[BB]The "god/s"...describes a race of beings our forefathers of the scriptures may have called "God"...this "God" gives me more the feel of a human like being/s that have needs and wants...the "God" of the sacred scriptures is not the same god as the Creator of all that IS.

[TONY] Um, actually, what you describe is EXACTLY what the bible describes. The "ALL that IS" that is mentioned in the bible is described as having only directly created exactly one thing, His 'only begotten son', and everything else was created through him and the active force, or 'holy spirit' of "All that IS". Whether you consider the Elohim as aliens or angels is only symantics as, by all description, they are fallible, have feelings, are not immortal, and can be in fact wrestled down by a mere human(Jacob).

Anything that is fallible, has feelings and is mortal is not what I consider THE ALL THAT IS. That's not to say those that spoke and directed our forefathers from heaven didn't understand much more than we did and so used that knowledge of THE ALL THAT IS to direct us (whether for good or bad I'm not judging)....such as giving a name, the Holy Spirit, to the work of THE ALL THAT IS. We were, after all, like children...so they related to us in whatever way we were able to understand.

God IS love. But, that being said, emotion is a function of intelligence. Personally, I see emotion broken into two categories, apathy and love.

I do not see that emotion is a function of intelligence. I was giving my example of the sentient nature of mother earth as similar to or like. For me, a bull may be angry, a dog may be loving...those seem like emotions, but they are only words our intellect give them. As beings, in the beginning, when we did not have words, we had no mental words of thought, but we had reactions and emotions...as the bull or the dog. So, for me, emotion is more "like," as I described it, a disturbance or movement of reaction to outside or inside forces. You are giving emotion as from an intellectual thought process..which is not what I meant.

The God of the bible DID react on a very emotional level, so I do not disagree with your statement, I simply allow for a broader scope.

Yes, he did...which is why I say that god/s is not the same as the ALL THAT IS.

[BB]I do believe we, as a species, we can and ARE doing a pretty good job, of getting a grasp of the sentient nature of ALL THAT IS and it's/our own make up and the way it works.

[TONY] I think, as a species, are judgement is too clouded by immediate needs and desires(and our inability to distinguish between the two) to ever "All that IS". We are not temporally ready.

I think we will have to agree to disagree on that one!

[*]Inherited Sin is equivalent to compounded mistakes. An incorrect idea passed down from teacher to student. These mistakes often have physical counterparts that affect our very physical existence and thus are further compounded as they become genetically degrading.

I just don't understand why the word SIN has to even be used or discussed? Just say inherited teachings, mistakes..etc. Unless you feel the need to use it?

[TONY]Because of our imperfect understanding, this damage is irreversible by any means which humanity now possess, or will ever possess in the future, that has been derived from our own knowledge.

[BB]I am completely lost about what the above sentence means...care to clarify?

It means that we are so lost, and so separated from the fundamental nature of reality that humanity as a species will never be able to find our way back on our own, without outside intervention.

You mean, intervention from the aliens/gods/angels,etc? Probably not going to happen. I wouldn't wait for it (altho I could be wrong). On the other hand, why should we devolve, go back to the garden (one of my old fav songs from crosby stills nash and young)? If we did go back, we would just evolve just as we are! What would be different? Make better choices? How can we learn but by our choices? I believe we are evolving and always changing, like the way of all things. We are evolving and becoming more efficient and learning as we go. We may not see ourselves as growing smarter and more efficient because of our short life spans, but we are, nevertheless, becoming what we shall be.

[Tony]This act of creation was performed out of love.

[BB]I, personally, do not believe the purpose we were created by the "gods" was out of love. But, I believe love itself is a powerful creative force that drives, emotionally, the sentient nature of ALL THAT IS. It may be even the most powerful creative emotion that IS.

[Tony]That statement was specifically pointed to the prime motivation, and was made as an answer to DHW's concern over the prime motivation of a creator God. The prime motivation was love.

Cont...

I believe Love is a by product of creation and may even be the greatest power created, but is it what created humans? I can't say. Of course, most everything I think is always in a state of change...and at one time I did believe that Love was the first cause of all things. Now I don't believe so...

Sorry...I dont have time to proof read...hope it's all understandable!

The electorate is generally given the choice between ambitious fallible human beings and ambitious fallible human beings. In many countries there isn’t even a choice of ambitious fallible human beings. You can't always blame the electorate!

For goodness sake. Have a TEA party and put up more reasonable people!!! We did in the USa and it has worked so far!

Dhw (to Tony, 25.11 at 16.06): That is a misunderstanding brought about by my questioning God’s nature and my suggestion that he’s a mixture of all the attributes – good and bad – that he has poured into us, his image. The mixture is at the heart of all my arguments.

DAVID: God is not mixture, but his creations with free will are.

DAVID (to Tony, 21 November at 06.36): ...my God is not what you want your God to be. Where you have extended logic is you want a loving caring God who can advise you, love you. I don’t know that that God exists.

So how do you know that your God is not a mixture? Grrrr, there was me praising you to the heavens for your balanced view, your reluctance to endow your God with specific attributes, and all of a sudden you come up with an all-good God!

We do not know what God is as a personality. I've said this over and over. I've never said God is all good. I don't know. I just can see His creations. Life is good, by my standards, people vary.

DAVID: That is why I wrote the first book. But electorates are at complete fault. They vote for the guy who promises the biggest government trough. It is Athens all over again.

The electorate is generally given the choice between ambitious fallible human beings and ambitious fallible human beings. In many countries there isn’t even a choice of ambitious fallible human beings. You can't always blame the electorate!

Dhw (to Tony, 25.11 at 16.06): That is a misunderstanding brought about by my questioning God’s nature and my suggestion that he’s a mixture of all the attributes – good and bad – that he has poured into us, his image. The mixture is at the heart of all my arguments.

DAVID: God is not mixture, but his creations with free will are.

DAVID (to Tony, 21 November at 06.36): ...my God is not what you want your God to be. Where you have extended logic is you want a loving caring God who can advise you, love you. I don’t know that that God exists.

So how do you know that your God is not a mixture? Grrrr, there was me praising you to the heavens for your balanced view, your reluctance to endow your God with specific attributes, and all of a sudden you come up with an all-good God!

[*]There is a long term plan of corrective action, though the details of such a plan are quite likely beyond our limited comprehension and are at work at a time scale that, because of our limited lifespan, seems to be a burden. However, i speculate that this time frame is not by any means random, but probably is dependent upon certain criteria that must be met for such a thing to be successfully implemented without starting from scratch.

If, you are talking about the afterlife above, or what happens to "souls" after they die, I personally do believe in a type of reincarnation and an afterlife. But my belief has nothing to do with the "gods" who created us, but in the sentient being that we are and our own creative desires which have the ability to manifest an afterlife for our soul.

This statement was not so much geared to the afterlife, though I do suspect that there is some form of reincarnation. This statement is geared towards physical reality. There was an original purpose that was put off track because of humanities choices, and eventually things will be realligned with that original purpose. However, it will be done when the time is right, which probably has its own set of criteria.

[*]We were given an opportunity to learn how to accomplish that task perfectly.

This can be seen from two perspectives: We can look at the scriptures and go by its teachings and say, this was our God teaching us from long ago and our first fathers/ forefathers didn't listen and now we suffer for it. Or, we can recognize, as you've said before and/or since, we see the patterns of ALL THAT IS, given directly to us, and learn from those patterns how things ARE and work within the flow of that framework, or against it.

One way, narrowly looks to those imperfect "gods" of our forefathers in the scriptures and try to decipher or glean from their teaching the best way to look and walk in life that gets us the furthermost or helps us to feel like we are "living" right. The other, recognizes that everything we observe, within and without, is our teacher,

We can also do both :) Many times I have thought of religious texts as the 'hint books' for an extremely complicated puzzle. They don't give straight answers and they were never intended to. They instead give us clues that we can use as a sort of anchor point while examining reality.

..we become limited by any one book or teacher when we focus solely from that one perspective, even if we choose to observe other teachings, but with the eyes of limitation seen from one teachings perspective, we become limited by that perspective.

Agreed

[*]We are accountable for all that has occurred since that time.

I think you mistook what I meant here. We, as indidviduals are only responsible for our own personal actions, but as a species we are responsible for everything that has occurred since the choice was made to do things our own way.(i.e. We can only blame ourselves for the problems that we cause and their consequences.

I do believe that *all* of the original religious texts contain elements of the truth. I also think that there is much more to our existence than we currently understand. One of the reasons that DHW has a hard time pinning down my beliefs is that *I* have a hard time pinning them down. Contrary to what David says, the only holdover belief I have from my childhood is that of a loving creator god. Truth be told, I gave that belief up when I was 15, only to have it quite forcefully brought home to roost as I got older via my own experiences. For the most part, I see all religions as a way of trying to express the same concepts. And, as DHW is always quick to point out, I gladly acknowledge the corruptibility of religion via personal and political motivations on the part of organizations and individuals.

It is not unusual for me to entertain several different theories at once, and discount or refine them as I find new information that subtly shifts my perspective. However, for everything that I have found, nothing has been able to shake my faith in god, and in particular, my faith that God IS Love.

Gonna try to respond to all of your points here. Thank you for taking the time to share your beliefs with us.

The "god/s"...describes a race of beings our forefathers of the scriptures may have called "God"...this "God" gives me more the feel of a human like being/s that have needs and wants...the "God" of the sacred scriptures is not the same god as the Creator of all that IS.

Um, actually, what you describe is EXACTLY what the bible describes. The "ALL that IS" that is mentioned in the bible is described as having only directly created exactly one thing, His 'only begotten son', and everything else was created through him and the active force, or 'holy spirit' of "All that IS". Whether you consider the Elohim as aliens or angels is only symantics as, by all description, they are fallible, have feelings, are not immortal, and can be in fact wrestled down by a mere human(Jacob).

From my perspective, the Creator of ALL that IS, could be considered similar to the way some ancient beliefs describe mother earth. They call her Gaia...

"Mother Earth is the sentience or soul of our planet. A sentience is that which is conscious or aware of itself and its purpose. A sentience is more like an emotional response and less like an intellectual process.".. A sentient being is "less" like an intellectual being, in that it doesn't have "thought," as a whole, it responds as a whole to itself and to outside forces. It describes a sentient being as being "more" like a being that "responds" on an emotional level. So, for me, to make it clear from my perspective, The God is a sentient being that responds to itself in an emotionally reactive way. God is not a being that speaks from the heavens or comes down from the heavens to speak with humans or directs them to write books about it's exploits and teachings.

This is almost, almost an echo of how I think. God IS love. But, that being said, emotion is a function of intelligence. Personally, I see emotion broken into two categories, apathy and love. Their may be some argument over that statement, but suffice to say for now that if you do not love or care about something, then there is no point in anger, hate, loathing, dissappointment or jealousy. So either you love it enough to care, or you are apathetic.The God of the bible DID react on a very emotional level, so I do not disagree with your statement, I simply allow for a broader scope.

