I feel your pain!
Doc:
Purely for your amusement/interest, you might like to know that the comment you quote - "Why are little ones born only to suffer for the want of immunity or a bowl of rice?" - is actually a quote from a song by the Canadian band Rush, "Roll The Bones". So the person who actually asked the question is Neil Peart, Rush's lyricist.
Moreover, the theme of the song and the context of the original lyric is more about the Problem of Evil than a political message, and a conclusion of the world's apparent existential randomness. So it's hardly a great political motivator, or indeed targeted at any particular politics.
Likewise, to brainwash an Arab child into believing that 15 million Jews in the entire world are the cause of a single problem among the world's billion Muslims--let alone all their problems--is a heinous form of abuse, because when you create a victim, you create a nihilist. Why? Because once victim status is secured, then you are no longer burdened by a conscience. You may destroy and kill plentifully, because the order of the cosmos is unfair and illegitimate, and anything you do to set things right is inherently moral, no matter how immoral. One is sanctioned to abandon oneself to one’s most primitive instincts. And the violence will not end until the Old Order is overthrown and the New Man is created, free of the existential categories that define man to begin with.
Unfortunately this is not true at all. Conscience is an abstract, learned virtue. It can be learned from television (and many hollywood movies are unintentional propaganda pieces for Christian morality, however hostile they are against the doctrine behind it), or wherever.
If you don't "beat" it into a child, it won't be there. (which has to involve actual violence, but only a strict minimum. But you need a tiny bit of violence to make the threat of more violence credible)
Conscience is a learned virtue. One that, as can be aptly demonstrated in a confrontation with so many of today's youth, does not exist in every human. Specifically if a child is left to fend for themselves alone, it's very unlikely to develop.
The alternative is racism - superiority complexes. The reason this is so often called Nazism is that's what it is. But it's not just Nazi who think they should rule and obliterate criticism by virtue of birth, it is commonists, socialists, and even some Christians (though, thankfully, not the pope, and therefore not catholicism).
The left is what a human without a conscience looks like. You see it in children, you see it in animals. Killing for the pleasure of it, or merely to play with their children, like muslims do. Islam shares this with atheism, however absurd this may sound. It does not have any personal responsability (at least that's it's purpose, in the "caliphate" noone has, until then it's not entirely clear).
As any atheist or "socialist" (communist) society, islam collapses if it cannot find victims (right now islam can mask as a decent faith because oil has displaced a lot of slavery in muslim lands). Islam and atheism can only exist as a minority in a large sea of people who have faith in a good God, and exploit them. They cannot stably exist as the majority in any country.
But there's a tragedy of the commons type problem. Living in a muslim, or atheist, or communist society is a total disaster. Living in a believer society, as an atheist, communist, or muslim is much easier than living as a believer in a believing society.
This has to change. Or the feedback loop that this "immoral king amongst moral victims" creates will quickly overwhelm us.
Leftism seems to believe that if we see 20 drowning men (or women) and can only save 17 of them, we should do nothing and instead dream up a fantasy that saves all 20. It's better to let them all drown than it is to only save most of them. Total perfection or complete failure could well be the left's motto.
It really is a binary function. You either accept God or go though huge mental gyrations to reject the concept.
Why is it that "atheists" don't just reject God and move on in their happy lives? They always have to argue the point or make up a "counter-faith". Athesism, Leftism, Marxism, Evironmentalism...they all take on the characteristics of religious faith, with dogma, saints, holy books, litmus tests, sacraments etc.
All the while we can see a tremendous level of hatred directed toward the Christian faith that seems to be far out of proportion to any faults the faith may have.
It seems many don't just reject God, they hate Him....just like the Good Book says.
Tom,
Brainwashing is the effort to remove the conscience. The subject is conditioned to believe that the world is "out to get" him/her and that there is nobility in trying to prevent it. This "us versus them" mentality, when codified into a so-called religion (Islam), gives the subject license to engage in any manner of barbarisms, all the while believing in the correctness of said barbarities. Do you think that anyone who has a conscience would behead someone and record it for the world to see?
Only when conscience has been destroyed by outside influences, usually by others in whom conscience has been similarly disabled, do we see the displays of human dysfunction.
Christianity, when properly taught, seeks to reunite us with our conscience, not create an alternate one with allegiance to some outward authority. Indeed, some of us have literally had our conscience beaten out of us at an early age.
Conscience is a normal part of every human. Abstract though it may be, if left alone, it will flourish into the belief system that we call Christianity: a personal system of beliefs that seeks continual spiritual refinement characterized by a loving nature, patience, tolerance toward the failings of our neighbors, and a knowledge that we are all in this life together, struggling to make the best of what we have.
Wr_guy: Why is it that "atheists" don't just reject God and move on in their happy lives?
I do except when such as you thump your bible on the table pretending its the word of a non-existent entity called (this week) God. If you want to hold onto a totally irrational fantasy that has no connection to realty, that's your choice. Just don't try to force ANY aspect of it on me or require me to pay for it.
The image of the left, and especially the leftist media as "the chorus" is perfect. Thank you.
Reality is reality but humans can only perceive reality.
My stock investments:
Commies (1992-2000) up 300%
Capitalists (2000-200
-5%
God is punishing me somehow. Have at it.
We can call it hating God, but liberals mostly have rejected any notion of preemptive suffering in life.
What is a successful family or business if not a PLANNED FOR AND ACCEPTED suffering? Libs hate this REALITY.
They want their cake and to eat it too.
No Bible thump necessary, actually, as we have seen right here over the years, all one has to do is spell out G - O - D to get ARH to come a-runnin' and a rantin'...
And ARH apparently cannot see that is the case.
All of nature abhors a vaccuum, remove God and something else must rush in to fill the hole.
!
The Machine,
Your so called god is not as substantial as a vacuum. Since he is not there, there is no hole to fill.
Hey, americafirst, Good to see you are still here and making no more sense than you ever did. PS, I have been posting as "yonason" for a long time, and so to stay consistent, I'm keeping that "handle" so you'll know who I am.
Regards
> It created a cultural vacuum in which the family, the church and even the legitimacy of Western civilization have been melted in an acid bath of cynicism
I agree with the general assertion about the utter failure of Marxism on every level, but I suspect an awful lot of the heart of the issues with the legitimacy of Western Civ and the related cynicism are not the fruits of Marxism, but the other way around -- the malaise predated the real ascendancy of Marxism in the 20s and 30s, and the cause was the Great War, that is, WWI.
American Heritage has a long but thoughtful essay on this notion:
What We Lost In The Great War
Very, very much worth the read.
YOU'RE AS GOOD AS EVER, DOC
And, since you have given the broad overview, I hope you won't mind my contributing a few relevant details showing how the Socialist "economics" as practiced by Mr. Peanut the first, and his successor wannabe, Mr. O'Peanut.
Here's the sorry picture of how what O'Bunko wants to do will end up, because it's the same Allinskian Marxist "economics" that was tried and failed so badly already.
http://whatthecrap.wordpress.com...new-ad-marxism/
> If you don't "beat" it into a child, it won't be there.
While I agree with the necessity of instilling moral values and perceptions into people, there is a clear natural undercurrent in everyone that leads one way or the other.
The justification for that position is that some are brought up in the most perfect of circumstances, never knowing want or need or pain, yet theey are cruel, cold, and heartless, while others in the same circumstance are loving and nurturing and giving.
And the opposite is true, too. Some are brought up in the most hellacious conditions, and some turn to the dark, and some to the light.
There is something in each of us which either grasps or rejects empathy and kindness, and I believe that is nature, not nurture. All the socialization does is to give the nature soil in which to grow.
Society can stunt the dark side's growth, and it can encourage the light side's growth, but it cannot and does not actually weed its garden.
===
There's an old joke about two people --
Each one sees a rich man in fancy clothes stepping out of a wonderful car heading into his beautiful mansion.
One sees this and thinks:
"*No* man should be so well off".
The other sees it and thinks:
"*All* men should be so well off".
The nature of people falls mostly into those two classes. Communists are usually in the former, Capitalists are usually in the latter.
> Your so called god is not as substantial as a vacuum. Since he is not there, there is no hole to fill.
To be that absolute about something which you clearly know nothing about (by your own definition) requires a religious attitude of its own.
It's the difference between:
"I see no evidence to support the idea of there being a God"
and
"There is no God".
The former is a statement of fact.
The latter is a statement of faith.
Ergo, since you rail against the notion of faith, while adopting a stance of faith, you undermine your entire position, and demonstrate a remarkable lack of reasoning capacity.
Calling yourself "A. Rational Human" does not make you into one.
O Bloody Hell | Homepage | 09.15.08 - 11:08 pm |
deja vu
...for the umpteenth time.
ytba-yonason,
I heard you'd died in a tragic speedwalking accident.
So where the hell is that goddamn Huckabee with all this Palin going around? He’s twice what she is in every way (xept looks). Not everybody agrees with him but they all seem to like the putz - even the kids.
And what did ytba stand for anyways?
"I heard you'd died in a tragic speedwalking accident."
I hardly remember a thing, it all happened so fast...
As to Huckabee. I don't know, but I really like Palin. I think she has as much of the right stuff, if not more, as anyone else. And you have to admit that with the way it's energized McCain's campaign, it was a brilliant move on his part.
"And what did ytba stand for anyways?"
Sorry, that's a closely guarded secret that not even I'm sure. (That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.)
Anyway, gotta go. Glad to see your still knocking about.
Only when conscience has been destroyed by outside influences, usually by others in whom conscience has been similarly disabled, do we see the displays of human dysfunction.
Christianity, when properly taught, seeks to reunite us with our conscience, not create an alternate one with allegiance to some outward authority. Indeed, some of us have literally had our conscience beaten out of us at an early age.
I hate to point out the issue in your thinking. If we have to be "brainwashed" to neglect conscience, then how come "wild" humans have no such concept ? Of course the treatment these people receive from "free" animals (e.g. getting one of their children eaten) will brainwash them more thoroughly than any human possibly could.
And I am sorry to say but the difference between "brainwashed" and "reunited with our conscience" only sounds so big when you put it in words like that. In practice, these 2 things do not really differ, and as stated before, if you do nothing there will be no conscience in a child.
That's obviously a necessary thing once you realise that a child is a blank slate. It literally is not aware of how many arms or feet it has, and MUCH less aware of good versus evil.
A child explores good and evil just like it explores a room or anything it can get its hands on. It attempts to create a response (a physical response), as long as it does not get a response it will intensify the stimulus it gives. Without parental care a child makes sounds at a cat, crawls to it and touches it, if the cat runs away or fails to respond to the child it will, say grab it's tail. If that still does not provoke a response the child will pinch or violently hit the cat, if that still doesn't work it will crush it, or strangle it.
At some point, the animal HAS to respond. That border is the border between good and evil for the child, and it's the same for every object (obviously mostly it's the parents providing physical feedback like yelling, locking the child into a room, or hitting the child, anything that doesn't hurt will not change the behavior of the child)
Confrontation with Christian behavior will indeed guarantee very quickly that someone is capable of making the difference between good and evil, but provides no guarantees about them following good or not. Exactly as Jesus states in the new testament.
If you're honest you will see that this way of thinking does not conflict with your way of thinking, but it's more general and fills in a lot of the blanks. "reuniting a child with it's conscience" involves physical pain (or the threat of physical pain at the very least)
Dr.S., enc., in this essay you are "on fire".
Fwiw, I also appreciate the comments very much.
.
"There is no God".
IS a statement of fact and not of faith. A god that is infinite in any aspect cannot exist. Infinite means simply that no matter how much of an attribute you have, you can have more. It is a concept of process and not of existence. You can interact with the process but not an infinite accomplished. A god that is not infinite in any aspect is not a god. He/she/it may be more powerful than man as modern technological man is more powerful than primitive savage man but none the less he is not a god and fully subject to natural law.
However I do understand that the discussion here is pointless because reason, reality, and logic do not apply to matters of faith as much as faith does not apply to matters of reason, reality, and logic. They are mutually incompatible and incommensurate.
The problem here is that faith is the one that is empty of content. That you truly believe does not give it content. That only means you believe it has content. Believing does not make it so.
Tom,
Good points, all. Indeed, there are times when some physical pain must be inflicted, specifically when a child who doesn't understand the word "no" insists on sticking a fork into an electrical outlet. But, hopefully, no more than absolutely necessary.
The point I was trying to make concerns what I see happening to "converts" to Islam, which involves handing over your thought processes to someone else instead of depending on your own inner sense of right and wrong. Witness the slavish obedience to fatwas issued by their leaders.
I see your point in raising children toward good or bad. "As the twig is bent, so grows the tree."
A. Rational Human | Email | Homepage | 09.16.08 - 12:13 pm |
deja vu
...for the umpteenth +1 times.
"REASONING" WITH ARH ABOUT RELIGION IS LIKE . . .
AHR, Well I certianly hope you never have to pay for anything for me. I don't believe you should. That is why we need to defeat the clear and present danger that the Left wants to impose on us all.
As for you and God, You seem to have built a wall that is very high. That is between you and your maker. I wish you well with that.
To paraphrase Obama: There is always hope.
So.
I see that the whole gang has returned. Hear this now. There is neither God nor no God.
There is only Allah.
All must submit to his will. And if they do not then their children will submit.
Churchill said of Islam that "No stronger retrograde force exists in the world."
If Islam is ever able to destroy civilization, there is no way they could replace it with anything of value, because they neither want to nor are they capable of it. After they had squandered the riches they would pilfer from their victims, they would turn their violence on themselves, fighting over what was left until even what little remained to them was destroyed.
But I know they will fail, because G-d made His World to be inhabited by civilized, law-abiding, humans who are as concerned for others as they are for themselves. He didn't create the World to give it to covetous, deceptive, murderous thieves.
When whatever work the destroyers have to do is complet, they will dissappear from the World, because there is no permanent place for them here.
"There is neither God nor no God." -- A.M.
Tenzin Gyatso?
...or...
Søren Aabye Kierkegaard?
"Cause it sure wasn't Mohammed.
> The context of such remarks is that the U.S. should have gone after North Korea and Kim Jong Il; or after the mullahs of Iran--all people who really really meant us harm
More relevantly, there is this country, just to the North of North Korea. Perhaps you've heard of them?
And perhaps you know what happened the last time that we got real, real close to their border with our army?
And perhaps they'd dislike it if we invaded NoKo and got close to their border once again?
And perhaps there was some diplomatic discussions which went on about THEM riding rough on the little Gargoyle, and keeping him in line?
As far as the Mullahs, go, well, let's see -- Iraq or Iran.
1) With the amount of money being tossed about, Saddam would have certainly gotten the sanctions removed from him long since.
2) By the weapons inspectors own assessments post-invasion, Saddam was about 3 months from being able to produce botulism toxins in large quantities, and 6 months from anthrax in large quantities. One assumes his efforts to produce weapons grade nuclear materials would also have borne fruit by now.
So, had we invaded Iran, we would have stopped them from having nukes sometime in the future from now, yes, but Saddam WOULD inarguably have had Botulin AND Anthrax long since, and probably also would have had nukes by this time.
So, no matter how you slice it, Saddam, who had shown not the slightest compunctions against using WMDs on people, WOULD HAVE WMDs.
Iran, while they are working on them, still does not have them.
So, it appears to me, that Iraq *WAS* clearly the correct choice. Iran is still not a WMD threat, Saddam unquestionably would have been by now.
Q.E.D. The argument that we should have gone after Iran or NoKo instead of Iraq is not supported by either the real-world exigencies of the situation nor by rational consideration of the alternatives.
> IS a statement of fact and not of faith. A god that is infinite in any aspect cannot exist. Infinite means simply that no matter how much of an attribute you have, you can have more. It is a concept of process and not of existence. You can interact with the process but not an infinite accomplished. A god that is not infinite in any aspect is not a god. He/she/it may be more powerful than man as modern technological man is more powerful than primitive savage man but none the less he is not a god and fully subject to natural law.
