Schrodinger’s God

Okay, this needs to be a bit quick, because I’m really tired and need a full night of sleep for once.

I had a revelation today, debating once again about religion on Yahoo. I got into a discussion on truth, on the fact of versus the belief in god, and who in the religion business is right versus who is wrong. In my struggle to get this other person to understand that no one knows 100% the image of god, the will of god, or the parameters god may or may not have set in the world for us to follow, I developed an interesting analogy which I am quite happy with. And here it is:

God is Schrodinger’s cat.


And now we know where the Egyptians got it from.

The idea is that no one can claim that they know for an absolute fact where the line is drawn between right and wrong in any given situation. Don’t get me wrong here, there are things that are simply ‘sick and wrong’ in the world that no person should be okay with. There is a right and wrong, and I’m sure there is a line, and we try to define that line through laws, social norms, and religious guidance. Despite these human-defined lines, however, we still have different cultures which draw the line in different places, and we still have people who cross over that line despite the consequences. Why is this? I beg to say that it is because that individual’s personally-drawn line is different from the society-developed line. Every person has their own personal line, and it is up to that individual to decide, if their line goes past the boundaries of societal lines, whether they will stay true to their personal line or the societal line.

The person I was talking to seemed to hold the line between good and evil on the same plane as god itself, so lets go into the whole concept. Just as we cannot determine where the true line between good and evil is (it looks more like a fuzzy grey blur in the middle somewhere), we also cannot define with perfect clarity the image or intentions of god. We cannot agree as a human race what god looks like, what god’s intentions are for our existence or our way of life, and, as described above, where god drew the real line between good and evil. We can guess away with what we believe to be evidence of god’s existence, god’s intentions, etc. but they are only educated guesses.

Looking at god this way, we could say that god is in a box. We are pretty sure it’s in there, but we do not for certain, and if we guess that it is, we cannot be certain in what state it is in. We cannot observe its appearance or its reasoning for being in the box. We can find clues around the box, but we cannot peak inside. According to Schrodinger, because the attributes of the cat cannot be absolutely defined from outside the box, than any observation regarding the cat inside is both right and wrong at the same time. The cat is both alive and dead. So if I say the cat is dead, I am right, but someone who says the cat is dead would be just as right as I would be. This is the same with our interpretation of god. All religions are simply people giving their interpretation of the god in the box, and they are all both equally right and equally wrong.

So…what do you think?


50 thoughts on “Schrodinger’s God

    • Agreed. Again, the idea is that everyone is right and wrong at the same time. Because we don’t know what is in the box, or on the other side of the wall, we are all right and wrong at the same time. 🙂 Quite a comforting thought, if you ask me.

      • Rana,
        Is not knowing what is in the box or on the other side of the wall really comforting to you? (I saw the smile sign, and am unsure of which part you are joking about) Think of a game show, where you pick what is behind door #1, door #2, and door #3. Behind one door is a vacation package to Tahiti, behind another a man-eating tiger, and behind another a mystery package (maybe something nice, maybe the black death), and you have to guess which one has the vacation and open the door! Our atheist friend, Dirk Porche, is betting what’s on the other side of those doors is harmless – taking an incredible chance that it is not the tiger – or worse, eternity in hell. You seem to be betting on the maybe something good, maybe something bad deal – taking your chances something good will show up, but with no sound knowledge or basis for it. Death is certain, final, and irreversible. We have absolutely no control over what happens to us afterwards. How is it that you take comfort in not knowing what’s in that box? We do not have even this very nigh guaranteed to us. We could drop dead at any…………slump!

      • It is not the aspect of the unknown which comforts me, but the ability to look at all people equally through the idea that everyone is right and wrong at the same time. I can actually live my life and accept everyone’s views, perhaps not be able to agree or relate to those views, but I can accept that those views are that person’s views, and be okay with it. Frankly, I take comfort in the idea that, because there is no way of my knowing whether I’m right or wrong about god, there is no definitive way to say, “I know the real god, the real intentions of god,” than I am released of the burden of struggling in this life to understand god fully. We are human, Thunder. We are imperfect, and it is a lie to think that, as a human in this life, we can know and understand every aspect of god. God is beyond us. To say that we can know god, 100% definitively know god, its intentions, its image, its power, etc. in this life as imperfect human beings, IS to put god in a box. The box of our reality and understanding. I have accepted that I cannot conceive all of god in this life, and so casually compile the truth of god which I find in all things, and allow myself to be satisfied with however far I am in my knowledge of god for the moment. You are right, you never know when we’re going to be gone, so if we struggle to know everything about god when it is impossible for us to, we will only die in disappointment of not knowing more. I don’t think god will hold it against any person for not doing the impossible.

      • Rana,
        But I don’t think you’re seriously saying that we’re all right and all wrong at the same time. That just doesn’t make sense. Let’s put it this way, when you have a living, breathing, personal relationship with God, you don’t have to know everything about Him to understand an awful lot about Him and how He thinks. I can tell you with absolute certainty how He feels about certain things, because I know Him – though not exhaustively. And THAT”S what we’re really dealing with here. I am saying you can know God, and that He wants to reveal HImself very clearly and very specifically to you. On top of that, I am saying that I have this relationship with God – a living, breathing, speaking, communicating relationship. (And so can you) I did not always have this relationship with God. It took a considerable breaking of my will and ways – not by a church, not by an organization, but by God Himself. Make no bones about it, it involved an unconditional surrender on my part, and it will on your part as well if you truly want to know Him.

      • Rana,

        “knowing whether I’m right or wrong about god” … there are A LOT of things to be right or wrong about with God. You could say that for any subject in history though. How do you prove anything happened in history? Look at the evidence available. To believe in anything that you personally didn’t witness,anything in history or in present for that matter, requires a little bit of faith. I think its funny that people can get on the internet and check out an article and discuss it as if everything in it is truth. That would be making several assumptions:
        1.The author will not lie or post with any slant or agenda.
        2. The author has seen all the facts.
        3. The author has correctly portrayed exactly what has happened.

        We all know that media is always trying to pull on the emotional strings with any story so I think we can safely assume there will be a slant to every post written. ( geez its so easy to stroll away on a tangent)
        And yet something that has been in written in text for thousands of years with over 6000 original manuscripts to prove its validity, is just shrugged off as a good book. Where is the big disconnect here?? Since when is something that has less proof more real or accurate than something with more proof? That is totally illogical. With that said there is A LOT to learn in the bible that is TRUTH(unless you take the illogical approach of something with less proof is more accurate and real.)

