 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Created in the image of God
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Created in the image of God From: GUEST,Robby the Cod fish Date: 04 Jul 11 - 02:39 PM "The fish is just going to keep flopping around until it finds water, or death." Little do you know that the fish is frantically praying "oh God, help me God" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Created in the image of God From: GUEST,Simon the Seagull Date: 04 Jul 11 - 02:43 PM yum.. thank God for beached and flopping convenience food |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Created in the image of God From: Little Hawk Date: 04 Jul 11 - 02:55 PM Bill, you say that your "opinion is that within a specific discussion, the word 'God' needs to have an agreed on definition". Oh, really? ;-) And who among us shall get to dictate to all the rest what that definition must be? And if no one gets to dictate it...then how shall we reach agreement on it? And if we don't reach agreement on it, what's so terrible about that????? The most interesting thing about discussing "God", as far as I'm concerned, is hearing what each person's unique idea or concept of God is, and getting a chance to think in depth about that. Ditto for discussing spirituality or any other such subject. Our world is enriched by the multiplicity of ideas we have about such things. I find it desirable that we have many ways of defining "God", not threatening, and I have no wish to force other people to define God the way I might choose to. We benefit from having different views and giving fair consideration to them. It is fear that makes people want to force other people to think the same way they do. It's a control game. I have no wish to force anyone to define God in any particular way, but I'm quite interested in hearing what anyone else thinks about God, and why they think that way. As they explain it, I get to know something about them and I may get to know something new about concepts of God too. How can that possibly be bad? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Created in the image of God From: GUEST,Satan the Seagull Date: 04 Jul 11 - 02:55 PM I CRAP!!!! on your so called GOD!!! Mr. Fish!!! Buuuuwhahahahahahah!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Created in the image of God From: Jack the Sailor Date: 04 Jul 11 - 03:00 PM Its not about dictating the definition, its about discussing things in a common, understandable language. >>And who among us shall get to dictate to all the rest what that definition must be<< How about Merriam Webster? 1god noun \ˈgäd also ˈgȯd\ Definition of GOD 1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind 2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality 3 : a person or thing of supreme value 4 : a powerful ruler |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Created in the image of God From: GUEST,Arthur the Agnostic Sea Eagle Date: 04 Jul 11 - 03:02 PM Oh dear, I don't know, it's difficult to work out what to believe.. oh look, tasty seagulls distracted by a morcel of fish.. .. and deep philosophical thinking does make me peckish........ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Created in the image of God From: Bill D Date: 04 Jul 11 - 03:23 PM "And if no one gets to dictate it...then how shall we reach agreement on it? " awww..c'mon! Think about that...all that needs to be done is agree for the purposes of THIS discussion. If that IS impossible, then shrug and not bother. **IF** the discussion continues with conflicting definitions, about all that will be accomplished is stronger defenses against 'his' silly concepts....unless, as I said, the discussion is about different definitions. Then, people might learn something. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Created in the image of God From: Jack the Sailor Date: 04 Jul 11 - 03:44 PM Little Hawk, I'm pretty sure you are not getting a look at Donuel's idea of God in this thread. I don't know about you, but I think that most of us are plaing word games. Why don't we play Donuel's game with any random word substituted for "god." We all have a little aspect of spoon in us. When we cup our hands to take a sip of water. When we stir things up on a thread like this we are accessing our inner "spoon." As stirring is to the spoon, so is "free will" to the qualities of God. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Created in the image of God From: GUEST,999 Date: 04 Jul 11 - 03:51 PM "Fish have no concept of God." So one goldfish turns to then other and says, "If there's no god, who changes then water?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Created in the image of God From: Jack the Sailor Date: 04 Jul 11 - 03:53 PM Fish have no concept of "water" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Created in the image of God From: GUEST,999 Date: 04 Jul 11 - 04:06 PM They must. Leave them near water and they try to get back to it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Created in the image of God From: Jack the Sailor Date: 04 Jul 11 - 04:21 PM A fish has no concept of try. It flops, which is really just a swimming motion, instinctively. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Created in the image of God From: GUEST,999 Date: 04 Jul 11 - 04:23 PM And you prove this how? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Created in the image of God From: GUEST,999 from BBC News (online) Date: 04 Jul 11 - 04:28 PM Scientists highlight fish 'intelligence' Fish are socially intelligent creatures who do not deserve their reputation as the dim-wits of the animal kingdom, according to a group of leading scientists. Scientists say fish do not deserve their "dim-witted" reputation Rather than simply being instinct-driven, the group says fish are cunning, manipulative and even cultured. The three experts from the universities of Edinburgh, St Andrews and Leeds said there had been huge changes in science's understanding of the psychological and mental abilities of fish in the last few years. Writing in the journal Fish and Fisheries, biologists Calum Brown, Keven Laland and Jens Krause said fish were now seen as highly intelligent creatures. They said: "Gone (or at least obsolete) is the image of fish as drudging and dim-witted pea-brains, driven largely by 'instinct',' with what little behavioural flexibility they possess being severely hampered by an infamous 'three-second memory'. The article continues. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Created in the image of God From: Jack the Sailor Date: 04 Jul 11 - 04:35 PM It is quite a leap to go from that article to "if you help a fish, he will see you as God." which is my paraphrase of Donuel's post. 999, you see fish a being with a purposeful life taking deliberate actions, I see him as a good source of protein and omega 3. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Created in the image of God From: GUEST,999 Date: 04 Jul 11 - 04:43 PM "999, you see fish a being with a purposeful life taking deliberate actions, I see him as a good source of protein and omega 3." You have NO idea how I see fish, Jack. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Created in the image of God From: Jack the Sailor Date: 04 Jul 11 - 04:49 PM OK You are arguing that... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Created in the image of God From: Little Hawk Date: 04 Jul 11 - 05:34 PM Jack, I find Merriam-Webster's definition of "God" woefully limited in the light of many excellent books that I have been reading for the past 20 years, and some of which I am presently reading pretty much on a daily basis. Merriam-Webster's definition is the kindergarten level of talking about God from an utterly conventional point of view. There is no reason whatsoever for anyone to be bothered by ideas about God that go way beyond what Merriam-Webster has to say on the subject. The "God" that Merriam-Webster is talking about is pretty clearly based upon the conventional Judeo-Christian-Muslim concept of "God"...and, heck, that's barely a fingernail-scratching of the subject. Kindergarten stuff, in my opinion. That's fine if you want to limit yourself TO the spiritual equivalent of kindergarten, but it doesn't mean everyone else has to do that too. Ditto to you, Bill. If you want to limit the discussion to a definition like that, it's because you want to control the discussion and keep it confined inside your own mental comfort zone. Given that we are all free beings, born free and living free you don't get to do that. ;-) No one gets to limit or control the discussion. Just express your own ideas freely, let others express theirs freely, and don't go telling them that they must conform to either you or Merriam-Webster...or the Pope...or the Ayatollah...or the Encylopedia Britannica...or some other such whitewashed mental idol like that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Created in the image of God From: Bill D Date: 04 Jul 11 - 08:14 PM ". If you want to limit the discussion to a definition like that,.." sheesh... I'm not TRYING to control any discussions. I'm simply describing a logical situation that results when people do...or don't.. share a definition. If they WISH to bumble on at cross-purposes, they have my permission. I can even stand on the sidelines and be amused at the results... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Created in the image of God From: GUEST,Perry the Porpoise Date: 04 Jul 11 - 08:42 PM "If they WISH to bumble on at cross-purpoises" Please don't bring porpoises into this silly debate. We porpoise are atheists. You silly assed humans. If you would only stop arguing about God, who is God, the God damned image of God, and stop eating tuna, the world would be a much better place. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Created in the image of God From: Bill D Date: 04 Jul 11 - 10:21 PM Seems like at least ONE porpoise is kinda cross...as well as being a mediocre speller... ☺ |
