Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: IntelliCents who wrote (1968)	10/20/2000 7:12:15 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 28931

I will certainly take that challenge about going through the Bible chapter by chapter. I love speaking with people about the goodness and kindness of our Savior That wasn't exactly the goal I had in mind, and I question whether you can derive any benefit from an exercise that has as its purpose the stated rationale of "speaking with people about the goodness and kindness of our saviour". It does sound like you have placed some rather severe restrictions on what you may hope to learn from our discussion. Nevertheless, if you are certain that that is what you want, then we shall do it. I propose that both testaments be used, so that we get the full picture of God's words (when I speak of God, I mean the Christian representation of God, and it bears no intent to reflect on any Supreme Being that might exist). I propose that I choose a biblical book, which we discuss until we are done, and then that you choose a book--and ditto. I don't know what you mean by "having standing ground for your rebuttal". Attacking my beliefs has nothing to do with what we find in the bible. Absolutely irrelevant. However, I don't mind telling you that I am agnostic. Scientific research is making theology a fascinating field. Some days I have a slight bias toward a God; Some days I have a slight bias away. If there is a God, I believe that God is everything. If God was once everything that existed, then He still is. Some religions believe that God both is everything and yet transcends everything. I don't. There are arguments that, if God was once everything that was, then He still is. This connects logically with the old question of, "Can God make a rock so big he cannot pick it up". Fundamentally, it breaks down into two points of view: (1), The underlying ground of the Universe was always sentience, and this sentience continues to express in myriad forms; (2), The basic substance of the Universe is material, and consciousness is an evolving attribute. From this we get: Either Immanent, or evolving sentience, is responsible for the forces, laws, and order that we recognise around us. This includes evolution. If I lean toward a God, it is the God of Spinoza (who said that, TP :)). This God would also encompass all of cosmicforce's Gods (if they are there!) I do not see any basis to consider an eternal ego as fitting into any teleology. An ego is always a part, and a part can never have the attribute of non- conditional infinity. If I had a choice between eternal ego, in a universe without risk (and thus meaning), and eternal oblivion--I would choose the latter. If it was merely a meaningless existence for less than a million years, I might possibly reconsider. Anyhow, the answer is agnostic. If you wish to "speak with people about the goodness and kindness of our saviour" while I take an impartial look at the books of the bible...please confirm that this is your wish.