Month: March 2008

Someone who dedicates mental energy to looking pretty reveals something not about his appearance but about his inner mind, his inclinations, his social priorities and his duties (or lack thereof). I’m sure the decadent, makeup plastered and pretty have meaning, but it can never transcend the ultimate truth that nothing material matters; it vanishes in an instant, it is smoke, nothing. The “celebrities” of today will be nothing but smoke tomorrow, to be replaced by others who will turn to dust in turn. A better man does not concern himself with the way things are but how they should be, and realizes that his individual survival (or that of his clothes) means nothing in the scheme of things; it is only great projects and ideas which survive us.

• Auctoritas — “Spiritual Authority” — The sense of one’s social standing, built up through experience, Pietas, and Industria.
• Comitas — “Humour” — Ease of manner, courtesy, openness, and friendliness.
• Clementia — “Mercy” — Mildness and gentleness.
• Dignitas — “Dignity” — A sense of self-worth, personal pride.
• Firmitas — “Tenacity” — Strength of mind, the ability to stick to one’s purpose.
• Frugalitas — “Frugalness” — Economy and simplicity of style, without being miserly.
• Gravitas — “Gravity” — A sense of the importance of the matter at hand, responsibility and earnestness.
• Honestas — “Respectability” — The image that one presents as a respectable member of society.
• Humanitas — “Humanity” — Refinement, civilization, learning, and being cultured.
• Industria — “Industriousness” — Hard work.
• Pietas — “Dutifulness” — More than religious piety; a respect for the natural order socially, politically, and religiously. Includes the ideas of patriotism and devotion to others.
• Prudentia — “Prudence” — Foresight, wisdom, and personal discretion.
• Salubritas — “Wholesomeness” — Health and cleanliness.
• Severitas — “Sternness” — Gravity, self-control.
• Veritas — “Truthfulness” — Honesty in dealing with others.

Seven modern day sins according to the Vatican:

Environmental pollution
Genetic manipulation
Accumulating excessive wealth
Inflicting poverty
Drug trafficking and consumption
Morally debatable experiments
Violation of fundamental rights of human nature

Seems pretty progressive to me, the church is surely going in the right direction. All of those things are actually despicable – although I wouldn’t agree with “morally debatable experiments” if it is referring to stem cell research.

I think the Vatican is really redefining what a sin is: it has gone from his strange metaphysical crime to a rejection of modern practices, the list is basically a list of “vices” (character flaws) rather than sins.

These new sins have very little to do with scripture and more to do with the Catholic Church’s idea that in order to have a “spiritual rhythm, ” a Catholic must go to confession and repent. As confession rates have declined, the Church needed to think of a way to get people to attend Church, so more sins have been created. Now that Catholics have more sins to confess, it is believed they will attend Church more often. It’s the Catholic Church’s way to get more…

$$$$$$

The Catholic Church is so pathetic. It is really upsetting.

I think you guys are being way too harsh on the church. This list represents great progress for them – they are no longer talking about Satan publicly and burning Muslims for idolatry. This is a much more moderate and progressive outlook on the world. I am the most critical person you will ever meet over organized religion, but when radicals begin to show a more progressive side, you must encourage them , not spit in their face. Reactionary Christianity is a horrible thing, i’m just glad that the Vatican has had the wisdom to begin to tackle real-world injustices instead of metaphysical abstractions.

That’s a good point.

These are things that should be deadly sins to everyone but there are now second nature to most people

Sinning is a ridiculous concept. Especially catholic style where you are forgiven if you repent.

No forgiveness is something many people don’t use any more. If people would learn to forgive on things instead of holding grudges if the person was truly sorry (and repent means being truly sorry and NEVER doing it again or to achieve not doing it again with help) then the world would be a much posi place. Repenting and Forgiveness are not just Catholic concepts either. I’m not saying I could forgive someone for you know killing my mom or something but you get the picture. Besides sinning is not a ridiculous concet unless you think it’s ridiculous to consider murdering/stealing/lying as bad things.

Sure it is. Making people live out of punishment of a furious god instead of being good for the sake of goodness and virtue does not sustain a society, as can be clearly observed in the modern era. One should not be ethical due to the law, or because a deity will punish us if we are not, in fact, people that behave in this way are just as bad as those who are unethical, it betrays their true mindset as being pernicious but cowardly to act upon it.

As far as Issa’s criticism of Christian forgiveness, I agree, although for probably different reasons. When one commits an unjust or malicious act they should not rely on this saving grace, they should accept the responsibilities of their actions and vow never to act upon it again. Christian forgiveness enfeebles people from taking responsibility for their own actions and makes ethical infractions a possible option. The classical example is the person who says “I’ll just do X and Y sins but it is no problem because i’ll get forgiveness.”

