I’ve just begun reading these entries.

My first note: Define God.

(The root source of so much current conflict, I feel, is due to lack of agreement on this.)

Some say God is ‘out there’ – the white-bearded old man on the throne. Others have Her wrapped in lovely chiffons, with multiple arms, ruling over only certain aspects of ‘life’. Then the tribal Gods mask up; the Gael / ancient Draoi ‘evolve’ into gods —> Tuatha de Danaan; the entire pantheon of Greek/Roman Gods BCE; gods of nature/Gods of dreams/gods of Egypt/Gods of galactic discourse between be-ings more advanced than ‘humans’……..

and on and on it goes……

Define God.

GOD IS.

That’s all I need to know.

Mind Is.
Am I mind or am I form?

Am I anything, really?

Consider quantum physics, quantum mechanics. Consider ONE instant in time, wherein all time IS, were it not-so named, because by naming it anything, we reduce it to a concept, which leads us into judgment, which derives from ego, which is informed by what?

I have in the past 7 years or so come to know that every single choice I make of this/that, here/there, now/then, blue/white, banana/nuts, will determine a certain outcome. Only I am responsible for this outcome, since the ‘choice’ was only in my mind, thus I perceive (key word that) whatever I’ve trained myself to believe through many moments of choice making. Is any of it meaningful? Do I want it to be meaningful? Why not? It is only meaningful because I have deemed it so, in that moment. These collections of moments which seem to accrue, these choices based on whatever my mind selects at some seeming moment become my life.

My life is not ruled or controled by anything outside me – me being my mind’s sense of its current form – UNLESS I so choose that. I do not choose that, thus hold myself accountable for every choice.

What if I make a mistake?

(I see a ‘mistake’ as anything that causes myself – my ego – pain, or suffering, or anyone else the same.) Do I want that? No. I make choices that will avoid pain and suffering – for myself and others. ‘God’ doesn’t cause suffering and pain – we do. With every choice that leads to these ‘mistakes’. God is the easy target for blame because the Egyptians/Greeks/Gaels/tribes/Jews/Christians/Muslims etc continue the ‘separation’, the duality, the mental breakaway from their true essence, their ‘nature’ if you would. Their
innocence.

I need nothing outside myself to BE. That I Am is sufficient for me to know. I need nothing outside myself to fear – there IS nothing to fear, and my Self is not my form. My form may think it is itself, but my mind determines whether or not I align with Self or self. I choose.

My form isn’t what matters with regard to ‘God’. (no matter the name) Divine Energy/Radiant One/Yahweh and more… my form’s need to be guarded and protected is the base reason I might imagine I need a God (or at least to blame or battle your God) that my form might survive. When I move away from duality and the world of form, will I still have my MIND?! That is whatI have spent 40 years searching to answer.

And I now know.

But my answer, and your answer may not be not the same.

And here is my deepest philosophy, how I respond to many moments as a form:

Is that so?

But – and here is where my life takes on its brilliant relief – I have absolutely no concern whatsoever with either having an answer or with what the answer IS.

Second,
The Christians in Sweden do use the Bible, but remember that we are a Protestant country (well, at least those 15% that are Christian). That is moderate Christianity. They still believe in a personal God and believe that he (she?) intervenes in our lives. They will often interpret the Bible metaforically, and sometimes they are in fact right – as with the incorrect translation mentioned above. That´s what critical thinking leads to; more precise and justified claims.
You see, Christianity is a name that today cover a lot of branches and sects. Here are some examples:

Roman Catholicism
Greek-Ortodox Catholicisim
Russian-Orthodox Catholicism
Lutheran Protestantism
Calvinistic Protestantism
Puritanism
Jehova´s Wittnesses
Mormonism

…and many, many more.
It seems that it´s only in America that some people don´t consider these as different parts of Christianity. You may do so, but be careful to acknowledge that this is your view and yours only. In Europe, and in many other areas of the world, we don´t do this distinction between these belief systems. We say it is all branches of Christianity.
One also have to remember that Christianity origianlly is a branch, in itself, from Judaism. That´s why you keep the Torah (Old Testament).

Third;
So if you hold the Bible as the ultimate authority, then you also think we should run out to stone homosexuals and blasphemers? I don´t think so. If you don´t either, then why do you think we have changed out minds since the time when this was written?
Why do you think that just some 150 years ago it was perfectly acceptable to keep slaves in America? Why did we justify racism in both Europe and America until the 1960´s?
The answer is: The change of the moral Zeitgeist.
I am utterly convinced that some of the things we consider ok today, will be terrible morals for the people of the 22nd century. It has been like that for all history – why would it suddenly stop?

So my new question is one that I have already mentioned:
If you believe the Bible to be the ultimate authority – the words inspired by God – do you therefore consider stoning of the people mentioned above to be motivated by the Bible? If not, you have demonstrated that you get your moral from somewhere else. (Unless the Bible contradict itself, and in that case it is a terrible source which is not to be relied upon)

Oh, and a second, more philosophical question I use to ask religious people:
Many religious people say that God is omnipotent – all powerful.
Could God then create a stone, which is so heavy that he cannot lift it? If he can´t, then he is not omnipotent. If he can – then he cannot lift it and is not omnipotent anyway.

Cheers!

My stand on that, is that you should always be able to back up your arguments with very good rational arguments. If two adults have sex before marriage, who do they harm? They follow my priniciple explained in my previous post – be as happy as possible by any means without inflicting on any other person´s way to be happy. And since they both agree on their actions, and the actions don´t affect any other, they are free to do so. In the case with the abortion, I think it has to be the woman´s choice whether she wants to abort the embryo or not. It is plausible that the unwanted child wouldn´t have such a great upbringing since s/he will always be reminded that s/he is the result of a terrible crime. So if the woman decides to abort the embryo, that´s her perfect right. (Besides, since the fetus hasn´t developed a nervous system or a complete brain at this stage, it can not possibly feel or be aware of anything at all.)

So, my final say will be this:
1) You could do whatever you want unless you inflict on other´s right to do whatever they want.
2) You may have a different set of morals unless you inflict on other´s right to have their set of morals.
3) You should always base your moral decisions on reasonalbe, rational and well-thought grounds.

If you base your decisions on religion, for instance, you are not being rational. Religion is a matter of faith, and faith is an idea about the world that is not based on evidence or facts (otherwise it wouldn´t be faith). If it says in the Bible that it is immoral to do ‘X’ – what does that mean? Who wrote the Bible, and when, and under what circumstances? Why is that immoral? Because God says it is? If you follow the Bible strictly, you would have to stone to death homosexuals, people who commit adultery, people who curse God (=swearing! Quite a busy time stoning people…) etc. All this is in the Old Testament. No sane Western person would do that, right? Therefore it is clear that you can´t base your moral decisions on religion, or for that matter, any set of belief that is not critisised and questioned first. (The Nazi officers in Auschwitz said during the Nürnberg trials in 1945 that they were “only following orders from their generals”. Since then soldiers are obliged to think for them selves, if they get an order wich sounds stupid, they have to question it.) That is the reason I don´t like religion (or Nazism, or Communism etc.) – it teaches you not to question your beliefs. That´s why, for example, science is different: If scientists didn´t question their results, we would still believe that the Earth is flat and that diseases is best cured by blood-letting! We should always examine our way of thinking and decide whether we´re on the right path or if we maybe have to change something. I question my atheism all the time (but I have never found an argument to believe in any supernatural). But neverhteless, I have the courage to admit when and if I am wrong.

In conclusion, you must base your decisions on critical thinking and by questioning your arguments.

Perhaps I expanded the topic a little, but I thought i had to in order to give my point of view. I also have a question for you, but it´s not a bout morality: Do you think that one could accept, say, Big Bang and Darwinian evolution while still being religious? Maybe you could say that Big Bang was the way God created things?
The reason I ask is because most Christians and Muslims in Sweden believe so, but in the States it seems that there´s this “fight” going on between religious people and scientists/science teachers. How come? Why not be compatibilists?

Love,
Olle

From your previos post, you asserted that there is an innate moral standard that has been formed in us at the beginning of time and has grown and matured along with mankind to adapt to the circumstances of the time. The standard you first described (tribes in central africa example) seemed to be a ‘survival of the fittest’ type outlook; we live to live. My question is, in your oppinion, can different people be allowed to have different moral standards? And, if so, what happens if their moralities are conflicting?

Olle

For example, imagine how it was like when we humans lived in tribes in central Africa (ca 150,000-200,000 years ago). We were hunters, but we were also prey (to lions and tigers etc.) It has to be the case, that if we didn´t cooperate in the tribes, we wouldn´t last very long. Compare how important it is to keep your groups together in wars, for example. One who steals from or betray other in the tribe/group would be rejected. And thus being less likely to survive.
This is not only speculation: We observe this in apes today, and in almost every other herd animals. Apes feel empathy for other apes. That means that morality is not unique for humans – and that´s a good thing, of course.

As for Hitler, many psychologists have tried to explain how he could have formed such a extremist worldview. Of course, noone can know for sure how that happend, but here is a concise attempt:
His father died when he was 14. At age 16, he dropped out of high school without a degree. His mother died of breast cancer when he was 18, and it seems when one reads his letters and diaries that she was his only true beloved person in his entire life. He took that very hard, and become depressed. He daydreamed a lot of becoming an artist, so he attempted Academy of Fine Arts Vienna twice (1907-1908) but failed both times. The school wrote “unfitness for painting”. He became poorer, and finally ran out of money, and ended up at a homeless shelter. While all this was happening, many Jews were very succesful in buisness in Germany at this time, and Hitler seems to have been influenced by the racism that flourished in Vienna at that time due to the economic gaps between the average German and the wealthy Jews. There´s even more to it, I recommened everyone to read Mein Kampf, it´s really interesting to read how a quite ordinary German boy can turn into such a monster. So it might well have been the case that Hitler actually was a perfectly normal boy in his earliest childhood, but many circumstances led to his moral failure. I think the same could be the case with criminals of today (except for those who have psychotic illnesses of course), but because we have better social safety nets today, they can be rehabilited.

So I do think that everyone is born with a set of good morals. This, we could call the moral standard – every ethical action that is not derived from these standards is unnatural and are probably destructive for mankind. That means that you neither have to be religious to have a moral standard, nor do you have to study philosophy – you are naturally equipped with that. But if you do study philosophy, you can develope your awareness of ethics and morality and thus being able to make desicions about other people – that´s the reason we have democracy, medical ethic councils and so on. You don´t put anybody at those positions, they generally have to be well educated and have studied som kind of ethical philosophy (for example politics, which originally was a Greek Platonian philosophy – ‘politikos’)

Personally, my moral (except from the natural moral) is derived from philosophers like Baron d’Holbach, Daniel Dennett, Michel Onfray etc. If I were to summarise my views, you could say that:
I believe one´s ultimate meaning in life is to become as happy as possible, whith whatever means necessary – with the disclaimer that you can´t act in such way that you block or interfer other people´s way to hapiness. Thus I am an hedonistic utliltarian. Recent research has actually shown that we feel happy when we are being nice to others, it benefits us and produces more dopamine. Well, obviously we don´t need researchers to tell us that – we can feel that by ourselfs – but know we even have proven it scientifically, and not just based on intuition or emotion.

Finally, I had to look up “perfection”, because I had never heard of it before, and I came to the same conclusion as the Polish philosopher W?adys?aw Tatarkiewicz (1886-1980). Quoting Wikipedia (article ‘perfection’):
“[He] has written: “To demand of someone that he strive after perfection seems equally inappropriate as to blame him for not striving after it.” Such striving, he adds, “is often egocentric and yields poorer moral and social results than an outward-directed behavior based not on self-perfection but on good will and kindliness toward others.”

You´re very open-minded, I like that. It takes courage to admit that one sometimes have to admit when one is wrong. That applies for all of us.

Peace,
Olle

(Honestly, I value everyone’s oppinons, and although I am a staunch believer in God, I truly want to see and understand other sides, after all finding Truth sometimes means you must admit you are wrong)