Did Man make God?

[crushing]

Or its illegal for me to take my son fishing without a license. Not a sin but a crime

Given that the fishing license fees are used to provide optimum sustained fish and wildlife resources, is it not stealing when you choose not to 'render unto Caesar?'

 

[ballen0351]

Given that the fishing license fees are used to provide optimum sustained fish and wildlife resources, is it not stealing when you choose not to 'render unto Caesar?'

Naa license fees here go into the general fund to make up budget deficit. But Kman only wants us to talk about what he says is ok to talk about so. I'm out good day

 

[K-man]

Naa license fees here go into the general fund to make up budget deficit. But Kman only wants us to talk about what he says is ok to talk about so. I'm out good day

So, I start a thread about a scientific study into how the brain reacts in certain circumstances, you want to talk about something different. Rather than dummy spit, why not start your own thread? Then you can discuss whatever you like.

I'm not sure why you are so defensive ...

Some theologians, however, welcome the research, seeing it as proof that God equipped our bodies with the ability to believe.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion ...

“I get attacked by everyone,” says Patrick McNamara, associate professor of neurology at Boston University and author of The Neuroscience of Religious Experience. “Atheists hate me because I’m saying religion has some basis in the brain and fundamentalist Christians hate me because I’m saying religion is nothing but brain impulses.”

Perhaps you missed this ...

Our research team at the University of Pennsylvania has consistently demonstrated that God is part of our consciousness and that the more you think about God, the more you will alter the neural circuitry in specific parts of your brain. That is why I say, with the utmost confidence, that God can change your brain. And it doesn't matter if you're a Christian or a Jew, a Muslim or a Hindu, or an agnostic or an atheist. In Why God Won't Go Away, I demonstrated that the human brain is uniquely constructed to perceive and generate spiritual realities. Yet it has no way to ascertain the accuracy of such perceptions. Instead, our brain uses logic, reason, intuition, imagination, and emotion to integrate God and the universe into a complex system of personal values, behaviors, and beliefs.
How God Changes Your Brain (washingtonpost.com)

 

[EddieCyrax]

Ive read it all. As I said I believe the eyewitness accounts written by the people that say they were there.

I have read where at one point people believed and witnessed that the world was flat.... The facts they observed at the time could not be disputed and were generally believed by most...

I am not sure I would place all my bets on individuals that lacked significant information that we have today. The Human existance continues to evolve.

I am very spiritual, but very anti-religion.

Religion in my experience is primarily driven by human agendas.

 

[RTKDCMB]

I believe water boils at 100°C because it does.

That depends on the air pressure it is under.

 

[Touch Of Death]

I got into this thread after it had many responses. I started off answering each post, but thought maybe it would be better to comment on all I want in one post. It's going to be daunting, for readers as well as me. But here goes.No evidence for the existence of gods? My believe in God is based on faith, and that is my proof. I do have the Bible for proof as well. If those things don't work for you I find that sad. Apparently you don't.I guess it requires a definition of morality. If it is an following the precepts of a religion, then I would say my God is the source of morality. If you want to define it as anything else, then other possibilities are open.First I had heard of that. A quick perusal of the inet makes it appear it is a small group of people who believe that way. But thanks for the education.By definition, the Christian God, in whom I believe, is the only possible explanation for everything. It says so in the Bible. But I know that not all people believe in the God I believe in.Interestingly, I would say that we who are saved should be more concerned about being what God wants us to be, than worrying about judgement. Prior to being saved and becoming a Christian, judgement won't seem so important. But I take your point that fear of judgement and an eternal existence in hell, once believed in, should be a great incentive to want to be saved and serve God.Christians believe we have inherited Adam's sin nature. See the above comment of Adam's sin nature. Christian belief is that sin entered through Adam's giving in to the temptation of Satan.Since Christians believe in God who commands us not to follow false gods, we cannot agree to any other possible explanations.That doesn't mean we don't know other people hold different beliefs. We just don't accept them having any validity contrary to our beliefs.That is an interesting assertion, that Christians and Muslims believe in the same God. We have the same lineage from God, true. But we believe that Muslims have erred in their belief, especially since they deny the deity and Son of God status of Jesus. Our belief in Jesus being the messiah, and God, is why we are called Christian. Since the Muslim belief denies Jesus as the Son of God, one could make an argument that we don't believe in the same God. Even if one simply thinks they are in error, it would be a significant one.I understand they will think the same of a Christian, or any other belief.No, a Christian cannot.Well, Christians believe the Bible is God breathed. That is, God controlled what the different authors wrote, so the writings were what he wanted us to know. So if your saying they are man made implies men wrote the Bible but not under the divine control of God, Christians cannot accept that.As to God being female, why throw that into the face of Christian belief. You surely know how insulting that is to Christians. Do you enjoy being insulting? Or do you really believe God is female? Of course, that would mean you then have to admit to the existence of God. If you are admitting that, then we can discuss whether or not God is male or female.As I am sure you know, Christians believe God says sex outside of marriage is sin, as pointed out in the Bible. What does age of writings have to do with their inerrancy?Apparently not. You and many others on MT don't seem to. But if you do, would you like to be introduced to God? I would be happy to show you what and why I believe.

