And why would a God leave these decisions to us? A God that is not only almighty, but as far as I can tell near perfect. Why then would such perfection leave such blemishes as humanity to follow them? Honestly, the only way I can fathom a God truly existing is if it has absolutely no concern for humanity but moreso for other living beings such as animals or insects.

Humans by nature anymore are typically selfish and egotistical, war, business, you name it. We just want to get to the top and stay there until we are too old to stand at the top. I can't with any logic fathom a God or Gods wanting to preserve that, much less give it a shiny palace to stay in after it dies.

Honestly, the only way I can fathom a God truly existing is if it has absolutely no concern for humanity but moreso for other living beings such as animals or insects.

As have I and as do I. That in no way means our experiences are equal nor that yours is any kind of proof that the Creator you postulate isn't anything but indifferent to suffering of humans. Or, that in my case, said suffering WASN'T caused by something that was grossly _imperfect_.

Yours?

Oh, no doubt, someeone will say that this Creator had some kind of plan with a higher purpose for visiting these sort of ills. But then I have to ask, what loving parent would be such a sadist to inflict near-death upon their children on the 'theory' that it would make the strong and moral???





If that's true, why not just abort after the soul is created and let them avoid all this terrible experience and get whisked right into paradise without all the temptation and sin?




That sounds like non-life to me. It's all about the journey, not the destination and I'd prefer the Road Less Followed. I'd rather see humankind distill the grapes of its own future godhood than skin its knees in geneflection to the non-existent.


-Kerry O.

Oh, no doubt, someeone will say that this Creator had some kind of plan with a higher purpose for visiting these sort of ills. But then I have to ask, what loving parent would be such a sadist to inflict near-death upon their children on the 'theory' that it would make the strong and moral???

If that's true, why not just abort after the soul is created and let them avoid all this terrible experience and get whisked right into paradise without all the temptation and sin?

Well, of course it's not hate speech. How could it be?

I'm not accusing anyone of being a sinner or turning against God or anything even remotely like that.

All I do is point out how a particular mythological picture of God portrays a God who hates heathens and non-believers. I'm simply rejecting that view as being self-contradictory of a God who is supposed to be all-loving and all-merciful and all-wise

The story portrays a God who loses the vast majority of souls he creates to a demonic fallen angel.

A God who solves all of his problems using violent gory methods.

A God who doesn't communicate with his creation very well at all.

A God who is contradictory in his commandments telling people one minute "Thou shalt not kill" and then directing them to do just that the next minute.

A God who is supposedly unchanging but changes his covenant with mankind via hearsay rumors and gossip about a mortal man who didn't even have any socially recognized authority. And then he will supposedly punish all those who don't believe in these hearsay rumors?

Now the Christians want to demand that these stories represent the "only true word of God"?

I object.

Is that "hate speech"?

Moreover, I give perfectly sound and sane possible alternative scenarios that even retain dignity and respect for the man named Jesus.

To begin with I reject the entire Old Testament as mere man-made mythology. Christians should love that one since the teachings in the Old Testament are basically the foundation of Islam and if adhered to without the New Testament, and the teaching of Jesus, could indeed lead to support for murdering heathens and infidels, and their wives and children with no mercy in the name of God.

The reason that most Christians love Jesus so much is precisely because he rejected all that stuff and replaced it with brotherly love, forgiveness, and being non-judgmental of others.

I suggest that Jesus was most likely a wise man who was educated in the ways of Mahayana Buddhism and taught brotherly love from that pantheistic perspective. What you do to your brother you do to me.

Jesus did not support the violence of the Old Testament, and he even referred to the Torah as "Your Law" when speaking with the Pharisees, not "My Law".

Jesus was eventually crucified for his views and for opposing the Pharisees. And then the rumors started. One of the rumors was that he might have been "The Christ" that was supposedly prophesied to become the King of the Jews. But obviously he never became king. So that prophecy was never fulfilled anyway.

Therefore, my suggestion that he was actually a mortal man who taught against the violence of the Torah holds more value, IMHO.

Where's there any hate speech in that?

Is it your view that anyone who questions the divinity of Jesus is spreading "hate speech"?

That's ridiculous.

Everything that I have to say about Jesus is extremely respectable.

I can't un-nail Jesus from the cross, but I can un-nail him from the Old Testament where the Christians have ultimately crucified him.

Once Jesus has been freed from the stigma of the Old Testament, he become a true messenger of love. He cannot be used to support bigotry of any kind. Not religious bigotry, not bigotry against same gender love, nothing.

The Jesus I offer is a man of PURE LOVE.

And there is nothing disrespectful in my views.

I am not accusing anyone of "Turning away from God", nor am I demanding that all men are sinners. On the contrary, I leave everyone's relationship with god to him, or her.

I don't even renounce Christianity as a "personal walk with Jesus". I fully support the New Age Christianity that renounces a verbatim fundamentalist approach to dogma.

In fact, my own personal views of Jesus could qualify as a "New Age" form of "Christianity" in that sense. Although, I will be the first to confess that the very idea of using the term "Christ" would be an oxymoron since I renounce that particular rumor.

But still, there is nothing at all hateful in my views.

All I'm basically doing is rejecting the hardcore proselytizers who demand that only the biblical interpretation of Jesus can be true, and that Jesus was "The Christ", he died to pay for the sins of man, he was the only begotten son of the God of the Old Testament. He is the sacrificial lamb of a God who is appeased by blood sacrifices.

I renounce all of that.

Is that "hate speech".

I don't think so.

It's just a far more loving and sane view of who Jesus was.

My views could ultimately become the foundation of a new religion that has every bit as much merit as Christianity. They are totally respectable and even support the actual moral values that Jesus had taught since they are being recognized as the same truths that had already been taught by men like Buddha, Confucius, Lao Tzu, and countless others who taught many years before Jesus ever walked on the face of planet Earth.

It's a totally respectable view.

Sorry, being well educated in the sciences I wasn't aware that people were still 'debating' these things.

There's no debate within the scientific community. I think the only people who are still holding out hope that science is wrong are the religious zealots who realize that if they accept the facts of life they'll have to abandon the stance that their ancient Zeus-like mythology can't possibly be true anymore than Greek Mythology was.

Reject scientific knowledge! Save a mythology!

I get it.

What you call scientific knowledge can be called religious by itself. Anything you can't see requires some degree of faith (Things believed but not seen) If you put two dogs together one female one male you get pups that is science because I can see it.
If you take nothing then suddenly get space,time,chemicals,water,and a giant explosion which needed the space to explode into and the time to explode not to mention the time to evolve and form planets and bring rocks to life. You can say all that took place yes! But it takes faith to believe. More faith than a christian needs to believe his/her side.

You see these are both religious because they both require some degree of faith. Mine simply takes less.

Now this debate can go on and on and on. as seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMpk7WerFWw

If you want to debate evolution vs creation, then might I suggest take your mythology vs mine to another thread. THIS thread is about answering the question of GOD and does he care! I say yes he does. YOU say there is no God. I'm sorry but that does not answer the question.

If I ask does zues care and you say there is no zeus well you never told me even in theory if he cared! You could say well according to these stories yes he cares or no he does not.

My point being take the debate to a debate thread. Dont ruin this one with nonsense.

OK first off I've choosen to simply scroll to the bottom of the page and reply to the main idea of this thread. That being, "Does God really care?"

I don't know how to use the "Quote" feature so I'm just going to attempt to answer your question as best I can and see where it goes. (Idiots not withstanding)

In this last post you state that people are born into negative circumstances. Such as but not limited to "Poverty" "Segregation" and "Hatred"

Now these are all different circumstances!

First lets look at the "Poverty" Yes they are born into poverty. But God in his infinite wisdom leaves them a way out through charity. You see God does not micro manage anyone's life. It says "He provides for the birds of the air" It does NOT say "He pours grain in their nest" The money is out there someplace and if not the money then the food will be there somewhere.

Now about segregation. Yes this is wrong. But it's not really that big of a deal. Starvation will kill you. Segregation as far as I know wont. Now I'm a very ignorant person so I'm probably wrong about segregation.

