Posted on 12/20/2011 9:15:48 AM PST by Paladins Prayer
In writing this piece, I’m reminded of a little exchange between the late William F. Buckley and friend and fellow National Review writer Florence King. Buckley had just penned some less-than-flattering words about a recently deceased person of prominence whose name escapes me, and King chided him, saying something to the effect that he had broken ground in journalism: the “attack-obit.” Buckley’s response was, “Wait till you see the obituary I have planned for you!”
And in writing this critical article about bon vivant Christopher Hitchens in the wake of his death this past Thursday, I expect some ridicule as well. Yet I don’t think Hitchens would demand to be spared the acidic ink he used to eviscerate others — or that he would have any credibility doing so. Remember that this was the man who, before the gentle Jerry Falwell’s body was even cold, said things such as “If he [Falwell] had been given an enema, he could have been buried in a matchbox” and “I wish there was a Hell for Falwell.”
For my part, I wouldn’t wish eternal damnation on Hitchens; I truly hope he rests in peace. But I can’t say the same for his legacy. And when I see the obligatory exaltation of his life’s work — with secular icons, the deader they get, the better they were — I think that legacy needs a little damnation.
(Excerpt) Read more at thenewamerican.com ...
Non Sequitur.
We don’t need to invent another religion.
We do need to show God our love, honor and respect
by abiding by His rules.
BTW, in the Bible, He declares that He not only knows our thoughts [even the exact number of hairs on ones head], He knows every thought, action, and mistake we’ll make over the whole course of our lives before living any of it. He, the Creator, knows the beginning from the end and every detail in between. He wrote the DNA codes. He forms the Earth and Universe out of nothing according to His purpose.
Yet, paradoxically, we have free will for our lives in most cases and most of the time [except in infancy, sickness etc]. The prayers are to help us, not God, to build our faith and live our lives from a more blessed, informed, and spiritual perspective.
Good deeds and rewards and all, as described in the Bible, is how we seek and find everything we need to know about God and mankind’s history.
imho & ymmv
That said, religions, if true, have to be capable of addressing every circumstance of human existence. What I mean by that is as follows: Salvation - are stillborn children automatically "saved"? If a human is cloned, just as we know mammals have been (Dolly the Sheep, for example), will this entity have a "soul"? How does your faith address such anomalies? A lapse in addressing exceptional circumstances will be the evidence for the non-universality of the said faith.
People believe many things:
|
"Nay, and of hearts which follow other gods
|
|
In simple faith, their prayers arise to me,
|
|
O Kunti’s Son! though they pray wrongfully:
|
|
For I am the Receiver and the Lord
|
|
Of every sacrifice, which these know not."
- Bhagavad-Gita, Ch: IX, Lines: 92-96.
|
| The Bhagavad-Gita. |
| Chapter XII |
|
|
“Here shall no end be hindered, no hope marred
|
|
No loss be feared: faith—yea, a little faith—
|
|
Shall save thee from the anguish of thy dread.”
- Bhagavad-Gita, Ch: II, Lines 140-142.
|
|
ARJUNA:
“And what road goeth he who, having faith, |
|
Fails, Krishna! in the striving; falling back
|
|
From holiness, missing the perfect rule?
|
|
Is he not lost, straying from Brahma’s light,
|
|
Like the vain cloud, which floats ’twixt earth and Heaven
|
|
When lightning splits it, and it vanisheth?
|
|
Fain would I hear thee answer me herein,
|
|
Since, Krishna! none save thou can clear the doubt.”
|
|
|
|
KRISHNA:
“He is not lost, thou Son of Prithâ! No! |
|
Nor earth, nor heaven is forfeit, even for him,
|
|
Because no heart that holds one right desire
|
|
Treadeth the road of loss! He who should fail,
|
|
Desiring righteousness, cometh at death
|
|
Unto the Region of the Just.”
- Bhagavad-Gita, Ch: VI, Lines 125-138.
|
|
“Of many thousand mortals, one, perchance,
|
|
Striveth for Truth; and of those few that strive—
|
|
Nay, and rise high—one only—here and there—
|
|
Knoweth Me, as I am, the very Truth.”
- Bhagavad-Gita, Ch: VII, Lines 8-11.
|
|
“There be those, too, whose knowledge, turned aside
|
|
By this desire or that, gives them to serve
|
|
Some lower gods, with various rites, constrained
|
|
By that which mouldeth them. Unto all such—
|
|
Worship what shrine they will, what shapes, in faith—
|
|
’Tis I who give them faith! I am content!
|
|
The heart thus asking favor from its God,
|
|
Darkened but ardent, hath the end it craves,
|
|
The lesser blessing—but ’tis I who give!
|
|
Yet soon is withered what small fruit they reap
|
|
Those men of little minds, who worship so,
|
|
Go where they worship, passing with their gods.
|
|
But Mine come unto me! Blind are the eyes
|
|
Which deem th’ Unmanifested manifest,
|
|
Not comprehending Me in my true Self!
|
|
Imperishable, viewless, undeclared,
|
|
Hidden behind my magic veil of shows,
|
|
I am not seen by all; I am not known—
|
|
Unborn and changeless—to the idle world.
|
|
But I, Arjuna! know all things which were,
|
|
And all which are, and all which are to be,
|
|
Albeit not one among them knoweth Me!”
- Bhagavad-Gita, Ch: VII, Lines 69-90.
|
|
“Nay, and of hearts which follow other gods
|
|
In simple faith, their prayers arise to me,
|
|
O Kunti’s Son! though they pray wrongfully:
|
|
For I am the Receiver and the Lord
|
|
Of every sacrifice, which these know not
|
|
Rightfully; so they fall to earth again!”
- Bhagavad-Gita, Ch: IX, Lines 92-97.
|
|
“Yet not by the Vedas, nor from sacrifice,
|
|
Nor penance, nor gift-giving, nor with prayer
|
|
Shall any so behold, as thou hast seen!
|
|
Only by fullest service, perfect faith,
|
|
And uttermost surrender am I known
|
|
And seen, and entered into, Indian Prince!
|
|
Who doeth all for Me; who findeth Me
|
|
In all; adoreth always; loveth all
|
|
Which I have made, and Me, for Love’s sole end,
|
|
That man, Arjuna! unto Me doth wend.”
- Bhagavad-Gita, Ch: XI, Lines 332-344.
|
And before you even bother engaging with me, be warned: I don't care what Aquinas said. I don't care what Kant said. I don't care what Pascal said. I don't care what C.S. Lewis said. I don't care what any dead philosopher, saint, poet, or jesuit said. What I see and what I think are IT. You can tell me what you see and what you think but it won't matter to me.
But How do you know that?
Give one objective reason why "There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger" is wrong.
There has to be some independent moral principle.
And cultures across the planet, worshiping many gods, have independently come up with something close to "Do not do to your neighbour what you would find hateful done to you."
1 Samuel 15:3, for instance. How is this “moral”?
Hard to say. I wonder about that myself: was Hitchens much of a thinker or wasn't he?
It's hard to know just how seriously to take the political and book chat he produced.
Maybe Hitchens wasn't an original or real thinker, but he managed to be a little more thoughtful about some things than other opinionizers.
Fortunately, one can call him a "man of letters" and leave it at that.
I believe Pascal’s logic is a legitimate argument against atheism. My hope is that it would make an atheist reconsider his or her beliefs.
I believe God is aware of those who seek Him and those He wants added to His kingdom will find Him.
So why not take your logic ball and go home?
I’m just being honest.
So am I. What is the point of interacting on this thread given your statement? Other than the logic snark of course.
I came on this thread to have a couple exchanges with other atheists. A believer addressed me and I was polite enough to answer.
Only to a poorly taught logician or philosopher. A properly taught logician knows the limits of logic and what can and cannot be known using the tool.
Even a minimally taught logician knows that the statement: "All that can be known to be true or real can be proven using logic" is a false statement. Because it cannot be proven using logic.
No human being, yourself included, limits what they know or can know to what they know using logic alone. Only computers and droids could possibly do so, but not us lowly humans.
What I see and what I think are IT. You can tell me what you see and what you think but it won't matter to me.
This the statement of a pure subjectivist, relativist. There's no room here for objective truth, logical or otherwise. And, therefore, no common truth possible and therefore no basis for discussion on what is "true." It's not all that different from the position of those religionists which you denigrated earlier. :)
But I do sincerely appreciate your time in reply.
>> Those who describe themselves as atheists really do seem to believe that atheism grows out of one’s own superior intellectuality.
More like brain rot.
Yeah, yeah, that’s the ticket. Take scriptures out of context and pretend that you are the one who understands all things and pass your own puny little judgements on whatever verses you have not taken any time to understand. I’m sure being that type of a critic will win you many points in your debate with God - not...
>> You can tell me what you see and what you think but it won’t matter to me.
Apparently it does.
Whatever context is “missing”, feel free to fill in.
Or don’t.
Whatever you want to do to massage your ego, as you did with your other comments.
Or we're told (as I saw on one of the Discovery channels a few weeks ago) that if not mere chance, then the naturalistic origin of life can be explained by "mysterious chemical reactions". Funny though, that scientists don't have an explanation for these mysterious chemical reactions.
So we end up with one of two scientific theories; either the 'theory of chance' or the 'theory of we can't explain it'. I guess Mr. Hawking should have included these in his 'theory of everything'.
“Give one objective reason why “There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger” is wrong.”
I’m glad you asked for an objective reason although you would like an independent moral principle as well. Since I’m not an intellectual (thank G-d) I can’t deliver on the latter.
But I do in fact have no other basis to rely upon other than objective reality. And that reality is fourteen centuries of Islamic conquest, slaughter, and oppression in the name of their god Allah. That reality is the Middle East in which even under centuries of Islamic rule there existed substantial Jewish and Christian minorities. Well, the Jews are long gone from anyplace in the ME except Israel, and the Christians are being burned out of their churches, their women raped, their property stolen, and their ancient communities in place long before the rise of Islam are being progressively exterminated. Those are the horrible facts in Egypt, in Iraq (our fault!) and in Pakistan. The vids are there, check them out.
It is the height of Muslim arrogance to demand acceptance of their claim that they worship the same Deity as worshipped by Jews and Christians. This is but another form of hijacking at which Muslim terrorists have proven extremely effective.
Bottom line, Islam kills in the name of Allah and his “messenger”. It kills and kills and kills. That’s objective reality, measured in millions of corpses.
BTW, do you believe in G-d? It matters not to me personally whether you do or not, but it might affect the logical quality of your response.
Logic has given me all the answers I require. Religion is for people with unanswered questions. I don’t have any.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.