I do believe we, as a species, we can and ARE doing a pretty good job, of getting a grasp of the sentient nature of ALL THAT IS and it's/our own make up and the way it works.

I think, as a species, are judgement is too clouded by immediate needs and desires(and our inability to distinguish between the two) to ever "All that IS". We are not temporally ready.

In my opinion, the word Sin, is, within itself, a word much like demon. It has a shelf life...and it's expiration date is upon us. Morality, much like the word Sin, has a shelf life. At some point, it's meaning will be so diverse, it will no longer have use.

That is why I attempted to simplify and remove all the baggage from the words. They are binary states. Either a = b, or not. Their may be more than one correct way to do things, but each and every one of those ways will either be correct, or not.

[*]Inherited Sin is equivalent to compounded mistakes. An incorrect idea passed down from teacher to student. These mistakes often have physical counterparts that affect our very physical existence and thus are further compounded as they become genetically degrading.

I agree, if you are saying above that there really is no such thing as inherited sin.

No. I am saying sin is very simply, a mistake. If you say a potato is a tomato, you are wrong, and it is a sin(mistake). No moral connotation involved. As I mentioned above, sin is the 0(false) in a binary statement. My mention of inherrited sin could be better read "inherrited teachings that are mistaken(wicked/sinful/wrong)"

[*]Because of our imperfect understanding, this damage is irreversible by any means which humanity now possess, or will ever possess in the future, that has been derived from our own knowledge.

I am completely lost about what the above sentence means...care to clarify?

It means that we are so lost, and so separated from the fundamental nature of reality that humanity as a species will never be able to find our way back on our own, without outside intervention.

[*]This act of creation was performed out of love.

I, personally, do not believe the purpose we were created by the "gods" was out of love. But, I believe love itself is a powerful creative force that drives, emotionally, the sentient nature of ALL THAT IS. It may be even the most powerful creative emotion that IS.

That statement was specifically pointed to the prime motivation, and was made as an answer to DHW's concern over the prime motivation of a creator God. The prime motivation was love.

Cont...

My experience is that wherever you go, you will find among ordinary people just as much warmth, humour, empathy etc. as you will find cold and callous self-interest. There is a balance in human nature, but it has been distorted by a now seemingly unchangeable institutionalization of power. We all know that power corrupts, and those who have it are the ones who tip the balance towards what you call “mistakes”, whether political, economic, educational, or religious.

That is why I wrote the first book. But electorates are at complete fault. They vote for the guy who promises the biggest government trough. It is Athens all over again.

Tony, I’ve never thought, let alone said any such thing. That is a misunderstanding brought about by my questioning God’s nature and my suggestion that he’s a mixture of all the attributes – good and bad – that he has poured into us, his image. The mixture is at the heart of all my arguments.

God is not mixture, but his creations with free will are.

Natural disasters may or may not be necessary for the sustenance of life, though I’d be surprised if your Garden of Eden was subject to floods, tornadoes, volcanic eruptions etc. If it was, God would have needed to offer a bit more protection than helmets, pads and training wheels. If it wasn’t, the implication would be that God is perfectly capable of creating a disaster-free environment if he wants to.

As you may remember from my book, I believe that much as God used evolution to create us eventually from early life, the universe also is created to evolve. As a result natural disasters are 'natural'. The Earth must have earthquakes in subduction zones, because the continents must float on the core to have the Earth provide for life as it does. The Earth is a living planet in the sense of Bella's Gaia.

[*] Because of our lack of understanding and our imperfect knowledge, it is highly improbably that we can ever adequately understand the actions that God takes to fulfill or advance whatever prerogative he chooses.

I agree, that in our own lifetime, we may not understand "the gods" reasoning in creating us or why? Yet, I do believe we, as a species, we can and ARE doing a pretty good job, of getting a grasp of the sentient nature of ALL THAT IS and it's/our own make up and the way it works. Once more of us comprehend and begin to live within that knowing, we will be able, as a species, to evolve past our current state, as a whole. I may not live to see it in this round, but I do believe I will see it.

[*]Sin is not a matter of good and evil, but a simple case of what is right(without any context of morality) and what is wrong(without any context of morality).

In my opinion, the word Sin, is, within itself, a word much like demon. It has a shelf life...and it's expiration date is upon us. This word has way too much baggage to be carried into our next evolutionary state of being. Even those very close to the "gods" of the scriptures predicted it's demise.

[*]Morality is an extension of this ideal that consists of a set or preferences for things that have been tested over time and deemed either controversial or damaging to the individual, community, environment, or species.

Morality, much like the word Sin, has a shelf life. At some point, it's meaning will be so diverse, it will no longer have use.

[*]Inherited Sin is equivalent to compounded mistakes. An incorrect idea passed down from teacher to student. These mistakes often have physical counterparts that affect our very physical existence and thus are further compounded as they become genetically degrading.

I agree, if you are saying above that there really is no such thing as inherited sin. This idea "may" have been a scare tactic of the "gods" much like the hell fire and damnation preaching's we have endured for the last few centuries. Or, may have been a misinterpretation by the the prophets. Either way, it may have been meant for a purpose to guide and direct the child like creatures we "were" but no longer are. Even Jesus came to proclaim this a dead thought we are no longer bonded to. Altho it is true, we are a product of our gene pull/pool, yet, our genes are only one part of the sentient being that we are. Especially now, because of technology and our connectivity to ourselves, we have the ability to overcome our gene pool and environment, many times, by emotional balance in our reasoning alone. That doesn't mean a tomato can become a potato...it just means we can choose to be a better quality tomato, if we choose (unlike a tomato of course).

