uhkilleez
See's through B.S.
For reasons I will not get into, I have been contemplating this; my final thoughts. Please tell me what you think, and do not hold back.
"If God did not exist, everything would be permitted.", says Ivan Karamazov in his existentialist works. Pascal creates a wager in which everyone should behave as though there is a God to limit their finite losses in the afterlife.
Although I am supremely interested by both concepts, I agree with neither. Suposing that Karamazov is right, what truly is not permitted? Of all of the things you have wished to do, what are among those you simply could not?
Did these short comings have anything to do with God? I think not, more appropriately, they were consumed by the left-right paradigm of right and wrong, between which, should be chosen and what could be chosen.
In the end, who knows what was more beneficial? It all comes down to whom experienced what, and what they were taught of these experiences. Pascal, another Christian apologist, claims we should live as though God exists whether or not He doesn't.
Is this not anything more than simply putting our cards in with God? Would he be impressed more by the safety net of living as though He exists, or by believing He does not and acting righteously still yet?
Our existence on Earth is meaningful, none can argue. What does it really mean, though? If I myself were not alive, how would that have effected my family? What affect would that have on my sister? I would argue that she would be better off.
She expects much from others, likely due to my constant abuse and subsequent regret of such abuses. How much more stable a person would she be today without my own insecurity? Such a question, neither Pascal nor Karamazov ever pondered. So long
as life goes on, so too does the complexity of our morality and philosophical questioning. One must always be able to ask themselves, without myself how much worse would those I love be? In my case I ask these same questions and see nothing
beneficial in my life. I see no reason for my living, nor my advice should continue on to another generation. I may have few wisdoms to pass on, but none of which are so complicated they could not be easily discerned on their own. I am
essentially worthless.
I see Pascal as little more than a cop out; He lives as though God exists because he is afraid of how the Christian God may react to his doubt. Even a man as wise as Pascal see's the problem in a Christian God, he merely lacks the balls to
call such a God out as He is. Karamazov believes without God, there are no morals, and as such there is no morality. Both take an extreme view of life, and both have influenced life greatly in a harmful direction respectively to one another.
Neither character in the philosophy of Man could begin to comprehend the one and true God. For He is one who desires not our admiration and love, He can live without. He does not demand our obedience, for He gave us free choice. Mere, all He
expects is that we behave as though we are all born good people within His will. He expects us all to be good by Him, and not by our Bible's or Qu'rans. For our dissent we do not suffer, for our wagers we do not benefit. It is only the truest
of us who belong. At one point, we all have a stroke of counsciousness, and in this epiphany we all see Christ, but we do not all see the same Christ. Christ is different for each one of us, because Christ exists within us all. Christ is
supremely different, as are we all, because there is no "One and True God" whom can represent all of mankind. We are all God, and only those of us who can see that and co-exist accordingly have any hope of happiness in this life or any other.
I am not a Christian. I am not a religious person. I am a spiritual man who see's things for what they are. I don't need an apocalypse to make me behave, I don't need an end-times to force me to participate. I don't need a leader to follow,
and I don't need the truth to see what is right. Christ is within me, as He is within you all. Christ is all that is righteous, in the midst of a brand of Christianity which would see you land in Hell, ever judging and hating your brothers.
Modern religion is perverted in its meanings and ways, and it will never lead you to salvation. The only one who can save you is yourself, through behaving in such a way that the one and true God would expect. Nothing perfect could expect
perfection, and He does not expect repentence. All you must do is treat one another as though you were true bretheren. You must not agree, you must not repent, you only must be respectful. You only must refrain from action when others would
strike to kill. He does not expect perfection from us, nor apologies for failing to meet the expectations which were said to be expected from Him. All that he expects from us is to be accepting and tolerant of all, even our own enemies. Was it not
Him whom tought us to turn the other cheek to be smited? Was it not him whom taught us to love our enemies despite our differences. It is here where we should start, and not through the Hebrew teachings which tell us what is and is not an
abomination in the name of God.
I am not a religious man, but there is something in which I have failed to realize through this time in my life. It has little to do with Christianity and contemporary, modern religion... for in experience they all follow suit. The core of
the issue is what is moral, what is good. There are facts in this world which can lead you unto Him. There are also facts in this world which can lead you astray. None of those following are enough in suit to lead you down such a path,
but the multitude of which can lead you to believe something ascertain in which is nothing close to reality certainly can lead you astray. Selflessness does not equal righteousness, and as such righteousness does not equal selflesssness. There can never be any one person who
is right, never any one person who is wrong. Merely, we can all be Christ. We are each Him in His own image, independent of what those whom came before us held a belief. For as Pascal believes man should believe in Him despite that he may
be wrong, I believe man should believe in Him because he is wrong. Our modern interpretations do not describe God. He is neither Christian, nor Hebrew, nor Muslim. He simply is as he is, and the rest is for Us to determine. We are each God, because
God is what is greatest in each of us. God is not perfect without us, for we are his greatest creation, and without us even His life would have no meaning. We can all be lead away from what we believe is God, but how many of us can be led to believe
what we know IS God? Should he be something as simple as nature itself, he is above us all, and His judgement we must all succomb. Should we all behave as though we will be judged? No, but should we all behave as though we have something better to
live for? Absolutely yes.
