Proxy War is a Mortal Sin.

[patrice]

Discuss?

[Az]

1. Need to clarify terms

It could be said that the entire human race is a proxy war fought between God and Satan. If you believed that sort of thing.

[patrice]

2. That denies Creation.

Proxy = substitute
War = killing and dying

When you believe _______________ is worth killing and dying for, the only possible validity for such an assertion is defined by the believer's own behavior/actions ,not that of others, because no one but you can make your beliefs Real. This is what we are called to do as Mature Christians. The Revolution MUST be one's Self.

To displace this responsibility elsewhere, elsewhom, is a sin.

[Az]

4. Is it action or knowledge that binds sin

If you actions unbeknownst to you result in death is the sin yours? Or does it require knowledge that your actions will result in death to trigger sin?

[Warpy]

6. Neither, if you're female and Irish Catholic

All you have to do is be there. If some man has a sexual fantasy he's hung your face on, you're guilty of the grave sin of inspiring his sin.

And people wonder why I fled at the age of 10.

War is a sin, period, and it's always fought by proxy. Rich men squabble over dividing the wealth of the world and conscript the poor to fight it out for them.

War is ruinous to the people who fight it, to the people who are caught in its path, and to the countries it bankrupts. Modern warfare also destroys much of the earth it's fought over via pollution and horrors like land mines and unexploded cluster bombs.

Az's point about the religious paradigm of earth as the proxy war between god and Satan is an apt one.

[patrice]

7. We must reach as far as we can with our minds, hearts, and hands

to do "due diligence" by the gifts we've been given.

We ARE responsible for what you don't, but COULD, know. Accepting Ignorance is part of sin. We have to learn, calculate outcomes to the best of our abilities, and then commit our OWN lives, not other peoples' lives (Unless those other people FREELY choose to commit themselves. And we are NOT a Free People (thanks to domination by Multi-National Corporations and Corporate Media in part)).

Knowing is really some combination of knowing and not-knowing.

Even still! - Everything (knowing, not-knowing, personal action, result) is cast into the Void.

There is no quid-pro-quo.

We must act knowing what Jesus meant when he said "Lord, Lord, why have you forsaken me?"

Each of us must *freely* commit ourselves to do what each of us understands as right, without assurance of reward, and that's the point of the story of Jeshua. Proxy War is the opposite of that. Jesus was killed because he was tooo Free. He was killed because he refused to fight for Church and/or State.

The whole Invasion of Iraq was broken with Bush's first Lie, because that violated/poisoned the God given Freedom of each soul that had to choose what to believe and what to do, from that point on.

[Az]

10. That seems to avoid the question

Even if all due dilligence is taken ignorance can still play a part. We are all a sum of our experiences and since no one can experience everything we are going to have a limited view. If thats the case then every action we take can result in a cascade of sin attaching to us in a butterfly effect run amuck.

As to the issue of Jesus comments well... that brings up a question of whether you believe in a trinity or the individuality of Jesus. If it is the former then one has to wonder how much sense the comment would have made if he had said "Me. Me. Why have I forsaken Me?" Puts a slightly different spin on it doesn't it?

[patrice]

18. I agree

Knowing is really some combination of knowing and not-knowing. = "Even if all due dilligence is taken ignorance can still play a part."

Humans are limited.

"If thats the case then every action we take can result in a cascade of sin attaching to us in a butterfly effect run amuck."

Yep! Except that the "cascade" does not absolutely "run amuck" (i.e. even Chaos is not Absolute). Where that "cascade" is influenced by Realities (that we usually refer to as "good") is what each person is called to "put his/her Faith in". With or without "due diligence", that's still Faith without quid-pro-quo.

"Me, Me . . ." The definition of "me" (I, you, he, she, it) is a semantic issue. Don't mistake the words for the Reality.

[Az]

19. Semantics are perhaps the most important issue of any discussion

Without a shared understanding of the terms in play we cannot exchange ideas. Semantics is the first and most important issue to iron out.

