| Poem: Submit | Random | Best | Worst | Recent | Comments |
|
The Servant and The Messenger (Other) by ALChemy Beloved though you are to me
and coveted by man.
I stray not from my path for you.
For I am under higher authority
and by way of itâs command
can serve one master but never two.
Unless my master is the one
who sent the words that you should speak.
Then I shall be compelled to ask for proof.
Only then shall I leave the road Iâm on
and this new path shall I seek.
Whether itâs end be near or aloof.
Unsheathe the sword of truth before my eyes.
So that I may see that god has changed his mind
or I shall live the same life I have lead.
For I will take only the road to paradise
and not even the mightiest of angelkind
can persuade me with words that god has not said.
Up the ladder:
White Stork
Down the ladder:
Margaret Prays
Votes: (green: user, blue: anonymous)
Arithmetic Mean: 7.375
Posted: August 19, 2005 6:00 AM PDT; Last modified: August 19, 2005 6:00 AM PDTWeighted score: 5.638736 Overall Rank: 2156 Comments:
At first I was impressed with a poet who says he's willing to forsake a belief if he receives truth that better supports a new belief. But toward the end it sounds like you are saying you already have truth and would not accept any other. The first 6 lines are great.
Separated niether the Servant or the Messenger are me but together they represent the struggle in me between what I feel to be the truth and what other forces or persons more powerful than I say is the truth. I shun the idea that god would rather speak to us through angels and preachers than simply directly through our own hearts. I believe that belief and truth are inseparable if not one in the same. Todayâs belief may be tomorrowâs truth and today's truth may be tomorrow's myth. So I think your first impression was most accurate. The servant say's he simply needs proof that speaks to his heart to change what he currently believes is the righteous path. Don't we all.
Your right the first six lines do stand out. I think It's the inside rhymes.
and the clarity and strength of statement. Your long comment above is confusing to me and seems self contradictory. Are you sure you know what you believe and whether you would change your belief if shown good reason?
The beliefs we're talking about are unknown things. Things that haven't been proven. If they were proven they'd be truths. But even things science says are truths can and sometimes have been proven to be untrue. So the quality of belief and truth are simular (I'm talking about truth in practice in our society definition / as apposed to the irreversible truth as a concept definition). Basically I'm saying if you want to change someone's mind about what they believe you must first change their heart. The sword of truth and God's words are words that speak to your heart. The angel is tempting the servant to do something that the servant doesn't believe is God's intention. The sevant isn't sure that the angel is sent by God and asks for proof (the sword of god which is the truth you know in your heart). It's kind of a knock on those so called messenger angels who are supposed to be speaking for God. I don't think God speaks to you vicariously.
This probably hasn't cleared things up but at least i gave it a try. I've always considered myself as a bit of a paradox so my confusing you isn't surprising. But I know what I believe even if logic say's it's a contradiction. Jesus was accused of being contradictory too. I think at some point all religions are and yet I'm still religious. Go figure. If you said something that spoke to my heart (as many of your poems have) it could possibly change my belief in something.
Belief in anything is a paradox, and we all do it. Athiests have it the hardest because of their strong, and often untennable, belief. If we were not emotional and walked only by logic, would we still have beliefs? I think we would still believe that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, for example, and would build our logic of such beliefs. My beliefs, too, are open to continual reconsideration.
Yes, but have you ever noticed that I'm an atheist and I can spell untenable correctly, while, whatever you believe, you can't? Weird, huh?
Then you have at least one belief.
Oh, this conversation. You want to not have fun? Enter the word 'belief' or 'faith' in the comment search-o-matic above. I'm not trying to dis. Most of the crap there is mine.
What exactly is an atheist? If a person doesn't believe in any religion, why argue with them? Seems like arguing with a brick wall to me. Besides no matter how you look at it you end up with something coming from nothing. If I were to define God at this point in my life I'd say God is the infinate potential that must exist within infinate nothingness. Look up the Sumnum philisophy.
If you have infinate potential then why not have any darn thing you want exist including God or whatever. If you say God is beyond our imagination than God stands above all things we see or imagine. The big bang seperates nothingness and infinate potential into matter and anti-matter. So this is my obviously biased take on creation. I choose to believe because in my heart it feels write, because I just want to. So faith and belief are basically whatever floats your boat.
Sorry that's Summum philisophy no Sumnum.
Be careful! He could hit you with wisdom like, "Yes, but have you ever noticed that I'm an atheist and I can spell right correctly, while, whatever you believe, you can't?"
Thanks D. I'm a notorious misspeller but even that one embarrasses me.
I also misspelled "infinite" and "separates".
An atheist is one who professes without proof that there is no God. Of course I'm not really an atheist, as Dovina should know if she weren't so worried that I'm trying to pants her.
I'd say belief/faith is "thinking something is true despite proof to the contrary." In my sense of the word, thinking that the Big Bang happened or gravity will cause my pants to fall down if I leave them unbuckled is not belief/faith. God IS beliefaith. Of course, this is all rot because God-believers will say they see proof of God in a sunset or a newborn baby's smile. But then, believers say a lot of other slightly silly things like, um, "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" or "untennable". The reason I'm rambling on about this is, well, sorry, but I don't understand a lot of the rest of your comment. Sure if you have infinite potential you can make God exist, but what makes infinite potential exist? In at least 3 out of 10 people, a combination of silliness and laziness, I'd say.
I'll try to explain but it's hard. The ancient Summa had this philosophy of creation that said in order for nothingness to exist there must be the possibility for nothing to exist. Since this particular nothing exists on an infinite scale possibility in and of itself must also be infinite. Infinite possibility = infinite potential. The paradoxical conflict between nothingness and possibility is supposed by the Summum philosophy to cause a chain reaction of negative and positive forces. Voila. Big bang.
