Cool rap, Curtis. I'll take a break from grindhouse movies and comment in a few places. :-)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 1. Is the Bible a different kind of book from other books created > by man? How does he know? Once we decide that they are specially > inspired by God, how do we know which parts we should take > seriously and which are just metaphors? Do the parts that start > with "God said" mean that God said those things? Not to even *mention* the question of what language God was speaking when he said this shit? :-) > If religious people would hand over the conception that their > specific religious books are different from other books created > by man, we would all just be back in the same human family > together,living in a world of wonder to explore and hypothesize > about. I think you've (possibly inadvertently) put your finger on the whole issue here, Curtis. Many people don't *want* a "world of wonder." Wonder *terrifies* them. They want certainty, pat answers. And there- fore they believe that the books that give them the pat answers they prefer would've required God to be the invited guest at the book signings at Borders. > HIM: Christianity teaches that to claim that there is a God must > be reasonable, but that this is not at all the same thing as faith. Oh? > Believing in God, whatever Dawkins might think, is not like > concluding that aliens or the tooth fairy exist. Oh? > God is not a celestial super-object or divine UFO, about whose > existence we must remain agnostic until all the evidence is in. Oh? Why not? > Theologians do not believe that he is either inside or outside > the universe, as Dawkins thinks they do. His transcendence and > invisibility are part of what he is, which is not the case > with the Loch Ness monster. If I believe that the Loch Ness monster is both inside and outside the universe, and is transcendent and invisible, does that make me a theologian? If so, do I get a hat that says "Theologian" on it? > HIM : He is, rather, the condition of possibility of any entity > whatsoever, including ourselves. He is the answer to why there is > something rather than nothing. I don't remember having asked the question. For that matter, I don't remember the *universe* having asked that question. Humans who are uncomfortable with a world of wonder ask that question, and search for a pat answer to it. Lao Tzu said, "From wonder into wonder life will open." He didn't say, "From wonder into certainty and knowledge of the truth life will open." Many theists do. I think I'd rather go out drinkin' with Lao Tzu.
