Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark T. Sandrock) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Jesus' resurrection Message-ID: Date: 10 Nov 90 13:25:35 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Lines: 29 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: >Hang on a minute. "God" isn't His name. The English word "god" is used >for all sorts of false gods (Brahma, the Celestial Emperor, Pan, Thunor, >Tane, Jupiter Optimus Maximus, Sulis, ...) and was used for false gods >long before my Anglo-Saxon ancestors ever heard about the real one. The word "mark" is not a name, but "Mark" is. No doubt each language has its own word for "God", but I maintain that this word (in whatever language) is indeed the most sacred word we have been given. The reason being that the word gives rise to the concept, and presumbably we all would agree that the concept of "GOD" is the necessarily the most sacred one of all. If someone misuses my name, they show me disrespect, no? Likewise, but even more so, when someone misuses the word "God". They are taking His name in vain. They are disrespecting it, and thereby disrespecting Him. Whether or not such a person claims to believe in God makes no fundamental difference, either way, they are abusing that which *should* be most sacred to them. The consequences, in accordance with the impartial Laws of Creation, will take effect in any event. Cheers, Mark Sandrock -- BITNET: sandrock@uiucscs Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Internet: sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu Chemical Sciences Computing Services Voice: 217-244-0561 505 S. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL 61801