Richo wrote:
> On Feb 21, 1:34 am, Dubh Ghall <p...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 19:04:07 -0800, DanielSan
>>
>> <danielsan1...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> Pastor Frank said the following on 2/18/2008 6:09 PM:
>>>> "DanielSan" <danielsan1...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>> news:5JadnXhbA_hBEiTanZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>> Pastor Frank said the following on 2/13/2008 6:11 PM:
>> snip
>>
>>
>>
>>> Sorry, but that's not how it works. I am not operating on belief or
>>> faith that "there ain't no gods".
>>>> True believers will not
>>>> be swayed in their beliefs AKA disbeliefs by museums full of existing
gods,
>>>> many of them superb pieces of ancient art.
>>> What "existing gods"?
>> Frank thinks that statues and fetishes, are gods.
>
> I actually agree with him.
>
> A god is:
> god n. (1) Superhuman being wor****ped as having
> power over nature and human fortunes, deity
Well, a stone statue isn't a god per this definition.
> (2) Image, animal, or other object, wor****ped as
> symbolyzing, being the visible habitation of, or
> itself possessing, divine power; an idol.
This one here says that the statue has to be a symbol for a divine power
or be inhabited by a divine power or possess such a power. So if there's
no divine power, the statue can't be a symbol of it, be inhabited by it
or possess it. Calling a piece of glass "a diamond" doesn't make it one.
> ...
> [Concise Oxford Dictionary 1976]
>
> From Webster's:
>
> God \God\ (g[o^]d), n. [AS. god; akin to OS. & D. god, OHG. got,
> G. gott, Icel. gu[eth], go[eth], Sw. & Dan. gud, Goth. gup,
> prob. orig. a p. p. from a root appearing in Skr. h[=u], p.
> p. h[=u]ta, to call upon, invoke, implore. [root]30. Cf.
> {Goodbye}, {Gospel}, {Gossip}.]
> 1. A being conceived of as possessing supernatural power, and
> to be propitiated by sacrifice, wor****p, etc.; a divinity;
> a deity; an object of wor****p; an idol.
This definition again requires some sort of supernatural power (or, if
you take "an object of wor****p; an idol" to be separate definitions,
then it just widens out the definition so broadly that it's basically
meaningless.)
> So if someone believes that the statue represents or contains the
> spirit of his or her deity then it is their god.
No, it's simply something that they BELIEVE is a god. I can BELIEVE that
piece of glass is a diamond but that doesn't make it one.
> And it exists.
>
> It isnt *my* god and never will be.
> I am a godless infidel unbeliever and heretic.
> I don't care that some gods actually exist - I will never be a
> believer.
>
> Cheers, Mark.
|
