tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post4192793941529280315..comments2023-09-05T04:09:28.653-04:00Comments on Sacred Space: Does faith affect your vote?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger129125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-67812533734231579702008-06-02T07:11:00.000-04:002008-06-02T07:11:00.000-04:00"You are gods." - Jesus, John 10:34"You are gods." - Jesus, John 10:34Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-28392538175558569592008-06-01T14:08:00.000-04:002008-06-01T14:08:00.000-04:00Amen NickIts just that they cull out (slaughter) a...Amen Nick<BR/><BR/>Its just that they cull out (slaughter) all those that won't sing kumbaya until all that are left are those that will hold hands.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-66744982333469878962008-05-16T12:59:00.000-04:002008-05-16T12:59:00.000-04:00Iztok:Do you claim that your God wasn't responsibl...Iztok:Do you claim that your God wasn't responsible for over two million deaths in Bible alone? Not to mention many babies and unborn and innocent animals during the flood.<BR/><BR/>Me: Excuse me. Innocence again assumes objective morality which you have yet to establish. You are saying they did no wrong which implies there is such a thing as right and wrong.<BR/><BR/>However, yes. God did take those lives. Doesn't keep me up at night because I know he can restore those lives and in my Christian worldview, he did.<BR/><BR/>Iztok:Flood was pre-meditated, malicious and at least unborn and newborn and animals did not commit any crime or break any law. So yes that constitutes murder. Wasn't limited to promised land either.<BR/><BR/>Me: Yep. God just punished sinners. Big bad God. He actually deals with evil.<BR/><BR/>Iztok:Tell me about David. What does Bible say?<BR/><BR/>A census was taken in preparation of a conquest. David was probably planning to expand his empire, something that God never condoned.<BR/><BR/>Iztok:1. Atheists don't live empty lives.<BR/><BR/>Me: But do they have any reason to state anything in life is truly good?<BR/><BR/>Iztok:2. Atheists/non-religious are one of the top 3 biggest groups on this planet (Christians, Muslims, non-religious) and growing faster then any other.<BR/><BR/>Me: Source?<BR/><BR/>Iztok:3. Non-religious group is second largest group in US behind Catholics whose numbers are holding up simply because of influx of latino population.<BR/><BR/>Me: Source?<BR/><BR/>Iztok:4. Religion around the world is losing power it once had due to advantages in our understanding of our world and existence. Unless theology will go down the tried and proven path of burning at the stake this will continue to be the trend.<BR/><BR/>Me: Just the opposite. More and more people are coming to God. The church in China for instance is growing and preparing to send missionaries to Jerusalem.<BR/><BR/>Iztok:5. Secular advancement in science in last couple of hundred years hands down beats previous two millenia.<BR/><BR/>Me:With your mistaken notion of an Industrial Revolution. It was actually an Industrial Evolution. With Christianity behind it, science started moving first in agriculture, and then in warfare and fabrics. This led the way eventually to improved methods of producing energy which resulted in the Steam Engine. Also, the Printing Press helped increase education, something the Christians praised highly.<BR/><BR/>We had to move at a certain pace naturally until we reached a spot where because of advancements, we could skyrocket. It's not because the world began to embrace atheism though.<BR/><BR/>Iztok: 6. Many of our books were preserved from Christian rampage because they were translated in Arabic and escaped destruction. That was at the point when Arab nations weren't so poisoned with religion and cherished knowledge. Now they are repeating the mistakes of any theocracy know to man.<BR/><BR/>Me: This is false. The Christians actually preserved the literature. It was Muslims that burned down the Library of Alexandria.<BR/><BR/>Iztok:7. Don't worry secular government will not persecute you for thinking differently. You will continue to have option to believe what you want. Should theocracy return some of us will not be so lucky as it is evident from your post.<BR/><BR/>May 16, 2008 8:53 AM<BR/><BR/>Me: Yeah. We saw that happen in Secular Russia. 1918-1941. Gulag Archipelago. That kind of thing. Yep. Atheist regimes just want us to hold hands and sing kum-bu-yah.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16175830373964472006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-67831670427115497652008-05-16T08:58:00.000-04:002008-05-16T08:58:00.000-04:00Iztok wrote, "...Catholics whose numbers are holdi...Iztok wrote, "...Catholics whose numbers are holding up simply because of influx of latino population."