Albert Pike, as part of his work on human morality and conscience, wrote:


"This besotted race (humans) is not satisfied with seeing its multitudes swept away by the great epedimics whose causes are unknown, and the justice and wisdom of which the human mind cannot concieve.


It must also be ever at war. There has not been a moment since man divided into tribes, when all the world was at peace. Always men have engaged in murdering each other somewhere. Always the armies have lived by the toil of the husbandman (farmer), and war has exhausted the resources, wasted the energies, and ended the prosperity of Nations. Now it loads unborn posterity with crushing debt, mortgages all estates, and brings upon States the shame and infamy of dishonest reputation.

At times the baleful fires of war light up half a Continent at once; as when all thrones (governments) unite to compel a people to receive again a hated and detestable dynasty, or States deny States the right to dissolve some irksome union and create for themselves a separate government.

Then again, the flames flicker and die away, and the fire smoulders in its ashes, to break out again after a time, with renewed and a more concentrated fury.

At times the storm, revolving, howls over small aeas only; at times its lights are seen, like the old beacon fires on the hills, belting the whole globe. No sea but hears the roar of cannon; no river but runs red with blood; no plain but shakes, trampled by charging squadrons; no field but fertilized by the blood of the dead. And everywhere man slays, the vulture gorges, and the wolf howls in he ear of the dying soldier. No city is not tortured by shot and shell, and, (worst) no people fail to enact the horrid blasphemy of thanking a God of "Love" for "victories" and carnage.
--------------------


Seems to pretty much sum up our current state of being.

And, I think, a pretty astute observation on mankind.

What I find really provokes my thought, is to conjecture whether people will ever become humble enough to do better. After all, the above words were first published in 1871.

You've caught me in a philosophical mood regarding mankind's old eternal turf war.

So, to quote Harry Lime -

"Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock. So long Holly."

Btw, too bad the real star of that show, Alida Valli, couldn't make it in films here. She wasn't known as the "most beautiful woman in the world" for nothing...

Of course Harry Lime is correct.

In talking of the ultimate justice (not as we define it, but as God MAY intend and promise it) some believe that ALL the events which occur in the world, both horrific and sublime, are made possible intentionally by the Great Spirit. And they think perhaps that is so that ultimate justice CAN occur...creating the eternal balance between good and evil.

Thus "free will" can be granted to every man, so he may see, ponder, act, and learn.

Pike himself thought the same.

Many are convinced that's indeed how it works. And still many others even though in doubt would give a lot for it to be so.

The implications are several. For the here and now it's responsibility for one's own actions does matter. And on the bigger level it's trust and faith.

Of course, another different view is fate and predestination based on all being interconnected. That one is more suited for "if it feels good do it" since it's probably gonna happen anyway.

Kinda like Ahab telling Starbuck "this scene was rehearsed by me and thee a thousand years before this ocean rolled". And then he proceeds to do whatever, and the ship and all are lost.

Of course, then you have still that other way of looking at it.

Which is, the Universe is indifferent...

quote:

Originally posted by Shack:
Many are convinced that's indeed how it works. And still many others even though in doubt would give a lot for it to be so.

Of course, then you have still that other way of looking at it.

Which is, the Universe is indifferent...

Yes, but if that was true, science and logic would probably be worth less than faith, no? I mean, how could there be workable rules of science or logic if the universe was truly indifferent?

I suspect (but of course can't prove and may well be wrong) that all the interconnections of life and findings of science prove there IS a master plan both IN existance and daily operation 24/7/365.

NONE of us are smart enough to know what the master plan is as an absolute certainty, but it is fun to think over and maybe reach our own individual imperfect decisions about.

"Thanking God for the victory and carnage"

I've always thought that praying for victory was wrong, unless you were opposed to a god-less enemy. That was true in sports in college and in the practice of law. But, I guess God decides who is a "god-less" enemy, if there ever was one.

I think praying to do my best is approprate. I think praying for justice is appropriate. But God decides what justice is; I do not.

I cross swords in the legal system. I do my best for my client. A judge or jury -- and maybe more judges on appeal -- determine how it turns out. But ultimately, God will determine what was right and someone will be exacted a price for what they did in this life.

I think it's right to pray for justice or to pay to do our best; I think it's wrong to pray for someone to win or lose. Just my two cents.

quote:

Yes, but if that was true, science and logic would probably be worth less than faith, no? I mean, how could there be workable rules of science or logic if the universe was truly indifferent?

I would think of it in terms of God's Plan. But earthly ways (and laws of nature).

The idea of the Universe as "indifferent" is the creed of those who skip straight to the earthly ways. It says all is based on self-interest, survival or "life finding a way" and whatever system comes out of that is the deal. It skips the question why and goes straight to how.

quote:

Originally posted by Shack:

I would think of it in terms of God's Plan. But earthly ways (and laws of nature).

The idea of the Universe as "indifferent" is the creed of those who skip straight to the earthly ways. It says all is based on self-interest, survival or "life finding a way", and whatever system comes out of that is the deal. It skips the question why and goes straight to how.

Yes, as there is only one God, regardless of who the prophets are or were, that makes sense.

And of course science and logic are two ways man tries to understand and deal with the earthly laws which God built into his creation.

But to me it is still proof that God exists. Man is capable of seeking to discover, explain, and use those earthly laws. And they are still
probably of more importance and value than pretending we know and understand God's input and intent for his creations, including the ultimate truth and justice of it.

Man can only assume the plan will work and is working because it is God's plan. That makes Faith more important in the long run than even science and logic are in the short run.

If folks wish to conjecture that there is no God because "they" do not understand God's plan they are free to do so....at least while they are on earth and, who knows, maybe forever. (And man cannot read God's plan or understand it.. He may assume he can, but that is to assume he is God's equal, and has it not long been acknowledged that "pride goeth before a fall"?)

But one need not reject God to use the earthly tools of science and logic which God gave us as part of the overall plan.

Perhaps God's plan provided for man to have all three, faith, science, and logic....again all in balanced measure.

quote:

But one need not reject God to use the earthly tools of science and logic which God gave us as part of the overall plan.

Perhaps God's plan provided for man to have all three, faith, science, and logic....again all in balanced measure.

Amen and well spoken. Thanks.


.

Thank you JTex for allowing me your time to read my guesses of the the way things may be.

I guess at this point I will add there may be several reasons God gave us faith, science and logic, but this is only my conjecture.

One reason might be to make our way from day to day, reaping the bounties God put into the system, and

Reason number Two might be, for man to understand slowly but surely that it is a system that only a true God is capable of planning, bringing into being, and operating.

That would allow and help us to develop our faith that God is real.

A third reason might be to teach mankind some humility.

Possibly a fourth reason would be for a humble mankind to recognize that it does not know what is in the heart of any man, thus to not defame his brother nor condemn his soul or being.

A fifth reason may be for mankind to learn that all acts have consequences.

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
"Thanking God for the victory and carnage"

I've always thought that praying for victory was wrong, unless you were opposed to a god-less enemy. That was true in sports in college and in the practice of law. But, I guess God decides who is a "god-less" enemy, if there ever was one.

I think praying to do my best is approprate. I think praying for justice is appropriate. But God decides what justice is; I do not.

I cross swords in the legal system. I do my best for my client. A judge or jury -- and maybe more judges on appeal -- determine how it turns out. But ultimately, God will determine what was right and someone will be exacted a price for what they did in this life.

I think it's right to pray for justice or to pay to do our best; I think it's wrong to pray for someone to win or lose. Just my two cents.

I think you have it figured out at least as well as I do. After all, I have no certain knowledge that any of my thoughts represent any of God's truth.

And , if there is only one true God, which I believe on faith alone, as God created everything which IS, then there are no foes who are truly Godless. They may not know of God, nor interpret God the same way we do if they DO know of God, but certainly God knowingly created them with free will too, as part of his plan.

So, we may rightfully protect ourselves gainst harm, and even exact some consequences upon our earthly foes in so doing. But probably we should not condemn God's creation of them any more than we would condemn our own creation.
Nor should we likly pray for his help in destroying them...unless our vanity allows us think we know more about what "should be" than God does.

And of course we should keep in mind that ALL our actions likewise have consequences which will ultimately be exacted as part of God's plan.

No?[/QUOTE]

quote:

Nor should we likly pray for his help in destroying them...unless our vanity allows us think we know more about what "should be" than God does.

I read this in a book that was written by a fellow who was in the German army on the Eastern front (and really saw the worst) and wrote of his experiences and remarked how each army relied on God in various slogans. In his army they had (in English) "For God and Fatherland" and "God is with Us".

He then wondered, so if all sides claim God is on their side, "then what is God to do?"

Not an original thought, but so many times we worry; both as individuals and nationally; if GOD is on our side. It seems more relevant to me to think the question should be,"are we on the Lord's side?"

There's a neat question that's mixed philosophical, religious, practical and scientific that I've never heard anyone try to deal with. In fact I've never even heard it discussed.