They used to rule the roost, and were mentioned as the followers of Mordock from the Bible.

 

[ballen0351]

So, I start a thread about a scientific study into how the brain reacts in certain circumstances, you want to talk about something different. Rather than dummy spit, why not start your own thread? Then you can discuss whatever you like.

I'm not sure why you are so defensive ...



Everyone is entitled to their opinion ...



Perhaps you missed this ...

Not being defensive I'm respecting your wishes

 

[Touch Of Death]

Actually my country was first united in the viking age under king Harald Hårfagre who defeated all the other jarls and small-kings. The reason he did it was to impress Gyda, the woman he wanted, so he could finally have some of her nookie.

In short, Norway was founded by horny vikings and would not exist if it weren`t for them Skål!

Oh? So were they atheists or did they believe?

 

[oftheherd1]

You have not discussed the OP at all. The existence of God or otherwise has nothing to do with this thread. If you want to argue the existence of God start another thread. I have not stated my position in this or any other thread so for you to say my position is that God only exists in the mind is not what I have said at all. You have your beliefs and I have mine. What I believe is nothing to do with this thread. As for your position that God is real ... I don't have a problem with that. So now can we get back to discussing what I posted rather than your faith?
:asian:

I'm sorry, I missed that as well. I thought from the articles, and more from the title of the thread, you were inviting the type of posts you don't seem to want; Did Man Make God? If not, then God must have made man. That seems to be a big enough portion of the posts here; either God exists, or not.

The better way of course is to study the world with an open mind, use critical thinking and discard old flawed models when your increasing understanding allows you to improve.
The universe is wonderous, to me putting imaginary gods in charge of this marvel belittles rather than improves.

But whether or not you intended it, you seem to imply that the only result of such activity is to believe as you do. I don't agree.

I do agree that attempting to put imaginary gods in charge of the universe is not correct. I also believe the God I believe in is not imaginary. You may agree or not, as is your privilege.

That's the first time I've heard that position stated so I would suggest that millions of Christians would accept that men wrote the Bible. The fact that it has been translated and retranslated adds to the confusion. Then you have the differences in Bibles between the different denominations.

Well, that's the disconnect. I didn't say men didn't write the Bible, I said they did so under the inspiration and direction of God. He has to be in control of what is written if it is going to be His word, which I accept that it is.

As to the gender of God. That is not an insult at all. Many of my feminist friends always refer to God as female. Have you any evidence to the contrary? My Christian friends are sick of condescending male attitudes within the church regarding the ordination of women. I happen to believe in their cause.

Since they accept God as real, just wish to change His gender, they should be accepting of what the Bible says. The Bible says God is our Father. Jesus, clearly a male, says He and the Father are one.

There is no reason for condescending male attitudes. Perhaps your Christian friends should seek out a church where that is not the case.

I'm not sure you are correct here. The Bible says adultery is a sin but I'm to be convinced that it is categorical when it comes to sex between unmarried persons. The word 'should' is not the same as 'must'.

(Marriam-Webster online dictionary - Fornication - consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other)


1 Corinthians 6:18-20


18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.


1 Corinthians 7:2


2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

Like Ballen you have jumped in with both feet without understanding the OP. You have no idea of my background but I will tell you that I grew up in a Christian home, attended a Christian school and spent three years in a Theological college in earlier times. You don't have to explain Christianity to me.

Were you not really a believer during any of that time, that is did you never accept that Jesus shed His blood for your sins, and never accepted Jesus into your heart?

In none of my posts have I suggested there was no God so fine, I'm up for a discussion as to the gender of God, just not in this thread which has nothing to do with the existence of God. What I would like to discuss is the scientific research which, by the way, is not saying there is no God.
:asian:

Well, sorry, you already commented on it so I did answer it.

I believe water boils at 100°C because it does.

Whith all respect what validates your belief? Why are you ready to accept something as perfect truth? Why is there a need for this?

My belief is validated by my faith. Do you not believe there is any perfect truth? Such as water boiling at 100 degrees C at sea level? Why is there a need for what? Sorry, it isn't clear to me what you mean by 'this.'

 

[K-man]

I'm sorry, I missed that as well. I thought from the articles, and more from the title of the thread, you were inviting the type of posts you don't seem to want; Did Man Make God? If not, then God must have made man. That seems to be a big enough portion of the posts here; either God exists, or not.

You are jumping to conclusions. Even if man did not make God there is no evidence that God made man either. So in this case we are examining a scientific phenomena where the electrical impulses of the brains of people of different faiths were tested.

(Marriam-Webster online dictionary - Fornication - consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other)

1 Corinthians 6:18-20

18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

1 Corinthians 7:2

2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

Here you are miles from the truth and herein lies the problem of literal interpretation of the Bible. Fornication didn't enter the English language until the 14th century. In the Greek and Hebrew the origins have totally different meaning according to context, so it would seem that somewhere in the process man got God's word confused in the translation.

Trying to pinpoint this word without examining the passage in question is like trying to find a needle in a haystack. Fornication in either the Hebrew or Greek can have and denote a wide range of definitions. It can mean literal fornication, adultery, harlotry, incest, pedophilia, bestiality, or any other sexual restriction that Yahweh has placed for mankind to observe.
QNA definition of Fornication

Were you not really a believer during any of that time, that is did you never accept that Jesus shed His blood for your sins, and never accepted Jesus into your heart?

My personal faith is just that, personal. I will not suggest other people's faith is wrong whether they be Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or any other. Everyone is entitled to believe what they want.

But in answer to your question, I has deeply involved at one time. I had to address reality. Either the Bible is the word of God and right in all its detail or it is a book filled with stories and examples to help us lead a better life. I struggled to find ways of accepting the Bible's literal truth but in the end, in light of science, it is just not possible. Therefore, to me, it is a collection of stories that you can accept by faith or not. Either way there is a moral to the story. But your reference to fornication is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to problems accepting contemporary language to translate ancient texts. It is just not the original meaning, hence my earlier comment regarding sex outside of marriage.

None of my statements or posts should be read in the way of supporting or debunking the existence of God or the tenets of any religion.
:asian:

 

[jezr74]

I am of the thinking now that this is bunk, the more I read about it and go over a few times and re-read. I couldn't find any evidence of the research or peer review, if anyone does find any please share.

Also it's pretty vague in areas, is it trying to draw a conclusion that we all have a link to god so to speak that we have to unlock? Smells like new age kinda thinking..

 

[Touch Of Death]

Yet here you are.

I maintain that man-made gods are poor awnsers to existence and accepting such ammounts to ignorance and intellectual lazyness when better ways does exist.

Untested ways, you mean.

 

[K-man]

I am of the thinking now that this is bunk, the more I read about it and go over a few times and re-read. I couldn't find any evidence of the research or peer review, if anyone does find any please share.

Also it's pretty vague in areas, is it trying to draw a conclusion that we all have a link to god so to speak that we have to unlock? Smells like new age kinda thinking..

That was just a newspaper article.

Andrew Newberg, M.D. is an American neuroscientist who is the Director of Research at the Myrna Brind Center for Integrative Medicine at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, an Adjunct Professor of Religious Studies and an Associate Professor of Radiology at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine.


He has been a prominent researcher in the field of nuclear medical brain imaging. In particular, his research has focused on the development of neurotransmitter tracers for the evaluation of religiosity as well as neurological and psychiatric disorders including clinical depression, head injury, Alzheimer's disease, and Parkinson's disease.

