tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7206783518364639866.post7665083155413124076..comments2023-09-06T05:07:39.158-04:00Comments on Stone of Witness: Theology 101: CreationMuthah+http://www.blogger.com/profile/10589837671378205837noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7206783518364639866.post-68516563447672216522011-08-11T14:06:29.558-04:002011-08-11T14:06:29.558-04:00Rmj,
I do agree with you. As Marcus Borg says, t...Rmj,<br /><br />I do agree with you. As Marcus Borg says, the God that Hawkings doesn't believe in he wouldn't believe it either.<br /><br />I got Hawkings' sense of God is far too material and 'out there' for me. The Holy or Presence is so palpabale for me that I cannot deny it/her/him. <br /><br />And while I will refer to that Presence as he or she when I preach for lack of a better term, I am not willing to categorize anthropomorphically. <br /><br />If I could use Person without people immediately putting gender on to it, I would but it is very hard for folks to articulate this Presence that is so intimate without personhood.Muthah+https://www.blogger.com/profile/10589837671378205837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7206783518364639866.post-82541606085210933452011-08-08T18:51:31.061-04:002011-08-08T18:51:31.061-04:00Did Dawkins bother to point out the "Big Bang...Did Dawkins bother to point out the "Big Bang" theory was first promulgated by a Jesuit priest? Who obviously didn't think the theory excluded God as Creator.<br /><br />Maybe Dawkins needs to reconsider what "Creator" means. It does have a theological meaning which, as Wittgenstein would point out, merely means Dawkins and the theologians are using different language games.<br /><br />But not that one is more right than the other.Rmjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06811456254443706479noreply@blogger.com