A post reblogged from Tracy Seekins’ “Random Words;” originally posted 2014-12-02.
Click the link.
-
Follow
Following
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
A post reblogged from Tracy Seekins’ “Random Words;” originally posted 2014-12-02.
Click the link.
The Homeless Blogger 
Okay, the statement reads:
I am Mother
I am Father
I am known by many names.
I am in the Earth
I am in the sky
I do not play your games.
You fight for Jesus
You fight for Allah
The truth you do not see.
There is no one way
No one path
For ALL roads lead to me.
First, who says that God said that? How do you know that’s what God said? Second, proof by assertion is still fallacious. If a statement is true merely because it’s asserted, then all the statements this script appears to abjure are equally true. What then is the point?
The upshot of this script is, “Don’t listen to the people who disagree with me because they’re wrong. Believing what I just said is the truth, and any contrary statement is false.” And that’s spoken like a true fundamentalist. One cannot legitimately climb the ladder of exclusivity to get on top of the house only to deny the ability of the ladder to get you there.
In fact, if ALL ROADS do indeed lead to God, then again what’s the point? Fighting for Allah and fighting for Jesus lead to God. Telling people they’re going to hell for not believing X leads to God, and exterminating Jews in gas chambers leads to God. Enslaving blacks leads to God, and sex trafficking leads to God. Child molestation leads to God, and mass extortion leads to God.
What sense can be made of “[t]he truth you do not see,” if all roads get you to God? If it gets me to God, then it has to be true (since that is the conclusion of the script). “Truth” is offered as the route to get to God, so if all roads get you there, then it follows that all roads are truth.
At bottom, this is your typical thoughtless statement made without a modicum of self-reflection.
Qualification: When I say “your,” I’m not referring to the blog owner. I’m speaking generically.
Ecch, I just lost a whole bunch of text.
What I grasp is that you recognize dualism, and she does not.
I touch on this in today’s post, “What do you want?”
The Gan Eden story is supposed to explain the advent of dualism into experience. Presumably, at that point the human beings came into knowledge of “BOTH good AND evil,” whereas until then they had only known good. I do not find the story persuasive in this regard, but as yet I sure don’t have a better one.
At the risk of becoming hopelessly arcane, it appears to me that (1) the Life Force, or prana or kundalini or libido or qi, comes into experience as unformed energy, neither darkness nor light; and (2) the first thing we do with it is MAKE it, FORM it into either darkness or light. Then we channel it through the various sephirot or chakras, yielding the various emotions — love, fear, compassion, courage, etc.
To a person who is focused completely “upward” — a tag I used in that post today for the first time — it may well appear that all roads lead to God. He or she isn’t recognizing anything else.
Dualism is secondary to the topic, in my opinion. Whether or not one subscribes to it, the “poem” or statement you refer to makes no sense. Telling others that their view is wrong while insisting that every view is correct is nonsensical. Telling the world that your way is the correct way while insisting that others who are “playing their games” cannot see the truth is equally nonsensical.
In other words, the author is destroying her argument without realizing it.
Well, I just lost a bunch of text as well. I don’t know what’s going on. Perhaps you have a glitch in your system.
Whether or not one subscribes to dualism really isn’t the point. The author makes no sense regardless the underlying philosophy. Telling others that their view is wrong while insisting that all roads lead to God is nonsensical. Telling the world that others are playing games which blinds them to the truth while insisting that every way is the correct way is equally nonsensical. It’s just another example of airhead pontification.
In other words, denying what you’re affirming hoists you by your petard and shows that you don’t even understand the point you’re supposed to make.
Moreover, I really, really hope you’re not saying that you’re good with child molestation and genocide. Please tell me that you didn’t intend to come across that way, because if that’s what you’re saying, this will be the last time I communicate with you.
Nope. None of the above. Some people, for reasons I can’t fathom, embrace the path of darkness, and nothing will necessarily ever deter them. Ever.