The Unmoved Mover

aurora borealisHere is a question to think about: Do we exercise free will in our thoughts and feelings, or are we only free in our actions?

I’ve provided a link to a website about “The Unmoved Mover” below this paragraph. Although I believe that the author stating that “Time has always existed” is a little too much of a stretch, he explains Aristotle’s theory of the Unmoved Mover in a way that can prevent our brains from wandering off. This is good, because our minds can wander easily while trying to wrap them around all of this.

The article says, “We cannot say that fire or air move upwards by their own agency, that is to say that fire and air did not decide to travel upwards…” our thoughts, feelings, inspirations, and even our current beliefs don’t seem to move from our own agencies, but they do seem to move, and transform just like these elements. But in-turn, our actions can affect our thoughts and feelings. For example, if you ate the last piece of cranberry upside-down cake, and then learned that your friend was saving it for later because he or she hasn’t had any yet, you’d probably feel bad. You didn’t choose to feel bad, this feeling just came from outside of your own will.  You could have chosen, however, to ask your friend if he or she has had any cake yet.  If you did ask, and refrained from eating the cake, you would have been exercising free will just like when you chose to eat it.

So to answer my question from the beginning, it seems like we are free in our own actions to make decisions, but our thoughts are as much from our own free will as breathing, and our feelings are as self-controlled as our heartbeat. I believe that these things come from a living unmoved mover who gives us incorrect thoughts and feelings to move us towards what is correct throughout our lives. Logically we’re puzzled by why He would intentionally give us false thoughts and feelings and won’t just make them prophetically align with the truth all the time so that nothing ever goes wrong, but He doesn’t—that would be boring. What would a story be like without conflicts and character growth? You’ve guessed it; boring. Who likes coffee with too much sugar and not enough bitterness? I don’t.  In this life too much sugar can make us feel sick, and bitterness helps us to appreciate sweetness even more.

adult beverage breakfast celebration

I’m going to leave you with this post for now until the new year. I wanted to end 2018 off with these thoughts because my plan is to talk more about Christianity next year, and the ‘Unmoved Mover’ theory seems to work as a great bridge between philosophy, and theology. This year I have noticed how open-minded people can be. A few people have taken my writing into consideration while being justly critical at the same time. I believe that constructive criticism is a sign that people care because they want to help me to see different perspectives. Nobody was ever dismissive of me just because they disagreed. I have tested the waters of the online community and have determined that people are strong enough to handle what’s coming next. It’s not likely to go well with the kind of people who don’t question their own thoughts and feelings, but those who do will hopefully gain access to new intellectual terrain that’s yet to be explored.

I wish you all a merry Christmas, and happy 2019.  🙂

20 thoughts on “The Unmoved Mover

  1. I will definitely have to think about this. At present, I’m unable to figure out how any action or choice can be independent of a thought behind it, but I must be misunderstanding the language. I’m also trying to figure out how ‘free’ will could actually be in regard to choices since knowledge will always be limited and the collection of experiences that determine what one will know at any given point seems to be largely out of our control.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Hi theemboldening,

    I wasn’t necessarily trying to say that our actions are completely independent from our thoughts and feelings, but that our thoughts and feelings give us multiple, but specific choices that branch off from them.

    For example, if you are in the woods and a bear spots you but you’re not sure what to do, many options of actions will branch off from this terrible ordeal. You can wave your arms and scream to hopefully scare it away, stand still, play dead, or run away in the hopes that he won’t run after you. If thoughts and feelings were completely independent of actions, there would be a complete disconnect in logic. If a bear spots you and you know that you need to get out of this predicament, the likelihood that you’re going to try to dance with him, or pour honey all over yourself is pretty much zero.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Oh. I guess I was being to literal. So then I’m thinking you are saying there is a distinction between the self that observes and decides, and an other which recalls and possibly makes judgements that results in feelings? Sorry, I’m not trying to be annoying. The origin of feelings puzzle me. I’ve always been taught that feelings follow or result from thoughts, and I’ve noted that they are physical reactions we, well I, interpret as feelings. I’ve only been assuming they must be the product of judgements if they do actually occur after thoughts. But very often, I spend a lot of time trying to figure exactly what a certain feeling is and why I have it. Most of the time it’s a matter of pondering ‘Now why exactly is this bothering me?’. It is made more difficult because I often slowly become aware of such a feeling over a period of time after a thought or event. And it’s further complicated by the fact that my thoughts are most often objective and data or fact oriented. So the origin of my feelings are a mystery and I end up trying to figure out things like: ‘there are seven forks, but why does this bother me?’. Even weirder is most of the time, once I recognize and interpret a feeling, it disappears. Which is completely confusing as it seemed only intended to make a point that is often illogical.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. If I’m correct, you seem to be saying that you’ve been taught that feelings come from thoughts, but life has demonstrated to you that sometimes feelings come before thoughts, and objective reasoning can help the feelings to go away. Let me know if I’ve misinterpreted what you have said because I don’t want to put words into your mouth. I can’t determine myself if feelings come after thoughts, or vise-a-versa.

