Israel
BANNED
From either "side", at least as pertaining to what may appear as sides in these discussions, can come the observation/contention/accusation aimed at the other, in the most general of senses..."But man should not be this way"
Whether it come from side "A" or side "B" matters not as in,
"Man should not be superstitious and given to certain practice untenable by reason..."(as reason is adjudged by the speaker)
or (in some context spoken)
"Man should not be unbelieving but have faith..."
(Again, as faith is adjudged by the speaker)
What appears to be at odds (though may not be at all) is a seeking of approach to find man in his true (and truest) estate, consistent in being what it means "to be man".
In one sense it becomes apparent (if there is any merit to my observations) that each "side" holds in view some archetype of both "normal man" and "defective man", finding basis for the accusation by the standing upon one...to accuse, or contradict the other.
If this is so, each is seeking to define what man is.
"Man is reasonable and should be so" (By some assumption contained this excludes "faith")
or
"Man should have faith" (Likewise by assumption this either reduces, or is to some exclusion of reason as the paramount constituent)
But the overarching and fundamental agreement is seen (that essentially causes line of division to seeming "sides" to evaporate) is this: (and not without consequence)
The agreement in toto is that man may exist in being as he ought not.
Each seeming side (that truly make of themselves one true side) in total agreement that man has the ability...to be...in being...falling short of what man is "to be".
Whether it come from side "A" or side "B" matters not as in,
"Man should not be superstitious and given to certain practice untenable by reason..."(as reason is adjudged by the speaker)
or (in some context spoken)
"Man should not be unbelieving but have faith..."
(Again, as faith is adjudged by the speaker)
What appears to be at odds (though may not be at all) is a seeking of approach to find man in his true (and truest) estate, consistent in being what it means "to be man".
In one sense it becomes apparent (if there is any merit to my observations) that each "side" holds in view some archetype of both "normal man" and "defective man", finding basis for the accusation by the standing upon one...to accuse, or contradict the other.
If this is so, each is seeking to define what man is.
"Man is reasonable and should be so" (By some assumption contained this excludes "faith")
or
"Man should have faith" (Likewise by assumption this either reduces, or is to some exclusion of reason as the paramount constituent)
But the overarching and fundamental agreement is seen (that essentially causes line of division to seeming "sides" to evaporate) is this: (and not without consequence)
The agreement in toto is that man may exist in being as he ought not.
Each seeming side (that truly make of themselves one true side) in total agreement that man has the ability...to be...in being...falling short of what man is "to be".
Last edited: