Problem Child
titleless
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2001
- Posts
- 27,935
The existence of ppman is proof there is no God.
Does God only exist because Man does?
- Thread starter p_p_man
- Start date
p_p_man
The 'Euro' European
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2001
- Posts
- 24,253
Angelus said:
Humankind didn't.
Humankind was far too busy just trying to stay alive.
But then along comes a few arseholes and decide that there has to be an answer to the unanswerable.
So they created Religion (or Churches if you will) and made a tidy bit of money along the way, which they kept, and still do, behind the locked doors of secret vaults.
Humankind had enough on its plate without having to deal with interfering fools as well.
Smiling...
Discovering that humans project onto 'God' may seem rather sophisticated, but actually begs the question of God's existence. What each person responding even imagines the concept 'God' to include, likely fits conventional categories. Rejecting those limited notions proves nothing.
Even the clues people imagine would indicate the presence of God in their lives are too often cultural filters that cause us to look in the wrong places for the wrong things. The dominant messages in our current religious culture describe a god who is obsessed (horrified) by sexuality (like a spinster aunt), not clever enough to work with real free will, and who's own moral development is primitive and lacks compassion for anyone outside some narrowly defined group of 'believers.'
The reality is beyond words power to describe... Is deeply compassionate... Respectful of the gift of free will... And is drawing each human person to something better, more just, more compassionate, more inclusive of all peoples.
My own experience and listening to others' life experiences leaves me no room for doubt.
Discovering that humans project onto 'God' may seem rather sophisticated, but actually begs the question of God's existence. What each person responding even imagines the concept 'God' to include, likely fits conventional categories. Rejecting those limited notions proves nothing.
Even the clues people imagine would indicate the presence of God in their lives are too often cultural filters that cause us to look in the wrong places for the wrong things. The dominant messages in our current religious culture describe a god who is obsessed (horrified) by sexuality (like a spinster aunt), not clever enough to work with real free will, and who's own moral development is primitive and lacks compassion for anyone outside some narrowly defined group of 'believers.'
The reality is beyond words power to describe... Is deeply compassionate... Respectful of the gift of free will... And is drawing each human person to something better, more just, more compassionate, more inclusive of all peoples.
My own experience and listening to others' life experiences leaves me no room for doubt.
p_p_man
The 'Euro' European
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2001
- Posts
- 24,253
But Pan 718...
what you are talking about isn't God. It's the human Id.
Now here's the nub. Are we (human beings) really our own God.
And God as an outside entity never has existed?
In other words:
"Without Mankind would God exist?"
what you are talking about isn't God. It's the human Id.
Now here's the nub. Are we (human beings) really our own God.
And God as an outside entity never has existed?
In other words:
"Without Mankind would God exist?"
Last edited:
p_p man...
Freud wasn't the sharpest philosopher in the woodshed you know... No, beyond the 'Id' concept is plenty of reality beyond the human cranium.
The limitations of the human ability to conceive of something greater than themselves says nothing about the reality of it... IN FACT, the very capability that we humans have, limited and finite as we are, to exceed those limitations points to, potentially, an infinite openness to the mystery of life... We are finite systems that none the less are capable of infinite openness... Look at the structure and not the content to better recognize who we are as human persons.
Freud wasn't the sharpest philosopher in the woodshed you know... No, beyond the 'Id' concept is plenty of reality beyond the human cranium.
The limitations of the human ability to conceive of something greater than themselves says nothing about the reality of it... IN FACT, the very capability that we humans have, limited and finite as we are, to exceed those limitations points to, potentially, an infinite openness to the mystery of life... We are finite systems that none the less are capable of infinite openness... Look at the structure and not the content to better recognize who we are as human persons.
Azwed
Invading Poland
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2000
- Posts
- 11,575
Re: But Pan 718...
Hmhhh I don't know what this "Mankinf" is. Could you please define it. Is this some british slang I don't know.
p_p_man said:what you are talking about isn't God. It's the human Id.
Now here's the nub. Are we (human beings) really our own God.
And God as an outside entity has never has existed?
In other words:
"Without Mankinf would God exist?"
Hmhhh I don't know what this "Mankinf" is. Could you please define it. Is this some british slang I don't know.
For some interesting reading...
from a Buddhist perspective look for Ken Wilber's "A Brief History of Everything." From a thoughtful Post-Modern Christian position look for "A World of Grace," editted by O'Donovan. And if you're really schooled in reading phenomenology (got through Maritain, Wittgenstein, et al) check out Karl Rahner's "Foundations."
