Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.apps > #28245 > unrolled thread

Re: Monotheism - One God

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.apps

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Monotheism - One God David Moorman <email@domain.com> - 2015-03-19 23:33 -0500
    Re: Monotheism - One God Joanna Shuttleworth <js@example.com> - 2015-03-20 08:10 +0000
      Re: Monotheism - One God gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-03-20 08:35 -0700
        Re: Monotheism - One God David Moorman <email@domain.com> - 2015-03-20 22:34 -0500
      Re: Monotheism - One God "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2015-03-20 15:47 -0400
        Re: Monotheism - One God Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-03-20 18:56 -0700
          Re: Monotheism - One God "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2015-03-21 17:55 -0400
      Re: Monotheism - One God David Moorman <email@domain.com> - 2015-03-20 22:33 -0500
        Re: Monotheism - One God Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-03-20 21:27 -0700
          Re: Monotheism - One God gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-03-20 23:17 -0700
        Re: Monotheism - One God dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2015-03-21 16:33 +1100
          Re: Monotheism - One God peter@pfjames.co.uk (Peter James) - 2015-03-22 07:42 +0000
            Re: Monotheism - One God dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2015-03-23 06:59 +1100
              Re: Monotheism - One God gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-03-22 13:58 -0700
                Re: Monotheism - One God Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-03-22 17:25 -0400
                  Re: Monotheism - One God gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-03-22 14:38 -0700
                  Re: Monotheism - One God Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-03-22 17:34 -0700
                Re: Monotheism - One God Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-03-22 22:23 +0000
                Re: Monotheism - One God dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2015-03-23 21:43 +1100
                  Re: Monotheism - One God gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-03-23 08:25 -0700
                    Re: Monotheism - One God dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2015-03-24 07:56 +1100
                      Re: Monotheism - One God gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-03-23 15:15 -0700
                        Re: Monotheism - One God dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2015-03-24 10:47 +1100
                          Re: Monotheism - One God Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-03-23 20:10 -0400
                            Re: Monotheism - One God dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2015-03-24 11:43 +1100
                            Re: Monotheism - One God "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2015-03-24 19:00 -0400
                              Re: Monotheism - One God Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-03-24 17:29 -0700
                    Re: Monotheism - One God "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2015-03-23 19:44 -0400
        Re: Monotheism - One God Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-03-21 09:54 +0000
          Re: Monotheism - One God gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-03-21 09:05 -0700
            Re: Monotheism - One God Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-03-21 09:13 -0700
              Re: Monotheism - One God Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-03-21 13:54 -0400
                Re: Monotheism - One God gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-03-21 11:32 -0700
            Re: Monotheism - One God Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-03-21 16:38 -0700
              Re: Monotheism - One God jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-22 20:24 +1300
              Re: Monotheism - One God gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-03-22 09:30 -0700
                Re: Monotheism - One God Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-03-22 17:35 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#28245 — Re: Monotheism - One God

On 2015-03-19 21:57:56 +0000, bv4bv4bv4@gmail.com said:

> Monotheism - One God

Allah = God = Jehovah.   One God, three religions, with most of their 
adherents believing that *their* religion is the one true faith, 
following the one, true God.  It's all incredibly human.   

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#28246

On 2015-03-20, David Moorman <email@domain.com> wrote:
> On 2015-03-19 21:57:56 +0000, bv4bv4bv4@gmail.com said:
>
>> Monotheism - One God
>
> Allah = God = Jehovah.   One God, three religions, with most of their 
> adherents believing that *their* religion is the one true faith, 
> following the one, true God.  It's all incredibly human.   
>

Not so. Asserting the equivalence of two human and one sub-human
religions is an error.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28249

On 2015-03-20 08:10:06 +0000, Joanna Shuttleworth said:

> On 2015-03-20, David Moorman <email@domain.com> wrote:
>> On 2015-03-19 21:57:56 +0000, bv4bv4bv4@gmail.com said:
>> 
>>> Monotheism - One God
>> 
>> Allah = God = Jehovah.   One God, three religions, with most of their
>> adherents believing that *their* religion is the one true faith,
>> following the one, true God.  It's all incredibly human.
> 
> Not so. Asserting the equivalence of two human and one sub-human
> religions is an error.

Sound like party politics to me.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28255

On 2015-03-20 15:35:16 +0000, gtr said:

> On 2015-03-20 08:10:06 +0000, Joanna Shuttleworth said:
> 
>> On 2015-03-20, David Moorman <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>> On 2015-03-19 21:57:56 +0000, bv4bv4bv4@gmail.com said:
>>> 
>>>> Monotheism - One God
>>> 
>>> Allah = God = Jehovah.   One God, three religions, with most of their
>>> adherents believing that *their* religion is the one true faith,
>>> following the one, true God.  It's all incredibly human.
>> 
>> Not so. Asserting the equivalence of two human and one sub-human
>> religions is an error.
> 
> Sound like party politics to me.

