Originally posted by peejayd
dude, in other posts you made, you have said that Christ is God... how can you say now that the Son is a plan in God's mind? are you implying that God is a plan in His own mind? 😕
Yes, but in a different way. The flesh God clothed himself with existed only in his mind at the beginning. His humanity and his sonship existed only in the mind of God.
Originally posted by peejayd
* Christ exists in the beginning with the Father..."In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God , and the Word was God.
The same was in the beginning with God ."
John 1:1-2
Again I missing it. The Bible says the WORD WAS God. And then in verse 14 it says the WORD was made flesh. So if the word was God and the word was made flesh wouldn't that make Jesus fully God just as stated in Collosians 2:9. I see "The word was made flesh". Not 1/3 of the word was made flesh.
It looks to me like your twisting the scriptures to try and prove your own philosophy. Timothy 3:16 says "GOD was manifested in flesh". The Bible says GOD was manifested in flesh not 1/3 of God was made flesh or not even "a God" was made flesh like you put it.
* Christ had glory from the Father before the foundation of the world... Christ was also loved by the Father before the foundation of the world...
"And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was .
Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world ."
John 17:5, 24
Or they are the same person and dont contradict scripture in any way. I told you he did exist in the mind of God.
What you are speaking of is an eternal son. That contradicts any meaning of the word "begotten" used to describe Jesus.
I've already explained to you that to be begotten is to be created at a point in time in which the begetter existed and the begetten had not yet been created. This is what the word "begotten" means. The word begotten indicates a specific point in time in which conception takes place. We learn the point in time in scripture.
In Matthew 1:30 we learn the son was begotten when the spirit of God caused the conception.
"But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost ."
Hebrews 1:5-6
"For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? "
Psalms 2:7 Also indicates a specific point of creation.
"I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee."
Acts 13:33
"God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee."
Isaiah 7:14
"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son , and shall call his name Immanuel."
"Shall be" cleary makes this a prophetic statement.
Isaiah 9:6 Remember that scripture you didn't give a straight answer to? Well theres more good points in it.
"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."
Originally posted by peejayd
"The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was."
Proverbs 8:22-23this is Christ speaking as the Wisdom of God...
No it isn't If so, Christ is a woman (Psalms 1:20-23)
Originally posted by peejayd
* nope, i'm not twisting the Scriptures, dude... Christ never said that He is the Father... Christ said to Philip, "... he that hath seen me hath seen the Father..." because He is the image of the Father, it should not be taken straightforwardly... the Father was not seen nor will be seen by humans..."Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see : to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen."
I Timothy 6:16
No, you pointed out scripture yourself about Jesus being the express image of the Fathers persons. No man can see the Father and no man hath seen the Father. They've seen the visible manifestation of him through Jesus Christ.
Originally posted by peejayd
* if Christ was made in the image of the invisible God, how can Christ be the Father? i think you are the one who's twisting the Scriptures, dude, 'coz you can't associate what your saying in accordance with the Bible...
God's humanity was created by him. Besides how can the Father really be the Father if Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit? (Matthew 1:30)
This also points to them being ONE person. For how can something that is conceived of the Holy Spirit have a different Father.
Explain to be how I cant "associate" what im sayig in "accordance" with the Bible.
Originally posted by peejayd
"Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake."
John 14:11* so when Christ is speaking in His humanity, there comes a separation between His Godhood? i thought you said earlier, God was made flesh? you are in contrary of yourself...
No i'm not. Your accusations are making sense to me. Maybe you can clarify exactly what your trying to say. Sorry, before I like to prove someone wrong I like to make sure I know what there saying.
Originally posted by peejayd
read this..."And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me .
men is true ."
It is also written in your law, that the testimony of [B]two
John 8:16-17how many are They? They are two... justify your statement now that Christ is the Father... [/B]
Certainly. Lets first understand what the Pharisees where accussing Jesus of. The Pharisees where trying to tell Jesus that he was not the Son of God or the Messiah and they told him that his record was not true(John 8:13). Jesus then proceeded to say that his record was true (John 8:14). Jesus then reminded them of a law in the law of moses.
Lets read about the Law Jesus was reffering to.
Deuteronomy 17:6
"At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses , shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death."
Notice "or three witnesses".
