There can be a sort of disease, and there can be a sort of survival.
For example, nearly all beings are sexual, because this is a key attribute of survival. But also, all beings succum to disease, or old age of some sort, atleast, and this is an example of a thing which is everywhere, but is also not a healthy, good or right condition, physically.
I think the question can be filed down:
Human instinct towards higher-being and super-nature or the supernatural, [yes, prayers and theism are still spiritisms, focused on a selected group of souls which may or may not be God, as “false religion” has shown. But it’s either a good or a bad spiritism, depending on result.]. I think this “religiousness” of humanity is directly connected to their survival instinct and their positive goals, because religions often contain concepts of ultimate consciousness, ultimate solutions, salvation, freedom, etc.
The main questions left are those of accuracy, for even in the bible accounts, there have been records of miracles and foretelling which did not come from “God”, and yet succeeded. The main proofs were from a supposed compentition, in which the Jewish magicks of prophets out-preformed the magicks of other non-Jewish prophets. And in Egypt, it was said Moses and his God outperformed the gods or magicks of Egypt, etc.
Now, as I was saying with my brother James earlier, if this account is accurate, it does prove that a superbeing connected with humans and was stronger than the other things humans called “God” at the time, but, though its great strength rendered the other gods “false”, it has never solidly proven that it is all-mighty or perfect. Instead, it was only proven that the Biblical miraculus “God” was a superbeing or a superspirit, which could do things far beyond what humans could.
Now, compare a modern nuclear missile to the plagues which “God” supposedly caused during his wrath, and you see this fact:
Technology is power.
“God” would not have been able to kill someone he disliked, if he did not know how to do so.
But in this case… if Humans used a nuke on other humans, that would still not mean they were “God”. And even farther, if invisible beings used a plague on humans, and spoke through a human channel, etc., this still does not mean those beings were “God”. All that this proves, is that those beings are strong, in some fearsome way, more advanced than present-day humans are.
A man is “God” compared to ants, for example, because he is so much stronger, and wiser than they, but still, he did not create those ants, even if he may capture or control them.
According to my theology, spirits throughout history have proven that some are extreme, but none have proven they are ultimate.
Me and my many bodies have a different perception of “God” than you, and I will try to explain it:
There are super-societies and super-systems of spiritual consciousness, which can be likened to large white spheres in certain dimensions. This could be called a trillion angels, by thee. Some are very good, some are good, and some are defective or “bad”, compared to unified purpose.
Each one of these oversouls, supersocieties, or heavens – is like one braincell of “God”, which is a whole upper dimensional living system which is so fast and so multi-dimensional, and so multi-elemental, that most beings are not mentally capable of fathoming it all at once. Infact, a direct perception of a heaven or spiritual society, even that is usually not possible for humans to directly fathom. It’s like running a huge program on a tiny old computer, it doesn’t work.
^
By this principal, complete understandings of “God” are humanly impossible, where as incomplete simplifications permeate. Your version of what God wants and what God is – will be different than the interpretation which your fellow has. In the same way that your own view of yourself is different than the view of your fellow about yourself.
I believe that the biblical “God” was made too incomplete, and far too Jewish, via human culture and human channel. In-fact, the biblical concept is this: Angels and Demons are the same race, and are only seporate in rank and ideology. In this case, either the inspirers of the bible were the kinder and more popular demons, or, demonds are the frightening and unpopular angels.
But just look at the earth. You see how many millions of different species there are. From what I’ve seen, there are even more species of spirits than there are species of humans. And I feel it is both untrue and insulting, to consider there only being two classes or races: Either angel or demon. This is so reduced, so simplified, and so absolutized, I consider it a lie.
My view is different, and I shall explain:
Each organ of the body is different in form, and also, it performs a different task. The brain does not digest with acids. The stomach does not ponder. Each is part of a higher, larger system. And each is made of the same DNA parts.
Now, when we see large species, each species has a certain roll in the eco-system and the food-chain, but there are genetic differences between each species, etc. Although, each species is still made of relatively the same matter, etc.
Now, when we see large species of spirits, and things such as stars or planets, these entire super-systems are different than other super-systems, but they are still part of reality, in some sort of dimension, within the universe, made of the same ultra-micro element: Energy, change, motion, etc.
Not large enough or wide enough is the common sense, and not wide enough is it to directly see or know “God”. And this is why “God” is invisible, in the same way that radiation and electromagnetic poles are invisible to the limits of the eye. But still, me and my spiritual species see “God” or the ultimate-being as a very very very large universal system of life and energies, which has many sub-parts, or organs, etc.
You’d be more prone to either fallow a single, individual being, which is a step above you dimensionally, but is still an individual, lesser than, but probably also a tiny part of “God” as we would see it.
Alternatively, if you were looking for an ultimate, singular “Godliness” which was not a being of many parts, and was not actually a system or structure, you’d most-likely need to look at the ultimate element. They energy even more elemental than change itself. More elemental than kenetic or potential energy.
There are two main perspectives of the ultimateness of “God”, IMO. There is either the super-large, or, there is the super-small-scaled perceptions of ultimate-being.
Mother, father and son are not actually separate beings. They may look that way, for now, but in the higher span of time, they are actually the crust of the planet, the old parts of a star, etc. They are still variations from an original source. Your mind and your control are separate from your parents, but the actual genes, energies and essence have merely been changed via a slight reorganization, but it’s still the same “stuff”.
In this sense of perspective, I don’t see “God” and “Creation” as being separate. In the same way human came before humanity, and fish came before fishes, creator came before creation, but they are still part of the same force. In this temporal view of “God” as the ultimate “Creator”, “God” is the Ultimate-Passed. “God” is the original point of all time, all energy, and all reality. In this case, “God is birth”. And all creation is that which has been born.
If, however, ones theology matches my own at this time, creation will be seen as greater than creator, in the same way that a whole 10000 fishes are greater than their 10 first fishes, many years ago. And according to this, “God” is a structure which was born and exists of many parts. If, however, ultimateness is temporally set “before”, one would never worship anything that has time, change, or form. Instead, one would only be able to directly worship “God” by worshiping the infinitely ancient aetheric force which made all of the universe. And in this case, “God” would be far behind and far beyond any single thought or ideology.
Christian concepts of “God” are a mix of ancient original, and present temporal. According to the Christians, “God” is both the maker of the universe, and also “God” is the present facilitator. He has with him a set of helpers. He has within him a gradualism, in which his goals are not reached instantly. Instead, the goals of “God” take time to happen, and “God”, according to Christianity, has plans for the future which have not yet been done. This limit – is a non-infinity. It is the non-absolute which is also called perfect-absolute. Some even go so far as to say: “God” maintains the universe, though as we have both seen and theorized, via images of the super-nova, the universe is not exactly maintained… Instead, some parts of it literally colide with other parts. And stars literally may explode. That’s not absolute or perfect maintainance. Infact, it is a principal. Even as a star must eventually die, so to, will man eventually die out, and 99% of the species which usedto exist at some time are now extinct. The small-scale events on earth are all strangely relative to universal patterns, tendencies and principals. A transcendent “God” beyond all of these, is also “beyond” real, and by definition, that sort of “God” is not “real”, as reality tends towards a set fabric of actual physical laws, etc.
According to my theology, “God” is also real, in that “God” is under law. It both makes and falls under law. It both controls and is controlling, just like someone, in and of themself, both causes and is effected by their action. This being within cause and effect, leads to the capacity of creation, and the capacity of destruction. Change herself is non-static. She is not the absolute of immortal, and also, she is not the absolute of death.
But if the stars are of greater intensity than the spirits whom graced down as Lord, and even the stars to burn out and die, perhaps “God” has also died, and thusly, miracles have ended? Death is such a drastic change, that it is unsettling, and one would never think that their god was dead, would they? They instead would prefer the eternal, and the absolute, but the eternal and the absolute, incapable of death, may already be dead because of this. After all, the concept of something being static – means it’s not working, not changing, not energetic, and not alive.
I’ve talked about many different principals and perspectives, but, little parts of each of these have been selected during the compounding conceptualizations of theisms. Thusly, the believer is bound to customize “God” to his own limits, and his own higher senses. His ultimate consideration – is truly an expression of his own limit. So, “God” is often set within the psychological limits of the believer. An expanse of ones concept of “God”, during the initial teachings, is the example of one expanding ones psychological limit to its max, if possible, and then, they place a “God” conceptualization at that ultimacy. They would say and teach this: “God” is the greatest of all things ever to be. After such, the only problem left over is accuracy. Just because something could be, does not mean that it is. For example, there could be a tea pot floating around the sun, in orbit, in space, etc. But there’s no way to actually observe or prove it physically. It could be, like anything and everything else could be, but it is not. There are many small and large objects in orbit, but they are not tea-pots.
