I've always found it interesting that we techies generally avoid reinventing the wheel in our work but feel compelled to reinvent it in matters of spiritually. We're not the first to experience these thoughts and feelings and certainly won't be the last.
I suspect much of the reason is that the users manuals and wikis that resulted from thousands of years of human wonderings have been so misunderstood and misappropriated for other purposes.
This post reminded me of the ancient Hebrew book of Koheleth, which was translated into the Greek Ecclesiastes. About a man who wondered about many of the same things Paul brought up. Like many of us, Koheleth tried all sort of strategies to find meaning and be happy: to be rich, to be learned, to have fun, etc.
In the end, all he could surmise was that each day was a gift and to make the most of it. Pretty good lesson, I think. Thanks, Paul, for the reminder.
A lot of people are complaining about the 'God' concept introduced in the latter half of the post. I think a lot of this is that people are pattern-matching 'God' with the huge amount of baggage that the term has rightfully accumulated.
I started reading the article in full (having read the criticism first), and soon realised that the god notion described doesn't really match anything in traditional religion, or anything that one would typically criticise. The god introduced doesn't seem to require anything tangible from the reader or anyone who believes in such a god. It requires no submission, suffering, organisation or decrees. It simply makes an offer. (and it very expressly makes that offer within a fable, not a description of reality)
The end paragraph is pretty hard to deny. You just needs to be careful not to associate your cached thoughts with the word 'God'. Essentially what the story concludes with is: love is a good thing; we should share it; and we should offer it to ourselves too[1].
This kind of love is most noticeable by its absence I think. After a couple of hard years, I recently looked back on the things that had been troubling me, and noticed that throughout it I had been very hard on myself, and very hard on others.
I think the god analogy as a source of love is one that is only useful to some people.
I'm sure that making physical world predictions based on the existence of any higher power is sure to result in predictions that aren't useful.
Regardless, the general point about love, suffering, loss, forgiveness and learning can be taken without changing personal beliefs, and without god. Equally, a very personal god who offers and requires only what Paul describes gives identical results.
As such I argue that the god described has no need to be excluded from this essay, or Hacker News. I urge those criticising it to read it again with strict mental effort on avoiding the 'god = bad' association that one leaps to out of past experience.
[1] (and it says this in an excellent way, and with more nuance than I describe, I know)
Perhaps I needed to manage the transition between the parts a little more smoothly to avoid losing people who have an allergic reaction to the g-word.
When things are difficult, talk of God inevitably arises from many good and well meaning people. The difficulty of course is that the God concept has so much ugly baggage attached to it. You can reject it outright, as so many here are eager to do, or you can embrace and nurture the good in it.
Alas, it's very tricky to navigate the waters between the dogmatic believers and the dogmatic unbelievers, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
If by "god" the author means "the general goodness within most humans, which inspired them to act to save my daughter's life", then the author should say so more directly.
If the author didn't want to tie his concept of "deity-as-avatar-for-goodness" to a religion with so much baggage, he should have chosen a different word.
If you haven't already listened to it, you might like "What Is The Light", from "The Soft Bulletin" by The Flaming Lips. It's a bit on-the-nose but is basically a poetic encapsulation of what you just wrote; Wayne Coyne wrote many of the songs on that album while metabolizing the death of his father, and pulls it off without ever becoming funereal or morose.
I can't quite put my finger on why but have always felt that album --- basically one of the three best pop/rock albums of the last 20 years --- was uncannily resonant for (our yes yes lazily romanticized concept of) entrepreneurs.
Worth adding, that "yoshimi battles the pink robots" is an amazing album by the same band about a woman's battle with cancer, and love, and loss. It was just turned into an amazing play (technically an opera (rock opera!) since it's just the album being acted out on stage with very few words added) that is being performed at the La Jolla Playhouse in San Diego (The home to Tommy, Rent*, Jersey Boys, and many other breakthrough plays).
I saw the play, and it's really terrific, especially since almost everyone has a connection to cancer and loss. And the music is terrific.
This is a very nice and heartwarming piece -- especially the part where the OP can't board the helicopter and has to drive hundreds of miles alone, into the night, not knowing what might happen to his wife and their (yet unborn) daughter. Must have been a very long drive.
Like many others however I was a little surprised, and, yes, disappointed with the "God" part at the end. Is this what it was all about?
What does "God" has to do with any of this? Can't one love their children, their partners, their siblings, with all their hearts, and leave it at that...?
What is "the personification of all that is Good"? What is Good? (Good for you may be bad for someone else; absolute good is hard; historically, Gods have not been known to be good: they were jealous, mean creatures). And even admitting there would be some "absolute good", why would it need to be "personified"?
The finale reads a little like this: Gods other people believe in are "false Gods", and guess what? the God I believe in / custom built to my specs is the One True God.
This, for me, I'm sorry to say, ruined a perfect moment.
I also felt this was a great story ruined at the end. The author is talking about the terrorific (terror-filled) ride of his daughter's birth and young life, then flops over to a children's tale about one all-powerful being wanting more followers than a different all-powerful being.
What do these all-powerful beings have to do with his daughter and her struggle to live? What does it have to do with all of the doctors and nurses who cared for his daughter? Why thank this all-powerful being who did nothing for your child, but take for granted all of the people who worked to help her?
Well, I like Paul's little story, and I share his belief that God does not sow fear and hatred, and that when one is confronted by claims about what God allegedly thinks or says, asking whether these reflect unconditional love is a great way to tell how much weight to give them.
This was a really good post, but I'm going to be totally honest: my eye kept being drawn to an avatar of you holding (what appears to be) an assault rifle and smiling. It seems strange considering the topic.
Again, no offense is meant. Maybe its also due to recent events, but it seems odd.
>From my brother, I received a personal understanding of death, and a constant reminder to live my life as though it may end at any moment.
I'm not sure how to really ask this, but what does it mean to live your life as though it may end at any moment?
For example, does that literally mean to pursue today as if you could really be gone tomorrow? And if so, how?
Does it mean that if you really want to go sky diving you should do it soon (i.e. now)? If you've been thinking about moving to another place for a while, but just keep putting it off for semi-trivial reasons, should you just go and see what happens?
I've heard people say that they live each day as if it could be their last, but I'm not sure what that means, practically speaking.
There have been several things that I wish I'd done, looking back, but I didn't mostly out of fear.
The idea of living each day as if it could be your last has always intrigued me.
To me, it doesn't mean go skydiving or spend all your money and go partying every day.
It means stop living in fear, and stop distracting yourself with bullshit.
Lots of people are afraid of the shame of failure, the shame of rejection, etc. If you really were going to die tomorrow, it would strip away all the fear that you have of living with this burden.
I've been through some health scares and believe me, there is nothing more sobering than being in an MRI machine looking for a brain tumor. All the day-to-day bullshit that many people worry about, like "Why didn't I get that promotion" or "I really want that car" gets stripped away pretty quick, and the things that really matter surface immediately.
I did this small exercise with a group of friends not too long ago: "What would you do if you had no fear?" A couple of people took that to heart and made some interesting, useful, decisions.
I think that is a good start to an answer to your question.
The other thing (which more often than not gets me into trouble) is "It is a moral imperative to do what you love." Do that, and the question kind of answers itself.
I find it to be a balance. In the short-term, I want everything I do to make things better for others if I were to suddenly collapse. To use Paul's example, I want to do the dishes and not leave them for someone else.
I also think it means pursuing big, important goals like fixing a broken neighborhood, writing a book, and so on. If I die in the middle of one of these projects, I probably leave small messes in neglected areas for someone to clean up, but it's worth the risk and why it's important to start as soon as possible and work quickly.
Thankfully a lot of things don't require that trade; for example, being a good dad to my children means teaching them to take care of small things and is also part of a long-term goal. There are other things like this. I think there is certainly a place for hedonistic activities like travel and skydiving, but not destructive ones like criminal activity or breaking a relationship to pursue another one.
I really love the honesty of this piece. I also feel that the message about being thankful and forgiving is very important. Life is too short to hold on to anger, and too wonderful to wait to embrace its gifts.
Thank you for a thoughtful and probing post. It is bold to write on a spiritual topic to this audience. I don't usually talk at length about spiritual matters, but everyone else here seems to be doing so and so I think it's appropriate.
I would like to talk about one idea you brought up: the idea that the Christian Gospel involves some sort of coercion. In particular, the little story you told about God vs. the devil.
This is what the gospel says. "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten son, that whoever believes in him would not perish but have everlasting life." John 3:16
We're sinking in quicksand. God reached out His hand to save us. But if we refuse, we will die. Does that make God a monster?
Indeed, if you refuse God's love, the consequences are not good. If you refuse my offer of a kidney transplant to you, the consequences are not good. Does that mean I'm raping you by offering to save your life?
Please do not blame God that there are people in hell. God doesn't use hell as an instrument of coercion. We sink into hell under the weight of our own evil. We put ourselves there. We wouldn't be happy in heaven, if we don't like God's rules here on earth.
But God loved us even though we could not repay him in the least. He is rich in mercy. God gave the world an unspeakably wonderful gift that we can never, ever repay. Jesus Christ took my hell upon himself. He took all the punishment I deserved on Himself. How can I repay that? That's the essence of unconditional love. And He offers this gift to you.
Christ is my brother, my friend. He died for me. He forgives my sins against Him and helps me every day with my pride and my bent toward sin. Do you realize this is not a game? He has seen what you wrote -- don't you think it hurts Him?
I'm genuinely confused why you insert such strong language in a thoughtful post about loving life and valuing the right things. If you disagree with the Gospel, feel free to say so. But why do you want to vilify the God I love, call Him "the devil," call Him a rapist? He is grieved by these remarks. I am grieved as well.
I will pray for you. You seem to be lashing out at God with the grief and difficulty you have experienced. That's an awful place to be in. I know from personal experience that my words are not able to help you, but God is able to help you. I hope that some day, you believe in Christ and come to understand that Christ is the way, the truth, and the life. No one can go to God the Father except through Him.
I must admit, I am impressed by the sophistication of your argument. Still, not being well versed in Christian mythology, I have lots of questions.
For example, isn't god supposed to be all powerful, so that he created everything, including the devil, hell, and death? Would it cost him anything to simply make you not die - contrary to a human giving a kidney to another human, which indeed would be a high price to pay. Hasn't god, in fact, also created kidney disease?
And what is the sins you are talking about? It sounds to me as if there are conditions for being granted eternal life after all, which practically amounts to coercion again.
Anyway, I really just felled compelled to reply because I thought your reasoning was not all that bad (for a religiously deluded person - sorry :-). I am willing to believe that at least you mean well.
Thank you Paul for sharing!
no_more_death i share your beliefs and i think you answer to yourself. Christianity does not encourage coercion at all, after all as you mention only states the consequences of actions that people might take.
This particular belief system of unconditional love vs condemning judgment and promised reward, in the context of Christianity, was completely anticipated two thousand years ago. And then criticized.
Instead of reinventing the wheel in this way, you should consider following the grooves of people who have already carved the path. At least you will understand why they turned the way they did.
Words really can't express how this article made me feel... but it's rare for something I've read on HN to cause me to take a step back and reflect on what's important in life.
The birth of a child does something very similar, but in a joyful way. Wasted time (TV , useless relationships) becomes better moments. It's gradual unlike death were you can have a clean slate.
Over the last couple years I've noticed a lot of successful businesses with unconditional love as the core value proposition. Nothing at anywhere near a global scale though. At the risk of coming across as being more cynical than usual, I think this is a space with a lot of opportunity.
This is the single more cynical entry I have ever read before. "There's an opportunity in unconditional love". It may sound like dividing by 0. May be it is not the case. Christian Church has definitely been riding the unconditional love opportunity for millenia. It is perhaps the time for Her to be disrupted. Google vs God, may be the title of an interesting movie.
"Statistically, there does not appear to be much of a genetic component to pancreatic cancer, but still, I worried. How much longer do I have? Could there be a tumor growing inside of me at this very moment?"
I lost my father to pancreatic cancer when I was only 18. Even though I'm only 20, this is something I constantly have in the back of my head. Although I don't live each day exactly like it's my last, I no longer stress out over small things and am a lot more questioning of the decisions I make. Death really does strip away everything doesn't matter.
It's a pity that you read it as criticism of Islam as a whole when it was, in fact, criticism of a god that promises 72 virgins. Though somewhat related, those are orthogonal concepts. Having grown up Mormon, I 100% agree with him and am capable of realizing the basis of fear inherent to the common gods.
You, like many in this thread, are personalizing something that Paul didn't actually say because it's important to you and you're ready to defend it. Objectivity is not a strong point when it generally comes to the religious; I'm sorry to paint with so broad a brush, but that's on display here. The mere mention of a-god-like-concept has put a number of folks here into a tizzy, and it's sad.
When I was younger I did not have the experience of being offended by things said by others (much). Reading the essay brought up some emotions in me that I now identify as being "offended." The story mixes some poignant sharing of difficult life experience with what to me sounds like gibberish. Somehow the shape of the rhetoric is closed off. The jump from the personal/subjective experience to asserted universal truths feels manipulative manipulative to me. Blech
I think that is one of the potential problems in discerning between the "true God(s)" and the "false god(s)".
Allow me to demonstrate what I mean.
When you say "If a God threatens to send you to hell for loving the wrong person, it's a false God." it seems to imply a couple of things that must be accepted apriori to the statement-
1. That God stating what consequences will be for actions taken by us constitutes him ''threatening' rather than him explaining a cause and effect relationship. If I'm a genuine doctor and tell you that if you eat a certain piece of food that you will die or get sick I'm not threatening you. I'm simply pointing out the causality connected with an action to warn you.
2. That for any given person their loving of any other given person can/will never genuinely harm them.
I don't know about you, but those conditions (which seem to be inherent to the view given here by Paul), are hard for me to accept just on mere assertion. I think that it is possible that two people loving each other, in certain contexts, can be detrimental to both of them. This whole 'love conquers all' thing depends very much on what you define 'love' to be. And, while I certainly can think of certain types of love that CAN AND SHOULD be universal, I can also think of types of love that can infringe on the previous types as well as carrying vast detrimental potential for all connected to them. Human connection, Human relations, intimacy, it all is very much a force of nature and, as such, has destructive potential.
The next statement I fully agree with--
"If a God tells you to coerce people into worshiping him, it's a false God." but it also presents it's own complexity.
As a father of 20 month old boy I run into situations all the time where there seems a thin line between guidance and coercion. In fact, throughout my life I've often found that many of the same principles that bind us in society, that make humanity work, are the very same ones that, without genuine love and genuine concern for the welfare of the person, are those which lead to things like Jonestown. Hence the shared root between "cult" and "culture." The very idea of turning earth (that is - to cultivate) implies applied force to direct natural processes to beneficial means. Who is benefiting is very much linked to the aim and not as much to the methods.
The means of trying to encourage people to commit to some actions so as to, in some way, improve the welfare of the aforementioned people can virtually always (in my experience) be seen in a coercive light by those wanting to see such coercion.
Yet if there is some true benevolent force, and a person knows about it, then is it not reasonable/logical, to expect said person to somehow convey access to that benevolent force's to others? Whether that's knowledge or some other beneficial thing?
Where then do you draw the line between those who are actively trying to convince others that they've found some true benevolent reality that can, and seeks, to help others? Certainly some things seem obvious. It can't be something that is telling untruths. But, and this should be obvious to virtually all parents out there I'd suppose, there are times when, for the welfare of a child, it seems wise to withhold at times information OR to even go along with implicit appearances.
An example I can think of would be where some things a parent has done prior to becoming a parent, say something like teenage-to-young-adult-years stupid kind of things. One doesn't generally go blurting those things out to a four or five year old when they ask some related innocent question.
"Genuine, unconditional love is a gift that must be freely given and freely accepted, with nothing expected in return. Love can not be delivered at gun point, or with the threat of eternal damnation. That's more like rape."
I have to say that this paragraph puts me in a light that I believe is a bit unique due to a personal experience.
I'm presently in Lima, Peru. Here I have to take all kind of precautions due to being a tall white guy with a gringo accent. Otherwise I stand a good chance of being mugged. I know this because of an attempted robbery I already lived through where I was physically assaulted.
That being said I've never felt hate here for being who I am. And I can say the same for virtually every where else I've been throughout my life, regardless of where or what context--with the exception of one place -- Santa Cruz, CA
If you want to feel hated, and I mean something on the verge of knowing some of the people hating you have lynch mob like ideas entering their mind, go walking down Pacific Ave in Downtown Santa Cruz as a "Mormon" (LDS) Missionary (I imagine it could be even worse now post Prop. 8).
For a land filled with hippiesque love and peace centric bumper-stickers and an intellectual heal the world, free love vibe all over I have NEVER felt so much hate or had so many people heckle and curse (most under their breath as we passed by but quite a few yelling loudly) me just for me being who I was. They knew nothing about me other than the fact that I had a well worn white shirt, a tie, and some slacks and a black lapel pin. They didn't know the missionary that was walking beside me was an intellectual Boston, MA native who converted in his early twenties. They didn't REALLY know much at all about me--but I was, in there eyes, someone who fit the very labels that Paul here associates with one who follows a "false god" and uses like methods to "rapists."
Their own certitude of the pretexts upon which they saw me seemed to render them incapable of unconditional love. Contrary to the way they might have seen it, I was not there to condemn them, nor to coerce them to anything, nor to tell them not love someone, nor to offer a mob-esque protection arrangement. But that's how they all saw it.
And so using a metric very similar to what Paul puts forward for a discernment between the 'gods' I was deemed and infidel worthy of being looked down upon, or even just ignored, because I happened to believe something that superficially could be made to look intolerant and even hateful when it was actually quite the opposite.
<quote>
That being said I've never felt hate here for being who I am. And I can say the same for virtually every where else I've been throughout my life, regardless of where or what context--with the exception of one place -- Santa Cruz, CA
</quote>
I was going to say that I found this entirely improbable, until:
<quote>
If you want to feel hated, and I mean something on the verge of knowing some of the people hating you have lynch mob like ideas entering their mind, go walking down Pacific Ave in Downtown Santa Cruz as a "Mormon" (LDS) Missionary (I imagine it could be even worse now post Prop. 8).
</quote>
Yea no shit. Try walking down Main Street urban USA in your white sheet and clan outfit an see what kind of reaction you get.
If people were hating on you, and I have no problem believing that you may have been followed, harassed and even threatened, it is not because of you as a human, but you as a representative of an oppressive, smug, petty, abusive and racist proselytizing space ship fantasy land thy wants to impose your particular lunacy on the rights of others.
So yea, I can believe that Santa Cruz would not be best pleased with you.
May e if you'd offered to smoke pot with people there...
> If you want to feel hated, and I mean something on the verge of knowing some of the people hating you have lynch mob like ideas entering their mind, go walking down Pacific Ave in Downtown Santa Cruz as a "Mormon" (LDS) Missionary (I imagine it could be even worse now post Prop. 8).
Thanks a lot for your mindful reply. It's the only one I've read so far that made sense. I've felt the same hate you are describing, from self righteous intellectual liberals so full about themselves.
It is for such insightful posts that I love HN.
BTW just one remark : "Yet if there is some true benevolent force, and a person knows about it, then is it not reasonable/logical, to expect said person to somehow convey access to that benevolent force's to others? Whether that's knowledge or some other beneficial thing?"
It is not necessarily reasonable or logical if you consider the option that the benevolent force valors individualism (selfishness if you prefer) and figuring things out by oneself.
In this case, it would even be against the spirit of the teachings to spread the word too much and ask people to share the belief. You want them to think by themselves and figure it out.
It's something that seems present in buddhism, and unfortunately lost to many in objectivism.
If you sincerely believe in something that values selfishness and freedom (as in free will), you don't want to spread the word about it - also because that would reduce other people freedom, and their own selfish pride of figuring it out by themselves.
C.S. Lewis wrote about unconditional love in The Four Loves.
“God, who needs nothing, loves into existence wholly superfluous creatures in order that He may love and perfect them. He creates the universe, already foreseeing - or should we say "seeing"? there are no tenses in God - the buzzing cloud of flies about the cross, the flayed back pressed against the uneven stake, the nails driven through the mesial nerves, the repeated incipient suffocation as the body droops, the repeated torture of back and arms as it is time after time, for breath's sake, hitched up. If I may dare the biological image, God is a "host" who deliberately creates His own parasites; causes us to be that we may exploit and "take advantage of" Him. Herein is love. This is the diagram of Love Himself, the inventor of all loves.”
― C.S. Lewis, The Four Loves
http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/14816053-the-four-loves
I loved this post for its simplicity and practicality and also for its willingness to provoke thought.
It led me to begin thinking about a simple question: can one have unconditional love and still believe that an act is wrong or that the beloved can or should improve?
Since the concept of unconditional love is difficult (and important) to define, I will try to use the term as it was used in Paul's essay. In this essay, Paul first learned about unconditional love when contemplating his small, helpless child. She was doing nothing to earn love, but he loved her.
