If the end goal is to be with the father, then why be incarnated (or be born) as a human being on the earth and experience the whole life thing in the first place? Why not just remain a spiritual part of the father and never be born here in the first place?

If life (and experiencing life) and maybe learning something about love is not the purpose of our being here then what is our purpose and why are we here?

If being with the father is your end goal what are you doing here? Just die and go be with the father. Why live life at all????

If you (the body) must die to be with the father, then it is not our duty to live, it is our duty to get on with dieing. So taking care of yourself and living is going against your end goal.

Yet people hold on to life as if it were all there was. They fear death as if they don't know there is no such thing as death. Religious people, (Christians) I have known --who proclaim to be going to heaven-- face their death with fear and cling to life.

Have they no real faith??? Why are they not joyful when the doctor comes in and tells them they have three months to live?

Life is the end goal.

It is the eternal question: TO BE OR NOT TO BE.

GOD WANTS TO BE.

GOD LIVES.

I LIVE.

I AM THAT I AM.

There is no way to avoid it, religion deals with fundamental questions in philosophy there is no enlightenment ultimately without dealing with religion and religious concepts.

In societies where there is religious tolerance there can be widespread observance of religion coexisting in harmony. In the U.S. for example, we have endeavored to have a society based on religious tolerance.

"N" will die. It is due primarily to ignorance and human nature not religion. Blaming religion ignores the fundamental teaching of religion that killing is wrong. It is the abuse of religion which leads to warfare and intolerance.

There may be some truth to that. But none-the-less many religious people will abuse religion to create war or even hostility toward others.

I've seen quite a few "Christian" preachers make seriously nasty statements toward gays. In fact, I've seen video interviews on several programs where religious extremists of this kind were actually calling for the death pentalty for gays. Because somewhere in the Bible is states that the pentalty for homosexuality should be death.

So when you say that realigion doesn't "teach" that kind of behavior, which religion are you referring to? Clearly the Bible DOES teach and encourage that kind of behavior. Some would even say that it 'commands' it.

Alot of questions there,, really, one should refer to the Bible for these types of answers, but I will give my best response. We were once with the Father here on Earth, or at least HE was with us. And we once would not have had to die for him to remain with us. But, because of our fall, after we had already been placed in flesh and bone, we earned mortal death.

It is necessary on my path to be with the Father, that I love others and learn to love others. It is not an option to skip the life he gave me , because in this life there are vital lessons to serving him in the after life. Most questions I here from those in question of God assume a very understandable position of God being at the beck and call and convenience of Man,,but for me it is the other way around. I am here to learn whatever lessons he wanted of me and serve my purpose and love others,, I am here for all that. But all that is meaningless at the end of the day if I dont accept Jesus dying for my sins and love God with all my heart.

And I have actually been verbally acosted because my belief that death is not a terrible thing. IT is terrible loss for those still living but a promotion to the one who dies,,(not a promotion meant to be self given though).

The bible can't be taken so seriously. The bible has description of war, stoning and charity. That does not mean that it advocates war, stoning and charity. It is how one interprets the tales.

Irresponsible interpretation leads to twisted teachings.

Those that believe that the bible teaches violence or commands
violence are the problem. As you say, those extremists who advocate
hostility are those who abuse religion. Any teaching or philosophy
can be twisted to try to justify hostility. This reveals the bigotry of the individuals who are intolerant that's all. Your problem is with them not with the storybook.

But to get back to the topic, the essential concepts of god and the nature of god are independent of any one religion and pretty much the same for all religions.

I can certainly understand that. It happens to me all the time.

I DON'T GRIEVE FOR THE DEAD

I don’t grieve for the dead
I can’t see the logic in that.
I gave up the feeling of dread
I just put on my thought hat.

Anyway, its all a lie
(that turns out to be a good thing.)
They say we are all going to die
So let their death bell ring.

This illusion is persistent
Or at least it seems to be
And I’m some God’s assistant
On a mission to be free.

I didn’t have to come here
(But there are benefits they said)
I celebrate the living
but I don’t grieve for the dead.

By Gloria Jean
September 12, 2005

Life shouldn't be taken so seriously either.



That is certainly evident.



True. My problem is with those who hold the storybook up as God and beat people over the head with their interpretation of it.




Concepts of God are concepts and are personal. The nature of God... well I doubt if that is known.

It's a fact that the Bible contains many instance of God actually commanding people to murder and stone heathens.

There's no need to twist anything.

It's a story of a God who not only condones violence, but who also resorts to violent methods himself to solve problems. So even by example he's condoning violence and suggesting that it is divinely wise to solve problems via violence.

In fact the whole Biblical theme is based on violence. Either love and worship God or you will face horrific PUNISHMENT! You'll be cast into a hell fire where there will be wailing and nashing of teeth.

The whole thing is utterly based on a theme of threats of violence.

It's an extremely violent story. There's no getting around it.

The real point is, why are people so bent on perpetutating this ancient violent, bigoted and judgemental story of a Zeus-like God who is appeased by blood sacrifices when there are far more loving spiritualities at hand?

