Xean said:
Very articulate, Reauland.
Your philosophy is flawed, Mokk.
Again, seriously, grow up a little. How bout it? Obviously you missed the obvious in my last post to you, i pointed out the irony of the whole thing just in case. It wasen't a personal thing, it illustrated a point. Go ahead and continue to have hurt feelings, i don't mind.
The whole damn point is i never claimed it wasen't flawed, however it's no more flawed than anyone elses. Amazingly enough there's only maybe a handful of people that brought my attention back to this thread for doing exactly that, claiming superiority based on inaccurate information and false conclusions. You want to believe in god? groovy. Just don't stretch the truth to suit your means and don't claim something is a fact over and over again without being able to provide
some kind of source your basing what you believe to be facts, people aren't going to take your word for it.
Funny how i'm some kind of clod for requiring relevent information of people and rones is some kind of einstein in every argument he gets in to for doing exactly that or requiring it of people before they can be taken seriously in a conversation. My bad, on issues where everyone's wrong for their own personal reasons (namely religion and politics) i look to at least attempt to learn something from it all if someone's willing to provide factual information. What a horribly narrowminded person i must be.
In response to Reauland:
I'm incredibly duplicitous. Being of two minds about things is something of a bother. But it also allows for objectivity.
I think both are true of the creator aspect and the omnipotence aspect, i also believe that these are completely contrite human concepts that a higher being wouldn't concern themselves with, and this is a HUGE bitch of mine about people's views on god. How could you possibly thing that any being we could approximate to god thinks like a person? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, the humanization of god people use to give themselves a warm cuddly feeling is a contradiction in terms. Just my take on it, not interested in being validated on how correct or incorrect it might be as i can't bind myself to centuries of history behind this ideal to somehow prove the notion of my answers being the right ones, nor am i interested in sitting in some ivory tower while everyone else goes to hell because i think i'm correct. Like i said i subscribe to the theory that so long as you're a decent person you've got nothing to worry about.
To be fair they're the right answers for me and i'm not going to shove them down anyone's throat, which is the entirety of the topic of this thread. Motivation isn't mine to reason, i'd go mad trying, that other people think they have gods motivations nailed is quite possibly the most arrogant thing a person can manage to do, IMO. The crux of the whole thing is that no matter what your take on spirituality or religion is it's flawed.
Attempting to make it look like it isn't is ultimately futile no matter how many sources you can find to back your statement. Which is why i view religion and spirituality objectively and historical facts with an analytical mind.
You can take your opinion on the matter and say it 20 different ways and communicate the same idea. The obscure facts related to this issue aren't quite so flexible. Things like dates, translations, causes for what was viewed as cataclysm, political motivations, etc. Whereas you or i may not choose to accept the evidence one way or the other as an individual does not discredit the validity of many of those truths on both ends of the spectrum.
