The genesis of this Work comes from an Internet discussion at Authorsden Roundtable started by David Arthur Walters. The original Post concerned a talk about Nothing, in general and particular. It rapidly expanded into a consideration of the Cosmos, and it’s origins. There was a lively gathering of views on the subject of Nothing, and the functioning of the Universe. Many gave very succinct descriptions of complex thoughts, on both subjects. The Author started to wander off from the discussion, in his own personal musings. He would like to thank Mr. Walters and the others, for acting as a Springboard stirring his own mental imagination. He also must comment Mr. Walters and the rest of the discussion group will disagree with much, or all, of the Author’s contention; the entirety of the Group being skilled researchers and fine authors in their own right.
Einstein and Eddington wanted to bend Space in an Arc, for the purpose of eliminating Infinity, said excuse being calculations failed upon reach of Infinity. This Arc united distance into a circle, so complete route brought One back to the original starting point. The Author could agree with this assessment, but decrees it is not sufficiently supplied with evidence. He does not intend provision of evidence, which would satisfy; merely to propound a more complex hypothesis, even more difficult to prove. He does this for two essential reasons: the first resides in his lack of control over both Mathematics and Physics; the second continues his tradition of adding more questions to any answer.
Time has long been accepted as movement through Space. The Past is separated from the Present, because it occurs some distance back along the trajectory on which the Earth is traveling. The Future awaiting arrival at a vector plane in Space. The entire discussion brings forth discussion of Fate and pre-Destination. Alternate speculations have ranged from absolutely Free Will, where each Individual determines how he will adjust to the Future; to a absolute slavery of the Individual, who always endures the same pressures at any time placement in Space, and so; will react in the same manner. The first sets guilt for transgressions solely upon the Violator; the second provides inherent excuse for any abuse. A rational man might conceive a mixture of the Two; where the Parameters of human conduct can only be altered to a limited extent, with total human conduct reaching the same end Fate.
Theologians assert Humanity has the aid and assistance of a Superior Being or Intellect; who guides humans in a proper course of behavior. Historians counterclaim Religions are human institutions, developed by human intellect, for the fulfillment of human values; both good and bad. The Author tends to side with the Historians, for numerous reasons.
Humanity has long suffered from the transference of cultural values from one society to another. Cultural development arrives, developed from the past history of events in each society. Transfer of cultural values from one Culture to another brings poor fit, as support systems for those values not only do not exist; but are often in conflict with supplanted cultural values with their own support system. One questions whether any Intellect can be so superior, as to be able to develop cultural values capable of transplantation into other societies; without the destruction of adherents of earlier cultural values. The numbers of people killed in religious wars indicate such superiority does not exist.
The above introduces doubt as to the veracity of a superior code of conduct, predicated on the destruction of established elements of society; all in order to gain some superiority of personal conduct. The issue of Sin arises within the context of the discussion; almost all such religious codes of conduct prohibit the taking of life, and discrimination against fellow human beings; almost all, though, excuse said discrimination and taking of life, when dealing with disbelievers. Sin becomes Sin only when dealing with true believers of the faith, with all bets off when dealing with those, who would deny the greatness of the faith. The code of conduct suddenly becomes very fluid, based upon self-serving desires of gain and control. What does this do to the purported superiority of the designated God.
Current editions of all religious documents lack serious sections of material, which these documents held earlier in human history. These missing sections concerned justification for killing wife or child, the rectitude of reducing other humans to slavery, and the right of believers to kill disbelievers and/or steal their property. Punishments for Sin were much harsher in earlier times, ranging from stoning to death to physical torture and mutilation of the Sinner. It is easily understood why these sections are missing from current texts; some believers might not understand.
The Issue, though, need be investigated. A number of alternatives can be contemplated. The superior being, otherwise denoted as God, changed his mind about what he wanted done; what import does this have for the infallibility and omnipotence of the purported God? The alternative considers God may be as confused, as We normal intellects. It suggests God may have made a mistake, and desired to correct these misfortunes. The superiority of Intellect is questioned, bringing doubt as to the superiority of the code of conduct.
Another view might assert it was a simple practice of human exponents of the belief mistaking the content of the superior code of conduct. This remains an assertion that God is infallible and omnipotent, but his human servants are weak and inferior transmitters of the word of the Devine. The failings of Religion can be accounted by the human corruption of it’s messengers on Earth. This acceptance brings a huge problem; where does their inferior corruption start and end? Has the corruption been removed with these sections of the religious texts, or are other sections of the texts equally doubtful? The issue of the personal code of conduct must be examined in light of the inherent inferiority of the transmitters. Can the code of conduct be trusted for accuracy and efficacy, when the transmission was so obviously bad?
A third view might contend God may supplant the Message as the human race develops, using different codes of conduct at different periods of human development for the purpose of gathering adherents of the faith. This regrettably reduces God to the level of Politician. One must evaluate the quality of a code of conduct, which alters continually for the simple reason of being accepted. Again the value of Religion is lessened, if personal conduct relies upon audience share. It also brings into doubt the value of a God, who must depend upon human support; to exercise what is purported omnipotent power. Why would an omnipotent God need the submission of humanity? Could it be the need for support against rivals in his own milieu, where he is not omnipotent, or a God?
Numerous other views can be entertained. One equates religion with law enforcement, stating believers must sin; before God can exercise power over them. This transforms God into a malignant child, who seeks control over his toys, in order to destroy them. The personal code of conduct consists solely of traps under this scenario, enticing the believer to fail and fall into slavery. This places God in the ranks of Liar and Deceiver, whose bearing seeks only to destroy the freedom of humanity. God becomes the father of the Secret Police; not a pleasant thought.
A more scientific idea places humanity coming closer to God in the sequence of time, with the barbarity of the animals dropping off, as humanity approaches God. This places new disrespect upon the Transmitters of God’s word, suggesting they have already been corrupted by bestiality; and seeking their own plan for enslavement of humanity. The quality of God suffers from this explanation, when questioning why God would only speak through the most malignant among Us.
Historians suggest all religions are human in origin, with the deities consisting alone of earlier leadership of the religion; all with the worst elements of such leadership dropping off, as it is abandoned by humanity. This plane of observation details religion as a means of social control, run for the political and social advantage of religious leadership. The Author states this remains the most likely explanation of the role of religion, though he does not automatically dismiss the existence of a Deity.
The composition of such a Deity remains the basis for this current Work. Many would claim this is an Atheist tract, proclaiming the nonexistence of God. The Author disagrees wholeheartedly with this contention; seeking only to place a proper Deity in the heavens. He will attest his belief the Deity which exists, has no contact with humanity; whose purported contact with humanity stands as fraud perpetuated by religious leadership, advocated for purposes of personal gain. The Author also carries belief such a Deity could not be conscious of the existence of humanity, and thereby; no support for the aspirations of humanity.
Copyright.LawranceGeorgeLux.2002