I’m tempted to call you Greylord now! “greylorn” sounds rather forlorn.
Thanks, but Greylord is not a name befitting someone who cuts his own firewood and works for a living. “greylorn” is a carefully chosen and entirely appropriate name.
I agree that our vices incur their own punishment but not that our Creator lets us go merrily - or miserably - on our way without taking any further interest in what happens to us. After all, the moral precepts of Jesus are inextricably bound up with His claim to be the Son Of God. It seems more logical to accept His teaching lock, stock and barrel or dismiss it…
Forgive my choice not to requote nitwit philosophers. I invite you to take a close look at the moral teachings of Christ. Then, the behavioral teachings, which seem to me to set an even higher level of standards. Stories like the Parable of the Talents, the Vineyard Workers, the turkey who sat himself at the top perch of the dinner table, Christ was not out in the world reiterating the commandments or clarifying the Torah. The teachings that stick in my mind have nothing to do with what people commonly regard as “moral standards.” How did he address prostitution/adultery? Something like, “Let he who is without blame toss out the first stone.”
IMO Christ was trying to tell people how not to behave like mindless, rule-following, hypocritical jerks,
(If you were choosing a long-term companion, would you rather have someone who slipped a little but gave a lot, or some righteous Bishop who’s never spilled beer on his silken gown?)
Christ’s teachings were brilliantly presented and full of human sense. They stand by themselves as legitimate insights and human guidelines whether Christ was the Son of God (a meaningless concept, when analyzed) or another bearded hippie dressed in a robe.
I’m not big on authority figures. I’ve never been seriously lied to by regular people, the kind you meet on the job, alongside the road with a stalled car, in a bar or engineering lab. The big lies I’ve had to deal with have come in faculty meetings, high level business conferences, political rallies, and sermons— all led up by some self-important pretentious clown. A title behind an author’s name is no assurance of truth or intelligence between a book’s covers.
I used to hang out with a Buddhist friend. We’d share a hot tub now and then. He’d bring Cuban cigars, and I’d bring a bottle of port. He’s written a few books which I haven’t read (he didn’t read mine either). He’d spent a month or so in India learning from some high mucky-muck lama, and held weekly teachings attended by devotees from miles around. He’d generally be no fun whatsoever for the first half hour or so, but after awhile he’d let loose of his credentials and we’d just be two bearded old goats, buck naked in a hot tub, stinking of cigars and unfit to drive, but well-qualified to delve into the mysteries of the universe. Then, finally, with his knowledge hanging on a shrub along with his bathrobe, his inherent wisdom would manifest and he became a conversational joy.
I’d trade an entire eternity in heaven for a half-hour in a hot tub with Jesus Christ, and I’d bring both the cigars and the wine.
I don’t know what Christ’s “moral” teachings are, meaning that no particular moral precepts come to mind when I scan my brain in hopes of finding some. I only pay attention to the first three books of the N.T, since John’s stuff is so obviously an invention of his personal socialistic mysticism. There is this absurd claim that seems to say, ‘No one gets to heaven except through me,’ I hope that the real J.C. said nothing of the kind, for it is totally inconsistent with the quality and style of his other teachings. It excludes way too many good people, and if its true, I’m not getting there and do not want to be there.
I have devoted a major section of one of my book chapters to the thesis that Christ’s teachings are wonderfully independent of any theology whatsoever, and could happily form the basis for a theology-independent religion.
I disagree absolutely with your insistence upon tying Christ’s teachings to any theology whatsoever. In fact, I can make a case that the Church betrayed Christ’s marching orders by ever getting into theology. Christ didn’t teach theology— he taught behavior. The early Church was built upon the foundation of those clear and simple teachings. The last thing it needed was theology.
tonyrey:
What do you think are the real reasons for human existence?
I actually started a thread on that subject once, but it got smothered by dogmatists.
I discuss the issue at great length and in an orderly, logical manner in my book. Nonetheless I’ll try a preliminary answer to your question, attenuated for this thread.
First, there is an incorrect assumption behind most everyone’s paradigm set which affects all questions about human purpose. It is that God created the human soul and body both. I regard that hypothesis as incorrect, and if I was required to answer the “purpose or reason” question under the constraint of such an hypothesis, I would have no intelligent answer.
IMO an intelligent answer to the question can only be developed under a different hypothesis. Mine is that the entity commonly known as “soul” was not created by God, This opens up a variety of interesting possibilities, beginning with the idea that the soul’s first purpose is to develop consciousness.
Neither purports to present a sequitur. Therefore neither is a non sequitur. (That’s sound reasoning. 
)
Considering suicide?
