| Subject: 1000 years a 1000 years... |
Author:
Damoclese
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 10/27/04 12:20pm
In reply to:
Biff
's message, "A man with a beard threw a fluffy bunny" on 10/26/04 9:52pm
>
>Being that they were where? Are you suggesting that
>living in particular place or time gives one an
>advantage over others to understanding God?
Yes I am. If you happened to be around when "God" or whatever floods the world, and then he "says" to you, "Hey, I'm not gonna flood the world anymore." I think that would make you understand God a whole hell of a lot better because you'd have DIRECT experience of God, and not some sort of vague "I feel God says this" sort of experience.
If so,
>you're assuming that God once would have interacted
>with history and no longer does.
One thing is for sure, God doesn't seem to "talk" to people anymore in the way he did in the Old Testament. Do you agree or disagree with that statement?
>
>One person says to the police, "I saw a man with a
>beard cross the street and throw a brick through the
>window. He then jumped inside and ran back out
>carrying a television."
>
>A second person, who lives a few doors down from the
>first, says to the police, "I saw a man with a beard
>cross the street and throw a brick through the window.
>He jumped inside then came out carrying the limp body
>of a woman and started to perform CPR."
>
>What can we glean from this? To discover why the
>window was broken, we'd need more information.
>However, it seems quite likely that it was broken by a
>man with beard, does it not?
In that situation yes, but the situation we are talking about is more like a version of a guy from a thousand years ago compared to a version from a thousand years later. Who do you suppose has a better idea of what happened? Who do you suppose is borrowing from whom?
>
>1) It's a mistake to equate logic with nature. Logic
>is a system of thought. It's not necessarily connected
>with nature in any way.
I'd say that logic attempts to mirror what nature does. Equating it with nature is something I personally wouldn't do, but nonethless, many people actually DO.
>
>2) I've never heard it credibly argued that God is
>bound by logic. It may be that He CHOOSES to work
>within the paramaters of logic, but it's difficult to
>say that an omnipotent God is bound by logic.
Nonetheless, some people think God is all powerful but is bound within logical operations. I'd find that hard to believe also, but then again I'm not a Christian so the issue is rather moot to me.
>
>3) Yes, God is intimately linked with a flood; and
>snowstorms and volcanoes, geysers, hurricanes,
>sunshine, boulders, tornadoes and clouds shaped like
>fluffy bunnies. But that's just it. He controls
>it--all of it. Because He created it. If there were no
>thunder, there would be no Thor (in the mind of the
>Norseman). The Christian God is completely independant
>of creation, He would exist even if nature did not.
I think you ASSUME that God is independent of nature. I suspect this particular version of God was brought about largely to explain nature. Later on, he took a life on of his own.
>
>>If by that you mean people worship God and Jesus, then
>>I suppose you are right. Of course, the guts have been
>>replaced several times over,
>
>I'm afraid you'll have to elaborate on what you mean
>by "the guts." Doctrines such as the Trinity, the
>death and resurrection of Christ, the ascention of
>Christ, the Holy Spirit, salvation, forgiveness, etc.,
>have not been replaced. Certainly, you can find sects
>throughout history who have challenged certain
>doctrines, but they have never succeeded in replacing
>anything central to the faith.
Sure, they called them those things, but they meant different things throughout history. Just as an example, in the Victorian age it was thought you shouldn't be creamated because you couldn't "rise from your grave" later on. If you look back through time at religious documents, you see things like "free will" cease to be an issue. Christianity has changed again and again. What it once was it is far from now.
>
>Historically, Islam has really only thrived in a
>specific group of cultures.
I assume you are ignoring relatively modern history, then.
This is why it has
>remained basically the same.
Or maybe it's remained basically the same because that's what ideas about philosophy generally do.
Christianity has
>succeeded in infiltrating (for lack of a better word)
>a variety of cultures to a greater degree. I would
>contend that this makes Christianity the "stronger"
>religion.
If that be the case, Christianity had better be ready to cede the title, because Islam is now the fastest growing religion.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 