INTERVIEW
RUSSIAN ORTHODOX METROPOLITAN KYRILL:Dostoyevsky wrote that God and the devil are fighting for control in the heart of man. Nowadays many pursue the logic that everything they want ought to be good and justified. We are too quick to treat emotions that ultimately harm us as natural needs. When moral foundations are shaken, we unleash our instincts. But released instincts belong in the animal world. What I am saying is something that the
liberal SPIEGEL will never print: You undoubtedly think that this Metropolitan Kyrill is
out of his mind and that what he is saying is complete nonsense.
[But they printed it. A long interview covering events in Russia since the breakup of the Soviet Union ]
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,druck-527618,00.html
|
|
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 211
This little kernel of wisdom must have Lucifer ROTFLHAO.
I am inclined to say that the real issue has to do with the differences that exist FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL who has both (1) An INFINITE OVERSOUL and an (2) EARTH-LINKED FINITE (SUBSET OVERSOUL) SOUL that is trying to adjust to a FINITE EARTH environment. This distinction must be viewed as a THEORETICAL distinction where INFINITE LIFE is different from FINITE LIFE. Its sort of a 'talking point distinction' that is intended to jump start a serious discussion of traditional good vs evil -- which I find dysfunctional and fraught with superstition and dangers because of linguistic misunderstandings. Just to get an idea of the implications of linking the traditional ideas of 'good and evil' being related to 'angers, terrorism, and joys of living'.
"Man Makes Himself" (a book about pre-history anthropology, etc. I have cited in a recent article of mine) [or better "Persons make self'] is a consequence then of a new theoretical construct that has SOME merit, I sincerely hope. I hesitate to use my 'tetradic' method here but I am simply trying to make a SIMPLE distinction:
IDEAL GOOD : EARTHLY GOOD :: OVERSOUL : HUMAN SOULS
I would like to get 'GOOD and EVIL' (or GOD versus the DEVIL, if you wish) out of the languages of personkind because of the baggage of the past that their content carries. As I look at the Universe with its billions of stars and multi-billions of planets, and then look at this glorious (though 'pip-squeak') planet of ours, I say something like: "The UNIVERSAL DIVINITY is running an experiment to see what value-adjustments are needed to bring our IDEAL HEAVEN to our FINITE EARTH as fully as possible.
What operative LAWS and MORALS will make our lives on this (EARTH) ROCK (which is different from other finite ROCKS in the UNIVERSE) will be necessary for human progress?If there are very different SOULS on other planets 'out there' they have theri own problems in these universal DIVINE EXPERIMENTS with FINITENESS. We, of course, know NOTHING about other finite beings in this VAST, VAST, VAST UNIVERSE of OURS.
We must aways remember the 'pip-sqeakiness' of our planet EARTH in the UNIVERSAL scheme of things. What is the meaning of 'rationality' on other planets (billions of them?)
The great needed UNIVERSAL VALUE that we must learn to cherish, is HUMILITY (operating with an AUTHENTICITY). as we look out at the immensity AND complexity of our UNIVERSE (and make ourselves aware of THAT immensity as we view day by day, month by month and decade by decade, century by century 'human EARTH LINKED problems'. This is all at the core of coming to TRULY KNOW ABOUT WONDER.
Dick
Good for Kyrill! We need to heed what he says.
Kyrill, of course, retreated into the Bible, but he tried to equivocate a bit, saying that "we don't condemn them," but then he said that what they do is a sin.
Of course, his main theme was the condemnation of moral relativism. This is a common theme for most fundamentalists...they deny that morals change over time.
Slavery and the treatment of women, at least in the Western world, have certainly changed their moral definitions in the last two thousand years...even in the last two hundred in this country.
The lecture is always the same...if you allow morals to change, pretty soon anything will be okay...rape, incest, murder, etc. I find that argument just plain silly.
The religions of the world did not establish taboos against those things. Primitive people, hunter-gatherer groups that existed long before the birth of any modern religion, established the original moral codes. In fact, it could be said that moral codes were a necessary product of the evolutionary process, since they improved the chances of survival of groups who established rules for mutual help and cooperation.
Religions helped, by codifying those ancient rules, and then governments came along later and wrote laws and enforced them. But the original rules of conduct, like the Golden Rule, go much further back.
For anyone who would like to read more about this, I recommend the book "The Science of Good and Evil," by Michael Shermer
I agree that evolution in a right direction depends on individuals seeking self-knowledge and then bringing that into relation to other individuals with the same aim. These are the Quaker principles, by the way (I am not a member of the Society of Friends). They speak of the dual striving for inner tranquillity and honoring the call to serve the divine in man through seeking justice and social reform .
_______________________
"IDEAL GOOD : EARTHLY GOOD :: OVERSOUL : HUMAN SOULS
I would like to get 'GOOD and EVIL' (or GOD versus the DEVIL, if you wish) out of the languages of personkind because of the baggage of the past that their content carries. As I look at the Universe with its billions of stars and multi-billions of planets, and then look at this glorious (though 'pip-squeak') planet of ours, I say something like: "The UNIVERSAL DIVINITY is running an experiment to see what value-adjustments are needed to bring our IDEAL HEAVEN to our FINITE EARTH as fully as possible."
