If we put God to rest...

1. 0

   sandra rinckposted 15 years ago

   If humanity could some how manage to put God to rest and stop believing that some immortal being is going to come and save mankind do you think that putting your faith in humanity would bring the long awaited "heaven on Earth" faster? 
   
   I do believe that this is plausable just no so much possible because humans are still waiting for this "omnipresent" or "ominous" or whatever God to come and save the "ill forsaken sinners" and put to rest all that is wicked; when we could do this right now by forgetting about these promises of a better life awaiting those who take up a cross and seek revenge for the unjust systems put in place by man himself. 
   
   It seems more logical that these ideas came from man.  It even seems more realistic to believe that the term "God" was actually a name of a man, first name or last does it matter? 
   
   Now I had this book sitting on my bookshelf for about six months, The God Dellusion, and I picked it up today out of curiosity because I am always curious to know whatever there is to know or understand about "God", and in the preface there were several quotes from what he called, "resturaunt critics", and what stood out was a belief that I actually share to some extent that is...
   
   One critic writes, I believe in people because people believe in God.  Another writes, I believe in God because people believe in God, and he writes, I believe in people and people and when given the right encouragement to think for themselves it would turn out that given all the available information that we have today they do not believe in God. 
   
   So amazingly enough, I did found a jewel today, that one being that I am not alone in my belief that believing in people is the right way to go, that learning from our past, understanding how life changes and the patterns and being encouraged to go and seek things that will bring us one step closer to a better way of life rather then one step back in an awful way of life is the way to go.  Because I know that if people put down thier belief in this God who sits in a cloud ready to judge man that (if he did exist) would find the treasure he has been waiting for in the human soul which is the "togetherness", the ability to work together in a society who's ultimate goal is live the one life that we do have in peace. 
   
   To achieve the impossible, travel the Universe maybe or just rest in peace without the need to approve or exile or prohibit people for thier desire to understand and appreciate what is actually here and the only way for this to happen would be for those religous zealots to stop harming or hurting or refuting people who chose to believe in the things that they can see and work towards something that we can make happen with our own minds and hands, not God's hands. 
   
   Of course there will always be the ones who find these ideas wicked for some reason as to speak blaspemy againts what they believe or something when all I can say is we will never achieve anything but death that way.    You know cuz there is a whole Universe out there waiting to be explored yet we waste our resources on trivial things like bullets for killing and nuclear weapons or more so just poisoning our Earth and killing us before we have a chance to really find out what we could accomplish. 

   replyreport
   1. 60

      mohitmisraposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      It has been destined and will happen.

      replyreport
2. 78

   Shadesbreathposted 15 years ago

   I think the problem is that humanity already proved that they can't live without "God."  The very fact that there is no culture or civilization in existence or recorded history that is/was without a religious construct proves that humanity requires some form of moral codification to maintain a uniform set of social mores. 
   
   The debates that have waged for centuries pertaining to "good" and "evil" and whether or not mankind is "inherently good" or "inherently evil" (original sin etc.) in theology and philosophy and art have proved the question to be unsolvable and perhaps subject to some biological sliding-scale of disposition at birth or outcome of nature or nurture in a psychological sense. (Which leaves room for labels of good and evil etc.)
   
   Uncertainty is uncomfortable, and communities don't function well without rules.  Gods and religion provide answers and super-natural reprecussions for anti-social behavior, a win-win for keeping people living peacefully, and as such provide, or have for tens of thousands of years, the framework by which large communities have a shared value set.
   
   As civilizations grew and started bumping into each other, religion became a problem.  The troubles that ensue are obvious, we all see them now, and the writers of religions long ago saw this just as clearly.  The prediction in the Bible of a one-world order and the potential for problems were not so much, in my opinion, prophets of God as they were clear thinking and logical in observing human nature and making reasonable predictions.  They couch their observations in terms palatable by the people of the times, and perhaps sought influence too, who knows, but the end result is the same.  It's a pattern that has repeated itself likely time and again over the last 40 to 60 thousand years, just on smaller scale than we have today.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      sandra rinckposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Maybe but I think it is more like they haven't been given the opportunity to step away from that and feel ok if not proud about it. 
      
