Sharing the nature of God

[Bob]

Hello Peter,

Only the child in me asks the question, ‘so why does God allow it?’

Interestingly, it is not Man that asks “why” the first time in the Bible, but God:
(Genesis 4:6-8 ) “And Jhvh said to Cain, Why are you angry? and why is your countenance fallen? If you do well, shall it not be lifted up? and if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire will be to own you; but you should rule over it. And Cain told Abel his brother.
And it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.”

And it is a child that Jesus places in the middle of the disciples and said: “Except ye turn, and become as little children, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven.”

Shalom

[phrygianslave_the_wi (phrygianslave the wise)]

Hey JT!

Just an observation, but reality, nature, and God as expressed in language is a construct of mind, and may not necessarily be reality, nature, and God.

Yes. Good point!

But then can there ever be any, ‘reality, nature, and God,’ other than that conceived/perceived and structured and expressed through language?

In time, (no doubt,) new understandings, constructions, new forms of expression, new paradigms, will replace the old and outmoded. But these will necessarily be framed and communicated through language. What else have we?

It is true that any expression of these terms must come through language, but it would be a very narrow and limiting perspective to suggest that language is somehow capable of apprehending that which we would call “God”

Would it though? For me, without language(s) there is no, ‘reality, nature, and God,’ to distract or entertain us, we are simply unknowing intelligence.

Whereas, on the other hand, when this raw intelligence is yoked up with language/logos it becomes useful to us, and we can, as it were, begin to plough the fields and scatter!

peter

[tentative]

Hey PW,

Would it though? For me, without language(s) there is no, ‘reality, nature, and God,’ to distract or entertain us, we are simply unknowing intelligence.

Some would suggest that we may develop a heightened sensitivity and awareness that transcends language. Call it intuitive knowing, call it whatever, but enough people over time have tried to explain the experience to suggest that there is ‘something’ there. Of course, language must be used to try to convey this experiencing, and so the real experience is muddied in metaphor.

Whereas, on the other hand, when this raw intelligence is yoked up with language/logos it becomes useful to us, and we can, as it were, begin to plough the fields and scatter!

Perhaps this is so, many would have us believe that there is no thinking or understanding beyond language, but I have experienced understandings for which only silence suffices. Of course, this doesn’t keep me from trying to talk about it. Blah Blah Blah…

JT

[phrygianslave_the_wi (phrygianslave the wise)]

Hey Bob!

I must deal with this further. I cannot let you off the hook here Bob!

There have been millions of martyrs who have suffered the adverse effects of people who were in power

Jesus, does not agree with you at all, not one iota. Look at what he says:

“And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand: There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man. If any man have ears to hear let him hear. And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable. And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders. Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.” [Mark, 7. 14-23]

This needs to be said over and over, if one is to make real progress, I repeat, Jesus’ words:

“There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man. If any man have ears to hear let him hear.”

“Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him”

“That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders. Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.”

There is no equivocation here, no sophistry, Jesus talks straight, tells it how it is, no mincing of words.

Two thousand years have passed and people still do not understand!

There are no, ‘adverse effects,’ from external agencies neither can there be: the only adversity a man can suffer is that which he brings upon himself!

peter

[phrygianslave_the_wi (phrygianslave the wise)]

Hey JT!

Of course, this doesn’t keep me from trying to talk about it. Blah Blah Blah…

Beautiful!

peter

[Bob]

Hi Peter,

I must deal with this further. I cannot let you off the hook here Bob!
Jesus, does not agree with you at all, not one iota. Look at what he says:
“And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand: There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man. If any man have ears to hear let him hear. And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable. And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders. Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.” [Mark, 7. 14-23]

What do we mean by “defile”? The word means to make profane, to take away holiness, to make ceremonially unclean. They are spoken after Jesus disputes with the Pharisees about ‘Corban’ and thereby showing their ideal, to be “holier than thou” as being ridiculous. In consequence of that, the worry of the Pharisees that they could be become “defiled” is even more ridiculous, seeing as it is our heart that defiles the world. It was the wrong consequence of the cleanliness and kosher rituals, thinking that they had to retain holiness by ritual, whether by washing or by circumcision. Jesus says it is comparable to whitewashing graves.

