Some groups doctrine on belief that people should be evil.

[RandomThoughts]

Some groups believe that if you try to do good that is because you are not allowed to do something else, or do not have the grace to do it.

That is done by a training of control over a person.

It is also why the response 'becuase I can' was given.

And why some think trying to do good is not accepting God's grace.

Basically it says if you are in some position or have something then you are suppose to, it is the concept of everything being where it is suppose to be.


It is also why 'they crucify Christ every day' Both in their hearts, and literally if they believe that he pays for their sins with his suffering.

The doctrine that sinning is a gift of grace from God, can not be Christian since it would also say that them willfully crucify Christ every day with actions, without learning.

Or using grace like a blank check.

I do know where they get the idea, it comes from a training that is easy to do when a person is being controlled or influenced by something. And if you agree to 'do its work' and that work sometimes bad sometimes good, you get rewards. Many times people that do that have limited memory of events like Fight club. That was in mouse and the motorcycle also. That is a spiritual film.

Really long story but that doctrine is a rationalization for doing what a possession wants a person to do.

However I do agree there can be good inspiration, but that would not reward hurtful actions, but more just and compassionate actions, and many times for other people that need stuff more. From that many think the bad side is what existence is. Since in life you don't often see the good side prevail from a personal perspective, since the good side is not just about convincing one individual to do something, but also to help many people.

Side note there should be balance, but to think what you have defines if you should have it is an empathy breaker, and a way to support the status quo, while ignoring many problems.

[Swede]

1. Happy New Year!!

:toast:

[dimbear]

2. Where would Sherlock Holmes have been without Moriarty?

The human drama requires many actors, with many parts to play.

[RandomThoughts]

4. I started to type a few replies to your post.

But it is like spending years explaining a simple concept, then someone saying something showing they have not understood anything said.

You just said nothing matters.

So you don't exist by your own statement.

[vixengrl]

5. I don't think this is what Dimbear was saying--

"nothing matters"--

so much as "Different things matter to different people, and the human drama is acted out on the basis of contention between individuals expressing different points of view." It may be true that there is an ultimate right and wrong--that Sherlock, for example, reflects seeking truth and Moriarty is the unrestrained id--an intellect driven to accomplish evil for its own sake. But differing views don't have to cancel each other out. If I consider a person, who from his point of view, is humanely raising animals with the express purpose of sacrificing them ultimately for others' nutrition, versus an activist who considers such a sacrifice a murder of other sentient beings--we have two views at odds, but they don't cancel each other out. Each point of view might be valid within the scope of their understanding.

Each exists--and, in freely contending with the other, expresses the terms by which they negotiate their selfhood.

Moriarty might think himself a Robin Hood. Holmes might be a hypocrite. The idea that a Moriarty exists for Holmes gives him a challenge that uniquely allows him to use his deductive powers--this isn't negation of his character, but a fuller expression of it.

We are not always moral creatures. We are always unique, and interesting, and I'd like to think, rather special. And I also think your OP has a good point-- there is no elite with a special right to do that which is immoral. I think of people like Hank Kissinger or Dick Cheney--they have nothing but bad ideas in their heads, and no particular thing should excuse them, even if they poetically drape themselves within a narrative where they maintain they serve a greater good by promoting some particular deal-breaking utter horror: Genocide is unacceptable. Torture is unacceptable. Their idea that the ends justify the means is sheer crap--it cannot be true whilst civilization still has any meaning. Rather, it should be the case that leaders are simon-pure--and try to attempt the best outcomes possible with less harm, or the least harm they can possibly incidentally manage.

I never understand the idea of "grace". To me, there is only trying to do less harm, always--the only grace we can hope for. Just a moral imperitive to try not to fuck everything up. Anyone who wants to do good should do their best not to have it at some others' expense.

[RandomThoughts]

7. The reason he said nothing matters is becuase he made the 'show' doctrine comment.

People just play a part, and if both parts are needed, then they are considered equal. It is part of the idea that whatever you do, you are doing what you should be doing, removing the concept of doing anything better.

No Sherlock did not need Moriarty, unless he felt that people need to be killed so someone can solve the crime in some interesting way. Making life irrelevant, so to believe that a person must believe people have no value except some part in a show. It breaks empathy, allows for accepting any situation, not trying to make anything better, and can justify the status quo.

He is saying life is a story, with no other meaning to it but it being entertainment, or to allow another to express some talent, it actually is the same as your animal example just using people in it..



Why did I post for years before someone posted something so thoughtful as a reply, I have been posting concepts and ideas with almost nobody making a thought out reply. The easiest conclusion is nobody reads posts or only a small set sees them. I find the change of a thought out reply to be interesting, and will ponder why that occurred.

If I consider a person, who from his point of view, is humanely raising animals with the express purpose of sacrificing them ultimately for others' nutrition, versus an activist who considers such a sacrifice a murder of other sentient beings--we have two views at odds, but they don't cancel each other out. Each point of view might be valid within the scope of their understanding.

True, and then each would have to explain there point of view, and if they both have an open mind, the one would learn the other point of view, or they would both learn that they don't know why they do things, or it is just tradition, and if they don't know why, they can't criticize why someone else does.

It is possible there is an answer to that question though, however a person would have to have the same base ideas of what is right or wrong to be able to even discuss possible convergence of ideas. A sociopath and a avid tree hugger peta type, would never reach an agreement on that question unless one of them burned out, or the other awoke feelings and then moved to feelings of the same level.

My thoughts on animals was life for life, if life continues to sustain other life it honors that life, I think the Native American tradition on hunting and fishing being ok but not for sport and without waste is closer to my belief. Then comes the argument of system of animal population control, then some use that as arguments for human sterilization or allowing disease and starvation. So anytime you stay in grey areas, the same arguments can be used for many things. So although I think in some hunting or raising of animals as making sense, I know the vegan position is better. So that is how my mind discusses that situation. I have to understand it as best thought, where I fall short of best thought and why, so that I don't use the same formula for a different data set and substitute people or something if I was to scale empathy back from not including all animals to not including all people as most people don't have empathy for all people like my empathy for all animals falls short still. If I actually think about it, Vegan is better, but I don't think on it much.


I also agree that there is both relativity between views, but also absolute truth, although nobody can be sure they know what that is, but on obvious examples like you made in the paragraph of ends justify means, I think, as you do, that there it can be compared to an absolute position that most would agree you are right about in your statement.


Grace makes sense to find forgiveness so that a person can get over a past mistake, some think of it as a blank check.

[dimbear]

6. I find the idea that I don't exist rather gratifying.

It explains some of the things that have been happening around here (here in my house), such as the failure of my dishes to get washed.

That is another quality which I share with Moriarty, since as I have admitted, I used to be a math teacher and of course Moriarty was a mathematician and, in the final analysis, he didn't exist. But then our heroes tend to be cut from the same cloth that we are.

I just thought of an excellent New Year's resolution. I'm going to stay away from the Reichenbach Falls.

And Happy New Year, everybody!

[RandomThoughts]

8. Yea I worried about assuming your comment about

Sherlock and Moriarty, was a metaphor for people. By them being fictional it changes the equation then if they are a metaphor for any group of people.


Happy New Years to you also.

[provis99]

3. I like pie!

[Rabrrrrrr]

9. Some weekends, I take a little trip to clear the mind.