Comment: A Response

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Now your talking. :) (see in situ)

A Response

"I will take a wild guess and guess that you are a Mason. Am I right?"

Hm? I never set bricks on mortar in my life. I am a painter though... does that mean anything? :)

"Great questions, thank you for providing them."

You're welcome. Now could you provide some answers?

"Yes there is." and that would be what, exactly?

"It should not exist." Okay, why not?

From me:"Is there some absolute moral law that all these little gods are obligated to?"

And you responded: "Yes there is and I would not call it moral, it is essential."

Who determines what is essential? Whose opinion matters in questions of necessity? Is that a question of individual determination? If so, then what makes your opinion of survival and its course any more obligatory than the Pope's? And how does what is essential to human survival translate into obligations on anyone? Is mankind's survival essential? Why is it essential? And if it is not essential in the ordinary meaning of the word, then are these not moral questions after all, and you are merely trying to avoid the obvious?

"If we are to one day survive as a species of 'little gods' it is essential that we adopt the principal of non aggression towards our fellow 'little gods' in order to guarantee our existence in the future."

Or so says you. Who died and made you GOD over all the other gods, and all their various opinions on the matter? Perhaps other little god's are convinced that human deity can only survive if their own royal line rules the roust. So where is the obligation on little god Smith to adhere to little god truefictions' non authoritative decrees?

"There is 'something wrong with playing on human fears or a strong man hijacking superstitions to consolidate his control over others' because parasites will ultimately turn on each other once there are no hosts to support them, cannibalism is the fate of parasites and the defense of the 'philosophy' of taking advantage of others is unsustainable in its nature and will ultimately lead all of us down the road to self destruction."

With all due respect, notice what you have done throughout your response. While avoiding the question of moral absolutes and where they come from, you merely assume a moral absolute to essentially establish what you think is necessary as an obligation on everyone else. You are being philosophically absurd.

"People who defend that view are ultimately full of hate and fool themselves by thinking that they are in 'heaven' when in fact they have self condemned themselves to living in 'hell'.

Is there something wrong with fooling ones self, and being happy in the process? Are there truths that matter beyond the mere experience of pain and pleasure? And who decides what brings about individual 'heaven' which all these little temporary gods rule? You? If so, then you are doing exactly what you say we ought not to do. You are setting up your opinions as obligations on others. Again, who died and made you GOD over all the little gods? And I really must ask, is there something wrong with hate? What is wrong with it? Is this just your opinion, or is there some obligation involved that over arches you, me, Obama, Mohamed, the Pope and all other little gods, realized or not?

"Should we follow a path that ultimately destroys us?"

Well, you have your opinions in your little heaven, and other gods have theirs... right? Furthermore, you have your opinions about what best insures survival, and they have theirs, right?

"Should we keep grouping up against each other in order to destroy the weaker for our own benefit?"

Well, some gods are harsher than others, I suppose.

"What will happen when the last man standing dies?"

Well, I guess all the hating and destruction will finally end. What's wrong with that, oh tiny little god?

"Do you want this to happen?"

No, of course not. But the question of whether I want it to happen is a question of opinion and quite separate from how to achieve the mutual goal. Furthermore, you have not provided a solid obligation upon anyone to either agree that human survival matters, or that your particular course is the obligatory one.

"If anyone is going to be my king, I chose myself to be my king. I have the choice and I claim it."

And should another God, big or small, decide to make your choice of no account, then what you choose or not choose about your own kingship matters not a hoot. And you have only told us your opinions on the matter of your own divinity, with its bounds and limits. But these limits concerning our behavior towards others cannot be anything more than self imposed in a worldview where men choose divinity. There is no obligation to keep ones hands off others. Or at least, you have not provided any obligation - only your particular set of wishes and opinions about human survival.

"That is a very very big if, let me know if you meet someone like that because the minute he want's you to be his subordinate is the minute you decide to be a slave. Why be a slave if you can be a god? Why chose to loose?"

Now here is where things actually get interesting. It is not a big if. It is a necessity if we are to make sense out of innate human experience. Man's subordinate position to the Christian God is not primarily a matter of submission of man's will. It is simply a matter of the nature of reality. God is God and man is man, and Christ is the God-man. And what is wrong with submission to a being that we are by nature completely subordinate too? What is wrong with the view that we owe a primary allegiance to our creator and redeemer? The Christian view of our subordination to God is far more lake the obligation of a child to a parent, than is a slave to a master. Certainly fathers can be wicked task masters... but the Christian God, though harsh in his attributes, is loving in His grace, adopting the "slaves to sin" as sons. Being a slave in the sense of being a slave to GOD is the height of human liberty. It is God who grants liberties as far as they go to both slaves and children (for the Christian, we are essentially both in a very real and tangible sense), and no further, despite what you believe about your own personal liberty. So the question really hangs on God's actual existence. If the Christian worldview is an accurate expression of metaphysical reality, then your supposed godhood makes you more a slave than any slave of God. I am reminded of something G. K. Chesterton wrote concerning lunatics who claim to be Christ. Rather than argue with the mad man, he thought it better to say something like:
"So you are the creator and redeemer of all mankind. But what a small universe you must rule, with angels no bigger than butterflies. Is it really in your strange small pity that all men must put their trust? Is there no love greater than yours? How much happier you would be, how much more of you there would be if the hammer of a higher God could smash your small cosmos, scattering the stars like spangles and leaving you in the open, free like other men to look up, as well as down."

I asked: "... if no such being exists, what's wrong with a bunch of little gods on two legs snatching all the gusto they can in their three score and ten?"

And you wrote: "I have replied to this above, it is unsustainable and it will lead to our collective destruction."

So says you. Again, who died and made you God over all the other gods?

I asked: "Again, is there some obligation on all these little gods not to behave this way? If so, where does this obligation come from?"

And you wrote: "Yes there is an obligation, an obligation of not self destructing."

Who established this as an obligation? Is there some authority involved? Is there some eternal justice meted out upon those who violate this obligation? Who is the judge in regard to this obligation?

"It comes from the same place that keeps you moving forward in time and not terminating yourself now."

Hogwash! I may choose to terminate my neighbor to enrich myself. They do not flow from the same place. You are a riot!

"If you are drowning and you want to die, please don't grab on to those who want to continue swimming, you will drown and take those who were trying to live with you."

Or I may crack another floundering god over the head, stealing his life-jacket and thus saving myself in the process. Hey, I'm a god, right? And should my survival mean the demise of an innocent bystander god,.. oh well, in the 'immortal' words of Yul Brynner, "So let it be written, so let it be done."
To be continued....