|
The BIG questions; what's with all these semicolons anyway?! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heh, here we go again. So I'm in spirituality(at least it's inspiring me to write this), and we're watching Joan of Arcadia. I'm happy because it means we just have to sit there and do nothing for an entire class, and I'll take anything I can get. While watching the episode, we came upon a certain scene in which Joan's mom crosses paths with a priest raising money and decides to randomly ask him why God would make us suffer. I personally wanted to punch her in the face right then and there. Of course it would be context though, so don't get all fired up about it. Anyway, since he didn't have a word to say about it other than that he'd "pray" for her(a subject I should address soon as well), I figure I'll take the load off of him and do my own thing here to answer her. From here on in we're switching to the smart person talk, so get your thinking caps on. Ready?
Let's lay down the ground rules. The woman's question boils down to this: if God loves us than why would He allow us to suffer? For my definition of suffering, I'll be using the terms pleasure and pain, pleasure being that which we would rather experience, pain being the opposite. Also, one may infer from the idea that God loves us that He would rather we be happy and pleasurable. Therefore, we are left with a new question: if God would rather we find pleasure in life, than why does He allow us to feel pain, to experience that which we would rather not?
Good question. The answer I received in my Christian spirituality class last year was this. That suffering which humans cause is our own fault while that which is not of our doing is the result of a universe God created which is not "complete," thereby making it our job to rectify it and thereby exterminate pain. I, personally, am not content with this answer at all, considering it raises another, that of why God would create the universe in such a way, and to answer that along with any other additional inquiries would be a waste of time, and the result might still not be proof enough. Let's start over then.
In order to know of a thing, one must know not of it as well. In order to understand what white is, one must also understand what white is not, and that is black. Therefore, one must know of both one thing and its opposite in order to comprehend both. An A student would not fully realize how smart he or she is until being placed in a class with contemporaries belonging to a lesser intellectual standing. Such a student would not be able to appreciate or experience such an intelligence either until knowing of its opposite.
Another example would be that of a man who sees all of reality in the color green. He is not aware of any other color than green, for he only sees in that specific color. Because of this, he will not be able to comprehend the idea that what he sees is green, for if it were green, it could not be yellow, or blue, or red, and he knows nothing of these other colors. He would not be aware in the least that all he sees is green unless he were shown or at least told of the other colors of the spectrum. Therefore, he would never know that what he sees is green, nor know what green is.
The same applies to pleasure and pain. It's logically impossible to know of pleasure and not of pain since to know what pleasure is, one must know what pleasure is not, and therefore one must also know of pain. Nor may one experience such pleasure and thereby find fulfillment in it without the additional knowledge of pain.
Pain is also that which makes an experience pleasurable. A person is happy because he is not sad. A person is pleasured because he is not in pain. The opposite applies as well. The definition of pleasure is that which is not pain, and pain that which is not pleasure. The two interlock with one another in this manner.
Now we may return to the question. Why would God allow pain? Because without pain, humans may not comprehend or experience pleasure. Therefore, pleasure would not even exist if not for pain.
Of course as a sidenote, we as humans do in fact hold some power over our own feelings of pleasure and pain. While certain things come instinctively to us as belonging to one feeling or the other, we still may control to an extent how pleasurable or painful a situation may be. Of course we may not have full dominion over such feelings, but we may still stop them from dominating over us.
Perhaps, though, a lack of appreciation is what we face. People may ask the question addressed above when feeling pain while what they should be doing is appreciating what they already have in terms of pleasure. Are they simply asking too much? No one can determine that objectively, but it does give one food for thought when dealing with one's own feelings of pleasure and pain.
I find it difficult sometimes to not point a condescending finger at what I see as deplorable human weakness. Darn perspectivism.
 Rowan Raeneus · Fri Nov 11, 2005 @ 01:16am · 0 Comments |
|
|
|
|
Who the ******** cares! A prelude to Schopenhauer. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Got your attention didn't I! I hope, at least. To be honest, I've never been one to fancy the use of so called "vulgar" language, mostly since I never saw any use for it. Because of that, its gained a particularly special nature with me. In a lame man's terms, if I use it, it better be important. And sure, this seems like such a time.
So I'm wasting time in between picking up my next set of candies, and I need some time to kill. Gotta make it good, too. Maybe something that can actually relate to everyday life, for once. Ahh! Social status.
Now when I say that, I don't mean anything in particular. Though if I did, it would probably be the image society has of "YOU," the reader, and your subsequent standing in its ranking of popularity/nerdiness. So let's start from there.
To throw in an anecdote, while sitting in my spirituality class today and waiting for death to finally come and nab me from that hell hole, I heard a peculiarly unusual prayer read by our sub. The teacher's been out for about the past month for surgery, along with another month more (booyah!). I'll try to sum it up here.
"Dear God, sometimes the worry of what other people think of me becomes too overwhelming. I can't stand thinking of the other kids laughing at me or me sitting alone at lunch. I'm afraid that I'm not popular enough. Please give me strength because I'm a total freaking loser with no self esteem."
I added that last part in for effect. Didn't see it coming, right?
