On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, Reggie Bautista wrote:

> One of the biggest problem I have with current organized Christianity and
> many of it's supporters is that they say God is omniscient, omnipotent, and
> just sort of generally infinite or trans-finite, and but then they start
> putting in limits.
>
> I say, if S/He/It is infinite in any form, then there is no possible human,
> finite description that can encompass all of God.
>
> In other words, you are correct in saying that projecting a limited
> definition would be a theistic fallacy, but I personally don't buy into
> those limited definitions, and neither do many others.

Speaking for myself, I find it impossible to use the word "God" without
also buying into or implying the kinds of moral, religious, and
metaphysical assumptions - limited definitions - about which I want to ask
questions.  I know that the range of possible interpretations of the word
are hugely broad, but I find that to inquire about the nature of God - as
opposed to the nature of human beings and religion and of how they relate
to one another and to the universe at large - is to automatically assume
that talking about God is the correct approach to understanding life, the
universe, and everything . . . and it's that assumption itself which I
find I don't wish to take for granted.  And which, IMO, erodes quickly the
more one looks and similarities and differences between peoples and belief
systems.  YMMV, of course.

> There is an old Celtic belief quoted frequently in modern stories that are
> set in ancient Celtic times; "Never mock the face by which someone finds
> God."  It's a recognition that there are many names, many aspects, of God
> (or The Goddess or the gods or however you wish to refer to that which is
> divine), but they are all just aspects of an underlying whole.  Modern
> ecumenicism of the type Dan describes seems to embrace this ethos to some
> degree.  The basics of many religions are the same, they just vary in the
> details.  The important thing is not the specific history of the religion,
> it's the spirituality of the individual.

Well, I have no desire to mock anybody - I certainly don't think less of
family and friends because of their religious beliefs - but neither am I
prepared to work on the assumption that the ancient Celts had the best
possible perspective on life, the universe, and everything.  :-)

Marvin Long
Austin, Texas
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, & Ashcroft, LLP (Formerly the USA)

"Two bits, four bits, six bits, a peso.  If you're for Zorro,
stand up and say so!"




_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Reply via email to