      It seems in every society some build up enough courage to step outside the box and when one does and is ok, then others will follow. 
      
      There is a pattern, I don't deny that, that people feel this urge or need to have a God but at the same time, what they didn't have was a choice.  Today we do have a choice.  I cannot say for certain that it won't have it's reprecussion because of all the religous ones already, but if you give them a stone to step on they may take it. 
      
      I do agree with you in that the so called "prophets" were not actually people who could see the furture, but more like people who were "sensitive" or detailed in what they could see in the things that people do.  They were, what's the word?... intuitive.
      
      My intuition is telling me that it will change,  I don't want to say that people should just not believe in thier God in thier own homes or in thier minds or thoughts or whatever, just not in a way that oppresses, bans, deplores, hates, etc. those that do not or believe otherwise. 

      replyreport
3. 78

   Shadesbreathposted 15 years ago

   I'm with you Sandra in principle, it's just that the "animal" that is human remains unchanged in the last 5 thousand years.
   
   Read Plato or Socrates... (you probably have), read the Upanishads, look at the complexity of the Egyptians, Mayans or Inca.  This... this animal, monkey-man.. whatever we are today, this physical form of us, including the wad of neurons in our skulls, is NO different now than then.  There are no men or women smarter on this planet now than was Socrates (or fill in your favorite ancient genius).  There's this tendency to think that because the boats were made of wood or because the castles were drafty, that the humans who made this stuff were somehow more primitive... were "less" somehow.
   
   They weren't.  Same exact animal that we are today.  The only thing separating us is our technology.  And our technology had to stand on the shoulders of theirs.
   
   Were the cowboys in wagons and on horses with six guns more advanced intellectually than cavemen chasing mammoths with spears?  How about the soldiers at Normandy... were they "more advanced" than the Achaeans washing up against the walls of Troy?  Were their minds different?  Or were they the same guys with newer or older technology?
   
   Our weapons get better, but we remain the same.  Spiritually nothing has changed other than our ability to transmit our story.  Intellectually, internally, this is why texts like the Illiad still resonate with us.
   
   You know why the Bible took off and the other religions didn't?  It's called the Codex.  The "book" as we know it.  Not "The Book" just , you know, a book, like two hardish covers and some pages between.  That was actually an invention at one point in time.
   
   Christians adopted the new technology of "the codex."  When it came time to argue with a Jew or a Pagan, a Christian could whip out his book and thumb to the perfect passage.  Anyone working off of scrolls had to find the right scroll and then roll through it, slowly... if he could find what he wanted at all.  And a pagan.. hah.. those guys had everything memorized.  If they didn't have one of their really sharp people out there selling religion, well, it was over.  A dumb guy with a codex can destroy an average guy with a bad memory if it goes tet-a-tet.
   
   Sandra, I wish I could have your optimism, but I just don't think this creature that we are is any different than they have been since long ago, since the ancient wisemen even said, "Hey, we aren't any different than we used to be thousands of years ago."

   replyreport
4. 0

   sandra rinckposted 15 years ago

   I cannot argue some points, like we are animals that hasn't changed, true, just our technology changed but we aren't any brighter than say..(place favorite anceint genius here).  I cannot argue that either. 
   
   It's cool, I aint trying to change your mind or even make you more optomistic.  All I can say is that with our new technology, or because of the information age, people aren't left in the dark anymore.
   
   Like in the old days, Harod duped many people into believing that when they burned incents at the alter that the Gods would dance, when really it was all rigged, and how could such a simple carnival act convince so many people? 
   
   Simply because they didn't know and weren't allowed to know.  Anyways, again, I don't disagree with you,  I am what the the world likes to coin a "dreamer". 

   replyreport
5. 78

   Shadesbreathposted 15 years ago

   We need dreamers, otherwise the snarky old fuddy-duddies and generally cynical bastages like me would just walk around dripping snarkiness and cynicism everywhere.  Dreamers pull back the curtains and let some sunlight in.

   replyreport
6. 61

   Ben Bushposted 15 years ago

   Sandra,
   
   The problem with "puttin my faith in humanity" is that the track record of Humanity is atrocious. How do you overcome such a fact?
   
