A standard of honesty

[clapstyx]

I am working on a new movie script that is based on the second coming. Actually its about a son who has an argument with his father about whether its possible to save the planet and the father says "its too late..cant be done" and the son says "what about if there was a second coming?" and the father says "well thats about the only hope left" so the son says "Im going to have to try and be that man"

 

Anyway the point is that the son has this philosophy of seeking to turn negative into positive and he sees the crucifixion as one of the most negative events in history. So to convert that to a positive he creates the concept of a crucifixion standard of honesty. That is to say he judges his words and thoughts to a crucifixion standard of truth as a kind of mental game with himself and a few of his friends. On the first day he would have died because he said something that wasnt absolutely flawlessly true because it would have been uncomfortable to speak the truth. But on the second day he succeeds to his own standard and continues to do so everyday after that. The question is whether there is a higher standard of truth than one under which you would offer yourself up to a crucifixion experience if you failed to live up to your own highest ideals. That is to say is there a mention of "standards of truth and honesty" mentioned in any of the religions. Obviously the character I have created doesnt just do it to be a grandstander but because he believes that its impossible to live in your own reality without that reality first being defined honestly and so he establishes a standard to facilitate that so he knows the true nature of the world he lives in and the nature of his existence.

 

Living of course becomes frustrating because he becomes conscious of statements made (particularly in the media) that arent absolutely the truth and so those statements distort the true reality by being misleading. I feel that if there was a second coming this would be one of the issues the character of Christ in that situation would have to tackle. Any thoughts on that?

[ughaibu]

Your idea is interesting but seems to me opposed to the nature of religion. All religions, that spring immediately to my mind, involve imaginary elements and are therefore, by nature, promoters of distorted "true reality". By "true reality" I mean things that are demonstrable and common to all people, I assume that you meant something similar. For me, this is the main problem with religion, if person A insists that person B's reality depends on person A's imagination, there is a failure of communication. Human beings are social animals, so, effective communication is important for them to function successfully, for this reason I consider any religious views, that are applied to the world outside the person holding those views, to be acts of violence.

[clapstyx]

"Opposed to the nature of all religion" well that is an interesting concept in itself. I dont know if it is or it isnt. I pursue to exist in a divine reality because for me thats something that I can stay in tune with and gives me something to imagine from time to time when I have nothing better to do. I suppose I thought all religions were about pursuing that and they just had different philosophies on how it would be done. To my mind I felt that if they were all pursuing that then they would ultimately come from different angles and arrive at the same place. If we lived by a standard of truth that eliminated conscious untruth then I figured we would get there a lot faster because it seemed to me that every religion appreciated the concept of a higher level of truth and so to create that I felt you needed a higher standard of it. If there isnt a religion that is in tune with that thinking then obviously I wouldnt be interested in supporting their philosophy on how to ultimately exist within a divine reality for as far as I am concerned they would be wrong. I think that in order to move closer to existing within a divine reality you just need to create expressions of harmony with that and obviously then the level of harmony accelerates up in the direction of a divine level of it.

[clapstyx]

Actually just on the subject of having an ultimate goal. If my ultimate goal is to exist within a divine reality (and obviously I would like company) and your goal is ultimately something else we shouldnt wind up in the same place if we pursue them to the fullest end.

[maikeru]

Is it possible to not have the world be destroyed yet again?

[DarkColoredLight]

So what happens when honesty is a negitive thing?

 

I've actually struggled with this thought many times; where I find it hard to subject my judgements, honest they may be, onto possible unwilling ears.

 

The fact of the matter being if it's not the right time and right place, honesty could take a turn for the worse making the listener go against the truth because of some personal vendetta.

[clapstyx]

To the Dark Colored Light (nice angle by the way)

 

Your issue is valid because having decided to try and live to a standard of this degree I found that there were complications but all of them were because the other person didnt realise I had a commitment to that standard. I didnt find that there was ever a conflict that would steer them away from the truth as you suggest (maybe your experience is different) but rather a sense that in responding with something that was absolutely true it would upset what they believed to be the nature of the world and because I knew that they would be uncomfortable I wasnt as exact as I really felt I had an obligation to be.

