Musings about god


I don’t know how many religions out there teach about a god who created everything, if there are, they are not my concern tonight. This evening I want us to look a bit more at the Judaic cults and what they tell us about their god and his creation, in this case especially man. We will use the passage from Genesis 1 for our purposes since the creation story in chapter apart from being shallow doesn’t tell us much in the way god intended man to be.

26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them[ Genesis 1:26-27]

Read the passage.. am patient and I will wait for you to finish. Let us for the purposes of this post just allow this god or gods existence and then consider this passage carefully. Before we do that, I will digress, man in making robots and computers with AI tries to make something that acts, feels and with the capabilities as he does and it has been accepted that man is not perfect. So we can say here, without a doubt, that the imperfect man, in creating things that resemble him, tries to give them the same qualities he has even if he doesn’t say it.

With that bit, we are told in the good book, a book we are told was inspired by the gods themselves, that we are created in the likeness and image of god. What is the nature of man?

  1. He has the propensity to harm himself or others
  2. His short life here is full of anxiety and worry
  3. Some are born insane
  4. Some are born with deformities
  5. Some die having learnt nothing ie die stupid

So please tell me, are these attributes of god too? Is this his likeness? If it is not, then please can someone tell why a god who we are told is perfect would create anything less than perfect? What was the intention in creating man whose choices many times lead to him harming others or himself, that is, he is due to err. If the god believers can excuse their god for his apparent mistakes, then either they or their god has a cruel sense of humour.

While we are still in genesis, is this a contradiction

 22 And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. [Genesis 3]

In Genesis 1, man is created in the image and likeness of god and in C3, he has become like god. Which is the correct version? Maybe there is a metaphorical difference in the two passages that is lost to me and I hope someone would be kind enough to shed light on the possible difference in this passage. But while at it, I submit here that god intended man to be an ignoramus.

He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever. [Gen 3:22b]

I don’t know about you, but it is also evident here that man was never meant to be immortal. He is not allowed to rich to the tree of life, which would have allowed him to live forever. It is plain from this reading whichever way you want to consider it, that at the time of being created, these gods already intended man to die. If anyone has a different explanation, am open to persuasion.

And here is an example of bad parenting. Unfortunately I know there are some parents who have followed this script from the tyrant of all tyrants, God.

23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

What parent does this to a child they claim to love at the commission of the first offense, if ever eating fruits of knowledge were offenses? Any parent who did this would be considered irresponsible to say the list, caprice, cruel and not deserving of being called such yet the god believers go around thumping their chests that their god is good and holy! Unless such words have a different meaning in godland, in which case they are meaningless to us, don’t apply any positive attributes to this god.

As an aside, what would prompt a god, who is immutable, perfect, disembodied to create a world from nothing? Could it have been boredom of living in endless god time and god space, could it have been darkness, or did god just want to be cheeky, tried an experiment and the god ethics board said it couldn’t be stopped and while the gods were asleep, this god tried to drown everyone to redeem face sparing 8 hoping that the incestuous relationships would lead to a pure breed of godly people.

Am glad I no longer believe that such a cruel god exists and if it did, I would volunteer to help in killing him/them.

Note: The bible passages are taken from NIV Bible Online.

About makagutu

As Onyango Makagutu I am Kenyan, as far as I am a man, I am a citizen of the world

59 thoughts on “Musings about god

  1. Mordanicus says:

    And there is also the point of “god” talking about “us”, which is by believers always explained away as a majestic plurality. However, if god wants to emphasize his uniqueness, why not using the singular?

    Like

    • makagutu says:

      I think god didn’t think himself unique at this point. It must be something forced on him. Believers are a difficult group.

      Hope you are doing well my friend.

      Like

      • Mordanicus says:

        Indeed, they are a difficult group.

        I am doing well. I have been busy with writing a post about financial reforms, I hope to finish it tomorrow. A few days ago I posted an article about secular morality.

        Like

        • makagutu says:

          A post I must seen on my phone but which I didn’t read because the good phone went off and I was away from my computer. Let go over and read it right away.

          Like

  2. nice observation about the tree of life. And Christians can’t agree on what “in the image of” means. They don’t want to imagine their god with sex organs, but they certainly don’t want to imagine a god that has no idea about good and evil either.