[*]Because of our imperfect understanding, this damage is irreversible by any means which humanity now possess, or will ever possess in the future, that has been derived from our own knowledge.

I am completely lost about what the above sentence means...care to clarify?

bb

My main argument here, and the entire point of my belief system really, is this:

• We(humans) were created for a specific purpose.

There is little doubt in my mind that the above sentiment is true. Yet, who created us and what for I'm not sure. It is like a tomato being grown in a farmers garden. It says to itself - That farmer is cultivating me and could be my creator, yet I know not for what? We are like a tomato in the aliens gardens...we may be cultivated for a purpose. Yet, even if they spliced the genes and created us for a purpose, "they" are not "The" Creator God - the sentient being of ALL THAT IS - and so, do not have sole creative licence over us or our purpose. Neither does "The" ALL THAT IS. Because that is not the sentient nature of creation, to have power or purpose over ALL.

[*]This act of creation was performed out of love.

I, personally, do not believe the purpose we were created by the "gods" was out of love. But, I believe love itself is a powerful creative force that drives, emotionally, the sentient nature of ALL THAT IS. It may be even the most powerful creative emotion that IS.

We can only hope, and I share this hope with you, that those that did create us, playing the part of the gods of the scriptures, did have love in mind for our creation. But my hope is not placed into those "gods," but the power of LOVE itself.

[*]There is a long term plan of corrective action, though the details of such a plan are quite likely beyond our limited comprehension and are at work at a time scale that, because of our limited lifespan, seems to be a burden. However, i speculate that this time frame is not by any means random, but probably is dependent upon certain criteria that must be met for such a thing to be successfully implemented without starting from scratch.

If, you are talking about the afterlife above, or what happens to "souls" after they die, I personally do believe in a type of reincarnation and an afterlife. But my belief has nothing to do with the "gods" who created us, but in the sentient being that we are and our own creative desires which have the ability to manifest an afterlife for our soul.

[*]We were given an opportunity to learn how to accomplish that task perfectly.

This can be seen from two perspectives: We can look at the scriptures and go by its teachings and say, this was our God teaching us from long ago and our first fathers/ forefathers didn't listen and now we suffer for it. Or, we can recognize, as you've said before and/or since, we see the patterns of ALL THAT IS, given directly to us, and learn from those patterns how things ARE and work within the flow of that framework, or against it.

One way, narrowly looks to those imperfect "gods" of our forefathers in the scriptures and try to decipher or glean from their teaching the best way to look and walk in life that gets us the furthermost or helps us to feel like we are "living" right. The other, recognizes that everything we observe, within and without, is our teacher,

[*]We refused the proffered training in favor of doing things our own way, and thus accepted accountability for all choices that we may make.

Seen from the perspective of our teachings from the scriptures? I disagree in one sense but agree in another. In life, their is wisdom we can glean from anything we observe for any length of time, including the sacred scriptures. But, we become limited by any one book or teacher when we focus solely from that one perspective, even if we choose to observe other teachings, but with the eyes of limitation seen from one teachings perspective, we become limited by that perspective. The sacred teachings, especially, tend to have that effect on people, from my perspective.

[*]We are accountable for all that has occurred since that time.

I disagree. I believe I am only personally accountable for what my personal soul takes responsibility for. Of course, if I choose to take responsibility for what has occurred since time began...then that would be true for me. The sentient being of ALL THAT IS, would honor that.

[*]God is not responsible for our poor choices.

I believe "The" Creator is responsible for ALL THAT IS, in the greater sense, that without the sentient nature of ALL THAT IS, we wouldn't be. But, when it comes to our own personal choices, being that we "are" all ALL THAT IS, and, at the same time, are free will agents within the boundaries of our soul being... in the sense, I am a tomato and have freedom to be all that a tomato can be, we are all personally responsible for all our own choices. We have the freedom, within the creative matter of being, to choose goodness above badness.

continued...

However, I both agree and disagree with your comments. Yes, God et all could be considered Alien, foreign, non-native to this world.

The "god/s" I was speaking about that have the qualities that the scripture texts usually give to "God," to me, I believe, describes a race of beings our forefathers of the scriptures may have called "God" and many have since bought into, but, in my understanding, this "God" gives me more the feel of a human like being/s that have needs and wants. Even if those wants may be to look out for our good, or not so much, considering the flood (who knows? but after watching the recent Ancient Aliens, the flood may have been for our good as well. I will leave that unjudged on my part). But I did want to clarify, that from my perspective, the "God" of the sacred scriptures is not the same god as the Creator of all that IS.

And yes, I agree that God could be considered ALL THAT IS.

From my perspective, the Creator of ALL that IS, could be considered similar to the way some ancient beliefs describe mother earth. They call her Gaia. Here is one description of Gaia I've found that evokes the sentiment I am going for:

Mother Earth is the sentience or soul of our planet. A sentience is that which is conscious or aware of itself and its purpose. A sentience is more like an emotional response and less like an intellectual process. Gaia sentience (or Mother Earth) animates the planet, gives it purpose and makes life on Earth possible. Our past is deeply rooted in the earth and our future depends upon our ability to recreate a relationship with our sentient planet. We hope that you will accept Mother Earth's invitation to open your heart and change the world by honoring all moments with respect, partnership and peace.