Apt description, gtr.   

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28250

In article <550bd5de$0$4799$b1db1813$376fe2e5@news.astraweb.com>,
 Joanna Shuttleworth <js@example.com> wrote:

> On 2015-03-20, David Moorman <email@domain.com> wrote:
> > On 2015-03-19 21:57:56 +0000, bv4bv4bv4@gmail.com said:
> >
> >> Monotheism - One God
> >
> > Allah = God = Jehovah.   One God, three religions, with most of their 
> > adherents believing that *their* religion is the one true faith, 
> > following the one, true God.  It's all incredibly human.
> 
> Not so. Asserting the equivalence of two human and one sub-human
> religions is an error.

Christianity will just have to catch up then.

-- 
D.F. Manno | dfmanno@mail.com
GOP delenda est!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28252

On 2015-03-20 19:47:14 +0000, D.F. Manno said:

> In article <550bd5de$0$4799$b1db1813$376fe2e5@news.astraweb.com>,
>  Joanna Shuttleworth <js@example.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 2015-03-20, David Moorman <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>> On 2015-03-19 21:57:56 +0000, bv4bv4bv4@gmail.com said:
>>> 
>>>> Monotheism - One God
>>> 
>>> Allah = God = Jehovah.   One God, three religions, with most of their
>>> adherents believing that *their* religion is the one true faith,
>>> following the one, true God.  It's all incredibly human.
>> 
>> Not so. Asserting the equivalence of two human and one sub-human
>> religions is an error.
> 
> Christianity will just have to catch up then.

No need. All three of the religions following the Judeo-Christian-Islam 
god have more than enough blood on their hands, historically and in 
recent times.
...and they aren't particularly picky when it comes to deciding just 
who will shed that blood.

There is no real tolerance and/or acceptance of any one of those great 
religions by any of the other members of the club led by the one CEO; 
Yahweh-God(the trilogy)-Allah.

-- 
Regards,

Savageduck

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28281

In article <2015032018560886504-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMme.com>,
 Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> On 2015-03-20 19:47:14 +0000, D.F. Manno said:
> > Joanna Shuttleworth <js@example.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> Not so. Asserting the equivalence of two human and one sub-human
> >> religions is an error.
> > 
> > Christianity will just have to catch up then.
> 
> No need. All three of the religions following the Judeo-Christian-Islam 
> god have more than enough blood on their hands, historically and in 
> recent times.
> ...and they aren't particularly picky when it comes to deciding just 
> who will shed that blood.
> 
> There is no real tolerance and/or acceptance of any one of those great 
> religions by any of the other members of the club led by the one CEO; 
> Yahweh-God(the trilogy)-Allah.

Whoosh!

-- 
D.F. Manno | dfmanno@mail.com
GOP delenda est!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28254

On 2015-03-20 08:10:06 +0000, Joanna Shuttleworth said:

> On 2015-03-20, David Moorman <email@domain.com> wrote:
>> On 2015-03-19 21:57:56 +0000, bv4bv4bv4@gmail.com said:
>> 
>>> Monotheism - One God
>> 
>> Allah = God = Jehovah.   One God, three religions, with most of their
>> adherents believing that *their* religion is the one true faith,
>> following the one, true God.  It's all incredibly human.
>> 
> 
> Not so. Asserting the equivalence of two human and one sub-human
> religions is an error.

I know, I know, but we must treat Christians with respect, goofy as 
they can be.

However, God, Allah, and Jehovah are the same deity.  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28256

On 2015-03-21 03:33:31 +0000, David Moorman said:

> On 2015-03-20 08:10:06 +0000, Joanna Shuttleworth said:
> 
>> On 2015-03-20, David Moorman <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>> On 2015-03-19 21:57:56 +0000, bv4bv4bv4@gmail.com said:
>>> 
>>>> Monotheism - One God
>>> 
>>> Allah = God = Jehovah.   One God, three religions, with most of their
>>> adherents believing that *their* religion is the one true faith,
>>> following the one, true God.  It's all incredibly human.
>>> 
>> 
>> Not so. Asserting the equivalence of two human and one sub-human
>> religions is an error.
> 
> I know, I know, but we must treat Christians with respect, goofy as 
> they can be.

I never thought of the Inquisition, the Crusades, the pogroms across 
Europe, witch trials with hangings & burnings, and the ethnic cleansing 
in the Balkans as particularly goofy Christian behaviour.

> However, God, Allah, and Jehovah are the same deity.

...and they all kill, oppress, exploit, and control, in the name of 
that manmade population control device. That "god" is no better than a 
much crueler cattle prod.

-- 
Regards,

Savageduck

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28265

On 2015-03-21 04:27:42 +0000, Savageduck said:

> On 2015-03-21 03:33:31 +0000, David Moorman said:
> 
>> On 2015-03-20 08:10:06 +0000, Joanna Shuttleworth said:
>> 
>>> On 2015-03-20, David Moorman <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2015-03-19 21:57:56 +0000, bv4bv4bv4@gmail.com said:
>>>> 
>>>>> Monotheism - One God
>>>> 
>>>> Allah = God = Jehovah.   One God, three religions, with most of their
>>>> adherents believing that *their* religion is the one true faith,
>>>> following the one, true God.  It's all incredibly human.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Not so. Asserting the equivalence of two human and one sub-human
>>> religions is an error.
>> 
>> I know, I know, but we must treat Christians with respect, goofy as 
>> they can be.
> 
> I never thought of the Inquisition, the Crusades, the pogroms across 
> Europe, witch trials with hangings & burnings, and the ethnic cleansing 
> in the Balkans as particularly goofy Christian behaviour.
> 
>> However, God, Allah, and Jehovah are the same deity.
> 
> ...and they all kill, oppress, exploit, and control, in the name of 
> that manmade population control device. That "god" is no better than a 
> much crueler cattle prod.

They're all doing a great job ensuring that all this horseshit should 
die and be blown away by a strong breeze over the next 30-40 years.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28262

In article <550ceab2$0$5256$88263eea@blocknews.net>,
 David Moorman <email@domain.com> wrote:

> However, God, Allah, and Jehovah are the same deity.

If they exist. If not, they can hardly be different to any number 
(zero) of things that are not.

-- 
dorayme

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28287

dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> wrote:

> In article <550ceab2$0$5256$88263eea@blocknews.net>,
>  David Moorman <email@domain.com> wrote:
> 
> > However, God, Allah, and Jehovah are the same deity.
> 
> If they exist. If not, they can hardly be different to any number 
> (zero) of things that are not.
I do hope you're not including Middle Earth in that wild statement.  I
mean, I'm all for free speech but if the holy J R Tolkien is included in
your statement you've gone too far.

Peter

-- 
It is necessary for the good man to do nothing for evil to triumph.

Attributed to Edmund Burke 1729 - 1797

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28301

In article <1m1od42.tt3ipz2p41q8N%peter@pfjames.co.uk>,
 peter@pfjames.co.uk (Peter James) wrote:

> dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <550ceab2$0$5256$88263eea@blocknews.net>,
> >  David Moorman <email@domain.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > However, God, Allah, and Jehovah are the same deity.
> > 
> > If they exist. If not, they can hardly be different to any number 
> > (zero) of things that are not.
>
> I do hope you're not including Middle Earth in that wild statement.  I
> mean, I'm all for free speech but if the holy J R Tolkien is included in
> your statement you've gone too far.

There is a controversial theory that says that all possible things are 
in their own worlds and that from the point of view of those worlds, 
they all exist alright. The other side of this coin is that we are 
mere possibilities from their point of view. Only *logical* 
impossibilities are excluded. So, if gods are possible, I would be 
wrong. 

As it happens, I believe that the Christian god, an allegedly 
omniscient being, is logically impossible. Not sure about other gods. 
I think the Greek and Roman ones might be possible, or at least some 
of them. And certainly some of the monsters that I came across in 
Latin in a primary reader called Septimus (the name of a schoolboy who 
has adventures in the underworld).

-- 
dorayme

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28305

On 2015-03-22 19:59:52 +0000, dorayme said:

> There is a controversial theory that says that all possible things are
> in their own worlds and that from the point of view of those worlds,
> they all exist alright. The other side of this coin is that we are
> mere possibilities from their point of view. Only *logical*
> impossibilities are excluded.

The idea that logic must be a structural demand of a religious *faith*, 
has never been a theory I've heard stated with much enthusiasm.

> So, if gods are possible, I would be wrong.
> 
> As it happens, I believe that the Christian god, an allegedly
> omniscient being, is logically impossible.

I once heard a radio drama in which a man climbed to a mountain top to 
shout to God and lo and beholde he answered.  He began, "I don't 
understand how you can let criminals live and take children away in 
horrible events and deseases."  God answered, "That's right you don't 
understand, because as a mortal you don't have the capacity to 
understand the workings of the mind of God."

