Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2007 April
2005 February
2005 January
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January
2003 December
2003 November
2003 October
2003 September
My Links
My essay: The Immorality of Marriage
The Onion
SelectSmart
Games to test your logic, faith, morality, and philosophical ideas!
Tom Robbins Quotes
Funny Name Analysis
Bushisms
Letters From the Earth by Mark Twain
Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell
Life, Liberty, Logic
Wasting My Time
RedTigress's Blog
Jimmytherighteous's Blog
Octo6er's Blog
Nivek's Blog
Magicjoejoe's Blog
Littlemrmahatma's Blog
Kurtmaddox's Blog
Winstonsmith's Blog
Drforbush's Blog
Juniperflux's Blog
Iron Blog Religion!
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
| A late addition to the abortion debate |
| 04.30.04 (8:06 pm) [edit] |
|
I'm a bit behind the tblog times, I know, but I do have a few points I'd like to add to the discussion from yesterday that can be found [url=http://therealspartacus0 07.tb...]here[/url], [url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]here[/url], and [url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]here[/url]. There is a major flaw in the current political debate over abortion, and that is the misconception that the pro-life and pro-choice stances are opposites. They are not. To be pro-life means that you view abortion to be murder, and therefore wrong, and feel that it follows that abortion should be illegal. The opposite of this view is not equivocal to the pro-choice view. The issue of morality or whether abortion itself is right or wrong is not implied by the pro-choice stance. Being pro-choice only means that you support the right of the woman to make her own decisions regarding her health, her baby's health, and her private affairs. It is often stated by pro-lifers that the woman should have rights, but so should the baby. Agreed, everyone has inherent rights. However, to contend that the fetus' rights cannot be infringed upon by the mother denies the mother's rights. Since a fetus has no way to make the decision, does it follow that the mother should also have no right to make the decision? That is the real issue, not whether abortion is morally right or wrong. Being pro-choice does not necessarily imply a pro-abortion view. You can easily disagree with the act of abortion itself, while still maintaining that the woman has the right to choose. The ultimate question is whether the government should determine personal matters, or the individual. |
| 7 Comments |
| Marriage revisited (again) |
| 04.28.04 (1:32 pm) [edit] |
|
Since I've been too lazy/distracted lately to actually respond to comments directly, and since I find that too many long comments (making good points, I might add) tend to be a bit tedious, and I have the sole power to do so (well, unless you decide to write your own blog on the matter), I'm going to continue the discussion here, in a fresh post. Let me start by answering a few questions and maybe clarifying a bit. The mysterious jbfs writes: [i] if a person loves another person enough to enter into matrimony, should the presence of a legal contract (assuming that one should even exist) be a detractor to the relationship?[/i] That's an excellent question, and something I obviously should clarify. I don't believe that marriage necessarily ruins love, but that the presence of a contract makes the love in a relationship questionable. If true love is present in a relationship, neither having nor not having a legally binding contract should detract from the relationship. My point is that if you truly love someone, there is no need for marriage. Beyond that, making love an obligation is not at all advantageous to loving long-term. It puts the trust and love in a relationship in question by disallowing real freedom and choice. Compare love to a charity. Suppose a person donates to this charity frequently, then the government decides to force everyone to make donations to the charity. This places the motives of the donators in question. Clearly, the person who would have donated regardless is not necessarily less genuine in making his donations, but there becomes the implicit possibility that the donations are being made solely out of duty. It would simply be better, in terms of genuine caring, if there was no obligation. True love not only implies, but requires, that there is no need for obligation, that the love would exist regardless. Mblog wondered if it was meant that because he has an obligation to his children, he does not love them. The point I'm trying to make is not that you can't really love someone if there is obligation, but that the love is truer without an obligation. If you would still love your children regardless of the obligation you feel towards them, then you most likely would love them more than if it is only love out of duty. Moving on, a civil union is just as distracting to the pursuit of true love as any other committment ceremony. A truly loving relationship should have no strings attached- the love should be free. Legal agreements certainly cloud the relationship. If you're worried about rights, take it up with the government. Why should such a private matter be legislated in the first place? Is it really any of the government's business to determine who may visit whom in the hospital? Obviously, the discussion of marriage/civil unions/non-committed relationships involves quite a bit of political implications, and that's something I'd like to keep separate for now, as it only makes the basic argument overly complicated. While I'd rather not turn this into a discussion of linguistics, I would like to point out to mblog that, while a dictionary may show the accepted definitions of words, there are generally more than one definition for each word. There are also varying implications for emotional meanings of words, or connotations, and the understanding of a word's dictionary definition can easily vary from individual to individual, and is also culturally dependent. And now I've lost track of what other points I was going to make, but hopefully some things have been clarified. |
