GOD IS A MAN
T.S.Eliot
Jesus said," FATHER why hath you forsaken me" or words to that affect.
Note he did not say MOTHER. All references to God is in the masculine.
Get over it girls.
JENNIFER R CONBOY
I could fill a page showing where almost all the words descbing God(dess)
in the O.T. are either neuter or feminine, but why should I waste my time
on a dork like you?
JENNIFER R CONBOY
BTW, it's "effect", not "affect". remedial grammar might help.
Wanderer
JENNIFER R CONBOY wrote in message ...
>I could fill a page showing where almost all the words descbing God(dess)
>in the O.T. are either neuter or feminine, but why should I waste my time
>on a dork like you?
>
Good for you Jennifer. There is actually more evidence to say that God was
Female until the New Testament, then the Rabbinic traditions melded the
Dominant Roman Gods of Jupiter, etc.
Wanderer
Robert Sheaffer
In article <6ct9vr$7...@europa.centre.edu>,
Balderdash and codswollop.
Can you cite any references to scholarly Judiaic works that proclaim
that 'YHWH was a woman'? ("Womens Studies" crap doesn't count - only
real scholars of religion.)
OF COURSE not. Feminists made up all those lies about a supposed
'Goddess age'. It's not true, (and they *know* it isn't true),
but it is useful, so they keep telling it anyway. See me Web pages
(link below) for information debunking all this Goddess Garbage.
--
Robert Sheaffer - rob...@patriarchy.com - Skeptical to the Max!
Visit my Home Page - http://www.patriarchy.com/~sheaffer
Skeptical Resources Debunking All Manner of Bogus Claims
Also: Opera / Astronomy / Mens Issues / more
Wanderer
You're correct, YHWH isn't female, it's neuter. Elohim on the other hand,
is feninie. And the old testament has many, many more referrences to Elohim
than it does YHWH.
None of the references to God in the old testament are male. They are all
neuter or female.
Bill
Mercutio
All this talk about what words for God were femininine, masculine, or
neuter is nonsense. Are all cats in Spain male (el gato) or all dogs
female (la perra)? The gender of words rarely means anything to anyone
except academic linguists.
God is God. God made man and woman. At least we're not arguing about IF
there is a God!
averti
T.S.Eliot wrote:
>
> Jesus said," FATHER why hath you forsaken me" or words to that affect.
Huh? Some sources record that he said ''Eli! Eli! Lama
Sabachtheni''...OK, I have no idea how to spell the last
word 8). Calling on ''Eli'' refers to Elohim, does it
not (I'm not just out of my depth, I'm getting
the bends)? Which is gender-neutral or feminine.
But then you might be one of those believers who ''knows''
that Jesus was a blue-eyed blonde 8).
> Note he did not say MOTHER. All references to God is in the masculine.
Is they? Well, they is by the time they get passed through
Aramaic, Greek, Latin, and who knows what all else on the
way to the King James version.
> Get over it girls.
Get over yourSELF, nelly 8).
Rich
JENNIFER R CONBOY wrote:
>
> I could fill a page showing where almost all the words descbing God(dess)
> in the O.T. are either neuter or feminine, but why should I waste my time
> on a dork like you?
You did already JENNIFER, why was that?
Rich
> On Mon, 23 Feb 1998, T.S.Eliot wrote:
>
> > Jesus said," FATHER why hath you forsaken me" or words to that affect.
> > Note he did not say MOTHER. All references to God is in the masculine.
> > Get over it girls.
> >
> >
Walt Horning
ja...@willdo.com (T.S.Eliot) wrote:
>Jesus said," FATHER why hath you forsaken me" or words to that affect.
>Note he did not say MOTHER. All references to God is in the masculine.
>Get over it girls.
The intention was not primarily a sexual orientation, but that of an
authority orientation. Since the Bible supports the husband as "head"
of the household concept, the concept of God as "head" of the human
race is the intent of God being the Father of the human race and thus
having authority over it.
A lessor aspect of this is more related to sexual orientation in that
man was created first, in God's image. Hence, since men are male, it
implies some kind of male attribute to God.
While God may not have male genitals, per se, if he has "planted" life
forms throughout the universe, not just Earth, in a sense he "plants"
his "seed". Man in the human sexual experience is the one who "plants"
the "seed". Hence, the parrallel of the male oriented "planter".
Also, if one looks into the root of the word father, in several
languages, it really implies a being who is a "caretaker" who does so
in a loving and kind way, much as an articulate gardner oversees his
garden. However, humans are thought of as worth more than vegetation.
The classic example of course is the shepard watching over the flock.
In conclusion, while there are male oriented aspects implied in the
Bible, the primary orientation of Father is that of authority.
Emma
Rich admitted he is a dork:
Michael R. Swihart
In article <6ctd0c$7...@europa.centre.edu>,
??? In Hebrew elohim is a masculine word. At least the verbs
that are used with it are put into the masculine form. For example,
it is "bereshit bara (bet resh aleph) elohim", bara being the past
tense, singular, masculine form of the verb.
Further, it should be noted that the pronoun used for elohim is
hu, the third person, singular, masculine form not hi, the third person
singular, femine form.
(It is similar w/ YHVH.)
Whether this is significant is another matter, since all words in
Hebrew have a gender. Rocks, tables, trees, telephones, etc., all have
a gender.
(Which does bring up the point that I have no idea how one can have a
neuter term. How do you conjugate the verbs and construct the adjectives for
such a word?)
M.Swihart
Michael R. Swihart
In article <34f49b2...@news.pipeline.com>,
Walt Horning <whor...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>A lessor aspect of this is more related to sexual orientation in that
>man was created first, in God's image. Hence, since men are male, it
>implies some kind of male attribute to God.
It says that God made them, male and female, in his image.
So, there are either both male and female attributes to God,
or the whole image thing is refering to characteristics that belong
to both men and women and so are not gendered.
M.Swihart
courtney saffron donovan
excuse me, but did you know God? did he tell you personally that he was a
man? no. then you don't know that any more than we do that God is a woman.
i don't know what God is. maybe he's genderless
T.S.Eliot <ja...@willdo.com> wrote in article
<MPG.f5b8d533...@news.snet.net>...
Angilion
On Tue, 24 Feb 1998 00:01:04 -0500, "Wanderer" <crem...@centre.edu>
wrote:
>You're correct, YHWH isn't female, it's neuter. Elohim on the other hand,
>is feninie. And the old testament has many, many more referrences to Elohim
>than it does YHWH.
I thought Elohim was neuter plural? Was I completely wrong?
>None of the references to God in the old testament are male. They are all
>neuter or female.
It's all a silly idea anyway. This entity created all things that
exist. They know all. Their power is limitless. Is it even
remotely possible that they *couldn't* change sex if they
felt like it? Or be incorporeal? Or hermaphroditic? Or any
number of things we couldn't even understand, let alone
label? This is God we're talking about, not Batman or somesuch thing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A WAR, | Prejudice can play no part in equality |
| IT'S NOT A CASE OF EITHER/OR! | |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Angilion (The Metaphorical Aardvark) email: ua...@cr47c.staffs.ac.uk |
| |
| I protest against the attempts to excessively censor the net |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
jshe...@accessone.com
In article <01bd4250$25723320$LocalHost@courtney>,
1. This is not alt.religion 2. The idea of a "god" having a need for sex
[organs] is absurd. 3. The Bible was written by men, not women, nor by
EVERYBODY--at a time when Patriarchal social organization was very
strong...and then it was translated several times.... Getting stuck on
wording is equally as absurd as god having a "dick".(See #2.) All of this
begs the question: "Is it of any importance whatever?" Jan
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
jshe...@accessone.com
In article <01bd4250$25723320$LocalHost@courtney>,
"courtney saffron donovan" <cour...@netease.net> wrote:
>
> excuse me, but did you know God? did he tell you personally that he was a
> man? no. then you don't know that any more than we do that God is a woman.
> i don't know what God is. maybe he's genderless
>
> T.S.Eliot <ja...@willdo.com> wrote in article
> <MPG.f5b8d533...@news.snet.net>...
> > Jesus said," FATHER why hath you forsaken me" or words to that affect.
> > Note he did not say MOTHER. All references to God is in the masculine.
> > Get over it girls.
> >
1. This is not alt.religion 2. The idea of a "god" having a need for sex
is absurd. 3. The Bible was written by men, not women, nor by
EVERYBODY--at a time when Patriarchal social organization was very
strong...and then it was translated several times.... Getting stuck on
wording is equally as absurd as god having a "dick".(See #2.) All of this
begs the question: "Is it of any importance wha
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
kamaruljaman
courtney saffron donovan wrote:
>
> excuse me, but did you know God? did he tell you personally that he was a
> man? no. then you don't know that any more than we do that God is a woman.
> i don't know what God is. maybe he's genderless
>
> T.S.Eliot <ja...@willdo.com> wrote in article
> <MPG.f5b8d533...@news.snet.net>...
> > Jesus said," FATHER why hath you forsaken me" or words to that affect.
> > Note he did not say MOTHER. All references to God is in the masculine.
> > Get over it girls.
there is no such thing as male or female
the term male /female is for all things created
m\f is for reproductiun only
god does not reproduce
janet
In article <sheafferE...@netcom.com>, Robert Sheaffer
<shea...@netcom.com> writes
>In article <6ct9vr$7...@europa.centre.edu>,
>Wanderer <crem...@centre.edu> wrote:
>>
>>JENNIFER R CONBOY wrote in message ...
>>>in the O.T. are either neuter or feminine, but why should I waste my time
>>>on a dork like you?
>>>
>>Female until the New Testament, then the Rabbinic traditions melded the
>>Dominant Roman Gods of Jupiter, etc.
>
>Balderdash and codswollop.
>
>Can you cite any references to scholarly Judiaic works that proclaim
>that 'YHWH was a woman'? ("Womens Studies" crap doesn't count - only
>real scholars of religion.)
>
No one said YHWH was a man, either...
But I do think perhaps a dip into the wisdom literature might interest
you...
--
janet
Time bears away all things, even the mind....
Virgil
Ryan
>>Jesus said," FATHER why hath you forsaken me" or words to that affect.
>>Note he did not say MOTHER. All references to God is in the masculine.
>>Get over it girls.
You are absolutely right. God is reffered to as a male. This just
reinforces the idea that god was created by men and for men. In reality
there is no man in the sky who listens to our prayers and intervenes in our
lives.
Paul Robbins
Interesting suggestion. I've never done enough research on this to
determine if such an examination would reveal what was proposed above.
But YHWH itself certainly suggests that YHWH intended a more universal
concept than that God is either male or female. I tend to believe He/She
is both. Of course, if you're painting the Cistine chapel, you've got to
make a choice.
Paul R
janet
In article <6dji8e$2qe$3...@gte2.gte.net>, Paul Robbins
<prob...@dbintellect.com> writes
>> No one said YHWH was a woman.
>>
>> No one said YHWH was a man, either...
>>
>> But I do think perhaps a dip into the wisdom literature might interest
>> you...
>>
>
>Interesting suggestion. I've never done enough research on this to
>determine if such an examination would reveal what was proposed above.
>
I don't have the original languages, and at this stage, and not going to
learn them, either! :)
But the Wisdom literature bears reading...
If you are using a "Protestant" Bible, though, some of the books may
well not be there...
The Jerusalem Bible tends to have them, though, and is one recommended
by people who DO have the languages...
>But YHWH itself certainly suggests that YHWH intended a more universal
>concept than that God is either male or female.
True.
In fact, I think the assignment of a gender to YHWH would have smacked
of making images, really...
But then, the human mind WORKS in images, and assuming, from the pov of
those who were involved in the early years of the bible, that God
created the human mind, the creator would know that...
But yes, I agree.
It is a tenet of much theology that there can be no limits to God.
(That does NOT pertain to all theology, not even to all Christian
theology, I think). If God is male, then "he" can not be female, and
vice versa: those are limits.
>I tend to believe He/She
>is both.
I'm not sure, cause I still think that is limiting.
Another tenet, (ok, my training is in scholastic theology, does it
show?) :) of some theology is that God is ultimately "simple": eg,
there are no divisions in God.
That means that being male/female wouldn't work, (under that system)
because that is a division.
Aristophanes tells a story, (acc. to Plato) that humanity was originally
created whole, as a two backed beast, and the gods struck us apart out
of jealousy for our happiness... Maybe the divine is something like
that undifferentiated whole...?
> Of course, if you're painting the Cistine chapel, you've got to
>make a choice.
Grin......
Paul Robbins
Yeah, but can you capture that on a Polaroid? :)
More seriously, the difficulty of the human mind is that it does think
in images and ideas, as you note, so even saying God is male and female
can be problematic, as you also note.
So do you still keep up with the Scholastics. It's been a while since I
read Anselm.
> > Of course, if you're painting the Cistine chapel, you've got to
> >make a choice.
>
> Grin......
>
On a humorous note, an acquaintance, not too well-versed, was telling us
about their upcoming trip to Italy where she hoped to see the
"Sixteenth" chapel. We all had to sit there and not burst out laughing.
Michael R. Swihart
In article <uxRAWIALyk$0E...@allestree.demon.co.uk>,
janet <ja...@allestree.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <6dji8e$2qe$3...@gte2.gte.net>, Paul Robbins
><prob...@dbintellect.com> writes
>>> No one said YHWH was a woman.
>>>
>>> No one said YHWH was a man, either...
>>>
>>> But I do think perhaps a dip into the wisdom literature might interest
>>> you...
>>
>>Interesting suggestion. I've never done enough research on this to
>>determine if such an examination would reveal what was proposed above.
>
>I don't have the original languages, and at this stage, and not going to
>learn them, either! :)
FWIW In the wisdom literature (and in Hebrew in general)
hochmah = wisdom is feminine (nikevah).
>>But YHWH itself certainly suggests that YHWH intended a more universal
>>concept than that God is either male or female.
>
>True.
?
How so?
YHVH is masculine (zachar).
(That's why the shema says that God is echad, not achat.)
All names in Hebrew are either masculine
or feminine. In fact, all nouns are masculine or feminine, rather
like Spanish. Verbs and adjectives are modified to fit nouns, so one
has to know if a noun is masculine or feminine to be able to use it in
a sentence.
This does not imply that the gender of a word always tells one something
about the object or person being refer to.
(For example, war (milchamah) is feminine in Hebrew. This doesn't
mean war itself somehow has a gender, or that it is somehow a feminine
undertaking. Sometimes way too much is read into mere grammar.)
M.Swihart
janet
In article <6dmsnt$n8o$1...@gte2.gte.net>, Paul Robbins
<prob...@dbintellect.com> writes
>Yeah, but can you capture that on a Polaroid? :)
>
I don't think so!
Unless, of course, one decides to say that the deity is in all of us,
hmmmm... :)
>More seriously, the difficulty of the human mind is that it does think
>in images and ideas, as you note, so even saying God is male and female
>can be problematic, as you also note.
>
>So do you still keep up with the Scholastics. It's been a while since I
>read Anselm.
I *like* Anselm!!
I don't BUY it, not overly surprisingly, but I like it!
And I should reread him, too...
I keep up with them sometimes... when I get a chance, and when I need
to, but not enough!
>
>> > Of course, if you're painting the Cistine chapel, you've got to
>> >make a choice.
>>
>> Grin......
>>
>
>On a humorous note, an acquaintance, not too well-versed, was telling us
>about their upcoming trip to Italy where she hoped to see the
>"Sixteenth" chapel. We all had to sit there and not burst out laughing.
Well, on any given day, it COULD be the sixteenth! :)
I used to be a tour guide in St. Peter's, and we'd get a constant stream
of glassy-eyed tourists, who were all "churched and museumed" out...
they'd try to see it all, and do it all, in a couple of days. But the
sad part is, they might well not remember very much when they got home!
Which is why, when I took him to the Academy, I rushed my (then very
new) husband through to the David, without letting him look at much
else: THEN we went back through, another day, to see all the rest...
You can overdose on art, I think! :)
Rich
janet wrote:
>
> In article <6dmsnt$n8o$1...@gte2.gte.net>, Paul Robbins
> <prob...@dbintellect.com> writes
> >Yeah, but can you capture that on a Polaroid? :)
>
> Since I tended to take pictures of my feet, or hands, with those things,
> I don't think so!
But you can photograph yourself, right?
Suppose that god granted you the magical ability to point a camera,
any camera, polaroid, plate, camera obscura, brownie 626, 35MM SLR,
35MM point and shoot, instametic, minox, a spy camera, an ariel camera,
a satellite camera, a digital camera, twin lens reflex, or even a disk
camera, could you take god's picture? (note, I am assuming the source
of the above remark, but my question stands even if I assume wrong)
<oh yes, I omitted several camera types, could not remember the exact
names, apologies, add them in if needed>
> Unless, of course, one decides to say that the deity is in all of us,
> hmmmm... :)
There's a song about that. But this is not the Christian or Catholic god,
and that is the object of my question.
BTW, from RAH, "thou art god", my martian is bad and I could not check
the translation.
< Anselm? >
Rich
janet
In article <34FF458D...@earthlink.net>, Rich
<pay...@earthlink.net> writes
>janet wrote:
>>
>> In article <6dmsnt$n8o$1...@gte2.gte.net>, Paul Robbins
>> <prob...@dbintellect.com> writes
>> >Yeah, but can you capture that on a Polaroid? :)
>>
>> Since I tended to take pictures of my feet, or hands, with those things,
>> I don't think so!
>
>But you can photograph yourself, right?
>
>Suppose that god granted you the magical ability to point a camera,
>any camera, polaroid, plate, camera obscura, brownie 626, 35MM SLR,
>35MM point and shoot, instametic, minox, a spy camera, an ariel camera,
>a satellite camera, a digital camera, twin lens reflex, or even a disk
>camera, could you take god's picture?
"God" defined as the creator God, no, I don't think I could: bodies,
material things: these are limits, and I've said before that I don't
think God has any of those... (does this belong on alt.fem., btw?)
"God" defined as the Son of God, (remember where I am coming from...),
yes, I think I could, but then, again, that's not really germain to
here...
And of course, considering the "whatsoever you do" to anyone else is
thought to have been done to God...
>
>> Unless, of course, one decides to say that the deity is in all of us,
>> hmmmm... :)
>
>There's a song about that. But this is not the Christian or Catholic god,
>and that is the object of my question.
>
But that's what my God IS, Rich... I've tried to be very careful and
limit it, because I do NOT wish to pontificate about other
sects/groups/faiths...
Not for me to do
And why is it not about those gods?
If this is about ancient judaism, all ANY of us can do is speculate,
(unless some of us are as old as I feel at the moment...) :)
>BTW, from RAH, "thou art god", my martian is bad and I could not check
>the translation.
?
>
>< Anselm? >
Grin...
Do you like logical conundrums? (That's a question...).
Anselm wrote a tract a LONG time ago, "proving" that there is a god, by
the way that term is defined... it's fun, but it is NOT a proof of God,
any more than the ones Aquinas wrote: they all work for some people, but
they are hardly convincing to all...
Rich
janet wrote:
>
> In article <34FF458D...@earthlink.net>, Rich
> <pay...@earthlink.net> writes
> >janet wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <6dmsnt$n8o$1...@gte2.gte.net>, Paul Robbins
> >> <prob...@dbintellect.com> writes
> >> >Yeah, but can you capture that on a Polaroid? :)
> >>
> >> Since I tended to take pictures of my feet, or hands, with those things,
> >> I don't think so!
> >
> >But you can photograph yourself, right?
> >
> >Suppose that god granted you the magical ability to point a camera,
> >any camera, polaroid, plate, camera obscura, brownie 626, 35MM SLR,
> >35MM point and shoot, instametic, minox, a spy camera, an ariel camera,
> >a satellite camera, a digital camera, twin lens reflex, or even a disk
> >camera, could you take god's picture?
> []
>
> "God" defined as the creator God, no, I don't think I could: bodies,
> material things: these are limits,
Ever seen a rainbow? I've even got a photo of a triple rainbow.
A rainbow is not a "physical thing" however, heck, it only has one side.
> and I've said before that I don't
> think God has any of those... (does this belong on alt.fem., btw?)
You need to correlate the concepts of infinite and the concepts of
"nothing" for me then. Either god exists, and matter and energy can
both be detected, or god does not exist, and, risking a double
negative, nothing cannot be detected.
> "God" defined as the Son of God, (remember where I am coming from...),
Planet Rebook?? :^}
> yes, I think I could, but then, again, that's not really germain to
> here...
Are you saying then that Jesus, who you also say is god, could be
photographed then?
> And of course, considering the "whatsoever you do" to anyone else is
> thought to have been done to God...
Is god afraid that taking it's picture will steal it's soul?
> >> Unless, of course, one decides to say that the deity is in all of us,
> >> hmmmm... :)
> >
> >There's a song about that. But this is not the Christian or Catholic god,
> >and that is the object of my question.
>
> But that's what my God IS, Rich...
The song, which I could not recall the name of last post is called,
"What if god is one of us", or at least that is the tag line. Tis a
rather pretty song, although I would imagine some religions might find
it offensive.
> I've tried to be very careful and
> limit it, because I do NOT wish to pontificate about other
> sects/groups/faiths...
I have not asked you to do so. But if we limit ourselves to what we
know well, we have little to talk about and stop growing.
> Not for me to do
How is it that you always limit and re-direct discussion in such a
fashion and in many threads the substance is eventually deleted and
all we have left is talk about talk?
> And why is it not about those gods?
Other gods? Is that not at odds with Catholic dogma, that there is
only one god? How do you reconcile this with talking about other gods,
as opposed to talking about other beliefs?
> If this is about ancient judaism, all ANY of us can do is speculate,
> (unless some of us are as old as I feel at the moment...) :)
Could YAWAH be photographed?
> >BTW, from RAH, "thou art god", my martian is bad and I could not check
> >the translation.
>
> ?
Robert Heinlien, nevermind. < in my best Gilda Radner impression>
> >< Anselm? >
>
> Grin...
>
> Do you like logical conundrums? (That's a question...).
Had three for breakfest, but got tied into a gordian knot and was late
for work.
> Anselm wrote a tract a LONG time ago, "proving" that there is a god, by
> the way that term is defined... it's fun, but it is NOT a proof of God,
You'd be surprised how many people use this circular logic. Someone I have
mentioned many times in the past would look at a tree and say that it
proved that god exists. It is usually pointless to discuss logic with
anyone who makes such a comment, and I tend to think that many prople
hear such things in church. I find it amusing when you post that dogma
can lead to thought, as in my observation it always shuts it down.
> any more than the ones Aquinas wrote: they all work for some people, but
> they are hardly convincing to all...
They convince lots and lots of people janet. I've had the <errr> dubious
pleasure of attempting to discuss it with many of them.
Rich
> janet
>
> Tim bears away all things, even the mind....
> Virgid
Rich
janet wrote:
>
> In article <35007B5B...@earthlink.net>, Rich
> <pay...@earthlink.net> writes
> >janet wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <34FF458D...@earthlink.net>, Rich
> >> <pay...@earthlink.net> writes
> >> >janet wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> In article <6dmsnt$n8o$1...@gte2.gte.net>, Paul Robbins
> >> >> <prob...@dbintellect.com> writes
> >> >> >Yeah, but can you capture that on a Polaroid? :)
> >> >>
> >> >> Since I tended to take pictures of my feet, or hands, with those things,
> >> >> I don't think so!
> >> >
> >> >But you can photograph yourself, right?
> >> >
> >> >Suppose that god granted you the magical ability to point a camera,
> >> >any camera, polaroid, plate, camera obscura, brownie 626, 35MM SLR,
> >> >35MM point and shoot, instametic, minox, a spy camera, an ariel camera,
> >> >a satellite camera, a digital camera, twin lens reflex, or even a disk
> >> >camera, could you take god's picture?
> >> []
> >>
> >> "God" defined as the creator God, no, I don't think I could: bodies,
> >> material things: these are limits,
> >
> >Ever seen a rainbow? I've even got a photo of a triple rainbow.
> >A rainbow is not a "physical thing" however, heck, it only has one side.
>
> getting more and more off topic as we go! :)
Off topic, in alt.feminism? Whatever is the world coming to? :^}
Point made: physical existence is not a prerequisite for being photographed.
Response: none.
> >> and I've said before that I don't
> >> think God has any of those... (does this belong on alt.fem., btw?)
> >
> >You need to correlate the concepts of infinite and the concepts of
> >"nothing" for me then. Either god exists, and matter and energy can
> >both be detected, or god does not exist, and, risking a double
> >negative, nothing cannot be detected.
>
> Rich, can you detect love?
Actually, I can tell when I am in love, which seems to fit your bill.
> Where is the energy and matter in that?
Are you kidding? Love is a state of matter. No matter, no love.
<>
> >> yes, I think I could, but then, again, that's not really germain to
> >> here...
> >
> >Are you saying then that Jesus, who you also say is god, could be
> >photographed then?
>
> Remember where I'm coming from, and what the beleifs of my church are,
> about things like transubstantiation...
Why? And do you really believe in cannibalism?
> Yes, I am saying just that, but not, I think, in the way that you THINK
> I might be saying it.
Explain.
> Further, let me say that having a picture of god is in no way important
> for me...
Well gee, Christians, including Catholics seem to have images and statues
of Jesus all over the place, usually bleeding. Seems an odd thing if images
are not important. And what was that commandment about graven images?
> >> And of course, considering the "whatsoever you do" to anyone else is
> >> thought to have been done to God...
> >
> >Is god afraid that taking it's picture will steal it's soul?
>
> Nooooo.... theological conundrum, there...
Or perhaps god is just on vacation or somesuch?
> Theory, (can we take it as read, that I am talking about the theory from
> where I am coming from, and NOT insisting that anyone else buy
> it/beleive it/whatever...?) (thanks...) says that god is ultimately
> simple.
Then I, being ultimately simple, should be able to understand god, right?
Finally got some of the nuances of mainframe disk management straight today,
now it's simple. Who'd have guessed I'd ever be doing such a thing. I
do like the error message "vary rejected" however. :^}
> That means, that whereas you and I can say, "This is my love, this is my
> foot, this is me being angry or hungry", such divisions just do not
> exist in god.
Why not? In the OT we have an angry vengeful god, seems these divisions
are very real, no? And if god is prefect, god cannot change, so the divisions
must still exist, right?
> When one says, "God is love", one speaks the literal truth:
I'd question that, in human terms, love is being there. No one can love
by proxy or by putting out a popular book. If god loves me, where is god?
Keep in mind that love is a human concept, if god loves, it must be love
in human terms.
> god does not
> "love" in the way that I do, because love is not the totality of what I
> am...
You are splitting concepts, and aspects, and it does not work. A god that
is literal love does not destroy all life on earth but one love-boat full.
There are many other instances of god showing everything but love.
> god, however, has only essence,
Essence must equal something. Love is a state of matter, where does this
lead us?
> no accidents, (speaking creator
> god here...) if that makes sense?
Not really.
> God *is* love, and mercy and justice,
> and I know, I know, those last two can NOT be combined in the human
> psyche...
Nor can they be derived from the OT. Are you saying that the OT is wrong?
> >> >> Unless, of course, one decides to say that the deity is in all of us,
> >> >> hmmmm... :)
> >> >
> >> >There's a song about that. But this is not the Christian or Catholic god,
> >> >and that is the object of my question.
> >>
>
> What if God were one of us, just a stranger on a bus,
> Just a slob like one of us...?
You've heard it then.
> I really like that song, but it paints a very sad picture, with only the
> "pope in rome" calling god on the phone...
So?
> (you could try www.vatican.com... I kid you not....)
I'll take a look.
> >> But that's what my God IS, Rich...
> >
> >The song, which I could not recall the name of last post is called,
> >"What if god is one of us", or at least that is the tag line. Tis a
> >rather pretty song, although I would imagine some religions might find
> >it offensive.
>
> Oh, I would imagine so... I've never heard anyone complain, which may
> well just mean I haven't been listening!
But oddly, it seemed to be what you were saying above somewhere, which
would seem at odds with your stated religion.
> >> I've tried to be very careful and
> >> limit it, because I do NOT wish to pontificate about other
> >> sects/groups/faiths...
> >
> >I have not asked you to do so.
>
> I know. Call it caution: there are just so MANY fundamentalists who
> come in to all sorts of ng and say, "This is what you HAVE to beleive!!"
> that I fall all over myself making it clear that I am not doing that...
Do I -have- to believe that? :^}
> > But if we limit ourselves to what we
> >know well, we have little to talk about and stop growing.
