"Forgive them, they know not what they do".

[Quagmire]

Did it ever occur to you that post #11 was not in response to you? I thought not. Get over yourself ...

I don't see how your post relates to anything in this thread other than the OP, Jay. Then again maybe your seeing things the rest of us aren't.

 

[methylatedghosts]

I think I agree with you Quagmire!

I think that if everyone were indeed to ask "who am I in relation to this" with more of their choices then yes, the world would be a different - quite possibly better - place.

I think the quote might fit better "Forgive them for they know not who or what they are"

But that could head into an entire different direction for this thread and I don't want to hijack it

On second thoughts - not knowing who you are would be in one sort of sense, a basis for not knowing what you're doing wouldn't it? (a couple of very drunk nights come to mind! )

 

[blackout]

Personally, I think this is one of the most astute observations the authors of the Gospels (or Jesus himself if you prefer) ever made.

It kind of sums up the human condition in a phrase.

I'm of the opinion that most of the harm we do to each other is out of ignorance, elective or otherwise, inspired by fear; people project about the possible consequences of doing things by the rules, ie, the rules of fairplay, etiquete, morallity, what have you, and decide that the consequences of this would leave them in a position where they would wind up with less than they need, or more than they can deal with.

So we rationalize our actions, blame other people for our mistakes or shortcomings, punish each other for our own guilt--anything not to have to admit our own weaknesses.

The worst part of all this being; if we give in to our weaknesses we become even weaker, even more afraid, even more ignorant.

I think, if a person looks at a situation in terms of "What does this say about me" and "what is this turning me into" rather than "What did I lose" or "What do I stand to gain" everything changes.

Then the other people involved cease to be villains or victims. At that point everyone is just an actor in a play performed for our own edification, and we owe them a debt of thanks no matter what part they played.

Make any sense?

Perfect.

 

[blackout]

I think I agree with you Quagmire!

I think that if everyone were indeed to ask "who am I in relation to this" with more of their choices then yes, the world would be a different - quite possibly better - place.

I think the quote might fit better "Forgive them for they know not who or what they are"

But that could head into an entire different direction for this thread and I don't want to hijack it

On second thoughts - not knowing who you are would be in one sort of sense, a basis for not knowing what you're doing wouldn't it? (a couple of very drunk nights come to mind! )

Excellent!
I seem to go on and on about that
quite alot in my own way.
I'd love to hear your thoughts!
Go ahead! Hijack the thread!
It's all realated & intertwined.

 

[Quagmire]

I think I agree with you Quagmire!

I think that if everyone were indeed to ask "who am I in relation to this" with more of their choices then yes, the world would be a different - quite possibly better - place.

I think the quote might fit better "Forgive them for they know not who or what they are"

But that could head into an entire different direction for this thread and I don't want to hijack it

On second thoughts - not knowing who you are would be in one sort of sense, a basis for not knowing what you're doing wouldn't it? (a couple of very drunk nights come to mind! )

It could all be part of the same thing Methylatedghosts.

I think it's more common (and less beneficial) to look at things in terms of "what is this in relation to me" instead of (like you said) "who am I in relation to this".

Looking at reality in terms of how the world effects us instead of looking at how our actions effect the world (and what they say about ourselves) is like constantly looking at our reflection in a mirror; we can see ourselves and everything around us, but it's all backwards.

 

[blackout]

It could all be part of the same thing Methylatedghosts.

Looking at reality in terms of how the world effects us instead of looking at how our actions effect the world is like constantly looking at our reflection in a mirror; we can see ourselves and everything around us, but it's all backwards.

how... come... I .... can't ... frubal you?!:149:

 

[Quagmire]

how... come... I .... can't ... frubal you?!:149:

That's OK New, I think I stole that line anyway.

 

[methylatedghosts]

Ok - New reality, just because you requested it

A person who knows who and what they are know that certain actions harm others and or themselves. And if you know who and what you are, then you know that you are so much a part of another that hurting them is hurting yourself. Maybe not so literally as "the hammer game" *.

And A person who does not know who and what they are have a clouded vision and do not see that they are hurting themselves when they hurt others. They don't seem to make that connection. In a way it's like what wicca describes with "what you do comes back thrice" (although I wouldn't agree with the "thrice" bit)and a person who does not know themselves doesn't see that and believe that hurting others is either gaining for themselves or having no effect on themselves.

