You Are Not Your Brain


anthony

Recommended Posts

There are two moral universes. One created by God and the other created by men. They're commonly known as good and evil.

Is that speaking for you, or is that speaking for God?

Glad you asked, Fred. It helps to clear up misunderstanding.

You can always presume I speak solely for myself, and for no one else, or for anything else for that matter.

If I understand what you are saying, the moral universe created by God is the good universe, and the moral universe created by men created by God is the evil universe.

That's pretty close. Again, speaking only for myself... Men created by God were given the free will to choose to live in the good universe, or to create an evil one.in which to live.

Said another way, that which God creates is the good, except for man, and that which man creates is the evil.

No. It's good that he created men with the free will to choose to do evil, because it is also the free will to choose to do good. Without the potential for the existence of evil, it would be impossible to know good.

So it's good for evil to exist... but only for good people... because there would be no opportunity for them to know good without evil.

And, this was told to you, or you know it on faith, or you know it.

Not faith. I know this solely by my own personal observation of the world as well as observing myself..

Am I characterizing this unfairly by regarding this as something that you've told me, and not something that God told me?

Nope... just me and only me.

You may regard every word I write as only being my subjective opinion as a totally subjective being. I can only either choose to subjectively agree with what is objective, or I can choose to subjectively disagree with what is objective...

...but I can never BE objective.

Greg

Then, is it in God's purview to judge that which is good and that which is evil, or is it man's purview, or is this authority to judge shared by some men with God? Surely to choose, one must judge. How does one choose without judging--randomly?

So, all of mankind is given the choice to choose between good and evil, and mankind chooses, and God judges, or does mankind choose and mankind judges as well, as a kind of peer to God in the judgment business?

Example: some of mankind chooses homosexuality. Some religions(never to be confused with God) declare that an abomination in Gods eyes(speaking as they do for God.)

How is anyone to know--objectively-- that homosexuality is an abomination in God's eyes? Maybe its not homosexuality; maybe it is just rampant non-monogamous behavior that is an abomination in God's eyes.

How, in fact(as in, subjectively believing an objective fact), are we to know that the condemnation of other's homosexuality is not the abomination in God's eyes?

This free will thing is a real Catch-22. That is, unless we actually claim to see through God's eyes, and speak for Him.

For all I know, He wants us to freely figure out some things on our own, no matter what ancient bigots once thought. Even if they once wrote it down, not so long ago.

regards,

Fred

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 243
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hrrmmm so if the ones created by god are good and those created by man "evil" why is it that all "acts of god" usually end up with massive death and destruction?..

God is massively powerful. Sometimes He does not know his own strength.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then, is it in God's purview to judge that which is good and that which is evil,

God created the moral law that objectively determines what's good or evil.

or is it man's purview,

Nope... however you are perfectly free to subjectively agree or disagree with objective moral law.

or is this authority to judge shared by some men with God?

Judges are appointed to adjudicate legalities, but those are not necessarily moralities.

Surely to choose, one must judge.

Certainly... for yourself. :smile:

It is impossible to live without determining one thing to be better than another.

How does one choose without judging--randomly?

I believe what you're referring to is judging others... while I'm referring to judging your own actions. Those are two completely different actions.

So, all of mankind is given the choice to choose between good and evil, and mankind chooses,

Yes.

and God judges,

Not directly... God created moral law.

or does mankind choose and mankind judges as well

Everyone passes judgment on themselves by their own chosen actions.

as a kind of peer to God in the judgment business?

Nope. You actually pass judgement upon yourself by the consequences of your own actions.

Example: some of mankind chooses homosexuality. Some religions(never to be confused with God) declare that an abomination in Gods eyes(speaking as they do for God.)

People are free to choose... and by moral law they get what they deserve as the consequences of their own actions. This holds true for choosing to do good as well as choosing to do evil.

In my opinion, homosexuality is the result of childhood sexual molestation, and is passed on from adult to child. But for the imprint to stick, the victim needs to grow to hate the molester, that is what makes the nature of the molester grow inside of them. And if they don't give up that hatred, by default they become what they hate, and continue the practice by molesting others.

I fully understand that this view is not politically correct. The practice of homosexuality is jealously protected by secular leftist libertines who regard it as a Holy Sacrament of their political religion.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Greg...those Ebola deaths. I'm sure they got what they deserved...

