Religious Dogma is Speculation. Discuss

reply to post by peacevic


I believe it's what known to us atheists as "Christian logic". It seems to apply to all fanaticals though.

I look at this this way, that context and framing is everything, and what I see rendered on close inspection and evaluation, reading between the lines or through the fog of myth is the same thing that C.S. Lewis deduced, that the frame is significant, and reveals that "our liberation is God's compulsion", where God may be equated to a spirit of love, and a love transcendant, something both deep within or innerent, and transcendant, as being at cause, or creative, and thus forming a purpose, and a meaning to the frame of life itself. It's about the appropriate position or standing and functionality of the human being in creation, and how the individual relates to himself, his fellow man and to the larger creation within which he is emmersed.

For some who haven't done any of the work to investigate it, or who do not understand it in any way at all, doesn't make it, and the felt experience or gnosis of it, any less real. and since we're talking here about freedom and love - to each his own. There is no need to bash me over the head with your atheism (what you think you know), in the same way that I do not have the right to bash you (with what I feel I have discovered).

I've come to understand that the atheist isn't the least bit interested in my sharing, preferring to remain unconvinced (with arms crossed) unless someone can produce for them God-in-a-bottle for their own personal inspection,and that's ok. I accept him, and his position, even if I also feel that it's rooted in ignorance. My faith tells me to love him regardless, as my brother, and perhaps by my great love, when he sees what motivates it, then he'll have a felt experience of the love transcendant, but that cannot be my responsibility, as no one can be responsible for another's POV.

I just wish they wouldn't begin with the assumption of being so much smarter, and call me ignorant and an arrogant fool etc., for having an awareness of something they do not and cannot access from their current POV. For all you know atheists, there is something to it, that for you now exists within the realm of a unknown, unkown, or something that you don't know and that you don't even know you don't know.

People who have a relationship with God through the contextual frame of reference of whatever spiritual tradition, cannot be disuaded from their understanding and experience, to adopt the atheist POV, it just doesn't work that way, in the same way that you cannot un-get something that you've come to understand, or have an experience of being in relationship with.

But what's with all the hard feelings, and the aggression towards those with an abiding faith, to prove it TO you, we're not in the dark ages any more. I just don't get it, and am beginning to feel hurt by it.

We can agree to disagree, and you're entitled to your POV as I am mine. Mine however is a journey of exploration that I've come to believe every human being will be invited to take at some point down the line, and personally I would like to just make sure that the invitation to participate in it, is always extended, there's no need to slap that away and insult me, just for being nice.

So I have to say that I find the attitude of the atheists to be hurtful, and ill informed, but I still love them anyway as I am commanded by the evidence I have, which in the final analysis, is the presence of life itself.

"I have only one commandment: Love one another as I have loved you."

Proof is not to hard to find really the bible says the heavens, universe and earth declare the Glory and work of the Lord . First lets look at evoution then man . Animals and people can only reproduce after its own kind. In the first chapter of Genesis after its own kind or similar is used this shoots down evolution science never been able to cross that barrier there is no such thing as a half fish and half land animal or half whale and shark. God created man in his image and gave man dominion over the earth . God said let us make man in our image after are likeness . In are image and likeness enable us to have fellowship with God .Our image and likeness refers to true righteous and holiness. The dominon was given by God to man and is always subject to God the reationship of man to the balance of creation is now defined to be one of rule and supremacy the sphare of His Lordship is from lowest to highest of the subjects of his sway.Man rules but God over rules. Man lost the image of God from the fall of sin. God is Omniscient meaning his knowlege of evil is thorough but not by personal experence His very nature He is totally seperate from evil. If u read the Old testiment they slain animals for the sin offerings. God so loved the world he gave his son Jesus for all humanitys sin offering. God came to earth as a man Jesus to die to pay the sin debt of his creation so lost people could come back to God and have a personal relasionship with him religion or mans tradtions can not do the job even tho it might make us feel holy all have sinned and fell short of the glory of the Lord . The only thing that can save us is faith in Jesus and what he did for humanity at the cross for paying for our sins .

reply to post by mikethebike82


Before the bible was written, what proof as a human would you have for that specific idea of God? You wouldn't, the bible was written by man, not God.