>
> Agreed!
>
> Which is why I spend so much time discussing things like this in places
> that might not be expected, and with people from very different paths: I
> learn a LOT more from them... :)
Not me. :^P
> >> Not for me to do
> >
> >How is it that you always limit and re-direct discussion in such a
> >fashion and in many threads the substance is eventually deleted and
> >all we have left is talk about talk?
>
> I don't mean to do that, Rich, I really don't.
>
> I don't mean to limit in any way what you say, or what I say.
>
> What I DO mean to limit is any suggestion that I am preaching, or trying
> to enforce my religious views! If we take that as read, though, I will
> try and stop limiting things! OK?
If I ask you a question, don't I have some expectation to an answer to the
question (even if it is "get lost") rather than a sermon about something
else? Cause that is what I end up getting. Remember when I posted that a
discussion requires that both people talk about the same thing at the same
time? I seem to recall your agreeing.
> >> And why is it not about those gods?
> >
> >Other gods? Is that not at odds with Catholic dogma, that there is
> >only one god? How do you reconcile this with talking about other gods,
> >as opposed to talking about other beliefs?
>
> Um, I've lost track of what I was saying about other gods...
>
> Yes, of course it is at odds with catholic dogma. I wouldn't talk about
> how I see other gods, (although I am more than happy to discuss with
> other people how THEY see them...).
That did not seem to be what you were saying above, which is why I questioned
it.
> Perhaps it would be better to talk about "beliefs about other gods"...
> it's me falling over trying not to seem to put anyone ELSE'S beleifs
> down...
There is an essential conflict between supporting Catholic dogma and being PC.
> >> If this is about ancient judaism, all ANY of us can do is speculate,
> >> (unless some of us are as old as I feel at the moment...) :)
> >
> >Could YAWAH be photographed?
>
> Um, my first and gut reaction is: no.
But is not YAWAH the same god which was Jesus, who you claim could be
photographed, even though we prolly mean something different? :^}
> I doubt it very much, cause there was never much of a physical
> manifestation: clouds and pillars of fire, but I think the text was
> always careful to say that God was IN those, not that god WAS those...
Is not Jesus a physical manifestation?
> >> >BTW, from RAH, "thou art god", my martian is bad and I could not check
> >> >the translation.
> >>
> >> ?
> >
> >Robert Heinlien, nevermind. < in my best Gilda Radner impression>
>
> Ah, I get the picture... although I do not grok it completely...
Been waiting for the dictionary to come out. But you know martians,
never in a hurry.
> >> >< Anselm? >
> >>
> >> Grin...
> >>
> >> Do you like logical conundrums? (That's a question...).
> >
> >Had three for breakfest, but got tied into a gordian knot and was late
> >for work.
>
> Ouch! Knots just after breakfast!! Have tyou tried more fibre???
Not!
> >> Anselm wrote a tract a LONG time ago, "proving" that there is a god, by
> >> the way that term is defined... it's fun, but it is NOT a proof of God,
> >
> >You'd be surprised how many people use this circular logic. Someone I have
> >mentioned many times in the past would look at a tree and say that it
> >proved that god exists.
>
> Grin... the only people I know who do that follow a REALLY different
> path to mine, but I have heard it many times... It works for those for
> whom it works.
If you can call that working.
> The huge mistake is to confuse faith with logic.
And a common one, by my observation.
> If it were possible to prove the tenets of faith, they would not be the
> tenets of *faith*!
Why is faith necessary were this loving god to exist?
> They should be logically consistent, but that's a different thing...
Indeed.
> > It is usually pointless to discuss logic with
> >anyone who makes such a comment, and I tend to think that many prople
> >hear such things in church.
>
> Probably, although I haven't heard it in mine...
Not even indirectly, as an unstated premise?
> >I find it amusing when you post that dogma
> >can lead to thought, as in my observation it always shuts it down.
>
> Grin... it can do both!
Example?
> The point about dogma is to teach, and to me teaching is ABOUT thought,
> but there are those who are really frightened of it.
But dogma is not necessary to teach. Nor do I think it conducive to
learning.
> I call it the Wiley E Coyote idea of faith: you know how he never falls
> off a cliff till he realises that he's standing on thin air? Well, it
> seems to me that a lot of people are afraid to look to see if their
> faith holds up to thought, cause they are afraid that it might not!
Then perhaps they are wise to do so, either that or they really have no
faith and are fooling themselves.
> >> any more than the ones Aquinas wrote: they all work for some people, but
> >> they are hardly convincing to all...
> >
> >They convince lots and lots of people janet. I've had the <errr> dubious
> >pleasure of attempting to discuss it with many of them.
>
> Oh, I know they convince a lot of people, and that's fine for them.
Is it? Is this the result of an infinite god who is all love? Please
explain.
> They don't convince me, but I still beleive in god:
Why?
> I just don't beleive
> because of the "proofs", is all!
If the Christian god exists, and wants to hide, then such a god could
not be found. But in doing so we have many contradictions, destroying
your claim of logical consistency.
> (Grin... and beleive me, catholics are REAL targets for fundamentalists,
> especially FEMINIST catholics who hang out with people who aren't even
> CHRISTIAN!!!) (grin...)
Well good for you I'm not a fundy, right?
Gotta go, early flight tomorrow.
Rich
> >Rich
> >
> >> janet
> >>
> >> Tim bears away all things, even the mind....
> >> Virgid
> >
> ??? How did Virgil get changed to Virgid??? (confused look...)
> --
> janet
>
> Time bears away all things, even the mind....
> Virgil
janet
In article <35007B5B...@earthlink.net>, Rich
<pay...@earthlink.net> writes
>janet wrote:
>>
>> In article <34FF458D...@earthlink.net>, Rich
>> <pay...@earthlink.net> writes
>> >janet wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In article <6dmsnt$n8o$1...@gte2.gte.net>, Paul Robbins
>> >> <prob...@dbintellect.com> writes
>> >> >Yeah, but can you capture that on a Polaroid? :)
>> >>
>> >> Since I tended to take pictures of my feet, or hands, with those things,
>> >> I don't think so!
>> >
>> >But you can photograph yourself, right?
>> >
>> >Suppose that god granted you the magical ability to point a camera,
>> >any camera, polaroid, plate, camera obscura, brownie 626, 35MM SLR,
>> >35MM point and shoot, instametic, minox, a spy camera, an ariel camera,
>> >a satellite camera, a digital camera, twin lens reflex, or even a disk
>> >camera, could you take god's picture?
>> []
>>
>> "God" defined as the creator God, no, I don't think I could: bodies,
>> material things: these are limits,
>
>Ever seen a rainbow? I've even got a photo of a triple rainbow.
>A rainbow is not a "physical thing" however, heck, it only has one side.
>
Yes, but I think this is going to be difficult... and I'm sure it's
getting more and more off topic as we go! :)
>> and I've said before that I don't
>> think God has any of those... (does this belong on alt.fem., btw?)
>
>You need to correlate the concepts of infinite and the concepts of
>"nothing" for me then. Either god exists, and matter and energy can
>both be detected, or god does not exist, and, risking a double
>negative, nothing cannot be detected.
>
Rich, can you detect love?
Where is the energy and matter in that?
>> "God" defined as the Son of God, (remember where I am coming from...),
>
>Planet Rebook?? :^}
;P
>
>> yes, I think I could, but then, again, that's not really germain to
>> here...
>
>Are you saying then that Jesus, who you also say is god, could be
>photographed then?
>
Remember where I'm coming from, and what the beleifs of my church are,
about things like transubstantiation...
Yes, I am saying just that, but not, I think, in the way that you THINK
I might be saying it.
Further, let me say that having a picture of god is in no way important
for me...
>> And of course, considering the "whatsoever you do" to anyone else is
>> thought to have been done to God...
>
>Is god afraid that taking it's picture will steal it's soul?
>
Nooooo.... theological conundrum, there...
Theory, (can we take it as read, that I am talking about the theory from
where I am coming from, and NOT insisting that anyone else buy
it/beleive it/whatever...?) (thanks...) says that god is ultimately
simple.
That means, that whereas you and I can say, "This is my love, this is my
foot, this is me being angry or hungry", such divisions just do not
exist in god.
When one says, "God is love", one speaks the literal truth: god does not
"love" in the way that I do, because love is not the totality of what I
am... god, however, has only essence, no accidents, (speaking creator
god here...) if that makes sense? God *is* love, and mercy and justice,
and I know, I know, those last two can NOT be combined in the human
psyche...
>> >> Unless, of course, one decides to say that the deity is in all of us,
>> >> hmmmm... :)
>> >
>> >There's a song about that. But this is not the Christian or Catholic god,
>> >and that is the object of my question.
>>
What if God were one of us, just a stranger on a bus,
Just a slob like one of us...?
I really like that song, but it paints a very sad picture, with only the
"pope in rome" calling god on the phone...
(you could try www.vatican.com... I kid you not....)
>> But that's what my God IS, Rich...
>
>The song, which I could not recall the name of last post is called,
>"What if god is one of us", or at least that is the tag line. Tis a
>rather pretty song, although I would imagine some religions might find
>it offensive.
Oh, I would imagine so... I've never heard anyone complain, which may
well just mean I haven't been listening!
>
>> I've tried to be very careful and
>> limit it, because I do NOT wish to pontificate about other
>> sects/groups/faiths...
>
>I have not asked you to do so.
I know. Call it caution: there are just so MANY fundamentalists who
come in to all sorts of ng and say, "This is what you HAVE to beleive!!"
that I fall all over myself making it clear that I am not doing that...
> But if we limit ourselves to what we
>know well, we have little to talk about and stop growing.
Agreed!
Which is why I spend so much time discussing things like this in places
that might not be expected, and with people from very different paths: I
learn a LOT more from them... :)
>
>> Not for me to do
>
>How is it that you always limit and re-direct discussion in such a
>fashion and in many threads the substance is eventually deleted and
>all we have left is talk about talk?
I don't mean to do that, Rich, I really don't.
I don't mean to limit in any way what you say, or what I say.
What I DO mean to limit is any suggestion that I am preaching, or trying
to enforce my religious views! If we take that as read, though, I will
try and stop limiting things! OK?
>
>> And why is it not about those gods?
>
>Other gods? Is that not at odds with Catholic dogma, that there is
>only one god? How do you reconcile this with talking about other gods,
>as opposed to talking about other beliefs?
Um, I've lost track of what I was saying about other gods...
Yes, of course it is at odds with catholic dogma. I wouldn't talk about
how I see other gods, (although I am more than happy to discuss with
other people how THEY see them...).
Perhaps it would be better to talk about "beliefs about other gods"...
it's me falling over trying not to seem to put anyone ELSE'S beleifs
down...
>
>> If this is about ancient judaism, all ANY of us can do is speculate,
>> (unless some of us are as old as I feel at the moment...) :)
>
>Could YAWAH be photographed?
Um, my first and gut reaction is: no.
I doubt it very much, cause there was never much of a physical
manifestation: clouds and pillars of fire, but I think the text was
always careful to say that God was IN those, not that god WAS those...
>
>> >BTW, from RAH, "thou art god", my martian is bad and I could not check
>> >the translation.
>>
>> ?
>
>Robert Heinlien, nevermind. < in my best Gilda Radner impression>
Ah, I get the picture... although I do not grok it completely...
>
>> >< Anselm? >
>>
>> Grin...
>>
>> Do you like logical conundrums? (That's a question...).
>
>Had three for breakfest, but got tied into a gordian knot and was late
>for work.
Ouch! Knots just after breakfast!! Have tyou tried more fibre???
>
>> Anselm wrote a tract a LONG time ago, "proving" that there is a god, by
>> the way that term is defined... it's fun, but it is NOT a proof of God,
>
>You'd be surprised how many people use this circular logic. Someone I have
>mentioned many times in the past would look at a tree and say that it
>proved that god exists.
Grin... the only people I know who do that follow a REALLY different
path to mine, but I have heard it many times... It works for those for
whom it works.
The huge mistake is to confuse faith with logic.
If it were possible to prove the tenets of faith, they would not be the
tenets of *faith*!
They should be logically consistent, but that's a different thing...
> It is usually pointless to discuss logic with
>anyone who makes such a comment, and I tend to think that many prople
>hear such things in church.
Probably, although I haven't heard it in mine...
>I find it amusing when you post that dogma
>can lead to thought, as in my observation it always shuts it down.
Grin... it can do both!
The point about dogma is to teach, and to me teaching is ABOUT thought,
but there are those who are really frightened of it.
I call it the Wiley E Coyote idea of faith: you know how he never falls
off a cliff till he realises that he's standing on thin air? Well, it
seems to me that a lot of people are afraid to look to see if their
faith holds up to thought, cause they are afraid that it might not!
>
>> any more than the ones Aquinas wrote: they all work for some people, but
>> they are hardly convincing to all...
>
>They convince lots and lots of people janet. I've had the <errr> dubious
>pleasure of attempting to discuss it with many of them.
Oh, I know they convince a lot of people, and that's fine for them.
They don't convince me, but I still beleive in god: I just don't beleive
because of the "proofs", is all!
(Grin... and beleive me, catholics are REAL targets for fundamentalists,
especially FEMINIST catholics who hang out with people who aren't even
CHRISTIAN!!!) (grin...)
>
mic...@hotmail.com
I don't know what this has got to do with feminism but it was too good to
miss.
In article <35007B5B...@earthlink.net>,
Anonymous, Payne wrote:
>
> janet wrote:
> >
> > In article <34FF458D...@earthlink.net>, Rich
> > <pay...@earthlink.net> writes
> > >janet wrote:
> > >>
> > >> In article <6dmsnt$n8o$1...@gte2.gte.net>, Paul Robbins
> > >> <prob...@dbintellect.com> writes
> > >> >Yeah, but can you capture that on a Polaroid? :)
> > >>
> > >> Since I tended to take pictures of my feet, or hands, with those things,
> > >> I don't think so!
> > >
> > >But you can photograph yourself, right?
> > >
> > >Suppose that god granted you the magical ability to point a camera,
> > >any camera, polaroid, plate, camera obscura, brownie 626, 35MM SLR,
> > >35MM point and shoot, instametic, minox, a spy camera, an ariel camera,
> > >a satellite camera, a digital camera, twin lens reflex, or even a disk
> > >camera, could you take god's picture?
Why surely yes. Since god is omnipresent, or to put it another way god is all,
then in fact _any_ photograph is a photograph of god. Not only that but it's
taken by god using god.
> > "God" defined as the creator God, no, I don't think I could: bodies,
> > material things: these are limits,
>
> Ever seen a rainbow? I've even got a photo of a triple rainbow.
> A rainbow is not a "physical thing" however, heck, it only has one side.
>
> > and I've said before that I don't
> > think God has any of those... (does this belong on alt.fem., btw?)
>
> You need to correlate the concepts of infinite and the concepts of
> "nothing" for me then. Either god exists, and matter and energy can
> both be detected, or god does not exist, and, risking a double
> negative, nothing cannot be detected.
>
> > "God" defined as the Son of God, (remember where I am coming from...),
>
> Planet Rebook?? :^}
>
> > yes, I think I could, but then, again, that's not really germain to
> > here...
>
> Are you saying then that Jesus, who you also say is god, could be
> photographed then?
So we're focusing on Christianity, right?
> > And of course, considering the "whatsoever you do" to anyone else is
> > thought to have been done to God...
>
> Is god afraid that taking it's picture will steal it's soul?
>
> > >> Unless, of course, one decides to say that the deity is in all of us,
> > >> hmmmm... :)
As I was saying above. 'Omnipresent' certainly seems to indicate that, as do
most Christian schools of thought.
> > >There's a song about that. But this is not the Christian or Catholic god,
> > >and that is the object of my question.
> >
> > But that's what my God IS, Rich...
>
> The song, which I could not recall the name of last post is called,
> "What if god is one of us", or at least that is the tag line. Tis a
> rather pretty song, although I would imagine some religions might find
> it offensive.
Especially the 'Just a slob like one of us' line (if memory serves me
correctly).
> > I've tried to be very careful and
> > limit it, because I do NOT wish to pontificate about other
> > sects/groups/faiths...
>
> I have not asked you to do so. But if we limit ourselves to what we
> know well, we have little to talk about and stop growing.
>
> > Not for me to do
>
> How is it that you always limit and re-direct discussion in such a
> fashion and in many threads the substance is eventually deleted and
> all we have left is talk about talk?
Well in the beginning was the word, and the word was with god and the word was
god. What else could you be left with?
> > And why is it not about those gods?
>
> Other gods? Is that not at odds with Catholic dogma, that there is
> only one god? How do you reconcile this with talking about other gods,
> as opposed to talking about other beliefs?
>
> > If this is about ancient judaism, all ANY of us can do is speculate,
> > (unless some of us are as old as I feel at the moment...) :)
>
> Could YAWAH be photographed?
As above if my memory serves me correctly about the omnipresence thing again.
> > >BTW, from RAH, "thou art god", my martian is bad and I could not check
> > >the translation.
> >
> > ?
>
> Robert Heinlien, nevermind. < in my best Gilda Radner impression>
>
> > >< Anselm? >
> >
> > Grin...
> >
> > Do you like logical conundrums? (That's a question...).
>
> Had three for breakfest, but got tied into a gordian knot and was late
> for work.
>
> > Anselm wrote a tract a LONG time ago, "proving" that there is a god, by
> > the way that term is defined... it's fun, but it is NOT a proof of God,
Depends on your standard of proof, the laxity of your definition, whether you
choose to view meaning as a shared construct and the school of logic you
prefer I'd say. Um, among other things. "God must exist cos otherwise what am
I referring to when I say god". That sort of thing.
> You'd be surprised how many people use this circular logic. Someone I have
> mentioned many times in the past would look at a tree and say that it
> proved that god exists. It is usually pointless to discuss logic with
> anyone who makes such a comment, and I tend to think that many prople
> hear such things in church. I find it amusing when you post that dogma
> can lead to thought, as in my observation it always shuts it down.
>
> > any more than the ones Aquinas wrote: they all work for some people, but
> > they are hardly convincing to all...
>
> They convince lots and lots of people janet. I've had the <errr> dubious
> pleasure of attempting to discuss it with many of them.
>
> Rich
>
> > janet
> >
> > Tim bears away all things, even the mind....
> > Virgid
You've met Tim too, huh? Amazing stuff man...
Mick.
janet
In article <3500B406...@earthlink.net>, Rich
<pay...@earthlink.net> writes
>janet wrote:
>>
>> In article <35007B5B...@earthlink.net>, Rich
>> <pay...@earthlink.net> writes
>> >janet wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In article <34FF458D...@earthlink.net>, Rich
>> >> <pay...@earthlink.net> writes
>> >> >janet wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> In article <6dmsnt$n8o$1...@gte2.gte.net>, Paul Robbins
>> >> >> <prob...@dbintellect.com> writes
re: photography of the divine...
>> >>
>> >> "God" defined as the creator God, no, I don't think I could: bodies,
>> >> material things: these are limits,
>> >
>> >Ever seen a rainbow? I've even got a photo of a triple rainbow.
>> >A rainbow is not a "physical thing" however, heck, it only has one side.
>>
>> Yes, but I think this is going to be difficult... and I'm sure it's
>> getting more and more off topic as we go! :)
>
>Off topic, in alt.feminism? Whatever is the world coming to? :^}
>
>Point made: physical existence is not a prerequisite for being photographed.
>
>Response: none.
>
>> >> and I've said before that I don't
>> >> think God has any of those... (does this belong on alt.fem., btw?)
>> >
>> >You need to correlate the concepts of infinite and the concepts of
>> >"nothing" for me then. Either god exists, and matter and energy can
>> >both be detected, or god does not exist, and, risking a double
>> >negative, nothing cannot be detected.
>>
>> Rich, can you detect love?
>
>Actually, I can tell when I am in love, which seems to fit your bill.
Um, no, I actually meant, can you tell when someone loves you?
>
>> Where is the energy and matter in that?
>
>Are you kidding? Love is a state of matter. No matter, no love.
Really?
(That's an honest question...). Can you not love an ideal? Can you not
love someone who is dead?
Do you mean that you need a body to feel love? I don't know about
that...
>
><>
>
>> >> yes, I think I could, but then, again, that's not really germain to
>> >> here...
>> >
>> >Are you saying then that Jesus, who you also say is god, could be
>> >photographed then?
>>
>> Remember where I'm coming from, and what the beleifs of my church are,
>> about things like transubstantiation...
>
>Why? And do you really believe in cannibalism?
Sigh.... see why this isn't germain here? I don't actually want to
talk about transubstantiation on this ng!! But come into my parlour...
grin... bring this up there...
>
>> Yes, I am saying just that, but not, I think, in the way that you THINK
>> I might be saying it.
>
>Explain.
I meant just what I said above: it's tied up with that particular
doctrine.
>
>> Further, let me say that having a picture of god is in no way important
>> for me...
>
>Well gee, Christians, including Catholics seem to have images and statues
>of Jesus all over the place, usually bleeding.
I know.... many of them are gross...
> Seems an odd thing if images
>are not important.
I didn't say that they were not important to OTHERS, but that they are
not important to me.
I don't think that any one, particular image SHOULD be important:
anymore than I think the photos I carry around are actually the people I
love. They are reminders...
>And what was that commandment about graven images?
Grin..... what about it?
Yup, it goes by the board in my patch of the woods, as do a lot of
things from the OT. I'm quite happy to eat a cheeseburger, and shrimp
cocktail, I have no intention of returning home in 2000, or of giving up
my job....
>
>> >> And of course, considering the "whatsoever you do" to anyone else is
>> >> thought to have been done to God...
>> >
>> >Is god afraid that taking it's picture will steal it's soul?
>>
>> Nooooo.... theological conundrum, there...
>
>Or perhaps god is just on vacation or somesuch?
Grin.... you've been reading Pratchett again... and the OhGod of
Hangovers, filling in for other gods...
No, I don't think god is on vacation... where would god GO? :)
>
>> Theory, (can we take it as read, that I am talking about the theory from
>> where I am coming from, and NOT insisting that anyone else buy
>> it/beleive it/whatever...?) (thanks...) says that god is ultimately
>> simple.
>
>Then I, being ultimately simple, should be able to understand god, right?
But you are NOT ultimately simple! You are a composite being, just like
the rest of us.
>Finally got some of the nuances of mainframe disk management straight today,
>now it's simple. Who'd have guessed I'd ever be doing such a thing. I
>do like the error message "vary rejected" however. :^}
Grin.... I try never to reject variance, it's too much fun...
>
>> That means, that whereas you and I can say, "This is my love, this is my
>> foot, this is me being angry or hungry", such divisions just do not
>> exist in god.
>
>Why not? In the OT we have an angry vengeful god, seems these divisions
>are very real, no? And if god is prefect, god cannot change, so the divisions
>must still exist, right?
This is high speculative theology, Rich!
Yes, I would say that god can not change. I would also say that
depictions of god are just that: depictions, mediated through the human
mind and storytelling.
"My lot", if you like, do not take every word in the bible as being
scientifically or historically true, for instance...
>
>> When one says, "God is love", one speaks the literal truth:
>
>I'd question that, in human terms, love is being there. No one can love
>by proxy or by putting out a popular book. If god loves me, where is god?
Here. Omnipresent. In whatever way you like, but ALSO in the presence
of others...
>Keep in mind that love is a human concept,
Wry grin... not from where I am sitting. To me, love is part of the
image of the divine within us.
NOW, (follow, please...) we are created in that image and likeness,
(both of us, not just you qua male, there are TWO stories in
Genesis...). Thus, we are created to be in the image of a being who IS
love... so love is both a human and a divine concept, or thing, or
being-ness... but in approximating the divine, we become more what we
were created to be in the first place, that is, more human...
>if god loves, it must be love
>in human terms.
"Everything is received according to the mode of the receiver": I can
only RECEIVE love in human terms, yes.
>
>> god does not
>> "love" in the way that I do, because love is not the totality of what I
>> am...
>
>You are splitting concepts, and aspects, and it does not work.
I am doing theology, Rich!
Theology is a discipline in search of a language, and always has been.
ANYTHING we say of god is an approximation: if there are no limits to
god, then no words can ever really be applied to the divine....
It's headache making....
> A god that
>is literal love does not destroy all life on earth but one love-boat full.
Agreed.
>There are many other instances of god showing everything but love.
Agreed. See what I said above...
>
>> god, however, has only essence,
>
>Essence must equal something. Love is a state of matter, where does this
>lead us?
It leads us, I think, to a disagreement about what love is.
Can you explain what you mean by "love is a state of matter"?
>
>> no accidents, (speaking creator
>> god here...) if that makes sense?
>
>Not really.
Um, it's not easy... sorry...
Look, your essence is humanity, yes?
Your accidents are things like race, sex, hair and eye colour: the
essence is what you ARE....
>
>> God *is* love, and mercy and justice,
>> and I know, I know, those last two can NOT be combined in the human
>> psyche...
>
>Nor can they be derived from the OT. Are you saying that the OT is wrong?
I'm saying that the OT is divinely inspired, but neither a history nor a
science book.
>
>> >> >> Unless, of course, one decides to say that the deity is in all of us,
>> >> >> hmmmm... :)
>> >> >
>> >> >There's a song about that. But this is not the Christian or Catholic god,
>> >> >and that is the object of my question.
>> >>
>>
>> What if God were one of us, just a stranger on a bus,
>> Just a slob like one of us...?
>
>You've heard it then.
I love it!
>
>> I really like that song, but it paints a very sad picture, with only the
>> "pope in rome" calling god on the phone...
>
>So?
I think it's sad, is all.. poor god!
>
>> (you could try www.vatican.com... I kid you not....)
>
>I'll take a look.
Have fun....
>
>> >> But that's what my God IS, Rich...
>> >
>> >The song, which I could not recall the name of last post is called,
>> >"What if god is one of us", or at least that is the tag line. Tis a
>> >rather pretty song, although I would imagine some religions might find
>> >it offensive.
>>
>> Oh, I would imagine so... I've never heard anyone complain, which may
>> well just mean I haven't been listening!
>
>But oddly, it seemed to be what you were saying above somewhere, which
>would seem at odds with your stated religion.
Pardon? what was at odds with what?
>
>> >> I've tried to be very careful and
>> >> limit it, because I do NOT wish to pontificate about other
>> >> sects/groups/faiths...
>> >
>> >I have not asked you to do so.
>>
>> I know. Call it caution: there are just so MANY fundamentalists who
>> come in to all sorts of ng and say, "This is what you HAVE to beleive!!"
>> that I fall all over myself making it clear that I am not doing that...
>
>Do I -have- to believe that? :^}
No. You are at liberty to beleive that there are no fundamentalist
trolls on any newsgroup whatsoever.
May I show you some waterside property in Idaho, please?
>
>> > But if we limit ourselves to what we
>> >know well, we have little to talk about and stop growing.
>>
>> Agreed!
>>
>> Which is why I spend so much time discussing things like this in places
>> that might not be expected, and with people from very different paths: I
>> learn a LOT more from them... :)
>
>Not me. :^P
Wanna bet?
>
>> >> Not for me to do
>> >
>> >How is it that you always limit and re-direct discussion in such a
>> >fashion and in many threads the substance is eventually deleted and
>> >all we have left is talk about talk?
>>
>> I don't mean to do that, Rich, I really don't.
>>
>> I don't mean to limit in any way what you say, or what I say.
>>
>> What I DO mean to limit is any suggestion that I am preaching, or trying
>> to enforce my religious views! If we take that as read, though, I will
>> try and stop limiting things! OK?
>
>If I ask you a question, don't I have some expectation to an answer to the
>question (even if it is "get lost") rather than a sermon about something
>else?
Yes, but you are not necessarily the only one who will read the answer!
>Cause that is what I end up getting. Remember when I posted that a
>discussion requires that both people talk about the same thing at the same
>time? I seem to recall your agreeing.
And I still agree....
>
>> >> And why is it not about those gods?
>> >
>> >Other gods? Is that not at odds with Catholic dogma, that there is
>> >only one god? How do you reconcile this with talking about other gods,
>> >as opposed to talking about other beliefs?
>>
>> Um, I've lost track of what I was saying about other gods...
>>
>> Yes, of course it is at odds with catholic dogma. I wouldn't talk about
>> how I see other gods, (although I am more than happy to discuss with
>> other people how THEY see them...).
>
>That did not seem to be what you were saying above, which is why I questioned
>it.
