Random destinies

[The Dreaming]

You really don't think there is anything special about the fact that we are even discussing this? That we are able to look into the heavens and be driven to ask "Why?"

If you can explain to me all of the wonderful things a human mind can do that no other comparable processor in the known universe can do, that may very well drive me up the existential tree.

But a human life is hardly the sum of it's ingredients, or even the majesty of it's construction. The mind is the location of the soul. (I always preferred Id or Aiwa). Not the bag of meat that houses the mind (Brain) I mean the part of a person that is exactly everything he is. Thought, Memory, Reason. This isn't encoded in our genes or written in our synapses. Where is it? What is it? Science has no answer.

Logic tells us that something pretty amazing must be happening. We have never observed it anywhere else. Since we can't explain all of this. (Saying that Psychology only scratches the surface is a gross overstatement.) Isn't coming to the conclusion that it's all for nothing kind of premature? Do we really know enough? I look into the natural world and I am spellbound. Are you really so bored by it as to say it's all a big nothing? The mind-bogglingly huge and elegant universe just exists for absolutely no reason? Christ, that's dull.

At least throw me a multiverse theory or something that actually scares me. (and the Multiverse does)

[Fist and Faith]

I share your feelings of awe in everything. What reader of TCTC doesn't? Something pretty amazing is happening.

But that doesn't necessarily lead to your conclusions. None of it is necessarily created by some intelligence. And I wouldn't say it's "all for nothing." Rather, we each get to decide what it's all for.

But a human life is hardly the sum of it's ingredients, or even the majesty of it's construction. The mind is the location of the soul. (I always preferred Id or Aiwa). Not the bag of meat that houses the mind (Brain) I mean the part of a person that is exactly everything he is. Thought, Memory, Reason. This isn't encoded in our genes or written in our synapses. Where is it? What is it? Science has no answer.

We don't have all the specific answers to these questions. We have some, particularly with memory. But even without any of the answers, we know that nothing of the mind happens without something happening in the brain. And we know that taking away parts of the brain take away abilities of the mind. Why would damage to the physical brain harm a non-physical entity inhabiting it?

[Avatar]

Unless that entity were dependant on the biological component.

And if it is dependant on the biological component, the cessation of biological function is likely to mean the cessation of the function of that entity as well.

The mind-bogglingly huge and elegant universe just exists for absolutely no reason? Christ, that's dull.

On the contrary, it's amazing!

Anyway, there is a reason...it exists because it was possible for it to do so.

--A

[aliantha]

Try this Ali...The Joker is Chaos..that Human Existance is a Universe Joke..that " we" are less than a ants fart in a hurricane,, when put on the scale of the Universe we exist in,,hence "meaning" is a big joke.. The Joker. Batman, the Dark Knight,, is to bring Order to the chaos..the best I have ever said of the whole Batman deal was..He has no sense of humor.

Yet..a very strange phenomena with the latest " Dark Knight " movie,,people are talking as if Ledger's " Joker" was the best ever..so.. I'm wondering,, if the idea of Loving Chaos,, hasn't already begun..??

I get it now -- thanks! I haven't seen "Dark Knight" yet, which is why I didn't get it the first time.

However, your view is contradictory, because you must simultaneously admit the meaninglessness of the universe (except us), while maintaining an over-arching objective meaning. Why doesn't this objective meaning save the rest of the universe from being pointless, too?

What he said. This is what I meant by hubris. And this idea -- that God created humans in His image, elevating us above all the rest of His creation and loving us more than anything else He has created -- is what keeps getting humankind in trouble with the rest of the universe. This is the worldview that allows us to, for example, believe in Manifest Destiny -- that the world and all of its natural resources were put here by God for our especial benefit, so we can squander them as we see fit. It's the same worldview that allowed whites to decimate the Native American tribes that were here before us; the same worldview that allowed whites to enslave blacks; the same worldview that, today, encourages religious wars (anybody who doesn't believe the way I believe is less than human, ergo not one of The Chosen, ergo I can kill them with impunity).

Sorry, I just can't get onboard with this. A God who plays favorites with his creation is not a God I want to follow.

Ya know... I'm aware that we're viewing this from drasitically different angles. In some ways, we're having different discussions. Let me try to explain it this way. Sort of a start-over.

-My car is blue. In 1,000,000 years, my car will have been blue.
-My life has meaning. In 1,000,000 years, my life will have had meaning.
-The fact that my life's meaning will be of no more importance to the universe in 1,000,000 years than my car's color is of no significance. My life's meaning does not need to be eternal for it to be true.

This is the flip side of the question I ask myself when I'm on the verge of taking something too seriously: "In 100 years, will this matter?"

All kidding aside...Rus, I appreciate your answering my questions.

About a child dying before the parent: Yes, this is a sad thing. Parents aren't supposed to outlive their children. And it's terrible to think about the lost potential of a life cut short. But why does it have to have meaning? Some things just *are*.

That's where the Buddhist view can help: A terrible, rotten thing just happened. It will take a long time to get over. But eventually, it will pass. Inevitably, life goes on; a bad moment is succeeded by other, better moments. Torturing yourself by asking "Why?" only prolongs the agony. (Especially when, in the Christian worldview, the entity handing out the trauma is that all-knowing, all-loving God. )

On the question of whether I'll matter more than Flavius Minimus in the end: You're right, he doesn't matter to me, nor will my existence matter to anybody in a thousand years. Hey, I worked in radio for 20 years, and now I post my ideas in cyberspace -- I'm used to my work vanishing into nothingness.

Trying to be simple and direct (is that really possible here?) I would ask why would you want all that you have become to come to nothing via death?

Doesn't matter what I want, does it? It'll happen or it won't.

No, I agree with Fist. It's enough, for me, to have striven to be the best person I can be in this life. I believe my life has been (will have been? the other way sounds like I'm on my deathbed!) well lived. I believe I've done a pretty good job raising my kids, and in that sense I've left a legacy for future generations. I do also believe that I'll go on to an afterlife where I will continue to learn and grow (tho I'm on the fence about whether I'll get to come back in another body). But I have no confirmation of that, and if it turns out not to happen, then I would be content with the legacy I have left, here, on this plane.

Again, some things just *are*. I'm good with that.

[rusmeister]

Interesting that you should use that word, "eternal". To whom is personal identity eternal?

I don't have reason to believe it is eternal to anyone. But you believe a personal identity must at least be remembered eternally for its meaning to be "true." Therefore, a life's meaning that is not remembered eternally is "false." And I do not recognize your authority in defining meaning that way.

