Showing posts with label Sin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sin. Show all posts

Monday, April 5, 2010

Is religion selfish?

Share |
The answer to that question is supposedly – ‘morally yes, but practically no’ when a person uses religion in order to attain some benefit. The problem with this understanding is that it lacks a theory of values. Consider the notion of selfishness – defined as a primary concern with one’s self interest, which is what? This is where most people stop thinking. But we must ask – What constitutes our self interest? Is rape in our interests? And we have to renounce rape because its against the law right? (selfless conception). Or is there some objective standard to say that rape is bad. This objective or ‘enlightened’ self interest concept invariably leads one to conclude that self interest is good if one has objective interests or values. i.e. It matters neither whether you profess to do something for others (i.e. non-self) or oneself, the issue is why you do it. Does the value have legitimacy. So you ask – what is the basis for prescribing the basis of any value – objective or subjective. I would suggest that it is your nature as a human being.
It is easy to identify the moral validity and illegitimacy of some values because their actors are so pathetic that their actions could only be construed as good or bad. i.e. We are not going to bad-mouth Warren Buffett for working hard, nor for giving billions to a non-profit foundation. The flipside is that we would regard the deception or abuse of people as repugnant because its universal application could only result in a degeneration in social values. But what of moral greyness?
What of a productive person who compromises his values in order to attain a big order? What of capable person who accepts a idiot guy because she fears never meeting another guy? Is this moral greyness? Is it simply a bad choice?
-----------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Does religion convey good values?

Share |
What is the purpose of a relationship with God? The idea that you need a relationship with a person before you are able to connect with a being strikes me as asymmetrical. We associate a relationship with mutual interaction, yet a relationship with god is polar. You may as well be talking to yourself; and more importantly, there is good reason to think that you are talking to yourself. I do not dismiss that some Christians are even able to talk themselves into such a ‘frenzy’ that they can imagine gods.
Having established a ‘loving relationship’ with god, what is the purpose of the relationship? I guess it is a shared love for others. Why does God need us to do that? Why doesn’t God simply have the same relationship with them as he has with us.
It seems a great many people only want a relationship with God for material things. It might be argued that herein lies the problem. But I think if these people could have a good job, they would be more than happy to earn the money to get those material things. Maybe God could give them the courage and conviction so they could actually get those things if we concede the argument that the role of God is to give us things; that is the things which are not material. It makes one think; if the role of god is not to give us things, what is the point of having a relationship with him, unless we are a useless hobo.
Even if we admit that God has the capacity to give us things; so he has the capacity to take them away. How can we argue that we either deserve to receive things, or deserved to have things taken away from us? Does god intervene in our life to do justice or charity? At the end of the day, is it not simply us getting things, whether by earning them, stealing them or being given then. At the end of the day, is it not good for our sense of pride to do these things for ourselves.
---------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Religious fraud

Share |
There are religions around the world – such as the Catholic Church (in various countries), various mystic groups in India and sects in various countries which solicit money from people on the basis of fear, guilt or social pressure. These efforts involve subjecting people to public mocking or shame by compelling them to give money in private. Surely it would be more considerate and humble to actually give money in private, if only for the sake of the poor. Even for the rich. The idea of giving money in public can only lead to vulgar displays of wealth, for a religion which surely has monetary resources in abundance. Anything less simply looks like ‘cold hearted’ business. Are religion clergy the saints they are depicted as, or are they the worst form of manipulators?
What of paying penance to atone for your sins. Is that a legitimate practice? Why is it bad for people to be concerned by material wealth, and yet it seems to be the sole consideration for moral virtue in churches around the world. I wish I could say it is mastery of manipulation; but simply it is mastery over fools. We might well hear from religious leaders who condemn casinos for taking money from people who can ill-afford to lose it, and yet are the churches not going the same. Why would you seek a relationship with god if you did not need some material reciprocity, and would you not be peeved if you needed food, but only got advice from a clergy? The vice being: You have not got enough faith; keep searching, and it will come to you. You will finally meet someone who is as guilty as you. That is virtue? Well I do not doubt that there are other ‘true believers’ who would actually concede some material benefit so that these people may benefit. I have no doubt that reaching the bottom can only result in people seeing nothing but ‘blue sky’ ahead; most particularly in a welfare state where is really never was so bad, and where an adjustment of personal expectations can give one a lot of relief which one might interpret as a ‘gift from god’. Or is it simply we stopped wanting the intangibles?
--------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Religion breeds hypocrisy

