| |
|
Seems (to me of course) to be quite a nice example of an agnostic perspecitive on the existance of God. Acknowledging of course that my saying that doesn't mean that you Nutrient are agnostic, but it's just how it reads to me.
No offence possible here, my Evil friend. None of these labels are really of much interest to me. I'm not sure what the point of them is, other than to compare and contrast - and I definitely don't see the point in that...I'd be interested to know why the thread starter feels the need to identify 'what they are'...? It's a static, dead thing, imaginary. Real Things are Living, changing, infinite. Let's roll with that!
Which is a fair enough answer from your spiritual perspective. But I think it demonstrates quite effectively why materialist science-types such as myself find it frustrating on occasion to talk about this kind of thing with people who have faith.
You're not the only one, nor are materialist types the only ones who find it frustrating talking about these things. I would have identified as such (a materialist science-type) not a couple of years ago. And I'd have been screaming at the screen reading this. It's hilarious, to me, that I am on here writing this stuff now, and not screaming. Hilarious. Change is, and shall become, know what I mean? ;-)
It's pure frustration...like using a screwdriver to bang in nails, or a hammer to plane a piece of wood. Not the right tool for the job, really. I don't, btw, consider that I do have faith...Faith, again, probably means very different things to different people. I study faith as a meditation...a lifelong examination of how our attitudes and Will and Intention can affect manifestation or at least our perception of it...but certainly not 'the leap' which seems to be the modern parlance... No more than you could be said to 'have faith' that you and I really exist and are currently exchanging views over the internet, or 'have faith' that quarks can be strange, charmed (charming?), up, down, top or bottom.
Nutrient: Evidence, you see. Just not the sort I can put on Youtube, or under a microscope.
Me: What sort of evidence is it then? Are you talking about something that provided you personally with, what you consider to be, sufficient evidence of a spiritual force? I genuinely feel it might help if you explain what you mean by evidence.
To me, it's a fairly simple question and makes perfect sense. To you it's extremely complex to the point that you apparently can't explain what you consider to be evidence.
Which, to some materialist atheist types, might look like dodging the question because you don't know the answer. Personally I understand that it isn't easy to frame religious sensations in a way that can be easily understood.
Well, as I said, I think the question says a lot about what your current conceptions of what is, after all, supposed to be inconceivable, might be...at least to those who adopt a view of things which you might label 'religious'.
It's not so much that it's so complex I can't answer, it's that the question leads a certain way...a way that makes little sense. It's not that I can't answer, it's that the only answer which fits, which doesn't break The Rules in these to-and-fro's - is another question, or series of questions.
A more appropriate question, which I've already answered, might be 'Evidence of what?', rather than 'What sort of evidence?'
However, it can come across as being slightly patronising ("Ahh, you wouldn't understand my answer."). Again, I'm sure that isn't your intention here. The frustration stems in part from very different worldviews, one of which gives the impression that you have to be "within" it, believing it, to understand why it's real.
It's a problem. It's not my intention. But, and here's the rub - you wouldn't understand my answer. Or, perhaps even worse - you would (see Quantum, above). That's not patronising, it's just the nature of the wee beastie. The intellect is a powerful and essential tool among the many available to us for deepening understanding. But it has absolute limitations. It is not always the most appropriate, nor the only one that should be used, or used in isolation, or elevated above all others as if they were less relevant, old fashioned and outdated, or, worse yet, non-existant. The intellect can lead you to the questions, but not always provide the answers, or not the complete answers anyway. Do you know what I mean? It's a mighty weapon, the intellect, and like all weapons, needs to be handled with great care and due attention.
Intellects don't kill people! People etc....
When you get back after the weekend I wouldn't mind you explaining what you mean when you say I'm looking in "strange places".
Well, me for a start. You're looking in me. You want answers from me that will not, ever, be any good to you. You want to compare whatever I say with the body of experience and knowledge you already have, and see what you can agree with or object to, comparing, contrasting, rejecting, accepting. Which is all very well, but will not actually help you or me or make any difference to what you are able to perceive or experience...The Mysteries are not Out There. The Evidence is not Out There. The answers are in neither You nor Me. They are in I. But you can't look through one I at the other I, now can you? Nor can the I's really be used to see the I's. It's like reaching for your own hands. Eating your mouth. So to speak :-)
There is no Out There, other than linguistically for the purpose of comparison and contrast. In order to convey experience, while the sentence is constructed and not beyond that. But not Actually. You know that though, right?
It really is frustrating, because every question you ask originates from an answer you already have, or at least presuppose exists...it's a game.
And the way the whole thing is set up, this is how the game is played.
By all means hate the Players, if you want, but it's pointless to hate the Game.
This must be really annoying.
Have a good one!
I did. Thank you! You too! How was yours? |
|
|
