Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Bling

Why did God create us if he knew we would sin

262 posts in this topic

I'm glad you see my points, and it's a good thing we're in the Spirituality vs Skepticism forum :gun:

I always try to see other peoples points, even though I may not agree with them... :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thata a fascinating conjunction of christianity and mythological heroes Again its not my cup of tea but at least i now understand beter your rationales and where you are coming from.

The most important question you asked was, how do i know the nature of god. There are two sources for this knolwedge How god acts in tales told about him which may represent contact tales, and how he acts with me. Given acts we can extrapolate form and function Given only beliefs we can only construct god as those beliefs allow. So how god acts is more reliabler than how a witness to those actions interprets his intent or nature.

For example god mentors and teaches me via, voice imagery and imparted direct knolwedge. That tells me something about him He produces visions of futures as a warning, allowing me to avoid a future for a better one. He provides visions of a future as motivation to show how I can make something wonderful come about. I know from a 40 year relationship with god how he thinks, talks, melds his mind with humans, tell jokes, uses allegory and symbolic metaphors, and how he acts; WITH ME.

That of course is the limitation. I can only understand god via our personal relationship (and reading about his relationships with other human beings across all times and cultures) Thus i cannot, and am not qualified to, try and convert others, or tell them only my form of relationship is viable. Every individual will have a personal and unique relationship with god, because every human is a unique individual.

Well, the mythological heroes part, was a major part of my studies in Comparative Religion. The biggest error most christians have fallen into is accepting the idea Monotheism, when the bible clearly states that there are many gods, but only one Creator. That these beings could encarnate in the flesh was also widely accepted, but completely frowned upon today.

Hence their misunderstanding and confusion of the early Genesis stories and the NEED for a "line of Seth" along with a hyperbolic account of how it was mans sin that caused the flood.

The line between spirit and flesh was once alot blurrier than today, our need for scientific explanations for everything drew a sharp line between the two, what people don't get is that in truth there is no actual "line" drawn.

As for your personal understanding of God, through your communion with him, that as you say is a completely personal view, but where do you draw the line between wishful thinking and expectation and your actual experiences?

I have had a few personal experiences with God as well, but he never sat down and had a cup of coffee with me telling me about his nature. What I do understand is that the bible is neccessary as a truth scale when it comes to experiences as people relate them.

The Spirit of God within us all does not contradict itself, thus what he would tell you MUST be identical to what he would tell me about himself. Gods nature does not change just because he speaks to you and to me in different ways. What he tells us though cannnot contradict itself. Therefore people need a scale of some kind, to judge that truth and that experience, that is what the bible is for. We have had countless prophets and ministers with unique revelations, but when push comes to shove, what they tell us cannot contradict the bible.

If we purposefully leave the bible behind, we become mired in confusion as countless experiences contradicting one another become apparent.

The nature of God is one of those elements that most believers agree upon. He is omniscient, he is omnipresent and omnipotent. The only way for a being to posses these qualities, is if he is not bound in any way by space, time or even by matter. Thus by definition he is competely OTHER, completely outside this universe but able to manipulate and interact with it at will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the mythological heroes part, was a major part of my studies in Comparative Religion. The biggest error most christians have fallen into is accepting the idea Monotheism, when the bible clearly states that there are many gods, but only one Creator. That these beings could encarnate in the flesh was also widely accepted, but completely frowned upon today.

Hence their misunderstanding and confusion of the early Genesis stories and the NEED for a "line of Seth" along with a hyperbolic account of how it was mans sin that caused the flood.

The line between spirit and flesh was once alot blurrier than today, our need for scientific explanations for everything drew a sharp line between the two, what people don't get is that in truth there is no actual "line" drawn.

As for your personal understanding of God, through your communion with him, that as you say is a completely personal view, but where do you draw the line between wishful thinking and expectation and your actual experiences?

I have had a few personal experiences with God as well, but he never sat down and had a cup of coffee with me telling me about his nature. What I do understand is that the bible is neccessary as a truth scale when it comes to experiences as people relate them.

The Spirit of God within us all does not contradict itself, thus what he would tell you MUST be identical to what he would tell me about himself. Gods nature does not change just because he speaks to you and to me in different ways. What he tells us though cannnot contradict itself. Therefore people need a scale of some kind, to judge that truth and that experience, that is what the bible is for. We have had countless prophets and ministers with unique revelations, but when push comes to shove, what they tell us cannot contradict the bible.

