 | | Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity) —David Eaton
|
| | | (...) Sadly, I fear the answer is just about yes, going by what I think you define as God. But really what we've got to do is define 'God' first, because I may be wrong. In fact, depending on what you define as 'God', I may in fact already believe (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity) —John Neal
|
| | | | (...) I would simply define God as a single Entity which created the universe. We all instinctively long to be united with that Entity. I would then go on to state that that Entity entered time and space in the human form of Jesus Christ, in order (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | (...) I personally would certainly not include "we all instinctively long to be united with that Entity" in the definition, as that seems an (unproven and highly dubious) attribute of *us*, not of God. Why muddy the definition up with that other (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity) —David Eaton
|
| | | | | (...) Rather as I expected-- an entity, seperate to ourselves-- having created what we know of as this universe, including ourselves, and capable of enacting or creating anything therin or similar to, and quite possibly, anything at all. (...) How (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity) —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | (...) Do we? What makes you think this? (...) Skepticism is GOOD. However, I don't think cynicism is good ;-) -- | Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp | Please do not associate my personal views with my employer (24 years ago, 24-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) I think science/society seeks to understand "creation". I don't think being united with creation is really a global aim. That said, could it not be argued that we are part of creation? Scott A (24 years ago, 24-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) There's merit in that argument. Certainly we are "part of the universe" since we reside in it, observe it, are affected by it, and effect things within it. The problem is that "creation" carries a connotation of it being an act of volition. (...) (24 years ago, 24-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