(Now who would have expected that bibliography at Literotica? At least Wilber's "Sex, ecology, spirituality: The spirit of Evolution." has a sexier sounding title. But don't expect to get through it if these others aren't accessile reading.
from a Buddhist perspective look for Ken Wilber's "A Brief History of Everything." From a thoughtful Post-Modern Christian position look for "A World of Grace," editted by O'Donovan. And if you're really schooled in reading phenomenology (got through Maritain, Wittgenstein, et al) check out Karl Rahner's "Foundations."
(Now who would have expected that bibliography at Literotica? At least Wilber's "Sex, ecology, spirituality: The spirit of Evolution." has a sexier sounding title. But don't expect to get through it if these others aren't accessile reading
.
p_p_man
The 'Euro' European
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2001
- Posts
- 24,253
Re: For some interesting reading...
Thank you but I won't.
All I would be doing is reading books by people who have probably been taught by reading books who have prbably been taught by people who have written books who have got their knowledge from reading....
But thank you anyway.
Pan718 said:from a Buddhist perspective look for Ken Wilber's "A Brief History of Everything." From a thoughtful Post-Modern Christian position look for "A World of Grace," editted by O'Donovan. And if you're really schooled in reading phenomenology (got through Maritain, Wittgenstein, et al) check out Karl Rahner's "Foundations."
(Now who would have expected that bibliography at Literotica? At least Wilber's "Sex, ecology, spirituality: The spirit of Evolution." has a sexier sounding title. But don't expect to get through it if these others aren't accessile reading
Thank you but I won't.
All I would be doing is reading books by people who have probably been taught by reading books who have prbably been taught by people who have written books who have got their knowledge from reading....
But thank you anyway.
T.H. Oughts
Oh the thoughts of Oughts
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2001
- Posts
- 19,712
p_p_man said:
Man created religion.
Therefore Man created God.
I could not of put it any better myself!
Kind of like the chicken and egg theory
erosman
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2001
- Posts
- 4,553
I believe it was Abe Lincoln who is credited for saying something like this: "I understand how one might look at mankind(both feminine and masculine [added for gender sensitive readers, but not believed to be a part of the original text]) and conclude we descended from apes, but I do not understand how one can look into the starry night and say, "There is no God."
I think a lot of people's disappointment with the concept of God, comes directly from their disappointment in man's attempt to give a satisfying explanation of God.
When mortals (both feminine and masculine) launch upon an effort to explain the designer or creator of any thought, idea, or expression with a complex system of rules and laws, they merely reveal their desire to further their own agenda and ego. But, that does not affect the creator of the original thought or expression, unless that designer is encumbered with mortal insecurity.
I think that Cym's point is a good example. An unbiased assessment of life as we have come to know it, would definitely link the distinctive feminine procreative abilities as well as the softer more nurturing inclinations of motherhood to the Designer or Creator of this random impossibility of life. Yet, the major religions of the world are all rooted in masculine dominated ideology and come from masculine dominated cultures. Hence we have gods that are masculine, and that require feminine subordination, just as their masculine designers require. But life as a whole- viewed without cultural biases- indicates differently.
One of the finest portraits of the Creator comes from one of the Judeo-Christian names for God: El Shaddai...translated by Christians as Almighty God. The root of the Jewish word Shaddai is found in its word shad which is the word for breast. (see this is going to be appropriate for this site after all) The picture being of God, a creator who nourishes, feeds and satisfies as motherhood does from its Almighty breast. Yet, no self-respecting Jew or Christian would suggest a God with feminine breasts. Christians refuse to touch this breasted image of God and translate with the word Almighty.
This mortals conclusion: The incredibly complex and randomly impossible display that we are privileged to experience with our varied senses each day, reveals a design of undeniably passionate creativity and thus a Designer of immense imaginations and awesome proportions...NOT a god of mortal insecurity, with oppressively masculine tendencies, who requires a legalistic, unpleasant adherence to a code of conformity that de-emphasizes the individual and its volitional opportunities to reflect the very passion and creativity that lies in its own breast.
I think a lot of people's disappointment with the concept of God, comes directly from their disappointment in man's attempt to give a satisfying explanation of God.
When mortals (both feminine and masculine) launch upon an effort to explain the designer or creator of any thought, idea, or expression with a complex system of rules and laws, they merely reveal their desire to further their own agenda and ego. But, that does not affect the creator of the original thought or expression, unless that designer is encumbered with mortal insecurity.
I think that Cym's point is a good example. An unbiased assessment of life as we have come to know it, would definitely link the distinctive feminine procreative abilities as well as the softer more nurturing inclinations of motherhood to the Designer or Creator of this random impossibility of life. Yet, the major religions of the world are all rooted in masculine dominated ideology and come from masculine dominated cultures. Hence we have gods that are masculine, and that require feminine subordination, just as their masculine designers require. But life as a whole- viewed without cultural biases- indicates differently.
One of the finest portraits of the Creator comes from one of the Judeo-Christian names for God: El Shaddai...translated by Christians as Almighty God. The root of the Jewish word Shaddai is found in its word shad which is the word for breast. (see this is going to be appropriate for this site after all) The picture being of God, a creator who nourishes, feeds and satisfies as motherhood does from its Almighty breast. Yet, no self-respecting Jew or Christian would suggest a God with feminine breasts. Christians refuse to touch this breasted image of God and translate with the word Almighty.
This mortals conclusion: The incredibly complex and randomly impossible display that we are privileged to experience with our varied senses each day, reveals a design of undeniably passionate creativity and thus a Designer of immense imaginations and awesome proportions...NOT a god of mortal insecurity, with oppressively masculine tendencies, who requires a legalistic, unpleasant adherence to a code of conformity that de-emphasizes the individual and its volitional opportunities to reflect the very passion and creativity that lies in its own breast.
erosman
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2001
- Posts
- 4,553
Re: OK erosman...
Sure! but whether I believe you, or you believe in Satan... neither would affect its existence .
And... who or what would you define as Satan? Is there some evident manifestation of this existent being? Perhaps its identity can be further revealed in the evidence of life.
Sorry for the delay. I don't know how to watch a thread live. I have to jump back and forth from past to present.
p_p_man said:Supposing I said I believed wholeheartedly in Satan?
Would you believe me?
Sure! but whether I believe you, or you believe in Satan... neither would affect its existence .
And... who or what would you define as Satan? Is there some evident manifestation of this existent being? Perhaps its identity can be further revealed in the evidence of life.
Sorry for the delay. I don't know how to watch a thread live. I have to jump back and forth from past to present.
p_p_man
The 'Euro' European
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2001
- Posts
- 24,253
To me Sata is more real than God.
When you're alone in a dark room. or when you feel an inexplicable presence and your only thought is to get away as fast as you can.
And the hairs on the back of your head stand up without reason.
To me that's Satan. Inexplicable but real.
I don't feel the same way about god.
When you're alone in a dark room. or when you feel an inexplicable presence and your only thought is to get away as fast as you can.
And the hairs on the back of your head stand up without reason.
To me that's Satan. Inexplicable but real.
I don't feel the same way about god.
erosman
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2001
- Posts
- 4,553
reality of feelings
Not to belabor the point, but feeling the presence of Satan or God for that matter does not validate their existence. Feelings are real to a person in the sense that they are experiencing some explainable or perhaps inexplicable emotion. But whether the feelings are reality based is another issue altogether. For every person who has felt Satan's presence, I'd venture to guess there are hundreds of people who would talk about feeling the presence of God. Perhaps both can be a reflection of reality, but my interaction with those people - mostly God centered feelings - has revealed emotional response that was actually premeditated.
If you want God to exist, that does not affect God to be more real. It will however, affect your feelings. Likewise with Satanic premonitions. Feelings are not a mandate for either's existence.
My conviction that a Creator exists is based on the evidence I see in the design of the world I observe...not feelings. Is there evidence that you would point to for Satan's existence?
Not to belabor the point, but feeling the presence of Satan or God for that matter does not validate their existence. Feelings are real to a person in the sense that they are experiencing some explainable or perhaps inexplicable emotion. But whether the feelings are reality based is another issue altogether. For every person who has felt Satan's presence, I'd venture to guess there are hundreds of people who would talk about feeling the presence of God. Perhaps both can be a reflection of reality, but my interaction with those people - mostly God centered feelings - has revealed emotional response that was actually premeditated.
If you want God to exist, that does not affect God to be more real. It will however, affect your feelings. Likewise with Satanic premonitions. Feelings are not a mandate for either's existence.
My conviction that a Creator exists is based on the evidence I see in the design of the world I observe...not feelings. Is there evidence that you would point to for Satan's existence?
p_p_man
The 'Euro' European
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2001
- Posts
- 24,253
erosman...
If your belief in the existence of a god is by observing the world around you then how would you rate the existence of god on another planet, another time.
Satan is a feeling, nothing more, nothing less. But god, or a god, is based on the teachings of Man.
When Ugg first came out of his cave he was more in fear of Satan than he was of god. And what you fear is what you believe. Satan is a self-protective religion whilst god is a destructive one.
And to my mind god is only destructive because he owes his existence to Man.
If your belief in the existence of a god is by observing the world around you then how would you rate the existence of god on another planet, another time.
Satan is a feeling, nothing more, nothing less. But god, or a god, is based on the teachings of Man.
When Ugg first came out of his cave he was more in fear of Satan than he was of god. And what you fear is what you believe. Satan is a self-protective religion whilst god is a destructive one.
And to my mind god is only destructive because he owes his existence to Man.
erosman
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2001
- Posts
- 4,553
p_p_man, This conversation is like a Chinese man and an aboriginal woman trying to discuss sex. Language barriers, cultural barriers, so many barriers. I respect your feelings and your beliefs. I'm sure there are issues we might agree on, but this just isn't one of them.
I hope you have a great day!
I hope you have a great day!
There are thoughtful arguments to be made...
against the existence of God, but I would respectfully suggest that what was shared here was a personal conviction as opposed to a cogent logical argument.
And that really is fine to have that conviction... I would suggest that the conviction expressed that God doesn't exist is as much a matter of personal faith as what you describe in the belief systems of others. Sooooo, short of we individuals having personal experience that sways us in another direction... now we all just have to hang around and die to see which of our beliefs are even in the ballpark.
NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT> PP Man, reading your early description of religion made me wish Lit allowed us to share audio files (beyond the phone ins). I was jamming to Godsmack's "Bad Religion." Are you familiar with that in the UK? The CD version starts with a 20 second riff of TV preacher before the vocal "GET BACK" and music starts.
Peace dudes and dudettes,
Pan
against the existence of God, but I would respectfully suggest that what was shared here was a personal conviction as opposed to a cogent logical argument.
And that really is fine to have that conviction... I would suggest that the conviction expressed that God doesn't exist is as much a matter of personal faith as what you describe in the belief systems of others. Sooooo, short of we individuals having personal experience that sways us in another direction... now we all just have to hang around and die to see which of our beliefs are even in the ballpark.
NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT> PP Man, reading your early description of religion made me wish Lit allowed us to share audio files (beyond the phone ins
). I was jamming to Godsmack's "Bad Religion." Are you familiar with that in the UK? The CD version starts with a 20 second riff of TV preacher before the vocal "GET BACK" and music starts.Peace dudes and dudettes,
Pan
erosman
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2001
- Posts
- 4,553
cogent logical thought
I would agree Pan that feelings and conviction of those feelings is probably the basis for most people's beliefs in God's existence or non-existence. I think that 'cogent logical thought' would be useful in an effort to conclude the existence or non-existence of a design to life. Many people who insist with conviction in either direction fail to use valid, linear thinking as a basis.
I would agree Pan that feelings and conviction of those feelings is probably the basis for most people's beliefs in God's existence or non-existence. I think that 'cogent logical thought' would be useful in an effort to conclude the existence or non-existence of a design to life. Many people who insist with conviction in either direction fail to use valid, linear thinking as a basis.
Well said, e.m.
And the only trustworthy basis beyond good reason is discerned personal experience, tested against external standards of a healthy wisdom community...
Sign me,
Without a doubt
(Though I make no claims about ALL the particulars )
And the only trustworthy basis beyond good reason is discerned personal experience, tested against external standards of a healthy wisdom community...
Sign me,
Without a doubt
(Though I make no claims about ALL the particulars
)
p_p_man
The 'Euro' European
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2001
- Posts
- 24,253
Re: There are thoughtful arguments to be made...
It might be but it's unfamiliar to me personally,
Pan718 said:
NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT> PP Man, reading your early description of religion made me wish Lit allowed us to share audio files (beyond the phone ins
Pan
It might be but it's unfamiliar to me personally,
Re: Re: There are thoughtful arguments to be made...
You can sample a brief mp3 at www.cheap-cds.com
Search for Artist: Godsmack
OR Tune: Bad Religion
And I had the pleasure of introducing my 14 year old son to "Anarchy in the UK" by the Sex Pistols today ; )
Night, bud!
p_p_man said:
It might be but it's unfamiliar to me personally,
You can sample a brief mp3 at www.cheap-cds.com
Search for Artist: Godsmack
OR Tune: Bad Religion
And I had the pleasure of introducing my 14 year old son to "Anarchy in the UK" by the Sex Pistols today ; )
Night, bud!
Similar threads