Inherently faulty reasoning because you presume that whatever limitations you have upon you, whatever works in your circumstances, works and applies to God.
Since you cannot possibly have any knowledge of this, it is presumption on your part. Ergo, your "statement of fact" is entirely dependent on your faith that your extention is accurate and correct, which you can neither prove nor disprove in any way, shape, or form.
I won't argue with the notion that you seen no reason to believe otherwise, but it's still a matter of belief on your part.
*************************************
That makes it inherently a matter of faith
*************************************
So you are foolishly making a tautology from faith, nothing else, about a matter of faith.
You're not "rational" at all.
God is, by definition not bound by the laws of this universe, nor of logic nor reason. And this notion of yours that such cannot exist demonstrates how small and insignificant your mind and reasoning capacity is.
I do not dispute the possibility that one might reject the notion of God because one sees no reason to presuppose His existence at all in the "Cosmic All" (to extend to inclusion of whatever is beyond that which we know of).
But your notion that He cannot exist by dint of your reasoning skills just shows how utterly lacking in imagination you really are, and that you clearly aren't even capable of making such a judgement.
The world is not only bigger and vaster than you imagine, it is bigger and vaster than you CAN imagine.
You have a small little mind, if you think that you can define the limits of possibility.
And that's not an insult, it's an observation.
Regardless of the existence of God, one is likely to be astounded by what is possible many times in one's life. Things you imagine cannot possibly be are all around you, and, if you're lucky, you might gain a grasp of some small measure of them in your lifetime.
I don't suggest the supernatural there, just the stuff we currently DO have a handle on that will lead to understanding stuff we don't currently have a clue about. That ALONE will reach past the limits of what you are capable of imagining.
The vastness of God, if He exists, is so utterly beyond you that you're a flat-out imbecile to think you can fence him in and show He doesn't exist inside your little boundary of possible experience.
He may well not exist -- but *you* little man, are not capable of proving by any workings of your tiny little mind's limitations, that He does not, either.
And it is the heighth of overweening arrogance to assume otherwise.
.
> So where the hell is that goddamn Huckabee with all this Palin going around?
AF, it doesn't matter if he's better, more experienced, whatever than she is.
If you think about it for 30 seconds, it seems inherently obvious that Huckabee would not have energized either the base *OR* the middle-of-the-road types as much as Palin. He would have gotten the base, somewhat, but not as much (Huckabee is more overt in his *Religious* Conservative creds, which not everyone supports)
Huckabee would certainly have little to no appeal to the PUMAs, nor to the middle-of-the-road crowd.
And there is simply no way such an "obvious" choice would have stolen Obama's thunder even a fraction as effectively as the choice of Palin has.
Complaints about attacks on Huckabee would have been replied to by "hey, he's a white guy. what are you bitching about?"
Attacks on Palin show up the hypocrisy of the Left by the form they have taken. This has shown up the rabid insanity of the Left to many who had a blind eye before.
The foam-at-the-mouth feminist rhetoric has shown that they don't give a rat's ass about empowering women -- that their goal is solely to empower themselves.
The Obama campaign has been left chasing its tail with this choice. They're like a dog with a bell tied to its tail. They're flailing about with no clue which direction to proceed. And that shows to any moderate eye just how inept he would be as PotUS the first time he got hit from an unexpected direction -- and that happens ALL THE TIME in geopolitics.
They are utterly off balance. They don't know what to do -- and there is only six weeks left. We haven't really even hit them again with Wright, and not even once yet, really, with either Ayers or Rezko. The latter two have just been touched on, really. No one's applied the big guns.
QED. Palin was so much a better choice than Huckabee it's not funny.
=====
And frankly, I suspect Palin will develop into the job even better.
> There is neither God nor no God.
There is only Allah.
All must submit to his will. And if they do not then their children will submit.
So now we know you're either a complete troll (i.e., not even Islamic) or so ignorant of your own faith that it's pitiful.
The "God" of which we speak is the EXACT SAME GOD AS ALLAH.
Even *I* know that much.
Xtians don't accept Mohammed as His Prophet (and thus Mohammed's instructions as to be followed) is the sole distinction (a big one, I more than grant), just as the Jews don't accept Christ as His prophet, either.
So go away, liar boy.
yonason, Islam cannot possibly win.
China is staying out of the whole thing, you'll note.
Their position and aim is that Islam and the West will fight. Whoever wins will be too exhausted and depleted to resist the power of and untouched China.
... and that may work.
If we wait too long and let Islam build its power, and hold our hand through an unwillingness to Make The Hard Choices, then Islam wins. But Islam is a complete parasite, and it will not be able to function effectively without the West to suck off of. China, who, you might recall, showed no compunction about purging somewhere between fifty and one hundred million of its own, will have no problems of any kind with taking out a couple billion "foreign devils" (that's an alternate translation of the chinese word for foreigner: "devil"). And they win.
If the West does beat Islam, then, will we have the will and determination for yet another fight with China? Probably not. And again they win.
One thing China does well is to play the long game.
Don't forget that.
A science professor begins his school year with a lecture to the students, 'Let me explain the problem science has with religion. The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand. You're a Christian, aren't you, son?' 'Yes sir,' the student says. 'So you believe in God?' 'Absolutely.' 'Is God good?' Sure! God's good.' 'Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?' 'Yes.' 'Are you good or evil?' 'The Bible says we
are all sinners but not all evil.'
The professor grins knowingly. Aha The Bible!' He considers for a moment. 'Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?' 'Yes sir, I would.'
'So you're good..!' 'I wouldn't say that.' 'But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could.
Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't.'
The student does not answer, so the professor continues. 'He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmm? Can you answer that one?'
The student remains silent. 'No, you can't, can you?' the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax. Let's start again, young fellow. Is God good?' 'The student hesitates and answers yes. 'Is Satan good?' The student doesn't hesitate on this one and says no.' 'Then where does Satan come from?' The student then falters. 'From God' 'That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?' 'Yes, sir.' 'Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?' 'Yes.' "So who created evil?' The professor continued, 'If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that science defines for who we are, then God is evil.'
Again, the student has no answer. 'Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?' The student squirms on his feet 'Yes.' 'So who created them?' The student does not answer, so the professor repeats his question. 'Who created them?' There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to face in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. 'Tell me,' he continues onto another student. 'Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?'
The student's says 'Yes, professor, I do.' The old man stops pacing. 'Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?' 'No sir. I've never seen Him.' 'Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?' 'No, sir, I have not.' 'Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelled your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?' 'No, sir, I'm afraid I have
not. "Yet you still believe in him?' 'Yes.'
'According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?' 'Nothing,' the student replies. 'I only have my faith.' 'Yes, faith,' the professor repeats. 'and that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith.' The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of his own. 'Professor, is there such a thing as heat?'
'Yes,' the professor replies. 'There's heat.' 'And is there such a thing as cold?' 'Yes, son, there's cold too.' 'No sir, there isn't.' The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested the room suddenly becomes very quiet.
The student begins to explain.
'You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458
degrees' 'Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only
a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat , sir, just the absence of it.' Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.
'What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?' 'Yes,' the professor replies without hesitation.
'What is night if it isn't darkness?' 'You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word.' 'In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?'
The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. 'So what point are you making, young man?' My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.' The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. "Flawed? Can you explain how?' 'You are working on the premise of duality,' the student explains. 'You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought'
'It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it.' 'Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?' If
you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, then yes, of course I do.' 'Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?'
The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed. 'Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?'
The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided. 'To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean.'
The student looks around the room. 'Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?' The class breaks out into laughter. 'Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain,
touched or smelled the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of
empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain - with all due respect, sir.'
'So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?' Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable. Finally, after what seems an eternity, the professor answers. 'I guess you will have to take them on faith.' 'Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,' and the student then continues. 'Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?' Now uncertain, the professor responds, 'Of course, there is. We see it everyday. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.'
To this the student replied, 'Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.'
The professor sat down dumbfounded and speechless!
Commenting by HaloScan.com
