Is god choiceless or standeredless or removed from ethics?
Materialistic world view attaches a value to people, places, and things.
Doing things to receive a reward or to avoid punished is materialistic not spiritual.
One getting paid for a job or fired for not doing work is materialistic not spiritual.
Let’s say ghosts are real, spirit forms of a now crossed over once living person wouldn’t then if they could interact be thought to have a conciseness thus be held to a ethical slandered?
Is not choice or thought not a rational requirement to have ethical understanding in the real world thus a rock cannot make an ethical choice nor can a baby but an adult or god can why not a ghost?
If a ghost can and often do bother scare even hurt or remain in some way connected in a place or thing such as a form of matter why not a hold them to a ethical slandered just as a person who is also composed of matter?
Is it not the body of matter but the ethical understanding because of a rational conciseness that we hold responsible in the first place?
Ghosts not reincarnation? In all documented accounts where a child relays a past life it is more of a Ghosts position then the reliving of a life as touted in reincarnation.
How do we know this, because all documented accounts start in a children then as the life grows they forget the old life and go back to being just them.
So what could be happening the ghost position moves on if truly reincarnation the being would not leave but even as in places beings do stay can then move on.
Love and connection is so important and that even taught the opposite most still will seek value and express them.
We need more than theories we must obtain a freedom or ethics you can feel.
We must have a rational ethical understanding in the real world.
Can you hold a rock responsible for crushing pain then death?
Ethics of religion will not do, if god is the creator then this God created the sensation of pain and pain is not ethical to inflict on others right?
So how can we not see the unethicalness then of one who claims to have caused or invented pain, are they not more or at least as just as guilty as one who inflicts pain on others?
So if torturer is unethical the god who is credited the sensation experienced in torture for the falling rock that creates pain and death which is also a god claimed creation that can remove freedom to live is unethical or the god given flaw of fragile life guilty so its inventor is guilty?
Do we hold the fragile life or a faulty invention that causes death responsible for what it does? If we do not “why” is it because it does not understand what harm it causes or cannot feel for those it hurts or kills? We hold the creator or inventor is guilty of not testing or conserving a better product how is a god and less guilty?
Is god materialistic and not spiritual because he asks the flawed creations he is responsible for to doing things to receive a reward or to avoid punished?
Why not blame a god for it pain a fragile life or for it not caring enough to desire perfection but create imperfection?
How about a mountain lion do we hold it responsible for what it does?
If not why is it because it does not understand what harm it causes or cannot feel for those it hurts or kills? Why not blame a god for it needing to kill to eat because he understand what harm it causes and created it that way?
How about a person born with a debilitating mental impairment from retardation to psychological that hinders them from rational choice do we hold them responsible for they do?
If not is it because they do not understand what harm they are causing or do not feel for those they hurt or kill? Why not blame a god for them being born that way?
We need Self-transcend is seeing the other reality’s experienced by others not a flawed god who only wants you to see things his way or receive a reward of punishment.
Self-transcend is seeing the other’s reality experienced time after time like the preverbal ”walking in their shoes” or can be thought of being more like multiculturalism or multirealityism.
God is not worthy of being follower because the god myth shows itself to be neither self-actualized nor self-transcend. One can become self-transcend without being self-actualized.
If one lives multiple cultures or live multiple realities, such as per say: Super rich to homeless, great love and support then it’s gone, more than one culture, etc. there can be some level of other understanding thus some amount of self-transience.
But the more one is self-actualized the person is the easier it is to be self-transcendent and the more complete and universal it will be.
The absurd thought contradictory idea in religion is once you did you are judged be it a god or karma but this is ridiculous one for it would mean that all choice is removed at death even though the claim of conciseness continues.
What I mean if you can now be finally jugged you cannot do anything different or be judged once in say a sprit or ghost form all ethical responsibility is removed no one can thus in this thinking commit a new unethical action or sin.
You say well there is no body that did not stop what the Abrahamic religions angels to be not so deemed unaccountable. How can you say wrong is wrong but then choose when it is true?
Such religions even can be thought of as calming that even the thought of committing sin attaches the commotion of sin.
If this is true how then could you not hold a ghost or god or any spirit being to an ethical slandered. If one is standerdless they are not good because good has to be in relation to something or it can mean nothing.
God thus can be seen as materialistic and not spiritual because he is standerless so cannot do good or evil and only asks the flawed living creations he is responsible for to doing things good to receive a reward or not evil to avoid punishment.
Religion puts god outside of responsibility no matter what reprehensible, unjust, or unethical things he is guilty of like most people think of spirits or ghosts though they still can show some form of conciseness all attached ethical responsibility is removed no one can thus in this thinking commit a new unethical action or sin can they?
If all ethical responsibility is removed and no more sin commented we must become choiceless or standeredless or is ethics and sin only for the bodied soul the freer unbodied soul can say I have finally arrived I can do no wrong ever again but could we not continue to thing?
Why only require ethical responsible choice of what is so obviously a flawed living creations he is responsible for creating? If we are unbodied we can experience no hunger, no loneliness, no pleasure, no pain, etc. what need would we at that point need with a lack of ethical slandered or a moral relativism so abstract we can never in any way do wrong?
Unbodied being surly feel, think and have desires or they are void thus haven would not be the reward it claims to be right?
Why not be a just god and choiceless or standeredless or is ethics removed from sin when we need it to survive as flawed living creations he is responsible for making flawed or don’t treat us special be just and make all living and dead choiceless or standeredless or is ethics removed from sin that would be equality or like multiculturalism or multirealityism and the god myth would be self-actualized and self-transcend.
By Damien Marie AtHope