Jump to content

God's "message" to humans?


DanInPA
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi Ssel,

 

I haven't read all of your posts, so excuse me if I'm missing something.

 

Here's my question.

If you have some valuable truth for all mankind, why not just spit it out?. Why, if your message is so damned important, must it be shrouded in "metaphors", "allegory", or some "higher understanding" that 99% of us cannot grasp? Why not just be clear about it?

 

We humans are the most intelligent and advanced beings on the planet, and the majority of us who post here are probably the most open to new ideas and/or new revelations. However any message from god or whomever must be able to be understood, don't ya think? A "higher being" should certainly know this and act accordingly. :nono:

 

 

If some "higher being" (god?) wants to communicate its message with us humans, then why not DO IT IN A WAY THAT WE CAN ALL RECEIVE AND UNDERSTAND ITS MESSAGE!.

Why not STOP BEATING AROUND THE BUSH AND JUST SAY IT!!.

 

Based on what you've written, it seems that either this message is not meant for the majority of mankind, or the messengers are incompetent at delivering it.

 

I realize you are active in several threads at this time, so I'm not expecting your undivided attention.

Take your time. :thanks:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 155
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

And one more thing to add to it, if the Bible would be "the word from God", why does it say the Gospel is simple and that you should be like a child to receive it? (i.e. it should not have to be embedded in difficult concepts that would take years to understand. It is supposed to be easy and simple to understand according to the Bible.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people believe that in order to understand god, one must seek god out. If you aren't seeking then you'll never know what it is god wants, therefore, it's your own damn fault if you don't understand.

 

Yes, and it is very annoying.

To understand god you must seek god out. Of course no one said anything about seeking the TRUTH out... this is what annoys me the most. To understand god, you must seek IT - meaning, you have to assume that it exists from the very beginning. Ugh. :Doh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, thank you for asking this in a civil manner.

If you have some valuable truth for all mankind, why not just spit it out?. Why, if your message is so damned important, must it be shrouded in "metaphors", "allegory", or some "higher understanding" that 99% of us cannot grasp? Why not just be clear about it?
Several concerns are brought up here.

 

I am NOT here as some prophet of God to reveal some great truth for mankind to accept and follow. Nor have I ever claimed such. My only claims have been that

 

1) I discovered something new beyond what has been ever mentioned by either science or religions.

2) I have come to understand (meaning that there is no supernatural or mystical worship involved) both what the religions were really talking about (but in metaphorical ancient language) and also what science is trying to point out about the detailed cause and effect realities.

 

This problem is that to see how to get past where they are and see the "new discovery" I am referring to, you have to basically see the truth that lay in both of those ideologies. Every tiny detail does NOT have to be known, but the very many details must be cleared up so that the next step can be taken.

 

This is exactly the same as someone speaking of a new thought concerning Calculus when others are still arguing over the rules of algebra. To even approach the "new thought" concerning Calculus, the algebra issues need to be put to rest so people can move on.

 

The common thought is simply to ignore and shame the religions so that their notions can be removed and science can more freely advance. This has several problems. Science is not addressing some of the critically important issues that the religions ARE addressing. These issues are critically important because they directly address whether something like science will be given the chance to advance if those issues are ignored.

 

It is not critical, in my opinion, that either ideology be worshipped as totally holy. I have, in fact, expressed quite the opposite. But at the same time, I will not accept that either is simply stupid and blind. I agree that there are blind followers on both sides of the fense. I had hoped to display this clearly in a debate with a visiting SCC sometime. The issue of the 2LoT displays the blind following on the side of science. Many other example can be given, but I'm not here to try to shoot down science either.

 

DO IT IN A WAY THAT WE CAN ALL RECEIVE AND UNDERSTAND ITS MESSAGE!... Based on what you've written, it seems that either this message is not meant for the majority of mankind, or the messengers are incompetent at delivering it. [/b]
If I were here representing God, I would most certainly do that very thing. But would you have said the same to Darwin 150 years ago, or Einstein (don't you think that many people DID say that to them)? People with anything new to say have to fight the mainstream of thought. When their new thoughts are in addition to a pile of understanding, the pile has to be realized before any addition can be realized. Emotionalism forbids that thinking. As long as emotionalism is allowed and encouraged (as long as it is on the "right side") then any new thought wouldn't be heard anyway.

 

 

In addition, your question implies that I am here merely to deliver some message and nothing else. Where did that come from??

 

)) I answer to questions concerning many misunderstandings from both sides of the divide. I seek anything that implies that my new thought might be somehow incomplete.

)) I watch for actual thinking and learning with high hopes.

)) I watch the process that has created this forum and examine the formulae involved to see if an even better way might be able to found.

)) I observe, poke, and probe, much as an explorer just to see if I understand the dynamics correctly.

 

I cherish actual real thinking and what causes it. Saying that because you no longer believe in a religion does NOT constitute thinking. It is at best merely a beginning, but if emotionalism has followed you, then it is a waste. Thinking will not grow anyway.

 

 

Show me that you have understood exactly what the true parts of the Bible (for example) were, and we're ready to move on to see how far things can really go with the inclusion of science. Simply dismiss the Bible as a fairytale, and you have shown that your not really thinking at all.

 

Statements like "You can't define something that doesn't exist" is extreme evidence of the lack of logical ability or desire to really think.

 

Your enemy is not people nor religions, but that which is keeping them from truly thinking even when they want to. Everything has a cause. Think about the real cause within. The process of intelligence is involved. These problems are addressed by both science and religions. But the problems can be corrected beyond what even the Bible or science speaks of.

 

Learn the relative simplicity of their formulae concerning mental blindness. And then you can find what has been over looked. That is what every advanced thought is made of, not from merely dismissing the old as fiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course no one said anything about seeking the TRUTH out... this is what annoys me the most. To understand god, you must seek IT - meaning, you have to assume that it exists from the very beginning. Ugh. :Doh:

This is an example of some of the many misunderstandings represented here.

 

Jesus - "the truth will set you free"

Jesus - "pray ALWAYS"

 

What if Jesus was actually speaking of real logical thought, not superstitious belief systems? My claim is that he was. He really meant that "science", for example, will set you free. Science is NOT the enemy of Jesus.

 

What if what was meant by "to pray" was what we would call "to seek"? Of course you were to pray always to God, right? But what if God was merely their word for what we call reality today?

 

Jesus - "seek the Truth of Reality ALWAYS"

 

"To find Reality, you must humbly and truly seek it out" -- is that so hard to understand??

 

As someone once said, if you are really still seeking the truth with a humble heart (thus not blinded by emotionalism), then you are actually still a Christian whether you like the thought or not.

 

Are you going to ask why He didn't say the words "science" and "Reality", but instead used only the limited words of the people he was speaking to? What do think would have really happened if He tried to use words that some distant civilization would one day come up with? Do you think they would have used the same words, if He had?

 

There is not one single miracle in the Bible that has not been reproduced in modern times. Some literally but all in the form of their metaphorical understanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So how is this different from say, Naturalism or Pantheism? Or is it basically the same?
Remember My first debate here?

 

The Panthiest and the Naturalist or 2 of many who have picked up on the reality that Reality is what counts. I noticed that nivek has also. Reality couldn't care less what laws you make or worship. What Reality cares about is reality.

 

This, in effect answers all of the questions about why God does this or that. Each can be explained, but only if you start realizing that the words were not about fantasy beings, but merely difficult to understand and comprehend existences (btw, a "being" is merely an existence)

 

If you want to realistically answer to what MUST be the absolute highest power conceivable, then merely accept that God is the total some of all that you are not. If Moses didn't mean that as his God, then guess what? My God can and WILL kick his God's ass.

 

But the real truth is that Moses was trully talking about the same reality that everyone talkes about but you MUST consider the time and the people they were ALL talking to and the task they had to deal with.

 

Even understanding them, I could not have come close to accomplishing one tenth of what they managed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why is the truth just in the bible? why not the bhagavad-gita? or the dhammapada?

you always use the bible like its the ongly thing god would put the truth in why is that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ssel,

 

My problem is simple.

 

Folks can believe in "Higher Power" all they care to do so.

 

In the temporal world, the one where we can see, handle, touch and modify things in our enviroment, observable reactions and interactions happen.

Measurable states in which we can compare.

 

I put a gun to your gut, you have the knowledge that chemistry and physics will suddenly combine and allow me to more easily and reaily take your wallet and car than is I did not have that combination of metals and chemicals.

 

Could walk up to you in same street and tell you that Goombya, Dark Lord of Maliase and Destruction requires all your currently held material goods. I suspect you'd roll window up, laugh your ass off as you drove away.. As I pray to ole Goombie reallllly hard!

 

Thing is, I don't care what a person "has belief in". Until that person is capable of doing something physically, some show of force, then all the mumbo-jumbo about the "way shot oughta be" is cark, and not worth discussing.

 

Bullets, bulldozers, bags, bricks, whatever it takes to make a difference.. We humans need tools to make things happen past the "dreamer-idealists* stage.

 

Tempted to say that you are one of the *dreamers*, a cat whose mind is fulla "good ideas" but hasn't got a clue how to run the hammer to nail the project together..

 

kL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to realistically answer to what MUST be the absolute highest power conceivable, then merely accept that God is the total some of all that you are not. If Moses didn't mean that as his God, then guess what? My God can and WILL kick his God's ass.

I think I understand... scary thought... :grin:

 

I also can see how the argument could be for a this "God of existence" could be described as "intelligent" or having a "purpose".

 

But there's a question that comes to my mind that I don't know what your position is on, does this "God of all there is" need to be worshipped? Or is basically by living in harmony with our situation a way of fulfilling this "God's" wish?

 

Btw, not to be picky, but I think you meant "God is the total sum of all that you are not."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you summarize in say half a dozen sentences just what the fuck you are talking about?
Man-o-man, I wish I could. :grin:

 

It is an issue of trying to unscamble the egg. I don't have your flair for creative and colorful words. :grin:

 

I figured that if and when anyone actually understands what I'm trying to say, that they, much like Amanda does now and then, will make it all much more concise.

 

And I only refer to the Bible for 2 reasons. One is that it is the Bible which is most often, by far, discussed and known to the people here. The other is that the realities of what the Bible speak of are more directly relevent to fixing the "Christian problem". The many other "Holy Books" have a great many wisdoms within. I have stated this before. But why complicate matters even more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, thanks for your quick response!

 

1) I discovered something new beyond what has been ever mentioned by either science or religions.

 

Can you tell us exactly what this "something new" is? Many of us are open to new ideas, as I've already stated.

 

The common thought is simply to ignore and shame the religions

 

From my experience, most of the currently practiced religions deserve to be ignored or shamed.

 

Science is not addressing some of the critically important issues that the religions ARE addressing. These issues are critically important because they directly address whether something like science will be given the chance to advance if those issues are ignored.

 

Can you elaborate on these critically important issues? (again, take your time. I know you're involved in several discussions.)

 

I agree that there are blind followers on both sides of the fense.

 

Me too, but I see far more on the religious side.

 

 

If I were here representing God, I would most certainly do that very thing. But would you have said the same to Darwin 150 years ago, or Einstein (don't you think that many people DID say that to them)? People with anything new to say have to fight the mainstream of thought. When their new thoughts are in addition to a pile of understanding, the pile has to be realized before any addition can be realized. Emotionalism forbids that thinking. As long as emotionalism is allowed and encouraged (as long as it is on the "right side") then any new thought wouldn't be heard anyway.

 

Humans are emotional beings, supposedly made that way by our creator. Shouldn't it take that into account?

 

 

In addition, your question implies that I am here merely to deliver some message and nothing else. Where did that come from??

 

I'm sorry, that was my conclusion based on what I had read. As I said, I haven't read all of your posts.

 

 

Show me that you have understood exactly what the true parts of the Bible (for example) were, and we're ready to move on to see how far things can really go with the inclusion of science. Simply dismiss the Bible as a fairytale, and you have shown that your not really thinking at all.

 

Please understand that a lot of us are eager to learn new truths, but they must be shown to be truths, not just some guy saying "I know something you don't know". While you may not have actually have said that, it is the impression a lot of us have gotten.

 

Why not just tell us what parts of the bible (or any other sacred text) are the true parts, instead of saying that because we can't see for ourselves, we're not ready to move on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

does this "God of all there is" need to be worshipped? Or is basically by living in harmony with our situation a way of fulfilling this "God's" wish?
Yes, "total SUM", thank you.

 

What is really meant by "worship"? Most take it to mean to blindly follow some written word. I have expressed my stance on that issue in the "UNholiness" thread.

 

Jesus did not say to blindly follow Him, He said to ALWAYS seek the real truth. But He DID say to follow him becasue "walking in harmony with the real truth" is what He was trying to lead. He tried to explain many things and the reasonings behind them without using any supernatural mystical belief system during those explanations.

 

My thought is that if you worship, you are in serious danger of being misled. If you truly follow Jesus, then the only worshipping is doing those things which allow your mind to actually SEE reality. Causing the "blind to see" was His first trick. By this, it was meant that He caused the man to understand. His method is pointed out in metaphoric terms which exactly apply to how to truly cause someone to understand something that they had been blinded to.

 

Both God and Jesus prefer understanding to worship. They both revealed this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:eek: I took way too long to write that reply. Much has been posted while I typed.

 

So god is the sum of all reality/realities?

 

And like Hans said:

But there's a question that comes to my mind that I don't know what your position is on, does this "God of all there is" need to be worshipped? Or is basically by living in harmony with our situation a way of fulfilling this "God's" wish?

 

This is reminding me of "If it harm none, do what thou will", or maybe "love your neighbor as yourself" or "do not do unto others that which you would not want done to you".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

does this "God of all there is" need to be worshipped? Or is basically by living in harmony with our situation a way of fulfilling this "God's" wish?
Yes, "total SUM", thank you.

 

What is really meant by "worship"? Most take it to mean to blindly follow some written word. I have expressed my stance on that issue in the "UNholiness" thread.

 

Jesus did not say to blindly follow Him, He said to ALWAYS seek the real truth. But He DID say to follow him becasue "walking in harmony with the real truth" is what He was trying to lead. He tried to explain many things and the reasonings behind them without using any supernatural mystical belief system during those explanations.

 

My thought is that if you worship, you are in serious danger of being misled. If you truly follow Jesus, then the only worshipping is doing those things which allow your mind to actually SEE reality. Causing the "blind to see" was His first trick. By this, it was meant that He caused the man to understand. His method is pointed out in metaphoric terms which exactly apply to how to truly cause someone to understand something that they had been blinded to.

 

Both God and Jesus prefer understanding to worship. They both revealed this.

Worship could be considered as Standing in amazement and awe of the vastness and beauty of the world we live in, or even just the sublime feeling you can get from realizing that you just exists. Maybe that's the true "worship", being aware and amazed by your own existence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus did not say to blindly follow Him, He said to ALWAYS seek the real truth. But He DID say to follow him becasue "walking in harmony with the real truth" is what He was trying to lead. He tried to explain many things and the reasonings behind them without using any supernatural mystical belief system during those explanations.

 

Try telling that to any christian congregation!

 

Does the parable of the lost son really refer to us and "god the father"? Are we really worthless pieces of shit who can be nothing without god?

 

Both God and Jesus prefer understanding to worship. They both revealed this.

 

It's too bad they weren't more clear about this. Or they knowingly allowed their intended message to be messed up by men. Whichever the case, they seemingly either didn't know or didn't care that their preferences were not clearly explained.

 

I guess what I'm trying to get across is this:

 

If god wants humans to know and/or understand something, JUST FREAKIN' SAY IT! YOU'RE GOD, YOU SHOULD KNOW WHAT IT WOULD TAKE FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you tell us exactly what this "something new" is? Many of us are open to new ideas, as I've already stated.
This one is scary to even try to explain. The reason is that it leads directly into the area of what they have been calling the real Messiah. And what social engineers today would refer to as an unstoppable social mechanism and what is also referred to as the real "Heaven on Earth" that Jesus told people to seek.

 

But I am only talking about the crude foundation designs and the principles which leave absolutely no room for such to not work and become truly unstoppable (short of an astroid or something hitting the Earth). One of the reasons it becomes unstoppable is that no one involved really wants to stop it. But it has nothing to do with any blind faith, quite the opposite.

 

Science is not addressing some of the critically important issues that the religions ARE addressing. These issues are critically important because they directly address whether something like science will be given the chance to advance if those issues are ignored.

Can you elaborate on these critically important issues?
The issue of the Staff of Moses just for example. This issue involves what it is that causes people to argue and become impassioned such as to cause mental blindness.

 

The issue of peace leading to a still, un-defendable society is an even more important concern. Jesus and very many others sought for peace simply because they were created in the middle of misery and contention. But Jesus said to seek Heaven on Earth (a REAL Heaven) and He did not specify exactly what that would be like but to mention that it would not have contention. In this, he was absolutely correct and right for saying to seek it.

 

 

Humans are emotional beings, supposedly made that way by our creator. Shouldn't it take that into account?
I was trying, and still am, to point out on the Black Box thread that intelligence REQUIRES emotion once it get complex enough. So the issue is not one of disallowing any emotion at all. That can't happen even if everyone tried.

 

This issue is to forbid the emotion from blinding. This CAN be done and still maintain a very high degree of energy which then allows things to continue in a protected (and taxed) mode.

 

Please understand that a lot of us are eager to learn new truths, but they must be shown to be truths, not just some guy saying
Realize that for something to be shown as truth, it must also be seen as truth. Communication and learning takes effort on BOTH ends ALWAYS.

 

We are talking about a situation where a blind man is being shown what he looks like. How easy do you think that really is? Especially when the blind man thinks that all people are equally as blind as he and thus "sees" no need to really listen to some guy that claims that he has "seen" something - "just another asshole with another opinion. Not worth my time."

 

Why not just tell us what parts of the bible (or any other sacred text) are the true parts, instead of saying that because we can't see for ourselves, we're not ready to move on?
To accept a metaphorical example, just as I pointed out in my very first debate here (in the appended document), one must see that it really applies well, consistently and thoroughly as well as being relevant. There are many uses of these metaphors. Understanding only one is how you end up with a church named "Baptist".

 

Asking people to simply take my word during the length of time it would take for all of those metaphors to become apparent would be asking a lot more than I would ever expect to get or deserve.

 

Everything I have said since I have come here all plays together with consistency which leads to eventual completeness and relevance.

 

The simple truth of it is that if you don’t want to find any truth, then nothing will be worth your time and effort. But if you are merely following what another man is saying and not really thinking for yourself, then your in trouble anyway.

 

 

 

Search and ask questions. I seldom refuse to attempt an answer. Even if my answer is incorrect, it will certainly lead to thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ssel,

 

I think I'm getting a clear picture of what is feeling "off" here. If you read the very first page of this web site you will see the moniker "Encouraging ExChristians". The "emotionalism" you see here is people who have been hurt, betrayed, disillusioned, etc by religion. What is wrong with that? There is growth that takes place here, but it's through emotional healing through community and encouragement of like minded people with similar experiences. Your comments that these people, or myself, are not "thinking" is frankly rather arrogant and misses the whole point of this community - IMO.

 

We do grow here, and your ideas are welcomed, but maybe try understanding where people are emotionally and talking with them, rather than pointing out their shortcomings in intellectualism. If you are primarily after intellectualism without emotion, then I would ask if you have checked out the forums at infidels.org? They are quite moderated and I enjoy them a great deal for intellectualism, when I'm looking for that.

 

One other thing I would be cautious about: It sounds like you compare your ideas as innovative and revolutionary as that of Einstein and Darwin. I have to confess, if you were on that level you wouldn't be here. I've found the most powerful keys to spiritual and intellectual growth is humility. I honestly think you mean well, but you may want to step back a little and consider where people are at here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I still maintain that if I were "god" or the "creator" or something like that, and there was something that I wanted my creation (humans) to know and/or understand, I would be very clear and specific as to what that was.

 

If there's a god/creator and it can't even do better than me, a human, then I see no reason to bother considering it's existence.

 

Thanks for the discussion, Ssel and other participants. :thanks:

 

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So god is the sum of all reality/realities?

 

And like Hans said:

But there's a question that comes to my mind that I don't know what your position is on, does this "God of all there is" need to be worshipped? Or is basically by living in harmony with our situation a way of fulfilling this "God's" wish?

 

This is reminding me of "If it harm none, do what thou will", or maybe "love your neighbor as yourself" or "do not do unto others that which you would not want done to you".

To put it very bluntly in ancient terms, what God wants of you is to KNOW how to survive eternally.

 

The idea to love your neighbor as yourself is NOT merely there to provide for peace. That idea is a very deep component of required eternal survival. And when I say this, I am talking about extremely serious technical principles not merely superficial niceties.

 

Now, if your thinking "but no one can live forever anyway", then I have to ask, "Who told you that and what was their incentive for asking you to stop trying?" Does evolution work better if people don't hardily try to survive, or worse?

 

 

Worship could be considered as Standing in amazement and awe of the vastness and beauty of the world we live in, or even just the sublime feeling you can get from realizing that you just exists. Maybe that's the true "worship", being aware and amazed by your own existence?
Perhaps. The words is a little vague.

 

But Reality requires that you not only favorably accept what it IS, but also that you accept its challenges and see your progress.

 

Without seeing your progress, all joy will fail anyway. Without making progress, what kills you will make more progress than you do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Show me that you have understood exactly what the true parts of the Bible (for example) were, and we're ready to move on to see how far things can really go with the inclusion of science. Simply dismiss the Bible as a fairytale, and you have shown that your not really thinking at all.

 

Now, how in the hell would you ever do that? Just go with your gut feelings, and whatever feels right to you must be true? That's not how it works for ex-christians. We were indoctrinated into the thought process that the Bible was God-inspired. God-authored.

 

Once we found out that a large percentage of it is bullshit, the rest of it went too. It is no longer a God-book. It goes into the same place as the writings of Plato. Socrates. Aristotle. Philo. Confucious. Voltaire. Nietzsche. Spinoza.

 

A book from the minds of men. To be read just like any other book. There may be some truth there. But what is truth to me isn't truth to someone else.

 

I for one am not impressed by Ssel. To me he's just another Ernest Holmes, L Ron Hubbard type new-age guru who thinks he alone possesses the answers to the most important question in mankind's history. I've heard it all before. No more wacky spatial wispy shit for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tempted to say that you are one of the *dreamers*, a cat whose mind is fulla "good ideas" but hasn't got a clue how to run the hammer to nail the project together..
Couldn't all of that be said to any mathematician, logician, or anyone involved in the more serious intellectual concerns that gave you that chemistry and gun?

 

Many things can't be handled on such a direct one on one scale. Politicians end up being able to tie your hands and that gun without you ever seeing their face. There are ideas that constitute forces which take away the simpler tools.

 

In the long run, just as you can say that "my gun is what really counts", they can say, "my manipulation of what people like and dislike is what counts even more." Because they can eventually take that gun away and no matter how many people you might kill trying to stop them, you will never even see the ones that caused it all.

 

I am not trying to BE intellectual. The issue just happens to be a complex one so as to get around all of those tricksters and manipulators.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does the parable of the lost son really refer to us and "god the father"? Are we really worthless pieces of shit who can be nothing without god?
The parable is about the need to cherish anyone who has managed to become lost in confusion yet find his way back. but this would really only be of value if what he found was the truly understanding, not merely that he gave up and wanted to join back into the blind fold.

 

Sight is increased with contrast. Seeing what doesn't work, is what allows that which Does work to be accepted. In a sense, mankind is on that journey of discovering all tht doesn't work so that he can finally accept what really DOES. Just telling him would convince exactly whom? Did Eve accept it enough to be able to resist temptation? Truly surviving all that is out there, requires experience, not merely advice.

 

If god wants humans to know and/or understand something, JUST FREAKIN' SAY IT! YOU'RE GOD, YOU SHOULD KNOW WHAT IT WOULD TAKE FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL!
But if God is indeed Reality itself, hasn't reality been shown to you every day of your life? Haven't you been told that God is "talking but you arn't listening"? That is exactly what was meant by that. Every holy truth is a part of everything going on around you. But a part of that holy truth is that it is all very complicated.

 

Does God want a simpleton for that eternal partner? Will Reality merely let a simple minded person live forever simply because he is a good follower? Reality is NOT simple. In a sense Reality wants to be understood and will keep allowing man to die out until he finally grows into something that can understand Him.

 

If God is Reality, then evolution is obviously one of God's tools to create with. But how can evolution work without challenge?

 

Many have asked why it is that God would have created Evil.

 

Doesn't Reality show you that no one grows without at least SOME challenge? If the objective is to be able to handle EVERY potential challenge (which it is), then how would man ever figure out how to do that without experiencing the real challenges and real dangers?

 

Reality MUST challenge life so as to cause its growth and its strength. There is no big sky daddy to simply say "hey folks, do this and all will be cool." Jesus, Moses, Buddha, and many others have tried with all they could, to do as much of that as they could. But God speaks in terms of Reality, not merely voiced generalized laws that are so often not really holy.

 

Reality still awaits for man to figure it all out so that eternalness will happen. God/Reality is creating Man every day. You just happen to be caught in the middle of that time when Man is still in the oven. :grin:

 

My advice is to DO SOMEthing so as to get it over with and stop the need for continued misery while someone ELSE figures it out while you finally, pointlessly waste away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but we no longer care about the bible or we wouldnt be here. you can lead a horse to water but if it dont like water it isnt going to drink it. try something else.

 

 

And I only refer to the Bible for 2 reasons. One is that it is the Bible which is most often, by far, discussed and known to the people here. The other is that the realities of what the Bible speak of are more directly relevent to fixing the "Christian problem". The many other "Holy Books" have a great many wisdoms within. I have stated this before. But why complicate matters even more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.