The Stuff of Stuffyness
So - this is simply pulled from a LiveJournal - but worth preserving in my mind.Never forget, I am completely wrong on all of this. I will defend it with everything that exists in my schema of existence. But at the same time, I know the universe is much deeper than I can ever grasp in my mind, beyond that, deeper than I can grasp in a Live Journal post, especially when I try to both define Christianity and .
Ok, so, firstly, as a Christian one should not believe that this is a moral action. This has nothing to do with the creation of the universe, morals, goodness, evil, right and wrong, absolustism, relativism, or anything else in existence that it really could mean.
However, it does interact with these things. All of them. It interacts with how I put two lego bricks together. The thing is, lego doesn't have that much to do overall. Everyone knows how to put them together, looking to God while part of Christianity does not really affect the action. Whereas, in the case of morality, every action we take should be affected by this. If we choose to do things the Christian outlook must be in that action. Now this doesn't mean what most people think it does. Firstly, it actually is a liberating theology, one which gives the freedom most people don't associate with Christianity, and hell, I don't associate with Christians. Most Christians believe there is a strict code of Morality and that's all Christianity is. I know too many people too willing to harm people, but in ways that they feel are good. Going around insulting people, because they're not Christian, or attempting to guilt people in converting, this is in fact something that instead of healing the world or helping people, or spreading love, the things that Jesus spoke of, they are in fact the opposite. Harming someone, even if your intentions are good, is instead a very simple form of justifiable harm and hate. Or on the view of Creation, as Galileo said, (bear with me, I only know the content of the quote) I do not believe that a God that would create us with senses would ask us to forgo their use. Now, we can simply look at the Earth and see basic things. HOWEVER if we assume the existence of God then we can assume that Occam's Razor would remove certain very difficult aspects of evolution and replace them with God. Of course, at the same time, matter cannot be created or destroyed, and the unmoved mover arguments. So, I will state that generally, if you are Christian it makes more sense to believe in a God who can create the universe and did, but at the same time created ways for it to change. Perhaps I should use the programming analogy of God giving all creatures a script and then letting the script be added to by events, thereby creating the mutations we see. Simply AI theory, interestingly, since we're trying to create a model for the universe, I really shouldn't be using something that tries to model the universe, that would be silly.
Anyway, there's a whirlwind tour through what I feel is Christianity. Now the heavy stuff. Morality. I know, I said this doesn't matter to Christianity, but since so many people are struggling with the concept, including and especially Christians, I would like to chuck it out there. We can take a look at the universe and see there is obviously good and evil. I mean, seriously, if we take the example (the done to death example I might add) of the Holocaust, we get a very simple example of evil. I *wont* prove it's evil. In fact, my point is that I don't have to. Everyone will agree with me. Even the raving, frothing at the mouth, angry, relativists agree with this. But yet, if I gave the example of perhaps a single person who's life was better for the Holocaust, they likely WOULDN'T back down. Again, there is the simple reason that they know it was evil. This is an absolutist view of the world I would think. And also, I think that it is the one that makes sense. In every situation there is a right and wrong answer, and this answer is based on, well, essentially the same number of things that would be used to predict the movement of a particle. There are millions of actions and reactions and intentions and pains and loves involved. These things all affect where this is the right or wrong answer. Therefore, instead of trying to define good and evil, perhaps we should define what is moral, what is helpful, and what people should be doing.
Perhaps, we should define a certain thing with which to measure good. Some have posited that the best way to do this would be to reduce the amount of suffering in the universe. This is however horrible, since in fact in my opinion suffering is pointless. Creating suffering is likely evil, but every relativist has a 1001 ways that is not so... why? Because the universe is defined by the creation of love. Things that are good create love. Giving of yourself selflessly and unconditionally as well as simple regard, respect, admiration, and desire to praise unconditionally and selflessly. Is that love.
Ok, let me define a term here. I am going to use the word Africa. Why? Because I am a dick like that. People should know Africa is a continent, not a country. People should know there is well off countries in Africa. People should, finally, also know that there are poor countries outside of Africa. But, when I say Africa I mean "everyone who is in a place where they can barely keep themselves alive as well as have no power as a person".
