WeAreTheKey

Ooooh, this is one I have wanted to discuss for a while. I always find it boggling that people feel that Evolution and God dont mix.. This is something I cannnot wrap my mind around...

Okay so it all stems on God creating the earth in 7 days..
First of all.. according the the bible I have (well one of them and I am feelign dedicated to this post more than going, finding and looking through all god... eight or so of them..) it says

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
The earth was barren with no form of life.
It was under roaring ocean covered with darkness.
But theSpirit of God was moving over the water."


So, before the first day even starts.. there is no length of time specified, it just summarizes that before god started creating life there was the creations of the "heavens and the earth" Which apparently resulted in "earth"and "ocean" This in itself fits with evolution.. It doesnt say how long god took to create, or all that was involved... it just says god created it. Okay..

Second say god did create the world in "seven days" these seven days could be infinetly long, see.. we have no perspective in Gods time frame, a day to God could be a life time to a human.. Therefore Evolution (which is a natural process) could still exist. evolution doesnt say WHO/WHAT created life, just How it became what it is or was today.. and in reality both of Creation and Evolution are just theories.

There is not a single thing that we humans are absolutely certian of.. Even those things we all regard as empirically factual could somehow come to be completly off the mark.. it doesnt seem like it but We do not know everything, and until we do we will have to just utilize our minds and our hearts to the fullest capacity of their being to figure out this massive and magnificent puzzle that is our existence and all that can and will be related to it..

And please, do not take the portion of my statements about there being the possiblity of our facts not being true and toss away any facts you hear.. that is not reasonable.. realize them as facts but realize that there are always more possiblities than just what has been seen as a fact.. There are always more possiblities....that is one of the joys of life...

Oh and on another note slightly related:

On the issue of teaching creationism in school... That is ridiculous, Science class teaches the material, physical, biological, tangible portions of our existence. It is based off of purely empirical (the state of proven fact) facts. If we begin to mix theology with our science classes, we might as well start teaching what the wiccans believe of the native americans, or the islamics, or the aboriginies(sorry bout the spelling) or the hindus, or buddhists or any other religion and religous sect views as the explanation of earths existence... Secondarily.. what is there to really teach it was all 7 days..You wish for your children to grow believing the religion you do, teach them yourself, that it the job of the parent, not the teacher..(which is also the job of the parent............) but yeah.. get off this scenario... religios schooling belongs in the home and for some i guess religious schools or for the interested religous courses.. not basic public school..

Wow, good poll.
So, are you looking to debate/discuss this, or did you just want to get that off your chest?
I certainly believe that the ideas of evolution and creation are in no conflict with eachother, and since I personally see evidence of both, I'm inclined to believe both, and won't "not believe" something just because ye olde bible has the words "seven days" in it.
I'll leave it to the non-thinkers in the world to slurp up that nonsense.
I have to say, if I die and become informed by god that the world was indeed created in seven days....I will be extremely impressed. Hahah...

Actually, on second thought, perhaps I should be disappointed that it took him so long to get it done, considering he should be infinitely powerful and have no limitations on his creative abilities. He should have known ahead of time how to create Earth and whether or not it would be "good", so the construction should have been nearly instantaneous. What a lazy-ass. Takes one simple task and stretches it out to a full work-week!

So....man, if it took him 7 days to make Earth, then how long did it take him to make Mars, Jupiter, Saturn or the entire REST of the universe...?

You know, honestly, the thing I have the hardest time wrapping my mind around isn't whether or not god or evolution are real, but the very fact that ANYTHING EXISTS AT ALL IN THE FIRST PLACE just blows my mind with unthinkable madness.
Whether god created everything - what came before him?
Whether evolution created everything - what came before it?

There NEVER could have been NOTHING. Ever ever, ever....
Because if there was NOTHING, then how could something have come out of it? It couldn't.

So the only alternative is that there was ALWAYS SOMETHING. Which other things then came from. So if there was always something, does that mean it existed an infinitely long time ago? Where could it have come from at all, even theoretically/hypothetically?

