The Scientific Proof That God Exists!!
- Thread starter TruthSeeker
- Start date
Re: Re: YIFF! What that?
Now I can agree with that statment 'Sir. Raithere'!
Big Letters!
Originally posted by TruthSeeker
Hey! How do you get those big letters?
I would like to use them...[color=royal blue]It is very easy, you know!
Have you seen my thread "How many children will have to die for you to realize that our society has a problem?" ?[color=royal blue]Had seen some for now; but I have long known that our society is in deep__ 'OOPS!' deep trouble, that of morality and the anti-Christain Govt. sponcered death mills of the unborn, and break up of Family, and out lawing prayer anywhere, even some day your own home! We loseing rights! We, USA , and any other nation that forgets GOD shall soon com to ruin and if not repent, they shall parrish!![/color]
:eeK:
Xev,
Hehehehe!!!
MastemaRose,
Yeah, yeah... I know...
Love,
Nelson
JESUS is a very real person!
No you, Xev, may have a very closed mind at this time, to that to which is 'above nature' as science could never really understand! GOD is a very real and living person! JESUS was, and is, and is to come a very live and real person, a person of the GOD Head, for He was, long before the Earth and the heavens were formed! Like I and others are writting to you are real people, so is this JESUS that wants to have you live forever with eternal beauty, inwardley and out wardley! He 'HE JESUS does not will that any should parish, but to have life everlasting! Come to know Him that is a very real and a very letteral person! GOD of Abraham is love! Not that what your thinking of, but pure Love and of a higher nature then ours! Get to know Jesus soon someday, He not the bad guy, but you! He shall soon come, and come back to Jerusalem! But beware the ANTI-CHRIST!!
No you, Xev, may have a very closed mind at this time, to that to which is 'above nature' as science could never really understand! GOD is a very real and living person! JESUS was, and is, and is to come a very live and real person, a person of the GOD Head, for He was, long before the Earth and the heavens were formed! Like I and others are writting to you are real people, so is this JESUS that wants to have you live forever with eternal beauty, inwardley and out wardley! He 'HE JESUS does not will that any should parish, but to have life everlasting! Come to know Him that is a very real and a very letteral person! GOD of Abraham is love! Not that what your thinking of, but pure Love and of a higher nature then ours! Get to know Jesus soon someday, He not the bad guy, but you! He shall soon come, and come back to Jerusalem! But beware the ANTI-CHRIST!!I get more and more confused.
Theists say 'you just have a closed mind to religion'
Some atheists say 'you just have a closed mind to facts'
How do either of you keep the faith? How, when so many people can say they have the exact same inner feeling you do for the complete opposite thing, do you maintain that your view is the only right one?
It scares me.
Theists say 'you just have a closed mind to religion'
Some atheists say 'you just have a closed mind to facts'
How do either of you keep the faith? How, when so many people can say they have the exact same inner feeling you do for the complete opposite thing, do you maintain that your view is the only right one?
It scares me.
Loone, I know how much you like using the vB code, but do you think you could stick to - oh, maybe 14 point font instead of 20? Have to squint otherwise.
Thanks.
Now, on to your post:
Yet you have shown me no evidence - you only assert. Why should I believe your assertions, over the next guy's? You've found Jesus, so-and-so found Kristna, his brother's uncle's friend has found Satan - all assertions, all unsupported.
Athiesm, however, is supported by logic.
Now Loone, our country is not a Christian nation, and was not founded as such. And thank God! Bad things happen when church and state combine. There are witch-hunts and Inquisitions.
But nobody is outlawing prayer, Loone. Just not state-sponsored prayer.
And surely, you cannot say that our government, with the deeply Christian Ashcroft and G.W Bush, is anti-Christian? Why, it's much too pro-Christian!
Tyler: I can't answer for how thiests feel, but I do think I could be wrong. There could be a God, or Gods, or better yet, Great Cthulhu.
I just don't think it's likely, or logical to believe.
Thanks.
Now, on to your post:
Yet you have shown me no evidence - you only assert. Why should I believe your assertions, over the next guy's? You've found Jesus, so-and-so found Kristna, his brother's uncle's friend has found Satan - all assertions, all unsupported.
Athiesm, however, is supported by logic.
Now Loone, our country is not a Christian nation, and was not founded as such. And thank God! Bad things happen when church and state combine. There are witch-hunts and Inquisitions.
But nobody is outlawing prayer, Loone. Just not state-sponsored prayer.
And surely, you cannot say that our government, with the deeply Christian Ashcroft and G.W Bush, is anti-Christian? Why, it's much too pro-Christian!
Tyler: I can't answer for how thiests feel, but I do think I could be wrong. There could be a God, or Gods, or better yet, Great Cthulhu.
I just don't think it's likely, or logical to believe.
MastemaRose
Registered Member
Tyler.. I am not totally sure..
I think mainly the paranoia.. Ha.. Funny as that may sound. There is always the fear of getting caught for a stoner. And cops have it out for them. Other then that I can't really say. I do know, a stoner will do ANYTHING to not get caught. Old, old friends of mine actually quit their jobs because they were going to start testing. I don't know.
I think mainly the paranoia.. Ha.. Funny as that may sound. There is always the fear of getting caught for a stoner. And cops have it out for them. Other then that I can't really say. I do know, a stoner will do ANYTHING to not get caught. Old, old friends of mine actually quit their jobs because they were going to start testing. I don't know.
Thanks Loone!!
And The Truth Shall Set You Free!
You are wellcome, TruthSeeker!!
Xev, I stand on the Absolutes of GOD's Holy Word, not just me own! The 'Absolute truth' is very realivent!
All others that know not JESUS for the pardonning of their sins, "get a life!" AMEN!
You are wellcome, TruthSeeker!!
Xev, I stand on the Absolutes of GOD's Holy Word, not just me own!
The 'Absolute truth' is very realivent!All others that know not JESUS for the pardonning of their sins, "get a life!"
AMEN!Re: Psalm 37
Originally posted by Sir. Loone
Psalms 37:1-2 NIV : "Do not fret because of evil men or be envious of those who do wrong; 2)for like the grass they will soon wither, like green plants they will soon die away."
Psalms 37:12-13 : "the wicked plot against the righteous and gnash their teeth at them; 13) but the Lord laughs at the wicked, for He knows their day is comming."
Psalms 37:35-36 : "I have seen a wicked and ruthless man flourishing like a green tree in its native soil, 36) but he soon passed away and was no more; though I looked for him, he could not be found."
Psalms 37:27 : "Turn from evil and do good; then you will dwell in the land forever."
About my name...
THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE!!!!
Love,
Nelson
THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE!!!!
Love,
Nelson
Sir Loone,
Just a quick question, if you expect people to take you seriously thaen why did you pick a name like Loone? To me it sounds like lunatic.
Also, does writing your posts in large bright colored font help get you point across?
Just a quick question, if you expect people to take you seriously thaen why did you pick a name like Loone? To me it sounds like lunatic.
Also, does writing your posts in large bright colored font help get you point across?
LIGHTBEING
Registered Senior Member
The big colorful font must help him deal with his insecurities about his own religion and Faith.
BustedCrutch
Registered Member
Wow. What's up with the large obnoxious font and the waving animated gif signature?
Jesus calls for you to calm down.
Damn.
Jesus calls for you to calm down.
Damn.
MastemaRose
Registered Member
Tyler..
I totally agree with you.
Nelson I know you will read this, so I will say it up front. SHUT UP! We know how you feel. If reading anything we say offends you DON'T READ IT!
Anyway, that is all I have to say. Now that I have be irritated for the LAST time today on this subject!
Rose
I totally agree with you.
Nelson I know you will read this, so I will say it up front. SHUT UP! We know how you feel. If reading anything we say offends you DON'T READ IT!
Anyway, that is all I have to say. Now that I have be irritated for the LAST time today on this subject!
Rose
Strange
Loone is, for me, part of the living embodiment of the dark side of the sacrifice of the intellect required by God, that sacrifice in which God delights.
I put Loone on Ignore and stopped paying attention largely because I saw in his posts a mere attempt to enact a psychosis of faith. Loone is no more a testament to the intellect than the post-Tammy-Faye woman on PTL who was moved to comment that God gave makeup to Christian women so they could be more beautiful than the heathens. Or Carman, the Christian pseudo-pop propagandist who used to make video spots for that program asserting that there was only one appropriate definition of God or Jesus (thereby removing the "personal relationship" aspect so many Christians like to advocate).
I decided to open up one of Loone's posts just to see what still moves people to comment about him. There's nothing there that's unusual as far as I can tell.
