Of gods and language.

[AeolianHarp]

In other words, if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, the ground and the tree still observe one another!

iwasn'tthere.com

[Chris]

Your'e kidding me right? Didn't Jesus say to feed the hungry? It is not ok for an innocent child to be starving- this is a basic human need. Sometimes it is due to environmental issues a child might be starving such as in countries were the crops ahve failed and everyne is starving, but mostly it is due to greed of the elites/rich who take more than their share. Look at how many children were starving in Victorian London and Britain had a rich empire- disgusting.

I am not arguing that the child did not have the right to take the food in our hypothetical example. On the contrary, I would say that he did. What I am trying to examine is why he had that right. It would seem that you would not tolerate an opinion that said he did not have the right to take the food, in which case you are arguing that there is an absolute moral principle in play. And as we have explored, this cannot originate from feelings or whims or because someone said so, particularly if we are going to claim that this moral principle has obligatory force. It can only come from the natural ends of the things involved.

I don't know what eigenstates are, but that experiement has been done many times and it is true that when electrons are being observed they act as they act as particles. However, they are not being observed act as waves and particles simultaneously.

The effect is unquestionably real. Our modern electronics would not operate without it, nor would the sun shine without it. I was merely pointing out that the particle-like and wave-like behaviors of the electrons are not dependent on human observation (or that of any kind of mind). This will occur during any interaction that conveys information. In other words, if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, the ground and the tree still observe one another!

[AeolianHarp]

But still there is the fundamental question of why this starving child had a right to that food he took. Why does his not having enough to eat constitute an injustice? That is the question at hand.

Your'e kidding me right? Didn't Jesus say to feed the hungry? It is not ok for an innocent child to be starving- this is a basic human need. Sometimes it is due to environmental issues a child might be starving such as in countries were the crops ahve failed and everyne is starving, but mostly it is due to greed of the elites/rich who take more than their share. Look at how many children were starving in Victorian London and Britain had a rich empire- disgusting.

OK, so we all have equal value. Why? If we all have equal value then there must be something about us that is equal. What is it? It is not our emotions, since we do not all have the same emotions. It is not our individual hopes and dreams or anything else that is particular to an individual, because those are obviously not all the same.

All sentient beings need physical needs met such as food, shelter, warmth and then emotional needs such as companionship and kindness. Physical life requires such things.

The only possible answer is that we are all instances of the same type. We are all human beings and all have the same human nature. It is the nature of a thing that determines its ends and thus what is good and bad for it. And so when we make a choice to do something that is either good or bad for a thing, a moral choice, it can only be the natures of the things involved that ground that moral choice.

We are all human, of the same species and require the same basic needs.

Yes, but not as punishment for some perceived moral fault of the animal. It would be quite ridiculous for us to put a chimp on trial for killing another chimp and then imprison him for life for the crime, would it not?

Yes, and we imprison these poor beings in laboratories and torture them to make cosmetics for vain humans.

Ah, we are now on to another of my favorite subjects, physics! Yes, this is a most unexpected result, but there is a common misunderstanding at play here. It is not human consciousness that causes a difference in the behavior, it is whether or not a measurement has taken place. And a measurement, in this context, is anything that conveys information. No human minds need be present. Basically, when something is measured, the only possible results are the eigenstates. But before it is measured, it behaves as if it is in a superposition of these eigenstates. This is how the physical system evolves in time until a measurement takes place. The most information you can have about it at that point are the probabilities that a measurement will give the various eigenstates. But once a measurement takes place, this changes. If you do the same measurement again immediately, you will get the same eigenstates, with probably 100%.

I don't know what eigenstates are, but that experiement has been done many times and it is true that when electrons are being observed they act as they act as particles. However, they are not being observed act as waves and particles simultaneously.

Here’s the kicker: The insertion of the interferometer took only 40 nanoseconds (ns) while it would take 160 ns for the information about the configuration to travel from the interferometer to reach the photon before it entered the slits. This means in order for the photon to “know” if it was being watched, that information would have to travel at 4 times the speed of light, which is impossible (the speed of light is the universal speed limit).

The Results: The photons acted like particles 93% of the time that they were observed. Even if the photon “guessed” the configuration each time, statistically speaking it would never have more than 52% accuracy. In scientific experiments, a 93% success rate is as conclusive as they come.

http://www.highexistence.com/this-wi...it-experiment/

(Sorry about the rude word in article, not of my doing!)

Quantum physics is fascinating!


Holographic Universe (Part 1 of 5 ) its all illusion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnvM_YAwX4I

[Chris]

Poor AeolianHarp has quite a lot to deal with here, so I'll try to keep it brief again!

In the case of the starving child stealing food we can apply realtive moral principles as in this case the child not having enough is an injustice. Those who steal when they don't need it we can then look at why they have done so- which is why we have law courts.

But you are not applying relative moral principles here. You are just trying to figure out how to apply an absolute moral principle given the circumstances of a specific case. Here you appeal to justice. But still there is the fundamental question of why this starving child had a right to that food he took. Why does his not having enough to eat constitute an injustice? That is the question at hand.

Sure- we all have equal value. I was talking about how each individual will find meaning in life in different ways.

OK, so we all have equal value. Why? If we all have equal value then there must be something about us that is equal. What is it? It is not our emotions, since we do not all have the same emotions. It is not our individual hopes and dreams or anything else that is particular to an individual, because those are obviously not all the same. The only possible answer is that we are all instances of the same type. We are all human beings and all have the same human nature. It is the nature of a thing that determines its ends and thus what is good and bad for it. And so when we make a choice to do something that is either good or bad for a thing, a moral choice, it can only be the natures of the things involved that ground that moral choice.

There have been cases when people have murdered animals for a slight transgression or it is seen as a nusciance.

Yes, but not as punishment for some perceived moral fault of the animal. It would be quite ridiculous for us to put a chimp on trial for killing another chimp and then imprison him for life for the crime, would it not?

It is very hard for deists to grasp the above- and you are asking questions that have no concrete answers at times- life is paradox, there is no absolute. We are just going to go round in circles here- we create our own realities- we are our own creators. What we believe to be true, and what we see are illusions of the mind- scientists are coming to see this now. The double split experiment proves this.

In the experiment, when scientists watch a particle pass through two slits in a barrier, the particle behaves like a bullet and goes through one slit or the other.Yet if a person doesn't watch the particle, it acts like a wave.This means it can go through both slits at the same time.This demonstrates that matter and energy can display characteristics of both waves and particles, and that the behaviour of the particle changes based on a person's perception and consciousness.

Ah, we are now on to another of my favorite subjects, physics! Yes, this is a most unexpected result, but there is a common misunderstanding at play here. It is not human consciousness that causes a difference in the behavior, it is whether or not a measurement has taken place. And a measurement, in this context, is anything that conveys information. No human minds need be present. Basically, when something is measured, the only possible results are the eigenstates. But before it is measured, it behaves as if it is in a superposition of these eigenstates. This is how the physical system evolves in time until a measurement takes place. The most information you can have about it at that point are the probabilities that a measurement will give the various eigenstates. But once a measurement takes place, this changes. If you do the same measurement again immediately, you will get the same eigenstates, with probably 100%.

Rocco, Harvey, I think you are on the wrong track here. Your passion is admirable, but you are starting from the conclusions and not the premises. Before what you are saying will mean anything, you have to establish the philosophical background. It was easy for the early Christians to convert Jews, because they all had the same conception the world. Even when Christianity started to spread throughout the Mediterranean, there was significant philosophical common ground with the pagans there.

Even in the far East there was much the missionaries found familiar in those philosophies. For example, they were able to use the rich Hindu philosophy to convince educated Hindus of the truth of the natural philosophy they were espousing. It is not really that surprising. Hinduism purports one self-existent, immutable divine reality. It has the notion of the soul. It affirms an objective morality that exists for reasons other than arbitrary divine commands.

Of course there are significant differences. But the philosophy of the new atheists is actually much further removed from what you are talking about than any of these things.

[AeolianHarp]

I did not call you a filthy rag, but said that all our righteous works are filthy rags in God's eyes.

That's very kind of god isn't it!

In fact, I very likely have done worse things in life than you have. I was not a Christian for my first 27 years and did some awful things, some that I would not want to tell anyone.

You might well have, but remember that whatever you may have done, there will always be people who have done worse than yourself like those elite despots.

The point of what the Bible is saying is that what is judged a good work in the eyes of men is not the same as what is judged a good work in the eyes of God. Only those works that Jesus does through his people count as good works in God's eyes, because on our own we are incapable of pleasing God.

Good works are good works, and if a kind atheist man helps an old lady in the street who has broken her leg, then that is good. He doesn't need to say to god I do this for you god!

A Christian cannot accept other religions as valid, but only that they exist as ideas, like a make believe story such as Stuart Little (great story by the way).

And other religions may also see other religions as make believe also. Helping someone is not an idea, it is an action.


[QUOTE]Also, we would not be having this discussion in the workplace, and are only having it here because presumably everyone participating in this thread is doing so willingly./QUOTE]

Indeed, I am just pointing out what equal opportunities and acceptance of diversity mean.

[Harvey]

I do not do it because I am a "filthy rag"- thanks for the insult Harvey- you are showing your true colours now.

I did not call you a filthy rag, but said that all our righteous works are filthy rags in God's eyes. That is what the Bible says. I am no better than you because we all are sinners in God's eyes. In fact, I very likely have done worse things in life than you have. I was not a Christian for my first 27 years and did some awful things, some that I would not want to tell anyone. The whole thing about Christianity is not that we are better than anyone else, but that we are forgiven, and you are too, but only in Christ Jesus as the one who suffered and died for the sins of all people, yours and mine. Apart from him there is no salvation. Just stating what the Bible says. This is not of my own devising.

I am not a criminal, neither are my atheist friends- they do loads of good for this world and are moral and loving. But I will let them know how filthy they are for being so kind.

The point of what the Bible is saying is that what is judged a good work in the eyes of men is not the same as what is judged a good work in the eyes of God. Only those works that Jesus does through his people count as good works in God's eyes, because on our own we are incapable of pleasing God.

A Christian cannot accept other religions as valid, but only that they exist as ideas, like a make believe story such as Stuart Little (great story by the way).

Also, we would not be having this discussion in the workplace, and are only having it here because presumably everyone participating in this thread is doing so willingly.

[AeolianHarp]

It isn't hard for deists to grasp, we have an answer - it's impossible for atheists to answer as you have finally admitted! And any other question like this such as the point of life would result in exactly the same outcome from the atheist perspective - nothingness and hopelessness, however you dress it up, you can sum up atheist philosophy in the mantra of 'life is a bitch and then you die, so make the most of it!'.

No, it is because many deists have very fixed black and white thinking- the it is this or it is that, it is one way or another kind of thinking, so you cannot grasp what I am talking about as it is often the ungraspable. I experience this with deists a lot. They seem to want very concrete it is this or that ways of thinking, cannot accept the paradoxes of reality. When we let go of all that there is the opportunity to let some of the ilusions we hold about reality slip away.

Life is simply not like that. Life is diverse. Completely wrong- I said life is diverse, there is a big universe, the brain filters what we perceive to be real, time is an illusion, we create our own reality, humans have Buddha nature, there is no absolute- there are 7 answers for you there. How many would you like?

Ever watched Eckhart Tolle's videos on you tube? I highly recommend them.


“Words reduce reality to something the human mind can grasp, which isn’t very much.”
Eckhart Tolle, A New Earth: Awakening to Your Life's Purpose



Eckhart Talks About Morality
Eckhart Tolle
a message from Eckhart Tolle
Saturday, 17 April, 2010
5458 views, 2 comments - login or register to comment

Question: Most spiritual traditions have a strong emphasis on morality. What role does morality play in your teachings?

Eckhart Tolle: The main aim of this teaching is to transcend the Ego, the Ego being a false sense of self, a false sense of identity. Morality is important in many traditional teachings because those teachings have not gone beyond Ego, so they still function within the framework of the Ego.

If you live in a society that is inhabited by Egos, you need certain external rules of behavior and regulations so that there is not absolute chaos. What you need then is commandments, or laws that need to be in place so that the Ego does not create absolute chaos in the world. The emphasis of this teaching is to transcend the Ego so that a different state of consciousness arises, we call it “presence”.

Once this state of consciousness operates, external rules and regulations are not really needed anymore, because a knowing of what is right and wrong arises from within you, and you are no longer able to inflict suffering on others because the illusion of absolute separateness between who you are and who another human being is, has disappeared. You are no longer trapped in that illusion, so you know that ultimately, whatever you are doing to another, you are doing to yourself. Most importantly, there is love as the recognition of the other as yourself - the recognition of oneness. Once that is the basis of your life, you don’t need rules or regulations anymore because that arises directly and spontaneously from within you.

http://spiritlibrary.com/eckhart-tol...about-morality

[Peter]

It is very hard for deists to grasp the above- and you are asking questions that have no concrete answers at times- life is paradox, there is no absolute. We are just going to go round in circles here- we create our own realities- we are our own creators. What we believe to be true, and what we see are illusions of the mind- scientists are coming to see this now. The double split experiment proves this.

It isn't hard for deists to grasp, we have an answer - it's impossible for atheists to answer as you have finally admitted! And any other question like this such as the point of life would result in exactly the same outcome from the atheist perspective - nothingness and hopelessness, however you dress it up, you can sum up atheist philosophy in the mantra of 'life is a bitch and then you die, so make the most of it!'.

That'd be why all "criminals" are atheists then and not Christians, Muslims, Jews etc....

Let's get one thing clear- belief in god/gods does not mean in itself a good, moral person who never commits a crime or a person who will commit a crime; belief in no gods does not mean in itself one will commit crimes, or will commit crimes. Religious people are no better than atheists on the whole.
I am not a criminal, neither are my atheist friends- they do loads of good for this world and are moral and loving. But I will let them know how filthy they are for being so kind.

Throughout this debate you have reacted as though I was accusing all atheists of being immoral, bad people and yet if you read my responses, I have said the opposite many times and I have also acknowledged that a lot of 'religious' people are and have been guilty of heinous crimes - twisting my words is hardly a fair response in this debate.

[AeolianHarp]

Your examples are obvious and simplistic like saying if you put your hand in a fire it will burn, but if nothing has power over us, why shouldn't we do exactly as we like? If I can steal and know I can get away with it, why not do it? If I can be unfaithful and be certain no one will know, why not do it? Then there is the morality of inaction - if I see someone lying in the road, why shouldn't I just walk past and ignore it? Why should I give to charity? Then what about when we die - if there is no power over us, then you must be saying that we are the ones who decide to reincarnate in another life - quite how we manage it by ourselves I'm not sure!

It is very hard for deists to grasp the above- and you are asking questions that have no concrete answers at times- life is paradox, there is no absolute. We are just going to go round in circles here- we create our own realities- we are our own creators. What we believe to be true, and what we see are illusions of the mind- scientists are coming to see this now. The double split experiment proves this.

In the experiment, when scientists watch a particle pass through two slits in a barrier, the particle behaves like a bullet and goes through one slit or the other.Yet if a person doesn't watch the particle, it acts like a wave.This means it can go through both slits at the same time.This demonstrates that matter and energy can display characteristics of both waves and particles, and that the behaviour of the particle changes based on a person's perception and consciousness.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...scientist.html


We have been through why humans help others- we don't do it because we fear a superbeing will "punish" us- we do it out of compassion that rises naturally in our hearts. Being scared into doing good is just acting out of fear. I help people because it is a nice thing to so. I do not do it because I am a "filthy rag"- thanks for the insult Harvey- you are showing your true colours now. Nice to know I am filth because I don't follow your religion. And you wonder why Albert Gans is angry???? Why people denounce Christianity? Because of these attitudes- if you don't believe/agree with me you are wrong/filth/damned- that is not love and kindness, not acceptance, not tolerance. And that is why I am glad Britain has a modern secular law- such assertions made to me in the workplace would be gross misconduct, and possibly grounds for the insultor getting the sack. I am glad that in a secular society I am free to be who I am, not to have to be forced to say I believe in something I don't or be "punished" for being me.

A friend who is an atheist said quite categorically to me that the only thing that mattered in life was having money and having lots of it - from his perspective he's right.

That is his personal experience- because it might be true for him, doesn't mean it is true for any other atheist. He doesn't speak for me nor any of my friends. Money in itself isn't bad- we need some to pay the bills and buy essentials. And let's not forget the wealth churches and other religious insititutes have- they are not averse to having money.

Unfortunately people who think nothing has power over them do believe they can get away with it which is why they are unfaithful, murder, steal (the amount lost in tax fraud is massive), lie and deceive themselves that they are good people (and I include many so called religious in this, now and throughout the ages). And quite frankly, if you are an atheist why not?

That'd be why all "criminals" are atheists then and not Christians, Muslims, Jews etc....

Let's get one thing clear- belief in god/gods does not mean in itself a good, moral person who never commits a crime or a person who will commit a crime; belief in no gods does not mean in itself one will commit crimes, or will commit crimes. Religious people are no better than atheists on the whole.
I am not a criminal, neither are my atheist friends- they do loads of good for this world and are moral and loving. But I will let them know how filthy they are for being so kind.







We don't know what matter is anymore than we know what mind is.

Christian de Quincy,
The Paradox of Consciousness

Reality is not what it seems to be,
nor is it otherwise.

Tibetan Buddhist teaching


If there is anything about which we feel sure, it is that the world we experience is real. We can see, touch and hear it. We can lift heavy and solid objects; hurt ourselves, if we're not careful, against their unyielding immobility. It seems undeniable that out there, around us, independent and apart from us, stands a physical world, utterly real, solid and tangible.

But all is not what it seems.

First, the apparently solid table in front me is, it turns out, far from solid.

And second,we assume that we are directly experiencing the world around; that the colors we see and the sounds we hear are there, around us, just as we experience them. But even an elementary study of the processes of perception show that in this, too, we are much mistaken.

All that I see, hear, taste, touch, smell and feel has been created from the data fed to me by my sensory organs. All I ever know of the world around are the images produced in the mind. I think I am seeing the tree "out there", in the world around me. But all that I am actually experiencing is the image created in the mind.

This simple fact is very hard to grasp. It runs totally counter to all our experience. There seems nothing more certain than the fact that I am seeing the world as it is, around me. But however nonsensical it may sound, this is the conclusion we are forced to make.


http://www.peterrussell.com/Reality/RHTML/R2.php

[Peter]

When we do something there is always a result. Cause and effect. If we eat, we go to the toilet. If we don't look when we cross the road we will get run over. Nothing has power over us- actions naturally have results. What we aim for is good ones for ourselves and those around us.

Your examples are obvious and simplistic like saying if you put your hand in a fire it will burn, but if nothing has power over us, why shouldn't we do exactly as we like? If I can steal and know I can get away with it, why not do it? If I can be unfaithful and be certain no one will know, why not do it? Then there is the morality of inaction - if I see someone lying in the road, why shouldn't I just walk past and ignore it? Why should I give to charity? Then what about when we die - if there is no power over us, then you must be saying that we are the ones who decide to reincarnate in another life - quite how we manage it by ourselves I'm not sure!

Unfortunately people who think nothing has power over them do believe they can get away with it which is why they are unfaithful, murder, steal (the amount lost in tax fraud is massive), lie and deceive themselves that they are good people (and I include many so called religious in this, now and throughout the ages). And quite frankly, if you are an atheist why not? A friend who is an atheist said quite categorically to me that the only thing that mattered in life was having money and having lots of it - from his perspective he's right.

I suspect your answer will refer to karma - don't Buddhists believe that is a natural law, therefore a power outside of us?

Two quotes for you:

“If God did not exist, everything is permitted” - Dostoevsky

“The criminal who has revolted against society, hates it, and considers himself in the right; society was wrong, not he. Has he not, moreover, undergone his punishment? Accordingly he is absolved, acquitted in his own eyes.” - Dostoevsky

[Harvey]

I guess you could say that Christianity began in the garden at the fall when the Savior was first promised. But of course, not speaking Greek, they thought of the Messiah, not the Christ.

[Rocco]

Rocco, respectfully, I am not missing the point- there are other religions who believe in god/gods and some pre date Christianity which came about when Jesus was said to come to this planet. Christianity means following Christ. It's a big universe out there- who knows what other sentient or humanlike beings are on other planets and what religions they may have that believe in "god"? Islam believes in god, so does Judiasm. Christianity is not the only monothesism. The Buddhist precepts were written down before the bible was written- this is fact. All religions have similar moral laws. Hinduism is one of the oldest religions and it has similar moral laws to the biblical commandments. There is nothing wrong with that- it just shows how we all share similar values of kindness and morality. I find it is best to seek common ground rather than say one religion/spirituality is better than others or the only way. When views like that are held it can ( and has throughout history such as the Crusades, Jihadism) lead to conflict and war. This was Albert's objection and I can see why he views things the way he does.

No, the point is that the 10 commandments were given by God in the beginning... not when "Christianity" began.

You think god is controlling their minds and actions?!
That sounds rather odd. People can and do make their own decisions- thought your god says we have free will? That means to act on our own minds not some form of mind control. I know many atheists- they would be amused at your assertion god controls their lives to do good. I have said many times how an atheist knows how to do a kind act-it is called a conscience! Even animals can have that! And I explained what Buddhism has to say on the matter.

Rocco, you just need to accept that I have a different spiritual path than yourself and the world is full of people of different religions and beliefs and that will always be so.There are remote tribes in the world who have never even heard of Jesus and cannot even read- what about them, are they immoral deviants? Why does it bother you so much what others believe if they are doing good? My aim is not to change what you wish to follow, just to let you know that others believe differently, and that tolerance of diversity is what makes a good world. Infinite diversity in infinite combinations.

Peace to you.

No, I am not saying that God is controlling their actions but that it is inscribed on their hearts by God:

"Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law ... they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts..." --Romans 2:14-15 NIV 84

I thought this was a discussion board, I'm not sure I ever gave the impression that I was bothered, any more than anyone else posting to this thread.

But I can say regarding that, along with the Bible:

"Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, 2 for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time," 1 Timothy 2:4-6

[Harvey]

If an athiest surgeon is able to save my life by doing a difficult surgery on me after an accident, that is a gift from God. In fact, God is able to guide the hand of that athiest to achieve the result He wants.

God can take the atheist out any time too, but generally does not as God is gracious and desires that athiest to hear His Word, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved.

No man can do good because only God is good. All good works done by anyone in and of themselves (including Christians doing works apart from God) are only good works in the eyes of man. To God, these "works" are filthy rags.

Even the Christian does not so much do good works as that God does the good works through the Christian. Since the fall into sin (Genesis Chapter 3) all people are depraved and can only do evil. The good that they do is ultimately in self interest, favors to keep people happy with them, or feeble attempts at self justification.

[AeolianHarp]

Aeolian - You still are missing the point. My point is that you can't prove that there were moral laws before Christianity (Christianity is God and the Bible, not some time period) by just saying that not everyone believes in God. So far you can't prove it, and I'll tell you why you can't. Because God existed long before He created you and I. The main point here is that Christianity isn't just some time period, it's been going since God created the universe. Therefore, you can't tell me that the Buddhist precepts existed first.

Rocco, respectfully, I am not missing the point- there are other religions who believe in god/gods and some pre date Christianity which came about when Jesus was said to come to this planet. Christianity means following Christ. It's a big universe out there- who knows what other sentient or humanlike beings are on other planets and what religions they may have that believe in "god"? Islam believes in god, so does Judiasm. Christianity is not the only monothesism. The Buddhist precepts were written down before the bible was written- this is fact. All religions have similar moral laws. Hinduism is one of the oldest religions and it has similar moral laws to the biblical commandments. There is nothing wrong with that- it just shows how we all share similar values of kindness and morality. I find it is best to seek common ground rather than say one religion/spirituality is better than others or the only way. When views like that are held it can ( and has throughout history such as the Crusades, Jihadism) lead to conflict and war. This was Albert's objection and I can see why he views things the way he does.

So, I will say it again, you can say you don't believe in God all you want, and it won't change the fact that any "good" that any atheists do is from God. Likewise the fact that they can know it is wrong to murder. That knowledge come from God as well, only an atheist can't say why it is wrong to murder without a knowledge of God.

You think god is controlling their minds and actions?!
That sounds rather odd. People can and do make their own decisions- thought your god says we have free will? That means to act on our own minds not some form of mind control. I know many atheists- they would be amused at your assertion god controls their lives to do good. I have said many times how an atheist knows how to do a kind act-it is called a conscience! Even animals can have that! And I explained what Buddhism has to say on the matter.

Rocco, you just need to accept that I have a different spiritual path than yourself and the world is full of people of different religions and beliefs and that will always be so.There are remote tribes in the world who have never even heard of Jesus and cannot even read- what about them, are they immoral deviants? Why does it bother you so much what others believe if they are doing good? My aim is not to change what you wish to follow, just to let you know that others believe differently, and that tolerance of diversity is what makes a good world. Infinite diversity in infinite combinations.

Peace to you.

[Harvey]

Thanks for the quote Harvey - such a beautiful passage from my favourite book in the Bible, the Gospel according to John. Since this thread was originally about God and language, well this Gospel is full of such wonderfully poetic imagery.

Yes very poetic, but even more:

For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is,

--Exodus 20:11