He went on with this correlary: The absolute smartest dog in the world 
can never be trained over the course of his entire life to play a 
simple game of blackjack.  He doesn't have the mental capacity to learn 
it or play it.  Similarly there is a range of constructs that the tiny 
little brains of humans can never understand, not even Einstein's or 
Newton's nor anyone yet to be born.

So it's not so much "illogical", these gods and their angels, so much 
as it is outside our range of understanding.  We have to simply take it 
on faith that no demonstration of their works or existence will ever 
exist except in fairy tales and biblical writings whose intent it is to 
supply "evidence" of their existance by creating a bunch of bogus 
stories.

If the manifestations of God are all about us saving the one child out 
of 8 that doesn't die in a boating accident, why isn't this so rarely 
seen as the work of an evil diety that took the other seven?  "It was a 
miracle."  What a lame-ass miracle!  Back in yonder days we had some 
real miracles, scores of sages turning water to wine, parting the 
waters, pulling down mighty columns, sounding horns that tumbled walls. 
 Then suddenly 1900 years of bupkis.  What's up with that?  See how 
logic doesn't help us so much?

> Not sure about other gods.
> I think the Greek and Roman ones might be possible, or at least some
> of them. And certainly some of the monsters that I came across in
> Latin in a primary reader called Septimus (the name of a schoolboy who
> has adventures in the underworld).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28306

In article <2015032213581015683-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:

> What's up with that?  See how 
> logic doesn't help us so much?

My cat can play blackjack. She's better at euchre, though.
-- 
Where's the Vangelis music?
Pris' tongue is sticking out in in the wide shot after Batty has kissed her.
They have put back more tits into the Zhora dressing  room scene.
  -- notes for Blade Runner

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28308

On 2015-03-22 21:25:05 +0000, Warren Oates said:

> In article <2015032213581015683-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:
> 
>> What's up with that?  See how logic doesn't help us so much?
> 
> My cat can play blackjack. She's better at euchre, though.

I think you may be thinking of SLAPjack.  Blackjack is a different game.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28321

In article <550f3332$0$1620$c3e8da3$12bcf670@news.astraweb.com>, Warren
Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <2015032213581015683-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:
> 
> > What's up with that?  See how 
> > logic doesn't help us so much?
> 
> My cat can play blackjack. She's better at euchre, though.

My cat plays duplicate bridge; he needs only 15.38 master points to
become a Life Master.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28313

In article <2015032213581015683-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:

>On 2015-03-22 19:59:52 +0000, dorayme said:
>
>> There is a controversial theory that says that all possible things are
>> in their own worlds and that from the point of view of those worlds,
>> they all exist alright. The other side of this coin is that we are
>> mere possibilities from their point of view. Only *logical*
>> impossibilities are excluded.
>
>The idea that logic must be a structural demand of a religious *faith*, 
>has never been a theory I've heard stated with much enthusiasm.
>
>> So, if gods are possible, I would be wrong.
>> 
>> As it happens, I believe that the Christian god, an allegedly
>> omniscient being, is logically impossible.
>
>I once heard a radio drama in which a man climbed to a mountain top to 
>shout to God and lo and beholde he answered.  He began, "I don't 
>understand how you can let criminals live and take children away in 
>horrible events and deseases."  God answered, "That's right you don't 
>understand, because as a mortal you don't have the capacity to 
>understand the workings of the mind of God."
>
>He went on with this correlary: The absolute smartest dog in the world 
>can never be trained over the course of his entire life to play a 
>simple game of blackjack.  He doesn't have the mental capacity to learn 
>it or play it.

Or even to understand the concept. Equally, if the dog swishes its tail
and down crashes the Ming vase, the notion that one piece of stuff (the
vase) is somehow different from another piece of stuff (a chair) is
entirely beyond it.

Humanity is not able to tell whether it is in the same position as the
dog, simply at a higher level.

I sometimes wonder if there is a God who, having used magic to create
the world around us, is now forced by our constant experimenting and
poking, at places like CERN, to keep one step ahead of us by having to
invent "laws" of nature that allow us humans to make sense of it all.

-- 
"People don't buy Microsoft for quality, they buy it for compatibility
with what Bob in accounting bought last year. Trace it back - they buy
Microsoft because the IBM Selectric didn't suck much" - P Seebach, afc

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28330

In article <2015032213581015683-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:

> On 2015-03-22 19:59:52 +0000, dorayme said:
> 
> > There is a controversial theory that says that all possible things are
> > in their own worlds and that from the point of view of those worlds,
> > they all exist alright. The other side of this coin is that we are
> > mere possibilities from their point of view. Only *logical*
> > impossibilities are excluded.
> 
> The idea that logic must be a structural demand of a religious *faith*, 
> has never been a theory I've heard stated with much enthusiasm.
> 

What religious person would happily allow that their belief systems 
contains a logical contradiction? People who have faith presumably 
have faith in that something is the case, I cannot imagine a serious 
religious person easily admitting this proposition is either self 
contradictory or that it contradicts something else they agree is 
true. So, while you might not have heard of this as some theory, it is 
not hard to appreciate it being true. To that extent, it is as much a 
structural demand as any belief. 


> > So, if gods are possible, I would be wrong.
> > 
> > As it happens, I believe that the Christian god, an allegedly
> > omniscient being, is logically impossible.
> 
> I once heard a radio drama in which a man climbed to a mountain top to 
> shout to God and lo and beholde he answered.  He began, "I don't 
> understand how you can let criminals live and take children away in 
> horrible events and deseases."  God answered, "That's right you don't 
> understand, because as a mortal you don't have the capacity to 
> understand the workings of the mind of God."
> 
> He went on with this correlary: The absolute smartest dog in the world 
> can never be trained over the course of his entire life to play a 
> simple game of blackjack.  He doesn't have the mental capacity to learn 
> it or play it.  Similarly there is a range of constructs that the tiny 
> little brains of humans can never understand, not even Einstein's or 
> Newton's nor anyone yet to be born.
> 
> So it's not so much "illogical", these gods and their angels, so much 
> as it is outside our range of understanding.  We have to simply take it 
> on faith that no demonstration of their works or existence will ever 
> exist except in fairy tales and biblical writings whose intent it is to 
> supply "evidence" of their existance by creating a bunch of bogus 
> stories.
> 

Normally, atheists do not charge theists with contradiction, rather 
they are accused of believing things which are highly unlikely. Saying 
stuff about things being beyond our understanding to ward off 
criticism of a pet theory is a simple cop out which can be employed 
anytime anywhere on anything - but always totally unimpressively. So 
we need not worry about this. If anyone does worry about it, I will 
help them further.

-- 
dorayme

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28332

On 2015-03-23 10:43:07 +0000, dorayme said:

>> The idea that logic must be a structural demand of a religious *faith*,
>> has never been a theory I've heard stated with much enthusiasm.
> 
> What religious person would happily allow that their belief systems
> contains a logical contradiction?

What religious person considers logic a consideration of faith, happily 
or otherwise?

> People who have faith presumably have faith in that something is the 
> case, I cannot imagine a serious religious person easily admitting this 
> proposition is either self contradictory or that it contradicts 
> something else they agree is true. So, while you might not have heard 
> of this as some theory, it is not hard to appreciate it being true. To 
> that extent, it is as much a structural demand as any belief.

I didn't get a bit of that.  I don't think faith pivots on logic nor 
vice versa. I have heard doctors and scientists who are Christians 
specifically say that they are unrelated.  And the usual escape hatch 
is that we don't know the mechanics of what we don't know, either 
within a framework of logic or outside it.

>>> So, if gods are possible, I would be wrong.
>>> 
>>> As it happens, I believe that the Christian god, an allegedly
>>> omniscient being, is logically impossible.
>> 
>> I once heard a radio drama in which a man climbed to a mountain top to
>> shout to God and lo and beholde he answered.  He began, "I don't
>> understand how you can let criminals live and take children away in
>> horrible events and deseases."  God answered, "That's right you don't
>> understand, because as a mortal you don't have the capacity to
>> understand the workings of the mind of God."
>> 
>> He went on with this correlary: The absolute smartest dog in the world
>> can never be trained over the course of his entire life to play a
>> simple game of blackjack.
> 
> Normally, atheists do not charge theists with contradiction, rather
> they are accused of believing things which are highly unlikely.

I hear atheists make this charge of those who use Biblical edict to 
validate their actions and judgements all the time.  They cite 
Leviticus with the one-liner on homosexuality, but don't seem to care 
about the edict regarding eating shell-fish, slavery, head-coverings, 
etc.

> Saying stuff about things being beyond our understanding to ward off
> criticism of a pet theory is a simple cop out which can be employed
> anytime anywhere on anything - but always totally unimpressively.

If God is bigger than man's capacity for understanding, what use is 
logic to understanding?  If logic is critical, then God has failed, 
religions have failed.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.apps

csiph-web