13.2.2003

Okay, another one today, just a short one though.
It, again, has to do with religion and the stuff I don't get of it, well, from Christianity, this time:
Why does God want our love? Why is it supposedly that He created us to love him but with a free will so we won't technically be his slave?

Only answer I came up with is the Christian God is not perfect, if he is, than he wouldn't want anything, much less desire for others to love him to the point of creating those beings.

Why is there a hell?

The very existence of a hell, in such a belief, should automatically contradict God as something perfect. To me, hell is like an eraser, like jailtime for people who did wrong. Why is it there? To me, it's not so much to punish people for doing things wrong, but rather to prevent those people from doing wrong in the future. Murder being the exception, or whatever. So hell could be thought of as an erasor for an artist, fix those who are bad, except hell is supposedly forever, so what's the point of fixing? There is no fixing. It's like God does justice, fueled by hatred and pride in His creatures, condeming those who does not believe in him for all of eternity. Again, hell would be more like something to keep that hatred alive, or at least to support pride, which is bad and very unwholesome, plus decieving. And, justice is but another word for hate, so in that case, God is hateful but also wants love, and is also very powerful (not all, and if he is, than he doesn't have the intelligence or wisdom to use it to its full potential). Either way one look at it, God is more like a little kid than a perfect being, which make sense, since we were supposedly created in the image of Him. Since we are obviously imperfect, he too must be imperfect. He may claim to be perfect, but that might just be arrogance or the error of the scriptor who were "enlightened" to write it down and pass it around.

That's all very good, but to me, it still looks more plausible that time were and still are harsh, so religion was and still is created/ing to control the masses. Control as in calm down, though other influences are held by religions, depending on time period, place, and specific religion. In a sense, it's more probable that we created god, than he created us. Some believe that there must be a God or gods since so many religion are so much a like and all, but others believe that instead of a common entity of which the majority of the population seeks, there is a solution to a common problem in which the majority of the population seeks.

That, pretty much sums up why I don't really think there is a god or gods out there, one: there doesn't have to be, two: there is no logical sense in the existence of one.

Another interesting thing rises up now: how could the universe came to if there were no creator? Why, a sily question requires a silly question in reply: how could there be a creator without the creator of the creator? And so on?

The same idea of an eternal creator could be applied to the universe, the mitigate one another.If the universe was a cart rolling down the street, there must of been some one who pushed it, and someone to give birth to that some one and raise him/her and so on. The very "creation" of the universe suggest a designer, I have also heard of this one. That relies on the underlying princple of "creation." The "birth" of a virtual particle observed in labs were "created" from nothing, and then disappeared to nothing. matter could be "created" by energy. But really, creation and distruction is, to me, but a concept of the ignorant. Nothing is ever destroyed nor created, those are relying on the idea of inherent entity. As if the building has its own kami, spirit, that building exist because it is it self and it is a building. but really, it is simply matter, and really, that is really energy. The building does not exist more than a sand castle exist, as soon as it is kicked over, it goes back to being piles of sand. But wait! it was already a pile of sand, thus, it has only changed its physical attributes. Thus, one may conclude that the universe is simply a transformation of something else, like the zero-energy of the fabric of space and time continuum or something.

12.2.2003
It seems I'm updating every other day, yet I never remember the day in between.
Today, I think I'm just going to ramble about the passage of time.

Time passes by with or without consent. It flows by whether you remember the present or not. Time erodes the strongest alloy, the largest boulder. Yet time is the ultimate erosion.

Blah blah blah, actually, there's something that's been bugging me, and that is the old archrival of emotion: attachment.
*loud reverberation of high-pitch bell sounding the background, introducing the main support character of silence*

Woops, it's getting late. anyway, all I had to say was that attachment must be thrown away, for it disturbs my childhood-like tranquility of contentment. Why should I want? To want to be with someone warm who would listen to what I have to say and talk of philosophical stuff to pass the erosion of time? This, you have already guessed, is the beginning of a crush. A crush that will crush my peace, my harmony, what little I have managed to cultivate over time. a crush that will shift my perspective to that of the object of my infatuation. A crush that shall be crushed. It arrives almost once a year, and usually on a different person.
Now I will be prepared. Now I see it as it comes, and now I shall block it, crush it before it crushes me again. What does not die only grow stronger. Or...whatever. Teenage love is dramatic and overrated, bloated with the intensity of spontaniety and the exuberance of ignorance. Love is addicting, an ever expanding vortex of myopia. How could one see through it but the singularity of its portal?

I'll expound on this tomorrow, or the day after that. I'd ask anyone to comment for elucidation, but that's doubtful. Anyone reading Pride and Prejudice? And dislike it's orientation in terms of themes as much as I do?

10.2.2003
So my friend, Leo, thought up something and instantly regurgitated out, raw and without premeditation for the digestion of others who are left to guess at the missing parts of his abstracts. His claim was 'total freedom is equivalent to slavery,' loosely quoted/paraphrased so don't quote me. This, being aetherly tangible to my previous mediations, attracted a reply from me, "can you explain that?" I meant to use expound, but couldn't think it up in time to fit it in.

So goes a shouting against the wall sort of debate, where no one were too sure of what the other was talking about, and incessantly replied whatever they thought was appropriate from a someone who actually understood the opponent's situation and pov.

In anycase, he went on about how freedom means unlimited choices, I said freedom is the lack of oppression but whatever. He said that no freedom--which I interpreted to be slavery, though he didn't say that--was like a dot, that's where you are and that's where you can go. This dot forms the foci of an elipse, also the center of a circle (just got through algebra2 again in precal ::wink:: ), the perimeter of this circle is the destination of any choices you make, which are bridges from the center to the geometric ring. Freedom would be a filled circle where the number of choices are so dense it might as well be. Some how, he claims that is the same as being in the dot. Do you understand? comment if you do.

So then, he continues on to say that having too much freedom is bad, though he also claimed before that there is no too much freedom. Confused? So was Leo, no doubt, trying to argue for a point he only half-ass conjured moments before and now being, seemingly, perpetually pounded by my still developing, hopefully, logistical faculty (rational thinking if you got lost in my sesquipedalians--long sounding words, multi-syllabic blurps of vocal/written abstract symbolics).

Now that I am thoroughly lost in my tracks, where was I? Oh yes, he claims that too much freedom is bad, that even though one may have total freedom, he is still limited by the options which are laid out to him by someone else (sounds paranoid? you have no idea). so then I ask, "So you're saying too many predetermined options are worse than fewer predetermined options?" And he says 'yes'. I think he was just pulling my chain.

But later today, I think I got what he meant, absolute freedom is parallel to that of slavery for you become a slave to your self, instead of partially being a slave to your self (doing whatever you want, regardless of any consequences) and being a slave to others and others laws (rules and legal laws and statutory limitations, sorry, I just remembered that phrase, and don't actually know what it is). Which corresponds to my past mediations, of which resulted in conclusions of total freedom equals to total chaos. Though the connection between his and my conclusions are rather dissimilar and requires some abstract connection to create a (probably) intangible nexus of somesort in the negaverse or whatever. ;)

Note to self:
Religion not so much dogmatic as in a body of mindless zombies, but rather desperate individuals who clings to vague strands of hope and faith for their stability of their sanity that forms a body of followers to such dogmatic rulings. This is, of course, only for Christianity, as I haven't really explored any other religion, by the way of skepticism... -_-

eerg, another test post blah