Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vabrugar Imagine, a human in an empty island creating a farm and a house. Can you relate farm as earth, house as heaven and island as a place where God was before He created heaven and earth? A place where no humans ever think of. |
Is there any sense in inventing that other 'place'? I mean, don't you have enough by inventing god, morals, inmortality, infinity... That you need even to event somewhere which is not a where but simply another form or level of existence of which we don't or/and cannot know? And even assuming that god exists, is there any reason that makes be absolutelly sure (and I mean, that by pure logic you can prove there is possible alternative) that your particular view of the world--here talking about your believe in god--is the truth, is correct, is universal knowledge? Why must god have created everything? Why god must have created? Why not the world created god instead of god created the world? Why opposing those two forms, those two theological concepts of transcendence and immanence? Why even having those concepts, aren't they completelly misleading about what the being is (by giving wrong ideas as that there is a supreme being independent of nature, or that everything is not everything, or that infinity is independent of finity)? If we make any theological statement, we must re-consider all the terms and ideas used in such statement. Not from the theological point of view, nor from the metaphysical one, nor from the scientific one; but from the interpretation of texts, from topological (Freud's psicoanalysis) semiotics (Saussure's gramatology). And when we do so, we discover the not-so-importantness of the origin of events, objects and concepts, and we realize the so-importantness of the consecuence of those events, objects and concepts.