Who decides what is right and wrong in a world where one being makes the rules?

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Mentat
How's it goin', M. Gaspar? It's good to see you back on the threads...but then, I haven't been on the Forum in a month ...



Only if It believed that this was appropriate ...referring to my request that "It", "God" and the "Universe" be capitalized.

Wrong again. It is NOT whether "It" (God or the Universe) "believed that this was appropriate." It is something I decide based on what I CREATED as a way of DEMONSTRATING my profound appreciation of my Source. It is I who have decided to HONOUR "IT".

"It" hasn't ORDAINED that I capitalize "It". I do so as an ACT of FREE WILL! I would think my CHOSEN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT would be worth a lot more than any act of "obedience".

First off, what is the difference between a "One Being" and a "one being".

As I have explained, I capitalize words like Universe and God and Source and Entity and Being when I am speaking of That Which Is Everything. This is a personal preference; nothing more.

Secondly, a decision is a choice, they are equivalent terms, and choice does exist for the Being, since right and wrong would not be absolutes if that one had not chosen to make them so.

Actually, if I'm not mistaken, the word "decide" is derived from the same root from whence came "homocide" and "suicide". The "ide" is to "kill off" ...and in "decide" it is to "kill off all other possibilities" ...whereas a "choice" is IN THE MOMENT based on what's happening and the RESULTS ONE WANTS. A choice is a CREATIVE ACT that a person performs while being INFORMED BY whatever Guidance one is "hooked into".

This process of choice, of course, is strictly between you and the Source. Any other "guidance" is COUNTERFEIT ...and to whatever extent one allows the guidance of others to determine what they DO, to that extent someone ELSE -- or someONES else -- are running one's life.

But is what "works" necessarily what is "right"? And, is it possible for one set of ethics to "work" for everybody?

I think there may be some "common denominators". For instance, "cooperation" "works" better than "conflict" when a group of people are trying to accomplish something together. Now, a Being could tell us that ...or, we could figure it out for ourselves. But if we DIDN'T "cooperate" we would only be "punished" by whatever CONSEQUENCES our ACTIONS yielded in a Cause & Effect Universe.

No, I said that we would have to assume that, in order for the Being to have any dominion at all...the Being does not, in fact, have the ability to tell us whether it is right to listen to It; at least, that's how it appears to me.

I don't BELIEVE in "dominion". I believe in "stewardship". While a Being with "dominion" in fact WOULD have the "ability" -- as well as the "power" -- to "tell us whether it is right to listen to It" ...an Entity that gave rise to exquisite parts of Itself -- me and you, for instance -- would simply not wish to. It would prefer to GUIDE ...IMO.

Too many "if"s. What exactly are you getting at?

I don't know: lost antecedent ...and not motivated to go back to my first response to you on this thread. I am, however, very appreciative that YOU did and further request that you NOT answer this or my next post next, but continue to respond to my posts in the order that I posted them. Take your time. We've got forever ..right? (Well, at least YOU do! )

You seem to be thinking of a specific Being...

Yes ...and also a specific being

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Mentat
But if a Supreme Being made up all the rules, then It would have certainly made up a rule for applying the rules, right?

Right. But a Being with "wisdom" would only "recommend" that we "apply" It's Wisdom.

Clarify, please. Perhaps a specific illustration.

I might go back later to see if it's worth it to respond ...but lost antecedents generally get passed over ...which might be a shame if there is something "important" ...if ANY of this "important". You see, here a Being might say "It is wise to bring forward that which one is responding to if one hopes for a response oneself." ...but it would never say "One MUST bring forward all antecedents or one will experience damnation." Ya see?

If a person is kept from using her intellectual gifts to contradict a rule that most certainly is correct, then s/he's simply being kept from going down a dead-end road, right?

What "rule" would a sane and benevolent Being impart that one would be "contradicting" by using one's intellect? Be specific.

Remember, I am requesting that you not respond to this post now, but go back to whatever is next on page 2 from me. You'll get to this one eventually ...I hope. [?]

...and now, having looked back at my first post and noting WHOLE CHUNKS to which you did NOT respond, I will content myself with the hope that you have at least READ them ...and responded to them in -- and WITH -- your mind.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Wrong again. It is NOT whether "It" (God or the Universe) "believed that this was appropriate." It is something I decide based on what I CREATED as a way of DEMONSTRATING my profound appreciation of my Source. It is I who have decided to HONOUR "IT".

But it is not appropriate until It says so. That's the whole point of "A being who made all the rules", which is the whole point of this thread.

"It" hasn't ORDAINED that I capitalize "It". I do so as an ACT of FREE WILL! I would think my CHOSEN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT would be worth a lot more than any act of "obedience".

Why? Chosen Acknowledgement is only a good thing if It thinks so. If it wants "obedience" and you give it something else, then you've done wrong, because that's the whole point of a Being "who makes all the rules".

Actually, if I'm not mistaken, the word "decide" is derived from the same root from whence came "homocide" and "suicide". The "ide" is to "kill off" ...and in "decide" it is to "kill off all other possibilities" ...whereas a "choice" is IN THE MOMENT based on what's happening and the RESULTS ONE WANTS. A choice is a CREATIVE ACT that a person performs while being INFORMED BY whatever Guidance one is "hooked into".

So? They still have to choose only one of the possible choices, thus killing off the rest...right?

I think there may be some "common denominators". For instance, "cooperation" "works" better than "conflict" when a group of people are trying to accomplish something together. Now, a Being could tell us that ...or, we could figure it out for ourselves. But if we DIDN'T "cooperate" we would only be "punished" by whatever CONSEQUENCES our ACTIONS yielded in a Cause & Effect Universe.

Unless the Being doesn't want us to "cooperate", in which case it would turn out good, regardless of the human belief on the matter (in this case, the human belief is that cooperation works better than conflict). Besides, even if it didn't work out right for a particular person, does that really mean that it was "wrong"...isn't "wrong" whatever the Being says it is?

Yes ...and also a specific being

And which specific "Being" would that be? Does that "Being" decide what is right and what is wrong? That's the question of the thread.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Right. But a Being with "wisdom" would only "recommend" that we "apply" It's Wisdom.

How do you know?

I might go back later to see if it's worth it to respond ...but lost antecedents generally get passed over ...which might be a shame if there is something "important" ...if ANY of this "important". You see, here a Being might say "It is wise to bring forward that which one is responding to if one hopes for a response oneself." ...but it would never say "One MUST bring forward all antecedents or one will experience damnation." Ya see?

Again, how could you possibly know that? That may be what your preferred "Being" would do, but that doesn't mean that is the only kind of Supreme Being. Indeed, how Supreme is the Being if it can only suggest what is right and what is wrong...does not the Being decide what is right?

What "rule" would a sane and benevolent Being impart that one would be "contradicting" by using one's intellect? Be specific.

What is the purpose of the question?

Remember, I am requesting that you not respond to this post now, but go back to whatever is next on page 2 from me. You'll get to this one eventually ...I hope. [?]

I know that this is what you've requested, and I did read that in the previous post, but I have chosen otherwise. My apologies, I just didn't see the point.

...and now, having looked back at my first post and noting WHOLE CHUNKS to which you did NOT respond, I will content myself with the hope that you have at least READ them ...and responded to them in -- and WITH -- your mind.

If I had merely "glossed-over" something you wrote, then I would have responded to it, out of habit. The fact that I don't respond to everything is usually a good indication that I'm paying attention.

 

[Royce]

Glad to see you back and participating Mentat and M. Gaspar. Hope you don't mind if I throw in my $.02 worth.

There is no absolute right and/or wrong. Even given a supreme being such as God or a god the s/he/it determins what is right or wrong according to s/he/its whim, will, paradigm.

In human society it is the society that determines right and wrong according to the needs of the society and for its preservation. As individuals we have to make a choice between what is said to be the rules and needs of our society and our own needs and desires.

A perfect human that is perfectly wise and good would not need any laws or rules but would always do good or right

No matter whether it is God or a god or a dictator we obey s/he/its rules, laws etc because it benefits us individually. We would not want to make God or Mars or Stalin mad at us. It would not be to our benifit to have any of them or even G. Bush mad at us so we obey their rules and laws and do good or right rather than bad or wrong be it out of loyalty, respect, awe or fear.

It always comes down to what is in it for me. That is why we listen to and give credense to and obey anyone or anything. That is called being human. We rarely if ever do good strictly for goods sake. It may be nothing more than self respect or pride or a good feeling to do good but there is always something in it for us or we wouldn't do it.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Royce
Glad to see you back and participating Mentat and M. Gaspar. Hope you don't mind if I throw in my $.02 worth.

There is no absolute right and/or wrong. Even given a supreme being such as God or a god the s/he/it determins what is right or wrong according to s/he/its whim, will, paradigm.

In human society it is the society that determines right and wrong according to the needs of the society and for its preservation. As individuals we have to make a choice between what is said to be the rules and needs of our society and our own needs and desires.

A perfect human that is perfectly wise and good would not need any laws or rules but would always do good or right

No matter whether it is God or a god or a dictator we obey s/he/its rules, laws etc because it benefits us individually. We would not want to make God or Mars or Stalin mad at us. It would not be to our benifit to have any of them or even G. Bush mad at us so we obey their rules and laws and do good or right rather than bad or wrong be it out of loyalty, respect, awe or fear.

It always comes down to what is in it for me. That is why we listen to and give credense to and obey anyone or anything. That is called being human. We rarely if ever do good strictly for goods sake. It may be nothing more than self respect or pride or a good feeling to do good but there is always something in it for us or we wouldn't do it.

Goodness is its own reward. Cause & Effect.

Thanks.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Goodness is its own reward. Cause & Effect.

Thanks.

The operative word above is "reward". If there were no reward there would be no reason to do good. There is however a reward for doing good so in order to reap the reward we choose to do good.

Supreme Being or Supreme Leader governs with the consent of the governed.

No matter who or what made what rules for whatever reason can only apply them and enforce them only if we the governed subjects choose to follow or obey the rules. We can only choose if we know the rules.
A rule kept secret is not a rule that can be obeyed or broken. The only thing that can make use choose to be governed or obey the rules is for there to be something in it for us, some reward.

If The Supreme Being makes a rule that is not reasonable and has no reward or reason to obey it but death to disobey it, S/He/It may well soon find him/her/itself all alone. It is, in the military, a well known wisdom to never give an order that you know can not or will not be obeyed.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Royce
Glad to see you back and participating Mentat and M. Gaspar. Hope you don't mind if I throw in my $.02 worth.

There is no absolute right and/or wrong. Even given a supreme being such as God or a god the s/he/it determins what is right or wrong according to s/he/its whim, will, paradigm.

In human society it is the society that determines right and wrong according to the needs of the society and for its preservation. As individuals we have to make a choice between what is said to be the rules and needs of our society and our own needs and desires.

A perfect human that is perfectly wise and good would not need any laws or rules but would always do good or right

No matter whether it is God or a god or a dictator we obey s/he/its rules, laws etc because it benefits us individually. We would not want to make God or Mars or Stalin mad at us. It would not be to our benifit to have any of them or even G. Bush mad at us so we obey their rules and laws and do good or right rather than bad or wrong be it out of loyalty, respect, awe or fear.

It always comes down to what is in it for me. That is why we listen to and give credense to and obey anyone or anything. That is called being human. We rarely if ever do good strictly for goods sake. It may be nothing more than self respect or pride or a good feeling to do good but there is always something in it for us or we wouldn't do it.

Eloquently written, as always, Royce. However, this is all dependent on whether that being endowed us with free will, isn't it? Also, I wondered about this statement:

Even given a supreme being such as God or a god the s/he/it determins what is right or wrong according to s/he/its whim, will, paradigm.

Does this change the fact that what It says is indeed "right"?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Goodness is its own reward. Cause & Effect.

Thanks.

Goodness is its own reward? What about when one dies a painful death in the "good" attempt to save another?

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Mentat
Goodness is its own reward? What about when one dies a painful death in the "good" attempt to save another?

Because the "essence" of the ACT may "live on" in the memory of the Universe ...It's "network of memories" being that which comprise the "spiritual domain". Thus, the essence of the act -- the EXPERIENCE of the act by the Universe -- transcends the transient suffering of the "physical system" who performed it. And, perhaps, the one who is making a "willing sacrifice" knows or senses the quality of the experience that one is CONTRIBUTING to the Experience of the Universe, and one is perhaps rewarded by this knowing/ sensing.

This is what I believe is the "message" in the story about the real person, Jesus Christ ...that he made a willing sacrifice to show, by example, what needs to be done by US ...that one must make "willing sacrifices" -- often from moment to moment -- to lead a life which aligns with one's highest ideals.

Thanks for the crumb.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by Mentat
Eloquently written, as always, Royce. However, this is all dependent on whether that being endowed us with free will, isn't it?

Of course it does; but, if we don't have free will then your entire question and all of our replies are moot, aren't they.

Also, I wondered about this statement:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Even given a supreme being such as God or a god the s/he/it determins what is right or wrong according to s/he/its whim, will, paradigm.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does this change the fact that what It says is indeed "right"?

No,at least according to it. As there is no absolute right or wrong, Whatever the supreme being or Supreme Being says is right is, therefore, right by it's definition.

Given free will it is still up to us to agree and obey or do right by our own free will. It is our choice. If we are good and wise ourselves then well will do good as a matter of course rather than because someone or something told us to do it.

Either way it is our choice and we are responsible and accountable for whatever decision we make. We may hate having to obey someone in power over us but it is ultimately our choice to or not obey and suffer the consequences whether good or bad.
Whether there is or is not a Supreme Being or simply a supreme commander, it is alway our choice and no one elses and we have only ourselves to blame or take credit for the choices we make and the consequences. Remember with freedom comes responsiblity and the greater the freedom the greater the responsiblity.
IOW Free will ain't free.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by Mentat
Eloquently written, as always, Royce. However, this is all dependent on whether that being endowed us with free will, isn't it?

Of course it does; but, if we don't have free will then your entire question and all of our replies are moot, aren't they.

Also, I wondered about this statement:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Even given a supreme being such as God or a god the s/he/it determins what is right or wrong according to s/he/its whim, will, paradigm.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does this change the fact that what It says is indeed "right"?

No,at least according to it. As there is no absolute right or wrong, Whatever the supreme being or Supreme Being says is right is, therefore, right by it's definition.

Given free will it is still up to us to agree and obey or do right by our own free will. It is our choice. If we are good and wise ourselves then well will do good as a matter of course rather than because someone or something told us to do it.

Either way it is our choice and we are responsible and accountable for whatever decision we make. We may hate having to obey someone in power over us but it is ultimately our choice to or not obey and suffer the consequences whether good or bad.
Whether there is or is not a Supreme Being or simply a supreme commander, it is alway our choice and no one elses and we have only ourselves to blame or take credit for the choices we make and the consequences. Remember with freedom comes responsiblity and the greater the freedom the greater the responsiblity.
IOW Free will ain't free. "There is no such thing as a free lunch."

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Because the "essence" of the ACT may "live on" in the memory of the Universe ...It's "network of memories" being that which comprise the "spiritual domain". Thus, the essence of the act -- the EXPERIENCE of the act by the Universe -- transcends the transient suffering of the "physical system" who performed it. And, perhaps, the one who is making a "willing sacrifice" knows or senses the quality of the experience that one is CONTRIBUTING to the Experience of the Universe, and one is perhaps rewarded by this knowing/ sensing.

That may all be the case, but how is the person, him/herself, rewarded for their good action (and let Occam's Razor not prick you in your attempt to answer this, my friend)?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Royce
Of course it does; but, if we don't have free will then your entire question and all of our replies are moot, aren't they.

Why? If the being has decided that it is right for us to respond, then we will (either because we chose to do what was right, or because we had no choice). It is well within the bounds of this discussion to postulate a predestination of sorts.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by Mentat
Why? If the being has decided that it is right for us to respond, then we will (either because we chose to do what was right, or because we had no choice). It is well within the bounds of this discussion to postulate a predestination of sorts.

If there is no free will there is no choice. We are either preprogrammed or our illusion of choice is predetermined or predestined. If there we have no choice but to do what we are predestined to do then there can be no culpability, accountability, responsibility or consequences.

Your 'one being' would not have to make any rules nor would we decide to obey it's rules. We would simply be doing whatever we were predestined to do anyway. Granted that this could be the case but then what would be the point. If all is predestined why bother actually going through the motions. It would be a waste of time and energy.

If we have free will but all is already known of what was, what is and what will be then we still have to actually live our lives. That would not be the same as predestination or predetermination. Te difference is subtle I know but it is like knowing how a chess game will be played out form the position of the pieces rather than playing a scripted game.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Royce
If there is no free will there is no choice. We are either preprogrammed or our illusion of choice is predetermined or predestined. If there we have no choice but to do what we are predestined to do then there can be no culpability, accountability, responsibility or consequences.

Your 'one being' would not have to make any rules nor would we decide to obey it's rules. We would simply be doing whatever we were predestined to do anyway. Granted that this could be the case but then what would be the point. If all is predestined why bother actually going through the motions. It would be a waste of time and energy.

If we have free will but all is already known of what was, what is and what will be then we still have to actually live our lives. That would not be the same as predestination or predetermination. Te difference is subtle I know but it is like knowing how a chess game will be played out form the position of the pieces rather than playing a scripted game.

The difference being (in the analogy, and in the case of free will vs. predestination) the margin of error on the part of the "predicter". If, however, the "predicter" was infallible, then there would be no difference between predestination and determined free will (phrased thus to reveal that it is an oxymoron at heart).

 

[elwestrand]

Predesination and free will are both illusions, yet they are the same and both real. My zen master friend says:
the person with the most choise has the least reality,
The person with the most reality has the least choice

The macrocosm is "predestined," absoulte "free will" exists in the micrososm and it is because of the microcosm that there is a macrososm and that it is predestined.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by elwestrand
Predesination and free will are both illusions, yet they are the same and both real. My zen master friend says:
the person with the most choise has the least reality,
The person with the most reality has the least choice

The macrocosm is "predestined," absoulte "free will" exists in the micrososm and it is because of the microcosm that there is a macrososm and that it is predestined.

Perhaps you might expound a bit, for those of us (myself included) who know nothing of Zen philosophy.

 

[elwestrand]

There's nothing I can explain about Zen philosophy, and if I were to guess, probably every member of these forums would hate it because it is not intellectualy stimulating. There is no philosophy, only spirituality. My Zen friend does not like religion, nor do I. I had a book of peotry and writings by a 13th century Chinese Hermit, but I gave it away. All I can remember is something from one of his poems in which he is with a party and they are watching a flag being blown by the wind. He states that the flag is not moving, only your mind is moving.