In this way, the “atheist” believes still in higher order, higher power, higher purpose and higher law, but, the “atheist” does not call it “God”, in the same way one would not call an asteroid, in orbit, a tea-pot. The differences between higher power and a sentient god are minor, because both a spirit and a higher force of nature are merely large and mighty masses of raw energy. Atheists, and theists of all sorts, in all sorts of religions and schools of thought – are all separated by specification and petty minor differences. An “extreme relativist” would not be so “specific” or “true” as to cause divisions and nihilation via “truth”. Instead, he would refuse the will to specification, in favor of relativity, and see that every single set of metaphysics tries to specify about a formless, unfathomable higher energy, all resulting in little bias which distracts one from the bigger picture.
It would be a fallacy to say: “There is a tea-pot orbiting the sun.”
It would be a fallacy to say: “It is impossible for there to ever be a tea-pot in orbit.”
It is also a fallacy to say: “All asteroids are made of mere ice.”
But, only in a generalization can there be no failing, in this case, by saying: “Many sorts of objects, energies and substances orbit around other objects, if they have gravity, etc.”
Absolute “truth” is often a reduction. It is monistic, athrophized, refined and destroyed down into a tiny singularity. I find this to be one of the main failings in metaphysics. When beings come to an absolute which does not actually exist, and reduce the infinitely complex down to an overly simple blanket-judgment, they’ve essentially ended their mental progression. I’d sooner say: Ponder the infinities daily.
But, absolutes tend to comfort those whom have grown tired of change. A marriage which is eternal. An eternal God. An eternal life in paradise. An absolute law of rules and commandments. Something solid, absolute, and unchanging. This is what many of the Christians want. They want a stability in life. They want something which is so predictable and static, that it can be fully trusted and mentally rested within. But, the absolute, and the static – is dead. It does not move, or change, thus it is not even an energy. I find myself wanting an absolute, when I am closer to death, and when I am far away from death, I want both variety and change. A firm and absolute faith – is impossible to question. Persons of one evangelical faith shall never convert to another, for they have found in themselves an absolute, which they shall never be separated from. In this case, they are like corpses. A corpse will not listen to you, no matter how often or how loudly you call to it. And also, a solid faith has become dead, in that it is unchanging, solid, static.
Unlike most Christians, I found myself wanting truth even more than I wanted hope or comfort. I wanted realism more than the idealism. I wanted the strongly relative, more than the simple absolute. In this case, I see many forms of hope as actual tragedy… I see it as a symptom which has been suppressed. It is the pain which has been killed along with the possibility of solution. I will not even call it false-hope. I will call it hope without war. I will call it hope without change. I will call it complacency. It is a road to peace, and a road to death.
Narcotics are the perfect example – of the weaknesses that human senses inherently have. And this also applies to the religious. For throughout all time, there have been ever-changing cycles of religious belief. Most of which are traps. Though the walls and the tiny cage may comfort those whom tire of the chaos of freedom, others may find themself suffocating in a tiny religious trap. It is far easier to die up into a heavenly, than it is do personally create a salvation, here and now. Something like a more advanced form of genetics would potentially be a man-made salvation, in which the aging was overcome. But most people do not even want eternal life on the current earth. Instead, they want eternal death of the current earth, and eternal life of only an ideal world. Again, it is a trap, and a side-effect of the sickness with reality. Desire without direct action. They’d both preach of the corrupt imperfectness of the current system, and at the same time, they would not declare war upon this evil personally. Instead, they would wish to escape from it, into one of the backworlds, or they would say: “One day, our perfect God shall destroy all that we hate.” This is the hope of revenge, hope and distance replacing personal work. And no personal revenge is taken. Nearly every religion is passivist… and passivism is one of the many colors of escapism.
It is difficult for me to clearly express this, but I’m working at describing a mechanism. The mechanism of comfort-instead-of-solution.