      You seem to be touching onto the fact that thoughts take a certain level of conscious effort. This is why I compared thoughts to breathing. The act of breathing is unusual because it seems to happen both consciously, and unconsciously. We don’t think about it with every breath, but we can choose to breath slowly, or hold our breath.

      As for emotions, I have noticed that nervous tics can happen with little to no conscious effort, and that seems to tie into your observation that emotions can cause physical reactions that we don’t choose for ourselves. If I’m not mistake, these reactions seem to be moments where we loose touch with our own free will.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I have just read your comment again, and noticed that you actually seem to be saying that once you identify a feeling and figure out the reason why you felt that way, it has already gone away. This is a tricky question for me to grapple with because I struggle to see a distinctive barrier between thoughts and feelings, and the relationship between the two.

        Liked by 1 person

  4. Your initial understanding was close to what I mean. Maybe an example would help explain.

    There had been an emergency situation where a horse had gotten stuck in something and I initially panicked and attempted to bend metal to free the horse. By some miracle, the horse was suddenly freed (not by my effort) and was completely unscathed despite that it didn’t seem physically possible to have happened. So logically, everything was fine, and once I stopped shaking (I’m guessing that was due to adrenaline from trying to bend metal) I continued on with stuff that needed to be done. The next day, an unrelated event occurred where I failed to remember to check a board for updates and this created a fairly small problem that made someone a little unhappy. But my internal reaction was way out of proportion for that event. My external response was to state maybe I couldn’t do any of it. Then I stared at the board trying to figure out why I was so upset about such a small thing. My staring at the board made the other person upset who told me I could stop staring at the board as it hasn’t changed. (This sort of situation complication seems to occur a lot for me and is probably a ‘language’ difference.) I went on and about 2 hours later realized I was still not entirely calm from the situation the day before. I also realized that I was emotionally adding my failure to read the board to my failure to succeed in bending the metal and that produced the over-reaction, though I wasn’t consciously aware I was making that connection. So when I explained to the upset person I was over-reacting because I was still sort of panicky from the day before, they understood and everything was better.

    It is so complicated! Once I realized exactly what was going on with me, I completely calmed down and could address the situation and find the right words. But most often, there isn’t any need to take action, just acknowledging a feeling’s existence seems to dissolve it. Maybe there’s an additional bigger feeling (of urgency?) that accompanies feelings until they are addressed. I honestly don’t know.

    There is also a strange dimension I wasn’t aware of until writing this reply but there seems to be emotional “thinking” or some kind of emotional processes that go on at a non-intellectual level. Like my adding the emotions in the example. If that makes any sense?

    It sometimes seems others are more perfectly programmed as their reactions appear to be a simple matter for others to understand. Something is sad, they feel sad, they act sad. It seems simple as that for most people.

    I know for me, tics are rare but they are actually me only half winning the battle of remaining still, when I’m trying to suppress a natural reaction. Like when I’m trying to not flinch when a light flickers. But I do understand what you mean by momentary loss of free will.

    I am thinking that thoughts are comparable to breathing and can be directed but not ceased. However, the limited knowledge used to choose their direction doesn’t seem to allude to free will, as I indicated before, due to limited exposure. There is also the phenomena of not being able to recall something that is known. I’m not sure how that factors in either.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. This is tricky. I seem to have reached a point in my life where I feel my thoughts.

