Dilemmas......What is their Purpose?

by Siddhashunyata 32 Replies latest jw friends

Siddhashunyata

Brummie, thank you. You are right about faith and how some come to it through dilemmas.
avengers

There are assholes that kill and screw people all of their lives and live to be 80.
There are also little children who suffer and suffer, whom have done nothing wrong and die when they're not even 2 years old. Purpose? Screw your purpose!
Avengers!..........
Perry

In WTBS reasoning, they must have faced many perceived dilemmas.
1. Join the UN and violate their own resolutions or not join and let many people die at armageddon because they couldn't hear the truth because of an uncooperative government.
2. Expose child molesters to the police and protect children or keep it silent so that more people will join the religion and get eternal life.
3. Come clean with the truth about blood transfusions and avoid future needless deaths although many people will know their loved ones died for nothing or keep it quiet and perpetuate more needless deaths although more people will still join or stay in than leave. In other words, which course will result in more people having everlasting life.
4. Steal tax money from the US government so that the world wide work can expand and more people get life or pay money to a government that is controlled by satan.
The list could go on endlessly. The bottom line is this. When people over-estimate their own capabilities they many times face dilemmas that others do not face. In the above case, the belief that eternal life is embodied in the WTBS association, can justify any number of attrocities.
Inquiry

Hey Sidd....
What is the purpose of moral dilemmas? Do they point us to God or to ourselves?
Why on earth do you pose your question this way? First of all, the question is already loaded. By adding the term, moral... there is already implied a pattern conformity, structure, faith....there are so many different perspectives on "Moral" that it is impossible to define them all... and using moral to quantify dilemma... now that's another ball game altogether.
Webster's Collegiate Dictionary.... Moral - 1. pertaining to, or concerned with the principles of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical; moral attitudes. 2. conforming to accepted or established principles of right conduct (opposed to immoral); virtuous; upright; a moral man. 3. expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct; a moral novel. 4. based on fundamental principles or right conduct reather than on law. custom, etc. moral obligations 5. capable of recongnizing and conforming to the rules of right conduct; a moral being. 6. virtuous in sexual matters; chaste. 7. pertaining to or acting on the mind, feelings, will, or character; moral support. 8. based on strong probability; virtual; a moral certainty. 9. the moral teaching or practical lesson contained in a fable, tale, experience, etc. 10. morals, principles, standards, or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct.
You also gave us a limitation... "Do they point us to God or ourselves?" ... Why does the prospect of a dilemma necessitate having to aspire to godly or altruistic qualities... What if a dilemma is something completely different. You propose in your question that its a tool to point us to God or ourselves... What if dilemmas are just problems we have in life, some more severe than others... but not a tool... just an experience... certainly some dilemmas are instructive... we can learn from the outcome of a dilemma... we can like or dislike the outcome.. we can attribute morals to the outcome.. but does the outcome have to lead us to God or to ourselves? I don't think so.
Webster's Collegiate Dictionary.... Dilemma - 1. a situation requiring a choice between equally undesirable alternatives. 2. any perplexing situation or problem. 3. a form or syllogism in which the major premise is formed of two or more conditional propositions and the minor premis is a disjunctive proposition, as "If A, then B; if C then D. Either A or C. Therefore, either B or D.
Note: no mention of morals....
A mother is giving birth but if she does, she will die and the child will live. If she does not give birth she will live and the child will die. The mother is unconscious and you are the doctor. You decide.
Does this condition point to faith in god or does it cause something else to happen within the doctor ?
