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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Chuzzlewit who wrote (34650)	4/13/1999 8:53:00 AM
From: Rick Julian	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 108807

Chuzzlewit, Over the past few days, I've sensed the subtext of the discussion has been that if one can refute the historiocity of Jesus, and can identify the logical inconsistencies in the Bible, that somehow this disproves its truths. Indeed it may on a purely logical plane, but there is a meta-truth, a gestalt, which isn't subject to logical dissection. Christ's (Buddha, Lao Tsu, Krishna, Mohammed . . .) teachings contain truths which intuitively resonate with the soul of mankind, regardless of whether he even had a corporeal existence. IMO, the Bible is an artifact of humanity's consciousness, and as such is as jumbled and flawed as we all are--yet our flaws don't preclude our ability to be truthful. Would you try building a bridge or treating disease on that basis? All poems, paintings, novels, and songs are lies, yet many contain immutable truths. I wouldn't recommend that we build intuitive bridges, nor would I recommend intellectually constructed music, or rational paintings. Intellect is important, yet resides on no higher a plane than intuition does. (AT our best, we balance both hemispheres of our nature.) We seem to give short shrift to the latter because we can't quantify it. Does intuition's resistance to quantification justify its dismissal in academic circles? How do academics debate "love" on the road to discovering its "truth"?