|
Yorick,
In most of your contradictions it seems to me that you are making a few grievous assumptions.
First, one does not need to know real perfection in order to form an opinion about perfection. In my own life, I can look at one moment and compare it to another, calling one perfect. I can look at the life of another and compare it to my life and call one of them perfect. You say I am over complicating this, but it seems you are. All that a person needs to form a perception is two differing views. They could be separated by time, space, or any other measurement. Either way, as long as there is a discrepancy in their life, they can assign a “value” to perfection.
The point that really bites me here is that you keep calling God perfect. Per your belief God is perfect and exists. However, until you can show me that God exists as you suggest and does not require me to have faith, you cannot say that he is more than a concept. He is real to you due to your faith. For those who have no faith, the universal God you speak of is nothing more than a conceptual idea.
The problem it seems we are having is looking at things in the literal sense (as you often do) vs. the conceptual sense (as I am doing). For example, you say that we need to know light in order to know dark. That is not true, and it doesn’t make any sense. What we need to know is nothing more than a difference in light in order to perceive dark. If I shine a flashlight on you, and then I shine the light from a single candle on you, we can apply the terms light and dark to what we witnessed. However, one is not truly light and the other is not truly dark. The definitions we use are not the absolutes, they are only preconceived notions we have pertaining to variances we witness.
When I speak on control and religion, I think we are having a break down in communication. I understand the viewpoint you have, however, I’m not using the term control in that manner. Every religion has a set of standards that one attempts to live by. Yes, they have a choice as to whether or not they will follow those standards, but those standards in of themselves are a set of controls. They may not control a person, but they do provide a means to present guidelines for ones life. Those guidelines are controls. It is similar to a computer program as an example. While the program provides a set of instructions (standards) it is possible for that program to act out of those parameters (choice). I’m not saying it is an absolute control, but it is a means to control a population.
Many times you keep saying that you think things are much simpler. However, to follow what you state requires a serious leap of faith. My explanations entail nothing but that which we can see readily before. I use human experience, not faith, to explain away the preconceived notions people hold. A rebuttal that relies solely on one’s faith does not offer any sort of discussion to take place.
I think the biggest error in your thinking is that you seem to feel I am trying to invalidate your God. I’m not doing anything like that. I will admit that I do not know if your God exists or not. Only time will tell and until that time, I will continue to not hold an opinion. I once stated that I believe in the probability of the impossible, and I do. I don’t think you realize that there is room for your God in my viewpoint. I’m not explaining away God; I’ve providing answers for the misconceptions I see in the logic. If your God is infinite and perfect, he is truly beyond our understanding yet you continue to support the claim that he exists by using examples that can be explained without his existence.
I actually have been in this discussion many times with various Catholic priests (I was raised Catholic, baptized Catholic, and confirmed) and honestly, this is what turned me away from God. Every time something could be explained in simple terms without his existence, they would be unable to accept that and move on. I actually find it humorous. Why use words that actually have individual meaning to explain something we are incapable of understanding.
The human mind is not able to conclusively comprehend perfect, so why use it as a description? Why not just say God is because he is? Why not be able to admit that the God that exists because of your faith is truly beyond your scope of understanding, and as such, he is a conceptual idea that you hold inside of you. I can prove the point by taking a group of Christians off the street and have each one individually tell me in their own words what God is. I can guarantee you that I will get all sorts of varying ideas.
Before you respond, please do me the service of completely understanding that I am not looking to invalidate your religion or God. I am simply looking for the reasons why you decided to take leaps of faith in areas where you didn’t need to do so. I’m truly trying to understand why you are so entrenched in your beliefs. As such, could you reply without saying that you love him and he loves you as answers? Instead, tell me what happened to make you feel that way. Share your experiences.
|