Ehem, well, anyway, getting back to it. I, personally, thought that prayer was one of the biggest loads of, err, bull feces, that I've heard in that class, and oh man have I heard it all. Here's where it gets almost kind of intellectual though.
Been reading up on Schopenhauer, as my quaint title alludes to. Actually, I've only scratched the surface of what is his about 700 page compilation of essays, but I'm working on it. Anyway, he sees three things that determine a person's happiness: one's view of oneself and what one possess inside, then the things one possesses outside, then one's standing with other people. Of the three, he believes the first to be the most important, that your happiness best depends on how you view your own self along with your health and such. The other two pale in comparison to this first one.
The idea I'm getting to from here is this: if you want to be happy, then be happy. You're the only one who can make yourself be happy or not. The opinions and views of others exist only indirectly when pertaining to your particular consciousness, meaning they exist separate from you and therefore have no actual bearing upon you. That is, unless you allow them to. Then you are only changing your own view because of those of others. The only actual opinion of you that matters is your own, considering its the only one that will directly affect your happiness. On top of that, you have control over such an opinion, at least if you are a healthy, normal person.
Now lets get a bit more realistic again. All right, so the opinions of you of other's don't mean crap in comparison to your own. Now what? Well, this idea certainly doesn't mean you shouldn't listen to what anyone else thinks about you. It simply means that your happiness should not depend on them. There is one factor, though, I should bring up here. Your own friends, that is, if you have any, whoever you are out there in internet land.
I'm not sure how many of us have the confidence required to deflect any barrage of criticism alone. Support always helps. That's why the reassurance that friends create, that no matter how many people laugh at you elsewhere, your real friends will still stick by you, is so necessary. I personally love doing crazy crap that other people may find weird and unwarranted but that my friends think is funny. As long as they're still there for me, I couldn't care less about anyone else.
There you have it, folks. Get friends. Get indifferent. Get happy. It's as simple as that.
Rowan Raeneus · Wed Nov 02, 2005 @ 10:15pm · 0 Comments |
|
|
|
|
Time to Relax; What the hell was I thinking! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, now that I finally look back on some of this stuff, I'm starting to wonder if I was on something at the time I wrote all that crap, then again I know I wasn't, and that makes it all the worse. Sure, some of the stuff I get a kick out of, like that Satanism thing. I thought that was pretty good. And the 2nd entry was kinda fun too. But some a the rest is just bleh, so let's just move on from that. For now, I think I'll spin a little yarn of my own on God and what I think about him, or her, or it, what have you.
To start off with, I'd like to state that I do believe in God, or rather in some sort of eternal being who, out of boredom, created the universe in all its boggling glory. Up until now I actually had no idea why this guy, and I only use the masculine here because we're all so familar with it to begin with, not because I believe God to be a dude, would have done that though. Why go through the trouble, though I doubt it was any trouble at all for him, to make all of this? The only reason I've been told so far is just 'cause he loves us so much. Well, why's he do that then? Just an OK guy, is that it? I don't really think so. I need something more than just love to answer my question. Here enters a book I've been reading up on at the library during my oh so many breaks, well, when I'm not studying up on Jon Stewart's America The Book, that is.
S'called Conversations with God, though I can't remember the author at this point. Now, if you're thinking, what the hell? Talking with God? What's this guy on? But for the purposes of this little discussion, the actual truthfulness concerning whether the author is really having a convo with the big guy is irrelevant. I'm only taking some of the material that he discussed in the book. And that is his reason for God's creation of all of us. What the book claims is that true knowledge may only be achieved through experience. I'll take a little parable from it. So there's this little candle in heaven where everything's all bright. He's never known of anything except light, and so he cannot fully understand himself or be happy. So he asks God about it, and God sends him off to another place where no light exists, but instead there is only darkness. After being transported there, the candle finally understands the light he shows because now he knows of darkness as well. You cannot know of one without knowing the other as well. You cannot understandably say someone is tall without knowing what it means to be short as well.
Now, let's apply this thought to God. Before any of this existed, only God did, and so God couldn't fully understand himself because he was the only thing he knew of. There was nothing else around opposite of him that he could look at and say, hey, I'm different from that, and thereby know truly of himself and be happy. So to accomplish this, he went and created everything around so that he could understand both it and himself, and so that we could do the same. Now this might seem a little hard to understand, and I'm not pretty sure if its infalible logically or anything like that, but I haven't address this subject much before, nor have I read all of the book or any of the others that have been written. So this will have to suffice for now.
OK! So now we've got a God and we've got a universe with people and plants and animals and everything a little boy could want. But what about the stuff that isn't of this realm? The afterlife and such? Well here's when I have a few problems with my home religion of Roman Catholocism. According to it, along with the rest of Christianity, you do good deeds and such, you get a ticket to heaven. Boom, that easy. Then again, might not be. According to some, you've got a buncha technicalities in there, like baptism and that the only way to heaven is through Jesus and giving oneself to Him. Now this all seems a little unrealistic to me, not to mention unfair and just plain stupid? Say I'm born in Africa and never once hear a word about Jesus or anything about Christianity, but I still lead a good, clean life according to the religion's standards. Now, just because of the circumstances surrounding my life, I'm not going to get my reward in heaven? I don't think so. And that's assuming that the Christian life is the way to live. Let's get to that!
