From: snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass)
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Keywords: Very Long!!!!!
Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 12:34:55 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.055650.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu> kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
>In article <1992Nov23.084406.3627@lclark.edu>, snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) writes:
>> In article <1992Nov22.211045.18408@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>>>In article <1992Nov22.083116.9474@lclark.edu> snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) writes:
>>>>>>>>It is impossible for us, mere mortals, to have even a 
>>>>>>>>minute amount of knowledge about the whole of God!
>> 
>>>>>>>Oh, fine then.  You don't claim to know God is good, let alone omniscient,
>>>>>>>omnipotent, described-in-the-Bible, etc.
>> 
>>>>>>jThose are just parts of God, not his/her whole!  And it irritaites me
>>>>>>that fundementalist really humanize God.  God ain't human, sonny....
>>>>>>...
>>>>>>It amazes me still that you really think you, a mere person, know
>>>>>>all of God.....kind of trivializes God, doesn't it?
>>>>>So?
>>>>My point is that most of the fundie movement is composed of a group of
>>>>people who worship a book.  A group of people who worship a humanbeing
>>>>somewhere out there in the universe.  My contention is, that this
>>>>isn't Christianity.....
>>>
>>>You weren't talking about fundies, you were talking about me.  You said that
>>>nobody can know God at all; 
>> 
>> Wrong!  I said nobody can know "all of God"....Big difference, sir....
>
>   Wrong.  You said it is impossible for us to know more than a tiny
>bit of the "whole of God."

Being human it is only possible to conceive of a tiny
bit of the 'whole of God,' which is a might different from
what you said I said about "not knowing God."

  It's not the same thing.  The trouble
>here is that you seem to be distinguishing between the "whole" of
>God and its characteristics (omnipotence, goodness, etc.).  Your
>original statement that we can't know much about the whole of God
>implies that we can't know much about the parts that make up that
>whole.

Our conceptions are still not the whole of omnipotent nor are 
they even close.  Close as humans go, but not as God goes.  That
is what life if about.  Our striving to gain knowledge, to go
forward, to grow and develop.

 After all, if you know omnipotence and goodness that's
>a pretty sizeable chunk of the whole.

Omnipotence=infinite power.  We cannot as humans comprehend this
infinite power, so there is no way you can say we know a pretty 
sizeable chunck of the whole, that would make it 'finite'.


>
>>>when I disagreed, you immediately said that I'm
>>>claiming to know everything about God.
>>>
>>>There's a big gap between "something" and "everything".  If I start drawing
>>>conclusions from the little bits of information you do let out about God, you
>>>have no business telling me I shouldn't do so because I "can't know God"; why
>>>did you then say he's good, etc. in the first place?
>> 
>> Folks,  Fundies pride themselves in the literal interpretation of the Bible..
>
>   What does all this have to do with fundies?
>
>> There is a huge difference between knowing all of God, which is what
>> I said, and not knowing God, which is what he thought I said.  I was talking
>> about how magnificant and awsume God is.......
>
>   Well, that may be what you meant to say, but it's not what you
>said.

It is what I said.   Go read your original quote again.  
You didn't say anything about knowing all of God, it was about not knowing 
much about the whole, i.e. not knowing much of the parts of that whole.

Being infinite as the whole I would assume that the parts of God are
infinite also..

>
>   It's "awesome," BTW.
>
>> This person has misread (which I find so strange for a literalist
>> bookworshiper,
>
>   Heh heh.  Are you calling Ken a literalist fundie?
>
>> and I must take note at this point that this person has
>> yet talked about the Greatness of our Lord......which is the whole
>> reason for my posting.  Note the difference.  I try to discuss the 
>> glory of the Lord, which is quite often missing from the discussions
>> in this group, and he goes on arguing about something he misread....
>
>   Ummm...in case you hadn't noticed, this is alt.atheism.  Talk
>about the "gory (oops, glory :-) of the Lord" won't get you very
>far.  

But I'm not trying to get far with the athiest.  I have no
problem with the athiest.  They don't seem to be attacking me
for being Gay like the religious right.....the fundies who
I am after.  

I do respect an athiests right to not believe....note I didn't say
tolerate.....


>
>   BTW, is this "glory" another one of the little things you 
>happen to know about this God about whom we can know so little?


No where in the definition of 'glory' is there a reference to 
finite or infinite.....Glory=exalted honor, splender, radiance....
No finite or infinite here...

>
>Karl
>------
>"Find a great ideal, a great purpose, marry it, and raise a family."
>					 --Negativland, "U2"


But I do know parts, if little......Science sees parts of the universe
through radio waves....We don't see all but the parts we see in this
supposed (I have heard different opinions on this one) infinite universe
do exist ie the sun and the moon.....

bil snodgrass III

p.s.  It has been enjoyable to talk to you.  I get my names mixed up
and everything.  I have personally noted that when people discuss verbally
an idea and concept they don't generally make references to who said
what....Everyone develops off of the discussion.  It evolves.  I enjoy
discussing and evolving...even if it is away from one of my beliefs.....
Thanks!!!!