tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5320826620507241679.post6590296244041680684..comments2023-06-21T10:26:47.525-05:00Comments on ("RAM").........Red Alert Moderates: Mystery of Faith (Preolism)Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5320826620507241679.post-12072710643700752562012-08-06T19:28:34.914-05:002012-08-06T19:28:34.914-05:00Common objections to such a conceptual model inclu...Common objections to such a conceptual model include: (1) It gives no hope of salvation of conscious experience after death; (2) It invites pride that elevates selfishness over God, and it fails to provide clear rules that can be sanctioned by earthly interpreters and authorities; (3) It does not condemn any particular conduct as being inherently sinful or evil in itself; (4) It does not provide a common language or system of guidance for assimilating a culture, society, or government; and (5) It conflicts with what we know from empiricism. I believe a little thought would show all such objections to be wrong headed, but this reply is too long already.<br /><br />I think there is good reason why Jesus is professed to have spoken so much in parables. I believe we should reasonably grant each well-functioning adult the dignity to pray, meditate, and be receptive --- subject to his/her own good faith and good will.<br /><br />I do not seek a quarrel with catholic faith. Rather, I seek appreciation that the idea of an infallible mortal messenger is subjective, not objective. I think pretense of an objectively real connection with God — as found in Catholicism, Mormonism, and Islam — tends to add unnecessary ambiguity and confusion for many who may be easily taken advantage of. Apart from the verbal confusion, I do tend to admire much of the music, ceremony, atmosphere, and reverence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5320826620507241679.post-14187007490249377712012-08-06T19:28:23.352-05:002012-08-06T19:28:23.352-05:00Well, you seem to be asking for an objectively tru...Well, you seem to be asking for an objectively true religion. However, I don't see how objective matter or objective morality could exist, as things-in-themselves, free of subjective experience and interpretation (observer effect). I don't see how there could be either TRUE objective morality for scientists to find, or for religionists to see revealed. Concerns regarding morality seem inherently subjective to each observer. This does NOT mean that each is morally free to do as he pleases, because each observer is only a perspective of the same shared cone of reconciling, synchronizing, empathetic consciousness.<br /><br />There are at least as many moral choices for subjective states of being as there are perspectives of consciousness. (This is why Western societies do not want dictators setting "objectively best" market prices.) Were there one, unifying, objectively true, correct interpretation of one book, in order to detail a common and correct answer to every moral dilemma faced from every perspective, then I doubt there could be any subjective perspective, apart from preset Bots of a single mindless program. The iimplication would be that God created everything, pre-prescribed the unfolding of all of space-time, fully knew in advance what each of us would do, yet pre-prescribed our rewards and punishments, for exercising our "free wills" --- which were never "really" free. Such an idea of free will seems to reduce it to non-causal, epiphenomenal, absurd delusion.<br /><br />That would be a lot to swallow, much less to try to use as a “true” basis for prescribing "objectively" moral conduct. End-time religion may sound pretty to some, but I don’t find much in it that can be made “objectively” consistent with any system of logic. I agree there come points where axioms and moral principles must be accepted or chosen on faith. However, I think such faith ought thereafter avail more internal consistency than I find in typical end-time, final-judgment, religious authorities.<br /><br />I doubt the cosmos would delegate capacity for contemporaneous determination (a kind of free will?) among perspectives of consciousness in order to give them only one "correct" moral choice for how to encounter each situation. I do not believe there abides only one, revealed, correct way-of-being for every situation. Rather, I believe degrees and parameters of freedom are availed for appreciating moral choices that further each perspective’s free pursuit of happy, meaningful, purposeful fulfillment. I do not believe there is an objective standard of morality. Instead, I believe there is one subjective standard and commandment, and that standard can be expressed in two words (subsuming the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule): “Be empathetic!” All else is metaphor and commentary.<br /><br />This need not mean that there is no real morality. Rather, it means there is no purely objective reality or morality. There is, instead, a real, subjective Reconciler of morally qualitative purposefulness --- i.e., a reconciling cosmos or field of consciousness. As particular and limited perspectives of an unnecessary-to-be-named consciousness, our participatory purposefulness is synchronized, reconciled, and conserved.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com