In one of our conversations we were wondering about some of the people for whom things go well but yet don't really value any one true religion or trust any God. Many of them still believe there is some big power out there but are not convinced enough, which one truly is. You may call them agnostics.
Most of these people are well accomplished professionally, have enough financial security, understand hard work pays, do no harm to others, have no major family disruptions, knowing trials and worries have their cycles....life seems pretty good. As long as life goes on with little disruptions, and if everything that they can possibly control are under control, life is under control.
For other things that are of spiritual in nature, they want to really feel that with their every sense to be real, only then would they pursue it. For these agnostics, it is unreal, when they see some religious people exercising a spiritual facet that requires faith to believe. It is just because things are generally under control in their lives and common sense does not dictate them to believe, they just pay no interest to it.
I consider God-knowing socially or financially insecure people "Blessed for eternity" because they are mostly the ones who put their trust in God entirely, for both the worldly needs and needs of eternal value, this is with special reference to Christian faith. They know that they don't have everything under control and they can't, but they know WHO keeps everything under control because they trust in God with Faith. That is the true way to have everything Under Control. It requires pressures in life!
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Where is your soul?
Do you know where lies your soul? Have you thought about what is a soul? Is it a physical entity or a metaphysical description like "mind".
Noted Philosophy Professor Stephen Asma from Columbia College, Chicago says this is where the mistake in understanding lies...."The problem with some religious and New Age soul talk is that it exports the soul concept from the domain of subjective expression to the domain of objective fact, where it can have no empirical corroboration". Lot of mambo jumbo here, it may seem. Essentially what he says is that we make a "category" mistake while doing "soul" talk. Its not part of a scientific expression but is part of the primordial language of expression.
Asma quotes philosophers like Wittgenstein, Heidegger and Kenneth Burke who have suggested that language is originally expressive, rhetorical and dramatic but is only derivatively scientific and explanatory.
So the crux is, soul talk is more an expression than explanatorial. The word soul is deemed understood 'when we have arrived at that naked expression of subjective yearning'. You don't have to go any further. Its purely used as a function of a statement and not literally.
Noted Philosophy Professor Stephen Asma from Columbia College, Chicago says this is where the mistake in understanding lies...."The problem with some religious and New Age soul talk is that it exports the soul concept from the domain of subjective expression to the domain of objective fact, where it can have no empirical corroboration". Lot of mambo jumbo here, it may seem. Essentially what he says is that we make a "category" mistake while doing "soul" talk. Its not part of a scientific expression but is part of the primordial language of expression.
Asma quotes philosophers like Wittgenstein, Heidegger and Kenneth Burke who have suggested that language is originally expressive, rhetorical and dramatic but is only derivatively scientific and explanatory.
So the crux is, soul talk is more an expression than explanatorial. The word soul is deemed understood 'when we have arrived at that naked expression of subjective yearning'. You don't have to go any further. Its purely used as a function of a statement and not literally.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)