The above description describes mother earth as a sentient being, as a whole, which includes us, we are her and we are her children at the same time, as we are made from her elements. A sentient being is "less" like an intellectual being, in that it doesn't have "thought," as a whole, it responds as a whole to itself and to outside forces. It describes a sentient being as being "more" like a being that "responds" on an emotional level. When you search the word emotion, and get to its root, you get a feel of what I believe is also the root of how a sentient being is. The word disturbance, motion, movement, reaction, all come into play. This is what I see as The true Creator God. All that IS, is sentient. Everything that IS, is sentient and responds on an emotional level from within it's own integument to ALL THAT IS. The difference is...I/we do not know the boundaries of the circumference of the being of ALL THAT IS, nor it's shelf life....like we think we know Gaia's.

So, for me, to make it clear from my perspective, The God is a sentient being that responds to itself in an emotionally reactive way. God is not a being that speaks from the heavens or comes down from the heavens to speak with humans or directs them to write books about it's exploits and teachings. That, to me, would be another race of beings, more advance I grant you (maybe so much so that they could be considered god by a less advanced civilization), but not The Creator of "ALL THAT IS."

However, I would also argue that if God, and I use that term here sole as the province of the original, the first cause, etc, is all that is, then it also contains personality, as personality exists.

I believe, because of the sentient creative nature of the ALL THAT IS, this being we are all a part of, I agree, it definitely can have personality...as a matter of fact, because of it's sentient emotional nature, it can be all or anything you "need" it to be, many times, right when you need it to be. Because, it reacts/responds/creates in reaction to emotion. Need is an emotion. When we have a need, the sentient being of ALL THAT IS, does create what it is we need. As long as our subconscious or other surrounding factors, are not interfering with that creation (a greater need). There are many, many books of wisdom, self-help books, etc written on the creative sentient nature we all are and are a part of. We, as is said, have been created in the image of this sentient being. We are all holographically a mirror image of the one sentient being, THE ALL THAT IS. We, too, are creative emotional beings.

continued...

In regards to the afterlife, I do not subscribe to the heaven and hell models that are shouted by red faced sermonizers from the pulpits. I can't believe that any loving creator(the central tenent of my belief) would condemn someone to a fiery torment for an eternity for something that they could not avoid. Heaven, on the other hand, is to narcissistic of a concept for me. It absolutely reeks of elitist arrogance. 'I'm better than you so I'm gonna go to heaven' type garbage that caters to mans desire to govern over something, anything, as if being in heaven will give them some small measure of authority over things they could not control in life.

That being said, throughout the world, in every culture that has ever existed, there has been god, and an afterlife. Regardless of the variety, regardless of the form, that has been as universal than death and more-so than taxes. So, why, and in what form.

So, as in other things, I look at the world at large and study the patterns that I see and try to make sense of it all. The two things that I see as universal are cycles and evolution(And I use that word only in the sense of 'change')

My best guess on the after life takes one of three forms, and in the end will probably settle somewhere in the middle. Either we die, and that is it, (which I have a hard time accepting), we enter a cycle of rebirth(reincarnation) as we progressively come closer to our spiritual perfection, or the cycle is imposed on us from outside and we are guided into that point of spiritual attainment a few at a time.

Personally, I think that, given the evidence, the last option is the most likely. I also think that would be a better fit with the archaeological evidence as well as the mythology of the numerous cultures around the world.

TONY: This is a hard question to answer, primarily because any answer I give is a) pure speculation, and b) subject to being interpreted as subscribing to a particular belief system despite the disclaimer that it is merely speculation.

Erm…another bad day at the office? But this is an important point for future discussions. On an absolute level, ALL talk about God and his nature is speculation, since none of us can ever “know” anything. That is my position, but it’s not yours, which is where the misunderstandings arise. You actually BELIEVE in a loving God, and I would like to know why. From that moment on, I have no idea how much of your “evidence” constitutes belief and how much speculation. (I now know that experience is the main “evidence”, but it took quite a while for that to be established.) For instance, when we talk about the bible, unless you tell me specifically, I have no way of knowing initially whether you regard the Eden story, the Exodus story, the Jesus story as myth, truth, or a bit of each – in which case, which bits? It’s only by continuous clarification that I can find out what YOU regard as speculation. As regards a belief system – as opposed to an individualistic belief like David’s – I’m not sure even now to what extent you’re bound, say, to the central Christian concept of Jesus as the Saviour, Messiah, Son of God. You’re clearly a very independent thinker, which also suggests that you subscribe to some parts of belief systems but not to others. So it may just be that sometimes you know what for you is belief and what is speculation, but I don’t. It’s not always easy to tell!

I will just add that from my perspective, if there is a God, I would regard his existence as almost irrelevant unless there really is some kind of afterlife. I say “almost” only because some people derive great comfort in the here and now from believing in him. The subject is therefore central to our discussions, but please don’t feel obliged to respond. That wouldn’t be fair. If you do respond, though, I promise that I will NOT interpret what you say as a belief! Your disclaimer could not be clearer.

".. the mere act of challenging people’s deeply held convictions can seem offensive in itself, which is why I’m immensely grateful to people like yourself, who are prepared to discuss their views in a spirit of give and take."

People are naturally resistant to change, especially to long held belief. Strangely, it almost seems as though the brain interprets someone challenging your views in the same way that it does a physical attack, and just like you can train yourself to respond appropriately to a physical attack, you can train yourself to respond appropriately to having your beliefs challenged. When you challenge my beliefs, it does frustrate and irritate me. I expect it to, and in most cases I am able to respond appropriately to the challenge. When other stresses are involved though, it erodes that ability.

DHW

As I see it, the technological forces we’ve developed will eventually cause destruction on a global scale, because sooner or later there will be enough idiots in power either to unleash them (weapons) or allow them to tip the ecological balance (pollutants). None of us can stop the process anyway, because there are simply too many autonomous power structures (which means autonomous idiot authorities) that are or will be capable of mass destruction. As individuals we can only enjoy what we can while we can – though I doubt if the human race will wipe itself out completely. By then, we might even have found the means to colonize somewhere else in space, so we can start the process all over again.

I don’t think faith in a god of love will make any difference. History will run its course unless he intervenes – again on a global scale. I don't suppose you imagine he’s going to appear from on high and make all the idiots into geniuses to save the planet! Even when, according to Christians, he did try a non-violent intervention by sending a peace-and-love-preaching Messiah, the outcome was the usual human mixture of peace and war, love and self-seeking, and it didn’t make a blind bit of difference to the onward march towards the abyss. A global intervention would probably have to be a comet that would finish us all off. So...and this is where our discussion may take a different course... perhaps what you have in view is a paradisal afterlife. Any thoughts you’d like to share on that?

This is a hard question to answer, primarily because any answer I give is a) pure speculation, and b) subject to being interpreted as subscribing to a particular belief system despite the disclaimer that it is merely speculation. I don't have time to go into it here at the moment, but when I get back later on tonight I will sit down and try to write up a few possible scenarios that I have played through as intellectual exercises. Suffice to say for now that I am 100% in agreement with you as to the ultimate out come of mankind in the foreseeable future barring any outside intervention.

Greatly appreciated, no offence taken, and the respect is 100% reciprocated. Sadly, not everyone can handle this kind of discussion – and I fear Abel is the latest, following on from the equally silent broken_cynic. A lot of interesting contributors, theist and atheist, have come and gone during the four years or so since the website opened. No doubt most have given up in disgust because they “know” they’re right, but some may well have taken offence. This has never been intentional on my part, but the mere act of challenging people’s deeply held convictions can seem offensive in itself, which is why I’m immensely grateful to people like yourself, who are prepared to discuss their views in a spirit of give and take.

TONY: Supposedly humans have had between 6000 and 4 million years to figure it out, depending on who you ask. Regardless of which set of numbers you agree with, I think that the evidence is in on whether or not we can do it for ourselves. The funny thing about belief to me is that every ascribes different things to faith. See, I don't need faith in God to enlighten me as to the relevance of love. My faith in God is simply that he is a god of love, and that he will do what is in the best interest of all in its own due course.

As I see it, the technological forces we’ve developed will eventually cause destruction on a global scale, because sooner or later there will be enough idiots in power either to unleash them (weapons) or allow them to tip the ecological balance (pollutants). None of us can stop the process anyway, because there are simply too many autonomous power structures (which means autonomous idiot authorities) that are or will be capable of mass destruction. As individuals we can only enjoy what we can while we can – though I doubt if the human race will wipe itself out completely. By then, we might even have found the means to colonize somewhere else in space, so we can start the process all over again.

I don’t think faith in a god of love will make any difference. History will run its course unless he intervenes – again on a global scale. I don't suppose you imagine he’s going to appear from on high and make all the idiots into geniuses to save the planet! Even when, according to Christians, he did try a non-violent intervention by sending a peace-and-love-preaching Messiah, the outcome was the usual human mixture of peace and war, love and self-seeking, and it didn’t make a blind bit of difference to the onward march towards the abyss. A global intervention would probably have to be a comet that would finish us all off. So...and this is where our discussion may take a different course... perhaps what you have in view is a paradisal afterlife. Any thoughts you’d like to share on that?

Tony

You cannot tell me that mankind, as a species, puts love first in all the things that they do. At least, you can not tell me that while being honest with yourself.[/i]”

DHW

Tony, I’ve never thought, let alone said any such thing. That is a misunderstanding brought about by my questioning God’s nature and my suggestion that he’s a mixture of all the attributes – good and bad – that he has poured into us, his image. The mixture is at the heart of all my arguments.

Tony
Didn't mean to imply that you had said/insinuated it, simply that I do not think there can be any argument with the statement if one is practicing any degree of intellectual honesty.

You’ve put in a nutshell precisely what’s wrong with the world, and precisely what could set it to rights. Where we differ is that I don’t need belief in God to see this fundamental truth. Nor do I see any solution through faith in a God whose existence and nature are so much in doubt. Evolution will run its course – whether he is there or not – and we as individuals can only do our best to base our actions on love. Many people do, and despite global suffering and future disasters, the present moment can be made happy, and it should be relished. You might argue that if we followed God’s teachings, all would be well, whereas I will argue that if we followed the principles of humanism all would be well. Perhaps that’s as close to each other as we can get. Pax?

Supposedly humans have had between 6000 and 4 million years to figure it out, depending on who you ask. Regardless of which set of numbers you agree with, I think that the evidence is in on whether or not we can do it for ourselves. The funny thing about belief to me is that every ascribes different things to faith. See, I don't need faith in God to enlighten me as to the relevance of love. My faith in God is simply that he is a god of love, and that he will do what is in the best interest of all in its own due course.

Let me in turn clarify a couple of points. You wrote: “I simply do not share your optimism that man will start making good decisions any time soon”; and “You can put your faith in men. I know where my faith belongs.” I don’t have any such optimism, and I don’t have faith in men. Human history lurches from one man-made disaster to another, and in my crystal ball I see no change. We are a destructive species – destroying both ourselves and other forms of life. But that is not the whole story.

I found your personal experiences very moving and illuminating, and to illustrate my viewpoint, I’ll recount two of mine - not as dramatic as yours, but for me just as far-reaching. I was brought up during the war, and was old enough to be shaken to the core by the newsreels of the skeletal Belsen survivors (David will remember them) and by the gradually emerging tales of the Holocaust. As a little Jewish child, I knew that could have been me. Even now a film like ‘Schindler’s List’ makes me churn. In my teens, because I was gifted at languages, I won a travel scholarship to pay for a trip to Germany. I hid my terror, even from my parents. More in a moment. In my early twenties, I applied for a teaching job in Ghana, West Africa. In my ignorance – shared by many of my generation at that time – I had strange preconceptions of the oh-so-different “Dark” Continent, but was eager to learn. Both experiences were life-changing. What I discovered was that Germans were not monsters, and that Africans were not aliens. Despite cultural and, in Africa, even physical differences, our basic core was exactly the same. We had the same needs, weaknesses, strengths and, above all, emotions. My ties with Germany have remained very strong, and I’ve been married to my African wife for nearly 46 years. My experience is that wherever you go, you will find among ordinary people just as much warmth, humour, empathy etc. as you will find cold and callous self-interest. There is a balance in human nature, but it has been distorted by a now seemingly unchangeable institutionalization of power. We all know that power corrupts, and those who have it are the ones who tip the balance towards what you call “mistakes”, whether political, economic, educational, or religious.

I’ve left out the most important emotion of all, because I want to comment on your final paragraph: “The problem as I see it, is that as a race, we do not temper our actions with love. If, as David and BBella maintain, God is all that there is, and if, as I maintain, God is love, then perhaps viewing all of our actions through the lens of love will reveal the fundamental truths we have been searching for. You cannot tell me that mankind, as a species, puts love first in all the things that they do. At least, you can not tell me that while being honest with yourself.”

Tony, I’ve never thought, let alone said any such thing. That is a misunderstanding brought about by my questioning God’s nature and my suggestion that he’s a mixture of all the attributes – good and bad – that he has poured into us, his image. The mixture is at the heart of all my arguments. You’ve put in a nutshell precisely what’s wrong with the world, and precisely what could set it to rights. Where we differ is that I don’t need belief in God to see this fundamental truth. Nor do I see any solution through faith in a God whose existence and nature are so much in doubt. Evolution will run its course – whether he is there or not – and we as individuals can only do our best to base our actions on love. Many people do, and despite global suffering and future disasters, the present moment can be made happy, and it should be relished. You might argue that if we followed God’s teachings, all would be well, whereas I will argue that if we followed the principles of humanism all would be well. Perhaps that’s as close to each other as we can get. Pax?

The problem as I see it, is that as a race, we do not temper our actions with love. If, as David and Bella maintain, God is all that there is, and if, as I maintain, God is love, then perhaps viewing all of our actions through the lens of love will reveal the fundamental truths that we have been searching for. You can not tell me that mankind, as a species, puts love first in all the things that they do. At least, you can not tell me that while being honest with yourself.

By starting the thread off with the title "Tony's God", I kind of felt forced into the role of defending the bible, even though the thread was started because I used the bible as a counter to Abel's thread for the singular reason that he was using an argument that was built predominantly around Judeo-Christianic Archetypes. I found the situation frustrating because it represents a fundamental rift between something that I am to argue, and my actual belief structure, which, as outlined in response to Bella, has little basis on the bible.

Yes, I DO believe that the Bible has tremendous validity and deeper levels of truth than many ever realize. However, just so there is no misunderstanding, I do not claim, nor have I ever, that every single word must be interpreted literally, nor do I claim any special insight as to what is or is not to be interpreted as literal. That is a question for archaeologist.(However, it should be pointed out that in your introduction to this thread you implied that the stories should be taken literally, so I treated them as such.)

I also believe that much of it is couched in allegory meant to inspire contemplation on deeper subjects, allowing the reader to arrive at fundamental truths by way of reflection and meditation. Arriving at a truth in this manner is far more potent, and the effects much longer lasting, than having someone 'preach it to you from the pulpit'. Not only that, but the brain in its mysterious way seems to niggle at you whenever you are misunderstanding something, processing information in the background, inspiring odd questions until you arrive at an answer that it accepts wholly and fully, at which point it moves you off into another direction, normally along some associated topic. To beg your humor for a moment, let's call this trait 'the knowledge of good and evil', or, as I postulated in my previous discussion, 'the knowledge of correct and mistaken.'

Have you ever wondered WHY we are so drawn to question something that we have heard answered a million times? Why is that when we here an answer to a question, we KNOW whether it is right or wrong, even if we can not put our finger on WHY? Why is it that men pursued science when the world thought that we 'had discovered everything there is to discover'? Why is it that we push the boundaries of science, math, space, philosophy, religion, and truth even when we have what could be considered satisfactory answers?

The second line of questioning I would put to you is, why do we love? Contrary to popular thought, I see no evolutionary advantage in love. There is no advantage in giving a sick person help. From an evolutionary standpoint, the person is weak, flawed, a hindrance to the species and should be culled from the herd and the gene pool. Children old enough to care for themselves offer little selective advantage to the parents. Marriage beyond the point of having reproduced and seen the children safely out of the nest confers little evolutionary advantage. So, why do we love? What is there about love that is so fundamental that we see its echoes in all of creation? Even in creatures that supposedly have no introspection like mother lion caring for her cubs, or mourning their death.

You maintain hope for mankind and can not understand why I have so little. I have seen man's goodness. I've picked bloody chunks of mankind's 'loving kindness and goodness' off the streets of Mosul with my own hands. I've seen the half-crushed rotting stench of mankind's greatness in Tikrit with my own eyes. I've smelled the remains of mankind's diplomatic endeavors with my own breath. Every day we read stories of mankind's overwhelming good nature and generosity as they murder, steal, manipulate, lie, cheat, embezzle, poison, and attempt to enslave each other under the oh-so-loving guise of 'building a brighter future.' This is the nature of the creature that you praise so highly, DHW, and unlike the arguments we had of God, mankind is incapable of giving back what they have taken or destroyed. A is not equal to B. Man did these things, not God. And perhaps you think that my personal experiences have clouded my judgement, but I think they have given me perspective.

I grew in the country, listening to the beautiful music of nature. Smelling honeysuckles in the morning on my way to school. Catching tadpoles in the fowl pond only to watch them morph into frogs. Playing with baby alligators because their skin felt neat. Watching livestock give birth. Watching the newborns struggle to stand and the loving tenderness displayed by even the dumbest cow on the planet. I watched a good man sitting in a non-denominational church service get shot in the back with an RPG and walk away without so much as a scratch. Saw another get shot point blank in the face with a 9mm and walk away with only a missing tooth. I should have died at least a dozen times, probably more, and every time it was only by some odd little unusual coincidence that I just happened to be somewhere that I normally am not that saved my life.

Sorry my friend. You can put your faith in men. I know where my faith belongs.

Also, I hate it when you twist what I say around. I said it "could be seen as sparing them the problems of this life, and fast tracking them on the road to a better life..", not that it would or should be, nor that any person would not have strong personal feelings about losing their loved ones in such a manner. I simply refuse to pass judgement on him for an action that I do not have complete understanding of. Humanity is only capable of presenting their side of the story, and a single sided perception in a trial is generally useless. The point that seems to have been generally missed and/or ignored is that in no account has God ever taken what he did not give in the first place or what he could not give back. And yes, to me that is a pretty profound yet often overlooked truth.

As far as the good of mankind, I absolutely do recognize the 'potential for good in mankind'. More specifically, I recognize the potential for all things in mankind. I simply to not share your optimism that man will start making good decisions any time soon. Individuals are smart, people are stupid. Man will dominate man to his ruin. Love of money is the root of all evil.These kinds of cliches are cliches precisely cause they are true. All you have to do is open your eyes to see these represented in the heart of man absolutely everywhere you look.

Lastly, I identified sin as 'a mistake' to Bella because for me it was new a shift in the way I think brought about by our discussions. I shook off the last clinging notions of universal good and evil, and what is left what is a mistake, and what is not. This leaves in a much more fruitful position than morality because it leaves in the position to ask "Why is this a mistake?" with an open mind and heart without all the psychological trappings of good and evil. The why, by extension, leads to the how, and between answering the two there is something to learn.

You say people “are quick to blame for the bad, yet slow to acknowledge the good.” I have always been at pains to acknowledge both. I’ve repeatedly stressed the theory that man is in God’s image, and hence is a mixture, and if anything I think I have a more positive attitude than you do towards the good in humans (= a reflection of God’s good). In my experience, far too many conventional theists are quick to blame humans for being bad and slow to acknowledge how good they are. Such theists are also quick to acknowledge God’s good, and often totally unwilling to acknowledge even the possibility of his bad.

TONY: God said point blank that people would die. Not that he would directly cause their death.

This particular post concerns my reference to “the slaughter of the innocents”. I have no choice here but to return to the bible: the flood and the killing of the Egyptians’ firstborn are instances of God’s directly causing death through what we might otherwise explain as natural disasters. You have made it clear that all humans have inherited “sin”, which in your post to BBella you say is equivalent to “compounded mistakes” – “an incorrect idea passed down from teacher to student”. My point is that babies (the most innocent of the innocent, of whom no doubt many were killed in both incidents) can hardly be accused of sinning. Your only answer to that was that God was fast-tracking them to a better life, and sparing them the problems of this one. Parents should, apparently, thank God if their children die prematurely.

Natural disasters may or may not be necessary for the sustenance of life, though I’d be surprised if your Garden of Eden was subject to floods, tornadoes, volcanic eruptions etc. If it was, God would have needed to offer a bit more protection than helmets, pads and training wheels. If it wasn’t, the implication would be that God is perfectly capable of creating a disaster-free environment if he wants to.

I like your statement that “the idea of sin is not one of ‘offense against God’", though I don’t know why – in your post to BBella – you say it has no context of morality. As I see it, sin and evil are actions that cause harm to our fellow creatures, and if morality does not entail distinguishing between good and bad treatment of others, I don’t know what it can mean. This is not peeing on an electric fence – which is indeed a ‘mistake’, and a damn stupid one at that – but pushing someone else into the fence and peeing on them and it. All credit to God for giving us a code of conduct to protect ourselves and others. No credit to those who break the code. We can agree on that. But the subject of this thread is God’s nature, and I would suggest that the bible is simply bursting with evidence of what BBella has called God’s (human like) preferences, ideas and “needs”. Not surprising, since he made us in his image.