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: Solon who wrote (16547)	3/4/2004 10:38:46 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

This is just an excellent online book by Joseph Lewis. positiveatheism.org

To: Solon who wrote (16547)	3/4/2004 5:48:01 PM
From: briskit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

What I and many others see as absurdities, contradictions, primitive myth-making and contrived Movements, you apparently see as plausible. Could well be the case, depending on what you are talking about. I recently resolved not to stone people or offer animal sacrifices. Is it possible god is relational? I think so. If everything is god, and god did not self-distinguish a place for us to have authentic will and independence, then no relationship is involved. If god is everywhere and every thing, then no relationship to a separate existence is possible. If we have a will and are autonomous to a degree, then if there is a god, there exists not just the possibility, but in fact a necessary relationship between the parties. Would such a god advise relationship to it, and not to relate to material phenomena as god? Makes relative sense to me. It's true that I also believe there is one god. The universe is not a crowded neighborhood with gods galore. We actually had not yet arrived at that point in the discussion. The question was about the possible sources for the New Testament literature. They were said to be completely unhistorical, with no basis in fact, but rather adapted from available mythologies of the time. I doubt that argument withstands careful scrutiny. That was my point of being in this conversation. You are using an argument to discredit the texts which I do not believe will survive careful examination. That's it. Of course, if I were correct about that, you have many other arguments. Again, you are quite reasonable and right in them, and I wouldn't deprive you of those qualities. But the basis of the texts, while not found in Josephus, is certainly not adapted from Mithra, et. al. That is your position, and one in which I place no credence. But I live in Texas with ticks and scorpions too. Please carry on with your position. It's too late to save me, as I am on the wrong side of 50, as well as of intelligence. I'm getting quite used to them all, though I haven't been stung by a scorpion in awhile.