I have my suspicions about this idea but it sounds to me like they might be close to what the real answer is. You got any ideas? I'd be happy to hear them.
Yeah, actually I understand that, but it's kind of self-serving, isn't it? I mean, in order to make God exist then, you've got to make infinite potential exist, but that's just as hard to invent as God is, and it's just as arbitrary, just as much an act of imagination, an invention.
For example, with the amount of mental effort it takes for you to believe in the existence of infinite potential, I can: - believe in the non-existence of infinite potential, - believe in the non-existence of nothingness, - believe that the existence of infinite potential means an infinite potential that God DOESN'T exist, - make a cheese sandwich. They're all just as easy, see? As far as nothingness on an infinite scale existing in a realm of infinite possibility, I disagree. Imagine for a moment there are only two possibilities concerning my existence (I know that's impossible, but imagine for a moment): 1) Either nothingness can exist on an infinite scale, or it can't. 2) Either I'm wearing pants right now, or I'm not. As far as the hypothetical reality above goes, is there an infinite possibility? No, there are only two possibilities. Can nothingness exist on an infinte scale? Yes. To make infinite nothingness exist, you only need one potential thing: the potential for infinite nothingness. See what I mean? If you don't, we need to get -=Dark_Angel=-,P.I. back from vacation in Leeds to tear us both to pieces on this. On a side note, some ancient thinker (Augustine?) said that since human consciousness can't fathom the concept of infinity, he can't have invented it by himself, therefore: God. This is kind of balls. Anyone will tell you infinity is just the highest number you can think of plus one, a concept which even the dullest among us can fathom.
I was just attempting to explain the summum philosiphy and I believe I admitted it was questionable. Are you saying if the highest number I can think of is we'll say 100 than infinity is 101. Even the mathematical definition isn't that simple. Any where there is nothingness there is potential. You can only add something to nothing. Your definition of infinite nothing is an exceptable definition but obviously we're here in some way so it's not practical.
I used to be a follower of the Summum 'philosophy', until I realised it was complete tripe. Then I discovered The Splendour Of Gold Argument: How can Gold be so Splendid, if there weren't an equally Splendid Being to make it so Splendid? That Being must be God. I've yet to find a flaw in it; faith has become a very important part of my everyday life.
(Gold = God) -> Tripe.
Yeah what's that meant to prove? That you're ignorant? That you can't tolerate other faiths? That you're jealous and frustrated because you're too bland to come up with an ethos of your own, yet too proud accept someone else's? Get a life.
No really, You said in effect that gold is as splended as God. Is that your faith? Is that what you believe?
"And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks; And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle." Revelations 1:12-13
The element Gold, Au, Atomic Number 79, is intimately linked with the Divine. Just read Revelations to get at least some idea of what The Splendour Of Gold actually means before questioning my position. I suppose you think gold became Splendid on its own? Is that what YOU believe?
You have only pointed out a symbol of gold in the Judeo-Christian faith, of which there are many. Thatâs different from equating the splendor of gold to the splendor of God, as you asserted before.
Ask yourself, why Gold? Why not Tungsten, Cobalt, or Zinc? Are they not worthy metals, too? The fact is that Gold has a special place in the corridors of power -- is it merely coincidence that its Atomic Number is prime? In and of itself, Gold has a singular beauty that could only have come about through spiritual polishing; no amount of heat, pressure, soil erosion, or seismic activity could forge such perfection. And yet you continue to doubt its divine Splendour, in spite of the evidence I've laid before you, and in spite of the fact that the holy girdle could have been made of Rubidium. God chose Gold. I suggest you do the same.
I, in fact, do choose gold for the reasons you mention and for others that I could add. That is not the point of disagreement.
Do you accept that Gold has a divine Splendour?
Gold has some fine qualities that you may lump as splendour. I'd use a less superlative word, however. But the word "divine" makes gold like God, and that I cannot accept.
I've just realised there are grave errors in my exposition of The Splendour Of Gold Argument. After 12 consecutive hours of frenzied prayer to the Almighty, I have finally born witness to a Revealed Truth: it should have been The Splendour Of Mould Argument. Throughout history man has viewed mould with a sort of awestruck reverence. Arab stable boys used to rub it on their saddle sores to prevent infection. Hundreds of years later this curious habit was cemented in Science, with the discovery of penicillin. There is no way so wondrous a material could exist by chance, without the Holy Carpenter's hands to guide it along its way. As a symbol for God, Mould is a good one.
Bless you for diligently and humbly seeking truth. May you find peace in your new divinely inspired doctrine, which suppresses your old divinely inspired doctrine.
May I suggest the use of an Ecclesiastical Censer in your worship? As its name implies, a censer is an instrument having to do with incense and, particularly in ecclesiastical parlance, its use in the Divine Liturgy. In the Judeo-Christian Tradition, incense has always played an important role (Ex 30:1-8; 37:25-29). The liturgical censer, as you may know from studying these matters, is a metal receptacle, usually bronze, but sometimes gold, in which burning charcoal is placed and over which is poured the incense to be burned. To this receptacle are attached chains, which enable the priest to swing the vessel for the incensation of the Blessed Sacrament. Granulated aromatic resin is usually used to produce a fragrant cloud of smoke, symbolizing prayers rising to God. The use of incense comes into the Church from pagan worship (hence the Church's misgivings concerning it during the first centuries) and, as abundant references to incense in the Old Testament would seem to indicate, from Judaism as well. So, why not apply the musty odor of Mould smoke to your worship, which when mixed with the odors your parishioners, be there any, will maintain a fungal ambiance to the Service.
The men put worn and patched sandals on their feet and wore old clothes. All the bread of their food supply was dry and mouldy.
Joshua 9:5
I don't exactly consider myself a follower of the Summum 'philosophy'. I just think they might have been on to something with their creation theory. Some of things they come up with after that get a little absurd. I think nothingness is still governed by some law. That you can create nothingness by uniting matter with anti-matter and that matter comes from the potential of "something" somehow getting an edge over the potential of "nothing". Jesus may have been aware of the Summum philosophy. He certainly spent some time in Egypt.
I'd like to suggest that you prefer Summum creation theories because, one, the word Summum is kind of funny and fun to say, and, two, because when you say you prefer Summum creation theories people look at you and say 'wow, that's pretty out there, man,' and don't know enough about what your talking about to object. Summum creation is not substantively different from any other creation including the one where the world's on the back of a floating tortoise. And it's high time you admitted that Summum philosophy, both as you've quoted it and as it's actually said, has nothing to do with antimatter, and you just made that part up.
As far as nothingness goes (and, despite everything, apparently continues to go), it's silly to say that the potential of nothingness to create something comes from the nothingness itself and not from the something-created. Besides that, there's no reason to believe nothingness ever created anything. Again, that strikes me as something that you believe in so you can believe in God. Which is kind of a backwards way of going about things, if true.
"The Splendour Of Gold Argument:"
God and Gold are splendid because we see them that way but gold can lose it's splender and still be gold. Maybe god spoke us into being so that someday we might return the favor. Before us God would have existed without any objective definition. So maybe what our purpose is, is to find God and define God.
As a symbol for God, gold is a good one. But to equate the maker with the made doesn't quite work for me.
How can you find something for which you have no definition? What test do you perform to determine whether or not you've found what you're looking for? You can't. Your 'purpose' is a gobbledegook. The Bible provides ample description of what God is, and where He lives. If I were to describe Him in a few simple words I'd say "God is He who is Exceedingly Splendid." To find Him, you have only to clasp your hands in prayer. If you don't put your hands together, it doesn't work, because they act as a spiritual beacon for God's message. The Holy Ghost must be a form of radiation, since radiation is the only means of transmitting energy (and hence information) from Heaven, through the vacuum of Space, and down onto planet Earth.
Let me try to simplify. As early astronomers looked into the sky through their primitive telescopes they FOUND objects that did not appear to be stars. It was only later that they defined what they saw as planets etc. So you see you must find something before you define something otherwise you have no subject for definition. If youâre looking for something that has a complete definition then there's no discovery. God has not been completely defined. You can't use words that don't have a universal value like "Exceedingly Splendid" which to one person may be one thing and to another something else. That doesn't qualify as a complete definition but a vague one. Obviously we have some definition of God but not a complete one. If you truly understand God and the mind of God then you must be the Messiah.
Moses knew not how to pray like that when God first spoke to him (No matter what mister Heston might have done in the movie). The bible also says God is everywhere so why would God have to send a message from space if God exists in even the tiniest particle in our bodies. It's like calling someone on your cell phone thatâs standing right next to you.
Another example: You FOUND one day that it seemed the splender of Gold and the splender of God are simular. You deduced that there must be an important connection between the two. You then added the splender of gold into your definition of God.
By the way I think your Gold/God thing makes some good points. Especially when you look at their effects on us throughout history.
But the astronomers (many of whom were blasphemers, by the way) did not say "I'm going to look for a new thing called a star today" before looking up at the sky and finding something they called a star. They just looked up, discovered some phenomena, and gave them names AFTER their discovery. But you were giving your phenomenon a name before you even knew what it was. You called it God. Well, suppose you looked up at the sky and saw a star. Would you think you had found God? No. What if you saw a man with a giant beard and sandals? Yes. He's God. So if you're saying, as you did say, that we must find and define God, you must already have some definition of God before you begin your quest. I therefore accept your clarification that you need at least some partial definition before beginning the search for Jesus.
I'm touched that you've found some good points about The Splendour Of Gold. Throughout history, man has burrowed for Gold. This has led me to believe that Jesus also spent much of His time living in a burrow. A great number of early christian doctrines actually held that Jesus inhabited an elaborate warren complex near Nazareth, but these were later superseded by more romantic depictions of Christ's life. I think it's shameful the way man pollutes historical texts with his own views on what constitutes Glory or Holiness. Finally, regarding your assertion that God doesn't need to transmit is communications from Heaven, via Space, then down onto planet Earth, I will refer you to the first two lines of the Lord's Prayer: "Our Father, Who art in Heaven," Now why would the prayer say our Father was in Heaven, if he was actually somewhere else, or everywhere else? He's obviously not in Hell. He isn't in unclean places, like slop buckets, or cesspits. There may be spiritual nodes situated within every living cell (excluding bacteria), or every clean spirit, but these nodes are far from autonomous, and must establish a connection to the Primary Hub in Heaven, mediated by some form of radiation owing to the physical constraints imposed by the vacuum of Space.
Even a thoughts must be searched or found before you can formulate it's meaning. And definitions are comprised of thoughts.
Even if God found someone who had no idea of God's existance they would still need to first come upon the awareness of God's presence before they could realize what God is. Ps. 139:7-12 God is everywhere. We cannot escape His presence. 1 Ki. 8:27 The heavens cannot contain God. Jer. 23:23-24 No one can hide from God. He is always near at hand. God fills the heaven and earth. Heb. 4:13 There is no creature hidden from God's sight. All things are naked and opened to His sight. Acts 17:24-28 God is man's creator. God is not far from us. In Him, we live and move and have our being. If we seek God, we will find Him. But if we forsake God, He will cast us off (1 Ch. 28:9; Matt. 7:7-12; Ja. 4:7-10). God's everywhere (in heaven and earth) except hell which is the absence of God. Paul says to "lift up holy hands, without wrath and doubting" in prayer. That seems more to me like welcoming God with open arms not firing a signal or lighting a beacon but I could see you making a satellite dish comparison. I think when God speaks to us it's not some transmission but that he is actually there speaking from within to your soul which lives in a burrow without cable or satellite. To argue religion is pointless because it's based in interpretation and usually few facts. This has been very enlightening. You've made points that will have me soul-searching for hours to come. The Gold/God thing: I was thinking more how men have gone to war over both. Left thier families behind for both etc. I think you could make a great poem out of it. Maybe the find/define issue is more like the chicken/egg question.
I'm glad my points about The Splendour Of Gold, Spiritual Radiation, and Christ's burrowing exploits have led to no small amount of soul-searching on your part. I for one think they're a complete load of bollocks.
Sarcasm: A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.
A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule. I used it in most of my comments to you. Do you always resort to saying Ha Ha! I was just kidding when someone exposes what a true buffoon you are. I've seen you use this cop out before. I assumed you just wanted to try to argue for the sake of arguing and I figured why not considering it's a hell of a lot more creative than your poetry. The fact that your a pathological lier only shows us all how pathetic you truly are. You act as if you convinced me about all your bullshit but any intelligent person who reads all the comments can see at some point I'm just getting bored and tired and just telling you what you want to hear. I will waste no more words on your pretentious diaper wearing "breeches". Later fag.
Yeah that's right. All this time you've just been stringing poor -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. along. That must be why you went mental and started calling him a fag when the penny dropped. Nice one! -10-
No just wanted you to see what your tactics sound like.
Gee you've really made me see the error of my ways.
This last comment from you came like 2 seconds after I posted mine.
My god your obsessed.
Don't you think that everyone knows you start arguments just for the sake of arguing. The fact that you have to lie and make pranks to feel superior is what disappoints me. I like debating. It's like a mental sport. What you do is let the other team score and then say "Well, I wasn't really trying anyway. Even now I know what I'm saying is falling on deaf ears but at least I can say I tried to help. That's all I wanted to do. Sorry I bothered.
You might have a point if my arguments had been even remotely plausible. But come on. The Splendour Of Gold? Spiritual Radiation? Burrowing? Watching Dovina earnestly contest the fundamental principles of The Splendour Of Gold Argument was easily the most whimsical jape of the season. I'm sorry I bothered, now. Actually I'm not at all sorry. Indeed on discovering what a humourless prude you are, my efforts have been made all the more worthwhile. The time to save face has long gone, my lad. I fear your trousers have now fallen so far down that they've turned inside out and are dangling from your poulaines.
Yours sincerely, "He who is Exceedingly Splendid"
I apologize for assuming you were as stupid as you appeared,
But you do it so convincingly. You are the Howard Stern of Poemranker. Congrats.
lol, funniest thing I've read today!
That's not at all what I'm saying. You can't say the highest number I can think of is 100 so infinity is 101, because that means you can think of 101. The highest number you can think of has to be at least a bajillion for things to start getting interesting. By which I mean, not at all interesting.
Regarding the rest of your comment, obviously we're here in some way.
Yeah that 101 was an obvious cheap shot. My apologies. I think I just went on because the discussion made for a good debate but to argue things like religion and unfathomable numbers seems to lead nowhere because it's about what you believe and not what you can prove. I do sense some kind of spirituality in you. Like a preacher without a religion.
For a new topic of debate see my newest poem Out of the White Hole. It's about black holes and the subconscious and has little to do with body orifices. I know that was shameless.
I like the first 3 lines the best. I think you might like the poetry of St. John of the Cross.
I noticed in your comments to people that you said you "shun the idea that God would rather speak to us through angels and preachers than simply directly through our own hearts." Yet you quote the Bible and speak of the Summa? What is wrong with God using things or people to speak to us. . .to our hearts even? Maybe that is the way He prefers to speak to our hearts at times and at other times He does it without any of this. Maybe He choses the how and not us. It would make sense afterall that He set it up however it is He does it if He is God.
The bible quotes were a silly game I was playing with an even sillier man. The summa in my mind is philosophy not religion.
The bible is hearsay. God spoke to men who then spoke to people etc. until someone finally wrote it down. A record of God and his teachings. Is Socrates talking to you when he teaches Plato? Of course not. I'm sure their both happy their teachings are being retaught by mankind but it's still not same thing. If you read the bible and the actual spirit of God does not come to you and speak to your heart in a language unspoken, unheard, and that only your heart can decipher than you are simply reading a book about God and his teachings. A book that's been manipulated by greedy men so much that I'm supprised it still packs a punch. "What is wrong with God using things or people to speak to us. . .to our hearts even?" What's wrong with it is what the poems about. I mean how do you know if God ain't there to say "Yep I sent him" or "Yep I said exactly what he wrote in that book."? Well formulated question by the way, tadpole.
Forgive my spelling I'm quite sleepy.
It all depends on faith. We can take the word of anyone, and if that word is taken without apprehension from inputs received through our five senses and from logic, then it's an act of faith.
But not religion. That's reserved for deities and Joe Pesci.
Recipe for Religion: Take 5 parts previous believed things 10 parts exageration 4 parts promise 6 parts fear Sprinkle a dash of common sense Mix until resembling a compelling story and voila Faith depends on personal preference or devine intervention. I have faith that the scenario in your comment has never truly taken place in anyone save for those who met God.
By my definition of faith, you are not expressing faith. You are saying that by your logic and emotions you think . . . Faith is the substance of things not necessarily supported by emotion or logic, simply because somebody says so.
Surely you jest.
Your definition of faith is an unhindered one. Which doesn't really exhist in human nature. Even Jesus had apprehension the night before the Crucifixion according to the bible. Faith starts from within not because someone says so and most certainly involves either emotion or logic but not necessarily both.
Surely I do not jest! Jesus' apprehension was not faith; it was a gut feeling, which is different. Faith is taking someone on his word. If it starts from within, then it is not faith, but inner persuasion. I'm not just argueing definitions, it's the crux of religion.