 

Part of the reason for creating the standard is kind of a sequel to the bible in a way even though thinking on that level is probably not something I should confess to. Effectively the design of the concept was to create a point where a person either agreed with pursuing a standard that conceptually represented perfection or a lesser standard of virtue as their ideal.

 

Your position on the matter is rather unique because you have suggested not agreed with there being a standard of honesty that leaves no room for untruth...because you feel that being absolutely honest will lead a person further from the truth. I personally cant see that happening but your entitled to your opinion. Beyond that if you dont have an accepted standard of honesty in place then its impossible for true judgements to be made. So lets take the following scenario and maybe you will recognise my point on this. I am going to have to be a bit extreme.

 

Lets say Christ returns and it is impossible for him to be accepted as that man because of the issue of "How do you prove to all and sundry that you are" so he says to them "You are expecting me to create global harmony. If I create for you an expression of that will you consider the possibility that I am that man" Of course in advance of that happening there needs to be a standard of honesty in place such that the judgement is fairly to his standard. That is to say that those judging whether or not an expression of global harmony had been created or not would have to state without any sense of deception or untruth in their minds what the truth actually literally was. For literal truth is the pre-eminent form of it. Now if the judges (and conceivably they would have to be the Pope, The Dalai Lama and the leader of Islam) arent prepared to demonstrate their ability to be honest in accordance with that standard then there is no point in a judgement being made because obviously it would be dishonest to some degree. I think any man that is prepared to try and create an expression of global harmony is entitled to be judged fairly on that point.

 

Obviously politicians dont want another politician adopting that standard because then they are forced to explain what it is that they have against it and why they arent as well. I dont see how any person can be rightly against such a thing.

[charles brough]

he judges his words and thoughts to a crucifixion standard of truth as a kind of mental game with himself and a few of his friends. On the first day he would have died because he said something that wasnt absolutely flawlessly true because it would have been uncomfortable to speak the truth. But on the second day he succeeds to his own standard and continues to do so everyday after that."""

------------

 

I hope "truth" is not the only standard of honesty you use! Are you saying it is right or moral to say a woman is ugly to her if she asks you? And, by the way, do you know what the "Truth" is? Scientists don't; they are quite content to just bring us a more ACCURATE understanding of the real world about us.

 

And finally, I think a movie about the 2nd Coming would be immoral. My reason is that the faithful are indifferent to a drift in the direction of a so-called "Battle of Armageddon" suppedly leading up to the 2nd coming. In a world loaded with atomic bombs and a born-again President, wouldn't it be a shame to see us almost obliterated---only to find He doesn't show up---again?

[DarkColoredLight]

That's what I was sort of leading up to but, the whole "turn negative things into positive" threw me.

 

 

I think it's kind of damned if you do, damned if you don't predicament. Seeing as if you turn a negative into a positive you're bound to use a bit of deception which isn't really being true to the standard of honesty.

 

It's like, you can say "go to hell" in such a way that the person looks forward to the trip, but the context is still the same.

[charles brough]

It seems to me that trying to put morals into positive or negative labels or slots is simplistic. It doesn't work because it is not simple. Morals is complicated like most everything. Still, it does not mean we cannot devise fair rules---such as that "in social relations, telling the truth can be harmful, but in business, science and justice, lying is immoral and often criminal."

 

By the way, that should be in the Ten Commandments but isn't except as "not bearing false witness" which is far too limited. Some of the other things not in the Bible are not sewing mines and scatter bombs---which is an example of how old moral systems become obsolete---kidnapping, stalking, torturing prisoners, cruelty to animals, wasting the environment, and keeping slaves (which the Bible permits).

 

charles

[DarkColoredLight]

Well if morality changes with the winds then that, in a way, should disprove any higher existence, or atleast faith in a higher existence. Seeing as how the standard are added when theres advances in our humanly status and or tools.

 

 

On second glace we might be mixing and matching morality with humanity.