| 24 Comments |
| Love and marriage, an explanation |
| 04.22.04 (10:49 pm) [edit] |
|
Thanks to a comment left by mblog, you will now have to endure an explanation on my views of love and marriage. :wink: [i]Perhaps what you've shown is that the old Sinatra song from the 50's uses a bad analogy. You can have one without the other. But the question is what marriage means.[/i] I agree that what marriage means is the real question. I disagree with marriage based on my views of love. I see love as the most important element in a long lasting relationship, and it is for this reason that I consider marriage to be detrimental. Having this view, I understand love to be fickle and unrestrained- in fact, true love implies that there is no restraint, that all actions are chosen, all feelings are real. On to mblog's explanation of marriage's meaning: [i]To the government, it's a civil union that affords certain legal rights and protections. ... [/i] (note: I am skipping a great deal of mblog's comment for brevity) [i]So if you are arguing against legal marriage, then you are arguing against whatever rights and benefits married people have, including custody of their own children, or the right to visit their own spouse in the hospital. I'd like you to elaborate why you think these rights and protections are wrong.[/i] The legal issues of marriage are very different from the emotional/moral/social/cu ltural/religious/etc. It is my opinion that there should be [b]no[/b] legal aspect of marriage- as I view relationships to be about love, and marriage a false embodiment of loving relationships, I consider any attmept to legislate love fundamentally wrong. As far as the issues of rights, benefits, child custody, and so forth, I don't think the government has any reason to be involved. There should be no benefits or repercussions resulting from the decision to marry or not to. A person wishing hospital visitation rights for another should be able to obtain these rights regardless of a legal union. Child custody is more difficult, as it is overly idealistic to expect all couples to reach their own fair decisions regarding children. However, I'm not so sure the government is better equipped to make such decisions. Perhaps a less intrusive option should be available. Ultimately, I am not arguing that rights should be destroyed (oddly enough, though I am against marriage, I support the right of homosexuals to marry- so long as it is considered a right, all should be granted the same right); I am arguing for love. Making a commitment for a relationship a legally binding contract certainly detracts from the pursuit of true love. Mblog then discusses marriage in the religious sense and points out that the religious ceremony has no bearing on the legal aspect of marriage, contending that if a couple is only married in the religious sense, they still have the option to end their marriage without any legal repercussions: [i]So if a religious wedding has no legal bearing in and of itself and a couple could ignore whatever the religious figure said, and even walk away from each other, then what's the problem?[/i] The 'problem' lies in personal decisions. If a couple chooses to marry, legally or religiously, that is their decision, and it is only a problem in that it goes against my personal views. If the couple in question honestly feels that being legally bond together is the best way to express their love, so be it. If they feel that their religion is integral in their expression of love, that's their decision, also. My problem with marriage is that I see it as a distraction to love. If true love is present, no commitment is necessary- and can actually be damaging, as love does not adhere to any rules and cannot be made to stay in a relationship. Moving on, mblog takes issue with my statement that marriage is unnatural: [i]So you have a religious institution that is as old as recorded civilization itself, and it transcends borders and geographical locations. Calling it unnatural makes little sense. While some like to paste that label on human activity, there is nothing any more unnatural about what we do as a species than what any other species does. Obviously any other species that mates for life will not call it a marriage because they lack the ability to do so. But giving it a name and documenting the rules does not make the situation itself inherently more unnatural. If a couple wants to announce to the world that they are in a certain type of relationship, you can call that symbolic. But calling it demeaning or burdensome is unfounded.[/i] When I said that marriage is unnatural, I wasn't referring to the institution itself so much as its meaning. What seems natural to me is perpetuating love by allowing love to flourish on its own. It seems unnatural to try and interfere or try and make love stay. Not all views of marriage relate to this view of love being the most important aspect of a relationship. Many religions see the couple as important regardless of love, and that is why marriage has developed. Just as many animals mate for life, I believe humans can maintain relationships based in true love for life. I just feel that marriage is the wrong approach to this end. [i]It would be foolish for me to pretend that such a relationship does not exist between me and my wife, or for either of us to not want others to know the status of our relationship. It would not be stronger that way. It would be unnatural.[/i] By denying the intrusive symbol of love that many equate marriage as, it does not follow that you must refuse to acknowledge your love, or even that you should not express this sentiment to others. I understand that when a married couple states that they are married, it is known that they intend to share their lives together forever. This can be a good thing, except that there is no way to ensure love will stay and it is foolish to promise to be in love forever. Regardless of marriage, you could easily let the world know you are in love, with no strings attached, as it should be, naturally. |
| 18 Comments |
| Love and marriage, a contradiction in terms |
| 04.22.04 (12:45 am) [edit] |
|
Among my favorite sitcoms of the '90s was the beloved [i]Married... with Children.[/i] Recently, I was thinking about the theme song, which I always enjoyed. In case you don't recall, some of the words to the opening theme are: [i]Love and marriage, love and marriage Go together like a horse and carriage, This I tell ya brother, you can't have one without the other.[/i] Now for a brief analysis. If love and marriage go together like a horse and carriage, it is not because they are inseperable, but because of the similarity of forceful burden. A horse does not need a carriage, nor does the horse reach a greater level of fulfillment or joy through being hitched to a carriage. It is the same with love. True love does not require marriage, and forcing a binding relationship does not equate to furthering love. With both a horse and carriage as well as love and marriage, you not only [b]can[/b] have one without the other, it is more natural, beneficial, true, and humanitarian to deny the binding circumstances. Just as a carriage for a horse is not inherently bad, marriage does not necessarily ruin love. Many view marriage as a symbol of their love. I can think of much better symbols for love (hearts and flowers if you're sappy, [url=http://www.amazon.com/gp/read...]Camel packs[/url] or the moon if you're a dreamy romantic) that do not interfere with the actual relationship- changing the status of a relationship makes marriage more volatile than just a simple symbol. If a couple is truly in love, a symbol of this sort is not only unnecessary, it becomes a burden on the relationship. If the love is true, any attempt to make it a commitment demeans the value, quality, and honesty of the relationship. If love is what truly matters to you, marriage cannot be seen as beneficial. |
| 5 Comments |
| In an attempt to defend President Bush... |
| 04.16.04 (5:12 pm) [edit] |
|
As much as it pains me to do this, I actually feel the need to defend Bush. But before doing so, let me make it clear that I do not like Bush. In fact, I can't think of a single thing he has done as president that I so much as approve of (that's not to say I disapprove of everything, just that in the two seconds I took to try and think of something, I couldn't). :wink: But, I also think that the 9/11 commission has become a bit of a joke, lost a great deal of credibility, and will likely determine nothing of substance. While it is important for our future to understand what, if anything, those in charge did wrong in terms of protecting the nation's security, it is also unreasonable and counterproductive to turn this into a blame game. To my knowledge, the following things can be said of the mistakes made that [b]may[/b] have affected the success of the 9/11 hijackings: (1) The CIA had intel detailing, though lacking in substance, bin Laden's potential threat and al Qaeda's intentions, and the warnings of the CIA were not acted upon. (2) More importantly, [b]the intelligence was lacking in substance.[/b] (3) The Clinton Administration did not effectively deal with the threat of al Qaeda, despite years of intelligence gathering and attacks made. (4) Clinton cannot be entirely blamed for this lack of [i]effective[/i] action. By effective action, I mean that al Qaeda was not destroyed. There is no evidence suggesting that it would have been within the realm of possibility, or even conceivability, for Clinton to do such. (5) The greatest mistake I would fault Clinton with would be that the World Trade Center was left mostly defenseless as a target after Ramsi Yousef's '93 bombing. Granted, it wasn't known that planes would be flown into the buildings, but I'd like to think that something could have been done to protect the buildings, regardless of specific knowledge of bin Laden's intentions. (6) The Bush Administration did not make al Qaeda and terrorism its top priority. (7) The Bush Adminsitration was also just commencing, and not under ideal circumstances, but without a clear mandate and with a great deal of controversy. Just as Clinton's scandals shifted the focus of his presidency, so did the controversy over the 2000 election cloud Bush's beginning. (8.) Both administrations, by the simple fact that 9/11 happened, failed to protect the nation. No one is blameless and no one is entirely to be blamed, other than bin Laden/al Qaeda. None of this is all that important, really. But I said I was going to defend Bush, so here goes. By making the 9/11 hearings not only public but forced on the public, and by commissioners being interviewed daily on prime time news shows, it seems as though the commission shouldn't be taken seriously. It seems that it is becoming purely political and that is simply demeaning to the nature of the investigation. I find it immensely difficult to believe that anyone would have allowed the attacks to happen had they known enough to prevent them. Bush may not have taken enough action, but that does not mean he is to blame, and the same can be said for Clinton. I would also add that had I had access to any of those documents, such as the August 6 PDB, I would not only feel immensely guilty, but also partially responsible. While I don't think it is reasonable to blame anyone in particular, I can't see how someone like Condi Rice can simply dismiss the relevance of the PDB and not take a bit of responsibility- at least by acknowledging that the threat was known, though not in enough detail to prevent the attacks. Chris Matthews explained it well when he said that to connect the dots a person must have the dots to connect, but also must have an image in mind or know what they are looking for in order to connect the dots to form anything relevant. Given the information recently being released that points to knowledge of the threats of al Qaeda and bin Laden, it is easy to say that we should have been able to prevent it. But it's only easy now because we are being given the information within a certain context and we know what we're looking for. All these blame games (9/11 is Bush's fault or Clinton's or the CIA's, etc.) are just attempts to overly simplify the situation and are counterproductive. |
| 7 Comments |
| President Bush's flip-flops |
| 04.13.04 (8:27 pm) [edit] |
|
To distract from Bush's press conference that will be airing shortly, I thought I'd present you with this video clip of an interview that details Bush's flip-flops, particularly on the foreign policy issues involved in Iraq. Enjoy! :wink: [url=http://www.users.muohio.edu/l...]Click to watch video[/url] |
| 3 Comments |
| Reducto misses the point, yet again |
| 04.11.04 (8:46 pm) [edit] |
|
Maybe it's my fault for not being very specific and just making a fairly simple point in my last blog, but poor ol' [url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]reducto[/url] misunderstood entirely. Either that, or his blind defense of Bush prevents him from acknowledging valid dissension. In case you missed it, I made a pretty basic observation not on the August 6 PDB itself, but on the administration's feeble attempt at defending its actions- or lack thereof, actually. My point was that to claim there was no immediate action taken because there was no 'smoking gun' to signify this need is not a convincing explanation [b]given the fact that Bush chose to attack Iraq[/b] in a pre-emptive strike. In case you weren't aware, though I'm sure reducto was, I did not support the move to attack Iraq, as I did not feel that there was a convincing, if any, justification for war. My criticism of Bush's defense that al-Qaeda wasn't attacked because there wasn't enough information detailing their intentions is not necessarily that he should have attacked regardless, but that Bush has no room to claim this approach at foreign policy when his stylings favor pre-emption. It is a bit hypocritical for Bush to say that war in Iraq was warranted based on the intentions of Hussein but no action against al-Qaeda was immediately necessary, given basically the same information. We have known for years that both Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were dangerous and capable of attacking us. Hussein violated UN resolutions and refused to say whether he had WMD or not. We can leave the debate over whether this justified a war or not alone for right now, but all this says is that we knew Hussein was capable of attacking and that he may have had intentions to do so. Bin Laden and al-Qaeda differ from the threat posed by Hussein in that it is a terrorist group, not a nation-state. They defy UN regulations, as they are not subject to them, and continually plot against the US. We've known for years that they had intentions to attack us. Though the PDB does not state specifically that terrorists had plans to hijack airplanes and fly them into the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon, it did state that members of al-Qaeda had entered the country and were planning on attacking on American soil. There was information that should have been looked at and dealt with. Whether or not the information would have been enough to thwart the mission of 9/11 or not had it been immediately acted upon, I do not know. How important that is, I also don't know. My opinion is that the threat was obvious and somehow the significance was not understood or acted on by those in power. No matter who you are, you have to agree that not enough was done to prevent 9/11. Now let me try and answer reducto's questions: [i]"Bin Ladin implied in US television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America." Question: given the US policy on terrorism as lawbreaking, how could we have arrested bin Laden for this? The policy of preemption wasn't completed until Sept. 4. On what grounds would we then arrest Bin Laden?[/i] Arresting bin Laden doesn't even have that much to do with this information. I think the fact that al-Qaeda was planning on finishing Yousef's job is pertinent enough to at least take some action to protect the World Trade Center. [i]Question: what solid intel, in the memo or otherwise, would have indicated planes flying into buildings? And, what, again, was the US to do pre-911 with the US policy in place, and pre-Bush doctrine, that would have stopped this?