Dark Enlightenment
(A philosophy)
If God wasn’t invented for the poor, the rich would have invented him for them so they could remain rich, in fear they would take from them, all they robbed back from them. Can the poor live among themselves without a God? Do we create God out of vanity? Does a peacock have a soul? And if we say no, how do we know? What would the peacock say if he could? I know what Will Durant, Voltaire, Carl Sagan, and Stephen Hawking would say: philosophers could live amongst themselves, without God, but nobody else could. So perhaps, philosophers created God, out of necessity for morality’s sake? So if we have an avenging God, we common folk better watch out, and treat those thieves with grace. So in the long run, we feed the philosopher, so he doesn’t have to work, and we then can listen to his concepts, his wisdom, and his newest invention of God being the Universe, without a mind, his newest doctrine. Yet, in a way it is good to have a God around, He keeps a society from crime, based on fear?
Now let me give you some truths before we get to the insight to this article, if there is one. The Bible reads, in part: no matter if God stood in front of these people, non believers, it wouldn’t do any good anyhow, they’d still not believe. So this is perhaps the reason God does not show up in front of them, or in their backyards, or send an angel to stand at the end of your bed as to protect you, of any demonic forces while ill.
Let me take this another step further. Science is supposed to be based on fact: many people have seen Christ, or angels, or experience miracles, but to the atheist, psychologist, philosophers, it is all hogwash, I mean there are documented proofs of this, yet it is accepted by science as science fiction, or less than proof. No one has been on Mars, but we accept that as reality and for those who saw angels we accept that as more of an illusion. I mean, if you were an angel would you squander your time with an atheist?
Everyone knows Jesus existed, but few scientists give him credit for doing miracles, lest they have to agree he tips the scales of science with his miracles. If I said I believed in God, that I saw Christ, talked to angels, experienced miracles, even demonic beings, therefore, my science has proven to me, God exists, what would the other scientists say, like: Durant, or Hawking? I’m not talking about souls, or afterlife or anything, just Jesus, miracles, angels and God per se. I am not flattering myself as they’d say I was doing, those scientists. Science goes by what they observe, they don’t know if a real black hole exists, that would be very presumptuous, they just produce a theory because they have to produce something, or not be considered a great scientist in the eyes of the observer. Anyhow, they would tell me to go see a psychologist, who again most likely would be an atheist, that if an angel appeared in front of him he’d say it was a mental illusion, something to do with the chemical imbalance in the mind. So where is reality?
If we can’t agree that God or Jesus, or angels exist, with people seeing them, experiencing them, and historically documenting it for two-thousand years, how does science expect us to believe in them, especially when the majority of their science is based on theory, concepts, and some observations? Now science says there is no need for philosophizers: thus, they do away with Plato, and God all in one box, and close it up forever for mankind. For what, a black hole in space.
These folks find it difficult to admit—comfortably admit, the obvious, and again I am not talking about religion, or myths, just the simplicity of empirical data, experience, observation, and a following that has been following this God thing for 10,00-years, not Hawking concept which he invented a year ago or so; to me, having experience what I’ve mentioned above is unchangeable, acceptance of natural laws can be bent, and the only one that can bend them is not from the world of sparrows, but a higher up source, we all call God.
9-29-2010
(A philosophy)
If God wasn’t invented for the poor, the rich would have invented him for them so they could remain rich, in fear they would take from them, all they robbed back from them. Can the poor live among themselves without a God? Do we create God out of vanity? Does a peacock have a soul? And if we say no, how do we know? What would the peacock say if he could? I know what Will Durant, Voltaire, Carl Sagan, and Stephen Hawking would say: philosophers could live amongst themselves, without God, but nobody else could. So perhaps, philosophers created God, out of necessity for morality’s sake? So if we have an avenging God, we common folk better watch out, and treat those thieves with grace. So in the long run, we feed the philosopher, so he doesn’t have to work, and we then can listen to his concepts, his wisdom, and his newest invention of God being the Universe, without a mind, his newest doctrine. Yet, in a way it is good to have a God around, He keeps a society from crime, based on fear?
Now let me give you some truths before we get to the insight to this article, if there is one. The Bible reads, in part: no matter if God stood in front of these people, non believers, it wouldn’t do any good anyhow, they’d still not believe. So this is perhaps the reason God does not show up in front of them, or in their backyards, or send an angel to stand at the end of your bed as to protect you, of any demonic forces while ill.
Let me take this another step further. Science is supposed to be based on fact: many people have seen Christ, or angels, or experience miracles, but to the atheist, psychologist, philosophers, it is all hogwash, I mean there are documented proofs of this, yet it is accepted by science as science fiction, or less than proof. No one has been on Mars, but we accept that as reality and for those who saw angels we accept that as more of an illusion. I mean, if you were an angel would you squander your time with an atheist?
Everyone knows Jesus existed, but few scientists give him credit for doing miracles, lest they have to agree he tips the scales of science with his miracles. If I said I believed in God, that I saw Christ, talked to angels, experienced miracles, even demonic beings, therefore, my science has proven to me, God exists, what would the other scientists say, like: Durant, or Hawking? I’m not talking about souls, or afterlife or anything, just Jesus, miracles, angels and God per se. I am not flattering myself as they’d say I was doing, those scientists. Science goes by what they observe, they don’t know if a real black hole exists, that would be very presumptuous, they just produce a theory because they have to produce something, or not be considered a great scientist in the eyes of the observer. Anyhow, they would tell me to go see a psychologist, who again most likely would be an atheist, that if an angel appeared in front of him he’d say it was a mental illusion, something to do with the chemical imbalance in the mind. So where is reality?
If we can’t agree that God or Jesus, or angels exist, with people seeing them, experiencing them, and historically documenting it for two-thousand years, how does science expect us to believe in them, especially when the majority of their science is based on theory, concepts, and some observations? Now science says there is no need for philosophizers: thus, they do away with Plato, and God all in one box, and close it up forever for mankind. For what, a black hole in space.
These folks find it difficult to admit—comfortably admit, the obvious, and again I am not talking about religion, or myths, just the simplicity of empirical data, experience, observation, and a following that has been following this God thing for 10,00-years, not Hawking concept which he invented a year ago or so; to me, having experience what I’ve mentioned above is unchangeable, acceptance of natural laws can be bent, and the only one that can bend them is not from the world of sparrows, but a higher up source, we all call God.
9-29-2010
No comments:
Post a Comment