hey SE, i like that idea too. and to a certain extent i do believe that god is in all things. and thanks for adding the prefix 'some' this time! and you're right, god is not some blue-eyed bearded big guy. she is a sexy asian woman!Strong Eagle wrote:I like the Buddhist perspective. It's not that we were created by God, it is that we ARE God... we are a manifestation of the unmanifested.
But the problem with intelligent design is that some Christians want to use the idea to prove up their version of a blue eyed, bearded, "big guy" sitting in a throne, sending down pronouncements via clay tablets and "sons".
ringo100 wrote:I never said that we can prove there is no God. All we can say is that his job description is constantly shrinking due to advances in science, in the start Gods controlled every thing, wind, rain, harvests, illness etc. Then as science starts to explain these things Gods get pushed out to what is currently left: pre-big bang. Who knows what happened before then, but since then there in no need for any God to intervene.
Indeed, the Jewish term Yehwah really means "that which cannot be named". To associate a name with God, Spirit, or whatever is to objectify it, label it... and the unmanifested cannot be objectified for it is greater than the all... and the all at the same time.Wind In My Hair wrote:ok seriously, any stereotyped image of god must surely be wrong. if the human mind could understand god then god wouldn't be god. which brings me to ringo's point below.
you mean Yahweh, of course, unless you were deliberately mis-spelling to get past the usual connotations of Yahweh?Strong Eagle wrote:Indeed, the Jewish term Yehwah really means "that which cannot be named".
agreed. not only do we tend to objectify god, there are as many perceptions and variations of that objectification as there are minds to perceive.Strong Eagle wrote:It is why I hesitate to use the term "God", for besides having many connotations, many of those negative, it objectifies in the mind "that which cannot be named".
Wait a minute... my name is BOB... a name that can be spelled even if one is dyslexic... unlike Yahweh... or Allah... although Alla is not too bad.Wind In My Hair wrote:the moment i call you "wayne" i have a certain impression in my mind, which is only a minute fraction of who you really are.
He who is really cool? 8)Wind In My Hair wrote:but if i cannot name you then how am i to relate to you in my world?
oh i'm dyslexic so it's just as well your name is DOD.Strong Eagle wrote:Wait a minute... my name is BOB... a name that can be spelled even if one is dyslexic... unlike Yahweh... or Allah... although Alla is not too bad.
dear "he who is really cool",Strong Eagle wrote:He who is really cool? 8)Wind In My Hair wrote:but if i cannot name you then how am i to relate to you in my world?
ringo, i AM catholic. but that doesn't mean i'm a non-questioning rosary-wielding self-flagellating crucifix-kissing pope-chasing idiot, or whatever you may think catholics are. in fact i am very orthodox and none of what i have said here goes against the church's teachings, or what i understand of it.ringo100 wrote:Hey WIMH, I thought you were a Catholic? A very unorthadox Catholic maybe.
Dang! My "date" at the US Navy ball thought I was really hot, too... and now I've let TWO hot chicks slip through my heated, hot arms.Wind In My Hair wrote:dear "he who is really cool",
i actually thought you were really hot! oh well, too bad now. see how a non-name can mess up your sex appeal?
I'm sure this statement will be have Mr. John Paul turning in his grave. Predicting the downfall of orthodox religions; not sure that is current Catholic doctrine.WIMH:
when all things are made clear religion will cease to exist. but that doesn't mean that god will cease to exist.
my dear man, you seem "sure" of many things. i don't want to sound condescending but you must be young? ha ha, only youth has that kind of infallible certainty. i have long ceased to see the world, yes even science, as black and white.ringo100 wrote:I'm sure this statement will be have Mr. John Paul turning in his grave. Predicting the downfall of orthodox religions; not sure that is current Catholic doctrine.WIMH:
when all things are made clear religion will cease to exist. but that doesn't mean that god will cease to exist.
But I do agree the church is highly informed and is able to portray a seemingly logical argument against evolution, but only to the uninformed, anyone with a background in the subject would quickly see though the arguments.
And in the meantime they play 'innocent' and continue to spread the word?Wind In My Hair wrote:as for JPII, he and his predecessors and priests have longed preached that the only reason for the existence of the church is to spread the gospel message. when the truth is known at the "end times" there is no more need to spread a message that all have already heard or seen. so yes, the church's goal, unbelievable as it sounds, is to make itself irrelevant. as is or should be the goal of any good government, any good leader, any good parent.
you are right. sorry for confusing my terms. guess i fell prey to what one of the articles i posted mentions, that we make the mistake of using the terms interchangeably. i do believe in evolution by the way, and do not think it contradicts my faith in any way. so i'm not sure what we're arguing about anymore. had a long day and hard to get back into this religious debate.ringo100 wrote:Evolution is a FACT and this argument was put to bed by scientists about 100 years ago.
What is a theory; is the mechanism by which Evolution works; Natural selection is a theory.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests