Copyright Carl
Janssen 2018 April 20
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Friday, April 20, 2018
Chapter one part four - Offensive theology undermining authority and teaching love
Thursday, December 14, 2017
Chapter one part three - Offensive theology undermining authority and teaching love
It is not important to me what religion someone labels
themselves as but what religion they think and practice. I am not writing this book to convert someone
to a new religious label.
I am going to make a
case that if there is what some people commonly call a heaven and a hell ones
admittance to heaven and hell might not determined by what religion one labels
themselves as but what religion one thinks and practices not however as
salvation based on what set of good deeds someone did or even what knowledge
they have but their underlying attitude toward sentient individuals.
I will also make a case that interfaith marriage is not
necessarily morally wrong if by interfaith one means two different individuals
marrying who label the name of the religion they practice with different
labels.
Additionally I will make the case that changing what
religion other individuals labels themselves as should not be the primary goal
of sharing one's faith. The primary goal
should be providing information that may provide opportunity for someone's
underlying attitude or attitudes toward other sentient individuals to improve
more easily if they should so choose.
This improvement in attitude may result in learning how to practically
make decisions that are more loving based on an objective standard of love that
is relativistic based on each individuals perspective including the perspective
of God if such a being exists or each god if many gods exist.
I will make the case that a god may exist who communicated
with individuals called prophets and that the words that this God communicated
to prophets maybe found in a transmitted copied and recopied form in a book
frequently called the Bible as well as possibly other books. However I will not use the Bible alone to
make this case, nor will I claim the copying process that led up to today's
bible is perfect nor will i claim a canonical set of books, but I will make
claim of a process taught that each individual can use to make a reasonable
evaluation of alleged prophecy from God that maybe used to evaluate some
writings claimed to contain prophetic words.
In light of this sense I will try to make a case based on
the Bible to justify many of the points I make throughout this book but it will
not be an absolute definitive proof by which a individual of finite knowledge
can know the truthfulness or falsity of my claims with 100% certainty.
This book will look at things primarily through a Christian
worldview, an agnostic worldview and a national anarchist worldview although
not as the one and only worldview labeled as each of these religions. For two different claims can labeled as
dogmatic tenets of the Christian faith by two different individuals labeling
themselves as Christian maybe contradictory.
And one tenet of one person's Christianity may actually agree with a
tenet of another person's Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Statism,
Anarchism or yes even Atheism.
Copyright Carl Janssen 2017
Copyright Carl Janssen 2017
Chapter one part two - Offensive theology undermining authority and teaching love
The second part of this book title is called teaching love. However I will define love throughout this book primarily in the apothatic sense by explaining what love is not.
There is a difference between having a loving intention and a loving action. If someone wishes to save someone's life (who rightfully should be saved) by providing them with medicine and accidentally gives them poison hastening their death they had loving intention but not loving action however if they wish to murder someone and try to give them poison but accidentally gave them medicine they accidentally did a action which appears to be loving but had intention that was not loving. In order to deliberately and knowingly do a loving action one needs not just loving intention but knowledge, those with loving intention will have a desire to learn what loving action is.
Love can be described apothatically for example avoiding murder is loving. However if a wicked one were to try to get someone with loving intention to do actions that were anti loving, such an individual could use unethical influence by persuading them that murder is morally good when done through following the orders of clergy, commanding officers, politicians, parents, employers, spouses, friends, family, etc. They might even say because a god said so or they reached a statement of enlightenment to come to this knowledge or even because without obedience to the government society would fall into chaos that would be much worse than a single murder or that your parents know what is best and so you should obey them even if you think murder is morally wrong.
All of those reasons listed are ways to use unethical influence based on an appeal to authority. Hence my book is entitled undermining authority. This unethical influence has been done to humanity at large in part accidentally and in part intentionally and this unethical influence has resulted in people with loving intention doing actions that are not loving. There are some individuals who however may very will be doing things opposed to the nature of love who have no loving intention this book is not written for them unless they can be persuaded to change from being against love to having loving intention for otherwise to know what actions are loving but have no intention to do loving actions will not result in an individual acting in accordance with love.
I am going to make the case that religious teachings can be used to provide information to provide a good influence by being used as a polemic against undue influence or they can be used as a form of undue influence also. I wish to show how to use the Bible and other sources of religious teaching in order to combat undue influence throughout this book. This does not rest on the necessity of the existence of a god for the way I shall show scripture can be interpreted can influence someone's thinking patterns even if there is no god but I will try to make the case that there is reason to believe God exists and that he has provided public revelation as a means to combat undue influence although I do not claim this is the only reason for such revelation to be used by an individual.
The Bible can provide an apothetic framework to show what love is not. There was a general prohibition against murder given to Noah from whom all humanity descended and would have had opportunity to hear such a prohibition if Noah's descendants chose to pass it on by oral tradition prior to the giving of the Mosaic law. These descendants of Noah later would label themselves as being of many different religions and faiths but would all have had opportunity to hear God's command against murder if it was passed on by their ancestors.