Share |
I'm back in the Philippines. Walking around the neighbourhood yesterday a curious gentleman asked me where am I from. Suddenly another neighbour zeroed in on the conversation. Where are you from? Are you staying in the village? Who are you staying with? Are you married? Do you have any children?
One gets the impression these people are victims of the Spanish Inquisition. Such problem solving skills? So purposeful. It might make you ponder exactly what purpose they are intent on solving. Well no problem per se, except the sins of the world. But is that really their intent. Well no. But either is it to be a good Christian since there really is no such thing. There are only Christians with fewer contradictions. These are the most hypocritical Christians you will ever find. Severely crippled, conflicted minds. Never have you passed across such judgemental people.....and to what end?
I personally engage in a great deal of judgement. Nothing wrong with judgement. The problem is with judges who don't self-reflect. Their purpose is not so much seeking a truth, but running away from one. Fine I say, judge me. There are just two problems with the existence of such people:
1. They have the vote - which means they have some level of power, though in a 'modern' democracy the vote really means very little. In fact, never did it really mean much, so I don't know why people talk it up, like we have freedom. We have the pretense of it.
2. They have the power to initiate force. Far be it for me to incite violence, but the reality is that these people are reproached by a mind like mine for several reasons. (i) I'm educated. (ii) I'm a symbol of the West, (iii) I'm wealthier than them, (iv) I'm consistent in my ideas, (v) I'm courageous, and finally (vi) I am confident.
I am a repudiation of everything they believe in, except their most basic premises (which no one can refute), so they are forced to hate me, to castigate me, to judge. But they will never reflect on the reasons. They are not that honest. In fact they don't even appraise me on a conceptual level. Instead they are motivated by fearings. There are several things they look for: (i) A desire to forge relationships by finding common ground, (ii) An interest in their lives, because they want to talk about themselves, (iii) Finding an excuse to engratiate themselves into your life.
Just because they see more evidence that I am not their type. Don't think that this would repell them. On the contrary, it would be a basis for rationalising or justifying their ultimate purpose, to use me in some way. Being a foreigner, they think I have money to share with them, visa assistance to grant them, or a daughter whom I can marry. In the Philippines I am often offered a prospective wife. I am less surprised to see women do that since they support their children's best interests. Be wary when siblings are setting you up. They are hoping for the day when you will support their alcohol or drug habit.
This is of course the seedier side of the Philippines, whether its the pretentious 'no class' landed class or the uneducated, desperate poor living on hopes. Fortunately I am a diamond-hunter, and as a diamond hunter I am only interested in understanding 'dirt' as long as it helps me find diamonds.
Slightly less painful as dealing with these religious hypocrites is dealing with people who give weight to the assertions or judgements of these people. The victims and fence sitters need to assert their views if such arguments are to be overcome. They are cowards only emboldened by the belief that they embody the social conscience. That is why they hate me so much. I am only accepted by pluralistic thinkers. They too might be conflicted, but they are at the very least (i) Not threatening, (ii) Open to alternative ideas.
The problem of course is that their capacity to know the truth is limited by their lack of conceptual skills. They have been sabotaged by the same Christian dogma as the neighbourhood snakes. The problem is that they are not for me, they are just not against me. They do judge, but its sting is benign because they have effectively desexed themselves, removing the last vestiges of moral pride. They have decided that ethics is subjective. "What is right for you, is right for you, and what is right for me is right for me'. This of course does not prevent coercion, though it tends to be subtler than the snakes in the neighbourhood. They will tend to not repay loans rather than steal money. But they also don't share the same ambition, and they might be safe enough to be beyond even such pettiness. Such souls have long been attractive to protective men who like to be taken care of. So long as you allow such people to believe that, you will pose no threat to them, and them no threat to you.
This dichotomy is the basis for the perpetrator-victim culture we find in the Church. We need to look at organised religion as a business system. Its a place where people come not for religious salvation but business connections. The price of admission is a paltry some. If you pay more you get to network with a higher 'class' of people. i.e. More money which means more influence, that assumes you can connect or resonate in the minds of these people. Money is power in the Church as well. But its not enough. You need to be influential. You need to make people feel good. Not by setting new standards, but by dropping them. By making every person you connect with feel that you have a special bond with them, and then having the diplomacy to drop them like a sack of potatoes as you move on to the next person. This is the realm of modern diplomacy as it is practiced in the Church, politics and business. Some business is different because it demands some level of standards, i.e. We have higher standards for engineers, architects, doctors, and sometimes accountants and CEOs, depending on the stage of the economic cycle.
------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Monday, December 31, 2007

The Nature of Sin

Share |
What is sin? The concept of 'Original Sin' implies that humans are predisposed to being sinners because of a choice that Adam and Eve made to eat an apple from the Tree of Knowledge. Whether you believe the parabole or not, there are important contradictions to recognise here.

1. How can a descendant of Adam & Eve be considered morally impudent as a result of others actions. There is no psychological scientific) basis for suggesting as much, and it is contrary to the popular belief that we have free will.
2. Original Sin is also a furfy because you humans cannot be judged for their actions if they are 'sinful by nature'. Moral concepts such as sin apply only to humans because they have a choice. If there is no choice, than humans are free of moral responsibility.

If you appreciate this, you realise that Christian philosophy is not a philosophy for humans, but to cast them into the Dark Ages, which is exactly where they went between 500-900AD. Consider that a human need only rationalise that they are 'sinful by nature' to accept their flaws as much as they might claim to be repentent. They cannot escape their nature, and if their nature is flawed, then they can evade moral responsibility for the most vile crimes against other men. Jesus is presented to us as a victim - never as a perpetrator - but if anyone has moral responsibility its the 'perfect' God that has no limits in their capacity to heal. Any suggestion to the contrary is blatant rationalisation.
Attention all atheists!!
In fact anyone who has had an interesting encounter with a Christian which involved manipulation, deception or blatant rationalisation. This is research or material for a forthcoming book. I am not suggesting that all Christians are criminals, dangerous or threats to society, but I am suggesting that Christianity is a basis for moral inefficacy. There is a reason why Christian nations are always at war. There is a reason why former Christians (or children of Christians) have a tendency to drift into cults and extreme religious groups. Thank you for any life experiences you can recall. ----------------------------------------------- Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com