@ Konovalov,
Taking the pictures, allegories and parables in, for example, the bible as true, word by word, is representative for a far less developed and/or educated mind, that reflected the state of human mental and cultural evolution in earlier times that had far lesser knowledge and thus lower degrees of ratio, understanding and intellectual capabilities. Before that even natural phenomenons like blizzards, storms, sun darkenings, were brought into conjunction with gods causing this phenomenon. Man does not bear to live in a world without security, where the future is uncertain and it'S forming cannot be explained or understood, and cannot be controlled, so he artifically creates a system of explanations. More developed civilizations referred to a monotheistic God, and today the West believes science can and will explain everything - but science that is restricted to it's current dogmas only, is a religion as well. In so far you are right. I think indeed that certain people still live with their body in the present, but their heads and hearts stuck in the medieval. I do not believe in mircale and wonder. But I know that sometimes our knowledge simply is not good enough to understand a phenomenon. Then we ignore it (like f.e. UFOs, at least that's what I do after having red a lot about UFOs), or we call it miracle, or link it to a higher beeing - for whose existence we do not have the smallest hint or proof, only man-made myths and man-told stories. Certain sects in the Gnostic tradition for example refuse to accept that Jesus got killed, they say instead another man was crucified, while he escaped execution and lived the rest of his life in the hidden. As you know Islam is saying something similar about Jesus, calling Christians liars when they accuse the Jews of having murdered him. What does any belief help in this? Nothing. We do not know, and never will know for sure. If we would have been there and seen with our own eyes, than we would know - and wouldn'T be in need to replace lacking knowledge with believing anything, something, no matter what. Some days I believe the sky is green and the grass is blue. On others I am quite sure it is the different way around... and occasionally I sit down and read a book about neurological and chemical processes in the eye, brain and nervous system - and understand that all my former beliefs about colours have nothing to do with how eye and brain really process the impact of photons on the retina. The human eye does not produce a sharp image on the retina, it is a very unfocussed, blurred image instead, like people see with around 5 or 6 missing dioptrines and no glasses to correct that. The "sharp" reality we think we perceive is an artificial creation only, created inside our brain. We have not the smallest evidence that the reality out there really is what we see, hear, taste. we create our realities inside our heads. and that includes our beliefs in gods and supernatural entities as well. When we see or hear something - this is only a proof that eye, nerves and brain are working like intended. It is no evidence for any kind of reality beeing of that kind as what we perceive it. a physic may tell you here that 99.99999...% of what you see - is empty space in fact, and the rest of it is no hard matter, but an abstract tendency to exist, or to exist not.
Now, this is the real wonder of life, isn't it...?
The wonder of evolution that keeps the motor spinning is that every new answers nevertheless creates new questions and increases our awareness how little we do know in fact . the iniverse is awareness, is mind, and it wants to play with itself and understand itself. And that way of viewing at it is something I like very much. It points at something that is far too big to be messed up by man's follies on earth. But no chance I ever would declare it a separate entity of superior nature and origin
No way to make God and me/you/others two different things.
It's so much easier to explain life to be the responsebility of somebody else. And labelling him/her a God convinces us that he will not fail in meeting that responsebility, making our life sweet and well-protected. And when he/her fails and someone we loved was lost, we ask: "Wha us? What have we done wrong?" My question is another one: "Why not us? Why always the others, only?"
Nietzsche's Zarathustra has declared God a dead body, a corpus that was created by man's willingness to stick to what he calls "small thinking". He does so not for nihilistic reasons, but to make man aware of the "divine" (=great) potential in himself, and that way become a new man, a superman that is beyond that primtive stadium of simply believing in Gods. In German the term is "Übermensch", not "Supermensch". "Über" means "above", or int his context: "beyond". The superman of Nietzsche has nothing to do with supernatural talents or racism. It is directed at religious emancipation of human mind and evolution leading it to higher and higher levels of potential and ability.
If you believe you are small and depend on some God, you always will remain that way and never move beyond your self-declared borders. There will be no growth. Not accepting to do so is taking responesebility and includes the risk of failure or going wrong. but look at sportsmen and competing athletes training for a championship: winners are made by their belief that they could become more than what they have started as years ago. They are driven by the will to grow beyond their initial limitations. Ambition is a two-sided sword, it can lead to far, or not far enough.
Man this forum really has a grip on me...
I am also on hollidays, that may explain it