Subject:
|
Re: Does God have a name for God?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 30 Jan 2001 14:46:30 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
Q_HARLEQUIN_P@HOTMAIL.COMihatespam
|
Viewed:
|
3539 times
|
| |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 14:33:29 GMT, "Dave Schuler" <orrex@excite.com>
wrote:
> > > I'm only going in on this one part here. It is my belief that man in God's
> > > image is not exactly literal, but of broader meaning Biblically.
> > Uh yeah, sure, that works too, we can allow that.
> More specifically, I have understood it to mean that man has the capacity
> for Grace, and in this way we are created in His image.
Hey whatever blows yer hair back. Interpretation is really the mother
of all invention, not necessity.
> > > Image can mean form (arms, legs, head, torso) or function.
> > So then it's true the handicapped (those missing various extremities
> > anyway) go to hell. And here I thought South Park was just being
> > humorous.
> Well, if you thought South Park was humorous, then you have issues that
> won't be resolved in this forum. 8^)
I find South Park's ability to make certain people get upset over
trivial things to be quite humorous indeed.
> > > God uses 100%+ brain capacity to create and man is created in that image.
> > God has a physical brain? Now there's an interesting new look on the
> > situation.
> Aaron is actually citing well-established medieval doctrine in which God
> was considered to be unlike any other creature, since, among other reasons,
> He thinks (and sees, etc.) with the whole of His being, whereas lesser (ie:
> all other) creatures think with only a portion of themselves.
Oh gee, what was I thinking poking fun at this "well-established
medieval doctrine"? I mean, after all, were are talking about
something designed during the days when everybody knew the world was
flat and a solar eclipse meant a bad year for crops.
> > > The faces may be different ("Allah delights in wonderous diversity," Robin
> > > Hood: Prince of Thieves.) but our brains are built the same.
> > You cannot believe how much I'm fighting the urge to post neurological
> > links to prove you wrong on that one...
> I'm fighting the urge to express my discomfort at a Kevin Costner film
> being cited as a source of religious exegesis. How does Coster get work,
> anyway? Is there anyone with a more spectacularly unsuccessful string of
> "films" than this guy?
He's a lot like Keanau Reeves (sp?), he just looks good. Sure he
can't act his way out of a paper sack, but as long as he shuts up and
poses just right he looks pretty dang cool. Although there was this
one scene in The Postman where he was ranting on about strangers and
whether they want to share what they got or take what you got, that I
found to be quite good. Other than that though I can't think of
anything else in which he actually showed an ability to act.
> > Um, I'm just wondering, do you have some sort of direct hot line with
> > God, or is this what Cleo and the magic seeing crystal you bought in
> > the mall are telling you? I'm just sorta curios as to why YOU in
> > particular seem to have ALL the answers and have it ALL figured out as
> > well. Of course then the last guy that I responded to seemed to
> > believe he was speaking the almighty "truth" of the universe as
> > well...hmmm...is anyone besides me seeing a trend here?
> Is it necessary to castigate Aaron personally for espousing views commonly
> held by people of Faith?
Castigating? And here I thought I was having a rational debate in a
fun, light hearted sorta way. But I suppose if this is the way the
game is played I'd like to be the victim next...if you don't mind. : )
> His assertions can be refuted or supported without
> resorting to personal sleights.
I'm sure I've hurt poor Aaron very deeply by asking him if he gets his
information from the Psychic Friends Network. Although now that I
think of it, how do you know I wasn't being serious? How dare YOU
dismiss my belief in Miss Cleo as run of the mill sarcasm. I never!
> If his facts are incorrect, let's
> demonstrate them to be so.
Oh yes, let's.
> If his interpretations are faulty, let's discuss
> them.
Okay you can do that, I on the other hand will just keep on being me
and point out the flaws in peoples logic using colorful lighthearted
sarcasm that you can interpret as personal attacks and mean spirited,
nefarious, blows to the psyche...
> There's no reason to accuse him of succumbing to some New Age sales
> pitch simply because one finds his position untenable.
Cause gosh knows that's what I did. Tell me, are you consciously
attempting to be an instigator of something here, or is there some
other explanation that perhaps I've overlooked? : )
Robert
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Does God have a name for God?
|
| (...) Fair enough, but if you're going to criticize a view, you would be well-advised to learn what that view is. (...) You're committing a basic falacy of reason, in that you are assuming that, since some of their views were incorrect, *all* were (...) (23 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Does God have a name for God?
|
| (...) More specifically, I have understood it to mean that man has the capacity for Grace, and in this way we are created in His image. (...) Well, if you thought South Park was humorous, then you have issues that won't be resolved in this forum. (...) (23 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
137 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
