Care to answer the question then chatty? Or shall you continue with your 'grown up' talk?

which question? Sorry I got side tracked with zoso

---

Well, I am off to see Hells Kitchen with chef Gordon Ramsey he is definitely more important than any god speak.

This one:

Well the absolute (God) was at some point subject to the same train of reasoning. And your own worldview, if predicated by any concept of 'beginning' starts with not your own unique inquiry but an accepted theorem. How are they different?

You replied saying you "just don't know" what happened at the beginning. You wimp out by saying "you would probably go for the big bang theory" if the choice was that or creationism. So you would at some level accept the big bang theory, for example. Then answer my question above.

I agree with you on the nonsensical stance of your ex literalist beliefs.

My point is that you accept many things without personal inquiry possible. Yet at the same time you criticise me who tries to logically substantiate everything I state which makes me align with all Christians, the Church fathers and the authors of the bible as holding an unreasoned position??

fr0d0 said:"Well the absolute (God) was at some point subject to the same train of reasoning. And your own worldview, if predicated by any concept of 'beginning' starts with not your own unique inquiry but an accepted theorem. How are they different?"

The difference lies in that to an extent, the scientific method can be proven or disproven. It is flexible and subject to change as new information becomes available, not as you claim your absolute (God) theory is. The problem is that you call God an absolute, when he can neither be proven not even in the most minimal way through conventional methods of research.

The fact that the base or foundation of the study of God is mythology and I daresay the creation of the imagination of the human mind based on fear and lack of knowledge of natural laws and scientific disciplines, disqualifies its assertions as scientific or absolute. As I have said before without starting with God your "train of reasoning" as you put it falls flat. Theology is simply speculation into the unknown and because it is subject to so much interpretation its foundation is weak.

Ten people can read the same text of scripture or focus on a particular topic in scripture and come out with ten different conclusions. I am sure that the church fathers which you revere so much have had many disagreements particularly on the attributes of God. My point is that there is no uniformity in the system of theology nor apologetics.

But you know very well chatty that theology is nothing at all to do with science. This is your own particular cross you choose to bear that somehow this has to be verifiable when it's a logical impossibility. Look at what you've written - you talk directly to your old self.

Unfortunately for you the idea of Christianity is completely logically consistent. The idea of God is currently fixed because we've reached a point that hasn't been improved upon for 2009 years. If an impovement were made we would change.

Where there is room for speculation again you dismiss it out of hand like somehow intellectual speculation and the struggle to understand is a bad thing.

I fully support science and am in awe at scientific knowledge and discovery. Unlike you I don't have to let that impose a lack of faith as well, because I understand faith to be a different subject. God can be proven through logic, just not through scientific method.

"The idea of God is currently fixed because we've reached a point that hasn't been improved upon for 2009 years. "

fr0d0 the idea of God far exceeds 2009 years and it's history is multifarious. First there was polytheism, then Judaism turned it into a monotheism and it has been constantly changing to this day. This history is just focusing on supernatural beings but as you know man has worshipped nature, animals,dead ancestors, man himself, the planets, etc. It is evident through this history of religion that as man progresses in knowledge god begins to change to accomodate the times.

When I read the bible and study theology on the characteristics of God I dont see a supernatural being, I see a reflection of the imagination of man. I see man himself elevated to the position of a God. The bible states that man was created in the image of God but I see God created in the image of man. God is jealous, angry, sad, at times vain all of these are negative emotions and traits of man. I hope this explains my position somewhat. Science aside I see religion in general as mythology and find no difference between mythology and theism.

The idea of the Christian God is about that age chatty. I already qualified that this God was perfected to that point. I know very well there were gods before but they weren't as perfectly defined as this one is.

If Christianity has had to change to accommodate progress then how come it hasn't changed in the last 2009 years given the exponential progress evident?

Of course God is described in terms that humans can understand. And people had to write it down and have formulated this idea. This is no reason to dismiss it.

I find it interesting... that this god began like any other god... became a monotheistical ruler by the Jews... grew into an awkward peace-loving hippie who thought the best way to peace was via killing dissenters in Christianity (see revelation?)... walked even more down that path in Islam... and has more recently become quite interested in the ladies, or so you would think by Mormonism.

I just find it interesting watching his growth cycle...

Simply stated this God has changed and has evolved for better or for worse is irrelevant.