Not the same Wavelength

Preliminary Clarifications 

The Athenean Stranger Says: I don’t think we are discussing on the same wavelength right now. My written skills aint the best and I may have confused you. I’ll try to get us back on track and we can discuss a little deeper.

Your statement “to my God religion doesn't matter” contradicts your new statement above when you said “we cannot comprehend him”.

No, not really, the fact that we cannot comprehend him, we cannot know what he wants. Given this, I will surrender a little and say we cannot say religion doesn’t matter ... but since we don’t know what he wants ... we can’t say it does either.. but I have more explaining below.

Having established that Transcendence does not equate to nullity, the proposition “we cannot comprehend Him (God)” is defunct.

I’m not sure where you got the idea that I was suggesting nullity? On the contrary my son, I was trying to suggest the complete opposite, transcendence to its fullest. Do not confuse acknowledgement or knowledge with comprehension. I acknowledge that god exists. I have knowledge or proof that he exists. BUT god being superior and transcendent to me, I cannot comprehend him. Try defuncting it again? (Would you try to defunct it by explaining what you comprehend of him?)

I asked for your demonstration of how being the same nullifies religion.

I am not discussing the difference between religions themselves here. I am saying all religions are the same in the sense that they all require some form of worship. That’s why they are the same. Now, refer back to my theory that god does not require worship. So now what I’m saying is that if god doesn’t require worship then there is no need for religion, any religion. This is the point. (I was NOT arguing that Catholics are the same as Muslims and have the same core beliefs and therefore that fact nullifies religion ... not at all. That doesn’t make sense.)

This in turn eliminates your premise for supporting the conclusion that such a God would not require worship. In fact I find no relation to your conclusion and premise.

Forget transcendence for a second. God is perfect and all knowing. He knows me, he knows my thoughts he knows more about me than i know of myself. Why would I need to worship him? He already knows! God needs nothing from me. As a humble being, I can respect him and acknowledge him .... without worship and without religion. How do I do this? Easy, I treat everyone’s life with respect because it was a creation of god.

If we deny God this external act (worship) we commit injustice which offends God directly on account of injustice, which he in turn cannot tolerate without restitution.

Now this is THE contradiction. Can I really do something that God is not aware of?(THIS IS GETTING GOOD!!!!) Answer the question, yes or no?

YES Option: “Yes, I can offend God WITHOUT him knowing.” This is free will. Are we free beings? Are we independent from God? Maybe god isn’t all knowing and all powerful after all? .... The concept of an “unknowing” god, MAY lead you to an even more transcendent God. Maybe one who does not require worship!

NO Option: “No, God knows everything. God created me and he knew I was going to commit such an offense”. This is destiny and a pre-determined fate. I Love this god! This god has a great sense of humour: he makes me do things he doesn’t want me to do .... hahahaha! We can discuss this more but there are problems with this path also.

this is my problem. From a philosophical point of view, both options have pros and cons with regards to the argument of who god is and what god wants. What do you do with this now? You think about it and let me know. As for me, I’ve thought about it long and hard and my conclusion is that I have to ignore because I do not know if it has any meaning at all since you can answer Yes and No.

If I am wrong in this, please define your understanding of what religion IS and what worship IS.

Simple. Worship is just the act, religion encompasses and describes that act. Again, I can respect and acknowledge him in my thoughts and in my actions, without worship. I do not need a church or a religion to do this.


The Vendéen Response: Yes we are off track on account of my misinterpretation of your positions. As I said in the beginning, it is important to “explicate the reasonings for your propositions”, and “Propositions are open to misinterpretation if not supported by supporting arguments”. I will also add that to have a more adequate dialogue and to prevent misinterpretation one must give clear definitions or explanations on particular terms (vocabulary) used. I will admit that I made a particular error in responding to your statements. The particular error in my part is an incomplete understanding and misinterpretation of what you meant by the term Comprehend. I understood and focused on a particular understanding of Comprehend as apprehension which presupposes some knowledge or perception, while in relation to your statement on the term, I thought you meant a total and absolute negation of some knowledge or perception of God. That is why my response was formed in a way that uses this understanding of comprehend as a point of departure. This is why I got the wrong idea or perception that you were suggesting nullity in the term comprehend. In any case, I apologize for the error.

Because of the setback I make the following steps below to keep us from being at different wave lengths. So before I complete my response to your recent replies so as to avoid further misinterpretations I will need to ask some preliminary questions so as to get a proper understanding of your statements. Since exactness and clarity is important for understanding so as to avoid ambiguity or misconception which leads to error, it is fitting that we understand the terms we use.

Define these terms:

1. Comprehend or comprehension.
2. Transcendence

What is your understanding of what Religion is?

What is your understanding of what Worship is?