Subject:
|
Re: Why not Both?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 25 Jan 2001 13:56:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
414 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Culberson writes:
> David Eaton wrote:
> In effect what you are doing here is inventing you're own God. Because
> the God of the Bible DOESN'T fit what you'd like him to be, you decide
> that you cannot believe in that God.
And that's EXACTLY my point.
Let's take your argument to the next level. What if I say I worship Quazmon.
Quazmon's my version of God. He delights in the suffering of his creation
and abhors selflessness. He created the world to be very frustrating-- to
follow very specific rules for science, giving the illusion that other areas
like morality would be as consistant. But they're not. And it's that chaos
that he created the universe for.
Do you believe in Quazmon? Would you dispute the truth that Quazmon is the
one true God, even though you don't like him (I'm guessing)? Or doesn't it
just kinda go against your judgement as to what God could or should be? My
point is that there's NO PROOF. There's evidence (almost ALWAYS if not
always) in personal form, but NONE in physical form-- but at some level it
comes down to how much you trust your judgement to choose the right thing.
And your logic and experience tell you that Quazmon is NOT right in some
way. And MY logic and experience tell me that the example of God I gave,
which is what I think Jon was arguing for, also isn't right in some way.
> From whence did you get any rights you may have? I believe in God given
> rights. Who gave you the right to disrespect God?
Who gave you the right to disrespect Quazmon? (I'm assuming you do, but I
think that's a safe assumption)
> God is the ultimate
> of what is fair. From whence did you decide what constitutes fair and
> what doesn't?
From my own personal judgement-- and I would argue that you did the same,
and concluded in agreeance with Christianity. I don't. And as soon as you
can prove that my judgement is faulty, let me know. Meanwhile, because I'm
unable to show the same for you, I'm content to say that neither of us is
'really' right, but that we're only right for ourselves.
> It's not a matter of whether or not you like God, it's a
> matter of whether or not you believe in God. If you say you DO believe
> in God then it's not up to you to decide what God should be like.
Ah, so your argument is that NOBODY is CAPABLE in believing in a different
KIND of God? That it is ONLY a matter of whether you believe in the
Christian God or not? Or are you equating the beliefs in all other Gods with
the non-belief of the Christian God?
> IF
> you don't believe then than you can think whatever you want.
Ok, I don't believe in YOUR version of God. Am I off the hook? Will you let
me go around saying that I'm not wrong to say so? Will you go around saying
that I AM wrong to say so or that I'm ONLY right to agree with you? If
you'll allow for yourself to be wrong, just as I allow for my own error,
then fine, I don't have any further quarrel with you.
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Why not Both?
|
| (...) I argue first and foremost that the Creation we see all around us is evidence of God's existence (as is mentioned in the Bible). I also argue that scientific evidence supports the Creation theory. Of course there's no proof, then there would (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
| (...) In effect what you are doing here is inventing you're own God. Because the God of the Bible DOESN'T fit what you'd like him to be, you decide that you cannot believe in that God. From whence did you get any rights you may have? I believe in (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
88 Messages in This Thread:
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
