WOF: Three or four things that Are on my mind.

[Shaolin Wookie]

Furthermore, you don't even need to believe in God, if God was real it would exist whether you believe in it or not.

But does God exist without other sentient beings? Without mundane sense perception, the world (if we take it on complemetary quantum physics) exists in a kind of probability wave function, whereby nothing is corporeal in a reasonable sense (reason being how humans make sense of the world). Elementary particles exist as waves and particles, but not both at the same time (in the measured, "sensed" (heard, seen, tasted, touched) environment). Until the time of measurement, the particle acts as if it is both things. But once a measurement takes place, it is only one. But how can we describe something that might exist as one thing, when without our measurement of the phenomenon, it cannot be said to exist objectively? God cannot exist unless he is sensed and measured. But since god is omnipotent, etc (all powerful, all knowing), all of which are attributes we cannot sense, see, or experience, we can only know pieces of God. We can know power, knowledge, etc, but never the ultimate predication of these things. Hence, we cannot know God. (As an example: imagine color without eyes. It does not exist. Wavelengths of light frequencies radiate color, so the wavelengths exist, but the colors do not exist without eyes. Now, you might say, well God exists, because we have knowledge of him. If I asked how, you'd say "spiritually." If I asked why we cannot use our 5 senses to gain that knowledge, you'd say they were defunct in the realm of God. So, we have spiritual knowledge of God? Well, what's the spirit, and how does it measure God? That's a tough one, and it involves gross assumption and presumption. In fact, there is no verifiable spiritual knowledge, for there is no evidence of it except deviations in logic, untenable and gross. God is not that wavelength we don't have eyes to see. If I were to ask how you have knowledge of spiritual knowledge--there's the kicker--you can't. If the 5 senses cannot sense God, they cannot sense the 6th, and you can't have knowledge of the 6th, much less of God's interaction with it. Conclusion: your 5 senses make up the sixth and God, as well.) In fact, having more knowlege at our hands, and more power at our hands, we move into a realm of reason where God is actually less and less reasonable. Science (greek for Knowledge) does not attempt to disprove God. But as our science (knowledge) grows, God becomes less necessary, until the point where we say he is unnecessary, and scrap him altogether.

When one of Napolean's chief physicists undertook a thorough explanation of the universe, beginning with the big bang, and ending without any mention of divinity throughout, Napoleon was furious. "How could you," asked he, "undertake the explanation of the creation of the universe without mentioning its maker even once?"

The guy (name escapes me) said: "I had no need of that hypothesis."

Things can be explained without God. Do I need to invoke God to explain, cogently, the origin of the universe, or the formation of this galaxy from a collapsing solar nebula, or the accretion of planet earth?

Nope. But people will impose God upon these things in order to add emotional content to things that happened by chance and universal laws of nature. God is unnecessary in this realm of thought. But he is emotionally reinforcing.

I submit: God does not exist if you do not believe in him. The new world did not exist to Europeans until they "discovered" it. Pluto did not exist until an astronomer "discovered" it.

You're next thought is: well, then, it's merely a defect in human reason and logic that we haven't "discovered" God yet, with sense perception and reasonable, irrefutable data. We've discovered and done other things that we didn't think we could do. True. But God is not like Pluto or the New World. God submits no direct experential reference to verify his existence, nor can he be verified conclusively. I think we all know the Bible, the Koran, the Book of Mormon, and the Passion of the Christ don't really suffice. All of these verifications of God's existence were written by humans, and period only the passing of human intellects (not quite intellectual, no less) and the willful hopes and dreams of a select few, who summarily used their "spirituality" as a hegemenoic tool of power, granting themselves holiness, and holiness for their best friends.

God cannot be "discovered", because his nature will not allow him to be. Logically, he is defunct. Being all powerful and all knowing, and all powerless, and all ignorant, he's fallen into his own trap, and becomes a great and unparalleled ciper. A negation. An affirmation. A paradox. Logic cannot prove God. It never has. Emotions can prove god. They continue to do so at the peril of clear logic.

In my opinion, God is the everything that exists in all places at all times.
If you think of the universe in that way, the universe is all things at all times in all places, God is just a name for that process.
To me that would mean that the universe is intelligent, and thus God/Universe is something you can experience, regardless of any believe or not.

God is a pencil. God is an eraser, God is my penis,, God is your sister's vagina, God is your mother, God is your father, God is a platypus, God is a condor, God is blue, God is red, God is stupid, God is a genius, God exists, God does not exist.

Vicious cycle.

And, since God/Universe is all things at all time in all places, then it is a positive ("loving") force/energy, because in to order to be hateful, the opposite of loving, something has to be separated from itself, which the Universe can not do, since it is always all things in all places at all times.

What do you mean, separated from itself? When I hate, I'm still me. I am capable of hate. I am also capable of love. But the operative word is always "I".

How am I not myself?

(This is a very profound question)....

So this positive force is always there, you can ignore it or your experience it.

So is the negative force. You can ignore it or experience it. Consequently, only the positive side believes, disregarding the negative side. Detractors (atheists), and those who are nothing (myself), take both sides into consideration. They negate themselves, and leave a vacuum. Nothing has passed. There is nothing.

It has nothing to do with any made up by people stories or books like the Bible.

Culture plays a large role in the function of gods, and God. Animism gives life force to all things, rocks, trees, etc. This is not God. Some cultures had animism. Some have had the misfortune of Islam. Godlessness in one, godliness in the other. You might say the spirit of God was there to start with. They just interpreted it differently. Then where's the accounting for atheists?

I have always said, and still maintain: Salvation is just a matter of geography.

Clearly the god in the bible is not this loving force that is the universe, it is something that separates itself from parts of the universe, because it hates and kills and hurts things that are part of this universe, which the real God / Universe can not do.

The universe cannot be against itself or else it would cease being the whole universe: all things in all places at all times.

Strangely, there is a verly large school of thought in physics, in seeing how all galaxies move away from one another, yet the power of the universe to expand is slowing down, that the universe will collapse back into the singularity from which it sprang. The universe has no "itself". It does harbor some strange hairless apes that give it tangible existence, but it is not self aware, has no ideas as to how it should operate, and it does not fear becoming "nothing" again. We do, on the other hand. The operative word in that being "we."

Or "I" as it is.

[Shaolin Wookie]

God can be affirmed, and he can be driven into non-existence. The existence of God, and the defense of that position, always operates on the presumtion that he does exist. He is not inferred from elementary particle physics, general relativity, newtonian physics, human evolution, biology, chemistry, sociology, or any other study of natural phenomena that reasons from the facts at hand. He is inferred only from theology, or from emotional longing and need.

I understand why people feel the need for God to exist. Believe me, I do. I still catch myself, every once and a while, when I'm in a ****ty situation, say to myself: "please God, help me with this or that, or give me the strength...." (18 years of devout religiosity die hard)......

It's a habit. It doesn't really mean anything. I was brainwashed to appeal to god in certain situations. Hence, when I am victorious in something, like a sparring match, I wouldn't say: "Now God, help me defeat Chuck Liddell." And if I beat Chuck, I don't say "Now help me beat Mike Tyson ten years ago." And if I beat Chuck, I don't invoke God to go back and rout Genghis Khan or the Nazis. Christian ethos keep you in subservience to God, for you appeal to him when you are weak, not when you are strong. And when you've displayed your strength, you show humility before God by thanking him and giving him credit for your victory.

It's all a game of psychology. Nothing new. Nietzsche beat us all to the punchlune about a hundred years ago.

Why does religion sponsor humility in victory, and confessions of weakness in adversity? Well, it keeps the strong in check, so they don't take the helm, prove that morality wrong, and destroy religion in general.

It's just a **** shame for religion that we had those English and French Revolutions.....

[SevenStar]

We are always to be in subservience to him, whether strong or weak. The problem we as humans have is that we by choince don't appeal to him when we are strong. You admitted it yourself. When you are in a bad situation, you out of habit ask him for help. I have actually heard several sermons about getting people out of that mode, as it shouldn't be that way. The strong should feel as great a need for god as the weak do.

[SanHeChuan]

I did not want this discussion to walk into the realm of whether or not God exists or Which god is the right one.

Assuming that God does exist and that this God is the Christan, Hebrew, Islam, etc, God. Is that God really one you would chose for yourself. Not that you'd get a choice.

I say it must not be, because they keep of changing what they think of God.

I said God is depicted in the bible as an evil *******, by today standards. Someone countered that the people of that time would have shared those evil tenancies so they would see their God that way.

Well who would have the better picture of God the People he inspired with his divine word, or the people 2000 years later?

Common sense (Maybe ) would say that the people closest to him 2000 years ago. So that must mean that God is an Evil *******, and that the Christians of today are just cherry picking the stories that portray God in the light they want to see him in. Buddy Jesus.

Shaolin Wookie

It's just a **** shame for religion that we had those English and French Revolutions.....

Now your mixing two subjects. A big part of the French Revolution was that there was no food. This was because of bad weather. The weather was bad because it was unusually cold, i.e. the little ice age.

[Shaolin Wookie]

I don't care what the reason was, the net effect of both revolutions was the massive destabilization of the church's grip on politics.

[SanHeChuan]

You almost say that like it was bad thing

[Shaolin Wookie]

Religion is a phenomenon of the past. In today's (at least in America) "enlightened society", were men are born equal and free, and everyone has an equal opportunity to gain political, social, and financial status if he puts in the work (ideally, at least), it's very hard to envision why anyone could believe in a God of the Old Testament, who scourges every nation but Israel, and occasionally makes them eat their own ****, or cook their food with their own ****--either way, I bet it tasted like ****.

But remember, Yahweh was the god of the Jews, and nobody else. They didn't proseltyze or convert others. They drove them away, killed them, and deported them. There wasn't assimilation to Jewish standards. Most people despised them. To the Jews, and all the Old Testament scholars (and some New Testament ones as well), God was the representative of Israel. Therefore, God smiting other nations was not something evil. It was just favoritism in a land where Jews just weren't that welcome. He had one people, and one people only. The Hebrews. Therefore, the Old Testament god makes sense, in a social experiment kind of way. It gives uneducated ex-slaves who wander around, starve, wander some more, starve, wander some more, get raped and pillaged, wander around even more than any of the hobbits in the lord of the rings....which is a lot of ground to cover....---well, it gives them something grandoise to envision--cosmic Israel, with an all-powerful father figure constantly watching and judging them by their actions, willing them to be the most powerful nation in the middle east.

In other generations, God was stripped of his national identity. With the new gospels of Christ, God became the representative of not only humanity, but of the entire universe as well, because now Gentiles had a marked interest in the Christian offshoot of the Jewish religion.

It was easy to justify the Inquisition, Crusades, and countless heretic scavengings of the first 1600 years and more of the church. All of humanity was subject to God's laws, and all other gods were false. It wasn't one god to each nation. It was one true god above all other false gods. What did they back their religion up with? Truth? Convincing arguments? Nope. Just disease, much more technological means to warfare, and the right of might.

Even more broadening was the scope of Zionistic mythos. God revealed a plan: convert everyone, establish a Jewish state, beat Satan on level 9--really, he turned the world into a video game.

In less "enlightened" nations (I do think America is incredibly englightened, not so much as France, but very much so), such as, say, Iraq, the local deity still has a very nationalistic identity. The war going on right now isn't really that far from the Crusades. Only, we're no longer a Christian world. Christendom is dead, and the church, thanks to our forefathers and Enlightenment devotees, is crippled by law.

Evil, god, and tolerance of these issues.....they're all contextual.

For instance: I think many horrible things happened during the American Revolution. The hatred harbored on both sides led to many disgusting atrocities.

However, if I were a poor colonist, and some fat king on a distant isle somewhere far across the Atlantic decided to station a proud, arrogant British soldier in my home, to eat my food, which costs me a pretty penny, who starts making eyes at my daughter over the dinner table, and I catch him trying to rape her during the night--and I'm powerless to prosecute the *******, and killing him will leave me dead, and my family shunned and poor.....

You had better bet I'd be willing to do some questionable things in the name of "morality" and the betterment of society. Hell, I might not even think them questionable.

To me, today, I find that admission abominable. Nevertheless, if I look honestly at the situation, I can see how people do horrible things. To someone in my shoes, today, it doesn't make sense. But if I'm not wearing my Nike's, and I don't have the trappings of modern American convenience (I live well, and I'm bottom rung middle class, if even that)......things change quite a lot.

[SanHeChuan]

I do think America is incredibly englightened, not so much as France, but very much so

OK you totally lost me right there

So in general your saying that the end justifies the means and that morality is contextual.

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi Shaolin Wookie,

But does God exist without other sentient beings?

There is no requirement for there to be other sentient beings in order for God to exist. All that is required is for God to be sentient of himself. Once God/Tao is self-aware, existence IS! The Judeo-Christian name for God, “Yahweh” means “I am that I am”, or “I am BECAUSE I am”, these are various manners of expressing his/its essential condition of being as the “self-existent one”! There are those who propose that existence is nothing more than God playing with himself. If all things are God/Tao then in actuality this is what occurs. However, this perspective creates a problem for “strictly” rationally oriented thinkers because they perceive phenomena in terms of Cause and Effect, that is, one thing comes from another in a continuous linear progression. If we have not trained our mind to perceive in a non-linear fashion we cannot conceive of a phenomenon without a linear cause.

Elementary particles exist as waves and particles, but not both at the same time (in the measured, "sensed" (heard, seen, tasted, touched) environment). Until the time of measurement, the particle acts as if it is both things. But once a measurement takes place, it is only one. But how can we describe something that might exist as one thing, when without our measurement of the phenomenon, it cannot be said to exist objectively? God cannot exist unless he is sensed and measured.

It is possible this inability to measure both at the same time occurs due to limitations in our measuring devices or due to limitations in how we are conditioned to perceive. It is not necessarily a condition of the phenomenon.

At any rate, to say the phenomenon does not exist unless WE (humans) are able to measure it is not quite accurate. The only requirement for something to exist is that there is a sentience of the phenomenon. If Tao/God is sentient and this sentience perceives the phenomenon then it exists regardless of whether humans perceive it or not.

From another perspective, just because something is not perceived/measured does not mean it will not affect humans. Humans could not perceive/measure x-rays, gamma rays, or other unknown phenomena at one time, but these phenomena certainly affect humans. It could be said that the affect these energies have upon humans IS a form of measurement, regardless of whether the affect is perceived or not. Since this is the case God/Tao may also exist regardless of man’s ability to perceive/measure God/Tao. All that would be required is for God/Tao to affect humans, not for humans to perceive the affect.

Therefore it is incorrect to say that God/Tao does not exist if man cannot measure Him/It!

But since god is omnipotent, etc (all powerful, all knowing), all of which are attributes we cannot sense, see, or experience, we can only know pieces of God. We can know power, knowledge, etc, but never the ultimate predication of these things. Hence, we cannot know God.

Your conclusion is here is also inaccurate. At best you may only say that YOU cannot sense, see or experience God/Tao. It is an assumption that it is impossible to know the “ultimate predication of things”, and a false assumption at that. Because you cannot and you know of no one else that can, does not mean it cannot or hasn’t been done. In fact God/Tao CAN be known and the experience has been recorded by many individuals.

As I have written elsewhere, the descriptions by these individuals of God/Tao vary due to the manner in which the experience/knowledge of God/Tao is apprehended by the mind and the ability of the individual to express themselves. Direct experience of God/Tao occurs when the mind is in a non-discursive condition; this is where the misunderstanding of those with a strictly scientific manner of observing phenomena occurs. Humans are conditioned from birth to perceive in a linear, discursive manner. Scientists have further training/conditioning that convinces them that discursive thinking is the ONLY possible way to accurately describe/experience phenomena. This is thinking with blinders on.

We tend to not explore that which we believe to be beyond reason or that which we consider unreasonable, forgetting or not understanding that there is a manner of perceiving that exists prior to discursive thinking. This “condition of mind/ state of mind” occurs beyond, above and/or before discursive thought, so to speak, and it takes practice/re-conditioning to perceive in this manner. Ch’an and Taoist teachings state this manner of perceiving is our inherent condition of mind and that our minds are conditioned by circumstances to perceive in a much narrow manner. The consequence of this is we no longer are able to perceive clearly, that is, we perceive with preconceived notions. These preconceived notions filter reality/experience for us and therefore we only perceive what we want to or expect to perceive and not what is actually occurring.

We are conditioned from birth to perceive in a discursive manner. Experience/Knowledge of God/Tao is a direct experience and not something easily communicated in a linear manner. Direct experience cannot be accurately communicated in such a manner as to GIVE the audience the experience; the audience must have had the experience in order to comprehensively understand the description of the experience. So, when I describe my feeling of happiness, happiness must be an experience the audience is familiar with in order for them understand of my meaning. Further, the audience’s understanding of my description happiness is NOT happiness itself, only an understanding of my representation of happiness. True knowledge of happiness is found in the direct experience of happiness itself, NOT in the description. In like kind, the KNOWING we obtain of God/Tao occurs in the experience itself.

Now, you might say, well God exists, because we have knowledge of him.

This is a misunderstanding of God/Tao; God/Tao exists because he has knowledge/sentience or himself! Others are NOT a necessity!

So, we have spiritual knowledge of God? Well, what's the spirit, and how does it measure God? That's a tough one, and it involves gross assumption and presumption. In fact, there is no verifiable spiritual knowledge, for there is no evidence of it except deviations in logic, untenable and gross. God is not that wavelength we don't have eyes to see. If I were to ask how you have knowledge of spiritual knowledge--there's the kicker--you can't.

It is your conclusion that “involves gross assumption and presumption”. This is because you have not made a comprehensive study of the subject. Once again, as I have written elsewhere, spiritual knowledge does fall within the observational purview of science. The observations of those mystically inclined do indicate repeatable experiences according to specific contexts. Variations in many descriptions may be attributed to the difficulty in communicating non-discursive experiences in a discursive manner as well as individual variations in intelligence, historical era, cultural differences and ability to communicate.

As an example, consider the variations that would occur when a number of individuals attempt to describe the same painting or the taste of an orange. Each description will be limited by these variables. The ability to describe the experience of God/Tao is determined by these very same factors. With each of these experiences, the experience of a painting or the taste of an orange, the description is NOT comparable to the direct experience itself. The description is NOT the thing itself! This is where the scientific mind becomes confused and hence makes ridiculous statements about topics they are not educated to comment upon. It is like a scientist who claims an orange has no taste, yet refuses to taste one for himself, because then he cannot be objective about it! The knowledge of the taste of an orange occurs when the orange is actually tasted, until then all the scientist may do is record the claims of those who have tasted an orange. Perhaps one may claim, well an orange may be held and measured physically and therefore can be said to exist. I would respond, take an actual measurable orange away from the example. Let us postulate a group of people who have tasted an orange, but do not actually have one in their possession. The fact they cannot produce one for the scientist to measure does not demonstrate they have not tasted one. One of these individuals may say to the scientist, “Well go here and do this and you will find an orange to taste.” If the scientist refuses to “go here and do this” in order to taste an orange, it would be inappropriate for him to state that oranges do not exist and they have no taste, since he refused to make the effort to have the experience for himself! His conclusion concerning oranges then, are made from an ignorance of the subject.

[Scott R. Brown]

Things can be explained without God. Do I need to invoke God to explain, cogently, the origin of the universe, or the formation of this galaxy from a collapsing solar nebula, or the accretion of planet earth?

This is a common claim of scientists, and is not quite accurate in the conclusion it wants to imply. Science is in the business of measuring/describing phenomena that occur in the material universe in order to predict future occurrences, that is all! Science may describe what occurs and the manner in which is occurs, but why it occurs one way instead of some other way or why it occurs at all is beyond the ability of science.

From the scientific perspective the questions of how and why phenomena occur may only be addressed in the mechanical, “cause and effect” sense and not the philosophical sense. Science cannot explain how or why the “big bang” occurred. This is because, so far, they cannot measure what occurs beyond/above/outside the system. The how and why that science can explain falls within the rules of the material system and cannot address the how or why that occurs beyond measurable phenomena. Why does gravity exist instead of some other phenomenon? Why does light exist in the manner it does instead of in some other manner? The answers from a scientific perspective might be something like, “Because that is the nature of the universe” or “They occur according the laws of physics”. Well the point of the question is, “why are the laws of physics the way they are instead of some other way?” This cannot be answered by science and the answers they provide are non-sense because they do not answer the question. Science uses products/effects of the system to explain the system itself creating a circular argument. An appropriate and more accurate answer would be, “We don’t know how or why?” An even more accurate answer to the question is, “The laws of physics exist because they exist!” This is somewhat similar to “I Am that I Am, I Am BECAUSE I Am”, Hmmmm? Makes one think doesn’t it?

But people will impose God upon these things in order to add emotional content to things that happened by chance and universal laws of nature. God is unnecessary in this realm of thought. But he is emotionally reinforcing.

This does occur, but it is not an argument that God/Tao does not exist, only that there appears to be an inherent emotional need and/or impetus found in humans towards a belief in God.

I submit: God does not exist if you do not believe in him. The new world did not exist to Europeans until they "discovered" it. Pluto did not exist until an astronomer "discovered" it.

The fact that Europeans were not able perceive the New World or its affects does not mean it did not exist, the same with Pluto and any other unknown phenomenon. I refer you to my above argument that God’s/Tao’s existence is not dependent upon other sentient beings perceiving him, only on him perceiving himself. If God/Tao exists then he affects humans whether we perceive his affect or not. Our inability to perceive him or his affects does not argue for his non-existence, just as our inability to perceive x-rays or their affects does not demonstrate they do not exist. The limitation is found within us, not in the unperceived phenomenon.

God submits no direct experiential reference to verify his existence, nor can he be verified conclusively.

This is incorrect and I have demonstrated why above.

I think we all know the Bible, the Koran, the Book of Mormon, and the Passion of the Christ don't really suffice. All of these verifications of God's existence were written by humans, and period only the passing of human intellects (not quite intellectual, no less) and the willful hopes and dreams of a select few, who summarily used their "spirituality" as a hegemonic tool of power, granting themselves holiness, and holiness for their best friends.

That this occurs cannot be denied, but it is inaccurate to assume this is an argument that demonstrates God/Tao does not exist. Instead it merely demonstrates the limitations and errors of mankind!

God cannot be "discovered", because his nature will not allow him to be. Logically, he is defunct. Being all powerful and all knowing, and all powerless, and all ignorant, he's fallen into his own trap, and becomes a great and unparalleled ciper. A negation. An affirmation. A paradox. Logic cannot prove God. It never has. Emotions can prove god. They continue to do so at the peril of clear logic.

This is true only for those who are not able to perceive beyond their conditioned perception of phenomena. Above I have made a comprehensive argument demonstrating this view as erroneous. While it “may” be true that God/Tao cannot be logically demonstrated, it cannot be said that he can only be proven emotionally. Direct experience, without the filter of preconceived notions, is NOT a function of the emotions, but a function of an unfettered mind. All discursive views and preconceptions belong to a mind conditioned to perceive according to an artifically contrived and arbitrary set of standards. To perceive God/Tao directly one must learn to transcend conceptual thought and perceive directly.

That is enough for now, I am running out of time. Thank you for the thought stimulating comments!

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

"God" is a "word" that carries way too much religious and social baggage.. it is a "word" that describes a particular human perception, a "sense" that we are parts of a greater Whole, that "sense" we refer to as Spiritual Awareness.. The Greater Whole has been described bt different cultural beliefs as "God", Allah, Tao, Great Spirit, etc.. regardless of the description, there is a common "experience".. it is that "experience" of the Divine that we attempt to describe, but which is beyond description.. so, we rely on our cultural analogies to make sense of the experience and to communicate with our peers.. the clash of "interpretations" is the issue, not the existence of the Divine..

Some people challenge the notion of infallible and all-powerful and other such attributes.. in its wisdom, the Divine merely set things in motion.. and allows its "parts" to determine the direction and quality of that motion.. it doesn't meddle or intervene, its wisdom gave that choice to its parts as well.. so, the challenge is not to the Divine, it is to our mis-handling of the Gift of Life..

Be well..

[SevenStar]

Common sense (Maybe ) would say that the people closest to him 2000 years ago. So that must mean that God is an Evil *******, and that the Christians of today are just cherry picking the stories that portray God in the light they want to see him in. Buddy Jesus.

No, they wouldn't. that is why God is feared by christians. yes, He is salvation, but he is also known to take wrath on those that disobey him.

[AJM]

We are always to be in subservience to him, whether strong or weak. The problem we as humans have is that we by choince don't appeal to him when we are strong. You admitted it yourself. When you are in a bad situation, you out of habit ask him for help. I have actually heard several sermons about getting people out of that mode, as it shouldn't be that way. The strong should feel as great a need for god as the weak do.

Well said. Faith is carrying on the same way regardless of circumstance.

[Shaolin Wookie]

OK you totally lost me right there

So in general your saying that the end justifies the means and that morality is contextual.

Naw, I wouldn't say that. I think there is a kind of objective morality humans are prone to follow and gravitate towards, based on their biological standards, and their classification as omnivores. Sounds wierd, I know.

I'll just point to Karl Popper and say, read him.

[SanHeChuan]

Sevenstar

No, they wouldn't. that is why God is feared by christians. yes, He is salvation, but he is also known to take wrath on those that disobey him.

God doesn't just take his wrath out of those who disobey him, he also F_cks up the innocents around the dude.

Very mafia, he comes after your family, and your neighbors too.

Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God
12 If you hear it said about one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you to live in 13 that wicked men have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods you have not known), 14 then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, 15 you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. Destroy it completely, [a] both its people and its livestock. 16 Gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the LORD your God. It is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt. 17 None of those condemned things [b] shall be found in your hands, so that the LORD will turn from his fierce anger; he will show you mercy, have compassion on you, and increase your numbers, as he promised on oath to your forefathers, 18 because you obey the LORD your God, keeping all his commands that I am giving you today and doing what is right in his eyes.
Deuteronomy 13:13-19

Kill Sons of Sinners
Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants.
Isaiah 14:21

God Kills all the First Born of Egypt
And at midnight the LORD killed all the firstborn sons in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn son of the captive in the dungeon. Even the firstborn of their livestock were killed. Pharaoh and his officials and all the people of Egypt woke up during the night, and loud wailing was heard throughout the land of Egypt. There was not a single house where someone had not died. (Exodus 12:29-30 NLT)

God Will Kill the Children of Sinners
If even then you remain hostile toward me and refuse to obey, I will inflict you with seven more disasters for your sins. I will release wild animals that will kill your children and destroy your cattle, so your numbers will dwindle and your roads will be deserted. (Leviticus 26:21-22 NLT)

And your OK with that?