Grin... I am NOT the be all and end all of catholic dogma! :)
But just because I do not agree with, or beleive something, is no reason
for me not to discuss it.
>
>> Perhaps it would be better to talk about "beliefs about other gods"...
>> it's me falling over trying not to seem to put anyone ELSE'S beleifs
>> down...
>
>There is an essential conflict between supporting Catholic dogma and being PC.
Grin..... I'm not trying to be PC, I'm trying to put into practice
things about "judge not..." and "look to the log in one's own eye..."
and "they'll know you are my followers by your love..." sort of thing...
>
>> >> If this is about ancient judaism, all ANY of us can do is speculate,
>> >> (unless some of us are as old as I feel at the moment...) :)
>> >
>> >Could YAWAH be photographed?
>>
>> Um, my first and gut reaction is: no.
>
>But is not YAWAH the same god which was Jesus, who you claim could be
>photographed, even though we prolly mean something different? :^}
Grin......
Yes, I would say it is the same god.
But I would also say that my human *understanding* of that god would be
severly at odds with that of someone who thought of that god in the
terms of the Hebrew OT.
>
>> I doubt it very much, cause there was never much of a physical
>> manifestation: clouds and pillars of fire, but I think the text was
>> always careful to say that God was IN those, not that god WAS those...
>
>Is not Jesus a physical manifestation?
Yes, sorry, I was answering from the POV of the OT...
>
>> >> >BTW, from RAH, "thou art god", my martian is bad and I could not check
>> >> >the translation.
>> >>
>> >> ?
>> >
>> >Robert Heinlien, nevermind. < in my best Gilda Radner impression>
>>
>> Ah, I get the picture... although I do not grok it completely...
>
>Been waiting for the dictionary to come out. But you know martians,
>never in a hurry.
Really? I seem to recall one bustling about, complaining of being
"busy, busy, busy... " and a new road coming through RIGHT where the
earth was...
>
>> >> >< Anselm? >
>> >>
>> >> Grin...
>> >>
>> >> Do you like logical conundrums? (That's a question...).
>> >
>> >Had three for breakfest, but got tied into a gordian knot and was late
>> >for work.
>>
>> Ouch! Knots just after breakfast!! Have tyou tried more fibre???
>
>Not!
Oh, well, happy knots, then! :)
>
>> >> Anselm wrote a tract a LONG time ago, "proving" that there is a god, by
>> >> the way that term is defined... it's fun, but it is NOT a proof of God,
>> >
>> >You'd be surprised how many people use this circular logic. Someone I have
>> >mentioned many times in the past would look at a tree and say that it
>> >proved that god exists.
>>
>> Grin... the only people I know who do that follow a REALLY different
>> path to mine, but I have heard it many times... It works for those for
>> whom it works.
>
>If you can call that working.
I do, if it works for them.
It's not up to me to police the beliefs of others.
>
>> The huge mistake is to confuse faith with logic.
>
>And a common one, by my observation.
nss
>
>> If it were possible to prove the tenets of faith, they would not be the
>> tenets of *faith*!
>
>Why is faith necessary were this loving god to exist?
>
Because the babel fish got lost in the shower...
Do you mean why didn't this loving god give us absolute proof of the
existence of the divine?
I don't know... I mean, I know lots of answers to that, which have been
given, but I don't know which is the right one, and I don't buy any of
them.
>> They should be logically consistent, but that's a different thing...
>
>Indeed.
>
>> > It is usually pointless to discuss logic with
>> >anyone who makes such a comment, and I tend to think that many prople
>> >hear such things in church.
>>
>> Probably, although I haven't heard it in mine...
>
>Not even indirectly, as an unstated premise?
Not that I have noticed, and I am pretty careful about preaching I
hear... but even Homer nods...
>
>> >I find it amusing when you post that dogma
>> >can lead to thought, as in my observation it always shuts it down.
>>
>> Grin... it can do both!
>
>Example?
Well, the church seems to have spent about 500 years working out the
implications of the dogma of the incarnation, for one thing...
Take, on another idea, the dogma, (teaching) of the dignity of human
life.
That leads to all KINDS of thought: about working conditions, about
death, about all sorts of things.
>
>> The point about dogma is to teach, and to me teaching is ABOUT thought,
>> but there are those who are really frightened of it.
>
>But dogma is not necessary to teach. Nor do I think it conducive to
>learning.
Um, dogma IS teaching... that's what it means.
Do you mean it is not necessary to teach specific dogmas?
How will we raise kids to be reasonable citizens if we DON'T teach
dogmas like the sanctity of human life, the right to private property,
and so on?
>
>> I call it the Wiley E Coyote idea of faith: you know how he never falls
>> off a cliff till he realises that he's standing on thin air? Well, it
>> seems to me that a lot of people are afraid to look to see if their
>> faith holds up to thought, cause they are afraid that it might not!
>
>Then perhaps they are wise to do so, either that or they really have no
>faith and are fooling themselves.
Which is why I don't go around kicking the props out from under them...
>
>> >> any more than the ones Aquinas wrote: they all work for some people, but
>> >> they are hardly convincing to all...
>> >
>> >They convince lots and lots of people janet. I've had the <errr> dubious
>> >pleasure of attempting to discuss it with many of them.
>>
>> Oh, I know they convince a lot of people, and that's fine for them.
>
>Is it? Is this the result of an infinite god who is all love? Please
>explain.
It's fine for them, if they are happy to let their faith rest there: it
si NOT for me to come along and say, "nope, you're wrong, I'm right...".
I don't see what you mean by the rest of it... (call it the result of a
looonnnggg week...)
>
>> They don't convince me, but I still beleive in god:
>
>Why?
>
Because I do, is about the only real answer to that.
Faith which can be explained and proven is not faith...
>> I just don't beleive
>> because of the "proofs", is all!
>
>If the Christian god exists, and wants to hide, then such a god could
>not be found. But in doing so we have many contradictions, destroying
>your claim of logical consistency.
Grin... I didn't say that the christian god is hiding.
I said I don't have a logical argument which proves the existence of the
divine, is all.
>
>> (Grin... and beleive me, catholics are REAL targets for fundamentalists,
>> especially FEMINIST catholics who hang out with people who aren't even
>> CHRISTIAN!!!) (grin...)
>
>Well good for you I'm not a fundy, right?
Thank heavens....
>
>Gotta go, early flight tomorrow.
Safe journey! :)
Rich
janet wrote:
>
> In article <3500B406...@earthlink.net>, Rich
> <pay...@earthlink.net> writes
> >janet wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <35007B5B...@earthlink.net>, Rich
> >> <pay...@earthlink.net> writes
> >> >janet wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> In article <34FF458D...@earthlink.net>, Rich
> >> >> <pay...@earthlink.net> writes
> >> >> >janet wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> In article <6dmsnt$n8o$1...@gte2.gte.net>, Paul Robbins
> >> >> >> <prob...@dbintellect.com> writes
> []
> re: photography of the divine...
> >> >>
> >> >> "God" defined as the creator God, no, I don't think I could: bodies,
> >> >> material things: these are limits,
> >> >
> >> >Ever seen a rainbow? I've even got a photo of a triple rainbow.
> >> >A rainbow is not a "physical thing" however, heck, it only has one side.
> >>
> >> Yes, but I think this is going to be difficult... and I'm sure it's
> >> getting more and more off topic as we go! :)
> >
> >Off topic, in alt.feminism? Whatever is the world coming to? :^}
> >
> >Point made: physical existence is not a prerequisite for being photographed.
> >
> >Response: none.
>
> Your response, or mine?
Yours, and you did it again. I summarized my response above, you amplified your
non-response.
> >> >> and I've said before that I don't
> >> >> think God has any of those... (does this belong on alt.fem., btw?)
> >> >
> >> >You need to correlate the concepts of infinite and the concepts of
> >> >"nothing" for me then. Either god exists, and matter and energy can
> >> >both be detected, or god does not exist, and, risking a double
> >> >negative, nothing cannot be detected.
> >>
> >> Rich, can you detect love?
> >
> >Actually, I can tell when I am in love, which seems to fit your bill.
>
> Um, no, I actually meant, can you tell when someone loves you?
Long term, I think I can. Love is not something you do but the reason
you do things. J loved her cats, that was clear, she was always thinking
of them and doing what she could to anticipate their needs and make
them happy. My situation was quite different. :^\
> >> Where is the energy and matter in that?
> >
> >Are you kidding? Love is a state of matter. No matter, no love.
>
> Really?
Really.
> (That's an honest question...). Can you not love an ideal? Can you not
> love someone who is dead?
You can love anything, physical or not, this is a matter of your state, not
it's. It seems clear that you missed the distinction clear somehow.
> Do you mean that you need a body to feel love?
As far as I know, you need to *exist* to love, and bodies seem part and
parcel of existence.
> I don't know about
> that...
Translated: I know this is wrong.
An interesting point of common english usage.
> ><>
> >
> >> >> yes, I think I could, but then, again, that's not really germain to
> >> >> here...
> >> >
> >> >Are you saying then that Jesus, who you also say is god, could be
> >> >photographed then?
> >>
> >> Remember where I'm coming from, and what the beleifs of my church are,
> >> about things like transubstantiation...
> >
> >Why? And do you really believe in cannibalism?
>
> Sigh.... see why this isn't germain here? I don't actually want to
> talk about transubstantiation on this ng!! But come into my parlour...
> grin... bring this up there...
OK.
> >> Yes, I am saying just that, but not, I think, in the way that you THINK
> >> I might be saying it.
> >
> >Explain.
>
> I meant just what I said above:
I asked for an "explanation" janet, I know you understand the word.
And I have no idea what -you- mean, this is not a matter of doctrine.
> it's tied up with that particular
> doctrine.
>
> >
> >> Further, let me say that having a picture of god is in no way important
> >> for me...
> >
> >Well gee, Christians, including Catholics seem to have images and statues
> >of Jesus all over the place, usually bleeding.
>
> I know.... many of them are gross...
So do all other religions that I know of, images are an important part of
them all. Unless you know of some exceptions, this would seem to be a
reflection of the way humans understand the universe.
> > Seems an odd thing if images
> >are not important.
>
> I didn't say that they were not important to OTHERS, but that they are
> not important to me.
And you have nothing to do with your religion, which is awash with them
then. Glad to clear that up. What else do you care to disclaim?
> I don't think that any one, particular image SHOULD be important:
> anymore than I think the photos I carry around are actually the people I
> love. They are reminders...
Funny, Meri and the anti-porn feminist movement seem to think that they
steal the woman's souls.
> >And what was that commandment about graven images?
>
> Grin..... what about it?
>
> Yup, it goes by the board in my patch of the woods, as do a lot of
> things from the OT. I'm quite happy to eat a cheeseburger, and shrimp
> cocktail, I have no intention of returning home in 2000, or of giving up
> my job....
Hey, that was never *my* demand. It's the overt and blatant feminist
sexism that bothers me, still well supported by the feminists in this ng.
> >> >> And of course, considering the "whatsoever you do" to anyone else is
> >> >> thought to have been done to God...
> >> >
> >> >Is god afraid that taking it's picture will steal it's soul?
> >>
> >> Nooooo.... theological conundrum, there...
> >
> >Or perhaps god is just on vacation or somesuch?
>
> Grin.... you've been reading Pratchett again... and the OhGod of
> Hangovers, filling in for other gods...
>
> No, I don't think god is on vacation... where would god GO? :)
If god created this universe, god could create as many others as god
wanted, no? Why does god suddenly gain human limitations in some
contexts?
> >> Theory, (can we take it as read, that I am talking about the theory from
> >> where I am coming from, and NOT insisting that anyone else buy
> >> it/beleive it/whatever...?) (thanks...) says that god is ultimately
> >> simple.
> >
> >Then I, being ultimately simple, should be able to understand god, right?
>
> But you are NOT ultimately simple!
You mean averti has been lying to me? :^}
> You are a composite being, just like
> the rest of us.
Composite? What does that mean in this context?
> >Finally got some of the nuances of mainframe disk management straight today,
> >now it's simple. Who'd have guessed I'd ever be doing such a thing. I
> >do like the error message "vary rejected" however. :^}
>
> Grin.... I try never to reject variance, it's too much fun...
Sometimes you VTOC too much. :^}
> >> That means, that whereas you and I can say, "This is my love, this is my
> >> foot, this is me being angry or hungry", such divisions just do not
> >> exist in god.
> >
> >Why not? In the OT we have an angry vengeful god, seems these divisions
> >are very real, no? And if god is prefect, god cannot change, so the divisions
> >must still exist, right?
>
> This is high speculative theology, Rich!
Really? How so?
> Yes, I would say that god can not change. I would also say that
> depictions of god are just that: depictions, mediated through the human
> mind and storytelling.
Depictions of god are one thing, the issue is what god is purported to
have done, which tend to be at variance of your depiction of god.
> "My lot", if you like, do not take every word in the bible as being
> scientifically or historically true, for instance...
Actually, there is much good historical data in the Bible, some available
from no other sources. Which is not to say that every word is literal
true as history.
> >> When one says, "God is love", one speaks the literal truth:
> >
> >I'd question that, in human terms, love is being there. No one can love
> >by proxy or by putting out a popular book. If god loves me, where is god?
>
> Here. Omnipresent.
Where, exactly? Be literal and precise please, I'm kinda slow here.
> In whatever way you like,
I have no prejudices on the matter.
> but ALSO in the presence
> of others...
Are we gonna get circular again?
> >Keep in mind that love is a human concept,
>
> Wry grin... not from where I am sitting.
Then you are not human. Which rather disagrees with some other
claims you have made about how you talk about things.
> To me, love is part of the
> image of the divine within us.
We are getting circular. But you have placed love as something
"within us", ergo, as a state of matter.
> NOW, (follow, please...) we are created in that image and likeness,
Which just above you disclaimed. We are getting *very* circular here.
And how can man be in the image of that which has no image?
> (both of us, not just you qua male, there are TWO stories in
> Genesis...). Thus, we are created to be in the image of a being who IS
> love...
How can love be "within us" then?
> so love is both a human and a divine concept, or thing, or
> being-ness... but in approximating the divine, we become more what we
> were created to be in the first place, that is, more human...
There goes free will again. If god, who is unknowable, is love (how can
we know this?), then there is still something seriously wrong with the OT.
> >if god loves, it must be love
> >in human terms.
>
> "Everything is received according to the mode of the receiver": I can
> only RECEIVE love in human terms, yes.
Which means not, as god has done (or so it is claimed), via a book or by
proxy.
> >> god does not
> >> "love" in the way that I do, because love is not the totality of what I
> >> am...
> >
> >You are splitting concepts, and aspects, and it does not work.
>
> I am doing theology, Rich!
You are talking in circles, oh, that's what you meant. <grinning>
> Theology is a discipline in search of a language, and always has been.
Is this like a pregnancy looking for a woman? I rather that that the
woman was required *first*. With no language, there can be no discipline.
The language of physics is math for example.
> ANYTHING we say of god is an approximation: if there are no limits to
> god, then no words can ever really be applied to the divine....
But you do have limits, and as such you cannot have the knowledge needed
to make that claim. As I have posted previously, I am always amused by
people who claim that god is unknowable then go on and talk as if they
were drinking buddies.
> It's headache making....
Here, have a few ibuprofen.
> > A god that
> >is literal love does not destroy all life on earth but one love-boat full.
>
> Agreed.
>
> >There are many other instances of god showing everything but love.
>
> Agreed. See what I said above...
Which rather missed the point near as I can tell.
> >> god, however, has only essence,
> >
> >Essence must equal something. Love is a state of matter, where does this
> >lead us?
>
> It leads us, I think, to a disagreement about what love is.
You define love as a property of that which you claim cannot be known,
which undermines the claim or at least your knowledge base.
> Can you explain what you mean by "love is a state of matter"?
Can you describe what you mean when you state that love is a part of
the devine?
> >> no accidents, (speaking creator
> >> god here...) if that makes sense?
> >
> >Not really.
>
> Um, it's not easy... sorry...
>
> Look, your essence is humanity, yes?
Is it? What exactly does this mean?
> Your accidents are things like race, sex, hair and eye colour: the
> essence is what you ARE....
And how can you seperate the two? These are all part of who I am, and
from the religous claims, and no accidents, and I tend to think that
genetics has something to do with it as well (herectical as that may seem).
> >> God *is* love, and mercy and justice,
> >> and I know, I know, those last two can NOT be combined in the human
> >> psyche...
> >
> >Nor can they be derived from the OT. Are you saying that the OT is wrong?
>
> I'm saying that the OT is divinely inspired,
Then the devine inspiration seems to conflict with your beliefs here.
> but neither a history nor a
> science book.
Science, no, history, I disagree.
> >> >> >> Unless, of course, one decides to say that the deity is in all of us,
> >> >> >> hmmmm... :)
> >> >> >
> >> >> >There's a song about that. But this is not the Christian or Catholic god,
> >> >> >and that is the object of my question.
> >>
> >> What if God were one of us, just a stranger on a bus,
> >> Just a slob like one of us...?
> >
> >You've heard it then.
>
> I love it!
Curiously, at first I was not sure what I thought of it, but as a song I
rather like it.
> >> I really like that song, but it paints a very sad picture, with only the
> >> "pope in rome" calling god on the phone...
> >
> >So?
>
> I think it's sad, is all.. poor god!
Yeah, really, nothing but omni-everything, god must be difficult to
shop for, eh? :^}
> >> (you could try www.vatican.com... I kid you not....)
> >
> >I'll take a look.
>
> Have fun....
Hehe. Say, do you believe that the number saved is pre-determined and
fixed?
> >> >> But that's what my God IS, Rich...
> >> >
> >> >The song, which I could not recall the name of last post is called,
> >> >"What if god is one of us", or at least that is the tag line. Tis a
> >> >rather pretty song, although I would imagine some religions might find
> >> >it offensive.
> >>
> >> Oh, I would imagine so... I've never heard anyone complain, which may
> >> well just mean I haven't been listening!
> >
> >But oddly, it seemed to be what you were saying above somewhere, which
> >would seem at odds with your stated religion.
>
> Pardon? what was at odds with what?
| Unless, of course, one decides to say that the deity is in all of us,
| hmmmm... :)
This would seem to be at odds both with Catholic dogma and your statements
above.
> >> >> I've tried to be very careful and
> >> >> limit it, because I do NOT wish to pontificate about other
> >> >> sects/groups/faiths...
> >> >
> >> >I have not asked you to do so.
> >>
> >> I know. Call it caution: there are just so MANY fundamentalists who
> >> come in to all sorts of ng and say, "This is what you HAVE to beleive!!"
> >> that I fall all over myself making it clear that I am not doing that...
> >
> >Do I -have- to believe that? :^}
>
> No. You are at liberty to beleive that there are no fundamentalist
> trolls on any newsgroup whatsoever.
Robin, is that you?
> May I show you some waterside property in Idaho, please?
I'm still making payments on the bridge janet. :^}
> >> > But if we limit ourselves to what we
> >> >know well, we have little to talk about and stop growing.
> >>
> >> Agreed!
> >>
> >> Which is why I spend so much time discussing things like this in places
> >> that might not be expected, and with people from very different paths: I
> >> learn a LOT more from them... :)
> >
> >Not me. :^P
>
> Wanna bet?
Hey, you missed a Monty Python one-liner, from _The Life of Brian_ no less.
> >> >> Not for me to do
> >> >
> >> >How is it that you always limit and re-direct discussion in such a
> >> >fashion and in many threads the substance is eventually deleted and
> >> >all we have left is talk about talk?
> >>
> >> I don't mean to do that, Rich, I really don't.
> >>
> >> I don't mean to limit in any way what you say, or what I say.
> >>
> >> What I DO mean to limit is any suggestion that I am preaching, or trying
> >> to enforce my religious views! If we take that as read, though, I will
> >> try and stop limiting things! OK?
> >
> >If I ask you a question, don't I have some expectation to an answer to the
> >question (even if it is "get lost") rather than a sermon about something
> >else?
>
> Yes, but you are not necessarily the only one who will read the answer!
Which means what, exactly?
> >Cause that is what I end up getting. Remember when I posted that a
> >discussion requires that both people talk about the same thing at the same
> >time? I seem to recall your agreeing.
>
> And I still agree....
When you post naught by disclaimers and disclaimers to disclaimers, there
is nothing left to disclaim janet. This *is* the problem I am having.
> >> >> And why is it not about those gods?
> >> >
> >> >Other gods? Is that not at odds with Catholic dogma, that there is
> >> >only one god? How do you reconcile this with talking about other gods,
> >> >as opposed to talking about other beliefs?
> >>
> >> Um, I've lost track of what I was saying about other gods...
> >>
> >> Yes, of course it is at odds with catholic dogma. I wouldn't talk about
> >> how I see other gods, (although I am more than happy to discuss with
> >> other people how THEY see them...).
> >
> >That did not seem to be what you were saying above, which is why I questioned
> >it.
>
> Grin... I am NOT the be all and end all of catholic dogma! :)
Why not? No ambition? :^}
> But just because I do not agree with, or beleive something, is no reason
> for me not to discuss it.
But "not discussing" it is exactly what you end up doing so often.
> >> Perhaps it would be better to talk about "beliefs about other gods"...
> >> it's me falling over trying not to seem to put anyone ELSE'S beleifs
> >> down...
> >
> >There is an essential conflict between supporting Catholic dogma and being PC.
>
> Grin..... I'm not trying to be PC,
I disagree, that seems to be exactly what you are doing.
> I'm trying to put into practice
> things about "judge not..."
There is a difference between "judge not" and "speak not" which you seem
unclear of. <sigh>
> and "look to the log in one's own eye..."
> and "they'll know you are my followers by your love..." sort of thing...
>
> >> >> If this is about ancient judaism, all ANY of us can do is speculate,
> >> >> (unless some of us are as old as I feel at the moment...) :)
> >> >
> >> >Could YAWAH be photographed?
> >>
> >> Um, my first and gut reaction is: no.
> >
> >But is not YAWAH the same god which was Jesus, who you claim could be
> >photographed, even though we prolly mean something different? :^}
>
> Grin......
>
> Yes, I would say it is the same god.
>
> But I would also say that my human *understanding* of that god would be
> severly at odds with that of someone who thought of that god in the
> terms of the Hebrew OT.
The language map may be different, but I suspect that even the ancients
thought about things like destroying a city by fire and brimstone much
as we do today, unless you think that there were different, as humans,
from modern humans today. The human reactions to things that happen
seem remarkably as humans would react today.
> >> I doubt it very much, cause there was never much of a physical
> >> manifestation: clouds and pillars of fire, but I think the text was
> >> always careful to say that God was IN those, not that god WAS those...
> >
> >Is not Jesus a physical manifestation?
>
> Yes, sorry, I was answering from the POV of the OT...
But having a wider scope, we can look further across time, can we not?
> >> >> >BTW, from RAH, "thou art god", my martian is bad and I could not check
> >> >> >the translation.
> >> >>
> >> >> ?
> >> >
> >> >Robert Heinlien, nevermind. < in my best Gilda Radner impression>
> >>
> >> Ah, I get the picture... although I do not grok it completely...
> >
> >Been waiting for the dictionary to come out. But you know martians,
> >never in a hurry.
>
> Really? I seem to recall one bustling about, complaining of being
> "busy, busy, busy... " and a new road coming through RIGHT where the
> earth was...
No no no, you confuse the Vogon's with martians. May you be blessed with
two verses of Vogon poetry. :^}
<ahem, fiber cut>
> >> The huge mistake is to confuse faith with logic.
> >
> >And a common one, by my observation.
>
> nss
> >
> >> If it were possible to prove the tenets of faith, they would not be the
> >> tenets of *faith*!
> >
> >Why is faith necessary were this loving god to exist?
>
> Because the babel fish got lost in the shower...
Is that why the shower keeps babbling? BTW, how is it that after the
moon shot we can still communicate? Did god change again?
> Do you mean why didn't this loving god give us absolute proof of the
> existence of the divine?
Hey, I do not deal in absolutes, I do not even know absoluetly that
you exist. But I do have evidence for your existence, can you see the
difference?
> I don't know... I mean, I know lots of answers to that, which have been
> given, but I don't know which is the right one, and I don't buy any of
> them.
None of the ones I have heard work.
<>
> >> > It is usually pointless to discuss logic with
> >> >anyone who makes such a comment, and I tend to think that many prople
> >> >hear such things in church.
> >>
> >> Probably, although I haven't heard it in mine...
> >
> >Not even indirectly, as an unstated premise?
>
> Not that I have noticed, and I am pretty careful about preaching I
> hear... but even Homer nods...
Do you preach in your church?
> >> >I find it amusing when you post that dogma
> >> >can lead to thought, as in my observation it always shuts it down.
> >>
> >> Grin... it can do both!
> >
> >Example?
>
> Well, the church seems to have spent about 500 years working out the
> implications of the dogma of the incarnation, for one thing...
Yeah, such reasoning got us epicycles and other oddities to explain
why reality was wrong. This is not thinking in my book. Make the data
fit the theory has the tail wagging the dog, not the brain doing
honest inquiry. In fact, in doing such one must abandon honest thought.
> Take, on another idea, the dogma, (teaching) of the dignity of human
> life.
In teaching dogma, one ignores such dignity however. When failure to
assert dogma is a death sentence, there is no dignity.
> That leads to all KINDS of thought: about working conditions, about
> death, about all sorts of things.
These things happened only after the church lost power janet, the church
had taught for centuries that life did not matter at all, it was just
preperation for the after-life, and thus we had the dark ages. The church
was not only the source of none of these issues, it opposed them all.
> >> The point about dogma is to teach, and to me teaching is ABOUT thought,
> >> but there are those who are really frightened of it.
> >
> >But dogma is not necessary to teach. Nor do I think it conducive to
> >learning.
>
> Um, dogma IS teaching... that's what it means.
Dogma's are absolutes, in learning absolutes one must be taught, usually
on pain of punishment to *not* question. I have some personal experience
here. Dogma is learning by rote *not* to think.
> Do you mean it is not necessary to teach specific dogmas?
You tell me.
> How will we raise kids to be reasonable citizens if we DON'T teach
> dogmas like the sanctity of human life, the right to private property,
> and so on?
Seems to me that for centuries the church was opposed to all of these
and more. These principles were by others, and they perservered against
religous censure. And as far as I know, private property is not
Catholic dogma.
> >> I call it the Wiley E Coyote idea of faith: you know how he never falls
> >> off a cliff till he realises that he's standing on thin air? Well, it
> >> seems to me that a lot of people are afraid to look to see if their
> >> faith holds up to thought, cause they are afraid that it might not!
> >
> >Then perhaps they are wise to do so, either that or they really have no
> >faith and are fooling themselves.
>
> Which is why I don't go around kicking the props out from under them...
What makes you think that you can? And what gives you the right to shield
them from debate of these issues? Seems to me that you would rather perpetuate
ignorance than have an honest discussion, which is sad.
> >> >> any more than the ones Aquinas wrote: they all work for some people, but
> >> >> they are hardly convincing to all...
> >> >
> >> >They convince lots and lots of people janet. I've had the <errr> dubious
> >> >pleasure of attempting to discuss it with many of them.
> >>
> >> Oh, I know they convince a lot of people, and that's fine for them.
> >
> >Is it? Is this the result of an infinite god who is all love? Please
> >explain.
>
> It's fine for them, if they are happy to let their faith rest there: it
> si NOT for me to come along and say, "nope, you're wrong, I'm right...".
You seem to do it to me all the time, that is, I am wrong to ask questions
and expect discussion of issues as you are adamant to protect those above
from exposure to ideas.
> I don't see what you mean by the rest of it... (call it the result of a
> looonnnggg week...)
OK, it must be the result of a looonnnggg week. :^}
> >> They don't convince me, but I still beleive in god:
> >
> >Why?
>
> Because I do, is about the only real answer to that.
Clearly if you must believe then you could not have experienced
god, which would explain why you cannot show me god.
> Faith which can be explained and proven is not faith...
So much for theology.
> >> I just don't beleive
> >> because of the "proofs", is all!
> >
> >If the Christian god exists, and wants to hide, then such a god could
> >not be found. But in doing so we have many contradictions, destroying
> >your claim of logical consistency.
>
> Grin... I didn't say that the christian god is hiding.
Then show me god.
> I said I don't have a logical argument which proves the existence of the
> divine, is all.
Why logic when you claim an infinite all-powerful god who is everywhere?
Who needs logic?
