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 15:58:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2736 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jennifer Clark writes:
> 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."
I would. It's easier in the long run. :)
> 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.
Stirring. We like stirring.
> > 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.
Personally, I think it shows a lack of imagination (not faith) to assume
that everything has to be made by something or someone else.
> 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? ......
Wow. If I could view the world that narrowly I'd just focus on happy things
and have a great time.
> > ......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.
I wouldn't make that assumption, particularly not having read some of the
previous responses.
> Jennifer Clark
Anyway, aren't you a Northener? :)
P.S. It's "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" btw - "Who watches the watchmen?"
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