Deuteronomy 19:15
"One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses , shall the matter be established."
Notice the bold again. Now lets go to the meaning of the passage of scripture you mentioned.
The Pharisees said that since he beareth record of himself he must not be the Messiah. So then Jesus mentions the Law above in order to prove to them his Messiah role. Because if two or three witnesses he should be proven and the matter be established.
Jesus explained that he was not the only witness but there were two wintnesses to the fact that he was indeed the Messiah.
These two witnesses were the Father (the spirit of God that lived in Jesus) and Jesus. So basically Jesus was telling them that both the spirit and the flesh could testify that the Father was manifested in the flesh through Jesus Christ. Jesus was both God and man and both the flesh and his spirit could verify this truth.
Lets look at it from your point of view. If this means plurality in the Godhead than why didn't Jesus speak of a third witness. The law only required to but asked for three is possible.
The Pharisees where not doubt puzzled wondering when the Father beared witness of the Son and when they spoken to the Father. And instead of Jesus saying that the Father was distinct person in the Godhead he continued to identify himself with the Father or the "I am" further on in that chapter.
Also, if it meant two different persons then when did the Pharisees ever speak to the Father in order to know that he beared witness of his son?
Originally posted by peejayd
* because seeing the image of God is equivalent to seeing God... that's what Christ meant...
Exactly.
Originally posted by peejayd
* * let's read..."Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me."
John 14:1* i believe in God, and i ALSO believe in Christ... but that statement still does not imply that Christ is the Father...
Ok lets say I believe something my brother says. Does that also make me believe something my Father says? If I believe on my brother do I also believe on my Father? No, because they are two distinct persons. You explain to be who it doesnt mean that Christ is the Father.
If I believe in God I believe in Christ. It doesn't say if I believe in God I believe in three distinct persons but that I believe in ONE Person who is Christ.
Originally posted by peejayd
"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost :"
Matthew 28:19
* it's clear -> the Son is NOT the Father...
* no contradiction... but this isn't sufficient enough to prove that Christ is the Father...[/B][/QUOTE]
How does it not prove it. I think it proves it very cleary and powerfully. Jesus said to his disciples baptize them in the "name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost". It didn't say names it said NAME. I ask you what is that name?
I propose that the name is Jesus as stated in Acts 2:38. Jesus made this command to the disciples so he made it Peter as well. Then Peter on the day of Pentecost says to baptize them "in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sin and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost". So Jesus told the disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Peter understood what this mean and did this on the day of Pentecost and baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.
Funny how this statement Jesus made comes right after he said all power is given unto him in heaven and in earth. (Matthew 28:18)
God doesn't like it when you talk about her like that!!........You don't want the world to be flooded again do you????
Christianity is the ones who lowered women to those of dogs and pets....at one council it was debated if women had souls.......What the heck is that about......
Before christianity women had very prominent roles in faith, just as in the OT there were Priestesses and Judges.........like Deborah...... 😉
Originally posted by Punker69
Yes, but in a different way. The flesh God clothed himself with existed only in his mind at the beginning. His humanity and his sonship existed only in the mind of God.
* where can you find this in the Bible? the Father has a Son in His mind, and that Son is also the Father?
Originally posted by Punker69
Again I missing it. The Bible says the WORD WAS God. And then in verse 14 it says the WORD was made flesh. So if the word was God and the word was made flesh wouldn't that make Jesus fully God just as stated in Collosians 2:9. I see "The word was made flesh". Not 1/3 of the word was made flesh.
* the Word is not the Father...
"And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God."
Revelation 19:13
* it is Christ...
Originally posted by Punker69
It looks to me like your twisting the scriptures to try and prove your own philosophy. Timothy 3:16 says "GOD was manifested in flesh". The Bible says GOD was manifested in flesh not 1/3 of God was made flesh or not even "a God" was made flesh like you put it.
"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."
I Timothy 3:16
* the One who was manifested in the flesh is also the One who was justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world and received up into glory... and it was Christ, not the Father...
Originally posted by Punker69
Or they are the same person and dont contradict scripture in any way. I told you he did exist in the mind of God.
* no, They are not... i don't contradict the Scripture, i'm just reading it... you claim Christ exist in the Father's mind, where is that in the Bible?
Originally posted by Punker69
What you are speaking of is an eternal son. That contradicts any meaning of the word "begotten" used to describe Jesus.I've already explained to you that to be begotten is to be created at a point in time in which the begetter existed and the begetten had not yet been created. This is what the word "begotten" means. The word begotten indicates a specific point in time in which conception takes place. We learn the point in time in scripture.
* yes, there is... Christ was begotten by the Father before His (the Father) works of old, before the creation of all things, before the foundation of the world...
"The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was."
Proverbs 8:22-23
* this is Christ speaking as the Wisdom of God...
Originally posted by Punker69
In Matthew 1:30 we learn the son was begotten when the spirit of God caused the conception.
* you are talking about Christ's flesh manifestation... Mary gave birth to the flesh manifestation of Christ through the Holy Spirit... but long before that, the Father had already gave birth to Christ, long before the Father created all things...
"For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee ? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
And again, when he bringeth in the [U]firstbegotten into the world[/U] , he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him."
Hebrews 1:5-6
"Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
And he is before all things , and by him all things consist."
Colossians 1:15, 17
* Christ is first, He exists before all things was created... Christ was NOT only in the Father's mind, He exists with the Father...
Originally posted by Punker69
Isaiah 9:6 Remember that scripture you didn't give a straight answer to? Well theres more good points in it."For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government [B]shall be
upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." [/B]
* oh, that?
"Then Jesus saith unto them, Children , have ye any meat? They answered him, No."
John 21:5
* Christ is a "father" to His disciples, that's why He called them "children"... Christ is a father, but He is NOT the Father... albeit, Christ is a God, but He is NOT God...
Originally posted by Punker69
No it isn't If so, Christ is a woman (Psalms 1:20-23)
* it is Him, don't let the feminine pronoun fool you...
"But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory :
Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."
I Corinthians 2:7-8
"But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is the power of God, and the wisdom of God . (KJV)
I Corinthians 1:24
* it is really Christ...
Originally posted by Punker69
No, you pointed out scripture yourself about Jesus being the express image of the Fathers persons. No man can see the Father and no man hath seen the Father. They've seen the visible manifestation of him through Jesus Christ.
* through Christ, but it does NOT say Christ is the Father...
Originally posted by Punker69
God's humanity was created by him. Besides how can the Father really be the Father if Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit? (Matthew 1:30)This also points to them being ONE person. For how can something that is conceived of the Holy Spirit have a different Father.
* the birth of Jesus in Matthew 1:28-30 is the birth of the flesh manifestation of Christ through the Holy Spirit... Christ was given birth by the Father long before He (the Father) created all things... Christ is the firstborn, remember Colossians 1:15-17...
Originally posted by Punker69
Explain to be how I cant "associate" what im sayig in "accordance" with the Bible.
* no verses, just mere interpretations...
Originally posted by Punker69
No i'm not. Your accusations are making sense to me. Maybe you can clarify exactly what your trying to say. Sorry, before I like to prove someone wrong I like to make sure I know what there saying.
* you said earlier, God was made flesh, not 1/3 but the whole of Him, right? now, when Christ speaks to the Father, you claim He speaks in His humanity? do you imply that in that instance, there is a separation between His Godhood (as the Father) and His humanity (as Christ)?
* or was it really otherwise? that They are two different beings? just look at this...
"And Jesus, when he was baptized , went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son , in whom I am well pleased."
Matthew 3:16-17
* where was Christ in that instance? He was being baptized by John the Baptist... and where is God the Father? in the heavens...
Originally posted by Punker69
Certainly. Lets first understand what the Pharisees where accussing Jesus of. The Pharisees where trying to tell Jesus that he was not the Son of God or the Messiah and they told him that his record was not true(John 8:13). Jesus then proceeded to say that his record was true (John 8:14). Jesus then reminded them of a law in the law of moses.The Pharisees said that since he beareth record of himself he must not be the Messiah. So then Jesus mentions the Law above in order to prove to them his Messiah role. Because if two or three witnesses he should be proven and the matter be established.
Jesus explained that he was not the only witness but there were two wintnesses to the fact that he was indeed the Messiah.
These two witnesses were the Father (the spirit of God that lived in Jesus) and Jesus. So basically Jesus was telling them that both the spirit and the flesh could testify that the Father was manifested in the flesh through Jesus Christ. Jesus was both God and man and both the flesh and his spirit could verify this truth.
