Adding reason to faith

Your method of replying is tedious and defeats any form of rapport so I have chosen to change my method only, yours undoubtedly will still be the same. Do not take this as a negative aspect of communication; I just believe I can state things in a better way if I change.

The second mail was not extensive, there were two attachments; one called DJShepard2.doc and one called A Respect For All Life. The first was a normal reply, such as this one and the second one was for your perusal to be taken up in a discussion outside of your blog. I am sorry that you misinterpreted this but then again I never explained myself, so the fault was mine alone and not yours.

You state a truth must be the truth, and in a narrow minded way you are correct. Open you mind Sir. When I say truths are time related I am talking about ALL the time humans have ever existed. Today we use two base ten without the use of logarithms to achieve four when squared, but this was not always the case, therefore it is easy to understand that two plus two can be four and then again not. Your version of the truth is tainted by a small era of history and so when you decide to tell the world of a change in their personal attachment to a deity and faith and understanding of our collective existence, you cannot start at the end of human history. All truths and understandings of truths are time related, always have been and always will be. Truths are flexible and open to interpretation.

What we believe to be true today will change tomorrow, proof of this is found throughout human history. We as a species have always changed our understanding of our surroundings as our perceptions became wider. An example; when latter day humans moved out of the Euro-Afro-Asian area and re-discovered the Americas, all previous texts had to be re-understood. When they were written there was no understanding of nations across the vast oceans, Columbus was heading for the East Indies as their knowledge of the globe was pitiful, they thought they were opening a new route to Asia to speed up the import of Asian spices and materials. When the “New World” was found it shook the foundations of European understanding, they thought they were the be-all and end-all and had built up a following of all nations throughout Europe built upon this misunderstanding.

If your premise of truths being static and have always been i.e. a truth is a truth no matter what then your understanding of the universe should have been the truth since modern humans moved out of the African peninsula into Europe approx. one hundred thousand years ago, if present day understanding is to be believed. Humans at this time had no, I repeat NO, understanding of mathematics and science in comparison to today’s modern humans, so your interpretation of truths and their static nature is well and truly flawed.

You state that there is no room for literary discretion, and so you mean if what you write is interpreted in a manner which you believe to be incorrect then the person involved must be wrong. Open your mind Sir. ALL writings are open to discussion and interpretation. If a person feels that what you have written is to be understood in a manner that does not reach your expectations they are not necessarily wrong. That’s the beauty of “The Word”, it’s not something you have control over.

Embrace the differences of interpretation, sometimes it’s a blessing in disguise. All interpretations of writings are correct for the person involved in understanding them. If you feel that they are being misunderstood then you are only seeing it from one angle. You understanding is your understanding and yours alone. You arrive at your conclusion due to the myriad of parameters that go to make up your life. If someone has been raised in different country with a totally different cultural structure and working history then they are not likely to fully understand what you write in the same manner. Open your mind Sir. It takes a world FULL of different people to make up the human population of this world. If you want to write something that cannot be misinterpreted by anyone no matter who they are, you have to be able to write it in all languages with all the idiosyncratic nuances still intact. You choose to write in a singular language therefore you have limited the scope of understanding available to the reader. An interpretation is just that, and nothing more, not to be dismissed or reviled, but to be taken as a floating parameter you have not yet taken into consideration.

The next point of contention, this property of soul business, let me explain a few things to you Sir. The bit of God that is not you but comes from God is what I am referring to. Your example of you giving your D.N.A. sequence to your biological offspring has NOTHING to do with the part I am discussing, namely; the soul ! So yet again your argument is based upon your misinterpretation of the information given. I at no point mentioned the physical make up of a human, I did however point out in your work the meta-physical soul you stated God gave each human and then took it back at a later stage.

Let me say one thing about this point Sir, my soul is MY soul, it has never ever been a part of God and never will be. Your work revolves around the return to purity of consciousness and understanding to appease and follow the misinterpretation that has led humans in this world into conflict. Humans have been around far longer than Gods or what we have perceived Gods to be.

If not then we are mere puppets of the Gods for their amusement and gathering of understanding they are not capable of. I don’t know about you but I do not want to be a tool of the Gods. If God has to use my physical presence to gain knowledge then God is no longer omniscient. Sorry but God is omniscient already and doesn’t need my history or anyone else’s to make Him whole.

