Why do christians believe in god?

[kilese]

I want to know how, in this modern world, people still worship a god. I don't know about anyone else, but I can't even try to believe it. I see no logic in it at all, to believe in a magical being that lives in the clouds. You can't possibly truly believe in it all. If you do, then humans are more clueless than i thought. Why worship someone who lets children starve everyday? If he has the power to stop it, and doesn't, then he is malevolent. But if he doesn't have the power, he is not a god. And if god created freewill and is omnipotent, then he would already know about all the horrible things in the world that would happen, and could have stopped it. And if he's omnipotent, whats the point of praying? Your prayers would have already been heard. And no one's prayers have been answered, so he is not worth worshiping, and therefore, is not a god. I'm not try to attack anyone, i just can't understand how anyone can believe all this.

[Skyangel]

I am pointing out that the same principle which you call a religious construct is also adopted by the laws of the world. Why do you think the whole world has adopted the same principle of calling an action good or evil and punishing those who disobey the laws of the land?

Simple...it is called evolution. We could no more live as we do without these processes than we could without eyes.

Evolution is a reason to punish people for their actions? Please think of something that makes a bit more sense than that.

[Skyangel]

What died, what ceased to exist, was mankind's simple consciousness - it evolved into self refelctive consciousness.

What died was the inability to as "Who am I?"

Are you saying that when people become self reflective they lose the ability to understand who they are?

[I AM ALL I AM]

G'day Skyangel.

There are plenty of religious people attempting to push their idea of what the word god means, even going to the point of capitalising the letter "G", as if that gives their version a greater validity.

It would all depend upon who it is that you are in a discussion with as to what meaning is placed upon the word, which is usually dependent upon which religion they are.

Exactly, and to understand what they are talking about when they speak about God/god we need to get them to define the word and explain how they perceive it.
When I read the bible I see the bible defining God/god as many things so the God/god/gods of the bible is what the bible defines them to be, is it not? Any other god/gods/God/Gods is also what the writings about them define them to be.
When you understand the definitions in the writing themselves, you logically ought to be able to understand the writings.

It is not those individuals that I am having a discussion with. It is you.

By your definition, what specifically is the 'God' represented within the biblical text ?

Nowhere does it state, "go with the flow" in the Dune quote, so I am unsure of your source of this quotation that you have used.

While your analogy is entertaining, is there a pint to it at all ?

When I say " go with the flow" am referring to the words " Understanding must move with the flow of the process"
The point I am making is that if the process of understanding leads you to a false truth when you move with the flow of the process then you would need to swim against the current to find your way back to reality and away from deception.

There is no "false truth". Either it is the truth or it is not.

Your analogy is an assumption based on a preset belief that what is being objectively recognised by moving in the flow of a process is a "deception". When a process is recognised, the recognition cannot contain any deception, for otherwise it would not be a recognition of that process.

When a process is stopped, it is no longer that process. Only by flowing with a process can it be recognised for the process that it is.

Have you talked with any paraplegic to confirm what you state here ?

You also misunderstand what being paraplegic represents. It is not that there are no sensory perceptions, it is that the signal is not recognised because of a failure in the transference of the signal.

Do you mean that you think that anyone that does not agree that their essence is not contained within a body is not a "conscious self aware person" ?

I had a paraplegic friend who was paralyzed from the waist down and had many discussions with him. Yes he confirmed what I am saying but I do understand others might have a different opinion and see it differently. What makes you think that I misunderstand what being a paraplegic represents? What experience or knowledge do you have with paraplegics?

No, I do not mean that anyone who does not agree that their essence is not contained in a body is not a "conscious self aware person " I am saying that anyone who is a conscious self aware person is also aware they have a body regardless of whether that body is paralyzed or not. They are usually aware their body is paralyzed or at least my friend was aware of it till the day he died.

Your statement of "even if the body has no sensory perceptions" shows your misunderstanding of what being a paraplegic represents. How do I know this, and what experience or knowledge do I have in relationship to paralysis ?

I have personal first-hand experience of being paralysed. I also have the experience of overcoming the physical state of paralysis.

Then your statement of, "Any conscious self aware person understands they are in a body.", is misleading. A "conscious self aware person" can also fully comprehend that the essense of who they are is not housed within their body. Thus, prefacing "conscious self aware person" with "Any" is misleading because it does not recognise a differing comprehension.

There is also a major difference between recognising that you have a body and that you are in a body.

So far you have yet to supply information that provides evidence for the essence of who you are being in the physical body that you control. What you have supplied is opinion based upon preset beliefs of a religious leaning.

What is this "Spirit of Life" ?

It is the essence of who I am. If you leave out the word Spirit and just use the word Life will it make it easier for you to comprehend?

It is not necessary for me to leave out the word "Spirit" to have a comprehension of what you are talking about.

It would appear to be pointless to leave out the term as well based upon your description, "Life is the essence of the Spirit of Life.", otherwise we would be left with the phrase, Life is the essence of Life. Although, considering your description, I would have thought that using, The Spirit of Life is the essence of Life, to be accurate in relationship to how it is being utilised.

A body being a body is not in question. What is in question is whether the essence of who you are is inside the physical structure.

So far you have made many claims, yet have failed to back them up with evidence. If the essence of who you are (from your reasoning) is through every cell in the physical structure, then why has it never been described by scientists looking through electron microscopes ?

Is it because it doesn't exist ?

Or do you believe that they are hiding the truth from us all ?[/b][/color]

No one is hiding any truth from anyone. Science simply calls the spirit of Life, Life without any reference to the word spirit. They can tell if a body is dead or alive by the movement in the heart and brain functions as well as the breath or whether the body is breathing or not. Usually if it stops breathing and the heart stops functioning and it cannot be resuscitated, the medical profession pronounces a time of death. That time is usually when the body can no longer be resuscitated. The bible also calls the "spirit" the "breath" the words are synonymous. Life exists and you can tell when life is no longer in a body and science then pronounces that body to be dead. That life is all through the body when it is in the body.

You didn't actually answer the first question and are side-stepping it with personal conjecture.

Life is still in the physical structure after it has been declared "dead", for the fingernails and hair still grow.

What you appear to be attempting to describe is the essence that animates the physical structure so that it is recognisable as what has been termed "living". This essence has been given different names, from spirit, soul, to Ka (Egyptian for spirit essence), among many others, depending upon the language and societal/religious beliefs.

From what you have described, it appears that you have the belief that the spirit is contained, or trapped, in a physical shell, as if somehow the physical can contain such an non-physical essence.

Personally, I recognise the correlation of individuated aspects within the Life that I perceive through the physical structure. For instance, the Fibonacci number sequence is represented in the growth of physical structures. It is also represented in the building of Egyptian megalithic structures. The beginning which is 0, or the circle, which is representative of ALL THAT IS without individuation. The progression leads to the 1, ALL THAT IS as the macrocosm, then again 1, ALL THAT IS as the microcosm (or soul), to 2, the tools of soul to re-present itself, mind and body.

This recognition shows me that there is much knowledge that is hidden from those that are uninitiated into it, especially with the written text known of as the bible.

Another example would be the number of the beast, 666. In numerology, 6 represents the duality of the creative aspect (in short), when lived positively it is creative, when lived negatively it is destructive. Numbers are also added together to supply a single digit. So, 6 + 6 + 6 = 18 and 1+ 8 = 9. It is the number 9 that represents humanity (KJV - "Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man"), and is also known of as the three-fold number, representing idealism, ambition and responsibility. Three 6's used to represent the three-fold number. Is this coincidental or hidden knowledge ?

Now, this is a comprehension that I have come to and is not something that I demand of others to recognise as truth. It can be backed up with knowledge of sacred geometry ...

Sacred Geometry - part 1


Sacred Geometry - part 2


... and is linked to the observation of Life. Yet it is still not something that I make demands of others to recognise as truth, unlike proponents of the bible that have their very own interpretation of what the text represents.

Your choice to perceive 'God' as mankind is not in question. You are entitled to make this your belief if you so choose to.

The reason that we are involved in this discussion is because I am questioning your perception of 'God'.

At this point, I find your reasoning to be based upon a circular argument and that you have offered no verifiable evidence to support your claims.

You made a statement that my choice to perceive God as mankind is not in question. Then you contradict your own statement and claim to be questioning my perception of God. This makes you appear to be a very confused person who can't make up your mind whether to question me or take my word for it.