[/i] What solid intel indicated that Hussein had WMD, and is that intel to be trusted? Hmm... If we had known that planes flying into buildings was the plan, we definitely should have been able to prevent it. Even without that very specific knowledge, it was known, or should have been known, that bin Laden was planning on attacking, that the WTC were targets, and that this threat was serious. And, sweetheart, if you're so stuck on the horrible policies in place before Bush, why the hell didn't Bush change the policies- [b]he[/b] was in office then. [i]Question: Given US policy at the time, why didn't CLinton arrest these folk for plotting attacks in 1998?[/i] Well, that is a somewhat valid question. Was Clinton aware of this? And on what grounds would he have them arrested, exactly- recruitment? [i]"Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York. "The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives." Question: What, do you think, the President could have done if he knew the FBI was on the job and, at the same time, was crafting his terror policy? Is he psychic? Where's the specific threat?[/i] You're right, there is no specific threat. But the fact that there is a clear threat at all is enough to expect some action to have been taken. Look, I don't think it makes much sense to blame Bush or to blame Clinton, or either of their administrations for the attacks. However, there has to be some responsibility in terms of protecting the nation. I don't think it is stupid to want answers from the administration, especially when all the 'answers' given only raise more questions. |
| 10 Comments |
| Bush's defense: No need for pre-emptive action against al-Qaeda |
| 04.10.04 (11:16 pm) [edit] |
|
According to the PDB now released from August 6, a little more than a month before the attacks of September 11, intelligence from other countries as well as the US pointed to a group of bin Laden's terrorist organization that had entered the country and was planning an attack with explosives. Now, obviously we can look at this information now and say that the government should have taken action to thwart the terrorists' mission, but, as the Bush administration is arguing in its defense, there was no concrete evidence, no 'smoking gun,' to make this information absolutely necessary to act upon. In other words, according to the administration, there was no reason to take action prior to the attacks, no need to pre-emptively attack al-Qaeda solely based on the information that its operatives were planning on striking us- I mean, when hadn't bin Laden wanted to or planned on attacking the US? Similar to this situation- of considering al-Qaeda to be a threat, but not being absolutely certain of the imminence- was the case with Iraq. We knew Saddam was a dangerous guy who could pose a threat to the US. Based on intelligence from other countries as well as the US, it was decided that he needed to be stopped. My question to the Bush administration is this: If evidence of imminent attacks in the US by al-Qaeda, a growing threat for many years, wasn't enough to justify pre-emptively striking, how could lesser evidence of Saddam's potential threat to the US have justified a [b]war[/b]? I'd like some real answers from the administration, because their actions and motives/reasons don't quite add up for me. |
| 3 Comments |
| On abortion and why the pro-life stance does not belong in a political discussion |
| 04.09.04 (4:39 pm) [edit] |
|
One of the most prominent issues debated over the years in America's culture war has been abortion. But what exactly do the opposing views stand for? For many, the distinctions are clear: Pro-lifers claim that a fetus is a human, therefore deserves the right to life; whereas the pro-choice view is that the woman should have the right to choose for herself in regard to her health and her baby. To take the pro-life stance is to judge on the issue from a moral perspective; whereas the pro-choice view is rooted in legality. If we consider abortion in terms of what is morally just, the argument could easily be made that the killing of a baby is wrong. However, a fetus is not a baby. A fetus is not yet alive, therefore cannot be killed. Still, abortion prevents a baby from living, right? In some respects, that does seem unfair to the potential child, and I can understand and even accept (to a certain extent) the moral arguments against abortion. However, the question of morality does not determine what is legally right. The most common misconception in the culture war on abortion is that those who support the right to choose must also support the 'murder' of a baby. There have been several times I have heard a pro-lifer call a pro-choice person a 'baby murderer' (ahem, James Yerian/reducto) That's just ridiculous. As stated before, the difference between the pro-life and pro-choice views is that one is rooted in moral judgment while the other considers the legal basis of the issue. A pro-life stance indicates a view that abortion is wrong (morally) and that that morality must be extended to all. A pro-choice view does not infer moral judgment at all. The pro-choice stance is that there is an inherent right of all people to decide for themselves in private matters. A person could easily be pro-choice and also consider abortion to be immoral. Moral judgments do not fall within the domain of the government. There is something fundamentally wrong with imposing any such decision on others- when religious morality interferes with legal decisions, we face the danger of arbitrary rule. Laws can be based on facts, on provable evidence, but to enact legislation based on moral views, even if the majority is in agreement on the moral rectitude, is to strip the freedoms and individual rights of the citizens and to make the laws suspect. The pro-life stance is not based on legality but on morality, and for this reason any introduction of this view on politics is an attempt to force a particular morality on everyone. |
