I recall an age before I was critical enough to accept God's teachings as anything more than what they really are. Myth.
I had a good friend who continued to ask my those probing questions without answer. My response was simply, you must believe.
In those primeval days it was only absolutism that prevailed. Not an idea that the Bible, or Christianity, but an Idea that Absolutism must prevail. All assumptions were based off that. It didn't take long for me to learn of other absolutes, and so-called absolutes before I became a reactionary.
The very thought of an absolute was inflammatory. Nothing was an absolute. So if everything wasn't absolute, then what was?
So much for ethics, morals, mortals, and the guns that may be fired in my direction. I retaliated against the institution that tried to bury me in its bosom. I stabbed at its heart from such a close place.
Itchy_turd - 1/20/2006 04:04:00 PM
Why, after what would have to be at least 10 years, do you feel a need to be to openly begrudging of Christianity, to a point of combativeness where you have greater willingness to define your beliefs more by constrasting yourself to Christianity than adding greater depth relating your beliefs in a way others could absorb and (hopefully) mentally profit from?
I know you were imprinted at a young age with a belief system you disgarded once you developed your ego, but such is the case for many people and yet you appear uncommonly devoted to try to retaliate against Christianity in an effort that would appear an exercise in futility to any observer besides yourself.
Chuck - 1/21/2006 12:47:00 AM
My point wasn't to begrudge Christianity. Just a sense of absolutism. In that respect it applies to any other religion.
It was an attempt to verbalize my inner angst as I'm now coming to terms with it.
I think you base your retort on the use of the word myth. It carries a pretty big connotation and denotation for this context, but it's not innacurate.
Let me add, that in order to arrive at the beginning myth is necessary. How does one explain something from nothing?
The soul of my statement was this, So if everything wasn't absolute, then what was?
Itchy_turd - 1/21/2006 06:30:00 PM
Everything is absolute, as in everything will follow the rules that govern existance. Our perception could lead us to believe some things are not absolute, but these are just flaws in our perception. The origin of myth is when a man is trying to comprehend what science and physics have yet to explain for him, but it's not impossible that beliefs such as the soul, the afterlife, or a righteous, omnipotent being governing our existance are correct, and may eventually be validated scientifically.
My response to "So if everything wasn't absolute, then what was?" would be this.
In respone to "Let me add, that in order to arrive at the beginning myth is necessary. How does one explain something from nothing?" read this, including this.
And thanks for the HTML lesson a few topics ago.
Chuck - 1/21/2006 10:04:00 PM
I'm neither a determinist, nor a proponent of the cosmological argument.
The unsolvable things in the world are circles and neverending. The beginning of the universe is that and so is time.
Is that right in a scientific sense? No. Should people stop looking for more detailed answers? No. Is my understanding of the correct answers going to make me a better person, assuming I'm capable of understanding them? Maybe. Do I want to dedicate the time to it? Not really. I see more things that are more rewarding more suited to my aptitudes.
My response to "So if everything wasn't absolute, then what was?" would be [determinism].
I was thinking more like this.
Good to see you picked up on hyperlinking.
|
|
