I do not know whether there exists an entity that could be described as God, the creator of the universe. I doubt it; but I don’t know. I suspect I shall never know.

I suppose that makes me an agnostic albeit a highly sceptical one.

However let's assume, for the sake of argument only, that such an entity exists. What sort of being would he / she / it be?

I find it hard to believe God would have a gender so I shall use the pronoun "it" when referring to God.

If God exists I guess it is probably akin to "God the Utterly Indifferent" depicted in Kurt Vonnegut's sf novel "The Sirens of Titan."

I am interested to see how other posters think about God.

This is a game that even atheists can play. If there is a God what sort of being would it be?

If you are a theist and you think you have definitive answers please evidence for your beliefs. Quoting from some allegedly sacred text is not evidence unless you can provide evidence that the text really is the "word of God."

I believe in no God.
But what do I think God is?
A crutch and chains both to gain control and power.
Nothing has changed from mans first stone God.
However in the spirit of the thread say God exists.
Any of them.
A lonely bloke/ woman made us in order to control us.
Rather fond of being loved/idolized it appears that is why we exist.
And if we are good little men and women we can worship him/her forever.
In a heaven that has no need for original thought just follow that book, the one that answers yes and no to every question.
Same one that wants us on our knees in worship for eternity.

Belly

Your thinking is too constrained by the koran / bible. The "real" God is probably nothing like the being described in those two books.

What is more you are assuming that we are the reason for God creating the universe. But are we?

For all we know the real reason for God creating the universe lies beyond our even horizon. We may be nothing more than an unimportant by-product of creation.

In theatrical terms are we really the main event? Or are we at best an off-Broadway sideshow?

Unshackle your imagination from human created "holy books" and think outside the box.

Perhaps we are unimportant to God and if it even deigns to notice our worship it is with amusement.

Dear Steven.

Of one thing you may be sure. If the Almighty, who created all there is, exists, the only things you could ever know about Him are what He reveals to us.

Romans 1:19

since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

John 14:7 The Words of Jesus of Nazareth.

7If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."

8Philip(or Steven L Meyer) said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us."

9Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip (StevenLMeyer), even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.

That summs it all up.

If we can separate ourselves from our culture, and the closeness we all have culturally to the Christian traditions.. and imagine we knew nothing about Christ Jesus... no Church... no Christians.. and someone SAID the above things... it would be very VERY freaky.

You would be calling for the men in white coats quick smart.

BUT THEN.....if the person saying these 'freaky' things, had a man standing by him, who you have known since his birth as being blind...and who now as a result of an act of healing by this 'freaky' person, can see, .... you might think twice b4 calling the men in white coats.

Sometimes..we have so MUCH truth, it loses the impact of truth. Most of us are familiar with 'Church' and a generally Christian kind of sociocultural atmosphere.. so it would be easy to miss the profound nature of Christs words.

StevenLMeyer asks: "What is he/she/it like?"

JESUS of NAZARETH.... said:

"If you have seen me, you have seen the Father"

I was impressed when I read this in Pamela Bone's obituary:

'An avowed atheist, she once opined — on pondering whether belief might come to her in her final moments — that "if God exists, I do not approve of him".'

I wish I'd said that.

As to your hypothetical, my answer would be: cruel, capricious, arbitrary...but that's just my view of the world.

For instance, I don't understand how a theist can see the hand of God in something like the Tsunami, yet I heard some poor islander after the event saying how she knew God was with her because a statue of Mary had been washed up on the beach (even though all her children had been washed away).

Interestingly, I heard an interview on Richard Fidler the other morning where a former nun with Mother Theresa's order nominated the tsunami as the moment when she knew for certain that God did not exist.

In my callow youth, Eric Clapton was God.

The world has changed somewhat, but we still have Clapton.

Amen.

It was of course inevitable that your advice would not be followed by the Boazs of this world, stevenlmeyer...

"Quoting from some allegedly sacred text is not evidence..."

...is like a red rag to a bull.

>>Romans 1:19 since what may be known about God is plain to them... John 14:7 The Words of Jesus of Nazareth... Jesus answered... JESUS of NAZARETH.... said<<

Your question is an excellent one, of course, designed to allow people to question stereotypes, and examine what the concept of God means at a personal, rather than a social or communal, level.

I was raised in the Christian tradition, attended Church schools and celebrated all the standard festivals etc. My own conviction that God cannot exist stemmed originally from Christianity's inherent contradictions.

The concepts that there is an omnipotent being somewhere who is aware of my existence (as well as all those sparrows) in the teeming galaxy, and that at the same time man is somehow "in his image" are to me incompatible.

Having shaken my head at the Bible, I found similarly incongruities in all scriptures, however they were communicated. The implausibility of a God allowing different versions to circulate, here through dictation to forty companions, there inscribed on golden plates in an unknown language, was simply a contradiction too far.

Having accepted that no-one can possibly claim to know the answer, I decided to be content with the fact that, in my brief stopover on this planet, I would never discover the "why" of human existence.

Others will go through the same process, but feel the need to invent God to fill the massive gap in their knowledge. This clearly brings contentment, since they have no further need to concern themselves with either the question, or the answer.

My answer is therefore that God is the outward manifestation of chemical activity in the brain. Predominantly, the chemical operates on the part of the brain that controls credulity, and allows the individual to be at peace with a comforting fantasy.

Interestingly, the nature of that fantasy does not seem to be important.

Kassie

You obviously don't know the wickedness of your own heart (as well as the rest of humanity).

Pericles says:

"My own conviction that God cannot exist stemmed originally from Christianity's inherent contradictions."

Then he fleshes out that 'contradiction' below:

The concepts that there is an omnipotent being somewhere who is aware of my existence (as well as all those sparrows) in the teeming galaxy, and that at the same time man is somehow "in his image" are to me incompatible.

In essense, Pericles has set himself up as 'god' and the 'godess' is Kassie.
Kassie's evidence for God not being is... "a Tsunami".......

In both of their expressions of godhood...they have shown exactly why it was neccessary for the real God..Creator of all, to reveal himself in the world.. and to make that expression most fully clear in the Lord Jesus.. I repeat..

"if you have seen me, you have seen the Father"

Pericles bemoans that lack of personal interview which he expects from the Creator.. to personally inform him of His presense and existence... but as God said to the Rich man who wanted someone to return from the dead to warn his still living brothers about the awfulness of Hell.... "They have Moses and the scriptures"

And indeed it is the same for Kassie, Pericles, CJ..and Steven.
Of course.. it is not enough (it seems) for them to have accounts of miracles done by the Lord Jesus, removed only be time but not distance or documentary layer (in terms of testimony). Nor is it enough for those like myself who have felt that divine touch of healing.. to testify to it's reality, nope.. it's that "YOU.. HERE.. NOW!" from them to the Creator of the Universe.

Pericles cannot fathom why there are 'versions' but he knows that 3 people viewing an accident from different corners of the intersection will report it differently.
Churches? Catholic.. Protestant.. Orthodox....which one is 'right'?
The honest observer will know "Each one, to the extent that they reflect the Lord they claim as theirs"

"Have I been with you so long Philip (Steven, Kassie Pericles CJ) and yet....you do not know me"? said Jesus.

Runner's epitomises the judgemental nature of the Abrahamic god.

For myself, I see everything as interconnected, that we are all parts of a greater whole. Consequently, I cannot envisage a single superior entity - the concept is both megalomanic and alienating; clearly a construct of humans given its limiting dogma.

Therefore, god is everything and nothing.

be warned;i have been accused as a_troll on my_own thread

they will work in pairs
one will post a distraction[the other will demand the off topic response be replied]

i use a quote
to demonstrate how gods justice works
thus you may chose to read the responses with a truely open heart

but your heart is closed bro[words are wasted on you

quote
Posted by trikkerdee, Monday, 24 November
..>>uog said:
[i really just didnt want it to become a slanging match]
just the facts to topic...]

The sources you are using to illustrate your points are far from credible...>>

PLEASE NOTE THIS WILL BE A SET RESPONSE
as will this

>>..Scripture based scientific research is not a rational position,all it does is create a theory that confirms your mythological beliefs -
but without actual evidence....<<

you see dear reader WHO WILL JUDGE YOUR EVIDENCE
is deaf and blind

then if it has merit you will be accused of trolling
OH expect name calling too

Posted by Foxy
Monday,24 November

>>>..Dear Ludwig,..
.>>Take a look at all of his posts,
and replies to people who genuinely
wanted to engage in a dialogue
with him..<<

distraction BUT NOT EXPLAIN EVOLUTION or abio-genssis
[ie the topic]

>..Take a look at all the lucid explanations
that he's been given and totally rejected...>>

rebuttal isnt rejection
im asking for explanation but not getting response..thus i agree with your next point

quote;..>How can there be any discussion or debate
with a closed mind?..<<

>>..WHO ignores the proof that he
is given
does
not want to hear answers that don't
meet with his beliefs- and so forth...>>

<..It's an exercise in futility to say
the least...he's having fun at your expense.
So what does that say about all of you, who are
playing his game according to his rules...<<....

reply by trikkerdee, Monday, 24 November 2008 10:35:08 AM



>>>,,,Well said Foxy, thanks for clarifying what I was already thinking, I'm going to take your advice and leave it alone now...<<

QUESTIONER does not HAVE to answer
any questions,because his topic asked for answers,BUT is he hearing?

To my mind, if God had all the properties attributed to it (omnipotence, ominscience, omniprescence), then it would have to be at least as big as the universe, and as we all know the universe is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly hugely mind-bogglingly big it is.

Therefore, maybe God IS the universe. In that way I could say that in a very real sense I am a child of it, I was 'created' by it and I can have a very real 'relationship' with it. I put relationship in quotes, because I have no reason whatsoever to expect it to care. It's already given to me and my species what I (we) need to survive and I should make the most of that. I can ask it for stuff, but anyone can see that it would be insanity to expect it to just give what I ask for to me because I worship it. It's up to us now.

The universe is what it is. Or in anthropmorphic terms, "I am what I am".

Fractelle

'Runner's epitomises the judgemental nature of the Abrahamic god.'

My view of God is more one whose mercy is evident everyday. The fact that you and me have not got what we deserve illustrates that point well. I am thankful that God's mercy triumphs over HIs judgement.

It seems to me that it is you, Kassie and others who are far more judgemental than God Himself. The character assassination of the One who hung on the cross for you almost defies belief. It is your self righteousness that prevents you from seeing who the Abrahamic God is. Do you really believe that it is yourself that has provided clothing, food and shelter for 6 billion (mostly ungrateful) wretches.

Dear Steven,

What sort of an entity is God?

To me He can best be described in
the following way:

"Once, long ago, in a world of confusion and weariness,
there exploded a new and exciting hope.
A man appeared in Palestine and spoke in syllables...
He was a Jew, steeped in the power and beauty of a
religious heritage unparalleled in East or West.
He was not locked in bigotry nor did he serve the
interests of a single nation or a special race.
His blood, indeed, was the sensitive and boiling
blood of Abraham and David...

His vision, however, went past the boundaries of Palestine
to encompass the world.
His eyes looked to everyone who hurt, and his
healing hand was extended to the weak ...
the outcast leper, the blind man... even those skeptical
of his stature marveled at the power of his words.

"Love one another as I have loved you."
So began the religion of love...

My God I call Christ, in simple and indefensible faith.

I acknowledge the words of Father James Kavanaugh,
in my response.

If one wishes to establish posit, it would seem to be rationale and systematic to adopt a methodology, which first defines the underlying constructs.

Else put, the architecture of the nature of a proposed god or gods. Herein, I find it probablt than especially among the three major monotheists religions eminating from Abraham (aka Abram, that there is too early a rush to varioud specific claimants, as God, without first exploring the more fundamental characterists of the nature of divinity. Sells, I regular poster he, starts of with some person/entity whom designates as Jesus, stop' without exploringmany other plausable explanations; i.e., other gods.

Gods have taken on many forms. In Greek mythology they fought (Titans & Olympians), some mythologies have a distant god, Islam; sometimes dualistic, dipolar; a personal & gentle, Jesus, the Son of Man,sometimes, while a horrifying, genecidial maniac, Yahew, God the Father, at other times.

I think that the closest that modern knowledge would support the notion of God, relevant to the existence of life, would be the self-organising proporty of matter.

Yet, more likely this circustance is better aligned to thermodynamics: i.e., biochemistry exists in a narrow slither of a temperature band in the cooling universe. Such a God is not a real entity or not an apt God at all. Pantheism, perhaps. Yet, I am not really comfortable with any "theism", until proponents of the same put-up a much better case and the ancient idea of the supernatural is disposed of.

The God of the Bible is a sado-masochistic, arbitrary, insecure creature. He asks Abraham to murder his son, subjects his own son to torture and death, sets up a paradise where there is a tree of knowledge and forbids the humans to eat of it (since they haven't eaten of it how could they know that disobedience is wrong?) and needs continual blessings and prayers from humans who are supposed to accept whatever tribulations he lays upon them as his will. A human behaving in that manner would be properly labeled as a psychopath.

If there is a god that entity could not be the evil creature described in the Bible.

If I could construct a God she/he (either a hermaphrodite capable of sexual fulfillment with itself or a duality of two sexes) would be a compassionate, wise entity visiting sufficient problems or trials upon us so that we could grow in wisdom and compassion until we would approach the image of god.

I don't accept that there is a thing called God. However for the sake of the discussion, if it does exist then I would describe its non-physical attributes as follows:
Firstly, a failure.
It claims to have invented the world, and look at the mess that it is in. Its creatures don't have a clue. For many thousands of years, it has promised in its various good books to do various good things, and has consistently failed to do any of then.
Secondly:
Incredibly pompous and arrogant.
Just look how it treats its adherents.
Thirdly:
Extremely self-centred.
What other sort of being exists simply to be worshipped. Why on earth would anyone want to go to its heaven, to just sit and admire it for the rest of eternity.
I could go on...
and I might later :)

Yes davidf, as the Baron de Montesquieu once said, "If the triangles made a god, they would give him three sides." Says it all really.

Hey CJ, you might just be on the right track. I can see the resemblance between old Clappo and my image of a god figure:-

Really good at some things (Clapton - guitar-playing, god – creating a fascinating universe), god-awful at others (Clappo – singing, god – fairness, kindness, s s s s sus taina… bility, eeeeeeetc), with a chequered past, with a strong interest in some things and rank disinterest in other important stuff, and so on.

In fact, I see the god figure very much in the image of man….of a normal average man who is highly imperfect and who learns slowly by way of making heaps of mistakes.

Or perhaps he didn’t learn, got stressed out, ran around in a mad panic screaming ‘Muuum, its too hard its all tooo haard’….and gave up…leaving the universe to its own devices.

Perhaps he spends all his time playing his guitar….and driving his fellow gods half mad with his atrocious excuse for singing!

runner,

"Do not murder, and any one who murders will be subject to judgment. But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment." (Matthew 5:21)

"So the Lord said, 'I will wipe mankind of the face of the earth-men and animals, and creatures that that move along the ground and, and birds in the air - for am grieved I have made time'." (Genesis 6:7)

- Dipolar?

Runner, you do not see Fratelle's point? I believe I do, especially, after reading the above taken unedited from the Bible?

Yahew was a Hebrew Volano god, a tribal God of henothiests. Jesus was was likely a medicant, whom may have been a claimant to the House of David, who was recast by Pauline and Nicaean doctrines. [Constantine himself, probably saw the Christian god, a pluralism of Sol Invictus).

In between, we have the God of Moses, whom estalished unification codes, as did Mohammed, with Islam.

Ludwig: << Perhaps he spends all his time playing his guitar….and driving his fellow gods half mad with his atrocious excuse for singing! >>

You will burn in Hell for that blasphemous comment, Ludwig - a Hell in which only elevator music is played and only Michael Buble sings!

jesus said see me see my father
should be UNDERSTOOD by
enjoining it to
;'the things you see me do
you will do greater'

[greater than god?of course not]

so in the spirit of full disclosure i will try to define that logus[logic];god is4me

some is here[see my last post]prior to the flaming of the trolls
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2305&page=0

science has confirmed we have millions of living micro_beasts on our bodies,that these micro beasts are all living[+]sustained from my body]when i die[so do they]

now use your special sight to see our aura
see it envelops THEIR auro's

but their energy flow is controling the expression of my own
but you cant see auras[nor can i ]but i can visualise it

ok i cant see,magnetism[or radioactivity or electricity,or the water science reveals is in the air about us.learn to tell the signs;despite not seing wind[feel it].

so is it with god
know WHAT god's true signs are

light/life[see that radiation[unseen light]that yet sustains us all to live

love/life[see that fiercest beast,yet loves its mate[loves its offspring[see that mothers will do to protect its offspring

we[LIFE]are gods visual sign;[that you do to the least you do To him

[see the throne[@];revelations,our living hearts are gods throne]

god loves life[thus gives life its life to live]

proof that god hates no life

there is good life and bad life
but one god gave EACH their fair share
[god dont judge;
live with it]

[via our love of life[neighbour]
life and nature reveal the logus
logic of life[GOD]

that in time life,reveal the life giver
love/logic/light/life is that unseen spectrum
as well as the seen

as previously said the universe is god

you are a minute part of the whole rainbow[i chose to call god]
each a composite of the all[to see me see OUR FATHER]
to see you is to see pop

pop is ETERNAL[thus has no beginning]
we of this flesh do
but inside us all is gods eternal spirit

[once we loose our sense of self]we can enjoin into the all[that i am is][+}allways was[+]allways will be

God is not an entity defined by sciene. God is spirit revealed in the nature and purpose of the universe, and such revelation as received by man is culminated in the human spirit. God is not a spirit being or ghost as some imagine, with defined spatial features. God is the dynamic of all creation, expressed in the handiwork defined by science. God gives meaning and purpose to life and reality. God is incarnate in the human spirit that reflects the absolutes of the divine.

it is interesting
even the unbelievers have their definition'of'god;
however insulting

they yet have dared to attribute qualities

[definitive description of his nature,consequences,and opinion;
about a thing they by and large claim not to egsist?

thus its 'seems' a truism;
;'well may you fear god
even the demons of hell do'

BUT ITS NOT true
thats the big problem with a debait such as this

who is kevin rudd to presume he is pm
well he is [thus live withit] same with god

he was pre big bang [ie 'time began'
and will remain the at-one-,meant[at times end]

it is hard for a micro beast living on my eye lash to coincieve that ocean next to my eye lid is what i see through

just as the micro beast living in my gut
to realise that wastel and it lives in sustains ITS own life form to live[i die so does it]

but god is eternal
death where is thy sting?
what is death to the life giver
his life wil go on

we are able to enjoin with the one[when this mortal flesh dies]
or chose to reject joining in [but its our choice to enjoin with the peacemaker[by forgoing all judgment
all revenge
all hate [all anger ,all fear]
let it go [its divisive[god is one]

god calls for our atonment
[at one meant]
you can freely chose not to join in
thus hell is filed with those not able to forgive
[the only price/cost of the great at one meant god is]

forgive and live
or hold the grudge as long as you like
we all realise it in the end

then the big bang draws us [and gods creations to be closer]
till we have our next sepperation [with the next big bang]

[NONE OF THIS POST MAY BE QUOTED OUT OF CONTEXT]

Boaz, I am aware that "to a hammer, everything looks like a nail", but this thread should not be used as yet another pulpit for your evangelist monologues.

Particularly if you insist on such nonsensical and convoluted reasoning as this.

>>Pericles has set himself up as 'god'<<

I made my view clear, that my perception of God is that it is purely the brain's reaction to chemical stimulus. How does that translate to "I am God"?

And this:

>>Pericles bemoans that lack of personal interview which he expects from the Creator<<

Why on earth would I expect chemicals to make themselves available for interview?

>>Of course.. it is not enough (it seems) for them to have accounts of miracles done by the Lord Jesus<<

You are perfectly well aware of my views on this topic, Boaz. They were most probably stories that "grew" as they were repeated, to be eventually written down by people with a vested interest in wanting them to be true.

>>Nor is it enough for those like myself who have felt that divine touch of healing.. to testify to it's reality, nope.. it's that "YOU.. HERE.. NOW!" from them to the Creator of the Universe.<<

With the greatest respect, and without casting the slightest doubt on the "divine touch of healing" that you claim to have personally experienced, I do not believe that it signifies what you think it does.

It's that chemical, you see Boaz.

It renders you as unable to see my position, as my chemical makeup enables me to see yours.

Of course, what would be really interesting would be to determine whether tendencies to religious credulity are encoded in our DNA, and genetically inheritable.

I expect we will find out at some point.

But even if we do, I will not expect religionists to suddenly "see the light", and say hey, I was wrong all along.

Because the brain can block out all evidence that it does not like, in the same way that a drug addict remains in denial about his addiction for so long.

The brain won't let go.

Bugsy is more aware than most that God is the universe(s). It is unfortunate that the findings of quantum physics are not yet well known and if they were the realization that what we believe to be reality is in fact the result of packets of electrical energy would be apparent. Everything in the universe is consciousness, which creates all that we see and apprehend and the purpose of life is to expand consciousness and that is evident when looking solely at mankind which has developed from animal man to today’s educated man who can now control nature. Everything in the universe is consciousness, even the rocks, and the degree of consciousness depends on the distance one has travelled on the way to the source of the creation.

The universe began not with a “big bang” but with the release of energy from the Creator which gradually grew and coalesced into what we know as the universe in which we live and move and have our being. The hologram is a way of seeing what creation is. If a hologram is broken up into many pieces each piece will reflect the whole, albeit it in a somewhat inferior way. In effect we are the Creator, in a sense, and that is why it is important to look upon our fellow men as our brothers.

If you know very little, if anything, about the quantum world I suggest you do a search. You can also take a look at my website which contains an article titled “Connected Consciousness” plus other information that may be of interest – www.spiritualmusings.net

Gimmy

Dear Philo,

Your description suggests a manifestation through all things created, having an underpinning of consistancy, perhaps.

Whereas, humanity's account of its God or God's seems historical or even political. In Sumer before Abraham priesthoods seeminly managed the transition of garden societies to the first city states, there were tribal gods, and, a cultural anthrologists would posit, Yahew, a tribal deity, amongst rival deity's. The comes a Code of Law through Moses, maybe, two or three manifestations of Jesus between his time on earth and the indtitutionalisation of Him, wherein, the Roman Empire transmuted into the Holy Roman Church. Moreover, the above, is merely, the Christian path. There have been many others.

Do you see scriptures, Christian, or otherwise, as allegories, conduits, metaphors, or, something else, in so much as, you say, it is clearly not science? Said, scriptures would have runner believing that vegetarian lions and dinosurs, accompanied a person called Noah on an Ark, when the proto-Christian god destroyed the World.

Through my eyes gods, are all too often an anthropomorphic projection of humanity and its societies.

Cheers,

O

When Moses asked the same question, God replied “I AM that I AM” or “I shall be that I shall be”. In the original Hebrew, the statement is taken to transcend time and place.

God, therefore, has an ineffable name. He is not an anonymous force.

From this statement, all other existence is derivative.

Starting point and the beginning of Truth: God alone, IS.

All creatures receive all that they are, from Him.

He alone, is his very being.

He is of himself, everything that He is.

Now, where does that leave you Oliver? stevenlmeyer? Me?

We cannot make such an absolute claim. At least, we can be certain of this fact, even if we cannot as yet accept God’s AM-ness. We all at least can understand this much, that we cannot claim to transcend time. That we do not exist in an infinite universe. That we… in and of ourselves, ARE NOT. We are dependent on what IS.

Think on it.

God exists within each and everyone AND by himself. The uncreated CREATOR.

Then, if we can grasp this essential truth, it is much easier to understand Jesus’ claim as the Great “I AM”.

Jesus claims for himself, God’s IS-ness.

The core of Jesus’ BEING has facets which are all related to God..

Before Abraham was, I AM.

I AM … bread of life.

I AM… light of the world

I AM….from above

I AM…the door

I AM…good shepherd

I AM…resurrection and the life

I AM…the way, the truth and the life

I AM….true vine

I AM…..Alpha and Omega

I AM….first and last

I AM….he that lived, and was dead, and behold I am alive for evermore

I AM….he who searches the veins and hearts

I AM….root and the offspring of David and the bright morning star.

How can I add to this any further, except to raise my eyes upward and acknowledge what IS.

Katie O wrote:

"We cannot make such an absolute claim. At least, we can be certain of this fact, even if we cannot as yet accept God’s AM-ness. We all at least can understand this much, that we cannot claim to transcend time. That we do not exist in an infinite universe. That we… in and of ourselves, ARE NOT. We are dependent on what IS."

Dear Katie O,

We can make any claim we like. That do not means that our claim is legitimate. It also does not mean the claim recorded in the Bible is legitimate.

Dear Pericles.. sorry if it seemed like I was picking on you :)

I was just making the point, that given the grandure and enormity of the Universe.. and what this says about it's Creator, it would be rather pointless for us to expect to know much about Him other than what He himself reveals.

We have a general awareness of the Universe, and our surroundings. The Bible asserts (Paul in particular) that this is enough information for us to be aware of God, but not to know much about Him.

It stands to reason that if God is there..He would let us know something more definitive about Him. This was done in the history of Israel via the Law and the prophets, and ultimately in Christ Jesus.

I'm not using the thread as a pulpit.. if I was I'd be applying the things I say to daily life.

Simple really.. "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father" and he supported that claim by the ultimate sign of raising the dead first (Lazarus) and finally Himself. "If I have the power to lay down my life, I also have the power to take it back"

The only things which separate our Lord from the other 'also ran' would be Messiah's are His signs, wonders and miracles....and His resurrection.

Here is one of your own fellow Poms..Bishop of Duhram N.T. Wright making a very persuasive case for this. He is the current 'trendy flavor of the year' Christian speaker.

http://www.roanoke.edu/crs/audio/NTWright-3-16-07.mp3

He is prolific.. well educated, easy to listen to...give him a try mate.

You might get homesick with the accent :)

Here he is on youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELxNpUmA4Vs&feature=related

David F says:

[We can make any claim we like. That do not means that our claim is legitimate.]

DAvid.. refer my discussion above please.

Katie..well said sister :)

Actually katieO, I think René Descartes would disagree with you.

In fact, he already proved you wrong over 350 years ago.

Polycarp wrote: I was just making the point, that given the grandure and enormity of the Universe.. and what this says about it's Creator, it would be rather pointless for us to expect to know much about Him other than what He himself reveals.

Dear Polycarp,

It would serve you well if you spent a little less time with your fairy tale book and a little more time studying the English language.

Grandeur is the correct spelling. My dictionary defines enormity as:
The great or extreme scale, seriousness or extent of something perceived as bad or morally wrong. Enormousness is probably the appropriate word. It’s is the abbreviation of it is. Ordinarily the possessive case does terminate in ‘s. However, the possessive case of it does not so as not to be confused with the abbreviation of ‘it is’.

Polycarp wrote: I'm not using the thread as a pulpit.

You are using the thread as a pulpit. It’s a rare post of yours that does not include quotes from your fairy tale book.

Polycarp wrote: The only things which separate our Lord from the other 'also ran' would be Messiah's are His signs, wonders and miracles....and His resurrection.

After the fact anybody can write about signs, wonders, miracles and resurrection.