>>>>
In Orthodox doctrine, human nature is viewed differently than in Western Christianity.There is no split in mind and body and no estrangement from nature. The animal side of man is neither "good" nor "evil," but needs to be guided and disciplined by the spiritual part for the human being to grow and live normally. In this sense Dostoyevsky's notion of God and the devil competing in the heart of man reflects the Slavic folk and literary tradition concerning the role of the devil. He is a different devil than the Luther's or Faust's. The Orthodox worldview contrasts with the Western Christian in many ways that are complementary to its view of human nature, as in its focus on the risen Christ not on a Jesus on the cross. It looks to the descent of the Holy City for the redemption of the community, not to a Christ to raise up individuals.
For a milennium,the Russian church has been deeply intertwined with the development of the consciousness of the Russian people as being a nation. Some of its dogmas are based on interpretations based on traditional cultural influences. Homosexuality is condemned because it is viewed as "unnatural." Western dogmas condemn it based on a different conception of human nature and a different interpretation of scripture. and theology. In both churches, many do not condemn homosexuality or agree with their dogma.
_____________________________________
"What operative LAWS and MORALS will make our lives on this (EARTH) ROCK (which is different from other finite ROCKS in the UNIVERSE) will be necessary for human progress?If there are very different SOULS on other planets 'out there' they have theri own problems in these universal DIVINE EXPERIMENTS with FINITENESS. We, of course, know NOTHING about other finite beings in this VAST, VAST, VAST UNIVERSE of OURS."
>>>>
Your philosophical view is recent in human history. It is still not shared, as a belief, by the majority of people today. We have so far evidence suggesting that human cultures 300,000 years ago had some forms of ritual and religious practice. Based on detailed information on the thought and beliefs of later cultures, the communication of humans with hierarchies of spiritual beings is seen to have been an essential part of the major religions and civilizations. It is a characteristic of modern civilization, including many ortodox religious, to doubt the existence of spiritual beings. Those humans who have the faculties to perceive them and communicate with them because of the higher consciousness are visionaries . There some who have clairvoyant , telepathic and other faculties naturally although they may be educated or
literate. Most with these faculties are not rightly understood by many and are viewed indiscriminantly . Mystics of various kinds may be placed on the same level as psychic channelers, mediums and so on.
If we consider the idea of evolution on both a cosmic and on a human scale, the measure is consciousness, The universe is pervaded by consciousness: a star, a planet , the earth and its different kingdoms, the human being. There is relativity but sameness.
"Eternity is the infinite existence of every moment of time. ... Eternity has one dimension more than time. ... If the space of time is four-dimensional, then the space of eternity is five-dimensional. The sixth dimension is the line of the actualization of all possibilities."
-PD Ouspensky
If we consider human evolution and the human being as "an experiment" than we are implying that the human being is an experiment in consciousness, related to all levels of creation also evolving. He is a receiver and transmitter of many forces from the different evolving worlds . Humanity has passed through many stages and civilizations. Over the past 2000 years humanity has descended deeper into material consciousness and his higher faculties have been supressed and darkened. Now humanity is faced with acquiring the faculties that have been sacrificed using the ones he has developed, process of integration and recapitulation on an ascending scale. Gurdjieff summed up the situation succinctly:
"Unless the 'wisdom' of the East and the 'energy' of the West could be harnessed and used harmoniously, the world would be destroyed." The new civilization that is in process of being created has the resources to meet the challenge but it will be accompanied by the destruction of the old. The ideas of today in all fields will be replaced by new ones and there will a different science , a different religion, a different world. This cannot be achieved successfully without the practice of right human relations among diverse cultures and religions for each is a part of whole and all must contribute equally and freely.
If human evolution is an "experiment," then that implies the existence of an "experimenter." I see no evidence for this at all. Evolution is a process that is proceeding as we write our comments here. There need not be, nor is there any evidence of, an "experimenter."
"There need not be, nor is there any evidence of, an "experimenter."
Please speak for yourself. You may have witnessed no such evidence, or misunderstood it if you did witness it, but YOU are not mankind, just a man. To say there is no evidence, is a denial of the validity of the billions of human beings that have said they have. It's your right to deny that rather massive evidence, but not your right to say it does not exist. Each person is a valid observer of that realm of experience, or none is.
I do not call you blind for not seeing the truth I see, so why do you call me delusional (indirectly) for acknowledging that truth? In the final analysis, you are declaring your own omniscience, by setting the ground rules for what is to be considered real, in strict accordance with your personal judgment. Am I to doubt that love exists, because YOU might say it is not "tangibly" provable? Or honor? Or wisdom? Where does this invalidation of humanity end?
'the devil is a product of man's imagination.'
"This little kernel of wisdom must have Lucifer ROTFLHAO".
It is an interesting declaration. Obviously, that absolutely has to be "a product of man's imagination", since there is no possible way to actually determine such a being does NOT exist. Old Lucky surely finds such musings quite amusing. So many gods, so few universes.
There is intelligence and than there is Bert.
