by Chris Markel

Created on: July 31, 2008

God is an invention of man's mind.
Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt
It was Julius Caesar who is given credit for making this statement.
Translated, it means that men readily believe what they want.
It is assumed that he was referring to the fickleness of men and politics. And he made it during a period in Rome when polytheism was the accepted norm of religious belief, long before Christianity was even a concept.

Whether the question, "Is God an invention of man's mind or true being?" was posed to us with tongue in cheek or not , it is the Christian god that is in question here. Basically because, whenever god is mentioned in this country it is the social norm that it is the Christian god. The belief in this god, as with those that came and went before, relies solely up on how long man will accept it. The only reason that this belief has endured as long as it has is due to the element of control over the masses that it dictates, and because of the capital gain that orbits around it.

Now the existence of this god has been defined and redefined over the centuries; almost as many times as the Holy Bible has been retranslated. And again, this has been the product of control and capital. Deny it as much as you will, this is can be supported with tons of argument. And the weight of those arguments do rest with the mental process of judgment of facts and proof of those facts.

In contrast to the process of judgment of facts: the "facts" that deal with the existence of this god, have no collaboration. There is only hearsay that was handed down from mouth to ear long before it was put down on paper and accepted as "gospel". These "facts" are fortified by the blind, unproven, acceptance of what other men said who passed themselves off as the true believers, leaving common man to the winds of those men's discretions, and control. Thus creating a platform for any discussion that deals with the subject of the existence of god to circular argument; creating quagmires and pools of confusion supported by holy rhetoric, manipulations and re-translations to fit the point. Therefore, negating any common ground for the allowance of any forum for sound reasoning.

A good example for this is the contact between Moses and Jehovah. A situation that should beg the question, who else was present to support his statement that he spoke with the god who passed on to him the Ten Commandments? But there is no argument given because he was the Law Giver and the believer from Egypt. His

• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next Page >>