Legal

Is smoking wrong, should we ban it? You start with the pharaoatic and you ask him, is smoking wrong, should we ban it? Soon you realize, as the British would put it, that his answer depends on which way the wind is blowing. Depending on where you live in the world, you are familiar with this. What was legal yesterday, is criminal today, and what was criminal yesterday, is legal today. The pharaoatic gets his right and wrong from the creation, whether his whim, or an individual, or a government. Remember that right and wrong are truth under the context of fact. You can not make them up, but I am using the words, right and wrong, under the contemporary common tongue, which is ignorant.

Next, you meet the libertarian and ask him, should we ban smoking? The libertarian says no, you can not ban it, it is not a transgression by default. One is free to do what he wishes if he is not harming any one, a natural right. And if some one else wishes to sit with him when he smokes while knowing the harm of second hand smoking, that is up to him. What if he does harm some one, you ask? Again, he says. It is not a transgression by default. When he harms someone, we would then square if he is not forgiven by the one that he harmed.

The libertarian speaks natural rights, you say to yourself. Unless I can prove to him that this is against a natural right, I will not get him to agree on a ban. And a natural right is not something one can make up. The libertarian is objective. Objectively, I may eat if I wish, or not if I wish not to. But is smoking not objectively wrong, you think? I am confused, you say to yourself.

The manual

I give you a device that I had, a microwave for example, and I say to you that I never used it, but I did open it and took a look and lost the manual in the process. I then say to you that to turn it on, the manual said that you should hit it with a hammer as hard as possible. What do you say to me?

You would deny that the manual said that. That, you say, would damage the device. Notice that not only is the manual hypothetical, but also the device itself. But intuitively you know that the manual is good. For completeness I mention that this forms the bases of one of the tests on people who claim to be prophets from the Creator, but that is another topic.

You take the device home. I will not listen to him, you say to yourself. And you fiddle with the device until you figure out how to turn it on and use it. You effectively figured out the manual. When some one later comes to borrow the device from you, you then give them instructions, those instructions that you discovered. You say, click that button, and make sure this is plugged in to this, to turn it on. Do not use alcohol to clean this area. I briefly did that, you say, and almost damaged it completely.

If you sit in a car and you turn the wheel left and right appearing to try to turn it on, the person sitting next to you addresses you and says that you are turning the car on wrong. If you sit in a car, and you turn the key, and place your feet where they should, and move the stick to where it should be, and the car still does not turn, the person sitting next to you says that the car must be damaged.

Having read and understood lessons 1 to 5, you know formally why. But I state in easier terms. When you turn the key, you do not carry the electrons to the spark plugs, and move the atoms in agitation and outward. It is all cause and effect. But where you, the spirit, put your hand, it is not. When an object falls, it does not make a choice whether to do so or not, or what trajectory it should take. The object does not need a manual. It just does what it does. You, the spirit, on the other hand, need a manual. If you were to look at the cars from above, you will see to each a purpose, a goal, a place to go to. You will see that they also communicate with each other. You look carefully and you realize, they are alive.

Whatever the spirit puts it hands on it is, roughly speaking, alive. And the body is not different from that car. While everything is under cause and effect, the spirit, the source of choice, an uncaused cause, requires a manual. Without a manual, and obedience from the spirit, the spirit can damage, the resulting chain of cause and effect might be not what you want.

For completeness I mention that this is the bases of the proof of heavenly religion. Heavenly religion is essentially the manual for the spirit on how to use the body. The proof, however, relies on the spirit and the spirit is not realizable, and therefore we can not guarantee that logical necessity would be met. Logical necessity is a thing within the boundary, and part of the Habits. The proof is based on an assumption that is an extrapolation. Similarly one can prove a day of squaring. Everything squares and do also if you hit someone, except spirit to spirit. Again, the proof relies on extrapolation because of the spirit, and from that you arrive to a day of squaring, a day where that that is between the spirits is squared. If you did not understand this paragraph do not worry about it.

The lordian

Next you meet with the lordian, and you ask, is smoking wrong? The lordian, like you and the microwave, sets out to know what the manual would have said. He asks. Does smoking harm? You say yes. He says, it is wrong. The manual for this human body, which would be from the Creator, would have said it is wrong.

You then proceed to walk away, but the lordian calls you back. Where are you going, he says? To ban smoking, you say. He says, no, you can not ban it. You say, why? You just said it is wrong. He says, what are you going to do to some one who smoked without transgressing on any other creation? Give him chocolate cake? Did you ask the one who is on the other side of the equation, the Creator, before you harm the man who smoked? No, he says. What if he does harm some one, you ask? When he harms someone, the lordian replies, we would then square if he is not forgiven by the one that he harmed.

You are somewhat confused now. The lordian seems to end up being a libertarian. How are they different, then?

Next, on your way to meet the theist, you pass by the libertarian's house, and you hear some one angry yelling. It is the libertarian, and he is yelling at his son. In the libertarian's hand is a pack of cigarettes. You hear him yell, under my roof! Under my roof! I am not dead! And he smacks his son. Go back inside!

He is livid. You wait until the son goes back to the house, and you walk up to the libertarian and close the distance as not to be heard. O' hypocrite, you say to him. What are you doing; why are you so angry? Did I not come to you and ask whether we should ban smoking and you said no? He looks at you, and to your surprise, he says yes, and you certainly can not ban smoking. Why are you angry at your son then, you ask? He says, because smoking is wrong. If you smoke alone, you are not transgressing on any one, but it is still wrong.

It is wrong, but not a transgression, you say to yourself. You remember your conversation with the lordian, and you understand. The libertarian measures by the Creator, and if not wronging another creation, it is not a transgression, even though it is still wrong. The libertarian does not think it is a transgression against the Creator, his measure. The libertarian only recognizes the rights of the creation. The lordian, however, has a lord most high, and therefore recognizes the rights of his measure, the Creator. To the lordian, smoking is a transgression against the Creator, and can also be against the creation. Therefore, like the situation with the people who broke that man's arm for breaking mine the other day, you say to yourself, they may not do a squaring to a man smoking without transgressing on any creation before asking the remaining one with the right, the Creator, whether he forgives.

You eventually meet the theist, and you ask him. He says, before anything, does it harm the body? You say, yes. He says, then it is wrong. For that you did not need to ask me. As for that part that is a squaring with the creation, that part is a given. As for the part that is a squaring with the Creator, let me check with him. And he proceeds to check his bible, or his quran, eccetra.

I now see, you say to yourself, why the theist and lordian feel close to the libertarian. When it comes to the rights of the creation, they agree, they all measure by the Creator. And when you measure by the Creator, you have to in the end, given the capacity, arrive to the same conclusion. I see, you say to yourself. That is why there is no equivalent category to the lordian for people who measure by the creation. There can be no person who has a creation as his lord most high, and yet, has no law from him. Do you, the reader, indeed see why?

Imagine I say to you that I worship Timothy, but Timothy is dead, and left no record, and I never met him. You ask me, is it wrong to drink alcohol? I say, I do not know, I never met Timothy and he left no record. You ask, is usury wrong? I say, I do not know, I never met Timothy and he left no record. Whatever you ask me, I say the same. Eventually you say, how do you then possibly worship Timothy.

If instead I said that I worship the Creator, but I have no record from him, and you ask me is alcohol wrong. I say yes, it clouds the mind. You say, wow, you met the Creator? I say no, but the Creator did teach me. The Creator teaches by the Habits. We can tell what the Creator teaches by doing an experiment. By trying. By peering. Effectively, when I answered you, it is as if I met him.