<BR/><BR/>Influx of the Latino population? It doesn't matter <I>where</I> they are from -- they're Catholic; they're the faithful. It doesn't matter if one million Catholics rside in one neighborhood or in one hundred countries -- they;re still one million Catholics.Catholic101https://www.blogger.com/profile/09155134213650587054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-55730924958132701492008-05-16T08:55:00.000-04:002008-05-16T08:55:00.000-04:00You can't murder an animal.You can't <I>murder</I> an animal.Catholic101https://www.blogger.com/profile/09155134213650587054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-53976566055734980422008-05-16T08:53:00.000-04:002008-05-16T08:53:00.000-04:00"Their mind's whisper of thought will still be the..."Their mind's whisper of thought will still be their victory over the empty lives of their foe the Atheist in the end."<BR/><BR/>1. Atheists don't live empty lives.<BR/><BR/>2. Atheists/non-religious are one of the top 3 biggest groups on this planet (Christians, Muslims, non-religious) and growing faster then any other.<BR/><BR/>3. Non-religious group is second largest group in US behind Catholics whose numbers are holding up simply because of influx of latino population.<BR/><BR/>4. Religion around the world is losing power it once had due to advantages in our understanding of our world and existence. Unless theology will go down the tried and proven path of burning at the stake this will continue to be the trend.<BR/><BR/>5. Secular advancement in science in last couple of hundred years hands down beats previous two millenia.<BR/><BR/>6. Many of our books were preserved from Christian rampage because they were translated in Arabic and escaped destruction. That was at the point when Arab nations weren't so poisoned with religion and cherished knowledge. Now they are repeating the mistakes of any theocracy know to man.<BR/><BR/>7. Don't worry secular government will not persecute you for thinking differently. You will continue to have option to believe what you want. Should theocracy return some of us will not be so lucky as it is evident from your post.Iztokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13990010837424705188noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-18137593280430924242008-05-16T08:46:00.000-04:002008-05-16T08:46:00.000-04:00"You gotta love it when the wells get poisoned rig..."You gotta love it when the wells get poisoned right at the start. Pray tell why that only went on in the Promised Land? You wanna know a reason David was punished for having a census?"<BR/><BR/>Do you claim that your God wasn't responsible for over two million deaths in Bible alone? Not to mention many babies and unborn and innocent animals during the flood.<BR/><BR/>Flood was pre-meditated, malicious and at least unborn and newborn and animals did not commit any crime or break any law. So yes that constitutes murder. Wasn't limited to promised land either.<BR/><BR/>Tell me about David. What does Bible say?Iztokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13990010837424705188noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-10627380558353261672008-05-15T23:07:00.000-04:002008-05-15T23:07:00.000-04:00Iztok: Are we talking about the same book? It is c...Iztok: Are we talking about the same book? It is clear that murderous rampage of OT God was replaced with burning threat of eternal hell in NT. We had to wait for Jesus meek and mild to get threatened with hell.<BR/><BR/>Me: Murderous rampage God. Heh. You gotta love it when the wells get poisoned right at the start. Pray tell why that only went on in the Promised Land? You wanna know a reason David was punished for having a census?<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Iztok: Well here you go again, redefining faith to fit your needs. Faith is something one bases where no evidence is present. Otherwise we call it knowledge.<BR/><BR/>Me: Actually, no. It's the moderns that are re-defining the term. I'm using it the way the ancients did use it. Consider this. Paul said we can know God will judge the world because he's shown it by raising his Son from the dead in Acts 17. The word used for assurance is the same word that we translate as "faith."<BR/><BR/>Go to the Acts 2 sermon of Peter at Pentecost. What did he preach? Just believe? No. He told them to go check the empty tomb.<BR/><BR/>Check what Paul's technique was. He went into the synagogue's and reasoned with them.<BR/><BR/>1 Thessalonians tells us to test all things. Acts 17 commends the Bereans because they checked things out.<BR/><BR/>Sorry, but that's a modern view of faith, not a biblical one.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Iztok: Like Jesus telling he will return within lifetime of people listening his talk?<BR/><BR/>Me: And he did. It's called orthodox Preterism. Jesus came just like he said he would. The problem is people think that the coming of the Lord always refers to him physically appearing. Not in the Bible!<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Iztok: I just focused on other inconsistencies in your claims. As stated before, we either agree that everything has to have cause or there is at least something that doesn't.<BR/><BR/>Me: Nope. I stated my position clearly. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.<BR/><BR/>Iztok:Since we know that mass/energy can't be lost it seems that universe always existed, just in different form pre Big Bang.<BR/><BR/>Me: Big Bang destroys and such idea of eternal matter. Also, the problem of the infinite regress kicks in. I could ask why didn't the Big Bang happen sooner than it did if time has always been going on.<BR/><BR/>Iztok: We know universe exists. There is no evidence of it's creator thus it is safe to assume that it wasn't created and always existed.<BR/><BR/>Me: The universe is the evidence. Otherwise, you have an infinite regress.<BR/><BR/>Iztok:If you bring in the creator you have to have more then "existence of creation" to prove it. Even if I would agree with you that universe is created there is still no evidence that creator is your God. There are numerous other options.<BR/><BR/>Me: Yes. There are numerous other options. That's why the Cosmological Argument and all other arguments for God's existence are not meant to ipso facto prove Jesus is Lord. They just prove something supernatural exists. Go to the Medievals and Scholastics. They treated their arguments the same way.<BR/><BR/>Iztok: Simple example you can understand:<BR/><BR/>1. Flu causes sore throat.<BR/>2. I have sore throat.<BR/>3. Therefore I have flu.<BR/><BR/>See #3 is not evident as you can agree with #1 and #2 and many other things cause sore throat as well.<BR/><BR/>Me: And thankfully, I have reasons for why I choose Christian theism over all other theisms.<BR/><BR/>And Jane has given me the go ahead to share this. If anyone wants to hear some of the reasons myself and others will be presenting, feel free to be at Southern Evangelical Church Saturday night at 6 P.M. We will have 5 speakers with about 20 minutes apiece on various topics related to the Christian faith followed by Q&A. I will be the first speaker on the list with the topic of God's existence and during the Q&A, feel free to come up and ask the panel any question.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16175830373964472006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-5370819920812422852008-05-15T09:46:00.000-04:002008-05-15T09:46:00.000-04:00Iztok wrote, "Like Jesus telling he will return wi...Iztok wrote, "Like Jesus telling he will return within lifetime of people listening his talk?"<BR/><BR/>He did return -- He rose from the dead in three days, Iztok. I'd say that's <I>within the [the] lifetime of [the] people listening [to] [H]is talk.</I><BR/><BR/>Do you refer to Mk 9:1 -- "And he said to them, "Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power"?<BR/><BR/>The Kingdom of God -- Jesus -- <B>did</B> come with power when Jesus rose from the dead, Iztok. Jesus <B>is</B> the Kingdom of God. Jesus did not come in power at His birth; there He came in obscurity.<BR/><BR/>You misinterpret, as usual. The Bible must be read in the context of belief in God and in faith. Without it, you can't discern what <I>The Word</I> means.Catholic101https://www.blogger.com/profile/09155134213650587054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-91347832047356378022008-05-15T09:42:00.000-04:002008-05-15T09:42:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Catholic101https://www.blogger.com/profile/09155134213650587054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-44594602972482290502008-05-15T09:22:00.000-04:002008-05-15T09:22:00.000-04:00"I would be glad to go into the supposed differenc..."I would be glad to go into the supposed differences between God in the OT and NT to show there aren't any. (If anything, God would be tougher in the NT than the old.)"<BR/><BR/>Are we talking about the same book? It is clear that murderous rampage of OT God was replaced with burning threat of eternal hell in NT. We had to wait for Jesus meek and mild to get threatened with hell.<BR/><BR/>"As for faith, do you know what faith means as the Bible describes it?"<BR/><BR/>Well here you go again, redefining faith to fit your needs. Faith is something one bases where no evidence is present. Otherwise we call it knowledge.<BR/><BR/>"Future certainties based on present realities."<BR/><BR/>"I can know that Christ will return and still have faith."<BR/><BR/>Like Jesus telling he will return within lifetime of people listening his talk?<BR/><BR/>"And I find it interesting you're leaving behind the Big Bang and the problems of an infinite regress."<BR/><BR/>I just focused on other inconsistencies in your claims. As stated before, we either agree that everything has to have cause or there is at least something that doesn't. Since we know that mass/energy can't be lost it seems that universe always existed, just in different form pre Big Bang. We know universe exists. There is no evidence of it's creator thus it is safe to assume that it wasn't created and always existed. If you bring in the creator you have to have more then "existence of creation" to prove it. Even if I would agree with you that universe is created there is still no evidence that creator is your God. There are numerous other options.<BR/><BR/>Simple example you can understand:<BR/><BR/>1. Flu causes sore throat.<BR/>2. I have sore throat.<BR/>3. Therefore I have flu.<BR/><BR/>See #3 is not evident as you can agree with #1 and #2 and many other things cause sore throat as well.Iztokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13990010837424705188noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-7941732841190556442008-05-14T23:35:00.000-04:002008-05-14T23:35:00.000-04:00Sigh. Wrong on both counts.I would be glad to go i...Sigh. Wrong on both counts.<BR/><BR/>I would be glad to go into the supposed differences between God in the OT and NT to show there aren't any. (If anything, God would be tougher in the NT than the old.)<BR/><BR/>As for faith, do you know what faith means as the Bible describes it? It's more trust based on what has been shown to be reliable. Future certainties based on present realities. (Go through Hebrews 11 with that in mind.)<BR/><BR/>I can know that Christ will return and still have faith.<BR/><BR/>And I find it interesting you're leaving behind the Big Bang and the problems of an infinite regress.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16175830373964472006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-23776254016828580602008-05-14T23:20:00.000-04:002008-05-14T23:20:00.000-04:00Are you saying that God never changes? If you do, ...Are you saying that God never changes? If you do, I guess you never noticed the big difference between God of OT and God of NT. Obvious change in character.<BR/><BR/>Also, are you claiming knowledge of God's existence in the same manner as knowledge of existence of universe? In the meaning that you no longer require faith?Iztokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13990010837424705188noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-63277437195589354462008-05-14T23:00:00.000-04:002008-05-14T23:00:00.000-04:00The evidence that the universe is caused is the Bi...The evidence that the universe is caused is the Big Bang. Also, the universe is contingent in that it's capable of change. Whatever is capable of change is finite. Finite things have causes.<BR/><BR/>And I would also claim knowledge that God exists.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16175830373964472006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-19211202627847342722008-05-14T18:22:00.000-04:002008-05-14T18:22:00.000-04:00"Because everything else by definition is caused. ..."Because everything else by definition is caused. Aristotle's four causes can't apply to God if he is not caused. Notice also that this is my explanation for the universe as it seems you want the universe to be your "free lunch.""<BR/><BR/>You would need to provide evidence that universe is caused at the first place.<BR/><BR/>Universe is not "free lunch" as we can easily provide evidence for its existence. Now should you provide as much evidence for existence of your God as we have for existence of universe I would be happy to accept that God is real. So far no scientific evidence. I <B>know</B> universe exists, you just <B>believe</B> that God exists. See the difference?Iztokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13990010837424705188noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-75313019851094402172008-05-14T08:16:00.000-04:002008-05-14T08:16:00.000-04:00Iztok: Here is mine:http://www.coping.org/write/pe...Iztok: Here is mine:<BR/><BR/>http://www.coping.org/write/percept/fallacies/content.htm#Category<BR/><BR/>http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Category_Error<BR/><BR/>http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/category.htm<BR/><BR/>Me:As far as I can tell, none of those give definitions but give examples. It'd be like saying "What's chocolate?" and you showing me a Hershey's bar. On a level, that could be appropriate, but not if I want to know what chocolate itself is.