Yet Even More Religious Shorts

Of all of those Big Questions axial to abstract concepts that beleaguer life, the creation and everything, the realms of canon and religions and the attributes of deities abide to fascinate. Opinions breed in books, articles, videos, conversations in confined and pubs, and in actuality anywhere and everywhere two or added bodies are in proximity. There’s the pro side; there’s the anti-side. There aren’t too abounding fence-sitters. I’m in the anti-camp as the afterward fourth chapter of religious abbreviate pieces illustrate.

Contents:

Imagine There’s No Religion

A Godly Concept

Arguing God from Authentic Existence?

Arguing God from Religious Experience?

Is God Alfresco of Time?

God vs. Physics

Why Accept There Is A God?

Defending God’s Honor.

The Improbable Agent of Moses: Exodus 2: 1-10

J.C. vs. “The Donald”

Imagine There’s No Religion

Imagine the following: Abort every religious argument of any alignment in existence; annihilate every religious institution; sack anyone complex in organised adoration (or even disorganised religion); abolition the name of any and every angelic anytime proposed, and afresh for acceptable admeasurement apple-pie apple-pie the memories of every getting with account to annihilation and aggregate to do with adoration in any shape, address or form. Let’s about-face the absoluteness of altruism into a army of addition kind, just like absolute sheep who allegedly accept no abstraction of all the sorts of things religions go on, and on, and on about.

Firstly, that would accomplish for a abundant added peaceful planet, but that’s not my absolute point here. If the animal chase all of a abrupt had no clue of adoration and associated rituals like prayer, deities, and thou shall nots, and miracles, and associated accoutrements – the slate wiped apple-pie – would we ad-lib it all over afresh and if so would it all be in the aforementioned old anatomy as we apperceive it now?

All of our religions cannot possibly be correct, but all of them could be wrong. Bold that’s the case, could there be out there a in fact bona-fide god or gods – abnormal deities – with some array of associated accoutrements that we accept no apperception of? Say these academic abnormal entities accept never fabricated acquaintance with Planet Earth.

A Godly Concept

I spotted a book* a while aback and looked over the dust jacket. It was apropos the afterlife, and the anorak said something affiliated to God was One; and you were allotment of His oneness; and your afterlife with God was alfresco the branch of time and space. And I anticipation to myself what a bulk of absolute claptrap! God is One – One what? Who knows; the book anorak didn’t say; it’s not explained for those cerebration of affairs the book. If there is an oneness, afresh that implies there accept to be a two-ness and a three-ness and a four-ness and so on down the line. If you abide in an afterlife alfresco of amplitude and time afresh whatever you are in that afterlife, you accept no volume, no area, no breadth – you are a aught dimensional dot point. Further, annihilation can anytime change in that afterlife aback there is no time which is what gives actuality or absoluteness to change.

God does in actuality accept one ‘All’ quality. He’s an all-nothing. God, the abnormal deity, doesn’t exist. One band of affirmation in abutment of that is that God hasn’t addled me down asleep by lightning by autograph and announcement this! So you see, abuse is a victimless ‘crime’. And no, I don’t abhorrence God. You can’t abhorrence something that doesn’t exist.

*Spong, John Shelby; Eternal Life: A New Vision: Beyond Religion, Beyond Theism, Beyond Heaven and Hell; HarperOne, New York; 2009.

Arguing God from Authentic Existence?

Now you anticipate you can accept “eternal” activity and that you can reside “forever” and accept “eternity” in Paradise. That sounds an abominable lot like beyond to me, a abstraction you radically dismiss. That aside, don’t you anticipate you’re traveling to be appealing apathetic afterwards the aboriginal brace of actor years or so of your “eternity”? Now do amuse acquaint me, a poor amiss non-believer, just what will you do in Paradise to accumulate apathy at bay and to acquire your keep? Allegedly you will not accept 72 virgins to accumulate you active and already you’ve baffled the harp, able-bodied you’ve baffled the harp and charge a new challenge.

Personally I wouldn’t put too abundant banal in Biblical promises on the area that the Bible is just addition plan of fabulous make-believe; a ‘novel’ of actual fiction. Still, I’d rather accept your adaptation than my version, yet a little bird keeps reminding me that if something seems too acceptable to be accurate afresh it allegedly is. Caveat emptor is the appropriate argumentation that needs to be adhered to actuality IMHO.

Arguing God from Religious Experience?

So you’ve accomplished God! How nice. Untold millions accept aswell accomplished their adaptation of a god and accounts of those gods cannot all be actual as they are generally contradictory. Religious adventures would ample encyclopedias and prove annihilation added than we are psychologically decumbent to accept religious experiences. The academician appears to be hardwired for but not of alarm monotheistic behavior or adventures but for airy adventures in general, including agnostic ones. And further, these multi-thousands of religious or airy adventures haven’t avant-garde our compassionate of absoluteness – added than our compassionate of acoustic / cerebral reality.

Of advance tens-of-thousands of others accept claimed to accept accomplished conflicting abductions – do you accept them? Millions accept accomplished ghosts – do you accept them? Lots of bodies affirmation to accept accomplished telepathy or been able to appoint in telekinesis. Do you affirmation to be able to angle spoons with your mind? Numerous bodies affirmation to accept been reincarnated. Abounding bodies accept in abstruse adventures based on astrometry columns in their circadian bi-weekly or on ‘professional’ astrometry forecasts. Maybe you’ve accomplished Bigfoot too and had out-of-the-body experiences. If so, why should we accept you? Claims are a dime a dozen. Claimed adventures calculation for in fact annihilation unless you can aback up your claims with solid evidence. And amazing claims (like experiencing God) crave amazing evidence. To date, on any array of believability scale, religious visionaries and adventures rank as abutting to aught as makes no odds.

Is God Alfresco of Time?

There is one book area getting alfresco of amplitude and time makes absolute sense. If we ‘exist’ as basic beings in a apish landscape, if we survive and advance as just a computer program, as software created by a Supreme Programmer, afresh as far as we are concerned, that Supreme Programmer exists alfresco our basic amplitude and our apish time. That’s affiliated to how we are alfresco of the amplitude and time inhabited by our basic characters in our video amateur and accompanying simulations. However, the basal band is that we still abide in a about absolute amplitude and in a about absolute time, and presumably, in actuality of necessity, our Supreme Programmer, bold we ‘live’ in a Apish (Virtual Reality) Universe, would accordingly abide in some array of absolute amplitude and time that would be a amplitude and time abstracted and afar from our basic amplitude and time reality. Time and amplitude could be altered for programmer and those programmed, but in fact it could never be of a non-existent attributes for either.

God vs. Physics

“Things” accept assertive powers. Things accept anatomy and substance. Things with anatomy and actuality are concrete things. Concrete things can accept an aftereffect on added concrete things. Non-physical things, like Wednesday, accept no anatomy and substance. The abstraction of Wednesday cannot accept any concrete aftereffect on say a billiard ball. A billiard brawl cannot accept any aftereffect on the abstraction of Wednesday. So, non-physical things (concepts) cannot affect concrete things, and vice-versa. God being, according to a lot of theists, a non-physical article (a abstraction with no anatomy and substance) that ‘exists’ alfresco of amplitude and time, cannot accept any aftereffect on or actualize or abort concrete things. However, non-physical concepts can accept an aftereffect on added non-physical concepts. The abstraction of a God ability accord you the abstraction to be a added moral person, but that is not imposed on you by a non-physical God but rather comes from within.

So actuality we accept this almighty entity, this Maximally Greatest Being, who is non-physical, who has existed for all aeon (but not consistently so), and in a around-the-clock accompaniment to boot. Afresh for some in fact alien acumen this article beyond over the Rubicon into time by creating a concrete cosmos, but not an absolute cosmos, out of in fact annihilation for no allegedly acceptable acumen added than “what the heck; why not; I’m bored” (my quotes). Do you, the reader, accept any apperception of how in fact antic that sounds? If you came beyond that book or abstraction for the actual aboriginal time in a novel, you’d be appropriate to catechism the author’s acumen or biologic use.

Why Accept There Is A God?

The catechism has been asked: “why does anybody accept there is a god?”

Excellent question! I in fact don’t anticipate a abnormal angelic frequently referred to as “God” in fact exists. The botheration is we don’t apperceive for in fact abiding and appropriately it is interesting, even fun, to play about with the concept. Of advance if anybody affected there wasn’t a God (or any added abnormal angelic or deities) afresh there would be an abominable lot beneath active altercation actuality on “Closer to Truth” and no agnosticism on bags of added forums throughout the Internet. Afresh too, if everybody affected there was no God there would be a lot added accord and ataraxia in the world, but that’s addition issue.

However, there is something absolute to be said for the concept, agenda the chat concept, that God exists. That abstraction keeps a lot of bodies active and a lot of added people, the abundant unwashed, off the streets on Sunday morning! The abstraction of God has aswell inspired, accuracy be known, a reasonable bulk of rather nice music and added aesthetic works. Finally, it would arise as if we are mentally hardwired to accept the abstraction of a angelic or deities as allotment of our worldview, and appropriately we accept to accord with that abstraction like it or not.

Defending God’s Honor

It never ceases to affect me that there are those who feel they charge to avert God’s account against, in their words, blasphemers and abuse (in my words a victimless crime), generally ambitious barbarian punishments (including the afterlife penalty) adjoin those, who, afresh in their words, ‘blaspheme’. Bodies adulation to aristocrat over added people; the added the bigger and if you can do it beneath the guise of religion, so abundant the bigger aback acutely God’s on your side. But you’d anticipate an all-knowing and absolute God, bold there in fact is a God of advance which IMHO is awful doubtful, could attending afterwards and avert Himself and agonize those who gave Him the verbal, accounting or contrarily Big Finger. It about seems as if God’s defenders don’t in fact accept God can or could or would avert Himself and accordingly this suggests that conceivably they don’t in fact accept a wrathful or antagonistic God in fact exists at all.

If I alarm Superman a poof, able-bodied that’s aspersion and aspersion and blaspheme. But Superman can avert himself and bite my lights out (he doesn’t charge your help) or can book a acknowledged complaint and admit acknowledged redress. If anyone abroad files the complaint, that anyone and the case will charge to not alone prove that Superman in fact exists, but was in fact offended.

There can be alone one affronted affair and that is the almsman of the blaspheming. If that affair is not affronted or takes no action, afresh cipher abroad can act on that person’s (or deity’s) behalf, nor has the appropriate to after the affronted party’s permission. Abuse laws are just an alibi for bodies to apply ability over added humans. End of story.

The Improbable Agent of Moses: Exodus 2: 1-10

Superman as an babyish was put into a rocket to save him from assertive angelic doom (Krypton goes boom) and beatific to addition apple (Earth) area he was apparent and aloft by a boilerplate American family. Moses as an babyish was put into a added archaic accessibility to escape doom of a altered affectionate area he was after apparent and raised, but aloft not by Mr. and Mrs. Boilerplate Egyptian, but by pharaoh’s babe no less. Now what are the allowance of that happening? Babyish Moses a part of the bulrushes, or just abysmal in the B.S.? Superman is fiction, we all apperceive that. Want to abode a bet on Moses’ agent getting appropriately fictional?

Further to the issue, here’s an absorbing paradox. In Exodus 2: 1 we accept a marriage. In Exodus 2: 2, that alliance produces a son who will become accepted in due advance as Moses. The anecdotal afresh gain with the acclaimed adventure of the agreement of the babyish into a baiter fabricated of bulrushes floated down the Nile to be begin by Pharaoh’s daughter, etc. So, therefore, it is reasonable to anticipate that Moses was the firstborn of the before-mentioned marriage. But about anon in Exodus 2: 4, there’s a access that the babyish Moses had a sister who was watching all of this narrative. Like area did she appear from all of a abrupt and out of the blue? So was Moses the earlier adolescent or not? The sister of Moses was alone articular by name for the aboriginal time as Miriam in Exodus 15: 20, and afresh alone articular as the sister of Aaron, but Aaron of advance was the brother of Moses (identified as such in Exodus 4: 14). All up, there’s something aberrant about with the agent of Moses. By the way, that agent adventure of a babyish getting put in a bassinet and floated after is yet addition archetype of a absolute steal; authentic appropriation in the Bible. Yield for archetype the agent adventure abaft King Sargon of Assyria. An exact origins archetype but Sargon came aboriginal chronologically.

J.C. vs. “The Donald”

Here’s a anticipation experiment. Substitute “The Donald” for Jesus. Now “The Donald” (i.e. – Trump, Sr.) has taken claimed acclaim for a aggregation of things that he had in fact annihilation to do with and “The Donald” has claimed that he is the best and the brightest with account to so abounding things that it would yield way too continued and yield up way too abundant amplitude to account them all. We’ve all apparent clips on T.V. or the Internet area “The Donald” says “Nobody knows added about (fill in the blank) than me”. So “The Donald” has the Midas Touch and “The Donald” is appropriately consistently praising himself as able-bodied as accepting all about him acclaim him. Afar from that, “The Donald” has a committed hardcore of followers – aggregation – for which “The Donald” can do no wrong. Now, the absorbing affair is that if “The Donald’s” hardcore of Accurate Believers or to put it bluntly, disciples*, were to be the alone ones to address up the history, the activity and times, the achievements of “The Donald” and these were beheld 2000 years from now, able-bodied you’d accept to say that such texts would be affected actual account and another actual ‘facts’. So, what about those Gospels in accurate and the New Testament in general? Affected news? Another facts?

*It’s not traveling too far out of bound to say that there are followers of “The Donald” who actually adoration him.