Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Botnst
The problem with trying to arrive at God logically and rationally is that we humans impose our logic and reason on God and expect that its presence will conform to these peculiar forms of expectations. This would be okay if God were a rationally or logically circumscribed entity, but I see no evidence to support that hypothesis, do you?
|
No I do not.
Though it might work in reverse. God, existing from a scientific perspective maybe only as a subjective concept of its creations, imposing its plan for all.
We, the "circumscribed entity", conforming to its expectations, or not.
Respect for God being critical and belief in the anthropomorphization a sinful distraction.
I had a short period when I was younger when I felt "life had no meaning" In not too long a time it transpired in me that; if "life has no meaning" what was different than if "life has meaning"? Not much, because if nothing changes other than the label, the jar and its contents remain as they were.
So maybe God is a label, which we can remove from the jar. The jar, the way it is opened, the usefulness of the contents, remain the same. And the instructions for opening the jar, the prescriptions for the use of its contents are equally valid with the label removed.
I guess I would call myself a "religionist" if that means that I accept the work of the originators of religions as being a valid effort through intentional striving toward something meaningful (the manipulation of the jar). The work itself or the striving being the crux. Denying comforts, satisfaction and complacency to grasp what it is I need to be and become. This I think is essential though it implies no guarantee. Even the writing of these words separates them further from there objective intent. As the use of the jar is not the jar itself nor the instructions, but rather the act of its use. A transitory thing strived for by all beings.