Recycling the Bible into threats, definitive proclamations, accusation, and while I generally try not to pick on spelling errors, I think there is a connection in this case 'twixt Loone's difficulties and the sacrifice of his intellect.
Apparently it is important to him to evangelize the word of God. Whether or not he is effective, respectful, or even relevant seems to have little bearing on him. It is enough, then, to simply stand on the street corner and shout:
Or do his Christian brethren find him an admirable representative? Times do change, you know. Maybe Jesus has developed a fetish for those who pray like the hypocrites.
I put Loone on Ignore for the simple fact that even when he inserts himself into a debate about some aspect of Christianity he does so in a manner which best suits a very stupid anti-Christian propagandist. It crushes me. I mean, do our other Christian posters really wonder what Christianity's critics are talking about? They have largely seemed accepting of Loone's behavior, though I admit that if that has changed in the last several weeks I wouldn't have noticed, since the Loone is the only name I recall being on my Ignore list.
I had better odds of communicating with T1 or KB than I do with Loone. And he seems to want it that way. Perhaps Christianity truly is becoming the lunatic fringe.
Personally, I think it would be in the interest of his own salvation to adopt a loving-god theory. That way, he doesn't ever have to stop making an idiocy out of the faith, and Jesus will still redeem him then because hey, he tried.
But otherwise, I wonder what Loone thinks he's accomplishing by demonstrating so clearly the incompatibility 'twixt Christianity and reality.
Just ignore the f--ker. I mean, look at this topic--approaching 300 posts long and, while it seems people still have use for it, I find the number of posts devoted to encouraging Loone's sideshow just a little disturbing. It's kind of like encouraging the retarded kid at school to continue embarrassing himself for the simple fact that we like laughing at it.
thanx much,
Tiassa
Loone is, for me, part of the living embodiment of the dark side of the sacrifice of the intellect required by God, that sacrifice in which God delights.
I put Loone on Ignore and stopped paying attention largely because I saw in his posts a mere attempt to enact a psychosis of faith. Loone is no more a testament to the intellect than the post-Tammy-Faye woman on PTL who was moved to comment that God gave makeup to Christian women so they could be more beautiful than the heathens. Or Carman, the Christian pseudo-pop propagandist who used to make video spots for that program asserting that there was only one appropriate definition of God or Jesus (thereby removing the "personal relationship" aspect so many Christians like to advocate).
I decided to open up one of Loone's posts just to see what still moves people to comment about him. There's nothing there that's unusual as far as I can tell.
Recycling the Bible into threats, definitive proclamations, accusation, and while I generally try not to pick on spelling errors, I think there is a connection in this case 'twixt Loone's difficulties and the sacrifice of his intellect.
Apparently it is important to him to evangelize the word of God. Whether or not he is effective, respectful, or even relevant seems to have little bearing on him. It is enough, then, to simply stand on the street corner and shout:
In the end, it's between Loone and his God, but if he's advocating the God of the Bible, he is an exceptionally poor representative.
Or do his Christian brethren find him an admirable representative? Times do change, you know. Maybe Jesus has developed a fetish for those who pray like the hypocrites.
I put Loone on Ignore for the simple fact that even when he inserts himself into a debate about some aspect of Christianity he does so in a manner which best suits a very stupid anti-Christian propagandist. It crushes me. I mean, do our other Christian posters really wonder what Christianity's critics are talking about? They have largely seemed accepting of Loone's behavior, though I admit that if that has changed in the last several weeks I wouldn't have noticed, since the Loone is the only name I recall being on my Ignore list.
I had better odds of communicating with T1 or KB than I do with Loone. And he seems to want it that way. Perhaps Christianity truly is becoming the lunatic fringe.
Personally, I think it would be in the interest of his own salvation to adopt a loving-god theory. That way, he doesn't ever have to stop making an idiocy out of the faith, and Jesus will still redeem him then because hey, he tried.
But otherwise, I wonder what Loone thinks he's accomplishing by demonstrating so clearly the incompatibility 'twixt Christianity and reality.
Just ignore the f--ker. I mean, look at this topic--approaching 300 posts long and, while it seems people still have use for it, I find the number of posts devoted to encouraging Loone's sideshow just a little disturbing. It's kind of like encouraging the retarded kid at school to continue embarrassing himself for the simple fact that we like laughing at it.
thanx much,
Tiassa
Tyler--alright, it seemed like a question worth hacking at ...
Tyler
An interestingly astute point:
That is, atheists have reminded me of late that the cold and detrimental devotion to pseudo-objectivity is not typical of the experience. Apparently I should take it on faith that my observation and experience is wrong.
But atheists seem to make a common mistake in separating religion from, say, myth. In teaching as an academic subject, the states of myth and religion require slightly different considerations, but what are old myths but yesterday's religions?
No religion can be validated; but that search for validation is a distraction resulting from undereducation. It is only in the last two or three centuries that scientific knowledge, starting with Newton, has provided a God that people feel incompatible with nature. That is, somewhere along the line, it stopped being about discovering the reality of God's universe, and became the assumption of God and His attributes amid a quest to "prove" God. I would advise to put the whole atheist/theist (read atheist/Abramic) dichotomy out of mind.
Atheists may have a "closed mind" toward religion, but they're largely open-minded to other things that cannot be proven. Some believe in ghosts, some in Ufos, ad infinitum. Adam and I recently exchanged points regarding atheism that have some bearing here.
It seems to me that atheism draws a slightly-selfish line. That is, subjective principles such as economy, love, state, and so forth, may be taken as factual, but religion should not be. This is well enough, but largely reactionary to the religionists. Within economy, love, and state, the sacrifices made by any person have tangible results in the tangible world. So where state, economy, or love might dictate one's actions, this is acceptable because one receives liberty, finance, or love. From God, though, the reward comes afterward, and there is no reason to limit one's behavior in accordance with an unproven principle unless there's a tangible reward in the tangible world.
And that's where the relation 'twixt myth and religion reasserts itself.
The US dollar, for instance, is a myth. You can tell me all about formulae and markets and economy, but despite the fact that nobody can tell me exactly what a dollar is worth at any given moment nor how they reached that conclusion, the reality of it is that if we woke up tomorrow and nobody wanted to use the dollar, it would instantly become worthless. In a border state (Washington) we see a fair amount of Canadian money. It is up to the merchant to deal with it. Some of their banks have good exchange facilities, so there would be no problem including Canuck money in the deposit. Some of their banks don't want to provide that service for them, so the money of our northern neighbors is useless in those establishments. Likewise, there are some who are simply too dumb to figure the difference, so they don't want it. In the age of networking, it will soon be that one's IBM POS (point-of-sale, not what I usually mean by POS) system can take the immediate market exchange off the network. At that point, the decision to not take any particular currency will be an choice as compared to a business necessity. Well, the unstable currencies, sure ... red flags will come from the network like the four horsemen, but all I can tell you about the dollar today is that just under three of them gets me a loaf of bread, one and a half of them gets me a liter of grape soda, and forty of 'em gets me 3.3 grams of marijuana.
State authority is also a myth. In the Declaration of Independence, for instance, there is this vital bit:
It's the realization of the fallacy of human institutions that is helpful here. Too many people, educated in a specific religious paradigm, simply accept the myth without question. The countermovement (e.g. atheism) is largely focused on the movement (e.g. Christianity). Yet in the end neither side will deny that there are mysteries about the Universe.
I'm an advocate of the notion that religion, by nature, encompasses and deifies the things we don't know. To know God is to know the contents of that mystery; in other words, to know God is to understand what is mysterious and unknown. One should not let the unknown dictate their actions, but I think the Creationism fight should suffice as an example.
If we say that "God created the Universe", that's a fine statement as far as I'm concerned. If we say that God did this according to Genesis, or Bhagavad-Gita, or that the Spider Woman or the Ancient Ones or the Elder Gods or any such restriction of conditions, we are asserting myth as fact.
I assert that both the theist and the atheist who do such rhetorical combat are both missing the point. The atheist is reacting to the wrongness of the theist, and so they're both arguing about something that is not correct in the first place. (In the broader term, though, when religion approaches bodies of law and governance, I side wholeheartedly with the atheists.)
The need to be "right" is a human need. It isn't enough for people to contribute, but, much like Loone's ridiculous posts, they need to be noticed for their contributions.
Throw out all of it, Tyler; that's my recommendation. It is, indeed, a scary fight. But the best way to win this fight is to not take part in it. For instance, that I maintain a religious structure at all, regardless of how disorganized it is, comes down to a single point:
• Communication
Watch our atheists and theists do battle. In practical matters, what does such combat accomplish? Pretty much nothing.
I have never found a religious structure which reflects enough truth to compel me to voluntarily adhere to it. But I've also found that in the pseudo-objective world of atheism, there is something missing from the human process.
I found that, among the atheists, I was unable to communicate satisfactorily, since even without gods, there is so much of life that is intangible or vague.
One cannot communicate with another when standing at the polar opposite. To simply argue about whether or not there is a God doesn't help anyone. Rather, though, to speak (for instance) to a Christian, I am still communicating in terms (e.g. religious principle) that they understand. To simply tell them "No, there's no God" is a sad lack of effort. But to make them think about "Why does God say _____ if he also says _____ and how do you reconcile the seemingly opposite parts?" leaves an opening for that Christian to advance both in their faith and knowledge. With enough care and communication, it is possible to extract someone from the throes of Christianity, but it's a long process that takes much patience and frankly, the virtue of patience isn't objective enough for the atheistic world. Or so says me.
I've always said that the primary difference 'twixt myself and an atheist is largely a matter of vocabulary. It's also what ideas are present as a result of that vocabulary.
I mean, really ... if atheism was truly objective (and, for this point, cohesive), it would throw out the convention of human equality and advocate an organized society that achieves a species-related goal, and not individual goals. But we know that atheists do respond to such subjectivities as right and inequality. It seems to me, though, that by acknowledging those subjectivities, the atheist gets something in return. The atheist gets nothing from acknowledging God.
By and large the underlying issue is a human one, and not one of labels. People keep the faith because they feel they have to. It's more important to be recognized or acknowledged as being right (correct) than it is to actually be correct.
Both the theist and the atheist camps require a certain amount of flexibility. After all, atheists attacking the idea of religion are largely attacking the Christian portion of the Abramic experience and extending those faults to all religions. There is a lack of information in almost any human judgment, and that, more than Christ's admonition, is the best reason for a person to not pass judgment.
For religious reading, I recommend Gibran and Idries Shah's Dervish Tales among others. For more academic perspectives, the usual sources I cite have truly proven enlightening to me (Pagels, Russell, Armstrong, Davidson, &c.) I also recommend Polly Trout's Eastern Seeds, Western Soil. From Polly's contribution to Killing the Buddha's debate on Bush's Divine Economy:
Thus, too often, we're looking at the religious debate in too immediate of terms. Even in dealing with a Southern Baptist in 2002, one owes the theology some considerations toward the Catholics of, say, the 12th century. The seemingly nonsensical aspects of faith can be explained largely in history in terms of psychological evolution. What, for instance, does the book of Matthew have to do with burning people at the stake?
I'm a fan of Denis Diderot's statement, and one which I came across when looking for an old post of mine: Whether or not God exists, it has truly become the most sublime and useless of mysteries.
Consider, for instance, this portion of the manifesto at Killing the Buddha: )
The short answer to your query I've noted above is that it depends on each individual to decide what is important and how important it is to them. As you see, the defeat of God is important to some people in the same way the glory of God is. My "religion" allows me a certain passage of communication with my neighbors that does not otherwise exist. That passage of communication is important enough to me to maintain. For others, the criteria may not be so direct.
It's a puzzle. Essentially something about what you don't know, and how (and whether) you wish to go about learning it.
In history we have Know thyself, Know thy enemy, Love thy enemy and Love thy neighbor. Notice what's missing? Love thyself. If people can't move such a principle beyond basic hedonism, they ought not bother thinking at all. But, as Rilke wrote to Kappus, your innermost happening is worth all your love.
In the end, what is important? Dominion or peace? How can one love the neighbor or enemy if one does not love the self? How, in other words, can you give away what you do not have to give?
And therein we find what I consider an essential functional question.
Um ... and if that doesn't confuse you more than you were, good. Otherwise, well, it seemed like a question worth taking a hack at
thanx much,
Tiassa
Tyler
An interestingly astute point:
The question for atheists that is starting to crystallize for me is, in vague expression, Where do you put your foot down?
That is, atheists have reminded me of late that the cold and detrimental devotion to pseudo-objectivity is not typical of the experience. Apparently I should take it on faith that my observation and experience is wrong.
But atheists seem to make a common mistake in separating religion from, say, myth. In teaching as an academic subject, the states of myth and religion require slightly different considerations, but what are old myths but yesterday's religions?