[patrice]

20. For Social goals, I agree. I love semantics and semiotics. But,

Reality existed before Words.

[Az]

22. But we do not experience reality

We experience a simulation of reality conveyed by our senses and our brain. What we experience only exists as our brains create it. Not relevant but just interesting.

[patrice]

25. I think of it as more dynamic than that. More fluid, because "we" and

"it" are One.

Right, the Reality we are called to Know (intimately) is much bigger than we are. Our sensory mechanisms and processes only tune in just so much of it, not All.

I think it still matters somehow though, whether we can know it or not, it's still part of each of us. Each of us is responsible for his/her own relationship to whatever Reality really is.

[Az]

31. Responsibility

Its an interesting concept and core to the notion of sin. But it may be just as much an illusion as freewill. In either a determininstic universe or an omnipotent god created universe freewill runs into problems.

In the deterministic universe in which I live the mind results from the action of the brain. Self is the result of natural laws in action. That self is a result is important to keep in mind. It is the result of matter and energy behaving according to laws. Thus given a deep enough understanding of nature and its laws one could fathom how the mind comes to be and see that it was a result of rather than a cause of things. Thus everything was initiated at the first moment for all practicle effects. We only experience the illusion of freewill but are in truth a result as predictable as the weather.

In a God centric universe the problem exists that an omniscient God knows the results of any universe he creates before he makes it. When he makes a universe he makes the beginning, the middle, and the end all at the same time. There is no difference. He can do no less. Freewill would imply ignorance on the part of God. And as long as the PR department insists that God knows everything then freewill goes out the window.

[patrice]

35. Thanks! for committing to a deeper look at the question.

"Its an interesting concept and core to the notion of sin. But it may be just as much an illusion as freewill."

Either-Or statements *can be* (though not necessarily *are always*) part of the effect of using words to talk about things that extend beyond our limitations. Most of what I think is predicated on some serious cautions about what language is and how it works.

"In either a determininstic universe or an omnipotent god created universe freewill runs into problems." Yes, indeed. I am familiar with those issues and I don't claim to have "the answer". I am more interested personally in Process, especially as it might be characterized by what we refer to as "Freedom".

"In the deterministic universe in which I live the mind results from the action of the brain. Self is the result of natural laws in action."
Yes.

"That self is a result is important to keep in mind."

Very, and it is something many of us, including me, are learning about how important who you really are is.

"It is the result of matter and energy behaving according to laws. Thus given a deep enough understanding of nature and its laws one could fathom how the mind comes to be and see that it was a result of rather than a cause of things."

Yes, but I do believe that each mind affects the physical and "otherwise" World through behavior to some known-and-unknown extent. And that extent is affected by the Realities that each mind/behavior is in synch with, whether we can call that effect "Change" or not depends upon the semantic (shared) issues.

"Thus everything was initiated at the first moment for all practicle effects. We only experience the illusion of freewill but are in truth a result as predictable as the weather."

Is that 'the Eternal Return of the Same'? I've heard of this kind of determinism. I understand the idea that everything could be determined by "the first fact" and everything after that is an un-folding of that fact, not "it's own thing", but limited by whatever that Reality is.

Beginning with the fact of our limitations assumes illusion, doesn't it?

Perhaps I should say, like "knowing", i.e. known-and-unknown (or known-and-anomalous, or known-and-disregarded, or known-and-purposely-excluded), freedom is, more acurately, degree of choice relative to degree of determined factors, free-and-enslaved. Because of what language is, I have a hard time saying "There is no such thing as Freedom." That assumes identity between Language and Reality and I know that is not True.

"In a God centric universe the problem exists that an omniscient God knows the results of any universe he creates before he makes it."

That's the way conventional "Christians" have defined god.

"When he makes a universe he makes the beginning, the middle, and the end all at the same time. There is no difference. He can do no less. Freewill would imply ignorance on the part of God."

