Let’s Get Things Back Into Perspective Here!

Posted by moses on Wednesday, July 06, 2005 at 04:29 PM. Read 820 times. Tags:
{name} pic

Les, I just went thru a thing on my blogspot allanjanssen.blogspot.com that got me going enough I though I would run it here too!

The fact that we can examine ourselves thinking, (Like mentally looking in a mirror) is one of the great mysteries. This, along with the existence of God, the process of evolution, and much more in the metaphysical sphere are questions that do not easily lend themselves to interpretation.
Not to take anything away from the Eastern Philosophies, (Since they probably have a better handle on things than most Western Religions) but these are answers we mistakenly try and understand from a here and now point of view. As long as we look at these questions from a materialistic, egocentric point of view I dont’t think we will find an answer.
Perhaps the question “Is there a God” or better yet, “What is God?” are areas that we are not meant to address in this life. They could, by their very nature, be unanswerable. (Here we go, now everyone is going to tell me THEY have the answer. Save your breath, unless you have a REALLY bad Messianic Complex!)
The point is, perhaps we should be more concerned with attaining a “State of Grace” in this life, and then sitting back to see where it leads us in the next! Remember..(from my book God-101) When all else fails, the simple solution is usually the correct one! OR If you hear hoofbeats, look for horses, not zebras!

After that, sure enough, all sorts of people replied to tell me the answer!!!!! The best was two pages on variations of “one hand clapping!”

Why can’t some of you people LISTEN instead of grabbing anything at all as an excuse to once again spout your bullshit nonsense. Listen to me please, I don’t need double talking, asinine, convoluted, self absorbed, deluded rants to make me see the light! The truth is not in the Bible or the Koran. (Or the Bhagavad-Gita for that matter!) They should all be thrown in the garbage because they were written by sun-baked, wandering nomads who mostly ate bugs and honey..... of course they saw God~!
God is not in a book because that is other people trying to tell you what is right and what is wrong. You are not going to find paradise by listening to 2000 year old, hallucinating, camel jockeys.
KEEP IT SIMPLE! Don’t jump thru hoops trying to explain the infinite. Don’t manufacture all these grand theories on the nature of God. Certainly don’t sit there and try and second guess what God wants, and CERTAINLY don’t tell me that you know what God wants ME to do!
I don’t think it’s our job to probe these questions yet. When we are ready they will be revealed. But they will be revealed to EVERYONE. I think God is big enough that he doesn’t need translators. Remember-the simple solution is usually the correct one! God is love!!!!
In other words, God is within you and no one should ever come between. If we must refer to religious texts I would like to quote from the Book “G0d-101” once more.
One of the core sayings of Jesus was “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed, nor will they say ‘Lo, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ For behold, that kingdom of God is in the midst of you.” Jesus tells us quite clearly that the “Kingdom of God” is not a coming kingdom, or a future kingdom, but rather something already in amongst his disciples. It is not a place, but rather a state of mind! Or, to quote James Breech once more: “Your concept of the kingdom of God, whether it belongs to the future mythological conceived, in either eschatological or apocalyptic terms, misses the reality of the kingdom. The symbolism really refers to a power that is a basic factor in human experience!”
** The foundation of Christian ideology revolves around “Love” for one and another. To understand this we need to define exactly how the term or meaning of “Love” is used! In the first instance, there is the true Christian “Love” which means it is rooted in the power of the kingdom of God. This is the “Love” that the historical Jesus preached to his followers.
The second type of Christian “love” (small L) is defined solely as an ethical idea that was propagated by the spreading Christian faith in trying to define the words of Christ.
Nietzsche probably best defined this form of Christian ‘love’ as a masked feeling of pity or charity. In other words, we feel sorry for others and from this superior moral ground to lend a helping hand.
Nietzsche claims that Christian ‘pity’ (love) is a device used by those who are not themselves truly vital and alive to obtain a perverse elevation of their own position by undermining others. In other words, “I can make myself feel better by thinking you or someone else is worse-off and deserving of “love.” We often confuse the feeling of Christian “love” for someone with:
1. Pity for them.
2. Humanitarianism-or a love of Mankind.
3. Altruism, or self denial, and
4. Sentimentalism, or wanting to be with others.
These concepts of “love” have been re-enforced over and over again in the Bible through one story or another.
What Jesus actually said was something much more basic and infinitely harder to achieve. The historical Jesus did not urge us to love Mankind or to feel pity for someone else.
He did not tell us to deny ourselves for someone else’s sake, or flagellate ourselves, or even to enjoy another’s company! What He did say was pure and simple and straight to the point, “Love one another.” This sort of Love is not the altruistic love of Mankind, nor the possessive love for our mate, but rather, something that requires hard work, tenacity, and sacrifice.
It is easy to love your wife or husband, child or parent, but to Love your neighbor (or stranger) is a task that is never ending and always requires effort.
It is a Love that seems to have no immediate benefit and is therefore not practiced by many people. However, in the long run, this is what will make Humanity rise up to it is potential and approach what Jesus referred to as the “Kingdom of God (Father).”
This is not something that is to be expected in the near, or far, future. Rather, it was a state of being that is present at this time, and only has to be observed and followed in order to achieve a state of Grace. --Allan W. Janssen

Comments:

Page 2 of 2 pages  <  1 2

moses United States Posted on 07/10/2005 at 12:12 PM

moses pic

By the way, anyone who is heavy into P.C. or is easily offended is going to get a lot of bumps and bruises as they go through life. It’s your choice!  A.W.J.

moses United States Posted on 07/10/2005 at 12:16 PM

moses pic

P.P.S. I remember when I was in high school their was a movement afoot to do away with Shakespeare because he was considered politically incorrect at the time. (Even though that term had not been invented yet!)
Thank God cooler heads prevailed, otherwise no Shakespeare!

Brock United States Posted on 07/10/2005 at 02:28 PM

Brock pic

I agree:

It’s easy to not take offense when others try to be offensive.

It’s OK to make fun of someone if the intent is to make others laugh.

All Middle Easterners race camels for a living.

Did I miss learning anything? grin

 Signature 

“At six I was left an orphan.  What the hell is a six year old supposed to do with an orphan?”
Unknown

decrepitoldfool United States Posted on 07/10/2005 at 02:38 PM

decrepitoldfool pic

At the risk of breaking the momentum, it is not true that names or stereotypical images cannot hurt us.  When threaded into the dominant culture and coupled with negative intent, they certainly can.  What we should watch out for is the negative intent more than the words.  This involves paying close attention to other people’s signals, listening carefully, giving the benefit of the doubt, making judgement calls and sometimes being wrong. Most people are uncomfortable with the possibility of being wrong.

So much simpler to ban certain words!  But negative intent quickly finds other words, which is why there is a steady parade of terms marching from the “OK” to the “not OK” category.  Just to pick one big example, Martin Luther King used the word “negro” descriptively but if I ever used it today, I would most likely lose my job.

Y’ notice many of us arrived at SEB with negative or shocking pseudonyms?  Interesting.

decrepitoldfool United States Posted on 07/10/2005 at 02:40 PM

decrepitoldfool pic

Brock, I love your new Gravitar!  LOL

All Americans eat at McDonald’s 3 times a day and watch “Fear Factor"…

OB United States Posted on 07/10/2005 at 03:01 PM

OB pic

At the risk of breaking the momentum, it is not true that names or stereotypical images cannot hurt us.  When threaded into the dominant culture and coupled with negative intent, they certainly can.  What we should watch out for is the negative intent more than the words.

Right!  That’s why I can see why the “targets” of certain epithets might choose to render moot the negative intent of a word that brings to mind a stereotype by embracing the use of the word themselves.  “Queer” is an example (and one that some right-wingers I’ve argued with have been all sorts of pissed off about, since it’s lost it’s negative connotation).

The only thing someone could call me that would piss me off would be “Republican.” LOL

 Signature 

Invisible friends are for children and psychopaths.

moses United States Posted on 07/10/2005 at 04:23 PM

moses pic

Now-Now people, let a smile be your umbrella.  wink

(God thing nobody knows where I live after a comment like that!)

moses United States Posted on 07/10/2005 at 04:25 PM

moses pic

Wow-talk about Freudian slip! (God!Good!)

Talking Soup United States Posted on 07/10/2005 at 09:06 PM

Talking Soup pic

Whoever first said “Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me” didn’t know what he/she was talking about. Plenty of people can tell you how much it hurts to be called epithets. There has been all manner of study and speculation on the origins, evolution, and effects of negative epithets. There are some words that just shouldn’t be used.

However, I agree with DOF that political correctness can go too far. Oversensitivity can have negative effects, just like insensitivity, particularly on the use of language. “PC terms” are changing so often it gets difficult to keep up. It would be nice if we could take negative epithets and remove the negative connotations, but history has shown that this can take decades.

I don’t think anyone really has the answer. It’s a matter of personal opinion which is better and more comfortable--oversensitivity or insensitivity.

decrepitoldfool United States Posted on 07/10/2005 at 10:11 PM

decrepitoldfool pic

I can’t agree that “there are some words that just shouldn’t be used.” The context and intent behind controversial words DO matter as any number of community discussions over American Literature curriculum have shown. 

Also I don’t really care much if someone gets their feelings hurt.  To make that a determining factor is to steer by the sensitivities of the most easily offended.  (or the FREOG’s - “Federally Recognized Easily Offended Group")

How offensive to be, with whom, and for what reasons is - as you say - a personal decision based on what it costs in credibility and other social currency to do so.

warbi United States Posted on 07/10/2005 at 11:10 PM

warbi pic

How offensive to be, with whom, and for what reasons is - as you say - a personal decision based on what it costs in credibility and other social currency to do so.

