In article <7n0k5k$3qkm$1 at newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>,
"dp3" <DP333 at prodigy.net> wrote:
>peppermill at my-deja.com wrote in message
<7mvrfk$4al$1 at nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >>Sorry. I thought that a God that was not omnipotent was implicit in
> >the statement. I did mean that maybe there was only one way to
achieve
> >the goal of evolving whatever kind of creature God wanted. Like I
said,
> >I violated the stereotype. Would a God be confined to a stereotype?
The
> >gods of mythology have never sounded omnipotent to me. A someone or
> >something that could create a universe by whatever means, and be
> >omniscient is powerful enough to be a God by my definition. Obviously
> >not by yours.
> i never even told you what my definition of god is(actually i doubt
god is
> definable in a way humans could comprehend) i said "to some people"
> i think you throw around the word stereotype too often. what you are
calling
> steroetypes are conceptions of god by other people. these conceptions
have
> some attributes which they apply to god, like omniscience and
omnipotence.
> these are not stereotypes they are ideas. look up the word
stereotype, you
> will see you are using it incorrectly. also why is assuming that god
is
> omnipotent any worse than your assumption that he isn't? you tell us
not to
> "stereotype" god when you are doing so yourself.
> dan
> dan
>>STEREOTYPE: an unvarying form or pattern, fixed or conventional
pattern,etc, having no individuality, as though cast from a mold.
You are putting forth the most common view of God, and it does seem
that it doesn't have much room for variation, but there probably is a
better word. More misunderstanding- my statement wasn't meant to be a
definition--Just one possiblity. A hypothesis. I don't quite see how
that could be a stereotype.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
