Pope: “God Cannot Be God Without Man”

This simple sentence uttered by Pope Francis has set off an explosion of controversy. And, for good reason. Taken at face value, the sentence means there is no god without the human mind creating it. This implies there is no sovereign god. Atheists have said this since the first god. Why then would the Pope say such a thing?

He was speaking to a group and explaining the role of God in the world. I think he meant that there would be no god in their lives if they did not keep the god concept front and center in their minds.

A critic of the Pope said God really has no need for humans. This position, too, would be off putting to people who think God is focusing on them and loves them. Why would God have no need for humans if his is obsessed with every sin and heard every prayer? Why would he bother to kill thousands of babies in Noah’s flood?

That the Pope would express this reflects the problem Christianity has. The Catholic clergy are taught they have an exclusive lock on interpreting the faith. Some Protestant clergy and seminary professors consider themselves experts on the mind of God.  Such people do not converse with skeptics and realize how they would pounce on such a comment.

From what I have read, the Pope is a big believer in the literal Satan. I wish he would admit there is no Satan without humans making it up.

 

 

40 Responses

  1. Jon,

    The Pope, aka the holy Father, maybe claiming himself, a man, to be a god?

    The movie 300 was made around such a man, Xerxes, claiming to be a god.

    GOD just snickers at such religious rhetoric !!!!!!!

    kev

    1. Rob,

      I find that the religions of judaism-christianity-islam do nothing but take the WORD OF GOD out of context, making themselves gods before-between-beside a child and GOD !!!

      If you study the three of them and Revelation Chapter 13 you will find that 666 and 616 apply to them.

      The NUMBER OF GOD is 7, if these three religions had the ESSENCE OF GOD their number would be 777. But because they do not have the ESSENCE OF GOD their number is 666.

      And if you look at their birth dates, judaism-6th Century BCE, christianity-1st Century CE, and islam-6th Century CE they fit the 616 number.

      These three religions are servants of satan, which explains all the evil they are flogging the children of GOD with today, and why one Pope would claim himself to be a man god.

      kev

      1. Juan Ruiz

        “The NUMBER OF GOD is 7”

        Gematria is nothing more than applying symbolism to numbers; it is man-made construct. There is nothing mystical in them. They are simply indicators of quantity.

        1. Juan Ruiz,

          Not germatria, but mineralogy and chemistry.

          Salt is the mineral of GOD.

          Salt as a mineral has an atomic structure of a perfect cube which gives it 6 physical facets. But salt has a Seventh, Essence, taste, flavor.

          Thus 3 physical religions that claim GOD but do not have the ESSENCE OF GOD have a physical number of 6.

          kev

          1. Juan Ruiz

            This all nothing more than interpretation. By what basis is salt a mineral of God? Why not potassium or sulfur? Christianity is full of such assertions. Jesus is both a lamb and a shepherd. The gospel writers are associated with animals. It is all figurative language, which varies from religion to religion.

          2. Juan Ruiz,

            Please go and read the WORD OF GOD as a book of LIFE independent of religious claims.

            You can find different versions online.

            Some have nice search engines.

            Salt occurs 60+ times in one version.

            I will let you do your own analysis!!

            kev

          3. Juan Ruiz

            “Salt occurs 60+ times in one version.”

            Salt was also what Roman soldiers were paid in…hence our word salary. So it had a very different meaning for them. Your symbolism works for you when overlaid on Christianity. It is quite different for other cultures.

          4. Juan Ruiz,

            The symbolism works when overlaid on judaism-christianity-islam, and thus it overlays 666 onto these religions also.

            And salt occurs in the Bible long before the Romans.

            And yes it is my understanding, and that’s why I encourage all to study all the words claimed to be GOD’S to put it in context and sort out the religious rhetoric.

            I’m just sharing what I have found with GOD without religion.

            kev

          5. Juan Ruiz

            Most scholars interpret 666 as referring to Nero, whose whole name converts to that number with gematria. Some believed that he was still alive and would come back to persecute Christians. Any interpretation of Revelation has to be done in conjunction with what his readers would gather from it. Attempting to apply it to contemporary contexts is useless.

