In the Grip of Grace finished.

[Ginnsu]

I finished reading In the Grip of Grace, my response is availible here: Saunders Server: In the Grip of Grace

[coolguy]

Hi
You don't know me and I don't know you, but I read your book report, and I had some comments although I can't really understand how you managed to read the whole thing (assuming you did, since you finished it, I would have probably "finished it" after 3 pages, but that's me).

"This is why we have democracy, and not fascism where one person was (self) chosen to be a direct line to God."

Don't know who said this, but... "The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their true names."

(Nazi) Germany was a Socialist Democracy which democratically chose it's Fascist ruler. Just wanted to point that at out. Fascism and democracy aren't opposites; socialism and democracy aren't opposites, and I'd be cautious about saying we don't have Fascism, because we have a lot of it, and we have a lot of Socialism, too. Sorry to nitpick, but if you are interested in reading about politics and economics, I'll provide more details (otherwise just skip down to your next quote):

Democracy is a method of choosing leaders; other methods of choosing leaders include birthright and appointment by current leaders. How the leaders are chosen has no bearing on whether the leaders that are chosen are Capitalist, Fascist, Liberal, Socialist, Communist, Republican, Conservative, Democrat or Anarchist or something else

Fascism and Communism and Capitalism are basic economic theories (systems) on which policies are based. Economics deals with property and trade (buying and selling of property). Each of these systems deals with property differently.

Capitalism regards (all) property as something that belongs to individuals (private property) which the individual is allowed to do with his own property as he pleases. Ideally, his right "to do with his property what he wants to do" is adequately (completely) protected by the government.

Communism regards (all) property as belonging to the public at large (the state), where the leaders of the state (however they are chosen, either elected or appointed or by birthright) decide what is done with property.

Fascism regards property as private (like Capitalism), where individuals own property themselves, but gives the leaders (however they are chosen) full reign over what is done with an individual's own property. In other words, I am allowed to own something, but the government has ultimate say about what I can and can not do with what I own and is very likely to force me to do things I don't want to do with it, or force me not to do things I want to do.

It is pretty much impossible for any government to implement policies that only use one of these basic economic ideas. Most countries today use some of each. Some of each = (Marxist) socialism. (Socialism originally meant partly capitalist, partly communist, where some people are richer than others, according to Karl Marx, who the whole concept is attributed to. However socialism today in general use is a synonym for communism, both of which, in the US, have highly negative connotations, which is ironic, since the US is socialist.)

All governments, to this day, regard the people themselves (their minds and physical bodies - bodily property, the most private property one can own) as property of the state, which is something human beings should and would challenge if they weren't all mal-educated. The draft, and laws against suicide, drugs and prostitution (and also abortion along with any outlawed type of consensual sex) are proof of this.

Enough education for now.

---

You said a little about the 12-steps, and I see a parellel (well, many) between Christianity and 12-step-cults in that they both claim that the higher power (deity) accepts you as you are. Of course that is a paradox of both of those religions, because if he accepted me as I am, he wouldn't send me to hell for eternity, nor would he let my 'disease' destroy my life if I didn't work the 'program' perfectly. For those unfamiliar with 12steps, the "inevitable result" of failing to work the program (the 12 step religion) is "jails, institutions or death" - the equivalent threat in Christianity is Hell. And apparently he (the AA god)doesn't have that same loving acceptence for those who are "constitutionally incapable" either... nor does the Christian God for those who never heard of Jesus.

An aside about AA (or any 12-steps). AA is simply the Christian religion revamped... they changed a few words and wrote a new rulebook. They changed Jesus/God/Holy Spirit to Higher Power/God (as we understand him). They changed the threat of failing to comply with the religion from "miserable afterlife" (telling you you can't possibly avoid hell without Jesus) to "miserable life" (telling you can't possibly defeat your addiction without higher power and "the program." They changed the word sin to shortcoming (or defect of character). It's the same evil thing as Christianity, just revamped for the 20th century (which makes it a little outdated already, but not as outdated as Christianity, not quite). Enough about AA for now.,

It is a pretty thought, though, that someone loves you unconditionally, because then it doesn't matter how much of a bastard you are to other people, someone (god/higher power) will still love you anyway. People love conditionally, and people that are assholes don't get (genuinely) loved by others, so religion allows them to believe they are loved even though they never do anything to deserve to be loved. Feeling loved is said to be requisite to living a happy life, and when a person isn't truly loved, or doesn't feel like he is, religion acts as a crutch in that area, allowing him to convince himself that he is loved.

That fits perfectly for fearful people who don't have self-esteem, who don't feel worthy of love, because they don't have to make any effort to change themselves to appeal to others and don't have to face their fear.

[coolguy]

At the bottom, you asked

"Is my belief that we can't say for sure if God exists or not the right, good and true belief?

That's not a belief, it's a statement of fact. A (true) statement of fact can not be wrong. Technically, it has one small error (you used "we" instead of "I"). Let me reword it for you a little and show you that it is a statement of fact, not a belief, and thus it has to be right.... "Is it a fact that I can not say for sure (currently, based on the evidence I have seen) if God exists or not?" Yes, that is a fact. Facts are right. Facts are true, and whether facts are good or not doesn't really matter, because they are facts.

Agnosticism (I-don't-knowism as someone on this board called it) is the only rational choice, because it is the only honest choice. If you say you know for sure that god exists based on the evidence you have seen, then you're lying. If you say he doesn't exist based on the evidence you have seen, you are lying, too. It may be proven one day, some day that God does exist, but it will never be proven that he doesn't.... it's impossible, just like it is impossible to prove that aliens don't exist.


And then:

"How can I say for sure? Is the theists belief that God does exist, the right good and true belief? How can you say for sure? Is Joe Schmoe's belief that there is no god the right belief?..."

If you can differentiate between knowledge and belief, then you can differentiate between "things you can say for sure" and things you can't. The theist's belief is not knowledge, Schmoe's belief is not knowledge, so neither of them can (honestly) say for sure. Why is that such a problem? Why believe something you can't say for sure is true? Why is believing something so important? I don't believe anything, and I am happier than I have ever been (and I've always been pretty damn happy, but I am even happier after I quit grasping onto errant beliefs).

Apparently you don't believe anything either, you just don't realize that yet. Well, I showed you that what you called your belief is actually a fact, not belief, so maybe you do realize it now. Anyway, your knowledge is right, true, good. You can say you believe the things you know, but it's redundant. But they can't honestly say they "know" the things they believe.

---

I don't think it is possible for any of us to know for sure. And in the end, I don't think it matters. I think what does matter is that we make the best of this life that we can. I also think that Christianity and my philosophy in life (whatever you want to call it, I'm not sure myself what it would be called) both are a means to that end. The End of the best life we possibly can lead.

I have read a lot of philosophy, if you wrote about your philosophy I could probably tell you what it is similar to. Christianity is an archaic philosophy. Some Christians push intolerance for other religions... they did this a lot when the countries were religious states... they taught that other religions were bad and that the people who practiced them were evil (and therefore it was OK to kill them). It's been the same way in the US, it was OK to kill Indians because they weren't Christians, and because they weren't Christians they were savages.

Nowadays, it has changed a little, the US laws have made it so that Christians and all religions in the US must be more tolerant of each other - the laws don't tolerate hate crime, and so the religions sort of protect each other with a new twist. Instead of fighting religious wars, they claim that as long as you believe something, you're OK. And that no matter what someone believes, it is totally wrong to say their beliefs are wrong. It's pretty obvious if you think about these two beliefs that have been perpetuated a lot in the past 100 years why they have been perpeutated. In order to keep religions strong and alive.

Think about it... "as long as you believe in something you are OK" - this says that you have to believe in something, otherwise you're not OK. They have a million ways of saying it. This is a Christian perpetuated myth/belief. Since most of the people are Christian in the US, they perpetuate this myth forcefully, because you'll probably end up becoming one type of Christian or another instead of being labelled as "not OK."

The other one... never tell a person their belief is wrong. That's just more of the same crap. It's a defense mechanism... just like "never question your religion" it means "never make someone else question their religion." It can be used whenever someone questions a believer's religion as a defense, so the believer won't question. Of course it is not a rational defense.

Anyway, I went through all that to tell you that I have questioned Christianity, and the other cult you mentioned (12 steps), and many others and I can tell you that I 100% disagree that Christianity is a means to making the best of this life that we can, for anybody, absolutely not. Christianity isn't a life-affirming positive philosophy... it's a destructive, evil philosophy (and a very archaic one, as I already mentioned) that is harmful to the people that practice and those that don't. If you read my other posts, you might be able to understand why I say it's an evil philosophy, and I'm sure I will go into it more in the future, assuming anyone is interested.