Within the psychology of a person “sinning” should not be an option , it should be an unacceptable choice, death should be preferred. The idea that the human will is weak and suspect to sinning is not productive and not healthy: human beings can develop and cultivate a cast-iron will and a fortified character that does not need the grace of a god because ethical infractions are no longer possible. When the will rarely fails and something mediocre occurs, great self-scrutiny occurs with a vow never to do it again.

Christian forgiveness is based on true repentence which is accepting the resposibilities, being sorry, and vowing never to act upon it again. Most people think it’s just saying “Oh I’m sorry” or I know this is a sin but I’ll ask forgiveness later. That’s not how it works, it’s even said in the Bible that if you know you’re sinning and do it anyway that’s a sin in itself which isn’t forgiven unless you truly repent.

What good is there in repenting? It makes you weak-willed and destroys your self-esteem. Scold yourself, curse yourself, and move on, vowing never to act in a mediocre way again, not out of fear of some god, but out of fear of betraying your own trust.

Cursing yourself and talking down to yourself can have serious side affects, repenting doesn’t just mean to a god Krause it means to the people you acted against also which is the big problem is behaving horrible towards someone and not repenting to that person for what you’ve done.

It has no serious side effects. Saying mentally “What the fuck are you doing? You are better than this, this isn’t the type of person you wanted to be, never do this again” is the way to properly changing your behavior. The idea is always to look toward a higher ideal, not to settle for a reality in which you CAN sin. Christians follow a law but a better way is to set for yourself a model of how to live properly, and select certain characteristics as touchstones of goodness, and then to avoid ALL actions which hinder the pursuit of that standard and to adopt all actions which would cultivate the pursuit of that standard.

The two approaches are drastically different. In the first an individual is following the “rules” because he has been told to, he might even want to “sin” but is too much of a coward to act upon it. In the second, a heroic ideal has been established, and the idea is to not settle for just tolerating a law, but always looking higher. The second is a better way to live.

And again you show an ignorance of true New Testament Christianity..I don’t mean what people today live by I mean what the Bible actually says. Jesus is the model that we’re to fall under. He didn’t always follow the Mosianic law. When asked why He worked on a Sunday He said it was better to heal a man when He could and had the chance than to not work at all. We are to follow His example, set Him as our model.

This is my point, you are following what the bible says; you are referencing a lawbook on how to live. The model of Jesus has been defined for you, Jesus is an allegorical characterization of the entirety of the law, and he demands that faithful believers adhere to the letter of the law, he says that he has not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17).

An alternative way to live is to reason an ideal model of perfection and then to constantly quest toward it. While you are unlikely to ever reach it, the idea is that you are always striving higher, not simply doing what is expected of you, but acting exemplary.

The second component of this alternative ethical system is virtues – characteristics which you find to be truly admirable, and as such, spend all of your time in pursuit of practicing well. The Christian writers (especially Paul) were influenced by an ethical system which did advocate this sort of way of life (stoicism) and thus passed the Christian virtue. Unfortunately I think that this is sort of a strange and incomplete foreign intrusion into the whole of Judeo-Christianity and really represents a pagan way to live.

Practically speaking, there is no law to reference but your own conscience, you are a law unto yourself, and the most ethical person is extremely strict with themselves and tolerant of others.

In the BBC straight edge doc, they talk about Straight Edge as a movement. They have grandiose images of “clear headed guys (and girls) in the streets fighting for social change.” I know this is hyperbole, but not necessarily too far-fetched. The alcohol and tobacco industries are MASSIVE. I think we can all agree that they are inherently evil. I guess this is what I’m trying to get at:

Do you find there are revolutionary aspects of Straight Edge?
Is (can) Straight Edge (become) a legitimate political/social movement?

Speaking sober words in a time like this is revolutionary.

I don’t really think I can get into depth on that topic on this board – but I have dedicated the past three years of my life, and many more to come, on this topic. I believe that the only way to bring about any real change is by restructuring and redesigning the schools. The current generation cannot be salvaged but they can be replaced by shining examples of the next. In order to bring about this transformation, education must be fundamentally reformed. Unfortunately it seems that the only way to do this is to replace the social architects, and my current dilemma is attempting to figure out how to accomplish this.

It seems impossible to call upon popular support for a revolution, as the American people seem irrevocably locked in torpor, apathy and cowardice. Every method I have tried has failed, save the heroic example. Heroic examples, however, are rarely demonstrable, and only seem to effect individuals. This is important for establishing officers in a movement, but it does not seem to have the widespread social impact one would hope for.

Who are the social architects? media conglomerates? politicians? teachers? The Big 3 (buffet, murdoch, gates)?

Can you give a heroic example?

Government heads. They must be replaced. Once you are in control of the army you can expel the others you speak of, if they do not act justly.

