Adding reason to faith

I will try and answer your question from the end of your last reply, but first allow me to try and clear up a few things. As previously stated I believe that your work is meant only for good, and a better understanding of life for all. I also believe that your work is a “remodelling” of previous texts to suit a modern day interpretation. This is by no means a criticism Sir, just an observation. You back up your work with years of dedication and research to achieve your goal, and justly deserve the credit for bringing enlightenment of your findings into this world.

I still however choose to believe that even though you are obviously convinced that everything you state in your work is true, there is still scope to question a few points. My main point is your belief that God “needs” to learn. You state that it has to, to circumvent a human understanding called eternal recurrence, but in doing so I believe you “reduce” God. Who says God is subject to eternal recurrence? Just because we humans think the way we do, why do we need to believe that God is subject to the same rules? I would like to think that God could quite easily surpass this small problem, as that is what Gods do, just how? God alone knows.

You state “God, like any entity with free will can choose to stop learning” if so, what happens to us?

                When I stated it is the will of the universe to be host to life, I did not mean that the universe itself has a will, it may, it might not, what I meant is at this moment in time we know that there is life within the universe and so there must be a reason for it, and quite simply put, the universe allows life to exist within it.

                I used the euphemism “lab-rat” to coin a phrase, I should be more careful with the words I use to describe a situation, but this is an accurate phrase of what your work implies.

        I do not suggest that we should not explore the concept of first cause, I think that it has merits and could quite easily be true, but then again there are other options than a singularity theory, should they be summarily dismissed? The big bang theory is a very, very recent development in human philosophy, and so exploring it is a “must” if we are to evolve in our thinking.

        You state “Religion by definition was never a concept of logic. Religion is not based upon logic.” I totally disagree. I believe that religion was the logic of those who wrote it, or to put it in other words, it was the understanding therefore the logic of the time, which tried to explain life.

Djs: If so you are a very unusual individual, but then the very fact you think independently, demonstrates you are an unusual individual.

                I take this as a compliment

                Now for your question;

                My thesis is totally different from yours. I deal with real things in real time, I have an answer that works within a small time frame, and within my own lifetime. I take all of human behaviour and explain life as a human in human terms. It doesn’t take anyone’s spiritual well being into consideration as that is a secondary “goal” in a world that is ripping itself apart. Inventing a “new” interpretation of God and whatever it is supposed to be and represent is new paint on an old wall. What my thesis can deliver is a here and now solution to all of human suffering and allow all peoples to “redefine” just who they are, and in this process they automatically start to address they spiritual well being and what they are as an individual and as a nation and as a species. The difference between us is clear. I give all humans and everyone that has ever existed that right to believe exactly what they want to believe irrespective of a solution that saves them, you version saves them too but only after they all capitulate to your way of thinking as shown in your responses over that last few months in our correspondence. You do not accept a supposed “wrong” interpretation of your work, in fact even though I begged you to understand they are all correct, your “hackles” rose again and stated that there is no room for literal discretion.

Hell, I don’t think that your interpretation of a god is worthy of being divine if it can’t get over “recurrence”. Your work states that god is a rational being, what you mean is your version of god in your mind would be as rational as you think, and so will also think the way you think it should think. My works have been around for a time now and have met all sorts of responses, all of them correct from the point of view of the reader, and I embraced them all, some of them tore it onto shreds then reassembled the pieces into a manner they thought better suited them and their own personal situation. When they showed the result and stated that this is what is should have said if it should apply to them I simply replied, all I gave was the blueprint, no two solutions are they same, all solutions are unique, as long as you find a solution that helps you, then the blueprint works.

I never set out to give all life on earth a solution.

I did however set out the availability of solutions for all.

Your question of survival if we are doomed to die is a common one by others too. The answer is as follows : Who am I to tell you, what to believe? I have a belief that allows me to think that when I die, it is only a physical response to prolonged exposure to physical time, yet there is still a part of me that does not die at that specific time as it is not physical. Just what that is, is up to me to find out in my own way and not to be told by someone who thinks they know more about life than I do or anyone else does for that matter. When I find out what I want to call it, i.e. a soul, it will be something that I choose. It also allows me to be totally incorrect and in conflict with what others believe happen to them when they die, and it doesn’t matter one iota. My belief is an all encompassing belief, call it omni-religious, if you will (it’s just a hyphenated word, not a rule), I represent humans and human behaviour without being a human saviour, remember when I asked you about the responsibility given to those of us who tread paths that were not meant for us? You stood and said you knew the inherent danger and were willing to put your name to it, well, it also gives you as an individual absolute “power” (within those who choose to embrace your teachings), I on the other hand disperse the “power” available to all humans and change it from “power” to responsibility of the individual and the respect of the individual to encompass all life, in other words all peoples for the first time have a reason for living, based upon the respect if the individual, the local, the national, the cultural and thus the global definition of the human species, we all become ambassadors of our species in each others eyes thus removing the inherent danger usually associated with these types of methods, by giving it freely to them all. Without changing on iota of whom they are. All become responsible for everything all do. (Scary eh!?) No one left to blame, except ourselves. No excuses for what happens after the implementation of the solution, and no going back either. (Even more scary!) A true test of all religious beliefs ever written, can humans take the reins and reign themselves? They haven’t been able to up until now, but I am one who believes that we can if we want to, we just have to want to.

Your works within the spiritual “sphere” of a human’s personal philosophy, are your interpretation only and “should” not to be impressed upon people who have no idea of what or who a divine entity is. As stated before you have reduced god into a pigeon hole with a label on it. God if you let God be what God is, is indefinable, just ask any true believer and they will tell you the same, therefore you have no right to tell them otherwise. You state that there is a divine part of a human, what you mean is there is a part of a human that even you cannot explain fully and so you associate this trait with being divine. Don’t worry it’s normal used by millions from the “shamans” of old to the “Pharisees” of the new, and the “charlatans” of the modern, all in a bid to impose their personal understanding of the world forward before others. If you can’t explain it, it is therefore divine or has a bit of the divine in it, that understanding has lead to more deaths then all the bombs ever dropped in history. Logically there is a part of every living thing that cannot be defined in a neat little sentence or phrase or word, and just what that is, is not for one individual to EVER define, thus taking away the mystery that is life and love and therefore (maybe) a combination of the two may possibly be. There can be a billion wonderful expressions attached to the question of life and love, so why the Hell should they be reduced to a few, let’s call them, popular phrases, which over time change no matter what.

Because I can believe in your teachings, basically because I can understand all the aspects of it, I can also choose not to believe in it, as I have found, as I have, in all other teachings, huge holes in their theories of the reasons for everything and they clouded it in religious dogma and the ever present “divine” card played at every table when the “chips are down”. Don’t take what I’ve written personally, if you do then you are not ready for what you thought you could achieve. Hey, you could be right after all and everything I have just written is false. It doesn’t mean I’m wrong though, and you still could be seriously wrong and on the verge of starting yet another “belief-krig” that could quite easily result in an early exit of the human species from this planet, but who am I to tell you anything?





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.

djs: Respoonse to follow

Leave Comment | Permanent Link | Cosmos