Is that a deep question? Then here's the real deep question: "did man creat a television, or the tv create the man?"
I believe that faith is a choice, so I choose to believe that God made us. From your question, it makes one wonder if you believe in God. If not, what has led you to believe that (in a nutshell)?
I believe that the answer is Both, and here is my explanation. We and our whole universe were created by our Creator, God, or I AM. The Creator "spoke" the universe, beings in other dimensions, our world, us, and beings on other planets we call aliens, into existence. (Genesis says that God "spoke" everything into existence.) Since the I AM is not a dense physical being like humans, our Creator would not have vocal cords, so the I AM used thoughtforms. The I AM gave the spirits, including us (human spirits who occupy a dense body), the power to create with thoughtforms also. Now our thoughtforms are puny compared to those of the Creator, but we do use our God-given thoughtforms to create fulfillment of our needs and desires, such as relationships, families, wealth (or lack thereof) jobs, and other situations we are in. While we were at it, humans created the gods with those same puny thoughtforms. Humans worshiped these gods and gave them power over us. So humans created these gods that go by many names which you've heard: Odin, Zeus, Jehovah, Allah, Satan, to name a few.
I don't believe everything that I read, but one source, The Urantia Book, among others says that these petty gods created by humans actually have the powers that we gave them (powers over the human believer), but they are not recognized as a universal God by I AM and the Heavenly Legions. That includes Jesus the son of the god Jehovah and his plan to save the sinners. The real Jesus is a being of the Heavenly Legions and not a creation of human thoughtform. His universal name is Sananda.
I like your philosophying. But you were out of point as regards man's thought-form making God, Jesus, and Satan. Seriously, these beings exists before the first man or mankind. Zeus, Diana, Thor and all "the. Unknow god" is thought form. So my question is how can man make or create his create his creator?
I stated that the Creator, God, or the I AM existed and created us. Satan is man's creation, and Jesus exists in the I AM creation as Sananda. That is not a denial that Jesus exists, just a statement that he exists in another form from the Christian concept. Can you prove that you are right anymore than you can prove that I am wrong?
Can you prove that Satan is man's creation? That's where you're wrong!
So you are saying that the I AM created Satan? Satan appears in the Roman New Testament. He tempted Jesus, remember? The absence of spirit or light is Evil. I believe that Satan is man's personification of evil. But you are free to believe what you wish. I don't PROVE anything anymore than you can. If we had living proof of any of this, we would be of one mind and wouldn't be having this discussion.
The Urantia Book is a work of fiction that any serious scholar can decimate within minutes. Furthermore, the book is racist in that it promotes eugenics and seems to favor the Aryans. The authors state
"... we “ought to be able to agree upon the biologic disfellowshiping of” our “more markedly [emphasis added] unfit, defective,degenerate, and antisocial stocks.” (Chapter 13)
As Jesus was a Jew, he would not agree with anything the book has to say.
But it's a free country (thus far) and we certainly have free will to believe whatever we like.... just so long as they don't come after my offspring.
Why would it be any more fiction than the bible (that man created)? You just removed all of Jesus' superpowers with your statement:
As Jesus was a Jew, he would not agree with anything the book has to say.
That would put him down with the rest of the flat earthers.
The New Testament Gospels are based on eyewitness testimony and they are backed up by archaeological evidence. All serious biblical scholars know this to be true, although there are many who knowingly misrepresent the gospels for monetary gain.
However, I am aware that many promote the idea that the New Testament is fictional, though archaeologists know better...
Jesus did live the life of a mere mortal, in the 1st century, and he was born of a Jewish woman. Why would you or anyone find that shameful? I certainly do not. And yes, he performed miracles.
What is shameful is equating Jesus with a book that values eugenics and the promotion of a superior race, which is what The Urantia Book does. I thoroughly reject that ideology. Chapter 13 of The Urantia Book, reads like Hitlers Mein-Kamph.
No one can tell me God would approve of that.
And what is Mein Kamph or My Self, when Hitler hang himself? The Aryan or pure blood theory has no authority either in biology.
You are trying to put words in my mouth. Where did you get the idea that I said that being born of a Jewish woman was shameful. My great grandmother came from a Jewish line and I did not find her nor my Jewish blood shameful. I am NOT putting Jews down. You are by your accusation. I was merely pointing out that Paul was a Jew by genetics, but not by citizenship (a traitor to his own people?). He went around killing early followers of Jesus.
I find it strange that early Christians would follow a Piscean Charles Manson and stone to death Jesus' brother James in whose hands the church was left (ref. Josephus).
I said that your statement removed Jesus' miracle working, perhaps that is what you took issue with, but it's obvious that you are a bible-thumper. Jesus was so much more than he was portrayed in the Roman New Testament Jesus was well-trained in the Cabala, having more knowledge at age 12 than the Pharisees. This came naturally, since his mother Mary was an Essene and her mother was an Essene priestess and teacher. It is not strange that a Pharisee family woman was not chosen to bear the son of god.
Your interpretation of the Urantia Book is no skin off my nose.
"That would put him down with the rest of the flat earthers".
I would never put Jesus down so it is anyone's guess what you were talking about.
I believe you are a sincere woman who has New Age spiritual leanings. I never said you were ashamed of Jews and I do not believe for one moment that you are. I assumed you thought Jesus was never a "flat earther" or a mere mortal.
As for The Urantia Book, I quoted from it directly. Like I said before, Chapter 13 is a rather dark chapter about eugenics. That is a simple fact.
I happen to disagree with the concept of eugenics. Most people do.
Yes, I do believe the New Testament contains the greatest amount of eyewitness testimony about Jesus of Nazareth. That is not even a disputed fact among actual biblical scholars, even agnostic scholars.
A book written in 1955 or so (Urantia) would have no eyewitness testimony. I would think the eugenics thing would be enough to turn anyone off, but apparently not.
I have to laugh at the typical "Bible Thumper" name calling. Yes, I do have respect for true Christians who suffer for their faith. I can hardly count myself as one of them, but it would be to my credit if I could. Paul died for his faith. There is no shame in that.
As I mentioned before, to each his own. New Age mysticism isn't my thing but I respect that it is yours. I simply and strongly disagree with the eugenics of the Urantia Book, as anyone should. That is why I spoke out.
Can a superstitious Jew believe such a story? Much less a Rabbi? What's the difference between fiction and non-fiction? The dividing line here is thin. The holy scriptures, specific the King James scriptures began with an oral history. Excemption is the 10 commandments. This law we noted was the only law written by the hand of "The Unknown God," (TUG) and then later by Moses, when the original was destroyed. It was also noted that the scriptures were inspired, and the inspiration transmitted orally from generation to generation, before these were put into writing. Again, on certain special occasions TUG let his vessels "Write the vision, and make it plain upon (tablets)..." Habakkuk 2:3. So the inspired scriptures in later years begun to be written down. The King James Bible results later via, archealogy. Humanly, so we found history, poetry, both fiction and non-fiction, and all the elements fiting humanity into one book that has no parallel.
We made God.
Over the ages, there have been many different gods. A god for the harvest, a god for the see, a god for the war etc.
We invented gods to explain the world. To explain thunder, to explain birth, to explain death, to explain the stars.
Like we made the theory of relativity to explain the universe, so did we once create the god theory to explain the world. We created the gods (or one god). But like a tool from the stone age, it is crude and is made obsolete by the science of today.
I'm too old to be move by your philosophy. And you seems to be a jolly or jovial fellow. Did I head you right, that man create the god of rain, harvest? And then science in the lab via, chemistry and biology create a similar rain and harvest by green house? Then these made obsolete by the same science? That is good to know. Science then is a modern god, as God is ancient. Obvinusly, my ancient thoughts remind me of the ancient God creating the universe and all its components-the galaxy, milky way, and more. Science, discover, investigate, and is exploreing all these these days.
Did I say that man made the rain? Nope. I said man made the raingod. Those are two different things. One is a concept, the other a thing.
God is a concept. It is a theory to explain the world. As you describe, You explain the galaxy with the God theory.
What I say is that the God theory, the concept, has become obsolete as science has given better theories to explain the world, life, the universe and the rest.
I'm infering these things whether you said them or not. Happy to meet a funny fellow like you.
Again. A rain-god and rain are two different things.
One is a concept, the other a thing.
Man created the concept of a rain-god, it did not create the thing rain.
Agreed. But in the laboratory, scientist specific chemists can create rain! Were this gods?
No, scientists can’t create rain in a laboratory. But scientists can understand and explain why rain falls down. And by doing so, making the rain-god theory obsolete.
okay, agreed scientist can understands and explain why rain fall. These elements of understanding and explaination can be create by the scientist to make the rain fall, right? No argueing with me here. In the part of my country were I come, powerful witch or native doctors do make the rain fall. Again, no argueing with me here. Fact are that scientists has successfully created the elements for a rainfall on on a limited scale. I understand what I am saying with my limit or basic scientific background. Do your research. I've done mine.
What exactly is it that you want to tell me?
That scientists can make rain? Perhaps. I've no idea. Probably yes. But that was not the point of the discussion.
The point is that we understand how rain comes into being and falls down. People thought that gods were crying of pissing or whatever. They had a different theory on how the rain came into being. This theory is proven wrong. It's not a god that is making the rain. There is a better theory now.
So man first created a god to explain what rain is. Now man has a better theory to explain rain. A theory without the need of a god.
I get your question and I understand where the "deepness" arises from. I want to say, it's a matter of what you believe in which is always the easier route to go. I would not dispute anyone that says we "made" God. As humans we have idolized Him. Used Him to suit our own endeavors and manipulated His image.
Note here that any reference to "God" is capitalized because from my stand point and using the Word as a frame of reference (yes I know someone would say it was written by a person, I've had this debate before) in Genesis 1:27 clearly states that we are all made in His image. So which came first, the chicken or the egg (basically this right because it depends on your views). Can you create or make something in your image and then have it reversed that what you created has made you? *I hope it makes sense.
God exists. We have no way to know the nature of God, but we intuitively know God exists. So we create a picture of what we believe God would be in our minds and work to convince ourselves that's real.
That's primitive thought, and you're a little off tangent, because book like the Bible can be evidential. Really, God make and create man, and not the other way round.
I didn't say God didn't create man. The point is you have no understanding of God. No one does. You create a God in your own head, in the absence of knowledge, and then argue your belief against the belief of another.
God exists as you said, and I've the bible as evidence base, not my head. However, every human being should had a universal knowledge and and understanding of God, and none should be dumb.
You have the bible, as do billions of other Christians. Do all agree on the nature of God? Do they agree on the essence of Christ? No. Billions of Muslims have a Koran. Those who are allowed freedom of expression of thought prove they don't agree. Match that to all the other types of religions.
Each imagines the nature of God, if free to do so align with like minded people, and spend a lifetime imaging themselves to be right.
If you have a Bible and believe it to be true, that is your imagined truth. Not stampable onto another. Each human mind is unique. Unmatchable, immeasurable and one in an infinite number of thinking minds. Each views the Almighty uniquely.
The bible, an old writing that has been translated, mistranslated, and retranslated again and again, and was put together by a bunch of squabbling religious men and an Emperor who wanted to shut them up, is evidence only of man's creation of their concept of god. The real God who created the universe is much more ancient than that and did not create Satan (those Roman councils, including the Council of Nicea did). The Creator God is barely mentioned in the bible as I AM THAT I AM and has long been forgotten by most of the humans on this earth. So there are two "gods" mentioned in the Old Testament and they have been melded into one god. The New Testament is mostly Paul's teachings and refers to a god that is not mentioned by name. Since Paul was a Roman Jew originally named Saul, he is probably referring to Jehovah.
When I was a teenager, I asked my Sunday School teacher why was god called both Jehovah and I AM THAT I AM (in the bible)? She gave me a blank look and said, "That is a good question. I don't know why."
"That is a good question. I don't know why." Did you really find out who know why? It's a pity that you don't mention the church and specific your age(teenager) 13-years? back then.
Miekabakagh, no, nobody could tell me, and we didn't have google back then. I don't mind answering your question. I was either 16 or 17 when I asked the question in the Baptist Church. I was in high school. I took 6 semester hours of religion when I was in college, and I still couldn't get an answer. I got a satisfactory answer as to whom the I AM presence is and Jehovah is after much research as an adult. We can't promote our articles here, but I wrote one on my religious/nonreligious upbringing in which I said that one has to go outside the bible to learn the bible and I still believe that.
Great that you went outside the Bible to learn the Bible. But did you equally went outside the Bible to learn Jehovah?, I AM THAT I AM! The moment you did that, you were accommondated by the so man made Satan! Many books has been written about the concept of God. Bv none supercede the Bible.
Jehovah is not I AM THAT I AM. I asked the question because that church was telling me that he was. Because the church says something does not make it true. If so, there wouldn't be so many different denominations with differing interpretations.
Totally concur. Religion is what the authorities say it is. Religion is what the authorities in question interpret it to be. Religion is quite fluid in its context.
I can agreed with you on the church becoming a split group, any how? But you understand why? Disagreement? Nope! Lack of maturity. At other times, it is lack of understanding. But agreed that the split church still comes together for a cnmmon front occationally.
+10000000000, excellent answer by the way.
No, this is not true.
You will know when you know.
And you will know.
If in a math exam or text, you were required to pick or shade only the correct answers, and you correctly pick the right answer, 100 out of 100, you get 100% period or fullstop. Agreed? Should you were require to work out all the answers, you can hardly get 100+. The A+ grade can hardly mean 100%. Because mistakes in language expression reduces marks. +1 0000000000? is extremely fanaticism!
gmwilliams: Well played,starting this discussion, but not answering my question. I don't mean to pry, but again, it makes one wonder if you believe in God. If not, what has led you to believe that (in a nutshell)? That may be the deepest question of all. Do you plead the 5th? No comment? You are free to your opinion, but I am sincerely interested.
I do believe in God. I just like to ask deep philosophical questions.
Thank you. It has definitely sparked discussion.
God is a concept to make people believe that there is one who is observing our actions good or bad. The main idea was to keep people in the good lane. If that purpose is lost the invention ceases to have its value.
The available ideas of God as of yet are social constructs, thus we can safely say that, unarguably, we made God. Humans love to punish themselves for the sake of feeling in control.
Jesus of the Bible has a lot of good things to say. Just read the Bible and intuit the meaning behind the words of Jesus. He followed some of his teachings and parables with,
"... he who has ears to hear ..."
or the third eye of intuition to see/comprehend and understand.
I believe if one uses the third eye of intuition, one will get the answers to spiritual questions.
The bible is full of real places and stories of some real events. What isn't shown by archaeology is the truth of the interpretations of these events by primitive, uneducated, superstitious bronze age people. They attribute things to a god no one can prove exists. Nor can anyone prove it doesn't. Thus it's nothing but a guess to have faith/belief in either.
But it's more than clear that the world did not begin as described in the bible. So it's a mix of history, politics and fiction regardless of whether a god exists or not.
I believe that it all depends how we believe God is. Today we cannot believe that God is the creator of everything. But if we believe that God exists, we must accept a God that is more like Mother Nature, and God is the life energies required to make life possible on earth. Apart from that we need to believe that God exists, because it is helpful and it keeps people more honest. You see, religions have been made to control people.
by Dave36 6 years ago
Hey folks i'm a 41 yr old guy from the UK, iv'e worked all around the world for 20 years on oil refineries....Iv'e met & worked with 1000's of different people, & many different cultures from nearly 40 countries....I'm not practising any form of religion at the moment, but i have always...
by Thom Carnes 12 years ago
A few weeks ago I asked what I thought was quite a serious, searching question about the existence of God, and was rather disappointed when it got a very limited response. (This could have been because we were all wrestling this other equally important issues at the time.)Peter Lopez made a valiant...
by Les Trois Chenes 6 years ago
If God exists how can suffering be accounted for?I recently read an account of why God permits suffering in the Jehovah's Witnesses leaflet Watchtower and it totally failed to explain to me why the loving God who cares for his children, feeds the birds and clothes the lilies of the field allows the...
by AMAZING THINKER 7 years ago
Who are right, believers or atheists?We don't know how the universe works, and science does not yet have all the answers, so all we can do is assume what we believe in is true.Some things can't be explained, but does that mean there is no logical explanation? These are some questions for you:1....
by LewSethics 9 years ago
He could have done it in four or five days if He didn't insist on making most heavenly objects thirteen billion light years distant. Just showing off?
by GoldenBird 9 years ago
If a God exists- then who created that God? How can the Creator be created? Do you have any reason? -this is one of the final questions you will ever face. You can bring Immanuel Kant to the discussion, I will not mind :-)
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|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.|