If one cannot see, then one cannot be expected to climb stairs without great difficulty. In this sense, if one doesn't know who and what one is, then one cannot be expected to act in a way that doesn't hurt others or themselves and in some kind of silly conclusion it isn't really them. You are not necessarily forgiving the person who acted a certain way, but you are forgiving WHO THEY REALLY ARE because it isn't being shown through.

Hope that kind of makes sense.


* The Hammer Game (2 or more people)
1) Person one takes a small hammer and bops person 2 on the head.
2) Person 2 takes a slightly larger hammer and bops person 1 on the head
3) Person one takes a larger hammer and bops person 2 on the head.
4) Person 2 takes a larger hammer and bops person 1 on the head

(repeat steps 3 and 4 until you no longer remember if you're person one or two and you realise that hurting the other person is in fact hurting yourself)

EDIT: For 3 or more people stand in a circle.

person one hits persons 2 and 3 on the head.
Person 2 gets a bigger hammer and hits persons 1 and 3
Person 3 gets even bigger hammer and hits persons 1 and 2.

(Eh.. you get the picture)

 

[methylatedghosts]

I think it's more common (and less beneficial) to look at things in terms of "what is this in relation to me" instead of (like you said) "who am I in relation to this".

Hey, I didn't even think of the first way! I definately agree!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I don't see how your post relates to anything in this thread other than the OP, ...

That much is clear. For what it's worth, the post was a reaction to joeboonda and his inane insistence on regurgitating scripture about which he appears to be stunningly ignorant.

As for the scriptural reference itself, you get to artificially invest it with whatever meaning you wish, but one would think that any serious discussion would start with some thought as to its intended meaning, and that any serious inquiry into its intended meaning would start with some thought as to its likely authorship.

 

[Quagmire]

That much is clear. For what it's worth, the post was a reaction to joeboonda and his inane insistence on regurgitating scripture about which he appears to be stunningly ignorant.

As for the scriptural reference itself, you get to artificially invest it with whatever meaning you wish, but one would think that any serious discussion would start with some thought as to its intended meaning, and that any serious inquiry into its intended meaning would start with some thought as to its likely authorship.

The only value I can see to any of that is if we begin by operating under the presumption that the author was any less deluded about the motives for his own actions then we typically are, in which case I'll refer you back to the title of this thread.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Good grief ...

Luke 23:33-34

When they came to the place called the Skull, they crucified him and the criminals there, one on his right, the other on his left.

[Then Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, they know not what they do."] (5) They divided his garments by casting lots.​

Note (5)

[34] [Then Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, they know not what they do."]: this portion of Luke 23:34 does not occur in the oldest papyrus manuscript of Luke and in other early Greek manuscripts and ancient versions of wide geographical distribution.​

[source]​

Why is it that so many who would pontificate about scripture feel no responsibility to be even moderately knowledgeable about the topic?

Excellent observation Jay, however, just because a manuscript is older does not mean it represents the original (unless it is the original). Although, it does seem more likely to be more accurate. I would like to see how much older it is, and how many manuscripts disagree with it vs agree with it.

 

[logician]

Personally, I think this is one of the most astute observations the authors of the Gospels (or Jesus himself if you prefer) ever made.

It kind of sums up the human condition in a phrase.

I'm of the opinion that most of the harm we do to each other is out of ignorance, elective or otherwise, inspired by fear; people project about the possible consequences of doing things by the rules, ie, the rules of fairplay, etiquete, morallity, what have you, and decide that the consequences of this would leave them in a position where they would wind up with less than they need, or more than they can deal with.

I disagree, I think most people are aware of the harm they are doing, but don't care.

 

[Quagmire]

I disagree, I think most people are aware of the harm they are doing, but don't care.

On some level, yes. Hence the human habit of rationalizing their actions (or inaction), de-humanizing their victims, delluding themsleves about their own motives...elective ignorance.

All of this is geared towards making us less aware of the true nature of the circumstances involved when we're hurting someone or being unfair.

It's like momentarily sacrificing one's sanity for the sake of gaining credible denialbility. Sort of like running a con game on our own conscience.

The problem is if we do it long enough and often enough it ceases to be momentary.

He could have just as well said, "Forgive them, they know not what they do because they don't have to courage to look at themselves".

The thing is; if people didn't care they wouldn't have to play these kinds of games with themselves.

 

[gnomon]

I completely disagree.

Reducing the interactions of human groups to what amounts to a homily doesn't truly tell us much. I feel the Iraq government, it's soldiers and people knew full well what they did when they leveled thousands of villages in Kurdistan. I believe also that the earliest humans knew full well what they did when they engaged in the earliest warfare to take resources from one another, divided themselves among familial and tribal lines and felt no need to rationalize any of their actions.

It's fallacious reasoning. When we cannot accept that humans could actually perform certain actions against each other to wrap it up as rationalization of ignorance is not a logical deduction. In fact, it's a bit rationalization in and of itself.

I have very little doubt that Ted Bundy did not know what he did. As well, there are certain individuals constitutionally incapable of living by another's moral standard.

There is much to humanity. Reducing ourselves to a phrase that fits on a placard is pointless.

 

[Quagmire]

I completely disagree.

Reducing the interactions of human groups to what amounts to a homily doesn't truly tell us much.

I was actually expanding on a homily that was already there.

Rejecting a reduction without attempting to understand what it's saying tells us even less.

I feel the Iraq government, it's soldiers and people knew full well what they did when they leveled thousands of villages in Kurdistan.

And you don't suppose they might have engaged in some sort of rationalization somewhere in the process of all this? Religious and political propaganda, bigotry, nationalism, these are all just mass rationilzations leaders use to control their populations, and the people use to ease their own consciences.

It's concensual denial with any number of attractive, nobel sounding labels.

The consistent, universal need for these things speaks to the point of my OP.

I believe also that the earliest humans knew full well what they did when they engaged in the earliest warfare to take resources from one another, divided themselves among familial and tribal lines and felt no need to rationalize any of their actions.

The earliest humans weren't as obliged as we are to make their barbarism sound civilized, or noble, or "God's will". They hadn't been programed to be hypocrites.

It's fallacious reasoning. When we cannot accept that humans could actually perform certain actions against each

No one's attempting to deny that atrocities exist.

other to wrap it up as rationalization of ignorance is not a logical deduction. In fact, it's a bit rationalization in and of itself.

It's not meant to "wrap up" anything. It's an attempt to understand something. We all like to think that our enemies, or anyone who does anything we disapprove of, is just "evil", somehow different and inferior to ourselves.

This is itself a rationilization; it allows us to feel morally and ethically superior, as we sit in our safe, secure, comfortable, relatively stable enviroment and point at those who aren't as fortunate as we are and tell ourselves, "If I were one of these people, I would be acting differently".

"If I were a german citizen during the hollocost I would'nt have gone along with what my leaders were telling me, I would have risked my life to harbor Jews in my cellor" The truth is few of us have that kind of courage and compassion except in hypothetical retrospect.

The truth is people are fundamentally the same wherever you go--no one's good, no one's evil, we're all just human-- and none of us knows for sure how we would act under a different set of circumstances than what we're accostomed to.

The fact that our leaders lie to us, and that we so readily accept their lies, is an unspoken agreement we have with them that lets us all profit off of what ever atrocities they may be commiting without having to admit to ourselves that that's what we're doing.

I have very little doubt that Ted Bundy did not know what he did.

Ironically, sociopaths are the one group I would exclude from all this. They have no conscience to appease so they have no need to justify their actions to themselves. Their whole code of morality, if you even want to call it that, ammounts to, "I want this, this makes me feel good, therefore this is what I do". There's no right and wrong involved other than, "My own pleasure is right, denial of my own pleasure is wrong".

As well, there are certain individuals constitutionally incapable of living by another's moral standard.

There is much to humanity. Reducing ourselves to a phrase that fits on a placard is pointless.

You're exagerrating, and something about this idea upset you. These are themselves indicators of denial.

 

[gnomon]

And you don't suppose they might have engaged in some sort of rationalization somewhere in the process of all this? Religious and political propaganda, bigotry, nationalism, these are all just mass rationilzations leaders use to control their populations, and the people use to ease their own consciences.

Rationalization or apathy. Or is it that they found themselves incapable of acting on any impulse to do otherwise. They were in fear.

It's concensual denial with any number of attractive, nobel sounding labels.

The consistent, universal need for these things speaks to the point of my OP.

Is that so?

The earliest humans weren't as obliged as we are to make their barbarism sound civilized, or noble, or "God's will". They hadn't been programed to be hypocrites.

This is not even an argument. Has nothing to do with anything in this thread.

It's not meant to "wrap up" anything. It's an attempt to understand something. We all like to think that our enemies, or anyone who does anything we disapprove of, is just "evil", somehow different and inferior to ourselves.

