Why do we Need A God?

[TruthChaser]

Yes, religious belief could be grounded. I think that most people who have studied theology accept that Jesus, Mohammed and Siddhartha were real people who lived at specific times in specific places. As you say, there is adequate historical evidence to support this.

 

If you have realized this much you surely also realize there is much evidence (again outside of the Bible) to support the events of Jesus' life and death, the reasons for his death and things he said and did.

 

The main reason that the establishment of the day wanted him to be dead was because he claimed to be God. yes, yes, I know many people have made such claims... but they have since been labelled as mentally ill (like a man on our news tonight). Why couldn't Jesus have been just mentally ill? Or a liar?

 

Well... if you told that lie would you stand by that lie if you knew they would most certainly torture and crucify you for it? Lying would also mean he was not a good man or a prophet.

 

What about mental illness? Possible... except that mentally ill people do not come back from the dead (again evidence to support this can come from outside the Bible and from non christian historians of the time).

 

The only other possibilty is he really was God... and that would bring about a whole range of repurcussions. We would have to take notice of him and what he did. A guy who could do the miracles he did (and even come back from the dead) could certainly do things that science cannot explain (that's what a miracle is). Why should it be difficult for this God of miracles to create the world in 7 days? Just because we can't doesn't mean he can't.

 

Taken from this angle such a belief is not non-rational at all. It is based on reason. It just means that we simple humans are not able to explain everything, and certainly are not able to tell God what he is or is not capable of doing... nor does it mean we should so boldly think we know more about the science he made than he does and what it can and cannot do, or has or hasn't done.

 

But, for those who don't believe he made it then, none of this would be relevant or useful. So, no more can be said to show those people either way. Sorry.

[jedaisoul]

"So much scientific proof" is quite a general claim... when so much of that scientific "proof" can itself be questioned by science... so much science. Unfortunately many people who have been taught evolution regurgitate it as if it were unquestionable. I do not mean Natural Selection (which is different to evolution)... I am talking about basic laws of science which must be broken in order for evolution to be true (biogenesis, conservation of mass/energy etc). How about the basic testimony of DNA which flies in the face of evolution (again, not Natural Selection).

I'm not sure what point you are making. Conservation of mass is not a basic law of science. It is an approximation, relevant specifically to chemistry. Besides which, I was not trying to support any specific interpretation of evolution and/or natural selection. I was saying it is better to take religion out of the scientific sphere entirely, and look at it on it's own merits. Period.

[TruthChaser]

Ok. If that's what you think should be done, that's fine... but I do disagree. I do not think it is necessary to abandon our scientific senses in order to discuss God. I do not wish to use so much space in my posts to go into great detail when I could more simply direct readers to another web site for consideration. If we are honest thinking people with open minds it should be no problem to look at Creation Ministries International and Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics to see that science and the bible can actually work together.

 

Conservation of mass/energy states that mass energy can neither be made nor lost. If this is to remain true it makes a mockery of the idea that the universe could have appeared on its own. Even with the little comings and goings that occur in Quantum Mechanics energy must come from a source. It is here where science cannot explain itself and where you may move to an "outside science" take on things... that either it somehow just happened (against scientific understanding) or that there is a God who made it happen. Compare this with the history surrounding Jesus and his claims and things can be seen more reasonably.

 

But, this is where I am at, which quite evidently is very different to where you are at. That's ok. Thank you anyway for the discussion. It has been great interacting with you.

[jedaisoul]

I want to reply to TC's points, but I'm conscious that we are getting further and further from the purpose of this thread. May I therefore suggest that this dialogue be split into a separate thead?

 

If you have realized this much you surely also realize there is much evidence (again outside of the Bible) to support the events of Jesus' life and death, the reasons for his death and things he said and did.

There is evidence for his life and works. I have already said that.

 

The main reason that the establishment of the day wanted him to be dead was because he claimed to be God.

That is interpretation. I would suggest that Jesus did not claim that he was God. He claimed to be "the son of God" which is very different. I understand that it was commonplace at that time to refer to prophets as "sons of God". He also claimed to be "the son of man", whatever that meant. And (arguably) he also claimed to be "the way, the truth and the light". None of these claims amount to a claim to be God.

 

Furthermore, his enemies called him "the king of the Jews". That again is very different from them thinking he was claiming to be God. They, and some of his followers, thought that he was, or claimed to be, the messiah foretold in the old testament who would come to rid the Jews of the shackles of servitude to foreign masters. A king amongst men. Very much a man of action, like Moses. Not a God.

