Do we need a religion to believe in God?

[Mycernius]

To show that monkeys too have conscience like human beings? That proves my point.

Did you even read the articles? In what way does that show that monkeys have a conscience like humans? The Masserman experiment shows that monkeys have a "moral" code beyond humans. Unlike us they don't have a book telling them what is wrong or right. Their language skill is far below ours and even their ability of being self aware is way below ours, yet you can get a human to inflict pain on another regardless of upbringing far more easily.

There is also the point of when do you stop giving animals a human like conscience. Apes? Monkeys? Mammals in general? How about reptiles or fish?

 

[Malamis]

Did you even read the articles? In what way does that show that monkeys have a conscience like humans? The Masserman experiment shows that monkeys have a "moral" code beyond humans. Unlike us they don't have a book telling them what is wrong or right. Their language skill is far below ours and even their ability of being self aware is way below ours, yet you can get a human to inflict pain on another regardless of upbringing far more easily.

I could get really insufferable and suggest monkey morals > man morals = proof and consequence of original sin, but i'd probably slap anyone else if they had suggested it.

There is also the point of when do you stop giving animals a human like conscience. Apes? Monkeys? Mammals in general? How about reptiles or fish?

I'd suggest when the creatures stop forming associations that require concessions for survival, and cannot demonstrably account for or even remember the consequences of their actions ? But that is on the assumption that human conscience/consciousness is the most developed iteration of something vestigial in other creatures, as opposed to a separate and independent entity.

What if God simply was a function of existence, a result. Is a cell alive? Yes. Is a cell intelligent? Yes it's intelligent life, it seeks to procreate, subsist and defend itself.

I'd posit that intelligence can be rendered down to self modifying/replicating instructions in co-operationwith instinct.

Does it know its part of a human body? No. Is it aware that the body it lives in exists? No. Does the body need the cell and vice versa? Yes.
We know a human is born but take it from the cell's point of view: It is only through the union and existence of a number of cells that that body exists. The mass of cells known as the body could be as easily defined in that way; a necessary and resultant function stemming from a congregation of cells; as it could be defined the opposite way (a body which is comprised of cells).

Not quite getting the example you're getting at here, the body itself participating in another body? Some other layer of congregation and abstraction?

That's a crude example which is not definitive and is of course wrought with many holes and what-if's, but that's the kind of general concept I'm trying to get at. If we are the cell, a God like that is 1) beyond our ability to define 2) beyond our ability to understand or directly interact with 3) linked directly to us and also links us to one another 4) contains everything we'll ever know and that has ever been etc etc etc. There are many parallels one could draw.

I personally diverge with you on this one; I see God as the creator and not the Modified, but
the idea of some external observer capable but rarely intervening with the system He created, along with the incapability of those within that system to understand Him through the limits and definitions of that system, and even the system itself was popular in antiquity and closely mirrors what you are suggesting.

Now, the body exists, it could die, if it dies we die, where did the body come from, etc etc. Well those questions are valid.

Lets hear it for enlightened self interest !
That folk even consider this one is not very common i've seen so far, and a secular version of it no doubt drives philosophers ( or string theorists as they are modernly known) to find out: how the whole thing started, is it likely to continue indefinitely and can we make it do funny things.

Again, its a crude example as i said, one that puts the cell and body both on the physical plane and its also an example that uses two finite objects in the tangible physical sense. When I think of the above concept I don't envision the individual and the God being so closely linked in physical matter.

Well put. The tangible physical sense is pretty limited, but since that is the one which detects what we detect as being affected by ( circular grammar >.<) the statement holds true anyway..

There are many other areas where the true definition and concept could reside. Remember, energy cannot be destroyed, it just changes forms.

I could disagree with you on that and suggest that the law Conservation of Energy and the law of Entropy are mutually and thematically exclusive, but cataloged science slaps such a suggestion with the dunce stick, and I have not even anecdotal evidence to support it. Most likely a symptom of my own flavor of limited and relative perception/understanding.

If God is anything we can understand, at the very least God is most likely synonymous with all energy that is.

This is a very efficient viewpoint given the (equally valid) perspective you have outlined, but I personally don't agree with it, mainly due to the doctrines I subscribe to. Admittedly, the root of it ( And the Lord said, Let there Be Light. And There was Light) could be interpreted my way ( there was at one point a state of not light, requiring external intervention) or what I believe to be your way ( the capacity for light was always present, and was just manifested through a change in it's operation at that point).

Also keep in mind that there are more dimensions than the one we currently occupy. I mean there are so many levels above us where things could happen, laws and energies and universals not yet revealed or learned, things that don't even reside in our lexicon of definition or comprehension, things that we simply might not be capable of comprehending PERIOD. It's no wonder we can't put a definition on it.

And never will, unless the ability to be aware of the situations is part of the system itself, and we have not found it yet.
...
And that right there leads us full circle to the original topic ( miraculously); in that doctrines, religions and faiths claim that their interpretation is just such an example, and therefore the original answer may very well be a resounding yes.

Thanks for putting that one out there, I like a good shakedown of rusted and congealed thought

 

[Adulado]

The Masserman experiment shows that monkeys have a "moral" code beyond humans. Unlike us they don't have a book telling them what is wrong or right.

It's to show that they too have conscience like us. If you put your finger(s) in your dog's mouth it'll bite it lightly as if playing, also when you give it some food with your hand it'll take it swiftly but will be careful not to bite your hand. And who said humans are better than animals? Even humans have conscience without a book telling them what is good or wrong.

"(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares." -Romans 2:14~16-

"I also thought, "As for men, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals." -Ecclesiastes 3:18-

 

[Half-n-Half]

It's to show that they too have conscience like us. If you put your finger(s) in your dog's mouth it'll bite it lightly as if playing, also when you give it some food with your hand it'll take it swiftly but will be careful not to bite your hand. And who said humans are better than animals? Even humans have conscience without a book telling them what is good or wrong.
"(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares." -Romans 2:14~16-
"I also thought, "As for men, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals." -Ecclesiastes 3:18-

Just a quick tip, quoting the Bible really does nothing for an atheist in a debate.

 

[bakaKanadajin]

I'd posit that intelligence can be rendered down to self modifying/replicating instructions in co-operationwith instinct.

When you boil it down what else can you really call human intelligence?
We have the capacity for more, sure, but all life exhibits the traits you just mentioned.

At any rate, I just used cells and the body to highlight more so the idea, the vague concept, that lesser and greater intelligences can co-exist with one being completely unaware and unable to directly relate to the other.

Not quite getting the example you're getting at here

Setting aside the fact that the body is a born entity through pro-creation, take for a minute just the body and its composite cells as-is. Where do we draw the definitions? Does the human exist because of the cells or do the cells exist because of the body? It's symbiotic but it's also possible from the point of view of the cells to say that 'God' or the body exists as a function of their seemingly minute and insignificant intelligence and activity level, without doing harm to the sovereignty of the body.

I personally diverge with you on this one; I see God as the creator and not the Modified, but
the idea of some external observer capable but rarely intervening with the system He created, along with the incapability of those within that system to understand Him through the limits and definitions of that system, and even the system itself was popular in antiquity and closely mirrors what you are suggesting.

Well agree to disagree. Definition wise I do not think I am diverging much from 'the mystery of God' argument either on the surface. Where I think I differ though (not that my ideas are unique) is that we are arrogant to think that we are at this point in time anyway capable of fully understanding something that clearly exists outside our experiential plane. I'm not talking about the romanticism of mystery, I mean its simply the egg and the chicken, the horse before the cart. We can't even properly understand a 10th of the universe; a large portion of matter and energy are unseen and intangible to us and our instruments currently, we are only experiencing a mere fraction of what exists in total and we expect to know God? It can be known in this physical life though, just not now. And if we were to know of it, it wouldn't be in our current warring polluting frame of mind, knowledge of that magnitude could only come through a more enlightened and holistic approach that doesn't separate science and spirituality.

I could disagree with you on that and suggest that the law Conservation of Energy and the law of Entropy are mutually and thematically exclusive, but cataloged science slaps such a suggestion with the dunce stick, and I have not even anecdotal evidence to support it. Most likely a symptom of my own flavor of limited and relative perception/understanding.

This is a very efficient viewpoint given the (equally valid) perspective you have outlined, but I personally don't agree with it, mainly due to the doctrines I subscribe to. Admittedly, the root of it ( And the Lord said, Let there Be Light. And There was Light) could be interpreted my way ( there was at one point a state of not light, requiring external intervention) or what I believe to be your way ( the capacity for light was always present, and was just manifested through a change in it's operation at that point).

I don't think that your doctrines are done any harm by the ones I subscribe to. Although in trying to explain God I remove personality and character, that's just in the anthropomorphic 'meddling and finicky' sense that requires God to tend to his creation like a science experiment. It doesn't mean I remove intelligence or knowledge or that actions can't originate from God at the pre-destined times and locations. It's fully possible that although yours would be more interpretational, the two can co-exist, that is unless you're a fundamentalist and are taking a literal reading of the bible.

Also consider that as we think of time, that long string of 'from then to now and beyond', time doesn't really exist. Therefore, God only has to 'BE', and everything after that plays out as it plays out. Trying to reconcile the two is like trying to push rope.

And never will, unless the ability to be aware of the situations is part of the system itself, and we have not found it yet.
...
And that right there leads us full circle to the original topic ( miraculously); in that doctrines, religions and faiths claim that their interpretation is just such an example, and therefore the original answer may very well be a resounding yes.

Thanks for putting that one out there, I like a good shakedown of rusted and congealed thought

Well my words extend only so far as the dimension within which they are spoken. My definition of humans, life, the soul, extends beyond the physical plain. I should have put a disclaimer there indicating that, sloppyness on my part. I believe that much is revealed to us after we physically die.

 

[Malamis]

Well agree to disagree.

No problems there, Them there doctrines what I loves so much are interpretation and conjecture based on articles of faith and the records of related activities/outcomes, not the articles of faith themselves.(and it would do a lot for the development of junior Christians to remember that there *is* a difference).

Definition wise I do not think I am diverging much from 'the mystery of God' argument either on the surface. Where I think I differ though (not that my ideas are unique) is that we are arrogant to think that we are at this point in time anyway capable of fully understanding something that clearly exists outside our experiential plane. I'm not talking about the romanticism of mystery, I mean its simply the egg and the chicken, the horse before the cart. We can't even properly understand a 10th of the universe; a large portion of matter and energy are unseen and intangible to us and our instruments currently, we are only experiencing a mere fraction of what exists in total and we expect to know God?

The popular argument on that subject is: because He made the first move and in that regard and actively wants to be known , but its not universal, and indeed is argued between sects and conclaves of the Abrahamic faiths. I personally hold that your view would be the probable alternative if He hadn't.

It can be known in this physical life though, just not now. And if we were to know of it, it wouldn't be in our current warring polluting frame of mind, knowledge of that magnitude could only come through a more enlightened and holistic approach that doesn't separate science and spirituality.

I distinctly remember (possibly in the Revelation recorded by John, thus I wont misquote it since I cant find the exact words I remember in the KJV) something admonishing towards that effect. The Buddhist pursuit of enlightenment/transcendence could conceivably be considered a different approach to the same goal, albeit with different motivations.

I don't think that your doctrines are done any harm by the ones I subscribe to. Although in trying to explain God I remove personality and character, that's just in the anthropomorphic 'meddling and finicky' sense that requires God to tend to his creation like a science experiment.

I always thought of it more like an ant farm, or possibly the most epic tamagochi ever.

It doesn't mean I remove intelligence or knowledge or that actions can't originate from God at the pre-destined times and locations. It's fully possible that although yours would be more interpretational, the two can co-exist, that is unless you're a fundamentalist and are taking a literal reading of the bible.

I try to, but I don't read Greek, Arabic or ancient Hebrew, so I make the best of what I have. The only fundamental that is beyond all doubt is: It is Written(with"by who?" being the first argument following), and history is full of folks interpreting *what* is written, even while it was being written. Example:, The record of the Hebrew congregation repeatedly coming to Moses for the interpretation and application of the Law to situations not explicitly covered, and even for those that were. I personally have problems getting how the executioner was exempt from the death penalty for enacting the death penalty on a murderer, but there is probably a Rabbi somewhere that has already explained it as a mistranslation and the varying meanings of murderer.

Also consider that as we think of time, that long string of 'from then to now and beyond', time doesn't really exist. Therefore, God only has to 'BE', and everything after that plays out as it plays out. Trying to reconcile the two is like trying to push rope.

Yes. My fellow non-batshit fundies tend to add:" but He decided to do it anyway"

Well my words extend only so far as the dimension within which they are spoken. My definition of humans, life, the soul, extends beyond the physical plain. I should have put a disclaimer there indicating that, sloppyness on my part. I believe that much is revealed to us after we physically die.

And many have and still try to scare folk into lockstep tithing by preaching the most important point of that revelation is going to be: You Fail.

 

[Mycernius]

It's to show that they too have conscience like us. If you put your finger(s) in your dog's mouth it'll bite it lightly as if playing, also when you give it some food with your hand it'll take it swiftly but will be careful not to bite your hand. And who said humans are better than animals? Even humans have conscience without a book telling them what is good or wrong.
"(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares." -Romans 2:14~16-
"I also thought, "As for men, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals." -Ecclesiastes 3:18-

Wow, you've read the bible, me too, along with other scripture. You are aware it is as relevant to proof as other scripture, ie: not at all.
How about some random sayings from the Upanishads instead, or maybe a few quotes from the Tao Chi Ching? And the Qu'ran is always a good one for vague quotes.
I would like to see some verifiable evidence, research in other words, rather than the written words of some bronze age goat herders who thought the sun went around the earth and was created in 6 days.

 

[bakaKanadajin]

I try to, but I don't read Greek, Arabic or ancient Hebrew, so I make the best of what I have.

I can appreciate that. And that would be the main problem with, and criticism of, fundamentalists from folks like me. I don't think any rational person could have a problem with the bible at root, (I don't) as most of it is just fine if taken in the interpretational sense. It is after all as much a historical record as a spiritual guide once approached in that sense. But the fact, historical fact, that the bible has been combed over and modified by X number of people for reasons far-removed from the intentions of the original authors tends to, by default, nullify any serious attempt to reconcile the ultimate truth the bible wants to communicate with that literal reading. You're trying to understand the pristine, original document based a fax that came through a sorrily unkempt fax machine.

Yes. My fellow non-batshit fundies tend to add:" but He decided to do it anyway"

And to them I might refer back to my loosely thrown together example of the human and the cells; the human does not actively decide to spawn new cell growth, it happens as a function of the body's very nature, the body is the sum of all life in that small universe. (Universe meaning the body, the extent of the plane on which the cells exist).
If God simply IS, which many could agree on, then he doesn't need to decide to do anything. All action/reaction, potential and realized, is contained there without the need for active button-pushing. I guess that just circles back to what I said earlier.

The closest thing I can think of in Christian doctrine is 'agape', or the overflowing of God's love like wine from the filled chalice, such that he has no choice but to create because His love knows no bounds. I think that's a fair interpretation of the facts, as valid as say, He is all energy such that all energy (including us) exists as a function of Him.

 

[Hime]

now I have to spend days to read all the posts I missed....
sorry I was very busy in the past weeks

 

[peresvet]

Well, if there is a creator then who created the creator?

It's naive to think that people have never asked this question before you. God is the First Cause of everything. If everything in this world must have the cause, so there should be the First Cause of everything, Which has the cause in itself. That was the God's existence proof made by Immanuel Kant, who had criticized other proofs before.

 

[Amigo]

God is nothing but what science haven't or couldn't revealed yet.

It's to say that God has been getting smaller and smaller along the history.

Will God become totally zero one day? I think never.

That's why God will exist for ever; human brain cannot understand everything.

By the way, does anybody believe in ghosts? Those are everlasting questions.

 

[Ma Cherie]

It's naive to think that people have never asked this question before you. God is the First Cause of everything. If everything in this world must have the cause, so there should be the First Cause of everything, Which has the cause in itself. That was the God's existence proof made by Immanuel Kant, who had criticized other proofs before.

And it was foolish of you to think I believed I was first to ask the question "Who created the creator."

 

[Mycernius]

It's naive to think that people have never asked this question before you. God is the First Cause of everything. If everything in this world must have the cause, so there should be the First Cause of everything, Which has the cause in itself. That was the God's existence proof made by Immanuel Kant, who had criticized other proofs before.

That's convenient isn't it? God is first cause so I'll not provide any evidence. Always the last refuge of the theist, goddunnit. Immanuel Kant never provided any evidence for his saying, as no theist ever has. An opinion by a philosopher is just that, an opinion, not evidence or proof. Just as easily claim that the first cause was the FSM, may you be touched by his noodly appendage.

 

[peresvet]

That's convenient isn't it? God is first cause so I'll not provide any evidence. Always the last refuge of the theist, goddunnit. Immanuel Kant never provided any evidence for his saying, as no theist ever has. An opinion by a philosopher is just that, an opinion, not evidence or proof. Just as easily claim that the first cause was the FSM, may you be touched by his noodly appendage.

You have demonstrated yet your ignorance in the history of religions, don't do it concerning philosophy. If smth is not evident to you, it is not obligatory wrong or fool. Don't be obscurant. If you don't understand Kant, that is your problem, not Kant's.

 

[Mycernius]

You accuse me of ignorance on the history of religion, yet you have repeatedly demostrated a lack of knowledge of your own and an ad hom attack does shows it. Why am I not surprised?

 

[Adulado]

You accuse me of ignorance on the history of religion, yet you have repeatedly demostrated a lack of knowledge of your own and an ad hom attack does shows it. Why am I not surprised?

You accuse Christianism for lack of evidence when Christianism identify themselves based on faith also when we have all the evidences we need.

I would like to see some verifiable evidence, research in other words, rather than the written words of some bronze age goat herders who thought the sun went around the earth and was created in 6 days.

As for this comment, no Christian believe the universe was created in 6 days, it's figuratively spoken. And there's no reference in the Bible whatsoever that the Sun orbited around the Earth, only Christian freaks would claim that.

 

[peresvet]

You accuse me of ignorance on the history of religion, yet you have repeatedly demostrated a lack of knowledge of your own and an ad hom attack does shows it. Why am I not surprised?

I can prove my words, you don't.

The Catholic bible, in its current form was laid out by St.Augustine

That's your words. Such "opinion" may excite only smile and compassion on ignorance of discussant.

Now confirm, please, your words about "my lack of knowledge". Otherwise I will have the right to call you 'windbag'.

 

[Mycernius]

You accuse Christianism for lack of evidence when Christianism identify themselves based on faith also when we have all the evidences we need.

Exactly, it is based on faith, not evidence. The bible is not evidence for the existance of your god, just as the qu'ran is not evidence for allah and the upanishads provide evidence for the existance of brahma. All you have is opinion that you accept as evidence.

As for this comment, no Christian believe the universe was created in 6 days, it's figuratively spoken. And there's no reference in the Bible whatsoever that the Sun orbited around the Earth, only Christian freaks would claim that.

Oh yes there are, they are collectively known as Young Earth Creationists, YECs. The believe in Genesis literally. There is even a website dedicated to this type of BS called Answers in genesis founded by Ken Ham
Link: Answers in Genesis
Then there is the creation museum:
Creation, Science, Bible History, & Dinosaurs
And then there is the most infamous of all creotards, Kent Hovind, who even has the gall to style himself as a Doctor.
Kent Hovind - Wikipedia
All call themselves christians and all believe in the bible literally.

 

[Mycernius]

I can prove my words, you don't.



That's your words. Such "opinion" may excite only smile and compassion on ignorance of discussant.

Now confirm, please, your words about "my lack of knowledge". Otherwise I will have the right to call you 'windbag'.

Post #63 show a lack of knowledge about the origins of the 4 gospels.

 

[peresvet]

Post #63 show a lack of knowledge about the origins of the 4 gospels.

Probably you are wrong, because I didn't say about the origin of the 4 gospels, but said about the origin of New Testament Canon. If you don't see the difference then... No comment...

And what was wrong in my words in YOUR point of view?

 

[Frontman]

It's to show that they too have conscience like us. If you put your finger(s) in your dog's mouth it'll bite it lightly as if playing, also when you give it some food with your hand it'll take it swiftly but will be careful not to bite your hand. And who said humans are better than animals?

This reminds me of Bacon's argument against atheism. Bacon said (roughly) that God inspired man to elevate himself to a higher level of morality, just as dogs who are cared for by man elevate themselves from their natural, wild state.
I don't believe animals have a "conscience". What they do have is an extremely acute sense of hierarchy, or pecking order. Any action they commit in their society which upsets this pecking order will cause them to react submissively if this action is noticed by others. It is not conscience or guilt (though to humans it may appear to be such), but fear of reprisal for having upset the system. Your dog isn't acting "guilty" because he made a mess on the floor and you noticed, he is fearful because he senses he has offended someone superior in his small society.
Animals, like people, will respect and be attracted to those whom they believe to be superior to themselves.
People are similar to animals in many ways. All societies have a class system of sorts, whether it is officially recognized or not. People subconsciously know their place in society, you can see it in the way they address different people by the level of politeness they use. Religion reinforces this system in a subtly different way, by giving us spiritual consequences for our actions, rather than the physical consequences which are more natural. All this may seem strange, but is natural, and it is the backbone of civilized society.
Religion is a tricky thing. Organized religions are fundamentally flawed because they are organizations of men, who are imperfect. This imperfection is hard to reconcile with the personal perfection which is the aim of most religions. Human/animal desires corrupt the perfection which religion aspires to, making most churches little different than ordinary businesses or governments.
Many people blame religion for much of the trouble which occurs or has occurred in the world. This blame is misplaced. Fundamentally, religion is supposed to lead us to peace and understanding. Unfortunately, as I said earlier, religions are organizations of men, and religious principles have been bent or outright broken when men use them as a tool to further their own personal ambitions or desires.
The perfection which religion aspires to transcends the natural class system, which is the most unique thing about it. Most people do not understand the true nature and aim of religion, they only hear the man-made dogma. Religion is not something which discriminates, restricts, or restrains, it is something which sets you free.

 

[Mars Man]

Guys, could u please stay on topic ?

The validity of this post is not only good, but it seems to have been washed away in the undertow of emotionalism.

If we were here discussing the matter of 'if religion were needed to believe in "God" (and I point out here, that we are using English, and we are capitalizing the word 'god') then we would have little choice but to admit that by 'religion' we would actually be meaning a 'religious belief-system.'

That being the case, we would have no choice whatsoever but to admit that the premise is true--viz. without a certain belief-system, we would have had no "God" in the first place. There is no doubt whatsoever that the English word "God" refers to YHWH (as though the word "God" could (or should) be a proper noun--which it originally was not, and never should have become).
To answer the general question, 'do we need a belief-system to believe in god?'--no, we do not. The corolary is that "God" needs a belief-system to be belived in.
However, if we were to refer to the concept of god, we would still not need a belief-system, nor, even, a model.
(also, the Ontological Argument is a failure due the falsity of the premises upon which it had been based . . . although that is another subject altogether....not to mention OFF TOPIC

 

[Mars Man]

So, as you can see, Gospels were born by Christian teaching, not vice versa.

This is interesting. How are we to construe this? Are you insinutating, perersvet san, that it was Christian teaching at the time that gave birth to the gospel narratives? Or are you trying to state that the gospel narrative (esp. the oral tradition) had given birth to the Christian teaching?

I do understand whatever difficulties may come, or arise, due to language, and wish to give ample room for that consideration, yet nonetheless would like to point out that the former understanding is what you more seemingly have presented.

 

[Pachipro]

Hey Mars Man, since you are not accepting PM's, please check your Yahoo.jp account for an e-mail.

But I ask, are we really made in God's image as is written? If so then God must be more a human with human traits and human flaws, and 'original sin' than an all omnipotent being as we are taught. Why would "God" make his children with flaws? Doesn't make any sense to me as I was always taught that God does not make any junk nor does he make any mistakes.

And why would "God" forsake and give up on his children 6,000 years ago when there were no nuclear weapons and the massive killings and destruction we have today in 'His' name? Why did 'He' disappear and not show himself today as he did to people who had no technology and the means of total world wide annihilation as we have today? Could it be that mankind has a higher technology than "God"?

I would believe 'He' would want to protect his creations from the 'fallen angels' and not let them suffer as we have throughout the past 6 millenia. It's still a little too difficult for me to grasp.

 

[Frontman]

Hey Mars Man, since you are not accepting PM's, please check your Yahoo.jp account for an e-mail.

But I ask, are we really made in God's image as is written? If so then God must be more a human with human traits and human flaws, and 'original sin' than an all omnipotent being as we are taught. Why would "God" make his children with flaws? Doesn't make any sense to me as I was always taught that God does not make any junk nor does he make any mistakes.

And why would "God" forsake and give up on his children 6,000 years ago when there were no nuclear weapons and the massive killings and destruction we have today in 'His' name? Why did 'He' disappear and not show himself today as he did to people who had no technology and the means of total world wide annihilation as we have today? Could it be that mankind has a higher technology than "God"?

I would believe 'He' would want to protect his creations from the 'fallen angels' and not let them suffer as we have throughout the past 6 millenia. It's still a little too difficult for me to grasp.

How do you define "image"? Is it something inside or outside? What are traits? Human beings are nearly identical to chimpanzees genetically. There is surprisingly little difference between a human being and a sea urchin on the genetic level. One could easily argue that God made all living things in his image, because deep down, all living things on earth are remarkably similar.

That people are sometimes born with physical defects is irrelevant. Life itself is perfect, and without defects. Life is not flesh an bone, but the spark which lies inside.

Who says God abandoned man 6000 years ago? If you consider the question more deeply, you might come to the opposite conclusion and believe that man abandoned God.

It has been said by many that God lives inside all of us. Have you ever heard the saying "God helps those who help themselves"? Ponder these words very carefully, and you might come to understand that the meaning is a little different from what it first appears to be.

The difference between man and the animals is the God-like quality which we were all given. Another thing which makes us different is that we were given the ability to choose.

Many of us choose poorly, and these choices lead us to troubles and difficulties. We obey our animal lust and greed, hungry to satisfy superficial desires, not understanding that these desires can never be fulfilled. And then we fault others or even God for our problems, refusing to acknowledge that we ourselves are responsible for our own predicaments.

Religion is supposed to guide us to make the right choices. To allow us to reach the full potential which lies within us. Religion is supposed to teach us the truth.

What is the truth? Again, I have to quote Bacon, "it is heaven on earth when men's hearts move in charity, rest in providence, and revolve upon the poles of truth".

As for "fallen angels" I remember something written by Yamaoka Tesshu, who was a famous swordsman of the Ono school. He said that devils and demons were our friends, sent by the Gods to test us.

Ah, time for class,