Discussion Topic: "An Act of God" -- Is God Responsible for Floods, Hurricanes & Earthquakes?

No. Ridiculous.

If god created everything, then weather is included. As a result, god caused natural disasters. The bigger question is why, not if.

Why? I haven't a clue, although somehow I think it must have to do with the way the Earth evolves via changes to the landscape. I think the fact that people suffer is a byproduct and not an intention. Just my two cents.

First, I have to ask, when you say "responsible," do you mean because God makes those things happen intentionally or because He does not prevent them from occurring???

Im with Christine, The bigger question would be why?, not if.Over the years, decades and so forth haven't we damaged our earths enviroment creating some of this ourselves?

Weather is a matter of cause and effect. Overall I do not believe it is devinely inspired. If there is a supreme being I do not believe he/she would be bothered with where it rained and how hard. World wide flood and Ark asside.

This statement is not meant to classify myself as an atheist. Just a person who take time to think.

Do you really want me to answer that Carla? For in reality in the ultimate, that answer is yes. However, as we collectively and the universe in it's totality, in my opinion are here only because of that entity which we call God and God therefore, is responsible for it all being here.

Now then just because all this is here, and because of that entity we all like to call God, does not mean that we don't need to do anything now but to live and die, which is how it's been for eons and eons. We now have an understanding of what the weather is, how the tectonic plates work, the cause of tsunamis and how a fire and the wind and water all behave as well as the weather and can now, because of that knowledge, do something, other than just die when the weather is really bad.

Therefore, even tho all this is here because of that entity we all call God, we can now do something, and we have gained a talent in the field of doing something, therefore, we should do that which we can do in order to stay alive or help others stay alive, only because we can.

Therefore, also, it's your fault if you could do something but didn't and wound up dead or were the cause of others dying. But if you could not do something and then died, it's still God's fault and that entity we call God can and does shoulder the blame.

Yes,I do..The bible speaks of it.,fire in the bowels of the earth(volcanoes)it speaks of all these things happening.
You can read about it here,but the best thing to do is look it up in tour own Bible.

http://www.mswm.org/articles.superquake.htm

Richard, we can't stay alive in this physical form ~ death is a part of life.

I think it's all part of an evolving creation. Everything passes away, change is inevitable. Earth is in a process, as is the whole creation. So, yes, it is all a part of the plan, but no it's not meant as punishment. Scientists say in the far away future our sun will die. Is that to punish humans? No.

I think you should consult a meteorologist about this one. Insurance companies call it "an Act of God" because it is nebulous term that can be interpreted many ways.

I don't believe in a god, so it's a bit moot for me to answer. I do however, believe in a higher power and in a purpose to the workings of what we call nature. As the scripture says, the rain falls on the just and the unjust. Does an old man sit in the bleachers and say yea or nay about every thunderclap, flood, or fire? No I don't think so. I do think that even the violent weather has a reason for being, if only the result of the way nature acts and reacts. And others are right when they say man's free agency must be taken into account. Unlike any god, man seems destined to ignore the consiquences of collective actions over a number years. The creation is much more fragile than we think, and yet more powerful than us.

The way I see it...God is in control of everything. He created everything...included nature and weather. I believe that humans have contributed to the way nature shows its wrath at times now. We do not take care of what God has given to us...and what happens is a natural occurance based on this. It is much the same as these bodies God has given to us. If we eat too much, drink too much, don't exercise...our bodies will suffer. Yes, God could step in and save us from the consequences of our actions. But God gave humanity free will...and it comes with both good and bad consequences. I don't believe God wants to see anyone suffer. Nor do I believe he sends down His wrath in the form of earthquakes or tornados. I believe he allows them to happen, and only He can give the reasons why. Tragedy does bring out a goodness in people that is often lacking. Perhaps He allows these things to happen to show us our own mortality and to bring some compassion to the surface that we so often keep hidden.

I wonder if the ins companies consider it an act of God when they avoid paying out millions in claims for an act of God?

Sometimes I wonder if he does, did say he would flood the earth again, thought I read that somewhere.. Can insurance companies prove that God was the one that caused it.

Larry, actually, God's covenant with Noah (signified by the rainbow) was that he would not send a flood to destroy the people again.

From what I've heard, insurance companies try many things to keep from paying. Trying to prove God caused something may be difficult. :-)

As for your question, Berf, you can go either way. Does God cause these disasters? Or does God just not intervene when they occur? What do YOU think?

I'm more of a 'there are multiple gods/goddesses - forces' at work in the Universe. I am still struggling with whether there is One Supreme God over all Who is CEO of the Universe if you will. As complex as things are, coupled with paradoxes such as an 'all loving God' who allows Holocausts to occur, points for me to multiple forces at work.

If God exists, then of course He "causes" hurricanes and such, because He set the whole thing in motion. So the question becomes; Why did He set such a thing in motion, which results in extremities at times, and therefore much suffering?

Well, it would seem He is not intending life to be a "bed of roses". It would seem He wants us to face some very serious circumstances, and some very serious questions. I suspect there is no way to induce the later, in earnest, without the former. He ain't getting us ready for an eternity of mindless bliss, I don't think.

Matthew 5:45
That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

This was the first verse to come to mind. Having been in my share of natual and "un"natural disasters, I can only say that I view these as tests of my faith. When it happens to others, I view it as a test of my charity toward others.
While we, as humans, have free will; He has the power.

Yes, in part to show that this is not a perfect world; so we do not become too attached to it. After all our abode here is only temporary anyway. Also as punishment for our disobedience to His commands. Natural disasters, or Acts of God, would be lessened if it were not for our negative thoughts - emitted by 6 billion people day after day after day.

I think the Earth is what it is. If there is a big bad God out there killing people with weather because he is miffed, then I dont want to know him. There is enough abuse human to human without God doing it too.

Thomas,

"in part to show that this is not a perfect world; so we do not become too attached to it. After all our abode here is only temporary anyway."

This concept begs the question; So, why did He put us here ?

John--My answer to your question would be that we are here to evolve spiritually. We are here to make manifest the glory of God, to become more like Jesus Christ and other spiritually awakened beings. We are to wake up to our divine inheritance and spiritual essence and realize that through our thinking and our actions, we have the ability to make this hell on earth or heaven on earth.

I don't think that this is just one big experiment that an anthropomorphic God "sitting in the bleachers" (as one of my Gather friends put it) designed to watch us screw up. We are not ants in an ant farm. If I did see him this way--sitting in the bleachers--I think he'd be cheering us on, hoping that we finally realize who we are and the power that we have.

My personal belief is that a force, an intelligence set this creation into motion and we were allowed to create our existance and evolve, learning how our choices effect us personally, each other and the universe. I believe that we, too, are creators, creating our very experience in every moment.

Do I think God caused the earthquakes, floods, famines, etc? No. There are natural forces at work and there are the choices of mankind that effect the environment and that lead to some of these disasters. But, as Cheryl so aptly pointed out, through these tragedies and disasters, we have another opportunity to reach out and help others and to become more loving and compassionate people.

Carla,

"My answer to your question would be that we are here to evolve spiritually. We are here to make manifest the glory of God, to become more like Jesus Christ and other spiritually awakened beings. We are to wake up to our divine inheritance and spiritual essence and realize that through our thinking and our actions, we have the ability to make this hell on earth or heaven on earth."

But, that's not what Jesus said . . . ?
If Jesus was "spiritually awakened", why did he not speak as you do?

John Knight and Carla G.: I am confused by your comments. They seem inconsistent. You admit that we are here to develop spiritually, to be "more like Jesus Christ," but you say that God is not responsible for various things that happen. This seems inconsistent to me. God is responsible for "nature" and the natural universe in it's totality. He did not make just part of it. He made every atom and every law of physics. Earthquakes, floods and mega-volcanoes are simply part of that totality. We were deliberately placed into this complexity for the specific purpose of learning spiritually, mentally, and physically. Our bodies are designed to adapt to these things. Are we not also then responsible for what happens? Of course we are. That is also part of God's PLAN. We cannot develop strong bodies without physical exercise and we cannot develop strong spiritual natures without struggling to overcome obstacles. It is the obstacles that make life exciting, worth while, interesting, and enjoyable. Without any struggles, life would be boring and inexplicably dull. A football game with only one team on the field is not worth watching. It is not the achieving that is the elan of life. It is the struggle to achieve that is the essence of our happiness. We cannot grow spiritually unless we are placed with choices that we must make according to our spiritual state of awareness. Some of these choices turn into disasters. But that is part of the "learning curve." Come on, folks, wake up and smell the roses.

Donald,

" but you say that God is not responsible for various things that happen."

I said no such thing . . . are you sure you're adressing the correct person about that?

All IS perfect as it is (whole and complete) and there are NO accidents, and eternity IS the whole. Karma accounts for all and it is ultra intelligent because it is the Spirit of God who IS the whole, who unconditionally loving allows free agency for our learning of cause and effect in all of it's ramifications, all is inter AND outer related. And as Kevin F suggested, there are infinite aspects to it all consisting of countless gods and goddesses in countless reigns and dimensions responsible for their duties each and all answerable to the One God that constitutes the Whole of all else as a UNIversal perspective. IMnsHO.

John--Jesus lived in a different time and in a different culture. I believe he did allude to the same things that I do. Especially when one reads any of the Gnostic gospels. But that is my opinion. I can't prove this, but neither can you prove that Jesus meant what you believe as we are getting our accounts secondhand, thirdhand, passed down orally for 40 to 200 years, translated from the original language, and re-translated with different versions. The writers of the four gospels aren't even consistent about everything.

From what I have read that you've written, John, you have had a very personal experience of God in your life. So have I. So has Jerry. Couldn't it be possible that we are getting from God, the Universe, Infinite Intelligence, just what we are to get to achieve the learning that we need to achieve in this lifetime (excuse me, but I know that I'm alluding to the fact that there may be another lifetime, so don't have a cornonary or throw a fit.)

I don't discount your experience, John, and I would ask that you not discount mine.

Donald, we seem to agree for the most part. But I may see God a little differently than you do. And I believe that because we are given free will and the ability to choose how we live, that this choice has an effect on the world around us. I don't think that God causes every little thing to happen in the world. I think that the world was created and that we all participate. Do you think that God causes every leaf to fall from the trees? Perhaps you could say that the God of our creation created life cycles and that this would account for the fact that a leaf falls from a tree.

Jerry makes the point that there are no "accidents". I would agree. For every cause there is an effect. The wind may cause a leaf to fall.

I also agree with you that these disasters are part of our being in this classroom called Planet Earth. I made the point above in my comments.

The one thing that I would question though is your comment about teams and struggle. Why do you feel that it is so important for us to compete or for us to struggle?

Also, Donald, I would ask that you be aware that you sometimes come across as rather patronizing. Please realize that we all have a right to our beliefs and are doing the best we can to understand the complexities of this life. You can preface things by saying that "this is my belief" rather than writing as if you alone have knowledge of the Truth.

Carla G.: Thanks for the excellent feed back and your point about me sounding somewhat condescending at times. Sorry for that. However, I would like to add that simply the fact that some people believe the Earth is flat does not make the Earth flat. I (and most likely you) believe otherwise.

I mentioned "team" only as an example of how struggle to achieve something is the essence of the game, not the winning per se. It is not a matter of "team competition" that is what makes the game exciting but the "doing" that produces the excitement.

As to the leaf falling, it is interesting that you mention that if particular. In the Holy Koran (which you most likely do not give due credit to as an apparently rather typical Christian) states that God knows of every leaf that falls. To me, that makes God also responsible for the leaf falling, where it falls, and how it falls and what results from it's falling. Think of that the next time you have to rake up your yard waste. If God is all powerful and does not stop the leaf from falling then He is responsible for what happens when it falls. I think the problem that we have (just one of them) is that we take all this too seriously. We see people in China killed by an earthquake and feel naturally sorry for them. But they are doomed to die sometime anyway. Our view of things is too close and personal to allow us to be as objective as we should be. Is there as lesson to be learned about this sort of thing? I think so. Think of all the people in the world who are relieved that they were not in China when it happened but turn to God and say, "Thank you, Lord." We need to be cognizant of our dependence upon God.

Donald, you make a lot of presumptions about people, including yours truly. You do not know me and have obviously not read many of my articles here on Gather. I have been doing a series on World Religions and wrote several weeks back about Islam. I have a great deal of respect for all religons. I think that John will laugh at your comment about me being a "rather typical Christian". He thinks that I do not even qualify as a Christian. Right, John? :-)

And Donald, you have a very cavalier attitude about life. I understand that we all are going to die. I believe in reincarnation (another indication that I am not your "typical" Christian, so death for me is merely a passing through a door which leads to another life (assuming that I choose to be reincarnated). But I think that there is more to it than this. It is what we do during the time that we are in this life that is important; the caring and compassion that we show for our brothers and sisters, and our mother earth.

I would ask you the original question: Do you believe that God caused the earthquake in China? Do you believe that the cyclone in Myanmar was caused by God? Do you think that God chose to kill all those people? And if so, why?

And Donald, the actual verse from the Koran is: "He has knowledge of all that land and sea contain: every leaf that falls is known to Him. There is no grain in the darkest bowels of the earth, nor anything green or sear, but is recorded in a glorious Book."

It does not say that he "caused" the leaf to fall. There is a difference, wouldn't you agree?

I think that it is too tempting to blame everything on God (or the devil for that matter). Shouldn't mankind assume some responsibility?

Think "GODESCENCE."
In becoming more and more our authentic individual selves, we then become more authentic groupselves.
There is personal godescence and there is group heartmind godescence.

As a godescent, one is working with awakened abilities to see clairvoyantly, communicate telepathically, and to heal self and others and even the weather and the planet.

When we blame god/God, we are refusing our own development, our own godescence. Only when we authenticate the god-in-us and go ahead and develop our powers and abilities (including weather control) with courageous compassion, are we truly becoming our authentic god-selves.

I just view it as I read it. Even Paul said we strive not against flesh and blood, but against principalities of the air. Christianity, at least modern Chrisitianity needs to come to grips with polytheism as it is presented in it's Bible in my book.

Also, I don't think revelation has come to a stop since the holy books were written, nor did they encompass all of Divinity, nor were they meant to. Day to day experience teaches just as well, where revelation is also present, that there seem to be multiple Gods/Goddesses/Principalities that influence to a great degree our world.

Carla,

"But that is my opinion. I can't prove this, but neither can you prove that Jesus meant what you believe as we are getting our accounts secondhand, thirdhand, passed down orally for 40 to 200 years, translated from the original language, and re-translated with different versions."

Then just where are you getting your concepts of what Jesus said or did? If the Book is false, why are you using that name? You claiming to respect my experience is meaningless, for you defame the very Word of the God I "experienced". If you wish to write your own Book, based on your own revelations, why don't you just do so? Why trash my Book, and "borrow" the name of the one I call my Lord, which is known the world over because of that very Book?

You speak as though it would be difficult for a Being which created the entire universe to cause a Book to be written, and to preserve it's integrity. That is an irrational concept, If God is a real God, then by definition, He can do such things, no big whoop. If you do not believe God created the universe, why do you call it God? If you do, why caste dispersions on His ability to do such a simple thing as cause a mere Book to exist which contains His wisdom, as He chooses? Which is it; An all powerful Being, or a thing which cannot get a message to me? A Being which made our minds, or a being who's actions our minds can exploit if we wish?

Could God "author" such a Book, or not? Could your God not do that?

