Feed on Posts or Comments 21 April 2014

Christianity Johnson on 27 Aug 2008 12:01 am

Joe Eszterhas, author of “Basic Instinct”, discusses his encounter with God

God may not heal amputees, or save starving children, but he does appear to famous authors to instantly cure them of their addictions:

‘Basic Instinct’ author writes book about faith

Here is what Joe Eszterhas experienced. His doctor discovered throat cancer. God would not cure it, so “Doctors at the Cleveland Clinic removed 80 percent of his larynx, put a tracheotomy tube in his throat, and told him he must quit drinking and smoking immediately.” Then God stepped in a few days later:

One hot summer day after his surgery, walking through his tree-lined neighborhood in Bainbridge Township, Mr. Eszterhas reached a breaking point.

“I was going crazy. I was jittery. I twitched. I trembled. I had no patience for anything. … Every single nerve ending was demanding a drink and a cigarette,” he wrote.

He plopped down on a curb and cried. Sobbed, even. And for the first time since he was a child, he prayed: “Please God, help me.”

Mr. Eszterhas was shocked by his own prayer.

“I couldn’t believe I’d said it. I didn’t know why I’d said it. I’d never said it before,” he wrote.

But he felt an overwhelming peace. His heart stopped pounding. His hands stopped twitching. He saw a “shimmering, dazzling, nearly blinding brightness that made me cover my eyes with my hands.”

Like Saul on the road to Damascus, Mr. Eszterhas had been blinded by God. He stood up, wiped his eyes, and walked back home a new man.

In a phone interview this week, Mr. Eszterhas said it was “an absolutely overwhelming experience.

He went from doubting if he could make it through life without tobacco and alcohol, to knowing that he could “defeat myself and win.”"

So there it is. With a “blinding brightness” and an “overwhelming peace”, God cured Eszterhas. Eszterhas clearly sought no other explanation for the brightness and the peace, nor did it ever occur to him to think through the logical implications of a God that would behave in such a capricious way. Why wouldn’t he explore the possibility that he experienced a hallucination or a brain seizure? Or perhaps a drug interaction, exacerbated by withdrawal symptoms from two highly addictive drugs (the effects of which his doctors never bothered to anticipate or ameliorate? That seems highly unlikely)? No, there is only one possible explanation for Eszterhas : the almighty creator of the universe had reason to manifest his greatness upon Eszterhas, and Eszterhas is now a believer.

Given the above account, this paragraph is absolutely fascinating:

Although he is a devout Catholic, Mr. Eszterhas writes bluntly of his disgust for priests who are pedophiles and bishops who have covered up for them. He and Naomi decided they could not, in good conscience, donate a dime to the church because of the clerical sexual abuse scandal.

On the one hand, Mr. Eszterhas believes that God reached down and specifically appeared to him to cure his addictions. On the other hand, this same God allowed Catholic priests – priests! – to sexually molest hundreds of innocent kids without ever intervening.

Such is the delusion of Christianity. Christians are somehow able to overlook these incredible delusions in their own thinking. To the point where they write whole books about their delusions.

If you are a Christian, and if you are starting to understand the gigantic delusions and contradictions in your thinking, you can learn more here:

- Whywontgodhealamputees.com

You may also want to watch this video, which could not be any clearer about the fundamental delusions underpinning Christianity:

50 Responses to “Joe Eszterhas, author of “Basic Instinct”, discusses his encounter with God”

  1. on 27 Aug 2008 at 12:00 pm 1.SteveK said …

    Wow, that video at the bottom is sooo full of logical flubs and fallacies. I giggle at the thought that YOU are chiding ME for not thinking properly.

  2. on 27 Aug 2008 at 1:46 pm 2.Admin said …

    SteveK,

    We would love to have you elaborate. What are some of the flubs and fallacies that you see?

  3. on 27 Aug 2008 at 5:36 pm 3.SteveK said …

    The flub of (intentional?) equivocation runs rampant throughout where the video equivocates the term magic with divine activity as if these words have the same meaning. Poisoning The Well is relied on throughout in order to gain emotional support. The false notion that believers in one religion think other religions are completely false is, well, a false notion. The genetic fallacy that if religion A is false because of X, Y and Z therefore religion B must be false is also promoted. I realize it’s a short video but it falls flat, and becomes somewhat comical when it chides me for not thinking critically.

  4. on 27 Aug 2008 at 6:55 pm 4.The Warrior said …

    [B]“On the one hand, Mr. Eszterhas believes that God reached down and specifically appeared to him to cure his addictions. On the other hand, this same God allowed Catholic priests – priests! – to sexually molest hundreds of innocent kids without ever intervening.”[/B]

    This made me laugh, i mean come on guys. You only seem to want to believe when it suits, without ever following suit!

    StevieK says :

    “The false notion that believers in one religion think other religions are completely false is, well, a false notion.

    This is indeed very true. People look back when the mayans/aztecs/inca – egyptians – greeks – and all the other past religious believes – and KNOW fine well that they never really worshiped such gods. The same today that Christians believe in there Bible-god but will be the first to dismiss the book of the Quran!!! saying its rubbish and wrong – but hey ours is right. Dont make me laugh lol.

    Warrior

  5. on 27 Aug 2008 at 7:25 pm 5.SteveK said …

    Sorry to make you laugh, but I said “completely false”, Warrior. Just because I don’t believe in, say, Islam, doesn’t mean I think everything about the Quran or Islam is false. It isn’t a logical necessity that this be the case. This either/or mentality you subscribe to only follows when competing claims are made that require the law of non-contradiction to be upheld.

  6. on 27 Aug 2008 at 8:04 pm 6.Snag said …

    SteveK – The Bible says that everyone who doesn’t believe in Jesus is going to hell. According to Christianity, any religion that doesn’t believe in Jesus is completely false (and the followers of other religions are punishable by eternal torture). You said:

    “The false notion that believers in one religion think other religions are completely false is, well, a false notion.”

    How do you reconcile the Christian view with what you said?

  7. on 27 Aug 2008 at 8:22 pm 7.SteveK said …

    “According to Christianity, any religion that doesn’t believe in Jesus is completely false ”

    You seem to be saying: If you don’t believe in Jesus, then your religion is completely false. This makes no logical sense.

    Anyway, I’m simply saying I am free to remain agnostic toward the claims made by other religions if they don’t contradict. There’s no reason for me to think *everything* that Islam teaches or claims is false. You seem to think I am required to do this. Why?

  8. on 27 Aug 2008 at 8:35 pm 8.Snag said …

    “There’s no reason for me to think *everything* that Islam teaches or claims is false. You seem to think I am required to do this. Why?”

    This isn’t about what I think (and Ive not ever mentioned what I think). This is about Christianity. The Bible, and therefore Christianity, thinks that any religion other than Christianity is completely false. And Christianity believes that everyone who isn’t a Christian is going to hell.

    But you said:

    “The false notion that believers in one religion think other religions are completely false is, well, a false notion.”

    Christianity thinks that other religions are completely false. So it’s not a false notion. It seems like your statement is false.

  9. on 27 Aug 2008 at 8:53 pm 9.SteveK said …

    “The Bible, and therefore Christianity, thinks that any religion other than Christianity is completely false.”

    Christianity speaks to specific claims made by other religions as being false, but nowhere does it say *everything* is false about these religions. A religion that claims it is wrong to murder, or that the universe was created are examples that prove my point.

    “Christianity believes that everyone who isn’t a Christian is going to hell.”

    This is a pretty simplistic statement of the Christian faith, but I get your point nonetheless. Other than your expected disagreement, why is an exclusive truth claim such as this a problem?

  10. on 27 Aug 2008 at 10:09 pm 10.SteveK said …

    I don’t know who puts these videos together but the one below is really, *really* bad for some of the same logical reasons. I cringed.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk6ILZAaAMI

  11. on 27 Aug 2008 at 10:33 pm 11.Snag said …

    “why is an exclusive truth claim such as this a problem?”

    Any religion with an exclusive truth claim is, by definition, a religion that thinks “other religions are completely false”.

    You claimed that this was a flub in the video. It does not appear to be a flub to me.

  12. on 27 Aug 2008 at 11:01 pm 12.Snag said …

    “I don’t know who puts these videos together but the one below is really, *really* bad for some of the same logical reasons. I cringed.”

    Are you saying that there is a difference between praying to God and praying to a jug of milk? If so, what is the difference?

  13. on 28 Aug 2008 at 2:01 am 13.SteveK said …

    “Any religion with an exclusive truth claim is, by definition, a religion that thinks “other religions are completely false”.”

    With respect to that *specific* claim – of course – but not with respect to non-competing claims. I’ve only said this about 3 times already.

    “Are you saying that there is a difference between praying to God and praying to a jug of milk? If so, what is the difference?”

    What’s the difference between talking to *you* and talking to a jug of milk? Answer that and you’ll be well on your way to answering your own question.

  14. on 28 Aug 2008 at 3:08 am 14.SteveK said …

    The video below *must* be a joke. Who writes this stuff anyway – Letterman?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUj8hg5CoSw

  15. on 28 Aug 2008 at 12:49 pm 15.Snag said …

    “What’s the difference between talking to *you* and talking to a jug of milk? Answer that and you’ll be well on your way to answering your own question.”

    When you talk to me I respond in a demonstrable way that everyone can see and measure.

    When you talk to a jug of milk you get no such response.

    When you talk to God you get the same response that you get from a jug of milk.

  16. on 28 Aug 2008 at 12:50 pm 16.Snag said …

    “The video below *must* be a joke. Who writes this stuff anyway – Letterman?”

    So you are saying that when you pray to Jesus to appear he appears as he promises in the Bible?

  17. on 28 Aug 2008 at 1:26 pm 17.SteveK said …

    On the jug of milk…it lacks the ability to hear, reason and respond whereas you and God do.

    On the video….I’m saying these videos are built on strawmen. It makes for good comedy but not for good reasoning.

  18. on 28 Aug 2008 at 2:32 pm 18.Snag said …

    “On the jug of milk…it lacks the ability to hear, reason and respond whereas you and God do.”

    Are you saying that you have evidence of God reasoning and responding in the same way that you have evidence of me reasoning and responding?

    “On the video….I’m saying these videos are built on strawmen. It makes for good comedy but not for good reasoning. ”

    Where is the strawman? Are you saying that Jesus has appeared to you?

  19. on 28 Aug 2008 at 7:51 pm 19.SteveK said …

    “Are you saying that you have evidence of God reasoning and responding in the same way that you have evidence of me reasoning and responding?”

    I have evidence of text on a computer screen. Is that evidence of you reasoning and responding? You tell me.

    “Where is the strawman?”
    Defeating a belief that no Christian holds.

  20. on 28 Aug 2008 at 8:32 pm 20.Snag said …

    “I have evidence of text on a computer screen. Is that evidence of you reasoning and responding? You tell me.”

    Do you have text on a computer screen from God? Do you have any communication at all from God that is independently verifiable?

    “Defeating a belief that no Christian holds.”

    You are saying that no Christian believes Jesus’ promises about prayer in the Bible?

  21. on 28 Aug 2008 at 8:35 pm 21.SteveK said …

    “Do you have text on a computer screen from God? Do you have any communication at all from God that is independently verifiable?”

    Not that I know of.

    “You are saying that no Christian believes Jesus’ promises about prayer in the Bible? ”

    I’m saying no Christian believes that promise means what the video says it means.

  22. on 28 Aug 2008 at 9:05 pm 22.Snag said …

    If the son of god says:

    19″Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. 20For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.” (Matt 18:19-20)

    Why wouldn’t a Christian believe that promise? Why wouldn’t Jesus appear if he is already there?

  23. on 28 Aug 2008 at 9:29 pm 23.SteveK said …

    “Why wouldn’t a Christian believe that promise?”

    The do believe it, just not the way the video presents it.

    “Why wouldn’t Jesus appear if he is already there?”

    Beats me.

  24. on 28 Aug 2008 at 10:12 pm 24.Snag said …

    “Beats me.”

    Have you ever considered the possibility that Jesus (and God) are imaginary?

    Here we have direct evidence. Even though Jesus promises that “anything you ask for will be done for you by my Father in heaven” he doesn’t appear.

    How are you able to ignore this evidence?

  25. on 28 Aug 2008 at 10:23 pm 25.SteveK said …

    “Have you ever considered the possibility that Jesus (and God) are imaginary?”

    Yes. I do this nearly on a daily basis.

    “How are you able to ignore this evidence?”

    We can’t ignore the evidence of the words because they are there for all to see. My focus is on the evidence of what people understood those words to mean, now and throughout history. The evidense is that no Christian group believed these words to mean what the video presents them to mean – hence the strawman argument.

  26. on 28 Aug 2008 at 10:30 pm 26.Snag said …

    “We can’t ignore the evidence of the words because they are there for all to see.”

