Calling All Atheists

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by Rick336

Zerbie. I believe this is exactly what happened.

Thousands of years after humans began walking upright, they began to think about stuff. They started wondering what was going on. Lightning, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, errupting volcanos frightened them. They needed answers. And since they didn't have science to give them answers, they simply made stuff up.

They figured since the sun and the moon and the stars looked down on them from above, then these heavenly bodies must be in control of everything. Floods, droughts, storms, volcano erruptions were punishments from above for something they must have done to anger the gods.

Fast forward 500 thousand years to September 2005.

Hundreds of entries on web blogs from Christians across America claimed that Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment on New Orleans for being a wicked city.

We've been walking upright for a million years now. We communicate with one another with computers. We carry telephones in our pockets that take videos that we can send to emails. So the big question is....how long do we continue to hold on to these stone age religious beliefs?


Rick

Yep. Absolutely the same mindset at work. Technology has advanced, but the human mind/heart have not, at least not to a comparable degree. It needs to happen, or with all our cleverness and devices paired unevenly with the fear hate anger and so on, we may destroy ourselves and take how much of mother earth along with us?

My take is that science and Religion (real religion - the kind you rarely ever run into) are closer than sisters to one another. They both inquire into the nature of things as they really are, seeking to understand what is really going on and why, etc. The kind of religion one is more likely to run into, though, in this world, is a social behavior based on blind belief that, as you so correctly point out, runs counter to science, to common sense, to the (God-given) facility of reason itself. It's my belief that God gave us Reason for a reason, (ha) and that reason comprises knowing God. That science is one way (a very good way) of moving in that direction. That science and real Religion are two aspects of the same pursuit that can and must be used together to understand ourselves & our universe and better the world for our neighbors.

Religion must advance beyond, as you put it, the Stone Age. Rejecting science, and reason itself! - is the very opposite of what it ought to do. Being blind and deaf is only going to shut your awareness down to the presence of God, yet that is what some people consider being "religious."

Expand awareness. Who cares if it's through hard science, the social sciences like psychology, etc., prayer, or a practice like meditation? As long as we are growing and progressing, we can get where we need to get to solve our problems (which we'd better do before we self-destruct).

[Rick336]

Author Sam Harris puts it well in his book, "The End of Faith":

"Where we have reasons for what we believe we, we have no need for faith; where we have no reasons, we have lost our connection to the world and to one another. People who harbor strong convictions without evidence belong at the margins of our societies, not in our halls of power. The only thing we should respect in a person's faith is his desire for a better life in this world; we need never have respected his certainty that one awaits him in the next.

This world is simply ablaze with bad ideas. There are still places where people are put to death for imaginary crimes - like blasphemy - and where the totality of a child's education consists of his learning to recite from an ancient book of religious fiction.

There are countries where women are denied almost every human liberty, except the liberty to breed. And yet these same societies are quickly acquiring terrifying arsenals of advanced weaponry.

If we cannot inspire the developing world, and the Muslim world in particular, to pursue ends that are compatible to global civilization, then a dark future awaits us all.

The days of our religious identities are clearly numbered. Whether the days of civilization itself are numbered would seem to depend, rather too much, on how soon we realize this."

- Sam Harris 2005

[Rick336]

Good News

Ex-Muslims non-believers are coming out of the closet in Europe:

A British branch of a new Europe-wide phenomenon is to be launched on Thursday June 21, 2007 in London. The Council of ex-Muslims of Britain is building on the stunning success of other branches already operating in Germany, Finland, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. The British Humanist Association and National Secular Society are sponsoring the launch and support the new organisation.

The Council will provide a voice for those labelled Muslim but who have renounced religion and do not want to be identified by religion.

Rights activist Maryam Namazie will be the voice of the organisation in this country. She said: “We are establishing the alternative to the likes of the Muslim Council of Britain because we don’t think people should be pigeonholed as Muslims or deemed to be represented by regressive organisations like the MCB. Those of us who have come forward with our names and photographs represent countless others who are unable or unwilling to do so because of the threats faced by those considered 'apostates' - punishable by death in countries under Islamic law. By doing so, we are breaking the taboo that comes with renouncing Islam but also taking a stand for reason, universal rights and values, and secularism. We are quite certain we represent a majority in Europe and a vast secular and humanist protest movement in countries like Iran.”



Here is the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain's MANIFESTO:

We, non-believers, atheists, and ex-Muslims, are establishing or joining the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain to insist that no one be pigeonholed as Muslims with culturally relative rights nor deemed to be represented by regressive Islamic organisations and 'Muslim community leaders'.

Those of us who have come forward with our names and photographs represent countless others who are unable or unwilling to do so because of the threats faced by those considered 'apostates' - punishable by death in countries under Islamic law.

By doing so, we are breaking the taboo that comes with renouncing Islam but also taking a stand for reason, universal rights and values, and secularism.

Whilst religion or the lack thereof is a private affair, the increasing intervention of and devastation caused by religion and particularly Islam in contemporary society has necessitated our public renunciation and declaration. We represent a majority in Europe and a vast secular and humanist protest movement in countries like Iran.

Taking the lead from the Central Council of Ex-Muslims in Germany, we demand:

1. Universal rights and equal citizenship for all. We are opposed to cultural relativism and the tolerance of inhuman beliefs, discrimination and abuse in the name of respecting religion or culture.

2. Freedom to criticise religion. Prohibition of restrictions on unconditional freedom of criticism and expression using so-called religious 'sanctities'.

3. Freedom of religion and atheism.

4. Separation of religion from the state and legal and educational system.

5. Prohibition of religious customs, rules, ceremonies or activities that are incompatible with or infringe people's rights and freedoms.

6. Abolition of all restrictive and repressive cultural and religious customs which hinder and contradict woman's independence, free will and equality. Prohibition of segregation of sexes.

7. Prohibition of interference by any authority, family members or relatives, or official authorities in the private lives of women and men and their personal, emotional and sexual relationships and sexuality.

8. Protection of children from manipulation and abuse by religion and religious institutions.

9. Prohibition of any kind of financial, material or moral support by the state or state institutions to religion and religious activities and institutions.

10. Prohibition of all forms of religious intimidation and threats.

[BrentRichards]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

(((( Rick ))))




Here is a poem I wrote shortly after my 17th birthday:

Genesis

In the beginning
there was fear.

One day Man said
"Let there be faith,"

and Man created God
in his image.

There is an old saying in some Christian circles ... "On the 6th day, God created man in His own image, and man has been trying to return the favor ever since." We do a lot of this ... it should not be surprising that we'd rather have a God of our own design (a tame lion, to steal from C.S. Lewis) than one with traits that challenge, confuse, and sometimes frighten us.

Nonetheless, the fact that we do this doesn't imply that there isn't a real God above all our inventions. In fact, some argue that our apparently insatiable God-drive suggests that knowledge of God (at some level) is "hardwired" into us ... be it physically or spiritually. I don't find that a compelling argument, but it is intriguing nonetheless. Pascal called this the "God-shaped vacuum" in each of us, which he said could be filled by no created thing, but only by the Creator himself.

I heartily concur with progressive... don't hold Jesus responsible for some of the jerks who believe in Him.

Rick, your observation is correct that "atheist" only has meaning with respect to a particular religious faith. The Romans called early Christians atheists, because they rejected all but one God ... how dare they? I'm sure you've been bashed and degraded by a lot of my fellow Christians over the years, and I'm sorry for that. I know I used to have (in my early years) this image of atheists that they must be nasty, evil people ... because I didn't know anyone who was an atheist (not unlike people who make assumptions about us GLBT folk because they don't know any of us). I know now that an atheist is a person just like me who believes something not just like my beliefs. Ok, so? I can deal with that!

I would ask you, politely, to be careful about how you characterize our Christian faith, regardless of whether you can personally accept any of it. I certainly don't think I'm "stone age." As to the many "unbelievable" things in the Bible, well ... either they're figurative stories told to make a point (as U-Dog has already alluded to), or they're assertions of God's miraculous power ... a miracle, by definition, is impossible under natural law ... if it weren't, we wouldn't be very impressed by it ... behold, I have made this tree fall using only this axe ... yeah, so? Thinking God could, to use your favorite example, speak through a donkey, if He so chose, doesn't make me a fool. I've seen some pretty big jackasses used for His purposes! (In which category I have to include myself, if I'm honest.)

Richard Dawkins (tangent here, I'm just thinking of this because he's mentioned/quoted above) is a perfect example, to me, of an obnoxious brand of atheism no better than judgemental fundamentalism ... not content to disagree, and choose not to believe in a religion himself, he feels the need to belittle, ridicule, and otherwise slam all religions and religious people... we are, in his loud voice, the cause of most if not all societal ills, in addition to being brainwashed morons. Frankly, though I'd never get involved in a debate with him on, say, paleontology (in which he is admittedly expert), I frankly have no interest at all in his pseudo-theological/philosophical pronouncements ... he has no more "clout" to pronounce about that than any random person off the street.

