Comments on AJLKHJLK, A PIECE OF CRAP BY ANY OTHER NAME...

Go to The Reverend Kooka Speaks About Religious Bulls#!t - Add a comment - Go to AJLKHJLK, A PIECE OF CRAP BY ANY OTHER NAME...

Kooka

Gotta run!  Enjoyed the chat, my friend.

posted by telemachus on November 30, 2005 at 1:42 PM | link to this | reply

Blackcat –

posted by telemachus on November 30, 2005 at 1:41 PM | link to this | reply

Kooka

Well you see, I think the most cherished values are common among us.  I think these values reveal visible truths in the universe.  I do not think, at the most basic level, that these values will vary significantly from one person to the next.  Hence, I see these values as forming a spiritual bond among men.  

 

Will it fix things?  I think that if mutual direction can be achieved among men, even at the most basic level, that it will go a great distance toward moving humanity out of these ridiculous conflicts we find ourselves in, where people are strapping bombs about themselves, beheading one another, and enlisting soldiers to go marching off to war.

 

I see nothing wrong with a new religion, but that is not what I intended by integrating the concepts into a single word.  What I intended was to illustrate how FOCUS could be achieved in this manner and how the need for some word or way or entity to receive this focus is necessary in the world. Just think if all the religious energy in the world was simplified and concentrated in this manner, such that resources were spent upon achieving these basic values in the world, instead of elaborate costumes for ritualistic expression, grand temples of elaborate proportion, and the maintenance of an elaborate bureaucracy.

 

I believe that clearly the day will come when the world will come to see basic visible truths and learn to abandon the ritualistic doctrines and mythology that divide us into countless factions of conflicting dogma.

posted by telemachus on November 30, 2005 at 1:32 PM | link to this | reply

blackcat

I have no problem with you and Ody going at it here. After all it is most likely more clicks for me and if things get real interesting others will get involved and so there will be even more clicks at that point.

So go on and keep the conversation going.

posted by kooka_lives on November 30, 2005 at 1:10 PM | link to this | reply

Oddy... it's busy, but we need the year to end before we can do

year end reports.  I've always been interested in an interesting conversation.  And as much as I enjoy talking to you, the last I looked, this was Kooka's blog that I commented in... LOL 

posted by -blackcat on November 30, 2005 at 1:01 PM | link to this | reply

Ody

You really are lost as to the big picture, but that is the heart of religious ideas. You got rid of the big picture so that you can weaken the ideas you claim to be wanting to promote. If the name is really just for convenience, then you have already proven my point for me and you need not push on. Let's just call the values and leave it at that. Allow for each person to find their own set of values with no preset concept mixed in or nay sense that there is religious ideas forcing certain values as always right and always wrong. You need not really name it, just say people should believe in values and find them for themselves. The instead of renaming God, we have just allowed for people to truly be able to figure things out for themselves. It is not the values themselves that are the issue, but the idea that somehow it is going to fix things if you group them together and from a new concept that follows them. That is creating a new religion and renaming God. Just all the values to be and be accepted as they are by people as needed. For in truth those values are not fully embodied by anything, which is part of the reason why we can not agree on just what the values are truly all about. Allow them to remain unnamed so that they can still hold a true power and not the false power you and others give to names.

When we talk of values we can no that we do not agree on just what all those values are, but instead has the respect and understanding the values in themselves are going to be personal and reflect how we are and the lives we have lived. It matter not what name you give them, but it matter how you treat them. I have values and I am positive beyond belief that those values do not at all agree with yours and where they do we would not agree to the concepts of those values. At which point why bother trying to find a name for the values when we already know that the true ideas will not be agreed upon. It works better without a real name, but more of an understanding.

You have not yet reached the point where I am going to ask you to leave. For although you still seem to be able to get beyond insulting my character by implying that because I will not accept your concept of ajlkhjlk, that I do not hold the values as worthy, you still have not crossed the line and do seem to be at least not repeating yourself as much as you were. I still wish you would wake up and see the world for how it really works, but that is too much to ask for I guess.

posted by kooka_lives on November 30, 2005 at 12:53 PM | link to this | reply

blackcat

Well you did invite me to chew on you one time so I didn’t think it was that improbable that you might just be wanting to talk to me.  Anyway, the word does not have to be ajlkhjlk.  It can be any word that is not already historically biased.  In fact, that’s how words evolve in our language. 

 

Certainly, I’ve probably pointed out more flaws in popular religion here than they have.  I simply don’t do it by calling people names and lashing out at them.  I really do not want to judge these two atheists, just communicate with them, and get them to see some things.  To be quite frank, I rather enjoy knocking things around with them.

 

By the way, when did you get so interested in philosophy?  Are you having all of that busy, end-of-the-year accounting stuff going on now? 

posted by telemachus on November 30, 2005 at 12:31 PM | link to this | reply

Oddy... LOL... don't flatter yourself.

I commented because I did read it all, and I found it to be one of the strangest arguments I've seen yet.  I don't think they've ever said they don't believe in those things, but that they refuse to believe in your made up word.  The rest is just a lot of double talk on your part... are you a lawyer?  LOL

As for seeing their point of view... what I meant was, I can completely understand why people DO NOT believe.  I can also understand why people find reason to doubt or deny the existence of a God.  I can understand the flaws in religion and why they point them out at times.  Can you? 

I feel as though you'll never find common ground unless you can see things through the other person's eyes AND not judge them for it. 

posted by -blackcat on November 30, 2005 at 12:15 PM | link to this | reply

kooka

The name is just for convenience. Why write out compassion, love, honesty, truth, peace, etc. every single time you want to refer to it? Why is it that you would refuse to have an integrated term for these things? And if you agree with these concepts, is it safe to say that you BELIEVE in them? By that I mean, do you believe that they do, indeed, EXIST in the world and are worthy things to pursue? And, if so, are there any other concepts in life that you would consider more important than these? By the way, I’m willing to exit your blog anytime you want this to end. I do not wish to overstay my welcome.

posted by telemachus on November 30, 2005 at 12:11 PM | link to this | reply

blackcat

Do you mean step back and passively watch while they daily attack the religious structure in the world very viciously?  I’m sorry but I’m unable to achieve that destructive point of view, nor do I wish to endeavor to do so.  

Is it really clear to you how somebody could say that compassion, honesty, truthfulness, love, and peace are a bunch of B.S. and a piece of crap?  Can you really achieve that point of view? 

Did you read all of this or just jump in because you wanted to chit-chat with me?

posted by telemachus on November 30, 2005 at 12:01 PM | link to this | reply

Ody

You really are not listening to anyone are you?

When have I or Gomedome ever said we did not agree with those concepts? We just do not see a need to invent some word to summarize it all, since in essence that is what religion does and we do not agree with religious ideas. Once you give it a name and try to turn it into some kind or philosophy, all you are doing is creating a new religion, and you have even admitted it, that you are renaming God.

Why do we need a name for it all? Why can we not just say that yes, there are values we should all be working towards, even if we do not label them and set up a set of prejudged requirements for them? It is this desire of yours to name it and force others to accept that name and follow these beliefs that is the real problem. Acceptance of those values has already happened.

Swallow your pride and see that one does not need to give name to their values in order to have them. It is the act of naming them that weakens them and causes them to get abused and easily forgotten, because all you have to worry about is the name itself.

You give too much power to word. They seem to really have control over you. You need to name everything in order for you to understand and believe in it. I understand that words have no power unless a person give those words power. Words are really just ways to communicate ideas, and it should be the ideas themselves that have power. I have a hard time finding words that can really express my ideas some times, because words do lack true power. Stop giving words so much power and see that as long as the ideas are there, you need not label it unless you are trying to gain power through naming it. Maybe that is the true weakness of religion. Religion gives name to everything, when a lot of it should just remain nameless and accepted.

posted by kooka_lives on November 30, 2005 at 12:01 PM | link to this | reply

Oddy... you don't need an ethics course to learn compassion and

honesty et al in school.  I think that starts in kindergarten. 

As for the rest... I think you'd be more apt to find common ground if you took a step back and tried to see things from their point of view, and accept their beliefs (or non-belief, as it may be).  It's pretty clear to me why they refuse to say they believe in your "word."

posted by -blackcat on November 30, 2005 at 11:44 AM | link to this | reply

blackcat

Our high schools here do not have an ethics course.  Where do you live?  Oh, that’s right, New York!  Well, I think that’s great if you have that in your public schools there. 

 

I have not seen the demonstration that you’re referring to, but would love to see it.