But specifically the descendants of Jacob's twelve sons listed in the Bible would later be identified as being of what is today frequently called the Jewish faith by mainstream society. An intentional community was established during the time of Moses a descendant of Jacob in which God was claimed to have told this community a set of rules and all the men agreed. Prior to Moses in the time of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob these rules were not yet given or not given in full or at least disregarded by Abraham who married his half sister although forbidden in Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 20 not yet written at the time. I suggest the possibility that other communities were given no such extra rules and that the new testament does not subtract from the laws of God or create a new contract but simply restates what was already the moral code God wished for humanity prior to the rules of the intentional community during the time of Moses.
I am going to try to show apothetic teachings of what love is not based on the overlapping moral teachings of the old and new testament not to initiate as an aggressor in a non defensive manner, murder, kidnapping, fraud and theft as well as other forbidden things. But I will also show how the nature of what is a violation of such things maybe unclear and how the Mosaic law would provide a skeletal outline with additional details of what maybe good for one society which none the less was insufficient. I propose that theft maybe viewed different in one society than another based on different individuals having different opinions of ownership, the Mosaic law provided one set of definitions that may have been good for that society at that time but as I will demonstrate could not possibly work in our society today as the proper initial owner in today's society is unlisted in the Mosaic law. I believe this will naturally result in national anarchism as the most reasonable system of property (I know of) based on this lack of non relativistic objectivity (it is objective but only as objective as a group of people has agreed to a property convention) and will suggest that having a local community law in the times of Moses may have been in alignment with the principles of National Anarchism.
The word anarchism means the moral teaching that there should be a goal of no involuntary slavery, although what constitutes involuntary slavery is highly disputed so there are many different schools of anarchism. This involuntary slavery is brought on by certain teachings about authority which are by there very nature contrary to love as for example if it is unloving to murder someone than using authority as an excuse that murdering someone would be good is contrary to the nature of love. I am going to suggest that at the heart of it an anarchists life maybe to teach and practice ethical influence in opposition to unethical influence and that this maybe the same as the core heart of what Jesus taught as well as many other religious people.
Copyright Carl Janssen 2017
There is a difference between having a loving intention and a loving action. If someone wishes to save someone's life (who rightfully should be saved) by providing them with medicine and accidentally gives them poison hastening their death they had loving intention but not loving action however if they wish to murder someone and try to give them poison but accidentally gave them medicine they accidentally did a action which appears to be loving but had intention that was not loving. In order to deliberately and knowingly do a loving action one needs not just loving intention but knowledge, those with loving intention will have a desire to learn what loving action is.
Love can be described apothatically for example avoiding murder is loving. However if a wicked one were to try to get someone with loving intention to do actions that were anti loving, such an individual could use unethical influence by persuading them that murder is morally good when done through following the orders of clergy, commanding officers, politicians, parents, employers, spouses, friends, family, etc. They might even say because a god said so or they reached a statement of enlightenment to come to this knowledge or even because without obedience to the government society would fall into chaos that would be much worse than a single murder or that your parents know what is best and so you should obey them even if you think murder is morally wrong.
All of those reasons listed are ways to use unethical influence based on an appeal to authority. Hence my book is entitled undermining authority. This unethical influence has been done to humanity at large in part accidentally and in part intentionally and this unethical influence has resulted in people with loving intention doing actions that are not loving. There are some individuals who however may very will be doing things opposed to the nature of love who have no loving intention this book is not written for them unless they can be persuaded to change from being against love to having loving intention for otherwise to know what actions are loving but have no intention to do loving actions will not result in an individual acting in accordance with love.
I am going to make the case that religious teachings can be used to provide information to provide a good influence by being used as a polemic against undue influence or they can be used as a form of undue influence also. I wish to show how to use the Bible and other sources of religious teaching in order to combat undue influence throughout this book. This does not rest on the necessity of the existence of a god for the way I shall show scripture can be interpreted can influence someone's thinking patterns even if there is no god but I will try to make the case that there is reason to believe God exists and that he has provided public revelation as a means to combat undue influence although I do not claim this is the only reason for such revelation to be used by an individual.
The Bible can provide an apothetic framework to show what love is not. There was a general prohibition against murder given to Noah from whom all humanity descended and would have had opportunity to hear such a prohibition if Noah's descendants chose to pass it on by oral tradition prior to the giving of the Mosaic law. These descendants of Noah later would label themselves as being of many different religions and faiths but would all have had opportunity to hear God's command against murder if it was passed on by their ancestors.
But specifically the descendants of Jacob's twelve sons listed in the Bible would later be identified as being of what is today frequently called the Jewish faith by mainstream society. An intentional community was established during the time of Moses a descendant of Jacob in which God was claimed to have told this community a set of rules and all the men agreed. Prior to Moses in the time of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob these rules were not yet given or not given in full or at least disregarded by Abraham who married his half sister although forbidden in Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 20 not yet written at the time. I suggest the possibility that other communities were given no such extra rules and that the new testament does not subtract from the laws of God or create a new contract but simply restates what was already the moral code God wished for humanity prior to the rules of the intentional community during the time of Moses.
I am going to try to show apothetic teachings of what love is not based on the overlapping moral teachings of the old and new testament not to initiate as an aggressor in a non defensive manner, murder, kidnapping, fraud and theft as well as other forbidden things. But I will also show how the nature of what is a violation of such things maybe unclear and how the Mosaic law would provide a skeletal outline with additional details of what maybe good for one society which none the less was insufficient. I propose that theft maybe viewed different in one society than another based on different individuals having different opinions of ownership, the Mosaic law provided one set of definitions that may have been good for that society at that time but as I will demonstrate could not possibly work in our society today as the proper initial owner in today's society is unlisted in the Mosaic law. I believe this will naturally result in national anarchism as the most reasonable system of property (I know of) based on this lack of non relativistic objectivity (it is objective but only as objective as a group of people has agreed to a property convention) and will suggest that having a local community law in the times of Moses may have been in alignment with the principles of National Anarchism.
The word anarchism means the moral teaching that there should be a goal of no involuntary slavery, although what constitutes involuntary slavery is highly disputed so there are many different schools of anarchism. This involuntary slavery is brought on by certain teachings about authority which are by there very nature contrary to love as for example if it is unloving to murder someone than using authority as an excuse that murdering someone would be good is contrary to the nature of love. I am going to suggest that at the heart of it an anarchists life maybe to teach and practice ethical influence in opposition to unethical influence and that this maybe the same as the core heart of what Jesus taught as well as many other religious people.
Copyright Carl Janssen 2017
Chapter one part One - Offensive theology undermining authority and teaching love
The purpose of this book is to show how religion can be used as a polemic against the allegation that any authority of social institutions both religious and secular exists to make an otherwise good action bad or an otherwise bad action good.
This polemic is not airtight for even in the existence of a hypothetical or real deity who prescribes a objective moral value system to any sentient life in the cosmos, other sentient life may have another objective moral value system, none the less those who hold certain value systems such as a goal to destroy or enslave all other sentient life in the cosmos I will not even attempt to reason with as well as those with some other value systems quite repugnant to my own.
This book when summed up to its most important point may simply be a suggestion that religious teachings may have been inspired by a real divine being to ethically influence people not to murder or at the very least that if such a hypothetical divine being does not exist in reality that interpretation of religious texts or religious teachings may be used none the less as an ethical influence against murder instead of an unethical influence in support of murder although there shall be much more to my book than that.
The idea that human beings should need a divine being to tell them not to murder may seem ludicrous on face value and it is but nonetheless even if a divine being has spoken in reality or has been imagined in the mind of men to persuade mankind against murder this has not been sufficient nor has mass murder ended in so called atheist states apart from the allegedly corrupting influence of so called fairy tales of the divine. Yet there has never been an atheist state for to believe in the state is to worship an idol of mankind's imagined creation. An imagined creation that is none the less deadly and just as real as the bullets that are used to shoot transgressors of manufactured laws, the ultimate act of worship to an imaginary god, real human sacrifice to the imagined state itself. In light of this every day reality the far fetched idea that mankind should contemplate a religion in order to oppose murder even though they should simply reject the idea that murder is good at face value without need for a real or imagined God to give them command not to murder may start to seem more reasonable after all.
Copyright Carl Janssen 2017
This polemic is not airtight for even in the existence of a hypothetical or real deity who prescribes a objective moral value system to any sentient life in the cosmos, other sentient life may have another objective moral value system, none the less those who hold certain value systems such as a goal to destroy or enslave all other sentient life in the cosmos I will not even attempt to reason with as well as those with some other value systems quite repugnant to my own.
This book when summed up to its most important point may simply be a suggestion that religious teachings may have been inspired by a real divine being to ethically influence people not to murder or at the very least that if such a hypothetical divine being does not exist in reality that interpretation of religious texts or religious teachings may be used none the less as an ethical influence against murder instead of an unethical influence in support of murder although there shall be much more to my book than that.
The idea that human beings should need a divine being to tell them not to murder may seem ludicrous on face value and it is but nonetheless even if a divine being has spoken in reality or has been imagined in the mind of men to persuade mankind against murder this has not been sufficient nor has mass murder ended in so called atheist states apart from the allegedly corrupting influence of so called fairy tales of the divine. Yet there has never been an atheist state for to believe in the state is to worship an idol of mankind's imagined creation. An imagined creation that is none the less deadly and just as real as the bullets that are used to shoot transgressors of manufactured laws, the ultimate act of worship to an imaginary god, real human sacrifice to the imagined state itself. In light of this every day reality the far fetched idea that mankind should contemplate a religion in order to oppose murder even though they should simply reject the idea that murder is good at face value without need for a real or imagined God to give them command not to murder may start to seem more reasonable after all.
Copyright Carl Janssen 2017
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)