Rant over. We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

[Zerbie]

Thanks Brent for a lovely and well-stated post.

Rick, I kinda feel like with all the quotes you are talking past us, not really *with* us. We're all going to have a somewhat different concept of what is holy, but what we SF members agree upon, whether atheist, buddhist, christian, pagan or whatever else, is that the human heart is something to be cherished, and that the mind is a great tool for good or for ill. I would not characterize ANY of the forum members (regulars anyway) here as being "stone age," as Brent said, for being christian. Not all christians adhere to beliefs that stubbornly conflict with science and the entire observable world. Hardly. As I have been learning.

Now I'm stepping into territory where, admittedly, I have no special expertize but as far as the Bible goes (and I admit I've read extremely little of it,) most of what I've seen has tremendous spiritual significance if we perceive it as allegorical. If you perceive it as literal, you are bound to see only the physical, worldly things and completely miss the point. Christ was showing the path to the spiritual.

Wow. I can't believe I just defended christianity. My high school classmates would die of shock.

Haha. It's only in recent weeks that I even learned that many people hold a dim and distorted view of atheists. I always held atheists in far higher regard than religious people. Part of the reason I was one. But talking to respectful, intellectual members of both categories, ya'll sound very similar to each other to my ears.

[Rick336]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

Not all christians adhere to beliefs that stubbornly conflict with science and the entire observable world.

Yes they do. Christianity is a belief that a man died and then three days later got up and walked around. That conflicts with science.

I'm saying that all religion conflicts with science. Religions are based on child-like stories. I say "child-like" because that's exactly what they are. Talking animals and magic wands and ghosts flying through the air. How is that any different from reindeer flying through the air?

It's not!.

In the Bible there's a talking donkey.
In "Little Red Ridinghood" there's a talking wolf.

Muhammad flys to heaven on a winged horse.
Mary Poppins flys to London with an umbrella.

Joseph Smith owned a pair of magical glasses.
Dorothy owned a pair of magical slippers.

We have a man right now who is running for the office for the President of the United States. He's a Mormon. The Mormon religion is based on a book that says Joseph Smith found a pair of magical glasses with lens made of diamonds that he used to read unknown scripture written on golden leaves.

Magical glasses?

I think we have a right to ask a presidential candidate this question. "Do you believe in magical glasses?" If he's a true Mormon, his answer would have to be yes.

So the question would be; do we elect a man for the office of the most powerful country on earth who believes in magical glasses?

My Christian fundamentalist buddy believes that someday soon Jesus will fly down to earth on a silver cloud and all the dead Christians will rise from their graves and fly up to meet him in the sky.



Flying zombies?
Talking donkeys?
Magical glasses?

Even a caveman would say, "That's just silly!"


Rick

[u-dog]

Originally Posted by Rick336

Yes they do. Christianity is a belief that a man died and then three days later got up and walked around. That conflicts with science.

I'm saying that all religion conflicts with science. Religions are based on child-like stories. I say "child-like" because that's exactly what they are. Talking animals and magic wands and ghosts flying through the air. How is that any different from reindeer flying through the air?

It's not!.

In the Bible there's a talking donkey.
In "Little Red Ridinghood" there's a talking wolf.

Muhammad flys to heaven on a winged horse.
Mary Poppins flys to London with an umbrella.

Joseph Smith owned a pair of magical glasses.
Dorothy owned a pair of magical slippers.

We have a man right now who is running for the office for the President of the United States. He's a Mormon. The Mormon religion is based on a book that says Joseph Smith found a pair of magical glasses with lens made of diamonds that he used to read unknown scripture written on golden leaves.

Magical glasses?

I think we have a right to ask a presidential candidate this question. "Do you believe in magical glasses?" If he's a true Mormon, his answer would have to be yes.

So the question would be; do we elect a man for the office of the most powerful country on earth who believes in magical glasses?

My Christian fundamentalist buddy believes that someday soon Jesus will fly down to earth on a silver cloud and all the dead Christians will rise from their graves and fly up to meet him in the sky.



Flying zombies?
Talking donkeys?
Magical glasses?

Even a caveman would say, "That's just silly!"


Rick

Rick,

You need to stop and take a deep breath. This is a diverse group of people who hold a diverse set of beliefs about the world and how it works. One of the unwritten (at least I think its unwritten) rules of this community s that we treat each others beliefs with respect even when we don't understand or share them.