 

The main reason that I try to push them into committing and making an outright statement for compassion, love, peace, truthfulness, etc. is that it forms common ground.  I think it is incorrect to assume that we presently have common ground, as evidenced by the discord on blogit between Christians and atheists.  The mutual affirmation for compassion, love, peace, truthfulness, etc. would give us something in common where we could know we stand firmly together.  Having common ground is a great asset because it identifies the area where you can always come back to with someone to achieve some kind of peace.  Additionally, as I said before, it provides a concerted direction for parties that might otherwise languish in inaction because of disagreement.  Simply affirming mutual belief in basic morality provides direction for the passionate uplifting of people in the world toward a common goal.  And lastly, perhaps as importantly, my sheer curiosity and wonderment as to why anyone would decline to say they agree with these concepts motivates me as well.

posted by telemachus on November 30, 2005 at 11:35 AM | link to this | reply

Oddy... I think those traits are already taught in schools. I also feel as

though the bloggers you're arguing with have also demonstrated those traits.  Why try to push them into saying they agree with some made up philosophy if not to prove a point about God or religion?  You already have common ground without the word... people CAN be decent human beings without a God in their lives.  What difference does it really make?

posted by -blackcat on November 30, 2005 at 11:17 AM | link to this | reply

blackcat

That’s a great question and it’s wonderful that you were so quick to state that you BELIEVE in those things.  But, believe it or not, there are those here who refuse to state they BELIEVE in anything.  With regard to the promotion thing, I think that compassion, love, peace, truthfulness, and honesty are wonderful things to promote.  Don’t you?  In fact, I think they should be taught in our public schools. Certainly, ethics and virtues are lacking largely in the world.    I agree with you that there is a lot more to believing in God than just being a decent person.  I only offered ajlkhjlk as a conciliatory buffer between the atheist and Christian.  But strive as I may, I cannot get agreement with these guys on even the simplest level.  They think I’m trying to trick them into believing in God.   Isn’t that the funniest thing you ever heard?  Can’t you see someone standing up to give their testimony in church and saying, “oh yes, I came to God because Odysseus tricked me into it on the blogit!”.  Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

posted by telemachus on November 30, 2005 at 11:03 AM | link to this | reply

Oddy... maybe I'm wrong here, but does anyone NOT believe in

compassion, love, peace, truthfulness, honesty, etc?  I'm not trying to start trouble.  I just really don't see the point of making up a word for it and then asking people to say they promote it.  Plus, although most religions teach those traits, there is alot more to believing in God than just being a decent or good person.

posted by -blackcat on November 30, 2005 at 10:51 AM | link to this | reply

Blackcat – In a similar debate with a former atheist

blogger, Wittywoman, we explored what beliefs we might share.  Wittywoman claimed that she did not believe in God, but did believe in compassion, love, peace, truthfulness, honesty, etc.  I found it somewhat surprising that Witty’s description of what she believed in was synonymous with what many people consider God to be.  By just hitting the keyboard at random, I came up with the word “ajlkhjlk” and we wondered what it would be like if we let this word stand for all those things, i.e. compassion, love, peace, truthfulness, honesty, etc. so that we could say that is what we believe in without having to type out the list each and every time we wished to refer to it.  Additionally, it became apparent that, because of its definition, ajkhjlk would then be worthy of focus, praise, and perpetuating.  Ajkhjlk could potentially stand as a buffer of mutual agreement between the atheist and Christian such that some form of common ground could be achieved.  But these atheists here think it is a sneaky trick designed only to coerce them into believing in God.

posted by telemachus on November 30, 2005 at 10:42 AM | link to this | reply

Blocking someone to "....try to extinguish the proliferation of the WORD?"

Gee, I thought it was because I couldn't handle taking an "intellectual thrashing" or because I only wanted to "proliferate evil" or because I wanted to "isolate myself from all that is good" or because I refused to "see and admit I was wrong about the existence of God"....too funny. It's a different reason every week, I would guess as a result of someone not being able to examine their own behaviour, nor admit that they have an unhealthy fixation with making non believers see things as they do.

I'm really getting tired of seeing my user name mentioned so much by someone who has been asked not to do so.

posted by gomedome on November 30, 2005 at 10:19 AM | link to this | reply

I have to say... this is one of the strangest arguments I've seen yet.

I believe in human decency, but I'm not going to believe in or promote some made up word without reading the fine print.  What's the point?  Don't we have enough words already?  People can be decent, loyal, compassionate and loving with or without a God to worship.  Isn't that really the bottom line?

posted by -blackcat on November 30, 2005 at 10:16 AM | link to this | reply

Ody

You do not understand and never will. I am far from being pessimistic, which is why I see the failings of you ajlkhjlk.

Your whole comment is insulting and trying to trick and guilt me into pretending ajlkhjlk i something more than ti really is.

Just because I do not agree with you about you concept of ajlkhjlk doe snot mean I do not stand for all those virtues you mention. It is just I know how reality works and I know all you are doing is renaming God.

The Pipe Dream is that you believe that is all that is needed. The truth is that to achieve this goal, it is much more complex than what you are claiming. You are unwilling to take the first steps, but instead wish to jump ahead and have it all work out.

You just CAN NOT see the big picture here.

Pleas only reply to this if you have something new to add that is not insulting to my character or an attempt to trick and guilt me into admitting you are right, because you are far from being right in this.

For all you talk of me and Gomedome tearing down your precious religious beliefs, I can not help but wonder why it is you felt the need to tear down my own personal beliefs by trying to claim that I am immoral and do not hold value in certain virtues just because I will not share you faith in names. You are much worse really because instead of focusing on the true problem of a system than has proven itself to be flawed, you instead attack individuals because they wish to think for themselves and be open minded, seeing the world realistically. More and more I am understanding just why Gomedome went and blocked you. You really have nothing of value to present because it is all about how right and moral and perfect your beliefs are and how immoral and evil anything else is.

You have shown a much greater deal of pride and pessimism here than I have.

posted by kooka_lives on November 30, 2005 at 10:13 AM | link to this | reply

Kooka

The quest for world peace is made more difficult because of people, such as yourself, who are too prideful to state publicly that they embrace simple human decency and refuse to stand together, with other humans, in mutual commitment to perpetuate peacefulness, and the other components of ajlkhjlk. How can we ever expect there to be world peace, when we can’t have peace among ourselves, even here on blogit? How can there be world peace when bloggers such as yourself and Gomedome spend their time poking fun at Christians, for mere sport, and purposefully stirring up discord? You call my world a dream world because I’m optimistic about this earth and planet. You call my world a dream world because you refuse to BELIEVE in anything worthwhile and refuse to set yourself firmly to working to see something accomplished. You see blissful joy and heavenly righteousness as a dream because YOU CHOOSE to see it that way. You cannot achieve something unless you can first CONCEIVE of it. What is wrong with having a WORD like ajlkhjlk? The WORD is how we communicate with one another. Would you now destroy the very mode of our communication? Should I anticipate being blocked so that you can try to extinguish the proliferation of the WORD, just a Gomedome did? How can you sit there and refer to compassion, honesty, truthfulness, love, and peacefulness as B.S.? Such responses are the actions or yours that I see. Your actions are to DESTROY all that you encounter. Your actions are to poke fun at those who strive for human decency. You have demonstrated no valid effort or even goal for elevating humanity. You seek only to reduce it into a foggy pit of confusion. What possible motivation could I have for trying to trick people with the WORD ajlkhjlk? The optimistic WORD has always existed. That I would be here to trick people is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. Why is it that you would stand in the way of the simple request for a broad support of human decency in the world? Why don’t you tell them what you really stand for? Why don’t you tell them of your ridiculous explanation of self-empowerment and let them see the true you, instead of simply seeking to cloak the WORD from full view. What is wrong with wanting to “solve the worlds ills”?. Defeatist and pessimistic attitudes like yours are what keeps the worlds problems from getting solved. Anybody that would deny compassion, love, and peace as a “pipe dream”, as you said, has clearly given up on life. If you wish to discontinue this discussion, this will be my last reply to you on this matter.

posted by telemachus on November 30, 2005 at 9:57 AM | link to this | reply

Ody

Seriously, go and become a Buddhist.
It really is practically what you are claiming ajlkhjlk to be.

posted by kooka_lives on November 30, 2005 at 9:19 AM | link to this | reply

ariel70

I get the impression that Ody can not admit to the flaws of his own faith and so has to rename it in order to pretend there is nothing wrong. He very much is just trying to trick himself into thinking ajlkhjlk is something more than just renaming God in order to hide the flaws of that concept, and trick others into believing as he does. It is like just painting a car so it looks knew, instead of facing the reality that it is falling apart.

There is no need for ajlkhjlk, because it is 100% nothing at all new. Ody can not grasp this though. It is what Jesus claimed to be teaching as well as Mohammed and all the others to come since then. Although actually what Ody is describing, if he really wishes to get away from the mythical concepts, is Buddhism really. My guess is that Ody has some issue with Buddhism though, or he would be a convert if he really believed in what he claims to believe in.

Also, in the end I can never understand why people need named set of ideas in order to be better people. Ody does not understand this at all. I need not give a name to the aspects of life that I promote in order to try and make things better. I have no need to worship anything at all in order to be a better person and do what is best. I see this as a great weakness in man kind right now. I we need something like ajlkhjlk in order to work together and follow all the virtues Ody has listed (No matter if we can agree on how to follow them or how to judge them, which will never happen in the course of human history), then we have already failed to achieve to begin with.

Believers just need that name given to everything so that they can give out their labels as to what is right and what is wrong and make sure they black and white world is all prejudged for them.

posted by kooka_lives on November 30, 2005 at 9:17 AM | link to this | reply

Oddy, I know what you've been trying to say, but the fact is, Kooka, Ariel

and Gomes already say they embrace those virtues you speak of...they just refuse to call them attributes of God or ajlkhjlk.  In the end, there has to be a tolerance for the fact that some people believe in God, ajlkhjlk, Jehova, Yeshua, El Donai (sp), Jesus and some people don't.  As long as we can live peacefully with each other, I can't understand why an argument continues?

posted by Ariala on November 30, 2005 at 9:16 AM | link to this | reply

Ariel – Building a new religion?

We can’t seem to get past childish name-calling and the mere embracement of simply human decency.  As you say, what is needed is more FOCUS on love, caring for each other, and similar virtues.  But to proliferate and expand these virtues in the world we must make them our PRIMARY focus so that they are remembered and revered.  We must endeavor to promote them among ourselves and others.  If we allow our PRIMARY focus to deviate from them, we risk having them regress.  And indeed, these concepts are of a nature that they may be easily integrated into all that we do and stand for in life.  Wouldn’t you agree?

posted by telemachus on November 30, 2005 at 9:11 AM | link to this | reply

Ody Kooka et al

Pray excuse my butting in,. Several qusetion spring into my mind : why on earth do we need yet another religion, to add to the squillion others that exist out there? Why would anyone wish to add to the number of warring religious sects?

Why would one wish to devise an apparently new concept of religion, which is but an existing one under another name? A new concept it might well be, but human nature being what it is, its orthodoxy will inevitably in time become cast in stone, closing its believers minds to all other beliefs.

This is precisely -- and depressingly -- what happens with all religions, when all that is needed is for us to love and care for each other. Human virtues are just that : human virtues, not derived from any God or gods, and those are all that we need to build a world fit for our children and their children to inhabit.

posted by ariel70 on November 30, 2005 at 8:52 AM | link to this | reply

Ody

You are either naive, ignorant and lying at this point.

WAKE UP!!!

It is not a simple question. If it were truly simple, then there would be world peace already.

All ajlkhjlk is doing is renaming God without admitting to the mistakes of the past. Mistakes that you very much wish to pretend are not there. I do not live in your dream world where everything is so black and white.

Ody I already focus on the real decency well beyond the illusions you subscribe to. I know how to promote good in others and that is not by following some set of beliefs, but by teaching by example. I do not need any B.S. such as ajlkhjlk to tell me that. You seem to have this great need for some name to be given to it all, mostly because you put so much power into words. You are just so lost beyond lost here.

Seriously, are your tripping on acid?

If you wish to get people to become their best you need to show them where their thinking is flawed ad how their beliefs have kept them from achieving this. If you do not look at the flaws and mistakes, you can not fix anything. If a car is breaking down, you admit that there is a problem and loot at it to find the solution. You wish to ignore the reality of the problem and try to repaint the car so it looks new, but none of the faults have really be dealt with. In such a case all that will happen is that the car will break down all the sooner.

You are showing much more pride than I am. I keep showing you the flaws in what you say and you keep ignoring the facts of it all. You are unable to admit that mistakes and flaws of your own beliefs, while trying to rename in order to TRICK (And stop lying to me that you are not trying to TRICK people, because that is all this really is and you have to know that by now) others into following your flawed beliefs.

You are the one who seems to be on some drug trip where you believe that by renaming God you can change the world. It's been tried and it has failed time and time again, because they all thought like you are could not see the big picture.

I am not going to reply to you if you keep repeating yourself with this load of B.S. I do not care if you believe in it all or not. Why is it that you have this selfish drive to get people to admit that you are right? It really is all about you isn't it? I can see that now. You are wanting to prove that you are all wise and knowing. Do you have a God complex? Give this up. I am not falling for your strange game here. I live in reality and I very clearly see what needs to be done in order to build a better future and ti is not going to happen through your ideas of ajlkhjlk.