Anyway, in Africa we can have people who are suffering. They can be completely without power, and everything else. They can see others around them and love them. In fact, these people, suffering, are more likely to love those around them than people who are not. This is the creation of love within suffering. These people are not eliminating suffering, yet they are doing good. However, the act of causing suffering cannot be done in love in almost every situation.
Perhaps, the best way to change the power struggle is best fixed by doing this: "The West" (that which is the opposite of Africa as defined above) should use it's money/resources to get groups of people from Africa to come here, set them up in houses or hotels, and pay for their food/whatnot. Essentially then, put them on a missions trip. Where then they minister to us. Teach us and give us a new perspective on life. And then, when they go home, they've had time where they were well fed etc. And at the same time, people could be given a new love for these people. And unconditional love may make people more willing to change. More willing to help. More willing to bring our world into a more love based rather than money based place. But that's a tangent.
In this model of the universe, there are reasons to kill or reasons to die. Reasons to die are reasons that stem out of love. As a Christian who has given as much love as they can it is quite simply to die for a cause. We know, through Jesus, that we will be going to be a time of waiting for the renewal of the Earth. This will be a joyous and loving time of wait. So, we can die without fear. We also, know that we cannot bring love to the Earth if dead, and therefore should do everything we can to stay alive, since if we are still able to give love, we would be reducing the potential for love, so it would be an immoral act. At the same time there are cases, the kind of case where'd you'd have to be forced to live or die actually, where if you do die you might be able to create more potential for love. Now, for killing. What I will refer to as Justified Killing is not justified and at the same time also one of the highest expressions of love anyone can give. Justified Killing is when you believe that the life of another person is more important to you than other people. Since all people are equally important, stating that is in fact huge, and something that no human should be saying without good reason. And therefore, if you are to be forced to kill to protect their lives, then, well, it would be the ultimate expression of love to another person. However, it would be a lack of love for every other person on the earth. Therefore, in my world view, this would force the action to be morally neutral, or a actually morally wrong act.
Ok, I think that's all I know on Christianity and how it affects morality. But I don't know. Anybody want to challenge me? Anyone want to agree? I hope so!
Ok, so, firstly, as a Christian one should not believe that this is a moral action. This has nothing to do with the creation of the universe, morals, goodness, evil, right and wrong, absolustism, relativism, or anything else in existence that it really could mean.
However, it does interact with these things. All of them. It interacts with how I put two lego bricks together. The thing is, lego doesn't have that much to do overall. Everyone knows how to put them together, looking to God while part of Christianity does not really affect the action. Whereas, in the case of morality, every action we take should be affected by this. If we choose to do things the Christian outlook must be in that action. Now this doesn't mean what most people think it does. Firstly, it actually is a liberating theology, one which gives the freedom most people don't associate with Christianity, and hell, I don't associate with Christians. Most Christians believe there is a strict code of Morality and that's all Christianity is. I know too many people too willing to harm people, but in ways that they feel are good. Going around insulting people, because they're not Christian, or attempting to guilt people in converting, this is in fact something that instead of healing the world or helping people, or spreading love, the things that Jesus spoke of, they are in fact the opposite. Harming someone, even if your intentions are good, is instead a very simple form of justifiable harm and hate. Or on the view of Creation, as Galileo said, (bear with me, I only know the content of the quote) I do not believe that a God that would create us with senses would ask us to forgo their use. Now, we can simply look at the Earth and see basic things. HOWEVER if we assume the existence of God then we can assume that Occam's Razor would remove certain very difficult aspects of evolution and replace them with God. Of course, at the same time, matter cannot be created or destroyed, and the unmoved mover arguments. So, I will state that generally, if you are Christian it makes more sense to believe in a God who can create the universe and did, but at the same time created ways for it to change. Perhaps I should use the programming analogy of God giving all creatures a script and then letting the script be added to by events, thereby creating the mutations we see. Simply AI theory, interestingly, since we're trying to create a model for the universe, I really shouldn't be using something that tries to model the universe, that would be silly.