I feel as if you like so many others who believe in the “made-in-the-image-of…..” have the same tendency to transfer human ideology and understandings to and from supposed “greater beings”. You cannot compare human thought with that of beings we choose not to fully understand. You set borders and criteria that stand up to modern day human scrutiny on a moral scale, but humans have been in existence longer than these scales.

If what you say is to be accepted then it has to be able to be transferred from nomadic humans in Australasia with over fifty thousand years of history to present day Scientologists with less than fifty. It doesn’t, thus it is therefore more than likely to be incorrect. I am not saying that it is incorrect Sir, but you are using knowledge that has only just become available to human beings in the span of your lifetime. You may also be correct in everything you state to be a truth, but then again it is only true when you choose to look at it in exactly the same way as you have deemed appropriate.

When I stated I believe in everything, it means I am able to encompass all forms of belief including nothing and nothingness. If this is too hard for you to understand then I feel sorry for you. It’s really a very simple thing. It’s easy to understand that two plus two can result in four, but if you open your mind there is no way that two exists as an absolute. We can mathematically understand atoms at the ratio of ten to the power of minus twelve meters and quarks at ten to the power of minus fifteen meters and then we get stuck in a quantum quagmire, well until some other bright spark comes along and takes our measurements even further. On the other side of the scale we can also speculate the plus side of the scale in relationship to the size of the universe which is at presently guess-timated at ten to the power of plus twenty five meters. (On a personal note Sir it is logical to deduce that for every measurement on the minus and plus scale, that there is an exact and opposite value, as previously understood in the latter twentieth century, so quarks are not the smallest entities within this physical universe.) The beauty of the universe and universal understanding is they are floating parameters that hopefully will never be fully understood in this era of human history. It is not for us to achieve this goal presently, but is for the thousands of generations yet to come.

So the one you have waited for eh? What is God? You’re going to be disappointed though.

God is what you want and /or make it to be. God is different for every single individual who chooses freely to believe in it. The individual chooses uniquely just how much God has to do with their lives. Some choose to abandon themselves completely and leave their entire existence purely in the “hands” of God and some others choose to use the teachings they perceive to have been given by their God, as their guide within their lives.

You have chosen to want people to believe it is a form of consciousness that allows us as vehicles to attain knowledge it is unable to, to pander to the need for expansion instead of stagnation and decay. That we humans are equal to it before we exist and become equal to it again after years of service in the gathering of information in the form of human experience. Some choose not to believe in a singularity called God but an understanding. None and all of these interpretations of God are equally true when viewed from the point of view of the individual involved. No one human being has the right to say another’s perception of God is not true, and that is what makes God immaculate. God is everything everyone wants it to be. I hope I have cleared up this for you.

There told you so, disappointed aren’t you. You’ll claim that this is not an answer, but it is the very core of the question answered in full!

Now for the question of existence. Yes we exist. I know you like to draw upon predetermined understandings of philosophical debate about if we exist or not, but really Sir, the argument that we reason we exist because we believe in ancient wisdom etc.. is nothing short of “The-Emperors-New-Clothes-Syndrome”. Don’t be fooled by interpretations of philosophy made by people who have had far too much time on their hands. We are not the figment of some being’s imagination and believing that we could be is like taking all of the forward thinking that humans have made all by themselves over the entire period of time we have existed and calling it knowledge we were graciously given in a controlled manner by this unknown entity. If you have to argue that you exist then you are removing ALL human development and reducing it to the will of something more than humans could ever be, is that what you want to achieve? Isn’t being human good enough for you? Do you need a Creator and a God and a Whole to make you who you are? Why the hell (excuse the expression) do people want humans to be ignorant of their own capabilities? Humans are walking miracles, capable of so many wondrous things, over coming huge hurdles in their development and detriment. If humans are not good enough without the need for “greater beings” then you are nothing more than yet another writer condemning the human race to another era of ignorance. Open your mind Sir. If humankind is to make any advancement beyond that they have chosen to “barricade” themselves within, they must be allowed to become accountable for their history, and then freely choose to do something about it, or choose not to and never “grow”/ “evolve” call it what you will.

Your retort of : quote “whatever” end quote : is expected of a child. Grow up, you either want to engage in an adult discussion or you can cease to reply, one or the other, make up your mind. I will not accept “whatever” as an answer and I would not expect you to accept that as an answer either.

So, Mr. Shepard, may I thank you yet again for your reply.

Peace, Love and Respect

With Respect comes Love, with Love and Respect comes Peace

Remember : Religion guides you, it doesn’t rule you.

J °C

Logician.

Leave Comment | Permanent Link | Cosmos