The one and all ... everything is related to everything ... everything is responsible for everything.
We are responsible for building houses next to dangerous edges ... we are responsible for not taking technical measures about natural disasters that come not unexpected at all ...

Things always get down to the name calling, someone professes to know all truth, to be almost as omnipotent and all-seeing as the God they profess to worship and the real discussion gets derailed. And it always seems to be the same ones. It isn't a debate then, it is an argument, mud-slinging....sounds like politics to me.

My answer to the question is: no, I don't believe God decides that all the people of China need to suffer the loss of so many of their countrymen. I don't think he sent an earthquake. I think the earth's mechanism works this way, earthquakes are built into the system, like the weather system has cyclones, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc.

Does that mean that God did it? Well, if you believe he created this earth then yes, he set it up. But this particular earthquake? No, I don't think he set his finger on China and made a quake happen.

Nor do I think he will fix my car if I pray about it. Now, did he give us intelligence to learn to create a car? yes. To fix the car? Yes. But will he 'fix' this particular car? No.

This is my opinion.

I believe that God created the universe and everything in it, as Donald said above: "every atom and every law of physics". Thus He certainly designed a universe that contained many dangers and placed us in that design clearly with the intention that we would, at times, have to face those dangers.

Keep in mind, as taught by every religion of which I am aware, this life is only part of the great gift of life God gave to us. Whether you believe in reincarnation or in an afterlife of some other kind, the fact remains that faith teaches death is not an end. While I agree, Carla, that we cannot be cavalier about life and death here on this plain, that they are very important things, I don't think Donald was really suggesting that we should. Rather, if I understand him correctly, the fact that lives are lost tragically and this has a serious impact on both those who die and those who survive them, in the grand scheme of God's plan for us it is not the catastrophe it represents in the here and now.

I do agree that God intends this world, this life to be a kind of classroom where we can learn and grow as spiritual beings. To that end, tragedy and the trials of life and death disasters and even debilitating injuries that may occur through them are events that can teach us quite a lot, test us, mature us, help us gain wisdom and compassion. I think that this is part of why God has created a world filled with various dangers, although I suspect there may also be reasons beyond my comprehension as well.

Finally, John, you said to Carla: "Which is it; An all powerful Being, or a thing which cannot get a message to me?" You may see the question boiling down to only two possible answers, but not everyone will agree with you. I believe that God is capable of doing far more than I can imagine Him doing, but I also believe that God has structured His universe in a certain way and does not meddle with His own design in ways that are "magical" in nature. I believe that God is capable of having written the Bible, for example, but that this would be a major interference with His own decision to have granted us free will (by usurping the free will of human authors and imposing his own message on them).

Whether or not our beliefs coincide on this matter is not of very great importance. There is no reason why my belief should threaten yours nor yours threaten mine (or Carla's).

That you believe the Bible to be the literal and precise unchanging word of God for all time is your right, and who can prove you wrong? That I believe the Bible was one book that expressed teachings received from God by certain people at certain times, intended to have meaning in their lives as they were lived in that time, but that God continues to send newer messages, more relevant to the times is my right, and who can prove me wrong?

John, I am totally prepared to respect your beliefs and your right to hold them. I am also prepared to accept that you believe them as firmly as you represent. However, that last point would be easier to grasp if your responses did not often become very defensive and seemingly hostile and accusatory.

As Shakespeare said: "Methinks thou dost protest too much."

Rory,

You are just a man. You can't see into my heart and mind. You declare things as if facts, which are nothing more than your own imaginings.

As long as you feel free to behave in that manner, you are not respecting anything about me at all, obviously.

Rory,

"I believe that God is capable of having written the Bible, for example, but that this would be a major interference with His own decision to have granted us free will (by usurping the free will of human authors and imposing his own message on them)."

How do you know He made such a decision? And, if He did decide such a thing, how do you know those He utilized, did not participate of their own free will? This tendency to believe that beings, including even God, are "imaginable" by a mere man, seems to be at the very center of much of what you believe true. What if this is just not the way the universe works? What if your imagination is only a reflection of your own mind's thinking, and not in any way significant in terms of what God does? Are you not building on a rather weak foundation, which, when others do so, you recognize as folly?

John, in response to your first comment, exactly what did I declare as fact? I was very specific in my remarks about both my own views and yours being beliefs and not facts.

In response to your second comment, I do not in fact know these things that I believe to be true. I have always been very clear, not only in my remarks posted here on Gather but in any discussion of a religious nature, that I do not believe that anyone knows anything about relgious or spiritual matters. All any of us can do is believe that which makes the most sense to our own perspective and perception of reality. Having lived almost 50 years on this planet and having been exposed to a variety of religious teachings and having read a number of books on the subject, the things I express are the things I have come to believe in through this process. In the same manner, the things you express are those which you have come to believe through your own processes. What you have experienced and encountered and read have led you to your conclusions and convictions. I respect that, as I have repeatedly said.

What I do not do, John, and find it hard to respect when you do, is criticize your belief structure as being built on "a rather weak foundation" or anything like that. While I may not share your specific beliefs in their entirety, I do not claim to have superior knowledge or dismiss out of hand those things you believe. I do not think it places your particular set of beliefs in a favourable light when you do.

Rory,

"exactly what did I declare as fact?"

"However, that last point would be easier to grasp if your responses did not often become very defensive and seemingly hostile and accusatory."

That is a statement of fact, and, since it declares I did this thing "often", it is a statement of many facts. You make many declarations which frame matters in convoluted ways, that leave no room for meaningful discourse, and I really don't think you are actually discussing much of anything seriously.

" I was very specific in my remarks about both my own views and yours being beliefs and not facts."

And just how do you know that my beliefs are not based on facts? You can certainly know yours are just beliefs, and you state so plainly, but you cannot know mine are. That is a fact, is it not?

Very good, Rory. I couldn't have said it better myself.

John, you feel that you and your faith are being attacked every time someone disagrees with you. I always preface my views by saying "This is MY belief". Your views are never preceded by saying "I believe". You seem to claim absolute authority and understanding of what Jesus Christ and the authors of the Bible meant (God, of course, to you is the author). I do not claim such authority. Everything is not so black and white and clear-cut. Even Jesus made this clear to us and said that we will not understand. You have chosen to be a literalist. That is your right. But understand that many Christians are NOT literealists. Most of the theologians and biblical scholars are not literalists. I do not criticize you for your beliefs, I merely share my beliefs and encourage others to share theirs.

Carla,

"John, you feel that you and your faith are being attacked every time someone disagrees with you. ...

... I always preface my views by saying "This is MY belief". "


Kind of a silly thing to say right after you make such a declaration, don't you think?

John, you make it very clear that you feel attacked and that I am attacking the Bible. I don't have to preface that with "I believe".

Carla,

I asked a fairly simple question, and would really like to hear an answer, please; If you think the Book is false, then just where are you getting your concepts of what Jesus said or did? You can claim that's me being defensive, but it sure looks like a reasonable question to me. You not wishing to provide an answer, is not indicative of my defensiveness, or feeling threatened. It's called discussion. I am asking what I am wanting to understand better.

Carla,

" John, you make it very clear that you feel attacked and that I am attacking the Bible. I don't have to preface that with "I believe". "

I hope you're not so disingenuous as to claim you do not intentionally defame that Book quite often. Why ought I pretend I can't read?

This has been a great discussion. The age old question of does God cause disasters and bad things to happen to people is bound to result in a lot of emotion. This is where I have a lot of trouble with the concept of God. In one square mile, there are thousands of interactions. When one thinks of what must occur for a leaf to fall for a tree, it shows just how complex the earth is. That is one small event in a world of billions, trillions, and more of events that occur every second, nanoseconed, etc. So, does God orchestrate every nanosecond of every single thing that happens on the earth? Unfortunately, because I am a mere mortal, I can only equate that to an incredible super computer that keeps track of an incredible amount of things occuring all at once, and not only on our planet, but throughout the cosmos. I struggle with this, and have always struggled with this because my mind cannot comprehend how this works. There is a leap here - the understanding that we cannot understand - at least that is what I have discerned in my comparative religion studies. There is the lay person and then exalted and divine messengers (who understand more than us), and then the realm of none of us here on earth can understand. Just my thoughts (not casting aspersions on any other belief). Thanks for your great facilitation Carla.

Good thinking Gina.

Gina R.: You seem to be reasonably well educated, aware, and perspicacious. When you say that as a mortal you think of all this (nature) as programmed by a gigantic computer "in the sky" (my words, not yours), I suggest that you think about it more deeply, to try to reach outside your "mortal" limitations and immediate surroundings in time and circumstance. Computers are man made devices that try to mimic the brain. They are a continuation of the "bits and pieces" gross universe. God (and our souls) is beyond these limitations (of our "bits and pieces" body, including the brain). Our souls are beyond time itself, of "thinking" and of "building". It is not something "reasonable" to our brains. It is beyond that and it's limitations of conceptual wording. When we simplify (for convenience of the brain) these matters we immediately limit our perceptions to those of our immediate surroundings. We evade even our natural environment in the microscopic and macroscopic sense. To leap beyond these limitations of the "immediate" we must reach outside of "the rational" and start "swimming" in the sea of "intuitive perception." That is where real knowledge comes from. Otherwise, we remain faceted to our gross and deceptive simplistic surroundings.

Donald I agree wholeheartedly with you. As I indicated, I admit that I find it hard to go into the realm of intuitive perception. I am a spiritual person who believes in things that cannot be seen. But I truthfully struggle with the beyond, souls, life after death, etc. My early training came from atheists and spiritual/not religious people. With that grounding, I believe and I don't believe. Does that make sense? I am trapped between worlds.

John, you believe that I "defame" the Bible. That is your opinion. I disagree. I have been a Bible student for years. The Bible is the primary textbook of Unity, my denomination. The only difference is that we see the Bible as "inspired" scripture written by individuals. We are not literalists. We look at symbolism and metaphysical interpretation when we look at scripture. I have explained this all to you many times.

Gina, open your heart and your mind. Be willing to receive guidance. You will know when something rings true.

Donald, I would agree. "Intuitive perception" is often divine inspiration, another way that Spirit communicates to us. Dreams are another way.

Thanks for your nice feedback. This is an area of great interest to me. It is important for those of us searching that the discussion remains calm so that we can learn and grow. My take on this is that if God knows everything, then God knows that the divine is interpreted and viewed differently. Apparently, that is okay with God. God could have made his books crystal clear, with no ambiguity, but he didn't. There is much room for interpretation, so apparently, that's what is wanted. Thoughts?

Carla G. and Gina R.: Gina, I understand your position. Just "hang in there" and you will devolve at your own pace. Personally, I think that many atheists are that in name only. They are more in revolt against the conception of an anthropomorphic God, which is a primitive concept and quite erroneous, than in atheism per se. No wonder they don't want to be associated with that belief. It is interesting that quantum physics has opened the way for "rational, linear thinkers" (left brain dominant) to begin to appreciate the fact that even in the rational, linear universe we are discovering things that are not "rational" in the traditional sense. Modern astrophysics and cosmology are beginning to tread into the "swampy ground" of "rationally absurd" propositions as to the reality of nature itself. What is not rational today will become rational tomorrow. It is a revolution in thinking that is taking place, thanks to modern exploratory physics. The subject of "God, soul. 'life after death' has been the exclusive default province of the "dreamers" for a long period due to the rise of naive realism in science (Newtonian physics), but the "worm is turning" now. Even science is no longer the prisoner of "naive realism." Unfortunately, most people are not aware of this, even those pursuing science in the beginning phases.
Carla G.: I agree whole heartedly with "dreams are another way." Actually, as I see it, dreams are the "'roamings' of the spirit" when the brain is inactive except peripherally. Most of the time dreams are the result of too much supper or the wrong food poking around in the body angrily. But not always. In our dreams, again as I see it, we explore beyond the limitations of our immediate surroundings and our brain's fixation on it.

John, quoting me out of context in order try and expose some inconsistency is hardly a fair tactic. What I wrote was:

"John, I am totally prepared to respect your beliefs and your right to hold them. I am also prepared to accept that you believe them as firmly as you represent. However, that last point would be easier to grasp if your responses did not often become very defensive and seemingly hostile and accusatory."

By leaving out the first two sentences of that paragraph and then characterizing the final one as a statement of fact, you are promoting a clear misinterpretation, and I must say I find it hard to see how this is not deliberate. In both of the first two sentences I used the phrase "I am... prepared to [respect/accept]" and even in the final sentence I use the qualifying word "seemingly". The entire paragraph is, there for, obviously defined as a statement or series of statement about my own beliefs and perceptions. At no point did I use the phrase "it is a fact" or anything remotely resembling it. So, please, John, if you cannot simply acknowledge that you made an incorrect statement, at least have the grace not to attribute inaccuracies against me to support your original satement.

Furthermore, your original statement regarding my supposed declaration of fact, in the context of this discussion, seemed to me to be directed at a statement of doctrine rather than a remark concerning the tenor of your comments. While I steadfastly hold the position that in all matters of doctrine we are all operating on faith and faith only as none of us is in possession of empirical knowledge of the matter, this does not extend to matters of direct human communication. I am quite capable of perceiving the subtleties of human communication and, even though such perceptions are also subject to interpretation, I sincerely doubt I am the only one here who senses defensiveness in your comments (Carla at least has expressed as much).

John, you ended your last remark directed at me by saying:

"And just how do you know that my beliefs are not based on facts? You can certainly know yours are just beliefs, and you state so plainly, but you cannot know mine are. That is a fact, is it not?"

Once again, I do not claim to "know" anything about matters spiritual. However, it is my belief, as often stated, that none of us "knows" anything about matters spiritual. All we have is belief. Knowledge comes from empirical evidence, factual proof, which are things that can be demonstrated. You have made reference to your belief that your faith is based on things you absolutely know and have, to your own satisfaction at least, what amounts to empirical evidence of. But you have thus far been unable to demonstrate that evidence to me. There for I will continue to respect your right to believe as you will, even concerning the nature of the evidence you believe you have, but I will also to continue to believe in my own mind that this is only faith, not knowledge.

However, please understand that I do not mean to infer that faith is inferior to knowledge. Indeed, I think that faith, rather than knowledge, is required in order to develop wisdom. Knowledge can be acquired through the effort to apply inteligence, but it cannot add up to wisdom. I think of the two, faith and knowledge, as complimentary things, like the wings of a bird. Both must be strong to give the bird flight.

No. It's just a way for insurance companies to get out of paying victims of natural disasters.

As science researches where in the brain deja vue originates and where out-of-body experiences generate, does that take away from the mystery. I must admit that I am more biased towards science, all the while knowing that science evolves and changes. I like to take my leaps of faith with a big dose of science. I don't think they are mutually exclusive.

Gina R.: They are not mutually exclusive except in some minds. But I am as skeptical of "science" as I am of the occult. An awful lot of "science" is based on conjecture and "proven" only until the data conflict under closer scrutiny later. I don't think that our "out of body" experiences except in an auxiliary way. Our "mind" is not part of the brain, although the average materialistic scientist assumes that it is based on lack of evidence that it isn't. I'm sure that the brain (which in my opinion acts as a "translator" of the extra-natural experience into natural terms) will show up brain activity associated with the wanderings of the mind. But interpreting this as the activity itself is not explained by such activity, only in that there is a somewhat symbiotic relationship between the brain function and the mind function. After all, our physical awareness of the extra-physical is through transcribing functions of the brain into physically amenable symbols. I am not suggesting that one ignore science but that one be cautious about simply accepting what "science" says. It seems like a constant thing that we are told that what we were told yesterday simply isn't so today. Both science and intuition can be misleading and illusional.

I do agree with you Donald. The scientific method of first developing a hypothesis and then determining whether that is correct can lead to a lot of problems. I tend to be a skeptic in general. I take the show me position. I guess that's why I answered the way I did to this post. Still a skeptic.

Carla,

"We are not literalists. We look at symbolism and metaphysical interpretation when we look at scripture. I have explained this all to you many times."

I haven't the slightest idea what a "literalist" means in this statement. It's as though you are declaring that there is some possible way to NOT look at symbolism and "metaphysical interpretations", and so on, when reading scripture. That's just plain kooky. The whole Book is positively overflowing with such things. So you are referring to me as something, and you've done so several times, which has no meaning to me. You are differentiating, but not explaining the difference.

My question is how you can know which statements or ideas in the Book are "genuine" reflections of God's mind, and which are "distortions" or forgeries produced by mere human desire of some form. You may avoid that question forever (so to speak), but I'm not going to pretend you addressed it, for you haven't.

Let's have a look at what the critic of others beliefs and practices, is basing their beliefs and practices upon. And, allow their approach to be scrutinized. It's just too easy, me thinks, to assume one is wise, because they accuse others of foolishness. There is no end of superficial criticisms that can be tossed out about others approach to these complex matters, for they are indeed very complex, and not the sort of thing one can easily convey. Any approach can be made to look foolish with a bit of rhetorical defamation, if that is all one is intending.

Rory,

"I sincerely doubt I am the only one here who senses defensiveness in your comments"

This talk of "defensiveness" is juvenile. Consider; That statement came at the end of a whole lot of "defending" on your part. Obviously, any attempt to rebut someone can be childishly labelled "defensiveness", and no serious inquiry into the rationales or opinions of another cannot be seen as a defense of one's own. The fact that you and Carla resort to that non-sense quickly and casually, is not testimony to my reaction-ism, but yours. It's a rhetorical tactic, employed to trick the gullible and unobservant into joining in a "mobbing" mentality. Generally, it seems to be utilized to cover for one's logical weakness, by diverting attention away from what one is not able to actually support, by inviting others to join the mob in attacking someone the accused wishes to have silenced. BFD.

"Knowledge comes from empirical evidence, factual proof, which are things that can be demonstrated."

This is false. There is absolutely no reason to tack on that last bit about "demonstrating" anything. None. That is something only very insecure folks give a crap about. If I see something, I have knowledge of that something. That I can, or cannot, demonstrate that I actually saw it, has nothing to do with the knowledge I have acquired, only my sense of being accepted by others. That is very important to children, but not mature people.

The logical ramifications of such a definition render the conclusion that there is no such thing as knowledge; For each human being sees only what they see. Either the mind is actually capable of perceiving reality, or it is not. Introducing other people into the equation, just presents another thing that can't be "known", in the sense you define. How does one "know" that the other, even exists? There is no way to "know" that those one seeks confirmation from, are any more "real" than the thing one sought confirmation of. One is left with an infinite requirement to validate the very confirmation, by seeking another confirmer, who again must be confirmed to exist, and to have spoken in agreement. There is no "bottom line", regardless of how near and dear to you "group approval" is.

I say; A human being has no choice but to accept what they witness directly. Any other response is a denial of one's ability to see reality as it is, and therefore obliterates any way of rationally accepting any confirmation. If you "dreamed" an event occurred, which you saw while fully conscious and appropriately skeptical, then you could just as easily be dreaming any confirmation. So your superficially rational approach leads nowhere, but self doubt and confusion. A sane person MUST consider themselves a valid witness of a real world, or they have no reality they can have faith in.

Pleas note that both of the matters I address herein, are of a very similar nature, and both are centered around "group" approval. This is not a coincidence, I don't believe, but lies at the very core of the matters we herein discuss, and is indicative of the "false" security of the many. The many, can be just as wrong and silly, as the few, and indeed, even the one. History certainly demonstrates that beyond a rational doubt. Seek not confirmation from others, seek God, who can confirm in a true sense, in reality. Everything else is just conjecture. There's only one way to know if God is real, and that requires God's assistance, naturally.

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and sup with him, and he with me.

John, you are the one who is critical and defensive. Read your own words. If you go back through this string and others you will see that it is you that gets upset about what someone says that disagreees with your beliefs and then you go after them. As I have said before MANY times, you don't want to have a discussion, you want to attack others and try to make them wrong. That is why we all tire of responding to you, John.

John - I think the hardest part of discussing religion is that you realize that it is hard to change people's beliefs. It can be done, but it generally takes time for people to process such things. Belief systems are held to tightly for many different reasons. For instance, my ex-boyfriend who became a born again Christian could not understand why I could not embrace it immediately. I walked the path with him and tried, but my upbringing and personality just got in the way. But I did listen and learn, which helped me. My words of encouragement to you are that it is best to be patient with people, just as Jesus was. You get more with vinegar than you do honey. Anyone on this post is respectful of God and trying to be more learned. I can understand how it is so hard sometimes to feel like you are talking to the wind, when it appears that your beliefs are so crystal clear and obvious, but faith systems are anything but obvious for people. Hope that helps.

Gina,

Perhaps, some people have faith but not in the same way as others. In this country, all faith is equal.

Gina,

Thanks for the concern, but I'm being quite patient, and not in the least upset or anxious. I'm just saying things many don't wish to hear, I think. These guys are kinda touchy sometimes.

Joe,

That doesnt make any sense at all. Some have little faith, some have much, countries can't make such things equal, no more than they can make our height or IQs equal. We're equally free to have and expess faith, perhaps that's what you meant?

Carla,

I didn't "go after" anyone, I'm just being a bit frank, and asking others to be. You are awfully eager to accuse me of some sin or other, it seems. Everything I've written can be read without all the imagined emotion, if you choose, and seen to be quite peaceable. Please realize, your reaction is not the same as my emotional state. If I said I thought the President was an immoral person, someone might get quite upset, others might cheer, but I say it as a simple observation.

Gina R., John Knight, and Carla G.: Good for all of you. It is important that you have convictions and defend them. It is important for others to listen and possibly learn. None of us has the "whole picture" only a part of the picture. Maybe later on an idea planted in one of these comments will come to roost and "hatch an egg" of insight into our own enhanced view of things.

Donald,

Thank you, that last aspect is so very crucial to understand, I think. In paying careful attention to what occurs, lies our hope of learning and maturing. The immediate reaction of the mind and emotions, can lead us to miss many things now, but a part of us remembers, and considers, thank God.

Thanks for you comment, Donald. You are right, none of us has the "whole picture". None of us is the authority on Ultimate Truth. We all share our views and perspective on different topics. We speak from our experience, which others may not understand, it not being their experience. My goal in providing this forum is to allow for discussion and the opportunity to exchange ideas. It should not be a place where we attack the views of others and try to make them wrong.

When I started "Spirituality Explorers" I said that it was a group for "open-minded" people. That means we are open to considering things outside the realm of what might be considered "traditional" views.

Thanks Donald - I like opinionated people. It is often said that without the extreme members in our society, there would never be any change. It's the radicals that move us about, as the rest of us are on the couch observing. My mother is a very learned and opinionated person. People often think that she is upset as she speaks because she is so passionate, but she's just intense. As my friend says all the time about me, I am intense. And John appears to be intense. But my dad, my good old dad, has to lighten things up from time to time. So, I got both sides of my parents and simply wanted us all to calm down so that we could commune again. John - I like to hear every point of view. Some of us are not as versed as you in the scripture. Don't forget to help like me out when you are explaining.

Gina,

I'll try . . . but it's often hard to get beyond the "open-minded" folk's objections. It seems that scripture is not considered a good thing to bring into discussions about God . . . in some people's open minds .. .

I know very many don't have a lot of exposure to the Book, despite its reputation for being "traditional". If it gets much more traditional, it may become unheard of, it seems . . .   ; )

There you go again, John, twisting the words of others and using your inuendos. No one has objected to scripture.

I think that religion is a hard thing to discuss because sometimes once people bring in a scripture into the discussion, it's like the discussion becomes closed. And I understand that for some people, no discussion is left. But as long as everyone is willing to discuss it, like millions have done before us, then I have no problem with it. The Bible has been discussed for thousands of years, and will continue to be discussed for thousands more.

Yes John, as Carla says, it is not the scripture itself we have a problem with, it is the interpretation of it by far too many who see it in shallowness rather than essence, that generates the problems in this world. IMnsHO.

Gina R. and Jerry, et al: As it should be (the Bible studied for a long time to come). It is our history (or at least part of our history) of God's connection with us all. But again, as Jerry points out, we sometimes take on as "fact" what our own narrow interpretation is as to what has transpired and what is from our own hopes and imagination. Yet the Bible (and all scripture including the Koran) is directed to each and every one of us personally in addition to us as a part of the "whole." If religion divides us then it is better to have no religion. That was not it's purpose nor is it it's purpose.

Carla,

"No one has objected to scripture."

Hmmm . . .

" . . niether can you prove that Jesus meant what you believe as we are getting our accounts secondhand, thirdhand, passed down orally for 40 to 200 years, translated from the original language, and re-translated with different versions. The writers of the four gospels aren't even consistent about everything."

That's most definately an objection to the scripture I would cite.

John, NOT an objection to scripture as the word of God near as much as it's "selective" presentation by men in it's "arrangements" ... even atheists for the most part would have no objection to the actual pristine "words" of God, it is only what has been done to them by others that serves as a problem ... why, I wonder, do you constantly refuse to allow that such words are not the "perfection" that you see in them ... ?

John why do you constantly try to misrepresent me as some Bible-hater?

John, I'm not sure if you are now claiming to have seen God with your own eyes or not. If not then its all perception, point of view and interpretation of the evidence you have "seen".

I can't say that your interpretation of my motivation being that of seeking group approval is at all astute. If this were what led me to make certain conclusions vis-a-vis my faith then it would be unlikely to have led me to a relatively obscure relgion that most in our culture are unaware of and then to move to a community in which almost no others of my faith live so that I would have almost no contact with other adherents over the past decade and a half. Even my own wife does not share my faith, so in fact I have received basically zero "confirmation from others" as a result of my religious conclusions.

Rory,

I was speaking to something else altogher. Peace.