          6. Juan Ruiz,

            In the application to Nero they ignore the text of Chapter 13.

            If you consider the text, their are three beasts.

            1st a beast of the sea. the people of judaism came to the promissed land through the red sea or sea of reeds depending on the version.

            2nd a beast of earth like a lamb. the people of christianity claim the resurrection from the earth and the lamb. And the father of christianity, saul-paul claimed fire came down from the sky and touched him.

            3rd a beast of the image of the beast of the sea. Islam’s principal claim is that the Jews lost GOD and now they have GOD. And islam doesn’t believe CHRIST is part of their god, quran 5.17. So islam gas the same beliefs as judaism.

            That’s why the study of the birth centuries of this three religions becomes important in completing the overlay.

            So when you consider the text and the numbers along with the rest of the WORD OF GOD 666 & 616 both overlay perfectly with judaism-christianity-islam.

            Just consider the satanic evil they are wroughting in the world today !!!

            kev

          7. Juan Ruiz

            Your beasts are all allegory; they can signify whatever someone wants them to signify…but that is not necessarily what the author intended. Revelation and Daniel have been interpreted in different ways since the Middle Ages, and before.

          8. Juan Ruiz,

            The beasts can signify only one thing in the TRUTH of GOD when all is said and done: the evil of satan in 666.

            I encourage you to go to GOD without religion and see if you can prove me wrong!

            Have fun, and I look forward to hearing from you again.

            kev

          9. Juan Ruiz

            ” see if you can prove me wrong!”

            There is no right or wrong; there is only textual interpretation. You start with a conclusion, and then make the text conform to it. Your beasts can mean whatever you want them to mean. Nothing new there, It’s the same for all texts: Shakespeare’s plays, Dickens’ novels, Frost’s poetry.

          10. Juan Ruiz,

            “There is no right or wrong”

            Good luck with that, for if you really believe that what is the value of posting your thoughts? For they are of no value if there is no right or wrong it is just all BS, MS, PHD.

            I like posting and have questions asked to test my understanding. It allows me to strengthen the weak spots in my thoughts.

            kev

          11. Juan Ruiz

            I’ll reiterate, when it comes to the interpretation of figurative language, such as allegory, there is no one answer. Over the millennia the Beast was said to be Roman emperors, Napoleon, Hitler, and others. Which one is it? Literary texts are not scientific equations. If you have read all the contradictory theological tracts based on Scripture, you would see that.

          1. Rob,

            I’ve read it, the whole thing.

            I think Jon makes a great post !!

            If what their holy man-father said is to be taken as true, then the first five days of creation don’t exist because man didn’t exist so GOD couldn’t have existed to move over the deep and create heaven and earth.

            Thus, for their god they have to exist, so their god is defined by their religion, thus their god can’t exist without their religion and their religion becomes a god between them and THE ONE TRUE GOD.

            I wonder what or who they will hide behind on Judgment Day when each one of them has to stand one on ONE face to FACE with THE ONE TRUE GOD without their god ??? Most likely they will run like hell into hell in fear of what they are faced with ???

            Oops, that means Judgment Day is a self-judgment of one’s knowledge of THE ONE TRUE GOD. Either you will know HIM, or you will run like hell from HIM !!!! And there is only one place to escape to: hell !

            This shows GOD’S ULTIMATE GRACE & MERCY in that HE doesn’t judge anyone !!!!!!!

            Good Luck !!!

            kev

  2. Juan Ruiz

    The pope may be right. Odin, Wotan, Zeus, et al are no longer around…gone when man ceased to believe in them.

    1. Juan 8:22 The pope may be right. Odin, Wotan, Zeus, et al are no longer around…gone when man ceased to believe in them.

      Right–if those old gods are still around they should sue the current gods of Christianity, Hindu, etc. for stealing their human fans. But, if they never did exist that would be impossible. I wish it were possible to know the shelf life of gods over the 200,000-300,000 years of humans. When times changed, gods changed.

      1. entech

        Is a god with no worshippers really a god? If god cannot find an imagination to live in where would he live, would he, could he exist?

        1. entech,

          I believe GOD exists outside the COSMIC boundary, beyond the influence of dark energy, dark matter, and the other stuff. This is supported by the last ten years of my research into “The physics of the universe is not what we believe it to be!”

          For the energy and matter of the COSMOS is limited, thus it has an outer boundary, though that boundary fence enlarges with the expansion of the COSMOS.

          What happens when dark energy reaches a value of zero is a big question in current physics theory.

          kev

          1. entech

            tell me Kev, this God of yours that exists outside of the cosmos, presumably that is outside of time and space continuum that we call the universe. Does this entity exist as a single being in its own space or is it some kind of amorphous being existing every where and every time concurrently?

            One possibility (so very slight as is any possibility in a discussion of god) is that of single entity contained in its own space but independent of time. The phenomena of some thing call dark flow seems to suggest that the mass of the universe is slowly but inexorably flowing towards a single point ??? Does this mean everything is trying to get to your god?
            Another possibility is that you are trying to find purpose, cause, some kind of teleology in what is essentially a random universe. Not entirely random of course because some things have a definite action under certain circumstances, that is combine a couple of gases in the right proportion ,temperature, pressure and whatever and it “must” become water. The possible combinations that do not produce water are virtually unlimited and it is a random event that allows the conditions for water to form.

            You consistently knock organised religions yet you seem to get all of your information from their “Holy Scriptures”, what makes your interpretations any more likely than all the other completely unlikely interpretations. Actually I think you are more derisive of religion than either Jon or I, yet you seem to get a lot more leeway, could this be part of a line of reasoning which goes, “Well, at least he’s not an Atheist.”

          2. entech,

            Several items to address. I will try my best.

            I wish you could access my webpage and download “of GOD ?” & “NATURES MEND …” you would have far expanded insight into my thoughts than the little sprinkling of salt I provide here.

            1st – in NATURES MEND space and time are independent so my work is not constrained like current theory. Consider that Einstein said accelerated motion was equivalent to gravity. If you work in multi universes, the COSMOS, with accelerated motion gravity becomes an effect, and not a force, and thus space and time need not be linked. This allows the COSMOS to cycle over and over on an entropy wave along times arrow. This also allows time on a Grand Scale to loop over and over for each segment of time for each cycle of the entropy wave is identical and thus time on a Grand Scale can be drawn as a circle or closed loop.

            2nd this allows GOD to be independent of all activity in the COSMOS. And if time is looping the COSMOS is looping, allowing GOD to be at the center, and independent in time and space related to the COSMOS and a single being that can see everything every where at all times somewhat like looking down on a carrousel without a top.

            3rd these two elements allow GOD to be at the center of EVERYTHING. And as the mass & energy of mankind being near zero relative to the mass & energy of the COSMOS the movement of human mass to the center to be with GOD has virtually no effect. Eventually all human mass & energy will return to GOD over sextillion entropy wave cycles and the COSMOS will cycle without us. You might call this dark flow, I call it soul flow. Some of this is my bulking of “NATURES MEND …” and is not in the book.

            4th I don’t consider their scriptures “holy”. There books and history and traditions are much more like massive piles of overburden and it takes a continuous effort to dig and sort through them all to find what is valuable. What I find interesting is that Solomon eludes to items 1-3 in Ecclesiastes 1.10&11.

            5th relative to the leeway you think I have and that my contempt for them is greater than Jon and yours I will say this. Maybe they are afraid of being TESTED agaisnt the WORD OF GOD by their very own not so holy books ??? I STRIVE to have the same contempt for them that GOD has.

            Hope this helps!

            kev

          3. entech,

            I did a little more looking into dark flow. This was the first time I had herd the term. From what I looked at it is associated with galaxy clusters moving to a common point in space different from what is expected.

            In current theory everything is based on gravity clumping to form galaxy clusters. So what is pulling or directing them to this point is unknown and can’t be explained.

            This is different from my soul flow, yet this dark flow can be explained by NATURES MEND on a galaxy clusters local scale. In NATURES MEND everything comes into place by detonation placement energy, first from Big Bang No. 1, then on secondary, tertiary, etc smaller bangs. At the center of each bang a vacuum hole is formed. So for a local galaxy cluster, the dark flow is caused by the core vacuum of the bang that generated the galaxy cluster starting to pull the cluster back to its origin point, the core of the formation bang.

