From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 19:25:23 -0600
----- Original Message ----- From: "Travis Edmunds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 12:40 PM Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ"
>> > Once again Robert, you have constructed a very relevant and poetic response. > However relevant it may be though, it still buys into assumption sets.
I used to make such arguments as you are making when I was young too. The problem with such arguments is that they can only come from a lack of experience.
I've been waiting for my age to be entered in on a discussion for quite some time now. I'm suprised it took this long actually.
That being said, allow me to disagree with your reasoning Robert, as I don't see experience (or my lack of) being relevant in the least.
It is noble for the young to question authority and to question assumptions. And as you get older you tend to be less patient with arguments you discarded long long ago.
In essence, "that ship has sailed" for you. I understand completely, and ask you to understand that it has left port for me as well. But I'm young you say; how can that be? Well, I don't have biological age backing me up on this one, but I feel like I've lived a hundred years. I've been to the stars and back. I've lived past lives, and lives yet to come. I write, and have written for as long as I could coherently put ideas together. And in that writing is a pure journey of self discovery. I've solved the mysteries of the Universe (you get my meaning, I'm sure) simply by transferring thoughts to words. And in those words, those conversations with myself, I have discovered certain things that I hold to be true. This has led me to adopt a certain line of thinking, which I hold true to. A line of thinking where anything and everything is disgarded if it doesn't hold some element of apparant truth. Now I empathize with the fact that people en masse certainly don't think this way. I also understand when people who supposedly have "open minds" refuse to accept, or more accurately adopt, certain ways of thinking. But I still find it amusing that I have to argue my point on some of these issues. Of course I also admit the fact that I may be quite delusional, but I refuse to believe it. Unless of course someone were to prove it<lol>.
In any case, I also refuse to be dissuaded on this concept of good and evil being an inherent part of our environment.
So I hope you can forgive us "old folks" for our impatience with your anti-authoritarianism.<G> Especially since we do not offer authority. We offer our experience, which I don't expect you to have any more appreciation for than we did when we were young. (It pains me to find myself preaching like an old fart)<G>
There is nothing to forgive, friend. And quite apart from your expectations, I do appreciate your experience. More so perhaps, than you may know. I simply don't agree with you.
And as for my "anti-authoritarianism", I think you have it all wrong. It's just a by-product of me making the argument that I make. Of course I come at this list with all the angst that is only proper in a hooligan of my age, but I don't think it interferes with my ability to think rationally.
>While > your first paragraph, being quite anthropological, is relevant, one still > needs some abstract concept of God. It's what it all hearkens back to, and I > reject that.
Let me spell my meaning more plainly.
Morality does not prove the existence of "God". But the same basic morality espoused by religion is actually a set of self-evident rules for social, sentient beings.
You spout mundane truths. I think that you perhaps never understood me. But I apologize, as it is after all my fault for not explaining clearly.
But one thing that stands out when religion is embedded in ANY discussion, is some abstract concept of God. Regardless of the circumstances, God factors in. Now I understand where you are coming from, but due to the fact of divine presence being present in any semblance of religion, and you saying what you are saying...well it renders the very use of the word "religion" a complete joke.
If, there is a "God", then he placed us in a universe where these truths are obtainable and created us in such a way that we require these truths as a part of our social structure.
"IF" that "IS" true, (And I would love to believe that it is) it still goes against the old adage "God works in mysterious ways". I see a contradiction brewing.<lol>
If, there is no "God", then we evolved in a universe where these truths are self-evident and our nature is such that we require these truths as a part of our social structure.
I don't see any discrepency with either view of reality since reality *is* what it *is*.
I honestly have nothing to say to that, and I have no idea why<lol>.
> > And forgive me my presumptuousness, in stating the "man-made evil" in a way > that declared me to be the sole receptacle of that knowledge.
There is the tendency for each of us to ride our own subjective beasts.
How very true. But as I have explained (or tried to explain) past tense, it is in understanding and accepting one's own subjectivity, that one can attempt to approach things in a collectively agreed upon manner, which is the closest we can come to our own definition of objectivity.
>Or perhaps > more accurately, that concept. You see I admit the possibility that evil is > exactly what we are told it is; I just don't believe that. I'm quite the > agnostic fellow you see, and I like to think, that I think about things to > such an extent, that I have seen all angles as well as I can. And when > people make certain comments, that don't seem based in rationality, I get to > thinking that they themselves aren't seeing the big picture. > > Perhaps I should give people more credit...... > > Then again........
There is a very human tendency also to believe we are the sole "soul" existing in a world of automatons. One of the more difficult lessons in life is to find the "soul" in another. Especially if the "other" is somehow in opposition to you.
Once again you hit me with something that is oh so true, but that is oh so obvious. What you are saying is that one should strive to understand another. I do. That is why I have said on a few occasions now, that I have always been able to see through the eyes of another. Understand however, that I don't claim to be special, or a stereotypical "know-it-all". I just try to tell it like it is; or at least as far as I know what "is". Otherwise, I go against the grain of myself, and I find that to be quite the impossibility.xponent Soul Warrior Maru rob
-Travis "seeing is believing" Edmunds
P.S. If you think I was rude or a little crass in any of my statements, please take it for a grain of salt. It isn't my intent.
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
