Tuesday, July 12, 2005

Black Krishna Cross-Examines Jehovah's Witness... (HOVA!!! HOVA!!!)

Yo T-Dawg,

Sorry for the delayed reply, I lost your email in this newfangled Gmail account. It's better, but it's tricky, and I'm a Luddite...

I dunno man, I think one can use scripture analogously far too loosely, and as soon as it spirals out of control make decisions based on the weakest of practical rationalizations.

To wit: you can randomly attach a line of scripture to everything in the world, and wind up with a world through your eyes that no one else sees.

The result?

Everybody but you is a stone-cold sinner.

You're certainly struggling with the issue - which is healthy I'm sure, but you also only focus on examples that suit your theory. A lot of people have had sex before marriage, and enjoyed the hell out of life with no problems like the STD's you mentioned.

So: is it okay then?

Will you just say: "God'll get 'em eventually!"

How can you justify who God punishes "here" vs. "in death" in such an arbitrary way to suit your "premarital sex is bad!" theory? Or your "excessive drinking" theory - which many have enjoyed with no consequences as well? Or even profess any unproveable justification to make moral sense of someone else's misery?

I mean, "he's guilty 'cause he's black" worked for a while too... badly. (It still does.)

To say here and now with authority that when one person is punished "God did it!", and when another is not "God will!", is logic that frankly makes God look pretty bad. We wouldn't accept the head of a PTA meeting acting this way, so how can we suddenly speak for God's inconsistencies as having selective moral weight that human beings can then apply with absolute certainty?

This same logic irrespective of religion has been used for "selective prosecution" of minorities and dissidents throughout history, and right now with Robert Novak and Judith Miller. It cuts nastily both ways: it can screw people unjustly, and let them free unjustly.

That's also why it's the preferred tool of power: they can attack or celebrate whomever they want and choose to justify it inconsistently with God on their side. It's the history of the "sin tax", where rich people could "buy" their way into heaven despite raping someone while poor people were told they'd go to hell. It can also prevent open and honest dialogue: if one can't admit their own hypocrisy, one will be tempted to use it on others.

Just imagine a world where as long as you say you're a Christian you can kill a bunch of people... and you'll see George W. Bush blowing up Iraq.

I also think you can plan ahead too much, but maybe that's just me - I know I've paid a bill late (or two, or three...) and this philosophy has got me in trouble.

However, I do think aiming all your actions to achieve "nirvana" in the afterlife is less-practical than aiming for it in this one. After all: doesn't it make sense that they would carry over? Would God really smack you down for chilling out and being real cool with everybody here?

And... might you justify unneccessary depression as some form of pre-emptive penitence? Can this lead to possible clinical issues or at the very least bitterness and resentment of happy people?

It's just better to make peace with the world than to fit all of it's cultural complexity into your own interpretation of your own Christian sub-culture, man...

Finally, all your definitions of why "x" means this or "y" means that in other religions can be solved fairly easily.

Just like you've learned things that are empirically unproveable in conversation from men you thought wise, can you not imagine others thinking they way they do based on a similar set of proof they can't produce in any empirical sense? Even the logical inconsistencies you suggest don't make any sense to disbelieve, after all: can't you imagine "multiple" God's you never see?

I mean, if you can imagine "one" God you can't see, why not a bunch? Why not any interpretation of the unknown that can be supported by "faith"? Why not "any" interpretation of the unknown supported by "logic" you learned well and now firmly believe in?

It's all the same thing: a set of beliefs.

That's it.

God may well exist, but your existential dilemma and that of theologists throughout history resists any definitive conclusions to apply here on earth. After all, religious debate is thousands of years old, which obviously means He deliberately hasn't been giving us many clues we can all understand...

The truth you've learned you've only proven to yourself by how "good" it makes you or others feel, and I'm sorry to say but there are no other clues to prove it's truth. You use The Bible to get your "first principles", so everything flowing from that will naturally disagree with someone else relying on a different book to start their conclusions with.

When others feel the same through a parallel process of learning a different belief system, it's best to just focus on whether they're harming themselves or anyone else rather than butt heads over personal policies. Maybe making peace with this diversity is God's clue to happiness?

After all, he put all this stuff here...

Worry less about what system of belief they've decided on that let's them sleep at nite, and you'll sleep better at nite.


However you make sense of the world is cool with me man, just remember there's 6 billion people living here, and if they all thought the same this place would be hella boring... :)

Peace, (NOW!!!)