'As I've told you before, the term “Satan” caries with it a great historical bias. To use that term in any form of religion does nothing but promote discord and conflict. '

Right there you show you own flaws. You are tearing down someone's beliefs, as you claim I and Gomedome do, yet you provide no logic beyond the prejudice of one or two sets of religious beliefs. By the same logic I can very clearly say that Christianity is nothing more than a way to promote discord and conflict because a good population of the earth believe Christians to be evil and doing the Devil's work. You are already your own obstacle in ajlkhjlk because you really are unable to live up to your own ideals. Until you can break away from your own flawed ideas and see the actual harm that is caused by your beliefs, you can not achieve the idea of ajlkhjlk.

We are just talking in circles here. You are trying to label me as evil now because I will not admit that you have found the perfect concept to fix all the world's ills. You are also trying to guilt me into admitting you are right by saying I am showing hate if I do not agree with your ideas. Get over yourself and grow up. Take a walk and face reality.

I am going to stop replying to you now unless you are able to grow up and stop this insane quest to become a new messiah. You have nothing new to present. it had been tried before na it has failed. You cannot get around human nature. Try to just once listen to me and actually look at things in a clear manner through someone else's point of view.

YOU ARE NOT RIGHT AND DO NOT HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS.

if all you do is rely with the same load of B.S you have been spitting out, with tries to discredit me or guilt me into saying you are right , I will not reply. You have yet to get annoying enough that you need to be blocked, but this does get old and you just are not listening. So stop the lies and stop the trickery, it is not working. It is clear beyond clears to what you are trying for here. Your pipe dream of ajlkhjlk may sound nice, but it will never work because it is nothing new and it has never worked in the past because just like you, the people who started it up were in denial and not able to admit to the mistakes that had come before.

posted by kooka_lives on November 30, 2005 at 8:43 AM | link to this | reply

Kooka - I think that religions probably did start in much the same manner

as ajlkhjlk.  And as you say, they eventually became corrupt becomes of MAN’s infliction of secular doctrines upon concepts meant to reign as simple, visible truths.  We  must return to and maintain the primal purity of religion and strive for adherence to clear universal truths, not letting ourselves become enmeshed with ridiculous doctrines, mythologies, and rituals.

 

Kooka, I am not trying to trick you in any way, form or fashion.  I’m simply saying that you must make a decision about what is important in the world and FOCUS upon it.  To deny that anything is worthy of your primary focus is to leave you unguided and wandering aimlessly.  Your’s and Gomedome’s blogs clearly reflect this, because they constantly tear down others, call people names, and promote discord.  What I’m telling you is that when you fully achieve and focus upon what is important in the world you will find a way to BUILD instead of DESTROY.

 

As I’ve told you before, the term “Satan” caries with it a great historical bias.  To use that term in any form of religion does nothing but promote discord and conflict.  Again, that is clearly why a non-biased term was selected for ajlkhjlk.

 

And what exactly is wrong with starting afresh?  That is indeed what I recommend to you!  You must be “born again” into a new awakening of direction that will carry you to heights beyond your wildest imagination.

posted by telemachus on November 30, 2005 at 7:26 AM | link to this | reply

Kooka, Ajlkhjlk was purposefully created

as a word that would have no preconceived bias.  Why must you immediately try to establish a bias for it?  Either you agree with the definition of ajlkhjlk or not?  Do you embrace compassion, truthfulness, honesty, and goodness or not?  That is the simple question! 

 

I have acknowledged the existence of gray areas, as my responses have indicated to you. However, the mere presence of gray areas does not prohibit us from agreeing on the simple goals of compassion, honesty, goodness, and basic human decency.  How can you restrain from embracing basic human decency in the world?  Why can’t you just say:  “Yes Odysseus, I subscribe to basic human decency and I think it is so important that I should focus upon it and endeavor to promote it in myself and others!”  If you can make that statement, then make it here.  And if you do, the next question will be: “what efforts can you undertake to promote basic human decency?”.  I can tell you that such efforts do not involve the systematic destruction of every belief system that you encounter.  What these efforts do involve is finding ways to engage the best in people all about the world and to eliminate discord and conflict, as are typically generated in blogs like yours and Gomedome’s.

 

Again, as I stated, anyone can embrace ajlkhjlk, so long as they BELIEVE in the concepts of compassion, honesty, goodness, peacefulness, serenity, etc.  And believing in them to the extent that they would commit to work toward perpetuating the concepts in themselves and in the lives of others.  I repeat:  ANYONE who is willing, can do this.

 

Kooka, ajlkhjlk can and will eventually work all across this planet.  However, whether or not it will ever work for you personally is dependent upon whether you can swallow your pride long enough to publicly make a stand for basic human decency.  Will you do it now?  Will you come forth and join with me in embracing basic human decency in the world?  Can we not stand together on at least this one small island of agreement?

posted by telemachus on November 30, 2005 at 7:10 AM | link to this | reply

Ody

I completely agree (See we can agree) that your ideas here are very much 'narrow and simplistic' and that is the true problem. You are not seeing the big picture. Your concept does labels all things as right and wrong, black and white with no flexibility.

We can also agree that people need to eat food, drink water and breath oxygen to survive. That is just common sense and does not warrant creating a religious idea around. Also, people eat different things and drink different things, and some people are better at breathing and some people have problems, needed more oxygen than others. That is the downfall of you whole concept.

I do not 'invent situational conflicts that fog discernment'. I am realistic and am trying to show your the rational ways to look at this. Every religion started off just as you are trying to start off here. The rename God or nature or whatever, and then they set down these ideas that sound really great and are in general agreed upon by people. Then after a time they start finding that they really do not agree as to what those values stand for, and we get holy wars and splintering of the religions. History has already taught us that it just does not work.

My examples are very realistic. You are sitting there like a religious leader refusing to believe that your church is splintering because they are unable to accept your concept of love and instead have a different view of it all. You are in denial here.

You are trying to trick, although it may not be conscious. You just renamed God and are now doing all you can to prove that if you rename your beliefs, you can convert people to them. And yes, there are those out there who will be foolish enough to fall for it and tell you you are right, then after a little while you will go and say well you agreed with me there, so why not take the step and admit you believe in God since God is no different that ajlkhjlk. Please do not lie to yourself or insult me by claiming other wise. Gomedome saw through you when you first presented this idea as well.

'If it makes you feel better to call them, as Gomedome did, “basic human decency”, then call them that! But whatever you call them, be it ajlkhjlk or God or goodness or whatever, you must admit that they are worth striving for in this world.'

I never said they were not worth striving for. I am just saying it will not work to create a beliefs around them which is nothing more than labeling it all to begin with. You can strive for them without any religious ideas involved at all, Gomedome and myself do that. You are saying mankind is unable to do good with out some kind of religious beliefs, and that is just as false as it gets. You are just not listening to me and refusing to face reality on this issue.

'And that striving is what most religion is about.'

Then why did you have a problem with the Church of Satan? They were very obviously striving for good with their beliefs, yet you refuse to accept that.

'And much of what I've been saying to you over the years is that instead of criticizing religious expression so much, you could instead seek to identify for yourself the techniques and ways of promoting this “basic human decency” on the earth.'

I have already done that many, many times. You just do not pay any attention to those posts. You take this all as some kind of attack against faith when i show the weakness that is there and the flaws. If you really are seeking this whole ajlkhjlk thing the first thing you are going to need to do is face reality and find where in the established beliefs there are ideas holding people back from this goal. You should not be tearing down every set of religious beliefs out there much more than I do, very much including your own, in order to figure out where it has gone wrong and what teachings keep us back. You really are the main obstacle for your own designs. You are unable to accept that the mistakes of the past need to be faced before you can correct them. You just want to rename it all and start fresh, pretending that no one screwed up with the ideas of your faith.

Get over yourself and wake up to reality. If you are unable to do that, then anything concepts you try to push are just failed from the get go and not worth anyone's time to even try to follow.

posted by kooka_lives on November 30, 2005 at 7:03 AM | link to this | reply

SirBryanttheLion

Ody does not admit to this, but he has made it very clear that this ajlkhjlk junk is him just renaming God to get people to say the believe in his concept of God. His pride is very much keeping him form seeing this truth about his ideas here. He is not listening to reason at all when you try to get him to see that it has already been done with the creation of God in the first place, and that did not work.

He want ajlkhjlk to have clear right and wrong, as he foolishly believes the world is set up like. Hew ants all people to agree that what he feels is right and wrong is right and wrong. he does not understand the gray areas at all and refuse to accept the reality that pushing for ajlkhjlk is just not going to work.