Truth is circular. It begins with Truth and ends with Truth no matter how many ways you go around it and how many sights you wish to see along the way. Truth is Truth and always proves itself. It is what it is, regardless of whether anyone believes it or not. The beginning and end of the Truth are always the same. It keeps repeating itself in life and death. It is a cycle which is circular like any cycle.

Your choice to do so is not in question. As I clearly stated, "I am questioning your perception of 'God'". The confusion appears to be in your comprehension between me allowing you to choose to believe whatever you choose to, and the belief that I am somehow attempting to change your choice through questioning you.

I will clarify this further. You can choose to believe whatever it is that you so desire, it has nothing to do with me as it is your choice alone to make. This does not stop me from making my choice to question you as why you have chosen to believe as you do. Thus the choice is not in question, it is the reasoning for the choice that is in question, the perception that has led you to make your choice if you will.

Would you please offer evidence to back up your statement that "Truth is circular".

Statements of something do not make those statements true, no matter how much belief you profess in them.

Personally, I define "Life" as Love In Form Evolving. I haven't copyrighted the phrase, so you are free to use it.

Are you claiming that the Genesis account of creation is literal ?

Interesting definition but can you prove that is what it is?

I do not take the Genesis account of creation literally. I perceive it as being purely metaphoric. I perceive the word "Adam" as many people not one individual man. In Hebrew the word is plural and refers to all males and all females of the human race.

I can offer you proof as to why I believe it.

Why do you not believe that Genesis is a literal accounting ?

How do you recognise the difference between a literal accounting within the biblical text and a metaphorical accounting ?

If Genesis is a metaphorical accounting, why do you accept a literal translation of what it states in relationship to your statement, "The word man in the bible refers to mankind plural which includes male and female . It does not refer to just one man. Read Genesis 1: 26-27 and notice the plural words, us, our, them." ?

Can you point to this "Spirit of Life" ?

Is it a tangible thing ?

We actually have a similar idea about the manifestation of Life, where we part ways is in the basis of it being from the biblical accounting. Personally I find the biblical accounting to be contradictory nonsense.

The only way I can point out the spirit of life is to point out living things and explain to you how I know they are alive as opposed to how I know something is dead. If something is alive I perceive that living thing as a body which has the "spirit of life" in it. Leave out the word spirit and just use the word life and I am still saying the same thing.
Is life a tangible thing in your opinion? I can touch living things. Am I touching life when I touch a living thing? I think I am.

So you cannot point to this "Spirit of Life" then.

Instead of admitting this, you run around the issue and attempt to correlate the animation of Life with the essence that gives it animation.

Many people think many things, some of those thoughts are obviously delusional. Have you any verifiable evidence to present that shows that your description of the "Spirit of Life" is not delusional ?

Truth is What Is. Evidence is the objective description that we give to convey our comprehension of What Is.

'Jesus' is a mythological character contained within the biblical narrative. No one has been "standing in front of" 'Jesus', unless you count the other mythological characters within the biblical narrative to have some substance that has never been proven. If you have evidence to show otherwise, please provide it to support your claims.

Your "mythical character" is defined in the bible itself as the Truth. People stand in front of "the Truth" daily and can't even see it. You said yourself "Truth is what is. " You appear to define Truth as that which exists. Am I correct in that interpretation of your words? If so, then people face that which exists daily do they not? "That which is " = The Truth.
It needs no evidence but itself. It stands there daily and in principle says, " I am that I am " regardless of whether it speaks those words or not.

Two points to start with ...

1. At no point have I made any claim of ownership to any "mythical character", so it is not representative of anything that I have stated when you use "Your "mythical character"".

2. I also used the term "mythological character", not "mythical character". The difference being that when you quote me (use quote marks), it is misleading to have between the quotes something that I did not post, no matter how similar in meaning it is.

If 'Jesus' is not a mythological character then there would be verifiable evidence to support this. For almost two thousand years no one has offered any such evidence. Do you have any verifiable evidence for 'Jesus' being other than a mythological character ?

So, whatever claims that are made about the mythological character known of as 'Jesus' in the bible are unsupported with evidence. Which in turn means that claims made about this mythological character have no basis as evidence of your statement, "as in the case of Jesus standing in front of the people who called Him a liar".

As I stated, "Truth is What Is". It would depend upon what you mean by "exists" as to whether your interpretation is an alignment with my statement.

I totally agree that people are in the presence of What Is. Comprehension of What Is varies in the descriptions that individuals apply to What Is, For instance, a christian will stand before a copy of the text known of as the bible and profess to know that it is the 'Word of God'. Another individual that has not been indoctrinated into the religious beliefs of christianity would stand before the text and recognise it without the appellations that the christian has made.

In other words, many will overlay What Is with preconceived ideas based upon their belief system, that may or may not have anything to do with What Is, and is invariably a distortion of What Is, used to prop up their belief system. The difference can be recognised in the language used within the description of What Is. A usual give-away of this is specialised terminology and a lack of being able to give a description without its use.

Yet you haven't proven that the bible is more than a fictitious book.

Your reasoning is faulty in regards to "fictional writings". Something expressed within "fictional writings" carries as much validity, if it is true, as if it was expressed outside of the "fictional writings".

The judgment of "more depth and more meaning" is subjective. A christian will make the subjective judgment of the bible having "more depth and more meaning" than "fictional writings" because they invariably believe that the bible is the 'Word of God', and is therefore superior to any writings of man.

Of course, this doesn't make it so. In fact, an objective reading of the bible will show it to be contradictory nonsense.

Are you asking me to prove the bible is metaphoric in nature or are you asking me to prove that metaphors have more meaning and depth than mere fiction? If it is subjective in your opinion then what do you see as the difference between metaphoric writings and fictional writings? If you do not perceive metaphoric literature as more meaningful than fiction then how will anyone convince you it is?
If you don't even see the bible as metaphoric writings and can only see it as nonsense, then how can anyone change that perception anyway? No one but you can change your own perception.

Do you see a question in the text of mine that you quoted ?

Instead of attempting to "convince" me, or "change" my "perception", why not look to understand why I think the way that I do ?

After all, this is a discussion, a debate even, not a crusade to convert 'non-believers' to the christian doctrine.

[bernee51]

I am pointing out that the same principle which you call a religious construct is also adopted by the laws of the world. Why do you think the whole world has adopted the same principle of calling an action good or evil and punishing those who disobey the laws of the land?

Simple...it is called evolution. We could no more live as we do without these processes than we could without eyes.

Evolution is a reason to punish people for their actions? Please think of something that makes a bit more sense than that.

Morals and ethics have evolved and are evolving. An aspect of morality at the current stage of evolution is a societal demand for punishment for infringement of defined societal norms.

[bernee51]

What died, what ceased to exist, was mankind's simple consciousness - it evolved into self refelctive consciousness.

What died was the inability to as "Who am I?"

Are you saying that when people become self reflective they lose the ability to understand who they are?

The exact opposite - self reflectivity allows the question "Who am I?" to be asked.

If the question cannot be asked then it is not possible for an answer to be cognized.

[Skyangel]

It is not those individuals that I am having a discussion with. It is you.

By your definition, what specifically is the 'God' represented within the biblical text ?

Life, Light, Love, Wisdom, Understanding, Knowledge, Truth, and many more. Do you want scriptures to confirm the bible does indeed describe God in all those ways?

There is no "false truth". Either it is the truth or it is not.

When people call lies truth they are being deceived and what they think is truth is not really truth at all, but a deception or a false truth. It is a bit like a forgery of an original article or an illusion. It appears to be truth on outward appearances but when you question it you find it doe not stand up but rather crumbles under pressure. Real Truth remains form and solid.

Your statement of "even if the body has no sensory perceptions" shows your misunderstanding of what being a paraplegic represents. How do I know this, and what experience or knowledge do I have in relationship to paralysis ?

I have personal first-hand experience of being paralysed. I also have the experience of overcoming the physical state of paralysis.

Then your statement of, "Any conscious self aware person understands they are in a body.", is misleading. A "conscious self aware person" can also fully comprehend that the essense of who they are is not housed within their body. Thus, prefacing "conscious self aware person" with "Any" is misleading because it does not recognise a differing comprehension.

There is also a major difference between recognising that you have a body and that you are in a body.

So far you have yet to supply information that provides evidence for the essence of who you are being in the physical body that you control. What you have supplied is opinion based upon preset beliefs of a religious leaning.

Congratulations on overcoming your paralysis.
If you think the essence of who you are is not housed within your body. How do you perceive the essence of who you are and where is this essence of who you are if not in your body?

It is not necessary for me to leave out the word "Spirit" to have a comprehension of what you are talking about.

It would appear to be pointless to leave out the term as well based upon your description, "Life is the essence of the Spirit of Life.", otherwise we would be left with the phrase, Life is the essence of Life. Although, considering your description, I would have thought that using, The Spirit of Life is the essence of Life, to be accurate in relationship to how it is being utilised.

The way I see it, it can be utilized both ways because life is in life in the sense of the " chicken being in the egg and the egg being in the chicken."

Life is still in the physical structure after it has been declared "dead", for the fingernails and hair still grow.

What you appear to be attempting to describe is the essence that animates the physical structure so that it is recognisable as what has been termed "living". This essence has been given different names, from spirit, soul, to Ka (Egyptian for spirit essence), among many others, depending upon the language and societal/religious beliefs.

From what you have described, it appears that you have the belief that the spirit is contained, or trapped, in a physical shell, as if somehow the physical can contain such an non-physical essence.

No, that's not what I believe at all and not how I see it. Life is not trapped in any body. Life is also outside the body and I understand a certain amount of life is still in the dead since it takes life to decompose a body.
All I am saying is that we can perceive life within a body regardless of whether that body is human or animal or plant life. The spirit of life is manifest in the living as well as in dead to those who understand it takes life to decompose a body.
That spirit is in everything and also around everything. We are in life and life is in us. it is not confined in any way. That is what makes the Spirit of Life infinite and eternal. The part of life which is manifest clearly enough for humans to see ought to be enough proof that Life does indeed exist.

Your choice to do so is not in question. As I clearly stated, "I am questioning your perception of 'God'". The confusion appears to be in your comprehension between me allowing you to choose to believe whatever you choose to, and the belief that I am somehow attempting to change your choice through questioning you.

I will clarify this further. You can choose to believe whatever it is that you so desire, it has nothing to do with me as it is your choice alone to make. This does not stop me from making my choice to question you as why you have chosen to believe as you do. Thus the choice is not in question, it is the reasoning for the choice that is in question, the perception that has led you to make your choice if you will.

Would you please offer evidence to back up your statement that "Truth is circular".

Statements of something do not make those statements true, no matter how much belief you profess in them.

Let's start with any object in nature which you can see and touch and you know is there in reality. Let's call that object "the Truth" simply because it is what it is without a shadow of doubt even if you have no clue what to name it. Someone might come and ask you " what is it" You tell them it is the Truth because it is what it is. They ask you to prove it is the Truth. How do you prove something is what it is?
It is what it is. Can you not see it is what it is? It proves itself and has no need for anyone to prove it is what it is. If you have any doubts that it is what it is then try proving it is not what it is.. It might not be what you think it is but if that is the case the problem would be in the mind of the person who is confused about what they think it is not in the Truth itself. The way people perceive the Truth does not change the fact that it always is what it is regardless of what anyone thinks about it and regardless of their perception. You begin with Truth and reality and end with Truth and reality, no matter what dance anyone does in the middle trying to figure it out. When you begin with a statement and end with the statement then the statement is circular is is not? Truth makes its own statement " I am that I am" "I am proof of what I am "
Human beings can choose to believe anything they want about it. it still does not change it.

I can offer you proof as to why I believe it.

I look forward to reading your reasoning.

Why do you not believe that Genesis is a literal accounting ?

Because it makes no logical sense to me that mankind was made from the literal dust of the earth. I understand the process of reproduction and logically understand it takes two people to make one person.
I also cannot logically perceive of any literal tree called a tree of knowledge of good and evil with literal fruit on it. Neither can I perceive of a literal talking serpent.
All these things cause me to believe it is a metaphoric story.

How do you recognise the difference between a literal accounting within the biblical text and a metaphorical accounting ?

I determine whether talking snakes exist in reality or not. I determine whether trees of knowledge exist as literal trees. I determine whether any humans are made from literal dust today and when I understand these things do not literally happen in nature then I recognise they must be metaphoric. Anything that makes sense in a literal way and literally happens in nature today can indeed be regarded as literal. However even literal things in nature have hidden lessons, morals and principles, to teach us if we look at them from all perspectives possible. Therefore nature itself, though literal can still me metaphoric as well. I see literal nature like a living parable which teaches us about life.

If Genesis is a metaphorical accounting, why do you accept a literal translation of what it states in relationship to your statement, "The word man in the bible refers to mankind plural which includes male and female . It does not refer to just one man. Read Genesis 1: 26-27 and notice the plural words, us, our, them." ?

I am not taking it literally at all in the same sense that Christians take it literally. From what I understand most Christians perceive the story of the garden of Eden as a story about God literally creating one single man from literal dust and then creating one single woman from that mans rib. They include magic trees and talking snakes in their literal interpretation of the story.

The way I see it Genesis 1 can easily be a story about what is happening on the planet right now. It is a story about life which in principle is the same at the end as it is at the beginning. All things were created in the past. They are being created the present and they will be created in the future. The way I see it, it is an eternal cycle of life.

So you cannot point to this "Spirit of Life" then.

Instead of admitting this, you run around the issue and attempt to correlate the animation of Life with the essence that gives it animation.

Many people think many things, some of those thoughts are obviously delusional. Have you any verifiable evidence to present that shows that your description of the "Spirit of Life" is not delusional ?

I am the evidence of the spirit of life. I am in life and life is in me. I am alive. However, I could just be dreaming that I am alive. That might make me delusional in the opinion of some people.

Two points to start with ...

1. At no point have I made any claim of ownership to any "mythical character", so it is not representative of anything that I have stated when you use "Your "mythical character"".

Then let me rephrase and say " Your perception of Jesus being a mythological character. "

If 'Jesus' is not a mythological character then there would be verifiable evidence to support this. For almost two thousand years no one has offered any such evidence. Do you have any verifiable evidence for 'Jesus' being other than a mythological character ?

No, but I prefer to call him a metaphorical character, an example of perfection personified.

So, whatever claims that are made about the mythological character known of as 'Jesus' in the bible are unsupported with evidence. Which in turn means that claims made about this mythological character have no basis as evidence of your statement, "as in the case of Jesus standing in front of the people who called Him a liar".

My words are also metaphorical when I talk about Jesus. I perceive Jesus and the word Truth as the same thing. I merely use words that are easy to relate to the bible stories to which I am referring. If I said Truth was standing right in front of people, no one would understand what I was talking about. When I say Jesus was standing in front of people, readers understand I am referring to bible stories.
The evidence that these stories exist is in the bible. Any claims regarding Jesus are referring to the claims the bible stories make about Him.
When we discuss literature, the literature we are quoting is its own evidence of what has been written regardless of whether anyone can prove it is true or not. It is what it is.

As I stated, "Truth is What Is". It would depend upon what you mean by "exists" as to whether your interpretation is an alignment with my statement.

I totally agree that people are in the presence of What Is. Comprehension of What Is varies in the descriptions that individuals apply to What Is, For instance, a christian will stand before a copy of the text known of as the bible and profess to know that it is the 'Word of God'. Another individual that has not been indoctrinated into the religious beliefs of christianity would stand before the text and recognise it without the appellations that the christian has made.

In other words, many will overlay What Is with preconceived ideas based upon their belief system, that may or may not have anything to do with What Is, and is invariably a distortion of What Is, used to prop up their belief system. The difference can be recognised in the language used within the description of What Is. A usual give-away of this is specialised terminology and a lack of being able to give a description without its use.

Do you perceive the bible as " What is" ? If not, how do you perceive it in relation to "What is"?

After all, this is a discussion, a debate even, not a crusade to convert 'non-believers' to the christian doctrine.

What makes you think I am trying to convert anyone to the christian doctrine? Why would I want to do that when I perceive most Christian doctrine as false doctrine and do not belong to any Christian religion myself?

The fact that I perceive the bible as the Truth in no way means I see it in the same way Christians do. Most christians still cannot explain or reconcile the apparent contradictions in the bible when asked to do so. That is why they do not impress me one bit.
Personally I do not have any problems with any apparent contradictions in it because I figured out how scriptures which appear to be opposite and opposing, fit together like night and day, which although they are opposite do not contradict each other at all.

[Skyangel]

Morals and ethics have evolved and are evolving. An aspect of morality at the current stage of evolution is a societal demand for punishment for infringement of defined societal norms.

In what way do you perceive morals and ethics as having evolved? From what to what?
Do you think the idea of punishment always existed within the human race or not? If not, do you consider the evolution of humans from beings who once did not punish each other to beings who now punish each other and hurt each other, as progress or a step backwards ? If you see it as progress, do you think humans will get more violent in future?

[Flail]

Skyangel wrote:

No, that's not what I believe at all and not how I see it. Life is not trapped in any body. Life is also outside the body and I understand a certain amount of life is still in the dead since it takes life to decompose a body.
All I am saying is that we can perceive life within a body regardless of whether that body is human or animal or plant life. The spirit of life is manifest in the living as well as in dead to those who understand it takes life to decompose a body.
That spirit is in everything and also around everything. We are in life and life is in us. it is not confined in any way. That is what makes the Spirit of Life infinite and eternal. The part of life which is manifest clearly enough for humans to see ought to be enough proof that Life does indeed exist.

I will clarify this further. You can choose to believe whatever it is that you so desire, it has nothing to do with me as it is your choice alone to make. This does not stop me from making my choice to question you as why you have chosen to believe as you do. Thus the choice is not in question, it is the reasoning for the choice that is in question, the perception that has led you to make your choice if you will.

Let's start with any object in nature which you can see and touch and you know is there in reality. Let's call that object "the Truth" simply because it is what it is without a shadow of doubt even if you have no clue what to name it. Someone might come and ask you " what is it" You tell them it is the Truth because it is what it is. They ask you to prove it is the Truth. How do you prove something is what it is?
It is what it is. Can you not see it is what it is? It proves itself and has no need for anyone to prove it is what it is. If you have any doubts that it is what it is then try proving it is not what it is.. It might not be what you think it is but if that is the case the problem would be in the mind of the person who is confused about what they think it is not in the Truth itself. The way people perceive the Truth does not change the fact that it always is what it is regardless of what anyone thinks about it and regardless of their perception. You begin with Truth and reality and end with Truth and reality, no matter what dance anyone does in the middle trying to figure it out. When you begin with a statement and end with the statement then the statement is circular is is not? Truth makes its own statement " I am that I am" "I am proof of what I am "
Human beings can choose to believe anything they want about it. it still does not change it.

My words are also metaphorical when I talk about Jesus. I perceive Jesus and the word Truth as the same thing. I merely use words that are easy to relate to the bible stories to which I am referring. If I said Truth was standing right in front of people, no one would understand what I was talking about. When I say Jesus was standing in front of people, readers understand I am referring to bible stories.
The evidence that these stories exist is in the bible. Any claims regarding Jesus are referring to the claims the bible stories make about Him.
When we discuss literature, the literature we are quoting is its own evidence of what has been written regardless of whether anyone can prove it is true or not. It is what it is.

Skyangel, I agree that the literature is what it is...literature. That goes without saying. I think I understand what you feel and the 'presence' in your life that you attribute to the God of the bible. I have no problem with much of what you believe about life and living as a philosophy or 'wisdom' to consider. However, you lose me when you close down all other possibility because you attribute your feelings to only one possibility ...ie, the God of literature written by men. You have no credible verifiable evidence upon which to make such an attribution of your philosophy to any particular 'God'. It is perfectly fine to me that you do this, but don't presume to 'know for certain' what you only presume to know based upon your personal subjective process of living.

[Skyangel]

........... However, you lose me when you close down all other possibility because you attribute your feelings to only one possibility ...ie, the God of literature written by men. You have no credible verifiable evidence upon which to make such an attribution of your philosophy to any particular 'God'. It is perfectly fine to me that you do this, but don't presume to 'know for certain' what you only presume to know based upon your personal subjective process of living.

I know what I know. I know what I don't know. I know what I presume and I know what I don't presume.
When you live in certainty, you have no doubts about it at all.
It is much like finding a treasure. You know for certain when you have found what you are looking for. I searched for the Truth and found it. It is what it is.

[Zzyzx]

.

I know what I know. I know what I don't know. I know what I presume and I know what I don't presume.

When you live in certainty, you have no doubts about it at all.

Is it just me, or does this sound to others like the statement indicating a totally closed mind?

Confidence in one's knowledge, ideas and convictions is one thing; "living in certainty" is quite another. I have never encountered a person who had "no doubts" about the questions life presents. How can a person with that attitude learn anything?

Is there NO possibility that you are mistaken about anything you believe or think?