 | | Re: Is memetics a meme? (was: Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?)
|
|
(...) ... I'd have to say no because this is getting silly! (25 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
|
(...) Seems to me that God, if so inclined, could demonstrate the truth in a way that leaves no question, no doubting, and can't be denied or avoided. God is omnipotent, after all. James (URL) (25 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
|
(...) FTR, I'm the one who mentioned the RPG. As an aside, that had nothing to do with my point, and certainly not as a source. If I wasn't so impervious, I'd be insulted that someone thought I was dim enough to do that. James (URL) catching up on (...) (25 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
|
(...) I'll give the horse one more kick ;-) To call yourself a Christian implies that you follow Christ. By it's very name that is its meaning. Following Jesus IS a prereq for being a Christian. Jesus called God "Father" and "He", so you draw your (...) (25 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
|
(...) I think the point of those religions is that you believe in it because it's true, not because you are afraid of your god. Ben Roller (25 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Eastern vs. Western religions (was: Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?)
|
|
(...) So Todd, is that just your opinion or what? ;) Ben Roller (25 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
|
(...) I don't mean to beat a dead horse on this issue, but I would insist that it is "some Christians" or "most Christians" that refer to God this way. Pete implies that ALL do, and that is just not the case. Calling God a male is not a prereq for (...) (25 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Is memetics a meme? (was: Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?)
|
|
(...) Question: If Memetics itself is a meme, is it an intellectual bank-robber meme, bankrupting non-bankrupt intellectuals in its path, or does it propagate only in the minds of those who are already intellectually bankrupt? --Todd (25 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
|
(...) The plight of the Israelites throughout the Old Testament is proof that he cared about them. He constantly refers to them as his "Chosen People". The fact that he sent Jesus to earth to do what He did is even more proof. I'm not talking warm (...) (25 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
|
(...) Yes, according to Matthew 1:1-17, He was. It's way too long to write here, but it gives "X was the son of Y" all of the way from Abraham to Jesus. Well, technically Jesus wasn't related to Joseph, but that's close enough. Ben Roller (25 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
|
(...) If God is really a donkey, and Jesus had come to Earth and said, "Ok, now let's say Our Donkey in Heaven" do you think that anyone would have taken him seriously? In that society (and some would argue this society), being a woman didn't mean (...) (25 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
|
(...) I think the more we build up the idea of love, the more disappointed we are in how it plays out in reality. By accepting a more science-based view, I feel I have something closer to the truth of it and I am therefore not disappointed in my (...) (25 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bill Farkas writes: <<a bunch of stuff here and elsewhere...omitted for the sake of brevity>> Bill, its hard for me to respond to your comments because you ACTUALLY believe this stuff and I DO NOT. This is like talking (...) (25 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is God a He, a She, or an It? (was: Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?)
|
|
(...) Er, I didn't mean that ("He and nothing else") literally -- I meant to say "male gender equivalent," which would cover He, His, Him, Father, etc... It's a good thing, too -- because if deities could have other genders, then one question which (...) (25 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Is God a He, a She, or an It? (was: Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?)
|
|
(...) OK, so it's a very long-established convention to use He and nothing else. Got it! (...) Ya, this reminds me of back in the late 80's when it was popular among certain groups not to acknowledge that the word "woman" (or "women") contained the (...) (25 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Eastern vs. Western religions (was: Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?)
|
|
(...) that (...) And my beanie little brain fluctuates in a different manner. I think since people's understanding is so limited, especially of each other, they can't possibly know the heart of the one they're forgiving. We can rationalize that (...) (25 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
|
(...) To answer your first question, Christians refer to God as "He" and "Father" because that's how Jesus referred to Him. Since we believe that Jesus is the Son of God, then it is natural to expect Him to know the correct way to address God. I (...) (25 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
|
(...) I knew that somehow you could boil it down to a mechanical apparatus if you wanted to. But in my heart I've gotta believe that we're more than just really sophisticated amoebas (no nitpicking please!) There are truths that supersede science (...) (25 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Does the First Commandment tolerate Atheism? (was: Re: Mormon bashing again)
|
|
(...) Wow. Well, that's actually quite reasonable, then. So, if I'm understanding this correctly, what you're saying is that the First Commandment does indeed tolerate atheism. It might not be happy with the existence of atheism, but it does (...) (25 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
|
(...) a) is pretty close. IMHO he's saying not to mix His service with the service of others. It assumes that the person who cares enough to find out what He expects is desirous to follow Him and should not divide their attention by seeking Him and (...) (25 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
