- Good Morning all-
Better night, although my sleep habits are still for the birds. Went to sleep at 10:30, awake briefly at 2:30AM, then 4:30 AM for good. I'm living like a hobbit- small breakfast at 5:00AM, then second breakfast at about 8:00 AM.
I'm trying my cardizem back for BP control. Amlodipine is definitely a no- my sister told me she had a problem with it as well.
I appreciate your posts. I especially enjoyed Leslie's- I sent you an email with a long answer to your observations and questions. Bertrand Russell is making what seem to me to be standard humanistic arguments, using exegetical methods that are as vacuous in his hands as they are in those of Christian apologists (Kim tells me to insert here the exegesis is the practice of selecting out verses or words from a lager passage). It's a facile, dangerous and distorting method to take biblical verses out of context to 'prove' things.
I have read some of C.S. Lewis' books. I like his fiction better than his non-fiction. I have also read Lee Strobel's book- didn't like it very much. It is a standard set of Christian apologetics framed as a conversation, which is not a method that appeals to me.
Russell makes one point with which I agree, and I previously mentioned this- that so many religions claim a unique path to God, and deny all other religions. Clearly they can not all be right. Russell uses this as 'proof' that all are wrong, but this is immediately obviously logically incorrect. There are other possibilities as well, most especially (in my eyes) that God is so vast and beyond human understandi ng that the very attempt to 'capture' God in the form of a religion, let alone in describing a unique spiritual experience, is a complete failure.
The Gospel of Thomas gets this one quite nicely. jesus asks the disciples 'what am I like?' There are three replies, the last of which is 'master, no one can say exactly what you are like.'
I also particularly like the muslim view of science, that in examining nature we are looking into the face of God. I've never understood why people assume that understandi ng of mechanism via science means we understand causation. We understand so little, and are so remarkably arrogant about it. I often think of the arrogance of teens who are sure they know all about relationshi ps and cars.
Some of my sources of inspiration are quite odd. In the vein of muslims looking into the face of God via science, I feel we can find spiritual comfort and inspiration in diverse places. Now, emotional comfort is not found through physical gratification, no matter how accepting a donut may be of our quirks, but philosophic al and spiritual material is everywhere.
I haev always thought it sad, and in the line of Russell's objections to religions, that various groups try to prevent their followers from reading whatever they want. The insistence on infallibility of doctrine and literality of Bible (or other sacred book) eliminates so much opportunity to understand both the physical and spiritual worlds.
For example, I have loved the Harry Potter books, and found them repeatedly touching and inspiring. I don't 'believe' in magic and witches, but then I also find the Odyssey intensely inspiring, and I don't believe in Scylla and Charibdis. Sadly, there are some (and I mostly know devout Christians of various sects) who refuse to read these books because they deal with witchcraft! Wow! I wonder what kind of childrens' books they read. Similarly, I was saddened by fundamentalist objection to 'The Matrix', which is as perfect a Christian allegory as I have ever seen. There is a whole book of philosophic al essays arising out of that movie.
The image of self-transformation transcendin g death in 'The Matrix' is quite gnostic in its character. The virtues of Gnosticism and Masonry are outside the scope of this place.
Anyway, many thanks for everyone's good wishes and prayers. I hope to be at the Women's Pavilion Christmas lunch today.
Ted
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
Comments
Post a Comment