hua@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Ernest Hua) (05/09/85)
___________________________________________________________________________ For Dan Boskovich, though it applies equally well to all others with the same attitudes/thinking. Dan, the original question is only appropriate in a scientific sense since this is a scientific discussion forum. I am not sure why YOUR post is in this newsgroup. It belongs in net.religion.christian and not here. Here are some flaws of your response, if you really meant it to be taken in some scientific context. You make a lot of poetic/metaphoric references for God, but you failed to define it in any objective sense. In fact, you spend lots of time and effort explaining that an objective analysis is not possible. But in order for you to understand that, you would have had to know about the nature of God in order to know that you can't know about God. The only other way is to trust someone else, who supposed is able to do just that. Your choice is the Scriptures. Religious, indeed, which is why your post does not belong here. Your definition does not qualify as scientific, as required in the discussion in this group. Since you have helped to further support the accusation that creationism is religious, I offer you thanks for that. The subject of God is religious in nature, so you could not have done it any other way. You very last paragraph confirms this. It completely rejects fundamental parts of science, and places religion (particularly, YOUR religion) above all others. Fine; we all expected that from creationists. Now it's up to you (not YOU in particular) to stop encroaching upon science with creationism and to once and for all admit that it is religion and not science. For references, here is your post: > { From: dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) } > > > { a request for a definition of God } > > I sure don't know what this question is doing in net.origins but I > will answer it anyway. Asking a human being to define God is like > asking an ant to define a human being, except it would be much easier > for the ant. It is impossible for the finite to understand, much less > define the infinite. God is described in the scriptures. We can never > completely understand God but through the scriptures it is possible > to know very much about him. The scriptures say He is infinite love, > perfectly holy, just, merciful, patient, etc. All powerful, all seeing, > all knowing. If you think you can put all this in a definition, you > are crazy. Humans are very intelligent creatures. Some are more > intelligent than others. Why must we be able to define and understand > God before we can acknowledge Him. Humanism seems to be based on > human arrogance and pride and lack of humility. We will never know > and understand God until we can fall into the these catagories of the > Sermon on the Mount. "Blessed are the poor in spirit.... Blessed are > those who hunger and thirst for righteousness....They shall see God. > > The poor in spirit is the one who acknowledges his spiritual poverty, > that is, his own spiritual shortcomings. The other is self-explanatory! > > Do you actually think that a God with all the attributes mentioned > above would reveal himself only to those smart enough to define Him. > > God is not interested in Phd's, definitions, and scientific laws. He > is interested in our inner beings. Thats why Christ said, "Unless you > become as a little child, you cannot see the Kingdom of Heaven!" ___________________________________________________________________________ Live long and prosper, but don't evolve; you might get some people very angry! Keebler { hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa }