I think that God has been annoyed with us. I mean look at all the horrible things He's inflicted on some of the most churched parts of the country over the past year or so. There have been terrible floods, record-breaking droughts, wildfires, blizzards and other nasty storms... I haven't heard anything about locusts yet. It's possible that they've been elsewhere trying to avoid the weather. Locusts aside, I concluded from all of this that God was getting the idea that we didn't trust Him with as much fervor as we used to and he was making his displeasure evident. But now that the House has passed a bill reaffirming the trust America has in Him I'm hoping He can rest easier. And if He can I know I will. Maybe in His mercy He will now back off a little on the natural disasters. I'm also hoping that this bill will serve to drive the point home to all Americans across this country regarding our need to trust in Him and be thankful for His dominion over us. http://www2.nbc17.com/news/2011/nov...ill-reaffirming-god-we-trust-nati-ar-1563807/
Well, I can say with absolute certainty that there have been no floods, locusts, droughts, wildfires, blizzards, or other storms in my part of the country since the bill passed. It is the first positive effect on this area from an act of Congress in a long, long time. See what good can happen when the Democrats and Republicans work together on the tough issues of the day? I suspect the 9 dissenters will burn in hell for all eternity.
That shows you have not understood God and the way He works. Now that you've renewed your trust in God, get ready for redoubled afflictions and disasters. These will be times to try people's souls, as the expression goes. It would have been better to leave God alone. You see, Takiji, this is how God tests your patience, and trust. The more you turn to Him the more He tries you with all the disasters you've listed. He will take you to the limits of your endurance, and then a little farther. He will not settle for any empty avowals of Faith. Now, if you'd left Him alone, He would in turn have left you alone. If you don't want anything to do with Him, He doesn't want anything to do with you. But you had to draw His attention. You and America. Now you have His undivided attention. Exams begin tomorrow.
I was only trying to match wits with Takiji. I detected a satirical tone in what he said; unless I misread it. How would you reply to what he said?
I didn't see it that way Karim Kind of Job-like? I'm an atheist, Karim, as I believe you are. My post was was a reaction to a classic exercise in RW Congressional religious masturbation. But that being said your response is fascinating and not at all what I expected. I'm thinking that you know the ways of this imaginary being and how he works on people quite a bit better than I do because you have done the search while I started off without religion and in the ensuing years have only interacted with god vicariously. So I"m hoping to get some insight here. Is this what god did to you? Is what you describe the kind of thing that believers have to endure from their god? "The more you turn to him the more he tries you? And maybe turns you away in order to make you stronger? That's a fascinating statement and one that makes sense to me as it does to anyone who has had a true sensei either literally or figuratively. I'm in no way ready for an exam yet. I think that you might have something to teach me.
I haven't and I wouldn't. The God of the New Testament is more merciful than the same God of the Old Testament. Portraying God as a vengeful God is incorrect and uses false assertions to make a poor argument. I have no problem with good satire even on an offensive subject. Good satire on offensive subjects makes a point. For a good example of such satire, look at Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal." I see no good in any satire that is offensive merely to offend. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal (discussion and history) http://www.art-bin.com/art/omodest.html (Swift's satire) I don't usually condone Wikipedia as a source, but from my memory of the topic, this entry seems pretty accurate.
But that is exactly how many Fundamentalist Christians do portray him. And the idea that a reassertion of "In God We Trust" and a call to have it plastered on public buildings everywhere was so important to the well-being of the country that the House of Representatives actually had to have a vote on it is absurd and is worthy of satire, even bad satire. Maybe especially of bad satire.
Sorry, Tak--at this time I bow out of the discussion. LSU just beat Alabama (GEAUX TIGERS!) and I'm in no mood for such serious discussion. But again--ceremonial votes are not unheard of--they happen all of the time. When the Texas legislature voted to make the Blue Lacey the official state dog, it was ceremonial and meant little to anyone other than to people who own Blue Laceys. But they did and it was a nice way of acknowledging the breed's contribution to the state. I'll get back to you on my opinion of Fundamentalists tomorrow.
Well, Takiji, whatever I say now is definitely not satire. I'm not trying to be sarcastic or argumentative with HollysMom. I was born into a very religious family. I didn't become a complete atheist till the age of around 45yrs. For the major part of my life my main subjects of interest have been religion and philosophy. I've studied Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, and a little Judaism. Coming now to the subject of God. Read any saintly work; or any mystical work. The one theme you'll see predominantly is the trials God puts you through. You have to be quite clear in this matter. There's a vast difference between what the typical believer in any religion is taught, and what the mystical and the saintly, who strive to become one with God, experience. Even someone like Aquinas went through trials all his life. Just a couple of years before he died Aquinas gave up all writing and teaching, saying all he had written in his life was as straw. Yet Christians pore over his writings, hoping to discover some truth. St. John of the Cross ended his life saying that God remained unknown. The great mystical classic "The Cloud of Unknowing" says the same thing: God is unknown. And the way to God is a way of torture. Yet, the average believer lives and acts as if God is in their bosom; as if they see God and His miracles firsthand. They talk about God as if they knew all His secrets, and knew why everything happens the way it does. Their knowledge of God would seem to be inversely proportional to their proximity to God. It is a saying in most religions that: Do not try to get too close to God, or do not try to delve too deeply into the ways of God if you desire worldly happiness. Because once you open your heart to God, He will not let you rest easy any more. He does not want you to become too comfortable in the world. If He were to let you experience material happiness, you would forget Him. And He does not let go of His beloved ones that easily. It is a saying as well, that in suffering you call upon God more often than in happiness. For these reasons God brings trials and tribulations upon those who are closest to Him.
I have not read a huge number of saintly works. But I have read enough of them and spent enough long nights with people who are having their own struggle with God to kind of understand what you and the saints are talking about. And I see the difference I think between those he see God as kind of companion and parent through life and those who see him as the omega with whom oneness is their only purpose here. What struck me initially about your description of the deity was his tendency to pile more on you as you became closer to him. This conforms with the idea of the teacher that I have experienced. But the goal of the teacher is not to break you or make you subservient but to make you an equal or better or even a worthy adversary. You are not supposed to become one with the teacher, you are supposed to know. If that makes any sense.
It may surprise you to know that Schopenhauer, who was an atheist as well as a pessimist, was also a mystic. This may seem like a strange combination. Mysticism and atheism would be supposed by most to be contradictory. Yet, I also consider myself to be a mystic, even though I'm an atheist. And when I read your comments, especially your relationship and experience with your teacher, I see that as a form of mysticism. Traditionally mysticism has been a means of extinction of oneself in God. The experience was everything. For me, knowledge is everything. I consider knowledge to be higher than mystical experience. Heidegger had a similar approach when he sought to adapt the Tao to philosophy; in his thinking on the path. You will probably understand this if your purpose is to come to a certain knowledge without thereby implying the necessity of a creator. The best explanation I've found of such a mystical approach is in the "Siddhartha" by Hermann Hesse. In it he talks about this knowledge. You just come to know. There are no words; no explanations. You cannot teach it to another. But when you have it, you'll know that you have it. I take the "Siddhartha" and the writings of Schopenhauer as my scriptures.
Geez, can't you guys lighten up? Mention God in any less than worshipful tone and all you guys can think to do is start putting up the burning stakes.