Heroic examples simply means living well in hopes of inspiring people to live the same. Public displays of courage, temperance, prudence, justice. Magnanimity. A lofty spirit. A wellspring of conviction and deathlessness. Incorruptibility. Frugality and austerity. Never asking for yourself but sustaining others. To become more than a man. To dedicate yourself to an ideal, not your own desires. To never compromise your character, in the face of any circumstance. To be like the type of people you hear about who fill your chest with fire, love and awe. Cato (who would come to inspire the American revolution through Addison’s play of the same name) is the best example, but there are modern examples as well. James Stockdale. Richard Winters (yes, the one from Band of Brothers). To be a exemplary man, to be what nature requires.

In 462 BCE the plebian Terentilius proposed that the laws of Rome be publicly posted as it had been the custom of the patricians, who enforced the law, to keep the law secret, and often exploited their power with arbitrary, unjust enforcement. Pressured by the plebeians and fearing a revolt the patricians finally relented first in 450 and then 449, summoning an assembly of ten wise and virtuous men to travel abroad in the Greek world in hopes of finding the inspiration needed to create their own constitution by studying Hellenic law. The first of these assemblies drafted ten laws (which would come to be tables) and the second assembly would draft two more.  This latter assembly also penned, according to Livy, a secessio plebes which compelled the senate to consider the legislation now known formally as the “Law of the Twelve Tables.” Soon the laws were imprinted on bronze and posted in the public forum within Rome, bringing an end to the perceived injustices of the patricians and restoring social cohesion to the powder keg which Rome had become.

The Twelve Tables was instrumental in reinforcing the roman preconceptions about how a society should be structured. Men were by custom considered to have absolute authority within the household and this notion is reflected in the Twelve Tables. The tables are in essence a proto-Bill of Rights in that they were not a complete listing of the law but rather a publicly accountable enumeration of private rights and civic expectations. Sadly for the women, at least as far as the Twelve Tables is concerned, they have no public rights; there is simply no notable mention of women in the text, all rights being granted to the male. The only mention of women is to curtail their rights, as in Table 10 in which women are commanded not to express sorrow in public or presumably be subject to punishment. In Table 5 we are told that if a husband dies the estate does not pass to the wife, but to the nearest in kin. Even if next of kin does not exist, the estate passes to the clan, not the wife.

The omission of universal rights in the Twelve Tables is not a mistake: the Romans did not consider women to have a civic body and they were interpreted as being under the ultimate authority of the husband, or if she was unmarried, eldest male relative. The “law” which effected most women of Rome was the man’s whim, for the man was judge, jury and executioner within a household.

Although we might scoff at these seemingly anachronistic views of gender and relationships the Twelve Tables were nevertheless instrumental as a foundation for further Roman lawmaking which would evolve to inspire all modern republics and parliamentary governments. While the initial Twelve Tables were rudimentary, the legislation of classical Roman law hundreds of years later would inspire the modern court system, procedural justice and civil rights: the hallmarks of any healthy republic. In a republic the law, a universal law which all are bound to and expected to adhere to from consul to plebian, and the court system which enforces it, a rule by law and legislation in quest of greater social justice are all crucial aspects necessary for it’s operation. In the Twelve Tables and the law which it inspired we observe clearly the foundations of the modern state: a public trust ruled by law books rather than might, where the prestigious and the meek are expected to behave in the same way.

Here

I want to re-iterate a position I have always held, which is that I have found no reason to “support the troops.” All soldiers currently deployed are volunteers (none were conscripted against their will) which means they can and should be accountable not only for the crimes of the war, but the war itself.

While I can feel empathy for soldiers who fight for righteous (or at least legal) wars, or those in illegal actions conscripted against their will, I still hold firmly to the position that soldiers volunteering for illegal or unjust wars are committing treason. I just hope that these traitors have enough self-respect to kill themselves or at least speak the honest truth of their crimes and subject themselves to punishment rather than fleeing from it.

While I think most soldiers in Iraq do have mercenary aspirations, that is, they fight for a prize rather than to perform a constitutional duty, that is not really central to the issue I am raising.

My argument is that those who volunteer to enable, support or finance an illegal or unjust action are responsible for it and thus, if they have true honor, kill themselves, or at least admit themselves to public judgment.

I am suggesting that a more functional way to live is to take responsibility for one’s own actions. Why should we respect men who volunteer to kill other men in an undeclared war, for no intelligible reason, and who often do so for a prize of college money or job training. These are not men at all, and “supporting” them is unethical. I have had enough with tolerating mediocre and criminal men.

I have yet to see anyone comment on the pictures from the American prisons in Iraq. Abu Gharib was one of dozens of American secret prisons where torture, massacre, summary execution and illegal imprisonment take place on a daily basis. How can you pay taxes or remain silent during times like this?