Understandable. You have a deeply held personal belief. I can't say much to that (OK, I could say a lot, but it would be useless). On that count, all I can hope to do is get across that not all Christians are the variety of Hallelujah Bible-thumping door-to-door Christians some of you have evidently encountered - that it can be possible to be quite reasonable and intelligent and also accept faith without contradiction.

But the fact that we do not feel and believe as you do does not make us wrong. Our definitions are as valid as yours.

Only if they are correct (express the truth), F+F, only if they are right.
(If we are claiming to be able to form any definition that suits us, then our ability to communicate is greatly hampered.)

We're back to the question, "Who's right?"

In one sense, you're right. There is likely an actual, correct answer. Does God exist, or not? Does personal identity go on after death, or not? Are our lives remembered eternally, or not? I suppose there are answers to these questions. But, obviously, they are not answerable in any way but to each individual.

Agreed that we can't 'know' the answers in a scientific sense now. We can, however, 'know' things through faith - a conscious choice. (One reason I objected to laughing at faith on the humor thread was that unbelievers (certainly tend to) think faith itself to be merely foolish. Personally, I can laugh at a joke about faith, but my laughter is of an entirely different nature.
There is another possibility regarding answers - that (if not reduced to complete oblivion) we could discover an objective answer after death.

As I've said several times in the past, there are any number of gods who, if I learned they did exist, and were the Truth of existence, I would not follow. I wouldn't follow a God who demanded that I do things I find morally wrong. "Kill these children, or suffer eternal torment." Well, I'll take my chances with eternal torment. Probably not much worse than whatever alternative that God has in mind. But regardless, I'm not killing those children. Belief in the existence of any particular God doesn't automatically mean I'll be a follower, right?

I realize this is several steps from where you are, but the two things I would say here are 1) that it is fortunate that the Christian God does not demand that you do anything morally wrong, and that's the only God I'm talking about, having agreed with you on all the other gods ever offered
and 2) from the book of James, ch 2 vs 19:

Thou believest that God is one; thou doest well: the demons also believe, and tremble.

. Demons totally believe in God, but they don't follow Him!

So I would still be free to argue that a life's meaning need not be remembered eternally for it to be "true," or legitimate, or whatever. I would still be able to feel as I do about what is arguably the less important concept of whether or not a life's meaning is true if it is not remembered after the life has ended. I would still be able to feel as I do about the importance of the moment.

Of course. But (speaking from the materialist this-is-all-there-is stanpoint) you won't be able to feel at all about the importance of anything when you die.

My point about meaning must have someone to mean something to for there to be any meaning at all. That's why the meaning of a person long gone (Flavius Minimus) is valueless, and we can't even speak of it meaning anything to that person anymore. It means nothing to him, it means nothing to us. That it meant something to him while he was alive no longer matters. It really is as if he never existed.

The Christian view is much more hopeful because it posits that God remembers, and what's more, that God will 're-member'.

[rusmeister]

Rus, so do you admit that anything which lacks an immortal soul has no meaning? I notice you didn't address this point. Yet, you must believe it, if you think death and finitude robs people of meaning.

Therefore, given this conclusion we must make in order to accept your view, everything in the vast realm of creation--except us--must be meaningless. Why would God create such a plethora of pointlessness?

Following this line of reasoning, our views are actually pretty similar. We both think that the universe in general has no objective meaning. We both make an exception for humans. I exclude humans from the general meaninglessness of the universe in virtue of their created, subjective meaning. You exclude humans from the general meaninglessness surrounding them by supposing they have an eternal soul which sets them apart from the dying world around them.

However, your view is contradictory, because you must simultaneously admit the meaninglessness of the universe (except us), while maintaining an over-arching objective meaning. Why doesn't this objective meaning save the rest of the universe from being pointless, too? And if this "surrounding" objective meaning (the equivalent of water, in your desert analogy) gives finite, soulless objects meaning, then why wouldn't this apply to humans, too? If that were true, then we wouldn't have to have immortal souls in order for our lives to be meaningful. Which undermines your claim that eternity is necessary for meaning. Which is why I say your view is contradictory.

The only way to escape this contradiction is to admit that the rest of the universe is meaningless, since it doesn't have a soul and it's not eternal. But then it becomes very strange to say that meaning is objective, if it leaves out most of reality.

Thanks for responding, Malik!

I think you're kind of jumping the gun and assuming my view. I'm saying that the meaning of all is provided by God, and that without God, it all becomes meaningless.

I appreciate the time you took to write that, but it just doesn't follow because it wasn't dealing with what I'm really saying.

[rusmeister]

However, your view is contradictory, because you must simultaneously admit the meaninglessness of the universe (except us), while maintaining an over-arching objective meaning. Why doesn't this objective meaning save the rest of the universe from being pointless, too?

What he said. This is what I meant by hubris. And this idea -- that God created humans in His image, elevating us above all the rest of His creation and loving us more than anything else He has created -- is what keeps getting humankind in trouble with the rest of the universe. This is the worldview that allows us to, for example, believe in Manifest Destiny -- that the world and all of its natural resources were put here by God for our especial benefit, so we can squander them as we see fit. It's the same worldview that allowed whites to decimate the Native American tribes that were here before us; the same worldview that allowed whites to enslave blacks; the same worldview that, today, encourages religious wars (anybody who doesn't believe the way I believe is less than human, ergo not one of The Chosen, ergo I can kill them with impunity).

Sorry, I just can't get onboard with this. A God who plays favorites with his creation is not a God I want to follow.

Hi, Aliantha!
It's difficult to offer responses to people on this site in general (nothing personal here!) because the complete misconception of Christianity, most especially orthodox (and Orthodox) Christianity, has me wanting to say again and again, "But that's NOT what we believe!!! I agree with you!!"

Hubris? It's quite the opposite of the Christianity I believe in. Yes, the first part matches

that God created humans in His image, elevating us above all the rest of His creation and loving us more than anything else He has created

. But you didn't go far enough. Now you have to go through the Christian doctrine of the Fall and realize that we have completely ruined the world, ruined everything, that from the height of creation we are Fallen to the shame of creation, as Agent Smith said in the Matrix, become a destructive virus. Pride? No, shame and regret. But you can't even stop there. Now you have to go on to the hope of Christ's death and Resurrection - something done to reverse the Ill of the Fall and make it possible to be ultimately restored to that status - but not through any worth on our part, except insofar as God chooses to value it (much like the parents value the scribbled drawing of a four-year-old).

Again, Christianity is a difficult subject because at times the varying Christian faiths must be lumped together and at times be carefully distinguished one from another.
Point is, the things you mention I agree with. I can't get on board them either. I do not accept that they were a) necessarily trying to honestly proceed from the teachings of their church or b) even part of the Church that Christ and the Apostles established.

Ya know... I'm aware that we're viewing this from drasitically different angles. In some ways, we're having different discussions. Let me try to explain it this way. Sort of a start-over.

-My car is blue. In 1,000,000 years, my car will have been blue.
-My life has meaning. In 1,000,000 years, my life will have had meaning.
-The fact that my life's meaning will be of no more importance to the universe in 1,000,000 years than my car's color is of no significance. My life's meaning does not need to be eternal for it to be true.

This is the flip side of the question I ask myself when I'm on the verge of taking something too seriously: "In 100 years, will this matter?"

All kidding aside...Rus, I appreciate your answering my questions.

Hopefully, my response to the blue car is clear in my response to F+F.
My point about meaning must have someone to mean something to for there to be any meaning at all. That's why the meaning of a person long gone (Flavius Minimus) is valueless, and we can't even speak of it meaning anything to that person anymore. It means nothing to him, it means nothing to us. That it meant something to him while he was alive no longer matters. It really is as if he never existed.

I would add a clarification that there must be a rational mind in order to form a concept such as meaning and decipher it.

About a child dying before the parent: Yes, this is a sad thing. Parents aren't supposed to outlive their children. And it's terrible to think about the lost potential of a life cut short. But why does it have to have meaning? Some things just *are*.

Here I would say, "Tell that to the parent." Could you honestly say that to a parent whose heart is crying out for meaning to the life and death of their child?

That's where the Buddhist view can help: A terrible, rotten thing just happened. It will take a long time to get over. But eventually, it will pass. Inevitably, life goes on; a bad moment is succeeded by other, better moments. Torturing yourself by asking "Why?" only prolongs the agony. (Especially when, in the Christian worldview, the entity handing out the trauma is that all-knowing, all-loving God. )

Again, misconception of Christian teaching (and although I generally refer to Orthodox teaching - Catholicism and other traditional faiths are all fairly close on this) poses a problem. Christianity denies that God "hands out the trauma."(in the sense you mean)
CS Lewis wrote a wonderful book called "The Problem of Pain" www.amazon.com/Problem-Pain-C-S-Lewis/d ... 766&sr=1-1
that addresses actual Christian teaching on pain and suffering.

I would say that Christianity offers a superior response to Buddhism. But this is big stuff - more suitable for books than for soundbite posts.

On the rest - you too have strongly held beliefs. If I can show you where you've gotten a short sell on Christianity that's about all I can do.

[aliantha]

About a child dying before the parent: Yes, this is a sad thing. Parents aren't supposed to outlive their children. And it's terrible to think about the lost potential of a life cut short. But why does it have to have meaning? Some things just *are*.

Here I would say, "Tell that to the parent." Could you honestly say that to a parent whose heart is crying out for meaning to the life and death of their child?

I think I could, yes. To say anything else would be a denial of my own faith. I mean, "He's in a better place" would be okay, as the Pagan afterlife is pretty sweet. But I don't see anything wrong with saying to a grieving person, "I understand that you're hurting, and it's hard to understand, but sometimes there *is* no reason for what happens."

Goodness knows, the "God had a reason for taking her" comments I got when my mom passed on earlier this year helped me not at all. In fact, the comment that gave me the most comfort was one from a Pagan friend, who said, "She's with the Goddess now." See, I'm not Christian. I didn't want Mom to be up in heaven with Jesus; I wanted her to be with *my* folks.

On the rest - you too have strongly held beliefs.

Thanks! You're right, I do. And what you call my misconceptions about Christianity come from my observations of those who call themselves Christians, both here in the US and abroad (see, for example, the Irish "troubles"). If orthodox Christianity is less corrupt than the Western version, I salute you. But in any case, I'm a happy Pagan and I ain't gonna convert.

[Fist and Faith]

You were busy, rus! That's a few posts you made!

Understandable. You have a deeply held personal belief. I can't say much to that (OK, I could say a lot, but it would be useless). On that count, all I can hope to do is get across that not all Christians are the variety of Hallelujah Bible-thumping door-to-door Christians some of you have evidently encountered - that it can be possible to be quite reasonable and intelligent and also accept faith without contradiction.

Not to worry. Heh. I've had a few discussions and/or arguments with other Watchers over the years as I've tried to get that point across.

Agreed that we can't 'know' the answers in a scientific sense now. We can, however, 'know' things through faith - a conscious choice.

This is along the lines of something else you said:

Trying to be simple and direct (is that really possible here?) I would ask why would you want all that you have become to come to nothing via death?

And nicely answered by ali. It's not a choice. I can't decide to believe all these things I don't believe any more than you can decide to not believe them. You feel these things. I don't.

(One reason I objected to laughing at faith on the humor thread was that unbelievers (certainly tend to) think faith itself to be merely foolish. Personally, I can laugh at a joke about faith, but my laughter is of an entirely different nature.

Some can, and some can't, but I think I can laugh at them in the same spirit you do. I can laugh at Stupid Men jokes, and whatever else you throw my way.

There is another possibility regarding answers - that (if not reduced to complete oblivion) we could discover an objective answer after death.

I don't understand what you're saying.

I realize this is several steps from where you are, but the two things I would say here are 1) that it is fortunate that the Christian God does not demand that you do anything morally wrong, and that's the only God I'm talking about, having agreed with you on all the other gods ever offered

I probably disagree. Lots of different Christians have lots of different beliefs regarding God. I don't know what yours in particular are, but you likely believe God did and/or asked some things that I strongly object to. I'd have told God to bite me if he told me to sacrifice my son. And killing the firstborn son of the families of an entire village/nation/people. The necessity of the sacrifice.

2) from the book of James, ch 2 vs 19:

Thou believest that God is one; thou doest well: the demons also believe, and tremble.

. Demons totally believe in God, but they don't follow Him!

Exactly. And Satan used to be God's highest angel, didn't he? But he decided to no longer follow God. (On a tangent, for this reason, I've always thought the "You must believe without proof. If we had proof, it wouldn't be belief" attitude was entirely unnecessary. Whatever God exists can give me absolute proof, or simply make me believe that s/he exists. Doesn't make me a follower.)

So I would still be free to argue that a life's meaning need not be remembered eternally for it to be "true," or legitimate, or whatever. I would still be able to feel as I do about what is arguably the less important concept of whether or not a life's meaning is true if it is not remembered after the life has ended. I would still be able to feel as I do about the importance of the moment.

Of course. But (speaking from the materialist this-is-all-there-is stanpoint) you won't be able to feel at all about the importance of anything when you die.

My point about meaning must have someone to mean something to for there to be any meaning at all. That's why the meaning of a person long gone (Flavius Minimus) is valueless, and we can't even speak of it meaning anything to that person anymore. It means nothing to him, it means nothing to us. That it meant something to him while he was alive no longer matters. It really is as if he never existed.

Absolutely true. This is what I expect to be the case. But it doesn't matter. My life's meaning is still what it is, and it's still true meaning. It is not lesser meaning than one that is remembered forever, it is simply shorter.

The Christian view is much more hopeful because it posits that God remembers, and what's more, that God will 're-member'.

Well, as I've said, if I have to be around and remember if forever, I would call it something far different than "hopeful." But that's just my feelings on eternal existence. If God exists, and wants to remember me forever, but without me, that's his business. Still, that's just our ways of viewing the few possibilities we're discussing; it's not evidence that any of those views are more likely than any others.

[The Dreaming]

There is no more beautiful story about the arbitrary nature of pain then the book of Job. Most people read the story as "God is a dick". You know? In the story he kind of is. But that's not the point. The point is that terrible things happen to even the most virtuous men. There are things that happen in this world we have absolutely no control over. Job is *such* a hero to all Christians. (Most non Christians see him as stupid, and it kind of hurts) It's a lot easier to dismiss something you know very little about. Frankly, almost everyone (I include a whole lot of Christians in this) know next to nothing about Christianity. I am probably more disgusted by the perversions of Christianity I see than even a non-Christian is.

For example "Jews killed Jesus" Is probably the most unfathomably stupid statement anyone can utter. I hope to God I don't have to explain why.

My knowledge is far from complete. I have met some incredibly wise men in the Church that people outside of it are incredibly unlikely to encounter. Some of the priests at my high school were incredibly knowledgeable. It's amazing to be able to ask complex theological questions to someone and get an honest, humble, and wise answer every time. This is a religion that has accumulated 2000 years of thought, and dominated the minds of the western (and a good part of the eastern!) world for 15 centuries. You aren't going to get an accurate view of it from watching some dumbass fire and brimstone televangelist. My biggest problem with evangelical Christianity is that there is no standard all of these men adhere too. Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy (AND some of the other ones, Episcopalians are cool as shit) have a tradition of belief that's been fine tuned for centuries. The idiots you see on TV are talking out of their ass. (As is Bill Donahue most of the time... don't get me started on the Catholic League)

I certainly believe some things that might cause concern in some of those priests I knew in high school, but at least I'm not ignorant. Christianity poses an elegant answer to some of the greatest mysteries of life. It's one that will lead humanity to wisdom and virtue. (virtue is a philosophical concept, not a religious one.) While it can and is certainly abused, it is not to be casually dismissed.

[Fist and Faith]

There is no more beautiful story about the arbitrary nature of pain then the book of Job. Most people read the story as "God is a dick". You know? In the story he kind of is. But that's not the point. The point is that terrible things happen to even the most virtuous men. There are things that happen in this world we have absolutely no control over. Job is *such* a hero to all Christians. (Most non Christians see him as stupid, and it kind of hurts)

I'm not concerned with Job in that story. Sure, he had amazing qualities. And he showed what absolute faith in God looks like. But for me the point is God's behavior. That's another example of what rus might not think is something the Christian God demands that is morally wrong, but I do.

[Holsety]

There is no more beautiful story about the arbitrary nature of pain then the book of Job. Most people read the story as "God is a dick". You know? In the story he kind of is. But that's not the point. The point is that terrible things happen to even the most virtuous men. There are things that happen in this world we have absolutely no control over. Job is *such* a hero to all Christians. (Most non Christians see him as stupid, and it kind of hurts) It's a lot easier to dismiss something you know very little about. Frankly, almost everyone (I include a whole lot of Christians in this) know next to nothing about Christianity. I am probably more disgusted by the perversions of Christianity I see than even a non-Christian is.

I agree with you, but there are other messages to be derived from Job (one of my favorite stories too BTW). For one thing, don't condemn someone who's been punished by random circumstances. Job's neighbors tell job that he was deserving of his punishment and should ask god for forgiveness. Job refuses them, stating that his punishment isn't some kind of cause/effect thing. When god comes down, he actually agrees with job and requires the neighbors to make sacrifices to him. (in other words, he's the one who makes out in the end: "ya, the cow they burned the other day sure did smell good.")

There is one really lame part about job though. It might have been the king james translation I last read, it might be a lacking memory, but from what I remember he just kinda gets a new wife and kids and is perfectly happy. "Ok, loss has been negated by gain, heck this one's a little prettier." I don't mind the "you can move on" message, but I do mind the idea that a swap from one family to another is a nice answer. To some extent god seemed to be trying to "undo" what he did at the end there and I didn't like it. But I would have to read it again a few times.

I guess a question to be asked is, are people like Pat Robertson contradicting the bible when they blame certain sinners for wrongs which inflict an entire city? I want to rush to say yes but I can see reasons someone would argue no. (though claiming people cause a hurricane is a dick thing to do anyway).

And there's another message. Can you draw leviathan? Not unless you're playing Final Fantasy 8 and that's a freaking video game. God is way bigger than you.

For example "Jews killed Jesus" Is probably the most unfathomably stupid statement anyone can utter. I hope to God I don't have to explain why.

Don't try to disenfranchise our abilities. When Nietzsche said "God is Dead" he wasn't making a philosophical statement, rather he was noting that the chosen people had repeated the audacity of the human race in the "Tower of Babel" story and succeeded.

Please don't strike me down god. I'm just poking fun at ya. I think you can take it.

[rusmeister]

About a child dying before the parent: Yes, this is a sad thing. Parents aren't supposed to outlive their children. And it's terrible to think about the lost potential of a life cut short. But why does it have to have meaning? Some things just *are*.

Here I would say, "Tell that to the parent." Could you honestly say that to a parent whose heart is crying out for meaning to the life and death of their child?

I think I could, yes. To say anything else would be a denial of my own faith. I mean, "He's in a better place" would be okay, as the Pagan afterlife is pretty sweet. But I don't see anything wrong with saying to a grieving person, "I understand that you're hurting, and it's hard to understand, but sometimes there *is* no reason for what happens."

Goodness knows, the "God had a reason for taking her" comments I got when my mom passed on earlier this year helped me not at all. In fact, the comment that gave me the most comfort was one from a Pagan friend, who said, "She's with the Goddess now." See, I'm not Christian. I didn't want Mom to be up in heaven with Jesus; I wanted her to be with *my* folks.

On the rest - you too have strongly held beliefs.

Thanks! You're right, I do. And what you call my misconceptions about Christianity come from my observations of those who call themselves Christians, both here in the US and abroad (see, for example, the Irish "troubles"). If orthodox Christianity is less corrupt than the Western version, I salute you. But in any case, I'm a happy Pagan and I ain't gonna convert.

Thanks, Aliantha.
My two comments are
1) I find comments like "God had a reason for taking her" equally irritating. The Christianity I know doesn't talk like that.
This is connected with
2) The histories of Christianity in the East and the West are fascinating, if nothing else because they are completely different, starting a 1,000 years ago. The 30-second version for dummies (which, of course, needs considerable follow-up on the part of interested people) is that the Catholic See of Rome broke off from the other 4 major Church centers of the time in 1054 and went its own way on the basis of one man (the Pope) running the show rather than the consensus on which the Church had always run. The Eastern Church essentially didn't change over the next 1,000 years. The Western Church, under the direction of autocratic Popes, invented amazing things like the Crusades, Indulgences, the Inquisition and a new calendar (OK, I like the new calendar) and spawned a reformation, resulting in 1,000's of little churches where everyone gets to be the Pope - they read the Bible on their own and determine incredibly complex theological issues on their own without having to refer to any history or tradition and some of them go knocking on your doors. (You'd eventually learn that the Orthodox concept of evangelism is quite different. There is no arm-twisting altar calls or what-have-you). This is how unOrthodox things like teleevangelists came about. All of your complaints are, in a word, irrelevant to Eastern Christianity. As far as I'm concerned, you have not yet begun to experience Christianity. You've had the bad luck of seeing cheap imitations.
(Now you can go back to being a Pagan, which I consider strategically to be a good thing.)

[Loredoctor]

Logic tells us that something pretty amazing must be happening. We have never observed it anywhere else. Since we can't explain all of this. (Saying that Psychology only scratches the surface is a gross overstatement.) Isn't coming to the conclusion that it's all for nothing kind of premature? Do we really know enough? I look into the natural world and I am spellbound. Are you really so bored by it as to say it's all a big nothing? The mind-bogglingly huge and elegant universe just exists for absolutely no reason? Christ, that's dull.

On the one hand you say how amazing the universe/natural world is, and then when meaning is taken out of it you suddenly find it dull. I find that strange. Ask yourself, what if there was no meaning? How would that change anything? If you thought the world and everything was grand, that you enjoyed your life, then it does not matter if there is no 'why'. There is no 'why' for why I find sunsets beautiful or why I think my girlfriend is the most amazing person in the world - some things are just worth for what they are.

All this search for ultimate meaning is kind of like tribespeople throwing bones and finding answers in patterns.

[rusmeister]

You were busy, rus! That's a few posts you made!

Understandable. You have a deeply held personal belief. I can't say much to that (OK, I could say a lot, but it would be useless). On that count, all I can hope to do is get across that not all Christians are the variety of Hallelujah Bible-thumping door-to-door Christians some of you have evidently encountered - that it can be possible to be quite reasonable and intelligent and also accept faith without contradiction.

Not to worry. Heh. I've had a few discussions and/or arguments with other Watchers over the years as I've tried to get that point across.

Thanks! I appreciate your courtesy and friendliness (something hard to get across in electronic forums. (When I think about all the times I've faiiled to do that... )

Agreed that we can't 'know' the answers in a scientific sense now. We can, however, 'know' things through faith - a conscious choice.

This is along the lines of something else you said:

Trying to be simple and direct (is that really possible here?) I would ask why would you want all that you have become to come to nothing via death?

And nicely answered by ali. It's not a choice. I can't decide to believe all these things I don't believe any more than you can decide to not believe them.

You know, I (as an agnostic) felt the same way. I thought of it as being unable to "push a belief button".
But yes you can. It really comes down to choice, and the best/worst news is, it's not something you do once forever and ever. You have to continue making that choice every day. You can feel nothing and still act. Action hinges on choice. There was a man in a Gospel story who asked Jesus to heal his dying son. Jesus asked if he believed that He could do this, and the man said; "I believe, Lord, help my unbelief!" - an acknowledgement of doubt in the face of his choice (a phrase SRD took totally out of context in TPTP, IIRC). This was nicely mirrored in the film "Miracle on 34th St", in the end when Natalie Wood's character (the little girl) was sitting in the car and repeating to herself: "I believe, I believe, it's silly but I believe..."
In other words, faith is not seeing an invisible bridge over a chasm but still stepping out onto it. The person who refuses to take action because of what they fail to perceive (see, feel...) simply doesn't have faith, which is a choice. I note that your user name has faith in it. I guess even the Bloodguard saw faith as a virtue.

There is another possibility regarding answers - that (if not reduced to complete oblivion) we could discover an objective answer after death.

I don't understand what you're saying.

Sorry.
IOW, it could really be possible to discover that there really is a true and specific nature to the universe after you die, which, if so, would make ash of the idea of people making up their own answers. It would turn out to be like letting children make up their own answers to homework questions that have specific answers. (2+2 does NOT equal 22, Jerome!)

I realize this is several steps from where you are, but the two things I would say here are 1) that it is fortunate that the Christian God does not demand that you do anything morally wrong, and that's the only God I'm talking about, having agreed with you on all the other gods ever offered

I probably disagree. Lots of different Christians have lots of different beliefs regarding God. I don't know what yours in particular are, but you likely believe God did and/or asked some things that I strongly object to. I'd have told God to bite me if he told me to sacrifice my son. And killing the firstborn son of the families of an entire village/nation/people. The necessity of the sacrifice.

You evidently make an assumption that I have my own beliefs, possibly even that I choose them. This is false. What I choose is the authority that I accept to tell me the truth - what the truth is. One thing Orthodox Christians may not do is shop and pick and choose what they will and will not believe. They accept what the Church teaches, or not. If not, they can't lay claim to be communing members of the Church - they essentially excommunicate themselves by their choice of what not to believe. Tolstoy is a good example. He wasn't fired, so to speak - he quit.