      The reason that I’ve begun to write short stories was because I was beginning to feel trapped inside my own lack of understanding, and bursting at the seems with thoughts that I couldn’t put into words yet. I had, and still have this hunger for a better sense of cause and effect. This is the thing about fictional stories. They aren’t true, but I believe that writing them can help me to solidify my gut instincts, and conscience so that I know how to determine if I’m being respectful towards others, and if others are being respectable towards me. If any of these pieces of respect fall apart I am trapped with this pain again–I am rendered unable to think things through because my thoughts are trying to perceive what I don’t understand. Although I would hesitate, sometimes I just want to be confronted in a helpful, un-accusing way, and I want to be able to reach other people through the same means. If these kinds of mutual connection were seen as okay and helpful, there would be less pressure on me to know what to do, and what to say while being deprived of clarity and guidance.

      I have also found that listening to Jordan Peterson on YouTube has done wonders at helping me to bring this pressure to the surface. I have discovered him about four years after I began my writing journey, and I can’t even begin to explain how he has put some of these exact, unexpressed thoughts that were trapped inside me into words without even knowing me. I’m not sure if you’re familiar with him. Jordan Peterson isn’t very well-liked by the media because tiny details in his words matter more to them than his intentions. My own social challenges as an autistic women helps me to be able to relate to the judgement that he has faced–this is why I find it ironic whenever people call him a ‘sexist’. He has his flaws as we all do, and he says things that I doubt, or know from experience isn’t true, but he does seem to be an example of someone who has incorporated his feelings into his thoughts.

      I think that any connection between the relationship of thoughts and feelings, and the Unmoved Mover might be beyond our own understanding. I can get a feel for a slight difference between the two, but I’m not sure if the question for if they are different or not effects the possibility of these experiences being connected to something, or someone bigger than ourselves.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. The struggle to put thoughts into words was something I always thought was unique to me, but clearly I was wrong. To me it’s an awful experience because the thoughts are often accompanied by a really strong feeling of wanting to express something but not being able to. The luxury of the common structure that language imposes on thinking is absent without words. It seems like this structure is what creates the norm (and without it, it’s very difficult to arrive at the typical conclusions.)

        I’ve been reading a lot of random things. One thing I’ve read lately was an opinion about how the ancient Hebrew language reflects how different the ancient Hebrews thought as compared to our modern Greek-based thoughts. Aside from the obvious changes in technology (i.e. tents vs. houses, etc.), the ancient Hebrew language was all about concrete real world things rather than Greek abstract thoughts. Even words translated into our abstract concepts were actually conveyed with words describing real world events. Also, ancient Hebrew was a language describing function rather than elaborate picture details. I’m talking about this because there was also proposed the idea that the concept of time was different. Today, we have past, present and future. It was argued that the ancients had “is” and “is yet to be”. (Sometimes, my thinking is quite similar to this.) These differences seem to be in line with what I’ve personally noticed about the language. A few years ago I noticed that the word translated as “appointed time” literally means ‘when all the pieces are in the hand’ (the ancient Hebrew pictographs corresponding to the Hebrew letters are: an open hand, a thorn and a man pointing. The thorn is interpreted to be a means for creating pieces.) The Hebrew word is also related to the idea of ‘fullness’ of time (=full hand). All this seems to suggest that language directs thinking, perception and function.

        Yesterday I read one short ‘article’ that made an interesting relevant point you might find interesting:

        I really think these things can be figured out with a merging of minds. In reflecting on my own occasional lack of external focus, I am also wondering if role the conscious, subconscious and unconscious mind is important here. But the only way I will be able to figure any of it out is by discovering if and how anyone else has similar experiences. I’m not familiar with Mr. Peterson. Unfortunately, I find listening to spoken language extremely exhausting these days for some reason.

        As for the Unmoved Mover, I’ve been a bit stuck on these other details and the only thing that has occurred to me is a quite odd: perhaps there was only ever one move and everything else is like the eddies that swirl about in fluid dynamics. Or like the turbulence created in the air by something moving through it. In this way, time would be more like a matter of ‘is’ and ‘is yet to be’.

        Liked by 1 person

  5. I failed to clarify what I mean by physical reactions from feelings. I wrote a post called How Emotions Feel which has a list of emotions and how I recognize them by how they physically present for me. That’s what I was meaning by that.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. … I also have to wonder what it would really mean if mere humans had the power to prove or disprove the existence of God.


  7. Hi theemboldening,

    This comment is meant to go with your thoughts on communication, and the difference between the Greek and Ancient Hebrew languages, but for some reason the website wouldn’t let me reply underneath that comment, so I’ll write it here.

    I agree. The struggle to communicate is an awful experience. I think that if anyone gives you the impression that they don’t have a hard time with this they must be lying to you. Whenever people try to demonstrate that there are no nuances, or layers behind their own words, and that they should never be questioned, they seem to be depriving themselves of empathy for the sake of their own pride.

    To me, the rise of the free speech movement in today’s world seems to be proof that the communication disorder is universal. I have developed a passion for this movement because of my own challenges. I believe that this can break certain barriers between autistic, and non-autistic individuals that need to be broken. Within this movement, as expressed by Dr. Jordan Peterson throughout his work, there seems to be an underlying desire for people to learn from their own ethical, and linguistic mistakes in order to become genuinely better people in the future. There is a difference between supressing ourselves from saying things that can ruin our own reputations, and allowing our true selves to be exposed to the world’s judgements in order to gain an objective view of ourselves, and of the outside world’s pros and cons.

    The idea that the Ancient Hebrew language can provide more concrete ways of expressing ourselves is interesting. I wonder if we would have found it easier to communicate if Hebrew became the most common language to speak. Maybe this would also involve some challenges, but they would be different from the challenges that we have while trying to express ourselves in English.

    As for the Unmoved Mover, I think that it’s important to remember the discussion that we’ve had before about the utility of forgiveness, and to also to take into account the existence of love. We have noted that forgiving, and being forgiven results in the absence of stress, deprivation, and provides the means to grow. We can tell that forgiveness and love exists as patterns around us that we can’t function without. If my interpretation of the Unmoved Mover causing our thoughts and feelings is correct, then these two virtues must come from it/Him, and these virtues involve a lack of abandonment, and a desire to empathise with our ethical hardships from ourselves and others. This is why I believe that the Unmoved Mover is a living being who would never leave us, and why I believe that this idea ties into Christ’s death on the cross.

    I just noticed your most recent comment. I remember a time when I thought that it was my job to be able to prove God’s existence within my own power, and if I couldn’t convince people of His existence I was doomed. Maybe you know some people like this. They can get snappy. There was one or two very dark years during my spiritual crisis when I used to get snappy like this to distract myself from my own doubts. That was a painful time for me, and everyone around me. This is why I find comfort in the idea that our own transformation isn’t in our own hands.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. To be honest, I’ve never seen anyone other than myself struggle similarly with communication (as in not due to a physical condition) in real life. But to be fair I’ve also never seen anyone speak anything I noticed to be original to themselves. Everyone I’ve known only makes use of borrowed ideas, borrowed reasoning and even borrowed sentences. They don’t appear to give much thought to any of it. But that’s just my perception, for all I know they might have thought through whatever topic and simply arrived at a standard conclusion. But then again, it makes sense because if the same methods are applied and the same limitations regarding information apply, then one can only arrive at the same conclusions. Thus there is no need to bother to sort through things, one can just follow precedence.

    I don’t want to give the impression that I know what I’m talking about, because I really don’t. I’m actually kind of an idiot about most things and really just find some things particularly interesting. Until I started learning a little about ancient Hebrew I always thought of the word ‘rainbow’ in a decorative sense as in a bow (or ribbon) decorating the rainy sky. It turns out, the Hebrew word means (God’s) bow as in a bow and arrow. The ancient Hebrews believed God was an archer who shot lightning from his bow. They interpreted the rainbow as God setting his bow down in a gesture of peace or like a truce. (Hence all the references to fire and clouds pertaining to God in the Bible.) Even just with that tiny bit of information so much of the bible becomes a lot more clear to me, but I didn’t know any of it until a few years ago. It’s all actually very intricately woven and far more brilliantly managed than I think anyone realizes.

    For some reason, I’ve found ancient Hebrew words make better sense to me than our abstract words when concerning the same ideas. But the obvious obstacle is that Hebrew uses a lot of analogies to represent abstract concepts. This works well with how I think but maybe wouldn’t be good for others. One of the more famous examples is the phrase translated ‘ in fierce anger’ was actually written in Hebrew as ‘with burning nose’. (I think most modern people would associate flaring nostrils with anger but I also wonder if it’s origins had anything to do with an angry bull since bulls were common in their culture.)

    Even having said all that I do actually understand what you are saying about those virtues as well as the role of free will and free speech and everything up to the mention of Christ.

    I’ve only been able to fairly understand the bible up to the end of the gospels. After that it becomes very confusing and often doesn’t seem in accord with even the words Jesus had said or his examples (actions) that was recorded. I’m guessing this is because I fail to understand the abstractness of the language as the rest had been recorded in Greek. Or at least the version we have today was.

    You are right. I do know a lot of people who get snappy about proving God exists, but that wasn’t why I mentioned it. It had occurred to me that if one could prove the existence of God, maybe many things would be changed about religion. Aside from it implying humans to be so powerful, the ideas of seeking and of revelations (not the book) would be altered as their meanings wouldn’t include the same specifics as they do now. And the concept of faith would be rendered rarely applicable, if not entirely null. I’m sure that it would mean many other things as well but with just those few I wondered: ‘Would proving that God exists actually destroy religion as we know it?’ That’s a strange thought, I know. But I guess I might just be thinking too much.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Hi theemboldening,

      It does seem like the more we learn, the less we realize that we can understand. You’re not alone. I think that we are all pretty much ‘idiots’ when it comes to this stuff. There are mysteries all around us. It also seems as though our non-material needs need to be met, and where there is a need, there is a solution. That’s why I believe that it’s not our job to prove God’s existence, but it’s Him who reveals Himself to us when the time is right.

      I wish that I had a better understanding of the Hebrew gospel’s now. I think that the archer in the sky that you were describing is more like a symbol for God then how the Ancient Hebrews actually saw him. I never thought about the ‘bow’ this way before. This is a great representation of God’s wrath and mercy.

      It was interesting that you’ve mentioned this because a blogpost that I’m planning on publishing soon is related to the idea of the rainbow being a sign of the covenant, and in that post I interpret it as a symbol of a bridge between us and God, and the colours fading into eachother as a symbol of unity and diversity all in one. I’m concerned about how this post is going to be taken by the public. It reveals some controversial views that I have about the world’s modern-day views about both the autism spectrum, and a gender spectrum, and how one might effect the other in a dangerous way if we’re not careful. I’m going to try to meet in the center through these subjects, and open up a new path that I’ve never seen anyone open. The thing is, however, that I don’t know if this new theoretical path from my mind can lead people forwards, or backwards. My views on these issues are pretty conservative, so I thought that I’d just give you a heads up.

      I’m glad that you were able to understand when I was trying to explain my belief that the existence of love and forgiveness is a sign of the Unmoved Mover staying with us. I was a little concerned that it might have been confusing. I think that I’ve used a run-on sentence in there.

      It’s great that you are interested in learning about these things. Whenever people say that I think too much I wonder if I am really overthinking, or if some people who say ‘you think too much’ have lower standards for themselves, and others than healthy when it comes to thinking. I guess what I’m trying to say is if people continuously tell you that you think too much they might be suppressing some very real questions that you have. If thinking is like breathing, there is only so long that you can hold your breath in order to reach other people’s expectations. I’m not saying that overthinking never happens, I’m just saying that standards for different people differ so it’s a matter of discerning if they are right or not. Don’t let anti-thinkers stop you. 🙂


  9. Hmmm. I’m not sure whether it was a concrete representation of abstract ideas or not. There are 6 different Hebrew words used to describe divine manifestations of God’s presence as witnessed by humans in the OT for a total of 21 occurrences and the distribution is as follows: 8 out of 21 mean fire, lightning; 6 out of 21 mean of cloud, cloudy; 4 out of 21 mean to be heavy / of weight, considerable; 1 means shine forth; 1 means thick mist, dark cloud; and 1 means smoke (as of mountains) or vapor (as from nostrils of angry animals). Interestingly, the 4 meaning ‘to be heavy’ were translated as glory or light and the 1 meaning thick mist was translated as darkness.

    I don’t think I said that right about the gospels. We don’t have an original Hebrew version of them today, only Greek translated back into Hebrew. What I meant was most of them tie into the old testament (moreso than is obvious with just our abstract English understanding/culture) and can be understood from that perspective so that they make more sense.

