--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain <no_re...@...> wrote:
That was interesting and well put. The Deist version of God is the most palatable but never rises to the point of being necessary for me. I think the presumption of a God just gets handed down as an idea but I don't see the value or anything convincing that we could know about such a reality even if it did exist. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > Not all that many of those around any more, actually. > > > Certainly not "the largest group doing the voting." > > > > > > > Catholics are the biggest Christian group and the Vatican believes that > > homosexuality is an abomination and recently linked it with pedophilia. > > Muslims are so anti gay that some of their countries put people to death > > for it...so I'm not so sure. Even in just this country I'm not sure how > > far people have moved on this topic. I believe it is better than it was. > > But that was not my point. > > > > The majority of religious people I am talking about are the groups that > > believe in a God who has an active interest in the world and who reveals > > his preferences for our lifestyles through one of the world's scriptures. > > The projection God. God as projected by people who would like a God to exist > in this way. > > However,(and of curse I am projecting) if God were infinitely wise and > loving, it seems very odd that he would demand a particular lifestyle via a > messenger sent 1300 or 2000 or 4000 years ago. Even we can figure out that if > this was the supreme directive, a wise and loving God would manifest, or send > his best messenger -- his son maybe -- at least every generation, if not > year. And have him stick around a while. If even we can figure out that a > message passed through three or more languages, through some really ugly > political factions or very weird papal times -- read any good Pope Alexander > VI stories lately -- might be a bit off message. So, lets say this walking > talking but very rare visiting god is only a projection. > > Which leaves, in my simple view, in broad strokes, a more passive and > omni-present being of infinite intelligence and love, or a deist type of > retired creator -- no longer active in his creation, or that the universe and > life developed by itself via evolutionary principals. > > And the latter three are not necessarily mutually exclusive. A deist type > retire god could have set up the universe to run on evolutionary principals > and left it to run itself in to increasingly spectacular fractal versions. > Or, perhaps, the omnipresent passive version -- could also be the heart of > evolutionary principals -- enlivening it with his energy and intelligence. > > If something along the lines of the above paragraph is at least a vague > indication of what may be the case, then I would think the supreme > directive, is to live, experiment, see what works, abandon that which > doesn't, promote what does, pass it on to the next generation, let them take > a spin at it, and on and on. No absolute, in stone - or golden tablet -- > directives good for all times and all people. > > > > > > My example was identically epistemologically to anyone who takes anything > > in scriptures to reflect the mind of a particular God. Because there is no > > sliding scale to evaluate what things "God" says in scripture are OK and > > what ones are not, we are left to our own consensus of how we want to live > > together. I believe this process of negotiation is facilitated if most of > > the people at the table don't believe they are representing the mind of a > > God in their personal choices. > > > > Where I live which is the second richest county in the country, we have a > > big wave of super Catholics. They are movers and shakers and have huge > > families and vote with their Bibles. I'm not so sure we are moving in the > > right direction on these issues. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > As far as the straw man goes I think the reason that a more > > > > literal definition of God is often addressed by atheists is > > > > because this belief is held by the largest group who is doing > > > > the voting. The group who has a highly developed abstract > > > > version of God is an elite group who is not shaping public > > > > policy. The group who believes that God has literally spoken > > > > through a specific book does. In terms of issues for debate, > > > > it is the majority who believe they have special instructions > > > > from God about how to shape public policy that is the most > > > > urgent to address. > > > > > > > > Personally I couldn't care less about who believes in an > > > > abstract force that I probably define as life itself. I care > > > > about the people who "KNOW" that "God hates fags." > > > > > > Not all that many of those around any more, actually. > > > Certainly not "the largest group doing the voting." > > > > > >