What separates the real messiah from a false messiah is that the real messiah (not that I believe in that fiction) ushers in the messianic age where ‘nations study war no more’. The real miracle is that there is no messianic age, but somehow you believe in a messiah that did not produce a messianic age. As far as messiahs go he was a failure.

"Seemed", Boaz?

>>sorry if it seemed like I was picking on you<<

The entire post was directed at me. Nothing "seemed" about it.

Not that I mind in the least.

As Dennis Healey once said of Geoffrey Howe...

These intemperate and ill-directed outbursts of yours do nothing more than illuminate the barrenness of your argument, I'm afraid. More often than not - as you did here - you zoom off at a tangent, spilling biblical quotes like a clumsy waiter, carefully avoiding anything that might resemble logical thought.

The problem that you and your ilk have to combat is inhrent in this highly illuminating phrase of yours, Boaz.

>>...the grandure and enormity of the Universe.. and what this says about it's Creator...<<

You make the fundamental assumption that the Universe was actually "created", in the manner of a sculptor producing a bust, or a blacksmith fashioning a horseshoe - raw materials were assembled into a particular shape or pattern. Having made that decision, you then necessarily have to search for a "creator".

The idea that something just "is" goes against eveything that you believe in. In fact the very idea that we simply "are", a bizarre and extremely rare - possibly even unique - combination of galactic materials, makes you extremely uncomfortable.

It is from this discomfort, this fear of the unknown and unknowable, that your God appears.

I don't begrudge you this reassurance one whit.

I just wish you wouldn't use it as a weapon against other people whose ideas make you feel uncomfortable.

Bugsy,

Rene Descartes is in my camp: if we can conceive of God, then He exists.

Based on intuition and reason:

"because I cannot conceive God unless as existing, it follows that existence is inseparable from him, and therefore that he really exists: not that this is brought about by my thought, or that it imposes any necessity on things, but, on the contrary, the necessity which lies in the thing itself, that is, the necessity of the existence of God, determines me to think in this way: for it is not in my power to conceive a God without existence, that is, a being supremely perfect, and yet devoid of an absolute perfection, as I am free to imagine a horse with or without wings." (Descartes, Meditation 10)

Descartes' supposition is that God has provided him with a working mind and sensory system and does not desire to deceive him.

Here are the OBJECTIONS to Descartes:

1. The only way to prove something a priori is if its opposite implies a contradiction.

2. If something implies a contradiction, then it is inconceivable.

3. Everything can be conceived not to exist.

4. Nothing can be proven to exist a priori, including God.

Try it on:

1. The opposite: God IS NOT what he IS: implies a contradiction. (God is not God).

2. It would thus follow that God's claim to "AM-ness" implies a contradiction and is inconceivable.

3. I can conceive that I don’t exist. I am a figment of my own imagination. The fact of my non-existence implies God’s non-existence.

4. There cannot be a Creator of a non-existent self.

Honestly, it does my head in, but the foundational statement (I AM that I AM) is what it all hangs on and the objections are trite in application.

This is the sum of my "argument":

God exists. We exist only because He desires it. Not believing in his existence does not change the fundamental fact of His existence. Without Him, we could not exist, as the created must have a creator.

katieO, the statement "if we can conceive of God, then he exists", is more suited to pantheistic solipsism than the reality we find ourselves in.

You missed something in line 4.:
Nothing can be proven to exist, apart from the mind, a priori, including God.

Cogito ergo sum.

It is conceivable that I can exist independently of God, as I have already proven to myself that I exist.

KatieO, the only way that your logic can work is to make the assumption, before any other assumption, that God exists.

As in...

>>Try it on... The opposite: God IS NOT what he IS: implies a contradiction. (God is not God).<<

This can only stand up as an argument if you have already agreed that there is this thing called God. If there is no such agreement, there is no argument, and no contradiction.

But you and I and (as I understand it) Descartes appear to agree on one thing.

>>Rene Descartes is in my camp: if we can conceive of God, then He exists<<

I absolutely agree, that if you can conceive of God, then he exists for you. It's that brain chemistry thing again.

What it does not - and cannot - prove, is that you and I conceive of the same things, since our brains work differently.

And they most clearly do.

>>When Moses asked the same question, God replied “I AM that I AM” or “I shall be that I shall be”... From this statement, all other existence is derivative<<

With a small caveat.

You need a) to believe that God exists, in order to communicate this message, b) that God did actually somehow directly communicate this to Moses and c) that Moses reported this communication accurately, and didn't mishear something like "Well, I do what I can"

In sum, Descartes appears to give you licence to think and conceive anything you like, but the act of conceiving God does not bring him into existence for anyone else but yourself.

Anyway, this thread is supposed to elicit from you what form you believe God takes, not whether he exists or not.

So do tell, KatieO.

Is your God the one with the long flowing beard, who speaks to people from behind a cloud? Or perhaps Gerontius' "veilèd presence"?

Dear Pericles

You said:

You make the fundamental assumption that the Universe was actually "created"....

Actually no, I make the assumption that the grandure of Creation is enough for an open mind to percieve it's Creator. There is a difference.

Paul.... a man who encountered the risen Lord, says that this self evident truth is supressed by the wickedness of man.

You see.. if you look further afield to the ways people think in various countries and cultures, you will find a very common theme.
'Spirits..God...Creator'....

I wonder if it has occurred to you that the reason you don't believe is not lack of evidence, but a carefully crafted 'plausability structure' which has emerged with the so called enlightenment in Western countries?

The 'plausability' of God's existence has been assigned a very low value by those who saw it as being in their philosophical and/or (im)moral interests to have it so.
This then filters down into our education, art, and popular consciousness and one day people wake up and declare "Oh.. I can't see how there could be a Creator" and 'lo', they think they are being original :) It's only in Western Countries (including Socialist) that this issue even arises. The existence of God is not even a question anywhere else.

In Pauls case.. the post resurrection disciples case.. in my own case.. our faith depends on an encounter with a real person... a resurrected Lord. There are those who believe simply through faith.. as Jesus said to Thomas, just after Thomas had felt the wounds in his risen body "Blessed are those who have not seen, yet believe".

These truths are not 'weapons' only in a destructive sense Pericles..they are to pull down strongholds of false belief and no belief..... You have to tear down the old decrepid building before you can build the new one.....that's constructive.

BUGSY....you might give some deeper thought to Cogito ergo sum.... I don't think you have tapped it's true riches.
If that doesn't take you to a good place.. try a study of the resurrection of Christ.

"The existence of God is not even a question anywhere else." - India with it's 700million plus Hindu's possibly meets that criteria but then the ide of god is very different. Buddism seems to get by quite well without a god. Other faith systems have believed in a spirit world but nothing like the moothiests god. There is a lot of spin and misrepresentation in that post.

Perhaps we could also look at the civil rights/quality of life/human safety /warmaking records of those parts of the world where the idea of god is readily accepted compared to those where it has been largely left behind.

R0bert

This post has degenerated into an argument about whether God exists.

In this thread, for the sake of argument only, we make the following ASSUMPTION:

GOD EXISTS.

ASUMPTION: GOD EXISTS.

ASUMPTION: GOD EXISTS.

ASUMPTION: GOD EXISTS.

So let's quit arguing about whether God exists and assume that it does.

By that I mean an actual God whose existence is INDEPENDENT OF OUR IMAGINATION.

Now what sort of an entity would God be?

I hope the atheists here can uncouple the question of the existence of a deity from the various "GOD MODELS" punted by different religions. Let's forget about the koran, the bible or any other so-called "holy book" and try to derive the nature of our hypothetical God from first principle.

Let's also refrain from anthropomorphising God. It is no good calling God "capricious" if we do not know what purpose, if any, it had in creating the multiverse.

For all we know God is NOT omnipotent.

A related question is this:

DID GOD CREATE THE UNIVERSE FOR US?

ARE WE THE PURPOSE OF CREATION OR MERELY AN UNINTENDED SIDESHOW?

Steven

Settle down - what did you expect? That people would conform to your rules?

OK, in answer to your question; we are simply a sideshow. Compared to the immensity of the universe, planet Earth's placement in an arm of one of an uncountable galaxies, we are hardly at the centre of creation. We are deluded if we think that the entirety of the universe was created merely for us.

We are a part of something magnificent, but not its only purpose.

steven ,appologies are in order,
i had presumed your mind closed, clearly it isnt

i will respond to your restatement
[quote]..>>DID GOD CREATE THE UNIVERSE FOR US?..<<

my pa-Rents created my body[and my name]
education shaped my mind

as science confirms EVERY 'thing' has its cause

as we are the result
and human nature being what it is

no god did not 'make' the universe[ITY] for us
but for our accelorated learning that our SPIRITS grow up

[where i do support evolution[is in the evolution of spirit]
you see how clearly here[in this material realm]
we grow [mentally][ie our SPIRIT evolves

we begin as spirits animating our hearts to beat
then evolve though the life stages
[from helpless infant to helpless old person#

surely in this is a sign for the thinking man

as our minds questions reflect our spiritual actions
we ALL began our spiritual 'evolution'
as single cellular life forms

there are reportedly many realms[uncountable realms]
where we 'evolve' our spirits

many are now at the verge of the highest evolution
to become a realised sun of god

for the heavens have many 'stars'

all suns of the one good

[why call ye me good?;there is one good [god]

we are ALL destined to fully evolve as a new born again SUN
when we stop hiding our light
[unders these veils of flesh
[veil/veil/evil/live

to have our own 'let there be light' moment

but we can devolve as much as evolve
many of us reflect our previous beastly incarnations
but in time we 'evolve away from the childish things
and learn the meat of the matter

the sky will in time be reflecting our collective light
as we ALL become true SUNS of the one god

ARE WE THE PURPOSE OF CREATION
[no our elivation into suns of love[light life logic] is

we are close
getting better

ARE WE CLOSER OR or will we reject the love light a
nd be MERELY AN UNINTENDED SIDESHOW?...of course
we will get as we give
only god cant fail

Sorry, stevenlmeyer, I know this is supposed to be a thread on the nature of God, not its existence, but I can't let garbage like this pass without comment.

>>Pericles You said: You make the fundamental assumption that the Universe was actually "created".... Actually no, I make the assumption that the grandure of Creation is enough for an open mind to percieve it's Creator. There is a difference.<<

Creation requires a creator, Boaz. Without the specific act of "creation", there is no creator. Simple application of the English language.

You have taken the word "Creation", complete with its unnecessary capitalization, and provided it with "grandeur".

The universe we live in is indeed spectacular. Mind-bogglingly so. But is exists, Boaz. It doesn't need a specific act of "creation" in order for it to be "created" by a "creator".

And will you please stop making unqualified, outlandish and insupportable claims for witnesses.

>>Paul.... a man who encountered the risen Lord<<

When you say "encountered the risen Lord" you mean "claims to have had a vision of someone who was already dead".

Hardly the stuff of evidence, I would suggest.

Talking of which:

>>I wonder if it has occurred to you that the reason you don't believe is not lack of evidence...<<

Not lack, Boaz. Absence.

>>...but a carefully crafted 'plausability structure' which has emerged with the so called enlightenment<<

So are we now in the realms of conspiracy theory?

Can you think of any reason - since you introduce plausibility - who would be engineering this, and why?

>>"Blessed are those who have not seen, yet believe"<<

Aaaaah, the catch-cry of confidence tricksters throughout the ages. The medium at the seance. The huckster selling patent medicine. The property developer selling off the plan that doesn't have planning permission. The Nigerian widow with $5million "just for you".

Blessed indeed.

Poly,

Mass might not have existed in the early universe, only energy. When the temperature fell, fundamental particles were formed, these became quarks, forming electrons, neutrons and protons (and the anit-matter equalivents), elements and molecules are made from atoms. Proteins and amino acids are produced. Life.

Life exists in four dimensional space-time. Time is a dimension. Creation assumes cause and effect. Happenstance does not require creation, rather the formulation of time intertwinned with space.

The difference is subtle, to read, yet enormous with regards to its implications.

Time and space appear as the product of a transmutation of entropy.

Herein, a physical law govering entropy exists or it does not exist.

If it did not exist we would not be here. On the other hand, existence, I posit, therefore is a function of probability. We in our common lives see time as a passage. In an alternative differential frame, time is a requirement to accommodate thermodynamics. God is not required.

Also, do you see a the dissimilarity between Genesis and Matthew I have previously mention?

(I need check back at the old thread to check to see if you and our friend runner have addressed the Creation questions.)

BR,

O.

Hi Oly.. aaarrgh.. the Matthew and Genesis question? I must have missed it mate. As to the detailed physics issues you raise there.. I confess insufficient knowledge. I can only say that if the Almighty can create the universe (big Piccy stuff) He can also manage the micro :)

PErrrrICLES.

1/ "The hucksters" DO want your money :) we don't. We are not offering anything like luxury or wealth or anything other than a cross. Not exactly an attraction.

2/ Conspiracy Theory ? Hardly, just an emergence over time of a philosphical view, which is layered..one upon the other, with each layer taking society further from God.

3/ By 'Encounter' I mean exactly what Paul mean't in his trustworthy ancient document :) (see.. making a fuss can come back and bite ya in the polemical bum) 1 Cor 15:1ff Gal 1:11ff What Luke mean't in Acts 9 Who am I to add to it?

All of which leads to the conclusion:

"He is there, and He is not silent"
(Francis Schaeffer, Labri)

I must confess, I did put Descartes before the hoarse.

But Steven did try and exHume the topic.

Does anyone else wonder why God speaks with capslock on? If he were a blogger, noone would have taken him seriously.

More obfuscation, Boaz. You must be hoping that they make it an Olympic sport, you'd be guaranteed a trip to London in 2012.

>>"The hucksters" DO want your money :) we don't. We are not offering anything like luxury or wealth or anything other than a cross. Not exactly an attraction.<<

Luxury apartment? $4m. Ocean going yacht? $1.5m. Eternal Life? Priceless.

