Is God dead?
A discourse36 total reviews
Comment from grassroots08
Teeny nit here: "The emphasis became (on)? human responsibility for one's actions."
This was a great overview of the church through time. I enjoyed your presentation. Good fortune to you in this contest. Cheers, Don
reply by the author on 12-Sep-2008
  |
Teeny nit here: "The emphasis became (on)? human responsibility for one's actions."
This was a great overview of the church through time. I enjoyed your presentation. Good fortune to you in this contest. Cheers, Don
Comment Written 12-Sep-2008
reply by the author on 12-Sep-2008
-
I am not quite sure I understand your "nit." Are you saying that I should write something like "The emphasis came to be on..." ? Thanks for a great review.
-
I read that sentence and it was not clear what you were trying to say. I guess I do not talk this way and it threw me, so I called it a nit. Maybe I should have said it was a slight bump in the road for me. But notice I did not remove a star from your performance. I always give the benefit of the doubt to the writer, if there is any question. Cheers, Don
-
Thank you. Both my dialect and my formal style of writing can be burdensome, so I like it when people point that out. Thanks again.
Comment from Janilou
I absolutely love your article. You have presented the truth in a fabulous way. I wish I had six stars to award you, Al. You are going to promote this one, right? This is too good to be sitting here paying one point and two cents.
The closing lines are perfect. Not an error in sight.
Exceptional work. Sorry I am out of six stars.
Jan
reply by the author on 12-Sep-2008
|
I absolutely love your article. You have presented the truth in a fabulous way. I wish I had six stars to award you, Al. You are going to promote this one, right? This is too good to be sitting here paying one point and two cents.
The closing lines are perfect. Not an error in sight.
Exceptional work. Sorry I am out of six stars.
Jan
Comment Written 12-Sep-2008
reply by the author on 12-Sep-2008
-
Thank you for such a wonderful review. I am deeply touched and truly appreciative.
Comment from Allezw2
Master ATE,
How fascinating that so much of this discourse is based on assumptions that have no basis in fact.
There is, after all, only faith, based on dogma, to justify any position on whether God is a recognizable force.
Those who believe, believe.
Those who doubt have no concrete proof to support their stand.
A phrase I recall, that to a horse, if there was a God, it would be a horse, places the interpretation on what is the basis of a deity, solely in the eye of the beholder.
Fantasist
reply by the author on 12-Sep-2008
|
Master ATE,
How fascinating that so much of this discourse is based on assumptions that have no basis in fact.
There is, after all, only faith, based on dogma, to justify any position on whether God is a recognizable force.
Those who believe, believe.
Those who doubt have no concrete proof to support their stand.
A phrase I recall, that to a horse, if there was a God, it would be a horse, places the interpretation on what is the basis of a deity, solely in the eye of the beholder.
Fantasist
Comment Written 12-Sep-2008
reply by the author on 12-Sep-2008
-
Certainly you use Freud's ideas in "The Future of an Illusion" well. However, for me to improve this discourse, I need to know what assumptions are not based on fact. My faith is not based on dogma, as I hold metaphysics to be viable. I am sorry that did not come through. Thank you for your review.
Comment from Korton
You've done a great job of bringing forth some very thoutht-provoking and cogent arguments relative to the existence of a living God. However, in the carcophony of voices seeking to sell their particular vision of who and what God is, the very essence gets lost in dogma. The polytheism of the ancients was likely their attempt to define various aspects of a God that was too big for them to comprehend as a single being. The bottom line is, that we neither know, nor understand the nature or essence of God, only those few aspects that seem to relate in some way to the existence of mankind. Very well done.
reply by the author on 12-Sep-2008
 |
You've done a great job of bringing forth some very thoutht-provoking and cogent arguments relative to the existence of a living God. However, in the carcophony of voices seeking to sell their particular vision of who and what God is, the very essence gets lost in dogma. The polytheism of the ancients was likely their attempt to define various aspects of a God that was too big for them to comprehend as a single being. The bottom line is, that we neither know, nor understand the nature or essence of God, only those few aspects that seem to relate in some way to the existence of mankind. Very well done.
Comment Written 12-Sep-2008
reply by the author on 12-Sep-2008
-
Thanks for an excellent review and the six stars. Your penultimate statement illustrates the doctrine of analogy quite well. We cannot know the full nature of God, but only those few aspects that relate to us. We can only think as humans, and not as God. Thanks again.
Comment from Nicky B
Well if anybody asks me about my beliefs I could easily have them read this. The deed is more important than the belief. That is a great esoteric truth that has been bastardized by those, who want their God to be the only God--the chosen ones. Aren't we all?
This is a wonderfully realized discourse and shows what a compassionate human being you are. More power to you my friend. Nick.
reply by the author on 12-Sep-2008
|
Well if anybody asks me about my beliefs I could easily have them read this. The deed is more important than the belief. That is a great esoteric truth that has been bastardized by those, who want their God to be the only God--the chosen ones. Aren't we all?
This is a wonderfully realized discourse and shows what a compassionate human being you are. More power to you my friend. Nick.
Comment Written 12-Sep-2008
reply by the author on 12-Sep-2008
-
Thanks for a good review and a great compliment!
Comment from adewpearl
How much deeper and richer is this discourse than the countless poems about Jesus on my side. :-) Your discussions of Judaism and Protestantism and their different interpretations of what constitutes God's role are fascinating, informative and persuasive. Your use of concrete and compelling examples from history ground your philosophical discussion beautifully. I feel privileged to have "met" you on this site and look forward to hearing more from you in the future. :-) Peace, Brooke
This rating does not count towards story rating or author rank.
The highest and the lowest rating are not included in calculations.
reply by the author on 12-Sep-2008
|
How much deeper and richer is this discourse than the countless poems about Jesus on my side. :-) Your discussions of Judaism and Protestantism and their different interpretations of what constitutes God's role are fascinating, informative and persuasive. Your use of concrete and compelling examples from history ground your philosophical discussion beautifully. I feel privileged to have "met" you on this site and look forward to hearing more from you in the future. :-) Peace, Brooke
This rating does not count towards story rating or author rank.
The highest and the lowest rating are not included in calculations.
Comment Written 12-Sep-2008
reply by the author on 12-Sep-2008
-
Thanks for a great review. I write a fair amount of devotional poetry about Jesus, as well, but like most people who have mystical experiences, I don't check my mind at the door! Thanks again.