OK, so if we go along with Christianity for now, not only do we have a God and a people, but we've got rules too. They're simply enough. You follow 'em, you're good to go, you don't, you burn. But let's think about this. If God wanted us to follow a set of rules He made up, why doesn't he just make us? I was under the impression that He gave us free will, so that we get to choose what the hell we want to do. So he's gonna go and let us have a choice only to then tell us we better chose only the things He wants us to? Seems unneccesary and dumb to me. If this were the way things go, wouldn't that mean God's pretty much just testing us like school children? Sure, we can make the argument that we should follow His rules because its for our own good here on earth. True. Well, for some part. Killing and stealing and such doesn't really do much good for a society. But as for the more particular rules, let's say homosexuality, or sex outside of marriage, they're not that bad, are they? They surely can't be detrimental to our race. So it all doesn't check out exactly that way. But what if we tried something else instead?
What if there were no rules, if we had free will and were encouraged to make our own choices and make our own rules? We've all heard the expression that we shoudn't judge others 'til we judged ourselves. Well shouldn't we be the only ones who can judge ourselves? Not someone else instead? Then we should be able to decide our own fate, just as we make our own choices each day of our lives. The point of creating us was for God to know himself, so then shouldn't the points of our lives be for us to know ourselves? And the only way we can do that is through experience, the experience of making choices. Maybe that's all God wants from us, for us to get to know ourselves.
If that were true, we wouldn't need a hell, and as for anyone who still did fail somehow, all wouldn't be lost. Shouldn't the last thing God want to do is get rid of us because he didn't like what we made ourselves into? But then he shouldn't have let us choose if he wouldn't like it afterwards anyway. What he would want is for all of us to be happy like him in that we know who we truly are. One may feel sad and abandoned because of the state of his or her life, but its the only way to true knowledge and happiness. Just as well, people may enjoy life as much as they want to, they only have to decide whether or not they will. It's all up to them. And that makes life great.
Rowan Raeneus · Sun Sep 04, 2005 @ 09:42pm · 0 Comments |
|
|
|
|
The strength of weakness. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
While reading up on some teachings written by Confucious, I came upon a certain phrase that jumped out at me for a moment. It simply stated that it was the duty of the strong to protect the weak. Discarding the fact that the line had been part of Confucious's description of an able ruler and leaving it on its own, we have quite a powerful proclamation. The second I read it, I couldn't help but to remember another quote I heard short time ago, the antithesis to the one found above. In a quite obvious opposition to that of Confucious, it instead claimed that the strong deserve to live, while the weak deserve to die. Of course I'm paraphrasing, so it could also be taken to mean that it is the duty of the strong to do away with the weak. A scary thought indeed, not to mention an illogical one.
But before we head any further, a few constants need to be set to avoid any confusion. Strength will be taken to mean the ability to perform an act, while weakness will be taken to mean the opposite, the inability to perform an act. Next, it may safely be assumed that no member of humankind is perfect. Every man and woman has his or her strengths and weaknesses, for there is always another person who may perform some action better than we may. To take the latter quote fundamentally then, it would mean that every single human deserves nothing less than death. This would presume that the quote is speaking in a general fashion, while should not regularly be the case, but the above thoughts should still be taken into account nonetheless before heading into more specific circumstances. Since I doubt that anyone would truly believe, with a right mind, that every human should be killed for being imperfect, it's fairly safe to say this quote holds no validity in a general sense. Then again, it's doubtful that it was ever meant in such a way. So then we must take a much narrower approach to the situation.
When referring to the version of the quote which commanded the strong should do away with the weak, an appropriate situation to take would be one in which we have two men, one a strong warrior, the other a weak peasant. Since the quote tells the strong to kill the weak, we may infer from this that it praises ableness in the ways of warfare and survival. Then if we were to follow the saying's message, the warrior should kill the peasant because of his obvious weakness. In this way, the mere possession of a strength, this one being the ability to do battle, justifies making use of such an advantage in order to opress those who are lesser in such a way. But there is an inherent anomaly to this position. If everyone were to belong to varying degrees of strength in this one instance of fighting ability, then there must be one person at the top of the list who is, of course, the best. In comparison with this single person, everyone else would then be weak, and deserving of death. This result is not much different than the one found in the previous instance, though one single person is left behind. This same principle applies to any and every situation one may create involving some type of strength. There will always be one person who has grown the furthest adept and should therefore strike down all those below him, according to what the quote proclaims.
On another note, according to the logic, or the lack thereof, belonging to this quote, the act of murder is obviously justified by the ableness of one to murder another. By this claim, any act within the capabilities of man is justifiable, and therefore morally correct. Such a view is a mockery of any ethics established in the entire past of human civilization. Morality is, by definition, a path we take in order to decide upon what actions are right and what are wrong. To say that any action we may accomplish, or simply any action period, is all right, there no longer is any need for morals whatsoever. How would anyone enjoy living in a world where morality has been abolished in its entirety? Even one who is evil has a morality, and still believes one action right and another wrong, regardless of whether we may see their choices as, in fact, right or wrong. To deprive humanity of this choice, the one between right and wrong, practically demolishes that part of free will which concerns such decision making. Suddenly, our actions hold no moral consequence whatsoever, so who cares, do whatever the hell you want.
But of course, since all of us have our strengths and our weaknesses, we're all pretty much in the same ball park concerning our abilities, if in fact they are equally distributed among the human race. Still, even without this generalization, I believe its fairly safe to say that everyone has something he or she is good at, thereby achieving strength. Despite the variations, usefullness, and consequences of these different strengths, we still all possess them in some form, and we still all do have some contribution we may make to our species through our abilities that another could possibly not have been able to make. In that manner, we are all of equal worth.
Rowan Raeneus · Tue May 17, 2005 @ 02:22am · 2 Comments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Today's treatise will be relatively short and to the point. Some time back I read of a certain person's views on the soul. She stated that reincarnation is the most logical answer to the problem of the afterlife because of the law of conservation of matter, this being that matter may not be neither created nor destroyed. Instead, it simply exists and the amount which does so cannot be altered. With this in mind, she must have thought that if the soul cannot be created or destroyed, it must be reincarnated. Unfortunately, if the conservation of matter did apply to this certain situation, it is not enough proof to validate reincarnation.
First of all, according to the big bang theory, the entire amount of matter which exists in the universe as a whole originated from a singularity of infinite density. It was from this point, as the theory goes, that the universe began to grow after the explosion. Now if the soul were to be restricted by the same conservation laws as matter, then there would have had to have been some kind of spiritual big bang or something of the like. In this way, every soul would have been already in existence at the beginning of time and the universe as we know it. The problem is in the correspondence between the spiritual and physical worlds. Unless the soul is to be split into pieces for different people, than there must be enough souls ready at this time for as many people that the universe may hold simultaneously, for each one would need a separate soul. No matter how many times the soul is reincarnated or any other details concerning the subject. There simply need to be at least one soul for every organism which exists simultaneously and merits the possession of a soul. Whether people and animals alike have souls is irrelevant at this time.
Now, there are either two possibilities. First, if the number of people who may inhabit the universe at one point in time is infinite, than the number of souls created must be infinite. If this be the case, than each and every person who ever existed could very well have his or her own soul and not share it with any other being who comes to being at a later time. There is no need for reincarnation in this example, for there would not be a limited amount of souls to begin with, and another argument would be necessary in order to exhibit any logic in the concept of reincarnation. This might occur if the universe in which we live is an open one, although at some point in time at the far future life would become unable to continue. Still, the maximum density of life in this case would most likely be impossible to calculate, except perhaps by an all knowing diety, and if he or she can create that many souls, why not create an infinite number instead? The other possibility is that the amount of life that exists simultaneously is finite, as it probably is, so there would need to be a maximum number of beings that may exist. The number of souls in existence would then correspond equally to this number. Not only is this position quite abstract, but it appears much more logical to believe that the number of souls created would be infinite, for if the amount could correspond to this maximum density of life, then there is no reason it could not be any other number at all. Lastly, to have an infinite number of souls in existence still abides by the law of conservation, for no soul is created nor destroyed, but instead an infinite number simply exist.
There is one other segment to this argument against reincarnation to be mentioned. But first an example. Let us say that through some type of destructive force, all life in the universe is completely eradicated, leaving nothing left behind to begin new life with at all. This creates a problem for the concept of reincarnation, for every soul would return to the spiritual world, or the transition phase between physical bodies. Unfortunately, there would be no organisms in existence for the souls to further reside in, and their spiritual journey would be suddenly cut short and completely stopped. This situation does not become a problem in Judeo-Christian afterlife, in which the soul does not return to the physical world but instead remains forever in its determined afterlife. Because this judgement would be decided upon at death, the fact that no further physical life would come into existence does not matter in the least.
So in the end, people, if you're going to use scientific principles to argue religious or theological views, you should not only be prudent but reluctant as well, for the laws which guide our world do not necessarily guide its supposed spiritual counterpart at all.
Rowan Raeneus · Tue May 03, 2005 @ 01:15am · 0 Comments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Upon reading through a fairly concise list of concepts belonging to the so called religion of Satanism, I couldn't help but to notice one rather distinguishable policy. On a clear takeoff of the Golden Rule, I read that Satanists treat others as they are treated themselves. After twisting around just a few, small words, the universal principle of goodwill towards all men can simply be transformed into a standard by which revenge would clearly be well inside the lines of acceptable behavour, at least if you're lucky enough for someone else to 'wrong' you first. Let's take a little look at this diddy first.
Now we should all know the Golden Rule by heart, I would hope. It's the basis for several wordly religions, especially Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism, that all teach nonviolence. And, in my opinion, it's a rather nice and simple law to abide by. Treat others as you would like to be treated. Concise, straightforward, and overall nicely put. The majority of us, if not everyone, wishes to be treated fairly and in a good mannered way. Because we wish this condition for ourselves, it is only right to treat others in the same fashion that we wish to be treated. Otherwise you'd be left with simple, downright hypocrisy. One cannot wonder why he or she is being treated like dirt and not royalty when all one does is think of others in the same way as the former. If all of us obeyed this one rule, a peace that is as perfect as humankind may produce would reign. Take away every single moral rule in place while leaving this one behind, and the previous statement would still prove truthful.
