|
|
|
|
KMAN wrote:
in article ,
Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/9/05 11:51 PM:
KMAN wrote:
in article ,
Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/9/05 10:08 PM:
BCITORGB wrote:
Tink opines:
==============
Do you see any difference between these statements of Old vs.
New,
and
what that implies? What is the status of the Old Testament
today,
and
what is this New Testament all about! I ask the last question,
to
check
the depth of your philosophy, sort of like a dipstick on the
engine
to
check the oil. It does not change the status of the engine, but
you
have an idea of its condition.
================
I'll ignore your "dipstick" comment GRIN.
Hey, when it comes to OT, NT, Koran, et al, I'm running on
empty.
So
now that you know the status, how about some of the better-known
examples of NT boogey-man stuff (or OT warm fuzzies). I say
better-known because I'd at least like to occasionally be able
to
say,
"Hey, I've heard of that!" You're going to have to relate to me
at
a
pretty simplistic level.
But, be forewarned, just as the JW's at my doorstep are
forewarned,
I'm
not coming over to your side so long as you've got a mythical
deity
on
your squad. OK?
frtzw906
I was home for lunch, and tried posting, and still getting a
server
issue. I was never able to get posted, so I will try again now
this
PM.
As I read your post, I came up with one question that I would
like
to
address first, if we may. You mention " a mythical deity". I am
not
sure what your mean, by mythical? What would a non-mythical deity
be
like? TnT
Some people think deities are real. I myself often say "mythical
deity" just
to be sure the religified person I am corresponding with
understands
my
perspective on deity belief.
Now, in the spirit of this conversation, what is the basis of your
perspective? What is your proof? of your understanding of that
which
you would want me to understand. By this I am wanting to know how
you
arrived at this position, not that I am necessarily expecting you
to
be able to provide as "scripture and verse" proof, as often times
expected in religious studies. Anecdotal is certainly accepted.
In your first sentence, you say, that "some people think deities
are
real." You apparently do not include yourself in that group, and
imply
by that exclusion, that you think deities are not real.
First, I think we need to be sure what is meant by "real", and then
second, that definition application to the word "deity."
Are you interchanging the words, mythical and unreal? As in
Non-existant in time and space?
Then you introduce the phrase "deity belief," which implies that
you do
believe in a deity of some sort, which if I may, leaves me a little
confused, and not understanding your perspective at all.
BTW KMAN, this is very interesting, and I appreciate your input
especially, considering some of the other discussions I have heard.
TnT
Well, thank you Tinkerntom, although it is probably more
straightforward
than you imagine.
When I use the word "deity" I am talking about the concept of a
supernatural
being.
When I used the word "mythical" I am talking of that which is
imaginary in
nature.
I believe that deities are mythical. In other words, they exist only
in the
imagination of those who choose to believe in them.
When I talk about my perspective on "deity belief" this does not
imply that
I believe in a deity of some sort. My perspective on deity belief is
that
deities exist only in the imagination of those who believe in them.
I will sometimes refer to religious organizations that are founded in
"deity
belief systems" which means the wealth and power of the organization
comes
from convicing followers that a deity is in fact "real" and that they
represent the deity in some way, thus allowing them to manipulate the
followers in any of a variety of ways.
So, would you describe yourself as an atheist, agnostic, humanist? Tnt
|