================================================ Subject: Re: sacrifice From: "Creed - 7M3 - Live" To: Date: Tue 29 May 2001 22:31:39 -0400 ================================================ > But there is a positive aspect to sacrifice (especially in my > definition). And that would be the unselfishness about it. I don't > think I need to be pointing to a certain religious reference in this > context because it seems too obvious. But for the clarity of it: Jesus > is the most perfect example for a sacrifice made out of absolute and > pure love for humankind. > Here is my chance to ask about the Sacrifice issue of Jesus and to express why I cannot support the idea of killing a life of good. to protect the not worthy otherwise. First, I would not like to be of relationship with a super-being that would require the humiliation, torture and killing of his own son to forgive me of what is deemed by a God to be unworthy. So i have trouble believing in such a concept. Due to the "unworthy, except by proxy" aspect of Christianity. Secondly, i don't look forward to being in the presence of such a God. I feel that a lot of the concept was set up by human savagery and not a "devine" happening. I believe in a God of "Mutual Respect" and one that I am "married" to in a spiritual aspect. One that makes up for my shortcomings and only corrects through need of bringing one forward. That is the God that I know. > To make another reference (from a slightly different source) I quote: > "Freedom carries sacrifice" (3 doors down - 'Life of my own'). I > guess, sacrifice (in this context) gets a whole different meaning, > doesn't it? I mean, different to your association with totalitarianism > and communism. > > Jim wrote: < others actions fit that description. Laws > that protect others equally I see as respect. > Moral laws are set out to limit according to someone elses views of what is right. I see a host of things that i find despisable. Which others deem "moral". One of these is the "moral" practice in a few third world countries to limit the sensation of pleasure to keep "women in line". It takes out of the equation the effect of "mutual respect" and depends on corrupting the "If it feels good, do it" part of the equation, by limiting the "feels good" portion of the equation. In regard to the society does what is best for the fold aspect. I know that they allow the distribution of harmful chemicals to feed the "capital machines" of thier desire. then outlaw things that are either benificial or harmless. Simply because they propel thought or make one feel good. If morals were perpetually dependent with trust and mutual respect. Instead of tainted by arrogance, control or greed. then i would follow along with the moral aspect of the equation. > >> hmm.. now what do I make out of this? You say moral laws limit you. > All I can answer to that is again: "Freedom carries sacrifice". I do > not think that moral laws are there to imprison us in a way. Btw, > Nieztsche had the same idea of moral laws being unnecessary limits. I > don't think that freedom can be defined as "do /whatever/ you want to > do" because otherwise the world would turn to a totally chaotic place. > I think that limiting this formula to "do whatever you want to do > unless it is harmful to others (including yourself)" is the only > reasonable way to enable a peaceful interaction between humans. > I agree that anarchy and survival of the most cunning would probably lead us to become a race of morons. Thus, sort of a devolving species. Without skepticism against what is moral, we could lead ourselves down the same path as anarchy would. I think the american flag that has a bird holding a worm or snake in it's mouth and says "Don't tread on me" is my favorite symbol of this nation. I like it over the stars and stripes that we carry. I believe that this flag more represents the philosophy of our nations founders. > > And coming back to yet another issue mentioned some time ago, I do > think that there exists a certain contrary between true happiness and > a solely materialistic (i.e. physical) pleasure. First of all, let me > define those two for you. When I say pleasure (in this context) I mean > the type of pleasure that is just satisfying your physical desires and > which can be alright to a certain point where it completely takes over > and you either get addicted to it or you make it your most important > goal in life - forgetting the essential values. Pleasure as such is > not bad, but it is not a goal in itself. Things that bring pleasure > (in my definition) are not long lasting and they still your desires > only for an instant leaving your emotional and spiritual side empty. > Let me be more precise here. What I consider being a pleasure is for > example sitting infront of the TV-set all day long, taking drugs, > being a sex-maniac, being food-obssesive etc. - so as you can see, > these are all superficial things that in the long run are deprived of > a deeper meaning and a positive impact on our lifes. True happiness, > on the other hand consists of having fun with your true friends, doing > sports, being creative as in leaving a mark in this world etc. So, > these things also bring you satisfaction but a deeper satisfaction. > And this is really all I meant by this "happiness-vs-pleasure" issue. > What do you say to it now? > I like your closing statement. Though I may differ on what is excessive, but realize what is empty or spiritually depriving. Take Care, Jim > S?odkich snów to you, too!! > > Ewa > -- There are two kinds of egotists: 1) Those who admit it 2) The rest of us To unsubscribe or change your preferences for the Creed-Discuss list, visit: http://www.winduplist.com/ls/discuss/form.asp