Further, the religious requisite of fearing God one's entire life hardly inspires trust that one is loved unconditionally. A supreme being who inspires awe would not want devotion extracted by coercion. (Natalia)I will only point out that I suspect that part of the appeal of paternalistic religions is that the notion of a father-god allows the follower to assume the part of the delinquent child, as opposed to a responsible adult. (Pete)
... in a creative universe God would betray no trace of his presence, since to do so would be to rob the creative forces of their independence, to turn them from the active pursuit of answers to mere supplication of God. And so it is: Gods language is silence. The Old Testament suggests that God fell silent in response to the request of the terrified believers who said to Moses, "Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die." Whatever the reason, God ceases speaking with the book of Job, and soon stops intervening in human affairs generally, leading Gideon to ask, "If the Lord be with us, why then . . . where be all his miracles which our fathers told us of?" The author of the Twenty-second Psalm cries ruefully, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"Whether he left or was ever here I do not know, and dont believe we ever shall know. But one can learn to live with ambiguity that much is requisite to the seeking spirit and with the silence of the stars. All who genuinely seek to learn, whether atheist or believer, scientist or mystic, are united in having not a faith but faith itself. Its token is reverence, its habit to respect the eloquence of silence. For Gods hand may be a human hand, if you reach out in loving kindness, and Gods voice your voice, if you but speak the truth. (Timothy Ferris, The Whole Shebang, Simon & Schuster, 1997, p.312)
And in Jamaica, while staying in an old folks home, this one:
There are therefore two ways to God: a way of affirmation and a way of denial. We have to take both. We must affirm and deny at the same time. If we go on affirming, without denying, we end up by affirming that we have delimited the Being of God in our concepts. If we go on denying without affirming, we end up by denying that our concepts can tell the truth about Him in any sense whatever....
... the mere fact that there are beings means that there is Being. If God does not exist, nothing exists. (Thomas Merton, The Ascent to Truth, A Harvest Book, Harcourt Brace, 1981, p.94)
Ed
I>
>
On Fri, 3 Feb 2006, Natalia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> [Ed Weick had written:
>
> | Agree with
most of what you say, Brad, but I don't think we as a species
> | have
ever done anything because it is the rational thing to do. We seem to
> | need a supreme being to compell us to want to do things that are
"good"
> | instead of immoral or "sinful". If not God above the
clouds then Gaia here
> | on earth. Perhaps we are genetically
structured that way. If so, I think
> | we can understand it if we
consider all of the awful things we have had to
> | live through since
our beginnings. Being alone and feeling helpless in a
> | hostile
universe would have been unbearable at times, and perhaps most of
> | the
time. ]
>
>
>>Hi Ed, Hi Brad,
>>
>>As a
species that allegedly evolved according to necessity of survival,
>>it would be logical to presume we practiced a good many rational
choices
>>for 1.5 million years to arrive at this point of obsession
with our
>>current devolution.
>>
>>One may well
ponder that the resultant destruction course went hand in
>>hand with
over-population, for even within recent history the earth was
>>populated by smaller, more environmentally respectful groups.
>>
>>Seculars would dispute that a supreme being is required
to keep a moral
>>check on society, though many would agree that if it
weren't for
>>religious edicts, the fundamentalists out there would
become unbearable.
>>Other seculars might suggest that perhaps
religion has been responsible
>>for a vast sum of immorality by virtue
of the fact that most religion has
>>traditionally tried to tell
people how to think and has, by upholding its
>>holy scriptures,
sufficiently impressed upon them that God is judgmental
>>and
vengeful. That hell and the devil are real. Deep down, people know
>>that they are not sinners, but basically turn psycho at being told
they
>>are, and try to compensate through projections and
manifestations which
>>therapists might unravel for decades.
>>
>>Note that since the realization that most religious
prophets likely had
>>mental disorders, the scriptures have not
actually been replenished. I do
>>believe, however, that people must
have found it easier to communicate
>>with the rest of consciousness
more easily without white noise, modern
>>societal fears, pressures
and so forth.
>>
>>I think religion really screwed
things up by misinterpreting the likely
>>meaning of Free Will, which
may more wisely be said to be free only when
>>our thoughts and
actions are in tune with what will allow all life,
>>including
ourselves, to be joyful. This would in all respects necessitate
>>total alignment with the thoughts of an omniscient, loving, kind,
giving
>>and forgiving being or consciousness, one who could never
force their
>>will upon anyone. Further, the religious requisite of
fearing God one's
>>entire life hardly inspires trust that one is
loved unconditionally. A
>>supreme being who inspires awe would not
want devotion extracted by
>>coercion. If we are indeed God's
creations, God already knows us well,
>>and knows that only perfection
is possible by Perfection. Though most
>>religious people await a
second coming, they may be far better off to
>>rethink the meaning of
a second coming to be a re-evaluation or
>>remembering of who we
really are, who we will--deep down--to be, then
>>freely choose to
respect all life accordingly.
>>
>>There are two ways to look
at the earth in particular. One is that of a
>>place of scarcity, the
other one of abundance. In order for us to live
>>the reality of the
latter, we can hardly disrespect it. Dominion over it
>>should not
imply anything but responsible stewardship. Living the other
>>belief
has gotten us to this desolate point, and there is no alternative
>>left but for peace. I wonder, since we have no other choice, is it
>>considered arrived at through free will? Will we be doing this over
and
>>over till we get it right? Ah, classroom
earth!
>>
>>Natalia Kuzmyn
>
> I more or less
agree with your viewpoint. I will only point out that
> I suspect that
part of the appeal of paternalistic religions is that
> the notion of a
father-god allows the follower to assume the part
> of the delinquent
child, as opposed to a responsible adult. I see it
> as all part of
people's avoidance of doing their own spiritual homework.
> And attending
to the requirements of an afterlife can be a handy
> excuse for not being
concerned with the health of the planet in
> one's real life. ...Daddy
will come along and fix the mess we've made,
> and take us away to
happyland where we won't ever have to worry
> about such things...
>
> -Pete V
>
>
_______________________________________________
> Futurework mailing
list
> [email protected]
> http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