Free will would imply ignorance on the part of what we refer to as God.

"And as long as the PR department insists that God knows everything then freewill goes out the window."

This assumes we know what God's knowing would be, i.e. the same or similar (just larger) than our own. I guess that God's knowing is beyond mine. Our minds over-lap to some extent, i.e. there is an affinity, but not an equality.

I'm not sure that there is much that can be said about what we are referring to by means of the word "God" that would be absolutely accurate, unless one is a blasphemer.

As usual, when we try to talk about these things, we end up chasing our tails. Language is inadequate. Action may not be adequat, but *may* also be adequate at least for a while. That's the Process we are called to "put your 'Faith' in."

[patrice]

26. But Not absolutely ir-relevant either.

[MistressOverdone]

29. So then an attitude or a belief

would/could be a mortal sin?

I will ponder that.

[patrice]

37. Could be . . .

But isn't Necessarily.

Depends upon the overall configuration of beliefs and behaviors and the extent to which and how one affects others and how much of that one "owns".

[patrice]

3. God? Satan?

I believe/think everything is One thing and what I think people mean by "God" and "Satan" are objectifications, or externalizations, which all too often become un-related to the more complex Reality from which they've been extrapolated.

Krsna the Eternal Champion of All Slaves, sometimes elevated the Demons he slew for Humanity.

Hare Krsna!

[cosmik debris]

5. All war is proxy war

But there is no objective definition of sin, so the point is moot.

[patrice]

8. Denial of Reality is not an "objective" definition of sin?

"Objective" "Subjective" - ?

Don't mistake words for the Realities that words ONLY point to.

We don't need an "objective" definition of sin if individuals would just live up to their "subjective" definitions of sin.

[cosmik debris]

9. I don't know wtf you are talking about

But it is a pretty safe assumption that it is a semantic argument.

[patrice]

11. Not to Iraqis.

Sin IS sin.

As Conservatives often remind us.

[cosmik debris]

12. You're still not making sense. n/t

[Az]

13. Sin is a charged word

It carries a range of meanings and some of them are quite contentious and dependent on a person's beliefs. Sin can be as simple as doing something wrong or as specific as turning one's back to God.

I am afraid you seem to be initiating this discussion with an undeclared meaning behind your words that you have a very specific view on which is causing many of us to run afoul of various logical traps within your belief system.

[patrice]

28. Death and Destruction are not semantic issues.

[cosmik debris]

30. No doubt, but how does that relate to your original statement

Is death and destruction a sin? Is death and destruction proxy war?

You toss around a lot of words, but you can't make a coherent argument unless the meanings of those words are understood and agreed upon.

I have no idea what you mean by sin, but since I don't recognize the concept of sin as anything more than one person's opinion, I can't begin to understand how it could have universal implications.

You have made no coherent points so far.

[patrice]

32. As I have said, an "objective" definition of sin isn't necessary.

And our definitions don't change anything unless each individual lives by his/her definitions.

Google: Proxy war or Wiki it.

If I had written you last sentence, it would be "You have made no coherent points to me so far." If that's what you mean, I know that, i.e. it is assumed that I cannot say a completely "true" statement. It is also assumed that what I am saying IS coherent to some. If you deny that, we should talk about the definition of blasphemy.

Proxy War IS a Mortal Sin.

[cosmik debris]

33. Since you get to make up the definitions,

You will always be right. Congratulations.

[patrice]

36. As I have said, each person is responsible for their own "definitions"

Which each can choose to share honestly with others or idolize in his/her own soul.

You seem to need to disagree, are you a Contrarian? If not, you might choose to show me/us how you are not. That is if you care to have an actual conversation.

[cosmik debris]

39. You ended any need for discussion with your dogmatic statement

"Proxy War IS A Mortal Sin"

End of discussion.

