These are supposed to be smily faces. I have no idea what happened. I wrote my reply in word and pasted it into the message form. I guess it did not work. Sorry.
As for the $64,000 dollar question…
…I think you’re right, Tagg. You’re very intelligent, by the way. Not only does worship require its participants to demonstrate free-will and consciousness, etc., it also requires an invisible God, communication with which can ONLY be performed through intercessory acts (i.e. acts of worship). In other words, we wouldn’t worship a god who was constantly in our faces, so to speak. He’d just be another one of us.
Tagg said:
Correct. Well, most of us, anyway.
“Special” compared to all the other animals, as far as we know, yes.
Ah, but the two are actually linked. Planning means having the ability to look into the future. If you are actually saying, “I know that the future will bring winter, and I should collect berries now,” you have already started investigating the universe. (Note that this is somewhat different from animals that store up food, as that is unlikely to be something they thought through and made a decision about, but rather more instinctual.) In other words, our survival was enhanced by the ability to investigate the universe and to plan accordingly. Remember that we’re still working essentially with the brains that evolved for life in caves. While we’ve stretched those minds to things like particle physics and quantum mechanics, don’t get confused into thinking those abilities have anything to do with the original use of the brain.
Not entirely. I mean, you’ve only written, what, 7 messages? I try not to judge that quickly (unless it’s REALLY obvious). Heck, with only 7 messages, you’re lucky if I remember who you are. 
David B:
“Planning means having the ability to look into the future. If you are actually saying, “I know that the future will bring winter, and I should collect berries now,” you have already started investigating the universe.”
You right. There can be little doubt that human intelligence has allowed us to survive and excel in our world. I did not mean to limit “rational ability”, however. to just those things that we need to survive. I meant to imply that we have taken this ability a step further, in that we ponder things in the abstract that may never have anything to do with our survival. I can understand how asking “How did the univese start and work?” is imoportant for survival. But why do we want to know Why? Why has man from as long a ago as we can determine had philosophers debating our place in the universe? In short why is the question of who we are seem to be the predominate question since men have been writting?
Your right again about 7 messages not being enough to “Know what I believe”. Hell, I bareley know myself. 
Well right now my place in the universe, according to my wife, is out mowing the yard. I will be looking foward to your next post.
tagg
DB:
That is exactly what I’m saying. Of course that does not really address you original question (well maybe it is part of an answer) that started this thread but I’ve had fun talking with you guys.
tagg
Hm, DB I’m guessing you’re a union man right? Still, it sounds like an interesting idea at the very least. On the other hand, it still presumes some sort of rough equality between man and God, which I think most Christians would deny.
After all, the reason why “the-great-alpha-male” needs followers at all is probably one of the more mysterious bits of christian religion. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a valid resolution to it. If a God needed followers for some or other reason, and one was able to somehow motivate everyone on earth to collective bargaining then you might have something there. However, as a cynical athiest myself I don’t see much chance of either of those being true.
(Oh, and Ptahlis? Do you think rainbows are pretty?)
Union man, huh? LOL.
A little clarification: I’m no Christian. Also, I don’t necessarily view God as a tangible entity, a ruler with subjects. For me, this was a little philosphical excercise, the purpose of which was to demonstrate (if to no one else, myself) the nonsensical nature of the typical Western interpretation of God.
If God truly were a supernatural, omnipotent ruler, and we, as His subjects, were granted free-will so that we may serve Him, a revolution against God would be theoretically feasible. I mean, by definition, a king needs his subjects. Otherwise, he’s no king.
To me, the fact that He demonstrates very little interest in earthly goings-on leads to a few conclusions:
1.) He set the Universe in motion, and now He’s just kickin’ it
2.) He’s something less tangible…a psychological construct, perhaps…along the lines of Eastern philosophy
3.) It’s just us here…no higher being (see #2?)
Here’s a question: should I start watching out for lighting bolts?
First: Initial Entry – be careful with your abbreviations. I thought “DB” applied to me and was quite confused 'til I saw DBCooper’s response. And if Drain Bead had been in this thread, well, you can see where I’m going…
Tagg said:
As I mentioned, these are all linked. Our brains have evolved the ability to look ahead, question the possibilities, and try to figure things out. There is no bright line between figuring out why the animals have babies and why the sun revolves around the Earth or how the universe started. It’s not like brains would evolve to only ask certain why questions. KnowwhatImean?
Okay, Tagg, you’re it.
have you considered the possibility that the human race already has rebelled against God? i mean, look at this planet. it’s a mess. these so called christians annihilated the native americans and they’re running around talking this “thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, love thy neighbor as thyself” ROFL!
george bernard shaw said “the only thing wrong with chriatianity is that it hasn’t been practiced yet.”
Dal TimgarI’m confused. Of course, an omnipotent God doesn’t need our devotion or loyalty. A parent does not cease to exist, or even cease to exist being a parent, if his/her child rebels. The reason God wants us to follow His rules is that He loves us. (Obviously, if you don’t believe in God, you don’t believe this, but just follow me here) A “strike” might make God disappointed, but He could just as easily create life (that is, cause it to evolve) on any number of planets throughout the universe. Remember that (forgive me if I misquote here), “A thousand years is as a day to Him, and a day as a thousand years.” The point is that the creation process is not a big deal… in short, the “strike” would merely make our lot in the afterlife that much worse. Unless, of course, He chose to forgive us…
Then, pray tell, what is Hell for?
You only torture the ones you love?
I forget what other thread this was on, but somebody else mentioned this, too. My belief is that Hell is a self-inflicted state: conscious separation of self from God and morality etc. So, God gives us the option of being good and being with Him, or being bad and losing sight.
However, I also believe that all but the most concertedly evil have a shot at redemption. If somebody tries to get through life as well as he or she can, and tries to hurt as few people as possible (both physically and mentally/emotionally), then everybody will find their reward. That’s the combination of justice and love.
What about being good and not being with God?
What I’m saying is that the two most important things are deeds and intentions. Words, or the spoken part of what you believe, is simply not as important. If person X claims disbelief in God, but is charitable, kind, etc., I believe that this person is much closer to “being with God” than person Y who quotes the Bible all over the place, then goes and shoots up an abortion clinic(anybody who claims to be “pro-life” and kills people is a raging hypocrite, in my estimation), rapes women, or some other heinous act.
I certainly hope that, when the final judgment comes, the good agnostics and atheists are nearer the front of the line than the bad “Christians.” That seems much more like the action of a truly just God than just wiping out people who don’t go to religious services.
OK, gotcha. Thanks for clearing that up. You may now officially join the ranks of the reasonable religious folks here.
In response, let me repeat myself:
**
An examination of the Adam and Eve parable may be required to better negotiate the implications of the proposal found in the OP.
**
Logically, the above statement makes no sense. To demonstrate this, I’m going to continue in a sort of step-by-step “geometric proof” form.
-If He loved us, the rules would not be necessary.
-The rules would not be necessary because He, being omnipotent and capable of manipulating all that exists in His Multiverse, would have made sure to maintain our state of ignorance, the one within which we so blissfully existed until Eve ate of the Tree of Wisdom (symbolically or otherwise).
-Eve wouldn’t have consumed the fated apple if it hadn’t been placed there in the first place.
-It would not have been placed there in the first place unless God wanted it placed there (He does everything for a reason, correct?).
-Therefore, it stands to reason that God would not have planted the damned metaphorical tree unless He wished us to enter into our current state of sin.
-What do I mean by that? Think of it this way: He (being all-knowing) had to have realized we were going to sin when offered the choice, but offered it regardless. Without the choice, His precious creations would be spiritually safe by default.
-Let’s take this line of thinking a step or two further. What was the eventually consequence of our Original Sin? The need for a savior. According to Christian philosophy, the savior came in the form of Jesus, God’s son who died on the cross. Now, many Christians view this selfless sacrifice THE definitive display of God’s love for us, which, in turn, makes me wonder:
-if God (a)wants to show us love, but (b)looked on as we, with a single thoughtless act, doomed ourselves to millennia of darkness and loss and pain, then perhaps (c)the whole purpose of it all was this grandiose display of sacrifice…the death of His only son.
-In other words, the 3000 years of civilization preceding Christ’s death was a prologue, the crucifixion was the feature presentation, and the 2000 years since have been an epilogue. This, of course, is assuming that God made us simply so He could love us. This is assuming a lot of things. Unfortunately, the fact that the Western concept of God requires so much damn assuming leads me to suspect it’s not entirely accurate.
Sure do. For clarification, I am not a theist, and my flood comment was just a quick one to say that, in essence, the scenario has been played out before. God has already shown a tendency in the OT of being more than willing to do a little smiting if the situation called for it. The rainbow covenant just said that he wouldn’t use a flood to kill us all again. A creative God should be able to come up with oodles of other possibilities.