Love is a well understood physical and emotional state. There's no mystery
about it. So is religious devotion, BTW. You may talk about matters of the
heart but the heart is just an organ that pumps blood. It can be replaced
and the person stays exactly the same (except for the impact of having major
heart surgery of course). So everything really happens in our minds. We can
choose which part of the mind to use. You use the part that accepts God and
the Bible because of how it makes you feel. In that sense it is a crutch to
help you through life. I'm not saying this as criticism. I just don't feel a
need for it.
On of the reasons I have continues this discussion in an effort to make a
point. The anger and frustration that many of you feel about the things that
I say is exactly what I feel on a daily basis as I am exposed to well
meaning but self righteous bible thumpers. What I am trying to say is: Leave
my immortal soul to hell alone. It doesn't belong to you. And that goes for
gay people as well.
Albert
-----Original Message-----
From: cpf0000-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[SMTP:cpf0000-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tom Jedrzejewicz
Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 4:59 PM
To: Open discssion among iSeries Users
Subject: Re: [CPF0000] What is religion?
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 16:10:44 -0700, York, Albert
<albert.york@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Alan,
>
> Thank you for sharing your viewpoint. I consider you one of the
"good
> Christians" :-)
>
> You are right that there are self righteous people on both sides
of the
> fence. If I come across as one then I am truly sorry. It arises
from
> frustration. I enjoy a good debate but I feel strongly that
opinions should
> be backed up with facts.
If you insist on facts, why are you bothering to participate in this
discussion about something which BY DEFINITION cannot be proven. As
soon as something is proven, then faith is no longer necessary.
It is indisputable that love exists. It is also absolutely
impossible
to prove, and really cannot be discussed factually. So, by Alberts
standards, love should not be a topic of debate. By Albert's
standards, since his love for his mother (or her for him) cannot be
proven, it cannot exist.
That is a fundamental contradiction -- we know something exists, but
cannot explain it. I know God exists as surely as I know that love
exists. Perhaps you may as well, or perhaps not.
> I don't believe the bible can be counted on as
> *only* having facts, because of what I know of its history. It was
written
> by many different people over thousands of years. It was also
written a long
> time ago in agrarian societies and extrapolation is required to
apply it to
> the society we live in now. That adds additional errors.
Who says that the Bible has only facts? It is most certainly NOT a
history textbook. Those who stop at the "literal word of God" are
missing quite a story. My experience with the Bible is that one
hears/gets from the Bible what one needs to live a better life.
There are many priests, theologians and college professors who make
careers arguing over interpretations and translations. I think that
to some extent misses the point.
Take a parable like the Prodigal Son. The layers and meanings are
very dense, and what a listener/reader will take from it will depend
on where the listener is at that point in their life.
--
Tom Jedrzejewicz
tomjedrz@xxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
This is the Open discssion among iSeries Users (CPF0000) mailing
list
To post a message email: CPF0000@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/cpf0000
or email: CPF0000-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/cpf0000.