You have broken this very basic rule of civility and have moved from articulating a philosophical point of view and sharing your own beliefs to a place of ridiculing others beliefs and name calling.

If you want to point to something and call it CHILDISH? That would be a good place to start.

None of us on this forum deserve to be spoken to by you in the way that you have been speaking. You have trouble believing in talking jackasses? Look in the mirror. Plenty of scientific evidence there. If you'd like to apologize to your friends on this forum for your behavior, I'm sure they'd love to forgive you.

Dave

[Rick336]

Dave,

Your post to me shows that you're very upset by what I've said. You called me a "jackass" and said that I was being "childish."

I never called anyone in this group a jackass. In fact, an earlier post I said that I don't believe that Christians are stupid. And I still don't.

But I do, however, believe most religious beliefs are irrational. And I stand by that belief and will not apologize for it. But saying that I think the beliefs are irrational is not the same as saying that people who believe them are stupid.

What I hear you saying is that I have been very insensitive to you and to others. And you probably have a point. Sometimes when I'm trying to express myself I don't immediately realize that what I'm saying will make others upset.

I'm not in the habit of trying to make people feel bad. That's just not me. At least, I hope not. I see myself as somebody who doesn't intentionally hurt somebody's else's feelings. But I am fallible and may do it unintentionally.

I really like the people in this group. I respect their opinions and enjoy reading their points of view and sense of humor. My statements above were not posted to poke fun at anyone here. I was only trying to make a point with a little bit of humor. I can see now that maybe I went too far. I was wrong to do that.

Dave, and to those who were offended, I apologize. Your opinions and beliefs are just as valid to you as I feel mine are to me.

Maybe for now I will avoid discussions about religion in this fourm and stick to LGBT issues only. I think most of us can more easily agree with one another in that area of discussion.

Peace.

Rick

[u-dog]

Rick,

Thanks for your post. That feels much better to me and I appreciate your willingness to think about what I said.

Dave

[Zerbie]

Well I for one find this an interesting conversation & am open to its continuation - Rick if ya wanna discuss any of this via PM, go ahead, shoot me a note. But I am on vacation & find it really hard to get even 2 minutes to concentrate - as in right now hubby is 6 inches away shuffling suitcases & bumping the chair, and we're having a conversation, so my point is it might be a while before I can give any responses the kind of focus they deserve.

With regard to the not all religious beliefs are contrary to science statement, bear in mind you're talking to a yoga student who trained with an instructor who was a career research scientist. I view metaphysics and physics as simply lying on different places of the self-same spectrum.

I don't feel offended, but I did feel that you were disengaged from our conversation. If you want to plug back in and take this up again, shoot me a PM and I'll reply when I get a chance to sit & type quietly.

[Rick336]

Originally Posted by Dave

Thanks for your post. That feels much better to me and I appreciate your willingness to think about what I said.

Dave,

You're welcome. And I will take this as an apology for the "jackass" remark.

Rick

[u-dog]

Originally Posted by Rick336

Dave,

You're welcome. And I will take this as an apology for the "jackass" remark.

Rick

Done! acceptance of implied apology accepted.

[Emproph]

Given the expressed contention here that love is just like any other emotion, I’ve been trying to figure out a way to explain the superior nature of love in this regard.

If unconditional love can be known to be true, ultimately, the logic of its existence can only result in one answer. And to see that truth, is to see God.

To me, God is synonymous with truth.

These two posts in particular have been resonating in my mind's eye since their inception. I've been through this "argument" many times before, even once with a pastor, but I think I may have something this time. And I’m just talking plain truth and logic here, not out to prove the “God” part this time.

Originally Posted by Rick336

Love is an emotion like hate, fear, jealousy, embarrassment, saddness, and joy. It is a result of human brain activity. It is not a thing that exist outside the human body. You may see human behavior motivated by love but love itself is just an emotion produced by the brain. To say "only love can make love" makes no sense. It would be the same as saying that only embarrassment can make embarrassment or only jealousy can make jealousy.

Rick

Also:

Originally Posted by Joe Brummer

here is Emorphs statement, but the words changed to show a different emotion, but just as powerful of an emotion. See how it changes the thinking of this thread:

Emorph wrote (with my changes):

They may have `believed' in the god - as in their own egos, but they certainly weren't worshiping any god of anger. I need to start using the word anger instead of the word God, to avoid the religious/dogma bull, so that at least my intention is understood.

