01 Jul 07
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYou died and made you psychologist general? You know NOTHING of me.
How quaint.
So how would you characterize someone who begins a refutation of God with the premise that current Christian doctorine is the final authority on the properties of God?
I'm sure your academic training has taught you much. However, you've yet to acquire the wisdom required to formulate a sound understanding. Perhaps that's what you find so disconcerting.
YOU think you can change the definitions of God given by the Pope (who is an authority on God), yet a dictionary writer, who claims to be no authority is inerrant?
Actually, thinking about it, are you attempting to claim that dictionary writers are inerrent?
01 Jul 07
Originally posted by KellyJayGood question. Some ideas about God are more accurate than others. Of course the bible contains everything we do know about God, but individuals themselves develop a better concept of God as he is the more they grow in him.
Where do the non-Christians go to get the accepted view of God
among Christians?
Kelly
Some denominations highlight the fire and brimstone aspect of God over John's revelation that 'God is love', which means even Christians themselves develop radically differing perspectives on the Godhead. Depending on who a non-Christian talks to, individually, the view of God will change.
Doctrine is fairly universal and accurate regarding the more prominent aspects of God's nature, but interpreting doctrine through one's own experience of God will vary. For instance, church doctrine tells me that 'God is love', and I can parrot that statement until the cows come home and never really know what it means. Not until I experience God's love for me, and what it feels like to be loved by him, can I truly describe an accurate 'view' of God.
If a non-Christian were to talk to Fred Phelps, for example, he or she would come away with an extremely ugly portrait of God. But if they talked to someone like, say, Brennan Manning, he or she would come away with a brilliant portrayal of God as pure love, without a shadow of turning. It all depends.
God certainly is inscrutible as he is in himself, and deducing his attributes from scripture purely from the intellect cannot give an accurate view of him. The only way to know God is to live with him for a while, and personally find out why the apostles exclaimed, "God is love!" and, "He is all light! In him there is no darkness whatsoever!" In short, non-Christians need to go to God himself.
01 Jul 07
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneBelieving something does not exist is equivalent to not believing they exist. Atheists and agnostics are often the same people. The ones who are different are the strong atheists who insist they know that there are no gods, but they are irrational.
atheist [noun] someone who believes that God or gods do not exist.
agnostic [noun] someone who does not know, or believes that it is impossible to know, whether a god exists.
Are most self-proclaimed "atheists" here, truly "agnostics"? From where I sit, it seems that an atheist would require a similar amount of unproven faith as a theist ...[text shortened]... d.
If you are truly an atheist, what do you see as "proof" of the non-existence of God?
02 Jul 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungMy understanding of "strong atheists" are not that they have anymore belief that there is not a god than "weak atheists", rather that they also see the whole concept of religion as corrupting and bad.
Believing something does not exist is equivalent to not believing they exist. Atheists and agnostics are often the same people. The ones who are different are the strong atheists who insist they know that there are no gods, but they are irrational.
For example, many "strong atheists" would point to the current US government which espouses religious dogma while performing acts that are against that same faith. In this case, religion was used as a reasoning force to quell public opposition, but had no actual meaning.
02 Jul 07
Originally posted by epiphinehasI agree with you there, but there is the rub isn't it? Non-Christians who
Good question. Some ideas about God are more accurate than others. Of course the bible contains everything we do know about God, but individuals themselves develop a better concept of God as he is the more they grow in him.
Some denominations highlight the fire and brimstone aspect of God over John's revelation that 'God is love', which means ...[text shortened]... e is no darkness whatsoever!" In short, non-Christians need to go to God himself.
go to God many times end up Christians, and those that are not will
not unless God draws them so they are left with just the head
knowledge they think is enough to grapple with who God is and what
He is like.
Kelly
02 Jul 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWhy am I irrational?
Believing something does not exist is equivalent to not believing they exist. Atheists and agnostics are often the same people. The ones who are different are the strong atheists who insist they know that there are no gods, but they are irrational.
02 Jul 07
Originally posted by epiphinehasIf you look at the first post of this thread it says:
Good question. Some ideas about God are more accurate than others. Of course the bible contains everything we do know about God, but individuals themselves develop a better concept of God as he is the more they grow in him.
Are most self-proclaimed "atheists" here, truly "agnostics"?
It implies that the dictionary definition creates the 'true nature'.
So if we go by ThinkOfOnes claims, then "God" is exactly as defined in the dictionary and whatever you are talking about is some other entity.
If you don't agree then you should also accept that I am "Atheist" whether or not the dictionary agrees with me.
02 Jul 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIf I am irrational then you should be able to provide some logical reasoning to show that. In fact you must rationally show that it is impossible to know that there are no gods.
The ones who are different are the strong atheists who insist they know that there are no gods, but they are irrational.
02 Jul 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadActually, he must rationally show that it is impossible to rationally believe that there are no gods. Which is even a stronger statement.
If I am irrational then you should be able to provide some logical reasoning to show that. In fact you must rationally show that it is impossible to know that there are no gods.
02 Jul 07
Originally posted by StarrmanGod is quoted as saying, "I am what I am". So, he is quite right in sayint it is what it is, if it is.
You bloody hypocrite. You're quite happy to attack people challenging dictionary definitions, but you have no problem challenging the accepted Christian definition of God?
I've never heard of an "accepted Christian definition of God". What is it?