"If God did not exist, everything would be permitted.", says Ivan Karamazov in his existentialist works. Pascal creates a wager in which everyone should behave as though there is a God to limit their finite losses in the afterlife.
Although I am supremely interested by both concepts, I agree with neither. Suposing that Karamazov is right, what truly is not permitted? Of all of the things you have wished to do, what are among those you simply could not?
Did these short comings have anything to do with God? I think not, more appropriately, they were consumed by the left-right paradigm of right and wrong, between which, should be chosen and what could be chosen.
In the end, who knows what was more beneficial? It all comes down to whom experienced what, and what they were taught of these experiences. Pascal, another Christian apologist, claims we should live as though God exists whether or not He doesn't.
Is this not anything more than simply putting our cards in with God? Would he be impressed more by the safety net of living as though He exists, or by believing He does not and acting righteously still yet?
Our existence on Earth is meaningful, none can argue. What does it really mean, though? If I myself were not alive, how would that have effected my family? What affect would that have on my sister? I would argue that she would be better off.
She expects much from others, likely due to my constant abuse and subsequent regret of such abuses. How much more stable a person would she be today without my own insecurity? Such a question, neither Pascal nor Karamazov ever pondered. So long
as life goes on, so too does the complexity of our morality and philosophical questioning. One must always be able to ask themselves, without myself how much worse would those I love be? In my case I ask these same questions and see nothing
beneficial in my life. I see no reason for my living, nor my advice should continue on to another generation. I may have few wisdoms to pass on, but none of which are so complicated they could not be easily discerned on their own. I am
essentially worthless.
I see Pascal as little more than a cop out; He lives as though God exists because he is afraid of how the Christian God may react to his doubt. Even a man as wise as Pascal see's the problem in a Christian God, he merely lacks the balls to
call such a God out as He is. Karamazov believes without God, there are no morals, and as such there is no morality. Both take an extreme view of life, and both have influenced life greatly in a harmful direction respectively to one another.
Neither character in the philosophy of Man could begin to comprehend the one and true God. For He is one who desires not our admiration and love, He can live without. He does not demand our obedience, for He gave us free choice. Mere, all He
expects is that we behave as though we are all born good people within His will. He expects us all to be good by Him, and not by our Bible's or Qu'rans. For our dissent we do not suffer, for our wagers we do not benefit. It is only the truest
of us who belong. At one point, we all have a stroke of counsciousness, and in this epiphany we all see Christ, but we do not all see the same Christ. Christ is different for each one of us, because Christ exists within us all. Christ is
supremely different, as are we all, because there is no "One and True God" whom can represent all of mankind. We are all God, and only those of us who can see that and co-exist accordingly have any hope of happiness in this life or any other.
I am not a Christian. I am not a religious person. I am a spiritual man who see's things for what they are. I don't need an apocalypse to make me behave, I don't need an end-times to force me to participate. I don't need a leader to follow,
and I don't need the truth to see what is right. Christ is within me, as He is within you all. Christ is all that is righteous, in the midst of a brand of Christianity which would see you land in Hell, ever judging and hating your brothers.
Modern religion is perverted in its meanings and ways, and it will never lead you to salvation. The only one who can save you is yourself, through behaving in such a way that the one and true God would expect. Nothing perfect could expect
perfection, and He does not expect repentence. All you must do is treat one another as though you were true bretheren. You must not agree, you must not repent, you only must be respectful. You only must refrain from action when others would
strike to kill. He does not expect perfection from us, nor apologies for failing to meet the expectations which were said to be expected from Him. All that he expects from us is to be accepting and tolerant of all, even our own enemies. Was it not
Him whom tought us to turn the other cheek to be smited? Was it not him whom taught us to love our enemies despite our differences. It is here where we should start, and not through the Hebrew teachings which tell us what is and is not an
abomination in the name of God.
I am not a religious man, but there is something in which I have failed to realize through this time in my life. It has little to do with Christianity and contemporary, modern religion... for in experience they all follow suit. The core of
the issue is what is moral, what is good. There are facts in this world which can lead you unto Him. There are also facts in this world which can lead you astray. None of those following are enough in suit to lead you down such a path,
but the multitude of which can lead you to believe something ascertain in which is nothing close to reality certainly can lead you astray. Selflessness does not equal righteousness, and as such righteousness does not equal selflesssness. There can never be any one person who
is right, never any one person who is wrong. Merely, we can all be Christ. We are each Him in His own image, independent of what those whom came before us held a belief. For as Pascal believes man should believe in Him despite that he may
be wrong, I believe man should believe in Him because he is wrong. Our modern interpretations do not describe God. He is neither Christian, nor Hebrew, nor Muslim. He simply is as he is, and the rest is for Us to determine. We are each God, because
God is what is greatest in each of us. God is not perfect without us, for we are his greatest creation, and without us even His life would have no meaning. We can all be lead away from what we believe is God, but how many of us can be led to believe
what we know IS God? Should he be something as simple as nature itself, he is above us all, and His judgement we must all succomb. Should we all behave as though we will be judged? No, but should we all behave as though we have something better to
live for? Absolutely yes.
