If someone believed in a creator, after some visceral meditation - as in, all text aside towards the same belief a primitive human could accept after seeing some natural disaster - is acceptance of this creator coupled with entitled gratitude?
This can be exemplified by replacing humans with a clone, a mankind created by aliens, an advanced artificial intelligence, or Pinocchio.
Well, Dustin, if I was a door, and the guy who hung me got the hinges off by a millimeter, so I could not swing freely, then the guy would be at fault, not me the door.
If the creator, looking at the image of his creation in the mirror, chose to use an imperfect mirror, the image is not to blame.
Just giving this as a sort of tongue-in-cheek effort at intelligence. Hope it's food for thought.
Tasty thought-food indeed, and i think it gets into determinism aswel.
What then can't be blamed on the creator if every thing stims from this initial creation or placement of the door. If the guy who hung you put you in a position where you were trending towards displacement to then to inevitably not function properly, it's not your fault, it's the creator. If the doorman doesn't maintain it's creation, it's not the doors fault that it is sure to corrode over time.
So what then for us the door, do we have the ability to re-hinge ourselves for a better placement in the world?
Jesus is the carpenter, sent to fix the "door".
Is this "I AM" a doorway opening to a better world? If I stick in the role of Door, so be it. Maybe that is my sole function for the world as it is. Someone has to do the job. You, the person with the role of walking through Me, the Door, will go on to actually build the better world.
Maybe the designer, the dreamer, the creator, realized that He, or She, or It was not capable of building a fait a complit perfect world, without actually living in it, experiencing all there was to experience.
So, along comes the "Our Image," in whom We put all of Our faith and hope. We give this Image our Love and set the Image loose in Our Creation to iron out all the faults.
The risk, to Us the Creator, is that Our Image might get some exalted ideas and get convinced that It's Us.
Then where would We be? Might have to wipe the board and start all over again.
Why does gratitude automatically result in robotics?
If your mom or dad, even a college buddy, averted a natural -even an unnatural- disaster in your life, do you automatically become a groveling animation toward them? Second how did clone get in there? A clone is a replica of an identical item. So, it would be just like the other, not a lacking or inferior replica.
Let go of the angst and duality of Reason.
lol, i love the ending line, except i dont hold angst' just a high interest in the duality of reason.
I think the example ended up just side tracking you on the actual question here. It's not just robotics, or a clone in their very different contexts, it's that they have the same cognitive ability to contemplate how they came into existence, thus who created them and if they are thankful to be alive, or if the creator deserves that gratitude.
Whether or not one would grovel after any certain situation is besides the point, but it does partially express what your answer is.
It's NOT whether or not one would thank someone, it's does that someone "deserve" the thanks?
when i say it may express your answer, groveling is the extreme end of a scale with a slight thank you on the other end, does that mean to you that someone deserves it even in the slightest? I'de like to leave all relative severalties of gratitude behind, and clump them in to any/all gratitude that it may deserve.
Thanks and gratitude, minuscule or grandiose, becomes irrelevant; is nullified by corresponding action. This is the issue at the root. The systems of belief impose rule with regret or rules with reward. No such rules truly exist within Creator's modus operandi. This is where the validity has been missed. Some call it worship which has been defined as nothing more than sensationalism, bound by fear and obligation to replace the void -even to some degree simulate- unconditional love. Yeats & Keating! lol. True adoration, worship, gratitude is simply walking together, as the Hebrew saying goes. Creator never commanded worship or gratitude from his creation. Rather He expressly requested a side by side adventure through creation. A creation man was genetically programmed to understand, in full, reflect, in full and engage, in full, to the -enth level. Not lay, face down, evoking "thank you, thank you" or sitting wide-eyed, in white robes, at His feet for all eternity.
You're a thinker. I like that.
That Y&K reference puts worship perfectly, I know little about them.
You said "Rather He expressly requested a side by side adventure through creation."
That's by far the best I've ever heard someone explain a creators intentions for mankind.
Thanks for this answer, it was really roundabout and thought provoking, and i can't see anything wrong with it.
I saw that you were interested in quantum mechanics, my next thought was you might be interested in this theory I hubbed: http://dustinstaples.hubpages.com/hub/Gods-Thought
the end attempts to tie it all to quantum mechanics.
I'm not sure how to view gratitude as a bad thing. But, there is no evidence within nature that a deity desires gratitude. So, it would seem to be that it is offered by a human, not demanded by any god.
If someone believes in a deity then I would assume their gratitude would fall along the same lines as being grateful for the internet or electricity, simply on a more awe inspiring scale. You just can't shake a god's hand and say well done.
I have no idea where you came up with the rest of your opening post.
Ha yah, my examples are apparently only confusing.
Whether or not gratitude is good or bad is relative and besides the point, along with him desiring, and us offering it.
You said "I would assume their gratitude would fall along the same lines as being grateful for the internet or electricity..."
If then, does it deserve thanks, or blame, for the bad parts it has created? in the same sense that the internet is blamed for being the means of cyber-piracy?
I don't know. I guess, since we didn't 'buy into' existence it could be argued that belief in a creator would somehow make that deity responsible for our misery or happiness.
I never approached the question from that angle. That's interesting and unfortunate. Somehow, it appears to be human nature to always attempt to transfer blame. And, here we have no god who can speak up to defend him/herself. They get all of the blame, while the glory dwindles with each new scientific discovery. No wonder this forum gets so testy at times.
Yah, it's SO relieving placing blame, ha, and yes i've never concluded there so hard, it has worrisome implications tho; you should read jacharless and I's discussion above, in which it was concluded that no, he doesn't inherently desirve our gratitude.
I always read what james has to say on I topic I find interesting here on this forum. He does have a gift for explaining things.
It was a great explanation. And, although I'm afraid I can't always agree with him on what we might have been meant to be, it probably explains the most basic reasons why I can't stomach the thought of being near a church.
My mother created me. Does that mean she automatically deserves gratitude no matter the circumstances?
Despite your query being setup in such a way that it obviously becomes apparent you have a bias and not that we all don't, but that you include it in your questions, I'll answer.
Keep in mind I stripped it to the straight foward un-tainted basics. Does God (who is a being needing to sustain all of the universe, look into quantum physics for the answer why) deserve gratitude for using his power in sustaining everything in existence, including you, on a split second basis so you can enjoy the phenomena we call life?
If you say no, well that's just bratty and un-grateful.
Your query strips God from creator and defines Him a just another part of existence. Which leaves a fatal error... the same one evolution holds, who created all that exists.
For the keen of heart with ears, if you believe in aliens you'd better be doing your homework. They are deceptive, deny Jesus (and no other entity on earth related to religion) and didn't travel light years to tell different stories which don't line up, except for the denial that Jesus is God or saves anyone.
Jesus, by their words (witness accounts by the thousands) has been everything from an alien, to just another human being that was smart.
There is something in contact with human beings, but they aren't from the physical realm and they tell lies, so they obviously need as much help as we do if they haven't got past the foolishness of deception either.
As for the statements I noticed in the thread regarding those the Bible hasn't reached nor Jesus name been spread... The argument has been debunked years ago.
The Bible was not compiled during Noah's day, nor Abraham's, nor did king David have a Bible.. In fact, God used him to write it. And to top this not a single one of them knew the name Jesus Christ.
Does this mean God didn't save them if they trusted in Him? If they believed in a God who was a Saviour? If they hear of Jesus and are looking to and trusting God they'll know God sent Him. If they never hear the name of Jesus, and yet trust in God and ask for forgiveness knowing they need to be forgiven for lies and wrong doings they've committed, they will be saved.
I've heard a number of people talk who never had a Bible nor heard of Jesus but they know they need to be saved. Which is what baffles me when I hear silly arguments and people that have Bibles and refuse what they claim others don't have access to, when they say it with their own mouths they need forgiveness never having read a Bible or heard an evangelist.
God isn't a sadist nor stupid as many people would like to think. They think God is incapable simply because they can't see His capabilities due to their own inabilities, and because of that won't admit they need Him.
Trust in God, let God figure out what to do with those who haven't heard the name of Jesus and you look into Jesus and find out for yourself whether you see the Saviour, because believe it or not you need him.
God's a big God. He can save anyone who deserves it. If they'll accept His help, He will help.
You completely missed the point of the question, but i'll respond to this all anyway .
Goodness, bias? I'm the epitome of un-biasy, any you found from the question, is due to me poorly stating it.
The only biases I take is a trend towards logical claims instead of emotional ones, and how our comments differ will provide a perfect example of these trend biases.
You said "If you say no, well that's just bratty and un-grateful."
Now here is an example of being bias, and it's the first of a few logical fallacies; it's an 'ad hominem', and 'appeal to consequences',
both merely distract from the real question, by accusing everyone of being bratty and un-grateful if they take that stance that isn't yours.
You said "Your query strips God from creator and defines Him a just another part of existence."
This is where you go awry; i'm clearly not stripping God of anything, you fail to realize that people believe in other god's besides yours, and I attempted to word the question in a way that can facilitate all of you.
Every word you say after this is a 'fallacy of relevance', as in, you don't answer why your God desirves your gratitude INHERENTLY; you simply dodge around with random evidence supporting God in general, and while it may be true... 'ignoratio elenchi' (another fallacy).
You said "if you believe in aliens you'd better be doing your homework."
When I "exemplified" this query with aliens, along with others, I meant it as just that... an example. I'm honestly insulted that you even mentioned that, but I can't tell if you were too impassioned to understand that they were examples, or if you were only attempting to me make look ridiculous - 'appeal to ridicule', ha.
You said "statements I noticed in the thread regarding those the Bible hasn't reached nor Jesus name been spread... The argument has been debunked years ago."
That wasn't something I was arguing, it was another "example" so we can look into the idea of someone coming to the idea of God - on their own - and discus whether or not He desirves gratitude.
As far as, bibles-less, people my example was referring to, and that being "debunked"; if you dont believe other religions with there various differentiations can lead to your God - Jesus - and heaven, then why would you think some civilization cut off from the world (say... cannibals in the amazons) would hold enough beliefs to qualify?
A thought: besides aliens being mentioned, I think this line in my premis, "-as in, all text aside towards the same belief a primitive human could accept after seeing some natural disaster -", part of the question insulted you, and led you to this evangelistic off-base outburst? If so, this was just another example; SERIOUSLY, i dont think theist are primitive .
Sorry I referenced so many fallacies, there are just so many, and i like to brush up on them every once in a while.
Thanks for your comment and you are truly a "soldier of Jesus Christ".
by paarsurrey 7 years ago
Everybody believes something existing automatically; Atheists as well as Theists. The Theists believe and experience the Creator-God Allah YHWH who is attributive and has created the Universe and the Life in it. The Atheists believe the Universe exists automatically; having no creator.Can the...
by janesix 6 years ago
I have my doubts
by marinealways24 8 years ago
Please explain your idea of how creation without a creator/creators happens or is possible.
by gobible 6 years ago
Looking back or even today, man always invented things for his own purpose and satisfaction. So why not think God as a creator and we as His creation and He made us for his own purpose. And why struggle to prove there is no God especially when all the modern science and technologies are becoming...
by Catherine Giordano 16 months ago
I wrote a hub about evolution which explains why Creationism, Creation Science, and Intelligent Design are not science (although they pretend to be). I can't decide which is the better title picture--the one currently on top (Man) or the second one (Ape). I keep switching them. I'm looking for...
by SwordofManticorE 5 years ago
Does a creator have the right to give and take from his creation?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|