The idea comes from Taoism: there is a God, but it is just a force. It makes things work and everything unexplained by science or reason could be attributed to God's doing. However, God does not directly interact with any humans. There was no beginning as in Christianity's creation of men or end as in Christianity's heaven/hell. There is no beginning and no end. No heaven. No hell. To believe in the un-humanized God does not mean you have to do anything differently, because it will not change how this God works. It merely means that you have now an explanation for previously unexplained things. It is also by nature impossible to have an organized religion built around the un-humanized God (note this, it is very interesting) since no worship or service is involved.

What is everyone's opinion on this concept which is very different from Judeo-Christian religion which stresses the interaction between God and men and dircect consequences from believing and non-believing?

Wouldn't this be quite an appealing alternative for most Athiests out there?

As I have stated before. There is a River of Knowledge that man can tap to accomplish many things upon this earth.

It has nothing to do with Man's religion.
Religions were set up to control.
Religions were set up to enable the leaders to have power and wealth at the expense of the believers.

The working basis for most religions is the fact of reward for following the religious rules. Why else would anyone follow these sometimes stringent rules without expecting a reward from their God.

No one would pay 10% of their income to hear the truth about Man's religion.

Your post had absolutely nothing to do with my topic.

Dio, pseudo intellectuals can be annoying. Sorry but after reading many of your posts I see a pattern that leads me to believe that your views are the most popular dribble. I have spent a great many years on this earth dealing with the so called "preppie" set and they also like to believe what is in Time, Newsweek and the likes, maybe reading the book of the month and thus they change beliefs more than most change the paper on the bottom of a bird cage.

Your post had absolutely nothing to do with my topic.
You sure? I think you're wrong! YOU MUST BE WORKING FOR THEM!!!! Them... AHHH!!!!!!

Has anybody mentioned I like peanuts? I think you can get those free with an order of Tao Te Ching, comes free with a side order of LaoTzu. Sun Tzu is in the next store down.

Beirut, your post also had absolutely nothing to do with my topic. The goal of this topic is to see how people who have been exposed to Judeo-Christian religious thinking most of their lives react to a different perspective. All I wish to see is some input and opinions. I did not even say whether I believe in any of this stuff. I did not care to talk about religion and man (courtesy to Dan's reply) here, because that has been done many times before already and had I been interested in starting it again the topic would have been titled just that. This topic is also not a debate about god in religion. All it is is a topic to probe people's opinions and thought processes.



Dio, pseudo intellectuals can be annoying

Does this mean that by labeling me as such, from what posts you've read which were written by me, that from now on you plan to ignore whatever I have to say perhaps without even proceed to reading them? Is that wise?

see a pattern that leads me to believe that your views are the most popular dribble.

I'm not sure what to think of this comment. Could you provide some examples of your so called popular dribbles on selected topics of your choice? It would somehow seem that you pride yourself for being more intellectual than many in this forum. This is fine. However in order for me to learn from you you must be more specific than saying "there is a pattern".

Actually my post had everything to do with your topic as did Dan's. You brought up the topic of God, so a reply in that vein is relevant.
My post as well was relevant to the topic as it was directed at the statement you made.
My post was in response to your reply to Dans post, it was as if you decided to dismiss his post as non responsive even though it was a direct response to your post. Basically Dan said he didnt believe in any of it, humanized or not.
As for ignoring your post, I have not done so as of yet and would not do so unless the topic has no interest to me.
I have never said I was an intellectual, never implied that I was. And I do not think I am better than anyone here or in the real world where it really matters.
I enjoy a good exchange of dialogue, I relish a good debate, what I didnt care for was the way you ignored Dans post because you didnt see the connection.
It was that attitude that prompted me to use the pseudo-intellectual label as it sounded like a well tenured prof speaking down to a freshman at some Ivy League school.


Two major principals of Taoism;

1. Development of virtue is one's chief task. The Three Jewels to be sought
are compassion, moderation and humility.

2. A Taoists is kind to other individuals, largely because such an action
tends to be reciprocated.


By the way, other than believing in a God their beliefs are that of what Christianity is supposed to be. Also I do not feel that the beliefs are much different than that of Wicca Craft or even Ancient Druids.
A belief in a force that flows through everything on Earth is as old as the Earth itself.
As a matter of fact these principals were taught by a famous middle eastern man, Jesus. In the much disputed Gospels of Thomas, Jesus teaches that he is in all, so he is equating God to the force of which you speak.

Beirut:

Good. This explained things a little and your final paragraph at last offered some opinion directly relating to the topic. I apologize for appearing perhaps rude but you will find that I'm never arrogant or pretend to be better than anyone else.

Now, here's what I thought when I read Dan's post:

As I have stated before. There is a River of Knowledge that man can tap to accomplish many things upon this earth. I didn't see your post about River of Knowledge, but okay, let's see how it connects to the topic... It has nothing to do with Man's religion. What is "it"? Your River of Knowledge or the un-humanized god concept? Religions were set up to control.
Religions were set up to enable the leaders to have power and wealth at the expense of the believers. Okay...but I asked for an opinion on a concept that is NOT a religion. I even stated that in my topic post that no leader or control is involved in this concept. So where's your opinion about that? The working basis for most religions is the fact of reward for following the religious rules. Why else would anyone follow these sometime stringent rules without expecting a reward from their God. This is a good topic to start elsewhere -- the nature of organized religion or something like that. If you ask why would anyone choose to believe in the un-humanized god, good. Try to provide a possible answer yourself and see whether it coincides with some cultures or groups that adopted this view. If not, we will have interesting debate here. No one would pay 10% of their income to hear the truth about Man's religion. Okay... Is there anyone whom I can pay my income to and hear about the truth of religion? Am I talking about the truth of religion?

You see. After all I just choose to really compact my opinion on his reply into one sentence which seemed rude. But really it was just trying to safe time and keep exchanges brief and to the point. See, compare to your last paragraph on your newest response, Dan seemed like he misunderstood my topic.

However I should add that you still didn't really offer personal opinion on the matter. You only offered your knowledge on similar concept from other established thinkings, but what how exactly do you feel about it? What's the appeal of a god that is un-humanized verses that which is humanized? What's your opinion on the differences?

Dio, I thought I was giving you my opinion as to why Christians would never accept the alternative. Sometimes the answer to a question entails more than a simple answer.

As to athiests I cannot answer, for I am not one.

Sorry I replied to your topic and got your panties in a wad.
It was not my intention.

My opinion is that mankind needs something to believe in, whether it is God, Taoism or themsleves.
I have studied the Druids and I lean toward their thinking, it allows a system much like Taoism but also doesnt take the persons choice of Diety away.

BV:

What do you think led different cultures to develop such opposing concept as organized religion acting as backbone for morality (Judeo-Christian way) verses the traditional Chinese-Taoist way of separating interaction between god and men and therefore no organized religion was possible nor (because by nature no divine text exists for such believes) of religion acting as morality resource?

Dan:

What alternatives do you think then would Christians tolerate more? Why?

Most people I have met who call themselves Christians would tolerate none. I believe that the God of Isaac is the same God that Ishmael worshipped. But when I bring that up I hear screams of blasphemy.
Anyway since I am a believer in God, no formal affiliation, I would say the foundation was in truth. But if I allow my logical side to come through I would say it was easier to explain that which scared or awed them by saying that a deity was responsible.
As for why they didnt adopt the same concepts of Taoism, I would have to know more about the people who lived in both regions to make a determination. A guess would be that the Tao culture was more into the belief that the Earth was a nurturing mother than the nomads.

funny i was thinking about this today...
god

for me personally it is impossible to put a face or personality or an image to the Creator......a force so mysterious and infinite has to be multifaceted beyond our comprehension.

I believe authoritarian belief systems such as the Judeo-christian type believe God made them in his image because it is easier to relate to, love, obey, (and fear) a familiar figure....and to know that they look like God puts them in his favor above all other creations.

I think one reason the Hindu people adopt a polytheistic approach to knowing god is the fact that one identity cannot do such an unfathomable force justice.........and they acknowledge that their 1000's of gods represent the many facets of the One.

only my humble opinions.........heaven and hell are not real in the afterlife.......heaven and hell are aspects OF life. I believe you experience both in your lifetime.......that is not to say I don't believe in life after death.......at the risk of going off topic ....

Life and death are not separate,
It only seems that way

I guess this is my clumsy way of articulating that no Dio, the aspect of a nondeity Creator is not a stretch for me to imagine, although it is not the traditional belief I have learned, where the Creator is in every thing on Earth.


There is no beginning and no end. No heaven. No hell.

This is familiar to me...........refered to as a Hoop or Circle of Life in the native teachings.......

To believe in a force that flows through all would also lend credence to an after life.
An force that gives life can also harness the energy released at death and contain it.
As for Heaven and Hell being a part of this life, I am not sure if I can accept that. Not saying your wrong just my opinion and belief system.
I believe that a system of reward or punishment does exist, maybe not the same way it does in the Christian faith but in a more cosmic sense.

I have studied the Druids and I lean toward their thinking, it allows a system much like Taoism but also doesnt take the persons choice of Diety away.

I have a questions about Druids. Are they the ones who were in England? Did they chart the stars? Did they build stonehenge? Was it a godess religion? Was their faith structured around the cycles of the earth and the solstices? I am just curious, and what time period were they?

creetwins see http://www.crystalinks.com/druids.html I think it will answer your questions.

Cool! Very interesting. Thank you!:)

Wouldn't this be quite an appealing alternative for most Athiests out there?

It sounds as if you mean that it is appealing to believe in a god? I prefer to believe in what I think is true rather than what would be appealing.

There is absolutely no evidence for this or any other god. I'm coming out sharp, but out of the hundreds of people who have argued with me, not a shred of evidence has appeared.

But surely not all athiests rely on a purely scientific, purely rational approach to describing the world? I'm aware many athiests think along the line of take Christianity or take Athiesm. Sometimes they don't have as big a problem with the unscientific nature of a conceptual god than they do with the nature of organized religion--with its many crowd controlling characteristics. Subtly miraculous things do happen all the time and the purely scientific ahiest will be able to attrubute their cause to something, without organized religion, instead of saying not sure what made this work. I was thinking along these lines and thought I wanted opinions from actual athiests.

So, still wouldn't appeal more than any organized religion then as an alternative? As in if you have to choose an alternative.

Wind I am reminded of a story told by two former Soviet scientist.
THey tell of traveling by car through a desolate region in the Ural Mountains and passing a snowman on the side of the road. One asked, wonder how that got there?, the associate replied it evolved.
Well the first said it hit him hard,like the snowman something created us. He was by the way an anthropologist.
SO you may say their is no hard evidence but I would disagree. There is no highly visible evidence, I agree with that.
As logical beings the acceptance of a God is very hard. I know that only too well, I believe now that we are guided by a divine entity, only because of stories you see and hear.
I was in FLorida when the tornadoes of early 9(maybe 98) came through Orlando and Kissimmee and one story stayed with me. An infant was in its mothers arms when the storm hit, the child was ripped from her arms and taken up into the vortex. The mother perished the child was found the next day wrapped in a mattress in a fork in a tree, alive.
Now that was a one in a million shot, or so I thought but it happened again this week when another storm ripped a child from his mother and was found actually in the arms of a large Winnie The Pooh.
It is stories like this that allows me to believe that there is a force out there.

B_V, about 20 some years ago when my youngest sister was is elementary school. a car caught fire in the parking lot and was burnt to nothing. the only thing that was still good was the bible. it was never burnt and did not smell of smoke. plus the carpet where the bible was at never caught on fire either. nobody could not explain why it did not burned. God does work in mysterious ways.

Though you do not give God credit in the other 999,999 cases where the baby dies? There are amazing things that happen, but the reason they are amazing is that they happen so infrequently. The majority of the time what is logically expected, actually happens.

Originally posted by WindWip
Though you do not give God credit in the other 999,999 cases where the baby dies? There are amazing things that happen, but the reason they are amazing is that they happen so infrequently. The majority of the time what is logically expected, actually happens.

Did I say a baby died in the other 999,999 no, what I said was it was a long shot that it would happen once, but the odds of it happening twice is off teh charts. By the way it has happened five times in the past 100 years. SO I would say it so far off the charts that it couldnt be even guessed at. And yes I say God is resoponsible for the times a child dies in a storm or anything not caused by man. When a person kills a child then it is free will but that is another thread.

Beirut, do you believe that God is omnipotent and omniscent? Just curious, that tends to be the usual belief. Though I have met interesting theories from other religions.

"car caught fire in the parking lot and was burnt to nothing. the only thing that was still good was the bible. "

This quote is probably a lie. As for the divine intervention, I suppose that only happens to America and Europe.

However, my main point is that I believe there is a non-delibearte force which governs the world. I think this force is governed by numbers and probability, which works whithin specific frameworks in the real world.

Originally posted by Timothy
"car caught fire in the parking lot and was burnt to nothing. the only thing that was still good was the bible. "

This quote is probably a lie. As for the divine intervention, I suppose that only happens to America and Europe.

However, my main point is that I believe there is a non-delibearte force which governs the world. I think this force is governed by numbers and probability, which works whithin specific frameworks in the real world.
I would say that divine intervention happens any where not just US and europe. I believe as a matter of fact that divine intervention would happen more in areas where people are suffering more than we are.

Wind, being that I am a logical creature I have to allow my mind to stay off of those points. Why? Am I coping out, no I believe that there is a God and if I allow the logic that I know to be true I would have to deny my faith. Sometimes I have to allow my faith to be free and separate it from my logical thought process. You can say I am coping out or following like a sheep. It is just that I have seen things that tend to support my faith and I want to believe.

It's funny how many people look at the one statistical anomoly and claim that it defines the existance or non-existance of a God or gods.

The child that landed on something soft.. so? When objects are in a vortex like that, they are spun around and tend to change positions. A baby landing on top of a matress (which has a lot of area) isn't too far out there on the "outcomes" spectrum. Assuming this tornado picked up from a multitude of houses, I would say that soft, safe things outnumber the dangerous things to land on quite a bit.

In addition.. what about all the other thousands of babies that are killed in tornadoes? Or perhaps the ones in hurricanes, floods, fires, thunderstorms, droughts, famine, heat waves.. why doesn't God - if there is such a diety - save them?

Statistically, 5 babies out of hundreds of thousands will happen, and should happen if our systems of mathematics work correctly. So I don't see that as any solid proof for a god.

Originally posted by Lithorien
It's funny how many people look at the one statistical anomoly and claim that it defines the existance or non-existance of a God or gods.

The child that landed on something soft.. so? When objects are in a vortex like that, they are spun around and tend to change positions. A baby landing on top of a matress (which has a lot of area) isn't too far out there on the "outcomes" spectrum. Assuming this tornado picked up from a multitude of houses, I would say that soft, safe things outnumber the dangerous things to land on quite a bit.

In addition.. what about all the other thousands of babies that are killed in tornadoes? Or perhaps the ones in hurricanes, floods, fires, thunderstorms, droughts, famine, heat waves.. why doesn't God - if there is such a diety - save them?

Statistically, 5 babies out of hundreds of thousands will happen, and should happen if our systems of mathematics work correctly. So I don't see that as any solid proof for a god.
Nor as evidence that he doesnt exist either.

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
Nor as evidence that he doesnt exist either.

Oh, aye. I was never trying to make the claim that that disproved the existance of a god/gods either.

All I was trying to show is that you cannot use the saving of 5 babies' lives to prove the existance of a god/gods when we humans can explain it now, more logically than a belief in god/gods would be.

But a belief in something, whether it is just in yourself is important to all people.
So someone chooses to believe in God, or Allah or whatever their choice is beneficial to them. That belief is their own and of course cant effect you or me, but their actions do effect us and that is what the guage should be.
People who claim to be Christians and practise hate are not true to themselves and should be gauged as such.
Using stats to show that we can expect this to happen is only looking for the logical in something that isnt based on logic but faith.

I very much so enjoy this comic strip:
http://www.nothingnice.com/old/08-02-02.shtml

Another belief, but not mine.... :D

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
Using stats to show that we can expect this to happen is only looking for the logical in something that isnt based on logic but faith.

What else can we look at the universe around us with if not logic, and expect to survive? Faith won't cut it.. I can't have faith that food will magically appear in front of me and never work to earn any and be able to have food.

Originally posted by creetwins
I have a questions about Druids. Are they the ones who were in England?

yes

Did they chart the stars?

possible, wasn't around back then so I'm not 100% sure nor is anyone else.

Did they build stonehenge?

there are theories that say yes and there are those that say no. Once again no one from today was around back then so who is to say with 100% truth?

Was it a godess religion?

It was a belief system sex is/was not important.
Was their faith structured around the cycles of the earth and the solstices?

yes, infact alot of christian religious days are here because of the Druids. They may have a new name or be a couple of days off but they started because of Druids and others.
I am just curious, and what time period were they?

They are a VERY ancient group, it is hard to say when they first came. There is a story handed down that may even show proof of them having wars with neanderthal. They had many ancient stories of great creatures. The giant beaver etc... which did live.

Creetwins;

Be carefull as to what you read on the SO CALLED Druid web pages. Some stuff is probably true where other crap is just that... "crap". I have been researching Druids for a LONG time now and have found some interesting stuff and have found some off the wall stuff. There are a couple of web sites out there that would have a person beleive there way is correct and true. BUT in all truthfullness it is just a group of people trying to start a click, cult, etc... It is hard to research Druids because they didn't believe in writting. They felt too much of the true meaning was lost in the way people interpret things {this has been proven with the bible :) }. Most of the learnings we have from the Druids came from there enemy the Roman Catholics. Isn't it funny how the very people that wanted them and their beliefs destroyed helped keep their thoguhts alive?? :). The closest thing I can compare a Druid to would be Native American Indians. Sorry to be so long winded, but I just didn't want you to get the wrong idea from some cult web page.

Dan:

I am not knocking the page you gave I ran through it quick and it seems to hold some truth.

Thanks for the personal explantion Mad Dog. I too see the parallels between them and the First Nations. Very interesting that different groups scattered across the planet can come up with similar truths.