> >> (Grin... and beleive me, catholics are REAL targets for fundamentalists,
> >> especially FEMINIST catholics who hang out with people who aren't even
> >> CHRISTIAN!!!) (grin...)
> >
> >Well good for you I'm not a fundy, right?
>
> Thank heavens....
Large tidings from the bay of fundy!
> >Gotta go, early flight tomorrow.
>
> Safe journey! :)
Done, but I am tired and have much to do.
Rich
janet
In article <35032D41...@earthlink.net>, Rich
<pay...@earthlink.net> writes
>janet wrote:
>>
>> In article <3500B406...@earthlink.net>, Rich
>> <pay...@earthlink.net> writes
>> >janet wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In article <35007B5B...@earthlink.net>, Rich
>> >> <pay...@earthlink.net> writes
>> >> >janet wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> In article <34FF458D...@earthlink.net>, Rich
>> >> >> <pay...@earthlink.net> writes
>> >> >> >janet wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> In article <6dmsnt$n8o$1...@gte2.gte.net>, Paul Robbins
>> >> >> >> <prob...@dbintellect.com> writes
>> []
>> re: photography of the divine...
>> >
>> >Point made: physical existence is not a prerequisite for being photographed.
>> >
>> >Response: none.
>>
>> Your response, or mine?
>
>Yours, and you did it again. I summarized my response above, you amplified your
>non-response.
>
Rich, I have a feeling here that we are going to keep having this
problem...
I CAN'T point to God and say, "Look!".
Nor can I convince you of the existence of God, and *I will not try*.
I can talk about what I beleive, but that's about all.
Is that the problem?
>> >> >> and I've said before that I don't
>> >> >> think God has any of those... (does this belong on alt.fem., btw?)
>> >> >
>> >> >You need to correlate the concepts of infinite and the concepts of
>> >> >"nothing" for me then. Either god exists, and matter and energy can
>> >> >both be detected, or god does not exist, and, risking a double
>> >> >negative, nothing cannot be detected.
>> >>
>> >> Rich, can you detect love?
>> >
>> >Actually, I can tell when I am in love, which seems to fit your bill.
>>
>> Um, no, I actually meant, can you tell when someone loves you?
>
>Long term, I think I can. Love is not something you do but the reason
>you do things. J loved her cats, that was clear, she was always thinking
>of them and doing what she could to anticipate their needs and make
>them happy. My situation was quite different. :^\
But then, I would say that love is something we DO, but love is what God
IS.
>
>> >> Where is the energy and matter in that?
>> >
>> >Are you kidding? Love is a state of matter. No matter, no love.
>>
>> Really?
>
>Really.
>
>> (That's an honest question...). Can you not love an ideal? Can you not
>> love someone who is dead?
>
>You can love anything, physical or not, this is a matter of your state, not
>it's. It seems clear that you missed the distinction clear somehow.
>
Ok, are you saying that love can only come from something that is
matter? IOW, that only physical bodies, or those equipped with same,
can love?
>> Do you mean that you need a body to feel love?
>
>As far as I know, you need to *exist* to love, and bodies seem part and
>parcel of existence.
Grin... I would disagree. But I can't prove it.
>
>> I don't know about
>> that...
>
>Translated: I know this is wrong.
>
>An interesting point of common english usage.
Actually, I meant what I said... cause I was still thinking about it.
[]
>
>> >
>> >> Further, let me say that having a picture of god is in no way important
>> >> for me...
>> >
>> >Well gee, Christians, including Catholics seem to have images and statues
>> >of Jesus all over the place, usually bleeding.
>>
>> I know.... many of them are gross...
>
>So do all other religions that I know of, images are an important part of
>them all. Unless you know of some exceptions, this would seem to be a
>reflection of the way humans understand the universe.
>
Um, I think there ARE Eastern religions that don't have images...
But I agree. The human mind seems to need images. There is, though, a
difference between the image and the thing imaged: I could tell you all
about my kids, for instance, but there is no way I could make you love
them as I do, does that make sense?
>> > Seems an odd thing if images
>> >are not important.
>>
>> I didn't say that they were not important to OTHERS, but that they are
>> not important to me.
>
>And you have nothing to do with your religion, which is awash with them
>then. Glad to clear that up. What else do you care to disclaim?
Sigh, no, that's not what I meant, of course I have to do with my
religion.
But my religion teaches that those images are just that: they are
reminders of the reality, and there is no definitive image, no "ONE"
image that captures God.
>
>> I don't think that any one, particular image SHOULD be important:
>> anymore than I think the photos I carry around are actually the people I
>> love. They are reminders...
>
>Funny, Meri and the anti-porn feminist movement seem to think that they
>steal the woman's souls.
Yes, well, that's them... (and I don't think that's quite accurate...)
:)
>
>> >And what was that commandment about graven images?
>>
>> Grin..... what about it?
>>
>> Yup, it goes by the board in my patch of the woods, as do a lot of
>> things from the OT. I'm quite happy to eat a cheeseburger, and shrimp
>> cocktail, I have no intention of returning home in 2000, or of giving up
>> my job....
>
>Hey, that was never *my* demand. It's the overt and blatant feminist
>sexism that bothers me, still well supported by the feminists in this ng.
Whoa, wait, where did that come in?
>
>> >> >> And of course, considering the "whatsoever you do" to anyone else is
>> >> >> thought to have been done to God...
>> >> >
>> >> >Is god afraid that taking it's picture will steal it's soul?
>> >>
>> >> Nooooo.... theological conundrum, there...
>> >
>> >Or perhaps god is just on vacation or somesuch?
>>
>> Grin.... you've been reading Pratchett again... and the OhGod of
>> Hangovers, filling in for other gods...
>>
>> No, I don't think god is on vacation... where would god GO? :)
>
>If god created this universe, god could create as many others as god
>wanted, no? Why does god suddenly gain human limitations in some
>contexts?
God could create whatever God wanted...
But I still don't think there could be anyplace God did NOT create, and
why go on vacation to someplace that is your own work?
>
>> >> Theory, (can we take it as read, that I am talking about the theory from
>> >> where I am coming from, and NOT insisting that anyone else buy
>> >> it/beleive it/whatever...?) (thanks...) says that god is ultimately
>> >> simple.
>> >
>> >Then I, being ultimately simple, should be able to understand god, right?
>>
>> But you are NOT ultimately simple!
>
>You mean averti has been lying to me? :^}
Never! Horrors, heaven FORFEND!
>
>> You are a composite being, just like
>> the rest of us.
>
>Composite? What does that mean in this context?
Body and soul, mind and body, thought and physicality....
>
>> >Finally got some of the nuances of mainframe disk management straight today,
>> >now it's simple. Who'd have guessed I'd ever be doing such a thing. I
>> >do like the error message "vary rejected" however. :^}
>>
>> Grin.... I try never to reject variance, it's too much fun...
>
>Sometimes you VTOC too much. :^}
VTOC?
>
>> >> That means, that whereas you and I can say, "This is my love, this is my
>> >> foot, this is me being angry or hungry", such divisions just do not
>> >> exist in god.
>> >
>> >Why not? In the OT we have an angry vengeful god, seems these divisions
>> >are very real, no? And if god is prefect, god cannot change, so the
>divisions
>> >must still exist, right?
>>
>> This is high speculative theology, Rich!
>
>Really? How so?
The perfection of god, the immutability of god... that's the stuff of
speculative theology
>
>> Yes, I would say that god can not change. I would also say that
>> depictions of god are just that: depictions, mediated through the human
>> mind and storytelling.
>
>Depictions of god are one thing, the issue is what god is purported to
>have done, which tend to be at variance of your depiction of god.
WHich is perfectly true.
Because all depictions are limited: if I say "God is this" then I am
placing a limit on god... which is a human failing.
In fact, there is a school of thought that we can ONLY say negative
things about god: we can only say "God is NOT this, that or the other",
as in god is not incomplete...
But I agree there are variations between what god is said to have done
in the OT and what I say about god now.
(You didn't actually expect me to have ALL the answers, now did you?)
>
>> "My lot", if you like, do not take every word in the bible as being
>> scientifically or historically true, for instance...
>
>Actually, there is much good historical data in the Bible, some available
>from no other sources. Which is not to say that every word is literal
>true as history.
Agreed...
>
>> >> When one says, "God is love", one speaks the literal truth:
>> >
>> >I'd question that, in human terms, love is being there. No one can love
>> >by proxy or by putting out a popular book. If god loves me, where is god?
>>
>> Here. Omnipresent.
>
>Where, exactly? Be literal and precise please, I'm kinda slow here.
This is what I meant at the beginning of this post, Rich.
This is a matter of beleif and faith, not one of logic.... *I* beleive
god to be omnipresent, here everywhere, in you, in me, and so on...
But I can't prove that to you, and I won't try.
>
>> In whatever way you like,
>
>I have no prejudices on the matter.
>
>> but ALSO in the presence
>> of others...
>
>Are we gonna get circular again?
Round and round and round we go.... :)
If by being circular you mean, "are we gonna end up at the idea of faith
again?", yup, we are...
>
>> >Keep in mind that love is a human concept,
>>
>> Wry grin... not from where I am sitting.
>
>Then you are not human.
Been said before...
> Which rather disagrees with some other
>claims you have made about how you talk about things.
No, what I meant was that human love is indeed human, but that it is not
the only kind of love.
>
>> To me, love is part of the
>> image of the divine within us.
>
>We are getting circular. But you have placed love as something
>"within us", ergo, as a state of matter.
If you think that all there is to humanity is material, then yes, it
would be.
I don't think we ARE all matter...
>
>> NOW, (follow, please...) we are created in that image and likeness,
>
>Which just above you disclaimed. We are getting *very* circular here.
?
I don't think I did just disclaim it...
Oh, I think I see.
When I was talking about "images of god" I meant pictorical
representations.
>
>And how can man be in the image of that which has no image?
Grin....
I would say that the image of god within humanity is there in things
like rationality, love, and the need we seem to have to return to or
find god...
>
>> (both of us, not just you qua male, there are TWO stories in
>> Genesis...). Thus, we are created to be in the image of a being who IS
>> love...
>
>How can love be "within us" then?
How can it not?
>
>> so love is both a human and a divine concept, or thing, or
>> being-ness... but in approximating the divine, we become more what we
>> were created to be in the first place, that is, more human...
>
>There goes free will again. If god, who is unknowable, is love (how can
>we know this?),
We can't, at least, we can't prove it. I know it, but I can't prove it.
>then there is still something seriously wrong with the OT.
If taken literally, yes.
>
>> >if god loves, it must be love
>> >in human terms.
>>
>> "Everything is received according to the mode of the receiver": I can
>> only RECEIVE love in human terms, yes.
>
>Which means not, as god has done (or so it is claimed), via a book or by
>proxy.
But the book is NOT the love of god, it is a human recording of events
and ideas...
>
>> >> god does not
>> >> "love" in the way that I do, because love is not the totality of what I
>> >> am...
>> >
>> >You are splitting concepts, and aspects, and it does not work.
>>
>> I am doing theology, Rich!
>
>You are talking in circles, oh, that's what you meant. <grinning>
;P
>
>> Theology is a discipline in search of a language, and always has been.
>
>Is this like a pregnancy looking for a woman? I rather that that the
>woman was required *first*. With no language, there can be no discipline.
>The language of physics is math for example.
But the theology is there first: theology is the wonder, the experience
of god.
The problem comes when TWO people want to talk about it.
Can you describe why you love someone? Not completely, not enough to
make someone else feel the same.
>
>> ANYTHING we say of god is an approximation: if there are no limits to
>> god, then no words can ever really be applied to the divine....
>
>But you do have limits, and as such you cannot have the knowledge needed
>to make that claim.
I have limits, and thus know that I can not know the entirety of God.
>As I have posted previously, I am always amused by
>people who claim that god is unknowable then go on and talk as if they
>were drinking buddies.
I didn't say God was unknowable, I think... I said I couldn't define
god, couldn't encompass god in words.
As to the drinking buddy, ever heard the Joplin song?
"Oh Lord, won't you buy me a night on the town
I'm counting on you, Lord, please don't let me down
prove that you love me
And buy the next round..."
>
>> It's headache making....
>
>Here, have a few ibuprofen.
thanks...
>
>> > A god that
>> >is literal love does not destroy all life on earth but one love-boat full.
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>> >There are many other instances of god showing everything but love.
>>
>> Agreed. See what I said above...
>
>Which rather missed the point near as I can tell.
>
Sorry, I hope I did better this time...
>> >> god, however, has only essence,
>> >
>> >Essence must equal something. Love is a state of matter, where does this
>> >lead us?
>>
>> It leads us, I think, to a disagreement about what love is.
>
>You define love as a property of that which you claim cannot be known,
>which undermines the claim or at least your knowledge base.
Um, no, I dont claim love is a PROPERTY of God...
>
>> Can you explain what you mean by "love is a state of matter"?
>
>Can you describe what you mean when you state that love is a part of
>the devine?
Grin... I didn't.
The divine IS love...
>
>> >> no accidents, (speaking creator
>> >> god here...) if that makes sense?
>> >
>> >Not really.
>>
>> Um, it's not easy... sorry...
>>
>> Look, your essence is humanity, yes?
>
>Is it? What exactly does this mean?
It means that there is something about you and me and the rest of us
that sets us apart from other things. Something that means we can look
at each other and say, "Yup, that's a human...".
Aristotle said it was the ability to laugh, but I presume the
geneticists can get closer than that now...
>
>> Your accidents are things like race, sex, hair and eye colour: the
>> essence is what you ARE....
>
>And how can you seperate the two? These are all part of who I am, and
>from the religous claims, and no accidents, and I tend to think that
>genetics has something to do with it as well (herectical as that may seem).
Exactly!
I would say that yes, hair colour and all the rest ARE accidents, in the
philosophical sense: they are "accidental", in that you would still be
human were your hair a different colour and so on.
You might well not be YOU, but that is not what I'm on about here...
>
>> >> God *is* love, and mercy and justice,
>> >> and I know, I know, those last two can NOT be combined in the human
>> >> psyche...
>> >
>> >Nor can they be derived from the OT. Are you saying that the OT is wrong?
>>
>> I'm saying that the OT is divinely inspired,
>
>Then the devine inspiration seems to conflict with your beliefs here.
How?
I said divinely inspired, not inerrant in every word.
>
>> but neither a history nor a
>> science book.
>
>Science, no, history, I disagree.
Well, history I would say in a certain sense.
Yes, there does seem to have been that flood, BUT it didn't cover the
whole earth...
>
>> >> >> >> Unless, of course, one decides to say that the deity is in all of
>us,
>> >> >> >> hmmmm... :)
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >There's a song about that. But this is not the Christian or Catholic
>god,
>> >> >> >and that is the object of my question.
>> >>
>> >> What if God were one of us, just a stranger on a bus,
>> >> Just a slob like one of us...?
>> >
>> >You've heard it then.
>>
>> I love it!
>
>Curiously, at first I was not sure what I thought of it, but as a song I
>rather like it.
me too!
>
>> >> I really like that song, but it paints a very sad picture, with only the
>> >> "pope in rome" calling god on the phone...
>> >
>> >So?
>>
>> I think it's sad, is all.. poor god!
>
>Yeah, really, nothing but omni-everything, god must be difficult to
>shop for, eh? :^}
>
Grin... probably....
>> >> (you could try www.vatican.com... I kid you not....)
>> >
>> >I'll take a look.
>>
>> Have fun....
>
>Hehe. Say, do you believe that the number saved is pre-determined and
>fixed?
NO!!! That's not us, that's the folk down the hall... yeesh, don't GO
there, or you'll get into all sorts of calculations...
>
>> >> >> But that's what my God IS, Rich...
>> >> >
>> >> >The song, which I could not recall the name of last post is called,
>> >> >"What if god is one of us", or at least that is the tag line. Tis a
>> >> >rather pretty song, although I would imagine some religions might find
>> >> >it offensive.
>> >>
>> >> Oh, I would imagine so... I've never heard anyone complain, which may
>> >> well just mean I haven't been listening!
>> >
>> >But oddly, it seemed to be what you were saying above somewhere, which
>> >would seem at odds with your stated religion.
>>
>> Pardon? what was at odds with what?
>
>| Unless, of course, one decides to say that the deity is in all of us,
>| hmmmm... :)
>
>This would seem to be at odds both with Catholic dogma and your statements
>above.
>
To say that we all ARE god is at odds with catholic dogma, yes.
>> >> >> I've tried to be very careful and
>> >> >> limit it, because I do NOT wish to pontificate about other
>> >> >> sects/groups/faiths...
>> >> >
>> >> >I have not asked you to do so.
>> >>
>> >> I know. Call it caution: there are just so MANY fundamentalists who
>> >> come in to all sorts of ng and say, "This is what you HAVE to beleive!!"
>> >> that I fall all over myself making it clear that I am not doing that...
>> >
>> >Do I -have- to believe that? :^}
>>
>> No. You are at liberty to beleive that there are no fundamentalist
>> trolls on any newsgroup whatsoever.
>
>Robin, is that you?
which Robin?
The one on tnnrc is hardly a fundamentalist: "fluffy bunny" is closer to
it, in her OWN WORDS! :)
>
>> May I show you some waterside property in Idaho, please?
>
>I'm still making payments on the bridge janet. :^}
Oh, alright... and you're late with the last one, btw...
>
>> >> > But if we limit ourselves to what we
>> >> >know well, we have little to talk about and stop growing.
>> >>
>> >> Agreed!
>> >>
>> >> Which is why I spend so much time discussing things like this in places
>> >> that might not be expected, and with people from very different paths: I
>> >> learn a LOT more from them... :)
>> >
>> >Not me. :^P
>>
>> Wanna bet?
>
>Hey, you missed a Monty Python one-liner, from _The Life of Brian_ no less.
hangs head, shuffles feet... I never saw that film!
>
>> >> >> Not for me to do
>> >> >
>> >> >How is it that you always limit and re-direct discussion in such a
>> >> >fashion and in many threads the substance is eventually deleted and
>> >> >all we have left is talk about talk?
>> >>
>> >> I don't mean to do that, Rich, I really don't.
>> >>
>> >> I don't mean to limit in any way what you say, or what I say.
>> >>
>> >> What I DO mean to limit is any suggestion that I am preaching, or trying
>> >> to enforce my religious views! If we take that as read, though, I will
>> >> try and stop limiting things! OK?
>> >
>> >If I ask you a question, don't I have some expectation to an answer to the
>> >question (even if it is "get lost") rather than a sermon about something
>> >else?
>>
>> Yes, but you are not necessarily the only one who will read the answer!
>
>Which means what, exactly?
>
Lurkers, m'dear....
>> >Cause that is what I end up getting. Remember when I posted that a
>> >discussion requires that both people talk about the same thing at the same
>> >time? I seem to recall your agreeing.
>>
>> And I still agree....
>
>When you post naught by disclaimers and disclaimers to disclaimers, there
>is nothing left to disclaim janet. This *is* the problem I am having.
See above.
I simply don't wish to appear to preach. Nor am I even going to TRY to
attempt to prove the existence of God...
>
>> >> >> And why is it not about those gods?
>> >> >
>> >> >Other gods? Is that not at odds with Catholic dogma, that there is
>> >> >only one god? How do you reconcile this with talking about other gods,
>> >> >as opposed to talking about other beliefs?
>> >>
>> >> Um, I've lost track of what I was saying about other gods...
>> >>
>> >> Yes, of course it is at odds with catholic dogma. I wouldn't talk about
>> >> how I see other gods, (although I am more than happy to discuss with
>> >> other people how THEY see them...).
>> >
>> >That did not seem to be what you were saying above, which is why I
>questioned
>> >it.
>>
>> Grin... I am NOT the be all and end all of catholic dogma! :)
>
>Why not? No ambition? :^}
Oh, ambition alright, but that's a bit much even for me...
>
>> But just because I do not agree with, or beleive something, is no reason
>> for me not to discuss it.
>
>But "not discussing" it is exactly what you end up doing so often.
I'm trying, here...
>
>> >> Perhaps it would be better to talk about "beliefs about other gods"...
>> >> it's me falling over trying not to seem to put anyone ELSE'S beleifs
>> >> down...
>> >
>> >There is an essential conflict between supporting Catholic dogma and being
>PC.
>>
>> Grin..... I'm not trying to be PC,
>
>I disagree, that seems to be exactly what you are doing.
>
Nope.
Look, the most fruitful theological discussions I've had in a LOONNNGGGG
time have been with people from paths so far removed from mine that such
disclaimers might seem overbearing, but still I felt the need to make
them.
Put it this way: what I say is what I beleive, and to the best of my
knowledge, what my church teaches.
It is not what I say others SHOULD beleive.
>> I'm trying to put into practice
>> things about "judge not..."
>
>There is a difference between "judge not" and "speak not" which you seem
>unclear of. <sigh>
>
>> and "look to the log in one's own eye..."
>> and "they'll know you are my followers by your love..." sort of thing...
>>
>> >> >> If this is about ancient judaism, all ANY of us can do is speculate,
>> >> >> (unless some of us are as old as I feel at the moment...) :)
>> >> >
>> >> >Could YAWAH be photographed?
>> >>
>> >> Um, my first and gut reaction is: no.
>> >
>> >But is not YAWAH the same god which was Jesus, who you claim could be
>> >photographed, even though we prolly mean something different? :^}
>>
>> Grin......
>>
>> Yes, I would say it is the same god.
>>
>> But I would also say that my human *understanding* of that god would be
>> severly at odds with that of someone who thought of that god in the
>> terms of the Hebrew OT.
>
>The language map may be different, but I suspect that even the ancients
>thought about things like destroying a city by fire and brimstone much
>as we do today, unless you think that there were different, as humans,
>from modern humans today. The human reactions to things that happen
>seem remarkably as humans would react today.
>
I agree.
>> >> I doubt it very much, cause there was never much of a physical
>> >> manifestation: clouds and pillars of fire, but I think the text was
>> >> always careful to say that God was IN those, not that god WAS those...
>> >
>> >Is not Jesus a physical manifestation?
>>
>> Yes, sorry, I was answering from the POV of the OT...
>
>But having a wider scope, we can look further across time, can we not?
Yes, and in that sense, YHWH could have been photographed, (unless you
really want to get into heavy duty trinitarian theology, but you'll need
someone else to do it with, NOT my field...)
>
>> >> >> >BTW, from RAH, "thou art god", my martian is bad and I could not check
>> >> >> >the translation.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ?
>> >> >
>> >> >Robert Heinlien, nevermind. < in my best Gilda Radner impression>
>> >>
>> >> Ah, I get the picture... although I do not grok it completely...
>> >
>> >Been waiting for the dictionary to come out. But you know martians,
>> >never in a hurry.
>>
>> Really? I seem to recall one bustling about, complaining of being
>> "busy, busy, busy... " and a new road coming through RIGHT where the
>> earth was...
>
>No no no, you confuse the Vogon's with martians. May you be blessed with
>two verses of Vogon poetry. :^}
That was not NICE!!
I meant Marvin the martian, from the bugs bunny cartoons!!
>
><ahem, fiber cut>
>
>> >> The huge mistake is to confuse faith with logic.
>> >
>> >And a common one, by my observation.
>>
>> nss
>> >
>> >> If it were possible to prove the tenets of faith, they would not be the
>> >> tenets of *faith*!
>> >
>> >Why is faith necessary were this loving god to exist?
>>
>> Because the babel fish got lost in the shower...
>
>Is that why the shower keeps babbling? BTW, how is it that after the
>moon shot we can still communicate? Did god change again?
Why should we not be able to communicate? I've lost it again, it's me
age...
>
>> Do you mean why didn't this loving god give us absolute proof of the
>> existence of the divine?
>
>Hey, I do not deal in absolutes, I do not even know absoluetly that
>you exist. But I do have evidence for your existence, can you see the
>difference?
Yes. And I can not give you irrefutable proof of the existence of god.
>
>> I don't know... I mean, I know lots of answers to that, which have been
>> given, but I don't know which is the right one, and I don't buy any of
>> them.
>
>None of the ones I have heard work.
Nor for me.
>
><>
>
>> >> > It is usually pointless to discuss logic with
>> >> >anyone who makes such a comment, and I tend to think that many prople
>> >> >hear such things in church.
>> >>
>> >> Probably, although I haven't heard it in mine...
>> >
>> >Not even indirectly, as an unstated premise?
>>
>> Not that I have noticed, and I am pretty careful about preaching I
>> hear... but even Homer nods...
>
>Do you preach in your church?
Oh, get real: in a catholic church in the UK????
Hardly, at least not from the pulpit.
However, there is more to preaching than the pulpit... :)
>
>> >> >I find it amusing when you post that dogma
>> >> >can lead to thought, as in my observation it always shuts it down.
>> >>
>> >> Grin... it can do both!
>> >
>> >Example?
>>
>> Well, the church seems to have spent about 500 years working out the
>> implications of the dogma of the incarnation, for one thing...
>
>Yeah, such reasoning got us epicycles and other oddities to explain
>why reality was wrong. This is not thinking in my book. Make the data
>fit the theory has the tail wagging the dog, not the brain doing
>honest inquiry. In fact, in doing such one must abandon honest thought.
I don't think so.
Where was reality declared to be wrong in the workings of the
incarnation?
>
>> Take, on another idea, the dogma, (teaching) of the dignity of human
>> life.
>
>In teaching dogma, one ignores such dignity however. When failure to
>assert dogma is a death sentence, there is no dignity.
Grin... so, is 1 + 1, 2?
How do you know?
>
>> That leads to all KINDS of thought: about working conditions, about
>> death, about all sorts of things.
>
>These things happened only after the church lost power janet, the church
>had taught for centuries that life did not matter at all,
Sorry, Rich, but prove that, through church documents.
Yes, I know a lot of people said it, but that's not the same as dogma.
> it was just
>preperation for the after-life, and thus we had the dark ages.
Grin... dont SAY that!
A lot of historians reject the term dark ages, and I agree with them
> The church
>was not only the source of none of these issues, it opposed them all.
Show me where.
>
>> >> The point about dogma is to teach, and to me teaching is ABOUT thought,
>> >> but there are those who are really frightened of it.
>> >
>> >But dogma is not necessary to teach. Nor do I think it conducive to
>> >learning.
>>
>> Um, dogma IS teaching... that's what it means.
>
>Dogma's are absolutes, in learning absolutes one must be taught, usually
>on pain of punishment to *not* question. I have some personal experience
>here. Dogma is learning by rote *not* to think.
>
Then I'm sorry about your experience, and it is not what it should have
been!
>> Do you mean it is not necessary to teach specific dogmas?
>
>You tell me.
What about the sanctity of human life?
>
>> How will we raise kids to be reasonable citizens if we DON'T teach
>> dogmas like the sanctity of human life, the right to private property,
>> and so on?
>
>Seems to me that for centuries the church was opposed to all of these
>and more.
Sigh... again, show me...
> These principles were by others, and they perservered against
>religous censure. And as far as I know, private property is not
>Catholic dogma.
Grin... then, forgive me, you are wrong.
Thomas Aquinas talked about it, and so do far more recent church
documents....
>
>> >> I call it the Wiley E Coyote idea of faith: you know how he never falls
>> >> off a cliff till he realises that he's standing on thin air? Well, it
>> >> seems to me that a lot of people are afraid to look to see if their
>> >> faith holds up to thought, cause they are afraid that it might not!
>> >
>> >Then perhaps they are wise to do so, either that or they really have no
>> >faith and are fooling themselves.
>>
>> Which is why I don't go around kicking the props out from under them...
>
>What makes you think that you can?
I don't know that I can.
> And what gives you the right to shield
>them from debate of these issues?
I'm not. But I still don't think I necessarily have a right to initiate
such debates with them
> Seems to me that you would rather perpetuate
>ignorance than have an honest discussion, which is sad.
Sigh... no, I hope that is not the case.
I can only think of one conversation I pulled out of for the above
reason, and considering the number of conversations I've had...
>
>> >> >> any more than the ones Aquinas wrote: they all work for some people,
>but
>> >> >> they are hardly convincing to all...
>> >> >
>> >> >They convince lots and lots of people janet. I've had the <errr> dubious
>> >> >pleasure of attempting to discuss it with many of them.
>> >>
>> >> Oh, I know they convince a lot of people, and that's fine for them.
>> >
>> >Is it? Is this the result of an infinite god who is all love? Please
>> >explain.
>>
>> It's fine for them, if they are happy to let their faith rest there: it
>> si NOT for me to come along and say, "nope, you're wrong, I'm right...".
>
>You seem to do it to me all the time, that is, I am wrong to ask questions
>and expect discussion of issues as you are adamant to protect those above
>from exposure to ideas.
Whooa, I didn't EVER mean to constrain you, and I don't think I have
done.
Nor have I said you were wrong to question...
>
>> I don't see what you mean by the rest of it... (call it the result of a
>> looonnnggg week...)
>
>OK, it must be the result of a looonnnggg week. :^}
>
>> >> They don't convince me, but I still beleive in god:
>> >
>> >Why?
>>
>> Because I do, is about the only real answer to that.
>
>Clearly if you must believe then you could not have experienced
>god, which would explain why you cannot show me god.
Oh, I am quite certain that I have experienced god, (although that's not
a phrase I use very often).
But I can't convince anyone else of that.
>
>> Faith which can be explained and proven is not faith...
>
>So much for theology.
Noticed, did you? :)
The point of theology is not to prove the existence of God, although
there are those who have not figured that out yet...
>
>> >> I just don't beleive
>> >> because of the "proofs", is all!
>> >
>> >If the Christian god exists, and wants to hide, then such a god could
>> >not be found. But in doing so we have many contradictions, destroying
>> >your claim of logical consistency.
>>
>> Grin... I didn't say that the christian god is hiding.
>
>Then show me god.
See above
>
>> I said I don't have a logical argument which proves the existence of the
>> divine, is all.
>
>Why logic when you claim an infinite all-powerful god who is everywhere?
>Who needs logic?
I didn't say I could do it with logic...
>
>> >> (Grin... and beleive me, catholics are REAL targets for fundamentalists,
>> >> especially FEMINIST catholics who hang out with people who aren't even
>> >> CHRISTIAN!!!) (grin...)
>> >
>> >Well good for you I'm not a fundy, right?
>>
>> Thank heavens....
>
>Large tidings from the bay of fundy!
T I D I N G S <----- large enough?
>
>> >Gotta go, early flight tomorrow.
>>
>> Safe journey! :)
>
>Done, but I am tired and have much to do.
>
Grin.. then get GOING, what are you doing playing on here?
What am *I* doing, come to that...?
Rich
janet wrote:
< six levels of headers cut>
> >> []
> >> re: photography of the divine...
> []
> >> >
> >> >Point made: physical existence is not a prerequisite for being photographed.
> >> >
> >> >Response: none.
> >>
> >> Your response, or mine?
> >
> >Yours, and you did it again. I summarized my response above, you amplified your
> >non-response.
>
> Rich, I have a feeling here that we are going to keep having this
> problem...
>
> I CAN'T point to God and say, "Look!".
Why not? You say that god is everywhere, omnipotent, and loves me.
So why not?
> Nor can I convince you of the existence of God, and *I will not try*.
But since god is on vacation, how am I to find god if you do not
point the way?
BTW, I recall that god announced vacation plans at the beginning of
the nt when jesus was sent and god was said to not need to visit
earth anymore, as a very rough paraphrase.
> I can talk about what I beleive, but that's about all.
But you will not even do that?
> Is that the problem?
The endless discaimers in lieu of discussion is what I have problems
with.
> >> >> >> and I've said before that I don't
> >> >> >> think God has any of those... (does this belong on alt.fem., btw?)
> >> >> >
> >> >> >You need to correlate the concepts of infinite and the concepts of
> >> >> >"nothing" for me then. Either god exists, and matter and energy can
> >> >> >both be detected, or god does not exist, and, risking a double
> >> >> >negative, nothing cannot be detected.
> >> >>
> >> >> Rich, can you detect love?
> >> >
> >> >Actually, I can tell when I am in love, which seems to fit your bill.
> >>
> >> Um, no, I actually meant, can you tell when someone loves you?
> >
> >Long term, I think I can. Love is not something you do but the reason
> >you do things. J loved her cats, that was clear, she was always thinking
> >of them and doing what she could to anticipate their needs and make
> >them happy. My situation was quite different. :^\
>
> But then, I would say that love is something we DO, but love is what God
> IS.
Then you do know god? What exactly does this mean? If god loves us, why
does hell and the devil exist?
> >> >> Where is the energy and matter in that?
> >> >
> >> >Are you kidding? Love is a state of matter. No matter, no love.
> >>
> >> Really?
> >
> >Really.
> >
> >> (That's an honest question...). Can you not love an ideal? Can you not
> >> love someone who is dead?
> >
> >You can love anything, physical or not, this is a matter of your state, not
> >it's. It seems clear that you missed the distinction clear somehow.
>
> Ok, are you saying that love can only come from something that is
> matter?
No, I'm saying that you are confusing what you do and what others do.
You can love unicorns, they do not exist, but -you- can love -them-.
Your love has no bearing on the state of existance of what you love.
> IOW, that only physical bodies, or those equipped with same,
> can love?
Unless you can show different.
> >> Do you mean that you need a body to feel love?
> >
> >As far as I know, you need to *exist* to love, and bodies seem part and
> >parcel of existence.
>
> Grin... I would disagree. But I can't prove it.
Why? How do you know whether or not god has a body?
> >> I don't know about
> >> that...
> >
> >Translated: I know this is wrong.
> >
> >An interesting point of common english usage.
>
> Actually, I meant what I said... cause I was still thinking about it.
It has been my observation that when a woman says -I don't know- what
she usually means is -I know you are wrong-. And I am not talking
about a single isolated example either, not by a long shot.
> []
>
> >> >> Further, let me say that having a picture of god is in no way important
> >> >> for me...
> >> >
> >> >Well gee, Christians, including Catholics seem to have images and statues
> >> >of Jesus all over the place, usually bleeding.
> >>
> >> I know.... many of them are gross...
> >
> >So do all other religions that I know of, images are an important part of
> >them all. Unless you know of some exceptions, this would seem to be a
> >reflection of the way humans understand the universe.
>
> Um, I think there ARE Eastern religions that don't have images...
Don't think so. But you can name one if you remember.
> But I agree. The human mind seems to need images. There is, though, a
> difference between the image and the thing imaged:
You seem pretty sure of your images janet. No, really. And I'm not passing
judgement here, just making an observation.
> I could tell you all
> about my kids, for instance, but there is no way I could make you love
> them as I do, does that make sense?
You cannot force anyone to love, anymore than you can force yourself
to relax.
But let me ask you this, why do you love your kids?
> >> > Seems an odd thing if images are not important.
> >>
> >> I didn't say that they were not important to OTHERS, but that they are
> >> not important to me.
> >
> >And you have nothing to do with your religion, which is awash with them
> >then. Glad to clear that up. What else do you care to disclaim?
>
> Sigh, no, that's not what I meant, of course I have to do with my
> religion.
Good, I was getting worried there for a minute. :^}
> But my religion teaches that those images are just that: they are
> reminders of the reality, and there is no definitive image, no "ONE"
> image that captures God.
But such images are everywhere, and idol worship is still practiced
in the form of rosaries. There are many physical underpinnings to
Caltholicism.
Hmmm, dinner is nearly ready, I'm having mixed veggies cooked in
butter with chicken. I'll add some soy sauce when cooked. The mix
has broccoli, sweet soybeans, carrots, and sliced water chestnuts.
> >> I don't think that any one, particular image SHOULD be important:
> >> anymore than I think the photos I carry around are actually the people I
> >> love. They are reminders...
> >
> >Funny, Meri and the anti-porn feminist movement seem to think that they
> >steal the woman's souls.
>
> Yes, well, that's them... (and I don't think that's quite accurate...)
> :)
Actually, I think it is as accurate as any summary, and if there is
a difference between their responses and the above, I'd like to understand
what it is. How else can sex degrade a woman?
> >> >And what was that commandment about graven images?
> >>
> >> Grin..... what about it?
> >>
> >> Yup, it goes by the board in my patch of the woods, as do a lot of
> >> things from the OT. I'm quite happy to eat a cheeseburger, and shrimp
> >> cocktail, I have no intention of returning home in 2000, or of giving up
> >> my job....
>
> >Hey, that was never *my* demand. It's the overt and blatant feminist
> >sexism that bothers me, still well supported by the feminists in this ng.
>
> Whoa, wait, where did that come in?
Now it fits in alt.feminism. But the above remains true.
> >> >> >> And of course, considering the "whatsoever you do" to anyone else is
> >> >> >> thought to have been done to God...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Is god afraid that taking it's picture will steal it's soul?
> >> >>
> >> >> Nooooo.... theological conundrum, there...
> >> >
> >> >Or perhaps god is just on vacation or somesuch?
> >>
> >> Grin.... you've been reading Pratchett again... and the OhGod of
> >> Hangovers, filling in for other gods...
> >>
> >> No, I don't think god is on vacation... where would god GO? :)
> >
> >If god created this universe, god could create as many others as god
> >wanted, no? Why does god suddenly gain human limitations in some
> >contexts?
>
> God could create whatever God wanted...
Can god create a rock so heavy that god cannot lift it? :^}
> But I still don't think there could be anyplace God did NOT create, and
> why go on vacation to someplace that is your own work?
Where was god when god created the universe then? And you seem to be implying
that god created god.
As for the second part, had I built my own house and lived there, this would
not be my first choice for a vacation. The idea is to get away from it all
and see someplace else. I've had more than enough of that for now. :^}
> >> >> Theory, (can we take it as read, that I am talking about the theory from
> >> >> where I am coming from, and NOT insisting that anyone else buy
> >> >> it/beleive it/whatever...?) (thanks...) says that god is ultimately
> >> >> simple.
> >> >
> >> >Then I, being ultimately simple, should be able to understand god, right?
> >>
> >> But you are NOT ultimately simple!
> >
> >You mean averti has been lying to me? :^}
>
> Never! Horrors, heaven FORFEND!
>
> >> You are a composite being, just like
> >> the rest of us.
> >
> >Composite? What does that mean in this context?
>
> Body and soul, mind and body, thought and physicality....
By what means do you seperate these? And what is the difference
between body and physicality?
> >> >Finally got some of the nuances of mainframe disk management straight today,
> >> >now it's simple. Who'd have guessed I'd ever be doing such a thing. I
> >> >do like the error message "vary rejected" however. :^}
> >>
> >> Grin.... I try never to reject variance, it's too much fun...
> >
> >Sometimes you VTOC too much. :^}
>
> VTOC?
Hehe, pronouce that V Talk, as in talk too much. You need to study up
on operating systems, VTOC is Volume Table Of Contents. :^}
> >> >> That means, that whereas you and I can say, "This is my love, this is my
> >> >> foot, this is me being angry or hungry", such divisions just do not
> >> >> exist in god.
> >> >
> >> >Why not? In the OT we have an angry vengeful god, seems these divisions
> >> >are very real, no? And if god is prefect, god cannot change, so the divisions
> >> >must still exist, right?
> >>
> >> This is high speculative theology, Rich!
> >
> >Really? How so?
>
> The perfection of god, the immutability of god... that's the stuff of
> speculative theology
Thought that was dogma?
> >> Yes, I would say that god can not change. I would also say that
> >> depictions of god are just that: depictions, mediated through the human
> >> mind and storytelling.
> >
> >Depictions of god are one thing, the issue is what god is purported to
> >have done, which tend to be at variance of your depiction of god.
>
> WHich is perfectly true.
Thank you.
> Because all depictions are limited: if I say "God is this" then I am
> placing a limit on god... which is a human failing.
| But then, I would say that love is something we DO, but love is what God
| IS.
Hmmmmm....
> In fact, there is a school of thought that we can ONLY say negative
> things about god:
Now what did your mother tell you about this? :^}
Here I reach maximum editor size, continued next post
Rich
Rich
(continued from pervious post)
> >> Yes, I would say that god can not change. I would also say that
> >> depictions of god are just that: depictions, mediated through the human
> >> mind and storytelling.
> >
> >Depictions of god are one thing, the issue is what god is purported to
> >have done, which tend to be at variance of your depiction of god.
>
> WHich is perfectly true.
Thank you.
> Because all depictions are limited: if I say "God is this" then I am
> placing a limit on god... which is a human failing.
| But then, I would say that love is something we DO, but love is what God
| IS.
Hmmmmm....
> In fact, there is a school of thought that we can ONLY say negative
> things about god:
Now what did your mother tell you about this? :^}
> we can only say "God is NOT this, that or the other",
> as in god is not incomplete...
Clearly you did not go to that school.
| But then, I would say that love is something we DO, but love is what God
| IS.
> But I agree there are variations between what god is said to have done
> in the OT and what I say about god now.
But something most be true, that is, god cannot have done and not done
the things in the OT, either god did them or god did not. What say you?
Note, I am asking for -your- opinion.
> (You didn't actually expect me to have ALL the answers, now did you?)
I am only responding to what you say, and yes, I do expect you to be able
to respond about your opinions. :^}
<>
> >> >> When one says, "God is love", one speaks the literal truth:
> >> >
> >> >I'd question that, in human terms, love is being there. No one can love
> >> >by proxy or by putting out a popular book. If god loves me, where is god?
> >>
> >> Here. Omnipresent.
> >
> >Where, exactly? Be literal and precise please, I'm kinda slow here.
>
> This is what I meant at the beginning of this post, Rich.
That I'm kinda slow? :^}
> This is a matter of beleif and faith,
Then god is not real, god is faith, is that it?
> not one of logic....
Why do we need logic if god really exists? Logic can prove or
disprove nothing, god however, could prove gods existance. That
is, after the vacation.
> *I* beleive
> god to be omnipresent, here everywhere, in you, in me, and so on...
Then how is it that you cannot point god out?
> But I can't prove that to you, and I won't try.
Lets step back a bit, can you explain it to me?
> >> In whatever way you like,
> >
> >I have no prejudices on the matter.
> >
> >> but ALSO in the presence
> >> of others...
> >
> >Are we gonna get circular again?
>
> Round and round and round we go.... :)
I'm getting dizzy, think I'll go see my spin doctor. :^}
> If by being circular you mean, "are we gonna end up at the idea of faith
> again?", yup, we are...
What is faith?
> >> >Keep in mind that love is a human concept,
> >>
> >> Wry grin... not from where I am sitting.
> >
> >Then you are not human.
>
> Been said before...
This was more than just funny phrasing.
Love *is* a human concept, this is beyond debate, unless
you want to debate it. So what exactly are you saying?
> > Which rather disagrees with some other
> >claims you have made about how you talk about things.
>
> No, what I meant was that human love is indeed human, but that it is not
> the only kind of love.
Show me. Then explain to me how love in anything but human terms
can be meaningful to you or me.
> >> To me, love is part of the
> >> image of the divine within us.
> >
> >We are getting circular. But you have placed love as something
> >"within us", ergo, as a state of matter.
>
> If you think that all there is to humanity is material, then yes, it
> would be.
>
> I don't think we ARE all matter...
What's the matter? :^}
What else *are* we?
> >> NOW, (follow, please...) we are created in that image and likeness,
> >
> >Which just above you disclaimed. We are getting *very* circular here.
>
> ?
>
> I don't think I did just disclaim it...
>
> Oh, I think I see.
>
> When I was talking about "images of god" I meant pictorical
> representations.
Not just pictorial, but *any* image, be it verbal, written, engraved,
lithographic, photographed, oh wait, lets not go down that road again.
You get the point, I hope.
> >And how can man be in the image of that which has no image?
>
> Grin....
Which brings to mind the cheshire cat.
> I would say that the image of god within humanity is there in things
> like rationality, love, and the need we seem to have to return to or
> find god...
Then you are saying that the way we look has nothing to do with being
made in gods image? BTW, there seem to be a few failures.
> >> (both of us, not just you qua male, there are TWO stories in
> >> Genesis...). Thus, we are created to be in the image of a being who IS
> >> love...
> >
> >How can love be "within us" then?
>
> How can it not?
Then we are back to what's the matter with the image theory?
> >> so love is both a human and a divine concept, or thing, or
> >> being-ness... but in approximating the divine, we become more what we
> >> were created to be in the first place, that is, more human...
> >
> >There goes free will again. If god, who is unknowable, is love (how can
> >we know this?),
>
> We can't, at least, we can't prove it. I know it, but I can't prove it.
How do you know? And is love something you know, or something you feel?
> >then there is still something seriously wrong with the OT.
>
> If taken literally, yes.
How do you take it? With cream and sugar? :^}
> >> >if god loves, it must be love
> >> >in human terms.
> >>
> >> "Everything is received according to the mode of the receiver": I can
> >> only RECEIVE love in human terms, yes.
> >
> >Which means not, as god has done (or so it is claimed), via a book or by
> >proxy.
>
> But the book is NOT the love of god, it is a human recording of events
> and ideas...
Then where is the love? (hey, that might make a top ten -song-!)
<>
> >> Theology is a discipline in search of a language, and always has been.
> >
> >Is this like a pregnancy looking for a woman? I rather that that the
> >woman was required *first*. With no language, there can be no discipline.
> >The language of physics is math for example.
>
> But the theology is there first: theology is the wonder, the experience
> of god.
No, thought requires language, theology requires thought.
No language, no theology.
> The problem comes when TWO people want to talk about it.
The problem comes when any two people wanna talk about anything
janet.
> Can you describe why you love someone?
I can describe why I think I love someone, nevertheless, you
are confusing thought, which requires language, and feelings,
which are rooted far deeper in the brain. But we have words for
all the feelings, and we communicate the presence or absence
of said feelings with language. The "why" is a completely
different and irrelevant question.
> Not completely, not enough to
> make someone else feel the same.
>
> >
> >> ANYTHING we say of god is an approximation: if there are no limits to
> >> god, then no words can ever really be applied to the divine....
> >
> >But you do have limits, and as such you cannot have the knowledge needed
> >to make that claim.
>
> I have limits, and thus know that I can not know the entirety of God.
| But then, I would say that love is something we DO, but love is what God
| IS.
> >As I have posted previously, I am always amused by
> >people who claim that god is unknowable then go on and talk as if they
> >were drinking buddies.
>
> I didn't say God was unknowable, I think... I said I couldn't define
> god, couldn't encompass god in words.
You have made a distinction, now what is the difference?
> As to the drinking buddy, ever heard the Joplin song?
>
> "Oh Lord, won't you buy me a night on the town
> I'm counting on you, Lord, please don't let me down
> prove that you love me
> And buy the next round..."
I like that song.
> >> It's headache making....
> >
> >Here, have a few ibuprofen.
>
> thanks...
Wash it down with this beer. :^}
> >> > A god that
> >> >is literal love does not destroy all life on earth but one love-boat full.
> >>
> >> Agreed.
> >>
> >> >There are many other instances of god showing everything but love.
> >>
> >> Agreed. See what I said above...
> >
> >Which rather missed the point near as I can tell.
>
> Sorry, I hope I did better this time...
Do you believe that god destroyed all life on earth but an ark-full,
destroyed saddam and gamorrah, turned lots wife into salt, etc...?
> >> >> god, however, has only essence,
> >> >
> >> >Essence must equal something. Love is a state of matter, where does this
> >> >lead us?
> >>
> >> It leads us, I think, to a disagreement about what love is.
> >
> >You define love as a property of that which you claim cannot be known,
> >which undermines the claim or at least your knowledge base.
>
> Um, no, I dont claim love is a PROPERTY of God...
You claim that you cannot even know what love is, but you had previously
claimed.
| But then, I would say that love is something we DO, but love is what God
| IS.
Your recent claim pulls the rug out of your knowing the above.
> >> Can you explain what you mean by "love is a state of matter"?
> >
> >Can you describe what you mean when you state that love is a part of
> >the devine?
>
> Grin... I didn't.
>
> The divine IS love...
I thought that it went, -chocolate is divine-.
Nevertheless, how can you know?
> >> >> no accidents, (speaking creator
> >> >> god here...) if that makes sense?
> >> >
> >> >Not really.
> >>
> >> Um, it's not easy... sorry...
> >>
> >> Look, your essence is humanity, yes?
> >
> >Is it? What exactly does this mean?
>
> It means that there is something about you and me and the rest of us
> that sets us apart from other things. Something that means we can look
> at each other and say, "Yup, that's a human...".
Yep, but that's a matter of genetics. I can tell a human from a rock,
can you? And how about rock stars?
> Aristotle said it was the ability to laugh, but I presume the
> geneticists can get closer than that now...
Have they broken the genetic code of rocks?
Nevertheless, you seem to be saying that being human is a material
thing, kinda like Madonna.
> >> Your accidents are things like race, sex, hair and eye colour: the
> >> essence is what you ARE....
> >
> >And how can you seperate the two? These are all part of who I am, and
> >from the religous claims, and no accidents, and I tend to think that
> >genetics has something to do with it as well (herectical as that may seem).
>
> Exactly!
>
> I would say that yes, hair colour and all the rest ARE accidents, in the
> philosophical sense: they are "accidental", in that you would still be
> human were your hair a different colour and so on.
>
> You might well not be YOU, but that is not what I'm on about here...
What are you on about here? I've lost it.
> >> >> God *is* love, and mercy and justice,
> >> >> and I know, I know, those last two can NOT be combined in the human
> >> >> psyche...
> >> >
> >> >Nor can they be derived from the OT. Are you saying that the OT is wrong?
> >>
> >> I'm saying that the OT is divinely inspired,
> >
> >Then the devine inspiration seems to conflict with your beliefs here.
>
> How?
>
> I said divinely inspired, not inerrant in every word.
Death and distruction are love "divinely inspired"? What about, what is it,
proverbs, the one which predicts the future? This is the inspiration of
divine love? Regardless of the accuracy of the book, the messages are the
inspiration, are they not, and the message is not one of love.
<>
> >> >> I really like that song, but it paints a very sad picture, with only the
> >> >> "pope in rome" calling god on the phone...
> >> >
> >> >So?
> >>
> >> I think it's sad, is all.. poor god!
> >
> >Yeah, really, nothing but omni-everything, god must be difficult to
> >shop for, eh? :^}
>
> Grin... probably....
I mean, god has everything already.
> >> >> (you could try www.vatican.com... I kid you not....)
> >> >
> >> >I'll take a look.
> >>
> >> Have fun....
> >
> >Hehe. Say, do you believe that the number saved is pre-determined and
> >fixed?
>
> NO!!! That's not us, that's the folk down the hall... yeesh, don't GO
> there, or you'll get into all sorts of calculations...
There was a time when I'd have gone there just to check the numbers, but
today I have neither the time nor the inclination.
But that seems to be part of the divine inspiration nonetheless.
> >> >> >> But that's what my God IS, Rich...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >The song, which I could not recall the name of last post is called,
> >> >> >"What if god is one of us", or at least that is the tag line. Tis a
> >> >> >rather pretty song, although I would imagine some religions might find
> >> >> >it offensive.
> >> >>
> >> >> Oh, I would imagine so... I've never heard anyone complain, which may
> >> >> well just mean I haven't been listening!
> >> >
> >> >But oddly, it seemed to be what you were saying above somewhere, which
> >> >would seem at odds with your stated religion.
> >>
> >> Pardon? what was at odds with what?
> >
> >| Unless, of course, one decides to say that the deity is in all of us,
> >| hmmmm... :)
> >
> >This would seem to be at odds both with Catholic dogma and your statements
> >above.
>
> To say that we all ARE god is at odds with catholic dogma, yes.
And to say "that the deity is in all of us"?
> >> >> >> I've tried to be very careful and
> >> >> >> limit it, because I do NOT wish to pontificate about other
> >> >> >> sects/groups/faiths...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I have not asked you to do so.
> >> >>
> >> >> I know. Call it caution: there are just so MANY fundamentalists who
> >> >> come in to all sorts of ng and say, "This is what you HAVE to beleive!!"
> >> >> that I fall all over myself making it clear that I am not doing that...
> >> >
> >> >Do I -have- to believe that? :^}
> >>
> >> No. You are at liberty to beleive that there are no fundamentalist
> >> trolls on any newsgroup whatsoever.
> >
> >Robin, is that you?
>
> which Robin?
Robin troll troll your boat Cook, of course.
> The one on tnnrc is hardly a fundamentalist: "fluffy bunny" is closer to
> it, in her OWN WORDS! :)
Read our recent posts in the catholic ng.
> >> May I show you some waterside property in Idaho, please?
> >
> >I'm still making payments on the bridge janet. :^}
>
> Oh, alright... and you're late with the last one, btw...
But there was this darhling 1GB parallel port HD I just -had-
to have. :^}
> >> >> > But if we limit ourselves to what we
> >> >> >know well, we have little to talk about and stop growing.
> >> >>
> >> >> Agreed!
> >> >>
> >> >> Which is why I spend so much time discussing things like this in places
> >> >> that might not be expected, and with people from very different paths: I
> >> >> learn a LOT more from them... :)
> >> >
> >> >Not me. :^P
> >>
> >> Wanna bet?
> >
> >Hey, you missed a Monty Python one-liner, from _The Life of Brian_ no less.
>
> hangs head, shuffles feet... I never saw that film!
Run, don't walk, run to your nearest video store and *steal* it. Wait,
I don't believe I said that, what must you be thinking, running can
be unsafe, walk very fast! :^}
<>
> >> >If I ask you a question, don't I have some expectation to an answer to the
> >> >question (even if it is "get lost") rather than a sermon about something
> >> >else?
> >>
> >> Yes, but you are not necessarily the only one who will read the answer!
> >
> >Which means what, exactly?
>
> Lurkers, m'dear....
Who are you talking with?
> >> >Cause that is what I end up getting. Remember when I posted that a
> >> >discussion requires that both people talk about the same thing at the same
> >> >time? I seem to recall your agreeing.
> >>
> >> And I still agree....
> >
> >When you post naught by disclaimers and disclaimers to disclaimers, there
> >is nothing left to disclaim janet. This *is* the problem I am having.
>
> See above.
Why? Are you talking with them or me?
> I simply don't wish to appear to preach. Nor am I even going to TRY to
> attempt to prove the existence of God...
Why is not god self-evident? It is easy enough to prove my existance,
and I am just a limited human being on one place at a time.
<>
> >> Grin... I am NOT the be all and end all of catholic dogma! :)
> >
> >Why not? No ambition? :^}
>
> Oh, ambition alright, but that's a bit much even for me...
Give yourself a challenge, you can become the source of Catholic
dogma right after you convert me, OK? :^}
> >> But just because I do not agree with, or beleive something, is no reason
> >> for me not to discuss it.
> >
> >But "not discussing" it is exactly what you end up doing so often.
>
> I'm trying, here...
To discuss or disclaim? Can you not do both?
> >> >> Perhaps it would be better to talk about "beliefs about other gods"...
> >> >> it's me falling over trying not to seem to put anyone ELSE'S beleifs
> >> >> down...
> >> >
> >> >There is an essential conflict between supporting Catholic dogma and being
> > >PC.
> >>
> >> Grin..... I'm not trying to be PC,
> >
> >I disagree, that seems to be exactly what you are doing.
>
> Nope.
I disagree, you worry more about the "lurkers" than the conversation you
are engaged in.
> Look, the most fruitful theological discussions I've had in a LOONNNGGGG
> time have been with people from paths so far removed from mine that such
> disclaimers might seem overbearing, but still I felt the need to make
> them.
And make them, and make them, in lieu of conversation?
Do you think our paths are similar?
> Put it this way: what I say is what I beleive, and to the best of my
> knowledge, what my church teaches.
Then what are you worrying about?
> It is not what I say others SHOULD beleive.
Where did this come from? You are preaching to lurkers again, and I
think it's a bit rude.
<>
> >> >> I doubt it very much, cause there was never much of a physical
> >> >> manifestation: clouds and pillars of fire, but I think the text was
> >> >> always careful to say that God was IN those, not that god WAS those...
> >> >
> >> >Is not Jesus a physical manifestation?
> >>
> >> Yes, sorry, I was answering from the POV of the OT...
> >
> >But having a wider scope, we can look further across time, can we not?
>
> Yes, and in that sense, YHWH could have been photographed, (unless you
> really want to get into heavy duty trinitarian theology, but you'll need
> someone else to do it with, NOT my field...)
Say, you into field theory?
<>
> >> >Been waiting for the dictionary to come out. But you know martians,
> >> >never in a hurry.
> >>
> >> Really? I seem to recall one bustling about, complaining of being
> >> "busy, busy, busy... " and a new road coming through RIGHT where the
> >> earth was...
> >
> >No no no, you confuse the Vogon's with martians. May you be blessed with
> >two verses of Vogon poetry. :^}
>
> That was not NICE!!