Also, he has already made ti clear he plans to keep groups out of this, because they are evil. The whole thing started because I was showing the positive beliefs held by the Church of Satan. He was unable to accept them as being anything more than evil because of the word Satan, which he gave a lot of power to. He cares not if their concept of Satan is not his. I kept asking if their beliefs fit n with ajlkhjlk at all and he never even tried to answer that.

His idea of ajlkhjlk can never work because it is too closed minded with preset levels for good and evil and no room for flexibility, as his beliefs are.

posted by kooka_lives on November 30, 2005 at 6:36 AM | link to this | reply

SirBryanttheLion - Yes, and when we come to see that people move along

different paths, dependent upon the particular social paradigm from which they originate, we learn this tolerance.  But tolerance does not and should never mean that we should resign ourselves to anything that we disagree with.  But tolerance involves finding commonality, when possible.  Basic human decency is a level of commonality that virtually any true religion can subscribe to.  We must first succeed in developing this mutual focus, even at the most elementary level; and then we can embark upon seriously confronting the evil and discord about in this world.  You see, when we agree, even if it is only to promote basic human decency, we gain the focus that is necessary to engage a concerted effort, move forward, and impact the lives of others.  Certainly, establishing basic human decency about in all the earth would be a great accomplishment, would it not?

posted by telemachus on November 30, 2005 at 6:12 AM | link to this | reply

Kooka and Odysseus,

I agree with the idea being a beautiful thing.  I'm in the process of writing a book along those lines, but with the inclusion of several others.  Tolerance is a big part of it.  In order for it to work, it cannot single out a group or to make anyone feel exclusive to it.  It represents what, in the mind of the believer, what he or she wants it to be.  Be it God, or a force, or what-have-you; the name by which it is called is irrelevant as long as we try to strive for it.  People get caught up in the idea that their religion is the right and only way but are they right?  Can any of us know with certainty who is right?  My idea with the book is to show this, that this idea, manifests itself in a way that is understandable to the follower, whether it be a deity or otherwise, without discrediting others beliefs.

posted by SirBryantheLion on November 30, 2005 at 5:03 AM | link to this | reply

Kooka – With ajlkhjlk, I’m not seeking a broader concept.

On the contrary, I’m seeking a much more narrow and simplistic point of view, to the extent that I might elicit agreement from you. 

 

You see, unless you are totally hateful, at some point, we should find agreement.  Can we not agree that we should give to the hungry if we have exceptional bounty?  Can we not agree that we should refrain from killing another when it is possible and practical?  Can we not agree that we should earn our own way in the world if we are able?  Can we not agree that compassion, honesty, peacefulness, and the other components of ajlkhjlk are worthwhile objectives to pursue in most cases, when it is possible and convenient to pursue them without hurting others? 

 

I know that you can invent situational conflicts that fog discernment, but what I’m talking about here is the very opposite of that.  I’m talking about striving to identify those things that we both agree are worth focusing upon and elevating in the world.  In this way, we establish a spark of agreement and, whether you believe it or not, this spark has a marvelous capability to accomplish wonderful things in the world.  I've seen it work many times before among many different peoples of divergent motivations.  But it will never work so long as your primary motivation is to discredit and contest every word that I say.  

 

Please understand that I am not trying to trick you or anything like that. I am only trying to share with you things that mean a great deal to me.  When you look at it in this manner you will see that clearly there are basic visible truths that should be apparent to everyone.  If it makes you feel better to call them, as Gomedome did, “basic human decency”, then call them that!  But whatever you call them, be it ajlkhjlk or God or goodness or whatever, you must admit that they are worth striving for in this world.  And that striving is what most religion is about.  And much of what I’ve been saying to you over the years is that instead of criticizing religious expression so much, you could instead seek to identify for yourself the techniques and ways of promoting this “basic human decency” on the earth.

posted by telemachus on November 29, 2005 at 3:26 PM | link to this | reply

gomedome

Very well said

posted by kooka_lives on November 29, 2005 at 11:34 AM | link to this | reply

kooka_lives - in all attempts to outline the perfect set of ideals, there

are always a number of important failing omissions. Human nature will be as it always has been. Ideals, regardless of how worthy and noble, cannot overlook this reality or they become just another wish list. As you have begun to outline in this posting, there is not one set of subjectively viewed and measured ideals that will be all encompassing for all of mankind. Tolerance, a much more attainable and realistic target, is the key stepping stone to eventual respect of all peoples. ....the noble ideals can come later, when and if we master the basics.    

posted by gomedome on November 29, 2005 at 9:55 AM | link to this | reply