Is it possible to prove the existence of a loving God?

From John Lamb Lash's book " Not in His Image " (pg 70-71 ) chapter 5 Messianic Madness

"The monastery[at Khirbet Qumran ] , this structure of stone that endures, between the bitter waters and the precipitous cliffs, with its oven and it's inkwells, it's mill and it's cesspool, it's constellation of sacred fonts and unadorned graves of the dead is, perhaps, more than Bethlehem or Nazareth, the cradle of Christianity "

" Khirbet Qumran, " the ruins of Qumran " , is located about thirty miles east of Jerusalem, overlooking the Dead Sea. From 1947 into the late 1950's excavations at this desolate site produced an unprecedented trove of ancient writings. The finds included complete works such as the earliest manuscript of Isaiah, as well as thousands of stamp size fragments that had to be painstakingly joined , like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. The scrolls were written between 250 b.c.e. And 70 c.e. , when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Roman army in a draconian attempt to repress the Jewish Revolt. The aim of the revolt was to establish an autonomous theocratic Jewish state in Palestine, consistent with the first two elements of the redeemer complex. Such was its political and military aim, at least. But the cult of the Khirbet Qumran also had another agenda, an apocalyptic program of final retribution, consistent with the third and forth components of the redeemer complex:the coming of the messiah and the last judgment. The lethal combination of militant and mystical factors is not unfamiliar to the modern world, of course. The Zaddikim sect of the Dead Sea presents the larval form of the global terrorist syndrome of today "

Just to add what is meant by the redeemer complex by John

1) the creation of the world by a father god independent of a female counterpart

2) the trial and testing ( conceived as a historical drama ) of the righteous few or " Chosen people "

3) the mission of the creator god's son (the messiah) to save the world

4) and the final, apocalyptic judgment delivered by father and son upon humanity

I also "see" too much similarities between animal and human sexuality that supports evolution over "man was created in the image of god." Why would god have sex organs? If god created Eve from the rib of Adam, did all animal female forms follow the same creative sequence? A penis first?

yes me is not objective but what is always objective is superiority bc truth is superior reference always, so any honest person can b superior since it has then to admit objective superiority without havin a problem with to stay out of it almost same in term of subjective value

who has problem to recognize another superiority as other value or self fact true existence, then it has a huge problem with everything, bc there is nothing else but superiority everywhree and a sense to keep up

I think the infinite regress of who or what created "the creator" demolishes credibility any form of "parental" scenario.

female are those nothing that let truth b, so they are bodies of truth from inside while males are bodies of truth from outside

but actually it is the same nothing bc any is only absolutely and absolutely any is freedom as it is the truth when it gets to any identity

so what u should admit, is what only truth exist
truth is what keep males relative outside but their individual freedom they are only of truth, unless they can add smthg as i do to all truth

truth is what keep females realtive free individually but their objective shapes and means are always by truth unless they can add smthg as i do to all truth

what u should aknowledge better, is that the creator is both of course or do both for objective life
but what acheived to u or to us, is total independance of the creator that truth monopolize, so in terms of creations men are those free wills out of truth that mean to profit from creator life means in sponsorin attitude, and for women it is exactly the same, out of truth they are free wills that mean to profit from creations life realities that sponsor dark smiles and lies powers over truth sneakin around

exactly there is no parent in truth, the smallest is superior value always while the biggest is who enjoy turnin values to money possessions

who consider value is a value itself so it has no problem to deal with values objectively
who do not appreciate or differenciate what value is, would keep gatherin too much things to mean subjective values and as wat is to buy and sell, smthg to possess not true

that is why animals eat their kids but since it is too objectively real so truth interfer a bit at least for somedays

The point of my last post is to show that any god who is based on the redeemer complex is NOT a loving God

Since if you don't,then follow his request or do as he has asked you will be condemned

That is not an act or action of a loving God

And what is worse is that there is an apocalyptic attitude towards Humanity

This sounds to me to be a way of rationalizing a fear of acknowledging what you do not know.

You can acknowledge that you do not know something, Fresco. It won't kill ya.

But thanks for the laugh.

I wonder what goes on in your mind, Fresco, to suppose that is in any way a logical implication??????

No doubt I've said this to you in the past, but next time you (the body) goes to sleep, on waking ask yourself where "ME" went for most of the night, and who that " lunatic" was you identified as "ME" in your dreams. If that cumulative nightly evidence is not sufficient to throw doubt on the continuity of what you call "ME", you are not using your brains. Obviously we all know you have a vested interest in maintaining your entrenched agnostic posture but don't dig yourself into a deeper hole by attempting to appeal to "logic".

Agreed Fres, and besides continuity as a clear violation of the general principle that nothing is entirely anything……….

We rational humans who rely on evidence to prove what we believe has been replaced by religion and gods. To say "we don't know" is not logical in any sense of the word. Frank is entrenched into his agnosticism, and will argue until hell freezes over that he's right. That's logical for those of us who understands Frank; we observe it, and came to a conclusion that's pretty reliable.

You'll have to forgive us Cis if we don't all review the previous postings but for the lazy such as I a quote or two is welcome

For instance you could elaborate on While I'm sure it contains certain underlying but subtle and profound meaning you must forgive those of us who have duties--such as yardwork--calling from afar--who might not be willing to recapitulate the entire thread

For instance, if it's the implication that "We don't know" is not a logical reply to the q, "Is there a God," you might explain why not. Granted it's pretty silly to assert, "I don't know whether there's a polar bear in our South Forty" when I'm pretty sure there isn't, but I don't see anything illogical in the assertion

But incidentally might you not review just that first sentence.

There seems to be something wrong with it but I don't understand the niceties of grammar. I do however remember "number" and dangling" as terms that might apply, or perhaps there's a missing word but in any case you're to be excused

It happens to most of us all the time. To exacerbate, A2k has a crazy editing algorithm that forbids us for correcting a posting after 15 minutes has elapsed

Fair question. The reason is simple IMHO; there is no observable evidence of any god existing other than man-kinds fettish for creating gods. If one understand the history of the christian/judean/islam religions, they are based on the "book of the dead" that predates these religions.

Other gods created by man are based on myths and nature.

Stil Cis one has to concede how very difficult to explain why the constants seem to have been "adjusted," in some cases within a fraction of 1 percent, to permit evolution of the humanoid, without whom the Entire Megillah seems an exercise in futility

I wonder what goes on in your mind, Fresco, to suppose that is in any way a logical implication??????

Glad you have ci for support.

And using that reasoning, if I point out to ci that there is no observable evidence of any sentient beings existing on any planet circling the nearest 10 stars to Sol...I guess he would be content to suggest there are no sentient beings existing there...rather than I DO NOT KNOW IF ANY SENTIENT BEING EXIST ON ANY OF THOSE PLANETS.

Egad...there is no end to the nonsense theists and atheists use to defend their positions.

Evolution is "nature" and natural.

You're trying to compare apples and oranges. This is about the human gods, not planets.

You're absolutely right about that. In fact everything is natural

However one can't quite help wondering why nature is the way it is

That is, so terrifically complicated as to permit evolution. But the basic q is, why should there be anything at all