| 12 Comments |
| Even more on Catholicism, and religion in general |
| 04.05.04 (11:05 am) [edit] |
|
There have been several comments made on my recent posts and I'd like to thank those who bothered to explain their religious views and also apologize for not responding to many of the points made, I just haven't been in the mood. But your thoughts are appreciated; however, rather than address the comments made, for now I would just like to give my own explanations. Ultimately, the questions of our existence- the nature of who and what we are, and why we exist- have no definitive answers. Seemingly, the easiest answers are found in religions. All religious concepts rely on faith. Many things in life are beyond our understanding, or at least beyond our grasp of reasoning at the time, meaning that in order to believe we must have faith. There are varying degrees of faith. Some things we may have enough evidence to reasonably conclude that a certain end is right, only exercising a small amount of faith based in reason. Other things in life we must have faith prior to gaining an understanding; this is the nature of religious faith. What particular faith you attest is greatly determined by the culture you are raised in. A person born into a strict Catholic family will learn that religion. Religion is typically taught through ritual, and in a group setting (Sunday school, for example), as well as within the family. Just as with any value system learned from a young age, an individual can turn away from these beliefs, though many do not. Perhaps it is out of familial obligation, cultural respect, or genuine belief, but most accept and continue practicing the faith they are taught from birth. Granted, some select other religions to follow, some choose not to have faith, and some raised with no faith adopt religious views later in life. But for the most part, religion is dependent on geography and culture. The question is, how does one know which religion is correct, if any? What makes a person believe that their concept of God is the right one, or that such a being even exists? As far as I know, there is no proof of any religion's absolute Truth, nor is there any proof of God's existence. Thus, faith is integral. Devoting your life, something you [i]know[/i] exists, to the ideas of a religion in an attempt to appease a God, something you do not know exists, robs your life of meaning, value, and joy. Who's to say that Islamic extremists are not favored by God? Perhaps it is the violent and forceful acts of militants that God desires of our devotion to Him. If this is the case, wouldn't it be best to live your life by murdering the infidels? To appease God and gain your eternal rewards, you must act in a manner conceived as being conducive to God's will. But how do you know what God's will is, particularly when you can't even explain God's motives in creating the universe? It seems risky to me to live in such a way. We as mere mortals; fallible, finite beings, must determine what is the best path for our lives. An analogy was made by "cabdriver" in which he compared a cow in a field, obediently doing the farmer's work in return for food, to our faith in God. The difference between a human and a cow is that the human has the capabilities to [i]reason[/i]. In this analogy, the obedience of faith is represented by a lack of reason. Maybe that’s not so farfetched. But I’m not a cow- I can at least try and understand the reasons for what it is I do in my life, and I can also realize that I have no reason to consider some farmer, or some God, as master over me, requiring that I perform certain duties. I can feed myself. As religion is open to interpretation by each individual, so is life. There is no real need for some bigger meaning to life than life itself. If we dwell on the prospects of some eternal life, that may or may not be realistic, we lose sight of the life we do know. If you want to think of life as capable of transcending time, of continuing in some respect for all eternity, consider ideas of great minds. Or perhaps there is a means of attaining immortality in the physical realm, only no religion has discovered the tenets of true immortality yet. In essence, religion is designed by man to provide answers to difficult, often elusive, questions. We won't know for certain what validity, if any, there is to any of our religions until death, so why waste what time we do have living trying to procure some life after death, that we may or may not be capable of achieving? |
| 5 Comments |
| Tell me all your thoughts on God |
| 04.02.04 (11:48 pm) [edit] |
|
First off, I will write more thoughts on Catholicism based on comments from the previous post soon, but I have a slight migraine right now, so this will have to do. Secondly, I feel the need to mention the title is taken from a [url=http://www.stlyrics.com/lyric...]song[/url], and not really what is being requested here. I am curious as to how members of any religion (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Shintoism, etc.) determine with absolute confidence that their religion is right, that their vision of God and the universe is correct. If you are religious, I have a few questions for you: 1) Do you believe that your religion is the one true religion, the only Truth? 2) If so, what makes you so certain? 3) And if not, what does it matter if you have faith in a particular religion or not? |
| 8 Comments |
