In a simliar way that I disagreed with Cowboy's views of parents and parenting I also disagree with your views.

A creator owes us EVERYTHING!

He CREATED US! That makes him totally 100% responsible for our well-being, as far as I'm concerned.

I personally chose not to have any children. Why? Because I did not want the responsiblity that comes with having CREATED LIFE.

Parents who think they don't own their children anything are the most ignorant and selfish people in the world as far as I'm concerned.

If you chose to bring LIFE into this world, then you are entirely 100% responsible for that choice and for everything that happens to that living being that YOU CHOSE to create is entirely your responsiblity.

This would especially apply to an omnipotent creator who can do anything.

The reason I chose not to have any children is for the very simple reason that I'm not omnipotent and therefore I cannot insure their safety, nor their proper education and upbringing.

But an omnipotent God does have those powers, and therefore he has everything it takes to live up to that responsibility. Yet apparently he fails to do so. He allows his children to become ignorant, poorly educated, confused, lost, ignorant, and even criminal. All because he is a totally irresponsible parent.

Pantheism solves this problem by suggesting that every individual is indeed God. Nobody created us but our very own self. And therefore there is no "parent" to be responsible for us. We can only be responsible for ourselves.

So in a very real sense, only Pantheism makes any sense in a spiritual theism.

Any attempt to try to create an "external" parent-like Godhead who passes judgements on us like seperate individual children can't work.

In fact, if I had been born and raised in a pantheistic culture I might have viewed having childern in an entirely different light. I might have simply seen life as an opportunity for a sovereign spirit to be born.

But instead, I was looking at life in terms of "Creating Life". As a Christian, if you decide to have a child, you have basically decided to CREATE a new SOUL. And therefore you have created a being that could suffer all the way through this life and then face potential eternal damnation as well.

And you're just going to shrug your shoulders at that and say, "So? As a parent I own the souls I create NOTHING!"

Personally I think that attitude is rather ignorant.

If you're going to CREATE life you better be prepared to take full responsibility for that act.

If spirituality exists, it only makes sense in terms of pantheism.

The idea of an external egotistical judgemental Godhead who creates human pets to "harvest" as his own personal eternal pets makes no sense at all. Such a Godhead would be totally self-absorbed and have no responsiblity toward anyone or anything at all.

You guys are just verifying to me that Pantheism is the only spirituality that makes any sense at all.

if you read further I stated that his RESPONSIBILITY ends with providing our needs ,,, as a parents responsbility does,,,


yes, as a parent I am responsible to TAKE care of what my child NEEDS, not what he WANTS,,, I do not OWE him explanations for my actions(that is not a NEED), I do not OWE him a conversation in the fashion and at the time and in the way that he wants( those are not needs)

I do not OWE him everything, everything was not GIVEN to me, he has to learn to EARN the things he needs and wants througout his adult life as I did. I owe it to him to provide his needs and love him...THE END.

I feel like parents who cow tow to everything their child WANTS are too lazy to set boundaries and teach order and discipline and respect, because its easy to just say YES and do what others WANT all the time, but that teaches children NOTHING except to believe the world will do the same,, when it wont.

Well, the very concept of what constitutes a "need" versus a "want" can obviously be the source of much controversy and subjective opinions.

I could lock my kids in a closet and feed them a really mundane (but healthy diet) can claim that I'm providing them with everything they "NEED" to survive.

Many people would consider that to be child abuse.

Many people would consider that chidlren "NEED" a healthy social environment, healthy emotions, etc.

But now, that line between what YOU FEEL constitutes a "good enough" answer to your child's questions, and what YOUR CHILD consideres to be a sufficient answer to his or her questions now becomes an important question of EMOTIONAL HEALTH and well-being.

So I personally don't feel that this line between so-called "Needs" versus "Wants" is nearly as clear-cut as you might like it to be.



I never suggested that a parent should just give a child everything the child THINKS they want. However, if the parent is going to set boundaries I think that parent OWES the child a suffient explanation of why a particular boundary is being set. Otherwise this leads to CONFUSION on the part of the child and thus emotion unhealthiness, IMHO.

You also mentioned the following:


Well, of course not. YOU are a HUMAN!

But God can hardly take that stance now can he?

God can't say, "Everything was not GIVEN to me".

Because in theory, God is omnipotent. And therefore everything has been GIVEN to God by the very NATURE of what God is supposed to be.

Yes, as human parent YOU are restricted! (didn't I just say that this is the very reason the I chose not to have children?)

But God can't use that EXCUSE.

That's my whole point.

So the analogy with HUMAN PARENTS breaks down in a fundamental way.

I hope you would read more mindfully next time.

There is a timeline here that needs to be observed.

1. A quote was shown to me, with typing a error.

2. I showed the quote was non-sensical, as I never noticed the typing error.

3. After it was explained to me how it ought to have been typed, I capitulated to my error, I gave up my claim that I made based on the quote as originally and erroneously given to me, and pushed the blame on Cowboy for not typing the quote correctly. My giving up my original claim is expressed, not very eloquently but still validly by my statement "Fine. You say "we're all God's." It still leaves umpteen of my objections unanswered, and"

4. It still stands that I read them as I sees them. I first read a wrong thing quoted to me, and I accepted it; then later I read the correction of the quote, and I accepted that too and had it replace the originally accepted, erroneously typed quote as the only acceptable one of the two quotes, because a plausible explanation was given why I should. So I did not contradict my "I reads them as I sees them" statement, as you claim so very gleefully in your first paragraph.

5. The proof that you claim is right above is not there. I believe you did not conceptualize the time line and missed some of the events in it. I won't stop you from pouncing around and singing songs if you want to, but I forbid you to say that there is a connection between the pouncing/dancing and singing, and my having erred, until you convince me that I indeed erred.

6. I did figure out what you claim I did not figure out. Please see the time line.

7. Please read more mindfully from here on.

A quote was shown to me
with an error in its typing
I said it was nonsensical
with no intention to be griping

When it was explained to me
how the typing ought to be
I capitulated instantly
with great sincerity

The proof you claim does not exist
so stop your song and dance
You’ve convinced me that I’ve erred
there’s no need to draw your lance

I figured out what you did not
in the time between the line
So please perceive more mindfully
when debating the divine

only if one chooses to let it

the similarity between my children and Gods children stands when Gods children are born of men like mine are

I am not the same as GOD, but I have the same role as his child that my children have to me, to respect, honor and trust

in return I am respectful, honorable, and trustworthy


God needs no excuses and no justifications, just as I dont have to justify myself to my children,, I might CHOOSE to , but it is not an obligation,,,, as to the rest,, a need is anything that is required to live( last I heard , sunshine and air were actually amongst those things,,) I also stated that I am responsible for loving my children which requires some emotional connection , as I have with God

no explanations required beyond those he already gave me in his word..

A creator always needs justification for what it creates. Assuming it has any moral integrity at all.

Not in this case. What God has created is perfect. We are born a perfect inocent being, it's ourselves and Satan which make us imperfect, but nevertheless God "created" a perfect being.

we will have to disagree here,,,,my creation doesnt need to be justifed to me by my creator or anyone else,, and my children dont need their existence justified by me for having given them birth

I am responsible for what (or whom) I create, but I dont need to justify it

Justification is only needed when one is brought to face the consequences of his or her actions.

The need of accountability can arise from inside, as a moral thing, or from outside, as an accusation of guilt.

But justification is only needed then.

So only those types of creations need justification, that are found to be harmful by someone, and that someone accuses the creator to explain himself or herself.

The creator has two choices when facing the need to justify himself or herself: Either accept the need to justify himself or herself and then give an explanation for his or her deeds, or else completely ignore the asking for justification. If the asker for justification can't enforce an answer, then there is no legal or moral code that states a justification must be given anyway, by the creator.

Of course there is "motivation", before an act or an act of creation. Would you call that justification? I would not. There are differences between wanting something (like creating) and needing to explain a past action of yours to show you are innocent (like justifying). Huge differences.

a secular democracy whose population is about 76% christian

I believe that the founding fathers put a swing on things. Like even when i was a kid thier were blue laws where liquer could not be sold on sundays. A principle added to the bible but yet they were trying to preserve sunday worship.

Yet many things are rooted in other customs from money to Washington D C.

Washington D C i believe is the most profound example of how are forfathers thought by what they HAD to have thier from the cornerstones to the monuments.

If our capital is the symbol of power for our country then i would have to believe it is the symbol of what this country was founded on.. Blessings...Miles

Responsiblity still applies. If God created us in a world where a fallen demonic angel is known to be on the loose and corrupting people, then God would be doubly at fault.

He creates totally innocent children and places them in an environment with a demonic fallen angel to guide them? That's utter stupidity just asking for trouble.

Would you do that to YOUR CHILDREN?

I certainly hope not. Most human parents I know try very hard to protect their children from the influence of criminal minds.

Satan was already in eden, but had his authority stripped,,then when he tempted Eve to disobey God he was cursed to be smitten by man and man and woman were sent out of eden along with satan

IF I had one terrible child and went on to have two 'innocent' children, they would most likely reside in the same home


although I am no God


God could have KILLED satan, he could have expelled him from Eden, he could have created a DIFFERENT eden for Adam and Eve, I imagine I wont know the reason why anymore than others know why some parents choose to spank and some choose time out,, or why some parents disown adolescents for certain behaviors and others continue hoping they will change,,,,but I am not one who feels obligated to an explanation of the WHY of my father, I trust it is all in love and fairness

I don't trust anyone who has an innocent man grossly nailed to a pole and then demands that I condone that act in order to qualify for his so-called "love".

Sorry. That's just the sickest mythology on planet Earth as far as I'm concerned. It only proves to me that the authors of this mythology have absolutely no clue whatsoever what 'love' even means.

But then after having read their Old Testament mythology this comes as no surprise.

we have a different focus, as does the word and the world,the world is focused on the flesh, the word is focused on the SOUL,


from a standpoint where flesh is the primary concern(wordly view),,I understand how 'sick' the sacrifice seems,,

from a standpoint where soul is the primary concern(the godly view), I see the sacrifice as the intentional gift from Jesus

Actually this is a very powerful arguement that reveals the absurdity of the whole thing.

