lab@qubix.UUCP (Larry Bickford) (09/01/83)
Thoughts on articles I've seen over the last couple of weeks:
A couple of basic problems with Thelemism (finally)
A thought about mark bloore's thought experiment
A thought on the "sin" of Hubris
"Tentative belief systems"
Thanks for "Ends don't justify means"
* Response to Steve Den Beste is in separate article.
The last one first:
Laurels to Jeff Williams for his article on graffiti-evangelism. Even in
the saving of souls, the ends do not justify the means.
[A couple of problems with Thelemism]
Thelemism rests on the belief that man is inherently good. You've GOT to be
putting me on! The self-preservation instinct is by far the strongest;
everything else must be TAUGHT.
"An action is 'wrong' if it a Restriction of another's Will (or one's own)
without consent." More problems:
1. Suppose the Restrictor CAN'T realize that he is restricting another's Will.
There is a large segment of all societies that have this property - children!
The basic me-first instinct will override any idea of another's Will. Under
Thelemic Law, children would be repeat offenders until they gain some level
of understanding. Until then, I guess you would suspend Thelemic Law.
2. What about when the "Restrictee" doesn't realize their Will has been
restricted? Classic case - seduction, getting someone to consent to
something by appeal rather than force. Obviously the act is not done without
consent, but if you think it's not a "Restriction," I've got this neat
painting of a smiling lady...
[thoughts on mark bloore's experiment to not work on the sabbath]
Well, what did they do about emergencies, milk cows, etc. in Israel of old?
[the "sin" of Hubris - "knowing" you're right and all others are wrong]
"Sin" in both Hebrew and Greek literally means "to miss the mark, to fall
short of the standard." To claim Hubris is a "sin," one must first define
the standard and the authority behind the standard. If "all faiths were
created by the Deity as differing means of knowing," why should that Deity
tell those of one faith that there is one way? Further, why would He command
judgments upon people of other faiths? Why would He put all the gods of a
nation up for public ridicule (plagues in Egypt)? Try again.
Alan Driscoll: "I think one of the healthiest things we can do is to make
our belief system tentative. ... I believe that we all approach God ... in
the way that is right for us at the moment."
The last statement is the indictment - it indicates who your real God is -
YOU. You have taken for yourself to define how God may be approached. If he
is indeed God, is it not *His* right to define how He may be approached?
The former statement (and its context) indicates the idea that God's being
is dependent on you. Repeat earlier question: what purpose is that God?
My belief that I have found the "One True Path" is based neither on
insecurity nor fear, but Divine power and a hard dose of Reality.
Any and all mail will be read, {ittvax,amd70}!decwrl!qubix!lab
Larry Bickford, {ihnp4,ucbvax,decvax}!decwrl!qubix!lab