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: Bill Fischofer who wrote (15537)	6/8/2003 4:46:32 PM
From: 2MAR$	Respond to of 28931

pretty nice piece of "scripture" there Bill think I'll save that one ... I agree with Schaefer that the problem Plato and others had is that their concept of God was not sufficiently "big". well they did alright for their time & place and contribution to exploring the "continuum" and themselves , and oh ... those----> rites~of~spring celebrations were not so bad . Would have loved to have seen the Temple of Athena when it was new... ;-)

To: Bill Fischofer who wrote (15537)	6/8/2003 6:48:02 PM
From: 2MAR$	Respond to of 28931

An infinite God cannot be contained in any creed, let alone a finitely recitable one, for it He could then He would not be very "infinite" at all. And in that spirit : Ecclesiastes 1:10 , "Is there anything whereof it may be said, See, this is new? It hath been already of old time, which was before us."

To: Bill Fischofer who wrote (15537)	6/9/2003 2:43:40 PM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

"It's not really math itself that is incomplete, but any formal system that attempts to capture all the truths of mathematics in its finite set of axioms and rules." I found this comment about Gödel's theory interesting. Moving that over into the topic we are discussing. Our lack of ability to precisely define God says much about us and not much about God. Schaeffer makes the point that propositional revelation does not have to be exhaustive to be accurate and that communication between God and man is by necessity going to be dumbed down to our level. that however does not preclude it from being true. I find it interesting that you are using logic to communicate irrationality. If you did otherwise all communication would cease. jhrkjbrokufdghfoieijergnqe8khkduhgiuehfuhfiuhwdfuweuhweouheofehjhdcuhsdoeyhfoiwhfeiowelhopwefoWICLWKEN;QOAIFPQ9WR2IEHFOWYFOHEFILWEFPOIZUEIL;WJEFPWOUE9P[WFPI23HFPI23UFP9UEFP9OWQEFP;O2J'[y "Thus we cannot rationally understand what it means to be both separate and one because such concepts are not subject to rational analysis any more than is the concept of the Trinity in Christian dogma." I disagree that the Trinity is irrational. There are simply three whos and one what, different catagories. Separate and one on the other hand, as you are using the terms are contradictory, and render all distinctions meaningless including the beliefs that you said were true about God. How can there be any "ills that have been done in His name throughout history"? That's the point that I'm making, if what you say is true; there is no "ill" and there can ultimately be no "good", there just is. The pedophile is not doing anything wrong they just "are". You may find that profound, I do not.