THE COMMENTARY GAZETTE
Two words that invoke either a euphoric response or a distain and condemnation of the person experiencing the event. But what are the differences in these two words? Both denote the presence of a super natural power; preforming unimaginable feats out side the understanding of the human conscientious. Both are excepted as matters of faith, in to which ever ideology your mind set embraces. Both are described in ancient scripts as being the manifestations of good or evil, again depending upon your perspective. So, again what separates the one from the other?
Just because the one is excepted by a social and religious majority in certain areas of the world, while the other has been shunned, maligned and brutally suppressed does not detract from the validity of its existence.
For instance today is celebrated around the world in memory of one man, who it has been claimed to (but not proven, and only recounted in one written book) have walked on water, cured the infirmed, feed the multitude, and arisen from the dead, an amazing story, even for the ancients. But why should all other facts and other religions be discounted, of similar or even more detailed persons? Would this story if it had been said of a Druid, been considered a myth, fable or just plain the workings of the devil? Because the so called main stream religions do not tolerate any concepts of divinity other than their own.
I see no difference in the meanings of the terms; I see no difference in the applications of the terms; I only see the blindness that comes from centuries of indoctrination into ideologies which will not except the possibilities of all things being equal and the unexplained may have many names.
Thank you for taking the time to read this
CONTIBUTOR: Eddy Toorall