»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Just Who Is This God
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Just Who Is This God |
|
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan 
|
. we’re supposed to be worshiping? Sometimes I get the impression of a cosmic Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Science has gone countless miles and not found him. Millenniums have gone without credible miracles to evidence his existence. What apart some faith in fear of absolute death convinces anyone He or She who or what ever is even there? Would a compassionate Vulcan do as well? . |
||
| © Copyright 2007 John Pawlik - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
God is God. What more do you want? |
||
|
Kitherion Member
since 2006-08-01
Posts 181Johannesburg |
God is who ever you want it to be. |
||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Yeah right. He needs your permission. |
||
|
MegMeg Member
since 2007-05-14
Posts 85Virginia |
God is a trinity of three persons, who are vastly beyond our comprehension. He created everything, God was God is God will be, He made man in his own image. He tries to help us out by sending the bible, if you would like the complete answer i would suggest reading between genesis and exodus. I'm not trying to be snotting just trying to help you out, the bible can give a better and more complete defintion or idea than i can. |
||
|
MegMeg Member
since 2007-05-14
Posts 85Virginia |
Aww... but science has not not found him either. Unfortanitely, andjust because science has not fouind him does not mean that others have not found him, I for example, have a good idea where He is. "What apart some faith in fear of absolute death convinces anyone He or She who or what ever is even there?" Well first off God is a He, or least that's how He is referred to in the bible. again He is beyond human comprehension. There has to be God or some source of ultimate power, th ebig bang for instance, what made atoms that collide? God. hello. The human body and all nature is just amazingly fantastic that something or someone had to have created or made it or whatever. seriously look at your hand for a moment see all lines on your slin, it's truly amazing. |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
It's pretty tough to talk rationally about a delusion. All one can do is add yet another gloss on a fantasy. Explications of the nature of "God" fail because they require an untenable apriori assumption. And yet (and here come the famous caveats) it is possible to experience an epiphany, or awakening. It's hard to say for certain what that's all about. Second, if you ask yourself the question "What creates?" it leads you down some intersting rat holes. If I remember correctly, Kurt Vonnegutt's Tralfamadorians had a habit of raising their arms over their heads, waggling their fingers, and saying "Busy Busy." It was their way of acknowledging that there's a whole lot of stuff going on out there that we don't know too much about. How about a compassionate Tralfamadorian? Jim |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Not if God has acted within time-space-history. If so, then concepts like divine character become game for rational discourse. And by the way, atheism is also a presupposition which many are sure is untenable. The a priori assumption that the non-personal gave rise to the personal, presents quite a difficulty to "rational" thought as well. Ravi Zacharias was speaking with a particular group of scientists who confidently referred to their own particular cosmology as "scientific", and the religious worldview as "unscientific". Of course the predominate "sceintific" view is that everything originated from a singularity which exploded giving rise to our universe. When Ravi asked them if a singularity is where the laws of physics break down, they responded "yes". "Then technically your starting point isn't scientific either." Ravi repied. After some awkward silence, one of them said "We scientists do seem to retain selective sovereignty over what we allow to be transferred to philosophy and what we don't." That says it all. A presuppositional circle is unavoidable. The question is, which circle is right. Which circle makes most sense of the data we have, and who we are? G.K. Chesterton put it this way, "A bullet is quite as round as the world, but it is not the world. There is such a thing as a narrow universality; there is such a thing as a small and cramped eternity". I would just like to put to rest the idea that the Christian worldview shamefully involves "circular reasoning" while the secular is open and quite evidentiary. The truth is, something has to be tacitly accepted, before anything else can be tested. BTW, It's good to see you around again Jim.  Stephen. |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi Stephen "Not if God has acted within time-space-history." Thats the untenable assumption. "And by the way, atheism is also a presupposition which many are sure is untenable." To which one can only reply, "So What?" A problem with one presupposition doesn't negate a problem with another. Ravi Zacharias is a tough sell. With his blend of Eastern/Western mysticism, he's one of the more interesting radio preachers, but his thinking isn't exactly up there with Kant or Schopenhauer. "The truth is, something has to be tacitly accepted, before anything else can be tested." The only thing that has to be tacitly accepted is that something can be tested. It's hard for me to accept atheism as well, but it would be ludicrous to throw out science in favor of superstition. Science can often be wrong, but superstition can only be wrong. In the end, it's pretty much whatever gets you through the night, and we're free to choose our own favorite fairy tales. Pragmatism can be pretty appealing. You have the patience of a saint, Steven, except there aren't any. Jim |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Jim: quote: It's not an assumption. History (even divine history) can be spoken of like any other history, with its ambiguities and certainties. I wouldn't believe the New Testament to be true if I thought it was merely made up by some over zealous Jew (the most unlikely type of person who would make such a thing up). So I'll ask you specifically why you think (for example) that the New Testament accounts of Jesus are untenable, and if you're willing to discuss that you may have a point. Until then "untenable" is an allegation. quote: Agreed. Only I'm not conceding that the two are equally problematic. And, I'm willing to discuss why. Actually, my only point to you was that your statement about "untenable" presuppositions is an easy thing to say. I just wanted to make sure you are aware of the difficulties involved with the alternatives. And no, that's not an admission of egalitarianism of world-views. quote: With all due respect, I'm not trying to "sell" Ravi. Though he's a choice thinker and Christian apologist in my opinion, I used him to communicate an idea. You didn't respond to the idea, but rather made an unwarranted comparison to two humanistic philosophers. And while those two you mentioned have my respect for their legacy, I tend to respond to their ideas one by one rather than making generalizations. And to be honest, if someone like you or even Brad (wink) made a statement that was correct where Kant or Shopenhaur was wrong (and believe me, their works are vulnerable to criticism), I wouldn't point out that they were more renown than us lil ol pipsters. I would address the thought, giving assent where assent is due. Ravi is a formidable thinker ... but let's say I concede he's no more than a swine with a microphone. Ever heard the saying that "even a blind pig finds an acorn every now and again"? Let's talk about ideas. quote: Ever looked into "Philosophy of Science"? Much more than that is tacitly accepted ... such as uniformity of nature. The only way science can answer David Hume's devastating critique is to admit that science also (rightly) has preconditions that are simply accepted rather than proved. In fact, without this we can't even be sure if "something can be tested". quote: I agree. The question here is whether the Biblical God is tenable, whether or not the Judeo-Christian religion is superstition, or more substantive. The Scientific age, as a whole, flourished under Christian Scientists (Pascal, Bacon, etc ...) who believed God personal and rational enough to fashion a creation that is at least partially comprehensible to the human mind. No, Christianity in it's better moments has not advised any to "throw out science". There is, however, a proper sphere for science, and a proper sphere for theology. They have their own respective fields which overlap, but are not the same. quote: Right. The only caveat is that when superstition is not wrong, it ceases to be superstition. Tolkien and Lewis had no problem calling Christianity a myth, with all the emotive and aesthetic power of other myths, with the difference of being historically true. That might explain why myths speak to us one one hand, and disappoint us on the other. Perhaps they were shadows, intimations, and portents. Intriguing thought. quote: The night is much longer than 12 hours, and I have no problem thinking that truth turns out to be pragmatic as well. I'm not poking fun here, I do understand. quote: Is that scientific? Like you said, you're free to believe your own fairy tale. Would you really want to believe that one though? I'm not suggesting desire is indicative of truth. But sometimes it is. Appetite sure presupposes nourishment, as thirst does water. Why do you even want to believe that people have more purpose here than biding their time until personal then cosmic extinction? Stephen. |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi Stephen! Shoot! I just deleted an absolutely brilliant response. Maybe God's mad at me. Here's the short form: 1. Jesus was a historical person and a great teacher. The divinity part is still up for grabs. You know the arguments: you have to believe, suspending rationality, in something along the lines of the Nicean Creed, the a priori thing, to accept the Virgin Birth for starters, and it doesn't get any easier from there. 2. I do think people do have a purpose beyond killing time before the inevitable. We're here to help each other out. Not everybody "gets" that one. A whole bunch of people seem to think we're here to knock each other off. 3. Hume was a dour old Scot who got ticked off at his Presbyterian heritage, and couldn't let it go. He was great at ticking off everybody else in return. 4. You do yourself a disservice in otherwise excellent arguments by limiting your world view in these discussions. Most of the people on our planet think Christians are malignant crackpots. The Chinese and Ottoman Turks for example, had a straightforward approach. They just killed 'em. 5. I think people are hard wired to create mythologies. In archeology, one of the ways of trying to determine when hominids got human-er, is to notice burial artifacts an indication of systemized ritual. Myth making probably predates these as well since ephemeral artifacts rot quicker than bones. This relates back to an implication of John’s original posts. We’re one of the few species aware of our own mortality, and it doesn’t seem particularly fair. Myths speak to us because we’re all in the same boat. 6. If this life is all there is, and nobody is keeping score, why is that so scary to so many people of so many different faiths? I don’t know, but it seems pretty pervasive. 7. When you and I allude to philosophers, Christ-centered or otherwise, without quoting chapter and verse, it’s shorthand between people who have read beyond the comic book stage. 8. I think I was pretty clear that I have a wee bit more respect for Ravi Zacharias than some of the other radio ranters. I was tempted, as a joke, to send you an 33rpm copy of Billy James Hargis carrying on. He loves Jesus so much he just can’t help hating everybody else. But then, he’s a dead horse, or at least the dead hind end of a horse. 9. When I seem to be flippant, I am. It’s just an attempt to cut through the clutter. 10. On the TV chat show, The View, one of the hosts stated flatly that she didn’t believe in evolution. Another host asked her if she thought the world was flat. The response: “Well, I really haven’t thought about it.” One of TV’s more surreal moments. Unfortunately, these troglodytic notions and basic ignorance persist, and cause even a lot of mainstream Christians to rend their garments in despair. 11. Because I grew up as a practicing and involved Christian -- well, as involved as Presbyterians get, not a lot of speaking in tongues there -- I can’t get past my own belief that there is something which creates. But I don’t think its something which we think it is. 12. I’m not much of a fan of agnosticism either. Smacks too much of hedging one’s bet. 13. For years, I’ve been pondering God’s self description, “I Am That I Am.” If that ain’t a mental backbreaker, I don’t know what is. 14. And to quote another grand scoundrel, Werner Erhardt, “Understanding is the booby prize.” 15. An appropriate response to this post might be: “Thank goodness you lost the long form.” Very best as always, Jim [This message has been edited by oceanvu2 (09-20-2007 01:33 AM).] |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. A man said to the universe: "Sir I exist!" "However," replied the universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation." Stephen Crane . |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Jim, Whew, I just missed the long version eh? My hand is already sore. Quit it already! quote: Actually if Jesus said anything like the things the gospels report him as saying, he was anything BUT a good teacher. C.S. Lewis (and others) cover this in the Trilemma of Liar, Lunatic or Lord. A good man wouldn't claim to be God. A megalomaniac perhaps. About the "suspending rationality" part, I must disagree. Believing miracles are possible and that they have happened is not to "suspend rationality". Not a few thinkers (among them Hume) have pointed out that there is no rational or logical necessity to the laws of nature as they stand ... only a recognition of repetition. It could have been a whole lot different. If this is so, then there is no real breach of logic involved in believing in miracles. Now there is the important question of plausibility. (all claims are not equally plausible) For example, if the miracle of the Resurrection hadn't occurred, would it be