    Why can’t we simply read the words and understand them to mean what they say? Here they are:

    19″Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. 20For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.” (Matt 18:19-20)

    According to those words if we ask Jesus to appear he should appear.

    Why would Jesus lie?

  27. on 28 Aug 2008 at 11:08 pm 27.SteveK said …

    “According to those words if we ask Jesus to appear he should appear.”

    You and those who agree with you are the only people who understand it this way. The irony is that the video is arguing against *your* understanding, not the Christian understanding.

  28. on 28 Aug 2008 at 11:14 pm 28.Snag said …

    “You and those who agree with you are the only people who understand it this way.”

    What does the word “anything” mean?

  29. on 28 Aug 2008 at 11:39 pm 29.SteveK said …

    “What does the word “anything” mean?”

    It’s pretty clear no Christian group from the first century till today thought Jesus meant the literal ANY thing. Most Christian’s have understood it to mean ask for anything in accordance with the will of God and it will be done at the proper time.

    At no time have Christian’s believed that the prayer “God, give me strength through evil” will be done at any time.

  30. on 28 Aug 2008 at 11:55 pm 30.Snag said …

    If Jesus, who is perfect and all knowing, meant “anything in accordance with the will of God”, why didn’t he say that?

    You are needing to rewrite the Bible:

    “If two of you on earth agree about anything that is the will of God, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven.”

    Your rewrite renders the statement meaningless. You only get what god wants, which would happen anyway.

    Why do you need to rewrite the Bible? Why not accept what Jesus says?

  31. on 29 Aug 2008 at 12:50 am 31.SteveK said …

    I’ve answered your question – repeatedly. Appreciate the opportunity to explain why the video sets up a strawman argument.

  32. on 29 Aug 2008 at 1:42 am 32.shannon said …

    anyone who reads and actually believes what these people who made this web site is true or rational is just dumb how can you compare god to santa claus and to try to make people who do believe in god start believing in YOUR unproven facts is just sad and we’ll see who doesnt believe when the end comes and you are all burning for the blasphemes you wrote on this page if u dont believe thats your choice but dont try to convince us that do because i really don’t think any of us are dumb enough to buy into YOUR make believe hypothesis i mean do you think your mommy and daddy are the creators of this world. NO!so just how did we all get here if there is no true creator,& what would happen if jesus healed every sick person i think we would have a little bit of a population problem now wouldnt we. why dont you try to come up with something a little more complex than a coin toss to prove god how about our whole existence or when someones had cancer for years and one day their cured you dont think someone higher up had something to do with that. those who are worthy get prayers answered.

  33. on 29 Aug 2008 at 9:14 am 33.Snag said …

    “I’ve answered your question – repeatedly. Appreciate the opportunity to explain why the video sets up a strawman argument.”

    You have not answered anything. In this case you sidestep the question by rewriting the Bible.

    You also should look up the definition of “strawman argument”. To say “The words of Jesus are not true” is a statement, not a strawman. The fact that you would like to rewrite what Jesus says does not change that.

    Why are you rewriting the Bible? Let me help you. You rewrite the Bible because the Bible is wrong. When you read the Bible Jesus is lying so you rewrite it.

    Why is it so hard to admit that the Bible is wrong and Jesus is imaginary?

  34. on 29 Aug 2008 at 1:38 pm 34.SteveK said …

    Whatever you say, Snag. Have a nice day.

  35. on 29 Aug 2008 at 1:51 pm 35.Snag said …

    Try thinking about your need to rewrite the Bible. Once you understand why you need to do that, you might be able to break your delusion.

  36. on 29 Aug 2008 at 2:40 pm 36.simplemindedhafwit said …

    It’s funny to me how you (this website) uses the word “fact” before and after everything you blog. There are no facts here. There’s a lot of speculation, funny videos and strange people talking about God knows what? But facts? I don’t think so!

    If you know so much, answer these questions and make sure you get the facts right.

    1) how did we get here? (please don’t say we evolved from microscopic organisms thats so silly!)

    2) what is our purpose? (please don’t say “we have no purpose, we’re just born to die.” that’s even sillier)

    3) as our new leader, where will your answers to the top 2 questions lead us? (please don’t say you don’t want to be our new leader, it’s obvious that you do!)

  37. on 29 Aug 2008 at 3:53 pm 37.Snag said …

    simplemindedhafwit,

    This web site is built around a book. Reading the book would help you see the answers to your questions. Reading the book won’t hurt you, even if your disagree.

