves me cold to the entire mess. I don't come by this view lightly. I studied the bible with some vigor in my youth as a methodist. Sang the songs, lit the candles and all. Pretty high-falutin' First Methodists, closer to Anglican than the United Methodists.

All the metaphysics just leads me in circles. That may be my failing. But I've looked into it enough that I know I'll never know one way or another. How it all came to be, I'll never know. Never met anyone who did. Met lots who ASSERTED how it was but no evidence. Ever. From anyone. So I remain unconvinced of anyone's claim. Many things that were once thought to be created by one god or another have been shown to have natural causes. I won't list it all here. Some things are still unexplained. That does not mean they won't be. We humans are a curious bunch.

I like what you have to say whether I agree with it all or not. We have agreed on many points. Music, art and literature are common grounds. Disagreement over things people have disagreed with each other over for millennia goes nowhere. I refuse to get into any pitched arguments on this board. I got into two light ones my first day and none since. People here have had enough shit from COS that they don't need any more from me. I mostly confine myself now to humorous (to me at least) little observations. Sometimes they fall flat, sometimes cuz they suck or sometimes the listener doesn't have the background to understand. But if I count the lulz and likes vs the frowns and wtfs I come out pretty positive on the side of the lulz which rhymes with love which ends with and e which rhymes with p which stands for pool. And as we all know that means trouble in River City.

There's lots to be said about minds and awareness and memory and creation and time and all that jazz. Show me a mind not connected to a brain that I can examine. An example of nothing. Until these things can be shown, they are simply not known. So I'll take a sunset. Or a pretty woman. Or a beautiful tune. Very old tequila. Very fresh cannabis. A baseball game. You guys. And be content with it.