            On a COSMIC scale it is this core vacuum generated at Big Bang No. 1 that pulls the COSMOS back to its origin core point when dark energy reaches zero. However one must recognize that the pull starts shortly after the Big Bang on marlterial local to the bang, but not on the outer COSMIC material until the detonation and placement energy runs out.

            Thanks, your dark flow comment it has allowed for strengthening of NATURES MEND.

            kev

        2. entech 11:31 Is a god with no worshippers really a god? If god cannot find an imagination to live in where would he live, would he, could he exist?

          Good questions. Maybe some day we will find a planet where all the gods live who lost their homes in the minds of humans. The planet would be called, “Home for the Mindless.”

          1. Jon,

            I think it’s called earth.

            Mindless equates to brainwashed.

            Religions brainwash their followers, and athiests, et al are brainwashed against GOD because of religions.

            Now science thinks they have a son of god and a father god. The last being the higgs mechanism, and of course the son of higgs is the particle birthed from the father.

            And there how many other god claiming groups on earth?

            It is interesting what a free mind with a free will can learn from GOD when it reject all of the bad little gods of men!!!!!

            kev

          2. Matt Noah

            Before man existed, God existed. For it was God that created man, not man that created God. God is not in need of mankind for His existence.

    2. Matt Noah

      So, if I stopped believing in something of someone … and everyone else stopped believing in the same thing or person … would it or they cease to exist?

        1. The argument for his non-existence is obviously not made by what people BELIEVE.

          I don’t believe in brussel sprouts. They still exist. No matter how many people DON’T believe in brussel sprouts, they exist.

      1. entech

        Yet another silly question raised by Matt. Based on a very self centres world view, one that almost inevitably rises from the idea of being the special creation of a special creator. I hate to burst your bubble (OK this time you can call me liar) BUT: reality, whether something exists or not is entirely independent of what you think or believe.

        1. Rob

          Once again Entech you prove yourself incapable of reading a comment/question someone has posed based on other comments in an effort to expose the flaw of the original comment.
          Good grief man.

          1. Thank you. It’s as if I said white is white and he had to insult me and impugn my character only to make the argument that white is white.

        2. Your blind hatred of me is so complete you probably don’t realize that you just agreed with my post. But you go out of your way to be rude.

  3. entech

    Matt you were talking about man being the creation and man needs god and so on @ 9:08 the last comment on the previous thread. I must apologies for not reading the timelines correctly, the thread I was calling a silly question was actually started a minute or two before the affirmation of god existing independently of man.

    So when I said it was a silly question you asked, the words about God being an independent existence before anyone existed to think or believe, I was saying that with the statement God exists independently ringing in my eyes (Mixed metaphor ???). Clearly from your worldview the answer to your question would be “No”; God exists as an independent entity. What I query is that how can you be certain that God actually exists?
    What makes the question silly is the question begging that comes into the context:
    There is a god and he is pre-existent, independent of my belief.
    Would he exist without my belief, don’t be silly of course he would. There is no question about it.

    I certainly must concede that your 9:05 could be resolved to mean that existence was independent of belief; in that case I was in fact confirming what you said.
    Albeit the context was a little different than that introdueced @ 2:14 existence of brussel sprouts, an item that can be seen, smelt, prodded and eaten whereas you God can be subject to non of these things, Although I am led to believe there is a certain mention of eating and drinking under certain conditions.
    The natural corollary to your, “No matter how many people DON’T believe in brussel sprouts, they exist.”” Is, “no matter how many people do believe in God it does not mean that he does”.

    @ 2:16 here we go introducing your favourite word again, hatred. You flatter yourself thinking that I feel strongly enough about you to “Hate”, I do confess to the fact that, judging by your posts I would probably dislike you a lot if we ever met. As I have said before my responses are simply Cjildish retaliation for all the crap you come up with. I do have a great antipathy to someone who supports his institution regardless, refuses to admit that any wrong doing was ever done, effectively condoning child abuse.

Comments are closed.