Anyway, there's a whirlwind tour through what I feel is Christianity. Now the heavy stuff. Morality. I know, I said this doesn't matter to Christianity, but since so many people are struggling with the concept, including and especially Christians, I would like to chuck it out there. We can take a look at the universe and see there is obviously good and evil. I mean, seriously, if we take the example (the done to death example I might add) of the Holocaust, we get a very simple example of evil. I *wont* prove it's evil. In fact, my point is that I don't have to. Everyone will agree with me. Even the raving, frothing at the mouth, angry, relativists agree with this. But yet, if I gave the example of perhaps a single person who's life was better for the Holocaust, they likely WOULDN'T back down. Again, there is the simple reason that they know it was evil. This is an absolutist view of the world I would think. And also, I think that it is the one that makes sense. In every situation there is a right and wrong answer, and this answer is based on, well, essentially the same number of things that would be used to predict the movement of a particle. There are millions of actions and reactions and intentions and pains and loves involved. These things all affect where this is the right or wrong answer. Therefore, instead of trying to define good and evil, perhaps we should define what is moral, what is helpful, and what people should be doing.
Perhaps, we should define a certain thing with which to measure good. Some have posited that the best way to do this would be to reduce the amount of suffering in the universe. This is however horrible, since in fact in my opinion suffering is pointless. Creating suffering is likely evil, but every relativist has a 1001 ways that is not so... why? Because the universe is defined by the creation of love. Things that are good create love. Giving of yourself selflessly and unconditionally as well as simple regard, respect, admiration, and desire to praise unconditionally and selflessly. Is that love.
Ok, let me define a term here. I am going to use the word Africa. Why? Because I am a dick like that. People should know Africa is a continent, not a country. People should know there is well off countries in Africa. People should, finally, also know that there are poor countries outside of Africa. But, when I say Africa I mean "everyone who is in a place where they can barely keep themselves alive as well as have no power as a person".
Anyway, in Africa we can have people who are suffering. They can be completely without power, and everything else. They can see others around them and love them. In fact, these people, suffering, are more likely to love those around them than people who are not. This is the creation of love within suffering. These people are not eliminating suffering, yet they are doing good. However, the act of causing suffering cannot be done in love in almost every situation.
Perhaps, the best way to change the power struggle is best fixed by doing this: "The West" (that which is the opposite of Africa as defined above) should use it's money/resources to get groups of people from Africa to come here, set them up in houses or hotels, and pay for their food/whatnot. Essentially then, put them on a missions trip. Where then they minister to us. Teach us and give us a new perspective on life. And then, when they go home, they've had time where they were well fed etc. And at the same time, people could be given a new love for these people. And unconditional love may make people more willing to change. More willing to help. More willing to bring our world into a more love based rather than money based place. But that's a tangent.
In this model of the universe, there are reasons to kill or reasons to die. Reasons to die are reasons that stem out of love. As a Christian who has given as much love as they can it is quite simply to die for a cause. We know, through Jesus, that we will be going to be a time of waiting for the renewal of the Earth. This will be a joyous and loving time of wait. So, we can die without fear. We also, know that we cannot bring love to the Earth if dead, and therefore should do everything we can to stay alive, since if we are still able to give love, we would be reducing the potential for love, so it would be an immoral act. At the same time there are cases, the kind of case where'd you'd have to be forced to live or die actually, where if you do die you might be able to create more potential for love. Now, for killing. What I will refer to as Justified Killing is not justified and at the same time also one of the highest expressions of love anyone can give. Justified Killing is when you believe that the life of another person is more important to you than other people. Since all people are equally important, stating that is in fact huge, and something that no human should be saying without good reason. And therefore, if you are to be forced to kill to protect their lives, then, well, it would be the ultimate expression of love to another person. However, it would be a lack of love for every other person on the earth. Therefore, in my world view, this would force the action to be morally neutral, or a actually morally wrong act.
Ok, I think that's all I know on Christianity and how it affects morality. But I don't know. Anybody want to challenge me? Anyone want to agree? I hope so!