|
|
|
|
KMAN wrote:
in article ,
Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/20/05 2:54 AM:
KMAN wrote:
in article ,
Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/19/05 9:22 PM:
BCITORGB wrote:
Tink opines:
=============
So we can still look forward to our little chats, about boats
and
faith. I prefer the personal approach, to enjoying life. A
website
just seems a little cold and impersonal. That is sort of like
fixing
something with a ten pound sledge, that needed a more delicate
touch!
I
hope some of you can appreciate my more delicate touch, I only
use
a
five pound sledge!
=============
I'm confused. What are you trying to say?
frtzw906
It's like this, I appreciate our conversations. The stimulation
is
good, and it forces me to consider some issues and how my faith
applies
to them in the market place of life. Not that you necessarily get
me to
change my mind, or vice versus. But I have to freshen up my faith
and
the expression of it. I hope that it has been stimulating to you
as
well.
Rest assured that this is one of the main differences I feel
between
what I am saying, and what is usually passed off as religion
(visa-vis
Ron's approach), and which I believe KMAN and others have such a
viseral reaction too.
First off, it is "visceral." Secondly, my "reaction" to religion
is
not
visceral, but rather based on obvservation and reasoned
conclusions
about
the functioning of religious belief systems and their real world
impact on
human beings.
A very standard dictionary definition of religion is:
"Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers
regarded
as
creator and governor of the universe; a personal or
institutionalized
system
grounded in such belief and worship."
It seems to me that your god blather fits this definition rather
perfectly,
Tinkerntom. So I'm not sure why you think your religious belief
system is
somehow disctinct from "what is usually passed off as religion."
There you go correcting my spelling again
The important issue was not really the spelling.
but you seemed to know what
I was writing about. Now whether you agree with me or not, that is
another issue.
I was disagreeing with you about my having a visceral reaction to
religion.
Even your definition of religion
It's not my definition, it's from the American Heritage Dictionary of
the
English Language, Fourth Edition.
comes from your dictionary which may
be correct, but that is not what I am talking about, and I am sure
you
haven't the foggiest Idea what I am speaking about. That you keep
trying to pound it into the religious mould, demonstrates your
complete
unawareness of a part of life that for all your observation and
reasoned conclusions, you are blind and clueless.
yawn
The dictionary definition is a reflection of a common understanding
of the
meaning of the word "religion."
You seem to be saying that your particular god blather is not
"religion." I
am pointing out that it seems to fit pretty well with what most
people would
describe as a religion.
Reminds me of a story, a lexiographer, desiring to publish a new
dictionary, and in all fairness wanting to get unbiased definitions
based on any preconceived perceptions, got to the word "elephant".
He
decided to hire four blind guys to help develope a definition of
what
an elephant is like. So he placed one at the front, one at the
rear,
one underneath, and one on the back of the elephant, and ask them
to
describe what an elephant was like. Needless to say he got four
widely
different definitions.
Reminds me of a story. A lexographer, desiring to publish a new
dictionary,
and in all fairness wanting to get unbiased definitions not based on
any
preconceived perceptions, got to the word "elephant". He decided to
hire
four blind guys to help develop a definition of what an elephant is
like.
So he placed one at the front, one at the rear, one underneath, and
one on
the back of the elephant, and asked them to describe what an elephant
was
like. Needless to say, all four of the blind guys through their life
experience developed an understanding of what an elephant is. Being
blind
but fully intellectually functional, each of them figured out what
parts
they were touching and although some of what they were touching was a
bit
shocking, it did nothing to dissuade them from their understanding
that an
elephant is a really big freaking mammal. So, the lexographer ended
up using
a definition of "elephant" that was very much like past definitions
of
"elephant" which was fitting since elephants had really not changed
much
since the word "elephant" was first associated with the big freaking
mammals.
All I can say to you KMAN, is that I am speaking of something that
goes
beyond religion.
Since religion involves belief in the supernatural, you must be WAY
OUT
THERE to go beyond that, Tinkerntom!
I am not interested in religion per se; belief in,
reverence for, personal or institutional system, even if grounded
in
belief or worship, according to your text book definition. All
these
thing are things that man is doing
Right. A man like Tinkerntom. And I think he's about to do it again.
Notice
how he won't be able to see the hypocrisy in this.
and probably using for his own
power/control structure as you so consistantly point out, where he
is
the big cheese, the top banana, the muckety-muck! That the rest of
us
get to admire because he is so "spiritual" at least in his own
humble
opinion.
I am not interested in what man is doing, I am interested in
finding
out what God is doing! Now obviously if you don't believe in God in
the
first place
Only because She doesn't exist.
then you don't believe He could be doing anything at all.
Approaching this issue in the hypothetical, whatever She's doing,
being an
omnipotent supernatural being and all, it's pretty clear to me that
She'd do
whatever She wants to do, and ranting about Her on a kayaking
newsgroup
isn't going to impact on what She does. Since, after all, She is more
powerful than Superman or even Oprah.
Or if you believe that there is a pan-theon of Gods, then you may
be
interested in what they are doing, but most likely, they are more
concerned with each other than mere mortals.
Um. If you say so.
However if there is a God, would it not be beneficial to know what
He
is up to! If it is possible to know Him, and to see what He is
doing,
would that change how you look at life and respond to other people,
and to Him. All the philosophical head games, word games,
annoyingly
cute games, that you play with yourself, and with others, become
meaningless, if He is, and we can know He is. Play your games in
life,
and here on RBP, if you want, but if He is, you are only screwing
yourself and depriving yourself of the greatest trip around!
Then again, maybe religion is a barrier to personal growth and fuller
enjoyment of life.
I assure you that there is God
I assure you that there is no god.
He loves you
So does my cat. Only my cat exists beyond Tinkerntom's imagination.
and He will show Himself
to you if you honestly desire to know Him, TnT
My cat will show Himself to you for similar reasons.
Your spiel in this message was 100% stereotypical of the blather of
every
promoter of every religion. Disappointing, Tinkerntom, disappointing.
And your cluelessness is not surprising!
" Since religion involves belief in the supernatural, you must be WAY
OUT THERE to go beyond that, Tinkerntom!"
But you are beginning just maybe to get the hang of it a little! Even
Melissa in her recent e-mail got as close, and then turned away. Check
her e-mail if you are interested, see what you can uncover. This is
getting fun again! TnT
|