Subject:
|
Re: Does God have a name for God? (was: 20 Years of TLC's Frustration with "LEGOS")
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 30 Jan 2001 16:11:15 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
Q_HARLEQUIN_P@HOTMAIL.spamlessCOM
|
Viewed:
|
2829 times
|
| |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 15:02:27 GMT, Jennifer Clark
<jen@vulture.dmem.strath.ac.uk> 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 -
Snipping out your previous texts no doubt helps you to try and pass
that off. If I was actually inclined to attack you I suppose I might
delve into that further, but I won't.
> the current debate concerns whether or not there is a
> God for God.
Oh so we can only debate about one thing at a time? Hmmm, it seems
I've missed several meetings.
> Now, I could always have come along and said "Pah! Since God cannot be proven
> to exist, then this entire argument is pointless."
But then one could always argue that even though it is pointless is
still offers us a way to communicate with each other in a way that is
mutually beneficial to our ever growing understanding of ourselves and
humanity.
> 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.
Yes, yes, all well in good.
> 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.
Um...are you reading my posts? I mean I just said you were right and
then gave a possible explanation as to why. Then you just said it
wasn't the case and then basically repeated what you said just a post
ago. I mean...am I missing something here...or are you? o_O
> 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.
Okay now you're starting to read like stereo instructions.
> > > 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.
Okay I know before I said I wasn't going to point out your backpedals
but this is just getting annoying. Here's an exact quote:
*****
If I knew the Latin for "who guards the guards?", I could sound really
pretentious here, but unfortunately I don't, therefore I shall have to
sound pretentious without the benefit of a dead language.
However, the point is already made; God does not have its own religion
or notion of meta-deityism - God is the be all and end all, etc.
I hasten to add that none of this implies that I have any belief in
the divine BTW, simply that this is the way Western religions tend to
view these things.
Has anyone read Starmaker by Olaf Stapledon?
Jennifer Clark
*****
Now maybe you can point out my seemingly blind ignorance one again and
show us where you said, "I gather that in most modern monotheistic
type religions" in that initial post (from which I was quoting
earlier).
> > 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.
And as I said Christianity didn't start in America. I don't know who
wrote your history books...but some Native Americans I know might like
to have a word or two with them.
> > > 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.
Well of course I do, I know almost everything you could possibly say
before you even say it. For some strange reason though I keep hoping
you or someone else might surprise me...it hasn't happened yet though
and I'm not exactly holding my breath. : )
Robert
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|
