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: Greg or e who wrote (27692)	10/21/2009 12:04:46 PM
From: LLCF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

<Words can be used in different ways depending on the context. In this case you are dishonestly using the definitions that have to do with Human beings to answer the question: What is the nature of the Divine being called God. This question came as a direct result of you claiming that the nature of "god" (sic) was an impersonal force while at the same time claiming to be a Christian.> I'm dishonestly doing nothing... YOU are the one circuitously claiming God personal while having nothing to do with 'people'. As seen clearly above. As for 'dishonesty' I did NOT claim an impersonal God... in fact that is WHY I kept asking for your definition. Which makes YOU dishonest. No suprise there though. <You continue to dishonestly claim that the idea that God is personal is my own idea when it is clearly taught in scripture and is the official position of the vast majority of Churches including your own.> But your definition given here is DIFFERNET than that of many Christian web sites and writtings... therefore there IS NO dishonesty, except by you. In fact many theological writings differ themselves. No suprise there. DAK DAK

To: Greg or e who wrote (27692)	10/21/2009 8:12:00 PM
From: Solon	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

"The last 15 min of the first lesson and the first 15 of the second makes the point that the personal nature of God is a distinctively Christian concept." I haven't had a chance to listen to your link but I can tell you that you are flying with a broken wing. Take a look at the thousands of religions and try something novel: THINK FOR YOURSELF. Now as to this nonsense about God: God is merely an idea like the unicorn or the 826-toed sloth that transported people between different universes after they crossed that "REAL" (idea) river Styx?!! :-) God is that idea than which "greater" than we cannot conceive. Given that "greater" no longer has any argumentative force in cosmological terms, we can yet appreciate how it informed the idea of "God". The Greek Pantheon was full of "personal" gods. What would one expect? Their "idea" of god was commensurate with their idea of power or Supremacy. What I call the power to aggrieve or relieve. This does not mean there are not greater beings in this or other universes, places, or times. It just means the idea of God being currently and (religiously) smothered in useless polemics is merely an idea with no evidential value or support of any kind. It is nonsense, pure and simple.