Now things are getting more difficult. What aspect of his daughter did he love? Certainly it wasn't her afflictions. That is, he never would have even considered that because he loved her in her helpless state she should be kept in that helpless state. Because he loved her, he wanted to do everything that he could to help her heal, grow, and thrive. Paul's unconditional love was for a being that could grow and change and overcome sickness. And because he loved that being he wanted to help her grow and change and live. Paul had a model of what was good (health) and he wanted with all his heart to see his daughter move toward what was good. That is what love is.
We can be sick mentally or spiritually. We can also grow mentally and spiritually. When someone has unconditional love for us they will want to see us heal and grow and thrive not only physically but also spiritually and mentally. That's what love is.
If that's what love is, then if remove from the lover any sense of what is sick or healthy, good or bad, then you cripple the lover and make them incapable of seeking the interests of the beloved. You cripple their ability to love.
So the answer to my question seems to be that not only is it possible to have unconditional love and still have a moral map that distinguishes between spiritual health and sickness, but that having such a map is the only way to love effectively.
[+] [-] edw519|13 years ago|reply
I suspect much of the reason is that the users manuals and wikis that resulted from thousands of years of human wonderings have been so misunderstood and misappropriated for other purposes.
This post reminded me of the ancient Hebrew book of Koheleth, which was translated into the Greek Ecclesiastes. About a man who wondered about many of the same things Paul brought up. Like many of us, Koheleth tried all sort of strategies to find meaning and be happy: to be rich, to be learned, to have fun, etc.
In the end, all he could surmise was that each day was a gift and to make the most of it. Pretty good lesson, I think. Thanks, Paul, for the reminder.
[+] [-] ElliotH|13 years ago|reply
I started reading the article in full (having read the criticism first), and soon realised that the god notion described doesn't really match anything in traditional religion, or anything that one would typically criticise. The god introduced doesn't seem to require anything tangible from the reader or anyone who believes in such a god. It requires no submission, suffering, organisation or decrees. It simply makes an offer. (and it very expressly makes that offer within a fable, not a description of reality)
The end paragraph is pretty hard to deny. You just needs to be careful not to associate your cached thoughts with the word 'God'. Essentially what the story concludes with is: love is a good thing; we should share it; and we should offer it to ourselves too[1].
This kind of love is most noticeable by its absence I think. After a couple of hard years, I recently looked back on the things that had been troubling me, and noticed that throughout it I had been very hard on myself, and very hard on others.
I think the god analogy as a source of love is one that is only useful to some people.
I'm sure that making physical world predictions based on the existence of any higher power is sure to result in predictions that aren't useful.
Regardless, the general point about love, suffering, loss, forgiveness and learning can be taken without changing personal beliefs, and without god. Equally, a very personal god who offers and requires only what Paul describes gives identical results.
As such I argue that the god described has no need to be excluded from this essay, or Hacker News. I urge those criticising it to read it again with strict mental effort on avoiding the 'god = bad' association that one leaps to out of past experience.
[1] (and it says this in an excellent way, and with more nuance than I describe, I know)
[+] [-] paul|13 years ago|reply
Perhaps I needed to manage the transition between the parts a little more smoothly to avoid losing people who have an allergic reaction to the g-word.
When things are difficult, talk of God inevitably arises from many good and well meaning people. The difficulty of course is that the God concept has so much ugly baggage attached to it. You can reject it outright, as so many here are eager to do, or you can embrace and nurture the good in it.
Alas, it's very tricky to navigate the waters between the dogmatic believers and the dogmatic unbelievers, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
[+] [-] VMG|13 years ago|reply
It's not "baggage" but "meaning".
If you don't attribute intention, agency and potency to the "God" then you are just using words in a way they aren't intended to.
[+] [-] stephengillie|13 years ago|reply
If the author didn't want to tie his concept of "deity-as-avatar-for-goodness" to a religion with so much baggage, he should have chosen a different word.
[+] [-] tptacek|13 years ago|reply
If you haven't already listened to it, you might like "What Is The Light", from "The Soft Bulletin" by The Flaming Lips. It's a bit on-the-nose but is basically a poetic encapsulation of what you just wrote; Wayne Coyne wrote many of the songs on that album while metabolizing the death of his father, and pulls it off without ever becoming funereal or morose.
I can't quite put my finger on why but have always felt that album --- basically one of the three best pop/rock albums of the last 20 years --- was uncannily resonant for (our yes yes lazily romanticized concept of) entrepreneurs.
[+] [-] davidu|13 years ago|reply
I saw the play, and it's really terrific, especially since almost everyone has a connection to cancer and loss. And the music is terrific.
[+] [-] _feda_|13 years ago|reply
"do you realize / that everyone you know / someday / will die"
[+] [-] paul|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] bambax|13 years ago|reply
Like many others however I was a little surprised, and, yes, disappointed with the "God" part at the end. Is this what it was all about?
What does "God" has to do with any of this? Can't one love their children, their partners, their siblings, with all their hearts, and leave it at that...?
What is "the personification of all that is Good"? What is Good? (Good for you may be bad for someone else; absolute good is hard; historically, Gods have not been known to be good: they were jealous, mean creatures). And even admitting there would be some "absolute good", why would it need to be "personified"?
