I am able to:
walk downstairs;
eat breakfast;
drink coffee;
read Poul Anderson, SM Stirling and others;
blog;
walk into town;
shop in a supermarket;
attend the Green Party Christmas Fair in the historic Friends' Meeting House (see images) beside the railway station below the ancient Castle and Priory Church overlooking the river (it sounds like the capital city of a Poul Anderson colony planet);
converse with friends at the Fair and online.
This is wealth beyond measure, most of it unearned by me. I am grateful to the ancestors who have build this society and also to any divine beings Who may have been involved.
Addendum: As Anderson's and Stirling's ancient Greek characters say, "Rejoice!"
11 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Good points! Too often, we who live in reasonably decent nations like the UK or US fail too often to remember with gratitude the good things we have, despite whatever problems are troubling us.
Not to be too nitpicky, but wouldn't this make more sense as an agnostic prayer: "To Whoever may exist"?
And we see Dominic Flandry almost praying in the cathedral of St. Clement in Zorkagrad, the capital of Dennitza.
Sean
Sean,
OK. I also inwardly say, "Whatever gods may be..."
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But if an agnostic takes an interest in theology, as yo do, wouldn't monotheism make more sense than polytheism? Isn't ONE God more plausible for an agnostic than many gods?
Sean
Sean,
To me, no. I argue:
the creator before the creation would be a self without other which is like a square without sides;
to state that something exists (consciousness) but then to deny the condition for its existence (a subject-object relationship) is contradictory;
a single omnipotent deity raises the Problem of Evil whereas many finite deities fit more with the world as we experience it, i.e., good and bad combined.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Respectfully, I still disagree. One God alone makes far more sense than many gods. I still believe God be eternal, uncreated, existing for all eternity, etc. If many gods exist, how did they come to exist? Are they all eternal and uncreated?
And I believe evil exists because God PERMITTED it. For if the beings He created, whether angels or physically incarnate rational beings, did not have the ability to CHOOSE, why should they even exist at all?
Sean
Sean,
But we have been over this ground before. It is all in previous com boxes. When I argue that an omnipotent creator of all things other than himself would by definition create every aspect of each finite conscious being, including every single motivation and all of the factors influencing every single choice, then I am arguing that it is that act of omnipotent creation, and not divine foreknowledge, that determines each individual's choices.
If powerful superhuman beings (gods) exist, then they emerge from chaos or the void and beget subsequent generations of gods, as described in the myths. I do not believe that this happens, just that it is possible.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Then, alas, we have reached an impasse. Because I simply don't believe can the cause or creator of evil. He created Satan knowing by His foreknowledge that the Devil would rebel, but I also believe that God's act of creating Satan did not compel him to become evil.
I can only hope someone far more knowledgeable of philosophy than I am sees this and comments. Such as John Wright.
There was again a discussion of republics and monarchies on Wright's blog. And, yet again, a missing of what I consider the REAL point: what makes a government, whatever form it has, LEGITIMATE? No one ever seems to mention that!
It was gratifying, of course, that Mr. Wright posted on his blog my "Political Legitimacy In The Thought Of Poul Anderson." But I only seem to see in the combox attacks on monarchies as meaning rule by tyrants or attacks on republics as meaning rule by corrupt politicians.
One combox writer did cite the example of a constitutional monarchy like the UK but seemed unaware of how Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Spain, are also constitutional monarchies and can't rightly be called tyrannies.
Sean
Sean,
But, if God creates everything, then, when a man believes that drunkenness is wrong but is tempted to get drunk and gives in to the temptation, God has created the man, the drink, the man's inclination to drink, the strength of the temptation and the weakness of the man's will power. God could have created that man without any inclination to drink or with will power strong enough to resist the temptation so that, knowing the man, we would find it inconceivable that he would get drunk. This would not negate the man's freedom. He would freely refuse to drink.
Paul.
Or, at least, to drink too much.
Kaor, Paul!
Actually, in a way, I think the Catholic Church would agree with you. She teaches that no one is tempted beyond their strength in resisting evil. That God forbids Satan and the other fallen angels to tempt anyone beyond their strength.
Sean
Sean,
I believe that actions A and B are wrong. I never do A because I find it repugnant. I sometimes do B because I find it enjoyable. I could have been created to find both A and B repugnant. I would then freely do neither.
Paul.
Post a Comment