On the other hand, the case is far different for our Satanist friends. Then again, I'm assuming what I read was true, so please forgive and correct me with you find my writing false. Anyway, here we have, instead, the rule that we should treat others the way they, at first, treat us. Just to begin with, if every single person simultaneously began abiding by this policy, we would not treat ourselves in any manner at all, according to the laws of logic. Because this rusted rule, as I'd like to call it, is based on acting passively, or only in response to others, one person would have to start off the chain by acting independently of this rule, meaning he or she would have to treat another in a fashion determined by his or her own wishes instead of by acting in compliance with the rule. This couldn't be done in the first place, since no one would have treated this first person in any way either since they would have never been treated by others any way to begin with also. Therefore, absolutely no one would be able to interact with anyone else. But of course I highly doubt we're all suddenly going to become Satanists. So let's just zero in on those who are for now.
So now that we've settled on the fact that not everyone can become a Satanist, since no one would be able to interact with others at all, let's decipher between two groups here, the Satanists and everyone else. First, to analyze the Satanists themselves, we must look to the previous paragraph one more time. Once again, in order for Satanists to interact with any other Satanists, they would have to break their own law since someone would have to begin the chain by treating another in some way based on their own personal reasons instead by following the rule. Now, when dealing with Satanists interacting with outsiders, those who do not belong to the religion would have to ultimately begin the chain by treating a Satanist in some manner which the Satanist would then emulate. If the outsider interacted first, once again, he or she and the Satanist would not be able to connect. We can infer from this that the Satanists ultimately rely on those outside their circle for the manner in which they will act, thereby acting in no actual, individual way themselves.
Now to finally tie into the title. Of course, if we are to treat others as they treat us, this obviously approves of revenge whenever applicable. Following along in the legacy of Hammurabi's Code, if we are wronged, we, in turn, wrong the second party in a manner equal to the wrong. We all know that this directly conflicts with most of the policies set up by the major religions, but let's delve deeper than just by stating that. The first Noble Truth belonging to Buddhism is that life is filled with suffering, or dukkha. The second claims that human desire is the cause of dukkha, while the third states that by eliminating dukkha, true enlightenment and happiness, may be achieved. Revenge is obviously a desire, a desire for one's predator to be punished for his or her wrongdoings. Buddhism teaches that all desires are pointless and may never be satisfied, but only repudiated. Under most circumstances revenge quite easily spawns anger, hatred, and malice, which we'll address more discretely in a short while. I believe it's not unimaginable to say that because humans are obviously imperfect, while this condition still applies to them, there will always be wrongs committed. Therefore, revenge will always take place, and unhappiness will proceed to spread throughout humanity.
Another argument against revenge is the destruction of order among humans that it causes. All of the negative emotions evoked by revenge, including antagonism, hatred, spite, and jealousy, strip away the happiness of any being who falls prey to them. Not only that, but one's relationships with others directly suffer and crumble from these new conditions. We all depend on others for things since we all possess separate talents and abilities. It is also in alignment with nature and the universe that we, as a species, work together and prosper. These emotions along with the pure concept of revenge destroys this order, replacing it with anarchic chaos. I don't know about everyone else, but I would much prefer goodwill towards all men than this poor excuse for a philosophy.
Rowan Raeneus · Thu Apr 07, 2005 @ 10:42pm · 0 Comments |
|
|
|
|
Heaven and Hell; a fork in the road |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Much has been discussed, proclaimed, and fathomed of our destination after death, but to almost no avail. Without any practical manner of experimenting in order to prove or disprove an afterlife, mankind has been left with nothing more than supposed signs from gods or philosophies it has formed itself. Most are familar with the Catholic perspective on the afterlife which holds quite possibly the most flamboyant history. Although hell is rarely discussed in the Bible itself, it has grown to become a prevalent topic of the religion, thanks mostly to the medieval priests and holymen who popularized the idea of a fiery punishment for any whom turn against God. They found that congregations were far more captivated my words of torn corpses and demonic spirits than of loving, caring, and of course, sharing. Dante's Inferno added a new dimension to the way people thought about hell by offering a much more visually juicy sight into the house of the devil. Along with these gruesome and disturbing visions of hell came further concepts relating to the sinners' abyss, including demons, excorsisms, and of course, the supposed king of evil himself, the devil. I, in turn, will attempt to decipher through all of these different images and ideas in order to analyze which apply to the rules of logic and which are nothing more than propaganda for the church.
First of all, pointing to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, God is the ultimate creator of anything and everything. He is the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end. Therefore, everything comes back to him. Now, if good and evil truly exist, then both would have to be traced back to God once again, along with everything else, thereby making God responsible for evil. But, this is not entirely accurate. If God certainly is a god of goodness, then he could never turn against his own laws on good and evil by doing evil. Instead, through giving mankind free will, He only creates the choice to do either good or evil, so that He only indirectly created evil. Look at it this way. A master gives a slave he owns the choice to either do his duties for the master or go off and disobey him instead, leading to punishment. If the slave does decide not to accept the job he is given and runs off to do as he pleases, thereby committing an act of evil, he shall suffer the consequences, but only because of the choice he made. The master is not responsible for the evil done by the slave, but rather, the slave is because it was he who made the choice to disobey. Therefore, by introducing free will to man, God is indirectly responsible for evil but does none Himself. I shall overlook the concept of original sin for now and move on to the next subject.
As stated above, God is the source of everything, including the supposed devil. As the story goes, the devil was, at one time, an angel who simply wanted to be as powerful as God. He then summoned up an army of angels, or as they would be later referred as demons, who did battle with the forces of God lead by Michael the Archangel. In the end, the soon to be devil, or Lucifer, was defeated and banished to rule the realm of hell for all eternity. Now this story offers quite a few disturbing details. First of all, heaven is, as Christians believe, a place of perfection where there is absolutely no pain. Let's leave the description of heaven to this, because any further elaboration would be presumptuous. If the devil and his army of angels really existed at heaven at one point, a very obvious contradiction is made. We see angels as otherwordly beings who serve God, but to say that they are driven by human emotions such as greed and ambition, that makes the scene quite bleak. How could these beings who dwell in a place of supposed perfection display not only imperfect but also detrimental emotions? Since I cannot answer this question logically, let us move on to the next stage, that of the devil becoming the owner of hell.
But before addressing hell, one point needs to be made. In order for there to be the possiblity of a good choice, there then must also be a bad one. Also, if there is a consequence for the good choice, there must be yet another for the bad one. Therefore, if there is to be a heaven for those who chose the good, there must be a hell for the others who refused to do so and who I will turn to now.
Hell, in essence, simply means the absence of God. By creating everything, God made it in his image and likeness. This is not to say that God looks like every single thing in existance meshed together, but only that He made it good, just like He is believed to be good. Since the definition of sin is turning away from God, it is only logical that those who turn away from God will have to suffer later by being separated completely and indefinately from Him. This is all we may say of hell, anything else is nothing more than the product of human assumptions and ideas of the ultimate place of evil. Any visual of hell, such as fire for instance, was simply picked to be somewhat of a mascot for the realm because of its utterly desctructive capabilities. But to say that hell truly is an abyss of fire is ludicrous. If, in fact, humans are not able to completely understand the concept of heaven as it is supposed to be, than they may not understand hell either. But curiousity, as it always does, kills the cat, and has lead many to ponder the details of such a place as hell. Ultimately, though, no one on earth may ever know to the truest extent what hell is.
Because hell is nothing more than the absence of God, there is no particular need for a ruler of its expanse, aka, the devil. Humans have simply grasped onto the concept of the battle between good and evil, between God and the devil. This point serves for no purpose other than to show that any thoughts one makes on the details of hell or the devil are practically useless in the eyes of logic.
What we are left with are the supposed actions of the devil in the lives of those dwelling on earth. It is thought that although the devil still wants to steal God's job, because of his inferiority, he may never be able to. And so, the devil reaches for a place a bit closer to hell than heaven, and that is earth. Instead of facing God directly, the devil is believed to meddle in His affairs here on earth. The Bible actually gives us an example of this in the book of Job. Job is a wealthy man who serves God well, and therefore becomes the target of the devil. As the story goes, the devil makes a bet with God that if he were to take everything away from Job, as long as he wouldn't kill him, that Job would turn away from God. After setting that one condition, that Job would keep his life, God accepted and the devil went to work. Now of course this story is oversimplified. I don't believe God would be going around making bets with the devil. The story only uses this concept to allow the devil to do his thing with Job. Ultimately, Job never turns away from God, but one problem I have with the story is that while losing everything he owns, Job also loses his entire family. In effect, God is allowing the devil to the take the lives of Job's family simply to prove the point that Job is a good man. That definately does not look good or just to me. Therefore, the story cannot be taken literally, but only figuratively. At its most simple form, all we have here is a little parable of a man who loses everything in the face of evil but still does not give in to the temptation set before him. It should not be taken as proof of the devil or of him meddling in the affairs of humans.
The concept of the devil tempting humans is thrown around quite a bit today by religious folk. Once again, this is a far too fundamental idea here. By giving mankind the possiblility of doing evil and making it seem pleasurable, such as stealing to make oneself richer, there is already a temptation present. In effect, the devil is unnecessary to further tempt us because the choice of evil is already quite appealing. One passage in the New Testament that says otherwise is the temptation in the desert, in which the devil meets with Jesus while he is fasting and offers a number of delectable things, such as all the kingdoms of the earth. If Jesus was fully human, as we have come to believe, there would have already been part of Him which knew this and was pushing Him to turn against God by appealing to the very regular human emotion of greed. There was no need for the devil to tempt Jesus, since his human side would have already been doing just that. Now, one might say that these human emotions which strive against God are, in fact, the devil. But this serves as another assumption. As humans, we all want good things. We are also born with no real, definitive concept of good and evil. If we do not develop a sufficient conscious in order to guide us on our ways, we might very well stray onto the path of evil as we believe it to be. When performing a wrong action, such ideas come into play as not realizing what we are doing, not understanding the consequences of such actions, not thinking of what result the action will have on others, or that we simply have the knowledge but refuse to recognize it. In this manner, evil, therefore, is the result of hasty action which is not thought out with 'good' knowledge beforehand, or it comes to be because there is no knowledge or wrong knowledge of good and evil to begin with, or the knowledge is merely ignored. To say, instead, that evil results from the intervention of the devil is merely an oversimplification of what evil truly is in the first place.
