Conspiracy against God

reply to post by newday


You say faith is not blind, I have to disagree with you there. Faith in anything without proof or logic is like a trap. The more faith you show, the more you concentrate your mind on it, the more you concentrate, the more faith you have. It's a circle with no proof, only emotion. Don't believe me? Ask why so many thousands of religions, new and old, require faith, and why humans are so willing to see what isn't there rather than what is. When people feel they are being watched, and they concentrate on that thought, it expands in their mind until it is real (this is how people drive themselves mentally crazy). This is faith, and if you think that is not blinding, you are highly mistaken. I'm not going to say what you should or shouldn't believe in, I can only state what I know. I'm not bashing Christians or God, I know many Christians whom I have the utmost respect for. I simply wish people could discern the difference between emotions and truth. Being a former Christian, my eyes are open now to just why I was so willing to believe the Bible, even after I saw contradiction after contradiction. I would ask anyone who is interested in the truth to ask yourself in all honesty why you are so willing to sweep contradictions under the rug, just to continue your faith.

edit: Corrected typo

[edit on 5-8-2008 by TruthParadox]

reply to post by Ichabod


A conspiracy against god? The vast majority of the world is religious to some degree. I think if anyone is being discriminated or shunned, it's atheists, agnostics, and other non-religious folks. For instance, it's practically impossible for an atheist to be elected president in today's political climate - but pretty much all religions are open to the job. Even Muslims in the wake of post 9-11 hysteria. (Former muslim, 'scuse me). So much for a being a secular nation.

Perhaps people aren't being "turned away" from God, but are simply waking up to the reality of the universe and understand that God (whether he exists or not) is not overly concerned with us, our ordeals, or our praise. If you take the stance that he exists, that doesn't necessarily mean he doesn't love us - but it doesn't mean he's not some needy and vengeful - self conscious father figure who lays down arbitrary rules of both noble, benign nature - and of arcane barbarity. It bothers me to think that some people can reconcile a belief in a god which created the practically infinite universe in all it's form and splendor - yet shackles that being with mortal failings because they can't recognize them as a sort of residual cast left over from his anthropomorphization. God didn't create us in his image, we molded him to fit ours.

You ask why people are hostile to the idea that there is some grand consciousness behind the scenes of reality. I would ask why some are so hostile to the idea that the universe could possibly form itself? This doesn't necessarily mean the origin of everything. But how very simple rules governing a complex system can originate complexity. The theories of emergence and self-organization are well documented and exemplified in almost every field of study. An artist can create an extremely, almost infinitely, complex and beautiful image using only simple string of mathematics. Your brain forms into a mammothly complex structure based on a comparatively simplistic string of genetic information. Ect.

I suppose the problem I have with many religions at the heart stems from the idea of reward and punishment after death. This gives no real incentive to work to make the world a better place. People who work solely for the betterment of their position in the next world tend to neglect the betterment of this world. What's it matter, anyhow, this is just a "temporary stay" - while eternity is forever. It's carrot on a stick mentality, and abhorable to think that the only reason why some people are moral and generous to each other is only because they've been written a blank check for paradise only redeemable at death per meeting the criteria. Of course, that criteria is often vague and subject to interpretation. Religion can equally inspire people to both acts of supreme kindness and to the horrors of genocide with really no metric to determine which is the true interpretation. This is why religion is often tempered with the morality of the local culture and law. Stoning people to death is encouraged in the old testament, but will land you in prison in most civilized nations. I'm sure most of you recall the case of the Toronto man who killed his daughter when she refused to wear the Hijab. His actions were justified by his interpretation of his holy book, although the laws and government of Canada viewed the matter quite differently.

So am I hostile to god? Not at all.
Am I hostile to religion? Well, not hostile, but I am a bit disgusted by the concept of it.

I think you gain a new perspective on God if you can separate him (generic term) from religion - which many people cannot do. Indeed, for some it becomes a form of idolatry as they worship their (or interpretation of their) religion with far more dedication than they worship their God. Some people are so entrenched in their specific imagery and interpretation, that even the idea that Jesus may have been black is highly offensive to them despite nobody who ever depicted Jesus ever seeing him. Indeed, most images of Jesus are not even of an Arabian man - but of one which conspicuously features more commonly associated with Anglo-Saxons than that of Arabic people.



[edit on 5-8-2008 by Lasheic]

reply to post by Ichabod


Don't want to offend but I think you are seeking honest opinions and so I will give you one: the concept of God you espouse is not fully mature. Talking about meeting God and conversing with him after death as part of a judgement reflects the basic split you feel between yourself and the Almighty.

The Old Testament strongly reflects this split. This split is the essence of ego. Jesus taught something very different, but his teachings have been grossly misunderstood and misued.

The essence of spiritual immaturity is the ego: the belief that one is a small thing in a great big universe. This leads to fear and strategies to protect oneself: seeking approval, seeking control and all the many variations of the above (including seeking the approval and protection of a powerful 'Other'). But at the core of this egoic way of thinking is fear, not Love.

Good and bad (aka judgement) follow from this belief in separation. Things which cause pleasure are typically judged good (including consideration of future pleasures such as harvesting crops after working all season). Things which cause pain are usually judged bad (including consideration of future pain such as destroying one's marriage by fooling around). But the judgement of good/bad is inevitably rooted in egoic perspectives (and the terror that underlies them). Ultimately, everything the ego does is selfish, including obeying the 10 commandments.

What is arising in the world is a new way of thinking, a more mature form of spirituality that reaches toward what Jesus (and many other great teachers) actually taught. Every great religion (e.g., Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, Taoism, Christianity, Islam, and more...) has expressed these transcendental teachings in some form. Thus all religions can be used as paths to Truth. Truth is like a mountain and these teachings represent the Summit teachings. The problem has been that most religious followers are stuck at the bottom of the mountain arguing over differences in the terrain down there. 'You say truth is hot and damp, but I know it to be a desert!' 'No No--you are both wrong, it is cold and snowy.' Depending on which side of the mountain you start climbing, these differences may seem very real--but they all align at the summit.

The Summit teachings transcend words and concepts, which are dichotomous and split What Is. The Summit teachings point to a direct experience of the Consciousness and Life that is always present. As egos, we are unaware of this Consciousness, though it is always with us. We are lost in form: identified with form and captivated by it. It's like we are asleep.

The ego was identified in the distant past with Satan. When ego was born, so was the knowledge of good and evil. When it is present, there is fear and hell. When it is transcended there is Heaven, Nirvana, Satchitananda.

Enlightenment is a radical change in identification: identification with the ego is broken and replaced with identification with All: with the Life or Consciousness or Presence behind all forms. All of the fears and the worries of the ego are dropped (often with a great laugh) and everything is seen to be Perfect, just as it is. As an individual, you are simply a Hole through which God's forms are blown (as in Kabir's hole in the flute). You are nothing and Everything, and you Love everything as Yourself.

There are many more people becoming Enlightened these days. Indeed, it may be vital that this transformation occurs, because as egos, we will probably self destruct.

Look to the Christian Cloud of Unknowing or St Theresa of Avila. Look also to Advaita Vedanta. Look to Zen. Look to Sufism. Look to A Course in Miracles. Look to modern teachers lilike Lester Levenson or Eckhart Tolle or Gangaji.

It's time to leave your church and start climbing the mountain.

Apologies if this question has been posted already.

Ok ... which god are we talking about here?

I assume it's the Christian god ...

Is there any followers of Islam out there who think there is a conspiracy against god?

And so if it is the Christian god ... which one?

Catholic, Anglican, Jehovah's Witness, 7th Day Adventists etc etc etc?

Which one? ... because according to some of these interpretations of the bible, followers of other interpretations are exactly the same as non-believers as far as their god is concerned. So a conspiracy against the Catholic god means nothing to a follower the Jehovah's Witnesses god as the Catholic god does not exist to them (according to a JW friend of mine).

And what about those who believe in their own personal god, following no religion but consider themselves Christian? Where do they stand in this conspiracy?

It would be great for a believer to answer these questions?

However, In an attempt to answer the OP's question ....

I wouldn't say that people are hating god ...

I would say that people are starting to hate the institutions that try to control how and what god is ...

As god is their figurehead, that's where the finger gets pointed

Makes total sense ... look at all of the evil, non Christian things humans are doing to other humans, justifying by saying "it is gods will". How can one not begin to feel extreme anger at these actions.

How can one look at what religions preach and then what they actually do without thinking "HYPOCRISY!"

Christianity only has it's self to blame for the problems it's having. Maybe the followers should start living like Christians ... Hey! that's an idea!!

Lets be honest here ... most "Christians" follow the religion Capitalism.

edit: Spelling

[edit on 6/8/08 by Horza]

Well, 14 pages later, I'm obviously a little late to the ball.

I don't hate God, but I hate religion. I hate religion for its control mechanisms. I hate religion for its hate disguised as love. I hate religion for its circular arguements (the Bible/Koran/Bagadivita says its true, therefore its true). I hate religion for the brainwashing of our species, to the point where it is legitamate to kill someone for an alternate belief (fatwahs, edicts, crusades and inquistitions). I hate religion for its intolerance. I hate religion for its blind devotion. I hate religion for its ignorance. I hate religion for trying to destroying the truth when its sacred texts are contradicted by reality and truth. I hate religion for constantly instilling fear in us (when is the latest armengetton?). I hate religion for usurping the ability of human beings to determine wrong and right for ourselves. I hate religion for the insecurity it creates in believers, some of who need it to be right at any costs, or their lives become meaningless. I hate religion because it promotes blind adherence (called faith) over reason. I hate religion for forgiveness of sins, which allows any of us to do the most unspeakable acts in "His" name.

All of this may look like hating God - It's not. It is hating those who usurp the name of a supreme being for their own political or personal agenda. It is religion that makes me doubt a God, for if some mythical, non-contradictory version of the sacred texts truly represent God's will, we, as a species are completely f@*ked.

So if organized religion is your vehicle for God, I would have to say that your "conspiracy against God" should really be called "why are people starting to believe the truth", which is no conspiracy at all.

Here are my simple proofs that the Bible is not the word of God.

PROOF 1:
The Bible is supposedly a handbook for life with laws you have to follow. It does not say choose which laws to follow. You follow all or none.

Two of the many simple "laws" which would end you up in jail or worse:
1. Rape a girl and you have to marry her.
2. If you beat your slave to death make sure he/she suffers for a few days before he/she dies. Modern Bibles replaced "slave" with "servant" to make it more humane.

Another law is not to eat pork.

PROOF 2:
Heaven is a perfect place where all good people go when they die. In Heaven you are supposedly looked after by angels. Lucifer was a top dog before he "fell" along with a few of his minions. How safe and perfect is Heaven if angels can crack at any moment and wipe you out?

PROOF 3:
Even if the world was one landmass back then it is logistically impossible for Noah to get all those animals in one place. We are talking about moving animals across thousands of miles from all four corners of the Earth across mountains, rivers, etc. No trucks or planes remember. After the deluge the world was supposedly split into pieces. Now you go and put all those creatures back into the Americas, South Africa, Australia, Indonesia. You get the picture.

Well, I have to say that pretty much all of my life the media has always promoted a pro-God agenda. Seeing as most of America is Christian this makes sense.

However, I am an atheist. But I do not hate God, as it is impossible to hate something you don't believe in.

Nor do I hate any believers. As long as they aren't pushing their beliefs on me or infringing on my rights I think everyone can believe whatever they want.

reply to post by re22666


I'm saying people learn and as we learn some things that flawed as they are will find their way to correctness at some point. The Bible was written my humans therefore flawed as well. Many concepts were added to reflect the social ideals at thee time. This is done with all learning textx but for some reason is seen as taboo when it comes to the Bible. Science can change it's mind as it sees the error of it's ways but the old fellow that wrote about submissive women is not. I think there is a social flaw in modern man that brings this to the forefront. All one has to do is watch threads on this and any other web forum where opinion is greeted gleefully as long as everyone thinks alike

People are all too willing to jump on anything they can to say God is just a flaw in the human mind needed so a scapegoat is readily available. Though I only hear the scapegoat theory from those that wish the proof on non existence.

I want anyone to bring to front a textbook used for learning that has not been altered in some way over time. As for the bible it was done a few times in hopes of creating a standardized text for all Christians to follow. Constantine did it. King James did it. And I'll sure that there are several others that people will surely bring up to display my lack of intelligence in this matter because they don't agree with me.

Bottom line is it was not God itself that wrote the words in the Bible(s) that people read today. So there are going to be flaws. Does that prove God does not exist? Of course not. no more than it proves that God does exist. I imagine all the oh so well learned people on this site know the definition of the word faith. if not Google works pretty well.

My faith allows me to see Gods hand in my daily life. Ones lack of faith displays the opposite to them. Personally, I don't like the idea of being all dressed up with no place to go at the end of my time but being I am a an of faith I have nothing to worry about.

I consider myself an open minded man and read many threads on this and other sites and ponder the possibilities. My wife and I argue about aliens. she says no way..I say..Could be. I've seen things in my life I cannot explain. I remain open to the possibilities. It's amusing to me that so many people I have read things from on this site in other threads can show such an open mind...until they decide that it just don't fit enough for them.

I guess I'm just a stupid Redneck that holds fast to his guns and Bible yet still reads the news of science and has the author Issac Asimov as a favorite author. The years I have spend pouring through books, magazines, websites all these years was just the act of a stupid hillbilly and I need to head back out to the "CEE-MINT POND" and leave these discussions to those so much learned than myself. Because the arguments I see against my faith if turned around would be met with the best flames the internet can provide.

Not once will you see me say to anyone hey have to believe to me. I have asked how someone can hate what they believe not to exist. Because to me that's like hating the Easter bunny..."I'd kill that furry bastage if he's just have the acorns to exist for a few minutes!!" Sounds funny? I thought so too.

I guess I'm asking now to see any text that is thousands old that is used to teach people...Anything that is EXACTLY written today as it was then. Even the old mathematic texts that sprung out of the middle east to torture school kids have been corrected over time. WE are funny us people. We are only demanded to be perfect when it comes to our faith. anything else is a theory with something that was just rediscovered and spoon fed as gospel science again and again. The one part of the Bible that hasn't changed was the one God. and for Chrisians the one God that gave his son so people liek me can go to heaven.

reply to post by cannonfodder


Many have been killed in the name of God..Or at least that was the excuse used. That doesn't men that it happened because God willed it.

Even Americas forefathers though for the most part God Fearing men did not want their new government to be run by religion. It is well documented what the Catholic church did back when. Were they devout? were they just mad for power? Ask them, go watch them go about their day and maybe you will get your answer. sure there are people using their version of faith to do bad things. This isn't the fault of God. It is the fault of the men to inturpet their texts and get them to reflect their beliefs to obtain the goals they are reaching for.

There are many faithful people using god to do ungodly things. That does not mean that it is being done by God ore even for God. I don't like the people who go knocking on doors trying to get people to believe like them. Now IO don't mind the ones that might drop off a little paper saying hey..We have this church over here and we'd love it if you stop by. It's ones that find it necessary to bend me or others to their will. These people while havening good intentions are not doing Gods work. This brings me back to the same point over and over though. People are flawed. I am flawed. It comes with being human. Ones faith is a personal matter and should not be tampered with because it is unlike yours or mine. Though I know of a couple people that were going to end their time on this Earth but changed their mind because someone knocked on their door saying God told them that their help was needed. call it what you will but I think that is pretty impressive. One life saved makes a little inconvenience having my TV time shortened by someone asking if I would like to visit their church. No..I was not that saved man. I have a friend that was going to kill himself though. Had a gun to his head. Said the hammer dropped but it didn't fire for some reason and a couple seconds later there was a knock on his door. This is an old and very good friend and is by no means a liar. Also he was not before or even now a church going man. But he will say that God sent someone to his house that day. And I'm really glad. He's a really good friend...I would have missed him a lot.

You are right though. Some people try to create God in their image. They use God to do bad things. Not everyone though.

Originally posted by TruthParadox

You say faith is not blind, I have to disagree with you there. Faith in anything without proof or logic is like a trap.

Believing is blind to a degree, but faith is positively evidence based, unless you want to merge the two ideas into one to suppress the truth in your mind.

Believing has little or no evidence usually only words to go on, for example, I ask you to trust me when I tell you faith is evidence based.

Can't you believe me and take my word on it if you decided to?

Of course you can, you can either believe my words or you can reject them.

But I doubt that even if you believe me you will have a lot of faith in my words, because faith comes when believing is fulfilled.

There are at a minimum five separate ideas from other languages which we in english have tried to cram into the single word "believe," and to make things even more confusing we use the words faith and believe as if they are one and the same.

But think on this; if there does exist a conspiracy against God then it makes perfect sense does it not, that a primary idea we need to understand clearly to have any real intercalation with God or the spiritual, would be suppressed in our language?

Understanding "believing" as a law governing certain process of reality is the fundamental concept required for the method set up to be used in establishing a working relationship with God, the law exist to facilitate the exhibition of spiritual things in our physical world.

Is it just a coincidence that our language does not fully define the nature of what it means to "believe" or to have faith?

Do you believe in coincidence?


Without evidence then at most all you have is a belief, because you cannot have faith in something or someone until they give it to you in real physical terms.

Believing is a simple persuasion, but faith comes with the fulfilment of a belief.

Faith is the ultimate evidence based reality, because we can not give ourselves faith it comes from outside of us.

If you believe my word when I say; "give me your wallet I will give it back," and you give me your wallet.

You only believe what I have said, so long as I am holding your wallet, but the second I return it to you that is when you have faith.

I have given you the fulfilment of your belief in my word, this physical evidence, "me giving your wallet back to you," is the fulfilling of your belief in me word, it is your cause for faith.

Faith is evidence based it is not blind that is ridiculous.

Your faith is based on clear evidence, the fact that I did indeed give your wallet back to you, just as you believed and thought I would.


There exists also a deeper truth to be recognized and understood about "believing," it is required as part of developing an understanding with regard to how reality is constructed and the quantum nature of the universe.

Objective truth exists in a way that it is unique to only the individual, we can know it, but only for ourselves and in our own way of understanding things.

Developing our truth with regard to how we recognize the way reality is constructed is something we must do to have a real working relationship with the creator, where God plays an active role in our life, willing and able to effect our physical reality, wether we call Him, Jehovah, Molech, Vishnu or whatever, there are fundamental laws we must recognize and apply to allow for the evidencing of the spiritual..

To recognize these laws we must develop a language for describing them, because they are suppressed in our minds by the limiting and restricting of certain ideas and the elevating of others.

This is accomplished, in a way which can be explained in detail, right now though it is not relevant to the point at hand, but knowing that it exists as a condition of our life and living, only gives more reason to think that there is a conspiracy at work.


You see I could go into detail on the nature of the universe and reality using any number of different spiritually inspired texts or works, such as the Book of Mormon, the Koran, the zodiac etc..etc..even science language.

The truth exists as God exists it is present everywhere in everything.

But for the sake of the fact that most people here have some basic familiarity with the bible, and I am best versed in it, the bible is what I normally reference, that is why I am saying of "believing" that it is a law, because that is how it is said in the bible.

There are three abiding laws at work to govern all of reality, "believing" is one of those laws, that is part of a deeper truth in regard to the word "believing."

"Believing" can be understood to be a simple emotional state as you say, but in the depth of truth contained regarding the meaning of "believing," there is also the idea that it is describing a universal abiding law, which is necessary and must be utilized by anyone desiring to perform any operation of supernatural miraculous power, that is to allow for the spiritual to effect physical reality one must know how to exercise the law of "believing.".

reply to post by TruthParadox


To me, the best definition of faith is not surprisingly found in the bible, Hebrews Ch 11. If you think you can find a better one, then let's hear it.

Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

I've spent a little time on the post pointing out that, by and large, we exercise faith in virtually everything we do or think. Very few of us are running the accelerators needed to examine the behaviors of subatomic particles, but we: a) hope that these things exist for various reasons (and we also hope that our scientists are not just 'in a business'), and b) the evidence is stuff we either learn in classes in high school, college, and grad school or that other reputable people tell us on the web, TV, and elsewhere. We exercise faith in this system because due to it we can make all kinds of things like faster computers and weird materials that impact our everyday lives.

These things are generally a combination of eyewitness testimony and physical evidence.

I see no difference between this and faith in God. I value eyewitness testimony and physical evidence in my exercise of this faith. Granted, this eyewitness testimony is captured in ancient texts and is certainly the subject of tremendous analysis and investigation. To me, the physical evidence is more compelling. I've seen the tortured logic of science try to explain the creation of the universe, origin of life, and origin of species. If anyone here thinks the verdict is in, they need to go back to school and get their minds working again. Just because a self feeding system of research has arisen to continue down a particular line of reasoning doesn't mean the verdict is in at all. It just means they've shouted down the other side - and if you don't believe this, then go to a scientific conference sometime. There's plenty of money on the table to squabble over and nobody wants their funding cut off.

Go back and review the genesis of the theory of quantum mechanics if you don't believe. They were ready to tar and feather these characters with their wave-particle duality ideas.

I believe that one should question their faith from time to time and test it, make sure it still stands up to scrutiny. I also believe people should be careful about discarding the faith of others. Most people are rational and have reasons for their beliefs. I've already given my personal testimony here. I've seen the changed lives of other believers. I think it's a fair question to ask, can a person's preferences be changed from the inside? That's exactly what appears to happen to true believers.

Any decision theorists out there that would like to weigh in on this?

reply to post by DrumJunkie


not to be argumentative but there are two major flaws in what you say. the bible has been re-written more than a few times and more than to make it mainstream. and to claim it is not the word of god because we acknowledge those changes, well please come to my area churches. they still say it is the word of god and that is what makes it infallable. there is the problem. no matter what you think or wish, history contradicts you idea of the bible's evolution, if you actually research the many many many many many many many many incarnations of the bible. as well, it is nice to say, its ok, its not really gods words but the problem is organized religion not god. and organized religion still says that is the word of god. so it is either their god, or one i make up on my own right? well if i can make him up, he is no better than me. so it might as well be the flying spaghetti monster and anyone that thinks they are reading anything remotely close to jesus teachings or the word of god in those books, needs to get out of the theology section and read some more history.

i believe in something higher than ourselves whatever you want to call it a universe based solely on super remote probabilities is even harder to accept becasue the remoteness of the possibilities is so huge and then one must still ask well why that what caused that what caused our brainworld as string theory suggests anyways heres a short video on a concept that takes the idea of holigraphy in the universe (which is gaining scientific support to its conclusion)

video.google.com...

reply to post by newday

Believing is blind to a degree, but faith is positively evidence based, unless you want to merge the two ideas into one to suppress the truth in your mind.

Believing has little or no evidence usually only words to go on, for example, I ask you to trust me when I tell you faith is evidence based.

Beliefs can be either based on, or in the absence of, evidence. Faith is completely independent of evidence. I believe this to be true, as there is evidence this is true which can be found in any standard English dictionary.

Merriam-Webster

I believe that you won't accept the standard English definitions of faith and belief because they contradict your positions, but I have faith that you have the capacity to understand and someday will.

reply to post by Ichabod


Regardless of what "book of scripture" one chooses to believe as "inspired" by God or "inspired" by the author via collusion with God's essence or revelations......the truth is.....the universe comprising of multiple galaxies of which are still expanding today is here and has been here for eons. Now if you want to know who God really is....why not start with the God humans knew or didn't know before ANY books were put together attempting to describe Creator. Ask yourself how God communicated with man before these "written" books were put together. To date there are, I believe, 256 denominations of Christianity though it is still evolving.
Evolution of thought
That is what it is.
God, the Creator obviously reveals what you need to know and should know in Nature itself. Nature was created by God and most of what one needs to know in this life is learned through observing nature. Yes, man has become too far removed from nature and hence will never feel complete or "satisfied".
Back to evolution of thought.
I advise those here, interested in this topic read a good book on the history of the worlds religions. I took a few of these theology/philosophy courses at the University.
What you find is....basically it begins with a sun god....then came Hinduism....of which begot Budhism...of which begot....Taoism....of which begot...Judaism....of which begot....Christianity...etc.
Evolution of thought.
Only man has "intellect". Only man can see or plan for the future (extended future that is....not how many seeds can I store for the winter), only man can see himself as he is and where he stands in relation to the world about him, only man can use his creativity to create all the advances in the sciences, only man can use 'reason', attempt to be 'rational'. I think you get the idea by now. God gave man dominion over the Earth though man chose to dessert nature and therefor has fallen from our Creator's essence and is therefor unsatisfied. Art can only attempt to mimic the master artist...our Creator. How does one "know" they are doing a "righteous" deed. They feel it. They know it. When one does 'good'....it feels right...it is suppose to.
We know as much as our Creator wants us to. We are designed to evolve at our pace as all animals here on Earth have been doing for eons. Fossil record is fact....radiocarbon dating is approximately correct to a certain threshold (in millions of years that is). The Earth's strata doesn't lie...the fossil record its Gods evidence staring all of us in the face that chose to see it.
Once again, one needs to ask him/herself....how was one to know God before the books were even written by man attempting to describe that which they yearn for...answers. That should be the question of the day for quiet contemplation/meditation by say the favored river of life. The River seems to be man's favorite setting for 'enlightenment'. Try it sometime and listen...really listen to what is going on around and IN you. Peace brethren.

reply to post by Ichabod


Sapience before judgement.
en.wikipedia.org...

'Organized' religion is just that. Organized.
Now ask yourself why?
If one were to fly through history they may discover that time and again a new set of 'rules' were established for purposes of 'control'. What is the best way man to date has gotten those to 'follow' him? Organized religion. Whether its a king, patriarch, matriarch, inanimate physical idol........ man seeks guidence and unfortunately the worst leaders the world has ever seen has "used" organized religion as a tool to achieve and further the 'rulers' agenda. Most of the time...throughout the ages the rulers did not truely ascribe or believe that which his 'followers' had been led to believe. Real power is to NOT be controlled by...well anyone...but rather to live with sapience with nature as one's guidebook.

reply to post by Ichabod


Meet en.wikipedia.org...

Many through recent history were glad they did. Though only a man...he held/exposed many truths, revelations and sprung forth a new sense of 'enlightenment' of which had an enormous influence on the creators of the American Constitution and Bill of Rights of which the freemasons ascribed. See more on the history of freemasons. en.wikipedia.org...
They advanced the idea of 'inclusion' of differing peoples, religions etc. allowing members of a multitude of religions to be members. The main requirement was for it's members to believe in a higher being greater than himself. This was an humble approach to man's reason of the Creator (God).
The problem with 'organizations' is that when one subscribes to an 'organization' he sells himself in the sense that he goes along with a group decision often sacrificing his own opinion and rather allowing the group to make policy decisions. Collective Individualism seems more appropriate than dividing mankind into 'organizations'. There is no need for a Democratic 'party' or a Republican 'party'. These are tools our leaders use to advance his/her own agenda while sacrificing man's individuality...in essence making him a victim of the 'organization'. Man should vote for individuals he believes in for the individuals messages, ideas and method of executing those ideas/ideals...not what 'party' they ascribe to. Divide and conquer they say. Whether one is a Democrat or Republican...the men with the money to buy influence in either party will ultimately be in charge. I propose to rid the party politic altogether. When the wealthy and well connected have no 'organization' to purchase or influence...his power is greatly diminished.
On another note; It is a shame that Ron Paul does not appear to be a contender in this election. An avid 'consitutionalist' with a clear record for speaking out on matters of importance to the 'people' he has been sidelined by the pockets of the ruling elite of which are determine to control their 'subjects'. It is never too late to start a new revolution for the advancement of mankind and his relation to one another. By Feb. 2009 we will witness catastrophic changes of which will change the world like mankind has never seen...for it will be on a truely Global scale.

reply to post by oceanaut1

Regardless of what "book of scripture" one chooses to believe as "inspired" by God or "inspired" by the author via collusion with God's essence or revelations......the truth is.....the universe comprising of multiple galaxies of which are still expanding today is here and has been here for eons.

This I agree with this assessment.

"The Creation speaketh a universal language, independently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various as they may be. It is an ever-existing original, which every man can read. It cannot be forged; it cannot be counterfeited; it cannot be lost; it cannot be altered; it cannot be suppressed. It does not depend upon the will of man whether it shall be published or not; it publishes itself from one end of the earth to the other. It preaches to all nations and to all worlds; and this word of God reveals to man all that is necessary for man to know of God."

God gave man dominion over the Earth though man chose to dessert nature and therefor has fallen from our Creator's essence and is therefor unsatisfied.

This, I don't agree with so much.

I don't believe that God gave man dominion over the Earth by virtue of our intelligence. Our intelligence is an evolutionary advantage which has worked out remarkably well in our quest for dominion. Indeed, it's our only real advantage over the other creatures. Compared to various other species, our vision isn't remarkably accurate even in light, to say nothing of the dark. Our hearing isn't anything to brag about. Neither is our sense of smell. We are not physically hardy. We have no claws, toxins, camouflage, or bright color patterns to ward off predators. We are bipedal, which means that we can't run very fast and are more prone to spinal injuries. We are not even particularly well suited for the environments which most of us live in.

Physically, we are not suited to be lords of the Earth. Mentally, well... we are not the only hominid species to have lived - nor are we the longest lived of them. The brain is a very energy expensive organ, and very large in comparison to other creatures. It makes childbirth a very painful and dangerous endevour for both the baby and the mother. Further, out of multiple co-existing hominid species - we are the only ones to have survived. We have not been around for very long either. Whether or not we last longer than our brethren species is anyone's guess. Intelligence and reason may well be an evolutionary dead end. Unsustainable.

How does one "know" they are doing a "righteous" deed. They feel it. They know it. When one does 'good'....it feels right...it is suppose to.

I would argue that even horrific acts can be made to feel "righteous" and "good" when set in the specific context with specific mental training. There are certain social rules which are hardwired into most social animals which is referred to as Altruism. These basic social rules have been observed in multiple species in nature. It would make sense that these basic, almost instinctual, social rules would - when processed by higher brain functions - would manifest as complex sets of morals. Especially as communication and social structure grew with the advent of civilization. Yes, it does feel good when you do good deeds. This has been demonstrated and observed by changes in brain activity.

www.forbes.com...

madisonmonkeys.com...
The above is a PDF paper on a study done with Rhesus Monkeys subjected to electroshock treatment when their partner ate a food pellet. By the end of the study, it was shown that the majority of the monkeys would rather starve themselves than subject their partner to electroshock.

Originally posted by Lasheic

I believe that you won't accept the standard English definitions of faith and belief because they contradict your positions, but I have faith that you have the capacity to understand and someday will.

Individual words can mean whatever you choose to make them mean.

The part that is most import with words is not the world itself it is the ideas we associate with a word because that is what a definition is.

A definition is an idea or ideas for the meaning of a word.

Ask yourself why do you accept the assertion of a single book, such as the dictionary, as the finial authority for all the meaning you will recognize regarding a word?

Isn't that what the fundamentalist do with the bible, claim that it is the final authority for truth.

What makes your dictionary the final authority for truth for you?

It isn't that I won't accept the definition from the dictionary, it is that the idea of faith that is its meaning, is bigger than any one book is capable of explaining.

The question you should have asked me is not why won't I accept the definition of a word, but rather why won't I stop learning, because that is what you are suggesting I do.

Your faith is indeed blind as you say.

It does not have to be that way, you can prove the things of God and of the spirit anyone can if they choose to, it is difficult however without going further in your understanding of things than what you already know.

There is greater meaning to be had with regard to both the ideas of "believing" and "faith" than what you will ever be shown by those in authority, because if you learn and apply those ideas, it will allow you to access real power, the power even to do the impossible.

Religion exists as a denial of the power of God, that is why it gives rise to science.

People must have real power to overcome the circumstances of life, and for that reason science is greater than religion.

However science without the guidance of God can only give us the means to destroy ourselves, and religion without the power of God can only give us an excuse to use the means of science.

But the way of faith and the spirit is greater than both science and religion.

It only waits to be proven.

You have faith in me you say, but will you believe me?

I have no faith in you, my faith is in God I have seen His power.

[edit on 6-8-2008 by newday]