It seems our existence is in fact, impossible.
We cannot possibly exist. Unless we came from nothing, which makes no sense in any conceivable way.

I keep fooling myself into thinking that eventually I'll stumble across some sensible explanation that might satisfy the question in one way or another, and yet.........no.

But even on THAT problem, the grandest of them ALL ---- I'd have to say that weighing purely natural/scientific explanation of a "beginning" with some unspecified metaphysical/spiritual explanation of a beginning....

In my mind, it still tips slightly towards the latter, seeing how there is no answer whatsoever, it seems a step towards the most probable to me, as the former just hits a brick-wall dead end and it stops there.

What do you guys think about that?

Ok, I have to admit my answer is a cop out, it's too complicated of an issue just to agree with either so I went with neither...

I don't see the two as mutually exclusive either and tend to see taking a literal interpretation of the Old Testament rather than seeing some portions, though possibly holding some historical accuracy, as tales, fables, or myths (please look up the definition before flaming that term) to get a particular moral across as maintaining only superficial understanding of the document.

Transfixed I was just reading this the other day on Chinese perspectives of the universe and thought I might include it for discussion. I'm by no means trying to endorse the view, just adding it...

"Joseph Needham (1900-1994), the great historian f Chinese science, sumarizes the Chinese view of causation this way: "Conceptions are not subsumed under one another but placed side by side in a pattern, and things influence one another not by acts of mechanical causation, but by a kind of 'inductance'... The key word in Chinese thought is Order and above all Pattern... things behave in particular ways not necessarily because their position in the ever-moving cyclical universe was such that they were endowed with intrinsic natures which made that behavior inevitable for them... They were thus parts in existential .dependence upon the whole world-organism"

The Chinese assume that the universe is continuously changing. It's movement is the result not of a first cause or of a creator, but of an inner dynamic of cyclical patterns. Just as the sun maps out four distinct seasons in it's yearly round so all biological organisms go through four seasons in a lifetime: birth, maturation, decline, and death. The constancy of the cosmos is in these patterns of change, which are regular. The cosmos itself is an integral whole, a web of interrelated things and events. Within this web of relationships and change, any entity can be defined only by it's function, and has significance only as part of the whole pattern.

The metaphysics that emphasizes the perception of patterns is basic in Chinese thinking. It results in part from Taoism, which altogether lacks the idea of a creator, and whose concern is insight into the web of phenomena, not the weaver. For the Chinese, that web has no weaver, no creator; in the West the final concern is always the creator or cause and the phenomenon is merely it's reflection. The Western mind seeks to discover and encounter what is beyond, behind, or the cause of the phenomenon. In the Chinese view, the truth of things is imminent; in the Western, truth is transcendent. Knowledge within the Chinese framework, consists in accurate perception of the inner movement of the web of phenomena. Te desire for knowledge is the desire to understand the interrelationships or patterns within the web, and to become attuned to the unfolding dynamic.
That's from Ted Kaptchuk's "The Web That Has No Weaver"
Just another perspective to think about perhaps?

That is interesting. I can see the universe being a cyclical ebb and flow of rebirth and collapse, though even then this cycle must've begun at some point, somewhere.....grrgghh

Good Stuff. I agree with Alluscion regarding Creationism in schools. Not appropriate.

As for the Judean Book of Genesis and the scientific study of evolution being in cohorts....I have issues. You are taking a couple short phrases about God creating the Universe, then reworking the terminology how you see fit (7 days=whatever you want to make it work), and filling in the gaps with whatever works for you (the Book of Genesis makes no mention or hint of an evolutionary process). Then, you are conveniently leaving out all the BS about Adam and Eve, apples, serpents, floods, arks, etc.

I can totally understand seeing some sort of Creator-Being (God?) jump-starting the universe, and therefore life, but I don't see why that would connect specifically to passages from the Judean/Christian tradition. On that point I respectfully disagree.

I dont base my beliefs on The book.

