Bellies...

"Now have you noticed you are not getting answers?"

Now I hope you don't want me to go down to that beach side markets and start talking to this old man there:) Now Bellies, If I ever start talking to thin air and receive an answer, Iam off to the nearest psychiatrist to tell him I found god.....and guess what happens next:)

But a nice little story none the less, you never know bellies....he just might be god.

BLUE

The following scene is taken from a Catholic primary school.

Question from Grim:

Sister Rosemary if there is a God why did it create us?

Answer from Sister Rosemary:

To know Him, Love Him, Serve Him, and be together with Him in this world and the next.

Question from Grim:

What can we do for God, that it can't do for itself?

Answer from Sister Rosemary:

Know Him, Love Him, Serve Him, Obey His Commandments and covert others to Know Him, Love Him, Serve Him, and Obey His Commandments!

The amazing thing is these people are still around today in one of the most prosperous countries in the Middle East. What does that say about their God?

Philo, I suppose it says "Gods a capitalist". The reality is God can be whatever you want him, her, it to be. All you have to do is fashion God to your likeness. Christians have lots of Gods, he (Christians like God to be male)is fashioned to suit their beliefs, lifestyle values etc. If enough people like your God then you have followers and you form a cult. If your cult becomes socially acceptable then you have a religion, which reflects the beliefs, lifestyle, values etc of your society. I'm sure the God Jesus believed in is not the same God the Pope believes in, although the Pope would say he is, I don't think so, the Jesus God is a bit to hard, demanding, tough for most Christ people of today. The Greeks and Romans had the right idea you have lots of Gods and just pick a God off the shelf to suit the occasion, as good as any system.

We understand the mechanism of procreation and can make a decision against it, animals cannot.

...................

I have just started reading this discussion and I encountered this sentence. I cannot answer well the questions attached to this post. A premise wrapped into a loaded question with an anticipated answer is beyond me, when put with anger. So back to the sentence, the general use of the word 'we', denotes the writer's preference, and so the writer knows about procreation and introduces a preference against procreation because of the capacity for decision making. I would suggest it is an interesting worldview to hold. I can understand the need to discuss over-population of the planet, yet I feel this is not what the sentence describes, rather I see a worldview wondering why we look like animals, yet when we look at animals we do and do not see ourselves... maybe. However that above sentence still looks messy. Why assume my worldview should dismiss procreation as that sentence does? Sorry I arrived now, but the timeline, and the timing and no idea aye... why the premise in the early part of an abstract discussion on God demands I assume procreation is an all bad part of life... very ugly and got me thinking, so I spoke my remark. Best I stop at post three.

I hope to forgive myself for thinking, how so silly I feel. Anyhow, I be betting I look silly... the God subject can be really ...ummmm, animal like

Hi Lexi, yes that is pretty much it. I have trouble respecting anyone who would want to spend eternity only with unimaginative, unquestioning sycophants; but that is pretty consistent with the personality of the Old Testament God.
It seems to me that developing the 'Holy Trinity' was a logical necessity, when introducing the rather novel concept of a compassionate, benevolent, loving God. The old testament version was a much more 'natural' God; thunder, lightning, cyclones, floods, droughts and plagues are all clear (to primitives) signs of a cranky vengeful God, and morality doesn't exist in the animal kingdom. So rather than a reformed God (who still does all the cranky stuff) we now have a Son, who's a really nice bloke.
And of course the Holy Ghost, who's the only one that gets to have any fun, since the other two would never stoop to having congress with a woman (or man, presumably).
But once again this has nothing to do with the question. If there is a 'Creator' and we do live in a Matrix-like construct, what is it trying to prove?
It appears to me the 2 opposing sytems, both in the natural world and in human affairs, is competition and cooperation.
Hivelike behaviour compared to individual effort, which inadvertently (as if by an invisible hand) achieves a good result for the whole system -usually.
Well actually 3 characteristics; Competition versus Cooperation in the living world, dealing with large doses of random chance supplied by the non-living world.
Which copes best, or are both equally essential, or is there a perfect ratio?

Sorry, the last part of my last post seemed a little confused on rereading; swapping between 2 and 3, I was reminded of a book that came out a few decades ago by Luke Rhinehart, about a man who tried to live his life by random chance alone.
Although lotteries are pretty popular in a lot of societies, I'm not aware of any society which was based on luck; although sci fi writer Larry Niven speculated about an overcrowded world where a lottery decided who could have children.
An alien race concluded Humans were deliberately selectively breeding for luck.