Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page
My efforts to put ethics on a sounder, and more logical, basis are not an attempt to get rid of religion. If someone comes to the same place, and they got it from their religious beliefs -- fine ! Great. I just don't think the traditions of the past have done such a good job. So I am offering a new paradigm.
I have now written an Epilogue (10 more pages) which I will be glad to email to you, once you tell me you've finsihed studying the document as it is now.
As to whether I believe in God, and as to what kind of a god it is, see:
Although most religions refer to morality in some way it can certainly exist without religious ideals.
I personally believe that it should be the ultimate goal of all humans to seek after universal harmony of the human species. I believe it is what we evolve toward and is at the heart of every facet of human living.
Defining good from what is not good is part of that process of evolving toward harmony of the species.
Due to your excellent logic and reasonableness, I am compelled to agree with your findings - along the path - as you hunt for the truth.
Yes, the harmony of our human family ought to be a paramount concern. Just as we want the organs of our body to be in harmony so that we have health, physical health, so we ought to seek moral health, which would mean universal harmony of the human species. You are wise and enlightened.
You write: "...as vast and spectacular as creation is, it becomes either, a creation consisting of insensitive human physicality, or a creation in which primal humans have advanced to become more than their physical make-up; to become spiritually enhanced beings of love and wisdom. In the end creation will be what we cause it to become, so in a sense we are the creators ourselves. We can either strive to become more than we are, or we can settle with what we have. It only takes a glance at the war, religious persecution and inhumanity toward our brethren, to know what that choice should be."
Well said. More power to you, Pathfinder. You write clearly and profoundly. And you are very lucky to be the father of four boys and to have a wife you adore. The First Cause has blessed you indeed.
I am deeply humbled and appreciative of your intent, obviously made along with some of my other writings elsewhere, which I also am respectful for. You are right though, we are all a forward moving blessing of that First Cause. The thought continues to evolve. I am gratfiied immensely that others are sharing these thoughts of mine. Keep in touch.
Imo it shows that if indifference has no consequenses / no punishment, people will choose the easy way out.
We can teach all we want, but if you can shrug off the teaching without consequenses we will do so.
This is part of the truth, but not the whole truth. Many a man has died for honor or love. And scientists have exposed themselves to radioactivity in a quest for knowledge, knowing it was risky. We do have an urge to trancend the monkey, but it's weak in a culture such as ours, which preaches the eating of cheetoes & buying of ipods as religion (tv commercials)
ask yourself why someone so cynical would want to be aware of such a truth...because the truth as truth is beautiful, because for some reason we want to know the truth, to the degree that we can bear it
Defining good from what is not good is really not the avenue to prosperity; defining self and how that relates to our humanity is the answer.
I must strongly disagree. Defining, is the basis of differenciate constructive things from naivete, else it just ends up in form over content. Exatly what the fashion slaves basicly says, the carrot of group think.
I know English is not your native tongue so maybe you misunderstood me. I do not suggest that attempting to define is wrong, I am saying that we should be setting priorities about what needs defining. I am suggesting that defining the human self is more important and productive, and will reveal the answers we seek, more efficiently than debating all of these other mysteries that we never find agreement on.
Seems I understood you perfectly.
What you speak of, is selfcenterdness, excatly the rules fashionslaves lives by. ..ruled by emotion, ruled by group think.
Okay then maybe you misunderstand my use of the term self. I am not implying ego rather I am suggesting that most people do not understand what the self means. It is defining what the actual identity of a persons inner self is that I speak of, not the ego of a person.
Rather seems you should study psycology, since you use the term in a too broad scale. :flowers:
Exactly my point Hex, its really a simple matter to bring to realization, but the hundreds of opinions and dissections of it simply lead minds away from the simple truth of the matter.
I do not need to study psychology or philosophy to know how I acknowledge my identity. That is a natural process that every human goes through.
Let me put it this way then, I find you very amuseing.