|
Subyng posted:GAINING WEIGHT answered this perfectly. Harmfully affecting others is not inevitable if you're religious. Certainly religion has been the catalyst for a lot of good. But the underlying issue is that the motivation behind a harmful act and a beneficial act in this context is the same: religious dogma. Complicating matters is that dogma is a reaction to and rejection of harmful distortions of religious belief that can then itself become a harmful distortion of religious belief. When something is affirmed positively usually it's because the alternatives were being rejected.
|
# ? Jun 17, 2016 04:48 |
|
|
# ? Jun 5, 2024 05:03 |
|
BrandorKP posted:Complicating matters is that dogma is a reaction to and rejection of harmful distortions of religious belief that can then itself become a harmful distortion of religious belief. When something is affirmed positively usually it's because the alternatives were being rejected. I always appreciate your contributions to threads like this. Can I trouble you for some reading recommendations? I'm always curious about what kind of stuff is on your shelf. Hope the OP doesn't mind the little derail.
|
# ? Jun 17, 2016 17:22 |
|
Subyng posted:I don't think there's anything wrong with holding illogical beliefs as long as it doesn't affect others around you. However, unless you live in seclusion, your beliefs will end up influencing your actions in a way that will affect someone else. So far your main objection to religion seems to be that it's somehow inherently illogical or irrational. You're positing a singular, normative definition of rationality, and it's utterly enclosing the horizon of your world. All systems of knowledge have unproveable assumptions at their base. Symbolic, representational systems are always a pale shadow of the actuality of the universe, and likely will never be able to mirror it fully. There are many different kinds of logic, and there are many different kinds of rationality. '1+1=2' is hardly a given, nor is it somehow a 'fundamental feature of the universe'. We actually don't know how math relates to the world, and the proofs for simple number theory arithmetic get more and more complex and desperate every year. At best, simple arithmetic is a useful human practice with no ontological implications, and the exact ontological status of the mathematical disciplines in general is still up for grabs. Personally, I don't think that a modern 'secular' 'scientific' worldview is any less irrational than that of a fundamentalist. Limiting your epistemology to a strict empiricism or positivism is a great way totally miss that there are entire dimensions of our existence that can't be accounted for empirically without barbaric amounts of reductionism. It's also a great way to cut yourself off from history and a much wider realm of human meaning. I don't think 'rationality' is a thing that humans do well or even at all, and using 'rationality' as some kind of normative epistemological device is a great way to let other people do your thinking for you. All human knowledge is always socially constructed and fundamentally historically limited. The ratio of what we know, absolutely, definitively, to the vast expanse of the mysterious unknown really hasn't changed much at all throughout our entire history as a species. If you're willing to accept a pluralistic account of rationality, I think you'll find that there's more to learn from a single page of a religious text about the actual concrete lived experience of human-being-in-the-world than there is from the combined efforts of every scientist ever. Whether the earth goes around the sun or vice-versa and whether you believe one or the other has basically no effect on your ability to live a meaningful, satisfying, joyful human existence. No many how many phenomena you can explain scientifically, all you'll ever do is push all the small miracles back into the greatest miracle of all - that there is something rather than nothing. No matter how many fundamental laws you posit, you'll never make headway against the infinite regress of where are the laws that govern these laws; where do the laws come from, why are there laws in the first place? When you read the bible or the quran or the pali canon or the upanishads or whatever there are a few explanations for what you're doing: you're definitely accessing the combined metaphysical and ethical creativity of our entire species history, and you're possibly communicating with people who lived their lives in drastically altered states of consciousness, and you might even be reading accounts of communication with fundamentally alien intelligences. The only situation where this isn't an insanely educational use of time is one where you're determined to maintain the stupid enlightenment fiction of scientific rationality vs religious superstition. If you decide to actually live your life in accordance with one of these religious schemes, you're doing something else entirely - connecting your life with a vast cultural stream and guaranteeing yourself a real human community that has already demonstrated it can and will last for millennia. You don't 'believe' in God like it's some kind of binary circuit you can subordinate to Aristotelian non-contradiction, you literally build a complex relationship with something vastly bigger than yourself, something that cannot ever be contained within or defined by any symbolic system. You discover/create both yourself and God through the process. And from this perspective, arguing about abstract binary understandings of 'belief' or 'existence' is what is irrational. Religion is something you do with your entire being, not a checklist of metaphysical postulates you bring to debate club.
|
# ? Jun 18, 2016 02:19 |
|
For me I have lived next to my Catholic Church/K-8th grade school nearly my whole life and I tried so hard to escape from it during high school by becoming an Objectivist who thought he was smart because he watched Bullshit! all the time. Then a few years later we get this old priest (who has sadly passed) named Father Tom, the guy was retired but still did masses for our church and his homilies were all about love and how we should stop hating ourselves/criticizing others/judging people, and how we are literally the light of the world because our atoms were frozen light from the Big Bang. The guy really made me turn around the church and by this point I was disillusioned with libertarianism/being a selfish smug prick/objectivism and decided to give Catholicism another shot. Plus might as well hedge my bets around the religion that promotes good works as a gateway to salvation and being able to confess my sins and have the absolved easily.
|
# ? Jun 18, 2016 05:32 |
|
Minus1Minus1 posted:I always appreciate your contributions to threads like this. Can I trouble you for some reading recommendations? I'm always curious about what kind of stuff is on your shelf. History of Christian Thought by Paul Tillich. A large portion used to be up for free on religion online as student transcribed lectures. Now it's only available as a book. But the book has all the modern stuff, and addresses Marx! Dynamics of Faith and Systematic Theology, also Tillich Irony of American History, Niebhur Christ and Culture, Niebhur (H. Richard) Letters and Papers from Prison, Bonhoeffer The Humanity of God, Barth Film as Religion Most of these used to be online as pdfs. But now not so much. Every now and then a theology department or religion online will have them up for a awhile. Outside of that it is buy or library. My wife also has a bunch of historical Jesus stuff, Crossan etc. And her text books. She also a large amount of feminist theology I occasionally dig into.
|
# ? Jun 18, 2016 06:12 |
|
Bonhoeffer was an amazing man and an inspired theologian. Kierkagard is good too.
|
# ? Jun 18, 2016 17:45 |
|
because its a prerequisite to acknowledging the glory of the dark lord, prince of lies, beast of the pit, his infernal majesty, satan, op
|
# ? Jun 18, 2016 17:54 |
|
Crowsbeak posted:Ah was wondering how long till the Atheist asked "Why don't you believe in Thor"? Well I believe in the God of All Creation. Who is the prime mover, who is not constrained by the universe. Those others are. Ok then, pick another creator god and tell us why you don't believe in them. Or, if you have the good faith in you, understand the motivation behind the question "why don't you believe in Thor" as "why don't you believe in cosmologies other than the one you happen to have been raised in and socialized to believe."
|
# ? Jun 18, 2016 19:40 |
|
Origen He likes Origen. Origen is heavily influenced by Neoplatonism and in a direct ideological conflict with stoicism (origen wrote the Contra Celsum). Sedan your question is a non sequitor. A god like Thor isn't a fundamental essential reality. It's like asking have you considered these alternate cosmologies based on puppies? The question is making a category error.
|
# ? Jun 18, 2016 21:45 |
|
splifyphus posted:So far your main objection to religion seems to be that it's somehow inherently illogical or irrational. You're positing a singular, normative definition of rationality, and it's utterly enclosing the horizon of your world. Uh, yes, obviously I'm using a singular definition of rationality? If I'm making the argument that believing in any particular God(not necessarily all religion or the belief of some kind of deity or higher being) is not rational, then obviously I need to strictly define what I mean by rational. "Trying to put out a fire with oil doesn't make any sense". "Only if you use the normative definition of 'sense'" quote:All systems of knowledge have unproveable assumptions at their base. Symbolic, representational systems are always a pale shadow of the actuality of the universe, and likely will never be able to mirror it fully. There are many different kinds of logic, and there are many different kinds of rationality. '1+1=2' is hardly a given, nor is it somehow a 'fundamental feature of the universe'. We actually don't know how math relates to the world, and the proofs for simple number theory arithmetic get more and more complex and desperate every year. At best, simple arithmetic is a useful human practice with no ontological implications, and the exact ontological status of the mathematical disciplines in general is still up for grabs. Ah yes, the classic "science/math makes assumptions/can't explain everything, therefore it's no better a tool for understanding the universe than religion!" argument. Mathematics and science probably can't explain everything, but it's the process by which we can make the best guesses as to what is true about the universe. What religious people tend to not understand is that, and I emphasize, science is a process based on observation, prediction, experimentation, and validation. You perform science literally everyday. When you check the weather network to see what the temperature is, you're making an observation. When you decide how much clothing is appropriate for the weather, you're making a prediction. When you step outside, you're performing experimentation. And when you make a mental note to yourself that this jacket you're wearing is too thin, too thick, or just right, you're performing validation. You literally live your entire life by this process. It's this process by which we are able to accomplish anything more than simply being alive. Heck, even someone who says they believe in God because they "saw" him is practicing observation, if not the other three steps. Formal science is simply a more rigorous application of these principles. So the idea that science isn't the best method we have of understanding the universe is absurd, because it's demonstrably the only way in which we have been able to understand anything about the universe at all. Consider also, the practical implications of using science. As I mentioned before, science allows people to agree on what is the truth through this logical framework. I made the same observation as you, made a prediction, performed an experiment, and came up with the same objective results as you. Therefore, we can agree. That doesn't happen in theology. It doesn't matter if the Abrahamic God really does exist; if there is no framework for which two or more people can independently come to an agreement, what benefit is there to society to knowing this truth? Pragmatically speaking, what use is a truth if it cannot be agreed upon to be a truth? Does a jury make a verdict based on the decision of a single juror? quote:I don't think 'rationality' is a thing that humans do well or even at all, and using 'rationality' as some kind of normative epistemological device is a great way to let other people do your thinking for you. Are you serious? It's the exact opposite. Theology is all about letting other people think for you. If say, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam were to suddenly disappear without a trace, do you think anyone could reconstruct those religions? What exists in the natural world that would allow someone to come to the conclusion that on this day, God did this and said that? There is none. It's existence depends totally on the passage of ideas from one person to the next. Rational thought on the other hand, can be performed independently. As with science, you perform rational thought everyday. You understand cause and effect. You have an intuitive understanding of basic mathematics. Etc. Without these things, you would simply be responding to physical stimulus like a fish or a plant. The ability to reason and logic is what separates us from the rest of the organisms on this Earth. It is a fundamentally human trait. And if you believe that God created us and the universe, then God endowed humans with the unique ability of reason and logic. Ironically, to not embrace that fundamental aspect of our nature is about as anti-God as you can be. quote:All human knowledge is always socially constructed and fundamentally historically limited. The ratio of what we know, absolutely, definitively, to the vast expanse of the mysterious unknown really hasn't changed much at all throughout our entire history as a species. Embracing science, reason, and logic does not mean living your life to the exclusion of everything else. You seem to believe that there is some dichotomy between religion and reason, when none exists. They aren't comparable. The tenets of all religion have some foundation in reason, reason being a fundamental human trait (well, animals can reason, but not to the extent that humans can). Even the words that are used to communicate the religious have a logical structure. Where the secular scientific worldview deviates from religion is that the former consistently and rigorously applies that logical foundation, whereas in the latter, it breaks down after a certain point. Just like howa person can "rationally" conclude that God exists because they saw him, but not extend that rational to the conclusion that "seeing something is not sufficient evidence of something's existence". Subyng fucked around with this message at 00:29 on Jun 19, 2016 |
# ? Jun 19, 2016 00:09 |
|
SedanChair posted:Ok then, pick another creator god and tell us why you don't believe in them. Or, if you have the good faith in you, understand the motivation behind the question "why don't you believe in Thor" as "why don't you believe in cosmologies other than the one you happen to have been raised in and socialized to believe." Well thats simple. The Trinity is the true realization of the prime mover. Also I was reading early Christian texts for the reason I came to believe in the Trinity not anything written in the Episcopal church. Also to the athiest suggesting that Subyng posted:
2. Being that a religious person believes God is, has , and always will be there they would not be surprised to see what they see as the truth return. 3. You know one can use the same argument about philosophy. Should we get rid of Philosophy? Subyng posted:Embracing science, reason, and logic does not mean living your life to the exclusion of everything else. Yeah most relgious people don't believe you don't need to understand science or reason to fallow religion. Most of us see those as part of the divine order.
|
# ? Jun 19, 2016 00:23 |
|
lol @ people in this thread mistaking their subconscious, inner monologue, and/or a hallucination for God. y'all need to learn some basic psychology and/or neuroscience
|
# ? Jun 19, 2016 00:25 |
|
Noam Chomsky posted:lol @ people in this thread mistaking their subconscious, inner monologue, and/or a hallucination for God.
|
# ? Jun 19, 2016 00:27 |
|
Crowsbeak posted:Well thats simple. The Trinity is the true realization of the prime mover. Also I was reading early Christian texts for the reason I came to believe in the Trinity not anything written in the Episcopal church. Not sure if you're trolling because this entire post is a non sequiter.
|
# ? Jun 19, 2016 00:31 |
|
Subyng posted:Not sure if you're trolling because this entire post is a non sequiter. Must just be that the overabundance Euphoria can lead to one not being able to register a argument.
|
# ? Jun 19, 2016 00:33 |
|
BrandorKP posted:Origen Brandor just as soon as a hole in the sky opens up and black birds fly out, and everybody starts walking on their hands, I'll start letting you tell me what a non sequitur is.
|
# ? Jun 19, 2016 00:55 |
|
What I don't understand is why people make the leap from a faith in a higher power (which I can very much understand) to trusting that a specific text represents that higher power's will accurately.
|
# ? Jun 19, 2016 02:08 |
|
DoctorWhat posted:What I don't understand is why people make the leap from a faith in a higher power (which I can very much understand) to trusting that a specific text represents that higher power's will accurately. Probably most people go in the other direction, though: they start with a particular text, experience the higher power (i.e., have some sort of religious experience, sense of added meaning or calm, etc.) by means of it, and conclude that it must be on the right track. Combine that with monotheism (only one of these texts can be correct, and it looks like mine is, so the others must be wrong), and a propensity to conformity of belief among groups, and it seems like a fairly natural outcome (which obviously is not to say it's a correct outcome). If by accurate you are thinking of something more than the view that a particular faith is correct relative to others, for example literalism or fundamentalism, then, while that probably results from some of the same causes, it's much harder to understand, given the clearly metaphorical nature of many religious texts, factual inconsistencies, differences between religious and scientific / historical texts, etc. Without looking up the statistics, I'd also guess it's fairly uncommon (in percentage terms; I'm sure in absolute numbers there are a hell of a lot of fundamentalists).
|
# ? Jun 19, 2016 03:16 |
|
lol @ the neckbeard defense "anyone who laughs at my delusional misunderstanding of misfiring neurons must be an edgy neckbeard who creates epic maymays for posting on /r/atheism" - a religious person being religious is all right. however, when you claim to be religious because you had a vision of the virgin mary one time you should write that off as broken brain instead of deciding that, yes, catholicism is the true way because my hosed up monkey brain made me think of a lady's face one time.
|
# ? Jun 19, 2016 03:27 |
|
It is a bit weird the number of people reporting what I personally write off as hallucinations as divine inspiration.
|
# ? Jun 19, 2016 03:45 |
|
Annual Prophet posted:Probably most people go in the other direction, though: they start with a particular text, experience the higher power (i.e., have some sort of religious experience, sense of added meaning or calm, etc.) by means of it, and conclude that it must be on the right track. Combine that with monotheism (only one of these texts can be correct, and it looks like mine is, so the others must be wrong), and a propensity to conformity of belief among groups, and it seems like a fairly natural outcome (which obviously is not to say it's a correct outcome). I do mean literalism/fundamentalism. I mean the stuff that makes people take anti-gay verses seriously.
|
# ? Jun 19, 2016 03:48 |
|
Noam Chomsky posted:lol @ the neckbeard defense Well if it's the shoe fits. I do love that we've once again turned into the typical r/atheist circle jerk. "All you theists are delusional. We are superior".
|
# ? Jun 19, 2016 03:59 |
|
OwlFancier posted:It is a bit weird the number of people reporting what I personally write off as hallucinations as divine inspiration. it's because most people are not aware of how well our monkey brains are able to trick us into believing everything we're experiencing is real, even if it isn't. if it's weird to you that various posters are taking divine inspiration from hallucinations think about all the religious scholars and prophets that have done the same. but, not much anyone can do about it, it's real because they want it to be real.
|
# ? Jun 19, 2016 04:01 |
|
Crowsbeak posted:Well if it's the shoe fits. I do love that we've once again turned into the typical r/atheist circle jerk. "All you theists are delusional. We are superior". i don't think i'm superior to religious people. i just think i'm aware of, in a rudimentary way, how our brains work and that our brains are capable of tricking us into believing that everything we're seeing and hearing is real, even if it isn't. if someone's hallucination, to them, is a religious experience, and is absolutely real to them, and i'm supposed to take it as real as well, and accept it, then why don't i also have to accept the hallucinations of every schizophrenic as being real or the hallucinations of a senile old man in a nursing home? you can't say: "my subjective experience is real and factual!" and then claim i have to take you seriously because you're putting a religion stamp on it.
|
# ? Jun 19, 2016 04:05 |
|
Yes but it is incredibly unlikely that some things are real. It's surely harder to rewrite your entire cosmology and understanding of the fundamental nature of the universe than to say "Huh, that was weird, not sure what happened there but hopefully it doesn't happen again."
|
# ? Jun 19, 2016 04:20 |
|
Noam Chomsky posted:i don't think i'm superior to religious people. i just think i'm aware of, in a rudimentary way, how our brains work and that our brains are capable of tricking us into believing that everything we're seeing and hearing is real, even if it isn't. Well using that argument we may as well agree with Elon Musk.
|
# ? Jun 19, 2016 04:23 |
|
dear neckbeard atheists invading the god thread to pwn sheeple: omg i'm completely convinced, show me more tenth grade logic puzzes that PASTORS HATE thanks, vp ps praise fsm lol @ religions
|
# ? Jun 19, 2016 04:52 |
|
vintagepurple posted:dear neckbeard atheists invading the god thread to pwn sheeple: i don't think anyone is under the delusion that they could talk you out of being religious
|
# ? Jun 19, 2016 05:19 |
|
OwlFancier posted:Yes but it is incredibly unlikely that some things are real. It might be harder but being religious has more appeal than being irreligious, so I can see why people weren't indoctrinated into religious in childhood take the out and just run with it. We all want to believe a higher power is looking out for us and that we'll live on forever; it's unsurprising that many will look for any excuse at all to believe.
|
# ? Jun 19, 2016 05:26 |
|
I... guess? I can't say I've ever really wanted to be religious, I was once but it was just... how i was brought up. Eventually I grew out of it. Though even then I didn't especially want to be atheist, both states were just informed by my perception of the world. When I was young I trusted what I was told, as I aged I trusted less and doubted more, so it stopped making sense. I guess the notion of desire informing perception and belief to that degree is a little alien to me. At least without being aware of the fact that you're just believing a thing because you want to. And the idea of an adult with an adult's capacity for doubt and cynicism being more inclined to jump to religion rather than brushing an odd experience off is again, kind of strange. "I like the idea of believing so I do" I can get, but "I was forced to believe by an experience" is just a very strange reason to me.
|
# ? Jun 19, 2016 05:35 |
|
It's impossible to have a reasoned debate about God or Religion because many people who have been brought up as and remain religious have a deeply ingrained belief that there is "more" than reason and logic in life. There is this X substance that Humans have and which allows them to feel the divine and be aware it is there. This belief literally impairs a reliance on reason to make judgements. I recall a study where religious and secular children were given three texts to read; one fantasy fiction, one non-fiction and one religious. The secular kids identified the fantasy fiction and religious texts as fiction, and the non-fiction as non-fiction. The religious kids obviously identified the religious text and non-fiction text as non-fiction, but also a large number identified the fantasy fiction text as non-fiction. There is this mental shutdown and eye rolling on the religious side of the debate when an atheist appeals to reason; a behaviour which is unreasonable. It shows when i brought up the "why dont you believe in any of the many other gods?" and got a "was wondering it how long it would take an atheist to wheel that one out lol". It is a reasonable question and the constant tired deflections of these reasoned questions on the side of the religious (obviously not all of them) lend more credence to the argument that the religious just dont value reason and logic the same way as the secular. I don't mean the spergy robot logic that it is often lampooned as, but when someone cannot or refuses to answer very direct questions concerning the core of their faith, it is difficult to feel as if that person cares at all about being part of an honest debate. And the religious people themselves should not expect that when they do answer some atheists reasonable or logically question, that there wont be many more ad infinitum because that's kind of how it works. If you have a religious belief, which largely works outside the confines of logical understanding, you are arguing (a logical exercise) from an already impeded position. Tl:dr, if you eye-roll at spergy atheists its probably better to not post in the debate thread at all and also religious people probably do not typically respect logic in an argument the same way non-religious do. Rakosi fucked around with this message at 06:16 on Jun 19, 2016 |
# ? Jun 19, 2016 05:44 |
|
Ah there's the internet religious discussion I was waiting to pop up. I think we hit all the high notes, only religious because you were raised that way, religion is just stupid monkey brains ascribing divine origin to hormone shifts, religious people are hallucinating crazies. Yea, think we got em all, alrighty we can pack it in. Noam, my dude, wanna send us off with one final smug comment about how easy it is to be religious that's an always smooth blend of pity and superiority to pretend your choices somehow inherently have more meaning in a chaotic world?
|
# ? Jun 19, 2016 06:19 |
|
I was religious because I was raised that way. I'm sorry if you find that distasteful but it doesn't make it less true.
|
# ? Jun 19, 2016 06:22 |
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Ah there's the internet religious discussion I was waiting to pop up. I think we hit all the high notes, only religious because you were raised that way, religion is just stupid monkey brains ascribing divine origin to hormone shifts, religious people are hallucinating crazies. Yea, think we got em all, alrighty we can pack it in. Noam, my dude, wanna send us off with one final smug comment about how easy it is to be religious that's an always smooth blend of pity and superiority to pretend your choices somehow inherently have more meaning in a chaotic world? did i hurt your feelings? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
# ? Jun 19, 2016 06:49 |
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Ah there's the internet religious discussion I was waiting to pop up. I think we hit all the high notes, only religious because you were raised that way, religion is just stupid monkey brains ascribing divine origin to hormone shifts, religious people are hallucinating crazies. Yea, think we got em all, alrighty we can pack it in. Noam, my dude, wanna send us off with one final smug comment about how easy it is to be religious that's an always smooth blend of pity and superiority to pretend your choices somehow inherently have more meaning in a chaotic world? Uh oh. Now the atheists are going to rant about how they shouldn't have to be nice to delusional people. I also love how we're debating a guy who named him self for an apologist of the Khmer Rouge .
|
# ? Jun 19, 2016 15:40 |
|
Crowsbeak posted:Uh oh. Now the atheists are going to rant about how they shouldn't have to be nice to delusional people. I also love how we're debating a guy who named him self for an apologist of the Khmer Rouge . we were never engaged in a debate
|
# ? Jun 19, 2016 16:07 |
|
Crowsbeak posted:Uh oh. Now the atheists are going to rant about how they shouldn't have to be nice to delusional people. I also love how we're debating a guy who named him self for an apologist of the Khmer Rouge . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial#Chomsky_and_Herman quote:In support of their assertion, Chomsky and Herman criticized Barron and Paul's Murder in a Gentle Land book for ignoring the U.S. government's role in creating the situation, saying, "When they speak of 'the murder of a gentle land,' they are not referring to B-52 attacks on villages or the systematic bombing and murderous ground sweeps by American troops or forces organized and supplied by the United States, in a land that had been largely removed from the conflict prior to the American attack". They give several examples to show that Barron and Paul's "scholarship collapses under the barest scrutiny," and they conclude that, "It is a fair generalization that the larger the number of deaths attributed to the Khmer Rouge, and the more the U.S. role is set aside, the larger the audience that will be reached. The Barron-Paul volume is a third-rate propaganda tract, but its exclusive focus on Communist terror assures it a huge audience." claiming the usa had some culpability does not make one an apologist but it is convenient fodder for the usual suspects to attack chomsky
|
# ? Jun 19, 2016 16:11 |
|
Chomsky is a smart man, but he carried water for the khemer rouge early on, suggesting that refugee reports were fabricated or exaggerated, it's right there in the link you provided.
|
# ? Jun 19, 2016 16:36 |
|
Hey. If you start going after Chomsky, we're going to start going after your God.
|
# ? Jun 19, 2016 16:41 |
|
|
# ? Jun 5, 2024 05:03 |
|
Are there any theologians who write about the profound implications that modern physics have on for our conceptions of God the Father? Specifically the concept of time as a spatial dimension?
|
# ? Jun 19, 2016 16:44 |