Jump to content

Individual Beliefs


Syzygy
 Share

Recommended Posts

Stand for nothing, and you'll fall for anything. That is to paraphrase an author unknown, since the gist of the sentence is of uncertain origin by a source unproven even in a 1997 court case. Why not open a can of worms with controversy?

 

Nowadays, everyone has his own belief system. Introductions are, therefore, indoctrinations in nonsense. That the egotistical beliefs of your everyday would-be-deity are, by definition, too self-glorifying to be holy warrants irreverence. Still, I try to decipher from the self-instructions of lost souls a manner of communicating that respectfully doesn’t automatically negate the notion of common sense. After all, much as folks are systemically misled today, the best anyone can do is try to stay sufficiently informed to effectively think for himself.

 

It is when people are tricked into believing in the wizardry of magicians that charlatans can command them by presuming to tell them what to think, do, say and believe. With such a false prophet, occultism was born. A cult might as well be satanic, in that its head has the devil’s delusion of grandeur to flatter himself capable of supplanting God.

 

Cases like those in Waco or Jonestown tend to immediately come to mind when the subject of cults is mentioned. Often those uninvolved judge the victims stupid. That is why I choose to next mention "the 20th century’s most successful literary trickster: Carlos Castaneda"*-- The dark legacy of Carlos Castaneda BY ROBERT MARSHALL. Dubbed the “Godfather of the New Age” by Time magazine, he made a fortune by duping people (including some TTI members) into believing his fiction was true. For the record, which is documented in the article above, he did not succeed in cheating death. He did, consequent to his becoming terminally ill with cancer of the liver, con his closest followers out of the remainder of their lives.

 

This thread, however, isn’t to take off from where religious debates have all but been abandoned here. My interest is in the essence of mankind, insofar as how we are to share understanding particularly in the absence of traditional beliefs, onetime norms and mores. More precisely, short of our having had similar upbringings, how do we conveniently reach a consensus as to what is right or wrong, good or bad, ...&c.?

 

How much of any man is innate? Do you think we can agree about what qualities are worth cultivating in men?-- e.g. what makes mankind kind? And, unless you believe miracles possible, how can we agree on matters pertaining to the human potential?

 

*Theme song.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 3
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hey syz,

 

You're right I think. Personally I believe in Love.

 

Anything I like, I think, is right.

 

To answer 'what makes mankind kind?' sentiments no ?

 

You can feel angry, in love, nervous, ashamed, ... and so you can judge, with your heart. Not your mind.

 

And as we are all driven by feelings, we have to be humanist, Fraternity is love.

 

We just have to not forget that My liberty stops where the other's starts.

 

Justice must result of liberty in love.

 

And so from these to concepts can arrive the unity : equality. A great family sharing each other. The final gather.

 

Liberty, equality, fraternity -> justice, sharing, love.

 

We just need to see right where our enemy is.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jcpo,

 

The question of what makes mankind kind was prompted by the calculated coldness of Castaneda in his manipulating others arbitrarily for selfish purposes. In contrast to gentle persons whom sincerely care about the well being of their fellowmen, also, is Simon and Schuster. “Castaneda’s main publisher,” aware of his detrimental influence on others, “still classifies his books as nonfiction. It could be argued that this label doesn’t matter since everyone now knows don Juan was a fictional creation. But everyone doesn’t, and the trust that some readers have invested in these books leads to a darker story that has received almost no coverage in the mainstream press.”

 

My sentiments about feelings: If not fleeting, some feelings are better to dwell upon than others.

 

It is a matter of virtue e.g. the seven virtues that oppose the seven deadly sins (PAW LEGS):

 

Pride (vanity)

 

Avarice (greed)

 

Wrath (anger)

 

Lust

 

Envy (jealousy)

 

Gluttony (over-indulgence)

 

Sloth (laziness/idleness)

 

Charity applies to our thoughts, too, in giving people as much benefit of doubt as possible.

 

Jcpo wrote: [...]we have to be humanist.

 

Humanism, being a movement of the fourteenth to the sixteenth centuries, requires a historical perspective to be fully understood. That it favors the humanities is full of nuance.

 

Thus, the word humanist has somewhat ambiguous connotations.

 

Jcpo wrote: [...] My liberty stops where the other's starts.

 

Insofar as our rights shouldn't infringe on those of others, true.

 

Jcpo wrote: We just need to see right where our enemy is.

 

The enemy, usually depicted as a personification of evil, can be anyone, including oneself, who would rather appeal to human vice/weakness than virtue/strength.

 

Jcpo wrote: ... and so you can judge, with your heart. Not your mind.

 

When I’m tired of intellectualizing, I still my mind, pray and, then, trust in the Sacred Heart. Sometimes that involves sleeping on an important decision to be made. In such cases, I ordinarily wake up with the resolve to confidently either take or refrain from some action.

 

Rest and greater focus are most urgently required of me. The first part should be easy. Peace.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...