Religion

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)

22. Perhaps you could explain again

Reply to Thats my opinion (Original post)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 09:04 AM

Feb 2013

(well, not again, since you've never explained it in the first place), why any of this qualifies as "god" or needs to be labeled as such. Why is there a "problem" that requires solving here, other than for people like you, who realize how senseless and at odds with reality many of the tenets of organized religions are, but who still need to go around calling something, anything "god", because they couldn't make sense of their lives if they didn't, or worse, some people might think they were... *gasp*....ATHEISTS?

And tell us honestly Charles...when you discuss "theology" with your Christian cronies in that ivory tower, do you tell them to their faces that you think that most of what they believe is outdated, and downright false? Or do you sing a completely different tune to them than you do to us?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

54 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

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