I was just making a case for those of the Creaton only side, that there is no reason for evolution to be tossed to the wind, just because of the seven days thing..(because that is the big argument against evolution)

The way I see it is that both God (in whatever form you see it as) and Evolution (in whatever form you see it as) Both work together..

There is no reason why science can't fit with theology.
In reality I believe the reasonings for Creationism over Evolution are pretty freaking weak.. no offense to those of you who believe it, it isn't personal, I just dont think that everything in the bible can be taken either literally or in some cases seriously, (see alot of the new testament have to sacrifice rules..) But i also am sure that there might be things I disagree with in evolution..but that doesnt mean neither happend or that one is more likely than the other.. I like to think of it this way God is both a painter and a scientist. The two dont conflict with eachother they amplify eachother..

I find it -alot of the time- kind of annoying when you are debating something with some one who believes something ferverently and all they can do is quote scripture.. I can understand using that as a reference guide perhaps for what you believe, but you have to be able to explain to those who dont believe WHY and What you believe, rather than verbatum from somebody else...
If you cant do that, from some one who may not believe what you are saying to be personally true, doesnt see you as personally understanding what you are saying (no this isnt directed at any one just tossing that out there to anyone)

So yeah, I believe in Creation, not so much creation-ism I believe in evolution, but only have a rough idea of the process, and am sure it is not a perfect answer to THE question.
I believe logic and science and philosophy and theory all go hand in hand and combined are closer to the answer than just one side of the brain functioning alone.. I mean if we think about it there is a reason all these manners of thinking exist, why not try and utilize them to their fullest extent.

No one has yet argued for the Biblical version of creationism being true and/or reworked terminology how they see fit, or left anything out for convenience.... If you're referring to Alluscions first post, then you'll see that she was saying that if one were to see that (creation) as the only truth, then it still wouldn't necessarily exclude evolution as a possibility, i.e., '7 days' could theoretically be a much longer period of time in "god-time" or something, not that she personally believes that, but that IS most Christian's issue with evolution, so that was offered as the "creation"-stance... which was then squared with evolution.

So yeah, evolution obviously doesn't connect specifically to passages from the Judeo/Christian tradition, and if one went so far as to cling to the seven days concept as reality, then they'd probably have swallowed a lot of other random and irrational stuff from the Ol Good Book.

But what do you think about that whole beginning of the universe thing? Does it bother you guys at all that whether through creation or natural law, is STILL CAN'T MAKE SENSE that anything exists?!?!
It bugs the shit out of me!

Yeah, it's mind-boggling. It seems that Something had to plant the first seed for the rest of this universe to grow. Therefore, it would seem that something out there has to be eternal. It's hard to come up with another explanation. And yet, the concept of an eternal being is just as hard to believe as the idea that the first elements in existence came out of nothing, or that the elements themselves are actually eternal.

And I wasn't saying, either, that you can't believe in a Creator and also evolution. Of course they are compatible. However, I don't agree that Jewish/Christian Old Testament is at all compatible with evolution.

Yeah in many ways that's true about the Old Testament, but then again the Old Testament isn't even compatible with the New Testament! Soooo, many Christians just kinda conveniently disregard the Old Testament, and I've been told that the New Testament essentially replaced the Old one in many ways, just as the behavior/viewpoint of God and how he saw humans, the rules that he demanded they follow etc... that all went out the window with the New book....
I guess they're still hell-bent on not tossing out the whole Adam/Even/7 days thing though.....they really dig that part.

I still wanna know how Adam & Eve populated the Earth though, was it THEM that had sex with their own children, or was it their kids who had sex with their brothers & sisters to make more kids? I mean hell, since they lived to over 1000 back then, they were probably still virile until about age 650, so they could keep on screwing down the line and have sex with their great great great great great great grandchildren!

So at what population level was incest suddenly no longer acceptable? It went from necessity to mortal sin overnight! Amazingly disgusting and nonsensical! Weeeeee!!

HAHAHAHA!!! That's hilarious Mr. T. I've thought about the fact that brothers and sisters would have to "do it" but I've never taken into account the biblical age/screw the grandchildren scenario. Dear GOD

As for Old Testament vs New Testament, I think it would be more accurate to say that only specific parts of the Old Book were replaced by the New Book. Good Ole Paul/Saul specifically indicated certain Old School practices and beliefs that are no longer necessary, but there is a lot that the New Book doesn't cover (like the birth of the Universe/Man). The New Testament authors do not ever claim that the Book of Genesis is BS, and then give an alternate version. Therefore, Adam, Eve, Noah, and God's (oops) mass genocide of his loving creation still hold sway as Christian truth.

BTW, as a side note, God specifically states several times in the OT that his word is eternal and anyone claiming otherwise is an evil false prophet. Therefore, Paul, Peter, and Jesus are all false prophets and all Christian believers will burn in hell forever.

Scientists explore what happened before the universe's theoretical beginning
Article

A scientific mini-industry has popped up as deep-thinking physicists and cosmologists bat around various guesses as to what may have happened in a "pre-big bang."

Some of the top minds in this field gathered at Columbia University earlier this month to debate these questions.

"What banged? Where did it come from?" was the question raised by Laura Mersini-Houghton, a cosmologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

"Is ours the only universe? If so, how did it come to exist?" asked Paul Davies, a cosmologist and authority on science and religion at Arizona State University in Tempe.

Respected scientists have proposed a flock of theories to describe what might have happened before the birth of our familiar universe of space and time.

The concepts have fanciful names such as "the big bounce," "the multiverse," "the cyclic theory," "parallel worlds," even "soap bubbles." Some propose the existence of multiple universes. Others hold that there's one universe that recycles itself endlessly, rather as Buddhists believe. Judeo-Christian theologians may have difficulty accepting any of these notions.

Most of the hypotheses are variations on an older idea that the universe has no beginning and no end, contrary to the big-bang theory, which says that our universe originated at a specific point and will end sometime in the distant future.

"Neither time nor the universe has a beginning or an end," two leading cosmologists, Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University and Neil Turok of Oxford University, wrote in their 2007 book, "Endless Universe: Beyond the Big Bang."

"The evolution of the universe is cyclic, with big bangs occurring once every trillion years or so, each one accompanied by the creation of new matter and radiation that forms new galaxies, stars, planets and presumably life," they wrote. "Ours is only the most recent cycle."

Some scientists contend that observational evidence may be found to back up the speculation. They say that no scientific theory can be considered valid until it's been tested.

"It is becoming increasingly clear that multiverse models grounded in modern physics can be empirically testable," Max Tegmark, a theoretical physicist at the University of Pennsylvania...

Michio Kaku, a professor of theoretical physics at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, proposes that gravity, unlike light and matter, could travel between parallel universes and cast a "shadow" that scientists might be able to detect.

The shadow might take the form of "gravitational waves," faint ripples in the fabric of space and time caused by violent explosions such as the big bang. Detectors in the United States and Europe are seeking such waves, and in the future satellites will watch for evidence of them in space.

Turok says his cyclic theory predicts a "distinctive pattern of gravitational waves that is very different from the one expected in the big-bang theory ... and may prove or disprove our theory within the next few years." ...

"It's like someone took a giant scoop and scooped all the matter away," she told the Columbia cosmology conference. "All these universes are interacting with each other."

Mersini-Houghton's interpretation of the "hole" is controversial and so far lacks independent confirmation.

The oldest and most popular of the pre-big-bang theories is the multiverse. As outlined by Martin Rees, the British astronomer royal, in his 1997 book, "Before the Beginning: Our Universe and Others," the theory declares that our universe is only one of many - perhaps an infinite number - of other worlds, each differing slightly from the others. These universes are continually forming new offspring, sprouting off from each other rather like soap bubbles.

The big bounce hypothesis - sometimes known as the big splat - contends that our universe was preceded by a twin that expanded to a certain limit, then contracted, collapsed and gave birth to our world. A leading proponent of this theory is Martin Bojowald, a theoretical physicist at Pennsylvania State University in University Park, who published it last year in the journal Nature.

In 2005, Kaku published a book titled "Parallel Worlds" in which he hypothesized that there may be millions of different, parallel universes, some that look like our own. They're invisible to us because they lie outside our universe.

The big-bang theory found favor with the Roman Catholic Church because it implied that the world has a single beginning at a definite point in time, as portrayed in Genesis. At a Vatican conference in 1951, Pope Pius XII said the big bang was consistent with church doctrine.

"Creation took place in time, therefore there is a creator, therefore God exists!" the pope declared.

The Rev. John Haught, an authority on science and religion at Georgetown University in Washington, said the idea that there might be many worlds and many beginnings, not just a single big bang, wouldn't undermine Christian theology.

"Even if the universe, or multiverse, were around forever, this would not challenge the theological explanation of the world's existence," Haught said. "The biblical doctrine of creation ... lies at a different level from scientific understanding. The world, theologians say, still gets its finite being from an infinite being."

According to Francisca Cho, a professor of Buddhism and East Asian religions at Georgetown, these pre-big-bang cosmologies are similar to the Hindu belief in a universe that cycles endlessly through creation and destruction.

It's interesting exploration of possible histories of the universe. However, it seems, according to the article, that they skirt the true question of initial creation. I can logically concede the possibility of forward eternity. But backward eternity appears completely illogical. Even if multi-verses (or something) have existed for 100 trillion to the 100 trillionth power years, or more, there still had to be a first. The first atoms, or fractions of atoms, or something, logically had to be "created".

That's the same problem I had really. I'm totally fascinated by pondering the multiverse idea, and cyclical collapse/expansion idea, but yeah.... it still completely evades the origins of matter, time and space to begin with, which is the real brain-crusher for me.

It still seems like our existence is actually impossible, as ridiculous as that sounds. Any version of an initial beginning just makes no sense at all under any circumstances!

Huh.....

So I recently watched "Expelled" by Ben Stein.. like yesterday..
I found it both interesting and infuriating. Interesting because of the concept that Stein was essentially promoting (but not doing a good job at, purely lacking in facts of Intelligent design and utilizing emotional cheap shots and long reaches for instilling an anti-Darwinian mindset into the viewer) The infuriation I found was (aside from emotional pandering-to insight more conflict between the two warring sides of theory) that I was interested in what Intelligent Design had to say, and there were ZERO, literally ZERO bits of information (pretty much on either side) to give to the viewer on what the big argument really is about.

Premise: Stein is for the continuation of Intelligent Design being investigated in the scientific community.
Intelligent design is different from Creationism. This is a major mistake many people make(myself included) in the perception factor. Creationism is based off of Faith.
Intelligent design is the theory that life was created. Not that it just came to be.

Stein claims that the Scientific community is black listing those in the community who come out to even mention that ID is a possibility (I do not know how much) This movie is a great conversation starter. But when it comes to facts, information ect... there is few if any and the entire film is seemingly focused on furthering the barriers between scientists and religion. It makes absurd claims that essentially it was Darwin's theories that led to the holocaust, that Darwin creates atheism within scientists ect... Perpetual references to Hitler, the Holocaust Evil and Atheism.. No real substance on either side is really put out there..
I am glad to see there is a difference (though-it was not explained technically) between ID and creationism.
But the view that I have repeatedly seen happen in various people and various situations various faiths happened yet again in this movie..

I am actually really bothered by the fact it seems as though humans are severely resistant to separating a Creator or God entity from Religion... I just cannot wrap my mind around it. Like separating Christ from God.. it is so hard for people to look at it in another way..