You should survive 2 verses, and I understand that your hair usually
grows back. :^}
> I meant Marvin the martian, from the bugs bunny cartoons!!
Hmmm, good point, it seems Hitchikers borrowed from Marvin.
> ><ahem, fiber cut>
> >
> >> >> The huge mistake is to confuse faith with logic.
> >> >
> >> >And a common one, by my observation.
> >>
> >> nss
Eh? Vas is das?
> >> >> If it were possible to prove the tenets of faith, they would not be the
> >> >> tenets of *faith*!
> >> >
> >> >Why is faith necessary were this loving god to exist?
> >>
> >> Because the babel fish got lost in the shower...
> >
> >Is that why the shower keeps babbling? BTW, how is it that after the
> >moon shot we can still communicate? Did god change again?
>
> Why should we not be able to communicate? I've lost it again, it's me
> age...
Remember when they built the tower of babel to get closer to god and
god made everyone speak a different language? Seems like the Shuttle gets
a tad bit closer. And if it is wrong to get close to god what does this
say about cleanliness? Is god clean?
> >> Do you mean why didn't this loving god give us absolute proof of the
> >> existence of the divine?
> >
> >Hey, I do not deal in absolutes, I do not even know absoluetly that
> >you exist. But I do have evidence for your existence, can you see the
> >difference?
>
> Yes. And I can not give you irrefutable proof of the existence of god.
I deal in evidence however, proofs are for mathematics.
Can you give me *any* evidence at all?
<>
> >> >> > It is usually pointless to discuss logic with
> >> >> >anyone who makes such a comment, and I tend to think that many prople
> >> >> >hear such things in church.
> >> >>
> >> >> Probably, although I haven't heard it in mine...
> >> >
> >> >Not even indirectly, as an unstated premise?
> >>
> >> Not that I have noticed, and I am pretty careful about preaching I
> >> hear... but even Homer nods...
> >
> >Do you preach in your church?
>
> Oh, get real: in a catholic church in the UK????
Well, you seemed to be inferring it, and that was what I thought.
> Hardly, at least not from the pulpit.
And I also thought this. :^}
> However, there is more to preaching than the pulpit... :)
Robes? :^}
> >> >> >I find it amusing when you post that dogma
> >> >> >can lead to thought, as in my observation it always shuts it down.
> >> >>
> >> >> Grin... it can do both!
> >> >
> >> >Example?
> >>
> >> Well, the church seems to have spent about 500 years working out the
> >> implications of the dogma of the incarnation, for one thing...
> >
> >Yeah, such reasoning got us epicycles and other oddities to explain
> >why reality was wrong. This is not thinking in my book. Make the data
> >fit the theory has the tail wagging the dog, not the brain doing
> >honest inquiry. In fact, in doing such one must abandon honest thought.
>
> I don't think so.
You need to read up on the history of science, because in truth, religion
led to dishonesty about the world. The Catholic church only just admitted
that Galielo was right.
> Where was reality declared to be wrong in the workings of the
> incarnation?
Look to the motions of planetary bodies. It was dogmatic that the
planets had to travel in circles because circles are perfect and
god, who is prefect, could have only created perfect planets,
which travel in circles.
> >> Take, on another idea, the dogma, (teaching) of the dignity of human
> >> life.
> >
> >In teaching dogma, one ignores such dignity however. When failure to
> >assert dogma is a death sentence, there is no dignity.
>
> Grin... so, is 1 + 1, 2?
By definition. These are just labels anyway.
> How do you know?
The labels are arbitrary, but the relationships are not.
If I have an apple in each hand, no matter what I call the
number, I still have two apples, no matter what I call two.
The magic of math is using symbols as place holders for the
numbers.
> >> That leads to all KINDS of thought: about working conditions, about
> >> death, about all sorts of things.
> >
> >These things happened only after the church lost power janet, the church
> >had taught for centuries that life did not matter at all,
>
> Sorry, Rich, but prove that, through church documents.
Don't have the time or any references here in Fla. Can you show
different?
> Yes, I know a lot of people said it, but that's not the same as dogma.
So you are saying it was not Church dogma, I disagree.
> > it was just
> >preperation for the after-life, and thus we had the dark ages.
>
> Grin... dont SAY that!
Why not?
> A lot of historians reject the term dark ages, and I agree with them
So? Not my dogma.
> > The church
> >was not only the source of none of these issues, it opposed them all.
>
> Show me where.
Show me god.
> >> >> The point about dogma is to teach, and to me teaching is ABOUT thought,
> >> >> but there are those who are really frightened of it.
> >> >
> >> >But dogma is not necessary to teach. Nor do I think it conducive to
> >> >learning.
> >>
> >> Um, dogma IS teaching... that's what it means.
> >
> >Dogma's are absolutes, in learning absolutes one must be taught, usually
> >on pain of punishment to *not* question. I have some personal experience
> >here. Dogma is learning by rote *not* to think.
>
> Then I'm sorry about your experience, and it is not what it should have
> been!
Who are you to say? And I thought you did not make such pronouncements?
> >> Do you mean it is not necessary to teach specific dogmas?
> >
> >You tell me.
>
> What about the sanctity of human life?
Pity if you were accused of being a witch. I understand that in
Europe entire villages were put to the torch. What about it?
> >> How will we raise kids to be reasonable citizens if we DON'T teach
> >> dogmas like the sanctity of human life, the right to private property,
> >> and so on?
> >
> >Seems to me that for centuries the church was opposed to all of these
> >and more.
>
> Sigh... again, show me...
Methinks that is well beyond the scope of this thread, as well as
my time and current resources.
And it's not as if you have shown me anything yet. How about a
trade, you show me god and I'll look everything up?
> > These principles were by others, and they perservered against
> >religous censure. And as far as I know, private property is not
> >Catholic dogma.
>
> Grin... then, forgive me, you are wrong.
Show me. At least for something that you have sources for handy.
> Thomas Aquinas talked about it, and so do far more recent church
> documents....
Name one please.
> >> >> I call it the Wiley E Coyote idea of faith: you know how he never falls
> >> >> off a cliff till he realises that he's standing on thin air? Well, it
> >> >> seems to me that a lot of people are afraid to look to see if their
> >> >> faith holds up to thought, cause they are afraid that it might not!
> >> >
> >> >Then perhaps they are wise to do so, either that or they really have no
> >> >faith and are fooling themselves.
> >>
> >> Which is why I don't go around kicking the props out from under them...
> >
> >What makes you think that you can?
>
> I don't know that I can.
Why are you incapable of answering a direct simple question?
> > And what gives you the right to shield
> >them from debate of these issues?
>
> I'm not.
You are, by dint of not responding to me.
> But I still don't think I necessarily have a right to initiate
> such debates with them
But you are trading posts with -me-, Rich, remember? <knock knock>
<>
> >You seem to do it to me all the time, that is, I am wrong to ask questions
> >and expect discussion of issues as you are adamant to protect those above
> >from exposure to ideas.
>
> Whooa, I didn't EVER mean to constrain you, and I don't think I have
> done.
>
> Nor have I said you were wrong to question...
You would just rather disclaim than respond. <sigh>
<>
> >> >> They don't convince me, but I still beleive in god:
> >> >
> >> >Why?
> >>
> >> Because I do, is about the only real answer to that.
But above you hold me to task for not being able to explain
*why* I love someone. I see we have a double standard here.
> >Clearly if you must believe then you could not have experienced
> >god, which would explain why you cannot show me god.
>
> Oh, I am quite certain that I have experienced god, (although that's not
> a phrase I use very often).
How did you experience god?
> But I can't convince anyone else of that.
The way you respond you could not give directions to the corner
store. I'm not asking to be convinced, I'm asking for information.
But we seem to be stuck in the Apple Jacks conundrum.
> >> Faith which can be explained and proven is not faith...
> >
> >So much for theology.
>
> Noticed, did you? :)
>
> The point of theology is not to prove the existence of God, although
> there are those who have not figured that out yet...
What is the point then? Oh yes, circles, which are prefect. :^}
> >> >> I just don't beleive
> >> >> because of the "proofs", is all!
> >> >
> >> >If the Christian god exists, and wants to hide, then such a god could
> >> >not be found. But in doing so we have many contradictions, destroying
> >> >your claim of logical consistency.
> >>
> >> Grin... I didn't say that the christian god is hiding.
> >
> >Then show me god.
>
> See above
All I see is the ceiling and a light.
> >> I said I don't have a logical argument which proves the existence of the
> >> divine, is all.
> >
> >Why logic when you claim an infinite all-powerful god who is everywhere?
> >Who needs logic?
>
> I didn't say I could do it with logic...
I'm saying that logic is superflous without something concrete to work
on, which is to say that it cannot disprove or prove anything for which
there is no evidence. But why does god not let me know god exists?
<>
> >Large tidings from the bay of fundy!
>
> T I D I N G S <----- large enough?
Err, no, I was hoping for something larger.
> >> >Gotta go, early flight tomorrow.
> >>
> >> Safe journey! :)
> >
> >Done, but I am tired and have much to do.
>
> Grin.. then get GOING, what are you doing playing on here?
Well I'm back again, after the worst flight ever. A hell of
a way to spend your birthday.
> What am *I* doing, come to that...?
Playing cricket?
Rich
janet
In article <350F30B7...@earthlink.net>, Rich
<pay...@earthlink.net> writes
>(continued from pervious post)
>
>> >> Yes, I would say that god can not change. I would also say that
>> >> depictions of god are just that: depictions, mediated through the human
>> >> mind and storytelling.
>> >
>> >Depictions of god are one thing, the issue is what god is purported to
>> >have done, which tend to be at variance of your depiction of god.
>>
>> WHich is perfectly true.
>
>Thank you.
>
>> Because all depictions are limited: if I say "God is this" then I am
>> placing a limit on god... which is a human failing.
>
>| But then, I would say that love is something we DO, but love is what God
>| IS.
>
>Hmmmmm....
>
>> In fact, there is a school of thought that we can ONLY say negative
>> things about god:
>
>Now what did your mother tell you about this? :^}
Grinding of teeth... I didn't mean neagitve like THAT! I didn't mean,
we can only say that God chews with the divine mouth open! :)
>
>> we can only say "God is NOT this, that or the other",
>> as in god is not incomplete...
>
>Clearly you did not go to that school.
Nope!
>
>| But then, I would say that love is something we DO, but love is what God
>| IS.
>
>> But I agree there are variations between what god is said to have done
>> in the OT and what I say about god now.
>
>But something most be true, that is, god cannot have done and not done
>the things in the OT, either god did them or god did not. What say you?
>Note, I am asking for -your- opinion.
>
My opinion? No, God didn't do a lot of the stuff in the OT that it is
claimed God did.
(pulling on asbestos for the fundamentalist flames...)
>> (You didn't actually expect me to have ALL the answers, now did you?)
>
>I am only responding to what you say, and yes, I do expect you to be able
>to respond about your opinions. :^}
Ok...
>
><>
>
>> >> >> When one says, "God is love", one speaks the literal truth:
>> >> >
>> >> >I'd question that, in human terms, love is being there. No one can love
>> >> >by proxy or by putting out a popular book. If god loves me, where is god?
>> >>
>> >> Here. Omnipresent.
>> >
>> >Where, exactly? Be literal and precise please, I'm kinda slow here.
>>
>> This is what I meant at the beginning of this post, Rich.
>
>That I'm kinda slow? :^}
>
wry grin, no no no....
>> This is a matter of beleif and faith,
>
>Then god is not real, god is faith, is that it?
Um, god is real. OK? Not hedged about with "this is my beleif..."
whatever.
Faith in god is a response to that reality.
>
>> not one of logic....
>
>Why do we need logic if god really exists? Logic can prove or
>disprove nothing, god however, could prove gods existance. That
>is, after the vacation.
Grin... well, there's that bable fish...
Just out of curiosity, how could god prove god's existence?
What could god do that could not be attributed to other factors?
>
>> *I* beleive
>> god to be omnipresent, here everywhere, in you, in me, and so on...
>
>Then how is it that you cannot point god out?
Grin... didn't I say to look in a mirror?
God is not particulate, in that I can't point out god's hand, or foot...
>
>> But I can't prove that to you, and I won't try.
>
>Lets step back a bit, can you explain it to me?
I'll try.
Explain what?
I will NOT try and convince you that God exists, though...
>
>> >> In whatever way you like,
>> >
>> >I have no prejudices on the matter.
>> >
>> >> but ALSO in the presence
>> >> of others...
>> >
>> >Are we gonna get circular again?
>>
>> Round and round and round we go.... :)
>
>I'm getting dizzy, think I'll go see my spin doctor. :^}
;Ş
>
>> If by being circular you mean, "are we gonna end up at the idea of faith
>> again?", yup, we are...
>
>What is faith?
>
Beleif in that which is not seen, (and I know, I know...)
Beleive in that which I can not touch and say, "Ah, here it is", and I
can not do that to the essence of God...
>> >> >Keep in mind that love is a human concept,
>> >>
>> >> Wry grin... not from where I am sitting.
>> >
>> >Then you are not human.
>>
>> Been said before...
>
>This was more than just funny phrasing.
>
>Love *is* a human concept, this is beyond debate, unless
>you want to debate it. So what exactly are you saying?
I was saying a number of things, I think.
Love as you and I experience it is a human concept.
However, I would argue that it is also more than that: that love comes
from the divine...
>
>> > Which rather disagrees with some other
>> >claims you have made about how you talk about things.
>>
>> No, what I meant was that human love is indeed human, but that it is not
>> the only kind of love.
>
>Show me.
I can't
> Then explain to me how love in anything but human terms
>can be meaningful to you or me.
>
I would say that creation is a result of divine love, Rich...
>> >> To me, love is part of the
>> >> image of the divine within us.
>> >
>> >We are getting circular. But you have placed love as something
>> >"within us", ergo, as a state of matter.
>>
>> If you think that all there is to humanity is material, then yes, it
>> would be.
>>
>> I don't think we ARE all matter...
>
>What's the matter? :^}
>
>What else *are* we?
Spirit? Soul?
>
>> >> NOW, (follow, please...) we are created in that image and likeness,
>> >
>> >Which just above you disclaimed. We are getting *very* circular here.
>>
>> ?
>>
>> I don't think I did just disclaim it...
>>
>> Oh, I think I see.
>>
>> When I was talking about "images of god" I meant pictorical
>> representations.
>
>Not just pictorial, but *any* image, be it verbal, written, engraved,
>lithographic, photographed, oh wait, lets not go down that road again.
>You get the point, I hope.
yes...
>
>> >And how can man be in the image of that which has no image?
>>
>> Grin....
>
>Which brings to mind the cheshire cat.
>
wrong county...
>> I would say that the image of god within humanity is there in things
>> like rationality, love, and the need we seem to have to return to or
>> find god...
>
>Then you are saying that the way we look has nothing to do with being
>made in gods image? BTW, there seem to be a few failures.
Yup, that's just what I would say.
(that the human form is not the image of the divine, not that there have
been a few failures!)
>
>> >> (both of us, not just you qua male, there are TWO stories in
>> >> Genesis...). Thus, we are created to be in the image of a being who IS
>> >> love...
>> >
>> >How can love be "within us" then?
>>
>> How can it not?
>
>Then we are back to what's the matter with the image theory?
>
? (sorry, I'm not well and probably not seeing a clear connection
there,...)
>> >> so love is both a human and a divine concept, or thing, or
>> >> being-ness... but in approximating the divine, we become more what we
>> >> were created to be in the first place, that is, more human...
>> >
>> >There goes free will again. If god, who is unknowable, is love (how can
>> >we know this?),
>>
>> We can't, at least, we can't prove it. I know it, but I can't prove it.
>
>How do you know? And is love something you know, or something you feel?
Grin... is there a difference between knowledge and feeling?
If so, which is material?
I know because I do, really, is the only answer.
Rich, we've got to the issue of faith here: I can NOT prove the
existence of God, nor yet why I beleive in it.
>
>> >then there is still something seriously wrong with the OT.
>>
>> If taken literally, yes.
>
>How do you take it? With cream and sugar? :^}
And a LOT of salt...
>
>> >> >if god loves, it must be love
>> >> >in human terms.
>> >>
>> >> "Everything is received according to the mode of the receiver": I can
>> >> only RECEIVE love in human terms, yes.
>> >
>> >Which means not, as god has done (or so it is claimed), via a book or by
>> >proxy.
>>
>> But the book is NOT the love of god, it is a human recording of events
>> and ideas...
>
>Then where is the love? (hey, that might make a top ten -song-!)
"You said was mine all mine, till the end of time...."
>
><>
>
>> >> Theology is a discipline in search of a language, and always has been.
>> >
>> >Is this like a pregnancy looking for a woman? I rather that that the
>> >woman was required *first*. With no language, there can be no discipline.
>> >The language of physics is math for example.
>>
>> But the theology is there first: theology is the wonder, the experience
>> of god.
>
>No, thought requires language, theology requires thought.
>
Does it, though???
Do not some experiences come first, and the language to describe them,
later?
>No language, no theology.
Do those who are deaf and mute not think?
>
>> The problem comes when TWO people want to talk about it.
>
>The problem comes when any two people wanna talk about anything
>janet.
I know... :}
>
>> Can you describe why you love someone?
>
>I can describe why I think I love someone, nevertheless, you
>are confusing thought, which requires language, and feelings,
>which are rooted far deeper in the brain. But we have words for
>all the feelings,
How accurate are they, though?
>and we communicate the presence or absence
>of said feelings with language. The "why" is a completely
>different and irrelevant question.
I don't think so, not if we are talking about love and the divine...
>
>> Not completely, not enough to
>> make someone else feel the same.
>>
>> >
>> >> ANYTHING we say of god is an approximation: if there are no limits to
>> >> god, then no words can ever really be applied to the divine....
>> >
>> >But you do have limits, and as such you cannot have the knowledge needed
>> >to make that claim.
>>
>> I have limits, and thus know that I can not know the entirety of God.
>
>| But then, I would say that love is something we DO, but love is what God
>| IS.
>
>> >As I have posted previously, I am always amused by
>> >people who claim that god is unknowable then go on and talk as if they
>> >were drinking buddies.
>>
>> I didn't say God was unknowable, I think... I said I couldn't define
>> god, couldn't encompass god in words.
>
>You have made a distinction, now what is the difference?
(deep breath...)
Right. I have a limited human intellect, yes? There are things I can
not comprehend: some of them, because I have not had the training, some
because I'm not smart enough, but those things can be understood by
others who are smart enough...
But there are other things that the human brain just can't cope with. I
think, for example, that there is a finite number the mind can
visualise...
However, what I can understand are limits: in talking about one number,
I have excluded others, for instance.
I would posit that god has no such limits.
I can talk about that, perhaps I can come to some sort of intuitive,
tentative grasp of that, (mysticism), but I can not understand it.
Nor can I accurately describe it.
Take for example the two concepts of the mercy and the justice of God.
In human terms, absolute justice does not allow for mercy, and vice
versa.
In god, however, the two can be combined, but I can't say exactly how...
[]
>
>> >> It's headache making....
>> >
>> >Here, have a few ibuprofen.
>>
>> thanks...
>
>Wash it down with this beer. :^}
>
Ack!! Isn't that a really nasty combination???
And just when we were getting along so well... sob....
>> >> > A god that
>> >> >is literal love does not destroy all life on earth but one love-boat
>full.
>> >>
>> >> Agreed.
>> >>
>> >> >There are many other instances of god showing everything but love.
>> >>
>> >> Agreed. See what I said above...
>> >
>> >Which rather missed the point near as I can tell.
>>
>> Sorry, I hope I did better this time...
>
>Do you believe that god destroyed all life on earth but an ark-full,
nopw
>destroyed saddam and gamorrah,
Grin... I don't DO spelling flames, but was the substitution of saddam
for sodom a mistype or... ?
Nope
>turned lots wife into salt, etc...?
>
Nope
>> >> >> god, however, has only essence,
>> >> >
>> >> >Essence must equal something. Love is a state of matter, where does this
>> >> >lead us?
>> >>
>> >> It leads us, I think, to a disagreement about what love is.
>> >
>> >You define love as a property of that which you claim cannot be known,
>> >which undermines the claim or at least your knowledge base.
>>
>> Um, no, I dont claim love is a PROPERTY of God...
>
>You claim that you cannot even know what love is, but you had previously
>claimed.
?
I can know and experience love, but I can not grasp the totality of the
divine love.
>
>| But then, I would say that love is something we DO, but love is what God
>| IS.
>
>Your recent claim pulls the rug out of your knowing the above.
>
>> >> Can you explain what you mean by "love is a state of matter"?
>> >
>> >Can you describe what you mean when you state that love is a part of
>> >the devine?
>>
>> Grin... I didn't.
>>
>> The divine IS love...
>
>I thought that it went, -chocolate is divine-.
Both.... :)
>
>Nevertheless, how can you know?
We're back to faith, I think.
>
>> >> >> no accidents, (speaking creator
>> >> >> god here...) if that makes sense?
>> >> >
>> >> >Not really.
>> >>
>> >> Um, it's not easy... sorry...
>> >>
>> >> Look, your essence is humanity, yes?
>> >
>> >Is it? What exactly does this mean?
>>
>> It means that there is something about you and me and the rest of us
>> that sets us apart from other things. Something that means we can look
>> at each other and say, "Yup, that's a human...".
>
>Yep, but that's a matter of genetics. I can tell a human from a rock,
>can you? And how about rock stars?
I wonder about some...
>
>> Aristotle said it was the ability to laugh, but I presume the
>> geneticists can get closer than that now...
>
>Have they broken the genetic code of rocks?
Um, do rocks HAVE genetic codes...?
>
>Nevertheless, you seem to be saying that being human is a material
>thing, kinda like Madonna.
(whose new album is being praised in some circles for its
spirituality...)
PART of the human is a material thing, yes...
>
>> >> Your accidents are things like race, sex, hair and eye colour: the
>> >> essence is what you ARE....
>> >
>> >And how can you seperate the two? These are all part of who I am, and
>> >from the religous claims, and no accidents, and I tend to think that
>> >genetics has something to do with it as well (herectical as that may seem).
>>
>> Exactly!
>>
>> I would say that yes, hair colour and all the rest ARE accidents, in the
>> philosophical sense: they are "accidental", in that you would still be
>> human were your hair a different colour and so on.
>>
>> You might well not be YOU, but that is not what I'm on about here...
>
>What are you on about here? I've lost it.
I think that was about people posting under psyedomyns (SPPP????) or
some such...
>
>> >> >> God *is* love, and mercy and
>justice,
>> >> >> and I know, I know, those last two can NOT be combined in the human
>> >> >> psyche...
>> >> >
>> >> >Nor can they be derived from the OT. Are you saying that the OT is wrong?
>> >>
>> >> I'm saying that the OT is divinely inspired,
>> >
>> >Then the devine inspiration seems to conflict with your beliefs here.
>>
>> How?
>>
>> I said divinely inspired, not inerrant in every word.
>
>Death and distruction are love "divinely inspired"?
No, I meant the messsage that was being got across...
>What about, what is it,
>proverbs, the one which predicts the future?
?
Where?
>This is the inspiration of
>divine love? Regardless of the accuracy of the book, the messages are the
>inspiration, are they not, and the message is not one of love.
>
The message is summed up rather neatly in "love God and your neighbour
as yourself"
[]
>> >> >> (you could try www.vatican.com... I kid you not....)
>> >> >
>> >> >I'll take a look.
>> >>
>> >> Have fun....
>> >
>> >Hehe. Say, do you believe that the number saved is pre-determined and
>> >fixed?
>>
>> NO!!! That's not us, that's the folk down the hall... yeesh, don't GO
>> there, or you'll get into all sorts of calculations...
>
>There was a time when I'd have gone there just to check the numbers, but
>today I have neither the time nor the inclination.
>
14,000
>But that seems to be part of the divine inspiration nonetheless.
Again, if you take every word in every book as literal truth, yes.
[]
>> >
>> >| Unless, of course, one decides to say that the deity is in all of us,
>> >| hmmmm... :)
>> >
>> >This would seem to be at odds both with Catholic dogma and your statements
>> >above.
>>
>> To say that we all ARE god is at odds with catholic dogma, yes.
>
>And to say "that the deity is in all of us"?
>
Huge grin... how long have you got?
To say that there is something god-LIKE in us all is surely in line with
the teaching...
[]
> >
>> >Robin, is that you?
>>
>> which Robin?
>
>Robin troll troll your boat Cook, of course.
>
>> The one on tnnrc is hardly a fundamentalist: "fluffy bunny" is closer to
>> it, in her OWN WORDS! :)
>
>Read our recent posts in the catholic ng.
>
Doesn't change the fact that she's a fluffy bunny wiccan, one iota! :)
>> >> May I show you some waterside property in Idaho, please?
>> >
>> >I'm still making payments on the bridge janet. :^}
>>
>> Oh, alright... and you're late with the last one, btw...
>
>But there was this darhling 1GB parallel port HD I just -had-
>to have. :^}
Rich, I say this is all kindness and concern:
GET A LIFE!!! :)
[]
>
>Run, don't walk, run to your nearest video store and *steal* it.
Great. First he wants me to mix drugs and alcohol, and now he wants me
to commit a crime.
Trying to get rid of me, Rich??? :}
> Wait,
>I don't believe I said that, what must you be thinking, running can
>be unsafe, walk very fast! :^}
Grin... that's a bit better...
>
><>
>
>> >> >If I ask you a question, don't I have some expectation to an answer to
>the
>> >> >question (even if it is "get lost") rather than a sermon about something
>> >> >else?
>> >>
>> >> Yes, but you are not necessarily the only one who will read the answer!
>> >
>> >Which means what, exactly?
>>
>> Lurkers, m'dear....
>
>Who are you talking with?
You, dear, I shall do better in the future, I promise...
>
>> >> >Cause that is what I end up getting. Remember when I posted that a
>> >> >discussion requires that both people talk about the same thing at the
>same
>> >> >time? I seem to recall your agreeing.
>> >>
>> >> And I still agree....
>> >
>> >When you post naught by disclaimers and disclaimers to disclaimers, there
>> >is nothing left to disclaim janet. This *is* the problem I am having.
>>
>> See above.
>
>Why? Are you talking with them or me?
Note serious lack of disclaimers...
>
>> I simply don't wish to appear to preach. Nor am I even going to TRY to
>> attempt to prove the existence of God...
>
>Why is not god self-evident?
The only answer to that is that god does not want to be.
Or, that god is self evident and we don't all see it.
> It is easy enough to prove my existance,
>and I am just a limited human being on one place at a time.
Grin... yes, which makes it rather easy to say, "Ah, that's Rich, over
there!" cause you are not over here.
Wouldn't it be a bit harder to see, if you like, the forest, when in the
midst of the trees?
>
><>
>
>> >> Grin... I am NOT the be all and end all of catholic dogma! :)
>> >
>> >Why not? No ambition? :^}
>>
>> Oh, ambition alright, but that's a bit much even for me...
>
>Give yourself a challenge, you can become the source of Catholic
>dogma right after you convert me, OK? :^}
But that's the whole POINT, I'm not TRYING to convert you!
>
>> >> But just because I do not agree with, or beleive something, is no reason
>> >> for me not to discuss it.
>> >
>> >But "not discussing" it is exactly what you end up doing so often.
>>
>> I'm trying, here...
>
>To discuss or disclaim? Can you not do both?
Am I doing better now, sir?
>
>> >> >> Perhaps it would be better to talk about "beliefs about other gods"...
>> >> >> it's me falling over trying not to seem to put anyone ELSE'S beleifs
>> >> >> down...
>> >> >
>> >> >There is an essential conflict between supporting Catholic dogma and
>being
>> > >PC.
>> >>
>> >> Grin..... I'm not trying to be PC,
>> >
>> >I disagree, that seems to be exactly what you are doing.
>>
>> Nope.
>
>I disagree, you worry more about the "lurkers" than the conversation you
>are engaged in.
>
No, I've just been burned a few times, is all...
>> Look, the most fruitful theological discussions I've had in a LOONNNGGGG
>> time have been with people from paths so far removed from mine that such
>> disclaimers might seem overbearing, but still I felt the need to make
>> them.
>
>And make them, and make them, in lieu of conversation?
I'm trying, here...
>
>Do you think our paths are similar?
>
I don't know!
I haven't asked what you beleive, cause that's a hell of a personal
question to ask in such a public forum... the fact that I post rather
regularly in the catholic ngs, and what I post there, makes my position
rather clear, though...
(grin... although saying that, they're not the only alt.religion...
groups I post to...)
>> Put it this way: what I say is what I beleive, and to the best of my
>> knowledge, what my church teaches.
>
>Then what are you worrying about?
Seeming to attempt to say, "you must beleive what I beleive"
>
>> It is not what I say others SHOULD beleive.
>
>Where did this come from? You are preaching to lurkers again, and I
>think it's a bit rude.
Sorry.
>
><>
>
>> >> >> I doubt it very much, cause there was never much of a physical
>> >> >> manifestation: clouds and pillars of fire, but I think the text was
>> >> >> always careful to say that God was IN those, not that god WAS those...
>> >> >
>> >> >Is not Jesus a physical manifestation?
>> >>
>> >> Yes, sorry, I was answering from the POV of the OT...
>> >
>> >But having a wider scope, we can look further across time, can we not?
>>
>> Yes, and in that sense, YHWH could have been photographed, (unless you
>> really want to get into heavy duty trinitarian theology, but you'll need
>> someone else to do it with, NOT my field...)
>
>Say, you into field theory?
Nope! I prefer standing in them...
>
><>
>
>> >> >Been waiting for the dictionary to come out. But you know martians,
>> >> >never in a hurry.
>> >>
>> >> Really? I seem to recall one bustling about, complaining of being
>> >> "busy, busy, busy... " and a new road coming through RIGHT where the
>> >> earth was...
>> >
>> >No no no, you confuse the Vogon's with martians. May you be blessed with
>> >two verses of Vogon poetry. :^}
>>
>> That was not NICE!!
>
>You should survive 2 verses, and I understand that your hair usually
>grows back. :^}
;P I've just got my hair this long, and now you want I should LOOSE
it???
>
>> I meant Marvin the martian, from the bugs bunny cartoons!!
>
>Hmmm, good point, it seems Hitchikers borrowed from Marvin.
Never thought about it, but you could well be right!
>
>> ><ahem, fiber cut>
>> >
>> >> >> The huge mistake is to confuse faith with logic.
>> >> >
>> >> >And a common one, by my observation.
>> >>
>> >> nss
>
>Eh? Vas is das?
Sorry! no shit, sherlock...
>
>> >> >> If it were possible to prove the tenets of faith, they would not be the
>> >> >> tenets of *faith*!
>> >> >
>> >> >Why is faith necessary were this loving god to exist?
>> >>
>> >> Because the babel fish got lost in the shower...
>> >
>> >Is that why the shower keeps babbling? BTW, how is it that after the
>> >moon shot we can still communicate? Did god change again?
>>
>> Why should we not be able to communicate? I've lost it again, it's me
>> age...
>
>Remember when they built the tower of babel to get closer to god and
>god made everyone speak a different language? Seems like the Shuttle gets
>a tad bit closer. And if it is wrong to get close to god what does this
>say about cleanliness? Is god clean?
>
That only works if you assume that heaven and god in it are "up
there"...
But once out of a gravity well, does "up" have any meaning? It didn't
to the Moties, remember...
And, although I haven't used the "cleanliness is next to godliness" to
try to get my son into the shower, let's keep any ideas that cleanliness
is NOT good well under our hats, ok? (pleading look from the mother of
a 12 year old...) ??
>> >> Do you mean why didn't this loving god give us absolute proof of the
>> >> existence of the divine?
>> >
>> >Hey, I do not deal in absolutes, I do not even know absoluetly that
>> >you exist. But I do have evidence for your existence, can you see the
>> >difference?
>>
>> Yes. And I can not give you irrefutable proof of the existence of god.
>
>I deal in evidence however, proofs are for mathematics.
>
>Can you give me *any* evidence at all?
I can, but I can't make you accept it, if that makes sense.
Thefact that the universe exists, that it works, and so on, are proofs
to me.
>
><>
>
>> >> >> > It is usually pointless to discuss logic with
>> >> >> >anyone who makes such a comment, and I tend to think that many prople
>> >> >> >hear such things in church.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Probably, although I haven't heard it in mine...
>> >> >
>> >> >Not even indirectly, as an unstated premise?
>> >>
>> >> Not that I have noticed, and I am pretty careful about preaching I
>> >> hear... but even Homer nods...
>> >
>> >Do you preach in your church?
>>
>> Oh, get real: in a catholic church in the UK????
>
>Well, you seemed to be inferring it, and that was what I thought.
Nope, I just teach!
>
>> Hardly, at least not from the pulpit.
>
>And I also thought this. :^}
he knows me...
>
>> However, there is more to preaching than the pulpit... :)
>
>Robes? :^}
>
All those priests cross dressing to go to work...
>> >> >> >I find it amusing when you post that dogma
>> >> >> >can lead to thought, as in my observation it always shuts it down.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Grin... it can do both!
>> >> >
>> >> >Example?
>> >>
>> >> Well, the church seems to have spent about 500 years working out the
>> >> implications of the dogma of the incarnation, for one thing...
>> >
>> >Yeah, such reasoning got us epicycles and other oddities to explain
>> >why reality was wrong. This is not thinking in my book. Make the data
>> >fit the theory has the tail wagging the dog, not the brain doing
>> >honest inquiry. In fact, in doing such one must abandon honest thought.
>>
>> I don't think so.
>
>You need to read up on the history of science, because in truth, religion
>led to dishonesty about the world. The Catholic church only just admitted
>that Galielo was right.
Sigh, I know.
But that is not all that happened, Rich...
Take a look at some of the medical writings that came out of the
medieval monasteries...
>
>> Where was reality declared to be wrong in the workings of the
>> incarnation?
>
>Look to the motions of planetary bodies. It was dogmatic that the
>planets had to travel in circles because circles are perfect and
>god, who is prefect, could have only created perfect planets,
>which travel in circles.
>
Yeah, I know, but I still don't see how that relates to the incarnation.
[]
>
>> >> That leads to all KINDS of thought: about working conditions, about
>> >> death, about all sorts of things.
>> >
>> >These things happened only after the church lost power janet, the church
>> >had taught for centuries that life did not matter at all,
>>
>> Sorry, Rich, but prove that, through church documents.
>
>Don't have the time or any references here in Fla. Can you show
>different?
>
Um, yes.
I can't show you many church teachers who say that all life is sacred
before the industrial revolution, no, not many. I can show you debates
about the legitimacy of slavery in the 1500's, where churchmen held that
it was wrong, though...
>> Yes, I know a lot of people said it, but that's not the same as dogma.
>
>So you are saying it was not Church dogma, I disagree.
>
>> > it was just
>> >preperation for the after-life, and thus we had the dark ages.
>>
>> Grin... dont SAY that!
>
>Why not?
>
>> A lot of historians reject the term dark ages, and I agree with them
>
>So? Not my dogma.
But the term is not just about dogma, Rich, it denies the art and the
literature and all...
>
>> > The church
>> >was not only the source of none of these issues, it opposed them all.
>>
>> Show me where.
>
>Show me god.
Been through this...
>
>> >> >> The point about dogma is to teach, and to me teaching is ABOUT thought,
>> >> >> but there are those who are really frightened of it.
>> >> >
>> >> >But dogma is not necessary to teach. Nor do I think it conducive to
>> >> >learning.
>> >>
>> >> Um, dogma IS teaching... that's what it means.
>> >
>> >Dogma's are absolutes, in learning absolutes one must be taught, usually
>> >on pain of punishment to *not* question. I have some personal experience
>> >here. Dogma is learning by rote *not* to think.
>>
>> Then I'm sorry about your experience, and it is not what it should have
>> been!
>
>Who are you to say? And I thought you did not make such pronouncements?
Grin... ok.
In my understanding of what Christianity is all about, your experiences
do not fall within the perameters of its ideals, ok?
>
>> >> Do you mean it is not necessary to teach specific dogmas?
>> >
>> >You tell me.
>>
>> What about the sanctity of human life?
>
>Pity if you were accused of being a witch. I understand that in
>Europe entire villages were put to the torch. What about it?
Agreed about the pity, (but I'd be interested in a citation about the
villiages... I know of an entire area which was declared to contain
only witches, and I also know that the bishop stepped in and said the
eccleisatical equivalent of, "get real"...).
There are apologists who would make a case that the witchhunts were
misguided attempts to save life, but I am not one of them.
The witchhunts were wrong, full stop, and I don't think they can be
squared with christian teaching.
>
>> >> How will we raise kids to be reasonable citizens if we DON'T teach
>> >> dogmas like the sanctity of human life, the right to private property,
>> >> and so on?
>> >
>> >Seems to me that for centuries the church was opposed to all of these
>> >and more.
>>
>> Sigh... again, show me...
>
>Methinks that is well beyond the scope of this thread, as well as
>my time and current resources.
>
>And it's not as if you have shown me anything yet. How about a
>trade, you show me god and I'll look everything up?
Can't, anymore than I could, above!
>
>> > These principles were by others, and they perservered against
>> >religous censure. And as far as I know, private property is not
>> >Catholic dogma.
>>
>> Grin... then, forgive me, you are wrong.
>
>Show me. At least for something that you have sources for handy.
Look up the social encyclicals.
The one that comes to mind is Mater et Magistra...
But the documents of vatican two also talk about it, as does Aquinas...
>
>> Thomas Aquinas talked about it, and so do far more recent church
>> documents....
>
>Name one please.
See above.
Familiaris Consortio talks about the material needs of families, the
catechism talks about just wages, and in 2401-4, talks about the right
to private property, which is upheld, with a view to the common good.
>
>> >> >> I call it the Wiley E Coyote idea of faith: you know how he never falls
>> >> >> off a cliff till he realises that he's standing on thin air? Well, it
>> >> >> seems to me that a lot of people are afraid to look to see if their
>> >> >> faith holds up to thought, cause they are afraid that it might not!
>> >> >
>> >> >Then perhaps they are wise to do so, either that or they really have no
>> >> >faith and are fooling themselves.
>> >>
>> >> Which is why I don't go around kicking the props out from under them...
>> >
>> >What makes you think that you can?
>>
>> I don't know that I can.
>
>Why are you incapable of answering a direct simple question?
Ok. There are one or two people who's (whose? whose...) hold on their
faith comes across as so tenuous, and based on such demonstrably
ludicrous ideas that I don't try to undermine those ideas.
>
>> > And what gives you the right to shield
>> >them from debate of these issues?
>>
>> I'm not.
>
>You are, by dint of not responding to me.
>
You weren't one of the ones I was talking about.
>> But I still don't think I necessarily have a right to initiate
>> such debates with them
>
>But you are trading posts with -me-, Rich, remember? <knock knock>
who's there?
>
><>
>
>> >You seem to do it to me all the time, that is, I am wrong to ask questions
>> >and expect discussion of issues as you are adamant to protect those above
>> >from exposure to ideas.
>>
>> Whooa, I didn't EVER mean to constrain you, and I don't think I have
>> done.
>>
>> Nor have I said you were wrong to question...
>
>You would just rather disclaim than respond. <sigh>
>
Am I doing better?
><>
>
>> >> >> They don't convince me, but I still beleive in god:
>> >> >
>> >> >Why?
>> >>
>> >> Because I do, is about the only real answer to that.
>
>But above you hold me to task for not being able to explain
>*why* I love someone. I see we have a double standard here.
>
NO!
I wasn't taking you to task for it, I was trying to point out that you
can't do it! Nor can I: nor can I prove the existence of God.
>> >Clearly if you must believe then you could not have experienced
>> >god, which would explain why you cannot show me god.
>>
>> Oh, I am quite certain that I have experienced god, (although that's not
>> a phrase I use very often).
>
>How did you experience god?
In the presence of other people, in ritual, and in prayer.
I don't know how much more specific I can be, really.
>
>> But I can't convince anyone else of that.
>
>The way you respond you could not give directions to the corner
>store. I'm not asking to be convinced, I'm asking for information.
>But we seem to be stuck in the Apple Jacks conundrum.
?
>
>> >> Faith which can be explained and proven is not faith...
>> >
>> >So much for theology.
>>
>> Noticed, did you? :)
>>
>> The point of theology is not to prove the existence of God, although
>> there are those who have not figured that out yet...
>
>What is the point then? Oh yes, circles, which are prefect. :^}
No, to me the point is to try to understand more and more, or perhaps,
to wonder (as in "awe and wonder") more and more
>
>> >> >> I just don't beleive
>> >> >> because of the "proofs", is all!
>> >> >
>> >> >If the Christian god exists, and wants to hide, then such a god could
>> >> >not be found. But in doing so we have many contradictions, destroying
>> >> >your claim of logical consistency.
>> >>
>> >> Grin... I didn't say that the christian god is hiding.
>> >
>> >Then show me god.
>>
>> See above
>
>All I see is the ceiling and a light.
>
Don't look at the light for long, not good for you!
>> >> I said I don't have a logical argument which proves the existence of the
>> >> divine, is all.
>> >
>> >Why logic when you claim an infinite all-powerful god who is everywhere?
>> >Who needs logic?
>>
>> I didn't say I could do it with logic...
>
>I'm saying that logic is superflous without something concrete to work
>on, which is to say that it cannot disprove or prove anything for which
>there is no evidence. But why does god not let me know god exists?
I don't know.
There are various answers to that others would give you, but mine is: I
don't know.
Sorry.
>
><>
>
>> >Large tidings from the bay of fundy!
>>
>> T I D I N G S <----- large enough?
>
>Err, no, I was hoping for something larger.
>
Again, sorry, my few attempts at ASCII have been woeful failures...
>> >> >Gotta go, early flight tomorrow.
>> >>
>> >> Safe journey! :)
>> >
>> >Done, but I am tired and have much to do.
>>
>> Grin.. then get GOING, what are you doing playing on here?
>
>Well I'm back again, after the worst flight ever. A hell of
>a way to spend your birthday.
Ahhhh.... happy birthday, anyway! :)
>
>> What am *I* doing, come to that...?
>
>Playing cricket?
Ha!
First, he tells me to take a possibly lethal combination.
THEN he tells me to commit a crime.
THEN he asks if I am playing CRICKET???? arghghghghghghg.....
janet
In article <350F30E5...@earthlink.net>, Rich
<pay...@earthlink.net> writes
>janet wrote:
>
>< six levels of headers cut>
>
>> >> []
>> >> re: photography of the divine...
>> []
>> >> >
>> >> >Point made: physical existence is not a prerequisite for being
>photographed.
>> >> >
>> >> >Response: none.
>> >>
>> >> Your response, or mine?
>> >
>> >Yours, and you did it again. I summarized my response above, you amplified
>your
>> >non-response.
>>
>> Rich, I have a feeling here that we are going to keep having this
>> problem...
>>
>> I CAN'T point to God and say, "Look!".
>
>Why not? You say that god is everywhere, omnipotent, and loves me.
>So why not?
>
anything and everything, but that's not going to convince anyone.
Nor is my response to the idea that God loves you going to convince
anyone: but here it is, for what it's worth. You're here. Your creator
loves creation...
>> Nor can I convince you of the existence of God, and *I will not try*.
>
>But since god is on vacation, how am I to find god if you do not
>point the way?
Travel agents?
Rich, if you want someone to try to convert you, there are all SORTS of
people who would be MORE than happy to try!
>
>BTW, I recall that god announced vacation plans at the beginning of
>the nt when jesus was sent and god was said to not need to visit
>earth anymore, as a very rough paraphrase.
Grin, yes, rather rough...
John of the Cross said that, having spoken the Word once and for all,
God had nothing left to say. Is that kinda what you meant?
>
>> I can talk about what I beleive, but that's about all.
>
>But you will not even do that?
I'm trying.
>
>> Is that the problem?
>
>The endless discaimers in lieu of discussion is what I have problems
>with.
Note: none so far...
>
>> >> >> >> and I've said before that I don't
>> >> >> >> think God has any of those... (does this belong on alt.fem., btw?)
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >You need to correlate the concepts of infinite and the concepts of
>> >> >> >"nothing" for me then. Either god exists, and matter and energy can
>> >> >> >both be detected, or god does not exist, and, risking a double
>> >> >> >negative, nothing cannot be detected.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Rich, can you detect love?
>> >> >
>> >> >Actually, I can tell when I am in love, which seems to fit your bill.
>> >>
>> >> Um, no, I actually meant, can you tell when someone loves you?
>> >
>> >Long term, I think I can. Love is not something you do but the reason
>> >you do things. J loved her cats, that was clear, she was always thinking
>> >of them and doing what she could to anticipate their needs and make
>> >them happy. My situation was quite different. :^\
>>
>> But then, I would say that love is something we DO, but love is what God
>> IS.
>
>Then you do know god? What exactly does this mean? If god loves us, why
>does hell and the devil exist?
>
The devil is easier, in classical theology: he (but I dislike that
gendreed term for "him", becuase it seems rather unfair... say, "it")
was created good, but chose not to be, chose self over God.
Because of the kind of thing it is, (angelic) choices are once for all:
it's complex, but that's the idea.
However, it was not created evil.
Hell, to me is simply what happens when we choose to be incapable of
accepting the kind of love god gives: it is a choice WE make, not one
that is made for us.
(wipes forehead, this is SOOOO offtopic!!)
>> >> >> Where is the energy and matter in that?
>> >> >
>> >> >Are you kidding? Love is a state of matter. No matter, no love.
>> >>
>> >> Really?
>> >
>> >Really.
>> >
>> >> (That's an honest question...). Can you not love an ideal? Can you not
>> >> love someone who is dead?
>> >
>> >You can love anything, physical or not, this is a matter of your state, not
>> >it's. It seems clear that you missed the distinction clear somehow.
>>
>> Ok, are you saying that love can only come from something that is
>> matter?
>
>No, I'm saying that you are confusing what you do and what others do.
>You can love unicorns, they do not exist, but -you- can love -them-.
>Your love has no bearing on the state of existance of what you love.
Ok, so you are saying that love has to originate in something physical,
like a human person?
>
>> IOW, that only physical bodies, or those equipped with same,
>> can love?
>
>Unless you can show different.
I can't.
That's not a disclaimer, it's a statement.
I beleive it to be so, but I can not prove it to the satisfaction of
anyone else.
>
>> >> Do you mean that you need a body to feel love?
>> >
>> >As far as I know, you need to *exist* to love, and bodies seem part and
>> >parcel of existence.
>>
>> Grin... I would disagree. But I can't prove it.
>
>Why? How do you know whether or not god has a body?
Jesus did and does, but that physical existence had a specific beginning
in time, yet I would hold that the love of God is eternal.
Rich, we are talking about faith here, specifically, my faith, (she
squirms).
By definition, I can't prove it.
>
>> >> I don't know about
>> >> that...
>> >
>> >Translated: I know this is wrong.
>> >
>> >An interesting point of common english usage.
>>
>> Actually, I meant what I said... cause I was still thinking about it.
>
>It has been my observation that when a woman says -I don't know- what
>she usually means is -I know you are wrong-. And I am not talking
>about a single isolated example either, not by a long shot.
>
I don't dispute your experience, but that is not what I meant in that
case...
>> []
>>
>> >> >> Further, let me say that having a picture of god is in no way important
>> >> >> for me...
>> >> >
>> >> >Well gee, Christians, including Catholics seem to have images and statues
>> >> >of Jesus all over the place, usually bleeding.
>> >>
>> >> I know.... many of them are gross...
>> >
>> >So do all other religions that I know of, images are an important part of
>> >them all. Unless you know of some exceptions, this would seem to be a
>> >reflection of the way humans understand the universe.
>>
>> Um, I think there ARE Eastern religions that don't have images...
>
>Don't think so. But you can name one if you remember.
Buddhism? But I'm not sure about that...
>
>> But I agree. The human mind seems to need images. There is, though, a
>> difference between the image and the thing imaged:
>
>You seem pretty sure of your images janet. No, really. And I'm not passing
>judgement here, just making an observation.
Pardon?
If you mean I'm sure of what God looks like, I'm not...
>
>> I could tell you all
>> about my kids, for instance, but there is no way I could make you love
>> them as I do, does that make sense?
>
>You cannot force anyone to love, anymore than you can force yourself
>to relax.
>
>But let me ask you this, why do you love your kids?
Grin... I don't know!
I mean, in essence, I love them becuase of who they are.
But there is probably more to it than that: how much of maternal love
comes from the hoping and longing for the child before it is born? From
the constant interaction of mother and baby? I don't know.
>
>> >> > Seems an odd thing if images are not important.
>> >>
>> >> I didn't say that they were not important to OTHERS, but that they are
>> >> not important to me.
>> >
>> >And you have nothing to do with your religion, which is awash with them
>> >then. Glad to clear that up. What else do you care to disclaim?
>>
>> Sigh, no, that's not what I meant, of course I have to do with my
>> religion.
>
>Good, I was getting worried there for a minute. :^}
>
You and me both, that'd be a LOT of wasted years!!
>> But my religion teaches that those images are just that: they are
>> reminders of the reality, and there is no definitive image, no "ONE"
>> image that captures God.
>
>But such images are everywhere, and idol worship is still practiced
>in the form of rosaries. There are many physical underpinnings to
>Caltholicism.
Um, the rosary is not an object of worship, Rich.
I could tell you what it's for and how it's used, but considering how
off topic we already are, I'll just ask if you want to know...
>
>Hmmm, dinner is nearly ready, I'm having mixed veggies cooked in
>butter with chicken. I'll add some soy sauce when cooked. The mix
>has broccoli, sweet soybeans, carrots, and sliced water chestnuts.
Thanks for that, but...??
(Ever tried turkey steaks? At least here, they're a LOT cheaper than
chicken!) :)
>
>> >> I don't think that any one, particular image SHOULD be important:
>> >> anymore than I think the photos I carry around are actually the people I
>> >> love. They are reminders...
>> >
>> >Funny, Meri and the anti-porn feminist movement seem to think that they
>> >steal the woman's souls.
>>
>> Yes, well, that's them... (and I don't think that's quite accurate...)
>> :)
>
>Actually, I think it is as accurate as any summary, and if there is
>a difference between their responses and the above, I'd like to understand
>what it is. How else can sex degrade a woman?
You've got a point.
That's a question I keep asking, too... let me know if you get an
answer, will you?
>
>> >> >And what was that commandment about graven images?
>> >>
>> >> Grin..... what about it?
>> >>
>> >> Yup, it goes by the board in my patch of the woods, as do a lot of
>> >> things from the OT. I'm quite happy to eat a cheeseburger, and shrimp
>> >> cocktail, I have no intention of returning home in 2000, or of giving up
>> >> my job....
>>
>> >Hey, that was never *my* demand. It's the overt and blatant feminist
>> >sexism that bothers me, still well supported by the feminists in this ng.
>>
>> Whoa, wait, where did that come in?
>
>Now it fits in alt.feminism. But the above remains true.
>
>> >> >> >> And of course, considering the "whatsoever you do" to anyone else is
>> >> >> >> thought to have been done to God...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Is god afraid that taking it's picture will steal it's soul?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Nooooo.... theological conundrum, there...
>> >> >
>> >> >Or perhaps god is just on vacation or somesuch?
>> >>
>> >> Grin.... you've been reading Pratchett again... and the OhGod of
>> >> Hangovers, filling in for other gods...
>> >>
>> >> No, I don't think god is on vacation... where would god GO? :)
>> >
>> >If god created this universe, god could create as many others as god
>> >wanted, no? Why does god suddenly gain human limitations in some
>> >contexts?
>>
>> God could create whatever God wanted...
>
>Can god create a rock so heavy that god cannot lift it? :^}
Geeze, you've got a theology text book there, haven't you??
>
>> But I still don't think there could be anyplace God did NOT create, and
>> why go on vacation to someplace that is your own work?
>
>Where was god when god created the universe then? And you seem to be implying
>that god created god.
I would say that God just always was...
There are better ways of saying that, theologically, but that's the jist
of it...
>
>As for the second part, had I built my own house and lived there, this would
>not be my first choice for a vacation. The idea is to get away from it all
>and see someplace else. I've had more than enough of that for now. :^}
>
>> >> >> Theory, (can we take it as read, that I am talking about the theory from
>> >> >> where I am coming from, and NOT insisting that anyone else buy
>> >> >> it/beleive it/whatever...?) (thanks...) says that god is ultimately
>> >> >> simple.
>> >> >
>> >> >Then I, being ultimately simple, should be able to understand god, right?
>> >>
>> >> But you are NOT ultimately simple!
>> >
>> >You mean averti has been lying to me? :^}
>>
>> Never! Horrors, heaven FORFEND!
>>
>> >> You are a composite being, just like
>> >> the rest of us.
>> >
>> >Composite? What does that mean in this context?
>>
>> Body and soul, mind and body, thought and physicality....
>
>By what means do you seperate these? And what is the difference
>between body and physicality?
Sorry, body and phsicality were supposed to be like synonyms...
I don't separate the body and the soul, cause that tends to cause
death...
>
>> >> >Finally got some of the nuances of mainframe disk management straight
>today,
>> >> >now it's simple. Who'd have guessed I'd ever be doing such a thing. I
>> >> >do like the error message "vary rejected" however. :^}
>> >>
>> >> Grin.... I try never to reject variance, it's too much fun...
>> >
>> >Sometimes you VTOC too much. :^}
>>
>> VTOC?
>
>Hehe, pronouce that V Talk, as in talk too much. You need to study up
>on operating systems, VTOC is Volume Table Of Contents. :^}
In my copious spare time, that would be...?
>
>> >> >> That means, that whereas you and I can say, "This is my love, this is my
>> >> >> foot, this is me being angry or hungry", such divisions just do not
>> >> >> exist in god.
>> >> >
>> >> >Why not? In the OT we have an angry vengeful god, seems these divisions
>> >> >are very real, no? And if god is prefect, god cannot change, so the
>divisions
>> >> >must still exist, right?
>> >>
>> >> This is high speculative theology, Rich!
>> >
>> >Really? How so?
>>
>> The perfection of god, the immutability of god... that's the stuff of
>> speculative theology
>
>Thought that was dogma?
Theology feeds dogma, which feeds theology...
>
>> >> Yes, I would say that god can not change. I would also say that
>> >> depictions of god are just that: depictions, mediated through the human
>> >> mind and storytelling.
>> >
>> >Depictions of god are one thing, the issue is what god is purported to
>> >have done, which tend to be at variance of your depiction of god.
>>
>> WHich is perfectly true.
>
>Thank you.
You're welcome!
>
>> Because all depictions are limited: if I say "God is this" then I am
>> placing a limit on god... which is a human failing.
>
>| But then, I would say that love is something we DO, but love is what God
>| IS.
>
>Hmmmmm....
>
hum along, now...
>> In fact, there is a school of thought that we can ONLY say negative
>> things about god:
>
>Now what did your mother tell you about this? :^}
"If you can't say anything nice..." grin... hubby said that to small
son at the breakfast table this AM!
>
>Here I reach maximum editor size, continued next post
>
>Rich
--
Rich
janet wrote:
>
> In article <350F30E5...@earthlink.net>, Rich
> <pay...@earthlink.net> writes
> >janet wrote:
> >
> >< six levels of headers cut>
> >
> thank heavens!
> >> >> []
> >> >> re: photography of the divine...
> >> []
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Point made: physical existence is not a prerequisite for being
> >photographed.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Response: none.
> >> >>
> >> >> Your response, or mine?
> >> >
> >> >Yours, and you did it again. I summarized my response above, you amplified
> >your
> >> >non-response.
> >>
> >> Rich, I have a feeling here that we are going to keep having this
> >> problem...
> >>
> >> I CAN'T point to God and say, "Look!".
> >
> >Why not? You say that god is everywhere, omnipotent, and loves me.
> >So why not?
>
> Because onmipresence means lack of definition: yes,
Does it? I don't really think so, certainly not when part of omni-
everything.
> I can point to
> anything and everything, but that's not going to convince anyone.
You'd be surprised.
The issue here is simple, Christians claim, basically, that if one
does not know god, through Jesus, that they will suffer for eternity
in hell. You say that god is love and they god is all-powerful. Then
why does god do nothing to prevent people from going to hell? Why does
god *allow* people to suffer for eternity at all? This ain't love janet.
> Nor is my response to the idea that God loves you going to convince
> anyone: but here it is, for what it's worth. You're here. Your creator
> loves creation...
Circular. I am here, which says nothing in particular about how I came
to be here. Is god here? Not so as one would notice.
> >> Nor can I convince you of the existence of God, and *I will not try*.
