A CONVERSATION WITH GOD. PART 26.
For thousands of years, humans, first the priests, shaman, and the clergy, and then the ordinary people, have sought to speak with the gods, and then for the gods.
Always being secure in the knowledge that the gods would not denounce what they have reported of these conversations. So, why have the gods remained silent? Why have the gods chosen not to speak for themselves?
T.: So, G. What does the above tells us about the relationship between you and humans?
What does it tells us about why humans, early humans, felt the need to, according to the humanists and the evolutionists, create you?
What need did they have for doing so, and what need do contemporary humans have for the continuation of this very asymmetrical relationship?
A relationship in which only one of the parties is able to speak, to have a voice, while the other is completely reliant on the other to speak on their behalf?
Yes, G., we have already covered much of this ground. Having considered that early humans needed a god to protect them, or felt that they needed one.
That they initially resorted to seeing natural phenomena, such as the Sun, Rivers, the Moon, and even living things such as cats, as gods.
G.: So it was, and, for all intents and purposes, T, continue to be. This complex but not evidently mutually beneficial relationship humans and me, god.
Yes, I have to admit that it is not clear who gets what out of this relationship, T. As, at least according to your line of argument and your starting premise, I do not even exist, and cannot therefore even have a relationship with humans.
Never mind benefiting from any such relationship. For how two entities which do not share a common language, and a willingness to communicate, have a mutually beneficial relationship? It does appear, T.
That humans, for reasons which are neither clear or logical, find some value in purporting to be having a relationship with, me. Me who you consider to be an imaginary god, and one who is not doing anything to encourage, compel or force them into doing so.
Me, who is not offering any reinforcement to encourage them to worship me.
But, you know what, T. The fact is, even if it was not initially a fact. Humans might not, objectively, still need a god, but their are those among them who still think they do.
And while this continue to be the case, whether you and the evolutionists, the humanists, believe in me or not, does not really matters.
It would appear that myth has become the 'reality.' That the rationalisation for what is, for humans and their worlds, has, in the minds of the creationists, become the cause of it.
That 'the word', the 'this is how it was', should become me, god!
To be continued.
T.: So, G. What does the above tells us about the relationship between you and humans?
What does it tells us about why humans, early humans, felt the need to, according to the humanists and the evolutionists, create you?
What need did they have for doing so, and what need do contemporary humans have for the continuation of this very asymmetrical relationship?
A relationship in which only one of the parties is able to speak, to have a voice, while the other is completely reliant on the other to speak on their behalf?
Yes, G., we have already covered much of this ground. Having considered that early humans needed a god to protect them, or felt that they needed one.
That they initially resorted to seeing natural phenomena, such as the Sun, Rivers, the Moon, and even living things such as cats, as gods.
G.: So it was, and, for all intents and purposes, T, continue to be. This complex but not evidently mutually beneficial relationship humans and me, god.
Yes, I have to admit that it is not clear who gets what out of this relationship, T. As, at least according to your line of argument and your starting premise, I do not even exist, and cannot therefore even have a relationship with humans.
Never mind benefiting from any such relationship. For how two entities which do not share a common language, and a willingness to communicate, have a mutually beneficial relationship? It does appear, T.
That humans, for reasons which are neither clear or logical, find some value in purporting to be having a relationship with, me. Me who you consider to be an imaginary god, and one who is not doing anything to encourage, compel or force them into doing so.
Me, who is not offering any reinforcement to encourage them to worship me.
But, you know what, T. The fact is, even if it was not initially a fact. Humans might not, objectively, still need a god, but their are those among them who still think they do.
And while this continue to be the case, whether you and the evolutionists, the humanists, believe in me or not, does not really matters.
It would appear that myth has become the 'reality.' That the rationalisation for what is, for humans and their worlds, has, in the minds of the creationists, become the cause of it.
That 'the word', the 'this is how it was', should become me, god!
To be continued.
Comments