There is no moral in this dilemma... The dilemma itself is not moral or immoral. People can apply morals to the decision... but not the dilemma. The doctor will adhere to a code of conduct... either believed or taught... but probably taught... he is obligated to uphold the standards and accepted practices of his chosen vocation, he will also protect himself.. Especially if he makes a mistake. What if the doctor doesn't believe in God? How does that affect his choice? or his morals?
Brummie, yes that is exactly what I'm getting at. These things are happening all the time and in unimaginable ways. The question of purpose goes to the core of the nature of God.
Really? Large statement... your question now lends itself to God creating the dilemma in the first place. Are all dilemmas God's doing? What does the above mentioned dilemma actually attribute to the nature of God? That he would put a man in a position to decide one life is more important than another? Really? If God purposed the dilemma, then it follows that he purposed the outcome... to wit... one life is more valuable than the other.... Too large an argument for you to try to prove... probability is already working against you here.
The feelings of the one who decides , this is where the dilemma has force. Either decision has an undesirable perhaps heartbreaking result. What is God doing that he would put man in a position where he cannot clearly see what is moraly correct but he must act and his action means death for someone?
Again, what if the person has no belief in God.... and prove that God put the man in that position... There is no morally correct in choosing one life over another. How can someone be morally correct in that situation? ... both outcomes are undesirable...the doctor simply acts to save who has the best chance of survival... not who he thinks is more deserving of life...
Introspection, correct . I'm trying to point out that , in the ordinary sense, dilemmas, as we know them by dualistic thinking, dilemmas point us away from faith in God .
Quite a conclusion.... and we know dilemma's by dualistic thinking? Ummm, dualistic thinking is the premise for dilemmas...Really?... there is way too much assumption going on here... in this conclusion, you actually make the assertion that experiencing dilemmas is counteractive to faith in God, but you assert earlier that God actually makes the dilemmas....oh, brother ... and I've got some land in Florida for sale... it's only 30 feet under water and I'll throw in the gators for free....
That they , dilemmas, in the ordinary sense, turn us inward by way of confusion and disillusionment. They cannot have a God appointed purpose because they do not build faith in God but turn us inward. Therefore the existence of dilemmas, as we know them on the dualistic level, works in the direction of nondualistic thinking and away from the trappings of "Belief". Dilemmas shock the Believer and if he is honest he will be pointed to nonbelief and finally to "what is", neither belief nor nonbelief. But to explain this is not to help some here because what we are talking about is not easily understood.
Quoting from what work? Exactly what are you preaching here? This sounds like a mix of Existentialism , fundamentalism and a touch of Krishnamurti...
Ed, yes that's exactly what they do. We reflect and if we believe in God then we reflect on why he allows such things and why he allows men to be in such positions. In that sense dilemmas build "character" but they subvert faith (unless we go into denial). So we ask why would God build character and tear down faith? Confusion sets in and if we don't let it alone disillusionment comes on and ,if we keep at it, we are on our way to a religious crisis. If fear does not overtake us we will begin to ask who am I and what am I doing?
So being faithful to God means living in denial? We have to relegate truths in life to obscurity because we have to worry about disillusionment coming on? I already know who I am.. and I know what I'm doing... Don't want a religious crisis?... Don't have a religion.... quite simple really.... I have a question for you..... who the heck are you and what are you doing?
*edited for spelling...*sigh*
Inq
From the whatever class
Edited by - Inquiry on 21 January 2003 10:59:16
Siddhashunyata

Inquiry, your right about assumptions and limitations. When I framed the question I assumed "dilemma" presupposed a "chooser" and that the chooser had an internal moral system not unlike that of the ordinary Jehovah's Witness. The point about God creating the dilemma is a misunderstanding in that I posed that question rehtorically and not as a fundamentalist. Krishnamurti goes beyond Existentialism in that he goes beyond "thought" and that is what I am preaching. Your post is very interesting from several standpoints .
Introspection