This is itself a rationilization; it allows us to feel morally and ethically superior, as we sit in our safe, secure, comfortable, relatively stable enviroment and point at those who aren't as fortunate as we are and tell ourselves, "If I were one of these people, I would be acting differently".

I can agree with this but it cannot be universally applied in ignorance without you yourself engaging in pointless rationalization.

"If I were a german citizen during the hollocost I would'nt have gone along with what my leaders were telling me, I would have risked my life to harbor Jews in my cellor" The truth is few of us have that kind of courage and compassion except in hypothetical retrospect.

You hope.

The truth is people are fundamentally the same wherever you go--no one's good, no one's evil, we're all just human-- and none of us knows for sure how we would act under a different set of circumstances than what we're accostomed to.

At this point it should be noted that good and evil have nothing to do with this thread.

The fact that our leaders lie to us, and that we so readily accept their lies, is an unspoken agreement we have with them that lets us all profit off of what ever atrocities they may be commiting without having to admit to ourselves that that's what we're doing.

Some rationalize, some know full well the truth and go with it or fear it and others just don't care. Once again, why reduce all of that to just rationalization. It tells us nothing and keeps us ignorant.

Ironically, sociopaths are the one group I would exclude from all this. They have no conscience to appease so they have no need to justify their actions to themselves. Their whole code of morality, if you even want to call it that, ammounts to, "I want this, this makes me feel good, therefore this is what I do". There's no right and wrong involved other than, "My own pleasure is right, denial of my own pleasure is wrong".

Nice try but you don't get to exclude those individuals who you deem to be outside the realm of the OP yet still act in all accords of their own reason. That's lazy.

You're exagerrating, and something about this idea upset you. These are themselves indicators of denial.

There are indeed individuals constitutionally incapable of living another persons moral code. This is fact. Either accept it or quit the thread.

The only people in denial here are mystics.

 

[gnomon]

A slight redaction.

There are elements of the OP which I think apply very well to the individual.

However, to apply those elements to the human condition as a whole I believe is too simplistic and does not help us in understanding the dynamics in group interaction among human populations.

 

[Quagmire]

Rationalization or apathy. Or is it that they found themselves incapable of acting on any impulse to do otherwise. They were in fear.

Of course. That's exactly what we're talking about here, fear. Some, many, and in quite a few instances the majority, react to their fear by calling it something else.

If they cop to their fear it puts them in the role of victim (which is what they really are). If they turn their reaction to their fear into a "noble cause", now they're "heros" or 'patriots" or "serving the will of God". It makes it all alot more palatable, and makes them all that much more malable.

Is that so?

I would think it's obvious.

This is not even an argument. Has nothing to do with anything in this thread.

Of course it does. If you didn't think so, you wouldn't have brought it up.

I can agree with this but it cannot be universally applied in ignorance without you yourself engaging in pointless rationalization.

I never mean to apply anything universally, there are always exceptions.

You hope.

I think you missed the quotation marks in my statement; I'm not saying this is how I think I would act under those circumstances, I have no way of knowing how I would act. I'm saying this is a common dillusion displayed by contemporary people in regards to the hollocost. I'm just using this as an example of how the human mind works, how we justify the judgements we pass on other people who's situations we've enerv had to experience ourselves. ie, it's a popular excuse for sanctomony.

At this point it should be noted that good and evil have nothing to do with this thread.

Of course they do; the artifical, subjective, and dualistic ideas of "good" and "evil" are what we usually base our rationalizations on, or they at least play a huge part in the process of our justifying our rationalizations.

Some rationalize, some know full well the truth and go with it or fear it and others just don't care. Once again, why reduce all of that to just rationalization. It tells us nothing and keeps us ignorant.

Collaberation, complaceny, and apathy all require some sort of rationalization before we can accept them.

Nice try but you don't get to exclude those individuals who you deem to be outside the realm of the OP yet still act in all accords of their own reason. That's lazy.

Since we're discussing the conflict each of us has going on between our conscience and our instincts, and how we typically deal with it, I would say anyone without a conscience would naturally be excluded.

There are indeed individuals constitutionally incapable of living another persons moral code.

This has nothing to do with our inability to live up to some external code of morals or ethics. This is about our inability to live up to our own.

This is fact. Either accept it or quit the thread.

This is possibly the most bizzare ultimatum I've ever been handed.

The only people in denial here are mystics.

Applying labels to anyone who's veiwpoints you disagree with is, again, a rationalization. It excuses you from having to consider what they're saying.