>>Conspiracy Theory ? Hardly, just an emergence over time of a philosphical view, which is layered..one upon the other, with each layer taking society further from God.<<

Then why make it sound like a conspiracy... "by those who saw it as being in their philosophical and/or (im)moral interests to have it so."?

>>By 'Encounter' I mean exactly what Paul mean't in his trustworthy ancient document :) (see.. making a fuss can come back and bite ya in the polemical bum)<<

As you are very well aware, even if the document may be described as trustworthy, the same does not apply to the content of that document.

Or had you, most conveniently, forgotten that already?

Paul hallucinated.

He says that his men either saw the light (and, amazingly, weren't blinded) but didn't hear the voice (Acts 22:9), or that they heard the voice, but didn't see the light (Acts 9:7) and that they stood speechless (Acts 9:7) or they fell to the ground (Acts 26:14) or that only he fell to the ground (Acts 22:7)

He wouldn't have lasted ten seconds in the witness box.

And you would be a shoo-in for the Olympic squad.

A slightly more sophisticated version of the tooth fairy?

Pericles: I had answered the entity question: "I am that I am" (caps off!) encapsulates the only possible type of supreme being that could lay claim to God-ness:

A God that exists independent of time and space and independent of the thinking mind. Beyond (but in control of) the four dimensions, with no beginning and no end.

Not an anonymous, impersonal God, but one that can be called by name. Not an alouf or inaccessible deity but one that breathes life into his creation.

Further, a God that cares about his Creation, and has a discernible presence in it.

The creator of all things, who derive their existence from Him, and are dependent on Him.

For the record, we are given the disembodied voice in the wilderness, declaring himself in human history.

If the Torah has given us a false account, then all recorded history is in disrepute.

If Jesus is the God entity, then his description of his unique character, makes perfect sense. Jesus' claims are gob-smackingly original:

bread of life?
morning star?
the giver of life?

etc.

And his God-qualities were verifiable:

- all powerful (over the natural elements, the supernatural, life and death, sickness; the power to bring salvation and restoration)
- omniscient: ability to predict the future
- omnipresent: the alpha and omega
- wisdom : original insight into God's character. Intimate knowledge of God.
- completely without blemish (sin)
- the word made flesh

Who else has ever brought these God-qualities to bear? Has raised the dead to life? Has had power to heal the sick or drive out the evil spirits? Can predict the hour of their own death? Can feed the multitude? Can calm the storm? Walk on water? Has lived, died and yet still lives? Who else could throw the stone at the adulteress? Who said that they would come again to judge the living and the dead ...

Jesus fulfills all my expectations of the God entity, as does his Father in heaven, as does the Holy Spirit who testifies the truth in all these things.

Oliver,
The theological position is we were made in the spiritual image of God and to bear the nature, character and our purpose as the purity of God desires. That is why there is a moral intention in our relationship with God. Humans are the only creature that is defined by civilised behaviour.

So your perspective "Through my eyes gods, are all too often an anthropomorphic projection of humanity and its societies". has similarities. God is revealed in character, attitudes, actions and wisdom, which are qualities of the human spirit

Katie O wrote:

"If the Torah has given us a false account, then all recorded history is in disrepute."

Dear Katie O,

Why should any recorded history depend on the truth of the Torah? There is no evidence for a world wide flood or other phenomena mentioned in the the Torah. Why should that put recorded history in disrepute?

davidf,

As my first degree is a BA (Hons) with a double major in History and English then when I use the phrase “recorded history”, I am describing the very specific process of recording history through written language.

I am not talking about the reconstruction of history through archaeology.

As the Torah has been accepted to varying degrees by the Samaritans and others as the authentic revealed message of God to the Israelites and as a factual history of the early Israelites, in both cases as conveyed by Moses, then it qualifies as an authentic “recorded history” (in so much as for Christians and Jews, it is also the revealed word of God, that is neither here nor there).

BTW davidf, I think you should take this up with your rabbi!

If God were to exist and we are to attribute the exisistence of the universe to him, he would certainly be a man.

Thoughtfully put together Adam and then just went to town on shape, form and looks, completely disregarding working parts, whilst putting together Eve. How like a man is that :)

Some of his designs have merit though, like marsupials. Practical and functional.

As ruler of this planet he is as moody and arbitrary as any average man. Benenvolent one day, showing who is boss the next.

So, God looks like a man, with or without a beard.

Other than that, I like Bugsy's description best. God is the universe. And as Fractelle pointed out, we are just a tiny, though pesky for its destructiveness, part of the whole. No more, no less important than the flies that bother us during a summer's day Barbie.

And just like those flies we're not even a Broadway sideshow really, that would be a tsunami of the magnitude experienced a few years back, or the explosion of Krakatoa in the 19th century, or the meteor strike in central America that wiped out whole species.

Planet Earth is a Broadway sideshow.

And what's more, if God is the Universe, then it bestows a stochastic mercy upon all, believers and non-believers alike. The Earth is nothing, it is as less than a grain of sand is to a planet with the cosmos.

Under this schema, the mercy of God is statistically calculable. Actuaries are the true priests, divining the probability of God's will and meting out rewards and punitive measures accordingly.

Dear Katie O,

We differ on a definition of history. History is not something that is received through revelation. History is constructed through documents and accounts of witnesses. The Torah contains a historical core which is overlaid by legendary material. It is not history. By the way the Torah is only part of the Jewish Bible. The Jewish Bible is in three parts, the Torah or five books of Moses, the prophets and the writings.

It's the other way around. The Bible has to be viewed in the light of recorded history. Prior to Abraham in Chapter 12 of Genesis the Torah is completely legend. From then on it has a great deal of legendary material. eg. The Book of Esther has absolutely no historical verification.

My rabbi does not consider the Torah history.

My darling partner says that God must have a penis.

Who am I to disagree?

Man, that thing must be BIG!

the 'PEN-is' mightier than the sword[but putting a human face upon god is a miss?-nomer]dwelling upon his genitelia,must be linked with i could not look upon his face ]

forgive me lord[i know what i say[and i know what i do]
but it will take a lot to wake up these aberant children of yours

you have displayed admirable patience
you have made life from dust[that returns to the dust once our life term is expired][and we ALL are reborn[according to our fruits[loves]

its a neat system[science tells us a few degrees'change'is enough to destroy it all]yet there are intelligent people out there who fail to see;some believers say it is because you make dull who thee chose[i know its not so]

i know you lord are of love[that you love life]
that when your beloved[favoured]angel refused your command[to bow before MERE clay[re refused from his adoration of you,he refused to bow before mere clay]

now in mans amasing ignorance they feel he tempts man to sin[saying the D-evil made me do it[they blaspheme thee further by saying that your beloved lamb dying[that his blood washes us free of sin[but lord knows mere washing cannot clean a veiled[vile]evil heart

but those GOOD and true realise your still quiete voice is all loving,that you are not to be'controled by spell nor spelling of words,
that you live not in the pages of dead books BUT IN LIVE TIME,real time[all through 'time' in the ever NOW#];live time[all the time],not to judge life but to sustain all living to live

indeed that you may be known in REAL time for all time[and beyond]
known by your sure signs[life sustained by thy light
and logic[sustained by your love[into wisdom]

but only they who know your great love for thy creation
can ever hope to know thee
that we need only TRY to love it[as thy does]

to unite into the one atonement[at one meant]anytime we hear thy bloving[living]logical voice;con-scienc[in word or in life]
well may we say

AHHH-men
we see the joke
pen-is empty

The crucial points are defining what you consider a monotheistic 'god' to be. As it stands, it's merely a one syllable word with various interpretations.

Allow me to put forward a chain of reasoning, which I don't think can really be disputed. If anyone can pick holes, feel free, but please, leave the ritualistic scriptural nonsense at the door. Even if you believe them, scripture bears no relevance to this chain of logic.

As Bugsy pointed out - if god has all these characteristics, it would have to be as big as the universe, or even simply BE the universe.

To me, intelligence and omniscience are incompatible. Intelligence is learning. Omniscience can't learn - to admit god is an intelligence, is to admit there are things god does not know.

If there are things god does not know, then by simple reasoning, god is capable of making mistakes.

Therefore, we are left with two possibilities - a god that is omniscient, but can't be called a decision-making intelligence, or a god that can make decisions but is capable of making the wrong ones.

I suspect most religious seem to reject the latter. I dunno why, it seems like a much better explanation to me, but hey, whatever floats your theistic boat.

On the other hand, if we have a god that is all seeing, but can't make changing decisions, then we may as well have nothing. That would merely be fate - nothing can change its direction, it's predestined. Therefore, everything we do is irrelevant.

So, enter the 'free will' clauses of various world religions. If indeed free will has a role to play, then the 'all seeing' god has just been scotched. If we have free will, then god doesn't know what we're going to do.

Which means we're left with a god capable of screwing up, which adds a more 'human' dimension as it were ;).

Perhaps instead of praying, we should be offering advice and helpful hints from below. After all, I think it's been a while since the customer feedback forms were filled in.

" ... He wouldn't have lasted ten seconds in the witness box. ... "

Some of these people? All it comes down to is hearsay. Someone said in the book therefore its true. No evidence or otherwise and the final catch is they have to bow their ____ing heads to the priest.

So, so gross. Oooooo!

Is this part of the reason why poms won't have catholics in the top job? Completely irrational and all they care about is their stupid little "rules" and their barstardised book.

Makes me wonder what the other "ignobles" were thinking at ol Henry # 8's time. Mayb *Runner,* for Christ's sake let him get into a bit of the burning bush lest he take up butchering peasants for sport on the weekend.

But no, something to do with having to bow yr ____ing heads and they care more about that than anything else.

Not that I approve, but u can see the frustration of the butcher's in beijing. Serious population problem creating serious problems but no, u have these halfwits running around compliantly bowing to some noodle's anti contraception view - a precedent set by a former representative of the great noodle.

Now how is that any different in essence to Islamic Sharia? That is to say, irrespective of the law of the state, becoz the delusional twit in rome says no contraception and no abortion that when they get hold of someone vulnerable, they seek to influence them not according to the law of the state, but according to their own view.

"?" The mind boggles. I haven't read it, mayb I shld. A local Uni txt:
"Why men seek Lords"

And for *BoazY* especially, I offer the local Islamic version of the Abraham story, noting that despite the same alleged historic origins, the end result is quite different and yet the kinks and parallels can be seen. So ..

*Ibrahim* was a silly poppet. And, becoz *Ibrahim* was a silly poppet he was also poor and could not afford a goat for the blood ritual, that in the "magical etheric" release of energy, he might see into the Spirit world and know El Goddo's plan for him. Times were tuff.

So, he takes it upon himself to knock off one kid for the greater benefit of the rest of the family, being convinced that above all things, that El GoddO demands that the ritual be done and commune had.

Fortunately, someone's got wind of what's going on, rung the bell, and the local "rich" guy (the angel) turns up with a goat, sets silly Ibrahim straight and all is well.

The "magic" of the divine for these people is that everyone was in the right place at the right time and it all worked out.

Thereafter, for these simple folk, a "graven image" is not merely a picture on a cup or otherwise, but rather any "fallible" human concept/thing.

To them, El Goddo is just too awesome for "words."

Don't u find it curious that in the "Christian" version the point of the story is that *Ibrahim* bowed his head (and sent his child into some God Forsaken criminal war.)

Innocent children being swept away by flood waters, toddlers drowning in back yard pools, young siblings falling into the sea and drowning, father as well, innocent people being run down and killed by drunken fools, fools that apparently became drunk, drove their cars and killed under the watchful eye of this so called god, toddlers being struck down with shocking illnesses, often fatal and you followers flock to your places of worship by the thousands to praise the works of this so called god, the all mighty. That is providing he didn't tear your roof off it in one of his fits of rage (storm).

All I can say is that He, she, it - what every you followers call it would have to be the cruellest thing ever to draw breath, that is if it exists other than in your minds.

For the record, I don't have a problem with people who chose to follow god, but why do you have to ram your beliefs down my throat at every opportunity.

Now once someone can offer an explanation as to why your god does this to 'his children' as you often refer, then I will start to give serious consideration as to whether or not there is a god.

Rehctub

Perhaps God is utterly indifferent to what happens to humans.

We occupy one planet orbiting one star in one galaxy. That galaxy is one of billions. In fact the number of galaxies in our universe may be infinite.

It is possible that our entire universe is one of many, perhaps an infinite number, embedded in a multiverse.

So maybe God just sets things up and lets events run their course. Maybe God does not track what happens to individuals on any planet let alone Earth.

Christians punt a "loving God." Muslims keep saying "Allah is merciful."

BUT HOW WOULD THEY KNOW?

The bible is a bit of interesting history interspersed with much legend.

The koran is a compendium of seventh century claptrap.

The real actual God, assuming such exists, is probably nothing like the deities depicted in any human "scripture."

What the atheists here are really saying is this:

GOD DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE VISION OF GOD DEPICTED IN THE KORAN / BIBLE THEREFORE GOD DOES NOT EXIST.

That is not a logical argument. It's as bad as Muslims saying I know about God because of the koran.

It's like saying the real Einstein was not like the avuncular figure depicted in some biographies therefore Einstein never existed.

I EXPECTED BETTER OF ATHEISTS.

Unshackle your minds from human scripture and try and figure out what sort of entity God could be. AND STOP ANTHROPOMORPHISING.

stevenlmeyer,

Your comment

What the atheists here are really saying is this:

GOD DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE VISION OF GOD DEPICTED IN THE KORAN / BIBLE THEREFORE GOD DOES NOT EXIST.

Is not an accurate summation.

We know that God does not exist, and merely trying to understand why humanity has the need for a god figure, and exploring the forms created within the different religions.

As his existance is a matter of faith and cannot be proved one way or another debate on this is futile.

Your requirements for an intelligent debate are totally unreasonable, stevenlmeyer.

But you are as guilty of fuzzy thinking as any of us, I'm afraid.

>>Perhaps God is utterly indifferent to what happens to humans... maybe God just sets things up and lets events run their course. Maybe God does not track what happens to individuals on any planet let alone Earth.<<

It might be useful, given the above, if you were to give us some idea of what, in your opinion, God is?

The concept of God is primarily used to comfort people who cannot imagine there not being "someone out there" looking after their interests. Therefore the idea of an indifferent God cannot by definition exist - what would be the point?

>>Unshackle your minds from human scripture and try and figure out what sort of entity God could be<<

You have two problems with this request.

Atheists already know that God is a mental construct, and can only exist in the minds of people who believe in it. If you ask them to "imagine what sort of entity it might be", you are asking them to imagine what it might be like to actually believe in one - there is no abstract concept to work with, since the definitions are all entirely personal.

Similarly, religious people already know exactly what their God looks like, what it says, what it does, and what it will do to them if they transgress whatever rules it has laid down. There is no imagination required. All the images, rules, laws, rewards and punishments have all been determined and prescribed. They are able to conveniently ignore that all these images, rules, laws, rewards and punishments were actually drawn up by humans, and find it puzzling when others do not share the same illusions that they do.

If you are looking for new ideas on the topic, stevenlmeyer, I think you may need to ask a different question.

Oh, I see that you already have. I'll pop over and take a look.

Philo,

Would you adopt the position that non-Christians even pagan Roman and Creeks of antiquity worshipped owing to the presence of the Holy Spirit? There seem to have respected divinity and anthromorphised characteristics. Interestingly, they felt monothesism, atheistic, wherein one must believe in a gods to be a theist.

O.

turnLEFTturnrightQUOTE..>>Even if you believe them, scripture bears no relevance to this chain of logic..<<

the topic is what sort of entity is god


so as the scriptures are key
not quoting them seems an absurdity
i give that god can be found without them
but they do give great pointers

[verfiable faulsifiables in fact]
[that havnt been disproven

..>>Omniscience can't learn - to admit god is an intelligence, is to admit there are things god does not know..<<

here is an aid for you to see
see a mere fly has 100,s of 'eye's

see that every eye connects to logus[logic]
all seeing is equivelent to omnipresence ,

what our eyes see [our ears hear]
so does he[LOGUS/logic]
reveal to the seer what he sees[hears]

god is NOT capable of making mistakes
,because logic
is the act of seeing hearing knowing.

[see he is yet on his sabbath;7th day]

you cant understand the full meaning of gods 7 th day sabbath by doimg anything ,

only by forcing thyself to do nix[nothing]
to as thy father
[light sustaing life via love into logic]

and to have ULTIMATE faith
thy children have logic deserving of their fathers trust

..>>On the other hand, if we have a god that is all seeing, but can't make changing decisions, then we may as well have nothing..<<

think of it as a parent
allowing his own beloved child to fall

knowing it isnt real
[KNOWing death or permant injury to his spirit'being'[avitar] isnt really real
because good [via god] alone
is alowed reality in the place the father resides
[our hearts united by the one love]

..>>That would merely be fate - nothing can change its direction, it's predestined. Therefore, everything we do is irrelevant..<<

every-'thing' has its conception AND enactment[deed/fruit]

doing nothing is not an option[we either eat or die]
when we die
we soon real-ise were not dead]

[we then find out then every thing we did do was relivant]

that we loved to do more will be given

EVEN that doo doo we didnt do
yet has its fruits

"whether there exists an entity that could be described as God, the creator of the universe... What sort of being would he / she / it be?"

Our limited human minds tend to look for concepts that we can understand. However, reality need not conform to our personal limitations.

Conceptualizing that God is either an "entity", "creator" or "being" is an attempt to reduce God to our level, which is ridiculous.

Any attempt to provide a positive statement about God would only reduce Him, or more accurately, would give us a reduced false image of Him. The most we can say is what God is not - in fact, everything we can ever come up with, He is not.

On the other hand, nothing exists, or can ever exist, that is not God.
This includes not only "things", but also our own experiences:
all that we experience, or can ever experience, is God - nothing else exists.

Yuyutsu,

Given infinite indeterminancy, proability and the nature of entropy and thermodynamics, and, that, time itself a dimension, we don't need a Creator. The universe Is, and, necessarily must Be. Where It is, It is. Where It is not, It is not. That is, what the Universe is. It is; not I am.

Oliver,

I fail to see how your discussion of physics, supposedly as a response to what I wrote, is related to this topic:

God's nature (for lack of words - please do not imply that I say here that God has a nature) does not depend on whether the world that we live in requires a creator or not.

Posted by Oliver, Wednesday, 26 November 2008 12:17:49 PM

..>>Given infinite indeterminancy..>>

given it is a real word/,
INFINITE INTERMEDIATE IS A NONSENSE
>>..pro-ability and the nature of en-tropy..<<

again with the words that have your SPELL-ing
yet so vague and ineffectual so as to be revealed as fluff

please explain more about the terms you feel are a fullsum response

>>..and thermodynamics,..<
wtf?
#
..>> and, that, time itself a dimension,...<<

time is a dimen-sion?
please verify if you really believe this
hoew does one measure progress through your [this ] dimension?

of which you speak?

your rambelings are quite ridiculous to a thinking person

[regardless its just the inane rambling of words,
not any validation[nor proof]

just mindless buzz words

..>>we don't need a Creator.<<.

ok reveal your PROOF
try to use real words

..>>The universe Is, and, necessarily must Be..<<

please verify how it must have?
why it must be ?
how it can not be #?[if faulsifiable]

it is
thus it is being
as it is[in time]

>>.. Where It is, It is.
Where It is not, It is not...<<

that is an absurdity yet again

if it is
it is[FULLstop]

if it is not
where it is not
this is subject to being validated

how you know where it is ,is not really validation
thus it has nothing

..>> That is, what the Universe is.
It is;..>>

glad we agree on something

no idea what the heck proof the last bit is
>>.. not I am...<<

of course you are not[lol]

but i can prove you are because i read your words
thus you are that as i feel you are[at a minimum]

as cert-ified by me saying
you are

because i am verifying that you are visably responding
to the known known that i am[such as i am revealing such as you are]

The claim that three million people heard God speak appears in every intact Torah scroll ever found:

http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/proof-torah-true.htm

http://torahideals.wordpress.com/2008/08/01/what-is-the-definition-of-objective-history/

That is 3 million eyewitness accounts of a single event in history (Mass hypnosis? Outright lie?).

You might not be orthodox davidf, but to relegate the Torah to the realm of myth and allegory is surely beyond even the reformists?

Let’s then ask a different Rabbi. Rabbi Dr. Dovid Gottlieb, gives very good insight into the verification of the biblical record:

http://ohr.edu/yhiy/article.php/2053

“But in the case of the Bible, archaeology has revealed the exact opposite. Archaeology has uncovered a myriad of details, details that the Bible records about the quality of life and the conditions of life of the Patriarchs which turn out to be accurate to the last detail. These details are accurate in ways that are utterly inexplicable if you think that this is a normal process of myth formation. “

At the very least, the Torah is a record of Jewish and Christian history, and in important part of the historical record for the Middle East.

I would venture to say, as Dr Gottlieb suggests, that it should be the benchmark by which all other historical texts are tested.

Dear Katie O,

If you want to believe that everything in the Torah is true then you will believe it. If the Torah relates that 3,000,000 people heard the word of God all that means is that some unknown person wrote that 3,000,000 people heard the word of God. It does not mean that the statement is fact. The only fact is that some unknown person wrote that 3,000,000 people heard the word of God.

There are four ways to regard the Bible. Homiletic or preaching, literal, allegory and hidden meaning. Many Jewish, Catholic and Protestant clergy make the Song an allegory – the love between Yahweh and Israel, the love between Christ and the church and, the love between God and man’s soul respectively. That is one part of the Bible that I take literally as an erotic love poem. Go argue with the clergy who think it's an allegory.

The Bible is neither a history book nor a science text. Claiming that it is history does not make it history. It is not true that archaeology verifies the bible. There is no archaeological evidence of the tumbling walls of Jericho.

Steve, you are confusing me. You want atheists to start from the premise that God exists and from that view address what S/he looks like and whether we're a sideshow or not, yet are unhappy with the replies.

For atheists God is a human mental contruct, like fairies. You could ask what do fairies look like and what role do they have in our lives.

I know there are people who believe in fairies and I've spoken with people who will swear on all that is dear to them that they have seen and spoken to fairies. Or Angels for that matter.

In fact, I have a sister in law who is speaking on a daily basis with angels. Her life and those of her children is still a sad mess in spite of inside info from higer up.

Humans explore why we should be good and lead good lives. A great number of us are first good because we do not want to get into trouble with our parents. When we outgrow that many of us look for another 'parent'. God fulfills that role.

Those of us who cannot believe in a God the question is 'why be good and live good lives when nobody is watching us'. What are the rewards.
On that I'd love to have a discussion.

It really is quite irrelevant what kind of entity God is. The issue is whether a God is necessary for a person to live a good life. And I'm not speaking of the material sense here when referring to a good life.

Hey Steve

If a concept which relates to the entities which is described as the creator in many religions exists, I very much doubt if it is anything like the one written about in those desert books. We all know Christianity and Islam are based on Judaism and Judaism is a made up fairy tale which was used to manipulate the masses. So to try and think god is anything like the god described by a group of people in a desert a few thousand years ago is about as likely as god being like the one the Greeks created like Atlas or the pagan one who stone henge was created for.

I don’t think we will ever know of the thing we call god because to find it we would have to go out of this universe or it would have to choose to show itself to us. Besides with our current technology it’s impossible to contemplate infinity and if we want to understand the thing we call god we will have to be able to grasp infinity because infinity is how long it would have existed for.

It does not matter anyway in a few hundred years or thousand we ourselves will be gods with the technology we will posses we will be able to do anything inside the laws of physics and quite possibly outside them as well. Then we will create our own universes and wait a few billion years until some beings evolve in that universe and start looking to the skies and asking the same questions as we are now…

"God's nature (for lack of words - please do not imply that I say here that God has a nature) does not depend on whether the world that we live in requires a creator or not." - Yuyutsu

By world do you mean univserse or this world? If you mean the universe can be ceated without God, I would say physics is likely to demonstrate that highly plausible, within the next decade, using partile accelerators.

Further, if you are saying, there is a God, yet, said God, is not the creator of the Universe; well, that is an interest suggestion. What would be the qualities of said God, and how might those qualities be supported? By what means would the God be conscious/sentient? Would the God experience cause and effect, in the absence of time?

Yuyutsu and Poly,

Most importantly, how many perfections are there? If there is only one perfect state, how can God transition between states?

If there is one perefect state or infinite perfect states, or, any number in between, God is subject to the laws of mathematics, as mathermatics relates to the Set of States for the Realm of God.

Cheers,

Oly.

davidf,

How could 3,000,000 people collaborate such a lie?

The first link is a response to your brush off the witness of 3,000,000 people.

Or show me even one, credible account which repudiates the Torah.

While there is great beauty in the Torah, it is no erotic love poem.

Chronicle of the greatest tragedy in the history of mankind (the fall from grace) perhaps...

The last link has a closer look at Jericho:

"Kathleen Kenyan excavated Jericho. She says the best date we have for the entry of the Jewish people into the land of Israel is 1400 B.C.E. ....a hundred and fifty year gap between the destruction of Jericho and the entry of the Jewish people into the land. Therefore she concludes that the Jews couldn't have been the ones responsible for destroying Jericho. They just attributed it their ancestors....

Now how does she arrive at her conclusion that Jericho was destroyed no later than 1550 B.C.E.? ....She based her argument on the absence of imported Cypriot pottery. A certain style of pottery from Cyprus was imported into the area from 1550 to 1400 B.C.E., and she found none of it at Jericho. Therefore she concluded that Jericho must have been destroyed earlier than 1550 B.C.E.

But this conclusion is very weak. It can be attacked in at least four different ways.

(1) Method: conclusions based on what you don't find are always weak (see below).

(2) She herself says that Jericho was not on any of the major trade routes - is that where you expect to find imported pottery?

(3) She sank two shafts into what she herself describes as the poor section of the city. Is that where you expect to find imported pottery?

(4) She totally ignored the dating of local pottery which had been found in earlier excavations which do come from dates later than 1550 B.C.E.

.... I won't speculate what leads to this kind of sloppy argumentation. But surely we don't have to give up our views in the face of criticism like this!"

*Anansi*
" ... Those of us who cannot believe in a God the question is 'why be good and live good lives when nobody is watching us'. What are the rewards. On that I'd love to have a discussion. ... "

It takes me back to the Black Hole. That partially observable "thing" that has corporeal existence, the singularity nexus and non corporeality on the "other side."

Some of the El GoddO concepts purports to offer something in relation to this don't they? Afterall, I think its more likely than not that if there is on going existence on offer after the death of the flesh, that the majority of people are into it, especially if yr life is miserable or mediocre and unfulling in real terms or imagined.

There is the suggestion from some too that perception into the non-corporeal for corporeal advantage is also on offer.

Are there non-corporeal entities that have at times in the history of this place shared our corporeal existence, mutually accomplished some amazing things and then gone elsewhere in the aftermath.

As opposed to old books, is there on offer a 1 on 1 relationship with said entity, from non-corporeality via energy to consciousness?

Or is it just weird pathology, from say those who channel the energy of sexuality like a serpent up the spine into the brain via liturgy and ritual or otherwise that along with good genetics and environmental factors occasionally produces some genuinely highly evolved, caring contributors who bring great benefit to Humanity as a whole?

Or just plain old "mad hatters tea party?"

"By world do you mean universe or this world?" - Oliver.

Either way, God's "nature" does not depend on either needing a creator or not.

To both Oliver and EasyTimes: it may or may not be plausible for someone to be able to create world(s), but I wouldn't consider that a big deal and it certainly doesn't make one a god. While he/she (the creator) may perhaps even be worshiped and revered by creatures of such worlds, you and I know that it is still the same fragile, weak, limited and scared human as before - perhaps turned into some kind of a demi-god, but not God.

Creating worlds and directing life within those worlds can be a fun pastime, but all it makes us is big kids with brighter toys: it is still all physical, there is nothing spiritual about it.

Attempting to place God within any context diminishes Him (not HIM of course, only our perception). Even claiming that He "exists" or "creator of the universe" is to infinitely limit what God is. "Creation" is only meaningful to beings that live in time.

So, your questions, Oliver, such as "What would be the qualities of said God", "By what means would the God be conscious/sentient" or "Would the God experience cause and effect" are utterly beside the mark. If such questions were answerable, then we wouldn't be talking about God, but only about some kind of a demigod (and personally, I wouldn't waste my time discussing such creatures).

Perfection? again, this is meaningless when attributed to God - even "perfect" would constitute a limitation, derived by our fickle minds.

EasyTimes, I liked that you wrote: "I don’t think we will ever know of the thing we call god". Well of course, there is no such "thing" as God - because God is not a "thing"!

David F....I almost agree with you.

You said, regarding the Song of Solomon:

"That is one part of the Bible that I take literally as an erotic love poem."

I would drop the word 'erotic' and replace it with 'pure'.

In that song the man and woman celebrate the beauty and joy of manhood and womanhood in connection with their love for each other.
There is not a hint of 'eroticism' in any other way than the natural expression of love...rather than lust. The words are clear in the way they emphasize love and place the joy of the physical in that context. 'Desire outside of love is Lust' in my view.

The reason the Song of Solomon is used in the NT as an allegory for Christ and the Church is BECAUSE of that purity in the song.

"All night long on my bed, I looked for the one my heart loves" (3:1)

"heart" says it all

Steven, if God exists as Creator of universes then he was 'before the beginning' a spirit ie a lifeforce with no physical properties, but all potential to monitor and control energy.

The more we learn about the physical world the more we realise that the solid is just energy. The Haldron Particle Accelerator is designed to find the particle which carries the energy, for pete's sake!

Physics will probably eventually arrive where the Hindus were 3000 years ago and decide that the universe is just an illusion- and ask questions about awareness and consciousness and how we all create the world around us. God=life=awareness,if he exists at all.

Needless to say God cannot be anything like the gods of the Books-that's just too scary.

Yuyutsu,

So you would not have the various scriptures' descriptions of God valid. The capacity to create a universe or organic life is high-technology, perhaps in our own reach given a few more centuries of scientific understanding. Tou allude some an approximation of the one solution of the Mind-Body debare and also the Greek concept of perfect forms extended to meta-pefection. By what process did you articulate your concept?

Poly,

Without checking, if memory serves, the parts of the Song of Solomon, not delivered in marriage cerimonies is quite deviate. The offerring up of daughters to be raped? As I said, I need to check that one.

O.

Polycarp wrote:

"David F....I almost agree with you.

You said, regarding the Song of Solomon:

"That is one part of the Bible that I take literally as an erotic love poem."

I would drop the word 'erotic' and replace it with 'pure'.

In that song the man and woman celebrate the beauty and joy of manhood and womanhood in connection with their love for each other.
There is not a hint of 'eroticism' in any other way than the natural expression of love...rather than lust. The words are clear in the way they emphasize love and place the joy of the physical in that context. 'Desire outside of love is Lust' in my view."

Dear Polycarp,

In my view a healthy lust is great. I lust for my wife and for other women. I don't do anything about the lust for other women, but I see nothing wrong in having the feeling. There is nothing wrong with eroticism. I would accept your addition but not your subtraction. The Song is a pure erotic love poem.

The red rose breathes of passion,and the white rose breathes of love.
For the red rose is a falcon, and the white rose is a dove.
So let me send you a cream white rose with a flush at its petaled tips
Because even the purest and sweetest of loves has the blush of desire on its lips.

Love is best wrapped in healthy lust.

"So you would not have the various scriptures' descriptions of God valid." - Oliver

I wouldn't go that far, only that scriptures in general do not even touch on God (nor can they). While it may be possible that authors of scriptures had contact with and were guided by beings much more powerful and knowledgeable than us, perhaps even a creator of this universe, as far as I am concerned, the fact that the authors were able to make positive statements about such beings, indicates that they were only referring to some demi-gods (such as what you, Oliver, hope to become one day). This is fine in itself and can even be beneficial, but we must understand that it is still all within the physical realm, neither spiritual nor about God.

It is absolutely impossible to describe God - one can only say what God is not, and it was a remarkable achievement of the early Hebrews to understand that God is not made of silver, or wood or stone, etc. Later on, the Jewish Rambam (1135-1204) attempted with some success to strengthen and purify monotheism by stripping away even further many common material beliefs about "attributes of God" - yet even he did not go all the way and still allowed god to have some basic attributes, such as "existing", "primordial", "master of the universe", "omniscient" and "rewarding".

The closest religious philosophy that I know of to deal with the issue of God while carefully avoiding the pitfall of positive statements, is the Hindu school of Advaita Vedanta (you can have a glimpse of it in http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/ad-phil.html ). Having been fortunate to be exposed to it, then based on my own experience I continue to develop my own thoughts and conclusions.

Yuyutsu or anybody else – What is the definition of a god? What qualities makes something a god?

David F I think we have a different definition of 'lust'.

I don't equate it with sexual desire..but with "improper" sexual desire.

I guess it comes back to the individual a bit.

You said:

"In my view a healthy lust is great. I lust for my wife and for other women. I don't do anything about the lust for other women, but I see nothing wrong in having the feeling."

Well.. as Jesus said "if a man lusts after a woman he has already committed adultery with her in his heart"

The Lord knows our hearts..and perhaps if wifey was not around, or.. if we knew she could not catch us.. and the other party is willing.....who knows where we might go?

You don't 'do' anything about the feeling you have for other women.....
but you did :) you felt it..and obviously if your words mean anything..it sounds like you sympathetically entertain the idea of fooling around with them.

I'm also guilty of being aware of sexually attractive females. But I also know that to sympathetically entertain such ideas is wrong..so I don't dwell on it.

My life experience tells me that when you know the person you love is thinking "Oh..I'd love to hump that person" or something like that.. you won't be happy.. unless you are unique :)

I still don't agree that you 'lust' after your wife.. that is normal desire, appropriately chanelled.

You wrote:

"Well.. as Jesus said "if a man lusts after a woman he has already committed adultery with her in his heart""

Dear Polycarp:

The above is part of the outrageous nonsense in Christianity. Jesus was terribly wrong if he did say that. The difference between thinking of doing something and doing something is tremendous. That is one of the many nasty statements in the New Testament which create an inordinate sense of guilt. It is absolute bilge.

david f,

In the early centuries of the current era, erotic dreams where a real concern for Christians. Sin in thought applied even in sleep.

"Yuyutsu or anybody else – What is the definition of a god? What qualities makes something a god?" - EasyTimes

Since you wrote "god" with a small 'g' and preceded it with an "a", then there are a multitude of definitions around, all subject to individual taste: I personally would not bother too much about it, but if so inclined, you are welcome to play this game of checking whether or not Zeus falls within your favourite definition.

But if you refer to God, then no definition is possible and no quality or combination of qualities whatsoever can make anything God (well of course, God is not a thing!).

All I can give you here are methods to tell what is NOT God:

* If *it* is something, then *it* is not God.
* If you can positively attribute any qualities to *it* (including even "existence"), then *it* is not God.
* If there is anything besides *it* (including yourself!), then *it* is not God.
* If you have a concept about *it*, then all you have is a concept - rather than God.

Oliver wrote:

"In the early centuries of the current era, erotic dreams where a real concern for Christians. Sin in thought applied even in sleep."

Dear Oliver,

Thanks for that. Christianity seems to have a lot of archaic beliefs coming from a time where people confused dreams with reality, equated thinking of doing somethingwith doing it and believd in demons.

Polycarp quoted something about demons from the NT. When I asked him if he believed in demons he didn't answer.I will ask him again.

Dear Polycarp,

You have cited a passage referring to driving out demons. Do you believe in demons? If you don't why do you cite the passage?

davidf decries demons
thus would decry angels

as hard as it is to accept
they are perfectly valid

we have physical deformities made'perfect'with'plastic'surgery
but no matter how'perfect'[outside]
at death our inside[spirit]alone remains

some spirits are quite beastly[well deserving of being described as demons]

think of wolves in human form[much like athiests ganging up in packs here]

we see the vitriol cast forth from their lips[on the spitiual level,we attract more of what we eminate[more shall be given]

had athiests 2 de sight they would feel their anger attracts demons to feed of the anger[in the'heat'of the moment demons come to warm their selves[feed]from your negative eminations[emmisions]

it is reminded that our flesh form formed in two FLAT halves
they curved arround and joined at the'midline'[we also have the left brain controling the right side of our body]

the signs are there for people to realise

each person is spiritually a marrage[think of it as the ultimate debate cure]two opposing spirits need to prove their theory
thus unite into one flesh[you/me etc]

demons[and angels]are spirit forms of their relitive groupings,its more complicated than can be explained here[read swedenberg]

anyhow our freewill comes from the input of these angels/demons]
our acts resolve their debate[i[you]are chosing with every thought
to enact it or suppress it

[our lives end when the debate has its clear victor
[or the debate fails resolution[far more common]

it touches into who is too blame[the angel,me or the demon]

regardless this is the spirit that animates us all by gods love [uncondoitional love of both sides]

and we the'new'entity created from this spi-ritual mar-rage

well may you say the jinn dont egsist
but think

it is only by their wispering it into your mind
that you know it is so

you cant validate nor prove a negative
but by judging the tree by its fruit

by our deeds do we reveal who our works are serving to re unite us with
and in which realm

ignore the bad
love the good[god]you cant go wrong

when our bodies are disolved our heart reveal our inner true being
who we served

Dear oug,

There are neither demons nor angels. Grow up. an atheist is not a ravening wolf but merely someone who does not accept fairy tales. Maybe some day you will grow up.

OneunderGod,

Yes, there must be daemons, Richard Baxter (1691) notes that so many incubi had "sexual congress with women" (Sagan) that, "'tis impudence to deny it". Moreover, these cunny incubi whom at night "comingled" with women, often chose nuns, and anstonishingly the incubus took on the appearance of the priest-confessor! Fancy that!

But don't blame stormy wather on the incubi and sccubi, witches are responsible for storms (Cacaubon, 1668).

p.s. Daemon in Greek means knowledge (which can be used to deceive), not horrific appearance as typically portrayed.

So *dAVId* A hypothetical. Imagine yr in bed. U've been on holiday and with yr wife all week and she is tired, cranky and not in the mood.

U r in the mood. Got the proverbial itch so to speak
AND
U start to fantasize about hot babes (or whatever turns u on) generally.
Old flames ebb out of yr sub conscious and merge in producing some really nice feelings & memories

AND

well, thinking about wifey is just a downer at this point so u stay with the fantasies

AND well, wakey, wakey, hands on snakey ..

Now, just to clarify, are u saying that yr ok with this kind of self expression and don't find it an act of being unfaithful to yr misses?

Or something else perhaps?

david f, said, "There is no archaeological evidence of the tumbling walls of Jericho". WRONG!

Jericho is built on a earthquake fault line, as I have seen discussed recently on ABC TV.

For those wishing to define God by spatial concepts I am afraid they have failed - they have no concept of the spiritual. Please define love or forgiveness as an entity. We can describe its chemistry as affecting the human mind and the responses to it given. But it is not of itself physical, yet both have reality.

ok using logic it is easy to discount'demons'
but if you believe in the after life define what you believe

ie only good get born again[into spirit?
give me that god LOVED all living their lives to live

that god LOVES the repentant sinner
[re the long lost son that squandered his inheritance]

ok lets work on explaining that one
to 'give'his estate [or half of it]the father owning it thus lived on the mercies of his son

for the other would have demaded his[fair is fair]
one squander his[then realises his father treated his worker better than his master worked him[the sqanderor]who realises he would rather serve his dad as servant[cause he is fair]

thing is his father welcomes his long lost son
but not to his own farm
his fayher is as bonded as his brother shall be

he ordered a fatted calf killed for the feast[but the father no longer owned it]

but im drifting away from the point
point is god loves a repentant sinner
thus sinners too will be born again

no one is in hell for eternity[ok hell is timeless] but it is reported no satan dwell ]s or rules there
thus satan has earned his repentance[or remains in this HIS realm]

either way[HEell and HEaven] are where our true spirit is revealed
the suns of light [good] god]
and those in the cold dark hell

we have seen how a face changes in anger/fear[and shines with love/hope etc

our spirits too have clear expression[we have seen those carmiclly physiclly looking like mutants ,in this life [how much more their spiritually naked form is beyond my needing to know, for now]

but see that our spirits arise intact
that neither injury or plastic surgery trancends us in death
our rejected imperfections are perfectly revealed in thec light [as i is done in the darkness]
we arnt just talking about looks[its a smell, sight and sound thing these heavens AND THESE HELLS

jesus revealed our fathers HOUSE [has many rooms[heaven amnd hell are just opposite wings of the fathers manson

continued

Dear Steven,
I assume you are talking about the maker of heaven and earth. If I assume wrong please forgive me.
The first thing is God is good. second he is light. third he is Spirit. fourth he is positive with no shadow or turning he never changes. Fifth he is supreme. sixth God is Love and Life
The god most people have described is the god of this earth,
an imposter who Adam chose above his heavenly father.
Satin the god of this system is bad. he is dark but presents himself as am angel of iight. third he is a spirit [small s}. fourth he is negative and always changing. He is not supreme but a created being. not omnipresent but limited to one place at one time. He is found around death.
Man is created in the image of God for the power of life and death is in our tongue .We will meet God after death and the words of our mouth will justify or condenm us. If You can't get a picture from this try speaking words of encouragment, then words of critism and observe the different actions they cause. Happy hunting God Bless

Am I the only one who finds Oneundergods postings to look and read like some of those tedious, incomprehensible 'modern' poetry pieces that I never managed to understand during English Lit at High School?

Yuyutsu, you beautifully expressed the answer to the initial question.

continued

each vile has its own room
all lovers of murder get the same room
all rapusts get the same room[different rooms]
all thiefs can only steal from the 'othetr' thieves [in their room]

ie more shall be given
our father has untold ammount's of room'sss

each filled with gods children doing their loves
[be they love of peerversion or love of others]

those who hate god for this reason or that
all got their OWN ROOMS
doing that they love ONLY TO EACH OTHER
[sorting the wheat from the chaff, the sheep from the goats etc ]

the lowest hell has those who did do adultery
or that thier activly adulterated that good and true

[adulterated gods words],
took from others the love of god
each creations true inheritance

thing is by giving evil that it loves to do
they soon realise it isnt much fun being with the worst phycopaths in time

and in time hate that gross-ness they thought to love
but clearly dont love them
as the seed we sewed reap their harvest

in short they repent
but to be saved [repentance]
they need to act[deeds say more than words]

many learn they can controle us by our thoughts
thus they wisper nothings into our minds
[the correct term is syncronised soul singing]

they just seek to get into synche with your mood vibe
our evil thought vibration draws them like a moth to the flame

thinking evil attracts those who would feed off it
[like addicts][de-mense ;de mon]

its not about mating

there is physical fertile mating even in heaven
[but not hell]
for some reason no child is allowed in hell

thus children reside between them both
till they chose one [or the other]

till they of freewill chose to love good
or love evil

god is love we all have a choice
but a good deed done here
rates 7 times the weight of a good done there

but what the heck
its all only opinion

safest to just do as jesus do
just know god is love
and we cant go wrong

I am a believer and a practising Christian . However , I agree that it is impossible to prove either the existence , or the non - existence of God . If God exists , God will have no particular gender and is unlikely to resemble any living being . The hoary argument that God cannot exist because bad events occur , is a non - sequitur , as even Richard Dawkins acknowledges . It would , arguably , apply only if God were a good god. Bad events occur independently of God . Often , human failures cause them .

If I had [ God forbid ] to choose between a world controlled by atheists and one controlled by religious fundamentalists , I would choose the atheist version .

DreamOn posed a hypothetical question in colourful language.

He asked me if my wife wasn’t in the mood and I masturbated while fantasising about other encounters would that be an unfaithful act?

No. Imagining doing something is not the same as doing it. There is nothing wrong in either masturbating or having fantasies. It would be an act of consideration to my wife, as she would be left alone which was her wish, and the exercise might improve my sleep.

Because atheists are fixed on spatial / natural chemistry they cannot understand spiritual concepts. Unfortunately many theists are also deluded and expect a spatial afterlife.

Both the dynamic that created all things and the eternal character of God are the same. God is designer and the spirit / mind in control of all things. The nature of God as it intercepts man's consciousness and total being is primarily in the moral rightness of attitude and behaviour. It is in relationship that God is most expressed in humanity.

We say God is love; though God created passion, desire, and estatic feelings - it is in the almost unnatural realm of loving an enemy that the spirit of God is most divinely expressed in the human spirit.

Do somthing to bless an enemy, to wisely reconcile an enemy to be a close friend expresses the true character of God. Forgivness of someone who has grosely violated us or our space - we naturally want to seek revenge or equal injury, but to consider them forgiven as a close friend - deeply affects our spirit in healing and this is the nature of the divine. God is primarly concerned about restoration to his intention, healing of the spirit, reconciliation of people to the way things best express the glory of the Creator.

Exodus 34:6 And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,

Exodus 34:7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.

Punishes the children and subsequent generations for transgressions of their forefathers?

Abundant in goodness and truth? Spiritual? Go figure.

I do appreciate yr candour *dAVId* and other contributions, as I seem to recall commenting on before.

;-)

That plus mention of our *Lord Satan* and it seems the "prayers" in this thread are getting louder. HaHaHa

But, for me, I no longer choose for my Being to become aroused by the sights, smells, memories or fantasies of others, but to be truthful, this is not always easy.

On this though, I think that at I depart from a view recently expressed by the Dalai Lama, in that shared orgasm whilst in Luv is most excellent "thing" capable of enriching the mind literally,

but,

I would also like to express the view that it is not for everyone and perhaps really does depend on the development of the individual concerned.

JC said something about this from memory for the Christians if I recall correctly - something about marriage being OKei for some, but not necessarily the right way to go for everyone.

Dear Fractelle.....

regarding your quote from Exodus 34, I gave that quite some thought, as I realize such sayings possibly represent a considerable barrier to faith.

There are a number of things which can be said about that.

1/ It should be remembered that it was uttered to a culture and people over 3000 years ago. The method of speaking was do a degee idiomatic.

2/ Even though God says he will visit the iniquity to the 3rd and 4th generation, it does not mean that the next generation cannot turn fully to God and be redeemed from this.

3/ The idea seems to be more that if the offspring follow the father, (behavior/attitude) they will indeed incur the same outcome, and that such an attitude in a father can reproduce itself in his own offspring by his bad example.

4/ Over all, while the literal language seems to suggest that God punishes children for the sins of the parents, we would be hard pressed to see any examples of this apart from where offspring actually emulate their fathers behavior.

Personally, I don't find that such a saying diminishes either the experience of or the idea of God's love, as portrayed in many other places in Scripture.

You might find some further useful information here to assist you in forming an opinion.
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/paydaddy.html

Cheers.

*bOAZy* Yr evolving aren't U? It's beautiful isn't it? Ssshh, don't tell anyone that I'm buttering U up. I confess in advance to having purely wicked and selfish motives though.

But ..

(a bit more couching 1st)
The Christians who took care of me at one time in my life were oft to say something to the effect that in the instance of what some would term "Spiritual Experience," that to speak of same leads to a detraction.

Speaking in particular contexts, the Head was oft to say:

"To speak is Silver, but to be silent is Golden."

Still, I would ask U:

"Are U one of the 500 who had an experience of Risen Lordy?"

If so, would U care to share with us?
And for the group, can U confirm that the crew wasn't on the mouldy bread or similar and that U have not a general predisposition to hallucinations generally due to certified pathology?

;-)

fractile[you do know francis bacon EDITEd the bible together?]

to keep the quote in context
with what was written

quote from
http://lookhigher.net/englishbibles/thegenevabible/exodus.html

..>>
Exo 34:5And the Lorde descended in the cloude,and stoode with him there,and proclaimed the name of the Lord...>>

clearly'the lord'means an angel
for none[in the flesh]can look upon'him'and live

>>..Exo34:6 So the Lord passed before his face,and cried,The Lord,the Lord,strong,mercifull,&gracious,slowe to anger,and abundant in goodnesse and trueth,

Exo34:7;Reseruing mercy for thousands,
forgiuing iniquitie,and transgression and sinne,
and not making the wicked innocent,....>>

note the difference
and NOT making etc,etc

thus it would continue
by inferance

NOR..

..>>visiting the iniquitie of the fathers vpon ye children,&vpon childrens children,vnto the third and fourth generation.
Exo34:8Then Moses made haste &bowed him selfe to the earth,and worshipped,

Exo34:9And sayde,O Lorde,I pray thee,If I haue founde grace in thy sight,that the Lorde woulde nowe goe with vs for it is a stiffe necked people)and pardon our iniquitie and our sinne,and take vs for thine inheritance..<<

of course begging of angels
to give the things only god can give
began with abraham wrestiling an angel etc

anyhow it is not subject to miss-interpritation[by us seeking to know god is good]thats what the NEW testimeant reveals

[recalling all the old people died in the desert
only the young came out of the wilderness]

same like dying and going to heaven
[re soddom and gomorra]
like with noah

death has no pain because the good go to the place of good
those living on may not have'got it'

but your quote is non the less
not from god

god is hardly likely to beseech himself with'lord lord'

,and as my book before me reads
''the compasionate and gracious god'',slow to anger,abounding in love and faithfullness,maintaining love to'thousands and forgiving rebellion and sin,yet does not leave the guilty unpunished

[rather sounds like a negative anti-thought compared to what was revealed before it]

we are expected to know the voice of our master
and know what he says

and what the deciever would edit into it

+,he is the moderator/editor in this realm

Poly/Boaz & UOG

I was quoting from the King James version. What versions of the bible do you read? And what makes their version of Exodus "more valid"?

BTW Poly/Boaz you are so fond of exhorting people to read whatever you deem worthy, quid pro quo, suggest you read:

http://www.modernphilosophy.com/philosophy/making_sense.html

And for UOG

http://www.dailywritingtips.com/english-grammar-101-sentences-clauses-and-phrases/

fractile;please name one book that can be fully understood by one line

the fact is any book has a fullsome story

one quote does not a FULL story reveal

THE book[clearly written/edited,revised/translated
by hundreds of people]
cannot be'the'word of god

but god can be found in it

but is hidden in the sum/spell of the words
like the tares that resmble the wheat
that do not clearly differentiate till harvest

when the tares may be pulled up[and discarded]

see the tares of the word
are the very thing you are harvesting[your chosing not to be seeing the wheat]god is love[light sustaining life]
no light[love]no life

yet via the proof of our senses and our reason we can see
that much of life has its tares[who can love a leech,a scary spider, a dangerous dog]

but god GAVE THEM LIFES GIFT TO LIVE TOO

if that dont prove god DONT judge what else can

if you seek god[you soon realise that tiny voice of concious [empathy,the love even the most vile beast usually holds for its own]

see the most vile[yet love their vile]

love dosnt seem to be differentiuating[thus isnt any judgment]but we are free to judge

but to judge others is fraught with dangers[what if we are judged by the same measure?]the thing is GOD DONT HOLD A GRUDGE
because god dont judge[anyone]

this is the key[god WONT judge you]but many others KNOWING they too wont be judged[by god]thus resent those who do

thus you get the 19 forgiven angels guarding the hells
but if you dont look for validation
believe as you chose

just dont expect that those forgiven by god like you are
wont yet desire the proof of your forgiving of others
before THEY[not god]decide if THEY can forgive

any not forgiving others passes the curse down to his own
i recall my father cursing me to not have known god in my innocence stage[i passed my ignorance on]what will the 3 rd generation be ?

even your quote first reveals the truth
then the fear[deception]LIE

Fractelle,

The verses that you quoted from Exodus are in fact considered to be a mantra, an incantation, called "the 13 qualities of mercy", where Moses is instructed on how to appease god - just say these explicit words and you will be magically forgiven. While the verse continues about "visiting the transgression of fathers", the mantra itself ends earlier, in the positive:

"The LORD, The LORD, god, merciful and forgiving, long-nosed, and abundant in grace and truth, safeguarding mercy for the thousands, absorbs transgression and crime and sin, and cleansing" [will not cleanse, visiting the transgression...].

("long-nosed" expresses patience)

As text, the traditional Jewish interpretation is: "those who repent will be cleansed, those who don't will not be cleansed".

As a mantra, the meaning is unimportant, it is a literal magic, so translations, of course, do not apply.

Dear Philo,

1. Would you then say in a spiritual dimension that the RIGHT HAND OF GOD is a figurative expression, as below cited?

Mark 16:19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the RIGHT HAND OF GOD.
Acts 2:33 Therefore being by the RIGHT HAND OF GOD exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. Acts 7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the RIGHT HAND OF GOD, Acts 7:56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the RIGHT HAND OF GOD. Romans 8:34 : Who [is] he that condemneth? [It is] Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the RIGHT HAND OF GOD, who also maketh intercession for us. Colossians 3:1 If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the RIGHT HAND OF GOD. Hebrews 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the RIGHT HAND OF GOD 1 Peter 3:22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the RIGHT HAND OF GOD; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

2. I suspect that many atheists would appreciate the Scientific concept of Singularity.

3. Did Jesus ascend or transfuse?

Regards,

O.

the right hand signifies eminent power

http://www.biblemeanings.info/Words/Body/Right_hand.htm
http://www.prime.org/hand.html

i think your other objections may be covered here
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4058.htm

the Scientific concept of Singularity
lies in our atonement [at one meant]
after we all accend in the the one ness.

interesting points
lets see what the tide reveals
everything is subject to interpritation

jesus never said 'i am god'

had he thought HIMSELF god
he would clearly have said so
as he didnt
that speaks clearly as well

the right hand concept goes much deeper
it is controled by the left brain for egsample

sitting at gods right

allows the heart side [left] of the brain
to do to the good [of logic] of love not judgment

but my heart is not up to at-tempting explaining it further

hopefully others will attempt explanation
yuyutsu seems to have some great wisdoms

interesting how god shares his wisdom out
we all have a little bit of the truth

but the secret is more in asking the right question
our lives shall be full of answers

[the hardest thing is in deciding which ones RING true
for us personally

extract from
a_course_in_miracles

http://www.execulink.com/~dthomp75/2007/URCONC/ur21.txt.WebConcordance/framconc.htm
http://www.courseinmiracles.com/index.html

Love is NOT understandable to sinners.BECAUSE they think that justice is SPLIT OFF from love,and stands for something else.And thus is love perceived as weak and vengeance strong.

What can Love ask of you who think that all of this is true? Could He, in justice AND in love believe in your confusion you HAVE much to give?