When Jesus asked God to change his mind about the crucifixion he was questioning God's orders. Your right that isn't faith that's questioning someone elses word you have faith in. See how that works.
Even hypnotists and brain washers must first somehow break in to your inner psychy before they can control what you believe. The crux of religion is a gut feeling.
I would agree that the crux of religeon as a worthy calling is gut feeling. But the crux of any specific religion is taking the word of someone, and that is what I'm calling faith.
This does seem to be a common approach to religion. If Cardinal Stinkyfingers says it's that way than it must be. Meanwhile he's sodomizing choir boys on sunday nights.
Don't you think religion should be found by hearing the words of others and comimng to your own conclusions based on what you feel in your heart should be true. The other approach just scares the hell out of me. It's easier to assume the priest or bible translator is always right than to study a belief system on your own but it is also much less rewarding. In a way both definitions are right but I'd rather bet my soul on my own conclusions than on someone elses. Screw specific religion. I would rather read the gospel according to Dovina any day of the week. At least I know I'd be entertained. After all you are the temple of the lord.
The key words are "religion should be found by . . ." Most people bet their souls on the word of a Cardinal Stinkyfingers as written in some ancient text. Even then they take the word of some interpretor of Cardinal Stinkyfingers' writings, of which there are many. Thus Christianity is not a single religion, but an array of denominations and interpretations.
You are wise, my child, in heeding the Gospel of Dovina, for she has the one and only true message. Affectionately, Dovina, General Manager of the Universe
Firstly, consider that no one has ever spontaneously invented faith from nothing. Ever, in the history of everything.
Secondly, to both you and Dovina, I'd add that faith is holding something to be true DESPITE the evidences of your senses to the contrary. Consider: You don't have FAITH that matter is composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons bound together by unimaginable forces, despite that you have no real evidence for it. You don't have evidence that space is infinitely huge, but holding that to be true isn't what any of us would call FAITH. (nb here-Dovina's quibble involves the expression "take it on faith" and has little to do with what we're talking about.) People DO, however have FAITH that some part of a person exists beyond the physical body and death, despite that all the evidence points toward dead people being pretty much gone. People have FAITH that the world was made by God one week about 6,000 years ago, despite that there are dinosaur bones apparently millions of years old, records of human existence from tens of thousands of years ago, and all kinds of other evidence for a world billions of years old. Faith's not just holding something to be true without evidence, it's holding it to be true AGAINST evidence. Sorry to interrupt, but we've had this argument for days before without realizing that vocab/definition problems had us talking about totally different things. Another hint: Don't use the words 'faith' or 'belief' to mean 'holding something to be true'. Use 'holding something to be true'.
Even the Bible agrees: "Faith is the substance of things hoped for."
I hate that quote. If it never appears on poemranker again, it will be too much. And what the hell does it MEAN??! Faith isn't even substance, so how can it be "the substance" of anything??! And who the hell hopes that, for example, "the men put worn and patched sandals on their feet and wore old clothes... All the bread of their food supply was dry and moldy"?
The King language does that to people. Perhaps the Greek meant something like "Faith is the knowldege that what you hope for is really true." Moldy food is seldom hoped for, but an afterlife is, and so is a god in control of things, so these are the things people have faith for.
Faith comes naturally. The caveman sees that the sunrises and falls like clockwork and with it comes and goes daylight. This is comforting to him. He can plan around this. Philosophy, science, and religion all seek to give that same comfort and where we are comforted we find faith. This is what I mean by (within) it starts in our minds and maybe hearts. Doesn't that seem obvious? The sun didn't invent faith the caveman did.
Secondly, I think you are talking about blind faith. Less just say faith is believing what you wish to be true or like you said hold to be true. You can have faith in something consistantly proven like a devoted wife. It's funny. I have faith in God and Jesus but no religion.
We have faith in God because we are built to have such faith. It's scarinbgly true, and leads to all sorts of deception. Too many people tell us to have faith in this god or that, and only because of some vision or supernatural knowledge they claim to have. Such people are easy to refute. Yet, we remain convinced of God's existance. Go figure.
By whom are people built to have faith? You're doing the "purpose of species" thing again.
People have faith because of the following: BIFF: Why does the sun go up and down? CLARK: I dunno. BIFF: Maybe somebody's making it move? CLARK: Sure, but who? BIFF: I dunno. Big guy, I guess. Invisible. CLARK: Man, I'd hate to piss him off. Probably drop the sun on my head if I did. BIFF: That reminds me of when my mom got a mammoth dropped on her head. Dang, I wish death didn't suck so bad! CLARK: Yeah, but it does, though, doesn't it? BIFF [musingly]: But maybe not... I bet if anyone could improve death, the Big Sun Guy could! CLARK: Yeah, but your mom's dead. We ate her. BIFF: Not if she had some invisible lifeforce that superexisted her body! Like, I dunno, a soul, I guess. CLARK: What the fuck are you talking about? BIFF: The soul. The source of your morality, stupid! CLARK [clubbing Biff to death]: What morality? [Then,] Oh crap! Biff's dad's gonna kill me to protect his family interests! What the fuck? BIFF'S DAD: Big Sun Guy's gonna kill your ass! CLARK: No, no! Wait! Big Sun Guy teaches tolerance and forgiveness of sins! BIFF'S DAD: Really? Isn't that kind of pussy-like? CLARK: You can't call Big Sun Guy pussy-like, he'll kill your ass. BIFF'S DAD: Oh, right. My bad. [And so on. Ad infinitum, amen.]
Yes, I thikk it might have gone something like that. All it proves is that we're built to develop faith. Maybe pure evolution made us that way. It doesn't imply intelligent design.
Yes, it does. And the way you say it does, too.