        ‘To say that we can know god, 100% definitively know god, its intentions, its image, its power, etc. in this life as imperfect human beings, IS to put god in a box.”

        No its not… You are correct that we cannot know 100%about God. He doesn’t explain or answer every possible question in the bible. He gives us a lot of information, and instruction but does not explain EVERYTHING. Just because YOU don’t understand something doesn’t mean everyone else cannot understand it. That doesn’t put the subject in a box.

        ” so if we struggle to know everything about god when it is impossible for us to, we will only die in disappointment of not knowing more. I don’t think god will hold it against any person for not doing the impossible.”

        We don’t have to know everything about God to be a believer in God(Jesus). If you had to know everything about something to believe in it then you would believe in nothing. John 3:16 says ” For God so loved the world that he gave is one and only son, and whoever believes in him will not perish but have everlasting life.” Believing in Jesus is not impossible. John 14:6 say “Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”. With that stated it will be held against you or anyone who has chosen not to believe in Jesus. A lot of people ask” well what does it mean to believe in Jesus?” Here it is:

        We are all sinners, and fall short of the glory of God…. ref(Rom 3:23)
        Sin separates us from God……………………………………..ref(Rom 6:23)
        A separation that for man alone is impossible to cross.
        God loves us so much that he sent his son Jesus to take our place in receiving the punishment for sin, and all we have to do is believe in his son Jesus and let him take that burden from us……………………………………………………..ref(John 3:16)
        Jesus rose from the dead in 3 days… He is the only one in history to 1. raise himself from the dead, 2. claim to be God, 3. Is God
        This gives him the authority to forgive our sins and declare us righteous before God. No one else can do this. No man in history has this authority. Friends/others can forgive you for offenses against them and that makes you right with them, but only Jesus can forgive your sin and make you right with God.

        “Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me…… Rev 3:20
        “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness……………………………………………..1 John 1:9

    • Ok so I just finished reading all about Erwin Schrodinger and his cat paradox. I then remembered your theory, and realized you are taking it totally out of context. His is talking only about quantum mechanics. I later learned that the famed atheist Richard Dawkins coined the Schrodingers God label which is still taking it out of context but lets run with it. In quantum mechanics they were unable to determine when a superposition collapsed but people were making theories as if they did. The paradox only points out “hey you don’t know for sure how that happened. If that is what your running with well… let me tell you about faith. If you believe anything that you yourself did not observe, you are exercising a little faith that the someone or something that informed you of xyz told you the truth. Truth is
      b : sincerity in action, character, and utterance
      a (1) : the state of being the case : fact (2) : the body of real things, events, and facts : actuality (3) often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality
      b : a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true
      c : the body of true statements and propositions
      a : the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality
      b chiefly British : true 2
      c : fidelity to an original or to a standard
      capitalized Christian Science : god
      — in truth
      : in accordance with fact : actually

      Ok so since you weren’t there to witness the events of the bible or the holocaust, etc. You have to go on evidence, and you have to have faith that the evidence you see hasn’t been tampered with…. now that we are back to evidence… see “Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh Mcdowell” You will find plenty there with the sources being cited.

      Just because you and I weren’t there to OBSERVE the events in the bible doesn’t make the events that happened less true. If that is your only basis for not believing then it sounds like your just making excuses or trying not to offend anyone etc.

      ……. just an observation 😉

      • Hey Truth! Long time no read! XD Getting to your comment, I do realize that I have taken the paradox out of the original context, but that’s the entire point. You say, “The paradox only points out “hey you don’t know for sure how that happened.”” That’s what I’m saying. You can’t know for sure what god is, what its intentions are for us, if it even exists at all, etc. You are absolutely right that we have to take quite a bit, if not all of it, on faith that were are relying on evidence which is credible. I promise you I have ample amounts of faith in my own personal belief in god.

        My point in this is not to say that no one is right. On the contrary, I focus on the point of the cat in the box of, “The cat is both alive and dead at the same time until the box is opened.” In this context, god is all that we believe it to be until we meet it face-to-face (for lack of a better wording). The events of the bible may be true, but they are also taken on faith as well as evidence of truth. Faith creates the paradox. One must have faith in their belief in god, because that is all it is. A belief based on assumed evidence and faith. There is nothing wrong with having faith. What I find wrong is when one insists that something that one believes in, has faith in being truth, is truth for all, universal truth that all people should follow, or face the believed consequences. Faith does not equal truth. It is possible that something one has faith in is truth, but it is not provable, so I take faith, the faith of others as well as the faith I have in my own belief, with a grain of salt. I have faith that my belief is truth, but that does not mean I claim it to actually be truth, nor tell others that my belief should be their belief because I have faith that my belief is truth. I cannot prove that my belief is truth to all people, and I do not believe, and have not been proven wrong, that any other person’s faith can be proven as universal truth. God is behind a wall, in a box, whatever you want to call it. God is not in a place where all man can see it for themselves and know it to be truth. This is why every man must rely on faith to know any form of god, any interpretation of god through any religion.

        • Rana,
          In my feelings, you are too often repeating the same mantras like this: “God is behind a wall, in a box, whatever you want to call it. God is not in a place where all man can see it for themselves and know it to be truth.”
          People were able to discover step by step and use: fire, wheel, steam machine, electricity etc. It can motivate people for more work and can be satisfying, but for a short or longer time. Definitely, it is not inspiring people for an unlimited time perspective. In our acient history we had some great philosophers living thousands year ago, but they were far away from establishing higher/abstract religious rules/dogmas. Nobody also claimed to be the author of even the smallest part of the Old Testimony – how tempting it would be as making almost immortal their names. Jesus and Mohamed were humbly presenting themselves as the God’s ‘servants’. The example of God’s love toward people, up to the point of sacrificing the most precious part of Himself for saving humankind, was extremely ‘revolutionary’ in the ancient world. Only it had a chance to change mentality of so many people carrying at those days very strong inherited animal instincts. Rana, do you feel the power of all messages in the New Testimony? Koran is also strong because repeats many notions introduced earlier in the New Testimony. And now I will stop after reaching a very dangerous territory of details concerning different religions as I only want to point out big historical role of the religions (in general) in/for developing human spirituality. It contrasts so much with promoted today mastering only our rationality/logic and driving it self-satisfactions.
          Will you accept my adding such factors (using such a platform) into this discussion?

  1. Rana,

    What do I think? As one who has engaged in many discussions on God with you, both under this screen name, and also my real name, I must say I’m a little disappointed in you here, in that I believe that your proposal does not live up to what you already know to be true.

    First: God in a box? What box will you place Him in, or in what lab will you study Him? Can you place Him in a box, probe it, or pick up the box and shake it? Will the God of all the universe, WHO MADE YOU, really sit under the microscope of man? Can you, all of a quarter century in existence on one tiny planet in one solar system among 2 billion in the Milky Way among billions of galaxies only in the known universe (translation, we can’t see beyond our 14 billion light year box and therefore determine it is all that is!) evaluate a God who has had no beginning? A trillion trillion years ago He was no closer to His birthday than now. My half century plus does not help me with these kinds of magnitudes in play either.

    Now I know you well enough from your posts to understand that you do not literally believe that God could live in a box. But I do believe you may be in for a startling paradigm shift one day, where you suddenly discover that you have, in fact, exchanged places with God- even as you also realize that you cannot evaluate Him on some level. This is where you throw Him into another box – the safe and irresponsible box of the unknowable – which is what your post here is really about. Think of it. Because you are uncertain, and observe the existence of many contradictory views of God, you are determining that it is unknowable. Is this not, in its own perverse and contradictory sense, assuming the position of the All Knowing? (That is, “I do not know, therefore you cannot”) (My insistence of knowing, by the way, is based not on my own understanding, but on a close and personal revelation of Jesus Christ in my heart, which my mind also affirms)

    The audacity of man is that he believes he is sufficient to evaluate God of his own resources, and among those who discover that they can’t (and perhaps you are among them), they conclude that He is unknowable – also a finite and flawed assumption. It is not a picture of a man trying to figure out what is within the box. It is a picture of an ant trying to figure out the person who dropped the cracker crumb it is dragging across the floor. But are we quite that helpless? Yes and no.

    We cannot fathom the awesomeness of God by our own resources; BUT, the love of God reveals. How?

    First in nature. We need not look beyond the wonders of our own bodies – with incredibly complex eyes, brains more sophisticated than any computer, and blood that transmits nutrients to every one of the hundred trillion cells of our body. Zooming in on the blood alone – it has a mechanism for replacing and carrying away a million cells every three minutes and fends off foreign invasions – all going on without a thought even as you read this post. Even the ant we spoke of in an amazing creature. Autonomous in such a tiny package, it finds it own energy source (hence, the cracker crumb!) reproduces, and acts in community and social hierarchy. If we’re not convinced by own bodies, or the world around us, we only need look up to the heavens.

    This next statement is probably the most important thing I am going to say to you. Besides God’s general revelation of Himself through all of creation, He reveals selectively depending on the condition of our hearts. (And God knows our hearts with absolute certainty) This is where God both respects us and our choices – to receive or reject Him AS HE IS (not as we would make HIM!), while He also requires respect of Himself by NOT revealing further to those who would trample that revelation beneath their feet – just as wise people do not reveal intimate details of their lives with strangers and those who will not respect the intimacy.

    There is a fundamental difference in regard to knowing God that man has over the ant, however. All creation glorifies God in one way or the other, but man was created in God’s own image, and for the express purpose of knowing and relating to God. For this reason God desires to both reveal and to relate. He is both a revealing and relational God. This requires an intensity of seeking on our part because for the ant to understand the person who drops the crumbs will take some considerable stretching on its part. The difference between man and the ant is that man is capable of considering that someone has indeed dropped a crumb for it.

    What does this mean, being made in God’s own image? It means, for one thing, that we have the ability to comprehend God, but not BE God. (And the atheist has presumptuously assumed the second posture – though he may or may not admit it.) How can the finite comprehend the infinite? He can over an infinite amount of time, provided that the Infinite is willing to reveal and the finite was created capable of comprehending what is revealed. We were created to know Him, though it will take an eternity to make that knowledge complete (which just happens to be the amount of time we have!) Part of our comprehension of this God is also to fathom that He is incomprehensible. Let me explain this seemingly contradictory statement. We cannot comprehend a God who never had a beginning. No matter how hard we try, it gets us nowhere. Our head explodes! Why? Because all creation, of which we are part, exists in cause and effect, and to go back to that which had no cause blows our minds. But this very cause and effect which we comprehend so well, also enables us to come to the conclusion that, though we cannot comprehend it, God not having a beginning must be so – else everything comes from nothing – which we also find impossible. So we end up with enough comprehension of God to stand in awe. Neither can we comprehend an infinite universe, but we can readily conclude that it must be so. (If it ends, what’s on the other side?) Having no beginning is impossible to grasp, but having no end is not. Why? Because “having no end”, unlike having no beginning (we celebrate our birthday every year, right?) is part of our destiny. In fact, the thought of our ending consciousness is almost as difficult to comprehend as no beginning. This is because we were created eternal beings.

    Have you considered that God wants to satisfy this search of yours? (But even as He does, you will be left staring at the next quest – this search to understand God, just like eating, goes from hunger, to satisfaction, and again to hunger, followed by satisfaction. In fact, it is human to enjoy this process. (Hunger to being satisfied with food, not starvation from denial or delay in being satisfied that we find in a fallen world)

    Finally, just look at yourself and your own quest. You come to conclusions, but you are not satisfied. It is true that all of our understanding of God is imperfect (and certainly incomplete), but it is not true that all understanding of God is of equal merit. Let me ask you. Why do you always get back to this topic of God, except that there is a deep and ceaseless search for this God that God Himself wants to satisfy? God wants to satisfy your yearning, even as He will challenge it further. God does not respond to sincere pursuit of Himself with denial or indifference.

    But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. (Hebrews 11:6)

      • Thank you, Truth! Rana really does write very well, and is diverse in her writing – logic, poetry, and fantasy. I particularly like her poetry, along with the clear logic. (Haven’t read her fantasy) But clouded by the dark side, she is! Help her we will, yes! (Are you listening out there, Rana? Just having fun)

      • You know, I get email notifications on my phone every time you guys post on here. XD Glad you’re both having fun, though. Thunder, I’m going to have to hold off on replying to you, as I want to formulate my response and then post, not just go stream of conscience. Also, I just got back from the gym and am very tired. ^_^ Will post soon, though, you know me.

