--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was not trying to convince anyone that my POV is right or debate > it's superiority (as Edg wants me to do) or try to argue that others > should adapt it. But evaluating my capacities for love or passion for > reality as limited seems to go against everything I value in other > people's spiritual perspective. Curtis, thats definitely not what I had intended to say. In the sentence below, to which Judy was responding, "... he cannot love Reality as such" the term to be emphasized would be 'AS SUCH', 'Reality as such' would be as opposed to the objects of reality, like the things you love in life. 'Reality as such' or may be 'Reality in itself' would be an attempt to find a substitute word for GOD or BEING in a more common and vague way. What I am saying here is almost redundant: If you do not believe in God, you cannot love him or her. As simple as that. But that is for a religious person one of the main issues at all: To LOVE God. In any metaphysical quest, there may be passion, search for Truth, but loving God doesn't enter the picture. Please be truthful: I had tried to point this out in my original post, saying that you can of course love your wife, your pet, people and so on. But you surely cannot love God. To say 'I love life' is a different issue IMO, as it is more used in the sense that generally you like the things you do in your life etc, it isn't usually seen as a concentrated love towards a transcendent whole. My point really is, that in this discussion about God, the word 'Love' didn't really enter until now, but it is the most important word for any theist. I could easily say, that I believe in God, because I love him, and you would probably say, that this isn't logical. You would say that this doesn't prove anything, wouldn't you? So I propose for you reason, rationality has a greater weight in your personal quest, is so to say the operative factor, while for me it isn't. Reason plays a role for me too, a big role, but in a different way, with different conclusions. In no way was my post an attempt to put you down or anything. I had purposefully used the phrase 'rational atheist' throughout as a concept, and had also made it clear, that I don't know were you stand exactly. So it couldn't have been an evaluation of what you experience. I also like to point out, that much in the post was about choice, the way Kierkegaard defines it, like in the phrase 'Subjectivity is Truth' That I think is a fundamental difference between us two. Realty is subjective to me, while you seem to posit a rational, objective universe (I am not sure here, but it seems to at least play a big role in your views). I simply claim that I live my own truth, my souls truth. (Normally you would now say, we don't know if a soul exists, it could all be an illusion of the mind; there we go again). So, besides all the overlaps of our worldviews (mainly due to the phrase: 'I don't know' and our common human quest) I do see a decisive, fundamental separation line, in the way we approach, I would say subjective vs objective. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity <no_reply@> wrote: > > > <snip> > > > An atheist may be in awe, but > > > > basically (Unless he is a Buddhist or Taoist)he is just exploring > > > > a kind of a metaphysical study. So he may be in awe, yes. But he > > > > cannot LOVE reality as such, and he cannot develop a passion about > > > > it. > > >
