Destroying or Validating Monotheism?

Ah, how uncomplicated it would be to view the entire universe in terms of only four basic types of intelligent beings: God, angels, fallen angels and/or demons (all led by Satan) - and then voila! - humans (*fanfare of trumpets*), or at least Earth humans if any distinction applies. (I guess a fifth type would qualify, which would be the allegedly long extinct giant "Nephilim" hybrids of the allegedly interbreeding "fallen angels" and humans). It would surely easily explain everything in one tidy little package, and all we pesky non-believers/doubters could just shut up and go about plugging ourselves exclusively into our daily routines and being content, probably while being expected to worship and fear the beloved "Lord" like everyone else. Yippee!

I believe I am among the most fair and open-minded people there are, therefore will extrapolate that which is very apparently THE only imaginable scenario where the (particularly) Abrahamic-monotheistic folks could be even conceivably correct: In short, ONLY if the universe - beyond a certain point past this solar system - isn't real, if it's just some kind of gargantuan holographic projection or the like that's designed to make us THINK we're (most likely) not alone, could there be any POSSIBLE validity in the Creationist/religious hard liner spiel. In that case, there being only the aforementioned few types of intelligent beings would actually make sense. Of course any at least minimally rational and sane enough person would require the MOST absolute, incontrovertible proof as such before accepting it. I for one would gladly wager in the biggest that the universe is real and contains other intelligent life, and that's not to mention the apparent or possible multiverse.

I welcome other beliefs, opinions, theories that are intelligent enough, but not those that go into the predictably unsubstantiated, fluffy-bamboozling cultist or other religious (enough) yadda-yadda. (That's not saying there's NOTHING useful or meaningful in any given religious text). AND I do not nor EVER will accept the weak apologist party line that the Bible is just a little old harmless collection of metaphorical and allegorical stories that are not to be taken literally, because the REAL problem/issue is that the Creationist literalists (or close enough) and their enablers have FAR too much political power and influence, especially here in the (rah-rah!) "superpower" US... Fine and dandy truth/validity IF and ONLY if the "religulous" could be somehow PROVED that they have been right, at least essentially, all along.

Point is: Truth/proof is EVERYTHING and the ONLY thing that matters, whatever it turns out to be. Make a poober or get off the pot! Going back and forth, spinning the wheels in neutral AT BEST - and we KNOW how much WORSE it can be and is - is meaningless and counterproductive to the extent no mere verbal expression can convey. Anything else, i.e. the status quo, is just plain old Hell. The "Lake of Fire" is HERE, only in this existing unfortunate "civilization," unless or until it could be (once again) PROVED otherwise!

REAL sociopolitical change, for the first time in recorded history, is inevitable; it's just a question of when, not if. I see only two basic ways any significant, necessarily Apocalyptic (or perhaps the like) change can happen: the intelligent way and the tragically stupid way. The intelligent way is if enough people at long last have enough DESIRE for a real breakthrough, to grow up and not need Big Brother to hold our hands any more, and therefore be able to transmute the new positive energy into REAL results. It's finally having enough collective courage, wisdom and maturity to forsake the various Santa Clauses, Tooth Fairies, illusions in general. The tragically stupid way(s) is/are, one, to carry on being silent, doing and desiring NOTHING, to continue suffering from thumb-in-butt disease (if you will), and two, to rely on unproved (by definition) blind religious faith, which amounts to the very same "disease" as the secular version. "Wish in one hand, and crap in the other..."

If by no one and/or nothing else, nature itself will eventually make the necessary corrections. Pollution and resource depletion of this beautifully biodiverse planet resulting from the blindly hyper-industrial market economy is guaranteed to take its toll. That's just basic physics, reality.

The reality for me is we all hurt each other
Justice is that we are all accountable
If we are accountable then we all face judgement.
I deserve death
someone has already accepted my death for me
I rely on someone else to be responsible because I am a coward


Jesus

So basically you're saying that because the universe is so large, there can't be God like we understand Him? And you think this is so because the universe is so large there must be other kinds of life, even intelligent life, out there?

Why would that invalidate the idea of God?

Personally I think God and the fallen have spoken to mankind across the millennia which is where the myriad of differing beliefs have cropped up, but you do find bits of God's message almost everywhere you look. You also find far darker things, too. However, those darker things tend not to create their own but only twist the message that already existed.

I would expect that if, as I believe, God created the universe and all that is in it, He also spoke to all His children in His creation. I would expect that in some way, we will still see echoes of His message there just as we do all over earth. How the question remains ... Did God create other children out there as we really haven't found them yet.

a reply to: ketsuko

I would love as much as anyone to have a direct, REAL connection with the Single Creator of the universe, if such a being truly exists. The problem is in mistaking mere BELIEF, however intense and heartfelt with every fiber of one's being, with actual KNOWLEDGE, therefore its practical applications. The problem is in all the institutionally proprietary requirements of having a "proper" relationship with God or "God," whichever is real. And those are REAL problems because of, again, the tremendous political power and influence that has gotten us NOWHERE. For example, since when is it necessary to accept the notion of an unimaginably brutal blood "sacrifice" in order to be allegedly cleansed of sins and/or have alleged eternal life in Heaven? Popularity notwithstanding, that's just the stuff of the most insane fringe cult there ever was, AGAIN, unless or until it could be PROVED otherwise.

a reply to: Lightworth

If one starts to view earth as a being like us but has it's bodily functions put into a matrix type system then the good and bad start to make sense. Imagine if that was actually true and imagine the being had an infection or cancer. I bet we would have a certain crowd of people railing on about how we mistreat the cancer and the cancer has equal rights to life as we do.

a reply to: deadeyedick

I'm good with the type of "chemotherapy" and/or "radiation" etc. cancer-curing treatments to which you imply, but very strongly hope there would still be a way to save as much of humanity as truly possible, except with a new basis of knowledge and action instead of secrecy and religion/worship (and worse). Or at least one can hope and dream.

a reply to: Lightworth

I hate seceracy too but if the theory is correct then when we look inside our own selves we find many secrets and much of the body is not in constnt communication with all of the body. Each cell is not privy to the whole operations of the rest of the body and certain mindsets of certain people could be physically honest but spiritually corrupt to the whole. After truth is presented to the corrupt and rejected then what next?

a reply to: deadeyedick

I wish I had even a speck of something resembling omniscience so I could respond with something resembling a clue. Pretty sure, though, that any true change (if applicable) - for the better, by definition - will require someone and/or something much more powerful than us, yet that's not the same old excuse or cop-out for inaction. Would take awhile to explain.

Will check in later. Did some yard work a little while ago and am tired. Going to catch a nap.

a reply to: Lightworth

Nap on!

We certainally know how the human body works in the current mode of aging but perhaps the changes we all want could come through a transformation of our current state into an ever lasting one. I am sure that if we stopped aging then the process in our body that may be mimicked right now in our enviroment would look much different and that would thereby change our interactions with eachother.

a reply to: Lightworth

Well, if you expect to find or disprove God in this universe, I think you will be disappointed. He created it. Why would you expect Him to be bound by it like we are as part of it?

a reply to: Lightworth

" Truth/proof is EVERYTHING and the ONLY thing that matters, whatever it turns out to be. "

Truth and proof are not interchangable words. It is true that these words you are reading have a semiotic dimension(carry meaning in density packed info). There is no way for me to prove to you the meaning of these symbols you follow now, but there meaning is true.

Truth comes from knowledge. Knowledge comes from a justified belief. How can a person who doesn't believe in God justify the belief that they can obtain knowledge? \

THE only imaginable scenario where the (particularly) Abrahamic-monotheistic folks could be even conceivably correct: In short, ONLY if the universe - beyond a certain point past this solar system - isn't real, if it's just some kind of gargantuan holographic projection or the like that's designed to make us THINK we're (most likely) not alone, could there be any POSSIBLE validity in the Creationist/religious hard liner spiel.

Why is the the only imaginable scenario? You start out by calling yourself open-minded and then approach the religion with the narrowminded view that only one scenario is logically possible???

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I have NO idea how to relate in any way to those who cannot discern belief from knowledge or ACTUAL truth, and it would be entirely foolish for me ever to try. I'm very much into spirituality, meaning not any religion or the otherwise overly religious (lacking proof). I will hopefully end my participation on this thread by saying only that for me the existence of any TYPE of singular Supreme Being is not AT ALL an issue of belief OR disbelief, but a DESIRE to know and experience as much of the unexplained-undisclosed as possible - that which is outside the existing monolithic, oppressive paradigm of rule by secrecy in general - and whether or not said desire could ever be fulfilled even slightly. Goodnight all.