Creating Spiritual Works

Within the writings of spiritual works in which you actively further current knowledge and interpretation, the number of potential inconsistencies, counter points you must address quickly increase as the complexity of the idea accumulates. Within any subject matter in which you must foresee logical weak points, the more detailed your concept the faster your brains momentum must excel to keep a steady pace; the use of sports and recreation facilities being advantageous by maintaining a healthy body able to sustain an elevated intellectual pace.


An example concept to illustrate:

Statement of origin

Devoid of intellect the confinement of the soul is a collection of previous momentums, each placed into instigation, while we must reason: To what design? The literal manifestation of each our substance as matter, does necessitate having developing from other substance and so matter, as within the realm of all scientific experienced (known), substance always comes from other or same substance. In simple terms, (suggestive) we are each the potential manifestations of a divine creation which leads us to reason and wonder at least two natural conclusions:

Rhetoric’s 1

1: Is the ability to distinguish and reasoned our origin part is the key into reaching towards and propelling forward inherent (hidden for safety?) properties? Are we of creation that requires itself to become complex and emotionally integral enough to reach into own form which stretches as existing across time?

Rhetoric’s 2

2: Or, there are those that will say: “If we are from the divine and yet as a species are cable of so much harm, what then is the point of such divinity?” I want you to notice that within all religious texts excepted in majority worldwide (as far as the author has read) the theme to attaining divinity requires morality and pronounces achievers as enlightened, chosen, holy spirit, illustrious etc…

Analysis

In the above spiritual thought, the typical contradiction to the statement of origin when describing it as divine is to wonder what about us as a collective suggested to come from prior divinity is still divine; concluding as why and how can that statement have validity? The validity in question becomes the subject in question for both Rhetoric statements thereafter.

Rhetoric’s 1: In #1 we bypass contradiction by affirming the actually being connected to this divinity is an idea Jesus and Buddha preached, and which doctrine is questionably their own. In other words, it’s perhaps important to logically map our a reasoning for our being of divinity on scientific terms as opposed to being asked to accept it, or pray towards those that did accept it and not connect yourself intellectually as they (Jesus, Buddha) had.

Rhetoric’s 2: In #2 we finally address the contradiction typically addressed, and approach it as an affirmation of our own proposal, that indeed the subject regards conscious thought and its criticism is part of a structure originating in divinity and not necessarily enlightened unless specific atonements are committed onto.

Conclusion

The conclusion would seem to suggest, that under this paper’s formulated approach to origins, those starting off as the adherent scientific atheist are projecting the same arguments that professed religious fundamentalists is; which is quite interesting to those who enjoy approaching the subject in this manner.