reasonable to think that those who knew it didn't would die for such a hoax? Second generation martyrs may die for a trifle (being indoctrinated), but not first who are privy. Does the historical knowledge of how the Christian Church spread, fit the historical notion that these men stole a corpse and then went around proclaiming a bodily resurrection? There are many other historical difficulties with the revisions that various skeptics have suggested. It really is easier (though of course not without problems itself) to believe it happened as written. But if we're really not neutral on the question of God, and heart-motives are involved as much as reasoning, it's not surprising that the intellectually difficult path of historical revision is chosen. Freud recognized that our decisions are greatly attributed to the "irrational". In this sense, Christianity agrees with him. Rational snafus are no barrier to unbelief, any more than they are to belief. That doesn't mean I'm an anti-rationalist. It's just that logic, like everything else, has its place and limitation. It's only reasonable to think so. quote: I, of course, agree with you. But it does seem you are willing to impose your purpose on others, whether or not they are aware of it. You're getting a bit transcendental aren't you? Is purpose totally subjective or not? I've got a feeling you'd like to say that murderers are being (really) immoral, not just choosing a different "purpose" according to themselves. quote: I was referring to Hume's critique of science, not his critique of religion. And, by the way, his thinking is sharp enough that his critique on either shouldn't be answered with a shrug and comment about his discontent. That of course may be true, but his ideas are still ideas to be refuted or defended. He's as sharp a thinker as Kant or Shopenhaur, judging from his influence in the world of philosophy. My point was, that thanks to him, we see that science has presuppositions which were not ascertained scientifically. Hume would ultimately doubt the propriety of this, and become an utter skeptic not even being assured of his own existence apart from sensory data. I would differ and say that presuppositions are unavoidable, though we can choose the wrong ones. quote: Um, I don't understand what you're getting at here. What do you mean by "limiting your worldview in these discussions"? I thought that the subject of this thread was "Just Who is this God"? A question begging for boundaries. If you are simply saying that you think my view to narrow, I would respond with an Epigram from Chesterton ... that the object of opening the mind, like the mouth, is to close it again on something solid. It would be good to ask why "most of the world" think Christians to be malignant Crackpots, and whether that is justifiable. And if it is, based on their observations and experience, were the taken exemplars really practicing Christianity? quote: Yes, but why? Hard-wired is an engineering term, impying intent. And that was my point. From the Christian view of things, its easy to understand why the human heart is inclined to create things of beauty (even strange beauty) purpose, and meaning. It is the hunger that presupposes food, even if men sometimes eat what is bad for them, or what simply gets them by, until something better is found. quote: An imposition of justice upon an unguided evolutionary schema? Or an admission of a real standard of justice, whether human or divine? quote: Its not just "scary" to people of faith. Have you delved much into existentialist literature, written by those who took Enlightenment humanism seriously enough to logically follow the conclusion? They just substituted the traditional telos of "justified" with words like "authentic", but it's very much the same. Whether you call it "angst", or the religious dread of Kirkigaard, There's always been the unsettling (sometimes comforting) idea of a score-keeper. Why should atheists pine over how they've lived, toward the end of their lives? They're anxious about their own scorecard, which they say is temporal. Something within seems to impress on them that its just a ragged copy of another, intractable. Again, what is pervasive is by design, basic to humanity, and not at all limited to the religious. quote: I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. That we don't really know about the philosophers we are quoting or the opposite? A quote, "without chapter and verse" can denote familiarity as well as a disguised unfamiliarity. But I'm still unsure what you meant here by what you said. quote: I don't know who you're talking about, but I can relate. I think it was Ravi who said you don't cut a man's nose off in order to try and get him to smell a rose. quote: Yeah, I think this reaches into the mystical and quite beyond the mental. Again I am not an irrationalist, but the intellectual has its limits. We need the mysticism of God. Doctrine without it, is dead. It's the difference between the "Logos" of John, and words as we know them, "clumsy and inflexible bricks" as Malcolm Muggeridge called them. If a master painter of words can recognize their futility apart from experience, how much more a paint spiller like myself? Enjoying the interchange, Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: John, Christian Theology makes a distinction between God and the universe (or nature). But even nature shouldn't be thought of so coldly. The most pagan of thinkers and poets have noted how much she provides, and the strange fact that every good we've ever known has been mediated through our mother (even if she seems a step-mother). Whether this comes of obligation or graciousness is another question. Stephen. |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi Stephen! Not addressing anything in particular, thank goodness, but I also enjoy our exchanges because, at the very least, they speak to the possiblites of civilized discourse and amiable disagreement, which is possibly the point of P101. Two side notes: There's a chance I shouldn't be in here while on serious painkillers. Or maybe i should only be in here while on serious painkillers. The Reverend Billy James Hargis was a hyper-conservative preacher who thought, among other things, that the National Council of Churches was a communist front group. You'll notice I didn't say "Christian," just "preacher." Best, Jim |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: This time, I think I'm glad. My typist hands are recovering. I was going to respond earlier to your quip about God being mad at you, and say "nah, he was just being particularly kind to me." quote: That's no small thing, I'll agree. Later, Stephen |
||
|
FatesWarning Junior Member
since 2007-12-27
Posts 30 |