If you object to teachings, the question becomes why? On what basis? If a 5 year old refuses to listen to the authority of his parents telling him that playing in the road is dangerous, in his mind he really doesn't see any danger or reason to listen to his parents - but it is because of his lack of experience and knowledge. We would not champion his right to have his own opinion on this matter. (Not the best analogy, perhaps, but a quick one) In the same way, we are all children before God - we live incredibly short lives, we do not grow better and wiser, either as individuals (death cuts that short) or as a race. The Church, on the other hand, has accumulated wisdom of 2,000 years - generations of people who dedicated their lives to studying their own human nature (leaving out supernatural aspects), and this is surely to hold a lot more than I could ever, on my own, hope to accumulate.

First of all, God would not tell you to do a lot of things because of who you are and where you were born. Point: You are not Abraham of Ur. Even so, how did the story end? God didn't need to know about Abraham's faith - ABRAHAM needed to know, needed to have the opportunity to take it all the way and make the choice of who his authority was - himself (an incredibly limited authority), or something bigger. And then, how did the story end? Certainly not in the actual sacrificial killing of Isaac. Or Job for that matter. You take the semi-mythical elements of God's conversation with Satan and miss the main point of the book. No one had better reason to doubt than Job - and he did doubt. But he still came back to faith.

2) from the book of James, ch 2 vs 19:

Thou believest that God is one; thou doest well: the demons also believe, and tremble.

. Demons totally believe in God, but they don't follow Him!

Exactly. And Satan used to be God's highest angel, didn't he? But he decided to no longer follow God. (On a tangent, for this reason, I've always thought the "You must believe without proof. If we had proof, it wouldn't be belief" attitude was entirely unnecessary. Whatever God exists can give me absolute proof, or simply make me believe that s/he exists. Doesn't make me a follower.)

Of course He could. But what would our reaction be? Would we say, "Hey, I really like this big all-powerful God. I want to be on His side because He is good and right!" Or would we fall flat on our faces before something absolutely numinous and just tremble in fear? We readily admit (in science fiction, for example) that some things would be so awe-some that they would make us freeze or scream or simply want to run away and hide because of their sheer immensity or total alienness. It is sheer ignorant bravado to think that we would not fall trembling before such a Being. Now what if that Being wanted us to voluntarily choose and serve Him, not just because He is so awe-some/awe-ful, but because we do really prefer His nature, who He is, and we don't prefer the alternative (self and selfishness, of which the devil is merely the supreme incarnation - if you laugh at the devil, imagining a supreme selfish (human) self lording over all ought to be repugnant enough - especially if it is not you. , then how could He go about it? Certainly not through direct revelation, which would probably fry us - our brains, if not our bodies. He would have to be a lot more indirect, which is how it has played out. (Again, if you read my recommendation - GKC's "The Everlasting Man", I wouldn't have to write 1,000 posts to clumsily explain it. I am not a great writer. if I were, I would drop teaching.

So I would still be free to argue that a life's meaning need not be remembered eternally for it to be "true," or legitimate, or whatever. I would still be able to feel as I do about what is arguably the less important concept of whether or not a life's meaning is true if it is not remembered after the life has ended. I would still be able to feel as I do about the importance of the moment.

Of course. But (speaking from the materialist this-is-all-there-is stanpoint) you won't be able to feel at all about the importance of anything when you die.

My point about meaning must have someone to mean something to for there to be any meaning at all. That's why the meaning of a person long gone (Flavius Minimus) is valueless, and we can't even speak of it meaning anything to that person anymore. It means nothing to him, it means nothing to us. That it meant something to him while he was alive no longer matters. It really is as if he never existed.

Absolutely true. This is what I expect to be the case. But it doesn't matter. My life's meaning is still what it is, and it's still true meaning. It is not lesser meaning than one that is remembered forever, it is simply shorter.

And this is where I imagine our conversation must end. I find it natural to object to a final end of my meaning after my death, and you find the ending natural and the objection unnatural. I think, though, that if you ever stand over the grave of a child, you will find it (the death) to be quite unnatural - and if that child is yours, then Aliantha's "some things just *are*" won't fly for you. As for myself, I will say that I have an answer. I will admit that my faith hasn't yet been tested to that extent, (and I hope it never will be).

The Christian view is much more hopeful because it posits that God remembers, and what's more, that God will 're-member'.

Well, as I've said, if I have to be around and remember if forever, I would call it something far different than "hopeful." But that's just my feelings on eternal existence. If God exists, and wants to remember me forever, but without me, that's his business. Still, that's just our ways of viewing the few possibilities we're discussing; it's not evidence that any of those views are more likely than any others.

Agreed that it's not evidence. But then I was saying that something else is evidence. Faith is often in spite of physical evidence - the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

The good news for 'having to be around forever' is that we will have died. If we have chosen the right attitude - faith, turning towards God and choosing God, then it is our dark passions that will have really died, all that was wrong in us. We would see that all that we did, the path of our lives led us into this incredible (from our present standpoint) state.
Conversely, if we have chosen the wrong attitude, then we will find that we have created a hell for ourselves (the supremely selfish human self) without a special need for God to "throw us" anywhere. It would be the same as being in the presence of God in the state we are in now (and finding that kind and level of goodness, to which we never even really came close, to be unbearable) - being eternally (outside of time) "fried" so to speak, in the sense I used above.
The trouble is in learning to submit oneself -to die to oneself. That's a work in progress, even if you do choose to believe.

Courtesy is like a drink from a mountain stream!

[rusmeister]

There is no more beautiful story about the arbitrary nature of pain then the book of Job. Most people read the story as "God is a dick". You know? In the story he kind of is. But that's not the point. The point is that terrible things happen to even the most virtuous men. There are things that happen in this world we have absolutely no control over. Job is *such* a hero to all Christians. (Most non Christians see him as stupid, and it kind of hurts) It's a lot easier to dismiss something you know very little about. Frankly, almost everyone (I include a whole lot of Christians in this) know next to nothing about Christianity. I am probably more disgusted by the perversions of Christianity I see than even a non-Christian is.

For example "Jews killed Jesus" Is probably the most unfathomably stupid statement anyone can utter. I hope to God I don't have to explain why.

My knowledge is far from complete. I have met some incredibly wise men in the Church that people outside of it are incredibly unlikely to encounter. Some of the priests at my high school were incredibly knowledgeable. It's amazing to be able to ask complex theological questions to someone and get an honest, humble, and wise answer every time. This is a religion that has accumulated 2000 years of thought, and dominated the minds of the western (and a good part of the eastern!) world for 15 centuries. You aren't going to get an accurate view of it from watching some dumbass fire and brimstone televangelist. My biggest problem with evangelical Christianity is that there is no standard all of these men adhere too. Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy (AND some of the other ones, Episcopalians are cool as shit) have a tradition of belief that's been fine tuned for centuries. The idiots you see on TV are talking out of their ass. (As is Bill Donahue most of the time... don't get me started on the Catholic League)

I certainly believe some things that might cause concern in some of those priests I knew in high school, but at least I'm not ignorant. Christianity poses an elegant answer to some of the greatest mysteries of life. It's one that will lead humanity to wisdom and virtue. (virtue is a philosophical concept, not a religious one.) While it can and is certainly abused, it is not to be casually dismissed.