No religion can be validated; but that search for validation is a distraction resulting from undereducation. It is only in the last two or three centuries that scientific knowledge, starting with Newton, has provided a God that people feel incompatible with nature. That is, somewhere along the line, it stopped being about discovering the reality of God's universe, and became the assumption of God and His attributes amid a quest to "prove" God. I would advise to put the whole atheist/theist (read atheist/Abramic) dichotomy out of mind.
Atheists may have a "closed mind" toward religion, but they're largely open-minded to other things that cannot be proven. Some believe in ghosts, some in Ufos, ad infinitum. Adam and I recently exchanged points regarding atheism that have some bearing here.
It seems to me that atheism draws a slightly-selfish line. That is, subjective principles such as economy, love, state, and so forth, may be taken as factual, but religion should not be. This is well enough, but largely reactionary to the religionists. Within economy, love, and state, the sacrifices made by any person have tangible results in the tangible world. So where state, economy, or love might dictate one's actions, this is acceptable because one receives liberty, finance, or love. From God, though, the reward comes afterward, and there is no reason to limit one's behavior in accordance with an unproven principle unless there's a tangible reward in the tangible world.
And that's where the relation 'twixt myth and religion reasserts itself.
The US dollar, for instance, is a myth. You can tell me all about formulae and markets and economy, but despite the fact that nobody can tell me exactly what a dollar is worth at any given moment nor how they reached that conclusion, the reality of it is that if we woke up tomorrow and nobody wanted to use the dollar, it would instantly become worthless. In a border state (Washington) we see a fair amount of Canadian money. It is up to the merchant to deal with it. Some of their banks have good exchange facilities, so there would be no problem including Canuck money in the deposit. Some of their banks don't want to provide that service for them, so the money of our northern neighbors is useless in those establishments. Likewise, there are some who are simply too dumb to figure the difference, so they don't want it. In the age of networking, it will soon be that one's IBM POS (point-of-sale, not what I usually mean by POS) system can take the immediate market exchange off the network. At that point, the decision to not take any particular currency will be an choice as compared to a business necessity. Well, the unstable currencies, sure ... red flags will come from the network like the four horsemen, but all I can tell you about the dollar today is that just under three of them gets me a loaf of bread, one and a half of them gets me a liter of grape soda, and forty of 'em gets me 3.3 grams of marijuana.
State authority is also a myth. In the Declaration of Independence, for instance, there is this vital bit:
That is, state is a myth, a convention of the people. Think of our occasional separatists who pick up guns or bombs and take on the government. What happens if one day a majority of the people are sick of it and choose to defy the government? Tanks and missiles and guns, oh, my! But in the end, the myth is easy to track through history.
It's the realization of the fallacy of human institutions that is helpful here. Too many people, educated in a specific religious paradigm, simply accept the myth without question. The countermovement (e.g. atheism) is largely focused on the movement (e.g. Christianity). Yet in the end neither side will deny that there are mysteries about the Universe.
I'm an advocate of the notion that religion, by nature, encompasses and deifies the things we don't know. To know God is to know the contents of that mystery; in other words, to know God is to understand what is mysterious and unknown. One should not let the unknown dictate their actions, but I think the Creationism fight should suffice as an example.
If we say that "God created the Universe", that's a fine statement as far as I'm concerned. If we say that God did this according to Genesis, or Bhagavad-Gita, or that the Spider Woman or the Ancient Ones or the Elder Gods or any such restriction of conditions, we are asserting myth as fact.
I assert that both the theist and the atheist who do such rhetorical combat are both missing the point. The atheist is reacting to the wrongness of the theist, and so they're both arguing about something that is not correct in the first place. (In the broader term, though, when religion approaches bodies of law and governance, I side wholeheartedly with the atheists.)
The need to be "right" is a human need. It isn't enough for people to contribute, but, much like Loone's ridiculous posts, they need to be noticed for their contributions.
Throw out all of it, Tyler; that's my recommendation. It is, indeed, a scary fight. But the best way to win this fight is to not take part in it. For instance, that I maintain a religious structure at all, regardless of how disorganized it is, comes down to a single point:
• Communication
Watch our atheists and theists do battle. In practical matters, what does such combat accomplish? Pretty much nothing.
I have never found a religious structure which reflects enough truth to compel me to voluntarily adhere to it. But I've also found that in the pseudo-objective world of atheism, there is something missing from the human process.
I found that, among the atheists, I was unable to communicate satisfactorily, since even without gods, there is so much of life that is intangible or vague.
One cannot communicate with another when standing at the polar opposite. To simply argue about whether or not there is a God doesn't help anyone. Rather, though, to speak (for instance) to a Christian, I am still communicating in terms (e.g. religious principle) that they understand. To simply tell them "No, there's no God" is a sad lack of effort. But to make them think about "Why does God say _____ if he also says _____ and how do you reconcile the seemingly opposite parts?" leaves an opening for that Christian to advance both in their faith and knowledge. With enough care and communication, it is possible to extract someone from the throes of Christianity, but it's a long process that takes much patience and frankly, the virtue of patience isn't objective enough for the atheistic world. Or so says me.
I've always said that the primary difference 'twixt myself and an atheist is largely a matter of vocabulary. It's also what ideas are present as a result of that vocabulary.
I mean, really ... if atheism was truly objective (and, for this point, cohesive), it would throw out the convention of human equality and advocate an organized society that achieves a species-related goal, and not individual goals. But we know that atheists do respond to such subjectivities as right and inequality. It seems to me, though, that by acknowledging those subjectivities, the atheist gets something in return. The atheist gets nothing from acknowledging God.
By and large the underlying issue is a human one, and not one of labels. People keep the faith because they feel they have to. It's more important to be recognized or acknowledged as being right (correct) than it is to actually be correct.
Both the theist and the atheist camps require a certain amount of flexibility. After all, atheists attacking the idea of religion are largely attacking the Christian portion of the Abramic experience and extending those faults to all religions. There is a lack of information in almost any human judgment, and that, more than Christ's admonition, is the best reason for a person to not pass judgment.
For religious reading, I recommend Gibran and Idries Shah's Dervish Tales among others. For more academic perspectives, the usual sources I cite have truly proven enlightening to me (Pagels, Russell, Armstrong, Davidson, &c.) I also recommend Polly Trout's Eastern Seeds, Western Soil. From Polly's contribution to Killing the Buddha's debate on Bush's Divine Economy:
The reason for the reading list, I suppose, is a persistent feeling I have that far too many people judge what, for instance. the Bible means, and apply that definition to all people's perspective. Such a process usually results in that flabbergasting, Why can't you see what's obvious? sentiment. I share, as an anthropologically functional perspective, Dr Trout's sentiment boldfaced above.
Thus, too often, we're looking at the religious debate in too immediate of terms. Even in dealing with a Southern Baptist in 2002, one owes the theology some considerations toward the Catholics of, say, the 12th century. The seemingly nonsensical aspects of faith can be explained largely in history in terms of psychological evolution. What, for instance, does the book of Matthew have to do with burning people at the stake?
I still can't explain how holocaust saves the soul from the Devil, but really--if you don't denounce your best friend when you suspect them of witchcraft, then you are leaving one of the least of His to the clutches of the Devil. Or, so says that interpretation of Matthew.
I'm a fan of Denis Diderot's statement, and one which I came across when looking for an old post of mine: Whether or not God exists, it has truly become the most sublime and useless of mysteries.
Consider, for instance, this portion of the manifesto at Killing the Buddha:
(For the record, at this point in this post, I've lost a little of my focus and am now seeking any way back to the start, or, at least, out of the hole ... rather, re: your question in another topic, such is the danger of one-draft writing.
)The short answer to your query I've noted above is that it depends on each individual to decide what is important and how important it is to them. As you see, the defeat of God is important to some people in the same way the glory of God is. My "religion" allows me a certain passage of communication with my neighbors that does not otherwise exist. That passage of communication is important enough to me to maintain. For others, the criteria may not be so direct.
It's a puzzle. Essentially something about what you don't know, and how (and whether) you wish to go about learning it.
In history we have Know thyself, Know thy enemy, Love thy enemy and Love thy neighbor. Notice what's missing? Love thyself. If people can't move such a principle beyond basic hedonism, they ought not bother thinking at all. But, as Rilke wrote to Kappus, your innermost happening is worth all your love.
In the end, what is important? Dominion or peace? How can one love the neighbor or enemy if one does not love the self? How, in other words, can you give away what you do not have to give?
And therein we find what I consider an essential functional question.
Um ... and if that doesn't confuse you more than you were, good. Otherwise, well, it seemed like a question worth taking a hack at
thanx much,
Tiassa
The truth is, GOD the Creator is LOVE!
!
AMEN!Originally posted by TruthSeeker
About my name...
THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE!!!!
Love,
Nelson
!