Once again, I see people taking analogy literally, rather than looking at the point that was being made. You are assuming that God doesn't exist for all religions. I am assuming God does exist for all who are truly faithful in their desire to be with God. There are of course many different visions of God as reported by man. Many different paths to God have been outlined. My analogy, not to be taken literally, is that while potential to reach a goal may exist for all, not all reach the potential goal. You point to many different religions, lets say there are 1,000s of religions. They all worship the God of their understanding. Those who follow the path of the religion, as intended by the founder of the religion....not those who are generations removed from the direct experience of God realization*, and do so correctly get the desired results. Personally, I have no problem with many different religions. I am not in a position to judge other religions, or their efficacy. My own belief system allows there to be many different religions, that have their own creed and dogma, and yet all worship the one single absolute supreme God. A lot depends on definition at this point, in order to communicate, but let's just say for the sake of this discussion that God is an absolute singular being of multi-dimensional forms. How can that be? Well, look at yourself. Who really knows you completely? You parents? Your siblings? Your boss? Your spouse? Your best friend? You co-worker? You teammates? Your children? They can all claim to know a "part" of your personality, but do they know the whole you? Yet, is it wrong when they say they know you? So, if human beings are able to have multifaceted personalities, and some aspects of their personality that are manifest, while others remain hidden or dormant depending on the circumstances, does that make the man less than a whole person? Can you imagine if human beings have that level of complexity, how complex an absolute supreme being would be? Beyond our imagination. Do you wear the same clothing for every occasion? Do you maintain the same level of intimacy with each person you come across? No, we act according to the situation. What is then so difficult to understand how one single supreme being, could appear so differently to so many people? One religion could worship the angry and vengeful aspect of God, another could worship the Wisdom aspect of God, another could worship the benevolent aspect of God, another the pure love aspect of God, etc., etc, etc. However, falling in love with one aspect, draws you close to the whole person. You can form a relationship with one aspect, and through greater and greater intimacy come to love that person completely. A child can fully love his parents, without having a full understanding of who the parents really are. To denounce kindergarten, as invalid, because you happen to be in 6th grade does not allow for the fact that people are at different place in their own growth process. My belief is that the one supreme God accepts all worship if done sincerely, faithfully, to whatever form of God a person imagines. If the worshiper is faithful and sincere, God will guide that person to him, based on their faithful practice and surrender. What are the real percentages of success and failure when it comes to realization of God? I cannot say for anyone else but me, and I am trying to do what I can to be counted among the successful statistics. *God Realization by my definition would be someone for whom God is real, not imaginary.
Why would God require worship? Aren't we created in God's image? Are children required to worship their parents? If I created kids, then never appeared to them, talked to them, or even so much as sent a card, I wouldn't be upset if they didn't worship me. In fact, expecting them to worship me in that circumstance is down right absurd. Expecting them to acknowledge my existence is ridiculous, much less worship me. How can God expect me to worship him? Can't he at least make a cameo? I mean, logistics shouldn't be a problem, after all, he can teleport across deminsions. Can't he at least send his representative? Oh damn, would that be Jesus, Mohammed, David Koresh or Rael? I think God has a serious problem on his hands. Back in the days of the old testament and during the Roman Empire, he would actually come down and speak to people. He's set bushes on fire and made them talk. Hell, he'd send people to do magic tricks like turn staffs into snakes! I think he even split the ocean in half once!!! Now in modern time he only communicates through, what? Earthquakes? Warm fuzzy feelings? The weird dream I had last night? I think God needs to work on his communication skills; he's digressed a bit since B.C.
oh cool! now there's a way all the religionites can get along... nicely put! (as long belief in such a supreme being is, er, how shall i put it, optional D), i have no problem with that. i'm happy for you boys!) i suppose if i was strectched, i could even use that explanation to account for the multitude of gods worshipped within the same religions (roman gods, greek gods, hindu gods, tribal/animist gods etc)... not the greatest explanation, but hey, we're talking religion...
Corso, it's not only that God's expectations of us believing in him are downright unreasonable, but he even has the nerve to eternally punish us for it! sheesh! what a great guy...
What is so difficult is, if this God is real and not imaginary it's highly questionable morality that enables a believer to fall in love with one aspect (the one the believer likes best) of a multi aspect God concept that is also by equal evaluation an angry vengeful child molester and murderer. I think I prefer to pick the ones I fall in love with more care.
They, Let me make one thing clear. I do not push science as a religion nor do I push it as being higher intellectually (although it often is) or as always being right. I do not choose to offer a debate of science v religion. I simply put forward the notion that it is more meaningful towards achieving a fuller understandable knowledge of Universe - Life - Purpose - Existence where there are no absolutes present. If a conceptual subject (existence of creator God) can be looked at with some relevant benchmarks science uses - definition being one - that can improve perception in the attempt to make more sense of things. I am not interested in a slanging match, I am interested in exploring such questions not by one side or the other having to score points and I would use one of your comments to illustrate. Your comment that "pre-embryo vitro fertilization is not the creation of life" would not make complete sense to the children created by it. It can be argued that it is not First Causal but it creates life where it otherwise would not exist. A point in response to your "demigod scientists" remark and is correct in that context. Further structured discussion and definition clears points with the hope or intention of, although rarely achieving, an absolute condition. I simply find that in religious discussion there is a reluctance to define and a propensity to acclaim religion simply by insisting science is wrong. Itâs a false argument. You give your definition of absolute "Absolute is that which is spiritual in nature". The rest of your post is I think based around the idea that scientists cannot prove spiritual doesn't exist. Why do you rely on showing science cannot prove. If no proof or evidence is required then ok, we all know what spiritual means (possibly not a lot). If you say you just have to allow this spiritual to exist for it to exist then ok, no definition, more subjective. The need or ability for a proposition to be examined or questioned (in science by its peers) is fundamental Because a spirit cannot be demonstrated does not absolutely mean it doesn't exist, but it is of a lower order of understanding because of that. Your spiritual absolute is not absolute. You may turn to Eastern spiritual concepts, but my proposition still stands that better understanding comes from scientific standards of examination. It may not always, but so far it always has.
I cannot say why God would require worship, or why someone would think that he does. I believe that is the path to reach God, but I don't know that God "requires" that I do it. I am "required" to open my eyes to see, right? However, I am not forced to open my eyes, it is my choice. I believe God gives me the freedom of choice to do whatever I want, and reap the consequences as such. If you are asking why it is that the process of worship and faith work, that is a different question, isn't it? If I recall, the standard translation of the Old Testament was something to the effect that man "shalt" love God with all his heart. Seems to me, that I have a choice of whether or not I shall love God. Freedom of choice. God has provided a path to reach him, a reward if I do reach him, i.e. God realization, and a reward if I don't reach him, i.e. remaining separate from him. The path to reach God is to love God. You suggest the problem in communication with God is from his side, I suggest that you are just unwilling to truly open up the ears and eyes of your heart and communicate with God. Until you have sincerly tried to do so, how can you say it doesn't work? Again it is your choice, no one is forcing you, not even God.
You may pick whoever you want to love. I certainly have never suggested falling in love with an angry and vengeful God. I have suggested that anger and vengence are merely powers, aspects of the personality, as seen in the eyes of man. If that is what people choose to embrace, that is their choice. Personally, I prefer to love those virtues of God that are absolute love, absolute kindness, absolute bliss, absolute joy, absolute peace. I picture a realtionship that is nothing but love, bliss, joy, and peace. Why in this world do people fall in love with those who are abusive and mean to them? I don't know. Why do women continue in relationships with men who beat them? Ultimately, that is their choice.
I am in favor of all people of different faiths getting along, aren't you? And yes, I believe that it is your option to hold any belief you wish, and that you will be rewarded accordingly. Simple cause and effect stuff at work there.