The finale reads a little like this: Gods other people believe in are "false Gods", and guess what? the God I believe in / custom built to my specs is the One True God.
This, for me, I'm sorry to say, ruined a perfect moment.
[+] [-] stephengillie|13 years ago|reply
What do these all-powerful beings have to do with his daughter and her struggle to live? What does it have to do with all of the doctors and nurses who cared for his daughter? Why thank this all-powerful being who did nothing for your child, but take for granted all of the people who worked to help her?
[+] [-] ScottBurson|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] callmeed|13 years ago|reply
Again, no offense is meant. Maybe its also due to recent events, but it seems odd.
[+] [-] staunch|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] paul|13 years ago|reply
thanks
[+] [-] stevenj|13 years ago|reply
I'm not sure how to really ask this, but what does it mean to live your life as though it may end at any moment?
For example, does that literally mean to pursue today as if you could really be gone tomorrow? And if so, how?
Does it mean that if you really want to go sky diving you should do it soon (i.e. now)? If you've been thinking about moving to another place for a while, but just keep putting it off for semi-trivial reasons, should you just go and see what happens?
I've heard people say that they live each day as if it could be their last, but I'm not sure what that means, practically speaking.
There have been several things that I wish I'd done, looking back, but I didn't mostly out of fear.
The idea of living each day as if it could be your last has always intrigued me.
[+] [-] kjackson2012|13 years ago|reply
It means stop living in fear, and stop distracting yourself with bullshit.
Lots of people are afraid of the shame of failure, the shame of rejection, etc. If you really were going to die tomorrow, it would strip away all the fear that you have of living with this burden.
I've been through some health scares and believe me, there is nothing more sobering than being in an MRI machine looking for a brain tumor. All the day-to-day bullshit that many people worry about, like "Why didn't I get that promotion" or "I really want that car" gets stripped away pretty quick, and the things that really matter surface immediately.
[+] [-] wglb|13 years ago|reply
I think that is a good start to an answer to your question.
The other thing (which more often than not gets me into trouble) is "It is a moral imperative to do what you love." Do that, and the question kind of answers itself.
[+] [-] 1123581321|13 years ago|reply
I also think it means pursuing big, important goals like fixing a broken neighborhood, writing a book, and so on. If I die in the middle of one of these projects, I probably leave small messes in neglected areas for someone to clean up, but it's worth the risk and why it's important to start as soon as possible and work quickly.
Thankfully a lot of things don't require that trade; for example, being a good dad to my children means teaching them to take care of small things and is also part of a long-term goal. There are other things like this. I think there is certainly a place for hedonistic activities like travel and skydiving, but not destructive ones like criminal activity or breaking a relationship to pursue another one.
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] no_more_death|13 years ago|reply
I would like to talk about one idea you brought up: the idea that the Christian Gospel involves some sort of coercion. In particular, the little story you told about God vs. the devil.
This is what the gospel says. "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten son, that whoever believes in him would not perish but have everlasting life." John 3:16
We're sinking in quicksand. God reached out His hand to save us. But if we refuse, we will die. Does that make God a monster?
Indeed, if you refuse God's love, the consequences are not good. If you refuse my offer of a kidney transplant to you, the consequences are not good. Does that mean I'm raping you by offering to save your life?
Please do not blame God that there are people in hell. God doesn't use hell as an instrument of coercion. We sink into hell under the weight of our own evil. We put ourselves there. We wouldn't be happy in heaven, if we don't like God's rules here on earth.
But God loved us even though we could not repay him in the least. He is rich in mercy. God gave the world an unspeakably wonderful gift that we can never, ever repay. Jesus Christ took my hell upon himself. He took all the punishment I deserved on Himself. How can I repay that? That's the essence of unconditional love. And He offers this gift to you.
Christ is my brother, my friend. He died for me. He forgives my sins against Him and helps me every day with my pride and my bent toward sin. Do you realize this is not a game? He has seen what you wrote -- don't you think it hurts Him?
I'm genuinely confused why you insert such strong language in a thoughtful post about loving life and valuing the right things. If you disagree with the Gospel, feel free to say so. But why do you want to vilify the God I love, call Him "the devil," call Him a rapist? He is grieved by these remarks. I am grieved as well.
I will pray for you. You seem to be lashing out at God with the grief and difficulty you have experienced. That's an awful place to be in. I know from personal experience that my words are not able to help you, but God is able to help you. I hope that some day, you believe in Christ and come to understand that Christ is the way, the truth, and the life. No one can go to God the Father except through Him.
[+] [-] brazzy|13 years ago|reply
> God doesn't use hell as an instrument of coercion.
Oh yes, he very much does. The Christian god as portrayed in scripture is the worst imaginable kind of needy psychopath.
> We sink into hell under the weight of our own evil. We put ourselves there.
No we don't. Christian doctrine invented the concept of original sin to ensure that.
> But why do you want to vilify the God I love, call Him "the devil," call Him a rapist?
Because his followers insist that he acts like one.
[+] [-] Tichy|13 years ago|reply
For example, isn't god supposed to be all powerful, so that he created everything, including the devil, hell, and death? Would it cost him anything to simply make you not die - contrary to a human giving a kidney to another human, which indeed would be a high price to pay. Hasn't god, in fact, also created kidney disease? And what is the sins you are talking about? It sounds to me as if there are conditions for being granted eternal life after all, which practically amounts to coercion again.
Anyway, I really just felled compelled to reply because I thought your reasoning was not all that bad (for a religiously deluded person - sorry :-). I am willing to believe that at least you mean well.
[+] [-] debacle|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] melc|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] msg|13 years ago|reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism
This particular belief system of unconditional love vs condemning judgment and promised reward, in the context of Christianity, was completely anticipated two thousand years ago. And then criticized.
Instead of reinventing the wheel in this way, you should consider following the grooves of people who have already carved the path. At least you will understand why they turned the way they did.
[+] [-] moconnor|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] leibniz|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] paul|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] npt4279|13 years ago|reply
Words really can't express how this article made me feel... but it's rare for something I've read on HN to cause me to take a step back and reflect on what's important in life.
[+] [-] ececconi|13 years ago|reply
Extremely powerful sentence.
[+] [-] datums|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Alex3917|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] namank|13 years ago|reply
examples please.
[+] [-] mahesh_rm|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] zgm|13 years ago|reply
I lost my father to pancreatic cancer when I was only 18. Even though I'm only 20, this is something I constantly have in the back of my head. Although I don't live each day exactly like it's my last, I no longer stress out over small things and am a lot more questioning of the decisions I make. Death really does strip away everything doesn't matter.
[+] [-] NanoWar|13 years ago|reply
Then suddenly critisism of Islam. It doesn't make sense. Oh well. Why must there always be a good and a bad god?
[+] [-] thyrsus|13 years ago|reply
I'm not competent to categorize other faiths.
[+] [-] michaelochurch|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jspthrowaway2|13 years ago|reply
You, like many in this thread, are personalizing something that Paul didn't actually say because it's important to you and you're ready to defend it. Objectivity is not a strong point when it generally comes to the religious; I'm sorry to paint with so broad a brush, but that's on display here. The mere mention of a-god-like-concept has put a number of folks here into a tizzy, and it's sad.
[+] [-] b1daly|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] not_that_noob|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] VaedaStrike|13 years ago|reply
I think that is one of the potential problems in discerning between the "true God(s)" and the "false god(s)".
Allow me to demonstrate what I mean.
When you say "If a God threatens to send you to hell for loving the wrong person, it's a false God." it seems to imply a couple of things that must be accepted apriori to the statement-
1. That God stating what consequences will be for actions taken by us constitutes him ''threatening' rather than him explaining a cause and effect relationship. If I'm a genuine doctor and tell you that if you eat a certain piece of food that you will die or get sick I'm not threatening you. I'm simply pointing out the causality connected with an action to warn you.
2. That for any given person their loving of any other given person can/will never genuinely harm them.
I don't know about you, but those conditions (which seem to be inherent to the view given here by Paul), are hard for me to accept just on mere assertion. I think that it is possible that two people loving each other, in certain contexts, can be detrimental to both of them. This whole 'love conquers all' thing depends very much on what you define 'love' to be. And, while I certainly can think of certain types of love that CAN AND SHOULD be universal, I can also think of types of love that can infringe on the previous types as well as carrying vast detrimental potential for all connected to them. Human connection, Human relations, intimacy, it all is very much a force of nature and, as such, has destructive potential.
The next statement I fully agree with--
"If a God tells you to coerce people into worshiping him, it's a false God." but it also presents it's own complexity.
As a father of 20 month old boy I run into situations all the time where there seems a thin line between guidance and coercion. In fact, throughout my life I've often found that many of the same principles that bind us in society, that make humanity work, are the very same ones that, without genuine love and genuine concern for the welfare of the person, are those which lead to things like Jonestown. Hence the shared root between "cult" and "culture." The very idea of turning earth (that is - to cultivate) implies applied force to direct natural processes to beneficial means. Who is benefiting is very much linked to the aim and not as much to the methods.
The means of trying to encourage people to commit to some actions so as to, in some way, improve the welfare of the aforementioned people can virtually always (in my experience) be seen in a coercive light by those wanting to see such coercion.
Yet if there is some true benevolent force, and a person knows about it, then is it not reasonable/logical, to expect said person to somehow convey access to that benevolent force's to others? Whether that's knowledge or some other beneficial thing?
Where then do you draw the line between those who are actively trying to convince others that they've found some true benevolent reality that can, and seeks, to help others? Certainly some things seem obvious. It can't be something that is telling untruths. But, and this should be obvious to virtually all parents out there I'd suppose, there are times when, for the welfare of a child, it seems wise to withhold at times information OR to even go along with implicit appearances.
An example I can think of would be where some things a parent has done prior to becoming a parent, say something like teenage-to-young-adult-years stupid kind of things. One doesn't generally go blurting those things out to a four or five year old when they ask some related innocent question.
"Genuine, unconditional love is a gift that must be freely given and freely accepted, with nothing expected in return. Love can not be delivered at gun point, or with the threat of eternal damnation. That's more like rape."
I have to say that this paragraph puts me in a light that I believe is a bit unique due to a personal experience.
I'm presently in Lima, Peru. Here I have to take all kind of precautions due to being a tall white guy with a gringo accent. Otherwise I stand a good chance of being mugged. I know this because of an attempted robbery I already lived through where I was physically assaulted.
That being said I've never felt hate here for being who I am. And I can say the same for virtually every where else I've been throughout my life, regardless of where or what context--with the exception of one place -- Santa Cruz, CA
If you want to feel hated, and I mean something on the verge of knowing some of the people hating you have lynch mob like ideas entering their mind, go walking down Pacific Ave in Downtown Santa Cruz as a "Mormon" (LDS) Missionary (I imagine it could be even worse now post Prop. 8).
For a land filled with hippiesque love and peace centric bumper-stickers and an intellectual heal the world, free love vibe all over I have NEVER felt so much hate or had so many people heckle and curse (most under their breath as we passed by but quite a few yelling loudly) me just for me being who I was. They knew nothing about me other than the fact that I had a well worn white shirt, a tie, and some slacks and a black lapel pin. They didn't know the missionary that was walking beside me was an intellectual Boston, MA native who converted in his early twenties. They didn't REALLY know much at all about me--but I was, in there eyes, someone who fit the very labels that Paul here associates with one who follows a "false god" and uses like methods to "rapists."
Their own certitude of the pretexts upon which they saw me seemed to render them incapable of unconditional love. Contrary to the way they might have seen it, I was not there to condemn them, nor to coerce them to anything, nor to tell them not love someone, nor to offer a mob-esque protection arrangement. But that's how they all saw it.
And so using a metric very similar to what Paul puts forward for a discernment between the 'gods' I was deemed and infidel worthy of being looked down upon, or even just ignored, because I happened to believe something that superficially could be made to look intolerant and even hateful when it was actually quite the opposite.
[+] [-] salgernon|13 years ago|reply
I was going to say that I found this entirely improbable, until:
<quote>
If you want to feel hated, and I mean something on the verge of knowing some of the people hating you have lynch mob like ideas entering their mind, go walking down Pacific Ave in Downtown Santa Cruz as a "Mormon" (LDS) Missionary (I imagine it could be even worse now post Prop. 8). </quote>
Yea no shit. Try walking down Main Street urban USA in your white sheet and clan outfit an see what kind of reaction you get.
If people were hating on you, and I have no problem believing that you may have been followed, harassed and even threatened, it is not because of you as a human, but you as a representative of an oppressive, smug, petty, abusive and racist proselytizing space ship fantasy land thy wants to impose your particular lunacy on the rights of others.
So yea, I can believe that Santa Cruz would not be best pleased with you.
May e if you'd offered to smoke pot with people there...
[+] [-] AlexandrB|13 years ago|reply
Now try being gay - the lynch mob becomes real. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_acts_of_violence_ag... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard
[+] [-] guylhem|13 years ago|reply
It is for such insightful posts that I love HN.
BTW just one remark : "Yet if there is some true benevolent force, and a person knows about it, then is it not reasonable/logical, to expect said person to somehow convey access to that benevolent force's to others? Whether that's knowledge or some other beneficial thing?"
It is not necessarily reasonable or logical if you consider the option that the benevolent force valors individualism (selfishness if you prefer) and figuring things out by oneself.
In this case, it would even be against the spirit of the teachings to spread the word too much and ask people to share the belief. You want them to think by themselves and figure it out.
It's something that seems present in buddhism, and unfortunately lost to many in objectivism.
If you sincerely believe in something that values selfishness and freedom (as in free will), you don't want to spread the word about it - also because that would reduce other people freedom, and their own selfish pride of figuring it out by themselves.
[+] [-] username3|13 years ago|reply
“God, who needs nothing, loves into existence wholly superfluous creatures in order that He may love and perfect them. He creates the universe, already foreseeing - or should we say "seeing"? there are no tenses in God - the buzzing cloud of flies about the cross, the flayed back pressed against the uneven stake, the nails driven through the mesial nerves, the repeated incipient suffocation as the body droops, the repeated torture of back and arms as it is time after time, for breath's sake, hitched up. If I may dare the biological image, God is a "host" who deliberately creates His own parasites; causes us to be that we may exploit and "take advantage of" Him. Herein is love. This is the diagram of Love Himself, the inventor of all loves.” ― C.S. Lewis, The Four Loves http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/14816053-the-four-loves
[+] [-] dhbradshaw|13 years ago|reply
It led me to begin thinking about a simple question: can one have unconditional love and still believe that an act is wrong or that the beloved can or should improve?
Since the concept of unconditional love is difficult (and important) to define, I will try to use the term as it was used in Paul's essay. In this essay, Paul first learned about unconditional love when contemplating his small, helpless child. She was doing nothing to earn love, but he loved her.
Now things are getting more difficult. What aspect of his daughter did he love? Certainly it wasn't her afflictions. That is, he never would have even considered that because he loved her in her helpless state she should be kept in that helpless state. Because he loved her, he wanted to do everything that he could to help her heal, grow, and thrive. Paul's unconditional love was for a being that could grow and change and overcome sickness. And because he loved that being he wanted to help her grow and change and live. Paul had a model of what was good (health) and he wanted with all his heart to see his daughter move toward what was good. That is what love is.
We can be sick mentally or spiritually. We can also grow mentally and spiritually. When someone has unconditional love for us they will want to see us heal and grow and thrive not only physically but also spiritually and mentally. That's what love is.
If that's what love is, then if remove from the lover any sense of what is sick or healthy, good or bad, then you cripple the lover and make them incapable of seeking the interests of the beloved. You cripple their ability to love.
So the answer to my question seems to be that not only is it possible to have unconditional love and still have a moral map that distinguishes between spiritual health and sickness, but that having such a map is the only way to love effectively.