      • Rana,
        Please accept our apologies. We somehow got caught up in the moment with the idea of two naughty boys posting their hearts out with no one watching or monitoring them. (And we enjoyed it immensely!) You’ve got to understand that every now and then grown men momentarily revert back to being boys again. I used to own a business, and one time my estimator and I were working on designing something for our new building extension. We got so wrapped up in it that we ended up sitting on the floor, cutting up index cards representing our design ideas. We were like two little boys playing in the sandbox. All of a sudden we looked up at each other – with paper cuttings, scissors, and markers everywhere, and realized just how lost we had become in our project, and both of us lost it at the same time – belly laughing to tears. Again, sorry!

    • Hey Thunder. So I haven’t had the time to really sit and go through your comment section by section, so I’m going to wing it as best as I can.

      I’m going to go through your beginning section, as you basically nullify it by saying you realize that I am not, in fact, putting god in a box. I honestly do not appreciate your comment that I am exchanging places with god. You are assuming that I perceive the god which I believe in as contained in a box. You could not be more wrong. This concept is not my belief in god, but my belief in how humans percieve god. The box is not a concept of containment, but a concept of incomprehensibility. Because god cannot be 100% known to man, and because what of god man does know is interpreted differently by each individual person, it is impossible for all of humanity to know god with 100% certainty. We all have a small piece of god right, either in how we live or how we directly believe in god, and so we are all a little right and a little wrong about god at the same time. Sime may be closer to the truth of god than others, and some may be completely off, but it is impossible to say with 100% certainty who is right and who is wrong, and so everyone is both right and wrong at the same time until we all meet god directly.

      Frankly, I agree with your quote, “I do not know, therefore you cannot.” I ask you as a rebuttal, do you think that even as a human being you can fully comprehend god in this life? Can you know all that god wants from us, precisely how god wants us to behave in this life and in the next? I’ll say it again, there is nothing wrong with having faith and trust in your belief in god, the image of god that you believe to be the true image. In your heart, you may believe without a doubt that yours is the 100% correct image. I do not ask you to doubt your belief. I have no doubt in my own belief in god, the image which I carry in my own heart. I do not, however, make the declaration that, because I believe in my image of god, that it must be the universally correct image. This does not deter my faith, but it does open the door to listen to others’ perspectives and apprecaite that others have the same passion as I do, but for different images of god which they believe to be 100% correct for them. You call this passion your personal relationship with Jesus. I call this passion my personal relationship with god itself. You could meet 5 other people who believe they have a close, personal relationship with Jesus just as you do, but they would have different perspectives on individual issues which have religious implications. To be blunt, for an individual, or even a community of religion, to assume that their perspective on god is the 100% correct perspective, and all others are wrong, is simply pompous. I understand this can come off as rude, but this insistance of the, “I’m right you’re wrong,” thought process regarding a topic which, by definition, is focused on an aspect of our world which is beyond us, incomprehensible to humans, baffles me.

      I do not put myself in the place to evaluate god, I put myself in the place to put pieces of god in our world together, for an image of god which, although I cannot comprehend fully, I can believe in and trust my soul in. This image is for me, for my soul to grasp and appreciate. If it is wrong, I accept that, but I will not lie in my soul and believe in the image of a god I do not trust, I do not feel comfortable with, and I do not have faith in. I trust the god in my heart, I trust it and I believe in it. If I’m wrong, than I trust the true god beyond the image I made for it to still love me and care for me despite going down an altered path. And if, in spite of all the good I do in my life, the true god holds my false image of it against me, than it is not a god worth being loved by.

      I’m losing power. Post a response if you like.

      • Rana,
        When you speak of “You could meet 5 other people who believe they have a close, personal relationship with Jesus just as you do, but they would have different perspectives on individual issues which have religious implications”, I can say with no question at all that the guy who calls himself “Truth”, as well as the accountant guy on Yahoo that we were talking with both know God, though I am sure we differ in certain aspects. I believe you do not. Think of it this way. My wife and five children all know me differently and imperfectly, from different perspectives, and from different maturity levels. If someone who knew me would talk to them for a few minutes, they would be persuaded that they all knew me. The differences would be insignificant. But there would be no question that they knew me. If someone would say they knew me, but go on to say that I am very theatrical, quick-tempered, six-foot eight, with red hair; all those who truly knew me would say, “Nope. You’ve got the wrong guy.” When you describe God, this is the very sense I get. And I am very clear some of these other people truly know Him. You have no personal relationship with Him, and so have no idea what He’s like. You so much do not, that you call Him “it” – simply out of having no clarity. Now Rana, I’m sure what I am saying sounds brash. My certainty sounds intolerant, abrasive, narrow-minded, and arrogant. Now for you to say you know your father and mother, and I don’t, would not be an arrogant statement, but a statement of fact – simply because you have walked and lived with them for years. I say I know God for these very same reasons. I have His EVIDENCE in my life: a radically changed life, His presence, speaking, and very clear work in my life. So can you. But I guarantee that God does not come to us on our own terms.

      • I honestly can’t answer to whether I know the ‘right’ image of god except to answer to myself, and in my heart I believe I do know god. Perhaps I do not know god fully, perhaps my interpretation of god is wrong, but that is why I do not shut off others’ views on the subject, and it is why I keep an open mind. I assure you I do not reply to your comments in a close-minded manner, but rather think openly on all that I believe I know and make a response from that. I am young and have not experienced all the world as you claim to have done. I can’t exactly help that. What I do know is that I must have trust and faith in my beliefs, and I trust and believe in the god which I know at this point in my life. I agree, god does not come to us on our own terms, but that doesn’t mean god can’t translate its message to us so that we can understand. My life has not radically changed due to my experience of god, but that does not mean that the effect of god’s presence in my life is any less important to me.

        So at this point, we’re just going to have to agree to disagree, as you have a different style of personal relationship with god than I do. I see nothing wrong with that. I respect your relationship with god and hope that it only grows stronger. I will not, however, abandon the passion and faith which I have with god in my own way simply because it is not the norm.

    • Last thing; I really didn’t appreciate the whole, “the atheist has presumptuously assumed the second posture – though he may or may not admit it,” comment. If you don’t agree with his views, fine. However, you are assuming his beliefs and basically insulting him for those beliefs simply because he declared himself an atheist. Aside from agreeing with the general message of my blog, he made no indication of his actual beliefs on the subject. I’m saying this as the moderator of this blog, not in terms of the topic. Please don’t make blanket statements like that. If you want to argue someone else’s decided beliefs, state your own and why you don’t agree with theirs, and if they want to respond, they are more than welcome to. If they don’t, that’s the end of it. Thanks.

      • Rana,
        First regarding your first response, I understand that without certainty, open-mindedness is a good thing. This was the case in my own life. I think you know that I don’t claim to have experienced the whole world – only that I’ve experienced God. Before encountering God, I looked in every place just like you. But just like finding your lost wallet, when you’ve found it, you don’t keep on looking. In the case of God, my relationship grows deeper, even as a child’s does with a parent, but it is very clear all along that it’s the same parent.
        I apologize in part (I’ll explain) for the strength in which I spoke to both you and concerning the atheist. On the legitimate side of the strength, however, I am challenging in you the “everything goes” mentality”, and the idea that certainty equates to rigidity and possibly pride, and your idea that no one can truly know this God with certainty. On the legitimate side with the atheist, I am challenging what I believe lies at the heart of the fall – the idea that we are our own God, and therefore not accountable to a creator. I believe it is impossible, given the evidence of God all around, to at a heart level fail to understand that there is a creator, and at the heart of the professed atheist is either open rebellion to God, or a thoughtless dismissal of God. I am challenging him, in that I believe denial of the Creator of the universe is an extremely serious matter. On the illegitmate side, and the part I must apologize for is that I really shouldn’t answer a post like I did after my new website crashed after weeks of work from a wordpress plugin update that seized it up completely, followed by spammers finding my site and making putty out of it once I did get it up and running (And who would argue that there is a special place in hell for spammers? 🙂 ) I was strung out, tired, and thought I’d try to reply before going to bad, but should have waited till morning. On the positive side, it is all ironed out now. Take care

        • No worries, my good friend. ^_^ I’ve been getting into the same kind of mood. I’ve been tied up on my novel, which I haven’t gotten the chance to work on in a long while. Plus, I have a short story I need to desperately edit for an anthology, and I have had NO time to work on it. I’m hoping tomorrow night is the night. We’ll see though. ^_^

          • One more thing, Rana,
            I really don’t disdain your youthfulness at all. In fact you seem wise in many things beyond your years. (We older people just get a little cantankerous when we post now and then! I went to my aunt’s funeral just the other day, and was amazed that people who looked old to me thirty years ago still looked the same!) What I’m digging, digging, digging at is a something foundational in you – the minimizing, rejection, or distrust of concrete knowledge, absolutes, and certainty. You know that the church foundation that was built into you does not hold up, and have therefore set yourself adrift in uncertainty – understandably being reluctant to re-anchor. In my books, I hammer at the foundations of the evangelical church, and explain that what is in the foundations is encased in concrete. Dealing with them therefore requires digging, jackhammers, and back hoes. Any problem that exists in the foundation of our lives affects EVERYTHING. And when someone tries to get at something in our foundations, it feels like they are trying to dig the ground out from beneath our feet (and they are!).
            Picking up on another thought, I wonder if you might be willing to consider that belief can be more a matter of the heart, than of the intellect – or more precisely, a matter of the WILL. Beliefs have implications, and none bear stronger implications than our beliefs about God, who as Creator is foundational to EVERYTHING. Miss this and we miss all. Be wrong in this, and we’d might as well be wrong in all. Err in building the foundation of your house, and it doesn’t much matter what you build on it – it will fail. You and I can disagree. We can “agree to disagree”. But when we deal with God, we are aware on some basic level that we are coming up against what we can never control. We exit the land of opinions and enter the realm of absolutes. (And many never come to this point – addressing God as they do their fellow man – as if His thoughts were just another opinion among many – losing track that this is GOD we are talking about. Some deal with this by ignoring it (agnosticism), some by denial (atheism), some by constructing a god that is compatible with what they desire (Rana-ism! 🙂 ) (Ok, God, you can be this, this and this, but not this – and we then proceed in the perverse task of making God in OUR own image. Some reduce God to a system of rules and regulations – giving the illusion of some sort of control over the One we can never control. This sums up what I’m trying to communicate to you:
            God is who He is, regardless of anyone’s thoughts about Him.
            I’m fine that you are uncertain about this.
            I challenge you on the idea that it cannot be known, and present to you the idea that God very much wants to make Himself known to you. But knowledge brings responsibility, and this is why everyone dreads it. The day God makes Himself known to you more specifically is the day when you must chose to drop all that does not comply with that knowledge – however dear you may hold it. Before He reveals you are like an innocent child. Once He reveals, you have a problem. You must exchange certain freedoms for responsibility (and in return become free from the implications of error and become truly free in God as He is, not as you would have Him be), and you exchange innocence for righteousness (or else move into outright and willful evil – depending on how you respond to that knowledge of God.) Ignorance is bliss, but only until it meets up with the need for knowledge. Sooner or later something will take a turn in your life that will overwhelm you beyond your ability to address it by your own means. (and if you’re like most, probably sooner) Something for which you have no answer, but MUST find and answer. Here, whatever you are basing your life upon will take shape, and become very real, or prove to be a farce. Faith in a wrong god is worse than no god at all. And I leave you with this thought: I began this post with “One more thing, Rana”!
            P.S. Your poetry is very good. (Just read your most recent. How long did it take?)
            Also, did you go over the appendix section in Book IV yet?

      • Hi Rana,

        I was just perusing a good friend of mine’s website, and stumbled upon blog article on postmodernism that I believe describes pretty well your mindset in evaluating both God and truth. Thought I’d just give the link without further comment.


        • Thanks for the link, Thunder! I suppose I do follow this concept, although I don’t necessarily think that everything will be proven wrong one day. I simply don’t think there is any way for man to know the universal truth in this life. It is there, it exists, and to some extent we may know where the general line of truth lies, but there is nothing concrete to prove anything that all of mankind would agree with for all eternity. But you know all this. ^_^ Thanks again, it was a fascinating read!

      • Rana,
        The following link is a youtube video of a story from a journal a college-age woman in real-time as she wrestles with and has an encounter with God. It offers an amazing perspective from a young woman who is quite a communicator (a little like yourself) It’s not your average diary, and there is quite a turn at the very end. Thought you might enjoy it. Here’s the link:

  2. ooo I guess I’m walking into the lions den here… good move. It seems you have a following of like minded people. Cool site by the way.

  3. Ok well I guess I will continue where we left off…

    “but there is no way to say that particular interpretation is the universally correct one.”… why not…
    what truth elswhere?
    other religions share some of the same concepts as the christian bible so I can see where you see truth in other religions.

    We have changed topics a few times here pretty delicatley. I was first arguing the truth that
    1. God exists
    2. There is an absolute moral standard given by God in the bible.
    3. The validity of the truth in the bible.
    and now
    4. differences in religion and the importance.
    The most important truth to humanity is how to spend eternity with God in Heaven as opposed to spending eternity apart from God in hell.

    I think we have touched on this but then moved to another topic. If I left something out I apologize, I didn’t go back and read the whole thread. The most important difference in all the religions is how to achieve eternity with God.
    Christianity is the only one that worships the living God Jesus. Others worship the prophet of God and enjoy the good advice.(very general statement but this in itself is a very lengthy discussion). And then some are just completely wrong. We could argue the differences in religions for a LONG time so lets try to stay on topic here.(eternity with God)

    You have agreed with me that the opposite of right is wrong, and each religion offers a different way to heaven. So they cant all be right because they are all different by definition. Then if only one is right then the others have to be wrong. Do you agree with me so far?

    • So glad you left this comment on here! I really wanted to address this one directly. I’ll have a response for you later today. I’m going to be busy for the next few hours. Also, no worries about the ‘lion’s den.’ We’re all respectful here. Anything that goes beyond respect and tolerance is not approved by me to show on my blog. ^_^

      Also also, I love your email address. XD

    • Same to you, Truth, I’m not declining to answer, I’m just beat. I’ll answer tomorrow or Friday evening, for sure. Post a reminder for me if you think I might forget. 🙂

    • Hey Truth! Okay, going to try and respond to your post from the Yahoo thread. Specifically the idea of eternity with god.

      This is where we’re probably going to really part ways in terms of beliefs, because I do not believe there is a heaven and hell. This again goes back to how god looks at us as its creations. Humans hold each other accountable for our actions. We judge each other over our actions and even our opinions.

      Keep these ideas in mind. Now look at a parent sending their child to college. They have raised that child with a basic understanding of morals, values, guidelines for living. They have provided, to the best of their ability, the tools for that child to make good decisions in life, to make the child’s life easier. But this is a time of discovery for that child. The child sees a whole expanse of the world, and has the opportunity to see what will happen if they do not follow the guidelines given them by their parents. It is a time to experiment, and experience the greatest good and bad the world can offer. The child challenges the world, and learns from how things turn out. The parent, in turn, stands back and watches the child challenging the world. The parent shakes their head, knowing how things are going to come back to bite the child, but the parent also realizes that the child needs this time. The child must learn from experience, so the parent does not interfere. The parent also does not hold it against the child if the child decides not to use the guidelines and advise that the parent provided. This is the time for the child to get burned and learn what that means. The parent, no matter the child’s decisions in this small portion of the child’s life, will still love that child, and still accept that child back once the child has had its fill of challenging the world.

      This is how I see god’s relationship with us in this life. We are given general guidelines, such as the Commandments, internal morals and values, a conscience. We must choose whether to act on those guidelines or ignore them and get burned in the process. We experience the creations of god, the gifts god gives us. God is beyond the constraints of humanity, and that includes the constraints of judgment. A parent does not judge a child, and in the same way god does not judge our actions. We are here to experience the world, and that is why god does not completely reveal itself to us in this life, because that is not our purpose here. In this way, god will not turn us away from it because of our actions in this life. This isn’t a free pass to be an awful person, but it shows that god trusts us to make our own decisions for a time. If we decide to be awful people, we get burned. Some people like the burn, or simply can’t escape it, but that is simply experience. Some people are genuinely good-natured, while other people are naturally drawn to the rebellious side of choice. God knows this, it made us this way, and it wouldn’t want us to be something we are not.

      In this way, god does not send anyone into a realm that is ‘non-god,’ or a hell-state. Additionally, the only way for a non-god state, or hell, to exist is if god either created a realm where it has no influence (a very unlikely idea, if god is truly unconditionally loving), or this realm existed with god before the beginning, and in that case, I cannot see god as a completely omnipotent, all-powerful being, or at least that non-god realm has equal power to god so that god could not inhabit it, again very unlikely. I believe god to be omnipotent, all-powerful, and all-loving. All these aspects of god suggest that there would be no place of banishment.

      Combining this with the idea that all religions are based in the original guidelines, or truths, of god, then I still hold to the idea that all religions are right and wrong at the same time. Back to you! ^_^

      • Rana,
        How do you know how God looks at us? I somewhat agree with you about people holding each other accountable but that stems from a moral standard which if I remember correctly you don’t believe in. It is for this reason (accountability) that I am so against “gay pride”. If someone wants to be gay that’s fine but their movement says “stop holding people accountable for their actions(dont judge as you say)” which is an incredibly STUPID idea.(ugh tangents)

        “They have raised that child with a basic understanding of morals, values, guidelines for living”
        You assume that all parents are like this, and I don’t think that is the case. And you speak of guidelines where did the parents get them?
        You seem to swing heavily on experience. We as humans learn from our experiences you are 100% correct on this idea but experience can lead you to believe a truth or a lie. You speak as if the experience defines whether something is true or not, and that simply is not the case. I’m sure you would agree with me that everyone’s experiences are unique to the individual. If then the experience defines the truth as you say then everyone would have different truths. But that is not definition of truth. Truth is based on fact, not experience. Experience is not the platform to hang your life on. It seems you have experienced a peaceful life, influenced by people with good morals, which is where I assume you got yours from. But to assume that everyone on earth has that same opportunity is a mistake. I have been to countries and come across people who every day their goal is just to survive. If some of these people who have grown up in violence still have morals, which they did, then you are wrong. Because their experiences would breed the “truth” kill anyone who offends me. Morals are above experience.
        “God is beyond the constraints of humanity, and that includes the constraints of judgment. A parent does not judge a child, and in the same way god does not judge our actions.”

        Who are you to say the creator cannot judge his creation. And who are we as humans to judge, for we are all fallen creatures. We have all sinned.

        “that is why god does not completely reveal itself to us in this life, because that is not our purpose here. ” … what evidence do you have for this??? The whole rest of the comment, what evidence is there to support this??