DOF, you sound like someone I’d love to sit down and have a beer and chat with.  (I know, I know, dangling preposition...) lol

THEOCRAT United States Posted on 07/11/2005 at 01:18 AM

THEOCRAT pic

When I told you your opinion reminded me of the “documentary” What the Bleep do We Know?, that was a statement of recognition.  Not an endorsement for you to go get it.  We spent a week in Intro to Philosophy watching it.  The next week we discussed and tore it apart with the help of the professor.  I see you made one of the same basic and most obvious errors in your argumentation.

Originally posted by moses:
Perhaps the question “Is there a God� or better yet, “What is God?� are areas that we are not meant to address in this life. They could, by their very nature, be unanswerable. (Here we go, now everyone is going to tell me THEY have the answer. Save your breath, unless you have a REALLY bad Messianic Complex!)

Originally posted by moses:
The truth is not in the Bible or the Koran. (Or the Bhagavad-Gita for that matter!) They should all be thrown in the garbage because they were written by sun-baked, wandering nomads who mostly ate bugs and honey..... of course they saw God~!
God is not in a book because that is other people trying to tell you what is right and what is wrong. You are not going to find paradise by listening to 2000 year old, hallucinating, camel jockeys.

So now that you absolutely know this much about God what empirical methods brought you to this conclusion?  I take it you can prove that God is not found in the Bible, Koran, Bhagavad-Gita, Book of Mormon, etc. or that he exists at all?  In all honesty you don’t know anymore about God than anyone else does(after all we’re all agnostics).

Your ideas though interesting are still only your own BELIEFS about the metaphysical.  Nothing about the metaphysical can ever be known so everything must come to belief only.  No one can know what God is or isn’t, so your statements are no more logically and perceivably true than those of the religions you may detest.

shana Japan Posted on 07/11/2005 at 02:05 AM

shana pic

My problem with political correctness is that it is simply a name change for a deeply flawed method of description. I don’t care what you want to call each race--I just think that race in general is a crappy and inept concept.

 Signature 

“Like reindeer in the sky you can.”

warbi United States Posted on 07/11/2005 at 03:03 AM

warbi pic

Your ideas though interesting are still only your own BELIEFS about the metaphysical.  Nothing about the metaphysical can ever be known so everything must come to belief only.  No one can know what God is or isn’t, so your statements are no more logically and perceivably true than those of the religions you may detest.

Excellent point, Theo.

moses United States Posted on 07/11/2005 at 07:58 AM

moses pic

Theo, you make a good point but rather misdirected. As I explained, I do not attempt to expalin what God is, just what God is not!!!
How do I know...simple.
The Bible, Koran, etc. all have the taint and smell of human interference and postulating in them.

It’s easy to see what are human interpretations and explanations of God in the holy books because of the inconsistancies, lies, absurd statements, boastfull proclamations, assinine philosophies, etc etc etc.

Like I said, throw them out the window and talk to God directly.
Allan W Janssen

THEOCRAT United States Posted on 07/11/2005 at 12:19 PM

THEOCRAT pic

Originally posted by moses:
The Bible, Koran, etc. all have the taint and smell of human interference and postulating in them.

If you wrote a holy book what would you write?  Would it not be tainted in the same way?  Seriously, people tried to write what they believed about the metaphysical and we have a bunch of different religions today.  Each one of them could have read God 101 and still come up with what they did because they “talk to God directly” by their own beliefs.  In order to know what God is not you must know something about what God is.  God can not be known so what you claim God is not can not be known since no one knows anything about what God is.

I know there are some “inconsistancies, lies, absurd statements, boastfull proclamations, assinine philosophies, etc etc etc” in the Bible, but I have no conviction to ever completely understand God to begin with.  Kierkegaard supposedly chose to become Christian because it was the most absurd of the religions he looked at.  I think he was on to something(although I do not recommend becoming a Christian just because of the absurdity).

I still have every intention to go to seminary after college and become a pastor of sorts.  My talking to God directly still has me believing that the Christian God is the true God.  I don’t need to figure everything out in the Bible to believe in that God because I don’t expect that it will ever happen.  I may not be able to explain all the inconsistencies, but I don’t feel a need to either because my talking to God makes all of them clear in ways that are not expressible in words.

These are my personal beliefs.  You can not tell me I am wrong because there is nothing empirical for either of us to base such statements on.  I will continue to believe in the Christian God and you may continue to believe that God is not a bunch of different things and others may believe he doesn’t exist at all.  No matter what way you look at it we are all still believing and no one is understanding anymore than anyone else.

moses United States Posted on 07/11/2005 at 12:28 PM

moses pic

Theo, be a Christian, Muslim, Hindu or Venusian if you wish. I just get really pissed when someone says they know what’s better for me than I do!
I guess that’s the bottom line of the point I’m trying to make!
Allan angry

Page 2 of 2 pages  <  1 2

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys


Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


<< Back to main