Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jamey who wrote (673)	9/5/2000 8:59:11 AM
From: epicure	Respond to of 28931

>God wanted subjects who would follow him out of love.< Why did He want to be followed at all? I think that is the real question. Having "followers" is such a small, human thing to want. And my- look at the conditions- he wants them to follow him out of love. They can't follow him because they are afraid? Lots of people seem to follow God because they are afraid. I think Mr. McRitchie said death was the big problem. So if someone believes because they are afraid of death is that not good enough because God wanted to be followed out of love? Of course that's only your interpretation of what God wants. I think God really ought to intervene in discussions such as these- since he has so much time on his hands- and clarify these issues. But he never does.

To: Jamey who wrote (673)	9/5/2000 2:34:56 PM
From: cosmicforce	Respond to of 28931

Actually Santiago, I have quite a bit of faith. My faith seems to be more naturalistic than institutional or dogmatic. I was raised Presbyterian and intermittently Unitarian. What I see and know drives my theology. This doesn't mean that I only believe in what I see. Sometimes there is a whole greater than the parts that requires a synthesis of facts. That is one line where belief and proof must be negotiated. If you took your car apart and put it out on the front lawn, there is something missing - the car-ness of the car is gone. A car is more than it's parts - it is a sofa on wheels, providing comfort, protection, isolation and a bunch of subjective things that only arise out of its use and completeness. I can't really prove that car-ness is even a property. But it seems to be. This network extends beyond the object and becomes something of an objective, yet intangible, reality of its own, not apart, but holistically joined with other objects in its network. If you go through life stomping ants, to use X's analogy, I think you are debasing yourself. Your punishment is that you are the kind of person that stomps ants. There is a lot of baggage in this state of being. Stomping ants means you don't have enough empathy or compassion. Without these you live a more isolated existence. This is closer to my definition of an objective "godless state". I'm very open to new information. If I was created with intelligence, logic and free will and placed into a home where those things were cultivated and almost every creature with these properties deviates from God's plan, that is His problem and not mine. I don't blame my computer for the bugs I write in my code. It just isn't logical (or "fair" to my computer). The Tibetan Buddhists believe that all truths lead to The Truth. You can't have a factual observation that is at odds with The Truth. Just can't happen. This makes sense to me. So, when I see extremists of any kind who devoutly believe to the point where they will cause great harm to others who feel differently, I'm shocked that they have a moral calculus that is so at odds with mine. They see harm where I don't or it's greater than the harm I see. We are at a disconnect. This is a factual observation. Most Muslims aren't out blowing things up. Neither are most Christians. But, you know, Tibetan Buddhists are NEVER doing this or supporting it. That is a big plus for them, in my book, but even they are more doctrinal than I am.