The concept of possession is a bit more sketchy on the other hand. To begin with, what we believe to be the act of a demon entering inside the mind of a human may very well simply be a mental illness belonging to the person. Along with the intervention of the devil, it may only be another oversimplification. But as it is believed that some people are visited by angels and other heavenly bodies, it would also have to be believed that others may be visited by demons. One piece to this puzzle which doesn't fit, though, is that of exorcism. In this ritual, a special priest or holyman who may perform such acts makes use of a range of holy symbols and words to expel a demon from the body of a human. It does make sense in a fairly dumb downed way that such actions would be found as repulsive to the demon and force him back to his hellish home. But if this does, in fact, occur, then should not the exact opposite take place as well? All humans are believed to possess souls which were, as everything else is, created by God and sent into their bodies at birth so that they may return to heaven at death. Now for a demon to be present inside a person, it may not be a physical manifestion of the fiend, only spiritual, synonymous with our souls. If the demon's soul may be driven out or at least attacked in some way by using holy objects, than the opposite should be true for humans. By using unholy symbols, ones blessed instead by the devil, and supposed devilish language, shouldn't the soul of a human be aroused then? Unfortunately, this argument is not entirely just, for another set of details must be taken into account. Specifically, we have not taken account that the human soul if the rightful inhabitant of the body while the demon is an invader. This or other fallacies may serve as the answer to this question. But then again, by also taking into account what was stated far above, the manner in which these demons came to be is, in simple terms, false. Therefore, we may not so easily assume their existance and meddlesome ways in the affairs of humans.
Each and every one of these concepts points to one, universal thought, that we have no significant knowledge of heaven or hell. Any ideas on the subject are thereby turned into mere assumptions which do hardly any good. The afterlife is a much more ambiguous subject than mankind once believed it to be.
P.S. Anytime when good and evil is mentioned in the essay, it is implied that the two align themselves with the teachings of Christianity. Therefore, when something is stated to be good above, it is only done so because the religion believes it to be. This is done for simplification purposes.
Rowan Raeneus · Mon Mar 28, 2005 @ 05:05pm · 0 Comments |
|
|
|
|
A short, chessic intermission. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
At this moment, since there is nothing quite relevant to discuss, I thought I'd take it upon myself to examine the basic philosophy and morality behind the game of chess. Since taking it up a short time ago, I pondered the very meaning of the game, possibly to understand it to a greater extent, or instead simply to hold a greater appreciation for its universal appeal.
In essence, chess is a battle held between two opposing forces. These forces could quite possibly exemplify any groups, views, thoughts, etc., as long as they are polar opposites. This concept is demonstrated by the two colors belonging to the sets of pieces, in most instances, black and white. Now, one could infer from this that chess contains within itself a clash betwene good and evil, but this is a hasty, presumptious thought. The two sides that do battle with each other could uphold any and all characters, such as beauty, knowledge, justice, etc. The clashing color scheme merely is a visual reminder of the opposing nature of each side.
One might suggest chess, although strategic and thought provoking, to be a barbaric game on the basis that it is a reinactment of war, and that it trivializes such a controversial subject as the one of human life being thwarted at the hands of its own species. That the game exemplifies a battle or war between two forces cannot be denied, but that it is barbaric is another thought in and of itself. First of all, as we all know, chess is restrained by a clear cut set of rules by which each player must strictly follow. These laws do not allow any and all unjust actions to be taken are a clear example of the game's morality. Despite being a war game, it adds a number of rules to this war, so that while blood is shed, it is not done so vilely or in an inhumane manner. Secondly, the goal of chess is not to wipe out the opposing general's forces in their entirety. To be honest, a game of chess may be won without one single piece being taken off the board. The actual objective is to trap the opposing side's leader, the king, so that he is immobolized. This law of war goes far back into medieval times when a general's army was defeated, his enemies would carry him off not as a prisoner, but instead almost as a friend despite their earlier malice. This concept adds a new dimension to chess, stating that a war can, in fact, be won peacefully and without any loss of human life. Not only that, but only as much blood should as bled as needed for the war to be won without any excess loss. Now chess becomes a just battle instead of a barbaric bloodfest.
In chess, as in life, every piece plays its part. If the pawns, the most insignificant and overlooked pieces of the game, are not taken advantage of and extended forward, hardly any other pieces may be advanced as well. One may now see the pawns as an obstacle obstructing the stronger, more important pieces from doing away with the enemy. But the mere fact that a pawn may be promoted to any other piece, even a queen, after reaching the opposite side, clearly shows that the pawn holds in itself a restrained power equal or greater than that of any other piece on the board. This concept also may give hope to the hopeless, exhibiting the idea that even the lowliest of peons may grow to become the highest of kings.
