[Gary Wassner]

Nothing! Nothing at all except Christians.

God wouldn't tolerate this nonsense, would he?

[JRMurdock]

The nonesense about the box or about questioning God? Or just Christians in general?

[Gary Wassner]

About every religion claiming him for their own. That nonsense. And then fighting over it.

Humans are so ridiculous.

I suppose that our individual concepts of God are quite different. None really make any sense. But it's also pretty odd that we're the only people in our planetary system as far as we can tell. So many things are so odd.

I feel like this is a blog sometimes. What if we're just a dust particle on some other planet, since the universe is infinite size is irrelevant, and we've been lucky so far that no one knocked into us?

What if, right? 'So what' I guess is as good a response as any other. What really matters anyway? Certainly not God. How does he matter to us? I mean, if he's real or if he's not, what does it really matter?

I'd like to be able to fly. I dream about flying. I have a character who flies just like I do in my dreams. So why not? What's stopping me?

The same things that make the idea of God so silly.

[Boll Weevil]

Most of us contributing to the thread at the moment appear to be in accord, leaving Celebrian a brave and lonely voice in the godless wilderness. Of course the wariness to contribute probably derives from the explosive potential of such discussions, and perhaps a fear that assertively contradicting two moderators might bring down the wrath of the powers. I'm sure that's not the case, as long as folk are civil, but nevertheless I bet it lurks.

Maus, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Hence, in my view the logically allowable improbability of god (whatever the meaning), yet possibility of god.

It seems to me, the concept of god has gone through a number of changes, and here I will stay with the Christian interpretation (or near enough).

We start with fire gods, sun gods, in the raw totemic animalistic shape. These are not much removed from demons, or super-creatures.

That then seems to evolve into the super-power version of gods as society advances. Hence we get the Greco-Roman, Norse gods. In essence they are humans in their actions and emotions, only immortal and powerful.

This was then replaced by the one god concept. Kudos to the Jewish people as the concept of the one god was surprisingly advanced thinking. But in essence that one god, certainly in the Old Testament was a capricious, jealous, homicidal, needy maniac. In essence a concentrated version of the old mutli-god structures.

The one god structure evolved again in the New Testament. once again to a more sophisticated structure, with god now loving you and not randomly smiting if you happen to piss him off, or not be a Jew.

Arguably Christianity did (and still does in its Catholic form), carry much of the old mutli-god baggae with it. The cult of Mary, and Saints of particular virtues. These are in essence demi-gods, in function if not definition.

Possibly the next phase is the more holistic god, god as a background radiation, as a unity or merely some universal timeless force. To an extent a number of the Eastern religions were very early in this interpretation. Though in large aspects they anthropomorhised the concepts, hence weakening them.

Now probably none of these concepts of god are correct, and they can't all be right, as a majority of the world's religious population will always disagree with you. Yet some few argue they're all the same thing seen from a different perspective.

Thus the concept of god evolves, in of itself a contradiction to the frozen teachings of book like the Bible and Koran.

Not entirely sure where I was going with this, except to touch upon the evolution of the idea of god through time. Presumably this evolution will continue, and it is in part this conceptual evolution that allows god to survive the rising sea of science.

P.S. The biggest religion on the planet is Christianity.

[JRMurdock]

But if God evolves, he's defying his very nature of an unchanging God, no? He's an eternal being that has always been, always will be, and we here on Earth are his playthings. It seems to be quite conceited to think that this being that's always been could change so drastically over the course of only a few thousand years when a million years is but a blink of an eye to him/her/it.

And I don't disagree that Christianity is the largest religion, but there are far more people who don't believe in the Christian God than there are people who do. By far the world is covered with people who disagree violently with the concept of God as the Christians describe him and find great faults with the concept. A majority of those who do believe only do so because at some point in their country's history they were taken over and forced into Christianity on fear of death and their children made to belive in this 'God' or watch their parents die.

This is why I think people still fear God. Becaseu of what Man has done for force the belief on people, not because of what God has done to the people. If the word of God had been spread peacefully over thousands of years instead of forcefully, I doubt people would have the same view of God as they do today if it'd exist at all.

[Boll Weevil]

The aggressive expansion of Christianity and Islam merely displaced existing gods. It seems probable from undeveloped or recently contacted societies that humans invent a god; the more primitive the society the lower down the ladder of conceptual god evolution it is. Thus it appears humans invent god wherever they are.

As to whether god changes or should change. Does this break the omni(s)?

In part one could argue that that question in of itself is an archaic understanding. An understanding that is definitionally anchored in the frozen words.

As human complexity and society evolves is it surprising that the concept of god should also do so. Further it is implicit in the bible that the concept of god can change, hence the shift between the new and old testament.

If one accepts the omni-temporal juncture, time for a god would have no practical meaning (ironically as it doesn't for a photon at the speed of light). Hence whether something is millions, billions of years or ten seconds means nothing.

Interestingly many philosophic and adavnced religious concepts can come (close) together in some of the quantum theories.

Hence my earlier comment about the next stage of god evolution (the holistic phase).

Further if one were to assume our species mission was to search for god, then knowledge could well be a prerequisite, evolutionary progress via our philosophies and science might indeed be just what god (we) want.

A lot of the human population is stuck at various stages on the ladder of conceptual evolution. Some believe literally, despite the contradictions, some believe only in the Old Testament, some try to believe only in the New.

Now as I've said, the whole god thing seems improbable in the extreme to me. But the "space" to legimately launch god as a possibility (competing theory), especially at the life, universe and eveything gap still exists.

[Celebriän]

Why could it not simply be that our understanding of God changes rather than God himself? And if God is outside space and time why should our timescale make any difference to Him?

Maus - you mentioned that only Judeo-Christianity has one God? But what of Muslims? Allah is one God.

How can we say that all God(s) are the same God and that we all claim him in his different guises? There is such a wide variety between the teachings that can we really suggest that they are all one and the same?

No, i'm not suggesting there are many Gods but perhaps that the Devil/Satan/Lucifer/etc. has twisted the truth of God for his own purposes. For, if people are not following the truth, it doesn't matter to him what they are following, it all aids his purpose.

I know full well of the crusades and also believed that trying to force religion onto people is completely pointless and wrong.

Angels and demons? They are all dead, aren't they?
How can they be dead if they were never alive in the first place? Well they certainly aren't alive in the sense we call alive as that suggests mortality.

And a final thought:

If God does not exist and yet i still believe i will lose nothing, but what happens if God does exist and you (collectively) don't believe? Surely you lose everything?

I apologise for the shortness of this post, i know i havent answered all the questions and i'm not particularly coherent but i beg having brain freeze from maths exams. :D

p.s.: i'm not feeling at all attacked, but for another person of similar view to mine, here comes Alassë. btw - she bites :D

[Alassë]

As mentioned, dear Celebriän seems a bit lonely and in the minority, so I'm adding my humble opinion to back her up. :D

Why are there 4 stories of the life of Jesus (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) and all 4 stories are not the exact same?

All these books, although coming from God, do to a degree have personal views and opinions included within them. To describe the events that have occurred. We can obviously not say that every single person would have the same view, understanding or opinions of the same event. We are all subjective, so we can never describe an event objectively (thats just my little opinion, thats been floating around for a while)

but in each retelling, Jesus preached to more people during his sermon on the mount and his tellings are more and more profound with each re-telling, performed more miracles, and grew more 'holy'.

It says in the Bible "And i suppose that if all the other things Jesus did were written down, the whole world could not contain the books." John 21:25

and again

"Jesus' disciples saw him do many other miraculous signs besides the ones recorded in this book. But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing in him you will have life." John 20:30-31

I dont know about the numbers for the Sermon on the Mount, in my Bible it only says "crowds" not specific numbers.

"Well, here's my son, I'm done with you all. Have a nice day" and mankind never hears from him again.

Personally i dont agree with the whole never hearing from him again, but as i said that is my personal opinion. But the whole idea that he is no longer othered, i cant quite grasp. I know it appears that God is inconsistent and changing, but it may also be how he is portrayed. Is it not possible to be both angry and jealous as well as loving, and just and merciful?

If, as suggested, the Bible is "an elaborate fairy tale" created merely to scare children into being good, then why do full grown, perfectly sensible and intellgient adults believe such ideas??

Do you honestly believe that the book you hold and read in English is in anyway the same text that was written down, translated, re-translated, edited for content, tranlated again, forbiden by the common folk to read on pain of death, edited once more, and translated yet again is even remotely the same book it was 4000-5000 years ago? Even 2000 years ago?

1. Yes
2. i know about all the hanging/burning etc for common people reading the Bible and i believe whole heartedly that they were unjust, unfair and not in a christian attitude.
3. Errr... might just be me, but if Jesus lived 2000 years ago then how could the new testament have existed 4000-5000 years ago??

I cant tell you if the Bible has been changed regarding the wording of the Sun's movement, simply because i do not have a copy of the old testament in the original Greek, although i do have one in front of me for the new testament. I'll have to get back to you on the repition in Genesis.

I just seek answers to really tough questions and I've never gotten further than 'You've just got to have faith'. and that one doesn't hold much water with me.

I quite understand, i have a huge tendency to constantly ask why to any answer I'm given.

conceptual evolution that allows god to survive the rising sea of science.

Is it God that evolves, or is it our understanding of God??

Well if God exists and miracles are possible, then Santa is possible too. I won't accept that he's not real. If God exists, then anything is possible and no one should be criticized for believing in ghosts or devils for that matter.

true, but personally santa has never done anything for me, ive never seen enough evidence to believe in him. (if that sounds really selfish, sorry its not meant to:o )

God wouldn't tolerate this nonsense, would he?

one word: Freewill

Certainly not God. How does he matter to us? I mean, if he's real or if he's not, what does it really matter?

All i'll say on the matter for know is that i agree with Celebriän. What have i lost by not going to drunken raves every weekend. Well a hangover for a start. :D

This is why I think people still fear God. Because of what Man has done for force the belief on people, not because of what God has done to the people. If the word of God had been spread peacefully over thousands of years instead of forcefully, I doubt people would have the same view of God as they do today if it'd exist at all.

I know that forcing religion on people is wrong, but then i could say i dont believe in religion. :eek: No, i believe in relationship. :)
Fear is not the only response to God. How can love ever be born out of fear?

Celebriän told me i had to be civil, (which i am mostly, especially here but i get quite heated in discussions) so i hope this will suffice.

Alassë

[Gary Wassner]

The beauty of the God card is that it can be played any way you want it to be played. There's no way to confirm it, no evidence, no facts. For me, to even talk about god as eternal and infinte or anthropomorhpic and immanent, is a game. What do we know? We know nothing whatsoever about God. God is whatever we want it to be, so go ahead and argue over his shape and form or his transcendence or immanence until you're blue in the face.

"Nothing but imaginary causes (‘God,’ ‘soul,’ ‘ego,’ ‘spirit,’ ‘free will’—for that matter, ‘unfree will’), nothing but imaginary effects (‘sin,’ ‘redemption,’ ‘grace,’ ‘punishment,’ ‘forgiveness of sins’).” FN

Let's speak honestly. God could have been great. God could have served the public. God could have made us better people. But we've turned him into a personal battlefield. We all need to ground our values in something. We need some way of making moral choices. But is God the way? Why not find value in something real? Something that binds us to the planet we live on and depend upon, rather than some idea that can never be proven and no one can ever agree upon?

[Alassë]

what is the definition of something that is real?

I may say "God is real" but can i necessarily define this, and could i ever define it in such a way that you would agree with me?

Somehow, i think not.

But what could we base our moral choices on, could we base it on emotions, that we can never prove to exist and be real. Again the defintion i give you of my emotions may be entirely different to your defintion of such an emotion.

Something that we may agree to be real could be gravity (although i've heard that some people dont believe in gravity) but how could we base our moral ideas, definites and judgments upon gravity it just doesnt seem to fit. Morality and gravity are in entirely different dimensions.

The dimension for morality is in the same dimesion for our emotions and dreams and thoughts. But can we prove these are real?