Quite a conclusion.... and we know dilemma's by dualistic thinking? Ummm, dualistic thinking is the premise for dilemmas...Really?... there is way too much assumption going on here...
Well, I'm not sure what dualistic thinking sounds like to you, but it sounds to me like the definition you provided:
Webster's Collegiate Dictionary.... Dilemma - 1. a situation requiring a choice between equally undesirable alternatives. 2. any perplexing situation or problem. 3. a form or syllogism in which the major premise is formed of two or more conditional propositions and the minor premis is a disjunctive proposition, as "If A, then B; if C then D. Either A or C. Therefore, either B or D.
Maybe it's worth pointing out that it's not so much the obvious fact that a dilemma requires you to choose between two equally undesirable alternatives, but rather the hesitation to choose because one cannot choose that which is undesirable, yet the situation forces one to act in such a way since that which we desire is simply not possible. Denying this is simply denying the reality of the situation, and that is very much dualistic in that it's a polarization toward a desirable outcome against one that is undesirable, even when you realize there is no way to completely win. Reality is just what it is, whether you find it acceptable or not. In other words, the duality is not so much in the situation or reality, it is in your mind and your emotional state. I think atleast part of what Sidd is getting at is this emotional attachment which might incapacitate one in such a situation, whereas I'm sure we'd all agree that some decisive action is much better than just sitting there being frustrated over the fact that you can't save everybody or whatever, because then you're just wasting time and energy on your own feelings, and nothing gets done then. Of course it is only natural to be emotional in such a situation, but if the focus is not on your self (the usual focus in dualistic thinking) then that is basically just a byproduct - atleast there is no time to worry about it in the moment. We can just imagine a doctor in the ER losing it when there's people to be saved. I believe that was Farkel's point - shit happens in life, you're not always gonna get what you want. Denying that fact doesn't do anybody any good, but if you stop fighting against reality it brings you a measure of peace.
Inquiry

Hello again Sidd - you said: Inquiry, your right about assumptions and limitations. When I framed the question I assumed "dilemma" presupposed a "chooser" and that the chooser had an internal moral system not unlike that of the ordinary Jehovah's Witness. The point about God creating the dilemma is a misunderstanding in that I posed that question rehtorically and not as a fundamentalist. Krishnamurti goes beyond Existentialism in that he goes beyond "thought" and that is what I am preaching. Your post is very interesting from several standpoints .
For the benefit of those who don't know what we're talking about here, I'll let Krishnamurti speak for himself.... I think these are relevant quotes... Sidd should know why...
"
When man becomes aware of the movement of his own thoughts, he will see the division between the thinker and thought, the observer and the observed, the experiencer and the experience. He will discover that this division is an illusion. Then only is there pure observation which is insight without any shadow of the past or of time. This timeless insight brings about a deep, radical mutation in the mind." - Krishnamurti, Oct 1980
Also note:
"As I have said, I have only one purpose: to make man free, to urge him towards freedom, to help him to break away from all limitations, for that alone will give him eternal happiness, will give him the unconditioned realization of the self. " Krishnamurti - Truth is a pathless land
"This is no magnificent deed, because I do not want followers, and I mean this. The moment you follow someone you cease to follow Truth. I am not concerned whether you pay attention to what I say or not. I want to do a certain thing in the world and I am going to do it with unwavering concentration. I am concerning myself with only one essential thing: to set man free. I desire to free him from all cages, from all fears, and not to found religions, new sects, nor to establish new theories and new philosophies. Then you will naturally ask me why I go the world over, continually speaking. I will tell you for what reason I do this: not because I desire a following, not because I desire a special group of special disciples. (How men love to be different from their fellow-men, however ridiculous, absurd and trivial their distinctions may be! I do not want to encourage that absurdity.) I have no disciples, no apostles, either on earth or in the realm of spirituality. " - Krishnamurti, Truth is a pathless land

"This understanding is necessary because your belief has not transformed you but only complicated you, and because you are not willing to face things as they are. You want to have your own gods-new gods instead of the old, new religions instead of the old, new forms instead of the old-all equally valueless, all barriers, all limitations, all crutches. Instead of old spiritual distinctions you have new spiritual distinctions, instead of old worships you have new worships. You are all depending for your spirituality on someone else, for your happiness on someone else, for your enlightenment on someone else; and although you have been preparing for me for eighteen years, when I say all these things are unnecessary, when I say that you must put them all away and look within yourselves for the enlightenment, for the glory, for the purification, and for the incorruptibility of the self, not one of you is willing to do it. There may be a few, but very, very few." - Krishnamurti, Truth is a pathless land.
The next question... does Krishnamurti beleive in God? From his Collected Works Volume 1
Questioner: Have you no faith whatever in the power of Divinity that shapes the destiny of man? If not, are you then an atheist?
Krishnamurti: The belief that there is a Divinity that can shape man is one of the hindrances of man; but when I say that, it does not mean that I am an atheist. I think the people who say they believe in God are atheists, not only those who do not believe in God, because both are slaves to a belief.
You cannot believe in God; you have to believe in God only when there is no understanding, and you cannot have understanding by searching for it. Rather, when your mind is really free from all values, which have become the very center of ego-consciousness, then there is God. We have an idea that some miracle will change us; we think that some divine or external influence will bring about changes in ourselves and in the world. We have lived in that hope for centuries, and that is what is the matter with the world-complete chaos, irresponsibility in action, because we think someone else is going to do everything for us. To discard this false idea does not mean that we must turn to its opposite. When we free the mind from opposites, when we see the falseness of the belief that someone else is looking after us, then a new intelligence is awakened in us.
You want to know what God is, what truth is, what eternal life is, so you ask me, Are you an atheist or a theist? If you are a believer in God, then tell me what God is; I say the man who describes what truth or God is, to him truth does not exist. When it is put in the cage of words, then truth is no longer a living reality. But if you understand the false values in which you are held, if you free yourself from them, then there is an ever-living reality.
I hope I've made my point.
Thanks for the exercise,
Inq
added space at the bottom... salutation didn't show up...
Edited by - Inquiry on 22 January 2003 12:8:24
Inquiry

Hi Introspection
You said: Well, I'm not sure what dualistic thinking sounds like to you, but it sounds to me like the definition you provided:
Webster's Collegiate Dictionary.... Dilemma - 1. a situation requiring a choice between equally undesirable alternatives. 2. any perplexing situation or problem. 3. a form or syllogism in which the major premise is formed of two or more conditional propositions and the minor premis is a disjunctive proposition, as "If A, then B; if C then D. Either A or C. Therefore, either B or D.
I have to disagree with you there...dualistic thinking is different from a dilemma, according to theosophical and philisophical authorities. The difference is subtle, but significant. The nature of the "dilemma" about the doctor/patient is not about dualistic thinking. There is no choice between good and evil, there is only the undesirable outcome. Not good, not evil. I agree with you when you say "shit happens in life, you're not always gonna get what you want," I personally beleive the thing is what it is... nothing more. Dualistic thinking would really come into play if the mother got to decide, then there would be a dualistic choice, (ie: The mother may wish the survival of her child over herself, or herself over her child.) but because the doctor acts on the circumstances at hand... no desirable outcome can be achieved and no dualistic choice is made.
And, all this is subject to your point of view... *deep breath and heavy sigh* :)
Dualism - 1. the state of being dual or consisting of two parts; division into two. 2. a. (in metaphysics) any of various theories holding that reality is composed of two mutually irreducible substances. b. (in epistemology) the view that substances are either material or mental. 3. a. the theological doctrine that there are two eternal principles, one good and one evil. b. the belief that humans embody two parts, as body and soul.
Dualistic - 1. of, pertaining to, or of the nature of dualism.
I hope my reply to Sidd above is helpful in responding to the rest of your post.
;) talk with ya later...
Inq
Siddhashunyata

With respect, Inquiry.....What is the point you are making?
Introspection

In Inq,
I'm sure the way I use the word duality does not fit the standard definitions, but I guess I'm just no good with those cages of words after all. To clarify, I suppose my point of view is basically that all thought is dualistic in nature, in that you have to distinguish one thing from another. Of course, in that case it becomes redundant to say "dualistic thinking". Certainly, from a non-dual perspective a dilemma is just what it is, but a struggle would indicate duality. After all, you're only struggling with yourself in more than one sense. To quote Homer Simpson: "It works on SO many levels!" Anyways, what am I telling you all this for, you know what I mean. lol.

Dilemmas......What is their Purpose?

Share this