   I'm not being argumentative. I just would like to know what to do with humanity's inhumanity. It's a formidable obstacle, isn't it? And what about humanity's penchant for Deity? Atheism's rather small numbers aside, what about the human proclivity towards the Divine, even when considering themselves?

   replyreport
   1. 63

      Mishaposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      If I may interfere, I believe the vast majority of Chinese are not religious...

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         This is the McReligion approach.
         
         If a lot of people believe it, it must be true
         
         Except it only works one way. If a lot of people think evolution happened, it is a damned lie spread by godless, dolphin-hating, left-wing, atheist minorities

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Ben Bushposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            I believe my whole quote was as follows:
            
            
            
            
            My point was that even those considered non-religious seem to have a penchant for Divinity, even if they resort to viewing themselves as divine. There are a certain portion of those who aren't considered to be religious.
            
            Mark, you must admit, though, that when included, Atheism doesn't help humanity's cause. With that said, neither does the religion of Christianity. But of course, this religion is not the Ecclesia of Jesus. It doesn't fit the description in the Bible.
            
            And also, just because alot of people believe in something doesn't make it so, as you would agree with (I think). So just because alot of people believe in themselves, I should also?

            replyreport
            1. 59

               Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

               
               
               I never said I was divine. I just said I believed in me.
               
               There is more than one way to skin a cat. You think that promoting your religion is a way to change the system. I think thinking for yourself is the way to go.
               
               Neither religion, nor atheism will help humanity's cause if no one changes themselves. You will have seen that the major criticism I level at "christians" is that they do not practice what they preach. Therefore they are not genuine christians.......
               
               I try, like you do, to be better than that.
               
               McReligion. Kinda catchy don't you think?

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  Ben Bushposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                  Sorry Mark, That phrase has already been coopted here in the US back in the 70's. Stick with the sandals!
                  
                  
                  
                  I think no such thing. And I don't have a religion. And I don't play any semantic game either.
                  
                  I have no desire to change the system. The Bible prohibits me from changing the system. In fact, Scripture promises me that, if  resist or oppose the system, I am actually opposing Him and will bring judgement upon myself. That goes for anyone else resisting or opposing the system..........This is called practicing what the Bible preaches. And in no way does this preclude thinking for oneself. It does mean, however, that recognition of Truth must be a prerequisite.
                  
                  Changing oneself? Limited, at best. Ultimately, impossible when perfection is the standard.

                  replyreport
            2. 63

               Mishaposted 15 years agoin reply to this

               I did not really bother to argue about your main idea Ben, I just wanted to point out this small factual misrepresentation. In fact I don't bother with serious religious questions anymore if you noticed - it is sorta moved to lower priorities to me currently.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  Ben Bushposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                  Misha, I understand. I was just trying to clarify my statement.
                  And you higher priorities are????????????

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     Milla Mahnoposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                     His highest priority is flirting with me

                     replyreport
            3. 81

               LondonGirlposted 15 years agoin reply to this

               You appear to me to be arguing not that God created man, but that man created God in his own image.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  Ben Bushposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                  In one sense, yes. In one sense, no. How's that for a straightforward answer?
                  
                  Actually, God created man. But man, when left to his own imagination, will construct many Gods or gods in a variety of images, but mostly reflecting himself. Absent these outward constructs, man turns inward and exalts himself or some aspect of human character.
                  
                  This doesn't cover every possiblity, but most.

                  replyreport
   2. 0

      sandra rinckposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      I think the problem with humanity is believing in inhumanity...excuse un-human-utity. 

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Ben Bushposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         But how do you separate the un human actions from the human actors?
         
         Are we to deny inhumanity in the name of positively recognizing humanity?
         
         How are we to accept humanity without accepting the whole human person or the whole human population?

         replyreport
         1. 0

            sandra rinckposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            I don't think you understand the statement I posed.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               Ben Bushposted 15 years agoin reply to this

               I am at you mercy. Please explain.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  sandra rinckposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                  All actions are human, some are considered "inhumane" but not un-human.  We are all "actors".  All the laws of God regarding spirituality, morality, etc...those are also from a man. 
                  
