Originally posted by powermacG6
BTW, whats with people using G-d and Satin? I've seen that a few times in the copule of months I've been here
(well . . . you asked for it)
I don't use the word 'God' because I couldn't adequately comprehend any concept that would pretend towards 'Omniscience', 'omnipotence' 'omnipresence', etc and the general understandable and definite catagories that people pretend to mean when they use that term.
It is my way of saying that God does not exist as concieved or concievable
; whenever that term is used it is woefully inadequate in that it is a human intellectual construction, a human limited concept.
at the same time, I am using a term, but one that is not itself complete, in order to signify the necessarily incomplete understanding, on my part, of the notion discussed.
It is sort of a form of respect for the possibility.
My use of that term is a sort of ethics: My ethics are, in large part, centered around the absolute respect for otherness: both of others (as in other-people) and the 'Other' -as in the concept of 'otherness in all its manifestations: maximally other = G-d, & minimally other = little smudges in the corner of the room . . . respect for otherness also should include the otherness of ourselves to ourselves, and all that we don't know (which is other from us in its not knowness). . .
. . . and since what we 'know' is ensconced within, and given shape, by -in relief against- all that we 'do not know', then even what we 'know' partakes of otherness, has, as a constituent aspect of it, the distance of the unknown -the beyond, the 'other'. . . .
--so: our 'knowledge' is incomplete because of the other of not-knowledge . . . it is, in fact, defined against this 'NOT' . . . so our knowledge is incomplete.
Just as the word G-d is incomplete, in order to respect
that which any 'whole' word could never incorporate.
On the other-hand
'satin' I think, is used as a joke, most often, because many times earnest Christians mispell it in idiotic posts about 'evil'.