The horror! The horror!

Yes, slavery was tolerated by God, wasn't it? And since God tolerated it, they were to be well treated. Slavery was tolerated by nearly all cultures that I am aware of in those days. Those protected by the tennants of the 10 Commandments likely faired the best of all, certainly better than the Egyptians when God allowed the Jews to be enslaved by Egypt. As slaves, they were terribly oppressed in Egypt.

---

In Jehovah God's Universe, time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. The universe, by and through him, is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. buzsaw

[qs]You certainly can't mean the US because the US is not based upon the Ten Commandments. The first four are all about worshipping god and the First Amendment trumps that.[qs] Put it this way......highly influenced by. Every kid in US schools was indoctrinated in public schools by the Ten Commandments for at least nearly two centuries. Most in our early schools likely had them all memorized. For a century or so, every kid in school began their first year of school with the New England Primer, a totally Biblical book. This has escalated considerably in the last half century coinciding with the decline in popularity and promenance of the TC.

---

In Jehovah God's Universe, time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. The universe, by and through him, is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. buzsaw

Both though when I wrote that I was thinking of the former.
In the context of Buddhism, samsara the endless rounds of birth/death, pleasure/suffering hypnotize us so to speak. They are so compelling that we don't remember nirvana. Samsara can't be escaped but all we need to do is remember that we aren't caught in it beyond the belief that we are caught. Not that awakening is easy but it's always possible. You are the meaning you are seeking and it's the seeking that is distracting you from remembering that.lfen

Your experiences are your "own" truths. For example, suppose you are looking at a computerscreen on which a red square is projected. With a click of the mouse the square's colour is changed from red to blue. You are now looking at a blue square.On the outside, it could be explained that lightwaves of a different frequency are now reaching your retina, or that lightparticles with a different energy are exciting your retinal receptors, or maybe yet another objective physical description could be given. In any case, it is clear that in some absolute way something has happened, even if we can never say in absolute terms what exactly. (Because whatever we say about it is always a model.)But on the inside, your own experience is that the square you were looking at has changed colour. The changing of the colour is another model - this time an experiential description - of the truth. Whatever happened - and again, we may never know in an absolute sense - you can be certain that something has happened, and your description of it is an aspect of that truth.For all practical purposes, saying "The square changed colour" is as true as it gets. First, it's a statement that conveys that something has happened at all, which is true, and second, it also states that whatever happened was experienced as a change of colour - which is also true. It's true that evolutionary reasons have shaped life. But if you look at it at the subatomic level, where you see just energy fields and mostly empty space, you will find no evolutionary reasons. You will have to raise the level of description a few notches to see evolution come into play.In the same way, you may have to raise the level another few notches to see the emergence of concepts such as beauty, meaning, and morality. No matter what the amoral underpinnings are at lower levels, the fact is that we do appreciate beauty, that we can entertain the idea of meaning, and that we are moral beings.The fact that certain things - evolutionary reasons for example, or concepts like beauty - are not there at some level, does not necessarily mean they cannot exist at any level. Well, if you want to take the nihilist path, you must be prepared to walk the distance. If a certain line of reasoning leads you to conclude that we are automata and that our experiences are illusions, then you must also draw the ultimate conclusion, which is that the resulting feeling of horror is itself an illusion. In this vein, not only is there nothing to worry about, there isn't even someone to do the actual worrying.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

quote:

---

Yes, slavery was tolerated by God, wasn't it?

---

Tolerated? I've read the OT, buz. God positively endorses and encourages slavery. It is clear that slavery is a good and positive thing that is one of the perks and benefits of being God's chosen people. Slaves are the spoils of war, given to the Jews by God as a reward.This is very different from "tolerance".

quote:

---

And since God tolerated it,

---

Sanctioned and actively endorsed, buz.

quote:

---

they were to be well treated.

---

Do you mean like the virgins taken as the spoils of war were to be treated well? How is being married to a foreign invader that killed your parents be considered "good treatment"?Let's say the Chinese were to invade the US and win. They decide to enslave all of the US people. We have no rights, the virgins are taken as wives against their will (raped), we are slaves.They don't beat us up, but you are only a piece of propery, to be traded and used until you die.What part of slavery would you like the best?

quote:

---

Slavery was tolerated by nearly all cultures that I am aware of in those days.

---

So? Doesn't make it anything but barbaric, degrading and humiliating. ...and encouraged by God.

quote:

---

Those protected by the tennants of the 10 Commandments likely faired the best of all, certainly better than the Egyptians when God allowed the Jews to be enslaved by Egypt. As slaves, they were terribly oppressed in Egypt.

---

Uh, the Egyptians have no records at all of the Jews being enslaved there as far as I know.

Let us assume for sake of argument that Jews were in fact enslaved in Egypt and they had a hard time there.I am hard pressed to understand how you get from that to an idea that they were worse off than anyone else held as slaves, and more than that to say that slaves held by those who believed in the 10 commandments were treated better than under other slave owning cultures.There are plenty of records of what slave life was like under Xianity and it was not something less than dreadful. The tales within the Bible itself which explain how slaves can be treated are pretty darn bad (as schraf pointed out), and ever since Xians ran Rome other races have been getting butchered while enslaved. Actually I guess I could take it back as far as Jews wiping out the Canaanites.In any case, your case here has been that while the 10Cs were generally taught and influencing US culture, life was somehow more moral. Yet that was exactly the time during which Slavery and Racism flourished in the US.We not only had the world's most brutal slave practices (Europe gave up slavery before us and pointed to our brutality) but ran a near genocidal purge of native americans.I don't mind if you say that the 10 Cs can be a good influence for some people, but it is time to take off the rose colored glasses when you start preaching that we were more moral back when it was being generally taught, and that slavery and genocide was somehow nicer when Xians or Jews held the whip and sword.Its garbage like that which I hold as evidence that subjectivism is not only true in practice, but that absolutism reduces to the worst kind of subjectivism... apologetics for self-indulgence to the point of tyranny.This message has been edited by holmes, 01-26-2005 11:58 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

I think I like this idea. I'm not prepared, as you say, to "walk the distance."You've convinced me.(actually, it occurred to me that all you would need is one little crack in the automata process for beauty, meaning, etc. to be real. God isn't necessary. A real consciousness is all you need. You said it's real. I'll run with that!)Thanks.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-26-2005 14:04 AMThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-26-2005 14:19 AM

---

The dragon is by the side of the road, watching those who pass. Beware lest he devour you.-- Cyril of Jerusalem

And here you arrive at a Buddhist or Advaitist non dual position. There is worrying but no worrier and then the horror disappears.lfen

Ifen quotes me: and then First of all, let me state that what I wrote is not my own position. I merely described the conclusion that should be drawn when one takes a nihilist stance - which I don't. So you cannot state that I "arrive at a Buddhist position".Second, what I said is not quite the same as what you make of it. I said there is "nothing to worry about", which you turn into "there is worrying". I clearly did not say that. So, the nihilist position I described is not the same as the Buddhist position you describe.Lastly, there is the fact that it is illogical to suppose that there can be worrying but no worrier. That's far too esoteric for my taste and I don't buy it.I'm sorry, Ifen, but it seems that I am not a Buddhist yet.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

I apologize for hijacking your conclusions or implying you are a Buddhist.I should have said something along the lines of "and arriving at this position one is close to a Buddhist or Advaitist statement". I wasn't concluding that that was your position but meant that your statement could be seen as compatible with Buddhist or Advaitist philosopy. I was taken with your perception that nihilism leads to the dissolution of the concept of the entity "worrier". That your argument led by a different pathway to something I find to be an important insight.I dont' accept that it is illogical to say there is a worry without a worrier. "ungramatical" perhaps, but I don't think illogical. It's too late tonight for me to develop the semantics of this but it can be done in a general semantics sense where the use of the verb "to be" as identity is dissallowed. Or think of Buckminister Fuller saying "I seem to be a verb".Anyway, I wish I had expressed my appreciation of your analysis in a different way. Sorry about the misrepresentation.lfen

Don't lose any sleep over it. I wasn't really offended, I just saw some wrinkles that I thought needed ironing out.We can explore this further if you like, what you said sounds rather interesting.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

I think Para's view is as follows: life came about and evolved through automatic chemical reactions which eventually reached a level at which consciousness emerged. Out of consciousness we get "emergent" values.
Although it is true that consciousness, which includes a sense of self, is physical, and is thus a product of automatic, machine-like processes, consciousness itself has an autonomous element, a free-choice aspect, that renders values meaningful.I think Ifen's view is as follows: There is no "self" although there seems to be. This "seeming" is the ego, and it is the ego that causes the sense of horror at life's pointlessness and suffering and death. To go beyond the dream of life which is ego is to experience reality. This can only be done--if it can be done--through some sort of discipline. As regards evolution, Ifen's view fits it perfectly in the sense that the sense of self that has evolved has to be an illusion, many say.(I am probably dead-wrong in my understanding of both views).edited addition about Ifen's view: Nihilism is a natural and even reasonable reaction to existence.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-27-2005 09:42 AM

Hi Parasomnium,
I once got into a discussion about "what is real"/ what is illusion.
with a collegue of mine. He was on the slippery slope of nihlism and becomming ever anxious about whether or not one could tether they're existance to some objective truth or reality. I feel that reality, (whatever that is) largely depends on our perspective. Like the example of color you used. I now think that the old saying " what ever blows your hair back" really does apply. If believing in God or "what ever blows your hair back", gives one a sense of peace or comfort then that will be translated into they're lives in a positve way, which in turn becomes a self fulfilling prophesy. The man who says the square on the computer is blue, is the final realization of that instant in time. We actualize our existance I believe. Hope this doesnt sound like to much mumbo jumbo..

Robin,My view is much more tentative seeker but I am trying to give the non dual view as I understand it. One problem is that Advaita coming from Hinduism does speak of a self, whereas Buddhism speaks of nirvana and beyond nirvana but I think they are two ways of conceptualizing the same experience.So using Self language I will be expressing an Advaitist viewpoint. There is only one Self. It is consciousness and the source. When it identifies with an organism to the point of forgeting it is the Self it experiences as a ego, a separate self.The advaitist have a tricky time with whether it can be done or not. Here is where the true function of a guru comes in. The guru is the the Self entering into the dream to rouse the dreamer to lucidity. Of course the dreamer is the Self also. Well, Nihilism is one way the ego can encounter its illusoriness thus it can serve as a trigger to awaken to the Subject. Self in Advaita refers to the true subject of consciousness.I'm very interested in this viewpoint but am still very much an ego in samsara as far as I can tell. My own viewpoint mostly holds it's worthwhile to explore and meditate on these viewpoints.
But I'm really tired having been kept awake a lot last night. So I'm not sure I'm making sense and will say no more at this time.lfen

Yeah, Ifen, I was thinking after I wrote that that a lot of times you are not giving "your views" per se but simply the views of different Eastern systems that you had studied.I realized that I misrepresented your ideas to some extent.