The juxtaposition between man, science and God is the nuclear weapon.

That alone will render every living creature valueless.

And maybe that is why God created the cockroach , the final indignity for mans existence, to be superseded by a cockroach.

How mad is this world?

Don’t vote for your own annihilation.

"How mad is this world?"
So, so true.........

The "creator"-God or the mommy-daddy Parental Deity idea is a rather childish and even infantile idea which is actually quite terrifying in its implications. It is entirely dualistic and as such implies that human beings are separate from The Living Divine Reality.
http://www.aboutadidam.org/readings/parental_deity/index.html
http://www.adidacontroversies.org/tacit-certainty-real-god

By contrast this book which was also published with the title Reality Is All The God There Is describes our situation
http://global.adidam.org/books/ancient-teachings

See also http://www.integralworld.net/reynolds38.html

If the aim of creation was history, then how come the memory of history is so short-lived, an infinitesimal flicker in the vastness of eternity?!

I also disagree with Barth when he says: "Do not look for the work of God in nature, His fingerprints will not be found in the rocks or the DNA or in geological eras."

- Why, do look for God everywhere, especially where it pleases you, including in nature, rocks, DNA or geology: there is no place where God is not, so best try to first find God in the things that personally attract you most.

"Our problem with understanding God as the creator and sustainer of all things is that the discussion misrepresents the being of God in terms of a single, personal, supernatural being who may act in the physical world. Christians should protest that this is not the God they worship on Sunday mornings."

It is indeed primitive to misrepresent God as some supernatural being, indeed that it not the god we worship on Sunday mornings or at any other time, but our fundamental problem with understanding God is that understanding requires a mind and intellect, whereas no finite mind or intellect can possibly grasp the infinite.

Sages and prophets tell us that we can know God, not that we can understand Him.

Failing to understand the purpose (if any) of creation need not be considered a failure, but rather a built-in feature: we are not equipped for it because it is not a part of our calling (and why should it be?).

Any time is good for welcoming God - welcoming does not require understanding.

The greatest story ever told is just that, a story. A never proven story adjusted to fit the narrative of a saviour.

And reviewed revised and rewritten time and again to give alleged, bible backed, moral authority to "the church."

In the "story", Jesus was born into a world already created, moreover he never claimed to be God, just an instrument for a Father who worked in him. Believe what you will but do not claim an unproven story as factual.
Alan B.

The following could be seen as negative criticism of the article.
It seems to me the article is meant to be factual?
As such, it should be logical and down to earth?
But it strays in to the realms of fantasy far too often?

I would like a clear statement at the start outlining the aim of the article.
Then follow this with supportive statements.
Even address alternative views if that helps with an explanation.
But I am left feeling it is all just another rambling fictional account of something or other.
Was it meant to be like that?

Better to keep in mind a few basic concepts?

A belief is not a fact.
A belief is an idea which is thought, more likely than not, to be true?
As such, the evidence supporting the validity of the idea will outweigh an alternative?
So is there evidence?
When the only evidence available is totally man-made, and otherwise does not occur in the natural world, should we take that as serious proof?

Whatever happened to truth?
Why is seeking truth so inconvenient for some?
Are truthful persons somehow less human?
Are their lives rife with contradictions and turmoil as a result of a desire to understand?
I see the opposite as being true.

I acknowledge that escaping in to a world of fantasy can be mentally rewarding.
Otherwise, the works of Conan Doyle and others would be a total waste?
But we need only a temporary cessation of reality.
Not a permanent one.