RE: have you thought about this
December 10, 2014 at 12:47 am
(This post was last modified: December 10, 2014 at 12:53 am by Drich.)
(December 9, 2014 at 10:56 pm)dyresand Wrote:(December 9, 2014 at 10:36 pm)Drich Wrote: Seriously?
Yes seriously i'm being dead serious with this post.
Who ever called me obtuse, is your obtuse-dar is not pinging or is their a written code that says no matter how foolish one atheist is you all must stick together??
Does no one else see the critical flaw in the OP's presupposition?
Theism simply acknoweledges that a deity exists. It does not demand that the acknowledgement of a deity signifies a higher form of life than the one making the acknoweledgement.
That would be like the king of ye olde England acknoweledging he believes in empirical rule, and then insist their is another king over him. The simple acknowledgment that there is a king of an empire does not preclude the one making the statement is indeed the KING OF HIS OWN EMPIRE!
Like wise God saying He believes In a supreme being does not mean HE IS NOT SAID BEING!
(December 10, 2014 at 12:21 am)Jenny A Wrote: Actually the belief versus knowing idea has a venerable Christian history. Kierkegaard felt that knowledge would destroy belief and belief was paramount. He spent some time demolishing the "proofs" of god to make way for belief.
Graham Green's Monsieur Quixote had nightmares that Jesus' death and resurrection were proven so everyone would know without having to believe. Certainly the Gospels valued belief over knowledge.
Personally I think that valuing belief over knowledge is stupidity, but Jesus apparently didn't.
Doubting Thomas was given proof/knoweledge.
Christ said in luke 11 all who A/S/K get proof/knoweledge of God...
All of Christ Miricals were 'proof'/knoweledge of His deity.
Christ provided proof/knoweledge for Paul.
Christ provided proof/knoweledge for Peter by calling him out onto the water.
Appearently one does not need knoweledge of Christ to speak of Him or His beliefs.