> >
> >But since god is on vacation, how am I to find god if you do not
> >point the way?
>
> Travel agents?
Funny. What travel agent does god use? Perhaps the devil has one?
> Rich, if you want someone to try to convert you, there are all SORTS of
> people who would be MORE than happy to try!
I'm just trying to make sense of all this. No luck so far.
> >BTW, I recall that god announced vacation plans at the beginning of
> >the nt when jesus was sent and god was said to not need to visit
> >earth anymore, as a very rough paraphrase.
>
> Grin, yes, rather rough...
>
> John of the Cross said that, having spoken the Word once and for all,
> God had nothing left to say. Is that kinda what you meant?
Pretty much. But god is way out in left field if god thinks that
people will hear what god does not care to say. And further, this
god is willing to punish those who do not hear what god does not
say.
> >> I can talk about what I beleive, but that's about all.
> >
> >But you will not even do that?
>
> I'm trying.
Who was that who said that you can be very trying? :^}
<>
> >> >> Um, no, I actually meant, can you tell when someone loves you?
> >> >
> >> >Long term, I think I can. Love is not something you do but the reason
> >> >you do things. J loved her cats, that was clear, she was always thinking
> >> >of them and doing what she could to anticipate their needs and make
> >> >them happy. My situation was quite different. :^\
> >>
> >> But then, I would say that love is something we DO, but love is what God
> >> IS.
> >
> >Then you do know god? What exactly does this mean? If god loves us, why
> >does hell and the devil exist?
>
> The devil is easier, in classical theology: he (but I dislike that
> gendreed term for "him", becuase it seems rather unfair... say, "it")
> was created good, but chose not to be, chose self over God.
>
> Because of the kind of thing it is, (angelic) choices are once for all:
> it's complex, but that's the idea.
Are we now assigning properties to angels? Do you know any more about
angels than you know about god?
And the point remains, if god loves us, how could god possibly allow us
to suffer for eternity? No statements about angels will answer this.
> However, it was not created evil.
What is evil?
> Hell, to me is simply what happens when we choose to be incapable of
> accepting the kind of love god gives:
If it is not love in human terms (whatever non-human love means) then
it is not love we can use or identify at all. And if god loves me, where
is god?
> it is a choice WE make, not one
> that is made for us.
Bullshit, I have made no choices in the matter.
> (wipes forehead, this is SOOOO offtopic!!)
alt.feminism will survive.
> >> >> >> Where is the energy and matter in that?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Are you kidding? Love is a state of matter. No matter, no love.
> >> >>
> >> >> Really?
> >> >
> >> >Really.
> >> >
> >> >> (That's an honest question...). Can you not love an ideal? Can you not
> >> >> love someone who is dead?
> >> >
> >> >You can love anything, physical or not, this is a matter of your state, not
> >> >it's. It seems clear that you missed the distinction clear somehow.
> >>
> >> Ok, are you saying that love can only come from something that is
> >> matter?
> >
> >No, I'm saying that you are confusing what you do and what others do.
> >You can love unicorns, they do not exist, but -you- can love -them-.
> >Your love has no bearing on the state of existance of what you love.
>
> Ok, so you are saying that love has to originate in something physical,
> like a human person?
Unless you can show otherwise, yes.
> >> IOW, that only physical bodies, or those equipped with same,
> >> can love?
> >
> >Unless you can show different.
>
> I can't.
>
> That's not a disclaimer, it's a statement.
>
> I beleive it to be so, but I can not prove it to the satisfaction of
> anyone else.
How can you experience this love then? And why cannot others?
> >> >> Do you mean that you need a body to feel love?
> >> >
> >> >As far as I know, you need to *exist* to love, and bodies seem part and
> >> >parcel of existence.
> >>
> >> Grin... I would disagree. But I can't prove it.
> >
> >Why? How do you know whether or not god has a body?
>
> Jesus did and does, but that physical existence had a specific beginning
> in time, yet I would hold that the love of God is eternal.
Well, I am not, so this distinction is meaningless to me, as well as
unprovable even in principle.
Oh wait, by love in other than human terms, did you mean things like
burning in hell for eternity?
> Rich, we are talking about faith here, specifically, my faith, (she
> squirms).
Why does god require faith? Why does god punish reason? And reason
and faith are somewhat opposites here.
> By definition, I can't prove it.
But why should you not be able to show others this all-powerful all-loving
god who is everywhere and who will allow you to suffer for eternity if
you do not know god?
<>
<re- images and religion>
> >Don't think so. But you can name one if you remember.
>
> Buddhism? But I'm not sure about that...
I had started to research this when I remembered. Remember the fat bald
guy? The image of the Buddha? This image is somewhat of a Buddhist icon.
> >> But I agree. The human mind seems to need images. There is, though, a
> >> difference between the image and the thing imaged:
> >
> >You seem pretty sure of your images janet. No, really. And I'm not passing
> >judgement here, just making an observation.
>
> Pardon?
Your images of god, what god is, heaven, hell, etc... Note, in this sense
I do not mean strictly visual images.
> If you mean I'm sure of what God looks like, I'm not...
Surely there must be a drivers license photo? :^} But of course, that
would prolly not look much like god. :^}
> >> I could tell you all
> >> about my kids, for instance, but there is no way I could make you love
> >> them as I do, does that make sense?
> >
> >You cannot force anyone to love, anymore than you can force yourself
> >to relax.
> >
> >But let me ask you this, why do you love your kids?
>
> Grin... I don't know!
Funny, you seemed to think it a telling point when you asked me such a
question. But as I said, love, and feelings seem rooted deeper in the
brain than the cerebral cortex.
> I mean, in essence, I love them becuase of who they are.
And they are -your- kids, eh?
> But there is probably more to it than that: how much of maternal love
> comes from the hoping and longing for the child before it is born? From
> the constant interaction of mother and baby? I don't know.
Gee, the feminists claim that a father who works hard to feed his children
cannot possibly love them.
> >> >> > Seems an odd thing if images are not important.
> >> >>
> >> >> I didn't say that they were not important to OTHERS, but that they are
> >> >> not important to me.
> >> >
> >> >And you have nothing to do with your religion, which is awash with them
> >> >then. Glad to clear that up. What else do you care to disclaim?
> >>
> >> Sigh, no, that's not what I meant, of course I have to do with my
> >> religion.
> >
> >Good, I was getting worried there for a minute. :^}
>
> You and me both, that'd be a LOT of wasted years!!
Now we wouldn't want that, would we?
> >> But my religion teaches that those images are just that: they are
> >> reminders of the reality, and there is no definitive image, no "ONE"
> >> image that captures God.
> >
> >But such images are everywhere, and idol worship is still practiced
> >in the form of rosaries. There are many physical underpinnings to
> >Caltholicism.
>
> Um, the rosary is not an object of worship, Rich.
No more or less than any other idol. Or do you assert that those who
worshiped a statue of Hermes were worshipping the statue itself rather
than the god?
> I could tell you what it's for and how it's used, but considering how
> off topic we already are, I'll just ask if you want to know...
The whole post is off-topic, but it seems we are hitting some sore
spots and suddenly you do not want to talk.
> >Hmmm, dinner is nearly ready, I'm having mixed veggies cooked in
> >butter with chicken. I'll add some soy sauce when cooked. The mix
> >has broccoli, sweet soybeans, carrots, and sliced water chestnuts.
>
> Thanks for that, but...??
>
> (Ever tried turkey steaks? At least here, they're a LOT cheaper than
> chicken!) :)
Nope, keep em in mind. BTW, it was delicious.
<>
> >> >> >> >> And of course, considering the "whatsoever you do" to anyone else is
> >> >> >> >> thought to have been done to God...
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Is god afraid that taking it's picture will steal it's soul?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Nooooo.... theological conundrum, there...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Or perhaps god is just on vacation or somesuch?
> >> >>
> >> >> Grin.... you've been reading Pratchett again... and the OhGod of
> >> >> Hangovers, filling in for other gods...
> >> >>
> >> >> No, I don't think god is on vacation... where would god GO? :)
> >> >
> >> >If god created this universe, god could create as many others as god
> >> >wanted, no? Why does god suddenly gain human limitations in some
> >> >contexts?
> >>
> >> God could create whatever God wanted...
> >
> >Can god create a rock so heavy that god cannot lift it? :^}
>
> Geeze, you've got a theology text book there, haven't you??
No, not here. Why would I need one? Most of my observations are unique,
they do not derive from other sources, but I am sure that they are not
original.
But you did not respond to the question, surely a theologian of your
skill is not afraid of an old chestnut?
The problem is clear, omni-everything implies clear contradictions.
Can god die? Heck, can Jesus die?
> >> But I still don't think there could be anyplace God did NOT create, and
> >> why go on vacation to someplace that is your own work?
> >
> >Where was god when god created the universe then? And you seem to be implying
> >that god created god.
>
> I would say that God just always was...
You missed the question clean. -Where- was god when god created the universe.
And once again you define what god is.
> There are better ways of saying that, theologically, but that's the jist
> of it...
But that was not the question, not even close.
<>
> >> >> You are a composite being, just like
> >> >> the rest of us.
> >> >
> >> >Composite? What does that mean in this context?
> >>
> >> Body and soul, mind and body, thought and physicality....
> >
> >By what means do you seperate these? And what is the difference
> >between body and physicality?
>
> Sorry, body and phsicality were supposed to be like synonyms...
A distinction without a difference.
> I don't separate the body and the soul, cause that tends to cause
> death...
When the brain dies, the person is gone, but the body can live on.
In this sense, the soul would seem to reside in the brain, no?
> >> >> >Finally got some of the nuances of mainframe disk management straight
> >today,
> >> >> >now it's simple. Who'd have guessed I'd ever be doing such a thing. I
> >> >> >do like the error message "vary rejected" however. :^}
> >> >>
> >> >> Grin.... I try never to reject variance, it's too much fun...
> >> >
> >> >Sometimes you VTOC too much. :^}
> >>
> >> VTOC?
> >
> >Hehe, pronouce that V Talk, as in talk too much. You need to study up
> >on operating systems, VTOC is Volume Table Of Contents. :^}
>
> In my copious spare time, that would be...?
I'm sure that there are at least 6-8 hours you spend lying around doing
nothing. :^}
> >> >> >> That means, that whereas you and I can say, "This is my love, this is my
> >> >> >> foot, this is me being angry or hungry", such divisions just do not
> >> >> >> exist in god.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Why not? In the OT we have an angry vengeful god, seems these divisions
> >> >> >are very real, no? And if god is prefect, god cannot change, so the
> >divisions
> >> >> >must still exist, right?
> >> >>
> >> >> This is high speculative theology, Rich!
> >> >
> >> >Really? How so?
> >>
> >> The perfection of god, the immutability of god... that's the stuff of
> >> speculative theology
> >
> >Thought that was dogma?
>
> Theology feeds dogma, which feeds theology...
But the point is that the above *is* dogma.
<>
> >> Because all depictions are limited: if I say "God is this" then I am
> >> placing a limit on god... which is a human failing.
> >
> >| But then, I would say that love is something we DO, but love is what God
> >| IS.
> >
> >Hmmmmm....
>
> hum along, now...
I see I need to spell it out. You claim that saying "god is" places limits
on god, you had already stated that god -is- love, placing this as a limit
on god. Are theologians allowed to do what lesser humans are unable to do?
> >> In fact, there is a school of thought that we can ONLY say negative
> >> things about god:
> >
> >Now what did your mother tell you about this? :^}
>
> "If you can't say anything nice..." grin... hubby said that to small
> son at the breakfast table this AM!
What school of thought did you attend?
Rich
janet
In article <3513D299...@earthlink.net>, Rich
<pay...@earthlink.net> writes
>janet wrote:
>>
>> In article <350F30E5...@earthlink.net>, Rich
>> <pay...@earthlink.net> writes
>> >janet wrote:
>> >
>> >< six levels of headers cut>
>> >
>> thank heavens!
[]
> >>
>> >> Rich, I have a feeling here that we are going to keep having this
>> >> problem...
>> >>
>> >> I CAN'T point to God and say, "Look!".
>> >
>> >Why not? You say that god is everywhere, omnipotent, and loves me.
>> >So why not?
>>
>> Because onmipresence means lack of definition: yes,
>
>Does it? I don't really think so, certainly not when part of omni-
>everything.
>
But if god IS a part of everything, (which is not what I have said,
btw...), then there is no where I could point and say, "Look! God's not
there, but God *is* here!"
>> I can point to
>> anything and everything, but that's not going to convince anyone.
>
>You'd be surprised.
>
>The issue here is simple, Christians claim, basically, that if one
>does not know god, through Jesus, that they will suffer for eternity
>in hell.
Ack!! Yes, yes, I know there are christians who claim that.
In fact, they show up on christian and other religious ngs fairly
frequently, spouting this sort of thing.
I don't beleive it.
Full stop.
> You say that god is love and they god is all-powerful. Then
>why does god do nothing to prevent people from going to hell? Why does
>god *allow* people to suffer for eternity at all? This ain't love janet.
Agreed.
*I* would say that hell exists as the logical outcome of free will...
if we have the freedom to choose God, then we must also have the freedom
to chose not-God.
I would also say that I'm not at all sure there is anyone IN hell...
And that it would most CERTAINLY be an offence against charity to say
that any particular person is there...
>
>> Nor is my response to the idea that God loves you going to convince
>> anyone: but here it is, for what it's worth. You're here. Your creator
>> loves creation...
>
>Circular. I am here, which says nothing in particular about how I came
>to be here. Is god here? Not so as one would notice.
Grin... didn't I SAY it wouldn't work?
Rich, I can not, by logical argument, convince you that there is a god.
Fullstop.
>
>> >> Nor can I convince you of the existence of God, and *I will not try*.
See??
>> >
>> >But since god is on vacation, how am I to find god if you do not
>> >point the way?
>>
>> Travel agents?
>
>Funny. What travel agent does god use? Perhaps the devil has one?
Grin... apologies to all travel agents, where ever!
>
>> Rich, if you want someone to try to convert you, there are all SORTS of
>> people who would be MORE than happy to try!
>
>I'm just trying to make sense of all this. No luck so far.
Because we are not talking about something that is arrived at through
logic, is why.
>
>> >BTW, I recall that god announced vacation plans at the beginning of
>> >the nt when jesus was sent and god was said to not need to visit
>> >earth anymore, as a very rough paraphrase.
>>
>> Grin, yes, rather rough...
>>
>> John of the Cross said that, having spoken the Word once and for all,
>> God had nothing left to say. Is that kinda what you meant?
>
>Pretty much. But god is way out in left field if god thinks that
>people will hear what god does not care to say.
No, the idea is that it has all been said..
> And further, this
>god is willing to punish those who do not hear what god does not
>say.
You have just hit one of the problems which is still around in the
catholic church.
There was a man called Feeny who held that if one was not a card
carrying catholic, the pearly gates were forever closed for you...
He got excommunicated for it, but his followers are still around and
still strong...
I don't think it is a case of God punishing: we can choose god or not.
Why doesn't god force us to choose the divine?
Then it would be no choice, would it?
>
>> >> I can talk about what I beleive, but that's about all.
>> >
>> >But you will not even do that?
>>
>> I'm trying.
>
>Who was that who said that you can be very trying? :^}
;Ş
>
><>
>
>> >> >> Um, no, I actually meant, can you tell when someone loves you?
>> >> >
>> >> >Long term, I think I can. Love is not something you do but the reason
>> >> >you do things. J loved her cats, that was clear, she was always thinking
>> >> >of them and doing what she could to anticipate their needs and make
>> >> >them happy. My situation was quite different. :^\
>> >>
>> >> But then, I would say that love is something we DO, but love is what God
>> >> IS.
>> >
>> >Then you do know god? What exactly does this mean? If god loves us, why
>> >does hell and the devil exist?
>>
>> The devil is easier, in classical theology: he (but I dislike that
>> gendreed term for "him", becuase it seems rather unfair... say, "it")
>> was created good, but chose not to be, chose self over God.
>>
>> Because of the kind of thing it is, (angelic) choices are once for all:
>> it's complex, but that's the idea.
>
>Are we now assigning properties to angels?
Grin... people have been doing it for centruries! :)
How do we know? Extrapolation from scripture.
Is it important? Not in the least, I think....
> Do you know any more about
>angels than you know about god?
I know the theory, but I've never had a chance to test it...
>
>And the point remains, if god loves us, how could god possibly allow us
>to suffer for eternity? No statements about angels will answer this.
The answer to that is that god loved and loves us enough to allow us to
choose...
>
>> However, it was not created evil.
>
>What is evil?
The lack of a "due good".
IOW, I wouldn't normally say that a rock is "blind", because I don't
expect everyday rocks to be able to see.
However, I would say that a dog or a person is blind, because we DO
generally think of sight as being a "good" that is inherent in dogs and
people.
>
>> Hell, to me is simply what happens when we choose to be incapable of
>> accepting the kind of love god gives:
>
>If it is not love in human terms (whatever non-human love means) then
>it is not love we can use or identify at all. And if god loves me, where
>is god?
Rich, I can't answer that for you.
I can not, and will not try to, convince you of the presence/existence
of god.
>
>> it is a choice WE make, not one
>> that is made for us.
>
>Bullshit, I have made no choices in the matter.
Oh? :)
According to what I beleive, "whatsoever you do for the least of these,
you do for me..."
You make choices all the time, Rich, about how to live your life.
THOSE are your choices.
The way I see it, they either bring you, (no, let's take me....) they
either bring me more into line with what I was created to be, or they
don't...
>
>> (wipes forehead, this is SOOOO offtopic!!)
>
>alt.feminism will survive.
seems to be doing...
[]
>> >>
>> >> Ok, are you saying that love can only come from something that is
>> >> matter?
>> >
>> >No, I'm saying that you are confusing what you do and what others do.
>> >You can love unicorns, they do not exist, but -you- can love -them-.
>> >Your love has no bearing on the state of existance of what you love.
>>
>> Ok, so you are saying that love has to originate in something physical,
>> like a human person?
>
>Unless you can show otherwise, yes.
I can't prove it to you.
>
>> >> IOW, that only physical bodies, or those equipped with same,
>> >> can love?
>> >
>> >Unless you can show different.
>>
>> I can't.
>>
>> That's not a disclaimer, it's a statement.
>>
>> I beleive it to be so, but I can not prove it to the satisfaction of
>> anyone else.
>
>How can you experience this love then? And why cannot others?
I can experience it as I would experience any other love.
>
>> >> >> Do you mean that you need a body to feel love?
>> >> >
>> >> >As far as I know, you need to *exist* to love, and bodies seem part and
>> >> >parcel of existence.
>> >>
>> >> Grin... I would disagree. But I can't prove it.
>> >
>> >Why? How do you know whether or not god has a body?
>>
>> Jesus did and does, but that physical existence had a specific beginning
>> in time, yet I would hold that the love of God is eternal.
>
>Well, I am not, so this distinction is meaningless to me, as well as
>unprovable even in principle.
Huzzah!!! That's what I've been saying all along!
>
>Oh wait, by love in other than human terms, did you mean things like
>burning in hell for eternity?
See above...
>
>> Rich, we are talking about faith here, specifically, my faith, (she
>> squirms).
>
>Why does god require faith? Why does god punish reason? And reason
>and faith are somewhat opposites here.
I don't think god does punish reason.
God "requires" faith, in the sense that it takes faith to beleive in
god, because we have been given a choice...
>
>> By definition, I can't prove it.
>
>But why should you not be able to show others this all-powerful all-loving
>god who is everywhere and who will allow you to suffer for eternity if
>you do not know god?
? You mean, if I DO know god, yes?
I don't "know" god in the sense that I understand or comprehend the
divine.
I beleive in god, and feel that I have a relation to god.
>
><>
>
><re- images and religion>
>
>> >Don't think so. But you can name one if you remember.
>>
>> Buddhism? But I'm not sure about that...
>
>I had started to research this when I remembered. Remember the fat bald
>guy? The image of the Buddha? This image is somewhat of a Buddhist icon.
>
>> >> But I agree. The human mind seems to need images. There is, though, a
>> >> difference between the image and the thing imaged:
>> >
>> >You seem pretty sure of your images janet. No, really. And I'm not passing
>> >judgement here, just making an observation.
>>
>> Pardon?
>
>Your images of god, what god is, heaven, hell, etc... Note, in this sense
>I do not mean strictly visual images.
Ah, ok.
You mean that I am sure about what I believe? :) Would that it were
so. But I am working on it: on understanding what I beleive, and why...
and what others beleive, and why....
>
>> If you mean I'm sure of what God looks like, I'm not...
>
>Surely there must be a drivers license photo? :^} But of course, that
>would prolly not look much like god. :^}
Grin.. driver's licenses don't HAVE photos here, (and are good from the
date of issue to one's 70th birthday!!!).
So, if, as I am told, God is English, then there'd be no photo... :)
>
>> >> I could tell you all
>> >> about my kids, for instance, but there is no way I could make you love
>> >> them as I do, does that make sense?
>> >
>> >You cannot force anyone to love, anymore than you can force yourself
>> >to relax.
>> >
>> >But let me ask you this, why do you love your kids?
>>
>> Grin... I don't know!
>
>Funny, you seemed to think it a telling point when you asked me such a
>question. But as I said, love, and feelings seem rooted deeper in the
>brain than the cerebral cortex.
No, when I asked you, I expected the same answer: I don't think we CAN
articulate exactly why we love...
>
>> I mean, in essence, I love them becuase of who they are.
>
>And they are -your- kids, eh?
Partially it's that, as I said below, and partially it is the relation
built up through the years....
>
>> But there is probably more to it than that: how much of maternal love
>> comes from the hoping and longing for the child before it is born? From
>> the constant interaction of mother and baby? I don't know.
>
>Gee, the feminists claim that a father who works hard to feed his children
>cannot possibly love them.
The feminists who claim that are wrong.
Ok?
>
>> >> >> > Seems an odd thing if images are not important.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I didn't say that they were not important to OTHERS, but that they are
>> >> >> not important to me.
>> >> >
>> >> >And you have nothing to do with your religion, which is awash with them
>> >> >then. Glad to clear that up. What else do you care to disclaim?
>> >>
>> >> Sigh, no, that's not what I meant, of course I have to do with my
>> >> religion.
>> >
>> >Good, I was getting worried there for a minute. :^}
>>
>> You and me both, that'd be a LOT of wasted years!!
>
>Now we wouldn't want that, would we?
Grin... that would be the least of my worries...
>
>> >> But my religion teaches that those images are just that: they are
>> >> reminders of the reality, and there is no definitive image, no "ONE"
>> >> image that captures God.
>> >
>> >But such images are everywhere, and idol worship is still practiced
>> >in the form of rosaries. There are many physical underpinnings to
>> >Caltholicism.
>>
>> Um, the rosary is not an object of worship, Rich.
>
>No more or less than any other idol. Or do you assert that those who
>worshiped a statue of Hermes were worshipping the statue itself rather
>than the god?
Nope, but that's still not the function of the rosary...
>
>> I could tell you what it's for and how it's used, but considering how
>> off topic we already are, I'll just ask if you want to know...
>
>The whole post is off-topic, but it seems we are hitting some sore
>spots and suddenly you do not want to talk.
No! I just don't want to bore you! (odd look) Do you WANT an
explanation of the rosary?? Glad to give one, if that's what you
want...
>
>> >Hmmm, dinner is nearly ready, I'm having mixed veggies cooked in
>> >butter with chicken. I'll add some soy sauce when cooked. The mix
>> >has broccoli, sweet soybeans, carrots, and sliced water chestnuts.
>>
>> Thanks for that, but...??
>>
>> (Ever tried turkey steaks? At least here, they're a LOT cheaper than
>> chicken!) :)
>
>Nope, keep em in mind. BTW, it was delicious.
Good! :)
[]
>> >
>> >Can god create a rock so heavy that god cannot lift it? :^}
>>
>> Geeze, you've got a theology text book there, haven't you??
>
>No, not here. Why would I need one? Most of my observations are unique,
They may be unique to you, but the creation of a rock too heavy to lift
is an oldie but a goodie...
>they do not derive from other sources, but I am sure that they are not
>original.
Ah, ok, I see what you mean!
>
>But you did not respond to the question, surely a theologian of your
>skill is not afraid of an old chestnut?
Hey, I'm afraid of a lot of nuts!!!
(we'll let that "theologian of your skill" slide right on by....)
I think that question contains, if you like, the seeds of its own
destruction, and can not be answered: if the stone is too heavy for god
to lift, then god can not do everything, yet the definition says god CAN
do everything, so god must be able to create the stone, but also to lift
it, but then the definition of the stone is wrong...
>
>The problem is clear, omni-everything implies clear contradictions.
>
>Can god die? Heck, can Jesus die?
Grin......
Rich, we've GOTTA get you on a cosmology course, you'd love it!!!
Jesus did die, yes.
That's rather the whole point of the resurrection...
>
>> >> But I still don't think there could be anyplace God did NOT create, and
>> >> why go on vacation to someplace that is your own work?
>> >
>> >Where was god when god created the universe then? And you seem to be implying
>> >that god created god.
>>
>> I would say that God just always was...
>
>You missed the question clean. -Where- was god when god created the universe.
>And once again you define what god is.
Grin... "where" is nonsensical before the creation of place...
>
>> There are better ways of saying that, theologically, but that's the jist
>> of it...
>
>But that was not the question, not even close.
sorry, sir...
>
><>
>
>> >> >> You are a composite being, just like
>> >> >> the rest of us.
>> >> >
>> >> >Composite? What does that mean in this context?
>> >>
>> >> Body and soul, mind and body, thought and physicality....
>> >
>> >By what means do you seperate these? And what is the difference
>> >between body and physicality?
>>
>> Sorry, body and phsicality were supposed to be like synonyms...
>
>A distinction without a difference.
>
yup
>> I don't separate the body and the soul, cause that tends to cause
>> death...
>
>When the brain dies, the person is gone, but the body can live on.
>In this sense, the soul would seem to reside in the brain, no?
Could be...
>
>> >> >> >Finally got some of the nuances of mainframe disk management straight
>> >today,
>> >> >> >now it's simple. Who'd have guessed I'd ever be doing such a thing. I
>> >> >> >do like the error message "vary rejected" however. :^}
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Grin.... I try never to reject variance, it's too much fun...
>> >> >
>> >> >Sometimes you VTOC too much. :^}
>> >>
>> >> VTOC?
>> >
>> >Hehe, pronouce that V Talk, as in talk too much. You need to study up
>> >on operating systems, VTOC is Volume Table Of Contents. :^}
>>
>> In my copious spare time, that would be...?
>
>I'm sure that there are at least 6-8 hours you spend lying around doing
>nothing. :^}
Sigh... wanna bet? I'm REALLY pleased with about 4 anymore...
>
>> >> >> >> That means, that whereas you and I can say, "This is my love, this is
>my
>> >> >> >> foot, this is me being angry or hungry", such divisions just do not
>> >> >> >> exist in god.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Why not? In the OT we have an angry vengeful god, seems these divisions
>> >> >> >are very real, no? And if god is prefect, god cannot change, so the
>> >divisions
>> >> >> >must still exist, right?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> This is high speculative theology, Rich!
>> >> >
>> >> >Really? How so?
>> >>
>> >> The perfection of god, the immutability of god... that's the stuff of
>> >> speculative theology
>> >
>> >Thought that was dogma?
>>
>> Theology feeds dogma, which feeds theology...
>
>But the point is that the above *is* dogma.
>
That's my point, the two are inter-related
><>
>
>> >> Because all depictions are limited: if I say "God is this" then I am
>> >> placing a limit on god... which is a human failing.
>> >
>> >| But then, I would say that love is something we DO, but love is what God
>> >| IS.
>> >
>> >Hmmmmm....
>>
>> hum along, now...
>
>I see I need to spell it out. You claim that saying "god is" places limits
>on god, you had already stated that god -is- love, placing this as a limit
>on god. Are theologians allowed to do what lesser humans are unable to do?
Grin... you're right, of course.
I've already said that language is inadequate for the divine.
>
>> >> In fact, there is a school of thought that we can ONLY say negative
>> >> things about god:
>> >
>> >Now what did your mother tell you about this? :^}
>>
>> "If you can't say anything nice..." grin... hubby said that to small
>> son at the breakfast table this AM!
>
>What school of thought did you attend?
(opening closet door, it had to come out sometime...)
Scholastic.
Don't kick a woman when she's down...