For the last time, evolution didn't build us. Evolution didn't have us in mind when it started. Evolution is not a sentient being or a process capable of predicting itself the way, say, scientists sometimes predict it. Scientists did not build us. Scientists did not create evolution. Scientists have had no control over evolution to date, and have very little now. Speaking of any process by which humans are "built" (excluding the process of God or gods creating the earth) is about equivalent to saying, I don't know, the universe or undersea ridges are "built". If you persist in using the term "built" for things which don't (according to me) involve a sentient builder, I must persist in considering you a religious and, consequently, ignoring you. If you've got to say something about the matter, try something like this: A set of myriad circumstances has resulted (meaning, at the present moment) in the so-called dominant species on Earth having a tendency to develop faiths and to afterwards wonder about such matters as whether it was built to develop faith.
Why are so absurd as to say that I think evolution is intelligent. I simply said that it might have made us that way. Not on purpose, because it has no purpose. But it might have done it anyway. It's the same thing as saying it might have occurred by chance to anyone but you.
'Built' implies builder. 'Made' implies maker. No difference if there's purpose or not.
If you're going to argue with anything, argue with that. But I wouldn't recommend it.
I've gotta run, so I'll sum up.
DOVINA: Evolution isn't sentient. It made us. ZODIAC: Evolution isn't a thing capable of making. It's a theory, a way of rationalizing phenomena. You're like saying the metric system made centimeters (or, better, it made distance). DOVINA: Evolution isn't sentient. It made us. ZODIAC: Urggh.
PS-It may be possible to say instead "phenomena made us, but to no purpose". But what's the point?
The point is, (and it should be obvious) that you're argueing about nonsense while I'm trying to make a serious point. You argue with a statements like "Evolution made dogs" because you can't understand the wording. It's the same as saying "chance made dogs," dogs were made by chance" or "by chance, dogs were made." These statements all mean the same thing. Can we leave this trivial aside at that?
Actually God made us through the process of evolution.
(and by God I mean Vin Diesel)
Oddly, that's a perfectly coherent argument. Dovina could have said that a week ago and saved us all boredom-related impotences.
But I had a better thing to say, which you chose to ignore for trivial pursuits.
You disregard my arguments because you think I "can't understand the wording". What you've failed to realize after all our poemranker debates (all of them essentially about this same thing) is that wording has a big effect on the meaning you convey. What you mean to say is you wish I understood your thoughts instead of the words you use to express them.
I CANNOT believe that in some poorly ventilated back corner of your mind you're not clinging to some inexpressible ill-formed notion that evolution is a coherent process with (to exaggerate just a little) a goal of producing creatures with certain characteristics, such as continuing their species better and formulating complex philosophical muckamuck. That's because aside from constantly saying "Don't believe that", you've given me no reason not to. If you really did think evolution was essentially a theory for rationalizing chance phenomena, then you would have realized along time ago that it's utterly pointless to add "we have faith because evolution made us that way" to every conversation you've ever been involved in.
You simply will not give up the notion that I think evolution has a mind. It does not!
We have faith, and a possiible source of our propensity for faith is evolution. Perhaps we surveve better with faith than without it. I see nothing non-sensical about saying that. I keep saying it because you keep not getting it.
1) EVOLUTION IS NOT A SOURCE OF ANYTHING.
2) Let's agree for the sake of areguemenete that by 'evolution' you mean and have always meant 'a series of near-random phenomena' - which would be the right thing to say, incidentally. Yes, then 'evolution' resulted in faith. It 'made' us have faith. So what????? So-FUCKING-what???!? Consider: 'Evolution' also made me have an ass mostly free of hair. Does that make my mostly hair-free ass any more fucking meaningful than it would be if it weren't a product of evolution? No. Does that make my ass any more meaningful than a hairy-assed person's would be? No. If in an alternate reality all humans were born with hairy asses, do you think they would either (a) fail to invent evolution, or (b) have somehow failed at evolving? No. They'd have a theory of evolution that explains, I don't know, humans developed hairy asses to pad their spines while sitting on hard office chairs. Why wouldn't they? It's a fucking measurement system for rationalizing a set of circumstances that has already produced them the way they are (ie, among other things, people who need measurement systems for rationalizing things). If it didn't explain why they had hairy asses, if it wasn't amazingly coherent to their real lives, it would be a horrifically failed theory, wouldn't it? So basically, saying that something is a result of evolution has NO CONVERSATIONAL OR DISCUSSIONAL VALUE. NONE. NOT AT ALL. Who in his right mind would think saying something's a result of evolution gives it any meaning at all? You would. Why? I don't know, because it has four-syllables, maybe, and four-syllable words sound important to you and you desperately need some kind of meaning having cast off God and gone running naked into traffic. It's not bloody like you've bothered at any point in this conversation touching on how evolution gives any trait importance. You've just spurted the word 'evolution' about 50 times into the conversation and expected us to all be as impressed with you as you are. If you're going to argue anything, please start arguing that. Thanks, and all my love, zodiac PS-Stick. I did understand and you don't. So you remember, HOMEWORK - Agree or disagree with the following thesis. "Saying something is made by evolution gives it some importance or argumental value it lacks otherwise."
HOMEWORK 2 - Agree or disagree with the following thesis. "My evolution-produced need for faith is more important than my evolution-produced hairless ass."
I agree with your thesis. Saying that something is made by evolution gives it importance because it says that it fits a theory, and in fitting, the thing can be understood in the context of that theory. For example, if faith developed through evolution, then the broader concepts of evolution can be applied to faith. For exaample, we could say in that case that faith may then increase our ability to survive and reproduce, which would help to perpetuate faith in future generations.
For the gazillionth time, it fits the theory because the theory was made to fit the circumstances. Take the following circumstances:
- a dishwasher explosion, - Wonder Years re-runs, - prison gang-rape, - the 1984 Olympic games, - water on Mars. A good scientist can make a theory that incorporates and explains all of these phenomena. Let's call this theory "Jimboism". If a slightly dim person studies Jimboism, she'll be astonished that dishwashers, re-runs, gang-rape, the 1984 Olympics, and water all act UNFAILINGLY according to this theory. She'll tend to credit the dishwasher, etc, with an extra importance, with some magic synchronicity. None of these things deserve that, the scientist does. Do you see yet? You'd have done better to say (as you almost have) that calling faith, etc, a product of evolution is important because it relieves you of responsibility for faith. Not only can you be excused for trying to be faithless and then rushing desparately back to God, but you know that people who try not to have faith ARE IN FACT UNNATURAL AND ACTING AGAINST THEIR NATURE. And some other cool evolution-produced traits fall into the same category! Like, - Killing in self-interest, - Stealing from non-relations to provide for your genetic line, - Eating fatty foods if you're a woman, - Being vain and appearance-centered if you're a man or woman, - Being horny and desperate if you're a man or woman. So hey, that IS pretty useful! But wait, wasn't there a point in history where evolution made pre-humans have grasping toes for a specific purpose related to survival of the species? And don't we NOT have grasping toes now? So doesn't that mean that characteristics "made by evolution" - even including faith, reproduction, and fat-eating - can become non-essential or obsolete, and therefore our own responsibilities again? Judges' ruling: NO SCORE FOR YOU.
For the gazillionth time, evolution is a theory that explains observations. It may not be the only theory that explains them, but it works much of the time. So, it's a good theory til something better coimes along. I hope you will at least agree with this.
I think at this point you're just being antagonistic for its own sake.
An almost certain way to get you off-topic is to state the exact topic we're discussing, with concommitant questions and prompts. I suppose you're afraid of being tied down.
I think at this point you're just still not getting it because you're helpless about such things. You probably don't even remember exactly what this conversation's about. DOVINA 10-Oct-05/1:32 AM: We have faith in God because we are built to have such faith. ZODIAC 10-Oct-05/11:08 AM: By whom are people built to have faith? DOVINA 10-Oct-05/12:00 PM: Maybe pure evolution. ZODIAC 10-Oct-05/12:14 PM: Evolution didn't build us. ZODIAC 10-Oct-05/12:47 PM: And what's the point of saying that anyway? DOVINA 14-Oct-05/5:52 PM: Blaaaaaaaat.
Your summary is good up to your rephrasing of my my last response. My answer to "And what's the point of saying that anyway?" was not "Blaaaaaaaat." Please read it again.
I'd like to comment, if I may.
You are talkng about an abstract concept know as 'faith', where someone who believes in God has 'faith', and someone who is an atheist does not. I'd like to extend that concept and change it a little. What I believe is inherent within human beings is not the capacity for faith but the prayer for deliverance - or hope. Any human being has prayed for help at least once in his life; for example, you walk around the corner and see that your house is on fire and your family is inside. The first thing that whips through your mind is, 'Please, let them be all right'... Most events in life can't be controlled. Hoping for something to turn out okay is essentially the same as a prayer to God, Luck, or the laws of physics; and this is, in my opinion, a trait common to all living beings, on different levels. I'd like to argue that this, in fact, should replace the concept of 'faith' that you are disputing. Change it to 'prayer for deliverance'. Do animals 'hope', or 'pray for deliverance'? Why shouldn't they, in the sense that I described? In fact, the entire concept of 'God' is, basically, just an extension of this tenet based on the fact that humans have superior, more developed brains; allowing them to develop this *extremely* basic idea along with the development of their brains over time, or evolution, if you will. So in my opinion, what I would say is: The hope of being delivered from trouble is a universal trait and common, on one level or another, to all sentient beings. Humans, having superior brains, have developed from this a concept of 'God', 'religion' and 'faith' as an outlet and a reason for hope - we will always hope for the best, because God is with us. However, since most phenomena can be explained perfectly well by physics, faith is no longer a necessity in modern life, and has been spurned by atheists; however, every human (faithless or not) continues to hope.
Firstly, something like "I hope I can poop today, it's been so long" is not a prayer. Nor is it necessarily related to faith in some higher power. Nor is it true or even remotely supportable that "Any human being has prayed for help at least once in his life", nor is it true that the structure of every hope is essentially a prayer, "Please, let X happen". Nor is it true or proveable that an animal leaving its den doesn't think, to the extent it's capable of thinking, "I hope a hawk doesn't eat me."
It is, however, probably true that faith developed as a result of hope. When life or death depended on, say, rain falling at a certain time or there not being a drought, people made up physical manifestations of their hopes of not dying, with backstories and other semiunrelated powers. All of this and all of the preceding conversation, of course, hinge on there not having been at any point in history a voice from the sky telling people to have faith. Given that this doesn't even come under discussion here unless I, the best atheist of all of you, drag it in, I proclaim us all spectacularly unqualified to discuss any of this. In addition, the inevitable next phase of this conversation, "Don't atheists really have FAITH that God DOESN'T EXIST?", should be avoided at all costs, lest we all actually do go blind from stupidity.
Your thinking religion. Your thinking too big. Faith is trust.
Trust starts in the psychy. It may need something outside to effect it but like all other human perceptions it starts in the brain and is effected by your own psychological preferences.
Balls. Balls, balls, balls. I had more respect for you than this.
I still respect your opinion. Balls or no balls.
Philosophy isn't necessarily religion. Your philosophy is religion. That is, it's borrowed from some vague semi-ancientness, exaggerated, and so totally changed to meet your needs it would be unrecognizable to an actual ancient summa. Consider as further proof that you believe your version of summa philosophy is the true one and not one totally changed to meet your needs.
I believe what I had said in previous comments was that the Summa may have been on to something when they theorized about the origins of the universe and that I didn't believe in the religion or philosophy or whatever it was that came after it.
If my interpretation (I don't think I ever said I was 100% sure) of one little thing said by a semi-ancient race of people is to be called religion than your interpretation of what your reading right know is to be called religion too. Philosophy can also be borrowed from some vague semi-ancientness, exaggerated, and so totally changed to meet your needs.
This is a philosopher: "I believe X."
This is a religious: "I believe in a philosophy."
Therefore, philosopher = religious, because X could be a philosophy.
X would have to be in a philosophy. That quibble aside, the glaring contradiction was obvious to me from the beginning. I let it slide, rightly imagining that anyone who bothered to complain about it was a religious, and therefore not worth my attention.
Fine.
ADDENDUM: *For all X excluding "in a philosophy" and its synonyms.
No, the whole addended idea sucks. Philosophy is not "I believe X." Philosophers argue about the definition of philosophy, but yours is definiteloy not up for contention.
Yes, but I haven't claimed to define philosophy or philsophers (not on this poem, at least.) I said 'A philosopher says X, a religious says Y', only.
You can argue I've said "A person who says 'I believe X' is a philsopher", but even that's not much of a leg to stand on. And for that, it works. A philosopher does say, I believe X. So does a religious sometime. But a religious also says, I believe in a philosophy (and, NEW ADDENDUM) a philosopher doesn't. I retract my first addendum and all your argument from the beginning is moot.
You began by saying, "This is a philosopher: 'I believe X.'" But belief is not philosophy, and there you go astray. Add and retract addendums all day, it won't help.
Whatever. Add and retract half-witted attacks all day. I assume you're done saying I've "defined" philosophy as such and such. Considering I'm the only one involved in this who's ever claimed a distinction between "I hold X to be true" and "I believe X", weak argument. And besides, who ever said belief is philosophy? A philsopher doesn't say "I philosophy X". You do. That's why you're not a philosopher.
PS-
This is John: "Lawnmower". Is John a lawnmower?
Nonsense!
2) Have I defined John?
I believe niether.
I just think the Summa had a good theory. If I believed Nietzsche would it be religion? The things I believe whether scientific or religious in nature are effected by personal preference although mostly on a subconcious level. This is a philosopher: "I believe because it makes sense" This is religious: "I believe because it feels right" Philosophers believe in a philosophy too.
What if it feels right and also makes sense? Then you have the ultimate.
Good sex for instance.
No, that's not religion or philosophy. Yet some people have included it there. Okay, why not?
I think the point is, any set of beliefs/truths written by someone else is bound to have things you don't entirely accept as true - or, at the very least, aren't expressed exactly the way you'd express them. Religions like Christianity and Egoism have tons of these, of course, and people who claim that Christianity/Egoism perfectly express their set of accepted truths are entirely full of shit. You accept some of what the Summa said as true, but why say "I hold with Summa philosophy" or "I believe in the Summa philosophy"? (note: I know you haven't.) Why bring in the Summas at all, instead of just saying, um, "I accept that nothingness is governed by some law, and you can create nothingness by uniting matter with anti-matter, and matter comes from the potential of something somehow getting an edge over the potential of nothing"? Same goes for Nietzsche.
It strikes me that the only advantages of claiming adherence to some preexisting-but-flawed philosophy rather than simply expressing what you hold to be true (barring the actual existence of a God who can put hot coals on your feet) are: 1) it saves time, and 2) you think it lends some credibility to what you believe, so your not just a wacky guy who believes wacky things, but a follower of Summa. That's all fine, but REALLY? I mean 1) the time you save is bound to be re-lost explaining or justifying all the things you don't accept in your claimed preexisting philosophy, and 2) if you need to give yourself credibility you're not such an ace believer, are you? Secondly, the rest of your comment shows you make what we'll call THE POETE'S DISTINCTION between things making sense and things feeling right (or being a "personal preference"). I believe a reasoning person would say "things that make sense feel right and things that don't make sense don't feel right." Only an unreasoning (and therefore, dupish) person would say "things that make sense don't feel right, and things that feel right often don't make sense." These are people constantly on their guard for scientists and Democrats trying to trick them into committing evil with their everpresent 'facts and figures'. Balls to them, I say. Balls, balls, balls. Thirdly: I doubt if Socrates would have said he was Socratic. Plato would, though. Jesus probably thought he was a Jew.
Your right. People who say they have blind faith are full of shit.
I quoted the Summa because their idea is so simular to mine and they wrote it down first. I also was able to expand my idea a little based on their idea. So I thought I'd give credit were credit is due. I have gained some credibility by not lying and saying it was all my idea. I know it's a bit Beaver Cleaver of me. ADDENDUM: This is a philosopher: "I believe only because it makes common sense" This is religious: "I believe because it feels right" The idea is that a philosopher bases what he believes on common sense, scientific knowledge and plain old logic. Yes it probably feels right but feelings aren't the basis for his belief. Religion sometimes makes sense and sometimes doesn't but it is always based on the feelings of its believers. I don't think I ever disagreed with that third comment.
And to think this all started with a Tadpole.
hey good poem its awsome
Forgive me. I'll recharacterize.
DOVINA: Saying that something is made by evolution gives it importance because it says that it fits a theory. Therefore it's understandable. For example, evolution, the theory designed to explain the development of faith (among other things), can explain the development of faith. ZODIAC: That's totally ridiculous. In addition, if either faith or evolution were COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from what they are now, the theory designed to explain them would still explain them. That wouldn't make the hypothetical nonfaith or nonevolution any more important. In addition, the real reason claiming evolution gives faith importance is by making it outside of our control, it's in our natures, like reproduction or fattiness. Why don't you respond to that? DOVINA: Blaaaaaat. 329 view(s)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Damn, I've got to stop posting poems when I'm half asleep.