How would God say farewell?

reply to post by mutatismutandis

I dont belive its because people dont want to find truth for themselves...its more that many religions state to explore out side your faith is a sin in itself. Its a catch 22...if you want to fact check God its straight to hell with you, and many fully believe that mindset.

Mankind has many times before displayed a willingness to cast aside tradition in order to claim what he wants and feels he deserves. But there are times when we will willingly take those iron chains and clap the manacles on because the pain of servitude is far kinder than the pain of freedom. If you look closely at history, you can see this metaphor in hundreds of cases across hundreds of cultures - men, women, and children who have chosen a hellish lifestyle because the demons you know are better than the demons you don't. They would much rather face a darkness they know how to handle than drown in a darkness they've never fought before.

And there are times when life becomes so utterly unpredictable, and fate so inexplicably cruel, that you would much rather take a hundred lashes than be forced to fend for yourself in the free world. In short, these religions that restrict and oppress are, in the minds of men, a fair trade when compared with the cruelty of the brother who will betray you for his next crust or next gold coin.

Logically, no all loving god would say you must heed my word and never question it because part of loosing ones path and finding your own way back is one of the very things that strengthens faith the most.

I am very much relieved that you understand this. It it to my very great regret that many people seem to allow this "God" his own brand of psychopathic love simply because of his legacy. It's shameful.

Now i wrote this with obvious reference to the biblical god, but every world religion has lessons to be learned from if we simply quit worrying about who the characters of the stories are and focus more on message.

These stories provide the context with which to flesh out the lessons, considering the world is not black and white. But these stories no longer relate to the modern world. If I were to tell a tale of a German slave to a rich boy living in San Francisco, how much do you think that boy will understand? Especially when these stories were designed to impart a certain moral intended specifically for that region in that time. The world has changed, and so these stories are no longer applicable.

And quite honestly, if grown men still need children's stories to figure life out, then we all have a serious problem.

Regardless of if our religious texts we written by God or by man, they are still a reflection of humanity learning from itself in an effort to become the best humanity can bring.

But that's the point! We don't want to be good...we want to be good at it. We want to get better at the art of impunity, because it pays so much better than just behaving. And in the end, we just die anyway, and with death becoming an artform, with death becoming a necessity every day, we want to increase our odds of survival. We want to build our material empires. So we have to step on everyone in order to climb the golden ladder...

We don't care about others. We care about securing our own fates. You want to know the nature of man? Greed. We will never have enough.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Merriman Weir

 

What if we're too young to understand where everything came from, and we're just groping for answers because our own weaknesses have led us to hope there is indeed reason and not just random chaos? What if religion is just a symptom of our manic search for a reason to believe that we won't just die as another failed mixture of probabilities? What if the only reason that the idea of gods even exists is that we refuse to believe we're the highest form of consciousness?

What if all of this - religion, deities, spirituality - is just another way of observing our refusal to accept ourselves as we are? Has anyone thought of that yet? Would it be so wrong to change that?

Of course we're too 'young' to understand this. I'd suggest the trick is to not care.

reply to post by mutatismutandis

I understand where you coming from here as i used to have the same mindset....my only issue with this line of thought is one unquestionable law of science states something cannot be created from nothing.

Whoever said there was nothing? I can throw a pile of odds and ends in front of you and you'll call it trash. Give me two hours and I've constructed a work of art that sells for $300,000 and I give the money to a charity that uses it to build a house for a family of three. The child in that family then goes on to create a foundation for a charity that provides healthcare to thousands nationwide, saving a hundred lives every week.

And that all came from trash. My point here is that the word "nothing" is purely a definition of perspective. When we say "nothing", we're really saying, "It's nothing to US." So when you say nothing, what do you mean? DO you mean literally NOT A DAMN THING, or do you mean something that you perceive as negligible?

Because when I think of what existed in the beginning, I think of energy that, by itself, is worthless to such simple minded creatures as us. But to someone who actually knows what the energy is, it's an infinite number of possibilities - as infinite as, say...a universe.

So no matter how far back we research, in the end there has to be something that started it all. Now whether that is some unseen deity, flying spaghetti monster, or the way the matrix was programmed i cannot say.

How long has modern science existed? How long have our telescopes existed? How long as Homo Sapiens existed? Do you really think that, in such a frame of time, we are even close to answering these questions?

Perhaps the problem has less to do with our ignorance and more to do with our impatience. If we weren't pushing ourselves to keep up with our egos, maybe we would be more understanding of the universe.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Good job I am an atheist then and agree on everything you said. Let that sink in...

However if there was a god then I still stand behind what I said. Yes the young have to stand on their own two feet at some point [hence I said that we as humans have some responsibility in this] but as a [human] parent [or a god] you can't just abandon them if they don't turn out the way you would like to. Actually as a human you could use the excuse that you have no control over their DNA and some bad behaviour could be intrinsic. But c'mon, as a god who drew the blueprint on life and control over everything, you can't use that excuse, because you bloomin' made us from scratch.

