Sunday, March 2, 2008

Faith and Logic

(Logic vs. Faith) We talk of faith as if it is abstract, an intrinsic spirit that has to bite you before it becomes real, subjective (and when you get the blessing from the faith you don’t have, but wish you had, and the echo hits God’s ears, then we call it by-chance, for nothing else could have produced it). Faith, its roots are belief, trust, very simple roots, but if you hate God, pride will stop the faith from entering the soul, and what do you have left, a Jaw bone from Darwin’s theory; logic has much more to deal with, in the race of thought (or thinking and deduction). The question may come up in this prose work, is God to be understood logically or by faith? If you saw Jesus, whom the Christians call God incarnate, would you say “This is not logical?” So therefore it is not, and is simply an illusion, for some reason, my mind must be taxed? In reality, I don’t know what the other man would say, but I know what I would say “It is Jesus, because I saw him,” and therefore logical or not, it is (we may have to look at whose logical concepts are we dealing with also, Plato’s or Aristotle’s? (or my own)—they did not think the same you know, so who was right?). And no one can tell me otherwise.” All the scientists out there don’t read this, it will just spoil your breakfast or lunch, go back to the moon. But is there a moon (maybe he can’t go back there, he only saw it), maybe it is not, but we’ve been there right? Or at least someone has, maybe it is not so, just a lie, on top of a created illusion (like Darwin’s Fairy Tale, no one ever saw an ape man; we saw a Jaw from the Heidelberg Man, and a few more fragments from the Java woman, and now we got a human ape running around a million years ago, sent by Darwin via, his theory, is this logical? It takes a lot more faith to believe in this, than God.) Anyhow, the moon, perhaps we saw, special effects as they call it. Anyhow, I will take it by faith that man has been on the moon, for I can’t see any real concrete logic here.

Now what is logic and faith have to do with the moon? I believe because I saw it on TV, and in the magazines, man landing on the moon in 1969, sat in a bar in San Francisco, but I saw Jesus also, on TV and in the magazines also, and in some visions, and I see the moon in the sky so it is as seeing Jesus in the person also, so I have three equal elements here, actually Jesus has one up. What is logistical here? We shall look at that in a moment, we can call it reasoning out, in what we are doing now, or common sense (which is not all that common nowadays, which is seeing might be believing), or it can be judgment, and that we have to hope is correct, and it does not mean judgment by science, although scientist would claim I think it should be. Logic to me is perhaps closer to ‘What else could it be?” Most folks who study the cosmos come to the conclusion, there has to be a God (I read that someplace, but it makes sense in that, we cannot conceive a beginning, only an end).

(Did Jesus exist?) More evidence out there says He did, and it’s been out there a very long time, perhaps more than believing in a Davy Crockett, or Daniel Boon, or a Muhammad or a George Washington. We have only paintings of these folks (and some written documents), like Jesus, in a way, but his has more worldwide expectance, more pictures, is known in more countries, and the New Testament of the Bible was written because of Him. Christmas was created because of Him, and BC and AD was created because of him, until some goofball change it, must had been an angry believer who did not get his way with God. Anyhow, point of fact, Jesus is more known than any of these fellows, yet, he is more in question of His existence, this is not logical to me. But we believe our historians would not make them up, so we have faith in them, we believe them, we trust them (or do we, and perhaps we are in a bubble). But I like Davy Crockett, although I think, and could most likely prove, a lot of what they say he did (or he said he did in his book), is not up to the full truth (and I never ever even say Davy in a vision yet).

(Logic and Reason) When we talk philosophy, we are talking about logic or reasoning, are we not? Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle, and their kind, argued on what was and what was not, or appeared not to be, but should be because it is. Socrates was killed because he made what he thought was a logical determination, that there was only one God, not many, Athens did not like it. He put logic and faith into one bag. Prior to this we had a whole lot of gods in one bag doing nothing, all based on faith, no logic; I’ve found out in life what seems right today, ten years down the road, it becomes to the contrary, and so at best, I got to say we bend logic in each age as did the Athenians, as we bend the bible, or Karen today, or the Talmud, to suite the reasoning we want to come out at the other end, and those who go against it, go against the: church, mosque, or synagogue, are outcasts, whom really are observers, and should be treated as such.

(Examples) Is it right to kill whales, so we can have whale stews, or steak? Or to kill Elephants because there are too many in a park, and people want ivory? Debates are often won by who buys the biggest dinner, it all sounds logical to be a big receiver. It is all in who is the interpreter, especially if it involves self-interest. If anyone knew this, it was Socrates. Philosophy is perhaps the only discipline, if you can call it that, which has not advanced much in comparisons to psychology, anthropology, sociology, and all the rest of the zoologies and methods we use to understand the world of man.

I don’t wish to be the logic–chopper today, but take all these theories, and theorems and disputations and throw them into the wind, renew the encrypted, and nuclease mind, the first step, to expurgation the overlapping pretense, and self-interest, now common sense can flow (which was not common a moment ago, with faith).

(Conclusion) In the process of reasoning out whatever you are reasoning out, use some faith with it, it is better to believe in something believable, even if it does not hold the logic the professor prefers you have—why? First, because to you it is believable, second is there a reason not to believe it, I mean, did the believer, the one you believe in do something to you to be put into second place, and thus, untrustworthy? If not believe—why? Here we go again, because it is healthier to do so. The reasoning here comes into play, when the person is not trustworthy, then if you believe in him, it is not faith you are working with, but gullibility (and you are blind, or it is more painful for you to jump out of denial).

(Going against the grain) Do not damn the sources of error, or make hurdles for folks to jump over them, some minds are weak, and need pictures and images to worship, a weak mind of faith is not domination, or the unpardonable sin, it is reality for the other person, habit you could say, and often mistaken for a thing (let’s hope it is not, a pray is better than a curse), but the error is not so unreasonable as to make it proceed above a human being. Let it sink, where it may, God will take it from there, He always does, contrary perhaps to the suspended universe, hovering above us, but I can live with that, if the mirrors can live with my face.

3-1-2008 (prose, #2307)

No comments: