Morality (individuals together)

it's kinda funny to me... and everything

so the monster with the club,

has proven absurd and unstable. . .

and truth,
the very responsibilty

of our individual. . .

what of it?

what is it now?

who are we to be here?

if the threat of supra principle 

has proven unstable. . .

. . . what ever was it then? (and now)

   

so i "pray"

now to a god that is dead

and what is left here, now

to compel you and me

 to truth. . .

I still call it something... 

that shall be the will of a every good man,

    that we ever met.  

(we will make our own from them)

still my friend…

where, my darling dear,

 shall it come from?

    if you do still believe?

(he is risen)

can we make this. . . something still,

from a religion of not believing in religion

into more

for us to say. . . things, like. . .

   I say to you

God shall live

(eternal)

nameless  

... as it ever was

never not

inside of us

(put down the book)

             find your heart with me

Author's Note

Reviews

[DIVYA]

To me the poem reads like a debate you’re having with a friend or someone close (with yourself ?) I appreciate the thought that God is in us. He is omniscient so that’s a given. The conclusion is very on point. It’s absolutely a better thing to appreciate a beating human heart full of love than seek it in the written word.

Having said that, I firmly believe that God is not dead and that the book is his true word, an evidence of his love. While on the book, I’ve always liked your name. David the conqueror, David the pious man, David the sweet singer, David the shepherd and David the penitent (Runs)

[Davidgeo]

"God" isn't really dead. But anthropomorphizing him is something I find to be absurd, limiting and at times very, very counterproductive. I'm an atheist, but I believe in the human spirit. I would die for that, but I will never sacrifice anything precious to me over some words in an antiquated book twisted to compel antiquated notions. I mean... have you read that thing cover to cover? It's objectively absurd. Intellectual freedom is a sin if you go by that thing.

[Davidgeo]

… but judgement and death over pettiness... that notion runs thick throughout.

[DIVYA]

Never read it cover to cover. Not the whole book but I do read and try to follow a part of it.

[DIVYA]

I feel reading the whole book is unnecessary to get at the heart of the matter actually.

[DIVYA]

I don’t agree with some parts though. I think God is, Christ is, non-judgemental.

[Davidgeo]

The fundamental concept of a literal god is judgement, that's just an objective fact of religion in general. And you really should read the whole book. You might find that things are not what they seem, and in a very pernicious way.

[DIVYA]

I’ve tried. I don’t have patience for The Old Testament.

[Davidgeo]

The old testament is actually a pretty good read for the most part (except for the book of numbers, that s**t is just boring)... but the philosophy of it is more like a horror novel than a religious text. It pretty much says we're all in for a nasty surprise (god is angry).

[DIVYA]

Lol....that must have been a ploy to rein in the Neanderthals

[Davidgeo]

Don't get me started on that s**t. I always get all science-y with it. (neanderthals didn't go extinct, we gradually interbred them into our gene pool) Also, I have a long winded story about how homo sapiens where the only one's to create abstract art while Neanderthals never did and that that "creativity" led to more successful hunter/survival methods that were more successfully passed down like a "proto-societal/religious" thing... our original "bible" was purely verbal and pictorial and our "god" were the methods used to survive in an incredibly hostile environment (i'm talkin' back 30-40-50ish+ thousand years ago).

[DIVYA]

Interesting. I read somewhere about Neanderthals existing parallely with the ancestors of modern man and dying out due to some innate disadvantages. I’ll go back to it. I’d love to discuss more on this sometime.