If we purposefully leave the bible behind, we become mired in confusion as countless experiences contradicting one another become apparent.

The nature of God is one of those elements that most believers agree upon. He is omniscient, he is omnipresent and omnipotent. The only way for a being to posses these qualities, is if he is not bound in any way by space, time or even by matter. Thus by definition he is competely OTHER, completely outside this universe but able to manipulate and interact with it at will.

The bible is a work of spiritual literature not littoral literature ;) it has no more authority than what the individual gives it. There are plenty of other spiritual sources. Most notably directly from god itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bible is a work of spiritual literature not littoral literature ;) it has no more authority than what the individual gives it. There are plenty of other spiritual sources. Most notably directly from god itself.

That is actually irrelevant to the issue. The bible may not be literal, but it does give us one thing that cannot be taken from it. The nature and character of God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is actually irrelevant to the issue. The bible may not be literal, but it does give us one thing that cannot be taken from it. The nature and character of God.

I certainly hope not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the mythological heroes part, was a major part of my studies in Comparative Religion. The biggest error most christians have fallen into is accepting the idea Monotheism, when the bible clearly states that there are many gods, but only one Creator. That these beings could encarnate in the flesh was also widely accepted, but completely frowned upon today.

Hence their misunderstanding and confusion of the early Genesis stories and the NEED for a "line of Seth" along with a hyperbolic account of how it was mans sin that caused the flood.

The line between spirit and flesh was once alot blurrier than today, our need for scientific explanations for everything drew a sharp line between the two, what people don't get is that in truth there is no actual "line" drawn.

As for your personal understanding of God, through your communion with him, that as you say is a completely personal view, but where do you draw the line between wishful thinking and expectation and your actual experiences?

I have had a few personal experiences with God as well, but he never sat down and had a cup of coffee with me telling me about his nature. What I do understand is that the bible is neccessary as a truth scale when it comes to experiences as people relate them.

The Spirit of God within us all does not contradict itself, thus what he would tell you MUST be identical to what he would tell me about himself. Gods nature does not change just because he speaks to you and to me in different ways. What he tells us though cannnot contradict itself. Therefore people need a scale of some kind, to judge that truth and that experience, that is what the bible is for. We have had countless prophets and ministers with unique revelations, but when push comes to shove, what they tell us cannot contradict the bible.

If we purposefully leave the bible behind, we become mired in confusion as countless experiences contradicting one another become apparent.

The nature of God is one of those elements that most believers agree upon. He is omniscient, he is omnipresent and omnipotent. The only way for a being to posses these qualities, is if he is not bound in any way by space, time or even by matter. Thus by definition he is competely OTHER, completely outside this universe but able to manipulate and interact with it at will.

And because a "real" entity cannot exist outside of time and nature, god cannot be so. I believe those are qualities "given" to god by humans who wanted him to be so.

The bible is a book written in large part (i suspect) by people like me who lived with god; but such people from 2000-4000 years ago coufd NOT peceive god as i do, because none of their other knowledge and understandings allowed them to.

For example the closest thing i can come to describing a merging of gods consciousness with my own is a vulcan mind meld or the transmissionf thoughts. The closes approximation i can give for the appearance ond disappearance of an angel is a transmat beam; and the causation of many miracles is the abilty to alter the balance of matter ad energy to create objects like wine or food. Pre the 20th century such understandings of gods abilities were impossible, yet people heard, saw and experienced the same things i do (Based on their accounts).

Theyhad ot find a way of explaining these things, and without any knolwedge of modern technolgy they imbued god with onmniscience and omnipotence.

ANd god existed back into cromagnon and neandertal times He long preceded the old or the new testament. So the writings of those books, like those of many other books about god, are a snap shot of human perceptions of god from circa 4000-2000 years ago

And no, despite god's abilities, every human connects with and understands god in an individual fashion. This pertains not to the nature of god but of humanity. Until we become as one we ARE unique and individual beings, and not one of us can really be inside the mind of another (except via god) Thus we will ALL react and respond uniquely to god's presence, god's power and gods interaction in our lives. All our learned knowledge and our emotional responses will shape and form our understanding of god.

I live by the bible from choice and circumstance, but because i do not consider it infallible or literal truth, I can chose to not live by some of its outdated and now dangerous teachings, while adopting all the positive and empowering practices therein.

The bible includes cultural practices designed to benefit societies from many millenia ago Some of those practices remain necessary and positive. Some less so and some are simply not acceptable in a modern civilised world. But the intent and motivation behind them, to create, out of love, a better safer society filled with better human beings, remains true.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is the problem with people attempting to extract and label forces that are inherently universal and uneasy to define. They spend thousands of years trying to explain things that dont make sense to them by creating stories and compiling them together in a large text or bible. These human interpretations are by default, imperfect and have many holes that... instead of taking away the complicated jargon and studying it in a GENERAL scope, they just make up more stories.

Creation is the precursor to experience. The purpose of experience is simply that. There is good, relative to bad. Excitement, relative to boredom. Like colors of a spectrum, life is simply the experience of a duality of Love and Fear on many levels. Then in time experience leans toward the urge to just Be.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as "sin" goes.. I believe there is simply what works and what doesn't. Some things are efficient universally and some are not and can only lead to complications, dishonesty with the outer world, reflecting in the inner, and dramas that are all a part of experience. But as the urge to just Be awakens, in life, whatever form that takes in each individual, there is a quieting of the call to commit "sin" or any actions or thoughts that fragment the world of one's perception, feeding a fear of lack and a sense of "need". This call becomes quiter and the voice of the true self becomes more clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly hope not.

That is an answer based on fear... we do not fear what we know, only what we don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And because a "real" entity cannot exist outside of time and nature, god cannot be so. I believe those are qualities "given" to god by humans who wanted him to be so.

The bible is a book written in large part (i suspect) by people like me who lived with god; but such people from 2000-4000 years ago coufd NOT peceive god as i do, because none of their other knowledge and understandings allowed them to.

For example the closest thing i can come to describing a merging of gods consciousness with my own is a vulcan mind meld or the transmissionf thoughts. The closes approximation i can give for the appearance ond disappearance of an angel is a transmat beam; and the causation of many miracles is the abilty to alter the balance of matter ad energy to create objects like wine or food. Pre the 20th century such understandings of gods abilities were impossible, yet people heard, saw and experienced the same things i do (Based on their accounts).

Theyhad ot find a way of explaining these things, and without any knolwedge of modern technolgy they imbued god with onmniscience and omnipotence.

ANd god existed back into cromagnon and neandertal times He long preceded the old or the new testament. So the writings of those books, like those of many other books about god, are a snap shot of human perceptions of god from circa 4000-2000 years ago

And no, despite god's abilities, every human connects with and understands god in an individual fashion. This pertains not to the nature of god but of humanity. Until we become as one we ARE unique and individual beings, and not one of us can really be inside the mind of another (except via god) Thus we will ALL react and respond uniquely to god's presence, god's power and gods interaction in our lives. All our learned knowledge and our emotional responses will shape and form our understanding of god.

I live by the bible from choice and circumstance, but because i do not consider it infallible or literal truth, I can chose to not live by some of its outdated and now dangerous teachings, while adopting all the positive and empowering practices therein.

The bible includes cultural practices designed to benefit societies from many millenia ago Some of those practices remain necessary and positive. Some less so and some are simply not acceptable in a modern civilised world. But the intent and motivation behind them, to create, out of love, a better safer society filled with better human beings, remains true.

There are things that theoretically exist outside of the constraints of the space-time continuum (the universe), other universes for example, what is "real" cannot be constrained to the material universe. If we go forward on that tangent then we limit God because of our lack of capacity in understanding him. That he can appear to men not only in spirit but also physically, without constraints of time, tells us that the physical Laws that bind us do not apply to him.

That the bible says that he is an eternal being, without beginning and end implies quite specifically to a being not bound by time, he can only be a being that exists from outside of it. Alot can be said about Gods nature, but this is not one of those things, it is repeated time and again throughout the bible.

That being said, I sincerely hope that you are not picking and choosing what to accept about his nature, when you pick and choose what to accept from the bible.

The bible does more than tell us mere human perceptions of God, it tells us who and what God is, because that is how God has chosen to manifest his nature to us. While many things in the bible "may" be myth or fable, those myths and fables all share one thing in common, the revelation of the nature of God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ancient-aliens-invisible-something-meme-generator-god-didnt-create-us-aliens-did-3098f7.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does more than tell us mere human perceptions of God, it tells us who and what God is, because that is how God has chosen to manifest his nature to us. While many things in the bible "may" be myth or fable, those myths and fables all share one thing in common, the revelation of the nature of God.

Which is extremely complex and unknowable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is extremely complex and unknowable.

Actually not so much, inventing things about him though, that is rather complex and unknowable and changes as fads come and go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is an answer based on fear... we do not fear what we know, only what we don't know.

We cannot possibky fear that in which we do not know.... We don't know it. We only fear moveing away from that which we do know.

A literal inturpretation of the biblical god is like makeing hitler god. This is why I said I hope not. I don't fear god because I don't believe god needs to be feared. I know god, and it is not scary at all.

Now that dosnt mean that I don't think the bible dosnt contain great spiritual truths and lessons. But I feel the same about the bagavagita, bodi dharma, Quran, ... Even the Homeric epics.

I regularly read my Oxford press bible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We cannot possibky fear that in which we do not know.... We don't know it. We only fear moveing away from that which we do know.

A literal inturpretation of the biblical god is like makeing hitler god. This is why I said I hope not. I don't fear god because I don't believe god needs to be feared. I know god, and it is not scary at all.

Now that dosnt mean that I don't think the bible dosnt contain great spiritual truths and lessons. But I feel the same about the bagavagita, bodi dharma, Quran, ... Even the Homeric epics.

I regularly read my Oxford press bible.

One fears "other", just the concept of such a being is enough to bring fear into ones heart even if we know nothing about him. That you would equate God with the human Hitler, explains alot about how you see such a being. I'm a Literalist, when it comes to the bible, yet I don't fear God, because what I see there is not what you do... I see a God who has loved the human race, and has been consistently rejected by mankind in their quest for being gods themselves... fear...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would God create humans knowing that a vast number of them would suffer in this life?

Vast number? I think ALL humans suffer.(animals also) I can't think of one person who looks forward to their inevitable death with great joy.

Here's a quote from Ann Druyan that I think folds nicely into this thread:

An immortal Creator is a cruel god because He, never having to face the fear of death, creates innumerable creatures who do. Why should He do that? If He’s omniscient He could be kinder and create immortals, secure from the danger of death. He sets about creating a universe in which at least many parts of it and perhaps the universe as a whole, dies.

If this god created everything, he truly is the master of "planned obsolescence." ~ Hazrus

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgive me if I seem to be quote mining but I think this quote is relevant to the discussion as well:

It has yet to be logically proven that the reason of our creation was love. There is absolutely no natural evidence that supports the hypothesis that the lord of this world is motivated by love, a personal love for his human creation.

A loving doting god is most certainly desirable but the facts of nature do not bear out the assumption that our god, the creator, is overflowing with unlimited love for his human flock.

Nature, all of nature, is a jungle of merciless contention, with all forms of life vying against and feeding upon other forms of life without pity or refrain. This, I contend, is a look into the mind of god, and if not god – whose mind is represented in the system by which nature perpetuates itself?

That the relationship between god and man is based on love is central to monotheistic dogma; it is also the Achilles’ heel of their fabricated faith. This monotheistic concept of god as a loving Father spawned quite a conundrum for the priesthood, the originators of this fictionalized doctrine, because nowhere in nature do we find love as the driving force by which god’s creatures interact.

Nature is, and must be, reflective of god’s will, it can be no other way, unless we deny that god is the creator of all. So how could a loving god create a world of strife, predatoriness and conflict, where most animals, in order to survive, must prey upon weaker life forms.

Within the natural habitat of our planet we see god’s will in force, and that will, as reflected in the instinctive interplay between god’s creatures, is heartless and amoral to any non-biased eye. The will to survive, to live, to perpetuate the species is paramount in all life forms, and the only way to preserve life is to kill (consume) other life – this is the lord’s way, that is, if we accept his creation as a bona fide reflection of his will – and how can we do otherwise. ~ Malik H. Jabbar

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are things that theoretically exist outside of the constraints of the space-time continuum (the universe), other universes for example, what is "real" cannot be constrained to the material universe. If we go forward on that tangent then we limit God because of our lack of capacity in understanding him. That he can appear to men not only in spirit but also physically, without constraints of time, tells us that the physical Laws that bind us do not apply to him.

That the bible says that he is an eternal being, without beginning and end implies quite specifically to a being not bound by time, he can only be a being that exists from outside of it. Alot can be said about Gods nature, but this is not one of those things, it is repeated time and again throughout the bible.

That being said, I sincerely hope that you are not picking and choosing what to accept about his nature, when you pick and choose what to accept from the bible.

The bible does more than tell us mere human perceptions of God, it tells us who and what God is, because that is how God has chosen to manifest his nature to us. While many things in the bible "may" be myth or fable, those myths and fables all share one thing in common, the revelation of the nature of God.

The bible relates how other human beings perceived or found god to be, based on their experiences with that god All the words of the bible were were by human men and women who in their stories relate contact with god.

That does not make their views or understandings about god necessarily correct, for the reasons i outlined earlier. Someone from 2-4000 years ago coul\d not have a similar understanding of god to my own even if we had both a long experience of living with the same god. When I see an angel materialise or dematerialise or when i hear and see visions and words from god, I KNOW that these things are possible via technlogical means, by beings not much more advanced than we are.

One does not have to be an omnipotent omnisicient being, from beyond space and time, to perform these miracles. But to a person from 2-4000 years ago such physical abilities were only possible from an al lpowerful all knowing entity. So on the basis of their experince they attributed those qualities to god They alos had littel knolwedge of physics or cosmology Today it is impossible to accept scientifically a god from outside time and space, althought one can accept it, based on belief via faith.

Knowing god as a very real, intelligent and powerful force in the here and now, I have to accept that this means god fits within certain physical and realistic parameters. If god is "like" me, then god is a creature evolved, like me, from within the natural history of the universe. There is no need for a prime cause or creator of the universe. It could have spontaneously generated, according to modern science. But because god IS real, personally I must fit my understanding of god within what is real, and scientifically credible.

But tha tparadox is my own and doesnt aply to anyone else unless they have a similar contac twith and understanding of god.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vast number? I think ALL humans suffer.(animals also) I can't think of one person who looks forward to their inevitable death with great joy.

Here's a quote from Ann Druyan that I think folds nicely into this thread:

An immortal Creator is a cruel god because He, never having to face the fear of death, creates innumerable creatures who do. Why should He do that? If He’s omniscient He could be kinder and create immortals, secure from the danger of death. He sets about creating a universe in which at least many parts of it and perhaps the universe as a whole, dies.

If this god created everything, he truly is the master of "planned obsolescence." ~ Hazrus

The whole point of one side of christianity is so that hmans cn look forward to death with joy and without any fear at all. Many many do. I know dozens personally, and from history i know that many millions have taken such comfort in the christian belief system. Their faith allows them to believe, absolutely, that they will eventually go to a place of immortal joy, happiness learning, growth and transformation.

The other side of christianity tells us how to live our lives in the world here and now, and how to think, so that we may create in our living hearts and minds a heaven or paradise for ourselves, right here and now. One requires faith and belief. The other does not. It is a real physical possibilty for anyone alive today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgive me if I seem to be quote mining but I think this quote is relevant to the discussion as well:

It has yet to be logically proven that the reason of our creation was love. There is absolutely no natural evidence that supports the hypothesis that the lord of this world is motivated by love, a personal love for his human creation.

A loving doting god is most certainly desirable but the facts of nature do not bear out the assumption that our god, the creator, is overflowing with unlimited love for his human flock.

Nature, all of nature, is a jungle of merciless contention, with all forms of life vying against and feeding upon other forms of life without pity or refrain. This, I contend, is a look into the mind of god, and if not god – whose mind is represented in the system by which nature perpetuates itself?

That the relationship between god and man is based on love is central to monotheistic dogma; it is also the Achilles’ heel of their fabricated faith. This monotheistic concept of god as a loving Father spawned quite a conundrum for the priesthood, the originators of this fictionalized doctrine, because nowhere in nature do we find love as the driving force by which god’s creatures interact.

Nature is, and must be, reflective of god’s will, it can be no other way, unless we deny that god is the creator of all. So how could a loving god create a world of strife, predatoriness and conflict, where most animals, in order to survive, must prey upon weaker life forms.

Within the natural habitat of our planet we see god’s will in force, and that will, as reflected in the instinctive interplay between god’s creatures, is heartless and amoral to any non-biased eye. The will to survive, to live, to perpetuate the species is paramount in all life forms, and the only way to preserve life is to kill (consume) other life – this is the lord’s way, that is, if we accept his creation as a bona fide reflection of his will – and how can we do otherwise. ~ Malik H. Jabbar

Humans alone in nature have the capacity to love. We also seem to be alone in identifying creating gods Thus it is not suprising that some of those gods are motivated by love, as humans are motivated by love. We are creative creatures and so for us our gods are likely to be creative loving ones Humans long ago recognised those things which set them apart from the rest of the nature in which they evolved Humans have choices and we have power. Naturally then so do our gods.

As a side issue in christian theology god did NOT create the earth as it is now and nature was not as it is today. Before the fall it was entirely different. it was a paradise with different physical atmospheric and other conditions eg its hydrology. NAture was not as it is now, but as it is described on the new earth. No death, no decay, no pain, no suffering. Women will give birth without pain, the lamb will lie down with the lion.

So a biblical christian believer will not see a dichotomy between nature, cruel and raw today, and a loving creative god. He did not make nature as it is today, biblically speaking. We shaped that new order in our separation from god. We even caused god to change the climate and biosphere of the earth. Of course that is myth, but it explains the lack of conflict between a loving god and the raw natural world of today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole point of one side of christianity is so that hmans cn look forward to death with joy

This is just plain retarded.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just plain retarded.

It is actually true, from the standpoint of the living... We want the end to come in its own time, but when it does we go with joy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bible relates how other human beings perceived or found god to be, based on their experiences with that god All the words of the bible were were by human men and women who in their stories relate contact with god.

That does not make their views or understandings about god necessarily correct, for the reasons i outlined earlier. Someone from 2-4000 years ago coul\d not have a similar understanding of god to my own even if we had both a long experience of living with the same god. When I see an angel materialise or dematerialise or when i hear and see visions and words from god, I KNOW that these things are possible via technlogical means, by beings not much more advanced than we are.

One does not have to be an omnipotent omnisicient being, from beyond space and time, to perform these miracles. But to a person from 2-4000 years ago such physical abilities were only possible from an al lpowerful all knowing entity. So on the basis of their experince they attributed those qualities to god They alos had littel knolwedge of physics or cosmology Today it is impossible to accept scientifically a god from outside time and space, althought one can accept it, based on belief via faith.

Knowing god as a very real, intelligent and powerful force in the here and now, I have to accept that this means god fits within certain physical and realistic parameters. If god is "like" me, then god is a creature evolved, like me, from within the natural history of the universe. There is no need for a prime cause or creator of the universe. It could have spontaneously generated, according to modern science. But because god IS real, personally I must fit my understanding of god within what is real, and scientifically credible.

But tha tparadox is my own and doesnt aply to anyone else unless they have a similar contac twith and understanding of god.

To me that ain't God, that's just an ET. :alien: :alien:

Edited by Jor-el

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just plain retarded.

In which case almost all of humanity is retarded. lol

it is a natural consequence of human self awareness, sapience, and the way we think. If a person wanst to be miserable because they fear death and non existence, or grieve inconsolably for loved ones lost, never to be see again, when none of that is necessary, I have to ask, "Who is retarded?"

Let us suppose god is not real. Religion, nonetheless, via spiritual belief and ritual, offers real psycholgical and physical relief and comfort for ALL the pains, suffering, grief and loss of humanity. It provides an alternative hope to death and non existence. Thus, belief is logical not retarded. But that is not why belief grows in humans. It grows as a result of the process of how we think and process information, and how we try to find answers /solutions to the great mysteries and unknowns of our existence.

It is the spiritual equivalent to philosophical reasoning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me that ain't God, that's just an ET. :alien: :alien:

Well yes, god is certainly (inpart) extra terrestrial.

As per my sig., i believe that what a person makes of god is up to them. For me the relationship with god is a personal one, which requires neither belief, nor religion, nor ritual. It just exists beteween two sapient self aware entities, who share a link and a part of their life together.

But again that is a product of my own personal experience and relationship with god, and is not transferrable to, or applicable to, another. My wife has an equally powerful and personal relationship with god, via pure faith. She does not experience him physically as i do, but responds to him via "constructed imagery" ie. a mental construct/ concept of what god is, belief, and a codified/learned set of responses, as part of her organised religious belief. That is more normal for human beings, but just as powerful. (For example she is a church this morning but I am not.) I find god in me and around me, all the time, and apart from the social benefits, do not need reinforcement via doctrine, or ritual, or worship in church.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.