PureX
Veteran Member
The term "God" refers to a mystery. The most profound mystery of all. It refers to the ultimate mystery of source, sustenance, and purpose of all that exists. Theology and religion try to clarify this profound mystery through the use of logic, debate, artifice, ritual, imagination and faith. But ultimately the mystery remains unresolved. However, the fact that it remains unresolved from the human perspective does not negate it's validity, nor it's importance to humanity. And if anyone here thinks it does, then I challenge you to explain how so.
Why is there so much argument, here, about theological and religious artifice? Artifice is artifice. It's representational. Which means it's not what it is representing, because it's a representation of what it's representing. As an example; Santa Claus in not the Christmas ideal. Santa Claus is a representation of the Christmas ideal. So are the rituals of gift-giving and tree-lighting and merry-making that we engage in as we enact the Christmas ideal. Many of you here seem to be imaging that if you can negate the artifice and the rituals that you have somehow negated the ideal. And that's just not so. All you've done is attack the representations of the ideal, and not the ideal, itself.
"There is no evidence!" "The stories are untrue!" I hear and read this all the time.
But stories require no "evidence". They are STORIES. Rituals require no evidence, they are their own "evidence" as they either help people understand and enact their ideals, or they don't. These things are artificial representations of an ideal. They are intended to help people understand and enable their ideals. They are not ideals in themselves. Attacking the representations as being invalid because they are "unreal" is just idiocy. I'm sorry, but that's what it is.
Claiming that God doesn't exist because It's depiction in the Bible "isn't real" is just absurd. It's like claiming that Christmas doesn't exist because "Santa Claus isn't real". And yet we hear and read this absurd objection ALL THE TIME on these threads.
Why? Why do so many of you persist in this idiocy? And it's not just claiming that God doesn't exist because the Bible's depiction of God "isn't real", it's the claim that God DOES EXIST simply because the Bible says so. The idiocy abounds on both sides.
Why is there so much argument, here, about theological and religious artifice? Artifice is artifice. It's representational. Which means it's not what it is representing, because it's a representation of what it's representing. As an example; Santa Claus in not the Christmas ideal. Santa Claus is a representation of the Christmas ideal. So are the rituals of gift-giving and tree-lighting and merry-making that we engage in as we enact the Christmas ideal. Many of you here seem to be imaging that if you can negate the artifice and the rituals that you have somehow negated the ideal. And that's just not so. All you've done is attack the representations of the ideal, and not the ideal, itself.
"There is no evidence!" "The stories are untrue!" I hear and read this all the time.
But stories require no "evidence". They are STORIES. Rituals require no evidence, they are their own "evidence" as they either help people understand and enact their ideals, or they don't. These things are artificial representations of an ideal. They are intended to help people understand and enable their ideals. They are not ideals in themselves. Attacking the representations as being invalid because they are "unreal" is just idiocy. I'm sorry, but that's what it is.
Claiming that God doesn't exist because It's depiction in the Bible "isn't real" is just absurd. It's like claiming that Christmas doesn't exist because "Santa Claus isn't real". And yet we hear and read this absurd objection ALL THE TIME on these threads.
Why? Why do so many of you persist in this idiocy? And it's not just claiming that God doesn't exist because the Bible's depiction of God "isn't real", it's the claim that God DOES EXIST simply because the Bible says so. The idiocy abounds on both sides.
Last edited: