|
mimeboy00711
|
read my profile
sign my guestbook
Name: Christian
Country: United States
State: Illinois
Metro: Champaign-Urbana
Birthday: 6/26/1986
Gender: Male
Interests: Guitar, playing guitar, fixing guitar, listening to guitar, watching other people play guitar, and crocheting. Oh yeah, I'm not really from Uzbekistan
Expertise: Guitar, guitar, guitar, mimes, more guitar, where to find things at Dollar Tree, and, oh yeah, more guitar.
Occupation: Other
Industry: Entertainment
Message: message me
AIM:  DSPShadow
Member Since:
10/5/2003
|
|
| There are some things I just can't condone. Manipulation through jealousy is one of them. Messing with people's heads is okay, every now and then. Setting somebody up for a surprise, teasing 'em, that's cool in my book. But using their friends to get something out of them that you want, especially something like a relationship... it just doesn't sit right with me. Friends are too sacred to be tainted like that. Granted, this isn't just a hypothetical thing... I found out a former friend of mine does this shit intentionally. How should I deal with this? I get so worked up over this stuff, are my emotions just telling me I just shouldn't associate myself with this kind of person? Or do I actually have some ground from which I can say "I really can't talk with you if you continue to do this crap intentionally?" I know I don't want to deal with this crap anymore, but I also know I used to do this crap and sometimes still fall back in the habit, and I'm wondering if everybody does it sometime? If so, do they do it intentionally...?
On a similar note, I'm starting to take the stance that the best sign of strength is someone who can ask for what they want straight out, completely unashamed. There's something to be said for the guy who can look you in the eye and say "this is what I want and how I want it." I want to be more like that, and I want other people to be like that as well. It'd just make everything so much easier... no more mind games, yknow? But then, maybe that's too blunt... I dunno, I think I can handle the bitter truth, but then when my professor basically calls me a crass, arrogant bastard, well, something makes me rethink the stance a bit. Perhaps it's better knowing the truth though? I dunno, maybe he can tell me when I let him know what a fucking horrible teacher he has been all semester. It's the only class I've ever felt safe skipping, because I knew I wasn't going to learn anything in lecture anyways.
I've felt like I've been cutting alot of ties lately. Purposely, that is. I mean, I've definitely been falling out of touch with some people, but it's been hectic lately and I'll fix that. I mean literally saying I simply don't want to associate myself with this person ever again, that's what I feel guilty about. Sometimes it's because I can't take the fact that they're condemning me to Hell. That just doesn't really sit well anymore. Other times they just make me furious because they intentionally do things to piss off, degrade, or harm another. And then they come gloat to me about it? Or don't apologize for it? I feel arrogant as hell when I mentally or verbally declare that these people can go fuck themselves, but what else do I say? Should I passively condone it? Taking a backseat keeps me happy in that I haven't burned another bridge, but disturbs me in that I feel like I'm allowing it. And for some reason, people don't seem to listen to me when I say that their behavior is really pissing me off. Or they don't care.
Good thing there's awesome friends. Yknow, like the tripod or the band mates (both new and old) or the frat brothers. Maybe I have ridiculously high standards for what a friend should be... if so, it's because of you guys...
| | |
| I'm sitting here at 4 in the morning on a night when I really need sleep, and I can't. And I know I can't, because I know this needs to be done, and never have I felt more compelled to do it than now. If this isn't a testament to one being a product of one's environment, than nothing is.
It's taken alot of searching, much more questioning than I thought. In the end, though, I am pleased to say that for the first time in life I truly am happy with what I have become, I am completely content with me. The story of how I came to this point and where I will be going are separate entries for another time. This entry I shall spend setting in stone what I have become, what I take as truth, and what I view is important in this world.
I believe knowledge implies certainty. To know means to be completely certain of truth. Thus, anything truly known can only be introspective. I think, therefore, I am. My experiences, my senses, my relationships, however justified of beliefs they are, are still beliefs. This is in no way justification for denying what my senses tell me to be correct.
I believe my world is what I make of it. I have the ability as a rational creature to assign meaning to anything I interact with. I must be careful what values I set to things, but I believe it's important to set values, and to search for justification to set values, on even some of the most mundane events. Every act of kindness is one more string of evidence for the general benevolent nature of man. Every success is a sign I'm heading down the right path.
I believe I have the right to be happy, and that it shall be the pursuit of my life. Thus, I shall pursue values that contribute to my happiness, and attempt to restrain myself from setting values on events that make me more miserable than good. I shall call anything happy that which I would want to see on myself, or indeed any person, or something that improves the quality of a person or experience, or any characteristic I would picture in an ideal world, such that it generates positive qualities of that ideal world in practicality. This I shall strive for all people, creating it where I can, wishing it on all, and searching for it in every situation.
I believe fundamental to the desire to be happy is the wish for others to be happy. Thus, I shall strive to maintain positive relations with everyone I can, to do as much as I am able for another, and to push others to obtain happiness for themselves. From this belief spawns my desire to be a provider, to obtain as much as I can in an effort to distribute it among those that will most greatly benefit. I shall provide for myself, for I myself have needs that if unfulfilled will hinder my desire to be happy, but only that which is necessary for my well being and happiness. In an effort to consume as little as possible of my own accord, I shall endeavor to make my happiness a self sustaining state, or as self sustaining as possible.
I believe that self sufficiency is fundamental to a state of happiness. Such a state most greatly facilitates the ability to provide for others. In addition, self sufficiency is in and of itself a source of pride.
I believe pride is essential in maintaining momentum towards the goal of happiness. Indeed, when combined with habits that one can take pride in, it is often a source of happiness where none other can be found.
I believe any habit, no matter how fundamental to human nature, can be changed through patience, vigilance, introspection, and ingenuity. However, I also believe it takes vast quantities of these elements to change even the smallest habit.
I believe in the body and soul. By body, I refer not only to flesh, but the parts of the mind which aren't directly controllable, i.e. impulse and subconscious. Default stance on the nature of the body towards is to act as if they were alien and in direct conflict towards happiness. By soul, I refer to my own volition and directly controllable thoughts. I regard soul as the highest operator of being, able with enough clarity to override any intention of the body.
I believe the soul will come to no harm after death. Either death is an eternal sleep for the soul, else it is an awakening into some larger reality beyond the physical. If there is reality beyond the physical, then it was designed as harbor for the soul and thus the soul belongs in this meta-reality. If the soul belongs in such a place, it cannot be bad for the soul.
I believe there is no way of determining the existence of some higher consciousness except by such a consciousness' own volition. Therefore, I strongly affirm my agnosticism. If there were a higher consciousness, it would either be benevolent, malevolent, or apathetic. If it were apathetic, I find it hard to believe it were creator. If it were malevolent, things would be much worse. And if it were benevolent, it would have made itself clearly known in an attempt to share it's benevolence. Thus, I do not believe any higher consciousness would be creator of human kind and at best I can say any higher consciousness must be completely apathetic to the affairs of human, in which case it does no good to regard him anyways.
I believe in use of reason to support and justify beliefs and knowledge. I further support use of reason to examine beliefs and question them, tearing down old codes in an attempt to establish something more permanent.
I believe in use of emotion to relate, and carefully used for enjoyment. One must assure oneself, however, that emotion not be overused such that it causes unhappiness.
I believe that good and evil is never black and white, that good ultimately produces evil, and evil good. Thus, I think it foolish to look at things in terms of good and evil, but rather in utilitarian terms. Benevolence, for denoting the wish for others to be happy, and malevolence for denoting the opposite. Apathy is complete indifference, but this is rare. I do not believe in sin in any Abraham-ish concept of the word.
I believe that all people, on the most fundamental basis, believe the core tenets of my philosophy to be true, that is desire for happiness and desire to produce happiness in others. From this I deduce that it is the general nature of man to desire to be benevolent towards other men. It is the twisting of this will through natural events and/or misconception of what happiness entails that explains the pains and sufferings of this world.
This is it. This is me.
Chris Walker
| | |
| After the last post, after thinking heavily on the nature of
temporality and the restrictions in implies, I'm feeling really assured
that Christianity is perhaps not a truth. Nevertheless, I promised I
would analyze Christianity under the context of it's own premises, and
so I press on with the project.
Or rather, I'd like to. I'm having a problem, though. I think the
notion of perfection may be feasible as we have it set, but it requires
that we understand the purpose of God. What is God's responsibility in
the whole picture? Is he responsible for just creating the universe, or
does he have some obligation in maintaining it? Is it God's
responsibility to battle sin? Is he responsible for bringing up man as
if it were a child?
We can only judge God's perfection, as we've defined it, based on His purpose.
In the past, I probably would have argued that God's purpose is the raising of mankind. It was explained to me that the function of man in Heaven was to be a judge for angels. This agreed with my interpretation on the nature of good and evil, for man was a more fitting judge because he'd been designed to handle evil. He'd seen evil, had felt the consequences of evil, and was capable of harboring evil while still being capable of good. Satan and the other angels were incapable of this. If angels fell, they fell absolutely. Thus, I would have argued that life is the perfect training grounds for exposure to and dealing with evil, and God's purpose was to guide us as if He were training us to get through it. Since then I've discovered that these stories the ministers and other theists told me actually have little if any Biblical justificiation, but I suspect they might still be canonical.
The notion of perfection intrigues me greatly, so I'll allow a bit of time for comments (I also have classes and shit to worry about). I'll also allow different definitions of perfection, if one comes up with something better.
| | |
| Last entry we proposed an argument for free will under a new definition of God's love. Free will or predestination is a huge debate among the belief still, and I think I know why. What I will attempt to do today is deviate slightly from the form of this debate to show how both systems contradict the standard image of God, man, and sin.
For now let's assume the future is predestined. We’re then suggesting
that God knows the future. If God knows the future, there must be certainty
associated with that knowledge. Thus, whatever God “knows” about the future
must occur. Else, we cannot call it certain and therefore knowledge. So since this future event must occur, there
can be no possible alternate choices. Example: God knows A will occur at time t.
Therefore, A must occur at time t. Assume A and B are two mutually exclusive
events, either of which would happen at time t if God was unknowledgeable of
the event. Since God knows A, and B cannot happen if A happens, thus, as long
as God knew A, B was never an option.
The only way we can
salvage B is to say that God never knew A. Not knowing A implies no certainty
about A, which implies that A can occur, or B can occur. Thus, predestination
implies knowledge implies certainty implies no alternate possible outcomes.
Allowing alternate possible outcomes implies no certainty implies no knowledge
implies no predestination. If we are to classify man’s abilities to chose as
allowing alternate possible outcomes to the future, then it follows that there
can be no predestination. Thus, the freedom of choice is mutually exclusive to
predestination.
Now that I've shown the two mutually exclusive for any event, I want to demonstrate the problems of each. Let's start again with predestination. If we have complete predestination, then, we have no choice
about any events in the future. Since we
can classify my “going to hell” as an event, I cannot make a choice or set of
choices that sends me to hell. The choice(s) was(were) never mine to make. Furthermore,
I cannot “want” to live the life that God has in store for me (a phrase I hear
quite often), I am currently living the life God chose for me. There are no
other possibilities. Thus, my dissention to God and His ways are all part of
His plan, and I’m just doing what I have been pre-programmed to do. Under these
rules, it’s very easy to argue that God is the true sinner, and not man, since
all sin originates not by the choice of man (cause that’s impossible) but
rather the choice of God. Furthermore, repentance is useless. Why repent for an
action you were forced to perform? It
seems under predestination, we lose all responsibility, because choice seems to be a necessary requirement for responsibility.
If we have complete freedom, then all events within the
limitations of man’s abilities are possible. Given a specific man-chosen event
A, where the outcomes could possibly be either B or C, there can be no
certainty about the outcome. Thus, God can never “know” whether B or C will
occur. If God does not know something, He can’t be omniscient or omnipotent. He’s
non-omniscient because He cannot know an event, and non-omnipotent because He’s
not capable of knowing that event.
Either way, it seems we’re sacrificing a quality of God that
the major Christian denominations ascribe to God. Either we lose responsibility
and label God the true sinner, or we sacrifice God’s omnipotence and
omniscience for our free will.
Note: The proof isn’t so black and white. What I have
demonstrated is that a single event may either be predestined or else there may
be the ability to choose the outcome. It may be possible to mix predestined
events with events that one is allowed to choose. However, most of these
proposed systems are horribly inconsistent, and often end up with more problems
than solutions.
My ultimate question is one of definition. What model are we
taking for the way God assigns events in the temporality of man. Do we have
free will? Or are our lives set in stone? Propose a middle line solution only
after serious reflection as to the consequences of the system you’re proposing,
suggesting the criterion for those events that may be chosen and others that
may be predestined. | | |
| And so it begins. For this proof, we will need to first construct the logical outcome from the premises we are assuming. Let's take the following:
a) God is loving (4)
b) Love is doing what's best for another regardless of the self.
c) Man is a sinner. (implied from 7)
d) Sin implies separation from God (7)
e) God wants man to be in heaven (8)
Now we must show what regardless of the self means to God, assuming that God is loving:
God is loving. Therefore, God wants what is best for man disregarding the self. We're assuming that what is best for man is Heaven. Therefore, God wants to put man in Heaven regardless of the self. To disregard the self would be to imply that neither the needs or desires of God are taken into consideration during the placing. Therefore, God wants to place man in Heaven disregarding His own wants and needs.
Now, let's observe the following:
Since God is the highest power, it can only be God causing the
restriction. Since it is God causing the restriction, God is placing
His Self before the greater good for man. As long as God is placing
Himself before the needs of man, He violates the above conclusion. Therefore, GOD IS NOT LOVING.
Finally I shall attempt to pre-refute what I believe will be the common criticisms for this argument:
1) "Heaven is not best for all men." In this case, I ask, how is Hell a better choice for a person than Heaven? If such were the case, there would be no reason to make hell a torturous place. In fact, even the notion of creating a Hell suggests that God was unloving. I could see someone being sent to Hell for a time, to atone for mistakes. But we are talking a merciless eternity of unforgiving torture. Even if Heaven was a bleak grey, it would still be leagues superior to the Christian Hell. I fail to see any love in such a merciless punishment.
2) "Jesus died for our sins, so that's how God was able to reconcile both His needs and still do what is best for man." You're missing the point of the argument. If God truly loved us, under this definition of love, our sins would be irrelevant. There would have been no need for the sacrifice to begin with. God would love us, and out of love He'd simply let us in to everlasting life with Him. No need for a sacrifice, no need to get constantly pissy about idolatry or sexual immorality or murder or whatever. Because, ultimately, Heaven would be best for man, and so God's desires for how we should act would be completely indeterminant in deciding our fates, and God's necessity to be free from sin would likewise have no bearing on our fates.
Note: This is my biggest grievance with Christianity. I cannot begin to call Christianity my faith unless this argument is resolved coherently.
| | |
|