And finally Hatred! That's my personal favorite! If you want hatred then just look around the forum here! When is the last time you saw someone talking about the bible or the christian God in an attempt to better understand?
I've seen people try and come up with their own version of God,Dis-prove God's existence, and call Christians stupid. I'm sure there's a legitimate post someplace I just don't have the patience to look for it.

In closing the point I'm trying to make here is God leaves a way out. There's always provision someplace. You need only look for it! And yes people are born into bad circumstances. They have been from the start. The children of Israel were made to build stuff for pharaoh. But after several years God sends Moses to lead them out. Hence the provision.
I was hungry at work and only had a few bucks on me. I prayed and the food truck which came every day had a chicken sandwich waiting for me. I had exactly one more dollar than was needed.

And finally I've been unemployed for some time now so I buy lottery tickets to at least try for some spending cash. I prayed I would win "Powerball" And I did fifteen dollars. Now if I was born into poverty Powerball could be my provision if God so choose. I could also get a job!

I hope this helped in answering your question about God. Now I know this place is swarming with atheists and morons so...Let the bashing commence!

I'm glad you asked this, more often than not when I present this question this is the answer I'm given "how is it God's fault."

And I present you with a different perspective, how is it that you are able to let your God slide knowing that there are millions born into poverty? How do we have to account for every tragedy we have caused and yet God is able to slide by with not so much as a question to its choice or choices?

Whenever I'm asked how it is God's fault I'm left thinking how is it not God's fault, if there is indeed a God, how is it left off the hook for such tragic existences being played out in the world? This is the logic that to this day has kept me from believing wholeheartedly in a God, because in my mind it is a flawed logic to simply wash such a beings hand's of any responsibility. That's kind of like saying it is okay to kill as long as they were going to die anyway, well, at least then it isn't our fault, correct?

Jesus said:

"For ye have the poor always with you;
but me ye have not always." Mat_26:11

Then Jesus beholding him loved him,
and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way,
sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor,
and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come,
take up the cross, and follow me. Mar_10:21,

+ + + + ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If we are concerned with the poor
we should do what we can to relieve it.
When catastrophies occur, these are opportunities
to show what we are made of.
Don't just talk about it and point fingers,
not at God.

ShiningArmour wrote:

What you call scientific knowledge can be called religious by itself.

If I ask does zues care and you say there is no zeus well you never told me even in theory if he cared! You could say well according to these stories yes he cares or no he does not.

My point being take the debate to a debate thread. Dont ruin this one with nonsense.

No ShiningArmour that isn't true. That's a LIE that is perpetrated by Christian proselytizers. Christians will gladly lie to support their religion, unfortunately.

Science is firmly based on observation, evidence, and independent verification from other sciences who are actually out to prove the previous scientists WRONG. No scientist would love anything more than to prove other scientists WRONG. That will ultimately get you a Nobel Prize and instant fame and recogniztion throughout the world.

Christians not only attempt to show why they Bible could be wrong, but they give support to each other for the lamest of exuses and non-explanations.

No, science and religion are not on equal footing, that is a LIE that is perpetrated by religious zealots who refuse to even remotely consider that they mythology they worship as the "Word of God" might actually be false.



My post concerning the fact that the biblical myths have no more merit than the fables of Zeus were in direct response to another posters comment and thus are quite fitting in this thread.

If you'd like me to comment on whether or not the Biblical God cares about anyone other than himself my answer would be no. He's a self-confessed jealous God who, according to the mythology, hates everyone who doesn't like HIM.

If he were human we'd say that he's the most arrogant egotistical pig we ever met.

There's no room in the Biblical mythology for freedom of persona, you either agree with what the Hebrews say, or you're condemned as being a heathen whom God hates.

That's my opinion on the biblical mythology.

If the religion were true, it would have nothing to offer me.

My answers to this so-called jealous male-chauvinistic egotistical godhead would be the following:

1. No, I don't condone you having Jesus nailed to a pole to pay for my "sins".

2. No, I don't agree with all you concepts of what a "sin" should even be.

3. Yes, you may kill me at your whim, because I have absolutely no desire to serve you for eternity, nor do I love you, I personally think you're a jerk and an idiot.

So, even if the religion were true it would do me no good at all. I have no desire to worship an egotistical male-chauvinistic God for the rest of eternity, atheism would be a far better picture, IMHO.

Thankfully, there are far better pictures of spirituality that don't rely on mythology, and that actually are compatible with scientific knowledge.

The Eastern Mystical philosophy is certainly one of them. And I've already stated in this thread that the Eastern Mystical picture of a God is indeed a picture of a God who cares.

It's just that most people don't understand that picture is all. Everyone is too busy arguing atheism versus Zeus, or I mean, atheism versus Christianity. And the Christians like to keep it that way because they don't want to have to compete with other potential pictures of "god".

They prefer to keep everything very simple-minded. Either Christianity is true, or atheism is true, let's keep it simple.

But the fact of the matter there are far wiser and more profound pictures of spirituality to be had.

So, yes, my answer to THIS TOPIC is as follows:

Yes, God cares.

And No, the ancient Hebrew fables do not represent "God" any more than the ancient Greek fables did.

Satisfied now?

No ShiningArmour that isn't true. That's a LIE that is perpetrated by Christian proselytizers. Christians will gladly lie to support their religion, unfortunately.

Science is firmly based on observation, evidence, and independent verification from other sciences who are actually out to prove the previous scientists WRONG. No scientist would love anything more than to prove other scientists WRONG. That will ultimately get you a Nobel Prize and instant fame and recogniztion throughout the world.

Christians not only attempt to show why they Bible could be wrong, but they give support to each other for the lamest of exuses and non-explanations.

No, science and religion are not on equal footing, that is a LIE that is perpetrated by religious zealots who refuse to even remotely consider that they mythology they worship as the "Word of God" might actually be false.



My post concerning the fact that the biblical myths have no more merit than the fables of Zeus were in direct response to another posters comment and thus are quite fitting in this thread.

If you'd like me to comment on whether or not the Biblical God cares about anyone other than himself my answer would be no. He's a self-confessed jealous God who, according to the mythology, hates everyone who doesn't like HIM.

If he were human we'd say that he's the most arrogant egotistical pig we ever met.

There's no room in the Biblical mythology for freedom of persona, you either agree with what the Hebrews say, or you're condemned as being a heathen whom God hates.

That's my opinion on the biblical mythology.

If the religion were true, it would have nothing to offer me.

My answers to this so-called jealous male-chauvinistic egotistical godhead would be the following:

1. No, I don't condone you having Jesus nailed to a pole to pay for my "sins".

2. No, I don't agree with all you concepts of what a "sin" should even be.

3. Yes, you may kill me at your whim, because I have absolutely no desire to serve you for eternity, nor do I love you, I personally think you're a jerk and an idiot.

So, even if the religion were true it would do me no good at all. I have no desire to worship an egotistical male-chauvinistic God for the rest of eternity, atheism would be a far better picture, IMHO.

Thankfully, there are far better pictures of spirituality that don't rely on mythology, and that actually are compatible with scientific knowledge.

The Eastern Mystical philosophy is certainly one of them. And I've already stated in this thread that the Eastern Mystical picture of a God is indeed a picture of a God who cares.

It's just that most people don't understand that picture is all. Everyone is too busy arguing atheism versus Zeus, or I mean, atheism versus Christianity. And the Christians like to keep it that way because they don't want to have to compete with other potential pictures of "god".

They prefer to keep everything very simple-minded. Either Christianity is true, or atheism is true, let's keep it simple.

But the fact of the matter there are far wiser and more profound pictures of spirituality to be had.

So, yes, my answer to THIS TOPIC is as follows:

Yes, God cares.

And No, the ancient Hebrew fables do not represent "God" any more than the ancient Greek fables did.

Satisfied now?

ShiningArmour wrote:

No. I am not satisfied. You simply say that I am wrong and you are right. You give zero proof. You give zero websites that I can go to to back you up. You give nothing in your post to back you up. You simply state that I am wrong and that what I say is a lie.

Another good point is that evolution is a THEORY and has NEVER been proven right.

ShiningArmour wrote:

Lastly the bible is where man get's the idea of God in the first place.

I knew you wouldn't be satisfied about the evolution and the fact that science is not religion. But to be perfectly honest I really don't care.

I don't need to provide websites, science speaks for itself. It doesn't need my defense.



No, that's yet another Christian myth.

Yes, there is a THEORY of evolution, but all the theory does is suggest how it could have happened. Since the theory was proposed, the actual evidence has become overwhelming.

To deny that evolution occurred in favor of preaching an ancient fable would be no different from ignoring the fact that there are no Gods on Mt Olympus.

Your religion requires and demands that all human scientific knowledge is false and wrong. That places you in a position to prove your mythology, all the while I'm sure you'll be using the technologies provided science in an effort to support your fables.

The point I make is that there are spiritual philosophies and ideas that do not conflict with scientific knowledge.

Why should I even bother with a religious fable that requires I reject knowledge and truth?

What would be the point to that?

What should be my incentive for buying into your fable that has me at odds with my creator and in dire need or repentance that can only be had by condoning that God had to have his son nailed to a pole to pay for my horrible behavior?

I can't think of a single solitary reason why I would even want to place my FAITH in such an obscene idea.

So even if you were right and that science and religion were on equal footing, it would still make more sense to place my FAITH in science. At least science doesn't have me at odds with a God who has his only son nailed to a pole and demands that I CONDONE such a horrific act on my behalf.

Why would I want to place FAITH in that?

That's nothing short of GROSS, IMHO.

This is a problem with your religion, you need to ask people to become ignorant of scientific knowledge in order to believe in a God that they are supposed at odds with and the only way they can get to his LOVE is to condone a horrible act on their behalf.

I see no love in that religion at all.

I refuse to condone having anyone nailed to any poles.

So science seems like a far better place to place "Faith" even if that were the case, which it clearly is not. Science has proven itself correct without any shadow of a doubt.

ShiningArmour wrote:

God demands sacrifice for sin in the old testament. He demands a perfect lamb to be sacraficed for sin.

It was nice arguing with you abra. It's esier than debating.

You mean, the god in your religion fable demands this.

I personally do not believe that a truly all-wise all-powerful being would be so petty.

Therefore I reject the mythology as being utterly stupid.



I don't "debate" honey.

I just offer my views and opinions. If you care to "argue" with them that's your problem.

I'm not about to embrace ignorance and the abandonment of all that is reasonable to bow down to worship a male-chauvinistic bigoted jealous godhead who can't forgive people unless he is appeased by a blood sacrifice.

Why would I want to abandon sane thinking to plunge into a belief in such utter nonsense?

Science is proven, we're currently communicating through a media that exists because scientific knowledge is indeed proven to be true.

So there's no need to "debate" the truth of science. The truth of science is obvious. You're proving the validity of scientific knowledge as you communicate with me on these forums.

Yet, what are you suggesting to me? That I should abandon scientific knowledge in favor of worshiping a God who lusts for blood sacrifices before he can forgive people of their "sins"?

Oh please.

What's to debate?

What you are suggesting isn't even reasonable, IMHO.

ShiningArmour wrote:

Science is fact. Evolution is theory. Go to youtube and do a search for "Kent hovind" If you really want to know what your talking about.

Could we maybe end this petty dispute and agree to disagree?

No problem. I agree to disagree.

Evolution is a scientific fact, and I really don't care what "Kent Hovind" has to say.

I'm educated enough in the sciences to know that evolution is a fact. If Kent Hovind disagrees with that then he's probably a religious evangelist.

So yes, we can agree to disagree. That's fine with me.

I'm on dial-up so I can't watch the video, but if I could view it I would point out the error of his ways as I'm sure he's presenting things incorrectly. In fact, there probably already exist videos of other people who have already pointed out the flaws in his arguments. If I had high-speed Internet here I would offer you links to the counter arguments, I'm sure they exist.

The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. To renounce it in favor of a belief in a blood-thirsty god who requires blood sacrifices before he can forgive people of their sins is simply unreasonable, IMHO.

Just offering my own personal thoughts.

ShiningArmour wrote:

OK Abra! Glad we can let this go. I will not go on and on but simply put my thinking in a nutshell. "your wrong and I am right"
Now the argument is over I wish you a great life and a nice day.