Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Religion

In reply to the discussion: The God problem (part 2) [View all]

Thats my opinion

(2,001 posts)
11. Since most people use the word God with some sort of meaning
Sat Feb 16, 2013, 09:17 PM
Feb 2013

to abandon that word is to abandon them.

A generation ago an English cleric wrote a book called "Your God is too small." That is still what some of us are trying to say. This line of thought is primarily addressed to the religious--thus I am posting it on "religion." The non-religious having difficulty with the word God to begin with, will have a more difficult time being asked to redefine what they may despise in the first place.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

The God problem (part 2) [View all] Thats my opinion Feb 2013 OP
This is not significantly different rrneck Feb 2013 #1
Everything is energy of one form or another Angry Dragon Feb 2013 #2
A D please reread Thats my opinion Feb 2013 #3
The problem I have with this that if you are trying to look at something in a different way Angry Dragon Feb 2013 #4
Significant statement ! Thats my opinion Feb 2013 #6
You are assuming that 'love' started with religion Angry Dragon Feb 2013 #9
Since most people use the word God with some sort of meaning Thats my opinion Feb 2013 #11
See that is a lot of the problem Angry Dragon Feb 2013 #15
A remarkable post Thats my opinion Feb 2013 #16
I do get very angry... trotsky Feb 2013 #41
Feel good about yourself skepticscott Feb 2013 #24
And still managed a dig at "non-religious bigots" who dare to question the Great One. mr blur Feb 2013 #27
And I don't even think he realizes skepticscott Feb 2013 #30
........... Angry Dragon Feb 2013 #31
In the end, what difference does it make? BlueStreak Feb 2013 #28
It would be a lot more fun Thats my opinion Feb 2013 #38
If I'm reading you correctly okasha Feb 2013 #5
Very, very close to what I mean. Thats my opinion Feb 2013 #7
That brings me to rwo more questions,then. okasha Feb 2013 #13
Coextensive many be a limiting word. Thats my opinion Feb 2013 #17
I thought you meant panentheism, okasha Feb 2013 #19
Try this definition from Tom Hayden Thats my opinion Feb 2013 #42
Thanks. okasha Feb 2013 #45
The problem is you're trying to pass off as some "new revelation of God" Leontius Feb 2013 #8
You got it ! Thats my opinion Feb 2013 #10
A great post for the Religion group goldent Feb 2013 #12
I find the field you are describing fascinating. Thats my opinion Feb 2013 #18
There is a philosophical theory that is something like your idea about the nature of matter. Jim__ Feb 2013 #20
Even if you accept that notion skepticscott Feb 2013 #23
I was talking about the human understanding of the nature of matter. Jim__ Feb 2013 #25
And that understanding skepticscott Feb 2013 #29
I hadn't heard of that before, but it seems right goldent Feb 2013 #34
May the Force be with you! backscatter712 Feb 2013 #14
The similarities have been remarked on before muriel_volestrangler Feb 2013 #52
For those who care, it's the first chapter of Colossians, not the second muriel_volestrangler Feb 2013 #21
Whoops! Typo. Of course it is Colossians 1 Thanks for trhe correction nt Thats my opinion Feb 2013 #40
However, you're still not addressing the problems of quoting a believer in the person of God muriel_volestrangler Feb 2013 #47
Colossians as two foci--parrticularly in this first poetic chapter. Thats my opinion Feb 2013 #51
Perhaps you could explain again skepticscott Feb 2013 #22
Sounds like you are discribing "the ether" edhopper Feb 2013 #26
Charles, you were right. I did "predict" you would say some of those things. SarahM32 Feb 2013 #32
There's that phrase skepticscott Feb 2013 #33
We shouldn't assume this isn't "Joseph Adamson" making the posts himself muriel_volestrangler Feb 2013 #35
Exactly skepticscott Feb 2013 #36
With that most recent post, it seems very likely to be Adamson himself. trotsky Feb 2013 #37
Indeed; I notice he's now taken the Adamson name off the bottom of the website pages muriel_volestrangler Feb 2013 #54
So with this I assume you have formally abandoned your first thread... trotsky Feb 2013 #39
Hmm... Warren Stupidity Feb 2013 #43
Please, TMO skepticscott Feb 2013 #44
Ancient history, literary criticism and Biblical indterpretation Thats my opinion Feb 2013 #46
It's even more amazing okasha Feb 2013 #49
Ok, perhaps you might elaborate. Warren Stupidity Feb 2013 #50
hate to say it but this was glaring. a sore thumb Phillip McCleod Feb 2013 #53
Very interesting deutsey Feb 2013 #48
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»The God problem (part 2)»Reply #11