finally, serious
For, a person who wants to help the world by making it laugh, my last few posts have been excessively serious, especially the one on religion.
having said that, i do wish to correct one mistake of mine before i move on to lighter things in life.
The post on religion got a comment from a guy (lovingly called 'titiv' which could possibly be shortened to 'tits'). The important thing to be said is that it was a serious comment about his beliefs and how he views religion (christianity more accurately). My own response to it was along serious lines. However, following a comment by yet another friend of mine (lovingly called PS (could possibly be shortened, syllabically speaking ofcourse, to 'piss'. And yes, i do have two friends!!), i wrote a silly comment which wasn't in-line with the seriousness of the situation. Especially disappointing was the fact that i belittled something that another held in high esteem when the verdict wasn't out on who was right. This i thought showed me to be quite immature, and to make amends to that act of impulse (in the name of humour), i offer my apologies to the offended (i assume) party - prithiv.
in more jovial fashion: tits, sorry daaaaaa.
having said that, i do wish to correct one mistake of mine before i move on to lighter things in life.
The post on religion got a comment from a guy (lovingly called 'titiv' which could possibly be shortened to 'tits'). The important thing to be said is that it was a serious comment about his beliefs and how he views religion (christianity more accurately). My own response to it was along serious lines. However, following a comment by yet another friend of mine (lovingly called PS (could possibly be shortened, syllabically speaking ofcourse, to 'piss'. And yes, i do have two friends!!), i wrote a silly comment which wasn't in-line with the seriousness of the situation. Especially disappointing was the fact that i belittled something that another held in high esteem when the verdict wasn't out on who was right. This i thought showed me to be quite immature, and to make amends to that act of impulse (in the name of humour), i offer my apologies to the offended (i assume) party - prithiv.
in more jovial fashion: tits, sorry daaaaaa.
posted by karthik durvasula | 6:23 AM
4 Comments:
This is regarding the example. This ones not new in its essence. A sufi saint once said, "As god is everywehre, why prohibit me from drinking in the mosque?".
Every society has its own set of ethics. It is to ensure that you dont hurt the sensibilities of others. So while spitting in the road is OK it is not so when you spit on an idol in a temple or on the crucifix in a church.
Also I feel you are interpreting the statement "God is onmipresent" in too literal a fashion which I feel is the curse of most religions today. Most people interpret the scriptures too literally. What the scriptures say should be interpreted in its spirit. Scriptures should not be interpreted like the law.
Finally you could probably revive the ELA by posting it there.
I have three points to raise as objections to ur comment.
1. My post wasn't about what was right/wrong (about God) - i think that can always be debated, as long as people claim God is beyond rationality - then what remains is just rhetoric that cannot be proven. My post was about how people (subconsciously) viewed religion in general. So, the claim in particular was that, for most (almost all) people, religion is a cultural legacy.
The next two are now, my own reasons for doubting the religious path.
2. w.r.t.: 'Also I feel you are interpreting the statement "God is onmipresent" in too literal a fashion'
I am not sure there is any other interpretation for the term 'omnipresent'. If it is not to be interpreted as 'present everywhere', then i am afraid it becomes nothing more than empty language, and makes the whole claim of religion even more suspect. In fact, if u carefully think about the two terms 'omniscient' and 'omnipresent' that are attributed to God, you will surely see the crazy paradox it raises in connection with what religions (without exception) claim about man's duty.
3. w.r.t: 'scriptures say should be interpreted in its spirit. Scriptures should not be interpreted like the law.'
This is the same discussion i had with prithiv while chatting a few days back. My own feeling is that if a sentence cannot be taken literally, the person who has written/said the statement has at best a vague understanding of the topic. You could say that, that is rational thinking , and religious ways are beyond rational thinking, but again that is a 'claim' without substantiation.
Finally, please note that I have not questioned the existence of God in my post. The question pertains only to religion - as i see it, they are two very different topics.
Prithiv, I am unable to fathom what Karthik has been saying... I just want to say that my post on Karthik's original article on religion was to pull Karthik's leg, it had nothing to do with what you had to say.
Firstly......no offense taken.
Secondly.....PS these are one of the few comments i've actually taken the time to write something. looking back.....i start yawning reading what i wrote and ESPECIALLY what the 6'2 Omani Milkshake wrote(still don't know the implications of that btw....will someone pullleasse enlighten me?)
Post a Comment
<< Home