question for religious people

Post Reply New Topic

Why bother? I am not interested in gaining either followers or fooling around with publishers.

From the earliest civilizations humans have assigned android type gods to control the various phenomena they have observed. Some controlled the cosmos, some threw lightning bolts, some made the grass grow, etc. They patterned the forces of nature on themselves and they way they accomplished things. They did not conceive of forces existing on their own to work the various happenings in their lives. It was only with the post middle ages that science began to assume forces without a conscious motivator such as gravity, magnetism, etc.
Consciousness is an awareness of a subsystem such as a living thing of its surroundings, itself, and the relationships between the two.
Thought is the ability to discern relationships and manipulate them. This can be done by virtual modeling and through manipulating the virtual relationships or by actually manipulating the realities as occurs in nature.
Worship, insofar as I can figure (since I have never worshiped anything) is a personal subjugation to an assumed superior force or being.
I have no idea what shaitan is or means to you since I assume it is some sort of imaginary demon.

Not a cop out at all. If you truly believe that something is beyond understanding then in what way can you understand it? It is a denial of your assumption to do so.

Not all the religions have android deities. They generally understood that whatever deity they summoned did not have human characteristics. They did assign it anthropomorphism, but this is only a natural occurrence with humans. We treat everything as another.

I asked these three questions because if you understood them, you'd understand that they all fall in line with each other and are relevant. As you posted, " it does not permit deviation from its rigid laws." What other explanation for a Supreme Being is there? Considering that even the elements of the universe worship the universe itself. I am merely rendering unto the Supreme what IS the Supreme's.

Shaitan can mean many things in the context of how it is being used. In my usage, I implied it as being disrespectful or adversary to Truth.





If something is beyond our understanding there is no use in explaining. There would be no use in giving proof because it will always be out of the reach of people who care not, and always in the curiosity of those who admire and submit.

As someone with an endless sense of curiosity I have deep respect for people who look carefully at the universe and attempt to puzzle out how things work. If there is any faith in this activity it is the faith that things eventually yield understanding with the proper attitudes of inquiry. To declare that there are things that are not possible to understand is to succumb to defeat in this enterprise without even trying. There is no way anyone can know that there are things beyond our understanding. Sometimes it takes centuries of trying but so far the universe has always given up its secrets.

To doubt everything is the greatest respect for the nature of the universe since doubt leaves open alternate pathways of understanding. It is the way to new learning and each opening of comprehension leads to new flexibility in other directions. No theory or belief should be immune to doubt since that is what freedom of thought is all about.

One final point. People who are afraid to doubt their most firm beliefs are insecure people whose whole outlook depends upon not looking deeply into what they claim to be final answers. To be free of this rigidity is the greatest freedom and, in the end, the greatest security since there are probably no final answers and in the end the universe which seems to be endlessly flexible and fascinating will discover the chinks in a rigid belief and destroy someone who refuses to change.

I believe that God exists, but I focus way more on his love than on his wrath.

The speculations about God being this or that or the other considering the monstrous inconsistencies of the whole area boils down to basic comical mental acrobatics. One sector claims that God is so superior that no amount of human speculation can encompass the reality of a being so posited. Another attempts to rationalize God with current morality of a rather local nature - each social group throughout the world specifying something different involving localized cultural traditional diets, costume, sexual behavior etc. Since there are extreme differences in these from culture to culture it is unlikely any consensus will ever be reached. And yet this impossible discussion goes on and on and on with no possibility of a general consensus.

Agree to disagree, Sand. That's your best option.

It is not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. A good many of the people here are not stupid. Why do they continue this endless meaningless unresolvable talk?

Each person wants the last word?

Does that sum it up. Each one is convinced of their own personal solution and since there is no conceivable way to come to a general agreement the blather goes on? I suppose in more dynamic venues guns are pulled and people who disagree are blasted out of existence. So much for religion and good fellowship.