[patrice]

40. To and For you.

Or you could tell me how Proxy War is not a Sin, mortal or otherwise.

[cosmik debris]

42. Sin is a matter of opinion

Those who hold different opinions will not see war as a sin. George Bush doesn't see it as a sin, but George Bush is not bound by your definitions.

[patrice]

43. The thing that I am referring to with the word "sin" (and it's related

definitions) exists independently from what anyone calls it or how anyone defines it.

Reality is real.

[cosmik debris]

44. There is no rebuttal for circular logic. n/t

[patrice]

45. I begin by admitting that fact, what

we know IS self referential and I further point that out by reminding people that there is a difference between words/definitions and the Realities that words/definitions ONLY POINT TO. If you don't see that that means Reality is bigger than our self-referential/circular systems, it seems to be by choice rather than by any real understanding of what I am saying.

[cosmik debris]

48. These posts are made up of WORDS

They are the only tools we have for communication. If you are unable to communicate with words, then you will clearly fail to communicate with your posts. (unless you can type out reality and send it to my monitor. And even then, reality is subject to individual perception.)

In short, you use a lot of words, but you don't make a lot of sense.

[patrice]

49. To you. Is yours the Only Understanding?

Are you Exclusive? Can you put your "Self" into the actual Experiences of Others? For example: Having your home invaded and Destroyed for Politics?

Proxy War IS Sin.

[cosmik debris]

51. You are making MY point

Of course my experience is not exclusive, neither is yours. Your dogmatic statement the "Proxy war IS sin" is only YOUR opinion. No one is required to share it, and there is no reason to believe that it is universal truth. Get off your high horse. You are not the final arbiter of "sin".

[patrice]

52. I belive the subject is Language. And Language relative to Action. n/t

[cosmik debris]

53. Coulda fooled me!

I thought the subject was "Proxy war is mortal sin"

Did you change the subject because your point was indefensible or because you just got bored?

[patrice]

54. That is what you said, "It's all just words." I said "To you".

I was talking about words and actions, not just words. You said meaning is relevant, I agreed, which means that your meaning is not absolute either only relative to you, because, afterall they are your words that you type or speak. Language is relative IS a Given assumption. I agree with you; That means not ONE thing (not mine nor yours exclusively), of course.

[cosmik debris]

56. Just like your statement "Sin is sin"

Every turn this takes ends up in the same place. Good luck with your career.

[patrice]

57. Sin isn't just a word. It is also an action. All things are not just words.

Words are not absolute.

Doing means something.

Words are hypothetical tools. But not Reality itself, especially without action, and even then, not gauranteed anything.

What people do means something very important. Independent of mere words.

[patrice]

55. I write for a living. Thanks. n/t

[patrice]

38. Everyone makes up his/her own definitions. We might share.

Where does common language exist in the World as an absolute, objectifiable, concrete reality?

[bryant69]

14. People as things - that's the heart of sin.

In my opinion (see Terry Pratchett's Carpe Jugulum for a good read on this subject). And Proxy War seems like the definition of treating people as things.

Bryant

[Az]

15. A fellow Pratchett fan!

Pratchett is everything Douglas Adams failed to live up to. :D

[bryant69]

16. That's a fair characterization actually.

I'm quite fond of Dirk Gently, which seemed to hint that Adams was moving towards more solid characterization and story telling, but yeah Pratchett got their first and has done it better, and remained reasonably consistent.

My favorite Pratchett is Fifth Elephant, I think.

Bryant

[Az]

17. Adams' problem

And he admitted this. Was that he hated writing. He was more about creating theater than writing. So sitting down and doing the actual stuff of books drove him batty. Pratchett lives to write.

As for me I have to go with Small Gods as my fave to date.

[patrice]

23. Pratchett? More please?

I like Hitch-hikers' Guide to the Galaxy as much as the next person, but I didn't read it all.

[Az]

24. Pratchett

Pratchett has much of the same humor as Adams but has a much healthier proclivity to write. And instead of Science Fiction being the medium Pratchett uses a fantasy setting to make his comments on modern society. Each of his books is his take on some aspect of our society. Twisted to fit into the Disc World (a world that is literally a disc going through the universe on the back of four elephants (the fifth one went missing)each of which stand on the back of a gigantic tortise flying through the depths of space).

[patrice]

27. A litte furher out than Tom Robbins "Another Roadside Attraction"

"Jitterbug Perfume" "Skinny Legs and All" - all absurdist social-portraiture.

[bryant69]

58. Quotes

"It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things." - From Jingo

"This is very similar to the suggestion put forward by the Quirmian philosopher Ventre, who said, "Possibly the gods exist, and possibly they do not. So why not believe in them in any case? If it's all true you'll go to a lovely place when you die, and if it isn't then you've lost nothing, right?" When he died he woke up in a circle of gods holding nasty-looking sticks and one of them said, "We're going to show you what we think of Mr Clever Dick in these parts..." - From Hogfather

"Well, basically there are two sorts of opera,' said Nanny, who also had the true witch's ability to be confidently expert on the basis of no experience whatsoever. 'There's your heavy opera, where basically people sing foreign and it goes like "Oh oh oh, I am dyin', oh, I am dyin', oh, oh, oh, that's what I'm doin'", and there's your light opera, where they sing in foreign and it basically goes "Beer! Beer! Beer! Beer! I like to drink lots of beer!", although sometimes they drink champagne instead. That's basically all of opera, reely." - Nanny Ogg, From Maskarade

"Take it from me, whenever you see a bunch of buggers puttering around talking about truth and beauty and the best way of attacking Ethics, you can bet your sandals it's all because dozens of other poor buggers are doing all the real work around the place." = From Small Gods

Bryant

[patrice]

21. Yes.

While you/I/anyone assumes that you, and yours, have Special lives and Others don't.

[bryant69]

59. I think it's even more basic than that

When you see people as stepping stones to get something you want - whether that's a good job or money or power or even eternal salvation.

Bryant

[Evoman]

34. I don't believe in sin. nt

[patrice]

41. Do you believe in what is referred to as "error"?

[Evoman]

46. Error?

Like in, "I made an error on that math question. Apparently, 11 x 12 isn't 362,880."

Yes.

[patrice]

47. Yes, and, by extension, I made a mistake about the quality

and quantity of ________ empirical factors.

I.E. Reality is other than I thought it was? Ergo . . . .

[Evoman]

60. Yes, I guess I would have to believe in errors.

But I still don't believe in sin. Now you could say that I am making an Error and that Sin exists, i.e reality is other than I thought it was, and in addition believing sin to be an error is an error itself, which many take to be a sin i.e it is a sin believe that sin is an error. Then again, the person who believes it is a sin to believe that sin is an error, may in fact be making an error. For if reality is, in fact (as the person who believes that sin does not exist is saying) that sin does not exist, than the person who believes it is a sin to believe that sin is an error, is quite wrong. That would also mean, that a proxy war is not a sin, because sins don't exist. Now then, is it also completely possible (thought not probable in my humble opinion) that sin does in fact exist, but that a proxy war is not a sin. In this case, then the error is being made by both the person who thinks sin don't exist, as well as the person who thinks its a sin to have proxy wars, while in fact, neither really knows. But I guess it doesn't matter, because I dont believe I am in error, and the error is in those who believe it is a sin to be in error that sin does exist by believing it doesn't, as well as those who believe that sin may exist, without holding the belief that proxy war is sin or the belief that proxy war is not sin or either of the those two beliefs about proxy wars, while not believing that it is a sin to be in error that sin does not exist.

Ha...words are fun.

[patrice]

50. Thanks All! For the pleasure of your Conversation. Hare Krsna! n/t

[Zhade]

61. There's absolutely no evidence sin exists.

Discuss.