The one other piece which holds a strong allegorical meaning, as I see it, is the queen. Unlike past monarchies in which men have ruled without any woman beside them, chess turns this sexist approach in the opposite direction by making the queen the most powerful piece in the game, although still not the most substantial, since only success may come by trapping the king. Still, the fact that the queen may move in any direction and holds the greatest offensive power of any piece is enough to justify its importance. Most often, the loss of a queen will spell immediate death for any player. To place the queen at the side of her pardner, the king, shows how the two work together and hold an equal bearing in the oncoming war.
There are a number of other philosophical viewpoints to touch upon, especially that of the act of forfeiting and drawing, but I'll save those for another day. For now, I plan on proceeding in my study of chess, both in its strategies and its lessons. And for all those of you out there who play that utterly stupid and unnecessary three-move fool's mate, you need to get a chessic life.
Rowan Raeneus · Thu Mar 24, 2005 @ 01:17am · 0 Comments |
|
|
|
|
A conversation gone sour; "What's up?" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recently, I engaged in a friendly little conversation with an acquaintance of mine, beginning with the always preferable term, "what's up?" He then proceeded to establish the concept that nothing which is up matters, since it will always eventually come down, align with the statement, "What goes up must come down." My conversational pardner claimed that because all things which are brought up will come down, thereby all suffering the same exact fate, none of them, therefore, matter in any respect. Lastly, he painted the picture that if everyone were to be granted passage into heaven no matter what their deeds prior to death, than life on earth would not matter in the slightest. I objected on the following premises.
Now, before I begin, I'd like to establish another example of my comrade's view which I enjoy a slight bit more. It is of death. One may say that life holds no meaning because it will always end in death, no matter what. Humans have objected to this case by believing in life after death which directly depends on the actions taken throughout life, therefore giving supposed meaning to life. But if we were to establish that all life ends with death, then life would hold no meaning.
Firstly, if something comes up, and ultimately comes down at some point, that does not mean it may not be brought back up again. Although it perishes at the moment it comes down, it may be revived at a later time. This concept complies with that of reincarnation, that the supposed soul of a human departs from the body at death and then is sent back into another organism depending on one's karma. But, although the body, the physical manifestation, dies, the soul still lives on because of its immortality. I like the example of a ball being bounced when explaining this view. A ball may be thrown into the air, be given life, but then will return to the earth, die. However, while the ball is brought back down or 'perishes', the ball itself continues existing once it has come back, and may be thrown upwards again. Therefore, the ball is immortal in this sense. The same goes for the soul.
Now, this concept must be applied to the thing mentioned a little ways back. This thing, while being given life and then stripped of it, must exist at all times in another manner, much like the soul. This thing of which we speak may, in fact, be anything, a thought, experience, or memory. In order to establish this next view, we must first take up another. This entire argument would be entirely futile if the world were like that which was mentioned in the second paragraph, that death is the end of all life. Not only must this be observed, but also another, that of knowledge. Now, the form this knowledge takes may be thought of as irrelevant in our case. The ultimate knowledge, that of everything and anything, may come in the form of God, because it is thought by those who believe in Him that He holds complete and utter knowledge; it may also be found in the soul, as Socrates believed; or knowledge may simply be summed up in the very 'type' of knowledge, also established by Socrates. Regardless of which position taken, each contains the idea that there exists some time of being or type which holds all knowledge. Therefore, this knowledge must include that of the thing I wrote of before, the thought, memory, etc. Lastly, because this holder of knowledge must be immortal, as God, the soul, and the type are believed to be, the thing which is brought up and comes down would then exist at all times, regardless of whether or not it comes up and down. This immortality may, once again, be thought of as anonymous with that of the soul.
Although I have already established the immortality of the thing, my friend may still object to the idea behind my view, saying, perhaps, that the physical manifestation of these things, such as thoughts, still all do perish, and therefore do not matter. That even though the soul of the thing is immortal, the body is not. But if we take into account the idea of an afterlife, this view is immediately disproved. Yes, the thing spoken of matters not in itself, since it will die and will take along nothing from its previous experiences in preparation for the next time it will be called upon. The thing will, ultimately, remain the same. But although it does not directly matter, it still may indirectly matter. First, we must once again establish another idea first before proceeding, and that is of not only an afterlife but some type of judgement upon the time of our deaths. This thought is alike those of both reincarnation, in which karma decides one's next life or if one has reached nirvana, and of heaven and hell. This afterlife, as we said before, brings meaning to a person's life because one's physical actions will determine one's spiritual fate. Getting back to the thing, although it has no heaven to strive for, it may help or hurt us in our journey. This thing indirectly has the ability to affect our physical actions, thereby affecting our spiritual fate as well. While this thing holds no meaning only in itself, it brings meaning to others as well as itself by doing so. The same goes for humans as well, who may indirectly affects other as well, but may also directly affect themselves.
Rowan Raeneus · Tue Mar 22, 2005 @ 10:56pm · 0 Comments |
|
|
|
|
|