    Like

    • makagutu says:

      christians and theists in general do not take arguments to their logical conclusions and is the reason why they give their god a pass in so many things where if he was to be tried in a court of justice with a sane judge, he would be sentenced to be thousands of miles away from humans and anything living. It is too uncomfortable to think their god has such organs.

      Like

  3. Arkenaten says:

    Is it any wonder that Thomas More had christians tortured for reading the bible in their own language?
    Can’t have the naughty people trying to understand the bible….

    Like

    • makagutu says:

      Nope, you would not want that to happen. Ensure only the priest reads from the good book and not in order so they can’t make head or tail of whatever is going on.

      Like

      • Arkenaten says:

        I read somewhere that the Catholic Mass was read exclusively in Latin until the early sixties! Weird.
        Not much of a god if man can become one merely by eating a piece of fruit, is it?

        And you are correct everything genesis describes suggests a god you do not want to piss off ! Serious problems.

        Like

        • makagutu says:

          Yes, mass was in Latin, there was no dancing that you see nowadays in churches till after Vatican 2, which is indeed a crazy thing and I think most people must have slept through those masses. The priests had their backs to the people and a bell was rung to notify people he was now turning bread into Jeebus, how I believed this story for so long beats me, but that is a story of another day.

          You piss off this god, you are done for! There is no second chances, and most definitely there are no negotiations.

          Like

          • themodernidiot says:

            who is dancing in catholic churches? that’s a new one

            Like

            • makagutu says:

              catholic masses here are so animated here, you would enjoy being in church. Little children animating mass, good music, worship here is serious business.

              Like

              • themodernidiot says:

                you can make it a blockbuster summer movie and i wouldn’t enjoy being in church. the theatrics and ritual are what i despise most. i think all churches violate what they purport to teach.

                However, i do like the architecture 😉

                Like

                • makagutu says:

                  Oh yes, most church architecture is great!

                  Most churches discovered if they didn’t imitate the pop culture, they will have only old geezers in church and the young would find better entertainment.

                  Like

    • john zande says:

      I was going to hit on that point: as long as it was in Latin there really was no problem. How Christianity has survived since the translation is utterly baffling.

      Like

      • Arkenaten says:

        It is something to do a post on maybe?
        How wonderful the Crispyans were in the good old days?
        LOL!

        Like

        • john zande says:

          You know the actual history? A comparison has to be drawn between that and the advent (and development) of public education.

          Like

          • Arkenaten says:

            My knowledge of this area of church protocol is weak.
            In fact it was my wife who told of the Latin Mass thing.
            This seems more up your alley.

            Like

            • john zande says:

              I’ll look into. I remember going to mass up in the Italian alps in the 80’s and they still did the Latin song and dance, and the priest faced away from the congregation. Kinda’ odd.

              Like

              • Arkenaten says:

                I was brought up Cof E so it was all alien to me.Catholics were regarded as a bit odd, and we had a family living right next door that we hardly said two words to in the 10 years I lived on that house.
                And yet , I married a Catholic!
                All my wife’s family are Catholics and i have been to more Catholic services over the years that I ever attended while growing up.

                Strange world, John

                Like

                • john zande says:

                  You have to thank me. On your music post i was going to put up a song, a song unlike all others, a song some might think genius, others maybe not so much…. But my better angels said, “No, no, no… you can’t do that to Ark.”

                  So, without knowing what i’m talking about, you’re welcome 🙂

                  Like

                • makagutu says:

                  I was brought up catholic and used to see members of CoE as being a confessional away. The prayers are almost similar. It’s a funny world

                  Like

              • makagutu says:

                When you think of it, the catholic mass is still odd. It’s akin to attending a lecture but with Q& A left out and then you repeat the prayers in the prayer books. In fact the only moment of creativity in mass is during prayers for the faithful.

                Like

  4. john zande says:

    I really like this argument that’s developing, as in the article you pointed me to: why “create” when that creation was less-than-perfect?

    Like

  5. themodernidiot says:

    First of all, let me say hello! I hope you are well my good sir.

    Now, I will see if I can offer suggestions to your questions, and I will try to do them in order with minimal digression.

    But before I do I am going to call you on your faulty reading. Just as the non-religious fault the religious for literal interpretations, you are reading these passages too literally. One must read them with objectivity and metaphor. You are going into these reading already intent on disproving them via a purely textual analysis, and one based on the English language at that. To truly understand any thing god, you have to leave the literal behind. You must also read these materials with a sense of history and acceptance that what was written then will perhaps apply universally to now, but cannot be interpreted through the fixed lens of modernity. I am going to put my comment in chunks because WordPress is not very friendly to lengthy posts.

    Now…
    1. “What is the nature of man?”-The nature of man is just the nature of man. He is a mix of the base animal, the world around him, and a bit of higher reason that tends to get him into trouble when he forgets to couple it with the first two. Humans a multi-faceted in nature, so all types are just what they are-no one type is correct or incorrect until a group decides to establish social norms. And even then, as we all know, they can be a bit…ridiculous; usually due to ignorance.

    2. “So please tell me, are these attributes of god too? Is this his likeness? If it is not, then please can someone tell why a god who we are told is perfect would create anything less than perfect? What was the intention in creating man whose choices many times lead to him harming others or himself, that is, he is due to err.” – You must broaden your idea of perfection, in all things. Perfection will always be subjective. As it should be. And I believe that yes, our flaws are just as much a part of god’s likeness as any physical construction. Religious works are rife with gods making mistakes. Nature makes mistakes, is a mistake. It has to, for that is how it changes and adapts, and evolves. And why should our gods not be flawed? If man’s god were flawless, how would he be able to love his children? It is our understanding of imperfection, and our love of one another through our mistakes that is perfect. Man must be as flawed as nature, for how could a flawless species co-exist among a universe of flawed species? The balance would be so off, that it would all crumble. Everything other than man in man’s world, including his god makes errors, so why wouldn’t man? I think a creator gets some points for humility and consistency on this one.

    Like

    • makagutu says:

      Hello my friend, am doing well, been long since we heard from your good self.

      I think the first analysis to any text, would be textual before we can even think of doing a metaphorical reading. And to say that I may be doing it wrong because I have read it in English is to require me to look for the Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew originals, learn this languages to then read it and understand what whoever wrote it really meant, in this case, you and me agree very few people are going to read the bible or worse still get anything from it. Am open to metaphors, question is where does the metaphor stop? Will whoever is reading metaphorical say the first verse, that is, in the beginning god, is literal but thereafter it turns to metaphor?

      1. I am in agreement with your analysis of man. Maybe I can only add that he has moved away from his nature to think he is so different from other animals just because he has the ability to think of conceptions.

      2. I disagree with you on perfection. Perfection is not subjective, it is absolute, imperfection is subjective. A thing is either perfect or it is imperfect and it can be imperfect in degrees. To say perfection is not absolute is to involve oneself in endless word games. If you accept that the creator is as flawed as we are, the implication here for me therefore is, he owes all of us an apology for creating us with flaws and then demanding more from us than he gave us. And that the god believers cannot then walk around telling people they are going to be punished for the flaws which are not of their own making.

      Like

      • themodernidiot says:

        Good questions. Metaphors don’t have to stop. A belief in something infinite would naturally allow metaphor to go as far as one would need it to go. That’s why belief is so personal. We all have our own infinite, and personal questions.

        Man’s nature is to think he is different from other animals, because in some ways he is. Otherwise man wouldn’t be its own species.

        Perfection, like beauty is in the eye of the beholder, if you will. Perfection requires a certain acceptance of standard. If one accepts something just as it is, one can see it as perfect. For instance nature is a big mess, but many would describe it as perfect. It is asymmetrical, unpredictable, very flawed, but this imperfection is perfect in a certain way.

        It isn’t about playing with words, but changing your viewpoint.

        As far as what god demands of us, that is for each person to determine. If one wishes to view a god from within the limits of human understanding, then one will forever be disappointed. Does that make sense. It is sometimes hard to express my abstract in writing. But abstract it is.

        People trying to dictate what god is, by trying to contain god withing the limits of social rules and human laws is ridiculous, and using the idea of god as a control mechanism.

        I imagine my god would be perfect in its existence just as I think humans, and animals, and plants, and stars are also perfect. Their is an incredible, delicate balance to life that I find wondrous, and to me it is all perfect in an abstract way, even though it’s parts are imperfect by my human scale.

        I don’t think any one human can determine what is perfection when it comes to the meta-physical, or the inner workings of the psyche. This is my biggest complaint with religion. It tries to treat faith like something tangible, or measurable. But it just can’t. And i hate the way religion tries to act as law. It should be a guide for introspection, like philosophy, poetry, or a walk in the woods. It should never be squished into these little boxes.

        Was that clear at all, or do I just sound insane? haha Perhaps I am a little bit. I tend to feel better at the crazier ends of the spectrum. 🙂

        Like

        • makagutu says:

          it is clear, and I too feel much better at the end of the spectrum.

          I acknowledge we are different but animals all the same, some more savage than others and some more rational.

          If we accept that human beings and anything else are perfect as they are, then it is also beholden upon us that the language that says man is depraved ought to be excluded from our vocabulary.

          The idea of god has been used as a control mechanism both by pastors and kings. Unless we treat each other as their own gods, I don’t want god talk.

          I like metaphors in attempting to make sense of questions that don’t call for simple answers. I want a world where people are free to make their own choices with regard to belief or non belief for that matter. In my religious days, I don’t remember of once when a priest said the genesis story is metaphor or myth, they have always said men are fallen creatures but created by a loving god and it is this that I set to challenge. Am open to metaphors and any reading for that matter.

          I hope that is coherent

          Like

          • themodernidiot says:

            I think there is a perfection in depravity too. Do I like it when it harms? certainly not, but it is perfect in its own way. it does exactly what it sets out to do. There is an art to it.

            That’s kind of how I try to see all things. I might not like something, but I must allow myself to appreciate it from different angles.

            Metaphor helps us take complexities and make sense of them. I mean, I can understand space, molecules, or energy for their known bits; but by pushing my thoughts to the what if?, new ideas emerge.

            i enjoy religious texts from a purely literary point of view, but never a literal one. let them expand with meaning, for only then can one apply them to life. and i give them credit for cool, artistically speaking. i don’t believe in ghosts, monsters, or sci-fi aliens either, but a well-written text will open my mind to new ideas.

            we are all free to make our own choices, and i think different writing helps us make them. we should take the useful bits from here and there, and build our own worldviews. that’s where religion fails–it tries to conform people, thus doing exactly the opposite of what the religious texts intend us to do. force feeding bad interpretations is so awful. so many people die from this.

            yes, i am following you very well. no problems.

            I think you got royally hosed in your religious upbringing. your teachers did terrible things to your head. they dictated to you what THEY believed, what THEY wanted you to think. but they were wrong. They used it to control you. that is sad. it sounds like your secular teachers did you badly as well.

            it is tragic that we teach children to only look at the mechanics of art, nature, or music, or writing. we cannot seem to cut loose from Baconian ideas. He did so much harm to the human experience. there is so much more to our world than measurements and “proof.” Sometimes, we need to operate in the unknown. Killing the imagination with this feverish devotion to facts and figures will be an end to us.

            Love from god is personal. Each of us should determine what that love should be for ourselves. I think we could compare notes if we want to, but i don’t think we can create this universal ideal of love like we do with humans. i don’t think the fairy tale love we like to subscribe too, the one that does not exist except for in movies is healthy to apply to something like a god that one looks to for guidance and answers. that’s just a disappointment waiting to happen.

            anyone who interprets the bible literally is an intellectually underachieving dolt. a sheep too lazy to think for himself, and a real jerk if he tries to force other people to buy his lame excuses and explanations. these priests the world over are so far off the mark on what these texts can do for us.

            lazy readings of good lit is probably my biggest pet peeve.

            I think true spirit is inside of us, and our quest for answers must start and end there. i think asking why we are here is a waste of time. who cares? you just are, get on with your living.

            I admit I enjoy reading religious texts sometimes because they are conduits to my imagination, which brings me closer to my spiritual self, which then connects me with all the imperfectly perfect life that surrounds me. i feel more grounded, and my brain feels clearer and stronger from the mental exercise. but, i can get that from a comic book too 😉

            I think not growing up with any religion is an advantage because i do not have any preconceived notions of what god is or isn’t, what the text “means,” what is and is not sin. I can just appreciate it for the poetry. i feel bad for those who were taught their ‘bible.’ it is inevitable that one day a person will realize that what they were told is not necessarily so, and that day is a shocking revelation that they were lied to. it seems pretty logical that so many run to the non-believer end of the pool. it seems like such a betrayal.

            Like

            • makagutu says:

              Hello dear friend, I hope you had a good day. I had a good one.

              I don’t know if we can apply perfect to depravity. Maybe my vocabulary is limited, or am looking at things narrowly, but I think the word perfect only has one meaning and it is a play of words to say otherwise.