In the early 1990s, he began to research the intersection between the brain and religious and spiritual experiences. In this work, also sometimes referred to as “neurotheology”, Newberg described the possible neurophysiological mechanisms associated with religious and spiritual experiences. His initial research included the use of functional brain imaging to study Buddhist meditators and Franciscan nuns in prayer. This work was eventually published in three books, The Mystical Mind, Why God Won’t Go Away, and Why We Believe What We Believe.

...


Newberg's research has been featured in Newsweek, the Los Angeles Times, and the New Scientist. He has been a guest speaker at the Forum at Grace Cathedral and appeared in the films What the Bleep Do We Know!? and Religulous. He has continued to study religious and spiritual phenomena including topics related to forgiveness, meditation, prayer, spiritual development, morality, and belief. This work has been incorporated more recently into a new Center for Spirituality and the Mind at the University of Pennsylvania.

...

Newberg’s research has been criticized from two main perspectives. From the religious perspective, concerns have been raised that the study of practices such as meditation does not necessarily extrapolate to the broader array of religious and spiritual phenomena. However, Newberg tends to agree with this concern and has argued that future studies are needed to elucidate the more complex elements of religious and spiritual phenomena. Newberg has maintained that science and brain imaging studies are only tools to evaluate the brain during such experiences but do not necessarily negate such experiences. Newberg has argued that the integration of science and religion is critical for a better understanding of how human beings think and behave in a global context.

Andrew B. Newberg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Neuroscience of Religious Experience » The McNamara Lab » BUMC

About Dr. McNamara » The McNamara Lab » BUMC

I don't have a problem with their credentials.
:asian:

 

[Cirdan]

My belief is validated by my faith. Do you not believe there is any perfect truth? Such as water boiling at 100 degrees C at sea level? Why is there a need for what? Sorry, it isn't clear to me what you mean by 'this.'

Any law or model we make, call it truth if you will, are just simplifications of the universe so I can`t say I accept any perfect truth unless, you count the entirety of the universe as one.

I don`t see how faith can validate anything since faith by definition does not need need valid proof.... looks like the beginning of a circular argument to me.

I am asking why there is a need for gods and the perfect truths. The question of why we invent god-models for reality is central to the matter discussed in this thread. When there is no evidence for gods, gods becomes irrelevant, only the god-model in our mind remains. Is the model valuable in itself?

 

[Touch Of Death]

Any law or model we make, call it truth if you will, are just simplifications of the universe so I can`t say I accept any perfect truth unless, you count the entirety of the universe as one.

I don`t see how faith can validate anything since faith by definition does not need need valid proof.... looks like the beginning of a circular argument to me.

I am asking why there is a need for gods and the perfect truths. The question of why we invent god-models for reality is central to the matter discussed in this thread. When there is no evidence for gods, gods becomes irrelevant, only the god-model in our mind remains. Is the model valuable in itself?

Yes. I am telling you that you are trying to throw the baby out with the bathwater, here. Ideals are a good thing. I promise.

 

[Touch Of Death]

I read a book, not too long ago, where they did away with religion and replaced it with math. Its called "Anathema". Another must read by Neal Stephenson.

 

[oftheherd1]

You are jumping to conclusions. Even if man did not make God there is no evidence that God made man either. So in this case we are examining a scientific phenomena where the electrical impulses of the brains of people of different faiths were tested.

That is kind of differing from your thread title and 1st post. At least for me, I took it to be an either or, and the debate to be one or the other must be true. Well, I am not sure what kind of evidence you are looking for. For me, first of all, is the KJV Bible. Even the 2nd article you link to, the people who did the study aren't drawing any conclusions about the reality of God.

Here you are miles from the truth and herein lies the problem of literal interpretation of the Bible. Fornication didn't enter the English language until the 14th century. In the Greek and Hebrew the origins have totally different meaning according to context, so it would seem that somewhere in the process man got God's word confused in the translation.

