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.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (11289)	4/30/2002 4:11:40 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

"I did not say this. I would not use the terms "incapable" or "unable" in describing God" I used those words because they followed directly from what you said: You made it very clear that feelings implied dependency. You then made it clear that you would discuss a God who was non dependent. In other words...a God who was unfeeling. I started to discuss a God without feeling as you had suggested, by referencing a God ("free of desires and emotional and intellectual longings") Here are your own words: "Great, you got right to the nub of it. The premise: "God either has feelings or God does not. If He does not, then why are we talking about him?" Feelings as in happy, sad, angry, etc. imply as you say: "His Nature would then be dependent upon the status and nature of other. And so your criticisms of modern religion, that positions God as some sort of anthropomorphic santi claus sitting on a cloud are justified." You then go on to suggest we talk about a God who is non dependent: "we should move past this position to one that considers a God who is truly Omnipotent, non-dependant," You made it clear that feelings implied dependency, and that you preferred to talk about a God who was "non-dependent". Your response made it clear that a non-dependent God would be unfeeling. Again: FEELINGS IMPLIED DEPENDENCY. When I mentioned a God "free of desires and emotional and intellectual longings", I was referring to a non-anthropomorphic, non-dependent idea of God...just as you wished. When I referred to a God "incapable of caring, unable to love.'", I was likewise referring to a non-dependent, non-feeling God. But your response states that we were talking about two different Beings. I am honestly perplexed as to what you are talking about by stating that my reference to a God incapable of caring and unable to love, and free of desires and emotional longing...was a reference somehow at odds with a non-dependent God?? Is it that you believe that caring and love are not informed by compassion? Is it that you consider desire and longing to not be feeling based? God either has feelings or God does not. I thought your agreement on that was entirely unambiguous (at least, it seemed so originally). Where is the confusion? Did I misinterpret your rather direct statement that feelings implied dependency--and, if so--then how? Or is there no essential feeling difference between love and hate, desire and indifference, caring and despising?