Of God (Part II)

[jars of clay]

Humans that say there is nothing more than what we can sense have a very grim outlook as we have already said. As we have said, their existence is already marked by selfishness. As they believe that there is nothing they cannot sense or explain, then they believe that there is no afterlife. From this they conclude that they should spend this life to the extreme; giving their whole energy toward pleasing themselves. The results of this we will discuss later.

There is another, more grim result from this thinking, however. For man who leads a life trying to please himself will quickly find that he cannot accomplish this. This leads to a sense of hopelessness. And eventually to thoughts of suicide.

One major points that this leads to is the idea of post modernism. In what way does it? How does a lack of belief in anything lead to saying that all religions should coexist? Understand that to say that there is nothing that cannot be sensed is to bundle all religions together. In truth, the idea that there is no God, no heaven, nothing, makes all religions equal and the same. What is the main charge of post modernism? That all religions are talking about the same thing. That, under the skin, they all really mean the same thing, but with different words attached.

I am going to surprise you before I move on im this thinking. I will almost tease you as to what I will deal with later on in my writing. But I would like to suggest to you that post modernism is correct. That all religions say the same thing, but with different phrasing. However before we can deal with this we must get a better grasp of the meaning of the word religion. We cannot get ahead of ourselves just yet by diving into this. So I will let you sit on those words, thinking that I am now totally insane and have completely contradicted myself.

Now moving back to the results of believing in no God, as we have stated earlier, no belief in God leads us to the idea that Man can live as he please. Usually this lifestyle runs into areas that cause us to scream foul. Now, the modern mind will say; "AHA! What is wrong for you is not wrong for him. You just have a different set of morals than they." Fair enough; my question would be if someone murdered your family, would you still say; "what is wrong for me is not wrong for you."

Now then you will say "They have crossed the line and must be punished." For all of the sudden its not someone else that is being hurt by the person's actions, but you. suddenly the truth comes out that there is an equal field that all actions are judged by. Now of course the question arises as to what are the standards. I will discus this later.