The basic idea was supposed to be that the wages of sin is 'death'. But not merely physical death, but spiritual death.

That's the 'wages' of sin in this mythology.

However, Jesus didn't die spiritual. And there in lies the oxymoron.

If he didn't die spiritually and he was risen, then clearly he paid for NOTHING.

The check BOUNCED.

So once you get into these 'technical details' the whole mythology gets into huge trouble.

Then we need to start speaking in terms of it only having been a "metaphorical death", and so on. But then Jesus becomes nothing more than a "metaphorical savior" and so on.

The next thing you know we're ultimately accepting that the whole thing is just a metaphore and there never was an actual physical man named Jesus at all. In fact, there are many people who hold that veiw.

Also, if "death" was the only thing that was required, then there would be no need to have Jesus brutally crucified on a pole. Any kind of death at all would suffice. Even death by natural cause.

Therefore there has to be some LINK between mankind nailing Jesus to a pole in an excruciatingly painful way and the "price" of salvation.

However, there's is nowhere in the mythology up to this point where there is any indication that "physical pain" in any way pays for, or atones, sins.

The whole story simply makes no sense to me at all.

I personally feel that the Old Testament taken alone by itself is already utterly absurd. I personally feel that the actions, behavior, and so-called "wisdom" of the Biblical God simply doesn't represent what I personally consider to be wise.

So I already have serious problems with the OT and see it as having no more merit than Greek Mythology.

But then we come to the New Testament, and we have Jesus basically renouncing much of what the Old Testament had taught people to do (like judging others, stoning sinners to death, murdering heathens, seeking revenge, etc). Instead Jesus teaches moral values that basically match the teachings of Buddha almost perfectly.

Then he's crucified for blaspheme and decades later these writings appear from people claiming that Jesus was the Son of Yahweh and was sent by Yahweh via a virgin birth for the express purpose of being the sacrifical lamb of God to die on the cross to pay for the salvation of man, etc., etc., etc.

What's this basically suggesting?

That a God who is already grossly disappointed in man's sinful ways basically says to mankind, "Here, take my innocent only begotten son and nail him to a pole, and I'll forgive you of your sins".

What sense does that even make?

The only reason it is said to make any 'sense' at all, is because the God of the OT was KNOWN to be appeased by blood sacrifices. Some clever theologeans realized that they could use that to claim that Jesus was the "sacrificial lamb of God" intended to pay for sins of man.

They wrote it up, sold it via the sword. And now, we're stuck with it in our modern era.

Moreover, the survival of this religion actually loans credence to the other Abraham Religions. After all, as long as the Christians continue to demand that Jesus was the son of Yahweh, then this is an automatic confession by the Christians that the Jews and Muslims are indeed worshiping the ONE TRUE GOD.

So in a truly ironic way, Christianity gives support to all the Abrhamic Religions by demanding that Jesus is the Son of the Abrahamic God.

Those other religions simply say, "Thank you for recognizing that our God is indeed the ONE TRUE GOD, but unfortunately, you're wrong about Jesus".

And so the theasco continues for how many more millennia?

The God who is appeased by Sacrificial Lambs, not at all unlike Zeus from Greek Mythology and many other similar Gods in related folklores throughtout the whole Mediterranean region.

I understand that it makes no sense to you. I hope that will change with time and study,,,,,,


this thread is long and a bit tedious,, every answer leads to another question, and I am not all knowing to answer each question that can arise but


the mind is wonderful, it can make simple things complex and complex things simple,,,,and at its height, it can justify the simple WITH the complex

I admire that you think so thoroughly, I applaud it, perhaps things will have a simpler explanation for you someday,,

I seriously doubt that could ever happen, especially since the book isn't going to 'magically' change overnight. It's pretty much carved in stone and can't very well change.

I've already found other philosophies and even mythologies that are far more 'divine'.

There are basically two things that I BELIEVE completely. (although I confess that I could be wrong in my "belifs". They are as follows:

If a truly wise, intelligent, and loving creator does indeed exist, then chances are that it is far wiser, more intelligent, and more loving than me. If that's true, then I have absolutely nothing to fear from it. I might even turn out to be it (i.e. pantheism could be true)

If there is no creator of any kind and life is just a brief meaningless accident, then it will all be over with shortly and at that point I'll never even know that it had ever happened. So in a very real sense at that point it may as well not have ever happened (at least as far as I would be concerned about at that point in time since I would no longer exist)

If either of these "beliefs" are true, then I have nothing to fear and everything to gain no matter what I might else I might believe in.

On the other hand, if I'm wrong, and some evil egotistical mean bully is going to be mean to me when my physical body dies because I didn't cower down to some particular dogmatic religion, then I guess I do have something to fear. However, if that's true then there isn't much I could do about it anyway, because it would be a total waste of everyone's time for me to PRETEND to like such an evil being, just to avoid its wrath.

So that's my philosophy. There's no sense in pretending to like a God you don't like just to try to appease it. That would be futile.