%%USERNAME%%    %%ACCWORDS%% %%ONOFF%% |
 |   Some of the strangest things forgotten by that Australian Blog Bloke. 2014 |
| What is the difference between right or wrong? How can we know for sure? Why am I thinking of this now? Paris.  So, lets not get bogged down, or blogged down, in arguments of a religious nature. That doesn't profit anyone. People who believe, or those who don't, won't be "talked out of it", or "into it". There are two directions after this conclusion. Besides the ones who are "neutral", there are those who believe, and those who don't, and either group is either forced, or chooses. And either group can force, or allow choice. And those who are neutral can choose or be forced. People fire up over religion. They, we, can become hysterical over this subject, just as we do over, say, the welfare of children, or the elderly. Or the care of the disabled. Or the right to free speech that I'm exercising right now. Earlier today, I wanted to post a comment on Twitter about the goings on in Paris. I wanted to say what I thought about those who commit this sort of thing. But I didn't. I didn't say it. That's because of fear for my wife, my children and my relatives. Being far away from the action or recriminations isn't always enough, and these people obviously play for keeps. But I'll say it here anyway. I'll write it. Writing is a way for me to fathom things out that I don't understand. Writing stores my thoughts so I can re read them and not forget. If I focus enough and spend enough time I can write to preserve my feelings, the strength of the thoughts, convictions, sadness, grief, misgivings, regrets, anger or whatever else might be a product of my thoughts. I'm not saying I'm right. But I am thinking of right and wrong, and how to tell the difference regardless of extremism, regardless of the wobbly theorising and pressure. There feels like a pressure not to have something solid, pressure not to have beliefs of any sort, a pressure to just let things flow however, and whatever. There seems to be a pressure to say it's ok to have extremist beliefs, and to allow people to do whatever they want, all for their beliefs. Who is really behind these attacks? ISIS, or a government, wanting to sow seeds of hatred and fear, to encourage people to be keen to go to war, to hate each other, to blame, to want revenge? In the sense of philosophy, does it really matter who is to blame? My thought process is more to do with what is right, or wrong, about attacks of this nature in relation to beliefs. Is it really so hard to work out? I mean, it seems blatantly obvious to me, and obviously to many others. There are people grieving tonight. There is an Australian wounded. If I thought about it from a patriotic standpoint, I would want to take revenge, even for just wounding one of my countrymen or women. But, isn't that just playing into the manipulation of terrorism or religious extremism? Zealots are a dangerous bunch. Even writers can become very passionate and defensive of their craft or their opinion on how things should be. I'm a zealot myself you could say. I have very strong spiritual beliefs although I don't conform anywhere near a fraction of what I feel I should. But conforming, or doing good things or doing the right thing isn't always the be all and end all. We are all human, all have faults, all do the wrong thing, all fail. We all fail, at some time or other. And then at the close of our lives, everyone dies. Nobody is exempt. You know that is a fact without me blogging on it. Well then, given that we all know the certainties in life, death, taxes and men (and women) marching off to war, what is so hard about knowing what is right from wrong? Children seem to get on ok with the concept. Up to the time when they begin to understand that humans can think, humans can reason, humans can devise, humans can deceive, humans can do wrong, humans can attack their own kind, humans can kill. Humans can want to kill other humans purely because of a set of beliefs. Can I reduce this question of right and wrong to some unchangeable facts. Can I break such a simple question down into parts that are infallible, provable in physics, and commonly known by all humans, even, especially, from the age of a child? What is the end result of the actions of what we believe? That is what I feel determines if something is right, or if it is wrong. The end result. If you had 10 apples, and took a hammer and smashed some and then burned them, you'd have less apples to eat. If you destroyed them all, you'd have none to eat. Sounds logical. If you turn out the lights, and it's night time, you can't see. There's that. It's dark. You cannot walk around without bumping into things. You are effectively blind. If you destroy all your family, and also yourself, then nobody sows, nobody gathers, nobody prepares, and nobody cooks dinner. The end result of all this is bad. The end result of these actions and these situations, is no profit, is chaos, is unpleasant, is unwise, and is so plainly wrong. Right. And wrong. The end result of wrong beliefs, coupled with wrong thinking, coupled with wrong decisions, coupled with wrong actions, is bad, wrong, and of no profit to anybody, least of all the one doing all this wrong stuff. What god would want its / his / her followers or disciples to do things that destroyed themselves, destroyed their fellows, and destroyed everything they have to use to serve their god? What sort of god would want the followers to force others? What sort of god would want people to be heroes at the expense of other people? What sort of god, and what sort of