Go to The Reverend Kooka Speaks About Religious Bulls#!t
- Add a comment
- Go to My Thoughts on how it all began
Fat Guy
No, I am positive that my ideas do not allow for the standard ideas of an all-powerful, all-knowing God. if there were a God with-in my ideas, he is very limited and has nothing to do with any kind of faith due to the simple fact that the nature of the being would not be spiritual in any way. You are wanting to add a side that is not there. The spiritual side is only in our minds. Mind and spirit are one and the same and once we die, our spirit dies with us. You are following very closely in another's path by trying to look for meaning in what I say when it is not there. I just hope you are not like Shawn and start trying to put words in my mouth
posted by
kooka_lives
on May 31, 2004 at 11:54 AM
| link to this | reply
images of god
we're talking about at least two different gods here
actually more.
kooka's correctors seem always to have in mind that old guy with the beard who sees all knows all does all creates all and is perfectly good.
no wonder kooka doesn't believe in god
is that all you guys have?
shit
depose the old man and embrace the Universe
posted by
Xeno-x
on May 31, 2004 at 10:36 AM
| link to this | reply
Your argument is as much FOR God as against it.
You may think you're arguing against God, but in fact, you have put forth several arguments in your last post that suggest that you think "god" might actually exist. The only part of the equation you're leaving off is the "personal" side of God. And that stuff about science and nature not allowing any room for a god to exist is like saying poetry and music allow no room for tree bark to exist. It's just more "either-or" instead of "both-and."
What is more true: A poem about a mother's love for her son, or a scientific document on the anatomy of a tree frog?
Both are true for different reasons. We would never say that the existance of the tree frog's hind legs proves the poem about a mother's love is false. Scientific questions should be addressed to science. Spiritual questions can be addressed to the realm of the spiritual (Purpose, Faith, Hope, Morality, Love, etc.).
And the other catch to your argument about how there is no way for God to have always existed is that it assumes the limits of Gods creation also apply to God. If a "god" force actually invented the concept of beginnings specifically so that our system could be finite, rather than infinite, then that "god" would not necessarily be limited by that system, since he created it.
You even use words like "created" in your post. The only thing missing from your "faith" is the long, flowing beard.
posted by
Fat_Guy
on May 31, 2004 at 9:05 AM
| link to this | reply
we've got a steady state theory here -- we've got Newton and Einsteil.
We've got the eternal existence of matter.
then we've got E=Mc2.
in essence matter changes form. It also can change into energy.
we now know of more forms of matter than we can see or otherwise experience with our senses.
we've got a huge, mostly unexplainable Universe, the form of which is still being debated.
hotly
we've got a lot of unknowns.
but we can conclude from the statements Newton and Einstein and others in the field of physics that those things that make up the Universe have existed forever, although not in the form we see now.
Personally, I think we have to accept that (although scientists will continue in their quest for answers) there are things that the most astute and learned among us may never know.
The crux of the matter here is that we can only assume. We cannot know.
Again, when we attempt to bring god into a defineable space, try to make god almost into something that we can hold in our hands, control, impute all sorts of power to (much like the pagans did with their gods), then we've lost the scope of the Universe and of this that we cannot really know.
Here's the test on what we really know about "god".
how do you explain -- what do you say about
I AM THAT I AM
??????????????
posted by
Xeno-x
on May 31, 2004 at 7:49 AM
| link to this | reply
Wow
Now do you agree with my ideas or disagree?
I'm guessing disagree, since I quickly checked through your posts to see what side of this you were on. But that comment really said nothing.
posted by
kooka_lives
on May 30, 2004 at 7:27 PM
| link to this | reply
fearn
You have got big problems.
posted by
fearn
on May 30, 2004 at 6:59 PM
| link to this | reply