                  I accept the whole human person and the whole human population as it is.  I don't understand why you feel the need, other than your belief in God, to only accept certain people or populations. 
                  
                  There are human actions that I do not like but it is human.  My frustration with people who believe in God does not come from thier need to be spiritually fullfilled and live a good and whole life with the hopes of being forgiven and going to heaven and being with God in peace. 
                  
                  It comes from the ones who would rather have a non christian hanged for not believing (not saying you think this per-say) and for not accepting your views on God when being athiest doesn't mean we hate your God it means your God does not exist and you are fighting aimlessly for something that does not exist.
                  
                  I think denying people information to make informed and rational decisions is just wrong.  Life does not revolve around God, and as you had said on another thread that God doesn't need to be defened, so what you are defending is what...?
                  
                  You are defending your right to believe in what you chose to believe yet at the same time it is taking away from what others chose to believe.  I think a lot of wisdom can be found in the Bible. 
                  
                  But wouldn't you agree that what people are taking from it isn't exactly wise, that a lot of what is being taken from it is just grotesque.  That the very loving and kind nature of the human changes when they read this book and I belive that it stems from fear of some make believe God who will kill you if you don't follow the herd. No actually, to be more precise, from people who will kill you or them for not believing. 
                  
                  
                  And you really believe this is acceptable?

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     Ben Bushposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                     Sandra, have I said that this is acceptable?
                     
                     An honest reading of the Bible cannot justify such activity. Yet, it officially occurs on a daily basis around the world.
                     
                     The Bible is the only Book to accurately describe the situation you are describing as well as its purpose and meaning. This world is set up a certain way. Trying to change the world is futile. In fact, Christ never calls on His People to change it.
                     
                     This in no way justifies their actions nor converts those actions into holy and desirable ones, even if they are preformed in the name of Jesus. Jesus Himself said this.
                     
                     So, yes this course of events is not wise. And the wisdom of the Bible would condemn it. Yet, most people don't understand why it is taking place.
                     
                     My statement about not needing to defend God has to do with the innate ability of an omnipotent God's to defend Himself, regardless of the situation. However, when an omnipotent God delegates a portion of His authority to men, it is their duty to fulfill it according to the parameters set by that omnipotent One. So, speaking on behalf of the Creator is not done to defend my God's reputation, but to inform others of His Grace toward them. This grace is true regardless of the brutal actions of others in His name.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        sandra rinckposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                        No, you haven't said in so many words this is acceptable, but it sorta makes it seem as though you do to some extent because if you aren't doing anything to stop then... 
                        
                        I saw your post over on the atheist rules thread, and something that bugs the crap outta me is that I have two Bible, yet they both read differently.
                        
                        Surely the messages are the same yet if you are a literalist, one could be extremely damaging, and if you are a philosopher of sorts the other reads beautifly.
                        
                        I was studying scripture with the lady, and everyone knows that Lazares (I know I, know that is not how you spell his name blah, blah, blah) but one says he was dead 3 days, which is typical everyone seems to know this, no one disputes it, but this new one that was given to me says 4 days...
                        
                        I know you disagree in writing contributions or changing the works, but I really cannot deny that I can't believe it because I don't know what parts are original. 
                        
                        The lady who gave it to me said, this translation is the best one because it uses the greek and hebrew translations etc...and that most scholars agree it is the best one. 
                        
                        So besides random numbers being changed, which by the way I will say were probabaly changed because of facts presented that debunk Lazereths death all together and more so it was a hoax or if it were real, it is a hoax, that it had to be changed. 
                        
                        I think then the same can be said throughout the years and baseing beliefs on this book that has been re-written so many times that it seems very unwise if not ignorant to believe it. 
                        
                        It shouldn't be taken at face value because if one part is a lie, the whole thing is bogus.  You do not know which parts have been made up. 
                        
                        3 billion people with one translation can say, this one is the truth.  3 billion others with another translation say, no you are wrong stop lying, this one is the truth...
                        
