A thought on God.

Matt3737

Matt3737

Similes are like songs in love.
MBTI
INFJ
If you spend your whole life doubting God, then you still spent your whole life contemplating God.
 
I guess, if that doubt consisted of continual criticism/skepticism as opposed to disregard. [cliche]And I guess it also depends on your definition of god.[/cliche]
 
were is that fricken box of cigars?
 
I guess it depends on how often it comes to mind for you to doubt him.
 
Matt3737 said:
If you spend your whole life doubting God, then you still spent your whole life contemplating God.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "spend[ing] your whole life?" Monks and nuns (and, maybe some assorted hermits) are the only ones who spend their whole lives contemplating God. I've never heard of a doubting equivalent of monks and nuns.

So, bottom line, what's your point? (Please be more precise in your language)
 
"Restrain yourself, stranger, from expounding your doctrines, and do not attempt to constrain me to share your opinions. All discussion is sterile. My opinion is to have no opinion. I live exempt from troubles, provided that I live without preferences. Resume your way, and do not attempt to draw me from the blessed apathy in which I am plunged, as in a delicious bath, after the rough toil of my life."
~Timocles of Cos~
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stu
hetaera13 said:
"Restrain yourself, stranger, from expounding your doctrines, and do not attempt to constrain me to share your opinions. All discussion is sterile. My opinion is to have no opinion. I live exempt from troubles, provided that I live without preferences. Resume your way, and do not attempt to draw me from the blessed apathy in which I am plunged, as in a delicious bath, after the rough toil of my life."
~Timocles of Cos~
Click to expand...

"It is the same to me whether I speak or remain silent. I will give my reasons without asking yours in return, for I have no interest in you at all. I care neither for your happiness nor your misfortune, and it matters not to me whether you think one way or another. Why should I love you, or hate you? Aversion and sympathy are equally unworthy of the wise man. But since you question me, know then that I am named Timocles, and that I was born at Cos, of parents made rich by commerce."
 
Matt:

If I try to read between the lines of your OP, and I could be wrong, but it sounds like you can't accept that some people simply consider G-d an irrelevancy. I honestly don't know why some people don't sense G-d. I think that for many, they haven't really rejected G-d so much as one particular conceptualization of G-d. But for others, it's just like their G-d Radar is broken. You can't make them see what they don't see. Most atheists are not the obsessive compuslive anti-religious fanatics that you meet in web chat rooms. Most atheists go about their lives not thinking about religion or G-d very much at all -- they are too busy working and playing and loving and living their lives. If you REALLY want to talk heart to heart with an atheist, it starts with you trying to see them for what they are, not making them into something you need to validate your own world view. Personally, I wish everyone knew and loved and served G-d. It's just not going to happen.
 
GracieRuth said:
Matt:

If I try to read between the lines of your OP, and I could be wrong, but it sounds like you can't accept that some people simply consider G-d an irrelevancy. I honestly don't know why some people don't sense G-d. I think that for many, they haven't really rejected G-d so much as one particular conceptualization of G-d. But for others, it's just like their G-d Radar is broken. You can't make them see what they don't see. Most atheists are not the obsessive compulsive anti-religious fanatics that you meet in web chat rooms. Most atheists go about their lives not thinking about religion or G-d very much at all -- they are too busy working and playing and loving and living their lives. If you REALLY want to talk heart to heart with an atheist, it starts with you trying to see them for what they are, not making them into something you need to validate your own world view. Personally, I wish everyone knew and loved and served G-d. It's just not going to happen.
Click to expand...

@Gr-c--R-th

Why do you spell God as G-d? I know I'm gonna regret asking but I'm a glutton for punishment so there it is.
 
It seems funny that an atheist like Richard Dawkins probably spends a lot of time and energy thinking about God and religion.
 
[MENTION=1678]Norton[/MENTION]

When you cease conciously controlling your breathing, does it yet cease altogether? By your logic, you do not spend your entire life breathing.
 
Rasmus said:
@Gr-c--R-th

Why do you spell God as G-d? I know I'm gonna regret asking but I'm a glutton for punishment so there it is.
Click to expand...
ach, no, it's really no big deal. Once you know it's pretty boring. :D It's a Jewish tradition, a way of showing respect to the name of G-d. If you ever attended Jewish prayers, one of the things you would notice is that every time we get to the yad hey vav hey (roughly YHVH) we don't articulate the name. If it is during prayers, we substitute "adonai" (lord) and if it's just casual conversation we say HaShem (the name). Very religious Jews will even substitute El Shakkai for El Shaddai, etc. Anyhow, we never destroy religious texts: we bury them. The tradition of spelling it G-d came from the desire that the name of G-d never be destroyed, even by accident, even degrade in cyberspace. I'm sure that's WAY more than you needed to know. I should have just stuck with "It's a wierd Jewish thing." :D
 
Flavus Aquila said:
It seems funny that an atheist like Richard Dawkins probably spends a lot of time and energy thinking about God and religion.
Click to expand...
Most of the atheists I'm friends with find Dawkins to be an embarassment, not too different than how most Christians feel about Pat Robertson.
 
[MENTION=1678]Norton[/MENTION]

I didn't say they were. I implied that your line of reasoning is flawed.
 
What was your point again, Norton?

That pointing out the obvious inconsistency in taking an analogy literally in order to refute a statement made ipse dixit (i.e. an unproven assertion) is to prove it as unproven?

Let me also say, I mean not to rile you to anger. It is a simple statement. No more no less.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top