|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 9:43 pm Post subject: Re: The Problem with Religious Moderates |
 |
|
| AbbeFaria wrote: |
| thepeel wrote: |
| http://www.beliefnet.com/story/153/story_15332.html |
I knew that sounded familiar. If you haven't, you should read the whole book. It's very good.
-S- |
I have. It is excellent. I'll open it back up again this week. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 9:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Funkdafied wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Sam Harris wants to construct an altar to the scientific method and exclude all worship except to it: but in his grovelling (and idiotic) worship of efficient cause, he will not find any guide for how humans should behave. |
If you're suggesting that science cannot provide morality but religion can you are sorely mistaken. |
I'm suggesting that religion is the correct venue for matters of morality (some religions do better than others).
Science can teach us NOTHING of morality. |
That simply isn't true. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The purpose of religion, or as I would prefer to call it "faith," is to provide hope to the hopeless. |
No. It is a means of social control. What you wrote might be one of the most naive statements in human history.
| Quote: |
| The odd thing is the tendency of empiricists to treat science the same way the devoutly religious treat their individual belief systems. Nothing is absolutely correct, including the human ability to perceive that which is outside itself. |
1+1 = 2 . Next.
| Quote: |
| One day science may find God, Buddha, Allah, an oversoul, or whatever you might want to call it. |
Finding "that", will not prove their silly little books to be true.
| Quote: |
To bring it back to science, would you say the same thing about science since the Nazis used scientific progress as a means to justify killing and torturing masses of people?
|
And? Shall we get into a loooonnnggg discussion about the nazi party and religion?
| Quote: |
| Peel, deep down, are you a fascist? |
Well. I'd like to introduce you to yata and bigbird. You have now replaced DD as the weakest link in the Axis of Douchebags. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 12:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Also, given what you have quoted, it is important to seperate religious organizations/faiths that emphasize compassion from those that don't. Since following a religion's ideals is nearly impossible, compassion and understanding must be the bedrock of any worthy faith. Once again, Harris wants to lump all religious traditions together. Harris is intellectually lazy. |
No. There is a general principle that can be described, and it is not lazy to do so.
His main point is this:
| Quote: |
| Moderates do not want to kill anyone in the name of God, but they want us to keep using the word "God" as though we knew what we were talking about. And they do not want anything too critical said about people who really believe in the God of their fathers, because tolerance, perhaps above all else, is sacred. To speak plainly and truthfully about the state of our world-to say, for instance, that the Bible and the Koran both contain mountains of life-destroying gibberish-is antithetical to tolerance as moderates currently conceive it. |
There is no need for a moderate or an infidel to respect any part of their religion. We know too much about the world and far too much about the impact of this "lift-destroying gibberish" on our world. It is time to fully awake, cast off the nonsense and embrace the truth that we don't know, won't know and can't know everything.
But when you lie to yourself and keep some of the myth as Truth, you lend legitimacy to those who believe more aggressively (or fully) than you. Rather than it all being nonsense (which it is) we then have to debate which parts are nonsense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 12:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| No. It is a means of social control. |
Ahhh, I see you had your tin foil hat out again today and connected some dots. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 12:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
In light of the following, perhaps you should concentrate on revolutionizing Canadian religious beliefs before rescuing the rest of the benighted world:
Total numbers and growth between 1991 and 2001:
In Canada:
Total 1991 total 2001 total Percentage Growth
Total Canadian population 26,994,040 29,639,035 + 09.8%
Christian 22,503,360 (83.3%) 22,851,825 (77.1%) + 01.5
Non-Christian 1,093,680 (4.1%) 1,887,115 (6.4%) +72.5
No religious affiliation 3,397,000 (12.6%) 4,900,095 (16.5%) +44.2 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 12:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| My oh my Americans are sensitive little flowers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Czarjorge
Joined: 01 May 2007
Location: I now have the same moustache, and it is glorious.
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 11:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| thepeel wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The purpose of religion, or as I would prefer to call it "faith," is to provide hope to the hopeless. |
No. It is a means of social control. What you wrote might be one of the most naive statements in human history.
Wow, you would know from naive wouldn't you. Religion CAN serve as a means of social control, when it is ORGANIZED and is funded/controlled by the state. Or, as in the case of the early Catholic church IS the state. Religious thought and experiences fundamental purpose is to provide hope. Have you ever actually studied religion? I enjoy pointing out how ridiculously backward your opinions are, but please make it a little more difficult.
| Quote: |
| The odd thing is the tendency of empiricists to treat science the same way the devoutly religious treat their individual belief systems. Nothing is absolutely correct, including the human ability to perceive that which is outside itself. |
1+1 = 2 . Next.
Actually, at certain levels 1+1=57, or any other crazy number. Read up on the work being done in theoretical physics then get back to me.
Also, I love seeing such specious arguments. Along with religion you've never studied logic either, huh? You're secretly Dick Cheney aren't you?
| Quote: |
| One day science may find God, Buddha, Allah, an oversoul, or whatever you might want to call it. |
Finding "that", will not prove their silly little books to be true.
No it won't. Wow, you made a valid point. Yay for peel. However, you missed mine. I wasn't saying that science proving the existence of God made religion viable. In fact a proof of the existence of God would likely end religion as we know it. You don't often discuss or theorize about concrete, pants, little birdies or any other things you "know" to exist.
My point was that dismissing religion as worthless is like dismissing science or any other area of human thought. THERE ARE NO ABSOLUTES. I know it's much easier, and you may not be able to see the bigger picture from in your foxhole, to dismiss things out of fear, but that doesn't mean they aren't valid. Do you have opposable thumbs?
| Quote: |
To bring it back to science, would you say the same thing about science since the Nazis used scientific progress as a means to justify killing and torturing masses of people?
|
And? Shall we get into a loooonnnggg discussion about the nazi party and religion?
Sure, I love hearing your crazy theories about stuff. I get the same joy from it as a kid might get from poking a corpse with a stick. Your ideas and a corpse smell about the same. Sorry, that was petty. Peel-y.
| Quote: |
| Peel, deep down, are you a fascist? |
Well. I'd like to introduce you to yata and bigbird. You have now replaced DD as the weakest link in the Axis of Douchebags.
Who is DD? I don't recall seeing a post from that individual. Ya-ta seems like a fairly intelligent and reasonable person though. Apart from the whole spelling correction thing, everyone has their eccentricity. Me, I actually enjoy bantering with someone as limited as you. I hope I might get through.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 11:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| thepeel wrote: |
His main point is this:
| Quote: |
| [Harris-A]Moderates do not want to kill anyone in the name of God, but they want us to keep using the word "God" as though we knew what we were talking about. [H-B]And they do not want anything too critical said about people who really believe in the God of their fathers, because tolerance, perhaps above all else, is sacred. [H-C]To speak plainly and truthfully about the state of our world-to say, for instance, that the Bible and the Koran both contain mountains of life-destroying gibberish-is antithetical to tolerance as moderates currently conceive it. |
[Peel-A]There is no need for a moderate or an infidel to respect any part of their religion. We know too much about the world and far too much about the impact of this "lift-destroying gibberish" on our world. [P-B] It is time to fully awake, cast off the nonsense and embrace the truth that we don't know, won't know and can't know everything.
[P-C] But when you lie to yourself and keep some of the myth as Truth, you lend legitimacy to those who believe more aggressively (or fully) than you. Rather than it all being nonsense (which it is) we then have to debate which parts are nonsense. |
[Harris-A] Again, what moderates is he talking about? He must be talking about run-of-the-mill faithful who use the word "God" loosely.
Firstly, I don't hear many faithful making descriptions of God often.
Secondly, yes, some pastors, ministers, and reverends speak loosely about God. Arguably they should not, but also one must consider their audience and their connection to their audience: they have roughly 15 minutes of speaking time every hour in a democratic environment. Such speakers must make an individual connection for their audience, they do not have time for an in-depth theological lecture.
Thirdly, theologians rarely describe God because they know its impossible. The Jewish philosopher Maimonides declared that ascribing positive aspects to God is impossible. One reason is that God contains all positive aspects indivisibly. The other reason is that God is beyond human comprehension. This makes Harris' criticism all the more unjustified: those who believe in a supreme being cannot properly describe such a being. Anytime anyone speaks of God, they are going to be in error. Harris is exploiting this necessary difficulty to suggest that moderates should all agree on God's essence before one mention God. Such precision is a ludicrous demand.
[H-B] Bullshit. I've had many conversations with devout Christians who have very little good to say about people who believe in literal Creationism. When I levelled my criticisms against such people, they did not stop me. They seem relieved that I am not one of those opportunists who wish to profit from the ignorance of the fundamentalists and paint all Christians with a wide brush. And that is exactly what Harris is doing here.
[H-C] Alright, this is Harris' best point. Yes, there is a mountain of difficulty in interpreting a 5,000-old year document (or a 1,000 year-old document in the case of the Qu'ran) for daily use. But lets be honest: most faithful do not do this. Almost all Christians and Jews understand that the laws of Leviticus and Deuteronomy are no longer applicable today. As I have said before, in Catholicism there is a whole hierarchy set up to act as an intercessor between the revealed text and the faithful. This is not unlike the American Supreme Court's function in interpreting the Constitution. Although the two are not exactly alike, there is a rough analogy. The Catholic Church is fully aware of the problems of interpretation, which is why the Holy Spirit is a part of the Trinity. The Holy Spirit is that active part of God in all of us that moves the world forward.
[Peel-A] But what do you know? If you had a better idea of how Christianity was essential, yes essential, in the fostering of the Renaissance and the beginning of the scientific revolution, I doubt you would say this. But besides ingratitude, you are unwilling to look at any of the positive aspects of religion. Its easier to throw out the baby with the bathwater if you refuse to believe there's a baby within it. This is willful ignorance. I realize that I'm being condescending here, but I'm certain you are the worst offender between us on this subject.
[P-B] A Brave New World! A new Republic for our times! You don't have the stomach for what it would take to establish such a regime...and that is not an insult.
[P-C] There's a lot of nonsense in this world. For example, some people believe in this thing called 'love.' They find a person, usually of the opposite sex, and think that this person is remarkable and worth spending the rest of their life with! But there is no proof that such love exists! It is all in their head.
Its time for these people to wake up: love is not a reasonable thing. Only desires which are rational or useful should exist. Those people who have moderate loves are only legitimizing the stalkers and unrequited fools who prowl this earth. It is only reasonable that they set aside their happiness to protect these other people from their own mistakes.
There are so many problems with reason that I could write a book on it. But such an activity is pointless. I love reason anyway. But I'm not a fanatic about it. I do not believe that reason is the exclusive path to happiness. I try to live a balanced life.
But there are some reason fundamentalists out there who want to destroy revelation. They are seemingly blind to the faults of their own faith in reason (the necessity of assumptions/postulates, error in logic, the limits of scientific inquiry re: the impossibility of an unobserved observer, etc)
Yes, its an old struggle, reason v. revelation, Athens v. Jerusalem. And Harris is the latest partisan of reason to stand up and wage this old feud. But never before has the feud been so profitable for the partisans of reason. But I have seen better arguments than Harris'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 2:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Philosophical depth is required in both religion and science. Of all the world's scriptures, Bhagavad-gita presents the science of the soul in the most philosophically complete way.
Although the "how" and "why" of creation are both important questions, the question of "who" is God is also ultimately important.
If one at least theoretically accepts Krishna as the absolute source of knowledge and hears the same transcendental message from a person who has realized it by practical application then one can begin to clearly understand who God is (along with basic knowledge of how and why the material universes were created and our own eternal constitutional position...)
Logically, there is really no need for any other scripture or religion. Krishna's perfect philosophy can unite all the diverse peoples and nationalities of the world (and be the basis for a peaceful world government...)
Actually, Krishna consciousness was spread to Russia when thousands of books got distributed among intellectuals at a book fair during the days of the Soviet regime. Krishna consciousness was recogized as a major ideological threat to Communism.
Nonetheless, it has taken root in Russia, and it is now flourishng there, producing many devotees of Krishna.
Here's from an interesting letter written by Bhaktivedanta Swami back in 1971 touching on some of these philosophical points:
...The difference is that we have got absolute authority from the Source of Knowledge, Krishna, while your western mundane philosophers are simply speculating on the mental platform, which is always changing. Therefore, a philosopher is not a philosopher unless he refutes his predecessor and produces something new. This kind of knowledge is useless.
Actually, no one has got any philosophy nowadays, everyone is acting according to his own whims. Therefore there is no security, no peace, everything is unpredictable and dangerous. Therefore all the young boys and girls in your country--and all over the world--are fed up with this lack of philosophy and they have taken to the philosophy of hopelessness: Everything is empty, therefore let me enjoy, it doesn't matter.
But this philosophy is also useless. Because if you want to enjoy and I also want to enjoy, there will be clash, fighting. And we have seen in Moscow that Marx and Lenin philosophy is no better. God is dead, the State is God: this philosophy has killed the spirit, and the Russian people are very morose and unhappy. They want to join us, that is a fact.
So now you defeat all sorts of philosophies, become very convinced yourself and learn our Krishna philosophy perfectly. In this way, any sane man will listen to you and become convinced. Our philosophy is practical. Actually, philosophy means practical application--if it is mere theory then it has no value.
But our Krishna philosophy is working now in modern society to solve all kinds of problems, all over the world, never mind white man, black man, Christian or Hindu, Russian or American. Everyone is feeling the nice result of our philosophy. And it has worked in the same way for the last 5,000 years at least, taking historical calculation.
So which philosophy is better, 50- or 100-year old Darwin philosophy, or eternal Krishna philosophy? Just try to understand. Approach Krishna way of life from every angle--it is perfect...
http://prabhupada.blogspot.com/
Of course, it's not that easy to practically renounce our materialistic ways - especially when they're so strongly promoted by mass media - so there have been many falldowns among practicioners of Krishna conscioiusness.
However, whatever spiritual benefit is gained is never lost, and one will eventually resume from that point to make further progress on the path of liberation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The_Eyeball_Kid
Joined: 20 Jun 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| thepeel wrote: |
His main point is this:
| Quote: |
| [Harris-A]Moderates do not want to kill anyone in the name of God, but they want us to keep using the word "God" as though we knew what we were talking about. [H-B]And they do not want anything too critical said about people who really believe in the God of their fathers, because tolerance, perhaps above all else, is sacred. [H-C]To speak plainly and truthfully about the state of our world-to say, for instance, that the Bible and the Koran both contain mountains of life-destroying gibberish-is antithetical to tolerance as moderates currently conceive it. |
[Peel-A]There is no need for a moderate or an infidel to respect any part of their religion. We know too much about the world and far too much about the impact of this "lift-destroying gibberish" on our world. [P-B] It is time to fully awake, cast off the nonsense and embrace the truth that we don't know, won't know and can't know everything.
[P-C] But when you lie to yourself and keep some of the myth as Truth, you lend legitimacy to those who believe more aggressively (or fully) than you. Rather than it all being nonsense (which it is) we then have to debate which parts are nonsense. |
[Harris-A] Again, what moderates is he talking about? He must be talking about run-of-the-mill faithful who use the word "God" loosely.
Firstly, I don't hear many faithful making descriptions of God often.
Secondly, yes, some pastors, ministers, and reverends speak loosely about God. Arguably they should not, but also one must consider their audience and their connection to their audience: they have roughly 15 minutes of speaking time every hour in a democratic environment. Such speakers must make an individual connection for their audience, they do not have time for an in-depth theological lecture.
Thirdly, theologians rarely describe God because they know its impossible. The Jewish philosopher Maimonides declared that ascribing positive aspects to God is impossible. One reason is that God contains all positive aspects indivisibly. The other reason is that God is beyond human comprehension. This makes Harris' criticism all the more unjustified: those who believe in a supreme being cannot properly describe such a being. Anytime anyone speaks of God, they are going to be in error. Harris is exploiting this necessary difficulty to suggest that moderates should all agree on God's essence before one mention God. Such precision is a ludicrous demand.
[H-B] *beep*. I've had many conversations with devout Christians who have very little good to say about people who believe in literal Creationism. When I levelled my criticisms against such people, they did not stop me. They seem relieved that I am not one of those opportunists who wish to profit from the ignorance of the fundamentalists and paint all Christians with a wide brush. And that is exactly what Harris is doing here.
[H-C] Alright, this is Harris' best point. Yes, there is a mountain of difficulty in interpreting a 5,000-old year document (or a 1,000 year-old document in the case of the Qu'ran) for daily use. But lets be honest: most faithful do not do this. Almost all Christians and Jews understand that the laws of Leviticus and Deuteronomy are no longer applicable today. As I have said before, in Catholicism there is a whole hierarchy set up to act as an intercessor between the revealed text and the faithful. This is not unlike the American Supreme Court's function in interpreting the Constitution. Although the two are not exactly alike, there is a rough analogy. The Catholic Church is fully aware of the problems of interpretation, which is why the Holy Spirit is a part of the Trinity. The Holy Spirit is that active part of God in all of us that moves the world forward.
[Peel-A] But what do you know? If you had a better idea of how Christianity was essential, yes essential, in the fostering of the Renaissance and the beginning of the scientific revolution, I doubt you would say this. But besides ingratitude, you are unwilling to look at any of the positive aspects of religion. Its easier to throw out the baby with the bathwater if you refuse to believe there's a baby within it. This is willful ignorance. I realize that I'm being condescending here, but I'm certain you are the worst offender between us on this subject.
[P-B] A Brave New World! A new Republic for our times! You don't have the stomach for what it would take to establish such a regime...and that is not an insult.
[P-C] There's a lot of nonsense in this world. For example, some people believe in this thing called 'love.' They find a person, usually of the opposite sex, and think that this person is remarkable and worth spending the rest of their life with! But there is no proof that such love exists! It is all in their head.
Its time for these people to wake up: love is not a reasonable thing. Only desires which are rational or useful should exist. Those people who have moderate loves are only legitimizing the stalkers and unrequited fools who prowl this earth. It is only reasonable that they set aside their happiness to protect these other people from their own mistakes.
There are so many problems with reason that I could write a book on it. But such an activity is pointless. I love reason anyway. But I'm not a fanatic about it. I do not believe that reason is the exclusive path to happiness. I try to live a balanced life.
But there are some reason fundamentalists out there who want to destroy revelation. They are seemingly blind to the faults of their own faith in reason (the necessity of assumptions/postulates, error in logic, the limits of scientific inquiry re: the impossibility of an unobserved observer, etc)
Yes, its an old struggle, reason v. revelation, Athens v. Jerusalem. And Harris is the latest partisan of reason to stand up and wage this old feud. But never before has the feud been so profitable for the partisans of reason. But I have seen better arguments than Harris'. |
You say: "One reason is that God contains all positive aspects indivisibly. The other reason is that God is beyond human comprehension."
And yet you accuse Sam Harris of sophistry! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 6:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The_Eyeball_Kid wrote: |
You say: "One reason is that God contains all positive aspects indivisibly. The other reason is that God is beyond human comprehension."
And yet you accuse Sam Harris of sophistry! |
I'm paraphrasing Maimonides.
| Quote: |
Maimonides was an adherent of "negative theology" (also known as "Apophatic theology".) In this theology, one attempts to describe God through negative attributes. For instance, one should not say that God exists in the usual sense of the term; all we can safely say is that God is not non-existent. We should not say that "God is wise"; but we can say that "God is not ignorant", i.e. in some way, God has some properties of knowledge. We should not say that "God is One", but we can state that "there is no multiplicity in God's being". In brief, the attempt is to gain and express knowledge of God by describing what God is not; rather than by describing what God "is".
The Scholastics agreed with him that no predicate is adequate to express the nature of God; but they did not go so far as to say that no term can be applied to God in the affirmative sense. They admitted that while "eternal", "omnipotent", etc., as we apply them to God, are inadequate, at the same time we may say "God is eternal" etc., and need not stop, as Moses did, with the negative "God is not not-eternal", etc. In essence what Maimonides wanted to express is that when people give God anthropomorphic qualities they do not do justice to His greatness. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The_Eyeball_Kid
Joined: 20 Jun 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| The_Eyeball_Kid wrote: |
You say: "One reason is that God contains all positive aspects indivisibly. The other reason is that God is beyond human comprehension."
And yet you accuse Sam Harris of sophistry! |
I'm paraphrasing Maimonides.
| Quote: |
Maimonides was an adherent of "negative theology" (also known as "Apophatic theology".) In this theology, one attempts to describe God through negative attributes. For instance, one should not say that God exists in the usual sense of the term; all we can safely say is that God is not non-existent. We should not say that "God is wise"; but we can say that "God is not ignorant", i.e. in some way, God has some properties of knowledge. We should not say that "God is One", but we can state that "there is no multiplicity in God's being". In brief, the attempt is to gain and express knowledge of God by describing what God is not; rather than by describing what God "is".
The Scholastics agreed with him that no predicate is adequate to express the nature of God; but they did not go so far as to say that no term can be applied to God in the affirmative sense. They admitted that while "eternal", "omnipotent", etc., as we apply them to God, are inadequate, at the same time we may say "God is eternal" etc., and need not stop, as Moses did, with the negative "God is not not-eternal", etc. In essence what Maimonides wanted to express is that when people give God anthropomorphic qualities they do not do justice to His greatness. |
|
Even still, it's nevertheless sophistry at its worst. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 7:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The_Eyeball_Kid wrote: |
Even still, it's nevertheless sophistry at its worst. |
That's the second post where you've added nothing new. You've even used my own term: sophistry. Could you explain why its sophistry? This is not a polite request, I'm actually curious as to whether its possible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 7:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The_Eyeball_Kid wrote: |
| Even still, it's nevertheless sophistry at its worst. |
Maimonides is good to paraphrase. A more modern writer that said pretty much the same thing was Anthony De Mello. There's no sophistry involved in trying to explain the concept of something that by definition is beyond explanation.
De Mello on the concept of God:
| Quote: |
| Every word, every image used for God is a distortion more than a description. |
| Quote: |
"Help us to find God."
"No one can help you there."
"Why not?"
"For the same reason that no one can help the fish to find the ocean." |
| Quote: |
| The genius of a composer is found in the notes of his music; but analyzing the notes will not reveal his genius. The poet's greatness is contained in his words; yet the study of his words will not disclose his inspiration. God reveals himself in creation; but scrutinize creation as minutely as you wish, you will not find God, any more than you will find the soul through careful examination of your body. |
| Quote: |
| The Master would insist that the final barrier to our attaining God was the word and concept "God." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
