default wrote:
>
> On Mon, 12 May 2008 06:57:37 -0400, "Pastor Frank"
> <PF@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Atheists don't have mantras? What do you call the chant: There
ain't no
> >god(s)? Without definition of the words used?
>
> I assume you mean the phrase is repeated often? Mantra is an aid in
> prayer in the Hindu religion, a sacred phrase or an aid to meditation
> - a nonsensical sound that repeated over and over clears the mind or
> empties the mind
>
> We atheists do have to use the language and that would seem to
> indicate some way to disagree with theists - so yes the phrase gets
> repeated - but not in the true sense of the word "mantra." That seems
> to be something the media, and government spin doctors are twisting
> into the lexicon of late, and probably intended as denigrating. But
> stations of the cross, rosary, etc. are actual mantras.
>
> The closest I come to chant is "Masters of Chant," or "Mediaeval
> Babes," or something along those lines.
IOW We' reject the idea of all gods' is simply a statement
of fact not a chant or a mantra. That is until someone
proves us wrong, but I am not losing any sleep over it.
>
> >No God of Catholic description, for I too got the pictures of that old
hairy man
> >looking over the clouds writing into a book everything I did wrong.
What you
> >are rebelling against are primitive and infantile understanding of
concepts
> >of immense im****tance. And yes, it takes a long time to get rid of
them, but
> >that should not deter you from seeking answers to why so many
apparently
> >intelligent people find something worthwhile in religion, without
changing
> >the language and imagery much.
>
> Key word being "apparently," to my way of thinking. Anyone who
> believes in God is more than likely mistaken. But with your
> statement, you open the idea that God has to be defined differently,
> so how about defining God in some logical context?
>
> I reject the Bible, Quaran, Urantia Book, Book of Mormon, etc.. They
> don't prove the existence of God.
all they prove is that when man makes up a god his next
'idea' it to write a handbook to keep everuome on 'the right
path'. nothing more
> > It all hinges on definitions, and those you can often find in other
> >religions. That's why Aldous Huxley wrote the small book "Perennial
> >Philosophy" to show the common thread in often different words.
> > You have a lot of Catholic overburden to remove, but the short way
to
> >the nuggets is to listen to the great religious reformers themselves
and try
> >figure out what they wanted to say. I.e. few Christians and even less
> >churches, actually share Christ's definition of His God. See below
> >
> >Pastor Frank
>
> "See below" redefines God as no god. An attitude. If that's your
> definition there would be no distinction between theist and atheist,
> and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
>
> I believe when you talk about God you are talking about some Big
> Kahona - at least that's what most people do believe when they say God
> - an intelligent creator of everything. Your Christian theory or
> philosophy would seem to be a work-around - keep the philosophy
> attributed to Christ and get rid of those men, with their own agendas,
> involved in the Christian religion.
>
> And even in what I'm calling a work-around there's the implication of
> a God (person) and that's still not going to work for me.
> specifically: "He who believes in me, believes not in me but in Him
> who sent me. And he who sees me sees Him who sent Me."
>
> In fact - that's one of the problems I see with all religions they
> are so bent on justifying what they believe that they have to come up
> with lengthy, fanciful, fiction, that it only gets more unbelievable.
> Whenever you have a lie, you have to keep adding to it to get around
> the skepticism or ridicule that lies/fictions attract, or when you try
> to explain it in a way that makes sense. So the Catholics invent
> "Faith," then elevate that to a virtue.
>
> But that's "religion," the other alternative is everyone interprets
> the bible (or other book) as they see fit and that still doesn't work
> for me.
>
> So perhaps YOU could define Your God without regurgitating a lot of
> scripture? Get there without falling back on scripture. Scripture is
> written as if it were historical fact. That, I don't buy.
>
> I don't take as truth that there necessarily was a single person named
> Christ who had the life that the scriptures describe.
>
> If you have to quote scripture, you haven't got a hope of a proof.
>
> --
>
> ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.pronews.com
The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
|
