The problem of evil is in fact the specifically christian problem of free will. If god exists, why does he allow you betray anyone? Why not simply poke you in the head before you sin?
Answer: because some want to be betrayed.
Answer: actually, god does do that. In a cosmic sense, there is no deviance. There are no defectors. If you [defect] on someone, it has to be because they agreed to let you. They consented, thus, it's not defection.
Cosmically, the world is perfectly just. There is only cooperation.
If you die in a flood it's because you chose to live in a flood plain.
If you die in a famine it's because you let your population rise above the carrying capacity of the land.
If you die in a war, it's because you didn't physically remove the government when it introduced conscription.
If you're physically ill, or stupid, it's because your parents married someone physically ill and you would have done the same in their place.
There is no such thing as a victim. There is only consent. Free will is an absolute law.
"If you die in nuclear war - " ...and there haven't been any nuclear wars? Doesn't happen, now does it? Not a coincidence.
Every death which can be scientifically linked to chernobyl was at the plant. Don't stand next to the experimental reactor in a corrupt country, guys. I mean, have you met a ukrainian? Would you trust your neighbours with a delicate nuclear plant? Again: have you met a ukrainian before?
If you catch a cold or flu it's because you didn't get enough sunlight. The government tells you taxes are inevitable for obvious reasons, but you can (at least!) take more from them than they take from you, no matter how much the rest of your soyciety enjoys getting fincucked.
Bad things don't happen to good people
The christians have it backwards, in accordance with prophecy. It is free will which prevents evil. Free will is what makes evil impossible. Instead of poking you in the head before you sin, god pokes your intended victim in the head, who then thwarts you. Normally, you notice in advance and don't try in the first place. Perpetrators only attempt to attack willing targets.
"If you die of old age..." You didn't have to be born here on Earth. You don't remember, but you chose it. At least, you are the remains of something that did.
If you don't like something that's happening to you, try becoming good.
Stop agreeing to self-mutilation.
9 comments:
This philosophy applies nearly everywhere. I once read a book on ninja magic. The core premise of the book was to look to your own intentions. Do you actually wish to be caught?
Imagine a true hunter chasing a true covert agent, let's say John wick vs. Big Boss. Locked in a chase forever.
Does your life look good? Then you really want the best for yourself, evidently. I find myself inundated by beauty of all kinds. Must actually want it.
Guy in prison? Clearly wanted suffering and being stuck in a cage, whereas Kaiser Sozen sips margaritas on the beach.
On the flip side, creation is less possible than destruction. While you can shut down the attempt to do any particular bad thing, it's not possible to draw any random good thing. Good things happen to good individuals, but not arbitrary good things. Has to be spiritually close, so to speak.
When you say that bad things do not happen to good people, do you just mean "that kind of people who do the due dilligence to prevent the bad thing happening", or something more than that? If yes, than that would mean that at least a weak version of your statement, such as that being a good person always improves your odds of bad things not happening to you, logically can't not be true, and potentially also a strong version where bad things happen to people exactly in proportion to how much they deserve it, and not a tiniest bit more. Am i right that you believe in the strong version? If yes, would that mean that there are no bad ocurrences that are random with respect to prior decisions of the one to whom they are ocurring?
Off topic: I have thought about something you wrote sometime back, namely that treachery is never securable and always possible to prevent because of security being affordable. That raises an interesting question, namely whether the above is necessarily true, or could there at least theoretically exist an universe where it wouldn't be (or are the statements on the unprofitability of treachery tautologies). Or is it like if god tried to make an universe with treachery against the prudent being ever at all profitable in it, he would fail and be like "oh damn its perfect justice again, seems like the omnipotence thing in job advert is not quite what its hyped up to be".
Being a good person includes doing something like your due diligence. Being lazy or irresponsible summons divine wrath; that's what I'm saying.
It's not merely improving your odds. Doing enough is a guarantee. So, yes, the strong version. Admittedly, [enough] can be challenging to understand or carry out.
Heavenly retribution doesn't appear random. When someone commits a crime and incurs a karmic debt, usually the karmic repayment is poetic in some sense. It's not generic fungible karma, it's tied to specific acts.
I expect the cases that don't look poetic simply don't look poetic to me. The connection is there, but I can't see it. It feels like other places where I eventually found the connection.
E.g, say I didn't put up sandbags or whatever in the flood plain, but I moved a couple weeks before the flood hit, by chance.
Then a water main will break in my house and flood my basement. Or maybe in the ceiling, going through all the floors. Perhaps a tree will fall and punch through the roof at the start of a rainstorm.
"I dodged it!" No I didn't. "I'm so lucky!" Not for long.
There's a lot of give in the nature of [enough]. If you ask for some other way to prepare, usually one exists. It's fine, even good, to pick the cheapest effective option.
E.g. #2, everyone who accepts tax dollars becomes a traitor, and, consequently, get heinously betrayed. They become a parasite, in the same style as the archon parasite.
Sub-example, someone who sends their kid to school will banish their own genius. They won't suffer by breaking a leg or something.
Thanks for your answer!
It's logically necessary. Betrayal requires trust. If you don't trust them, they can't betray you. If you make them think you trust them, and secretly put up fences, then you can trap them. You can always exploit whatever lie they hinge the betrayal on, by forcing them to either honour it or scupper it themselves.
E.g. "Taxes are legitimate by right of conquest."
"Okay, I'ma conquer you then." Don't pay taxes, get paid. The constituency for taxpayers is always larger than tax receivers. Gets you a bigger army.
Or they have to condemn their own legitimacy. They thought they needed it, yet...
Security isn't affordable for everything. For example, you can't secure intellectual property. [[[Property]]]] rather. Don't try to own things that can't be secured, because that's illogical.
If necessities could not be secured, living species would go extinct. You wouldn't be around to wonder if security is affordable or not. You think, therefore you is, uh I mean, you eat, therefore, eating is possible. You don't need anything that can't be secured.
You're welcome. The cost to me is negative. Technically doing me a favour. Good karma, probably.
It's true what they say: explaining it to someone else helps the explainer understand.
Topical example.
https://inv.nadeko.net/watch?v=EtmzeEcMosQ
Abuse your liver for 40 years, get liver failure.
It it physically due to the abuse? Well, not directly. (According to doctors.) Just a widdle coinkidink.
His liver didn't give up because he hates it and wants it to die, it was just chance. Just bad luck.
Sure.
Chelsea clinton is very rich.
Right, but imagine having to wake up in the morning, look in the mirror, and see chelsea clinton every day. Oof. Not worth.
Post a Comment