Yes or No?
Chez Joel writes on How to Find God in Three Arduous Steps.
I thought it was pretty well-formed. You read it and tell me what you think...
I thought it was pretty well-formed. You read it and tell me what you think...
Labels: family, interactive, religion, website, writing
posted by k_sra at 10/03/2005 09:29:00 AM
14 Comments:
yes, well formed in thought and theory - but what is the basis for wanting to know or bringing a conclusion to the hypothesis. Will it have an affect on the living of daily life? Science will remain constant as natural law has defined it and human beings will remain as consistently inconsistent as they have for generations - searching for an explanation for that which they are simply not meant to understand.
Who says we're not meant to understand it?
i stand to say the creation of man, earth and universe is not in the realm of human understanding as we live today. do you disagree in belief that you understand it all? please tell.
HA! You switched tracks on me when my back was turned. Here I thought you were arguing for dismissing the question of whether or not god exists because it's out of our jurisdiction, but really all you wanted was my take on creation vs. evolution! I don't know. Nor do I need to. And it would not in fact change my everyday living if I knew the how or what of our planet's genesis. But knowing that a God exists and knowing who he is and what he's like and whether or not he's worth loving, yes, that does affect my everyday living.
But I want you to explain further what you meant by "what is the basis for wanting to know or bringing a conclusion to the hypothesis?" I don't quite understand the question. Having a question is enough reason, in my mind, to seek an answer even if the answer is inconclusive. To understand is one of our rights as human beings.
i will retort by saying, who says we are meant to have such human rights.
such as who says we truly have independence. we should save this conversation for another time.
And no, i did not go behind your back. why did you turn around?
My response may fall somewhere on the line of evolution and creation, however it was really a response within the boundaries of jurisdiction as you hath intended.
i will say with defined thought, it is outside our realm of understanding, hence why bring confusion to your mind when getting an inconclusive result. that is the basis of my response to the concluding hypothesis segment. why concentrate and extend energies to such things not meant to be understood.
As for your question of love, it is my stance that there is nothing but love with God. Thus, time should not be spent trying to find love, because it is simply everywhere - and it is in the searching that we fail realize that it is always there to be felt and lived.
//time should not be spent trying to find love, because it is simply everywhere//
And what if I don't accept your premise that love is simply everywhere? How do you expect me to reach that conclusion unless I am permitted to question that premise and to search for it myself? (You must have come to that conclusion after doing some questioning and searching of your own. not fair to deny it to others...) It has been my experience that very little is found unless it is looked for first.
And even if 'love is everywhere,' honestus, why would it be necessary to ignore it or to pretend we weren't curious about its origins, its source, its intentions? Aren't we allowed, in your world view, the right to question ourselves, others, the world visible and invisible? I am not comfortable with the thought of being loved by some vague force o' love that's rippling through the universe. I want to know who is loving me and I want to know why. How does this make me a violator of your code?
//i will retort by saying, who says we are meant to have such human rights.//
Who says we aren't meant to have "such human rights", honestus? It's the Who that I am waiting to hear from you. Who do you know that has imposed this moratorium on thought? (And I think you should fire them whoever they are because they obviously don't know much about fundamental human nature.)
And on a purely asthetic note, why are you using the word 'hath?'
your remarks bring both smile and thought.
the conclusions i've reached are mine and are through mine alone. and i certainly do not mean to bring closure to your search for answers which is both deserved and necessary.
i have a personal code by which to live, but no 'right' to impose it on others. and i am intrigued to learn if you do disagree that love is everywhere. i am confortable knowing that i am loved and content without questioing its existence, but that may be a difference between you and i.
in regards to human rights and such, it is my firm stance that the only rights i have is that of my own human body. all other rights are given or afforded to me.
hath is a word that seemed to fit the phrase. is it improperly used?
in conclusion and with my last response for the day, my rebuttle is meant to further ascertain your stance and understand it more thoroughly. at the same time, give a glimpe of thought from this person, also seeking answers. i am glad you replied with such vigor. i would have expected nothing less. bravo. i leave much in admiration.
Love implies a relationship. How can you love or be loved if there is nothing to love or love you back? How are you defining love, come to think of it?
Great.
Now I have to wait till tomorrow...
English isn't your first language, is it?
okay - curiosity got the better of me, so i returned.
(laugh) - how did you know. I've always had trouble with the English language.
I do not know if it is correct or no, but in my mind, love is an expression gratefulness - and we should always be grateful.
Grateful to whom? Gratitude also is an expression of relationship.
So what is your first language?
Interesting article. My main gripe with it, though is that it starts off with "science is an innappropriate tool for examining the supernatural", then goes on to talk about evidence, logic and statistics. These are all tools of science, which he has just said doesn't apply.
I'm not saying that science does or doesn't apply to the supernatural but, if you're going to state that it doesn't, then you probably shouldn't use it to support your argument.
Logic as a 'thinking' tool - have not heard that phrase before. insightful.
//Grateful to whom? Gratitude also is an expression of relationship.//
Grateful to God. Although I'm not sure i agree that 'gratitude' is relationship based.
//So what is your first language?//
English is probably considered my first since i use it more than anything else, but i have come to be a student of many languages. Spanish, Hindi, Latin, etc.
Gratitude is either an indication of relationship between two people or it's a rock band. Which are you referring to?
First language: whatever your parents taught you as a baby. Was it English, Hindi, Latin, Spanish?
My first language is English and I have a smattering of other languages which never get used. Sadly.
"Look for Him to answer you."
- that's exactly what I tell people. The only real proof you can have of God's existence is if you pray and your prayers are answered. Works for me.
Post a Comment
<< Home