                        I have no doubt in my mind that you understand perfectly well what i am saying and what I am not saying. 
                        
                        What I am saying is, it is source that cannot be trusted. 

                        replyreport
                        1. 61

                           Ben Bushposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                           Sandra, I believe I do understand what you are saying and not saying.
                           
                           The issue of multiple translations is one that arises by design. The Bible has been altered and perverted to specifically cause confusion. The fact is, there is a body of evidence that predates the oldest Greek manuscripts. These non Greek copies of the NT actually reach back into the first century. And yes, scholars are very much aware of them and their consistency with one another. But for whatever reason, this body of evidence is ignored and known distortions and errors are promoted and published.
                           
                           As far as the body of the Bible itself, you are also correct. If one part is wrong or bogus, then none of it can be trusted. There's nothing wrong with proceeding upon such a principle.
                           
                           And as far as what people get from the Bible. Don't necessarily blame the Bible as grotesque. If a person's heart is in a "grotesque" state prior to approching the Bible, it should not be surprising that what they get from the Bible ends up being a reflection of their own heart and their grotesques purpose and motivation. However, even in their grotesques state, if their motivation is toward truth, their likelihood of coming away from the Bible with positive truth is much greater.
                           
                           BTW. I will be away for much of the day. I may be able to respond further this evening.

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              sandra rinckposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                              My sentiments exactly.  However people get really nasty with me when I try to convey the same message.  That what they are doing or believing is a reflection of thier own hearts discourse. 
                              
                              They if not all would never consider that there may be something "wrong" (lack of better words) with themselves. 
                              
                              Now then I am hoping you can see why I say over and over and over again. When it comes to God, everyone is innocent.  Not a single one can be blamed for this. 

                              replyreport
7. 64

   aka-djposted 15 years ago

   "Put God to rest"? ?
   
   The day is coming when God will put man to rest!
   I mean the whole human race. Some will rest in eternal
   blessing, others in damnation.
   It's our choice here and now!
   
   Most versions of the Bible would agree with this end.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      sandra rinckposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      I guess you are not one who wants peace but total ruin.  Thank you so much for sharing you "kind" words.  I am sure that God and I can work it out on our own. 
      
      Obviously you haven't the slightest idea of what I meant by, "put God to rest".  I honestly don't expect you to understand anything that happens to coinside with peace. 
      
      Good luck with daming the whole human race.  I will be sure to put in a kind word with Satan for you.  You know, I wouldn't want him to torrment you in the afterlife for not not doing anything to help the cause for peace. 
      
      

      replyreport
      1. 64

         aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         You over-react to my VERY short post.
         I do not condemn the whole human race. I merely summarized the New Testament, which you say you have read. In the Book of Revelation it clearly talks of a NEW earth and a new Heaven. This earth is destroyed and God creates a new one, etc.
         By this time all men will have faced their judgment, and are alocated their places (in the new earth, or in the lake of fire.)
         As for Satan, well, I used to be on his side, but I decided to change allegiances many, may years ago.
         As to helping the human race, this is a very tiny part of me doing so. Jesus said to go into all the world and preach the Gospel etc. (Good News) This forum is a tiny part of the whole world, wouldn't you agree?

         replyreport
         1. 0

            sandra rinckposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            well, I just don't believe you, but good luck with that. 

            replyreport
            1. 64

               aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this

               What part don't you believe?
               
               You've heard the saying "please don't shoot the messenger", I hope?
               
               Please read ( any major version you like) in your Bible, the following scriptures;
               
               2 Peter chapter 3, vss 10-- onwards
               Revelation chapter 21; verse 1 - 28.
               
               I am simply a messenger of the above.I did not write the original content of these verses.
               
               I hope this sheds some light on it for you.
               Having read many of your posts here and elsewhere, I get the impression you are still seeking truth. Good luck to you, too.(and blessings in your quest.)

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  sandra rinckposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                  Ok that is fair, my apologies.  and thank you.

                  replyreport
8. 64

   aka-djposted 15 years ago

   That's ok. Did you read it?
   It's actually a very positive, and encouraging reading, even though it may appear negative at first.
   What a place that will be ! !

   replyreport