 

There is no evidence (that I am aware of) that shows that either Jesus or the establishment of the day thought he was, or claimed to be, God.

 

Why should it be difficult for this God of miracles to create the world in 7 days? Just because we can't doesn't mean he can't.

I did not say that he could not do it in 7 days. I said that he did not. That is supported by plentiful scientific evidence. What science does not tell us is whether that event was caused by the intervention of God. As I've said before, that lies outside the sphere of science, and is a matter for personal belief. So you may, or may not, believe that God created the universe, but, either way, it was not done in 7 literal Earth days a few thousand years ago.

 

But, for those who don't believe he made it then, none of this would be relevant or useful. So, no more can be said to show those people either way. Sorry.

Agreed. The same applies to those who chose to believe in the literal truth of the bible.

[TruthChaser]

You are right... perhaps a different thread is better. However, the part you mentioned about interpretating the claim to be God seems that way on the English surface. Do you read/speak Hebrew and Greek?

 

I do.

 

On the basis of the original languages Jesus did claim to be God. Perhaps I could explain that in a different thread though.

 

I must go to bed now as it is getting late into the night here.

 

You are right... about belief in literal truth of the Bible... it's not to say that it wasn't an open mind that led me here... and I am not sorry I have reached this place.

 

Take care. Keep up the good thoughts.

[jedaisoul]

Getting back to the question "Why do we need a God?", I have another idea...

 

Pehaps God, and the devil, are just externalised from ourselves? Perhaps externalising, and personalising, them dissociates us to an extent. That may then allow us to look at our desires more dispassionately, helping us to better distinguish our "good" intentions from "bad" ones.

 

So we need a God (and a devil) as part of coming to terms with our own motivation and desires.

 

It's a thought...

[TruthChaser]

Ok. I just want to add this in response to your comments:

 

Jesus did claim to be the son of God and the son of man. I realize that with your text we are now getting into NT Bible text (which may incidently be verifiable historically and you can check this out by doing the appropriate research and reading as it would be far to much to lay out here). The terms used as son of God and son of man were used interchangeably to describe both his divinity and his humanity (which were both present at once as he was God in the flesh, God with us).

 

Secondly the statement he made was "I am the way the truth and the life" (not light in this sentence as you wrote)... and he concluded that statement by saying "no-one comes to the Father (God) except through me" which, if we are serious about our discussion of God means we must consider this statement very seriously.

 

Thirdly.. and this is the language bit:

 

The OT name given to the God of the Jews/Hebrews/Israel is "YHWH" often translated in English as either "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" and means in Hebrew "the eternally existing one, the God who was, who is, and is to come, who always was, who is, and always will be". In other words, he is infinite and outside our space and time.

 

The name Jesus (Isous in Greek) is equivalent to the Hebrew name "Joshua" which means "YHWH saves" and was significant to his purpose of saving his people (not just Jews as he explains in various statements and parables) not politically but spiritually (John 3:16-21 among other statements). This is also what the prophets had in mind (Isaiah 53 among many). The reason the Jews thought it was political was because they had thought some prophecies meant that he would reign as king over israel only and set up his kingdom on earth. However, a closer look at such prophecies and one will see that they refer to an eternal kingdom which includes all races and people from all nations, and that it will exist beyond our current framework of time. (this is the bible and I am just explaining it, even though I am aware that you may not believe in it).

 

When you come to reading John 8 we see a heated discourse going on between Jesus and the "religious leaders" because they question his authority and the validity of his testimony.

 

It infuriates them when Jesus claims to have existed before Abraham (some 2500 years before their time). He then uses the greek words, "ego eimi" which, in the particular grammatical tense used here, quite literally means the equivalent of "YHWH" ("the eternally existing one, the God who was, who is, and is to come, who always was, who is, and always will be"). He was basically saying "I am the eternal God. I am YHWH". At this the religious leaders wanted to throw stones at him.

 

Later in John 10 when Jesus challenged them as to why they were stoning him they said, "We are not stoning you for any of these, but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

 

From this time on they sought to have him killed.

 

When they did kill him, he came back to life and that says something very strong about his claims (again appropriate research can be done to support this).

 

It also begs the question how and why God could be killed? Of course he couldn't unless he allowed it to happen which is why Jesus said to Pilate,"you have no power over me except that it is given you from heaven." (John 19:11) and why he also said in advance "No one takes it (life) from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father." (John 10:18)

 

And why would he allow it to happen? Because he said he wa saving us spiritually as opposed to politically. It is through his death that he would become the saviour, and through his resurrection that he would reign forever. This is what the prophecy of Isaiah 53 declared some 580 years earlier!

 

This is a God who is deeply compassionate toward and wanting to be united with the humanity he created.

 

Anyway, that's the Bible's take on things and that is obviously hard for many to swallow if they can't take the bible seriously. I understand that... I was there once myself. There is plenty of reading and research that can be done for those who have an open mind (as I did which is how I came to discover this remarkable and wonderful thing).

 

Anyhow... better go to bed as midnoght has ticked over on my clock.

 

Night all.

TC (B.MIn... major in Theology. minors in Anthropology and History), B.Psych (with Bioscience).

[jedaisoul]

Anyway, that's the Bible's take on things and that is obviously hard for many to swallow if they can't take the bible seriously. I understand that... I was there once myself.

Hi TC,

 

My turn to apologise, it seems. However, I'd like you to clarify whether the intepretation of those passages in the bible is you own, specific to a sect or church, or widely accepted by modern theologians? It would seem to me that if it is widely accepted, I should be able to read that in the NIV. Now, I'll admit that it is some years since I last opened a bible, but I don't remember reading those passages expressed in that way. However, I'll readily admit that I could easily have forgotten.

 

Also:

a) Was I correct in saying that the term "son of God" was used to refer to the prophets? It is an important point, and I don't want to mislead others who may know even less about the bible than I do.

 

:evil: Please answer my comments:

...the bible story of the creation of the universe could be grounded if it accorded with scientific evidence. The trouble is, it doesn't. Not even close. And once you have one claim in the bible that is not sustainable, the claim that the whole of the bible is the literal truth, fails.

and:

...I did not say that he could not do it in 7 days. I said that he did not. That is supported by plentiful scientific evidence. What science does not tell us is whether that event was caused by the intervention of God. As I've said before, that lies outside the sphere of science, and is a matter for personal belief. So you may, or may not, believe that God created the universe, but, either way, it was not done in 7 literal Earth days a few thousand years ago.

 

c) Why is it important to you that the bible be accepted as the literal truth?

[TruthChaser]

Hi TC,

 

My turn to apologise, it seems.

 

No worries:)

 

However, I'd like you to clarify whether the intepretation of those passages in the bible is you own, specific to a sect or church, or widely accepted by modern theologians? It would seem to me that if it is widely accepted, I should be able to read that in the NIV.

 

Yes, that is the view held by modern christian theologians (in fact by christian theologians for the past 2,000 years) and I'd be safe to say that it would apply to Catholic and Protestant.

 

There will be the odd few (termed as the Higher Critical or Liberal Theologians.. and I say few in comparison to main stream) who like to twist things around and take things out of context, and chop things up.. but, yes, it is the generally accepted direct interpretation that is held by the christian church. Now, there are a couple of sects (Latter Day Saints and Jehovah's Witness) who will not accept that but they have their own different scriptures anyway (that are not congruous with the original texts of the original languages).

 

Yes, you will find these in the NIV as that was the text I was using when writing the post B)

 

Also:

a) Was I correct in saying that the term "son of God" was used to refer to the prophets? It is an important point, and I don't want to mislead others who may know even less about the bible than I do.

 

The term "son of God" was used by Jesus specifically in the context of His divinity and authority. However, it is mostly a New Testament term, so not often referred to the prophets BUT because of what Jesus set out to do (through his life, death and resurrection) we are all able to become "sons of God" (john 1:12-13) through what christians term as being "born again" spiritually [John 3:1-8) (hence Jesus saving us spiritually and reconciling us to God). We can then call Him Father too (Romans 8:14-17) and relate with God on a very intimate and personal basis (exactly what God wants from us). This is the point that most religious people miss... that God wants a personal connection with us, not an allegiance to a rule book while we keep our distance. I guess that the question of this thread "why do we need a God?" could be turned around to be more theologically correct as "why does God want us?" and the answer from Him is that He loves us. [John 3:16 , Ephesians 2:4, Romans 5:6-8).

 

You will notice that the Bible interchanges regularly between linking Christ as God Himself and calling Him the Son of God, and that God gave Christ etc... this is the workings of the Trinity (a theological term for a biblical concept). It basically means that God is one who works and expresses Himself in three ways (the Father, the Spirit and in the flesh... Jesus). It's difficult for us to get our minds around because that's God, outside our realm, outside of our space and time and beyond our scientific limitations. Hope all this helps though.

 

:evil: Please answer my comments:

 

There is much scientific evidence that can support the Bible's narrative. I would be able to present it to you step by step but it would take up so much space. I can direct you to a web site which has articles by reputable scientists who hold PhDs in various fields of science. They are also Creation believers. They uncover a lot of stuff that is not widely publisized by unbelieving scientists and show how science and the Bible can work together in harmony. The website is Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics, or Creation Ministries International. Both of these sites will give you some things to chew over. If you would like to discuss it with me perhaps we could start a new thread, but I think you should find enough to work through by looking at that site and reading what proffessional scientists have written. :Glasses:

and:

 

c) Why is it important to you that the bible be accepted as the literal truth?

 

Quite simply, if we chop off the beginning of the Bible it makes the whole purpose of Jesus' mission pointless. Without a correct understanding of the spiritual state of the world at creation and after sin entered into the world, we would never fully understand why Jesus had to save us at all. Also, it would be like watching CSI (I hope you have at least watched one to follow me here) and missing that beginning part where you get the clues to understanding the whole storyline. The big picture of the Bible is that God made us, it was great, He realated on a personal basis with His creation. People rebelled against Him. That meant consequences. It wasn't so much that God wanted to get rid of us, but that He is righteous and we had become unrighteous (by rejecting him). Truly it is we who rejected him not the other way around. There are numerous verses in the Bible where God weeps over the fact that people have rejected Him... and that rejection has meant that they have lost all the benefits of living in harmony with Him. He is a righteous God and He can't dwell in the presence of unrighteousness... it became like a gulf between us and him. Contrary to most people's assumption, God actually wants that gulf bridged more than we do... hence he came in Jesus and paid the penalty we deserve (dealing with our unrightesouness) so that we could return to our original status as children of God and be back where he intended us to be. It's really quite a beautiful story and it is ashame that so many people think God is against them (therefore they become so hostile in their attempts to reject him and disprove him etc), when the bible shows that God is actually for us, and gave himself to restore us. This is why it is important to see that those first few pages in Genesis can actually be accepted... otherwise the rest of the Bible doesn't make sense (and perhaps that's why so many people think the Bible makes no sense because they chopped off the introduction).

 

Hope this is helpful. I encourage you to have a good look at those websites. You can decide for yourself what you want to make of it. Just remember, while you're wondering why you need God, that the bible says he is trying to show you that he created you to need him and that he wants you to be close with him as a beloved child with a perfect father.

 

Anyways, I have probably said way too much, but that's why it's important to me. :hihi: It actually sets us free.

[jedaisoul]

Yes, that is the view held by modern christian theologians (in fact by christian theologians for the past 2,000 years) and I'd be safe to say that it would apply to Catholic and Protestant.

Thank you for clarifying that.

 

The term "son of God"... is mostly a New Testament term, so not often referred to the prophets... we are all able to become "sons of God"...

So it was used to refer to the prophets, and does not imply godhood.

 

Quite simply, if we chop off the beginning of the Bible it makes the whole purpose of Jesus' mission pointless.

I was not suggesting "chopping off" the beginning of the bible. Rather, I was suggesting that the bible be taken for what it is, an account of one peoples' relationship with God over a period of thousands of years. As such it does not have to be the literal truth, and there is no conflict with science. To my mind, it's value is not dependent on being literally true.

 

Anyways, I have probably said way too much, but that's why it's important to me. :evil: It actually sets us free.

For my part, I'm very grateful for your comments.

 

P.S. I've had a brief look at the two web sites you suggest, and I found nothing authoritative about the scientific issues surrounding the literal truth (or otherwise) of the creation story in Genesis.

[TruthChaser]

 

 

So it was used to refer to the prophets, and does not imply godhood.

 

Sorry, I will be more clear. No. It was generally not used for prophets.

 

When Jesus used it to describe Himself He was definitely implying god head (John 10:30... I and the Father are one). The Jews' immediate interpretation of His comment was that he was claiming to be God. When Jesus clarified it in verses 34-38, he said that God's followers can be called sons of God (as I explained in the last post), but on the authority of His miracles He is wanting them to see He is the son of God. This taken in context with the claims "Ego Eimi" (I Am in the eternal sense in Greek) reitify His full intention that He is God, He is one with the Father, and that He, the Father, and the Spirit are all one and the same God.

 

It is interesting to note the Hebrew word for God used in the Old Testment is Elohim. The singular word is El, however the Old Testament specifically uses a plurality to signal that God is a pluarlity in one. Think of the verse in Deuteronomy 6:4. In the English NIV it reads: "Hear, O Israel, The LORD your God is one". The literal translation from Hebrew would read as , "YHWH (singular), your Gods (plural) is one". In the Hebrew it is very specific.

 

For further clarification have a look at Revelation 1: 8.

 

"I am the Alpha (beginning) and the Omega (end)," says the Lord God, "who was, and who is, and who is to come, the Almighty." (notice the words to describe his eternal existance, rendering the name YHWH).

 

Compare that with Revelation 1: 17-18.

 

"Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One (Greek: ongoing present = eternal); I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! I hold the keys of death and Hades." (quite obvious this is Jesus because of the reference to his death and resurrection).

 

Compare further with Rev 22:12-16 where Jesus promises his return in the future. He again uses the terms, First and Last, Alpha and Omega, Beginning and End... and says specifically, "I Jesus" so there is no doubt that this is Jesus speaking and claiming the name of the Lord God, the Almighty.

 

We begin to see how significant the name of YHWH is, as the eternal existing one, how specifically Jesus declares himself to be that very God, and how it specifically puts God's existance outside our time and space... yet he mercifully enters our time and space (how awesome is that!) in order to restore us.

 

The reference to Jesus' return may not be criticized for taking more than the last 2,000 years to fulfill (not implying that you do, but others do). He actually initially prohesied his first coming in Genesis 3:15 and it took 4,000 years (with many other prophesies along the way) before he walked the streets of Jerusalem. So the last 2,000 years of waiting are quite minimal in comparison.

 

I was not suggesting "chopping off" the beginning of the bible. Rather, I was suggesting that the bible be taken for what it is, an account of one peoples' relationship with God over a period of thousands of years. As such it does not have to be the literal truth, and there is no conflict with science. To my mind, it's value is not dependent on being literally true.

 

This is something you must work out personally. For my part I take it literally because I see that it may be supported adequately. I don't see any reason to take it as anything less than it reads. Your take is quite adequate for the purpose of our conversation and I'll leave that with you.

 

For my part, I'm very grateful for your comments.

you are welcome:)

 

P.S. I've had a brief look at the two web sites you suggest, and I found nothing authoritative about the scientific issues surrounding the literal truth (or otherwise) of the creation story in Genesis.

 

You can have a deeper look, search their articles or the like. There is a good book I can recommend written by scientists and it is titled "The big Argument: Does God exist?" (ISBN: 0890514690) and you may find it very helpful for further reading in regards to the scientific side of things.

 

I hope I have been somewhat helpful though. :evil:

[TruthChaser]

P.S. I've had a brief look at the two web sites you suggest, and I found nothing authoritative about the scientific issues surrounding the literal truth (or otherwise) of the creation story in Genesis.

 

TRy these links:

 

Could God Really Have Created Everything in Six Days? - Answers in Genesis

 

Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood - Answers in Genesis

 

The Stars of Heaven Confirm Biblical Creation - Answers in Genesis

 

The Heavens Declare . . . A Young Solar System - Answers in Genesis

 

Did Jesus Say He Created in Six Literal Days? - Answers in Genesis

 

Is Jesus the Creator God? - Answers in Genesis

 

The Big Bang - Answers in Genesis

 

 

Find more relevant articles here: Creation/Evolution/Dinosaurs/Genesis/etc Article Database

 

Hope it all helps anyways.

[jedaisoul]

Thanks.

[Mike C]

Let me pose this question:

 

Why do we need a God?

 

The Ancient Greeks needed Gods to explain natural phenomena. Heileos was the reason that the sun rose each day, Demeter was the cause for a good harvest, etc. But soon, scientists like Plato began to explain these things scientifically. Many realized that Gods weren't needed, and probably didn't exist.

 

We're in the same situation today, we need something to explain how the Universe came about, so Bam! We used the make believe Christian God to explain that he created the Universe. The only thing stopping this God from being destroyed is a lack of complete scientific understanding on the subject. God is playing poker with modern scientists. Formerly, he had a full hand, with cards like "geocentricism," "creationism," and "young Earth." But scientists played better cards, "heliocentricism" "evolution," and "radiocarbon dating." God only has a few left. His real ace in the hole is the afterlife, which really has nothing to do with science.

 

Unfortunately, some of his followers on Earth are causing a lot of trouble. Instead of attempting to understand science and showing rational behavior towards subjects like evolution, they found a new strategy: ignoring it. They found that they are perfectly capable of ignoring the flaws in their own logic and completely disregarding scientific evidence.

 

So I ask this, what place does a God have in today's world of free thought and intelligence when all the evidence in the world is at our fingertips? Why do some people cling to tradition when tradition is wrong?

 

The Christian God has no right to contradict science. In my opinion, the only place God has in our society is spiritual. God does not belong in an argument about evolution, he has no right to participate in a discussion of the cosmos, and he has no place in the scientific community. Why? Because God is spiritual. God does not have anything to do with science, and if the Bible contradicts that statement, it is wrong. We do not need a God to help us understand the world around us, but to understand ourselves. I use God as a foil to define my own beliefs. But others may use him differently. God is personal, and has no place in scientific discussion.

 

Sorry for the tangent, I expressed dual points.

 

I agree to a certain extent. That we do not need a god. Especially the one from the bible like 'yhwh' that the old testemant promotes.

Christ can be accepted as a Preacher/Reformer that sums up his Gospel.

Unfortunately, the chauvinist jews considered him a threat to their existence and urged Pontius Pilate to kill him. So Christ was killed because of 'free speech'.

So I am an adamant believer in our US Constitution that 'outlaws the crucifix and cross and allows 'free speech'.

But rather than accept everything Christ promoted, I look to Nature as my GOD because it is the greatest artist, inventor and therefore, our greatest teacher.

However, Nature teaches the multiple god system. So you can select what you want to believe in.

 

The bible is erroneous in its teachings because it says women are sinners (sexism), separates day and night to promote racism, promotes the one god consept with the 1st 3 commandments and promotes genocide as a means of punishment.

So the OT is 'evil'. So this one god concept creates wars to ascertain who is the one god.

Currently, the Islamic religion (promotimg a population bomb) and the partnership of the vatican and capitalism (promoting the 'new world order') is theother that are vying who is the one god to our detriment.

 

So this evil spirit is a real spirit and does really exist as a true spirit.

 

So people look to these gods for security by avoiding their indoctrination of torture and death that forces them to accept the doctrine.

 

Anyway, our Constitution has outlawed these means and promotes a representative government that is (unfortunately) not complying with the CN because of corruption.

 

So I have come up with a political system that would represent the people by guaranteeing jobs, healthcare and pensions to grant them the 'security they need.

This way, religion is not needed.

 

Mike C

[HydrogenBond]

God and religious are sort of one of the two bookends of culture. It teaches things that have stood the test of time, some for thousands of years. The latest fad may not make it past one decade, yet at some irrational level this makes it better. Religion is sort of like the father in culture. The mother of culture is more nature, materialistic and temporal. Both are needed for a checks and balance, so change can occur and is progressive. What some suggest is breaking up the family so there is only the mother playing both roles. This can lead to some good results, like in culture.

 

Like in culture, the breakup of the family and the single mother in charge has had less of an impact on the daughters than on the sons. The mother can teach her daughters how to be young women but not her son's how to be young men, without a lot of feminine cross contamination. The males are on their own looking for other other male role models. Without the steady father of time tested religion, the role models become transient.

 

If you look at modern cultures that did away with religion one can get an idea of what men can become. One has Stalin and Hitler as a couple of father figures, without competition from religion. What cutting religion does is cut a link to thousands of years of traditions. Without this mooring, one is more influenced by the winds of short term fixes, that are there for fun and profit. Even bad fads, if substituted for religion, can stick with a person after the fad ends. It becomes the music of that generation. It is not designed to flow with time, like classical music, but to get stuck in time.

[modest]

Let me pose this question:

 

Why do we need a God?

 

God is handy when:

• You need a witness to an oath

• You want to damn someone or something

• It’s All Saints Day and you really don’t want to go to work.

• You’ve just won an oscar and you need someone to thank.

• It’s the fourth quarter of the super bowl and your team is down by 3 (go Chiefs!)

 

I have no scientific way of coming to the conclusion that God exists or not. But, I do believe in Christians and they come in handy too. You need a war fought - throw some Christians at it. You need to keep scientology at bay - throw some Christians at it. You need a designated driver - grab yourself a travel-sized Christian.

[IMAMONKEY!]

God is handy when:

You need a designated driver - grab yourself a travel-sized Christian.

 

I LOL'd hard at that one :)