The intention changes as the emotion changes. What Emorph isn't seeing is that Love is just an emotion, so is anger, greed, lust, joy and happiness. When you play with the words, things change. I hope you view changes as well as it is pretty offensive to those of us who do not believe in a god.

I remind everyone, if you want respect for your beliefs, then you must give that respect to others beliefs. I think Emorphs comments were sincerely curiosity, but nontheless we must respect that love is an emotion.

if you want to substitute a word for "god" then try "truth".

~~

The point I think I can explain now, is that love is the most powerful emotion, and is superior to, and responsible for all other emotions.

Excerpts from above:

Originally Posted by Rick336

Love is an emotion like hate, fear, jealousy, embarrassment, saddness, and joy.

Originally Posted by Joe Brummer

The intention changes as the emotion changes. What Emorph isn't seeing is that Love is just an emotion, so is anger, greed, lust, joy and happiness.

Also:

Originally Posted by Vortex

Violence, anger, and hatred all traced back to fear.

I’ve been mulling on this for the past while, and this is what I’m getting. That all the negative emotions like anger and jealousy, all come down to the feeling of ‘not enough love.’ What Vortex accurately describes as being "traced back to fear."

A Course in Miracles calls it “a call for love.” Reducing everything to either love, or a call for love. If good emotions equal love, and bad emotions equal fear, then this sentiment is sincere and accurate.

Negative emotions are all variations of the fear of not having enough love. And when I say love, I’m trying to use that term as unconditionally as possible.

I may not be aware that I "love" my peace of mind, but take it away and the emotion of anger shows me just how much I do. The point being, all negative emotions are experienced in direct relation to the perception of the lack of love.

I am equating good with love here. I am contending that what we define as good, is synonymous with what we define as love.

All emotions that are not good emotions, are the express response, in direct proportion, to the experience of the ABSENCE of good emotions (love).

All emotions are either good, or in response to the absence of good.

Thus, all emotions are either love, or in response to the absence of love.

Ultimately there is only one emotion, love (good), and somehow, love needs to exist before there can be a need for it.

I’m open to challenge, but does that much constitute as “truth” as far as distinguishing the principle of love as being necessary before “other” emotions, and thus superior to them?

[paul]

Hi all,
I see this discussion has been going on for some time and I hope it's okay to jump in the middle. I confess up front that I haven't yet read the whole thread, just the last three entries. Yell at me if I really must because all this has been said by someone else already, and rebuke my laziness. I will read it. If I have failed to pick up the gist, please tell me.
Up front I am an infidel (of sorts) who has respect for some of the bible. So a friendly heads up, not all stereotypes will apply to my 'unbelief.' As you'll see, I can think as a Christian might.

I think there is a problem with trying to fit love into the sole category of emotion. The English language has one word for love. The Greeks came up with three words that we translate (from the bible) into English as "love," but they all are different. The Greeks broke "love" into three categories, the physical expression: eros, friendship: phileo, and then there is agape.

I think it can be easily argued that the first two types of love have a basis in emotion, I'm not so sure about agape.

I assume most here are familiar with I Corinthians 13 where the apostle Paul defines agape "love." What stands out to me about Paul's definition/description of agape is that it is unselfish. Taking that to the farthest degree, in a Christian context, agape has it's source not in emotion (self), but God. Can the self be unselfish? I think this idea is borne out in I John where it says "we love because he first loved us." As a Christian I interpreted that verse thusly: "we have the ability to love because God first loved us." Paul couples love together with faith and hope as being the most important things for a believer since knowledge is in part. It can easily be established, in a biblical context that faith is a "gift from God," and I'm pretty confident I could find scripture to do the same with hope.

Leaping forward it seems to me that, in Christian theory, a Christian has a bases for living in three gifts from God (i.e., none of these are derived from the self, ego, emotion): "faith, hope and love (agape), but the greatest of these is love." Emproph, since I don't consider agape an emotion (not that there are not emotions associated with agape, just that emotion is not the source of agape, "God" is), I would not say that "love is the superior emotion" but that it is the "superior" ("greatest") of three gifts from God.

quote:
"I’ve been mulling on this for the past while, and this is what I’m getting. That all the negative emotions like anger and jealousy, all come down to the feeling of ‘not enough love.’ What Vortex accurately describes as being "traced back to fear."

Emproph and Vortex,
Regarding "fear,". I John says (sorry I'm not more specific, quoting from memory): "fear has punishment...perfect love casts out all fear." This, I think at least as regards fear, goes along with your thought Emproph that fear "come[s] down to the feeling of 'not enough love.'" That is to say, if love is perfect (complete) fear is "cast out." On further thought, jumping back to I Corinthians 13. If love is "patient, kind, not easily angered, takes no thought for itself, keeps no record of wrongs...," it's easy to extrapolate that if love were indeed "perfect" that there would not be a place left for "emotions like anger and jealousy."

I've got a lot of thoughts about this, this was a favorite subject of mine (i.e., faith, hope and love) for a long time. Am I anywhere in the ballpark of this discussion or am I in outer space?

[Zerbie]

Oh, I have no idea where I'm about to go with this. . . .

Love is more than an emotion, because as has been observed it can be a (loving) behavior in the absence of feeling love.

Also, love appears to have a basis in the brain. Perhaps the unconditional love response can be biologically hard-wired by wiring the brain to bypass the survival-based emotions (fear and anger) in the amygdala, if the neurons in the brain are connected to "higher" brain centers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2005Jan2.html

[paul]

Zerbie,

You might enjoy this. It appears "God" might have a basis in the brain as well.

This Is Your Brain on God Michael Persinger has a vision - the Almighty isn't dead, he's an energy field. And your mind is an electromagnetic map to your soul.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/7...ic=&topic_set= ·

"Love is more than an emotion, because as has been observed it can be a (loving) behavior in the absence of feeling love."

I have to agree. I've been wandering back over the other entries of this thread, and read Emproph's original opening and spotted this among other stuff:

"So, only sense can create or ‘make’ sense. Simply speaking, things-always-come-from-somewhere.

Except for "God" apparently. Where did "God" come from? Simply speaking, this doesn't make sense.

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

Oh, I have no idea where I'm about to go with this. . . .

Love is more than an emotion, because as has been observed it can be a (loving) behavior in the absence of feeling love.

Also, love appears to have a basis in the brain. Perhaps the unconditional love response can be biologically hard-wired by wiring the brain to bypass the survival-based emotions (fear and anger) in the amygdala, if the neurons in the brain are connected to "higher" brain centers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2005Jan2.html

Originally Posted by link from above

Brain research is beginning to produce concrete evidence for something that Buddhist practitioners of meditation have maintained for centuries: Mental discipline and meditative practice can change the workings of the brain and allow people to achieve different levels of awareness.

Here's one I found in regard to the "God experience" being the result of brain activity from someone who's nontheistic. My only complaint is that it seems to be presented in the "absence of evidence IS evidence of absence" genre. It's a good effort though.

I can accept the 'nonvisual evidence of a god' complaint, but to truly defend that position, wouldn't one have to at least accept the possibility of a consciousness that's incomprehensible?

http://www.bidstrup.com/mystic.htm

But, if we truly are all one (God) , then it is all in your mind.

We just happen to be part of a very, very, very complex thought...

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by paul

Emproph and Vortex,
Regarding "fear,". I John says (sorry I'm not more specific, quoting from memory): "fear has punishment...perfect love casts out all fear." This, I think at least as regards fear, goes along with your thought Emproph that fear "come[s] down to the feeling of 'not enough love.'" That is to say, if love is perfect (complete) fear is "cast out." On further thought, jumping back to I Corinthians 13. If love is "patient, kind, not easily angered, takes no thought for itself, keeps no record of wrongs...," it's easy to extrapolate that if love were indeed "perfect" that there would not be a place left for "emotions like anger and jealousy."

I've got a lot of thoughts about this, this was a favorite subject of mine (i.e., faith, hope and love) for a long time. Am I anywhere in the ballpark of this discussion or am I in outer space?

That gets to the heart of it. The portion in bold encapsulates exactly what I was trying to say.

Originally Posted by paul

"So, only sense can create or `make' sense. Simply speaking, things-always-come-from-somewhere.

Except for "God" apparently. Where did "God" come from? Simply speaking, this doesn't make sense.

Ok Mr. Philosopher...

The implications of that get way too deep for this post. I’ve got a mountain of half-written essay carcass’ on this subject, thanks for bringing it back up though.


But a couple thoughts...

It doesn’t make sense, and that’s possibly the ultimate conundrum. Who created “God?”

This is precisely where the rational aspect of my philosophical thoughts end.

If God is infinite and eternal, how could God ever be truly FULLY aware of itself?

The nature of the awareness of infinity itself is a state of perpetual increasing.