Friday, February 17, 2006

God and World: Reflections


I do not want to make a "federal case" out of any of our disagreements, if indeed we actually do disagree. I can see much in both of your letters with which I am in most firm agreement. I suspect that we agree far more than we disagree.

You are right: I do not know you, and I do not have deep familiarity with your ideas. I can "go on" only what I read-- on the words that you choose to use. Everyone else must do the same, so I do not apologize for this. If there exists a problem in understanding between us, I submit that you are at least half responsible. You will note that I accept fifty percent of the responsibility. Clearer expression leads to more lucid understanding. If you see yourself as a teacher, you owe it to all your students and clients to express yourself clearly. You must work to eradicate illucidity and ambiguity. At times, when you are misunderstood, it is because you need to express yourself with greater clarity.

You write, "...without infriging on others." This is one of the many areas in which we are in full agreement. I do not believe it right to "infringe" upon the rights of any other adult. I feel that sharing among adults can be productive, but no one should ever try to "take over the mind" of another.

You write, "I believe religion is the problem NOT SPIRITUALITY." Here, my friend, we are in perfect agreement. Spirituality is a solution for human problems, and is not the challenge. It is religion that divides people, while spirituality, as compassion, brings people together to try to find agreements.

You write, "Oh, and you seem to run over the dinosaur explanation, can you explain where > they fall in?" If the question is understood correctly, you are inquiring about the place of dinosaurs relative to other species of organism. It appears from the paleontological record that the dinosaurs were a "failed experiment." Most of them perished when a huge meteor or asteroid struck the earth during the Jurassic, about sixty-five million years ago. Had they survived and continued to evolve, the dominant life-form on our planet might not have been mammalian, but a humanoid reptilian. Dinosaurs exploded into thousands of species, but still never evolved towards a sentient (selfaware) form capable of spirituality in the human sense.

You write, "murder is malicouse, killing is natural." There is no distinction when you are talking about a member of the human species. Killing is the same as, is synonymous with, murder! So, you cannot possibly believe, with any logic or reason,that killing is okay, but murder evil. And I am still stymied: What is the advantage to trying to "justify" killing as "natural"? It sounds again as if you are trying to say that killing can be justified, or that it might be even "okay." Even if this is a correct understanding of your argument, what is its advantage? Of what practical good is such an argument? Can it make you a better, or happier, person?

You write, "Greed is mainly the problem, but religion gives them the power to enforce > their wars, spirituality does not." Once again, my friend, we are in total agreement with both parts of this statement. Greed is hideous psychospiritual infection. It is often approved or justified by religion, but never by spirituality!

You write, "I do though, believe in a higher power. That is why I do not follow it [the formal Church], but i do discuss it with those that are delved into it and I am currently reading the bible, the universal type for catholics..." Again, we are in full agreement. I do not belong to any form of organized religion, but spirituality is the very center of my existence. It is Love, and it is the most important aspect of this life. I also do not believe in cults or cult-leaders, as I belonged to a cult until I was in my early twenties. Reading the Bible can be an enlightening experience, although I do not usually read the Hebrew Scriptures. There is a good reason for this: That part of the Bible was the sacred Scripture for the Jewish religion, and I have never belonged to that faith. The Christian Scriptures (usually called by the biased name "New Testament") contain much deep spiritual truth. And I do still consider myself a "Jesus-Christian," even though I belong to no official, orthodox form of historical "Christianity."

You write, "and can you explain evolution?" I have come, after years of research and contemplation, to a compromise-theory called "edit." This is the "evolution-design integrative theory." I accept the truth of evolution, but I still believe that living things, with enormous and beautiful structure, do reflect intelligent design. So, some process caused evolution to occur. It might have been interatomic, intermolecular, or intercellular. But life is simply far too fantastically complex for evolution to have occurred through purely random processes.

You write, "Oh and saying that nature believes we should be here, doesn't that go against what you beleive?" I think that you meant to question what I "believe." And no, this does not in any way go against what I believe. The fact that God used nature to create us implies that both God and nature do indeed "want" us to exist. Both have invested millions of years in creating you, and me. That implies that a higher Power, working through nature's processes, wants us to be here.

You write, "is was GODS CHOICE FOR US TO BE HERE not natures..." Now, because God is fully capable of using nature to do his will, it is an artificial and shallow argument that you must so divide God and nature. This statement implies that if God wants something, nature cannot; and if nature wants it, God cannot. I submit that the opposite is usually true: When God wants something, nature also wants it; and when nature wants it, God also wants it. I do not say that this is always the case, but it is so more often than not. So, this "either or" choice violates the laws of both nature and logic.

You write, "don't push this past Noah after he tried to destroy us because it was his choice again to leave us here." This sentence is not at all clear. What does it mean to "push this past Noah"? Do you believe that the flood-account in Genesis was a literal flood, and that it was sent by the Lord of Love to murder all his children? I see this as more symbolic or allegorical writing. The first parts of Genesis were never intended to be a history- or science-textbook. The ancient stories told there are designed to teach lessons about spirituality. But I do not believe that they represent literal history.

You write, "I see that you agreed on spots that were kept correct by previous." This sentence is not clear to me, but it does seem to recognize the fact that has already been stated in this letter: You and I are in full agreement about many, perhaps most, matters. There is
little disagreement.

You write, "you seemed to have missed that point." First, your assumption that I read your blog was mistaken. Since I did not read it, it would have been impossible for me to have "missed" any "point" that you might have been trying to make.

No comments: