tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3640391300493981660.post9195532806607820640..comments2012-12-17T15:24:15.973-08:00Comments on Desiderata: ObjectivismAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17710640448437561729noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3640391300493981660.post-73584686530739705442011-07-25T14:03:05.210-07:002011-07-25T14:03:05.210-07:00:) I love you Uncle John
You are absolutly right...:) I love you Uncle John<br /><br /> You are absolutly right that elements were only theory until observed which is the premise of Objectivism itself which allows for theory, but does not take it as a knowledge of fact until observed. <br />So the idea that what we observe with out senses is the extent of our knowledge, is not too far a cry. Closing our eyes does not change our reality, because we know and have observed that the change is only our eyelids blocking out light. <br /><br />So observation becomes the basis for exsitance as we know it, all else is theory. <br /><br />Christ absolutly intervened the reality that could have been without him. But because of The Plan which was, from the start, to have a Savior redeem us all, that is the course that reality took. It was not necesarily changed. <br />That's not to say that God cannot intervene or relieve our suffering. My thoughts are simply that he knows far before we do, even before this world was, exactly what we would do in this life simply because he knows us. So when we will sin and if he will take the burden of guilt from us. Right? So then reality remains intact. <br /><br />But when you say, "Does this mean that you cannot receive a greater fullness of joy without enduring a greater depth of sorrow? Yes." I agree whole- heartedly. <br /><br />Thanks for making me think Uncle John. <3Rachelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3640391300493981660.post-46835695639961848332011-07-25T13:22:35.000-07:002011-07-25T13:22:35.000-07:00Very interesting.
I would cite a couple of points...Very interesting.<br /><br />I would cite a couple of points to consider.<br /><br />1) The contention is that objectivism accepts existence as absolute and that this somehow proscribes religion. The only way this can possibly make sense is if we subscribe to the premise that only what we perceive exists, which is, of course, absurd. Take a look at the Periodic Table of Elements. Some of these elements were theorized long before they were observed, so did they not exist until observed? This demonstrates, at the very least, that observation is an inadequate litmus test for "existence" (though still a very useful one).<br /><br />2) "Reality is not something that anyone or anything can change because they will it or wish it to be another way." Try it. As you read this, the "reality" is probably that your eyes are open. Close them. You just changed reality by force of will. Our entire existence is a huge mosh pit of wills changing reality; so why would we assume that God does not change it as well? Why would we assume that He does not intervene, even directly? Indeed, the very premise of Christianity is that Christ intervened in a most direct way, in our behalf, in order to save us from enduring the full consequences of our actions.<br /><br />3) You will hear people say that God does not remove the consequences of your own actions; does this mean that the sinner cannot be healed? No. I submit that everything mankind is called to endure is kept on a very tight string by an all knowing and perfectly loving Father in Heaven, and that there will be some consequences from which you may be spared by the grace of our Savior, and some that He'll let stick. Why? Note that the depth of your joy is directly linked to how deeply the cup is carved out, and sorrow is the carving tool. Does this mean that you cannot receive a greater fullness of joy without enduring a greater depth of sorrow? Yes.<br /><br />Thanks for some thought provoking prose, Rachel.Jcookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04148830563773373013noreply@blogger.com