On another note: what everyone seemed to miss in this movie is Creationism may not fit with Darwinism.
But Intelligent design may (at least from how I would theorize, since I know very little about ID)
Darwin's theory only explains what happened to earth from once it was created, there is not a soul on this planet that truly knows WHAT happened to get us here. No one is right no one is wrong. But simply attacking evolution/Darwin... that is pointless if you are trying to find the answer to HOW it all happened in the first place. I am a strong believer that both science and spirit are infused together rather than warring sides of the mind. Religion and Science.. not so much IMO.

But Spirit AND Science...
Isn't that what we are made up of anyways?????????

I would guess that the biggest reason why people can't separate "God" from religion is that, if they do so, they lose their entire frame of reference. If you have no identifiable source to tell you what it is that you are dealing with, then what does "God" become? What is Spirit if undefined? They become entities of both infinite meanings and, therefore, no meaning.

Why cant those questions be answered within ones self?
Why do we need some one elses view point to tell us how to think and feel in relation to God and Spirit?
Sure religious texts may have some good boundaries,examples and such... But cant all of that be something one can come to a conclusion within themselves?
Why do we feel we need a system to find the answers?
I dont think we really do, I think it is a security blanket that doesnt allow us to actually find the answers.
If God exists, it exists in everything.
Therfore it can be found everywhere.
Therefore the answers can be found within ones self.. with just a bit of effort.
Also.. why would there need to be defined boundaries for something to exist? Would there?
We feel.. there is no boundary to define feeling...and yet.. we feel?
I guess that is abstract.. but as of right now it is the only thing that pops into mind.. I think there is great knowldge in simply the feeling aspect of our experiences..
Alot of things I feel..I cannot describe or define or even have facts to back them up to explain.. but then something comes along and some one some where found a way to articulate it (like portions of zeitgeist adendum) and then it aides me in my understanding of this feeling..it isnt the basis, just merely more of a thickening agent to the original feeling..

I think that sometimes the reasoning for Religion being seen as God is because we arent taught to theorize or speculate we arent encouaged to discuss and think about god.. we are as a society TOLD how it is, you either accept it or reject it It is all too black and white.. And I have noticed that few people who claim they believe in a religious faith seem to fully exemplify the faith itself.. As if they either dont get it or their "human conditioning" has prevented them from truly embodying the spirit of the practice.
Maltreatment of others in the guise of a faith turns people off, creates resentment and thus people dont want to be bothered with "god" talk because it brings up the frustration that came from injustice and hypocracy..

I had moments, long ones where I rejected the concept of God because of these types of reasons.. But I eventually started just thuinking about it on my own, talking to god on my own, watching the worlds relations and a few "supernatural" experiences..
Due to my life experiences and inner feelings, there is no reason to me why there could not be a being or entity that is beyond our grasp, I call that God. Sometimes It is personified to create a momentary shell to hold it in a reference point to.. but I know it is far greater in incomprhensiblilty than I could truly grasp.. At least at this stage.. aybe some mega-enlightenment will crash down into my brain...but Im just hoping for just some more.. I dont need the whole ton of bricks at once..

I completely agree with you. We don't need defined, organized religion to tell us what to do.

However, what are you expecting people to believe in, if you want them to believe in "God", with nothing empirical to go on? The concept of "God" is defined by culture and based on empirical things. For example, people used to worship the Sun and/or Moon and/or Stars. The Sun provided light, warmth, and is necessary for plant life to grow and thrive. The Moon provided light for hunters to see and provide food for their families. The Stars allowed people to gauge time and distance with accuracy. There were real life reasons why a "God" was a "God".

In the Christian tradition, "God" is defined by the "inspired word of God" as transcribed through "enlightened" human beings. There is actually a Manual that he gave us to go by! The same thing goes for Islam and Judaism.

If you remove all cultural and empirical definitions of "God", then all you are left with is making up your own "God" to answer the unexplainable. And that essentially just means that nobody really has a fricking clue about "God" at all!!!

Freefall into the unknown

NO one does have a real clue...
It sucks but it is true. We think, we feel, we theorize, we dont.
And with all of that were just as unsure of the unknown as when we started..
But there is much benefit in the discovery, the theorization in introspection the questioning of oneself and others to try and find the answer...

Empirically planet wide provenness of God's existence(whatever it may be).. that would be I think a huge thing for humanity..
But I also beleive that that specific situation has an extremely low chance of happening.
I think the unknown exists just to drive us.
To tempt us into utilizing the tools we have been given to find those strived for answers to the unanswerable question.

I hope one day we do know what is and isnt about everything involved in our percepatory life as humans..
I deeply desire it, some times I fear not getting the answer(s), or getting the answer in opposition to what i hold to be true..{but I would rather be wrong than not have an answer at all}

God doesnt have to be proven, but should be explored.. As should spirit and mind and body and all the other glorious things that may and may not exist..
I mean there is so many possiblities-including the fact that every single thing we know or believe t be empirically true.. could be completly wrong...
It sounds ridiculous, but really at everything we go by what we assume to be true based off of what we assume are means to find truths.. it all could be a dream(or something even weirder)..

Off topic, topic change/shift whatever I am having fun thinking!

HAHA!! I'm actually a dead man that is cryogenically(sp?) frozen and this entire life is but an implanted dream to pass the time until I wake up in 2300AD. Why does the sky look so vanilla?

Yes, now your getting into good ole, hard core Existentialism! Memories of hours spent in college reading boring philosophy essays are rushing back to me. This stuff is really fun to talk about and speculate about, but those old, dead philosophers are soooo boring to read, or they were when I was 22 years old, anyway (what are there names? Kant?).

Getting back to the original topic for a minute, though, I want to say that I generally agree with your outlook on the Divine. IMO, IT (Spirit, God, or whatever the Divine is) is within ourselves, and not necessarily an external force. However, as much as I personally have a distaste for organized "religion", I can understand why many people cling to it. They believe that God has spoken to Man, who has written the words down, and given us many answers to the unexplainable, as well as told us the "proper" way that He expects us to live our lives. If someone believes those Words to be true, then they believe they already have the answers that you speak about searching for. They've already found what they're looking for. Of course, even the slightest chance of going to HELL literally scares some people into "believing".

I used to be utterly terrified of going to hell especially as a child.
It made me petrified with anxiety. It is a great motivator for people to be "scared straight" But it isnt right.
IMO
God the being is conscious in some sort of manner that I have yet to define, The best manner I can explain is the feeling of Pure Unconditional Love (which is what Christianity-the newtestament followers-claims as well) Unconditional Love doesnt fit with Fear. Fear is something we have learned from our parents and them theres and so on back, it makes sense that those who "transcribed" the bible would see god as love with fear rage and wrath..People have been punishing people with pain and fear for centuries, it only makes sense that Hell would exist in the mindset of those of the past, and be carried on into the future(because of the lacking of "need" to ask questions) But every one finds Unconditional Love so hard to grasp, that they dont realize that they are looking at it in the means of Conditional.
Think about it :
Be good, be happy
be bad, be tormented for all eternity in the firey pits of hell.

um.....
not unconditional

SO yeah.. Hell, as bold and taboo of a statement it is and even when saying it, parts of my being feel slight moments of nervosa..(because of the chance of being wrong, and they years of believing it was true)
Hell does not exist
Not with an Unconditional Loving God.
Which is what I believe to be true.

I can see the desire to have the answers to how to live, how to think and act and what happend be fore life and after being layed out in a package for you ...(a not so easy to read package btw)
But I find the experience of actually discovering far superior to just mimicing or memorizing something that has been handed to me..

I think alot of the old books of religions an philosopers ect.. should all be magically translated (correctly) by someamazing act, into modern day english, short easy to read and not so snooze wothy.. it would make learning all the old stuff that much easier efficient and clear..

I do sooooo badly though want the great books collection, it would be fantastic to just bust out a complete works of --------Insert philospher/poert/playwrite/psychologist/theologist/scientist/theoristhere-----

on a side side side note.. why do a lot of the cool subjects start with P? is it just the raddest letter?