There's just no point in supporting these ancient violent myths of angry jealous gods. They've already been proven to be false anyway. So why continue to cling to them?

Is not the 'golden age' just another religion/philosophy/in-group out/group dichotomy?


...Human's innate need to herd....to separate 'them' from 'us'...will be around for a while methinks.....internally there is no 'them'...we are all 'them'...

I agree. Its like the stories of the big bad wolf who eats the little piggies. What is that supposed to teach the children? That you should build your house out of brick to protect yourself against those who will eat you? Does that translate into a subliminal message to people that they should raise a huge army to protect their land from invasion by their enemies?

I once tried to seriously read the bible and I found stories of so-called "holy women" and wives sleeping with kings to gain favor so that their husbands would not be killed. I read about entire cities being destroyed by a mad man who claimed to be talking to God who told him to kill the men, women and children, even live stock, because the people were "evil."

I thought it was violent and ridiculous.

The bible is complex. It is history, which includes Gods guidance and Jesus sacrifice, but it also includes actions that were CULTURAL and REGIONAL and created by man. The most difficult thing about reading the Bible, is getting rid of our natural and westernized instinct to put ourselves, our wordly values, and our flesh at the center of the story instead of God and the sacrifice his begotten son made.

The ten commandments and the Golden rule indeed do not condone or teach violence or hatred,,,,but the totality of the HISTORY included in the Bible most certainly does include the stories of humans who lived with both...

The Bible is not history. If it were, it would be taught in history class. If you think it is history, you are mistaken. It is more like historical fiction, and probably not very accurate historical fiction.

Logically, a person should read the Bible with skepticism. But instead, people from a very early age are practically brainwashed with the idea that the Bible is the indisputable gospel truth written by God.

Prove it. I don't believe that for one second.

In your statement above you are assuming that the story set forth in the New Testament is true, and that Jesus was the son of God and that he was a sacrificed by his father. You are assuming that this is not a metaphor, and that this is the literal truth. Why would anyone just assume that a book is true, especially when it does not make any sense?

The only reason is because we were repeatedly told it was true by authority figures all of our life. It is true that if you repeat a lie enough times, it will be accepted as the truth. Religion is a perfect example.

we again are agreeing but interpreting differently,, by your previous standards,,how does one KNOW its not true,,?

really, one doesnt Know for sure anything that isnt in front of their face,, all they can do is apply what they learn to their life for rationality and reasonability

and of course, we seriously cant equate the validity of something with whether our schools choose to teach it,,,can we?

That same logic would mean that Indians really were savages,, because we arent TAUGHT differently,,,, the formal education system misses quite a bit due to political correctness and community sentiment,,,

IT would indeed mean there is NO History outside of what happened in the US in the past four hundred years,,which is quite silly


I believe it because it is logical and reasonable to ME,,,all around me the beautiful things I see and the complex nature of the things my body does and is capable of ,,,makes an intelligent designer a reasonable and valid answer. The bibles description of this designer and those who lived during the time of his son are also reasonable to me. Books are there for people to learn from and some will believe what they read and some will question it, but I would never favor eliminating ANY book, and no book is useless even if it only serves to shine a light on the philosophies and lives of others...

I learned valuable lessons from the Bible as did my son and will my daughter,, if others dont believe it ,,,fine,,,,,if others interpret its historical accounts as condoning or promoting violence,,fine,,,


we can all CHOOSE what to read and what not to read,,, I am neither a violent or unloving person and I am sure every atheist and agnostic is not a nonviolent or loving one....broad brushing whole groups of people because of personal interpretations is hardly the way for any of us to bring unity or peace though..

this is not the *end* of religion.



this is merely the beginning of a new religion!



Religion

(1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

as long as there are people there will be conceptions of God and personal sets of religious attitudes...of one sort or another

I agree, as long as intelligent design is an alternative to the Big Bang, God is one name that design will be given, people will choose what to believe in,,,and when those beliefs occur in large enough numbers they will be given a name and fall under the "religion' classification

When I hear people speak of eradicating the history in the Bible(because they dont believe it to be true), I think of all the history of Africans(sorry but it is my ancesty) that has been lost or destroyed because of someone elses judgment of its usefulness or basing its validity on whether or not it was 'passed down' or documented in writing.

That whole concept right there turns me completely off to the religion.

You speak of God making a "sacrifice" of his begotten son. But if you pay attention you'll see how utterly absurd that notion is.

To begin with, this is a God who is appeased by blood sacrifices (not unlike Zeus) or many other mythological Gods of the region.

I'm already completely disappointed in any God who is appeased by blood sacrifices. From my point of view such a notion is extremely barbaric and does not belong in any story of any "divine all-wise creator".

Secondly, it is this God who is appeased by blood sacrifices. So this is a story of a God who is "appeased" by the blood sacrifice of his very own son. From my point of view, that notion right there is sicker than sick.

I already feel extremely sorry for such a sick demented God. I could never worship such a being even if I knew that it exists. If I found out the story was true, I still wouldn't view this being as a "God" but rather as a very sick entity who needs help.

Also the very idea of a God making a such a horrific gory "sacrifice" is a picture of a desperate God. A God who clearly can have no choice in the matter. Because if he actually has a choice and chooses to go through with this horrific gory act, then it just adds to his perversion and sickness.

So when people tell me that this God made a "blood sacrifice" for mankind, it just makes my skin crawl. As far as I'm concerned such a God would be so utterly disgusting that if it existed it would only be a nightmare.

It most certainly would NOT be something that I would WANT to place my faith in.

There's just no way that I would want to have "faith" that our creator is that sick and/or desperate. That would be a horrific nightmare. It most certainly wouldn't be something that I would WANT to put faith in. On the contrary, I would much rather place my FAITH in the notion that the story is nothing more than a sick perverted idea of men. And that is precisely where I place my FAITH.

I have no need for desperate sick gods who are appeased by blood sacrifices. That's just totally disgusting, IMHO.

I respect the views of others and it comes down and always will come down to interpretation and perspective.


particularly before modern technology,, people hunted and ATE animals....this was part of surviving,,, and God asking for part of the spoils of this hunting was a way of including and aknowledging Him as the reason the spoils were even there,,,which I dont personally find barbaric at all...


From the perspective that the human FLESH is the most important aspect of the human life(and certainly during our human lifetime on earth it is),, than death of any human caused or accepted by a divine creator would certainly seem barbaric.

From my perspective, however, where the SOUL is the most important aspect of our eternal existence,,this sacrifice of the body which housed the SPIRIT of Jesus was a certain act of love,,,because in the flesh the body does suffer, but through the sacrifice of Jesus the suffering can end and be no more,,,,


I dont expect to turn anyones beliefs or interpretations around,, we all take different lessons from life,,,,,this is just my perspective,, that I pray for my SOUL to have eternal life and to reside with the Father who made it possible for me to live

Common sense tells me that it is NOT true. Logic and right discrimination tells me that it is not literally true. Yes their may be metaphoric meaning in some stories that can be interpreted in a completely different way by many different people. Same as a tarot card image.

But personally, I have what I call 'right discrimination' where my mind sort of rings a bell that means.... nope. This is probably NOT True. So I simply put it in categories of "probably not true" and most definitely not literally true, and most assuredly not true." That's just the way my mind works.



In the end we decide what is true or not and we decide what to believe or not and we decide individually what we will believe.
What I have concluded about the Bible is a curiosity as to what it really means in common terms and how much of it is based on fact and how much of it is plagiarized from older scripts and what might those older scripts really mean and represent.

But rather than cling to that confusing set of problems about a single book I have come into this century and found the secret knowledge written in a more reasonable fashion and I have studied new things and read new books that help me understand myself and the human race much better than a 2000 year old ambiguous metaphoric text.



True History and popular history are two different things. Do we really want to believe what is written in our history books? History, after all, is always written by the winning country and they will write it to favor them. Do we teach our children about the deaths and atrocities that General Eisenhower was responsible for in the death camp prison where thousands of Germans died? Not really, although it is part of our history and people can't deny the facts. It was not that long ago.



I totally agree that this world and this universe has an intelligent designer, and that the universe itself is intelligent, but not in a deity creator (as described in the Bible) or a God that would sacrifice his son. That simply makes no sense to me.





I never suggested that anyone 'eliminate' any book. But I do suggest that people judge a book with fairness and logical thinking and not go about reading it with the brainwashed idea that it is the indisputable word of some God. That's just silly.



I am glad you learned valuable lessons from the Bible. I can't think of anything off hand that I learned that I did not already know. It was the violence in the Bible that shocked me. Joshua being ordered to kill people simply because God said they were "evil" was quite shocking to me. I always felt that people should have a fair trial before they were condemned to death, and I always thought that God was supposed to be forgiving and fair. That was not the kind of God I wanted to have. Even at an extremely young age, I suspected that Moses and Joshua were only pretending to talk to God or that they were insane war mongers.

Intelligent design does not need to be an "alternative" to the Big Bang. On the contrary, current scientific theories of the Big Bang demand that information necessarily must have preexisted the Big Bang. Therefore there can easily be a theory of "Intelligent Design" that is completely compatible with the "Big Bang".

It is actually incorrect to believe that the "Big Bang" demands that the universe began as a random happenstance explosion. In fact, the current and best theories of the Big Bang point to quite the opposite.



I have no personal desire to "eradicate" the history of the Bible. On the contrary, I think it should always be kept as part of human history. I simply feel that it should be seen as mythology (just like Greek Mythologys is veiwed. After all we didn't eradicate that when we decided it was a myth). Also parts of it no doubt are a historical account of Hewbrew life. It's just a story of how they personally invented a God and reflected their own social morals and values into that story.

However, to perpetuate it as the "Word of God" is, IMHO, truly insane. There's nothing "divine" about it.