Awesome post!
Let me get behind it 300%!

The only little thing I'd differ on is that, yeah, Episcopalians are relatively cool, but their tradition is undergoing serious change that will ultimately change the nature of their faith - and move it much farther from orthodoxy (small and big 'o'). Orthodoxy holds the line on fine tuned tradition more than anybody. I would include Catholicism, but Vatican II really undercut that big time.

But your main points are right on, and what I'm hoping people here will get!

[Avatar]

Not a big fan of the story of Job...God used him (poorly) to make a point, and win his bet with satan, proving how thoroughly he had a hold on him. The point is not that terrible things happen to the most virtuous, they didn't just happen, (according to the story), they happened because god told satan to do them. (I thought the whole point of this was random destinies.)

What I get out of Job is that god is not only capricious, but capable of making someone suffer deliberately. In other words, winning his bet was more important than preventing Job from suffering undeservedly. And, IIRC, he made the bet in the first place.

--A

[rusmeister]

Not a big fan of the story of Job...God used him (poorly) to make a point, and win his bet with satan, proving how thoroughly he had a hold on him. The point is not that terrible things happen to the most virtuous, they didn't just happen, (according to the story), they happened because god told satan to do them. (I thought the whole point of this was random destinies.)

What I get out of Job is that god is not only capricious, but capable of making someone suffer deliberately. In other words, winning his bet was more important than preventing Job from suffering undeservedly. And, IIRC, he made the bet in the first place.

--A

Hey, Avatar!
If the response to a question on random destinies is that destinies are not random, then it would be relevant to the OP, right?

It's clear that the book of Job is being misinterpreted/misunderstood on the most simplistic level possible (probably a result of just reading about the general plot with no exploration of the questions).
Let me offer a reputable site's outline of Job:

"THE BOOK OF JOB"

Introduction

The Book of Job has long been praised as a masterpiece of literature.
Consider these quotes:

"Tomorrow, if all literature was to be destroyed and it was left to
me to retain one work only, I should save Job." (Victor Hugo)

"...the greatest poem, whether of ancient or modern literature."
(Tennyson)

"The Book of Job taken as a mere work of literary genius, is one of
the most wonderful productions of any age or of any language."
(Daniel Webster)

What is it about the book that prompts such praise? Most Christians I
know don't feel that way about the Book of Job. Perhaps it is because
many tend to neglect the Old Testament altogether. Yet Paul wrote of
the value of the Old Testament scriptures:

For whatever things were written before were written for our
learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the
Scriptures might have hope. (Ro 15:4)

Note that the Old Testament was written for our learning, that it
provides patience and comfort, and as such can be a source of hope.
This is especially true with the story of Job, to whom James referred
when seeking to instill patience (cf. Ja 5:10-11). Because the Book of
Job is so often neglected, yet presents a valuable lesson and is so
highly praised by even people of the world, Christians should certainly
take the time to study this portion of God's Word!

THE PLACE OF JOB IN THE OLD TESTAMENT: Job is the first of five books
commonly referred to as "The Books Of Poetry". These include Job,
Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon. Called such
because they are written in poetic style in contrast to the narrative
style of most other books, they are also often referred to as "Wisdom
Literature" (especially Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes). Oswald
Chambers (1874-1917) offered this concise summary of the five books:

* Job - How to suffer

* Psalms - How to pray

* Proverbs - How to act

* Ecclesiastes - How to enjoy

* Song of Solomon - How to love

Now let's take a look at the Book of Job in particular...

AUTHOR AND DATE OF WRITING: Who wrote the book, and when? No one
really knows. Jewish tradition attributes the book to Moses, and other
authors have been suggested (Job, Elihu, Solomon, Isaiah, Hezekiah, and
Baruch, Jeremiah's scribe). "All that can be said with certainty is
that the author was a loyal Hebrew who was not strictly bound by the
popular creed that assumed suffering was always the direct result of
sin" (Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown). Because the author is unknown,
it's date has been hotly debated among scholars. Some think it was
written before Moses (pre 1500 B.C.). Others put it at the time of
Solomon (ca. 900 B.C.), and some even as late as the Babylonian Exile
or later (post 600 B.C.).

The uncertainty of author and date does not nullify the book's
inspiration, for it is affirmed in the New Testament. Paul quotes from
it on several occasions in his writings (cf. 1 Co 3:19 with Job 5:13;
and Ro 11:35 with Job 41:11). For the Christian who accepts the
inspiration of the New Testament, such evidence is sufficient.

THE HISTORICITY OF THE BOOK: Even though inspired, are we to take the
events described in it as historically true? There are several reasons
for believing that they are:

* The style of the opening and close of the book certainly conform
to other Biblical narratives that are historical (cf. 1:1 with
1 Sam 1:1 and Lk 1:5).

* In Ezekiel 14:14, Job is mentioned along with Noah and Daniel,
two other figures of history.

* James, the Lord's brother, refers to Job as an example of
perseverance (Ja 5:11).

THE SETTING OF THE BOOK: The historical events appear to be set in
the "Patriarchal" period (i.e., sometime between Noah and Moses). There
are no allusions to the Law of Moses in the book, but there is a
mention of a flood (22:16). Job functions as a priest in offering
sacrifices for his family (1:5), similar to what we find with Abraham
(cf. Gen 12:7). His longevity is typical of the patriarchs (42:16;
cf. Gen 11:22-26,32). For such reasons I would place him somewhat
contemporary with Abraham (i.e., ca 2000 B.C.).

THE PURPOSE OF THE BOOK: It is common to suggest that the purpose of
the book is to answer the age-old question, "Why does God allow the
righteous to suffer?" That is certainly the question Job raises, but
it is worthy to note that he himself never receives a direct answer.
Nor is one given by the author, other than to answer Satan's challenge,
"Does Job fear God for nothing?". We are privileged to know of the
challenge of Satan, and that God allows Job to suffer in answer to that
challenge, but Job is never told of this. Therefore, I suggest that
the purpose of the book is:

To answer the question, "How should the righteous suffer?"

While Job's questions and complaints often come close to charging God
with wrong, he never crosses the line and humbly submits to God when
told that the answers to his questions are beyond his ability to
understand. Thus the book shows us how the righteous should bear up
under suffering ("You have heard of the perseverance of Job" - Ja 5:
11)

SOME LESSONS FROM THE BOOK: In his study on the book (The Book Of
Job, Quality Pub.), Wayne Jackson offers the following lessons to be
gleaned:

* The book defends the absolute glory and perfection of God - It
sets forth the theme echoed in Ps 18:3 ("I will call upon the
Lord, who is worthy to be praised"). God is deserving of our
praise simply on the basis of who He is, apart from the blessings
He bestows. Satan denied this (1:9-11), but Job proved him
wrong (1:20-22; 2:10).

* The question of suffering is addressed - Why do we suffer? Who
or what causes it? Why doesn't God do something? Not all
questions are answered, but some important points are made:

- Man is unable to subject the painful experiences of human
existence to a meaningful analysis - God's workings are
beyond man's ability to fathom. Man simply cannot tie all
the "loose ends" of the Lord's purposes together. We must
learn to trust in God, no matter the circumstances.

- Suffering is not always the result of personal sin - The
erroneous conclusion drawn by Job's friends is that suffering
is always a consequence of sin. Job proves this is not the
case.

- Suffering may be allowed as a compliment to one's spirituality
- God allowed Job to suffer to prove to Satan what kind of man
he really was. What confidence God had in Job!

* The book paints a beautiful picture of "patience" - The Greek word
is "hupomone", which describes the trait of one who is able to
abide under the weight of trials. From the "patience of Job", we
learn that it means to maintain fidelity to God, even under great
trials in which we do not understand what is happening.

* The book also prepares the way for the coming of Jesus Christ!
- His coming is anticipated in several ways. Job longs for a
mediator between him and God (9:33; 33:23), and Jesus is one
(1 Ti 2:5). Job confessed his faith in a Redeemer who would one
day come (19:25); Christ is that Redeemer (Ep 1:7)!

BRIEF OUTLINE (adapted from Warren Wiersbe)

I. JOB'S DISTRESS (1-3)

A. HIS PROSPERITY (1:1-5)

B. HIS ADVERSITY (1:6-2:13)

C. HIS PERPLEXITY (3)

II. JOB'S DEFENSE (4-37)

A. THE FIRST ROUND (4-14)
1. Eliphaz (4-5)_Job's reply (6-7)
2. Bildad (8)_Job's reply (9-10)
3. Zophar (11)_Job's reply (12-14)

B. THE SECOND ROUND (15-21)
1. Eliphaz (15)_Job's reply (16-17)
2. Bildad (18)_Job's reply (19)
3. Zophar (20)_Job's reply (21)

C. THE THIRD ROUND (22-37)
1. Eliphaz (22)_Job's reply (23-24)
2. Bildad (25)_Job's reply (26-31)

D. YOUNG ELIHU SPEAKS (32-37)
1. Contradicting Job's friends (32)
2. Contradicting Job himself (33)
3. Proclaiming God's justice, goodness, and majesty (34-37)

III. JOB'S DELIVERANCE (38-42)

A. GOD HUMBLES JOB (38:1-42:6)
1. Through questions too great to answer (38:1-41:34)
2. Job acknowledges his inability to understand (42:1-6)

B. GOD HONORS JOB (42:7-17)
1. God rebukes his critics (42:7-10)
2. God restores his wealth (42:11-17)

REVIEW QUESTIONS FOR THE INTRODUCTION

1) What are Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon,
often called?
- Books of Poetry
- Wisdom Literature

2) Who wrote the book, and when?
- We do not know

3) What evidence is there that this book describes an event that
actually occurred?
- It both starts and ends like other books of history in the Old
Testament
- Job is included with Noah and Daniel, as figures of history, in
Ezek 14:14
- James refers to the example of Job in teaching on perseverance
(Ja 5:11)

4) In what historical time frame is the story of Job possibly set?
- During the period of the patriarchs, perhaps contemporary with
Abraham

5) What is the purpose of this book, as suggested in the introduction?
- To answer the question, "How should the righteous suffer?"

6) According to the outline suggested above, what are the three main
divisions of the book?
- Job's Distress (1-3)
- Job's Defense (4-37)
- Job's Deliverance (38-42)

www.ccel.org/contrib/exec_outlines/job/job_01.htm
I normally would just provide a link, but given the level of misinterpreted Christianity around here, think it appropriate to copy the info here.
Holsety said a couple of good things, too. I would comment on the "replacement family" that there are allegorical and darn-near mythological elements to the book, and certainly a point was not made that one set of people was nicer than another, but that in Hebrew terms and context having a larger family especially after such loss, was a great blessing.

[rusmeister]

Duplicate post

[Baradakas]

Aliantha wrote:

What he said. This is what I meant by hubris. And this idea -- that God created humans in His image, elevating us above all the rest of His creation and loving us more than anything else He has created -- is what keeps getting humankind in trouble with the rest of the universe. This is the worldview that allows us to, for example, believe in Manifest Destiny -- that the world and all of its natural resources were put here by God for our especial benefit, so we can squander them as we see fit. It's the same worldview that allowed whites to decimate the Native American tribes that were here before us; the same worldview that allowed whites to enslave blacks; the same worldview that, today, encourages religious wars (anybody who doesn't believe the way I believe is less than human, ergo not one of The Chosen, ergo I can kill them with impunity).

I know this is a bit off topic, please forgive this quick digression... but I have always found it curious when people mention the whites enslaving the tribal Africans, as I'm not sure whether this is just a generalization or a subject of improper grammar, or if the individual really had been taught this. I don't mean to offend Ali, nor am I racist in the slightest, it's just that my professor always stressed that this was a general misnomer, that the slaves (originally) purchased were themselves slaves already, under the control of other, stronger African tribes, and were sold by said tribes to the whites. Thus the statement, "the whites enslaved the blacks", was inaccurate. Of course, I don't argue that the sudden upsurge in demand didn't bring the white landowners running, clamoring for business, which led to further strife amongst the poorer African tribes, nor do I argue that, once here, they remained slaves.

However, I am often shocked by how many people are unaware of this. Personally I consider it a particularly sobering realization. Deprived of major differences between humans, we still somehow find a way to alienate those apart from our own inclusive... clicque, for lack of a better term. We don't need religious persecution, racial or sexual discrimination, or even political or societal unrest... somehow we manage to find a way.

Sorry, too many Red Bulls today.

-B