Is God a projection of our thoughts only?

[mazHur]

I see - thanks. So are you saying that natural disasters are punishments - as they create hellish conditions for those that suffer them? Or is your definition of hell narrower than this?

yes, that is what the Scriptures say and as a gnostic I believe it.

There are two sides to everything: suffering and happiness. It's God's will to do whatever he wants, his Scheme of Things, His modus Operandi is beyond the mental level of his Creation; the more it tries to understand it the greater it finds itself in confusion.
do you imagine that the mental status of your Teacher would be as equal to his students?? No, the Teacher has a higher mental knowledge because he Knows more than his pupils. Likewise, a Master has superior status than his apprentice....no two can be equal and humans are still in the inchoate stage of thei journey of cognitive, intellectual and scientific learning.


There are stars beyond stars
what you see is not the end of the Universe!!

[dafydd manton]

That is, I have to say, a horrible and upsetting misinterpretation of the Scriptures. Worrying too.

[mazHur]

That is, I have to say, a horrible and upsetting misinterpretation of the Scriptures. Worrying too.

maybe, but by scriptures I mean ALL the Revealed Books collectively and not only the Bible.

Bible exonerates humans from sins on the basis that Jesus took over their blame. Unfortunately, that idea doesn't appeal to me. That everyone is responsible here and in the hereafter for his OWN DEEDS seems to me more appealable for being equitable and just.

[MarkBastable]

Bible exonerates humans from sins on the basis that Jesus took over their blame. Unfortunately, that idea doesn't appeal to me.

I think that's the first time I've ever heard a religious person admit that they choose which view to subscribe to, not on the basis that they believe it to be true or false, but simply because it does or doesn't appeal to them.

I take it, then, that I can choose to believe in genies not because I think genies are likely to exist, but because I rather like the idea that they'd grant me wishes.

[mazHur]

I think that's the first time I've ever heard a religious person admit that they choose which view to subscribe to, not on the basis that they believe it to be true or false, but simply because it does or doesn't appeal to them.

I take it, then, that I can choose to believe in genies not because I think genies are likely to exist, but because I rather like the idea that they'd grant me wishes.

No surprise there are scores of Religions apart from Christianity and as we are
discussing god it would be unjust to restrict and base our deliberations to just one outlook. Frankly, it just doesn't satisfy me that Jesus could be made an 'scapegoat' for our sins and put on the cross for us. why?? To he honest, I wouldn't like Jesus or anyone else to be responsible for my acts....
The Jews , Muslims and the Hindus don't think that way.....do they??

[Paulclem]

yes, that is what the Scriptures say and as a gnostic I believe it.

There are two sides to everything: suffering and happiness. It's God's will to do whatever he wants, his Scheme of Things, His modus Operandi is beyond the mental level of his Creation; the more it tries to understand it the greater it finds itself in confusion.
do you imagine that the mental status of your Teacher would be as equal to his students?? No, the Teacher has a higher mental knowledge because he Knows more than his pupils. Likewise, a Master has superior status than his apprentice....no two can be equal and humans are still in the inchoate stage of thei journey of cognitive, intellectual and scientific learning.


There are stars beyond stars
what you see is not the end of the Universe!!

This is the problem I have with the idea of a creator God. Creating the ability to question, but not to be able to understand. Creating what seems to be an arbitrary evil, that hurts good people. Creating inequality and myriads of suffering. I just don't buy the "you can't undertand" idea. Where does the idea of a loving, personal creator God come into it?

[The Atheist]

Where does the idea of a loving, personal creator God come into it?

Western religion. It's why the RCC tries to downplay the OT apart from prophecies and so on. The god depicted in the OT is one mean bastard; very "Kill all the men and enslave the women!" Not to mention Noah, Sodom, and Joshua [?] the Bald guy, etc, ad nauseum.

The CoE have evolved almost to the point of agnosticism to counter the English resistance to unforgiving, judgemental god/s. Unfortunately for Rowan's team, people seem to nowadays prefer the immoral, inconsistent and vengeful god again.

The less knowable it is, the more powerful it is deemed to be. If a god is so nasty as to infect kids with terminal cancer, he must be truly omnipotent, because there is no form of human logic which can explain it and you're left with "God moves in mysterious ways" or that awful parable of Jesus' about the vineyard workers.

[mazHur]

This is the problem I have with the idea of a creator God. Creating the ability to question, but not to be able to understand. Creating what seems to be an arbitrary evil, that hurts good people. Creating inequality and myriads of suffering. I just don't buy the "you can't undertand" idea. Where does the idea of a loving, personal creator God come into it?

Anything that can be 'questioned' can be 'science' but not 'faith!'
If a husband or a wife keep 'questioning' each other about their 'conduct' their relationship would go haywire!

There is NO question about that parents love their children, even animals do.
There is NO question why a wealthy man leaves everything behind for his children or family and not for any other man?
Why we hate? Why we love? Why we love our friends, our parents?
The filial bond between these relationships is beyond question....
Similarly, God loves its Creation and Creation loves it.

If there was no inequality the main object of Creation would have been nothing. Death is inevitable for mortals.....suffering goes with happiness side by side, we cannot expect to seek mere happiness or all divine metabolic activity, that would be against justice. There is NO reason to be surprised or shun divine 'ketabolism' because that is also a part of the 'game' and God knows best how to manage His affairs.

Man proposes God disposes. If there were no destructive forces, it is feared that Man would hasten to declare himself as God!

[The Atheist]

Anything that can be 'questioned' can be 'science' but not 'faith!'
If a husband or a wife keep 'questioning' each other about their 'conduct' their relationship would go haywire!

That's trust, not faith.

There is NO question about that parents love their children, even animals do.

Except for parents that beat, maim or kill their kids, no doubt. A large number of animals also eat their babies.

There is NO question why a wealthy man leaves everything behind for his children or family and not for any other man?

Except for Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and many other billionaires who are giving away their fortunes.

Why we hate? Why we love? Why we love our friends, our parents?
The filial bond between these relationships is beyond question....

Except when brothers, friends or spouses kill each other or physically assault them.

Similarly, God loves its Creation and Creation loves it.

Except when he decides to flood or burn some or all of it, or if you don't believe in the god.

There is NO reason to be surprised or shun divine 'ketabolism' because that is also a part of the 'game' and God knows best how to manage His affairs.

Man proposes God disposes. If there were no destructive forces, it is feared that Man would hasten to declare himself as God!

Hits my previous post dead centre!

[Paulclem]

Anything that can be 'questioned' can be 'science' but not 'faith!'
If a husband or a wife keep 'questioning' each other about their 'conduct' their relationship would go haywire!

There is NO question about that parents love their children, even animals do.
There is NO question why a wealthy man leaves everything behind for his children or family and not for any other man?
Why we hate? Why we love? Why we love our friends, our parents?
The filial bond between these relationships is beyond question....
Similarly, God loves its Creation and Creation loves it.

If there was no inequality the main object of Creation would have been nothing. Death is inevitable for mortals.....suffering goes with happiness side by side, we cannot expect to seek mere happiness or all divine metabolic activity, that would be against justice. There is NO reason to be surprised or shun divine 'ketabolism' because that is also a part of the 'game' and God knows best how to manage His affairs.

Man proposes God disposes. If there were no destructive forces, it is feared that Man would hasten to declare himself as God!

But I have questions - and saying that questioning causes problems does nothing to assuage my disquiet about the idea of a creator God who has created the difficult and sometimes hellish circumstances people have to live with.

If there was no inequality the main object of Creation would have been nothing.


What is the main object of creation that requires inequlity?

a part of the 'game'

The game of life? Well it's a game that goes very well for some, but others will never have a chance to take such a complacent view. I feel it's a view that is fine for someone who is comfortable to trot out, but I could never say to some of the people I've met not to worry because it's part of the game.

If there were no destructive forces, it is feared that Man would hasten to declare himself as God

Some people clearly have in a manner of speaking. Stalin and Mao come to mind. Yet they continued their mass murder until they died of natural causes. All that time the Gulags and slave labour camps were full. Was it hell for those prisoners? Why was it hell for them and not Mao and Stalin?

[Manalive]

Western religion. It's why the RCC tries to downplay the OT apart from prophecies and so on. The god depicted in the OT is one mean bastard; very "Kill all the men and enslave the women!" Not to mention Noah, Sodom, and Joshua [?] the Bald guy, etc, ad nauseum.

I can give you a multitude of passages from the Old Testament that we Catholics use to express God's love for humanity. We have a reading from the Old Testament at Mass EVERY Sunday. It is not downplayed, it has become more understandable with the New Testament.

Vatican II explains this "change" in OT/NT as:

In his goodness and wisdom God chose to reveal himself and to make known to us the hidden purpose of his will (see Eph. 1:9) by which through Christ, the Word made flesh, man might in the Holy Spirit have access to the Father and come to share in the divine nature (see Eph. 2:18; 2 Peter 1:4). Through this revelation, therefore, the invisible God (see Col. 1:15, 1 Tim. 1:17) out of the abundance of his love speaks to men as friends (see Ex. 33:11; John 15:14-15) and lives among them (see Bar. 3:38), so that he may invite and take them into fellowship with himself. This plan of revelation is realized by deeds and words having in inner unity: the deeds wrought by God in the history of salvation manifest and confirm the teaching and realities signified by the words, while the words proclaim the deeds and clarify the mystery contained in them. By this revelation then, the deepest truth about God and the salvation of man shines out for our sake in Christ, who is both the mediator and the fullness of all revelation (DV 2).

Vatican II: Dei Verbum

When God became man, and shared his life with the Apostles, then a better understanding of God was possible. Divine revelation was progressive, not static. After Christ's Ascension revelation stopped-- if the revelation that God became man and lived on this earth isn't enough for people to believe, then nothing can be.

The less knowable it is, the more powerful it is deemed to be. If a god is so nasty as to infect kids with terminal cancer, he must be truly omnipotent, because there is no form of human logic which can explain it and you're left with "God moves in mysterious ways" or that awful parable of Jesus' about the vineyard workers.

Oh, great Postmodern man! Thou is wise in your view of power and authority! How contemporary and true your view is!

No one has an easy answer to the suffering of children. I'm human and fallible-- and can not in the least begin to understand God and his thinking. If you want to be a Stoic and say: "I did not believe I was giving birth to an immortal"; or that it is just how things go, that's your own right. But don't belittle people for hoping to see those family members and friends that have suffered and died in the After-life.

[The Atheist]

I can give you a multitude of passages from the Old Testament that we Catholics use to express God's love for humanity. We have a reading from the Old Testament at Mass EVERY Sunday. It is not downplayed, it has become more understandable with the New Testament.

Does the RCC preach that creation, Sodom, the she-bears and the flood were allegorical or real? Does the RCC admit that the god was unable to overcome an enemy of the Hebrews because they had iron chariots? Does the RCC preach that a bloke actually spent three days inside a fish? That the earth is flat?

The RCC emphatically does not embrace large swathes of the OT as anything but allegory.

But don't belittle people for hoping to see those family members and friends that have suffered and died in the After-life.

No, I'm sorry, that's a cop-out. If people who think an omnipotent god exists are upset by the words of one man, then their faith is questionable to say the least. They should also learn the meaning of "omnipotent", never mind think about the conundrum of "seeing one's loved ones in heaven".

You're appealing for special treatment for religion, an idea I find quite replusive given religion's history. In fact, as far the RCC goes, it isn't just history, it's still happening. From RatZZinger's time in Hitler Youth, through the ongoing cover-ups of mass paedophilia to the absurd and continuing misogyny it displays, the Catholic Church is one of the organisations most in need of a reality check.

[Manalive]

The RCC emphatically does not embrace large swathes of the OT as anything but allegory.

The Church has believed in the use of allegory for as long as it has existed. St. Gregory Nazianzen, from the 4th century, taught that the story of Jonah is a parable. The Church herself has no official position one way or the other though. As long as the metaphysical teachings and the literal teachings do not conflict, then it's fine to believe in either one.

No, I'm sorry, that's a cop-out. If people who think an omnipotent god exists are upset by the words of one man, then their faith is questionable to say the least. They should also learn the meaning of "omnipotent", never mind think about the conundrum of "seeing one's loved ones in heaven".

Should they be upset by your words or should they learn the meaning of "omnipotent" and their conundrum? I'm not quite clear on that one.

You're appealing for special treatment for religion, an idea I find quite replusive given religion's history. In fact, as far the RCC goes, it isn't just history, it's still happening. From RatZZinger's time in Hitler Youth, through the ongoing cover-ups of mass paedophilia to the absurd and continuing misogyny it displays, the Catholic Church is one of the organisations most in need of a reality check.

The Catholic Church has been around for 2000 years. I hardly think it in need of the reality check. If it was swayed by the whims of every generational opinion or attitude it would not be around.

There are individuals in the Church that have done horrible things. But the percentage of abuse is not any more than what is documented outside of the Church. And I really don't understand your point on Benedict being in the Hitler Youth? There are former atheist who used to be Christians. Following that logic and your belief in the "repulsion of evil religion" are these former Christians, now atheists, somehow in the same category of "evil" Benedict too?

[MarkBastable]

No surprise there are scores of Religions apart from Christianity and as we are
discussing god it would be unjust to restrict and base our deliberations to just one outlook. Frankly, it just doesn't satisfy me that Jesus could be made an 'scapegoat' for our sins and put on the cross for us. why?? To he honest, I wouldn't like Jesus or anyone else to be responsible for my acts....
The Jews , Muslims and the Hindus don't think that way.....do they??

Yeah - of course we should consider all religions.

I'm simply saying that you have decided against Christianity because you don't like the scapegoat premise, rather than because you have any evidence that leads you believe that the central beliefs of Christianity aren't true.

You say, it just doesn't satisfy me that Jesus could be made an 'scapegoat' for our sins and put on the cross for us. why?? To he honest, I wouldn't like Jesus or anyone else to be responsible for my acts....

I absolutely see your poiint. You have tendency to invest in the specific responsibility of the individual. This tendency makes it difficult for you to believe that God would set up the Universe in such a way that everyone has the get-out that Jesus will take the blame. I think that's perfectly valid.

However, it means that you're picking a belief systen that suits your personality - you're not doing it on the basis of any evidence that it's true. It might be that, actually, Jesus was the Son of God and that he did die for our sins and that that's just the way the Almighty decided to resolve the sin/mortality/redemption issue. And he did it without taking into account the fact that you (and I) would find that a tough one to understand.

Because, you've got to admit, it is possible that God could set up the universe in a way that doesn't naturally appeal to mazHur. After all, you currently believe he's set it up in a way that doesn't appeal much to the Pope.

[The Atheist]

The Church has believed in the use of allegory for as long as it has existed.

Yes, and full marks for the RCC in not trying to preach the impossible, but it's not the only church around and many of the other ones are biblical literalists, so it can't be said that Catholics are necessarily right. (Except when it's said by Catholics, of course.)

Should they be upset by your words or should they learn the meaning of "omnipotent" and their conundrum? I'm not quite clear on that one.

Let me make it plain then.

If my best friend just happens to rule the universe, which it also created, why would I let one unbeliever bother me?

If you genuinely believe in the omnipotent sky-daddy, how does one man's opinion hurt? If I were deluded enough to believe the Jesus myth, I'd be laughing at atheists, not debating them. What on earth could an atheist say to upset a true believer?

The conundrum is to do with heaven. I suspect that the vast majority of believers actually haven't a clue what heaven is supposed to be - since none of them have ever been there - and have never bothered to think about all the logical contradictions.

The Catholic Church has been around for 2000 years. I hardly think it in need of the reality check. If it was swayed by the whims of every generational opinion or attitude it would not be around.

I see you quote Vatican II, so I'm guessing you must be somewhat aware of the history of the RCC. I listed a few of its points that need work, and taking other nice bits of its history into account - the Borgias and Inquisition, for instance - you must realise that it has changed its ways lots of times over the centuries.

There are individuals in the Church that have done horrible things. But the percentage of abuse is not any more than what is documented outside of the Church.

Nice of you to avoid the main part of that point - the informed cover-ups perpetrated by senior members of the RCC.

And I really don't understand your point on Benedict being in the Hitler Youth?

WWJD? Or more pertinently, what would Jesus have done?

Do you honestly think the son of the god-chappie would have joined the Hitler Youth?

According to every christian theologian on the planet, Jesus would have died before he put on the brown uniform. This is the bloke who took whips to the blokes in the temple, right? I just cannot see Jesus giving a Sieg Heil salute and worshipping Uncle Adolf.

What's good for the god's good for a pope, in my view. The pope is apparently able to talk one on one with the god on rare occasions.

Oh yeah, of course, he's probably very sorry and asked forgiveness.

There are former atheist who used to be Christians. Following that logic and your belief in the "repulsion of evil religion" are these former Christians, now atheists, somehow in the same category of "evil" Benedict too?

So, you agree with me that churches are evil organisations run by madmen?