followers, if they are all deaf and blind? They wouldn't listen to anyone disagreeing with their actions of destruction. They wouldn't want to see how much the same as them their victims really are. There is a disease that wants to destroy its own host, and ultimately destroying itself. Cancer. A virus. Children know so early that it doesn't make sense to harm each other; the lesson of right or wrong. It's wrong to harm others. It's right to care for others. And other lessons of right versus wrong; if you don't look where you are going when you run you'll fall and hurt yourself. You can run but be careful of your own safety and the safety of others. Nobody has to tell children these basic lessons. Cause and effect do the job of teaching if allowed the chance. Other lessons need to be taught by somebody, or someone. It's a good thing if the lessons are taught in love. The actions required by a god who has to force, has to force its disciples, well, that's not love. If it was love the followers would be there in the beginning by choice. Lust is different from love. Lust is self centred. Lust is all to do with pleasing ones self. Lust is selfishness. A god, or a leader can be served by what appears to be voluntary love, but it's really still a selfishness because the disciple wants praise or reward or recognition or whatever else that supposedly comes after death. What god would reward followers - its worshippers - who destroy the unarmed, the innocent, the relatively weak and harmless? That's why its just lust. Not love. Love is a thing of more, not less. Love is able to stand on its own strength. Love rewards without expecting payment of some kind. Love is like a light that guides towards what is the right thing to do. When people want to be hidden, and do things where they cannot be seen, in darkness, in shadows, and use this as a cloak, then what? If someone wants to harm a child they try to hide the deed. When people hide their deeds, deeds that harm others, then it's wrong. Children get it. Why not grown men, in all their proud braininess and selfish arrogance? Their religious zeal truly does eat them up; it eats up their brain matter so they become thick in the head. It must do. Because their deeds are wrong. They aren't superior. They aren't pleasing any proper god except their selfish selves. They aren't heroes or martyrs except in their own stubborn mind. They are just slow learners that can't learn a lesson even children grasp. It strikes you that what is missing with people who harm others is the lesson of right versus wrong. They haven't been taught, wouldn't learn if there was a teacher, and are just a person without a father (or mother). Nobody taught them the most basic lessons that stem from feelings of love. A little bit of discipline doesn't hurt children either. If they harm another then there's a result, a consequence. That simple lesson wasn't learned by these people who claim to serve a god. The god they serve surely isn't a loving one. I could easily start on my strong beliefs here. I could easily try to force people to listen. Then I'd be just as bad, or on the same track towards wrong. Paris.  There's the thing. There are beliefs that bring harm to others, wanting to force them, wanting to "convert" them by pressure, wanting to destroy them if they don't conform, placing the unbeliever on a lower level, to be viewed as inferior, viewed as ignorant, viewed...as an enemy. What god would want enemies? What god would want the end state to be separation? I'll tell you what god. As I said, a god who wasn't a father, that's who. A childless god. Because any father, any mother, any PARENT, would want to do anything in it's power, to draw to themselves, to reach out, to care, to bring to safety, to have an open door, to nurture, to feed, to love, to have back in that relationship- a relationship that is not forced. Any parent who loves their children knows the relationship of pure unconditional love. And a god who only sees enemies in those who disagree, only wants to separate, only wants to make an enemy of them, is a god that is wrong. Sometimes things happen that take away all the froth, that remove all the things that don't matter so much in life, and what is left is what does matter. What matters is that we all go on. The only way I can do anything about those who do these wrong things, those who want to harm others and do it to worship their god, the only recourse I feel empowered with is to write about my disagreement. And I disagree with harming others in the name of any god. I disagree with the organisations who think it's right to force people to obey them, to do their bidding, to be brainwashed and compelled against their will to join them in their wrong cause. They are weak, these wrong doers. They are weak because the things they do don't require strength at all. There is no self discipline in whatever they do. There is no skill or talent at all. There is no cleverness. There is nothing to be proud of. There is nothing to declare to their parents that what they did is pleasing. They can't control the smallest thing in their life. And that thing is the ability to learn, the willingness to be taught, the humbleness to know, what is right, and what is wrong. Sparky  |
View Portfolio
Visit Notebook
Send Gift Points
Awards
Badges
Send Email
Community Newsfeed
General Discussion
Sponsored Items
Book of Trinkets
Static Items
Books
Groups
Interactive Stories
Audio
Campfire Creatives
Community Notes
Crossword Puzzles
Documents
Folders
Images
In & Outs
Madlibs
Photo Albums
Polls
Product Reviews
Quizzes
Survey Forms
Web Pages
Word Searches
