Getting back to the theme implied by the title, this is inspired by a post on 54-4.blogspot.com (Friday, July 17, 2009), by the great wordsmith "Hook-Knows". It speaks of a great amount of tragedy, citing several particular tragic events followed by the words "God willing". The point that is being made is clear, however that isn't the beauty of the coment. The thing that interests me about statements such as that one, is the flawless, seemingly airtight reply by someone who believes in "God". It doesn't matter what is said, but what I find interesting is the weightiness it is given. The simple statement
"John 18:36
..... and Jesus replied, For My Kingdom Is Not of This World"
it simply states- Earth sucks, and the goal is to get to Heaven. Okay, now, if I'm religious I think -"wow! that makes perfect sense!" of course!- (I don't disagree, by the way, that it does make perfect sense) and I can take that direction for as far as I want, however I immediately counter my initial thought, and think "but I'm still here, on Earth!" so what are we praying for? if God doesn't care about those disasters; because we are just making our path to heaven, why doesn't that apply when I pray for a family member to have good health? why not just let them die; then they will get their chance to get to Heaven. Of course I don't want this to be an argument about that particular statement; this is why I didn't just comment on the post; but why is this quote automatically given so much weight? surely it is no more logical or factual than my counter-comment. Is it the 'Name number:number' at the beginning? the fact that it is a quote directly from the bible? This is where my thoughts wander... many people who believe in god (including the person who wrote this comment) are very intelligent, independant people who are not easily controlled, or coerced into believing things without proof, yet they put a very high regard on anything written in the Bible, which was written many many years ago in a very different language -even different from the present form of the language, translated and re translated many times over, and written by man -or men- or who knows- although we know it was not written by women, because the church doesn't allow such things, yet women don't seem to hold that against them. If there were a book written today where women were not allowed to add their input, do you think females would follow it without questioning it? ...anyway to stay on track, ponder that; what gives what is written in this book, by whoever wrote it, whenever they wrote it, however many versions ago, such gravity? Swish that around your palate and tell me what you taste!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeeded be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." -A. Einstein