<BR/><BR/>Iztok: I guess we could have two different definitions with the same name.<BR/><BR/>Me:If I get some free time at the library as I am really busy this week, I'll try to find a book with the best definition I can. However, my understanding is that asking what caused an eternal God is putting God in the wrong category just like asking "What color is the number 9?"<BR/><BR/>Iztok: So let's assume that for a moment. Now where is your evidence that anything exists outside time continuum? Aside of a made up property of God in order to explain something.<BR/><BR/>Me: First, that you can't have infinite time because it would violate the infinite regress.<BR/><BR/>Second, that space and time are connected themselves at the Big Bang. The Big Bang destroys any idea of an eternal universe if true. If space and time came into being, then something brought them into being.<BR/><BR/>Iztok: What I am trying to get here is that you consider your God as "ultimate free lunch". Something that supposedly explains everything yet itself doesn't require explanation. Why is that? Why would you need explanation for anything if you don't require explanation for one thing?<BR/><BR/>Me: Because everything else by definition is caused. Aristotle's four causes can't apply to God if he is not caused. Notice also that this is my explanation for the universe as it seems you want the universe to be your "free lunch."<BR/><BR/>And naturally, I don't believe in God just because he explains the universe, but for a host of other reasons, like believing he revealed himself in Jesus of Nazareth.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16175830373964472006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-67571050296537995712008-05-13T16:36:00.000-04:002008-05-13T16:36:00.000-04:00"Me: "A category fallacy is applying the wrong fea..."Me: "A category fallacy is applying the wrong feature to the wrong thing. You are applying temporality to God."<BR/><BR/>Iztok: This is wrong definition.<BR/><BR/>Category fallacy: Confusing the properties of the whole with the properties of a part.<BR/><BR/>Me: No. That's the whole to part fallacy."<BR/><BR/>Nick, care to show where you get the definition of category fallacy from?<BR/><BR/>Here is mine:<BR/><BR/>http://www.coping.org/write/percept/fallacies/content.htm#Category<BR/><BR/>http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Category_Error<BR/><BR/>http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/category.htm<BR/><BR/>I guess we could have two different definitions with the same name.<BR/><BR/>So let's assume that for a moment. Now where is your evidence that anything exists outside time continuum? Aside of a made up property of God in order to explain something.<BR/><BR/>What I am trying to get here is that you consider your God as "ultimate free lunch". Something that supposedly explains everything yet itself doesn't require explanation. Why is that? Why would you need explanation for anything if you don't require explanation for one thing?Iztokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13990010837424705188noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-66071504778206745962008-05-13T16:19:00.000-04:002008-05-13T16:19:00.000-04:00It would really help if someone would actually try...It would really help if someone would actually try to look up what is meant by the simplicity of God.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16175830373964472006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-23314657362999484512008-05-13T16:18:00.000-04:002008-05-13T16:18:00.000-04:00Religious claim that life had to be designed as it...Religious claim that life had to be designed as it is too complex to arise from simple things.<BR/><BR/>Then they claim God is simple.<BR/><BR/>So which one is it?<BR/><BR/>You can't have both.<BR/><BR/>Now either you admit that complex things can arise from simple things or God has to be more complex.Iztokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13990010837424705188noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-42019344391690506622008-05-13T16:10:00.000-04:002008-05-13T16:10:00.000-04:00(22) “God is Intangible, Like Love”Love is not int...