Eddie, maybe a word to you, and a superstition to Susan. To me a force, THE force, and I dont mean gravity!

GG.



Eddie Larry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>

Quote
Susan opined
> it is as clear as can be I think that ancient
> people decided that there were forces which did
> things because of human behaviour , thus leading
> to the invention of gods. This is, and has been
> ever since, the alternative superstition, but
> people who are believers do not like the idea that
> such beliefs can easily be labelled superstitions.
> Because of the increasing scientific understanding
> of the natural world and the universe, those who
> command the loyalty of billions for their
> religions must invent less and less credible
> falsehoods to explain. Such as, 'god is beyond
> time and space'
>

>
> Actually Susan, I think that what ancient people
> decided was that there were forces of Nature that
> did NOT do what people wanted. Like volcanoes,
> storms, earthquakes etc. We call them, even
> today, forces of nature. They can still destroy
> us and our plans. I suggest that what was
> superstitious was thinking people could do things
> which avert these natural processes.
>
> So I take it now that “alternative superstition
> “ simply means ancient superstitions or
> Susan’s interpretation of ancient superstitions.
>
>
> In terms of your last two sentences, I think that
> modern religions have already handled the issues
> of ancient or original superstitions quite well.
> God for modern religions is really tied to the
> concept of good or goodness. Especially, a
> lifestyle based on love of life and reciprocity
> towards one’s neighbors.
>
> Now the notion that ‘god is beyond space and
> time’ was a later notion based on the idea that
> the machinery that drove the world was just past
> the pearl blue sky. Was it Albrect Durer who did
> the famous painting of man peering into the
> clockwork just beyond what we see?
>
> You know Susan, god does not have to be
> interpreted as a “supernatural existent” and ,
> if so, then you don’t have an argument at all.
> I can only suggest being careful with the argument
> of supernatural reality. It works both ways.
> IMO, of course.
>
> My definition is simple, god is the word people
> use to name the meaning they find in life. Not
> “supernatural “ at all.
>
> Hope this helps!
>
> Edited for typos.