Well, Wycliffe wrote it as "But for fornication each man have his own wife, and each woman have her own husband" and as am sure you know, he was a Catholic priest who translated the Latin Vulgate into English, pretty much word for word. That was written in 1384. But the Latin Vulgate, from about the 4th century, also contained the latin word "fornicationem." That latin word seems to normally be usually translated as fornication, although whoredom and prostitution are also secondary translations. But Paul gets specific when he says because of fornication (or whoredom or prostitution) men and women should be married. In other words, he is talking about unmarried people who are in danger of the sin of fornication (whoredom or prostitution).

You can take what you want to from that, but I think is shows Paul was talking about sex between men and women who were not married.

My personal faith is just that, personal. I will not suggest other people's faith is wrong whether they be Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or any other. Everyone is entitled to believe what they want.

Fair enough, if you don't want to say what or why your faith is.

But in answer to your question, I has deeply involved at one time. I had to address reality. Either the Bible is the word of God and right in all its detail or it is a book filled with stories and examples to help us lead a better life. I struggled to find ways of accepting the Bible's literal truth but in the end, in light of science, it is just not possible. Therefore, to me, it is a collection of stories that you can accept by faith or not. Either way there is a moral to the story. But your reference to fornication is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to problems accepting contemporary language to translate ancient texts. It is just not the original meaning, hence my earlier comment regarding sex outside of marriage.

None of my statements or posts should be read in the way of supporting or debunking the existence of God or the tenets of any religion.
:asian:

To each his own, but do you remember 1 Timothy 6:20? "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:"?

The Bible also calls itself the word of God, and says in different places that no words are to be taken from it. It also says that God's words are pure, and words to live by, and establish doctrine by.

Again, you may take from that what you will, but it strengthens my faith. I wish it did yours. Science is an important methodology, but apparently much of it isn't where it is supposed to be, since we keep changing it. The Bible on the other hand, was finished some 2000 years ago, and hasn't needed changes since then, despite some people trying to change it in the last hundred plus years to put forth their own agenda.

 

[oftheherd1]

Any law or model we make, call it truth if you will, are just simplifications of the universe so I can`t say I accept any perfect truth unless, you count the entirety of the universe as one.

I don`t see how faith can validate anything since faith by definition does not need need valid proof.... looks like the beginning of a circular argument to me.

I am asking why there is a need for gods and the perfect truths. The question of why we invent god-models for reality is central to the matter discussed in this thread. When there is no evidence for gods, gods becomes irrelevant, only the god-model in our mind remains. Is the model valuable in itself?

How much science is based on faith? There was a time when science accepted that the earth was flat. As time progressed, science no longer accepted that the earth was flat, nor that the earth was the center of the universe. Time marched on and Newton and Einstein proposed models for gravity, with good mathematics to prove their models. Now both are under attack. But it their time, all these models were based on faith. It must have been faith, since as later times have proven, the 'science' didn't really support the ideas after all. I know that is a little left-handed, but there is a point. How is science any better than, or even different than, faith. You believe your science; believe and faith aren't that far separated.

 

[crushing]

How much science is based on faith? There was a time when science accepted that the earth was flat. As time progressed, science no longer accepted that the earth was flat, nor that the earth was the center of the universe. Time marched on and Newton and Einstein proposed models for gravity, with good mathematics to prove their models. Now both are under attack. But it their time, all these models were based on faith. It must have been faith, since as later times have proven, the 'science' didn't really support the ideas after all. I know that is a little left-handed, but there is a point. How is science any better than, or even different than, faith. You believe your science; believe and faith aren't that far separated.

You make a great argument for science, which may change based on experimentation and observation. The unchanging Bible maintains the Earth is flat.

 

[oftheherd1]

You make a great argument for science, which may change based on experimentation and observation. The unchanging Bible maintains the Earth is flat.

Somehow you make me think that is smoke screen. Science is so sure about things, swears up and down they are true and many times even provides strong mathematics to prove what they say. So people believe; the scientists have said so and have proof the common man often can't understand, but they said so.

But then it changes. So how much of current science can I really believe, give a past history of constant upgrading and change? What I accept as the real Bible, the King James Bible, as translated from the Textus Receptus, has yet to change. Nor has the Textus Receptus. But as in all these discussions, those are my views, and I believe them. You may choose to do otherwise.

As to the Bible saying the earth is flat, can you reference that Bible verse please?