The Reason of Creation

[Exegesisme]

Goodness! was not your opening bit all about defining and explaining God? Is not defining and expaining God the whole point of your meditations?

Historically, human being has three attitudes in this holy topic. First, worship and faith; second, exegesis and crowning; third, explanation and definition. The first attitude is the goodest, which is the least limitation for the Word. The second attitude is also a good choice, which reveals the most glory for the Word, and the highest standard from the Word for human to follow. The third attitude is the worst, historically, many tragedies related to names of god were actually from this manly attitude.

My attitude is the second attitude.

[Exegesisme]

There's plenty of examples of how you can arrive at such conclusions through logic and not religion. See: the enlightenment period thinkers. they referred to "god" in some cases but they used reason to create the foundational ideas for liberal democracy, like "state of nature" arguments.

Many still are based on religion, and most people today don't base such things on pure reason I agree, but it's still very possible. There are ie: good arguments on why laws banning murder is reasonable, since it protects everyone from the danger of murder and therefore the vast majority of people's best interests.

Nature is a creature of the Word. Human makes big mistakes by seeing nature without the Word as the creator. First of all big mistakes, human dwarfs himself and loses his position as the helper of the Word. Therefore, the morality, ethics and law on nature are also dwarfed.

[Hal 9000]

Not sure I agree. The ethic of reciprocity is a moral maxim that is fundamental to many religions. Christians recognize it as the Golden Rule, yet it predates Christianity by thousands of years. It can be arrived at very logically. Probably a more modern expression is a rising tide lifts all ships. We are selfish creatures, yet logic teaches us that building a strong society is in our own self interest.

Morals, ethics, laws and even common sense vary widely depending on the predominate religion in the area (or even with those who reject religion on the whole).

In some areas of the world, its common sense to cut of the hand of a thief, in our culture, it would be morally reprehensible and common sense would be to give a warning and possibly a fine. Some cultures would have a healing circle for offences while others would be put to death for the same crime. Some religions or cultures believe that sex with a child is morally acceptable. Christians believe certain moral things that seem reprehensible to others - including athiests, yet muslims believe certain ideas that are reprehensible to christians.

Sure, there might be some commonality in some places, but laws, morals and even common sense change depending on whether you are Christian, atheist, buddhist, muslim, jewish...whatever. Morals are taught - and generally through religious belief, they haven't come via evolution.

[Exegesisme]

I think humans create our own ultimate purpose, and create our own morality, ethics, and laws, based on using reason/logic, along with our natural ability to care for others with love. That's the beauty of being human and having free thought, rather than blindly accepting our morality from a "holy" book that was actually written by other humans, not gods or prophets.

What you think is a sort of idolatry, and the source of all evils. Kantian philosophy is a larger case of your thinking. You can see in history, Kantian philosophy become the source of fascism and Marxism.

The bible was from hands of humans, but these humans were trained in the unending spiritual war field under supervise of the Word. There are some religions as Buddhism which does not admit the being of god, in my meditation I spiritually fight them as anti-Christ and idolatry.

Edited April 13, 2016 by Exegesisme

[?Impact]

Morals are taught - and generally through religious belief, they haven't come via evolution.

Certainly religion has played a significant role throughout history as an educator. Faith however is not required for morals, in fact those who do the right thing because of logic (e.g. the ethic of reciprocity) instead of fear of a judgment day (hell, whatever) from a mystical being have a sound principled moral stance. I might even argue a superior stance, but as a minimum not a bit inferior. Passing on to future generations is about education, not faith.

[Exegesisme]

Morals, ethics, laws and even common sense vary widely depending on the predominate religion in the area (or even with those who reject religion on the whole).

In some areas of the world, its common sense to cut of the hand of a thief, in our culture, it would be morally reprehensible and common sense would be to give a warning and possibly a fine. Some cultures would have a healing circle for offences while others would be put to death for the same crime. Some religions or cultures believe that sex with a child is morally acceptable. Christians believe certain moral things that seem reprehensible to others - including athiests, yet muslims believe certain ideas that are reprehensible to christians.

Sure, there might be some commonality in some places, but laws, morals and even common sense change depending on whether you are Christian, atheist, buddhist, muslim, jewish...whatever. Morals are taught - and generally through religious belief, they haven't come via evolution.

About evolution, generally speaking in my study through my meditation, is a word which can be refined as a helper to understand the process of creation of the Word. Historically, I see that Christianity is in a process of progress, which may also be described as evolution under the creation of the Word. By this understanding, I look for the position of liberty and the influence of environment in the system of the creation of the Word.

I also notice that Christianity becomes the main stream of the creation of the Word by its evolution. And all other religions, which are also from the creation of Word according to the bible, are not aware the creation of the Word and less evolved.

[Hal 9000]

Certainly religion has played a significant role throughout history as an educator. Faith however is not required for morals, in fact those who do the right thing because of logic (e.g. the ethic of reciprocity) instead of fear of a judgment day (hell, whatever) from a mystical being have a sound principled moral stance. I might even argue a superior stance, but as a minimum not a bit inferior. Passing on to future generations is about education, not faith.

Of course atheists have a superior stance, just listen to any of them talk, they'll tell that to anybody who'll listen and especially those who don't want to hear it.

However, western world atheists have derived their common sense stances directly from christian teachings. I guarantee that most of your common sense beliefs are exactly the same as what Jesus Christ preached 2000 years ago - or what early christians wrote about 1500-2000 years ago.

Common sense tells me that men and women are equal human beings, but in some groups common sense will tell us that it's obvious that women are inferior, other societies will tell us that women is the giver of life, therefore common sense says that women are more valuable. Look at the thread about abortions, it seems common sense that people of a different faith are aborting girl babies more than boy babies, whereas I find that morally wrong.

Common sense in regards to morals, laws or ethics aren't common, they change. If they were common, we'd all get along better.

[Exegesisme]

Certainly religion has played a significant role throughout history as an educator. Faith however is not required for morals, in fact those who do the right thing because of logic (e.g. the ethic of reciprocity) instead of fear of a judgment day (hell, whatever) from a mystical being have a sound principled moral stance. I might even argue a superior stance, but as a minimum not a bit inferior. Passing on to future generations is about education, not faith.

Education is important in faith of the Word, and will go wrongly if without faith of the Word.

Logical positivism, which depends on language, logicism and empiricism, is proved not enough even in scientific area.

In my topic, http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/25166-science-is-not-truth/, I reason that science is not truth. If science is not truth, then what is truth? My answer is the Word.

Edited April 13, 2016 by Exegesisme

[Exegesisme]

Of course atheists have a superior stance, just listen to any of them talk, they'll tell that to anybody who'll listen and especially those who don't want to hear it.

However, western world atheists have derived their common sense stances directly from christian teachings. I guarantee that most of your common sense beliefs are exactly the same as what Jesus Christ preached 2000 years ago - or what early christians wrote about 1500-2000 years ago.

Common sense tells me that men and women are equal human beings, but in some groups common sense will tell us that it's obvious that women are inferior, other societies will tell us that women is the giver of life, therefore common sense says that women are more valuable. Look at the thread about abortions, it seems common sense that people of a different faith are aborting girl babies more than boy babies, whereas I find that morally wrong.

Common sense in regards to morals, laws or ethics aren't common, they change. If they were common, we'd all get along better.

Atheists are idolatry of beliefs of their own or each other's, so they have not superior stance to any good faith of the Word. What you are right is that whenever they reason successfully in common sense, the common sense is really formed in a good faith of the Word.

Atheists in my concept are not only refer to who identify them as atheists, but also refer to the images derived from the world, even they are in the mind of a theist.

Edited April 13, 2016 by Exegesisme

[?Impact]

...western world atheists have derived their common sense stances directly from christian teachings. I guarantee that most of your common sense beliefs are exactly the same as what Jesus Christ preached 2000 years ago - or what early christians wrote about 1500-2000 years ago...

Yes, that is exactly what I said. Religion has played a significant role in education. Certainly Christianity has had major influence over western society, but it is merely a minor blip on all of evolution of though. As I previously stated, the ethic of reciprocity is thousands of years older than Christianity. There are also many of the teachings of Jesus Christ that I outright objet to: slavery, murder, abandoning my children to follow him, etc.

[Exegesisme]

There are also many of the teachings of Jesus Christ that I outright objet to: slavery, murder, abandoning my children to follow him, etc.

Please show me the verses which on your view support your claim "There are also many of the teachings of Jesus Christ that I outright objet to: slavery, murder, abandoning my children to follow him, etc.".

Edited April 13, 2016 by Exegesisme

[Exegesisme]

As I previously stated, the ethic of reciprocity is thousands of years older than Christianity.

This is actual. However, this is not enough. If the ethic is only concerning reciprocity, then how about what is beyond the reciprocity? So the Word has been creating Christianity.

[eyeball]

You are arrogant to define god, which is worse than to be a slob.

Yeah, I get a lot of that it seems. I dropped out of Sunday School after the 3rd week. I doubt they missed me.

[Exegesisme]

Yes, that is exactly what I said. Religion has played a significant role in education. Certainly Christianity has had major influence over western society, but it is merely a minor blip on all of evolution of though.

According to the verses:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ² He was with God in the beginning. ³ Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. ⁴ In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

⁵ The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome^[a] it.

²⁴ This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.

²⁵ Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

All human thoughts are from the Word.

No matter a thinker is aware or not aware this truth. The verses above tell that the light of all mankind in my understanding include all good inspirations of all good thinkers.

[?Impact]

Please show me the verses which on your view support your claim "There are also many of the teachings of Jesus Christ that I outright objet to: slavery, murder, abandoning my children to follow him, etc.".

Have you not read your Bible? It is full of teachings that we would consider wrong. Just a small sample for the above:

slavery: Luke 12:47

murder: Revelation 19 (read the whole thing, especially verse 13-15 & 20-21)

abandoning my children for him: Matthew 19:29

[Guest]

Yeah, I get a lot of that it seems. I dropped out of Sunday School after the 3rd week. I doubt they missed me.

I don't see why your definition of God should be any worse than anyone else's. We all have an exactly equal level of knowledge about God, which is exactly zero.

Edited April 13, 2016 by bcsapper

[Exegesisme]

Yeah, I get a lot of that it seems. I dropped out of Sunday School after the 3rd week. I doubt they missed me.

Please read this verse.

John 14 New International Version (NIV)

¹⁶ And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— ¹⁷ the Spirit of truth.

The Spirit of truth, in my understanding, is much more than the teaching in the church today, and is what should guides the scholarship today.

[eyeball]

I don't see why your definition of God should be any worse than anyone else's. We all have an exactly equal level of knowledge about God, which is exactly zero.

I don't know about zero but whatever it is doesn't relativity suggest that one's knowledge will be as unique and individual as it is unknowable by another? Is zero a particle or a wave and which way is it moving if at all?

I think it's probably defining god and self as being one and the same that really gets up people's noses and institutions more than anything.

[Exegesisme]

Have you not read your Bible? It is full of teachings that we would consider wrong. Just a small sample for the above:

slavery: Luke 12:47

murder: Revelation 19 (read the whole thing, especially verse 13-15 & 20-21)

abandoning my children for him: Matthew 19:29

Your understanding is of the word, not of the Word.

If you understand of the Word, you will modify the imperfection of the word by the perfection of the Word, which is the force for the progress of human civilization.

As an example, about murder: Revelation 19 (read the whole thing, especially verse 13-15 & 20-21)

¹⁵ Coming out of his mouth is a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations.

²¹ The rest were killed with the sword coming out of the mouth of the rider on the horse, and all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh.

Do you know the meaning of "the sword coming out of the mouth"?

[eyeball]

Please read this verse.

The Spirit of truth, in my understanding, is much more than the teaching in the church today, and is what should guides the scholarship today.

Whatever gets your mojo going chief, sure seems to work for you.

[Exegesisme]

I don't see why your definition of God should be any worse than anyone else's. We all have an exactly equal level of knowledge about God, which is exactly zero.

Do you think the created can define its creator?

[Guest]

I don't know about zero but whatever it is doesn't relativity suggest that one's knowledge will be as unique and individual as it is unknowable by another? Is zero a particle or a wave and which way is it moving if at all?

I think it's probably defining god and self as being one and the same that really gets up people's noses and institutions more than anything.

One's knowledge will be zero. One's opinion is as unique and individual as it is unknowable by another.

Zero is a particle and a wave, unless it is the amount left in a beer glass, in which case it is just a disappointment.

[Guest]

Do you think the created can define its creator?

Anytime it wants to, yes. Level of accuracy, unknown.

[Exegesisme]

I think it's probably defining god and self as being one and the same that really gets up people's noses and institutions more than anything.

It is idolatry of one own.

[eyeball]

It is idolatry of one own.

Well I promise I won't sacrifice you to it if you don't force me to worship your's. Deal?