Something you will, beyond awkward ...
If it were not for providence, and God would not have wanted from people, then there would not be neither good nor evil. Respectively - Devotion and neblagochestiya. Consequently, the karma. What is the difference that made a man, but with God nothing of people do not need? Including - he does not care what actions they committed, therefore, he could not be assessed as "good" (closer to Providence) or "bad" (more distant from the field, ie its v.ts.) and may be a mechanism for punishing bad behavior. There are no bad deeds - no guilt. Ie if there is no providence, everyone can do what he wants and is not responsible for it. Including - with impunity harm other people. Well, what would you have been living in a world of anarchy? A "best" worlds, provided lack of objective benefit, can not exist. By what criteria they would be "best"?
Also, if there is no providence, there can be no "saints" (Which from the standpoint of CRR, in fact - the typical demons).
If there are any restrictions on behavior, so they put the almighty God, and with a purpose. And fishing in this case, too, have just proclaimed it differs from the CRR. Either God has set these limits nothing better to do? Or, better yet, God does not care, and the limitations created by people themselves, identify themselves with the matter? "And karma in this case still does not exist and she is a human gag or it is not subject to the almighty God?
In this case, do nothing and to move in "better worlds", just want to. God loves people. And the mantra for this singing is absolutely not necessary. God is omnipotent, he does not hear them without your desire?
... And another interesting point. If you say that everyone has the right to choose (which is normal for a system where there is no providence, and, accordingly, no objective of good and evil), usually next to the utverzhdzheniem not used the word "ignorance", "piety" and others, as there is no karma. Because such words do not imply the right to choose. More precisely, assume a fake. After all, a man who committed wrong choice, will be called "ignorant" or it will suffer retribution. This is the pretendovanie on an objective assessment of their theories as objectively lead to good. A good objective does not exist, if loving and Almighty God do not care what we do, he does not want us to adhere to any course of conduct and .... see above.
.... Generally in a system where the manager element and the creator-in-one does not have any goals for this system and has unlimited potential, it's silly to think any mechanisms or laws. Because their establishment should be subject to certain purposes. In addition, they can not function, because for this must be pre- fixed unchanging principles ("immutable" - to change v.ts., which supposedly does not exist). If the principles of their actions are easily changed or ignored (after all, God is omnipotent and is not limited in its actions does, including goals, which he supposedly does not exist), it generally can not be called a mechanism. In such a system is useless to look for any logic. That returns to the possibility of any form can not be proved with reasoning in terms of belief system. And the question of the dialectic of subjective and morality, in principle, as well as the degree of falsity of the individual, subjective dialectic denies. After lying to people the left hemisphere, responsible for abstract and logical thinking.
For example, you can refute all of the above, based on a good understanding. True, it will have to let go of the karma fishery as v.ts. God and everything that relates to CEDC. The good link with all the intangible that does not bring suffering. The material world can generally be called an illusion. Accordingly, the good will actions and behavior, approaching the exit from the material world.
.... And you can remember the Crusaders, who organized the massacres "of love to the lost fellow Muslims." To some this may seem "overkill" - and why not? Puzzle substantiate the same as in the first case and in the second. Equally inadequate.
0 comments:
Post a Comment