Subject:
|
Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 23 Dec 2000 07:16:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1266 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
>
> 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 to reveal God's true nature in a way
> humans could comprehend. How would you define God?
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 stuff? I think your first
sentence is enough. A singular God is a universe creator. The christian god
requires the Jesus bit too. But convincing me of a Prime Mover is hard
enough, convincing me of your particular brand will be very tough.
> Dude, you are one serious skeptic! :-)
One could as easily say you're way too credulous. Watch "The Matrix" some
time...
++lar
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
298 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
|
|
|
|
