Subject:
|
Re: Does God have a name for God? (was: 20 Years of TLC's Frustration with "LEGOS")
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 30 Mar 2001 15:02:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2691 times
|
| |
|
|
Robert wrote:
> > Because this is what people who do believe and study those religions have told me -
>
> And why did you presume that they were correct beyond a shadow of a
> doubt in their thinking?
I did not presume any such thing - the current debate concerns whether or not there is a
God for God. Now, I could always have come along and said "Pah! Since God cannot be proven
to exist, then this entire argument is pointless." However, It is perhaps more interesting
to examine this argument from the angle of those who do believe in God, and why they think
there is no God for God.
There is also a large degree of Devil's Advocacy in my post for sure.
> Well every religion has it's own twists and turns. Perhaps the reason
> most people don't believe there is a God for God is because they don't
> need to.
In my debates with religious people I've often found this not to be the case, and as I
said, the notion of a God for God is often something that comes up in religious debates,
i.e. if God created everything, who created God. Usually the stock answer, whether the
person concerned has thought about it or simply read it somewhere, is that there is no God
for God.
In the context of their belief, I accept this; in the context of my own belief it is
irrelevant since I do not believe in God in the first place. But that is not to say I
cannot post the beliefs of those who do.
> > I am simply saying that for those who believe in God in a certain way, this is how
> > they tell me they see it.
>
> I see, apparently there was some confusion, probably those phrases
> you used like "does not" and "is the" that threw my interpretation
> off.
Presumably so. I thought I made it obvious that I was speaking in a detached secondhand
fashion by preceding those statements with "I gather that in most modern monotheistic type
religions", but perhaps I should have been more explicit.
> Again attempting to defend yourself...in a rather poor way I might
> add. I don't recall anything in the thread about origins of religious
> beliefs...
You made note that in modern day US there are may types of religions from around the world
practiced, and therefore that the notion of some religions being Western based is non
valid. I pointed out that the current geographical location of practicioners of a given
religion is not an indication of the classification of that religion. Shinto, for example,
is not a Western based religion, although there will certainly be some practicioners of it
in the West.
> > When I say "Western based monetheistic religions" I am referring to
> > mainstream religions mainly originating in the West, such as Christianity, which
> > I gather is the most popular religion in the western world.
>
> Christianity originated in America? ......
> ......I know what you're going to say next, you'll say that by the west you
> don't necessarily mean America, and blah, blah, blah, sidestep,
> backpedal, sidestep.
Precisely, aside from the blahs and sidestepping. You know fine well what I meant.
Jennifer Clark
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