You are NOT asked to trust Him far.No further than what you SEE He offers you,and what you recognize you COULD not give yourself.In God’s Own justice does He recognize all you deserve,but understands as well that you can NOT accept it for yourself.

It is His Special Function to hold out to you the gifts the innocent DESERVE. And every one that you accept brings joy to Him AS WELL as you.He knows that Heaven is richer made by each one you accept.And God rejoices as His Son receives what loving justice KNOWS to be his due.For love and justice are NOT different.

BECAUSE they are the same does mercy stand at God’s right Hand,and GIVE the Son of God the power to forgive HIMSELF of sin.

As specialness cares not who pays the cost of sin,so it BE paid,the Holy Spirit heeds not who looks on innocence at last,provided it IS seen and recognized.

if he sees truly. Simple justice asks no more.Of each one does the Holy Spirit ask if he will be that one,so justice may return to love, and there be satisfied.

love WITHOUT justice is impossible.For love is fair,and cannot chasten without cause.What cause can BE to warrant an attack upon the innocent?In justice,then,does love correct mistakes,but NOT in vengeance.For that would be unjust to innocence.

The understanding which you need comes NOT of you,but from a larger Self,so great and holy that He COULD not doubt His innocence.Your special function is a call to Him, that He may smile on you whose sinlessness He shares.

HIS understanding will be YOURS.And so the Holy Spirit’s Special Function has been fulfilled.God’s Son has found a witness unto his sinlessness,and NOT his sin

Dear Fractelle
I read that piece you offered.

One thing it said is:

<Before information can be processed by our mind it is coloured and energized by our emotions. This changes the character of the information we receive in the same way as our view of the world is changed when we look through coloured glass.>

Quite true. The piece seems to be speaking about the 'Communication Process'... how we percieve information etc.

While there is a lot in that to discuss ("communication") I'm not sure how you are applying that to the matter at hand?

If you suggest that people percieve "God" by those emotionally colored thoughts" I can agree to a point.

Logically and reasonably, we would expect human perceptions of God, to be in harmony with human aspirations and desires...no?
Only that would fit with the statement of the article about coloring and spin.

It is unreasonably that humans would record information about God which was unnattractive to them. If it relates to:
-A better harvest
-A hot wife.
-Greater material wealth

Then..we could expect people to gravitate toward that version of God.
Hence the popularity of "Prosperity" Churches (if they can be called that)
But when you see that much of what God says about Himself is NOT of that nature....then logically it should be more likely to be true.
Or, putting it another way, when people 'record' such information that should apply.

The issue of coloring of understanding of events is quite a big discussion, requiring numerous examples. But suffice to say that the more perspectives on one event, the better chance we have of knowing what really happened. The 4 Gospels fit this neatly.

I wasn't using different version of the bible to prove any point.. but the language of the KJV is very archaic. There are much better translations around.

So why do people worship god knowing full well that he/she/it allows all this cruelty to go on. Afetr all, the beleivers would have you think that god is controling evrything on earth.

Now if I as a father were to allow a stranger into my house to molest my daughter then I would surely be commiting some type of crime, yet, this goes on every day and god is not held accountable. In fact, he is worshiped and forgiven time and time again. Why? Can anyone explain why their so called god is exempt?

rectub quote
..>>So why do people worship god knowing full well that he/she/it allows all this cruelty to go on. Afetr all, the beleivers would have you think that god is controling evrything on earth...<<

it appears to me that we confuse 'god' to be controling everything
when clearly god isnt about control

[to put it in a more reasonable context] are parents who create life controling their child by their genes

are they controling their child by enjoining their nature's into a new form as parents

no parent can but help affecting their child[if only by passing on their genetic weakness as well as their inherant personality and their own fears hopes ,strengths/weaknesses

god alone gives us each a part of his nature
then trusts us to figure it all out

knowing our bodies are much like automobiles ,being operated by immortal drivers ,

while our bodies can fail our[god given] spirits CANT

>>..and god is not held accountable...<<

what is for god to account?

he gives us life
then lets us drive it as we chose

why is god not given credit?

who dares to ask god to account
makes the misstake of judging god
by our own mortal; measure

>>..In fact, he is worshiped
and forgiven time and time again. Why?..<<

what is it to be woreshipped by children?
he asks not for our worse
he asks only we do our best

'that we love each other'
because it is we who are forgiven
time and time again
not he

what blame for him to gift you your life?

>..Can anyone explain why their so called god is exempt?..<<

how can god be egszempt?

do you not judge him here and now?
by what right you claim both egsemption
PLUS demand accountability

what has he to explain to thee?

who is even worse than deneying
his living loving creator
by putting mans [measure]
fear /blame]

upon true [infinite]credit

dont revile him who assures all of perpetual fearlesness
via this life incarnate gift's

the least of which
is yet reflective of much more than this mortal life

Poly/Boaz

Thank you for reading my link, now for the difficult part can you apply what you have learned to yourself?

My question regarding versions of bible was really a rhetorical one - no matter which version, god appears to be a childish megalomaniac in all. You forget I was educated in Christianity and attended church as a child. Quite frankly when I select a book for a reread the bible just doesn't make the grade.

UOG

No joy with: http://www.dailywritingtips.com/english-grammar-101-sentences-clauses-and-phrases/ ?

A shame, I might then be able to comprehend your prolific posts.

God is a non-entity because it's non-existent.

If I imagine a god for the sake of the discussion, then the God I imagine is made of the same stuff as our imagination, our dreams - except imaginations about beings remain forever trapped in our brain because they don't have the potency to materialise.

In short, I can relate to what Pericles said:
"Atheists already know that God is a mental construct, and can only exist in the minds of people who believe in it."

Think about it: all the gods that have ever existed throughout history are non-existent today simply because people stopped believing in them.
These gods didn't 'go' anywhere because they never existed.
Same with the gods some believe in today.

Neuroscience is well on its way to show that religion is merely a product of the brain.
And I wouldn't be surprised if after that, BigPharma would come up with a pill or potion to medicate religious zealotry.

Celivia,

Just because God is not an entity does not make Him a non-entity!
Just because God does not exist does not make Him non-existent.

It is quite possible to imagine a god, lots of them even, but whatever you can imagine cannot be God, just a figment of one's imagination.

God did not exist throughout history, or even ever existed, so your conclusions cannot refer to Him at all.

The word "religion" comes from "re-ligiare": re-bond, connect with God, so it has everything to do with us and our life, not with God. Even if religions are a product of the brain, what does it tell us about God? nothing!

Whether of the brain or otherwise, religions are not measured by their "correctness" or in-correctness, but whether (and to what extent) they bring us closer to God. Now this "closer to God" is quite perplexing and worth further discussion - we know what "closer" means in the physical world, but how can one get closer to ... not even "something". While this is meaningless, one can, however, as a pre-requisite, go further away from the world and drop one's attachments to it. This is one measurable criterion to tell whether a religion is working or not. Zealots do not seem to meet this criterion.

Oliver,
For us to understand concepts of the spiritual we use images of the physical. As others have stated the man on the right hand represents a position of power, an approved ambasador by God. Though I believe for us to say it is figurative does not represent the full meaning. For what is spiritual also has full expression in the physical - ie Jesus is held in the highest esteem by Christians.

Though many interpret heaven as spatial it is rather the image in the mind. Jesus was in God and God was in Jesus, makes Jesus the very expression of God in our world.

You could say of yourself "the spirit of your father or mother is somewhat expressed through you - you are their right hand man". It does not mean they are physically present or you stand at their right hand". But you could be their right hand in acomplishing their vision in some project. When you have sucessfully completed the vision you stand beside them as fully approved, otherwise you would be cast out of their presence as having failed their vision.

For those that see immagination as non-existent delude themselves. Every development of human reality started in the immagination. Suppose you immagine a world where humanity acts in harmony and demonstrates love and care for all persons - no war, no cruelty etc. Does that mean it is not a possible reality. To believe in it is more likley for it to be a reality than to pass it off as a non entity.

God is expressed in human reality by attitudes, actions, wisdom and insights of faith. There is a moral reality to our expression of God that is identified by our blessing or cursing.

Yuyutsu,
Steven asked, "However let's assume, for the sake of argument only, that such an entity exists. What sort of being would he / she / it be?
...
I am interested to see how other posters think about God."

Although Steven uses the word 'argument' in his question, I feel that the initial question was asked merely to find out everyone's individual thoughts about God.
I'm therefore not going to argue with anyone about what entity they think that God is; it's personal.

As a child I didn't like fairy tale books with illustrations.
I sometimes asked my parents to cover the illustrations before opening the book, or even to wrap the cover of the book if it was illustrated.
The illustrations were often totally different from my own imagination and I found this disappointing.
Illustrations tended to destroy my own idea of what the characters or beings in the story looked like.
Once I had seen 'someone else's' version of these characters, my own ones would cease to exist, and it felt like losing something.

The God you describe sounds much like the concept of nothingness, and if I have to imagine God for the sake of this discussion, I'd be quite happy to agree that God comes closest to the concept of nothingness.
It's something that nobody can quite grasp.

And if I'm wrong, I don't care one little bit.

Philo wrote:

"For those that see immagination as non-existent delude themselves. Every development of human reality started in the immagination. Suppose you immagine a world where humanity acts in harmony and demonstrates love and care for all persons - no war, no cruelty etc. Does that mean it is not a possible reality. To believe in it is more likley for it to be a reality than to pass it off as a non entity."

Philo has several logical flaws in his above argument. He has set up straw men to argue against and has made an illogical leap.

No one that I have heard of has contended that imagination does not exist. This is the straw man.

No one that I have heard of has contended that what we can imagine cannot exist. This is another straw man.

However, he concludes his argument after setting up two straw men by assuming that if we can imagine an entity it must have some existence. That is the illogical leap.

I can imagine Philo as a person who can spell "imagination'. That is not true in the present, but it may be true in the future.

Kant examined the proofs of the existence of God and found all of them flawed. One of the proofs rested on the assumption that if can imagine an entity it must exist. There have been no new proofs of the existence of God since Kant, but he believed in God anyway. Unlike Kant I do not receive a salary from an institution which does not maintain a belief in God so I have no obligation to state such a belief.

understand the nature of god,more than try to frame the entity,explore the power of controling our imaginings

QUOTE
..>>iTs just fantasy..I am sure many reading this are thinking,"Aw,c'mon,Santa Claus is just fantasy.What is the big deal.Nobody takes it serious."

And that is where you are WRONG–DEAD_WRONG!children take their Santa very serious!They literally worship him!They believe and love Santa with all their heart!something that is a blasphemous imposter of the Lord Jesus.

And Satan knows this.So he disguises the lie in a nice little package of make-believe and fantasy.He creates a harmless ol'jolly fellow that just loves little children.And most parents think,"Now what could be wrong with that?"

Fantasy is Satan's“magic weapon.”TOO

The Satanic Bible,writes fantasy is a"magic weapon"in Satanism.

"Fantasy plays an important role in any religious curriculum,for the subjective mind is less discriminating about the quality of its food than it is about the taste..Thus,fantasy is utilized as a magic weapon[in Satanism]the message of Satan can be quietly preached under the mask of fantasy.

Parents will allow things, such as Santa Claus,under the cloak of fantasy into their little child's tender mind that under"serious"circumstances they would never allow in a million years.
It is just fantasy.But in the vulnerable mind of that little child– IT IS TRUTH!

Of course,you and I do not take Santa serious.We know Santa Claus is fantasy.But those little children are deceived in believing"with all their heart"in a god that is a replacement for the Lord Jesus Christ.

What happens when these little children realize that Santa Claus is a lie?What happens when they later are presented with the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ?What happens when they are asked to "trust and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ"?..

..Santa is Satan's counterfeit of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Once you get that child believing with"all their heart"in Santa then the next logical step is,Jesus and Santa they are both the same[and they are both a LIE..>>

be it belief that man in man form can be god is flawed
anyman[in any form]

by understanding one deception[so are all of them are unveiled]
http://www.av1611.org/othpubls/santa.html
D-evil=vile-veil=liveD

Dear Fractelle...

The link you provided was primarily suggesting (if I read it correctly) that we see things through biased blinkers of our life experience and the such like.

Yes, I can apply this to my own position, and my understanding of the Bible.

Essentially, your position seems to find difficulty in any idea of God which would involve some of the rather 'colorful' examples of judgement in the Old Testament. The Amalekites is one such example.

I read the 1 Samuel 15 passage on this, and found the following.

There were 2 groups of people in close proximity.
1/ Amalekites.
2/ Kenites.

The Amalekites had previously embarked on a campaign which, if successful would have completely wiped out the beleagered Israelites in the wilderness.
Because of this, God, who had redeemed them from Egyptian slavery said he would judge them....and surprise surprise..He did... absolutely.

1Sam 15:2 This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel.

The Kenites however, had done nothing wrong of that nature.. and thus Saul made sure messengers went to them advising them not to be close to the Amalekites when judgement came. They were spared.

From this, we can see very clearly that 'judgement' was a reality during this period of history in regard to the people of Israel.
Gen 12:3 The promise to Abraham from the outset:

3 I will bless those who bless you,
and whoever curses you I will curse

I see the old Testament through the New Testament. Pauls writings in Romans Ch 9-11 are instructive.

Cheers.

Polycarp wrote;

"From this, we can see very clearly that 'judgement' was a reality during this period of history in regard to the people of Israel.
Gen 12:3 The promise to Abraham from the outset:

3 I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse

Dear Polycarp,

The above is obviously not true. If it were true God would destroy the Christians for the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Holocaust and the other persecutions and massacres they have promulgated on the people of Israel. The Christians not only have not been punished for their crimes. They also have stolen the Jewish bible and incorporated it into their own scriptures. The wrath of God would be visited on the evil Christians if his word meant anything.