On Fri, 3 Feb 2006, Natalia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [Ed Weick had written:
| Agree with most of what you say, Brad, but I don't think we as a species | have ever done anything because it is the rational thing to do. We seem to | need a supreme being to compell us to want to do things that are "good" | instead of immoral or "sinful". If not God above the clouds then Gaia here | on earth. Perhaps we are genetically structured that way. If so, I think | we can understand it if we consider all of the awful things we have had to | live through since our beginnings. Being alone and feeling helpless in a | hostile universe would have been unbearable at times, and perhaps most of | the time. ] >Hi Ed, Hi Brad, > >As a species that allegedly evolved according to necessity of survival, >it would be logical to presume we practiced a good many rational choices >for 1.5 million years to arrive at this point of obsession with our >current devolution. > >One may well ponder that the resultant destruction course went hand in >hand with over-population, for even within recent history the earth was >populated by smaller, more environmentally respectful groups. > >Seculars would dispute that a supreme being is required to keep a moral >check on society, though many would agree that if it weren't for >religious edicts, the fundamentalists out there would become unbearable. >Other seculars might suggest that perhaps religion has been responsible >for a vast sum of immorality by virtue of the fact that most religion has >traditionally tried to tell people how to think and has, by upholding its >holy scriptures, sufficiently impressed upon them that God is judgmental >and vengeful. That hell and the devil are real. Deep down, people know >that they are not sinners, but basically turn psycho at being told they >are, and try to compensate through projections and manifestations which >therapists might unravel for decades. > >Note that since the realization that most religious prophets likely had >mental disorders, the scriptures have not actually been replenished. I do >believe, however, that people must have found it easier to communicate >with the rest of consciousness more easily without white noise, modern >societal fears, pressures and so forth. > >I think religion really screwed things up by misinterpreting the likely >meaning of Free Will, which may more wisely be said to be free only when >our thoughts and actions are in tune with what will allow all life, >including ourselves, to be joyful. This would in all respects necessitate >total alignment with the thoughts of an omniscient, loving, kind, giving >and forgiving being or consciousness, one who could never force their >will upon anyone. Further, the religious requisite of fearing God one's >entire life hardly inspires trust that one is loved unconditionally. A >supreme being who inspires awe would not want devotion extracted by >coercion. If we are indeed God's creations, God already knows us well, >and knows that only perfection is possible by Perfection. Though most >religious people await a second coming, they may be far better off to >rethink the meaning of a second coming to be a re-evaluation or >remembering of who we really are, who we will--deep down--to be, then >freely choose to respect all life accordingly. > >There are two ways to look at the earth in particular. One is that of a >place of scarcity, the other one of abundance. In order for us to live >the reality of the latter, we can hardly disrespect it. Dominion over it >should not imply anything but responsible stewardship. Living the other >belief has gotten us to this desolate point, and there is no alternative >left but for peace. I wonder, since we have no other choice, is it >considered arrived at through free will? Will we be doing this over and >over till we get it right? Ah, classroom earth! > >Natalia Kuzmyn I more or less agree with your viewpoint. I will only point out that I suspect that part of the appeal of paternalistic religions is that the notion of a father-god allows the follower to assume the part of the delinquent child, as opposed to a responsible adult. I see it as all part of people's avoidance of doing their own spiritual homework. And attending to the requirements of an afterlife can be a handy excuse for not being concerned with the health of the planet in one's real life. ...Daddy will come along and fix the mess we've made, and take us away to happyland where we won't ever have to worry about such things... -Pete V _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
