Quote:
Originally posted by BoondockSVX
So wait, you claim that God is SO complex (but was never ever created, God has always just existed, and you're okay with god having always existed, you just can NOT accept that the universe might have always existed) that humans cannot possibly begin to fathom the SLIGHTEST amount of the true nature of "god", yet you're able to make generalizations about God? Surely if god was so incredibly mind-blowingly complex it would be extremely difficult to make a generalization right?[
|
You're pretty much making my point for me here. This is the third time you have failed to understand what I am saying when I say we cannot fully understand God. I'll try it again, yet another way. Humans are limited to fully understanding only what we know. We have never met an all-powerful all-knowing being...therefore we don't really know what one would be like. We can say what he wants for us, because he's given us plenty of references, but we can't really say what he is really like, how he looks, how long he has been around, what things were like before him, or if there even was a "before him"...etc.
See? It is extremely difficult to make generalizations about God.
Quote:
Originally posted by BoondockSVX
What I pointed out was that on one hand, Christians say God is so complex we're akin to an ant describing quantum physics.... but on the other hand, HUMANS have written 2 books about the christian god which explains God's reasoning for doing things, what god likes/dislikes, and how god goes about doing things. So which is it? Impossible to understand? Or within the reach of us lowly humans ? (and if 'we' wrote books about it, it surely must be able to be understood)
|
Again, your assuming that just because we've written about something, that means we fully understand it. Hundreds of books have been written about black holes....describing what they look like, how they work, and what is on the other side. Yet we largely have no clue what a black hole really is. just because we don't really understand it, doesn't mean we can't talk about it. We can try.
You're just taking my words a bit farther than they were meant to go.
Quote:
Originally posted by BoondockSVX
Wrong. According to anybody who believes in what America was designed to be: A nation that does NOT mix religion and politics. Here are some quotes from our forefathers to help remind you...
...All of these men designed this country so that Religion would NOT be allowed to be intertwined with the government.
|
So here is the dilemma then. Since, in the legal definition of the word, there is no such thing as a person with no religion, how do you decide which one takes precedence? Are public buildings just supposed to not even mention christmas when it comes along? Putting out a manger scene is denying atheists their rights, whereas putting out santa claus, reindeer and a tree, is denying a christian their rights. So what, ever knowledgeable sir, are we supposed to do? Do you really want to turn this country into a watered-down super PC land full of trial lawyers? It sounds like that would make you happy.
Quote:
Originally posted by BoondockSVX
Uh... even a 2nd grader could point out the logical fallacy in this one. You've just stated a double negative. So basically, what you just said is "Therefore, having it must be my right!", when clearly, CLEARLY, it is not your right to have your religion or religious objects displayed all over state and federal buildings.
|
Well you are certainly at or above the second grade level then, because you're right. Having it IS my right. Atheists claim that it is their right to have their symbols of their beliefs in public places (i.e. santa claus) but it is not within a christian's rights to have their symbols in public places. CLEARLY you should be able to see that this truly is "freedom of religion".
Quote:
Originally posted by BoondockSVX
Religion requires the belief in a higher power/ supernatural power. Some people do not believe in either... HENCE, they are not religious. You're confusing religion with morals and ethics, my friend.
|
Wrong. I am speaking ONLY in the legal definition of religion, which does not include the believe in supernatural powers (because of the separation of church and state, the government cannot acknowledge the idea of supernatural powers, therefore a legal definition CANNOT include such concept). See how it works? Some people just don't realize the full ramifications of their actions and beliefs.