I fail to see the connection to my statement: “There have been millions of martyrs who have suffered the adverse effects of people who were in power.” Here adverse effects are pain, suffering, torture, loss of limbs, loss of loved ones, stigmatisation, imprisonment, oppression, etc. not loss of ceremonial cleanliness, which Jesus indirectly argues against in the story of the good Samaritan who helps someone who has been robbed and beaten, whilst a Scribe and a Levite pass by, afraid of being “defiled” by touching someone who is about to die and thereby being not able to enter the Temple.

I think you have saddled the bull here!

Shalom

[phrygianslave_the_wi (phrygianslave the wise)]

Hey Bob!

With the greatest respect, the only whitewashing going on here is the one you are trying to give me!

Jesus disputes with the Pharisees on the subject of the word of God, but later, to all the people Jesus explains that what, ‘defiles,’ a man is the, ‘evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders. . .’ etc., etc., within him, not any external ‘adverse effects.’

The connection between your statement and this concerns your assumption that, ‘pain, suffering, torture, loss of limbs, loss of loved ones, stigmatisation, imprisonment, oppression, etc.’ are somehow evil and especially because they come from some external agency!

Peace!

peter

[Bob]

Hello Peter,

With the greatest respect, the only whitewashing going on here is the one you are trying to give me!

Well, there seems to be a lot of people the same opinion:

“In Mark 7:14-23 Jesus is responding to the issue of the Pharisees questioning his disciples for eating without washing their hands according to the tradition of the elders. He claims that it is “not the things that go into a person that cause defilement, but the things that come out of a person that cause defilement.” Later his disciples ask him the meaning of the saying and Jesus responds by listing the types of things that come from within and cause defilement.”
rosetta.reltech.org/reltech/books/RKM/bullard/

“Mark 7:14-23 = Matt 15:10-20
In the context of Jesus’ dispute with the Pharisees over hand washing before meals, Jesus tells a “parable” (mashal: a similitude), intended to make the point of the relative importance of the state of the heart over obedience to individual commandments. (Matthew inserts into his Markan framework Matt 15:12-14, two sayings critical of the Pharisees: 15:13: “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots” and 15:14: “Leave them; they are blind guides. If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” The second saying has a parallel in Luke 6:39, thereby indicating that it was an independent saying. Matt 15:12 is probably a Matthean creation designed to introduce the two sayings. It is probable that Matthew interpolates these two sayings because he knew that Jesus had made these remarks about the Pharisees in this historical context.) Jesus tells the crowd, “Nothing that is outside of a person can make him unclean by going into him. Rather it is what comes out of a person that makes him unclean” (Mark 7:14; see Matt 15:11). In response to a request for clarification by his disciples, Jesus explains his “parable”: “Do you not see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can make him or her unclean. For it does not go into his heart but into his stomach…What comes out of a person is what makes him or her unclean. For from within, out of people’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a person unclean” (Mark 7:18-23; see Matt 15:12-20). Jesus’ point is not that the food laws are obsolete […], but that obedience to the food laws is not as important as having a pure heart. Jesus intends a “that / more” rather than an “not / but” relationship between the food laws and the purity of heart. Semitic idiom permits this interpretation (see Exod 16:2-8; Letter of Aristeas 170-71; 234; Mark 9:37) (Sanders, Jewish Law, 28 ). What is more important is the state of the heart, not whether a person observes the food laws. “
abu.nb.ca/Courses/NTIntro/Li … s.htm#L421

“Jesus had been engaging the Pharisees and scribes in a conversation about tradition. They were upset because Jesus’ disciples didn’t observe the tradition of the elders. They were not keeping certain ceremonial laws. They were not observing the outward rituals which these Jews felt were vitally important. The disciples were not observing the ceremonial washing of hands before they ate. The Jews were very particular about this. They were afraid of any uncleanness and felt that washing their hands in this manner would protect them from it.
But Jesus saw through their tradition and emphasized what was really important. After condemning them for their hypocrisy, He spoke directly to the issue of external trivialities. External trivialities are what we appear to be based on the application of some standard of performance. But as we shall see, not everything is as it appears.
The first thing Jesus says to them is that you are not what you eat. While the catchy little slogan, “You are what you eat,” may be popular, it is not true. Listen to what Jesus says in verse 15:
“There is nothing outside the man which going into him can defile him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man.”
The Jews were worried that eating with unwashed hands would make them ceremonially unclean. They put great stock in the outward observance of certain traditions and ceremonies. Jesus, however, challenged them directly on this point. He said, in essence, “You are not what you eat.” In other words, eating food with unwashed hands does not make you unclean. That’s not the real problem in man. The problem in man goes far deeper than the external situations and outward circumstances of our lives.”
horizonsnet.org/sermons/mark22.html

“What Defiles a Man?
Previously, we read about Jesus allowing his disciples to ignore a tradition of ritually washing their hands before eating despite the complaints of the Pharisees. At the time, Jesus responded to the complaints by arguing first (and incorrectly, it appears) that the Pharisees were hypocrites for worshipping Jesus in words but not in their hearts and second (with perhaps more justification) that at least some of the Pharisees made a habit of placing human traditions over God’s laws.
Now, however, we are given what is probably the real reason for allowing the disciples to violate the tradition — and it has nothing at all to do with traditions. Jesus argues that certain traditions are placing form over substance because they emphasize what might “defile” a person externally while ignoring what really defiles a person internally.
Ritually washing one’s hands before eating, along with many other traditions, was designed to ensure a ritual, religious cleanliness. Should a person be ritually unclean, that was regarded as a sort of sin which distanced a person from God. Jesus argues, however, that no such externalities could never really separate a person from God. Instead, only internalities could do that: intentions, beliefs, words, attitudes, etc.”
atheism.about.com/od/biblegospel … ark07b.htm

This is just a random selection.

Shalom

[phrygianslave_the_wi (phrygianslave the wise)]

Hey Bob!

I’m sorry to go on but I must pursue this matter.

there seems to be a lot of people the same opinion

Please tell me, simply, in your own words, exactly what this opinion is.

thanks,

peter.

[fire_water_earth_tim (fire,water,earth,timecube)]

bob i have a couple questions

wouldnt you have to show us god before making this forum?
and whats with the lectures?
do you believe in fate?

[fire_water_earth_tim (fire,water,earth,timecube)]

sharing the nature of the unknown sounds a little awkword don’t you think
plus even if we did chaos and order would be like playing soccer first team to win is the last team to lose in other words POINTLESS i wonder if half the people on here under stand that word.

[Bob]

Hi Peter,
sorry for the late answer, I was on holiday and without my computer for two weeks.

Please tell me, simply, in your own words, exactly what this opinion is.

The ‘opinion’ was of what is meant by defilement. You were saying that „there are no, ‘adverse effects,’ from external agencies neither can there be: the only adversity a man can suffer is that which he brings upon himself!“ and brought this quote in from Mark, 7. 14-23, which to my mind addresses a completely different subject. You seem to set my “adverse effects” as meaning “defilement” but I disagree.

There is a vast difference between being the victim of someone invoking pain, suffering, torture, loss of limbs, loss of loved ones, stigmatisation, imprisonment, oppression, etc. and becoming ceremonially unclean. Jesus had engaged the Pharisees and scribes in a conversation about tradition, to which they replied that Jesus’ disciples didn’t observe the tradition of the elders by not keeping certain ceremonial laws. Jesus points out that ritual uncleanliness, although regarded as a sort of sin which distanced a person from God, is secondary to having a pure heart. He argues that such externalities could never really separate a person from God – but the state of his heart could.