    1) It is a fact that we evolved from microscopic organisms. There are hundreds of different ways scientists have proven this if you would take the time to learn about the science.

    2) Our purpose is described pretty well on this page: The meaning of life

    3) Answered on this page: The future of the human race

  38. on 29 Aug 2008 at 4:21 pm 38.SteveK said …

    From the meaning of life page: “You can give your life whatever meaning you want. Pick whatever it is that is important to you.”

    and

    “Having said that, there one caveat that you should keep in mind: You can do whatever you want with your life, as long as you stay within the boundaries of what your fellow human beings will allow.”

    1) If my pick doesn’t fit in with what my fellow human beings allow, does this mean my life has no meaning?

    2) Do I have to poll all 6 billion people before determining the meaning of my life?

    3) People change their minds often so when should I retake the poll?

  39. on 29 Aug 2008 at 7:01 pm 39.Snag said …

    It seems like the author answers your question in the same paragraph:

    “For example, if you decide that the goal of your life is to murder as many people as possible, then the rest of us will do our best to stop you.”

    The point seems obvious. You need to stay within the law of the land.

    “If my pick doesn’t fit in with what my fellow human beings allow, does this mean my life has no meaning?”

    I would say if your pick is illegal it is best to pick another. Or you could work on changing the law.

  40. on 29 Aug 2008 at 7:58 pm 40.SteveK said …

    “The point seems obvious. You need to stay within the law of the land.”

    It’s not obvious to me. What is the point of me picking my life meaning if everyone else can overrule it, and thus dictate what meaning my life will have by forcibly controlling it?

    “I would say if your pick is illegal it is best to pick another. Or you could work on changing the law.”

    Suppose my life meaning is to try and change certain laws, and suppose my fellow humans want the laws to stay the same. According to the rules set forth by the caveat I must cease and desist. A minority position that starts lobbying for changes is, by definition, breaking the rules. This is a broken system.

  41. on 29 Aug 2008 at 10:53 pm 41.Snag said …

    “A minority position that starts lobbying for changes is, by definition, breaking the rules.”

    What country do you live in? In the United States freedom of speech is there so people with “minority positions” can speak. There is no prohibition on speech to change laws. Right now there is a big debate about gay marriage (to change marriage law) and marijuana (to change its prohibition). Debate does not break any rules.

  42. on 30 Aug 2008 at 4:59 pm 42.SteveK said …

    “In the United States freedom of speech is there so people with “minority positions” can speak.”

    This is the law now, but how did we get to this point as a species? We got there by repeatedly breaking the rules of the caveat until it became the majority position and eventually became law. The issue of slavery went through a similar process.

    Suppose the majority of my fellow humans want freedom of speech, and also suppose my fellow humans want me to not change a specific law. Using the caveat as a guideline, how do these two responses shape the meaning of my life?

    Should my life meaning include doing both – speak freely and *not* try to change the law? That’s what the caveat seems to be saying but it isn’t obvious.

  43. on 30 Aug 2008 at 6:01 pm 43.SteveK said …

    “In the United States freedom of speech is there so people with “minority positions” can speak.”

    This brings up questions the caveat doesn’t even address. Which group of humans does it mean when it says ‘fellow humans’?

    - Group A may allow something for reason X, while Group B may not allow it for reason Y.

    - Both groups together might agree for reason Z but Group C (a subset of A and B) says reasons X and Y are more important than reason Z.

    - Which group of fellow humans do I use to help shape my life meaning?

    - Does it matter what reason a group gives for allowing or disallowing something? Which group decides this?

    It’s obvious that the caveat itself needs numerous caveats to answer these kind of questions – which is why I said this is a broken system. As the caveat stands now, you can justify pretty much any life meaning that you want because the caveat doesn’t give any details.

    This system says do whatever you want according to the life meaning you have and justify it with personal, subjective reasons later.

  44. on 30 Aug 2008 at 9:57 pm 44.SteveK said …

    For those who want to hear about the meaning of life and the arguments for / against two prominent views, go to the link below and let reason decide which one makes the most sense to you. It’s about 1 hour long….

    http://www.veritas.org/media/talks/68

  45. on 30 Aug 2008 at 11:02 pm 45.Snag said …

    SteveK – in #42 what are you saying? It feels like you are forced to argue something that is senseless because of your religion. The caveat is saying that your life goal has to fit within the law of the land. It is stating the obvious (although it is not obvious to about 1% of the population and they are in prison. So it seems that there is a need to state the obvious)

    In #43 I don’t know what you are saying in the first part, and you may want to try restating it. This part makes sense – “This system says do whatever you want”. Yes. That is the point. Do whatever you want. You get to pick your life goal and live your life in any way you like (fitting it within the law of the land or you will be arrested).

    In #44 do you have a text link that does not take an hour? Or can you summarize your point?

    Overall – 1) what do you dislike about the idea that you get to pick the purpose of your life? 2) What is the purpose of your life?

  46. on 31 Aug 2008 at 3:48 am 46.shannon said …

    i continued reading some more of the blogs and actually we are not evolved from whatever microscoptic figmentation u think we are & never has science proved that. im in the middle of a book that explains why we could not have possibly just spontaniously one day popped up theres to much involved with the way our whole body works for it to just perfectly work the way it does.in fact at the end of every scientific explanation they say that they have no proof of what they are talking about but yet when ever the bible is studied every one of the stories from all the people that were involved in the writings everything matches up too perfect for it to not be true. dont be afraid to actually let some good in your life, cause ill tell you what since ive been saved and know everything about the way im supposed to look at life and how im supposed to live my life ive been alot happier and alot more stress free knowing that god has my back and you know it never hurts to have him on your side

  47. on 31 Aug 2008 at 3:18 pm 47.SteveK said …

    “It feels like you are forced to argue something that is senseless because of your religion.”

    I’m arguing on the basis of what is written on the meaning of life page.

    “The caveat is saying that your life goal has to fit within the law of the land.”

    The point you gloss over is that the rules *were* repeatedly broken to get where we are today. Regions/countries don’t go from being ruled by one or a few to the rule of democracy without people breaking the law of the land – and thus breaking the caveat. The life meaning of countless people were forcibly taken away so we could get to where we are today. You’re okay with this?

    “In #44 do you have a text link that does not take an hour? Or can you summarize your point?”

    No.

  48. on 01 Sep 2008 at 12:52 am 48.Snag said …

    “The point you gloss over is that the rules *were* repeatedly broken to get where we are today. Regions/countries don’t go from being ruled by one or a few to the rule of democracy without people breaking the law of the land – and thus breaking the caveat.”

    How did blacks in America gain their civil rights in the twentieth century? How did women gain the right to vote? How did smoking in restaurants change from legal to illegal? These changes in society were in large part brought by peaceful means. Martin Luther King spoke at huge peaceful demonstrations that drew attention to a problem. He did not advocate street warfare.

    We can argue back and forth. The point is so simple it seems very strange you are arguing it. In today’s society if you are going to pick a life goal it probably makes sense for most people to pick one that is legal. If you StevenK wish to start a bloody revolution you can feel free to do so (it is your life after all and you set its purpose) and see how far you get with it.

    Again – 1) what do you dislike about the idea that you get to pick the purpose of your life? 2) What is the purpose of your life?

  49. on 01 Sep 2008 at 12:55 am 49.Snag said …

    Shannon – “theres to much involved with the way our whole body works for it to just perfectly work the way it does.”

    This article might help you – Intelligent Design Made Mankind?

  50. on 07 Sep 2008 at 7:01 pm 50.SteveK said …

    “How did blacks in America gain their civil rights in the twentieth century? How did women gain the right to vote? How did smoking in restaurants change from legal to illegal? These changes in society were in large part brought by peaceful means.”

    Once again you avoid the question I’m asking. How did people break free from the rule of a king, queen or small group? They broke free by breaking the current “law of the land” and instituting a new law of the land by way of fiat. Are you OK with this?

    “In today’s society if you are going to pick a life goal it probably makes sense for most people to pick one that is legal.”

    If the people don’t want it to be legal and illegal activity is preventing the law from being changed, what should the people do? Should they adopt a life meaning that includes *not* following the law of the land, or should they stick with the rules of the caveat at all times?

    “If you StevenK wish to start a bloody revolution you can feel free to do so (it is your life after all and you set its purpose) and see how far you get with it.”

    If adopting the caveat is *optional* then why does the life meaning page make such a big deal about it and treat it as not being optional? This is a broken system, or it’s one nobody can fully understand because it’s not written clearly. Is the author of the page around so I can ask him/her?

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply