- Chuang Tzu

Obviously, it presupposes that we can have a clear idea of what constitutes spiritual or social health. Nowadays we’re all pretty skeptical on that point, or we all have different ideas about it, and thus we’re often unable to draw a firm line between things which promote health and things which undermine it.

Absolutely brilliant analysis of the underlying social problem!

I’ve observed that the emphasis on following rules to avoid sin, and the consequent feeling of guilt when those rules are inevitably broken, is no less a problem among Orthodox than among any other group of Christians. I think this is because the problem does not lie in the framing of the concept of sin, but the fact that it requires us to suppress basic animal impulses that it is vital to the overall health of the organism for it to expose and understand. The insoluble cognitive dissonance between feeling an impulse on the instinctual level and believing it to be wrong on a rational/moral level makes the human bio-machine (to use an ugly and clumsy metaphor) feel like it’s under attack. This basic anxiety/stress, the feeling that you, yourself, are not all right just being what you are, is, IMO, what we experience as guilt.

exaggerates those desires; all the while social pressure from all sides insists, “You’re a pervert for wanting this.” It’s fishy.

Exactly, this seems to be the crux of controlling people: make them desire something and make them feel bad about desiring it. This paradox is forced below the surface by the conscious mind which simply cannot resolve it. It needs to be brought up and thoroughly examined wherever it occurs though to be able to move forward at all

The other day, I was out walking in the countryside and saw a sign which said “Private, please keep out”. I intended to ignore it. But two things stopped me. One was that some fork-lift tractors were in the adjoining field gathering bales of straw, and they would see me crossing the “private” land. It’s not that they would do anything to me or report me. It’s just that they would see and judge, and I would feel ashamed.

The other thing which stopped me was that if I proceeded, I would disturb a large number of young pheasants, for this area was their designated breeding ground. Even though I knew they were being bred for hunting parties to shoot, I felt it was my duty to preserve an existing order which was important to others and traditional to this piece of land.

At that moment, I understood what “conscience” meant: nothing divine, just my need to think well of myself.

Corky makes a nice case for the basic Christian understanding. Getting at the root of the SIN concept there are several definitions from the Hebrew scriptures, the most commonly understood is the archery term “missing the mark.” Also there is “getting pushed over the line,” and “willful trespassing.” Many shades of the basic concept express that we are flawed, ignorant, and common failures to a standard. Slaves to Maya. False Gods.

Face it - anyone who is honest - we are constant fuck ups. It’s who we are. Just look around … something’s just not right … people are miserable all over the place.

In contract to the Levitical standards that many still obsess over, Jesus established some very cool - often overlooked - “new commandments” (which no one here has yet to mention), which he says fulfill the old laws completely.

Commandments, if you will for in keeping with 1st century conditions, or a modern legal definition. But looking deeper into it there are no laws to govern LOVE.

Consider Jesus’ 2 conditions: priority #1: Love G-D above all things (thus seeking first the Kingdom of heaven); #2: Love people AS you love yourself, which come back to loving G-D. Really no distinction.

It’s that simple. However too easily we dismiss the first, loosing our position. Left in the desert we end up not loving ourselves that much (or idolizing an ego love), and loving others in the same measure … accordingly that which we mete out is the measure we receive.

This is the prime meditation: our heart’s conscience weighed against our ability to LOVE impartially. That’s the Ma’at, true Tao, and our salvation.

If our lives aren’t about charitable sacrifice, we are failures and miserable sinners. This is the cheif cornerstone, and stumbling block.

Still, even with this basic mindset in place, I’ve observed that the emphasis on following rules to avoid sin, and the consequent feeling of guilt when those rules are inevitably broken, is no less a problem among Orthodox than among any other group of Christians. I think this is because the problem does not lie in the framing of the concept of sin, but the fact that it requires us to suppress basic animal impulses that it is vital to the overall health of the organism for it to expose and understand. The insoluble cognitive dissonance between feeling an impulse on the instinctual level and believing it to be wrong on a rational/moral level makes the human bio-machine (to use an ugly and clumsy metaphor) feel like it’s under attack. This basic anxiety/stress, the feeling that you, yourself, are not all right just being what you are, is, IMO, what we experience as guilt.

The Greek hero aims to make himself a fitting spectacle for the gods. Nietzsche’s superman embodies a Greek kind of virtue: his actions are chosen out of a concern for authenticity, for fidelity with his true being. He is in tune with the Tao, and this isn’t really all that far from what Jesus seems to have meant by faith…

The history of Christianity as a social institution is a story about how the bureaucrats and their rule-books took control, just as they seem to have taken control of every other social institution. But it’s also a story about periodic attempts to recover or restore the original vision. Luther’s attempt ultimately failed — probably because he himself was deeply flawed — but there are still some useful ideas to be found in the Reformation.

After Adam and Eve ate the apple, God comes looking for them in the garden but they’ve hidden themselves from Him. How could an omniscient God not know where they were? They weren’t fooling anyone but themselves! And as long as they go on sinning, they imagine themselves hidden and thus separated from Him.

So the problem with sin isn’t simply that it breaks some rule that God has arbitrarly decreed, it’s what it does to our state of being. It’s a matter of spiritual health. Just as you can abuse your body by eating junk food or never exercising, you can abuse your soul by indulging in sin. In both cases, you’ll suffer the natural consequences. The “rules” are just a way of warning you what’s probably going to happen if you keep going the way you’re going.

In the same way, crime isn’t only a matter of breaking some positive law. What makes a law a just or moral law is whether or not it reflects the conditions required for a healthy society. That’s why the most common question that used to be asked about any behavior was “What if everyone acted that way? What kind of world would this be?”

Anyway, that’s the way I was raised. Obviously, it presupposes that we can have a clear idea of what constitutes spiritual or social health. Nowadays we’re all pretty skeptical on that point, or we all have different ideas about it, and thus we’re often unable to draw a firm line between things which promote health and things which undermine it.

But I still think it’s something that is worth bringing into this discussion, so we don’t get stuck thinking exclusively in terms of rules. Instead, think about the purpose behind the rules…

Maybe I should spell out my own view of the effect science has on society. Copernicus accidentally wounded the social principle that some specific person’s claims about God should dominate every aspect of life for everybody. Not that people followed this principle in the Dark Ages, but they mostly seemed to view their actions as wrong and not actually deny the principle. (Even heretics often seemed to think their claims about God should replace those of the guy in the funny hat.) This “morality” started to fade and die as Newton banished it from the rules of modern science (althought the logical consequences didn’t sink in until Darwin) and anti-monarchists appealed to reason or “common sense” to shape government. Since then, attempts (by Victorians and Nazis) to replace the older principle with the more openly stated rule of obedience to society and tradition have failed. The Leninist attempt to replace it with “science”, as society defined it, has also failed. I think the principle of True Will has a good chance to win by default. As for your fears of nihilism, they seems to me like utter nonsense. Humanity abhors a vacuum. Some principle will always fill the void, and in fact we can already see this happening. Every ideology today paints itself as a champion of true will. (If you don’t believe me, just google “true freedom” and islam. You point out that reason can’t force a definition of morality on us, but you don’t seem to realize that when it comes to the definition — the first principles of morality — we’ve already won. The debate concerns practical applications.) Science will do what it does best — reject the false claims and help us laugh them out of existence.

Zac makes the distinction that just because you have transcended morality doesn’t mean you have tossed aside simple human empathy. Instead, it means that you don’t rely on a set of guidelines or rules to make decisions and govern your own behavior.

That’s awesome. The same thoughts have been running through my head recently. I need to check out that post. Freudian psychology is, in my opinion, just a modernization of the old Augustinian notion that human beings are inherently wicked, and that religious morality and God’s grace are needed to contain the hideous, sinful nature within. Fuck that.

Anyways, I say the biggest fantasy most religious men have is sex with teenage girls.

Yeah, I would have to say it’s not just religious men. It’s pretty much all men. It’s biologically programmed in men to want to mate with young but sexually mature females. And you know what? That’s okay. If we’re talking about oppressive morality, one of the most oppressive sexual taboos that generates a lot of unnecessary sexual guilt in men is the one condemning them having fantasies which are completely natural. At the same time, the modern media puts teenage girls on this overly sexualized pedestal (Hilary Duff, early Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan, Olsen twins, to name the most obvious recent examples) and exaggerates those desires; all the while social pressure from all sides insists, “You’re a pervert for wanting this.” It’s fishy.

It says that our inner lives are horrendous monstrosities

Maybe on one psychic level there are Demons, zombies, parasites, mutants, ghouls, vampires, freaks, blobs, graveyards and haunted houses parading around! But perhaps on the other level there are Zen masters, angels, wizards and cozy little bake shops filled with delicious cupcakes!

But the question remains though, is the only reason that non-religious people don’t run around killing, raping and eating one another simply because we are afraid of getting caught? If that’s truly the case, then that paints a horrifically dark picture of human nature. It says that our inner lives are horrendous monstrosities which must be caged at all times or else our perversions will explode into the daylight world and destroy society.

Fundamentalists often argue that atheism is “immoral” and unworkable because humans who aren’t “saved” would simply not be able to restrian themselves from raping, robbing, murdering, etc.

But I know plenty of moral and ethical atheists. I think this fear says a lot more about fundamentalists themselves, e.g..,

“I live in a state of fear under a rigidly authoritarian sky-father and that’s the only thing that prevents me from going completely apeshit and raping every woman i see, the thought that you are able to restrain yourself from this without my sky-father causes me an almost unbearable level of cognitive dissonance”