A Bit of Mysticism on a Sunday Morning

Many of my favorite writers tend towards no belief in a higher power, and as I read them, I at times consider myself a chastised child for entertaining my mystical leanings.  I can understand, quite clearly, why the concept of God can be considered “omnipreposterous.”  Plus, I like the word.

Even so, I continue to read various musings on the subject of faith and God.  Here’s another one of those readings, titled “The New Agnosticism?”

Link to the word “omnipreposterous” via Uncommon Sense.  Link to the article via Arts & Letters Daily.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 10/24 at 08:06 AM

  1. Is a belief in “God” always mystical in nature in your assessment Mr. Venlet?

    Is “God” the same as TLOP?

    I assume you are using the term (label) “mystical” in the same manner I use it, meaning non-logical (without logical explanation), or fundamentally incomprehensible.

    Assuming I have that right, how do you come to conclude that a belief in “God” is Mystical and a non-belief in “God” is non-Mystical (logical)? Maybe you have it backwards? Maybe those “smart Atheists” aren’t quite as smart (logical/non-mystical) as they’d like you to believe?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  10/25  at  08:33 AM

  2. You’re aware doubtless of the StarTrek series. In the Startrek world, there is a race known as the Romulans. In their ancient qritings is an oft-quoted saying…“Of all the emotions, love is the only unreasonable”.

    (Unreasoning, illogical, etc.)

    Here in the real world, the saying goes, God is Love. If that’s ture, why wouldn’t belief in God be illogical?
    The problem here for many is that they attempt to attribute logic to a realm where it doesn’t belong.

    I get the impression from John’s words you’re talking on different levels, but not really past each other.

    Posted by bithead  on  10/26  at  10:41 AM

  3. I’d disagree that “Love” is illogical.

    Logic is a mechanism for finding Truth*. And the primary reason (purpose/desire) for finding Truth is that the Truth is always (ultimately) beneficial.

    True Love is similarly always (ultimately) beneficial.

    Love = a (axiomatically) consistently beneficial entanglement between two Gravitons (Souls/Consciousnesses)

    Where:

    Beneficial = the result (Output/Product/Effect) of information (exchanged) which is honest(real)/True.


    * meaning the Objective Truth of reality (2 + 2 = 4 for example).

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  10/26  at  11:04 AM

  4. So, you have a real handle on true love, huh?

    Gee, you could give E-Harmony a run for it’s money, to say nothing of divorce courts everywhere.

    Posted by bithead  on  10/26  at  12:54 PM

  5. Bithead: So, you have a real handle on true love, huh?

    Well I know it when I see it.

    Bithead: Gee, you could give E-Harmony a run for it’s money, to say nothing of divorce courts everywhere.

    I think you may be misunderstanding what I said.

    There is a difference between comprehending Love and completely comprehending another individual. To achieve the latter would require one to sacrifice their own Individuality in the process.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  10/27  at  08:45 AM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


Next entry: Dichotomous World Series Towns

Previous entry: Tickets, Need Tickets?, Get Your Tickets, Here

<< Back to main