    I’m not entirely sure how your views can be both controversial and conservative at the same time. But your mention of the idea that our job is not God’s job is important. It caused me to stop and wonder what our job is. My mind is torn between ‘The Shema’ in Deuteronomy 6:4-5 and Mathew 10:34-36. Maybe it’s just because I lack the necessary self esteem to support the idea of judging others and creating even further divides. I honestly don’t understand the motivation of saving one’s self. I actually don’t even call myself Christian, though technically I probably am, but I don’t subscribe to any one of the available sets of interpretations. I have beliefs but they don’t match up well with any organized religion. And others definitely make it clear they think I’m doomed. (They told me to study the word but got mad when I studied the letters too. Go figure.) I never talk about those things, I don’t know why I’m doing so now. But I’m sure you’ve figured out that I believe that the idea of ‘absolute’ free will is an illusion and instead I believe in a sovereign God active in every part of our lives which is itself an ongoing revelation or revealing.

    There are two translations of an overlooked short verse that I think really illustrates the difference between how I see it and how I think others to see it.

    Others read Isaiah 41:13 with this KJV translation:
    “For I the Lord thy God, will hold thy right hand, saying unto thee, Fear not; I will help thee.”

    But this literal translation here is how I see it:
    “That I, YHWH, Elohim of you, one holding fast right hand of you, the one saying to you: Not you are fearing; I, I help you.”

    Technically they are both saying the same thing. But really, they’re not. That last one is more expressive and real to me. And that double “I” is a real emotional clincher.

    [Note: you probably know this but just in case, ‘Elohim’ is a Hebrew word for God that specifically references his role as ‘Creator’.]

    I should probably shut up now…

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Hi theemboldening,

      I think that I was trying to push against the margins of my currant understanding in my last comment. That might be why it didn’t come off as very concrete.

      The part about the rainbow, and spectrums that I wrote is pretty much unrelated to the general topic. It was mostly related to you’re mention of the bow being placed down onto the earth as a sign of mercy, and I noticed that it’s somehow related to the post about spectrums that I’m working on. It will involve some views that are seen as unaccepting, or potentially illegal here in Canada where I’m from, so that’s why I thought that people might see it as controversial once it’s out there.

      Liked by 1 person

  10. I’m sorry. None of what I wrote was very clear. The concrete comment and first paragraph was just me pondering if the ancients actually believed God to be an archer.
    The rambling part I shouldn’t have written because its just an ongoing perplexity for me. I’ve been told by many people its bad to question it, but in my entire life I’ve never been able to embrace the idea of the gospel as its been taught these days. The idea of going out into the world and judging others (as it ultimately leads to) in effort to convert their thinking, as well as the cultural and personal damage that the activity has historically caused has always grieved me. But the part that bothers me the most is that the people I’ve known who do this does so as an effort to save themselves from some sort of ill fate after they die. It really has nothing to do with loving God and everything to do with loving themselves.

    But maybe that’s the real division destined to occur and mentioned in that Mathew verse. Maybe it has nothing to do with doctrines or laws. But instead has everything to do with one’s true heart?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Definitely. The part that you said about it having ‘nothing to do with loving God and everything to do with loving themselves’ really gripped me as a sad reality that we live in today. I have found myself guilty of that too. I think that it’s related to the myth that the transformation of our own hearts is in our own hands. I’ve known people within the Christian community to bend over backwards trying to surrender everything worldly including their own existence at the expense of trying to figure out how to connect with the people around them.

      There seems to be a difference between speaking honestly, and telling the truth. Some people think that they are telling the truth whenever they say “God has told me that walls are bad/needed, and anyone who disagrees with me is disagreeing with God.” Whenever people say any of these things without questioning themselves, they are closing themselves off from seeing other people who are questioning them with mercy knowing that they are just trying to figure out the multidimensional truth that encompasses parts of both views. If someone detached God’s name to such a broad statements and just said “right now I believe…” this person would have been honest while opening him/herself up to change. Others appreciate this because it’s a sign that they know the difference between honest opinions and truth.

      I have noticed that the Church can be afraid of the phrase “I think” as if saying this puts humanity onto a pedestal, but I believe that it’s the exact opposite. Leaving our honest opinions out of the picture cuts us off from both honesty and truth, and leads to nothing but coldness, and lying. I’ve been seeing this happen at multiple angles inside, and outside the Church.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I agree. I think the truth is an absolute too large for humans to be able verify in its entirety within our very limited ‘field of operation’. By ‘field of operation’, I mean: perception, knowledge and experience.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s