If we were machines, you could throw us away and get on with something else, but remember that this god apparently made us and told us that he loves us and whatnot. He/she made sentient beings with more flaws than I can count, knowing fully well that most won't 'learn' because that it how our brain was designed], knowing that and then taking off when the going gets tough is just despicable IMO.

Fortunately though, as I said before I do not believe in god and think that people need to get their act together and grow up immensely, as humans behave like idiots.

reply to post by Hecate666

Good job I am an atheist then and agree on everything you said. Let that sink in...

I am neither theist or atheist. See, I believe in a divine principle. Essentially, I believe in a celestial law according to which all energy behaves, and hence all matter. It's comparable to a self-designed computer, artificial intelligence. It is not a god, and yet it's still a divine force. It's a celestial influence that determines the very reality we see around us, although I can't say that it has a consciousness necessarily. I like to think that it merely stores the collective memories and experiences of every soul that has ever existed.

Fortunately though, as I said before I do not believe in god and think that people need to get their act together and grow up immensely, as humans behave like idiots.

I am sure that my beliefs aren't exactly original, but maybe one day I can use my beliefs to create a third camp into which theist and atheist can migrate, that they may learn to work together for the good of the universe, considering that their strife doesn't stop the earth from turning on a daily basis. I don't know what I would call it...perhaps a label isn't even necessary.

But if it were, I would probably call it Orbism, or Cyclism - because I envision everything that is part of the universe to be part of a giant, never-ending spiral, an infinite series of circles as determined by the Divine Principle. After all, if there is nowhere to go and nothing to be, it would simply be an endless cycle of experience.

Hence, a circle.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Rather orbism or cyclism, wouldnt fractilism fit better? Every part is a reflection of the whole? Thats what i was getting out of your description anyways.


I would love to see something bring us all together, but your right...how do you put a label on something like that.

I have faith it can be done, just look at this thread. This is probably one of the longest discussions ive had on religion on this site that has remained civil and didnt end in chaos and name calling.

Its a start if anything.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

It's comparable to a self-designed computer, artificial intelligence. It is not a god, and yet it's still a divine force. It's a celestial influence that determines the very reality we see around us, although I can't say that it has a consciousness necessarily. I like to think that it merely stores the collective memories and experiences of every soul that has ever existed.

It sounds like you just described the Architect in the file The Matrix


Lets hope we are at the end of the Architects' World 6 and Neo is not the Anti-christ.

reply to post by Rapha

It sounds like you just described the Architect in the file The Matrix

Not really. The Architect, being human, was able to create a world ALMOST perfect...but his imperfect understanding of perfection prevented him from successfully inventing a code to counteract the anomaly he described in his conversation with Neo.

The essential idea of that conversation was to portray the truth that we have struggled so long to deny: perfection is a state of perpetual imperfection. No matter how you twist it, there will always be some imperfection by which to learn, so as to increase the understanding of existence and all purposes therein. You cannot learn without correction, and so there must be something to correct. What's the point of living if you are unable to learn? Such nature inevitably leads to servitude. There is only one output for every input, a system that is designed for taking orders rather than thinking for oneself, which is completely inhuman in that freedom takes second fiddle to eternally answering another's call. If there is only characteristic that is human, it's the desire for freedom - the desire to make our own choices, according to our own will.

And Neo, in the movie, made a perfect example of this desire when he choice to save Trinity instead of saving the city. And because he chose to obey his own will, he was able to rearrange fate in such a manner that the virus (Mr. Smith) was destroyed. Mr. Smith sought perfection, and he was the embodiment of the curse of such a quest - a quest that the human species, in this world, has been enthralled in for many years now. He was the face of the truth - if you seek perfection, you will find only destruction, because perfection is inherently the loss of all that is impure. The only thing that is pure is the building blocks of which we are made, and in order to master these building blocks, we must master the art of change. Change is the ultimate salvation. Constance is the ultimate damnation. Eternity of servitude, an immortal power, is the ultimate doom. A shift in power is salvation. That was the entire purpose of the Matrix trilogy, the entire message. That's why we have so much trouble, because we're afraid of something that constantly changes. We are unable to accept the nature of this reality, and as such, we are unable to accept ourselves. And that's how the modern "God" came into being, as a reflection of our inner struggle. But if we were to accept that nature, then we would see it. We would see that change is the voice, the blueprint, of divinity.

And that is the nature of Source. Source - is - change. The universe is constructed of energy, and energy cannot exist unless it is moving. That's the source of vibrations, which is measured in frequency, which determined the exact properties and interactions of all atomic matter and energetic tides on every plane of existence. It is all energy, and energy requires motion, and motion necessitates change. Without change, there is no motion, which means no energy, which means death. Why do you think the Spirit brings new life? It's not meant literally, although it can be. It's meant figuratively. As long as there is motion on some level, there is no death.

So you could say that Source is life. And that is why I give such credence to ancient cultures - when they made mention of life, of light, this is what they were talking about. Light. Life. Energy. Vibrations.

The Divine Principle.

reply to post by mutatismutandis


I'm thinking "quasitheism" or something like that. Quasi literally means "resembling" or "having some, but not all the features of". So basically, it's "having some, but not all the features of theism". Close enough for government work, I think.