(22) “God is Intangible, Like Love”<BR/>Love is not intangible. We can define love both as a type of feeling and as demonstrated by certain types of actions. Unlike “God,” love is a physical thing. We know the chemicals responsible for the feeling of love. Also, love depends upon brain structure. A person with a lobotomy or other type of brain damage may lose the ability to feel love. Furthermore, if love were not physical, it would not be confined to our physical brains. We would expect to be able to detect an entity or force called “love” floating around in the air. <BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>http://mnatheists.org/content/view/64/1/Iztokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13990010837424705188noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-54200220954993843182008-05-13T16:08:00.000-04:002008-05-13T16:08:00.000-04:00Me: "A category fallacy is applying the wrong feat...Me: "A category fallacy is applying the wrong feature to the wrong thing. You are applying temporality to God."<BR/><BR/>Iztok: This is wrong definition.<BR/><BR/>Category fallacy: Confusing the properties of the whole with the properties of a part.<BR/><BR/>Me: No. That's the whole to part fallacy.<BR/><BR/>Iztok: As far as temporality, I don't care about it at this point. You claim something can't come from nothing. So either your God came from something or he is nothing. Which one is it? Or perhaps something can come from nothing? (causality is not necessarily a temporality thing).<BR/><BR/>Me: You have to care about it. If God is not in time, then he is not caused for all things within time are caused. If God is outside of time, what caused him is a nonsense question.<BR/><BR/>Me:"The usable energy is winding down which is why cold death is predicted."<BR/><BR/>Iztok: No, it is not winding down and not being lost (as you've claimed earlier). As I said, in closed system no energy/mass is being lost or winding down. Mass can convert to energy and energy can convert to mass. Nothing is being lost here.<BR/><BR/>Must be news to all the astrophysicists who are predicting cold death.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16175830373964472006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-17537451501734869802008-05-13T16:05:00.000-04:002008-05-13T16:05:00.000-04:00"The usable energy is winding down which is why co..."The usable energy is winding down which is why cold death is predicted."<BR/><BR/>No, it is not winding down and not being lost (as you've claimed earlier). As I said, in closed system no energy/mass is being lost or winding down. Mass can convert to energy and energy can convert to mass. Nothing is being lost here.Iztokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13990010837424705188noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-3358099181659352722008-05-13T16:03:00.000-04:002008-05-13T16:03:00.000-04:00"A category fallacy is applying the wrong feature ..."A category fallacy is applying the wrong feature to the wrong thing. You are applying temporality to God."<BR/><BR/>This is wrong definition.<BR/><BR/>Category fallacy: Confusing the properties of the whole with the properties of a part.<BR/><BR/>As far as temporality, I don't care about it at this point. You claim something can't come from nothing. So either your God came from something or he is nothing. Which one is it? Or perhaps something can come from nothing? (causality is not necessarily a temporality thing).Iztokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13990010837424705188noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-65979775885309603372008-05-13T15:55:00.000-04:002008-05-13T15:55:00.000-04:00Of course not. God can't get any simpler. Porn. Yo...Of course not. God can't get any simpler. Porn. You still do not know what is meant by saying God is simple.<BR/><BR/>God is love. Yes. He's not just love though. (BY the way, the doctrine of simplicity helps you understand God is love far more)Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16175830373964472006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-29874074930003552242008-05-13T15:51:00.000-04:002008-05-13T15:51:00.000-04:00My wife had a nice experience with being a Christi...My wife had a nice experience with being a Christian as a teenager (as I have), but intellectually, she can no longer believe it. She wants to hang on to the LOVE part of religion, though. To her, God is Love. She doesn't believe anything else about God except that, "God is Love." I ask her what about this and that and she just keeps it simple. To her, the most important thing in the Universe is Love, so that makes Love, God and God, Love. That's simple.<BR/><BR/>Nick, Reading Aquinas's Summa Theologica will not make your god simpler.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com