* Christ was talking about the Father, and don't interpret it as the spirit of God that lived in Christ...
"And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me .
It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true ."
John 8:16-17
* how come you can't swallow this straightforwardly?
Originally posted by Punker69
Lets look at it from your point of view. If this means plurality in the Godhead than why didn't Jesus speak of a third witness. The law only required to but asked for three is possible.
"At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses , shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.
One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses , shall the matter be established."
Deuteronomy 17:6, 19:15
* the law says at the mouth of two OR three witnesses... it says, "OR"... two is enough...
Originally posted by Punker69
The Pharisees where not doubt puzzled wondering when the Father beared witness of the Son and when they spoken to the Father. And instead of Jesus saying that the Father was distinct person in the Godhead he continued to identify himself with the Father or the "I am" further on in that chapter.Also, if it meant two different persons then when did the Pharisees ever speak to the Father in order to know that he beared witness of his son?
* i find your question very funny, 'coz your question sounded more like from a Pharisee... here, let Christ answer your question...
"Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also ."
John 8:19
* Christ blatantly told them that He (Christ) and the Father are two different beings... that's why He counted the Father as His second witness... that's the context of it, dude... They are two beings...
Originally posted by Punker69
Exactly.
* even so, Christ is still NOT the Father...
Originally posted by Punker69
Ok lets say I believe something my brother says. Does that also make me believe something my Father says? If I believe on my brother do I also believe on my Father? No, because they are two distinct persons. You explain to be who it doesnt mean that Christ is the Father.If I believe in God I believe in Christ. It doesn't say if I believe in God I believe in three distinct persons but that I believe in ONE Person who is Christ.
* now, now... believing what Christ says is also believing what God says...
"For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak."
John 12:49
* but it does NOT mean that Christ is the Father... because the Father SENT Christ, the Father GAVE Christ a commandment... if so, you would imply that the Father sent Himself and the Father gave Himself a commandment... which is absurd...
"He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.
Matthew 10:40
* He that receiveth the apostles, also receiveth Christ, and he that receiveth Christ, also receiveth the Father who sent Christ...
* with your kind of logic, it would not only imply that Christ is the Father, but also the apostles will be "Christs"... and if the Christ is the Father, the apostles will be "the Fathers"...
* well, fortunately, it isn't... it signifies unity such as this...
"I and my Father are one."
John 10:30
* the Father and Christ are one in what?
"And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are ."
John 17:11
* united... They are in unity...
Originally posted by Punker69
How does it not prove it. I think it proves it very cleary and powerfully. Jesus said to his disciples baptize them in the "name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost". It didn't say names it said NAME. I ask you what is that name?I propose that the name is Jesus as stated in Acts 2:38. Jesus made this command to the disciples so he made it Peter as well. Then Peter on the day of Pentecost says to baptize them "in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sin and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost". So Jesus told the disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Peter understood what this mean and did this on the day of Pentecost and baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.
* still, it does NOT supply the evidence that Christ is the Father... it would only further imply that the Holy Spirit is also Christ... which is again, absurd...
Originally posted by Punker69
Funny how this statement Jesus made comes right after he said all power is given unto him in heaven and in earth. (Matthew 28:18)
* look here...
"Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow , of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."
Philippians 2:9-11
* then, what will happen?
"And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all."
I Corinthians 15:28
* when all things are subdued unto Christ, then Christ will subject Himself to the Father... see? 😉
Every being has a spirit. Angels/demons, God, and humans are the three different kinds of spirits in existence. Angels are spirits of lesser power than God and a human's spirit, or the soul of a human, is bound to the flesh and is therefore the weakest.
God, the Father is the pureness of the Holy Spirit and commands it. Jesus, though human flesh does not have a human spirit but rather the Holy Spirit in flesh. Therefore, Jesus is tempted by his flesh, but the Holy Spirit of God from whom he draws strength, power, and glory through prayer and meditation is able to overcome temptation and sin for him. Jesus is therefore both human and divine, the likeness of his Father (the mind of the Holy Spirit).
"All Scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." -2 Timothy 3:16-17
Right on Peejayd. Your arguments are right on. The simple belief is that there is the Divine spirit of the Bible that is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Is a soul not the sum or our personality and beliefs. What else would survive beyond the grave? How then does an animal have a soul?
And do not so quickly assume that I am a Christian, for I have never claimed such and merely present my thesis using Biblical evidence to formulate a spiritual response to spiritual question.
Is a soul not the sum or our personality and beliefs.
NO....it is the deepest essense of who we are, therefore a MYSTERY to us all. Neither of us can define what it truly is. So don't try it.
What else would survive beyond the grave? How then does an animal have a soul?
I have no idea, and neither do you. Have either of us DIED and returned? No..so we dont know.
How does an animal have a soul? Because animals are living creatures, that's why I beleive they have a soul. The beleif is that simple to me.
And do not so quickly assume that I am a Christian,
Did I ? If i did, i apologize, but i do not recall this. I don't care what religion you are, my POINT is we don't need religion to VARIFY whether or not we have a soul.
I do beleive we have a Soul, but i do not beleive in any religion.
Need i beleive in BOTH to beleive in one? No i dont.
for I have never claimed such and merely present my thesis using Biblical evidence to formulate a spiritual response to spiritual question.
Biblical Evidense is only one way of trying to prove something, and usually does not work with me since I and many others see the Bible as self contadictory, HUMAN, and therefore flawed.
I believe everything is connected to each other...Visible and invisible like an analogy I've used before.....we are like cells in a body....each cell does different functions. They do not even know what the other purpose of the others cells are, or even know that there are other cells...Just as we are parts of the whole of what we could call god, or spirit, or entity....some energy source.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
How does an animal have a soul? Because animals are living creatures, that's why I beleive they have a soul. The beleif is that simple to me.
And even a logical belief. However, out of curiosity does your belief of living creatures having souls extended to single cell organisms? If not, what are YOUR criteria based on the beliefs you have developed up to this point?
Originally posted by Nellinator
And even a logical belief. However, out of curiosity does your belief of living creatures having souls extended to single cell organisms? If not, what are YOUR criteria based on the beliefs you have developed up to this point?
Hmm...I LOVE how you ignored all my other points.
But, I think your question is a good 1 and deserves to be answered.
Here's my Belief (and remember just my BELIEF):
Do single celled organisms have a soul? Like the cells of our body?
I beleive the cells of our body to be PART of us, therefore they share the spiritual energy that belongs to OUR individual soul.
Do you have a pet? Do you have a dog? Do you see how loving and affection a dog can be to its owner and to other dogs, yet how nasty it can be to cats and other people ?
Do you see how some mother lions will often fight intruding male lions to defend thier babies, and how some OTHER mother lions LET thier babies die?
People make the common misconception that animals ONLY have instinct and are not capable of LOVE/HATE and/or Consent.
Being able to LOVE or HATE something is the ability that Animals DO HAVE if you observe closely enough my friend.
Being able to make choices is also something animals have. Should I hunt now? Should i hunt later? Should i attack? should i just walk away ?
What IS that? Where are my children? Where is my owner?
Can i say that animals literally ask these questions ? No, they do not share our languages, but i'd bet very strongly that their abstract thoughts can parallel such things.
Watch Animal Planet and Discovery Channel more often. PLEASE take a CLOSER LOOK.....please don't look through "Biblical" perspective, if you do, you will NOT SEE...be as objective as you can when looking at the behaviors of an animal.
WAtch as much as you can, you will see the differences of personality among animals.
I should rephrase myself.
I think INTELLIGENT and FEELING animals have a soul. Dogs, Dolphins, Elephants, Birds, etc. all qualify in this category.
Do i thnk bacteria have a soul ? No....they simply LIVE...they do not even try to mate.
Do i thnk ur blood cells have a soul? Not thier own..but as a part of your physical being, i do believe they share a lot with you, as well as share parts of your spirituality.
Originally posted by debbiejo
I believe everything is connected to each other...Visible and invisible like an analogy I've used before.....we are like cells in a body....each cell does different functions. They do not even know what the other purpose of the others cells are, or even know that there are other cells...Just as we are parts of the whole of what we could call god, or spirit, or entity....some energy source.
It seems that there must be one directing force in the universe. It seems to be apart of the human existence, evident in the incessant search for the truth, that atheist and religous people alike, seek.