And I'll state it in my words, because I don't know how else to do it.

Why exactly is a person, any person, "looking at life" and experiencing life through their eyes and being rather than someone else's?

Think about that. "Science" would try a sperm and egg answer to that question, but that is only true in the physical sense. That just explains the "how" of each of us being here. We know that much. But it doesn't explain at all how each is "who" we are. It doesn't answer the deeper question at all and can't.

There's an obvious implication to this that would make the modern thinker uncomfortable.

Namely, that what I'm referring to is at the least circumstantial evidence for the proposition that the body and soul are separate entities, with all that implies.

quote:

Originally posted by Shack:
There's a neat question that's mixed philosophical, religious, practical and scientific that I've never heard anyone try to deal with. In fact I've never even heard it discussed.

And I'll state it in my words, because I don't know how else to do it.

Why exactly is a person, any person, "looking at life" and experiencing life through their eyes and being rather than someone else's?

Think about that. "Science" would try a sperm and egg answer to that question, but that is only true in the physical sense. That just explains the "how" of each of us being here. We know that much. But it doesn't explain at all how each is "who" we are. It doesn't answer the deeper question at all and can't.

There's an obvious implication to this that would make the modern thinker uncomfortable.

Namely, that what I'm referring to is at the least circumstantial evidence for the proposition that the body and soul are separate entities, with all that implies.

Suppose that the brain is an interface or remote control for the spirit?

quote:

Originally posted by Shack:
There's a neat question that's mixed philosophical, religious, practical and scientific that I've never heard anyone try to deal with. In fact I've never even heard it discussed.

And I'll state it in my words, because I don't know how else to do it.

Why exactly is a person, any person, "looking at life" and experiencing life through their eyes and being rather than someone else's?

Think about that. "Science" would try a sperm and egg answer to that question, but that is only true in the physical sense. That just explains the "how" of each of us being here. We know that much. But it doesn't explain at all how each is "who" we are. It doesn't answer the deeper question at all and can't.

There's an obvious implication to this that would make the modern thinker uncomfortable.

Namely, that what I'm referring to is at the least circumstantial evidence for the proposition that the body and soul are separate entities, with all that implies.

My uncertain guess would be that a "person" really is his/her soul. They are possibly using the body (as God planned and provided) to learn the lessons which the earth was created and is organized to teach mankind? The body is simply a tool we leave behind at some point in our learning curve?

well, our body and our spirit are most definately different, because it says mortality cannot take on immortality; meaning we're all going to die, but something lives on; ie, the spirit. There is something else there besides because it says there is a sword that can cut between the soul and the spirit. I think that our spirit is that immortal part of our being that will exist eternally (with or apart from God). The body goes to the grave. I think the soul is that part of us he gave as our brain.
Meaning: our ability to rationalize, think, have emotions, expression, etc. I think it is the part of us that we most recognize as each other. Not a very good exegesis in 5 min. I'm looking for at least an 80% on the test.

I'd give you a 100% if I could. But I can't. I ain't the teacher. Nor a mentor. I merely ask that question.

However, once we get that far, there have to be certain further implications. IF indeed the theory is correct that the soul and body must be separate entities, but at the same time, are "joint tenants" under one roof while we are alive, then what does the time-line on that look like.

Well, logically (interesting isn't it, using the word "logically" with this, but it fits) the two would have to be indivisible during a lifetime only. That in turn implies that they were in fact NOT indivisible both before and after that lifetime.

Y'all take it from there...

quote:

Originally posted by Shack:
I'd give you a 100% if I could. But I can't. I ain't the teacher. Nor a mentor. I merely ask that question.

However, once we get that far, there have to be certain further implications. IF indeed the theory is correct that the soul and body must be separate entities, but at the same time, are "joint tenants" under one roof while we are alive, then what does the time-line on that look like.

Well, logically (interesting isn't it, using the word "logically" with this, but it fits) the two would have to be indivisible during a lifetime only. That in turn implies that they were in fact NOT indivisible both before and after that lifetime.

Y'all take it from there...

So what is so difficult in believing that the two were not joined before the earthly "lifetime" began, and that they are divided again upon the death of the body?

If that is God's plan, I'm sure it probably is not beyond possibility.

In fact, the instant of human "conception" may be when the two are first temporarily united, and death may be when they are re-separated. Sounds as logical as any other provision, to me.

That's the neat part. It sounds logical. You get that in the bargain for free. And how to pick it apart doesn't jump right out.