Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
Troutman's explanation basically means what I suspected him to mean: that he rejects the notion of a "personal" god. However, this post of your has brought to my attention another issue in this whole discussion: the precise definition of "god" is becoming more and more fluid to the point that it becomes unintelligible to speak of it/him in a fairly general context. I seriously doubt that there is a single person in the Western world who does believe in "'god' as comprehended in ancient cultures," and this is in the same sense that no one in the developed world comprehends the cosmos, climate, or the mind in even remotely similar terms as in the ancient world.
I think that this explanation renders the whole question practically meaningless, since among theists the idea of "god" has experienced substantial development.
|
And I think that this explanation renders classic religious texts to be practically meaningless as well.
If I'm not going to believe some of it, why any of it? It's all equally as preposterous.