Subject:
|
Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 6 Mar 2000 03:11:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1240 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Markus Wolf writes:
> > There are truths that supersede science and most people who wholeheartedly
> > deny that probably either go insane or commit suicide. (at least thats what
> > my philosophy instructor informed us that many did)
>
> I think the more we build up the idea of love, the more disappointed we are in
> how it plays out in reality. By accepting a more science-based view, I feel I
> have something closer to the truth of it and I am therefore not disappointed
> in my expectations.
>
> And are you actually asserting by this reference to authority that people who
> refuse to believe in the intangible assertions of others are more likely to go
> insane? Trust me, I am all the happier to have both feet planted firmly on
> the ground -- even if that's all there is...
>
> -- Richard
But I think you're limiting yourself by settling for such low expectations
of love. Not to sound psychological, but if you're protecting yourself from
being hurt, then your protecting yourself from the joy that could possibly
come too. Of course, you could assert that joy is just an internal response
to an external stimuli, etc. etc.
I think maybe our definitions of love are different too. Forgive me for
not remembering it completely but you mentioned two nervous systems that jived
together for a period of 5 or 6 years. I'm not just talking about emotion.
Jesus said, "Greater love has no man than this, then to lay down his life for
a friend." Love produces emotions, no doubt. But love is made up of action.
It's patient and kind and doesn't envy or boast, it always protects, always
trusts. These are qualities I ask God to produce in me, because I'm not that
good at trusting. But if your world is strictly scientific, things like
justice and mercy are meaningless. You might as well forget about the
starving people in Boolah Boolah because it's survival of the fittest, baby.
Now I'm not making accusations, I'm just stretching your point to it's
bitter end. If we vary from the parameceum only in the complexity of our make
up, isn't it better to just let the weak die. Forget modern medicine, you're
slowing down my expansion into the Next Great Race.
And I apologize that my reference to authority made too gross a
generalization. In retrospect, I wish I could remember the names of these
philosophers, but can't, so I just made that statement. My bad. But the
truth is that the cold rationalistic viewpoint has been dropped by so many
Americans, that social scientists have taken note. That's why people who
rejected God of any sort in the sixties and seventies have now embraced New
Age religions. They wanted to shake off that God who held them to strict
morals (sexual purity and the like) but couldn't face the emptiness in
everything is meaningless," so they recycled some Hinduism and created a
spiritual plane that makes them more comfortable.
I believe that "religion" is something we'll create if we don't have it
because we've been designed to have a real relationship with God and there's a
void in every person until they find him. If not a god, you'll worship your
job, your wife, science, whatever. But we're all seeking a Saviour, because
there really is one to be found. Does that make sense?
Markus
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
| (...) I think this is an interesting thing for you to say. If memory serves, you are paraphrasing Paul (1 Corinthians 13? Except in King James it says "charity" instead of "love"). The difference is that Paul was talking about God's love for (...) (25 years ago, 6-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
| (...) I think the more we build up the idea of love, the more disappointed we are in how it plays out in reality. By accepting a more science-based view, I feel I have something closer to the truth of it and I am therefore not disappointed in my (...) (25 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
541 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
