--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "coshlnx" <coshlnx@> wrote: > > > > > > http://www.tinyurl.com/yvkdc3 > > > > Important to read the earlier part of the exchange > > to get a proper perspective on Harris's response. > > He's just as much of a fanatic as the fundamentalists > > he rants about. Sullivan made excellent points that > > Harris doesn't know how to respond to, and it's sent > > him into a frustrated rage. > > I see that as a battle of two individuals who are locked into egoic > identity, identified with their limited relative existence, one > believing he is separate from unbounded, eternal Divinity, and the > other denying the existence of unbounded, eternal Divinity. In the > state of identity with the plane of ever-changing, uncertain, relative > existence, people tend to seek security in some construct of this > plane that has the appearance of absoluteness (e.g. science) or has > been arbitrarily declared absolute (e.g., religion). And, to maintain > this pseudo-security, the ego-mind engages in battle, desperately > trying to recruit others and maintain the illusion of its chosen > construct's absoluteness and validity above all other constructs.
I think everyone here has misread Harris's viewpoints, which might be expected from this type of group. Harris does not deny the existence of unbounded eternal divinity or anything else in that realm, he just says you can say with certainty that it exists, or say it is "Truth" that it exists. Harris properly points out the dangers of believing in these sort of absolute unprovable Truths without realizing that they're actually just your own belief systems that you own for whatever reasons, good or bad, but he's not denying anyone the right to hold their belief system - whereas religionists have a tendency to want to deny any other belief system which does not conform to their Truth.
