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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (80325)	1/26/2004 11:05:07 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Saying that I'm so hot on the need to understand God is an exaggeration. Its not something I think about much, nor is it a strong motivation for me. However if the universe did have a creator it would be good to understand as much about the creator as we can. Also if we can't understand anything about God then it doesn't really make sense to talk about him. Unless you feel you have direct revelation anything you can say or think about God is either your own understanding or something told to you by another human who is similarly limited. Even if you have had direct revelation you would presumably have some understanding from that revelation. Tim

To: The Philosopher who wrote (80325)	1/27/2004 2:46:50 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"What I fail to understand is why you're so hot on the need to understand God in the first place" What a foolish remark! You have been rudely loud in asserting that morals derive only from belief in a Supreme Being. Now you wonder at the rationality of SERVING that Supreme Being (through right action) by attempting to understand the moral nature and the moral directives of That Being. If Absolute Morals are based in an Absolute Supreme Being then one would expect that they participate in the Nature of God. It seems to me that you asserted (very loudly) that our "human standards of right and wrong" depended from a Supreme Being (or, at least, in the belief). So why should you find it silly that people seek to understand the wishes of their creator and to serve Him, Her, or It in the most slavish manner possible? When you deny revelation about the nature of God or about His precepts for right action you are already judging the Nature of God and asserting a Deistic or pantheistic or atheistic perspective. You may not be religious, but many people are believers in God; and believers generally are directed (or feel the need) to SERVE whichever God they have imagined. Many people would prefer this service to be to the Proper God and in the Proper manner. After all, it seems a very human, natural, rational, and appropriate thing to seek a more profound knowledge of the entity you believe in or are considering believing in. I am nonplussed as to why it puzzles you. Rational people whom are considering alternatives between thousands of religions and atheism would naturally examine all the critical commentary and philosophical depth that has been delved and to which they have capacity. Why would they question God? Because there are thousands of claims about Gods and thousands of texts about His revealed Nature and about demands to His worshippers. Somebody once said that the unexamined life was not worth living. He questioned the nature of God; because he believed that if one wished God to be a rational choice then one must employ rational means. Some considered Socrates a fairly smart man. You may be smarter, however. And thus, we may hope that you might find he whom will preserve in ageless dialogues the wisdom of your perplexity.