I can’t understand you saying that the only adversity a man can suffer is what he brings upon himself – in the sight of millions of victims of atrocities.

Shalom

[phrygianslave_the_wi (phrygianslave the wise)]

Hi Bob!

Glad you’re back; hope you’re refreshed!

Before I give any studied response to your reply I want to tackle you about what appears to me to be your misapprehension of Stoic ‘apathy.’
I have taken the liberty of posting you the following excerpt from, Self-sufficiency and Power: Divine and Human Agency in Epictetus and Paul Troels Engberg-Pedersen, dealing with the matter.

Another formulation that comes back again and again is that of ”willing things exactly as they occur” (e.g. 1.12.15: hekasta houtô thelein hôs ginetai). Quite often the relationship with God is sounded too, e.g. in the passage just quoted where Epictetus continues: ”And how do they occur? As He that ordains them has ordained (hôs dietaxen auta ho diatassôn)”. Thus another synonymous formulation is this (2.17.22): ”Do not will anything but what God wills” (mêden allo thele ê ha ho theos thelei).
This is of course the famous Stoic doctrine of apatheia. It has the usual radical consequence of a stark disengagement in relation to the world.
size=75 Do you not rather render thanks (eucharisteis) to the gods that they have allowed you to be superior (epanô) to all the things that they did not put under your control (epi soi), and have rendered you accountable (hypeuthynos) only for what is under your control? (33) As for parents, the gods have released you from accountability; as for brothers, they have released you; as for body, they have released you; and for property, death, life. (34) Well, for what have they made you accountable? For the only thing that is under your control – the proper use of impressions.[/size]
Note here the list of ”externals”: parents, brothers, body, property, death, life. Clearly, Epictetus has chosen the things that are most highly valued in the ordinary valuation of things to make his point that none of these things is of ultimate concern to the person he is talking about, the truly human being. It is very important not to be misled here. The point is certainly not that the truly human being will not care about those things. On the contrary, they are precisely the things he does care about. Only, his ultimate concern is that he cares about them in the proper way. Thus in an interesting passage that would deserve more extended analysis, Epictetus discusses how, within his scheme of things, a person may be ”affectionate” (philostorgos), that is, love other human beings. That is possible, he claims (3.24.58 ), without giving up the principle of not depending (kremasthai) on anything other than oneself (ex allou). Take Socrates, Epictetus’ revered hero.
size=75 Did not Socrates love his own children? Yes, but as a free person (eleutheros), as one who remembers that it was his first duty to be a friend to the gods (theois einai philon).[/size]
The same is true of another of Epictetus’ heroes, Diogenes.
size=75 Come, was there anybody that Diogenes did not love, a man who was so gentle (hêmeros) and human-loving (philanthrôpos) that he gladly undertook all those troubles and physical hardships for the sake of the common weal (hyper tou koinou tôn anthrôpôn)? But what was the manner of his loving (ephilei pôs; )? (65) As became a servant of Zeus (hôs tou Dios diakonon edei), caring for men indeed (kêdomenos), but at the same time subject unto God (tôi theôi hypotetagménos).[/size]

I do hope you will take note and revise your apparent misapprehension of Stoic apathy. I again at the risk of angering you, emphasise Engberg-Pedersen’s very just and accurate appraisal/understanding of the concept:
“[size=100]It is very important not to be misled here. The point is certainly not that the truly human being will not care about those things. On the contrary, they are precisely the things he does care about. Only, his ultimate concern is that he cares about them in the proper way[/size].”

Peter

[Bob]

Hi Peter,

Glad you’re back; hope you’re refreshed!

Thanks, I did have a relaxing time – although I’m back in the midst again now. Hence the late reply.

Before I give any studied response to your reply I want to tackle you about what appears to me to be your misapprehension of Stoic ‘apathy.’

Thanks for taking the trouble. I do have something against what I would term as a fatalist attitude and tend myself to see if there is anything I can change before accepting things “exactly as the occur“, let alone “willing“ them. I see a number of things as a challenge presented to me, calling on me to rise to the challenge, whilst still accepting an outcome that doesn’t suit me if it isn’t avoidable.

The mystic is not disengaged from the world, but in fact very much engaged in what occurs here. We see the incarnation taking place in believers and in particular, Maranatha fulfilled when the sons of God are revealed. Asking God to come into the world means to ask him to be born into ourselves, giving our bodies up to be vessels of his holy presence, allowing him to work through us. We should obey God before we obey man.

Of course the things I cannot control I am not accountable for. When parents are no longer accountable as parents, they become brothers and sisters. The Jewish view is that the body is not the “grave of the soul“ but that the unity of body and soul is a God-given reality. These “externals“ as you term them, are in communion with or part of the “true human being“ and to be loved, not just to be cared for. However, they must be loved not in an infatuated manner, but in a manner befitting them - but the love of God is selfless.

Jesus clearly called us to service to one another. This is what is missing in our modern society and even more so the more individualistic we become. Therefore a stoic attitude may often be the attitude we assume, subtly altered to serve our selfishness, turning away from those who need us and groan for redemption. Therefore, you may be right that “pure“ Stoicism may be something else, but in a modern society, I have my doubts about whether it would be acknowledged.

Shalom

[phrygianslave_the_wi (phrygianslave the wise)]

Hi Bob!

Sorry about the late response.

I do think that Jesus, (assuming such a person actually existed,) would have known well of and studied early philosophy, including Stoicism. His own teaching, the words attributed to him by Mark, Matthew, and others, was not simply about Jewish ceremonial laws and the suchlike. We’re talking about a man who was visited by three wise men at his birth, who, if he had existed, would have been looking to universal rather than parochial ends. Jesus was without any doubt looking at mankind generally, not just the Jews.

Jesus was concerned with the grievous sin of hypocrisy in the Jewish Church. (Not only in Mark, 7. 14-23, is this apparent but in at least three other sections of the N.T.) He is not pussyfooting with the scribes and Pharisees, there is no polite discussion with them, he is condemning them outright for their gross hypocrisy.

But I am not interested in the matter of hypocrisy, nor am I interested in the traditions of the elders. An understanding of such matters may help to contextualise and throw light on obscure texts, but I would claim there is nothing obscure about Jesus words, to the effect that, wickedness comes from within the man and cannot be blamed on externals. And this is not only a Stoical but also a widespread view among the ancients.

I do not wish to quibble over the various meanings of words, such as, ‘defiled,’ or, ‘adverse effects,’ for it’s quite obvious to me that a man who is wicked is very misfortunate. But I really must attack you, Bob, on the alarmist piece of rhetoric in which you remark, (in apparent innocence,)

“I can’t understand you saying that the only adversity a man can suffer is what he brings upon himself – in the sight of millions of victims of atrocities.”

Really, Bob, ‘millions of victims of atrocities’ sounds to me to have come from the same school of propaganda as, ‘weapons of mass destruction!’

I do have something against what I would term as a fatalist attitude and tend myself to see if there is anything I can change before accepting things “exactly as the occur“

So too the self-respecting Stoic.

These “externals“ as you term them, are in communion with or part of the “true human being“ and to be loved, not just to be cared for. However, they must be loved not in an infatuated manner, but in a manner befitting them

Again, Bob, this is virtually Stoicism; although it is important for the Stoic, (and, I would claim, Jesus understands this,) that he differentiate between what belongs to him and what does not. The only thing that really belongs to a human being, according to the Stoic, is his innermost moral choice. (Render unto Caesar. . . etc…)

That’s all I’m going to say, Bob. I think we have a good deal more in common than we know.

Best wishes,

Peter

[Bob]

Hi Peter,

Really, Bob, ‘millions of victims of atrocities’ sounds to me to have come from the same school of propaganda as, ‘weapons of mass destruction!’

Death Toll	         Event/ Dates

55,000,000 Second World War (Some overlap w/Stalin. Includes Sino-Japanese War and Holocaust) 1937/39-1945
40,000,000 China: Mao Zedong’s regime. (incl. famine) 1949-76
20,000,000 USSR: Stalin’s regime (incl. WW2-era atrocities) 1924-53
15,000,000 First World War (incl. Armenian massacres) 1914-18
8,800,000 Russian Civil War 1918-21
4,000,000 China: Warlord & Nationalist Era 1917-37
3,000,000 Congo Free State [n.1] (1900)-08
2,800,000 Korean War 1950-53
2,800,000 2nd Indochina War (incl. Laos & Cambodia) 1960-75
2,500,000 Chinese Civil War 1945-49
2,100,000 German Expulsions after WW2 1945-47
1,900,000 Second Sudanese Civil War 1983-(99)
1,700,000 Congolese Civil War [n.1] 1998-(99)
1,650,000 Cambodia: Khmer Rouge Regime 1975-79
1,500,000 Afghanistan: Soviet War 1980-89
1,400,000 Ethiopian Civil Wars 1962-92
1,250,000 East Pakistan: Massacres 1971
1,000,000 Mexican Revolution 1910-20
1,000,000 Iran-Iraq War 1980-88
1,000,000 Nigeria: Biafran revolt 1967-70
917,000 Rwandan Massacres 1994
800,000 Mozambique: Civil War 1976-92
675,000 French-Algerian War 1954-62
600,000 First Indochina War 1945-54
600,000 Angolan Civil War 1975-94
500,000 Decline of the Amazonian Indians (1900-99)
500,000 India-Pakistan Partition 1947
500,000 First Sudanese Civil War 1955-7 2
450,000 Indonesia: Massacre of Communists 1965-66
365,000 Spanish Civil War 1936-39
350,000 Somalia: Chaos 1991-(99)
400,000 North Korea: Communist Regime 1948-(99)
175,057,000 Total

I can’t explain it any better than giving you the figures.

Shalom

[phrygianslave_the_wi (phrygianslave the wise)]

Hi Bob!

Let him that is without sin cast the first stone.

Peter

[phrygianslave_the_wi (phrygianslave the wise)]

Hi Bob!

There is no problem in the world, Bob, but there is a great problem in your heart and soul. That is what you have to overcome, that is the cross you have to bear.

God knows best, Bob, not you.

Respect,

Peter

[Bob]

Hi Peter,

there is both, there is a great problem in my heart and soul - and problems in the world. I cannot be oblivious of it. Maybe it is just your terminology, since I see we have a lot in common, but I cannot ignore the troubles of the people I have to do with. Of course I have a professional stance which also protects my soul, but I acknowledge the troubled heart by addressing it in my professional capacity.

As a Christian, I also address the spiritual problems with the same inner distance but also with an outward closeness, a warming hand, an embrace, with eye contact and understanding. Perhaps you mean this.

Shalom

[torrentfields]

The only problem I have with Christianity is it doesn’t make sense. lol.

I mean, what about all the people that lived before Christ? What about all the people in the rest of the world that don’t even have any conception of God, ie. the Chinese. What about them? I’m sure Christianity has a nifty little fix for this, such as “they will all receive the oppurtunity to accept the teachings of Christ after death” or something to that nature. But that’s not logical. Not trying to put down Christianity, I can’t blame people for wanting to explain their world. After all, life is pretty weird isn’t it? I mean, here we are, what the hell is up with that? But I think what a lot of people don’t think about it the alternative, what would be the opposite of the current status of life. Such as, what it would be like to know everything, and live in this world, it would be pointless, like reading a book you’ve already read. I think what makes the most sense is that we are God, but we’re pretending we’re not. It just seems like people just take the basic assumptions of their culture and never question them. It’s easy to find out how your basic assumptions might be totally wrong, but that requires that you compare them to other cultures, and all to many people aren’t willing to step outside their sphere of knowledge. It’s expectable, but when they put a mark on something and say “this is the way!”, “you will be damned if you don’t kiss god’s ass!” it just pisses me off.