8.09.2004

 
< adam >
i apologize for my laziness in composing a response.
i would just like to clear up that my post was not a personal attack on anyone's god.
it was not intended to call anyone to the defense.
i feel as though i was misunderstood.

allow me to diagram:

how arrogant it is to assume that god would be a man (probably the most common challenge to preconceptions about what god might be, and not one that i care to argue)

more arrogant still to assume that god would be a human at all (a statement that occurred to me as superseding the general challenge of god being male)

so you see i merely used the first statement as a springboard for the second.
so that rather than argue about which gender of our species must certainly be the form of god, realize that we are merely one animal on one planet in one galaxy in the entire universe, and it is as irellevant to envision god a mongoose or an amoeba as it is a human.
the reason for my statement is that it seems incredibly arrogant to me how man has created gods in his own image, and if he truly understood his utter smallness then he would stop trying to wittle god down to whatever he wants it to be and just admit that it is an unfathomable idea that we may never know.


< 14:07 >< /adam >
Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home