        Aside from this topic, a fundamental problem has presented itself to me as we debate. Americans in general take safety for granted!!!! It is faith in our military power and status as a world power and a belief that there are moral people around us that gives us such a strong sense of safety. In other countries this is not so. Safety is the base of the platform in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, and according to him without it everything else seems unimportant. Safety is a VERY hard earned luxury that you and I did not have to fight for. As soon as this base is removed from you and or many other Americans, You will see absolute truth, raw and as dirty as it may be. When you are scared for your life day after day, Your perspective changes from “I’m gonna believe whatever makes me happy” to a dependence on truth. See we are so safe here that it hurts us. We are so safe that people don’t even care about truth anymore, just whatever enhances their existence here. People will believe what ever “FEELS” right. It saddens me. This great nation is in danger of destroying itself because we the people are becoming more and more about ME ME ME instead of about the furtherance of this nation. It was founded by Christians and was even recommended to remain a christian led form of government. (see the federalist papers started by I think John Adams) People are so arrogant these days that they say we don’t need your age old wisdom and traditions, we are beyond that now… so naive.

      • Truth,

        I apologize if any of my following comments seem blunt. I do not intend to be rude, however I feel that I am repeating myself at this point, and I’m trying to get a lot of responses out, as I have not yet responded to Thunder.

        First, I do not claim (or intend to claim) to know how god looks at us, I merely interpret how I believe a god beyond our human flaws would see us. And frankly, I could ask you the same thing. How do you know how god looks at us? You have ‘evidence’ in the bible, but you put your trust in that book, in those words, that they are the precisely right interpretation, the exactly right wording, and that your personal understanding and interpretation of those words is the right interpretation. You must put trust and faith in your interpretation of those words versus the interpretation of those words by other people. This is what I mean by everyone having a personal faith, and everyone’s personal faith being both right and wrong at the same time. You believe in your pictured image of god, and you hold to that belief as fact. There is nothing wrong with that. However, you go beyond to expect others to see the exact same god and believe in that god in the same way. You question others’ beliefs as if those beliefs have flaws, but you do not put those questions toward your own belief, for fear that you will come to doubt. I have no problem being asked these questions, but you have to be able to ask them of your own beliefs as well and honestly answer them, even if the answer raises more questions. I only have answers for my own belief, my own interpretation of god and its truth, and those answers are not going to satisfy you, because my interpretation is not yours. Even if you were having this conversation with Thunder, at some point you would find a place where you both would disagree and try to convince the other that your interpretation was the correct view and the other’s was mistaken.

        To continue, you do not remember correctly, I’m afraid. I do believe there is a moral standard, a universal line between good and evil. I simply do not believe that any one person can be 100% confident that their personal interpretation of where that line lies is the true location of the line. Again, Schrodinger’s cat. We are given hints as to where it is, but we cannot have a universal, all-encompassing view of the line regarding every good vs evil topic in existence. Every person is going to interpret those hints differently, it is the nature of humanity.

        I really don’t see how you can be ‘okay’ with people being gay if you believe that their action of being gay is stupid. I’d rather not even get into that conversation at all, as I’m positive it will go nowhere.

        I also do not assume that all parents raise their children lovingly as my example shows, and assure you the best example of my knowledge of unloving parents is something you are already aware of from my posts about Mr. McDoodlePants’ mother. I am saying that the ideal parent is the unconditionally loving parent, and as god can be considered the parent of us all, I would expect god to love us in the same fashion, in a way which is incomprehensible to us in our flawed definition of love. I hope to love my own children in this unconditional way, and not judge them for their disregard of my guidance to them, as at some point, they need to fall on their faces to know what it feels like and know why the guidelines were given to them in the first place. And again, as the universal line between good and evil is not tangible to us, parents must rely on what they have decided is their personal truth to help guide their children. The point where the parents’ influence on the child’s understanding of the world is cut is when the child begins to develop their own interpretation of those guidelines, and possibly alter them to fit their own views on the world. Children are not clones, they are self-thinking human beings who must use what they have learned and how they apply that knowledge to their experiences to determine where their personal line of morality sits, which will end up being another guess just like everyone else’s guess at where that line truly lies.

        I agree, truth is based on fact, however even fact can be believed or not believed by any individual. It is a stubborn and stupid concept, I also agree, but it is again the nature of man. The closer the fact comes to the line between good and evil determines how much people will differ in belief or non-belief of that fact. The fact the sky is blue is not largely debated, but a colorblind, or simply blind person, must have faith that those around him or her are telling them the generally accepted truth regarding the color of the sky. It is the same with everything else in our world.

        I do not assume that everyone on earth has the option of living a peaceful and accepting life. I merely accept that every person, through their given guidelines and experiences, has the opportunity to choose how to learn and grow through those experiences. If a person did not experience, but merely was given fact, that person could not test those facts to personally prove them as truth. Someone who is raised in a closed room all their life, and is told every day that the sky is green without ever experiencing the sight of the sky would walk out into the daylight and have one of two reactions. Either they would see the blue sky and swear that it was green, or realize that they were lied to and that the sky is actually blue. A person then has the choice of leaving their prior knowledge behind and believing what they have no experienced to be truth, or demand that their previous truth is still truth, and all those around who contradict are lying. In the same way, a person who is raised to believe murder is acceptable, but never experiences a murder, but then witnesses one, may have a moral trigger which makes them renounce their prior truth. Others may not, and demand that it is still okay to kill because they were told it was okay. It is a combination of experience and natural morality which determines how a person reacts.

        To your next question, I say this: Who are you to say that god will judge us? I agree, we as humans have the ability to refrain from judgment, and the fact that we are weak and judge anyway is sad. Judgment is a human flaw, it is a reaction from emotions and holding other people to our own moral standard, which again we cannot be certain our interpretation of that standard is the proper, universal standard. In this way, I see god as above judgment, I hold my petty judgment as something underneath god’s greatness, and believe that god is above judgment. IT IS A BELIEF! Just as it is a belief to you to assume that god will judge everyone based on the moral standard which you believe to be the universal standard.

        I’ve been writing too long and have other posts to write, so I’m going to leave the tangent alone. Again, I’m sorry if this all seemed blunt. I’m getting to the point in this conversation where I’m repeating myself, and I actually just had some guests walk in the door. I’m not trying to be rude, but I’ll likely be coming off that way….

  4. I came here accidentally. I love when people are ‘obsessed’ about God as their words about Him sound for me as their sing – the highest form of praising Him. In the middle ages people were only used to sing about God, but today. At stake is activating people in such discussions. With this approach I am feeling sad after reading your interesting discussion and finding now at the very end such Rana’s words: “I’m getting to the point in this conversation where I’m repeating myself”. It means that it was not reached a critical mass for eruption (evolving discussion). Yes, the presence of more participants would be very helpful, but not necessary. God is also in us and if we can explore more this internal path we will longer maintain our creativeness (personal development).
    I believe that you, Rana, can overcome this ‘stage’ of ‘”repeating …”. We need deep interactions with other people, but at the same time even deeper interactions/moments with ourselves as He also lives …… This aspect of the God’s presence (He is everywhere in macro and micro-cosmos) definitely was not exposed in your interesting discussion.

    • First off, welcome to my blog, Slawomir! Glad you took the time to comment. I wasn’t very happy with saying that I was repeating myself, to tell the truth. I’m not fond of ending conversations like this. All I can say to that is I am young, and am still discovering god in my life, in many ways. I grew up in the Catholic Church, and understand a lot of where Thunder is coming from. In this way, I usually have a good idea of what Thunder is saying and sometimes can even anticipate how he will respond. I enjoy our back-and-forth, as I feel it does help me grow in my understanding, whether by helping me to discover a new aspect of my perspective or to rethink my perspective. In this particular discussion, it just seems that I am set in my perspective. It got to the point where everything Thunder posted I felt was already answered by a previous aspect of my perspective which I had already outlined. Keep in mind, I am not here to change anyone else’s perspective on their faith, I am simply putting what I consider my faith out in words, and seeing what others’ perspectives are by comparison. I can assure you coming to a head in this conversation brings more internal discussion which is not shared on this blog.

      I regards to the interactions between god and the individual, god’s presence within us, I do not consider that something to discuss here. I have had my personal moments with god, but to try to convince others that my experience in genuine is not something I need to prove to anyone. If it were a mutual discussion on any particular person’s experiences with god in their lives, I might chime in, but I do not wish for that kind of conversation on my experiences specifically. It is simply too personal a matter for me to post in this particular forum.

      Anyway, feel free to post your views if you like. You are more than welcome here. 🙂 Thanks for stopping by!

  5. Thank you Rana for invitation. My point is that our modern and dynamic world disperses so much attention of people from themselves what also includes/influences God living in us. We can easily repeat this biblical ‘mantra’ “love others as yourself”, but the problem is that we have problems to love deeply ourselves as today it is not enough time/habits/fashion for auto-reflections etc when we are so much influenced by consumerism, race for educations as securing good jobs and promoted leisure time.

    So, how to love others when we hate so often ourselves for not being …. or reaching …. etc? Do we need only more religion to find internal balance that also secures better external social peace or add to it also respect for basic rules in ‘mental hygiene’? It would be interesting for me to hear if young people like you also pay attention to such aspects in their personalities developments.

    • Well, “as a young person,” ^_^ I really can’t say much aside from my personal idea. I’m not the typical girl, obsessive over image and fashion and social standing. I was always the kicked around kid as a child and finally came into my own socially in my last year of college. I agree that the world distracts us from our personal relationship with god, not only through the social demands of the modern age, but also through religion itself. The insistence on dedication to the mass, although a good reminder for the modern youth (who is so distracted by the world around them, they never stop even for a moment, let alone an hour, to dedicate to their social religious obligation), is still a set of commands, motions, and words which can be memorized, repeated, and performed. Although there are those who take great passion in the movements of the church, there are many in this modern time which use the ease of memorization as a front to look involved while not actually caring about what they do. Many youths fall into this category. I admit that, for a time, this is where I was. I went to church because I didn’t want to confront my mother on my lack of faith in the church. I went every Sunday by her side, sang the songs, stood up and sat down and kneeled over and over. But my presence there was a lie compared to some of those around me. I felt closer to god, myself, and in my relationship with god outside the church, in the fresh air, or singing in my car, or watching a movie alone in the dark. Unfortunately, most youths of our time don’t even leave space in their attention to recognize the serenity of god’s presence in our everyday activities, and so go to church for that peace only to find themselves mimicking the mass as they always do, or ignore the idea of peace completely, for they are too busy to slow down for a few minutes and take god’s world in. I don’t think we need more religions, but I do believe that people should take more time to consider what religion brings them closest to god, and if not a religion, than what activity, what aspect of this world, or what aspect of themselves and those around them brings them the serenity of god. That serenity is god around us and within us, and should not be ignored, because, as you said, it is part of our personal health and ‘hygiene’ to have some peace and quiet from time to time, and that, to me, is god’s greatest gift to us in this life.

      I hope that addresses your question. If I missed the mark, just let me know. 🙂

  6. It is nice to see/meet on our ‘Internet space’ people acting similarly. When I was about 7-9 year old I remember being preoccupied by a thought/idea that somewhere on our world must be somebody thinking similarly like me. At that time it was about 3 billion of people and now is 6 what means that the probability of finding such a person is two times higher – haha! When I read your ‘church experience’ from earlier childhood and your description of meditating more about God outside church it sounds like me being incarnated in you. It would sound better if I was already dead and now living inside a nice young female body with good writing skills etc. 🙂

    At stake for me is finding various catchy sociological techniques that can promote some feedback mechanisms discovering practically (beside the Bible’s teaching) our royal origin with God’s roots what automatically feeds self-respect as the same for others.
    It is relatively easy to domesticate/train wild beasts, but it is also known that in certain situation their inherent nature can be awaken what can cause a lot of problems for people taking advantage after their brutal (against the nature) trainings. The same is done in an opposite direction with people easily fooled around and treated like enslaved animals with subdued minds by money as manipulative skills/advantages of a few feeling above the masses. However, it is similarly unpredictable because one day even the most trusted ‘slaves’ can awake as strong/proud humans demanding ……. – who likes revolutions? Such situations can experience political, military, financial and religious leaders after using/applying even the most sophisticated as powerful methods for dominating human souls. They do not feel ashamed to act this way as their personalities are not developed deeply enough recognize their own unique greatness and the same inside others.
    In ‘polishing/mastering human souls’ for higher ethical/moral levels religions are treated as the top ‘remedies’, but we still can search for something not eliminating it, but ….. . I hope to present clearer picture of my project in a few months and request your evaluation with eventually linguistic ‘beautification’ if it will be liked by you (English is my second language).

  7. God is to great to be confined in a box….even if that “box” is a universe. All religions are related because they complete the full circle. I enjoyed reading this. Very philosophic metaphor.

    • I absolutely agree. I don’t think I made it very clear in this post (I was in a hurry to get to sleep that night) that I don’t think.god can be confined physically or spiritually. I find it the case, however, that we mentally confine it for our personal image of it to be understandable to us who are always bound.

      I’m glad you enjoyed the post. 🙂 I always try to get people to think, especially in this topic.

*Insert your thought here*

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s