And may i add, it was when man was ignorant, man barely knew of his existence on a sphere of matter floating through "space" never mind his own existence and how it could possibly come to be.

We're all atheists, like i've said, you just have one more God than me, you reject all other Gods.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Even C.S Lewis thought the idea of Vicarious Redemption was proposterus.

Although, a great man, You use C.S Lewis in your support for Christianity and boycott on Atheism. But do you really understand him and how we was flawed on some of his philosophy?

You might be interested and entertained by this dialogue if you really care about reason and philosophy.

Christopher Hitchens on C.S Lewis and the immoral preachings of Christianity.

Listen to the wise words and ponder for yourself.

Peace

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by mikethebike82

 

Before the bible was written, what proof as a human would you have for that specific idea of God? You wouldn't, the bible was written by man, not God.

We're all atheists, like i've said, you just have one more God than me, you reject all other Gods.

"God" does not exclusively exist within one thing, such as the bible, from my standpoint.

As for the second part quoted, you should really stop making so many assumptions. it should be pretty clear from the posts i have made in this very thread, that i do not reject any "God," and in fact mentioned my conceptualized "God" was very likely incorrect. In a way, i see it as many fingers all pointing to the same moon. Instead of making blanket statements, you could instead just try asking people questions about their standpoint.

I also wanted to note that you specifically (awake and aware) have been consistently inflammatory towards those who are not of your same mind on the issue. I honestly dont know if you realize this, so i wanted to bring it to light so you could see why people respond in an aggressive manner so often

On a funny note, denying "my God" is denying your own existence as well as the existence of everything you know and experience, which renders all debate on the topic null and void. How tricky is that?

On a funny note, denying "my God" is denying your own existence as well as the existence of everything you know and experience, which renders all debate on the topic null and void. How tricky is that?

It's rather funny the hypocracy of your own statements, you're the one with the positive asertions of God and his desires in the first place and are trying to argue the clear reason of my agnosticism and therefore Anti-Theism.

As i've been humble enough to admit before, i don't know what created this universe, the plain of reality, scientists don't claim to either, we are admitting our agnostism on the issue.

You, however, only have the conviction (or rather LACK of conviction) of doctrine of MAN to assert your belief. "it says so in the doctrine, so it must be true, God must exist, these MUST be his wishes) This is childish.

For all you know, the universe COULD have no God, you are in the same position as me, you don't know. But your faith is arrogant enough to assert you know TRUTH. This is not science, is should not be respected.

Even if the evidence is nature, you can't deduce the half-baked sloppy moral relativism of Christianity from mere natural evidence alone. You need a book to indoctrinate the minds, of otherwise, reasoning people.

Like i've said before, I'm humble enough to admit "We don't know" (yet). You are the people saying you have already found out, and that our "lack of belief" is unfounded and arrogant.

Is say it is the religious with the irrational belief, in a sky God with super powers and super special objective laws that you MUST folllow.

Religion should not be free from challenge or critique, just as medicine, scientifc theory, physics should always be challenged with reason and most importantly demonstration and EVIDENCE.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware

On a funny note, denying "my God" is denying your own existence as well as the existence of everything you know and experience, which renders all debate on the topic null and void. How tricky is that?

It's rather funny the hypocracy of your own statements, you're the one with the positive asertions of God and his desires in the first place and are trying to argue the clear reason of my agnosticism and therefore Anti-Theism.

As i've been humble enough to admit before, i don't know what created this universe, the plain of reality, scientists don't claim to either, we are admitting our agnostism on the issue.

You, however, only have the conviction (or rather LACK of conviction) of doctrine of MAN to assert your belief. "it says so in the doctrine, so it must be true, God must exist, these MUST be his wishes) This is childish.

For all you know, the universe COULD have no God, you are in the same position as me, you don't know. But your faith is arrogant enough to assert you know TRUTH. This is not science, is should not be respected.

Even if the evidence is nature, you can't deduce the half-baked sloppy moral relativism of Christianity from mere natural evidence alone. You need a book to indoctrinate the minds, of otherwise, reasoning people.

Like i've said before, I'm humble enough to admit "We don't know" (yet). You are the people saying you have already found out, and that our "lack of belief" is unfounded and arrogant.

Is say it is the religious with the irrational belief, in a sky God with super powers and super special objective laws that you MUST folllow.

Religion should not be free from challenge or critique, just as medicine, scientifc theory, physics should always be challenged with reason and most importantly demonstration and EVIDENCE.

edit on 19/12/10 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)

Have you not read anything i wrote? Or are you stuck on the fact i enjoy the term "God" to describe All That Is?

We seem to have a major disconnect. Id like to remedy that. However, as you may have noticed, i dont think this is nearly as serious of a topic as yourself, so perhaps my joking manner is coming off as condescending?

reply to post by sinohptik


Apologies i was just responding to the arguments. To be quite hoenst i did think you were being quite condecending.

My questions after your latest post would be:-

Do you think that "GOD" intervenes in human affairs?

Would you be happy with another connotation of God as being called "The Force"? As you say, the energy that forms this reality, the energy that binds us all?

If you believe God has emotions and empathy, do you think he watches with indifference, with a lack of emotion as the Andromeda gallaxy approaches our own? (causing destruction, death, chaos)

Apologies if i have misunderstood your argument, but i don't think i'm being over-zelous.

I'm open minded, show me empirical evidence and i will investigate and where evidence is irrefutable, i will agree. If you ask me to put "faith" in a theory i will automatically mistrust it's conviction. Why is this deemed as arrogant? I'd enjoy another opinon and answer to this also.

OP, I hope you can understand what I am about to write.

In front of you, all around you, all this energy, and everything that exists, is a huge mystery. All of life sparks many questions. What is life? What is existence? What is all this you sense? Is there a purpose? These are the first questions asked by the first philosophical people, and others, through the ages, and up until this very moment.

You can look around and see the ocean waves crashing on the beach. You can see the plants and trees growing and producing fruit while moving in the wind. You can see the wind carrying the birds, and the clouds which are passing over providing water to the land, plants, and animals. All while the Moon, and the Sun, and the stars, and planets, move across the sky in a timely fashion. While millions of critters, insects, animals, bacteria and thousands of life forms transform the land there is seemingly uncontrolled natural events like hurricanes, and earthquakes, volcanoes, mud slides, floods, snow storms, rains storms, and lightning, etc. animating the Earth and the universe, and bringing it to life. You see all this activity, all this existence, and you have to see that all this is in a state of "being".

www.merriam-webster.com...

be·ing - noun
1
a : the quality or state of having existence
b (1) : something conceivable as existing (2) : something that actually exists (3) : the totality of existing things
c : conscious existence : life
2
: the qualities that constitute an existent thing : essence; especially : personality
3
: a living thing; especially : person

The universe as a whole, a totality of things, is in a state of existence. All living things within the universe are parts of the whole universe. The universe is arguably "alive". The universe as a whole is a large "being". This is the way the first philosophers saw existence, the universe. They saw it as a living entity, a large body of a being.

Humans are considered "beings" and "alive". The human mind consists of electrical impulses like lightning strikes in a storm. They are caused by chemical reactions like those found all over Earth. The human body also consists of many life forms which help it sustain life, much like the life forms on and around Earth which help Earth and the universe sustain life. The human body has flowing rivers of liquids within it like blood, and water, and oils, and chemicals, which provide life to the parts of the human body, which are like rivers and streams flowing through the land on Earth providing food and water to life on Earth, which sustains life. The human body has respiratory systems which circulate air through the blood streams to provide life to the parts, just like the Earth has ways of circulating air into water streams and oceans which the fish use to breathe, and provide life to the parts of Earth.

As you can see, many of the functions inside the human body are seemingly uncontrolled and automatic, exactly like the every day environments and systems on Earth. They consist of inanimate chemicals and elements moving about in ways which provide some type of function to sustain life, and to sustain a state of "being". Understanding this big picture you can see how the Earth, which is a part of the universe, is "alive". The universe IS an entity. The universe IS a "being". The first philosophers understood this.

This knowledge of the big picture gave rise to the original idea of God. The universe, as a whole, a large powerful being, was considered God. Every inch of the universe, every molecule, every atom, all energy, was God's body. This gave rise to the idea of omnipresence, the idea of God being present everywhere. God was under every rock, in every plant, in every life form, in the sky, in the heavens, in every person, all of everywhere, completely omnipresent, because all those things are actually parts of God. God is all that there is, and all that there ever will be.

This also gave rise to the original idea of omnipotence. The universe as a whole is every electron, all light, all energy, all things which we consider power. Every thunderstorm, every earthquake, every hurricane, every volcano, every moving star and every moving planet, and all gravity... all power in existence is at God's hand. So God is all powerful. God has power over all things, because all things are God, the ultimate being.

That is why when there is a lightning storm, people say it is an act of God. When a volcano erupts, it's an act of God. When the wind blows, it's an act of God. All things are governed by God, because all things are God, the Universe. It's like saying all lightning storms are an act of the Universe. All volcano eruptions are an act of the Universe. When the wind blows, it's an act of the Universe. "God" is like a name given to the universe, which is a being, and exists.

This is why I laugh when people say there is no proof that God exists. Well, the universe itself and the fact it is in a state of being, and existing, and is alive, is proof that God exists because God is basically a name for the Universe, and life, and existence, which does exist. It's like looking at the Earth and saying the Earth doesn't exist. It is blindness (please don't be offended by this).

Scientists like to study how a lightning storm happens, and how the Earth spins around the Sun, but they will never know WHY. They erroneously mistake how and why, and think they are the same thing. They will proclaim, "I know WHY lightning strikes! It is because of the build up of electrical charges!". That is not WHY, that is HOW lightning strikes. When you ask, "WHY do electrical charges build up?", they will answer, "Because the movement of molecules in the clouds creates a positive charge." Still, that is not WHY, that is HOW. You can keep asking WHY and their answer will go deeper and deeper until they have no answers. They can try their best to explain WHY but they will only answer HOW. Many scientists and atheists mistake how and why, and think they are the same.

They can try to answer HOW the universe might have been created, or HOW life might have been created, but they will NEVER answer WHY. They will claim it is all automatic, and all an accident, and has no reason, but that is a cop-out. That is when science becomes a religion.

Science will claim that believing "God did it" is a cop-out, but it actually is a logical philosophical answer to a philosophical question. Science will never be able to answer why. That answer will only be reached by philosophical logic. It is logical to suggest the entire universe is alive, and is a being, and it is logical to suggest the universe is responsible for what we see, because that is the truth.

Science unknowingly is supporting the idea of God. They are uncovering how all things are connected. They are getting a detailed look at the bigger picture. Most scientists have a problem with chopping the big picture into pieces and only looking at the pieces, but many are capable of seeing the big picture and all the pieces.

But what I wrote about God above was the beginning. From the beginning idea that the universe is God came all the philosophical ideas and beliefs that followed it which created most major religions. People added their own beliefs about God using these first beliefs, and it spiraled down into a mix of different religions believing different things about the same God.

In a universe where anything is possible there was created a world of beliefs that could be logical and possible.

One being that God, the universe, which is in control of all energy and matter, could manifest itself as a human and walk the world as a human. It is possible..... you can't claim it isn't.

Also ideas that everyone is a child of God. This is true. We are all born from the universe, created by the forces of the universe (God), so we are children of God.

Recently S. Hawking claimed the universe could be created without the help of God, and all automatically built by gravity. Well my heart "automatically" beats on it's own. Who is to say God's body didn't automatically create itself? Who is to say gravity isn't the force of God? Nobody... The universe is God, so God did create the universe just like you create your fingernails.

Evolution or creationism? I think they are both the same thing.... Evolution is God at work. Evolution is the Universe at work. Evolution is God creating right before our eyes.

If you think about what I have said long enough, you can answer many questions about religion, why it is the way it is today, and how it changed over time to mean different things, and how different views of God came into existence.

For the record, I am considered a scientist. One that still believes God is real.

If you want to call this speculation.... it's not... it's based on logical observations just as science is. However, humans are at a disadvantage. We are on the inside looking out, and because of that, science will never be able to prove things which require to be on the outside looking in. So you must resort to logical philosophy.

We are like the life forms which live within our body trying to contemplate if the objects around them amount to something greater than themselves. They will have a hard time proving it, but they sure can logically arrive to the conclusion it may be true.

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy


So you'd be ok with the notion, (since we don't know what "GOD" is currently) that you could subtitute the word "GOD" for energy or "force". A very generalised term, but we don't really have a specific idea of what "GOD" or the "energy" that binds us is. Do you understand my point?

As in the philosophy of the Jedi it is called "The Force"

I'm happy with this explanation of God, but when people claim to know that it has desires, and what they are, and you we should obide by them, is when i will standing up and say they are lying.

I'm happy to grant you God, because i cannot prove he does not exist, but could you really go on to say you know his "desires" and purely based on doctrine?

I don't think so.

Let me first thank you for your sincere questions about my perspective.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by sinohptik

 

Apologies i was just responding to the arguments. To be quite hoenst i did think you were being quite condecending.

I thought that might be the case. I speak a little "funny" and to top it off i havent been too serious. Cant promise to take it seriously, but ill try to keep the jokes at a minimum I love talking about this stuff though!

My questions after your latest post would be:-

Do you think that "GOD" intervenes in human affairs?

Are human affairs part of All That Is? I think so, so i say yes.

Would you be happy with another connotation of God as being called "The Force"? As you say, the energy that forms this reality, the energy that binds us all?

God is that conceptualized energy, as well as everything it flows through. The alpha and omega, everything and the nothing. As far as "The Force" i would have to say no, as that isnt nearly as wonderful to me as Dumplings or God.

If you believe God has emotions and empathy, do you think he watches with indifference, with a lack of emotion as the Andromeda gallaxy approaches our own? (causing destruction, death, chaos)

emotions and empathy exist and are part of All That Is, so i would say yes. Though, obviously such a system wouldnt likely be subjected to such emotional experience as the human system, individually.

Apologies if i have misunderstood your argument, but i don't think i'm being over-zelous.

I'm open minded, show me empirical evidence and i will investigate and where evidence is irrefutable, i will agree. If you ask me to put "faith" in a theory i will automatically mistrust it's conviction. Why is this deemed as arrogant? I'd enjoy another opinon and answer to this also.

edit on 19/12/10 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)

Not necessarily over-zealous, but definitely and without a doubt (in my mind) inflammatory. As i said, i dont personally mind, but dont be surprised by the aggressive responses you have and will continue to receive. I dont know what evidence i could give that would quantitatively prove All That Is exists from an unbiased perspective outside of All That Is, but if you still want proof of "my God?" Look around you, look within you. and do it honestly. The unity of ones perspective, and All That Is left this ones beliefs (atheism at the time) shattered and a believer in God. I derive heaven and hell from that decision. To be a willing and conscious participant in All That Is, or not. I could not, and can not, deny the Truth and Divinity of All That Is around and within me. I feel this is what those who call out to God are "pointing" at. whether or not they realize they are simply pointing at themselves is a different matter.

Originally posted by sinohptik

Who is to say God's body didn't automatically create itself?

Couldn't you consider the possibility that there are no Gods, only infinity. It's your "belief" that it is a God. What happens if my belief was that the universe created itself out of infinity. It's not my belief because i can't claim to positively know this.

There seems to be a problem with causation, and the law of energy transfer, something can't be created out of nothing (or so we think), so who created your "God" and who created that creator and so on. Funnily enough this is known as an INFINITE regression.

How can you put a belief in this unfounded assumption or pressumption without evidence? i thought you were a scientist? I thought you cared about reason and demonstration (EVIDENCE)

I know ive been born again and recived the holy spirit and can talk in tounges . God created man for relasionship with him . Adam the first man did know God and was very intelligent God brought all the animal life to Adam to see what he named them . God did use man to write the bible but they wrote and spake as the spirit of God moved or filled them kind of like tounqes and interpertations is the best way i can expain it . The bible story is the creation of man fall of man and redemption of man . I do belive God does intervine in human affairs and history. I belive he is now Even in the old testiment books like Danail Job revelations and others tell about the past and future kindoms on earth . The last is beginning to happin before are very eyes The Lord told us what sighns to look out for before Jesus second return false Christs and profits , famine and diseases plagues earthquakes people going to and fro knowladge would increase , and a one world order one religion and one currency which is all in the works right now . The anti christ will be ahead of the new world order when its complete . God is coming back and getting rid of it living in exciting times

Originally posted by sinohptik


Thanks for your response.

but if you still want proof of "my God?" Look around you, look within you. and do it honestly

Even if look inside myself honestly, what will i find? If i find "GOD" i'm only finding it because your claiming its God, and i'm having to accept this as evidence?

Your stance on the concept of "God" appears to me to be somewhat Deistic or Pantheistic,

Anyway, it's nice to have your viewpoint here but our debate and my concern with your beliefs are very short as the evidence you claim that stands in your favour still is found wanting which is point raised by Agnosticism. Which is why a Theist can never proclaim to reveal wisdom as to the source of creation.

We are in the same boat, we just don't know how to define "God". We don't know the cause or the force that governs reality. You claim it's "GOD" - i ask you to define "GOD" - you say "GOD is everything" - We are back to square one.

Some might say our arguments are equal, i have no evidence for my lack of belief in God, and you really don't have any evidence your belief in God - all you are saying is "the universe is God" - Which seems quite redundant to me? Do you understand that? Sorry if i am unclear.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Originally posted by sinohptik

but if you still want proof of "my God?" Look around you, look within you. and do it honestly

Even if look inside myself honestly, what will i find?

Well, why dont you find out?

As i said in another post, i went into it with the notion of showing how to reach "enlightenment" without any involvement from God (i was an atheist). But as i said, i was right in that its beyond that, but i found what was being talked about all along beyond all the labels.

When i say "everything" i dont mean that as a nebulous term, i mean it distinctly and literally. It is not a concept within the realm of the human minds understanding, but it was accessible for this one through the simple act of being.

ehhh, i was going to expand more and ask some questions, but im nodding off sometimes its good to listen to that Ill get back to it tomorrow, as i feel we are finally getting to some great conversation between us, awake.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
So you'd be ok with the notion, (since we don't know what "GOD" is currently) that you could subtitute the word "GOD" for energy or "force". A very generalised term, but we don't really have a specific idea of what "GOD" or the "energy" that binds us is. Do you understand my point?

As in the philosophy of the Jedi it is called "The Force"

God is all that is, and all there ever will be. God is every force, all matter, and all thoughts, and all concepts, and all ideas. God is not just a force, it is a name given to life itself, to the very idea of existence, to all things combined.

God is life.

You are happy with calling life "life", but what is life? You are happy with calling existence "existence", but what is existence? Is it a force? Do you truly know what "existence" or "life" is?

Scientists know how to create electricity. They know how to control it to a certain degree. But they don't know what it is.... they think it is electrons, but they have no clue what electrons are. They don't know what electricity is, yet they give it a name, study it's characteristics, create laws which to abide when working with it, and claim to know it's desires based on observations, but... they don't know what it is. Sound familiar?

I understand your point.

You have to think about it though. The universe "exists". It is "something". It resembles a living entity, it has life. But what is it? We just call it God.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
I'm happy with this explanation of God, but when people claim to know that it has desires, and what they are, and you we should obide by them, is when i will standing up and say they are lying.

I understand your concerns. I too am concerned about some things that religious people decide to believe about God. However many things are arrived at logically. Of course, many are not as well.

I am curious, what desires are you talking about exactly?

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
I'm happy to grant you God, because i cannot prove he does not exist, but could you really go on to say you know his "desires" and purely based on doctrine?

I don't think so.

Many "doctrines" were created by observations of the universe and life. Just like many "doctrines" were created about electricity when scientists studied electricity, and many scientists can claim to know the "desires" of electricity based on said doctrine.

Many doctrines seem to be pointless and created purely by man, but most of them all have deeper understanding attached to them created by observations and philosophical logic.

One example would be "Thou shalt not murder". How do we know God doesn't want us to murder? Well, if you think about it logically, and understand that all life and all things are a part of God and God's creation, then killing someone would be like killing parts of God and God's creation. Since we are all ONE with God, it would also be like killing parts of our self. So we can arrive at a conclusion that it is probably in God's best interest to not want us to kill parts of his creation. The conclusion is arrived at by logic and understanding of the concept of God.

The problem though is that religion has gotten carried away. People think that because all things are God, and all actions are God's, when you think of something or arrive at a conclusion, God gave you that thought and conclusion. That is dangerous, and I admit that religions have gotten out of hand because of that.

Another problem is what happened in the past. Many characters seemingly performed "miracles" and many believed they were sent by God. Many of them were highly intelligent and their words and understanding seemed God like, and that reinforced their belief that their words were from God, the power of the universe. A lot of "doctrines" came solely from these characters, and carried through the ages because the "miracles" and intelligence left a profound mark on history. If their words were actually from God or not is up to you to determine on your own...

I am of the belief that God works through everyone and everything at various amounts at various times. All song writers, all poets, all authors, all musicians, all of everyone including you have various amounts of inspiration from God. After all, you are all the energy, you are the universe, you are parts of God. That is why I listen closely to all of everyone, because there is possibly a spark of God in everyone. However since I believe it happens at various amounts, and I have to take everything with a grain of salt because you might just get a mixture of personal desires and not inspiration from God.

You have to understand that belief in God can exist independent of religious doctrine. I believe in God, but a lot of doctrines I don't believe. You have to understand God on your own, and come to your own conclusions. Many peoples understanding of God are similar, so they all agree on certain religions and doctrines.

reply to post by awake_and_aware

There is evidence but it is not objective evidence.

The only device that can know the Spirit of God is an individual human person...
...so each person must know for themselves.

There is no 'God-o-meter' or 'God receiver' other than the individual.

reply to post by troubleshooter


I see your point, you're pantheist then?

A&A

God gives different names which he calls himself I am that Iam The Living Word Elohim mans creator Jahovah Elohim mans redeemer and so on many others. According to Genesis In the beginning of creation as it refers to this universe God unformed unmade uncreated had no beginning He always was is and always shall be. And the spirit of the Lord moved on the face of the deep signifedthe beginning of life. Gods word is of such magnitude that light continues to expand in the universe at the rate of 186000 miles per second.God created the sun moon stars for signs seasons for days and nights years reference to time, As God spoke his word contained such power that the planetary bodies will ever carry out their prescibed function. God made the son and moon sun in day moon at night . The moon has no lightwithin itself it is a reflection of the sun made stars also. God created the sun moon stars at some unknown period of time in the beginning and afterwords when prepaing the earth for man and pointed them in relation to the earth as light holders measurers of time and vechiles for revalations