In response to a comment I was thinking
people of faith had to admit that at the core it was illogical and
they should accept it. Then take the next step and go beyond it, to
what I can't say. Then I figured I had to counter to the atheist with
something like they had ll ti
But that wasn't quite right.
I happened to glance at a book by Eric
From and he was saying the problem with the modern world was it
encouraged a passive approach to life. And I think that may have been
what I was looking for.
Any intentional way of living is a
religious approach, whether it is the atheist, christian, Buddhist or
whatever. The point is it doesn’t rise the religious when it is
just a passive life. Whether it is science or church or whatever it
is the “active” that starts conversations, not end them.
It's a start...
3 comments:
I understand your point here -- but it seems like that kind of dilutes the idea of religion. Expands it to the point it doesn't really mean anything...? Thoughts?
Yeah maybe, I am still sorting it out, but this idea is only a few hours old and it needs some time to grow.I only have a vague image in my mind right now and I need to wipe away the mist.
Wait just a tic..now this hot of the presses
I think I am not saying everything is the same or equal, but maybe the emotional inspiration is the same. Some sort of impulse to find connections and for some it grows into traditional religious investigation and for others a more analytical investigation of the world.
I am taking a turn with the idea, maybe tomorrow I can bring in to a more complete definition
Yeah, I think "religion" is not exactly the term you are looking for, but I don't know what it is.
Post a Comment