Good morning all If God (however defined) does exist, I don't think He or She or It would even care for any of us to worship Him or Her. To me, that is what a human would want. Also, I believe that if this God would want us to behave a certain way, it all comes down to what is inside one's heart, not the following of any particular religious beliefs. It is often too easy for people of different religions to judge others based upon what they believe through what they hold to be "God inspired" writings. Let's all love each other without the labels. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Fateswarning: quote: Good afternoon! Usually when a person "wants" worship (There were historical examples of this very thing, such as in the Emperor worship of the Roman Empire), we feel a distaste because of the incongruency of it all. Humans pretending to a divine status of worship, is offensive because we all know they are fallen humans like ourselves. However I think that to worship God would be different by nature of who he is, and his attributes. In your opening statement you said "however defined". But God has revealed himself as Holy, Righteous, Just, and Merciful. These things in their superlative degree should warrant a worship that is not incongruent or unreasonable. But it does depend upon a revelation of that divine character, otherwise a call to worship seems pompous and conceited. If you don't believe in such a revelation of God, then worship to you must be questionable. quote: So if it is inside someone's heart to kill their neighbors and cannibalize them, would this be okay? My point is, if you draw lines, then God is permitted to as well. And you most definitely do. Its not hard to conceive that God might communicate "particular religious beliefs" as his will, much in the same way you might communicate particular beliefs as what is moral and right. quote: Judging someone as wrong, or mistaken, is not necessarily the same thing as despising them. And anyway, what you describe is not unique to those who believe in "God inspired" writings. It seems to be a common malady of human nature to despise others. But one need not become a relativist to avoid despising others. Heck, I've met some relativists who were just as capable as anyone, of contemning people who happen to disagree. quote: Congratulations. You just shared your first bit of ethical (if not religious) dogma. Does telling people that all their "labels" (or distinctions) are meaningless really amount to love? PS ... you're right about the "love" part. I'm just pointing out to you that your disapproval of labels, leads to another kind of labeling. You're either going to be a relativist indeed (and make no distinctions even about love or hate or anything else), or you're going to insist on a better path, which amounts to moralizing. Sometimes there's nothing wrong with doing so. Stephen. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: So worship is different depending on he nature of god and who he is, but who is he Stephen? What is his nature exactly? I don’t mean what do you think his nature is or what some dead essayist or biblical scholar thinks God is, I don’t mean what you believe he’s like either, I mean what do you know beyond a reasonable doubt about your god? How do you know how to worship a god whose nature you do not know? |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
Hi, Grinch, Happy New year to you! "How do you know how to worship a god whose nature you do not know?" You always ask brilliant questions. Worship is a behavior coming from genes. Human worships all kind of things.. Up there, down there and around here. We, in general, don't know what we worship such as an atheist does not really know what he is worshiping as an atheist because there is not a thorough knowledge or enough evidence to build an atheist un-divine un-god but he still proudly worship the un-divine un-god. Human worship natures without even the first scientist was born. and worship Gold before first bank coming out. why, we intend to be controlled by anything because we are so incapable and have so many fears and we also worship heroes who saved our lives and ancestors who pass life to us....which all brings out "humble". John 4:22 "You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews." Fateswarning, a warm welcome to this wonderful place and happy New Year to you! "Let's all love each other without the labels." Can you do that? Can you turn your left cheek after being slapped on the right cheek? You have to do a lot to love a loved one but what do you expect to love an unloved one? [This message has been edited by TomMark (12-31-2007 01:06 AM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
If a man has thoughts or beliefs about something, then he must have knowledge about it to some extent. For without knowledge about something, a man can't hold it in his mind and have thoughts or beliefs about it. First he must know about something and hold it in his mind, and then he has special thoughts and beliefs. Therefore ruling out thoughts and beliefs I think is a wrongful approach, for they are what reflect knowledge in one way or another. To study thoughts and beliefs is also to see reflections of the kinds of knowledge they are based on, and therefore I think thoughts and beliefs are very relevant to any question about knowledge. |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
Sir Essorant, You are not allowed to kill the cow in India. Do you think that they have not the knowledge that it is edible? But when people worship a tree, a star, lightning, or a statue they have absolutely no knowledge of them. [This message has been edited by TomMark (12-30-2007 07:34 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Tom, No, I am just saying that people need to know about something first in order to have a belief about it too. For example two men need to know about a cow in order to have beliefs about the cow. But both knowing about the cow and that it is edible doesn't mean that both shall believe they should eat it. |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
Sir essorant "have beliefs about the cow" ? beside the milk and meat? and bone and horn? and skin? and what? tail? Human gives anything a meaning then worship it. This is man-made logic but not rationale logic. now, you have knowledge of it, will you worship it?  [This message has been edited by TomMark (12-31-2007 12:53 AM).] |
||
|
FatesWarning Junior Member
since 2007-12-27
Posts 30 |
TomMark, Thanks for the welcome. I don't know if I can turn other cheek in every situation that would call for it, but I have done so in the past. Sure, it easy to love those who love you. What I said was quite vague. What I am saying is that I don't believe in any particular religion, and that if there is a God, that God would make Himself/Herself be known to all the human race via a myriad of ways. What counts is what is inside one's heart. Stephanos, Upon reading your replies in different threads, including this one, you seem to have all of the answers. Do you think that to be true? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Tom, reading the above it seems you have a misguided understanding of atheism. Atheism is a label attributed to people who do not believe in gods, atheists do not worship either gods or un-gods due to the fact that they don’t believe either exists. Think of it this way, if people who believe in fairies decide to call themselves fairy lovers and dance naked at midnight that’s fine by me. If they want to call me a non-fairy lover I can live with that too, but saying that I worship some sort of non-fairy seems a bit of a stretch, don’t you? I don’t believe in god or fairies btw. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
You may not believe they exist, but you know of them and that's why you have a belief about them. If they didn't exist to know about, then you wouldn't have their existance to disbelieve in in the first place. |
||
|
FatesWarning Junior Member
since 2007-12-27
Posts 30 |
That makes sense to me. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Well done Ess, you’ve either just proved that gods, fairies and the spaghetti monster actually exist outside the minds of men or your logic is flawed and all you‘ve proved is that people can imagine lots of things that don‘t actually exist anywhere outside the minds of men. |
||
|
FatesWarning Junior Member
since 2007-12-27
Posts 30 |
I think Ess meant that they exist either literally or a creation from the minds of men. I may be wrong, but I look at it like this: If a person never heard of the term God and the definition of God, then that person can neither believe or disbelieve in God. I think that is what Ess meant. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: When asked the question “do you believe in god” their answer would be? It’s back to the misconception of atheism as a self selected label, it‘s like saying that someone can‘t be called a teenager if they never heard the term. If you do not believe in god you are an atheist, unless you want to attempt to straddle the excluded middle and claim agnosticism. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Fateswarning See here. "Most horseriders ride a horse because they believe in the horse they ride. Atheism, though, rides a horse it doesn't believe in: theism, backwards." |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
FW: quote: No, I think that's a misconception on your part. I don't know all the answers. But there are some ultimate kinds of answers that I am sure of. It always seems to me these kinds of arguments are not really about someone being a know-it-all ... but about whether anyone can know-anything-at-all when it comes to certain kinds of questions. It is an arbitrary separation of religious knowledge from other kinds of knowledge. And I simply diagree with an epistemology that says "you can't know these things for sure". Why? Well for one, you would have to have the kind of certainty you argue against, to be sure of that very thing. Agnosticism (fairly, on its own terms) cannot involve a universal application, but only a personal one ... else it becomes a more ambitious universal claim of truth, even if it is a negation. Grinch, I'm on a work weekend, and would like to reply more thoroughly than I am currently able. Give me a couple of days. Happy New Year to all, Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Thanks Stephanos. God give and make to thee appear A heaven-bright and blest new year. |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
Dear Grinch, "I don’t believe in god or fairies btw" and you don't believe universal moral code either. What is your individual moral code which guide your daily life? THAT is the ungod that you are worshiping. Am I right? FatesWarning "What counts is what is inside one's heart." Kindly tell me 1. what is heart? 2. what is in the heart? (God, god, self-made moral code, parent's teaching, cultural tradition) 3. what is the line to divide good /bad, acceptable/not acceptable, shall live/shall die. 4. who shall draw the line. 5. who shall do the fair judgment based the line. 6. who comes to do final counts? to say your heart is good and his heart is bad? based on what kind of statistical data? (as how many good things he did to make him a person with a good heart?) |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: It’s a moral code, similar to yours but not exactly the same hence the term individual. quote: Why would anyone worship a moral code? Do you worship your moral code? |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
It is like " mirror, mirror on the wall and who is the fairest of all" kind of daily self-evaluation for a good gentleman. But I do worship God, God words(the holy spirit, the law). and will be judged by God but not by myself or others. My thought. Happy New Year again to you! |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: No, my moral code works the same way yours does Tom, I simply don’t insist mine is derived from a fairytale source. quote: How do you worship your god Tom? I have a friend who prays four times a day, is that enough? How many times does god say you should pray? quote: Whereas I prefer to take responsibility for my own actions, I also recognise that those actions are going to be judged by others and bear that in mind when making choices. |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
Dear Grinch, all right, I am back. quote: You are too sure about me I am the human "being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, hateful to God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, unmerciful (Rom 1:29-31) quote: honor or reverence of God is part of life. "Psalm 1:1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the wicked, Nor standeth in the way of sinners, Nor sitteth in the seat of scoffers But his delight is in the law of Jehovah; And on his law doth he meditate day and night." See here, day and night. and "exhort one another day by day, so long as it is called To-day" (Hebrews 3:13) It is the work of the heart guided by Holy Spirit. It is not measured by counting numbers. quote: So you will stop doing anything that offends others? Or you are only nice to relatives and not nice to strangers? I want to know where you get your moral codes if you want to tell. [This message has been edited by TomMark (12-31-2007 06:28 PM).] |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Maybe it’s part of your life but it has no place in mine so perhaps you should amend this inaccurate generalisation. quote: Yes, unless doing so offends me. quote: No, I’m more likely to be more forgiving when it comes to strangers. quote: My parents, society and life experience. |
||
|
FatesWarning Junior Member
since 2007-12-27
Posts 30 |
Stephanos, So, what are those type of ultimate answers that you are sure of? Are they the answers that have been asked by the human race since the beginning of time? TomMark, What is the right way to believe in a human being's heart? Is it based upon what you believe to be a specific religion? |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
FatesWarning, no. I merely ask your concept of "heart". Have a happy new year again. |
||
|
FatesWarning Junior Member
since 2007-12-27
Posts 30 |
Happy New Year to all TomMark, What I mean is that I don't believe a Creator would expect billions upon billions of human beings to worship Him or "reach" His or Her people through one particular type of religion. That concept doesn't make sense to me, and is what I believe to be true. When I forgive or feel empathy, sympathy, love, hate, etc... that comes from what is inside me or what makes me a human being - from both my heart and mind... otherwise simply stated as from the heart. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch: quote: He has revealed his nature in a myriad of ways, generally through the created order (ranging from the very fact that you are able to reason and have knowledge, to the beauty and complexity of nature). There is the Bible through which the thoughts and actions of God have been mediated to us. There is the human conscience and emotions through which something of God may be known. There is the the Holy Spirit through which God's nature is more clearly ascertained by a believer. But when you say, "I don't mean what you believe he's like either, I mean what you know beyond a reasonable doubt", the first thing that comes to mind is that true knowledge may be doubted. The question of whether that doubt is reasonable is the heart of the debate. You can always reply to someone's "know", with a "you think". And the evidence is always filtered through one's chosen view of the world. That doesn't mean that one view is not more reasonable than another. It simply means that we're not unbiased, or without precommitment, for various reasons. There are true beliefs that are empirically proven, and others which are not and yet accepted. To ask for "proof" of God in this manner reduces him to a physical property of nature, or something like that. No matter what history or experiential data is given, it can always be chalked up to delusion if one so wishes. I get the feeling that when you ask me for evidence, you are asking for a simplistic test-tube answer. But there are many things you yourself doubtless believe which cannot be proved with such a decisive test either. The whole subjectivity part of belief, is something that Kirkegaard explored quite well, though I can't admit to being a complete fideist as he was. The heart, or the seat of one's will and emotions, where things like devotion and betrayal are born, is a powerful lens (either distorting or clarifying) through which to observe "objective" evidences. The prophet Jeremiah once wrote that "The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked, who can know it?". Along with these kinds of sayings, is the assertion by the Apostle Paul (in the book of Romans) that all are without excuse, having recognized in some fashion the divine attributes through the Creation. The tendency of sin, has been to try and saw off the limb we're standing on. This kind of insight is not to be wielded with a rough hand, or unkindly, or without the understanding that there is such a thing as honest doubt. But it does lead to the conclusion that hardened unbelief is not so honest. As the Existentialists have demonstrated, human will may quite transcend rationality and morals. (Have you ever read 'Notes From Underground' by Dostoevsky?) In conclusion the Believer may always say "You're in rebellion", and the unbeliever may retort "You're in delusion". I'm not sure that I can fix that problem, or dissolve the impasse, other than to suggest that all chosen worldviews have their dialectical tensions and cognitive dissonance to deal with. It's just that some are more profound than others. The question is which set of difficulties are damning, and which are merely mystifying. The Psalms tell us that "The Fool has said in his heart there is no God". I don't want to be a fool, and I'm sure that neither do you. But which view of things even allows man the dignity of foolishness, versus canceling him out altogether as a beautiful accident? Stephen |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
FW: quote: That there is God. That there is an answer to injustice, sin, and suffering. That there is immortality and a foundation for hope beyond death. And yes, in a sense, these are answers to the perennial questions. quote: Would you even conceive that God would prefer humans to follow a particular way of life or thinking ... such as forgiveness over vengeance, love over hatred? If not, these things are suggestions and preferences rather than anything universally recommendable. But you don't come across to me as merely suggestive. You've been speaking in the declarative mood. It seems like once you've cracked the door to God preferring one way of life or thought over another, you can no longer keep out the fingers of possibility for specificity in questions of religion. And who knows where that might take you ... Did you eat your black-eyed-peas today? That's one of the essential doctrines of a happy traveler! Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
God's favorite religion is science |
||
|
FatesWarning Junior Member
since 2007-12-27
Posts 30 |
Stephanos, But there are many people who claim that there is a God, however they don't believe in the same one. Do you know the true One? What answer to injustice, sin and suffering? How do you know for certain that there is an immortality? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: That’s just the “I’m right you’re wrong” attitude that annoys non-Christians, why can’t Christians just keep their religion to themselves and get on with their own lives? I have a friend, I’ve mentioned him before, he’s possibly the most devotedly religious person I know. He prays four times a day, fasts for several weeks a year and avoids consuming anything that is prohibited by his religion (he’s a Muslim btw). The only conversation we’ve ever had concerning religion went something like this: HIM: Are you a Christian? ME: Nope, I’m an atheist HIM: Are you happy? ME: Yep, just fine. HIM: That’s good, I’m happy too. ME: Good. Since that point I don’t think we’ve ever spoken about religion. When I speak to Christians however the conversation invariably goes something like this: CHRISTIAN: Are you a Christian? ME: Nope, I’m an atheist CHRISTIAN: Are you happy? ME: Yep, just fine. CHRISTIAN: That’s god, I’m happy too. ME: God!! Then the same old arguments start. I’m done arguing religion Stephen, it doesn’t get you anywhere apart from frustrated, I’m going back to being a happy atheist and if being Christian makes you happy then that’s fine by me. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch quote: Um, Grinch, you replied to a thread entitled "Just Who is This God" which was a thread obviously initiated to discuss the Judeo-Christian concept of God. You even entered the discussion by addressing ME, responding to something I wrote. If you don't want to debate or discuss these questions, then why even post on such a thread? I do enjoy our disussions. But I'm fine with your decision not to talk about certain things. Peace, Stephen |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
[This message has been edited by TomMark (01-04-2008 04:10 PM).] |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
FatesWarning, "What I mean is that I don't believe a Creator would expect billions upon billions of human beings to worship Him or "reach" His or Her people through one particular type of religion. That concept doesn't make sense to me and is what I believe to be true." You are perfectly correct. "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,(Romans 1:19-21) "When I forgive or feel empathy, sympathy, love, hate, etc... that comes from what is inside me or what makes me a human being - from both my heart and mind... otherwise simply stated as from the heart." Have you ever wonder how hate and love come out from the same place as we know, the heart (or mind) ? |
||
|
FatesWarning Junior Member
since 2007-12-27
Posts 30 |
TomMark, You say I am "perfectly correct" then quote Romans to show otherwise. I don't believe that the Bible is the true word of a Creator. I believe there are truths to be found in many religious doctrines. To Grinch, TomMark and others... I understand what Grinch is saying. I have run into many Christians who have attempted to force their beliefs down my throat - lest I suffer in an eternal hellfire. However, (to Grinch) because Christians are the majority in this country, I don't think one is going to find many Muslims, if at all, who are going to force their views on any of us. As for knowing what one believes to be true, how can that be and why would that person need faith if they know? |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
Dear FatesWarning, This is philosophy forum, so we are talking about the philosophy of our lives. If anything I said made you upset, do please let me know. "You say I am "perfectly correct" then quote Romans to show otherwise." what shall I say? "I totally agree with you" ? But I still need to quote what I believe to further support me, right? Looking around of our surroundings and all the natural laws and we may have a calculation of many things and the conscience(the universal moral code), what conclusion you may drew? "I don't believe that the Bible is the true word of a Creator. I believe there are truths to be found in many religious doctrines." May I ask what the common truths in all religions? And why there are truths in all kind of religions? You may say that people think alike then I'll ask you why? Then you may say that we are all humans then I would ask you then why some love and some kill? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
FW quote: But why are you sure these two beliefs are mutually exclusive? I also believe that there are truths to be found in many religious doctrines. We of course still have to decide which is right, when those doctrines really do contradict. The uniqueness of Christianity lies in the work and person of Christ, not in the surrounding religious truths that many religions already accept. There is no claim that it is wholly different from other religious beliefs in every way. quote: Questions and threads that are statedly about this subject kind of rule out the “shoving” of beliefs charge, right? So with that clarified, I would like to honestly try to answer your question. I would like to ask you whether or not you “know” things for which your evidence is not total. Faith has often wrongly been described as a romantic notion held despite obvious falsity. But that’s not what Christian faith is. The kind of faith described in the Bible is never described in terms of a mere shot in the dark, and yet never as something like statistical certainty either. It is not contrary to evidence; It is even confirmed by evidence, though it recognizes that what is seen will always be partial. (By the way, this is also true of any kind of knowledge). But in addition to having confirmations in the natural world, Christian faith is also based upon what Theologians have called “Special Revelation”. So in addition to natural correspondence to what “faith” says, there is always a necessary element of trust. The interpretive aspect of "evidence" demands it. Let me ask you this. To you, does faith mean to belief without knowledge? If so I’d like to ask you ... Have you ever believed anything that was true on someone else’s word, that you weren’t able to totally verify for yourself (at least for a time)? If so, at least you can understand that knowledge and faith need not be contradictory. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (01-03-2008 11:34 PM).] |
||
|
FatesWarning Junior Member
since 2007-12-27
Posts 30 |
TomMark, [Supposing that there is a Creator] 1st Question - Various religions teach that one should love his/her neighbor and not to kill another human being, etc. 2nd Question - Because the Creator is making himself/herself be known to the human race 3rd Question - There are many reasons why people think alike and not alike - politics, philosophies, social, religious, socio-economics, etc. 4th Question - For many reasons; genetics, socio-economics, psychological, etc. Stephanos, 1st Question - I didn't say they were. About Uniqueness - Every religion has its "uniqueness." 2nd Question - I guess. 3rd Question - No. However, faith in a religious believe is a necessity because one cannot be certain that what they believe is true. Now, if you have actually physically sat down with God and spoke with Him or Her, then you would not need faith. 4th Question - Yes, Santa Clause |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
If you'll re-read my last question, I asked whether you've ever believed anything true, that was based upon someone else's word. Are you turning over another new leaf? Stephen |
||
|
FatesWarning Junior Member
since 2007-12-27
Posts 30 |
Santa isn't real? There are millions of children who would state otherwise. Now to re-answer your last question: If they knew it to be true. In this case the dead would have to come back and tell me that there is a God and that God is the [in your faith] Christian God. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
You didn't answer my last question. Stephen |
||
|
FatesWarning Junior Member
since 2007-12-27
Posts 30 |
Yes, I did. Now it is your turn to reread. I'll give you a, as Stewie would say, "hinty-hint-hint." The answer didn't change, only the explanation. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
My last question was: "Are you turning over another new leaf?" Stephen |
||
|
FatesWarning Junior Member
since 2007-12-27
Posts 30 |
"If you'll reread my last question..." That is the last question I am talking about. lol |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Oh, forget my silliness. I am, however, intrigued by your name "FatesWarning". I understand that is a Death-Metal band, similar to the band "Opeth". Do you also like Opeth? Stephen |
||
|
FatesWarning Junior Member
since 2007-12-27
Posts 30 |
Your research fails you. Fates Warning is not a death metal band. Never has been and never will. |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
FatesWarning "1st Question - Various religions teach that one should love his/her neighbor and not to kill another human being, etc." Why do they teach the same thing? because every one sees the same human problem. Have any religions got rid of the human problem? "3rd Question - There are many reasons why people think alike and not alike - politics, philosophies, social, religious, socio-economics, etc." People do think alike. "4th Question - For many reasons; genetics, socio-economics, psychological, etc." because people think alike so the environment play a role --chance or not have chance. [This message has been edited by TomMark (01-05-2008 04:20 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
You've got a point. A couple of times on the web, I did see them referred to as "Progressive-Death-Metal". But what's in a label anyway? We can shed labels so easily, and take on new ones. So do you also like Opeth? Stephen. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Which has benefited man on Earth more, religion or science? . |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
you Huan, of course religion. which history is longer? science or religion? Human has religion when they eat raw!! (fruit)and From the second generation. As for benefit, who is going to define it? [This message has been edited by TomMark (01-05-2008 05:25 PM).] |
||
|
FatesWarning Junior Member
since 2007-12-27
Posts 30 |
Stephanos, So where on the web have you seen Fates Warning labeled as death metal? And who on the web said it? I mean, after all, I could call Family Guy a kiddie cartoon, but that doesn't make it one. EDIT: In context, shedding your shedding labels comment doesn't apply to this particular subject matter. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: What if that's asking something like: Which has benefited man on Earth more, light or water? Stephen |
||
|
FatesWarning Junior Member
since 2007-12-27
Posts 30 |
TomMark, 2nd Round 1st Question - Not exactly the same thing, but basic principles that lead to order, peace and harmony in order for the human race to be successful in life 2nd Question - Completely, no. Some people think alike while others don't. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
FW: quote: Or you could say that "Family Guy" is significantly different than the Simpsons, but I suspect you like them both, and therefore they hold something in common. You could also say that "Fates Warning" is not the same as "Opeth". But I suspect that you like them both. And for that reason, one could almost surmise them to be one and the same. Stephen |
||
|
FatesWarning Junior Member
since 2007-12-27
Posts 30 |
Stephanos, Fates Warning is not the same as Opeth. Not even close, so what you said is not true. Your surmising seems to be lacking in understanding. I hope you aren't as faulty in your surmising of matters in faith and religion. |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
FatesWarning "but basic principles that lead to order, peace and harmony in order for the human race to be successful in life" DO you see that that goal is meet? Why do we need to be taught of those things? Who authorize them to teach? |
||
|
FatesWarning Junior Member
since 2007-12-27
Posts 30 |
"DO" why yell? Round 3 Question 1 - It will never be fully met. Question 2 - Not all people need to be taught those things. With some, it is inherent. Question 3 - Those who teach it themselves. |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
Dear FatesWarning, I did not yell. It was typo  "It will never be fully met." why? "it is inherent." How? by genes? "Those who teach it themselves." How does human beings with low moral teach oneself to be a high moral Being? |
||
|
FatesWarning Junior Member
since 2007-12-27
Posts 30 |
Round 4 Q1 - Because we are humans. Q2A and B - Through genetics and upbringing. Q3 - You missed it. Those humans who believe themselves to be of a high moral standards, which they may be, teach it. Of course, some of those may be doing the Creator's will. If a Creator does indeed exist. If not, they are doing the will of what they believe. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
FW quote: Opeth ... FatesWarning ... a certain Soundgarden song. I guess you're right, these kinds of things really have very little in common. I just can't shake the feeling that there's some mysterious connection though. Stephen |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
FatesWarning, you curiously never answered Stephen's question as to whether you like the band known as Opeth. Allow me to be more direct, if I may. Were you previously registered at this site under the username Opeth? |
||
|
FatesWarning Junior Member
since 2007-12-27
Posts 30 |
Ron, If you don't mind me asking, and I don't see why not. What difference does it make? And why would you care to be involved with a matter that was between myself and Stephanos? |
||
|
FatesWarning Junior Member
since 2007-12-27
Posts 30 |
Stephanos, Back to the original subject matter, I did answer your last question. Yet, you did not care to reply. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Since you again evaded the question, I'm going to choose to take that as an affirmative answer. What difference does it make? It matters because, after years of giving you the benefit of the doubt, you were ultimately banned from posting here for breaking the rules one time too many. We don't ban usernames, we ban people. If you wanted to have the ban reconsidered, Mike, surreptitiously registering yet another username wasn't the best way to do it. Of course, your lack of disclosure and subsequent evasiveness would suggest you already knew that? |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
I am going to have nightmares tonight. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Nope, couldn’t let this thread die without my 52cents worth. “Just Who Is This God?” I can only tell you who God is to me. God the Father keeps me in line, and I get out of line quite often. In fact, my name has changed so many times; I’ll hold up the line when I get to the Book of Life. God’s a very patient father, because he knows I have this thing about shoes…and that I’m not in any major hurry to earn my wings. God the Son keeps my heart open to others, by his example and undying message of hope, love, faith, peace, joy, grace, & charity. But, since I’m all too human, my hopes may get displaced, and love can take on a bad drunk feeling. I may lose faith, about like my car keys or my way. Peace ain’t anywhere in sight, but I’ll turn into some idiot on a mad joyride without a lick of grace in my wheels and Charity? She’s really discombobulated herself with Love in a biblical way and she needs to quit giving all women a bad name But anyway, in my sea of too many fish, and in my little valley where there’s not enough road or dough for a Cenora Shelby CS8 Mustang, Jesus is the Man with the life boat & he’s the best Crew Chief this side of heaven. He’s saved me, even though I took a dive too many times, and blew too many mind gaskets to count. God the Holy Spirit empowers my spirit, mind, heart & body to continue onward when I fall backward, wayward, and basically in a rut where no one might reach me and I’ve become lost in a very dark place. I do pretty well most times, because I feel like I have halp! But sometimes I slip or things slip through, like sickness, sadness, disheartenment, bitterness, disloyalty, drug & alcohol abuse (caffeine, cigs, fine cigars, & wine), self-loathing, neuroses, man-eating, those sort of things and, huh, probably in that order, now that I’ve looked at what I wrote. So much for trying to write without spilling all the ugly beans while dishing Spirit Soup. Still, “soup is good food.” So, while I’ve described three roles God plays in my life, there’s more. More I don’t have a clue about and more I do: Like the existence of my daughter beyond all scientific standards and explanation. To me, to disbelieve God is to discount the most precious gift I’ve ever received. I couldn’t will her to live no matter how I’d die for her. She is her own individual self, separate and apart from me, but very much a reason for why I’m still around trying to better myself, much to our displeasure on occasion, so it’s not like we worship each other. In fact, I think she plots on me in stealth ninja mode just to see what kind of heathen things I’m up to. “I’m the momma!” Just who are we to be so human and uniquely individual? and why can’t we just see the beauty of that instead of always trying to one-up the other. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
