as I sit down to write this, I have no idea where this is going to lead.
but here's my thought:
if you really have to convince others of the credibility, importance, relevancy and truth of something - is it actually as credible, important, relevant and truthful as you make it out to be?
well, is it?
because, if it was actually all these things you are trying so desperately to communicate, wouldn't that just be apparent? wouldn't these things be evident solely because they are?
or, are you just talking so much, you're hoping one day you'll actually believe what you're saying?
...but then again, I'm the one writing, aren't I?
eat this
drink that
buy this
believe that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Brilliant.
I want this to be true.
But the Social Scientist in me wants to disagree.
I'm curious which "truth" it is that you're alluding to. For example, should the truth of God be so obvious that everybody picks up on it? Perhaps. Should the truth of a Christian God be so obvious that everybody picks up on it? Worldviews interfere too much for this to be true, or to even approach any degree of relevancy.
All that being said...
God is still just a whisper on a thunderous mountain. A breeze instantly animating a woman's golden hair and then letting it collapse onto itself again.
And probably the product of very imaginative minds.
Is it ok if one finds oneself, aside from rare and fleeting moments when god grants an experiencial acception, in a contest state of hoping to actually believe what one is saying? It might make one less quick to speak, with any luck anyways.
jspohr
Post a Comment