| |
In lugnet.general, Robert Bevens writes:
> Previously, "Aaron West" <maniac@netwebb.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.
> > 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^)
> > 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.
> > 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?
> 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? His assertions can be refuted or supported without
resorting to personal sleights. If his facts are incorrect, let's
demonstrate them to be so. If his interpretations are faulty, let's discuss
them. There's no reason to accuse him of succumbing to some New Age sales
pitch simply because one finds his position untenable.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Does God have a name for God?
|
| (...) Hey whatever blows yer hair back. Interpretation is really the mother of all invention, not necessity. (...) I find South Park's ability to make certain people get upset over trivial things to be quite humorous indeed. (...) Oh gee, what was I (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jan-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Does God have a name for God?
|
| In lugnet.general, Dave Schuler writes: I apologize for inadvertantly posting the debate in the .general group. I thought the debate had already been moved to OT.debate. Sorry about that. Dave! (23 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Does God have a name for God?
|
| (...) Uh yeah, sure, that works too, we can allow that. (...) 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. (...) Does this mean we have to start (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jan-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
|
|
|
|