              I have no problem with metaphors. Nobody has been killed for interpreting Charles Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities in their own ways, but people have been killed because of passages in the bible. If it was meant to be a message from a deity, and sent as an instruction, it had to at least be clear to all people at all ages. Most religious people do not see it as metaphor nor as any book written by men and only treat it as such when it meets their purposes. In order, therefore, to show the inaccuracies in the good book, one has to first deal with it in the way it is conceived by a majority of the god believers. I don’t read it with a set mind. You will notice if you visit the earlier posts on Genesis, that the treatment I gave the same passages are different to the current rendering.

              Religion does not fail, especially if you look at it the intention of its priests. It is to enslave the mind, to treat men as sheep and it succeeds in keeping men as such and sometimes enter into partnerships with governments to perpetuate tyranny that was started by their gods.

              Love for god, for those who believe in such beings must be a personal affair and if they intend to share notes with others of their ilk, am all for it. The moment when they think they posses a truth that others do not, they cross the line and it is their that such belief will be ridiculed and mocked until such believers return to the privacy of their abodes.

              I don’t agree with you that whoever interprets the bible literally is a lazy jerk. This assumes that all people reading the bible are gifted in seeing metaphors and other great literary devices. You only need to visit my village to be dissuaded of such notion and realize that if anyone was to have a discussion with these grandies and young men, one has to first show them the problem with the text as it is by showing inconsistencies in the narrative and outright contradictions. So for every audience its own!

              I have gotten over my religious instructors, I think it was not their fault especially my parents, I don’t think they knew better. As for my secular education, if there are any flaws, the fault is all mine.

              You may need to have a word with those who grew up in a religious setting to be able to understand first hand how insidious such instruction is.

              Like

  6. themodernidiot says:

    3. “In Genesis 1, man is created in the image and likeness of god and in C3, he has become like god. Which is the correct version?” – This changes naturally when you alter your thinking about perfection. This isn’t a contradiction at all. All religions have stories of gods doubting and mucking everything up. Thus our image is very god-like. This all ties in to answer #2. You can read the image part literally if you’d like because it is of little significance, and it is separate from being god-like, obviously.

    4. Of course man cannot live forever. Nothing in nature lives forever because it must recycle. Man, as a part of this ecosystem must then also cycle through life and rebirth. If he did not die, but his ecosystem did, then it would be little time before an unchecked population would die for lack of sustenance.

    Imagine god as nature. Does this change your interpretation of perfect, and the necessity of mortality? If we refer to your physical laws from previous conversation, these laws show us the need for death. It is the catalyst for birth.

    5. “What parent does this to a child they claim to love at the commission of the first offense, if ever eating fruits of knowledge were offenses?” – A good parent knows how to mean it when he says no. What if parents never restricted their children from harmful things (fire, heights, running in traffic), or certain spheres of knowledge until their minds and experience made them ready to receive it (religion, sex, etc.). Damn skippy I’d have kicked their little asses. I said no. No means no. When you’re thirty with your own kids you will understand it. Until then you can just bitch to your therapist about me. Either way, it’s still my rules.

    That’s not bad parenting. It’s necessary. Humans are stupid. That why they have parents who walk the road before them and pass the knowledge on.

    Like

    • makagutu says:

      3. I don’t think all religions have man as being imperfect, I think this is unique to the Judaic sects. And my comment on perfection applies here equally.

      4. I agree nothing in nature lives for ever. It is wrong for christian evangelists to go telling people that we die because of the fall of Adam & Eve. My point was and still is even if we were to pretend that A & E did not eat the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, death was guaranteed.

      5. I agree with you to the extent that no means no, but when you say that you give them a chance to reform. By chasing the duo out of the farm with the commission of the first offense, there is no room for knowing whether they would have reformed. That road was crossed the moment guards were put at the gate. And if it was necessary, you will have to tell me why god couldn’t just let them stay in the garden besides they were products of his handiwork?

      Like

      • themodernidiot says:

        3. Yeah, they do. That’s why they are used to control. man’s imperfection is a prerequisite for religion.

        4. A&E’s knowledge was not limited to good and evil. Think bigger and broader. Knowledge encompasses many things. Knowledge can be self-awareness, which had the catastrophe of putting man’s focus on himself first. Thus he was forever doomed to evil.

        5. There was no need to reform in the garden of eden. The reformation is beyond that ideal. man must reform by working to create his own paradise, but as all religions agree, god never left man to completely fend for himself. god’s influence,love, guidance, whatever people think is still present. Man just lost his direct line to god. Kinda like getting kicked out of your parents house for swiping money out of mom’s purse. The parents are still there when you are ready to stop being selfish. The child has the choice whether to stop being a douchebag, or look beyond himself to others.

        Obviously, it’s jut the way I see it. God says, “poof, you exist. for our relationship to work, you have to do this.” then the kids mess it up because of peer pressure, so god says, “ok smarty pants, i told you so. off you go. good luck. don’t forget to call your mother once in a while.”

        cure god could have let them stay there, but wouldn’t he then lose his credibility by being a doormat? no means no. they had one stupid rule to follow. just one, and they blew it.

        now, personally, I don’t buy the adam and eve story at all as a literal history. i think it’s ridiculous and a little too convenient that it was the woman who fucked up. if it were real, i’d interpret it as it was the woman who wasn’t a gullible dipshit who just did as she was told 😉

        My favorite bumper sticker says, “Eve was framed” haha.

        That’s why i don’t take the bible, or myths, or the koran, talmud, etc. literally, and do not analyse them purely for text. they are works that are supposed to be open to interpretation, and intended to make us think. they are no use to us as literal documents. that’s obvious given that no literal reading works for all people since we are all so different.

        I take religious stories like i do every other story. I read it and let it open my mind to new ideas. that’s what literature is supposed to do. if you want literal, then go read assembly instructions for a bookshelf. 🙂

        5.

        Like

        • makagutu says:

          4. Let us for a moment agree with the notion of self awareness, how does this rescue the A& E story? How does it portray the god who created them? That he created beings in his likeness but didn’t want them to have a self awareness?

          5. I don’t agree with you at all.You have stretched your imagination to far and failed to notice the glaring problem with the narrative. A god creates two individuals, creates a tempter, something we are told this god most likely knew would happen, then banish them from paradise. If my parents did that for the first offence, I would better of getting new set of parents or declaring myself parentless. BUt for a god, if any exists, to do such a thing is beyond gross misconduct. It is the height of caprice and cruelty.

          When I get a car, I may just use as my bumper sticker too 😛

          Like

  7. themodernidiot says:

    6. “As an aside, what would prompt a god, who is immutable, perfect, disembodied to create a world from nothing?” – ever draw a picture, build a sand castle, write some music? Same thing.

    If we are asking why god made us all the time we are not doing our job. We are being selfish and egocentric instead of just living and soaking up the joy of just being.

    Each one of us is unique. Our interpretations are as well. This makes our faith very personal and individual, and our gods the same. We cannot use the physical to understand something meta-physical. You have to open your mind to every possibility to choose your faith, like your philosophers will teach you, be it in a god or force, or just the beauty of yourself.

    Reading religious works literally is like using a screwdriver to hammer a nail. You’re using the wrong tool. 😉

    Like

    • makagutu says:

      6. I think you commit a false analogy error in your comparison between me building a sand castle and god creating. My building a sand castle is not from nothing, the idea of sand castle is given by an existing castle, am drawing from nature or from experience to create whatever work of art I do. In the case of god, if for a moment we allow that he created the world and that god is formless, what caused this desire in him to create.

      No we are not being selfish. A great majority of people get to ask this important question, why am I here, if it is the whim of a god, that god should show up, if it was inevitable that I be here, then so be it but it is an important question to ask.

      To each his own, is a good dicta for me. Let us then live and let live. Let no religious person come to me with a claim that he knows a truth that I don’t know or don’t see. If that is going to work, then my work here is done am off to the beach to see naked people and walk naked in the hot sunny beaches!

      Reading religious works literally is a good start. In my literature class we did start with the literal meaning to the superficial not the other way round and I think you would agree.

      Like

      • themodernidiot says:

        6. no, it’s not false at all. if god exists, then there is something there to draw from, be it whatever might co-exist with god, or exist in the mind of god. to use creationism as an explanation, one has to presuppose god’s existence, thus the existence of all that is god. your sand castle does not exist until YOU make it. say you made the first sand castle ever, or the first real castle. at one point prior it did not exist at all. then you imagine it. man is kinda like like if one is to suppose the creation theory.

        as far as god being formless, gotta have form to have formlessness. i think that’s where people get stuck, and rightly so. we can only get to a certain point before we have to decide whether we are going to accept god exists or doesn’t. some people need to imagine god in a human form, some people don’t. creationism kind of assumes form, even though you could certainly accept formlessness as well if your mind could stretch across those paradigms.

        yes, if we are needing god to show up or prove existence, then we are not ready. once we no longer need god to prove his/its existence, then we truly believe. if we need proof, we are not complete within ourselves. we are still searching for something because we have not found personal fulfillment with what we do now exists, with ourselves. i think true faith, true balance, true human harmony and mental wellness is the liberation of that need for proof.

        100% agree with the to each their own. i think that’s what people keep missing when they read these religious texts because of the need to read literally. the works are genius because they allow us to each be our own. i think if there were a god it would be something different to each person.

        no i do not agree on reading literature literally. i think that is completely the wrong way to read things. good literature requires reading each word for its full meaning, way out to the edges of one’s mental capacity of understanding all things, reading a word for both its denotation and connotation. if there is only one way to read a piece of literature, it is not good literature 😉

        Like

      • themodernidiot says:

        this has been a really great discussion. it has my mind working out to the edges of my own understanding of things, looking at ideas in new ways, from new angles. thanks noel 🙂

        Like

        • makagutu says:

          It’s you who is deserving of the gratitude. You present very interesting views, and open the good book to several and interesting interpretations. You I i said you would make a good priestess or is it goddess, people would learn a lot by just listening to you.

          So thank you my friend, it is always nice to have such exchanges with you

          Like

  8. aguywithoutboxers says:

    Good discussion about the creation and such. However, all of this is based on a fable contained in a fairy book. I also remember that same volume claims all creation was done in six days and on the seventh it was a holiday. I’ll take the holiday! Good post, my friend!

    Like

    • makagutu says:

      I will join you in the holiday. The fable narrates that this creator was also a tailor and sew the first clothes for its minions

      Like

      • aguywithoutboxers says:

        So true, my Nairobi brother! How kind of you to remind us of this. I wasn’t going to mention this abomination on your site. I didn’t want to be viewed as self-serving (well, not too much)! 🙂

        Like

  9. tildeb says:

    I think Genesis is a terrific teaching tool if read to be a myth using symbolic language. Figure out what the symbols represent in real life and you figure out the lesson it’s allowing you to experience (how cool is that technique?).

    In a nutshell, it tells us to grow up and learn to be responsible because life – if we truly want to live it well and fully – is hard and we get no divine bail-out when we screw up.

    Like

    • makagutu says:

      I agree with you mate, and am more than willing to take it as myth, for really that is what it is. But to go ahead and insist that people are depraved or suffer for disobedience to a being we are told created them, is to push things too far. As symbols any day, as fact, I will need more than the words of a few priests.

      Like

  10. Shinashi says:

    I have one thing to say about gods making humans imperfect. I’ve relayed such information to believers and almost every time they have told me that we became imperfect when we ate from the tree. Before then we were perfect and immortal or something..

    What was the intention in creating man whose choices many times lead to him harming others or himself, that is, he is due to err. If the god believers can excuse their god for his apparent mistakes, then either they or their god has a cruel sense of humour.

    This made me realize that Eve was imperfect before eating from the tree, for that is her first mistake, that was what pissed god off to make us suffer for her and Adam’s mistake. In other words, yes, god had made them imperfect in the Bible and, from you, the god had no intention of ever keeping the in Eden.

    I’ve also seen some bits about reading the Bible metaphorically, and I’m just wondering if we can see gods as metaphorically as well, and how will that work?

    Like

    • makagutu says:

      Hello, hope you have been well. You haven’t written those interesting dialogues for so long!

      Indeed, how would a metaphorical god differ from a non existent god?

      If man was immortal and perfect before eating the fruit, what is their understanding of perfect? Two, that man was immortal can’t sell, or else why would god banish them from the garden before they ate the fruit of life?

      Like

  11. themodernidiot says:

    Noel-I am getting lost in our long posts because of the format. Should we move this to email? I would like to leave it here, because this is a really great discussion, but I am having trouble finding my way around!

    Like

    • makagutu says:

      Very well my friend, besides it has been so long since we exchanged mail!

      Like

      • themodernidiot says:

        Ok, tell you what. I need a mind break for now. When I get back to the email, feel free to copy and paste anything from it in case anyone else wants to follow along. I’m seeing some wonderful ideas sparking off of our original discussion.

        Like

We sure would love to hear your comments, compliments and thoughts.

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s