Nature isn't a Disney movie...

Bacteria and viruses are opportunistic and will advance anywhere the opportunity exists. It's not personal. It's simply biological. Anywhere your own body has a weakness, that weakness will be exploited by nature.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The practice of homosexuality is jealously protected by secular leftist libertines who regard it as a Holy Sacrament of their political religion.

Perhaps. But my politics are somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun. I view the issue as a primary example of free association, in the most personal and individual sense of free association; the choice of one's life partner. I also see the issue as emblematic of what was once also an American principle; that one of the best ways to defend our freedom in this nation is to defend the freedom of our peers. So, yes, in that political sense-- defense of individual liberty in a free nation, I see it as part of my political religion.

Been a 'practicing' heterosexual my whole life. Practice makes perfect, they say. Been married to the same woman for decades. Never been molested. I came to know and observe the relationships of adult homosexual couples as a young man, growing up on an island in a river in an industrial town of about 140,000. Families lived on this island, it was a smaller community within a larger community. Because of the nature of this island community, it was a place in this town where people could live without being hounded by the crusaders who were imbued with their special righteous concern over the skins and lives of others; you know, freedom eating busybodies. The adults on this island would hire the kids in the summer to do odd jobs -- like, pour a cement deck or sidewalk or dock, Work all day, get paid lunch and maybe $2 each. Standing in the muck in the river, wrangling railroad ties and metal rods to back the cement forms, all kinds of fun. Not every day; most days we were kids screwing around, and when we did so inappropriately, we'd get yelled at by the adults. All the adults. Equally. Could not tell them apart in any significant fashion at all. But I remember distinctly -- it was a life lesson -- an incident with one of the 'bachelor' couples. One of them got sick, kidney problems, hospitalized for a while. Was critical. And the anguish and concern in his partner was palpable. And when his partner recovered and was back home, the relief was palpable as well. It was clear that these two human beings cared for each other, deeply, like any other pair of human beings I've ever seen on earth. And in all that time on that island community, I never even heard of a single untowards incident or moment of abuse or molestation. Maybe the local DIocese was covering up plenty in town at the time, later well documented in the papers, but not anything I ever personally witnessed or heard of in that island community.

So, we all have our theories about the choices of others. Such as, where the deep seated need to crusade against the nobodies business but their own choices of others that has over-run the insane GOP comes from.

regards,

Fred

right wing public secularist advocate of individual liberty and freedom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The practice of homosexuality is jealously protected by secular leftist libertines who regard it as a Holy Sacrament of their political religion.

Perhaps. But my politics are somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun.

Excellent point, Fred. You're demonstrating that the political spectrum is actually a circle...

...where the extreme secular right meets the radical libertine left. Their shared views on dope, sexual perversion, and fetusnuffing are essentially identical.

And just to be clear... when people do what's morally wrong that doesn't mean it's morally right to hate them. Being aware is enough to see clearly how to properly deal with any situation so that you don't become an enabler who fosters and nurtures and promotes immorality in others.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion, homosexuality is the result of childhood sexual molestation, and is passed on from adult to child. But for the imprint to stick, the victim needs to grow to hate the molester, that is what makes the nature of the molester grow inside of them. And if they don't give up that hatred, by default they become what they hate, and continue the practice by molesting others.

I fully understand that this view is not politically correct. The practice of homosexuality is jealously protected by secular leftist libertines who regard it as a Holy Sacrament of their political religion.

Perhaps. But my politics are somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun. I view the issue as a primary example of free association, in the most personal and individual sense of free association; the choice of one's life partner.

[...]

So, we all have our theories about the choices of others. Such as, where the deep seated need to crusade against the nobodies business but their own choices of others that has over-run the insane GOP comes from.

regards,

Fred

right wing public secularist advocate of individual liberty and freedom

Greg's Kooky Kitchen relies on a simple recipe for homosexuality of all kinds. As he has told it more than a couple of times, to get a homosexual, you only need three things:

1. An adult who sexually abuses (molests) a child of the same gender

2. A child who is subject to the abuse at 1

3. An anger at the molestation/hatred for the molester

That's it. If the abused child is angry about it, she will become a lesbian. If the abused child grows up angry at being subject to unwanted sexual touch ... then he will be homosexual.

It doesn't get much simpler or more weakly supported.

Greg has let us know that he has never tested this Homosexuality Theory against reality -- his unique opinion is based not on rigorous manly hard inquiry, but on a soft knit of notions and fancies.

He doesn't ask homosexuals/lesbians about their history of molestation. It's not important. In his limp-wristed, feminized knitting of nonsense, he knows better just because of intuition. He doesn't accept that gay men who post to OL have answered him that they had not actually been molested as children, nor had they committed crimes against children themselves. Such strong real-world refutations are not interesting to Greg, in that he does not believe his intuitive theory could possibly be wrong ... which is funny/sad/pathetic. If his unique feminized hypothesis were true it would reflect brightly in reality. It would be a hard rule, a fact. It would be strongly evident in homosexual life histories.

It is not, of course. So, what explains Greg's persistent feminist insistence on preposterous theories of sexual evil? What explains his weakness in argument and his non-masculine fumbling at self-correction? Why does he insist he is the expert on the genesis of homosexuality?

One suggestion was made by PDS that Greg's feminized attainment of knowledge of homosexuality/molestation derives from Greg's own torments:

"I often get the impression that your "you get what you deserve" mantra is a cover for your having been subjected to sexual abuse as a child."

I think this is arguably as warranted as Greg's Objectivish Gays Were Molested, Molest Kids In Turn. Paralleling his own thesis, Greg was likely molested by a man at some point in his childhood, but he wasn't angry about it, so he then turned out to be heterosexual. I mean, it's obvious, and based on the same feminized non-logic, the same soft, flabby intuitive avoidance of reason: it explains the gestation of his unique postmodern female 'special ways of knowing' theories.

So, Greg was surely as sexually molested in childhood as Greg thinks Reidy and Stephen and I were molested, but he did not get angry about it. He came to terms with the molestation. He by virtue of turning away from anger transcended the unwanted sexual contact and now has no hate in his heart for the homosexual child-abuser who tried to enlist him.**

Reidy set out the hard, masculine, virile test of logic and reality that Greg's feminized intuition is too weak to counter:

In addition to moralist's refusal to provide evidence, which several have called him on, I see an additional problem in his theory that child molestation causes homosexuality: it flies in the face of prima facie common sense. If an experience has been terrifying or traumatic, one will presumably want to avoid that experience thereafter, not spend the rest of one's life trying to recreate it.

Lest anyone think I am too hard on the passive fancies of Greg the Sexologist and probable former victim of child sexual abuse -- the not-too-hidden premise of his Theory is that homosexuals must recruit via molestation. It's the only way this scourge can continue. That's how they reproduce themselves -- the only way. So, in Greg's flaccid feminist anti-freedom mode, every homosexual is a suspect at extreme high risk of offending. The nature of a molester grows inside them, they become what they hate, and they go on to molest children.

In other words, Gays Molest Children.

If anyone else finds this to be nonsensical and malign, they may excuse my speculation/surety about Greg's sexual molestation history. His bad faith on this issue invites scorn. His founding assumptions are stupid, mean, and wrong.

_______________________________

** of course it could be that Greg was molested as a child by a female adult, and then got really angry at the person and the molestation, and never dealt with the hatred, and so ended up heterosexual.

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

William, your eagerness to leap to the defense of homosexuality is no different than that of a politically correct leftist libertine, which only adds credence to the fact the political spectrum is a circle where the extreme left and right meet on the dark side in immoral accord.

(I'll add parenthetically, you also try to bait others like a leftist, but since I'm onto your game, try as you will it won't work with me. :wink: )

It is a simple principle that people possess the tendency to become what they hate.

It's not just anger. That passes with time. Rather it is a deep seated hatred that makes the trauma imprint the victim. And the addictive need to hate to keep seeing that hating is wrong is what can turn a victim into a perpetrator. This principle works exactly the same with emotional abuse alone, which is always a component of sexual molestation. A child of an abusive parent who does not give up hating the parent for what they did will tend to grow into an abusive parent who will do to their children what was done with them.

Dr. Steven Marmer made a positively brilliant observation:

He said that if a parent can pass on to their children one half of what was passed onto them by their parents, they can consider themselves to be a successful parent.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Or to be "Agnostic". 'Without knowledge', waiting for Divine intervention or upon final scientific disproof)...

That's the decent state of being, Tony...

...because it does not possess the ugly bitterness and hostility towards a false image of God (regardless of whether or not He actually exists) that's so commonly expressed by leftist secularists.

Greg

Heh. Seems my irony didn't come through. Agnosticism - and a person holding to it for any length of time - is rather an alien idea to me. I don't fully understand its appeal, or its why's and wherefore's.

It's the middle of the road - waiting for something or somebody to come along to convince one about existence, and so dictate one's state of mind. Believer -- or atheist, one of those central, selfish decisions to be made in a life, and if one doesn't 'know' for oneself, who will?. If I were asked, I'd assess that it's rather better to revert to religion, than to stay in an indecisive no-man's land. Why choose uncertainty?

What's to be gained from permanent agnosticism? Is one fearful of offending 'God'? Or is it of others' opinions of one?

There is great distinction between the fact that a person is not ever going to know 'every' thing - and that he has the capacity to know many things, 'some' things intimately (especially something so important).

I'm aware there are degrees of hostility from atheists to the religious. Also true, I suppose, that the majority of atheists/agnostics are of leftist persuasion. (Not too many people know of the leftist-rightist false alternative, as do Objectivists and most libertarians). Where there's hostility, there is often fear - in this case perhaps caused by people's perceptions of the threat to their lives of religions imposed on them, and is where I can agree with their oppostion... where and when the threat is imminent or possible, not otherwise. The religious are always going to be among us atheists (more like, the reverse!) and most of them seem to be decent, reasonable, live and let live individuals, not pursuing control. My view has always been live and let live too, involving some fruitful discussions and friendships, notwithstanding the ludicrous things I sometimes hear from them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Or to be "Agnostic". 'Without knowledge', waiting for Divine intervention or upon final scientific disproof)...

That's the decent state of being, Tony...

...because it does not possess the ugly bitterness and hostility towards a false image of God (regardless of whether or not He actually exists) that's so commonly expressed by leftist secularists.

Greg

Heh. Seems my irony didn't come through. Agnosticism - and a person holding to it for any length of time - is rather an alien idea to me. I don't fully understand its appeal, or its why's and wherefore's.

It's the middle of the road - waiting for something or somebody to come along to convince one about existence, and so dictate one's state of mind.

But when reality convinces us by direct personal experience... we know for ourselves. :smile:

Believer -- or atheist,

Both of those states are exactly the same kind of belief. One is belief that God exists... while the other is belief that God does not exist. Knowing is something completely different from believing. It's ok to have beliefs, just as long as you understand that believing is not knowing.

That's where atheists screw themselves over. They only think their belief that God doesn't exist is knowing, when in reality it isn't. And acting on that false premise is what puts them at odds with reality, and people who act at odds with reality only end up angry and bitter and self destructive... just as they deserve.

one of those central, selfish decisions to be made in a life, and if one doesn't 'know' for oneself, who will?. If I were asked, I'd assess that it's rather better to revert to religion, than to stay in an indecisive no-man's land. Why choose uncertainty?

That's a wise approach.

That evokes Michael's excellent principle of a "core story". The religious core story a person chooses is secondary to the kind of person they are growing to become because of acting on it. Religion is useful as a moral corral to keep people safe long enough to learn to love doing what's right. It is love of what's morally right that creates the opportunity for God to reveal Himself directly to them. When you know... nothing in this world could ever convince you otherwise.

I'm aware there are degrees of hostility from atheists to the religious. Also true, I suppose, that the majority of atheists/agnostics are of leftist persuasion. (Not too many people know of the leftist-rightist false alternative, as do Objectivists and most libertarians). Where there's hostility, there is often fear - in this case perhaps caused by people's perceptions of the threat to their lives of religions imposed on them, and is where I can agree with their oppostion... where and when the threat in imminent or possible, not otherwise. The religious are always going to be among us atheists (more like, the reverse!) and most of them seem to be decent, reasonable, live and let live individuals, not pursuing control. My view has always been live and let live too, involving some fruitful discussions and friendships, notwithstanding the ludicrous things I sometimes hear from them.

Secular Leftism is indeed the most virulent political religion of the last century.

Because I understand atheists' ugly hostility towards religion and God is born of their own fear, it's why I'm not personally offended by their expressions of malice towards me. And that underlying fear is there because they are acting at odds with reality. Somewhere inside themselves they know it, but won't admit it because it means admitting they're living on the wrong side of moral law.

Atheists' real beef is with reality... certainly not with me personally.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now