Science has an intellectualized gimmick in its make-up that tends to give semantic meaninglessness to the idea of a CREATOR, but replaces this concept in common discourse with the word or words (1) Causeless Evolution, or (2) Natural Law. In my discussion above, I'm ducking (for the time being) the arguments about INTELLECTUAL DESIGN and am simply noting that EVOLUTION, DIVERSE MATERIAL REALITIES (like difdferent stars and their curiously rotating-around 'planets' have differing -- lets say ratios -- of deposited atomic and molecular structures by dint of the random material deposits on a specific cosmic entity (planet, etc) by the THEORETICALLY PRESUMED 'BIG BANG'.
Thus then, NATURAL LAW (which -- to me is another way of saying 'CREATOR' ) is typically used by our EARTH SCIENTISTS who can infer similar orderly creation without the hassle of having to use a new concept about which we will hear more in the near future, calleed 'CONSCIOUSNESS PARTICLES. This new 'particle' concept is necessary to make more complete our human understanding of what complex UNIVERSAL REALITIES ARE. As new arguments develop to elucidate the 'information content' of the CREATING UNIVERSAL PROCESS (CUP=GOD(?)=EVOLUTION & INVOLUTION) ' to go along (dichotomously) with 'MATERIAL PARTICLES' further ideas will have to start to intrude on the easy escape of stated IN SCIENCE, that we can ignore the 'information and consciousness laden CREATING PRINCIPLES in traditional evolution that are mechanistic and lifeless for physicists especially..
An EXPERIMENT in the COSMIC-multi-planetary terms I have tried to used above, is SIMPLY a recognition (organized or not) that takes the diversity of material constituents on any ROCK anywhere in our UNIVERSE as a Prima Facie CAUSE of influencing the designs of the REAL living cellular created 'things' (with thoughts (??)) to slip onto the UNIVERSAL SCHEME OF STUFF. I call such creating processes EXPERIMENTS (by intelligent causative factors curiously at work, OR GOD--your choice). You may be suggesting that the concept of an UNCREATED FORCE that our SCIENTISTS use in their deliberations does all the work and can be called called NATURAL LAW. By all that is rational we should re-name NATURAL LAW as UN-NATURAL LAW.
I see no difference between the concept of God OPERATING and NATURAL LAW (as imperfectly defined and explained) OPERATING. Thus I have no problem with the WORD ------ EXPERIMENT.
Bert, You've gently opened up the need for care in dealing with the WONDER of it all, dear friend. CLARITY is in process of appearing in our human move on EARTH to find the base for the creation of MIND (Spirit) and LIVING and NON-LIVING molecular stuff (Materiality). Clarke has it right I think: No Differences between MIND and MATTER. AND there must be some weird kind of engineer-like process creating all this remarkable stuff that we see lying around on and in our glorious-pip-squeak planet, and SPECULATE about (with growing evidence, due to our space-explorations, on near at hand (in NOT YET light-year speeds of travel) the character of those UNKNOWN Spaces and Places.
May the FORCE be with you,
Dick
I also agree with your original comment about the devil. If there is one God, did this God create the devil? I don't believe that we are an experiment. But I also do not see God as a person either. Jesus told us that God is spirit. I see God as formless, as energy, a force. But we as humans need to have an image to worship. Do we call this idolatry? That is a good question.
Jesus Christ is my God.
"I and my Father are one." John 10:30
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...All things were made by him...He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not...And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." John 1:1, 3, 10, 14
"Jesus saith...he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?" John 14:9
"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." 1 Timothy 3:16
"Hereby perceive we the love of GOD, because he LAID DOWN HIS LIFE for us..."
1 John 3:16
"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." Isaiah 9:6
"And Thomas answered and said unto him [JESUS], My Lord and MY GOD." John 20:28
"For in [Jesus] dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." Colossians 2:9
Therefore, I join the Apostle Thomas in this confession:
JESUS, My Lord and MY GOD. He became incarnate and 'LAID DOWN HIS LIFE for us...'
Of course I can agree with everyone here based upon their own perceptions because those perceptions are what defines the "box" of their "reality".
We create our "reality" according to how we "think" ... if we believe in something it becomes "real" to us ... if we do not "allow" something to have a "value" (either positive or negative) then it is not a part of what we concern ourselves with, thus the differing reality experiences ...
Yet as we intermingle with "others", as we are doing in this Gather thread, we must take into some form of consideration, our relationships to each other based upon our differing realities in "mind" and how that translates into shared energy (even IF only thought) experiences (thus in "that" sense, a CO-creation) ... we thus know that we have AT LEAST THAT interconnection ... and I am sure that it has different meanings also to the different participants.
Personally, for the sake of "classification" here, there are roughly 3 distinct schools of thought at work here so far, the school that I see Clarke and Dick being more alike (along with myself and some others who know who they are) as compared to two other schools that are more at ODDS with each other ...
Most know a bit about my own ideas, so I will use "them/that" for the example about these three general groups.
I will say for the purpose of discussion here, NOT valuation, that the "religious" group would be the Positive "+" ASPECT ...
Then the group expressed as NON-religious would be the Negative "-" ASPECT.
So far then we have the RELIGION as (+) and SCIENCE as (-) ... and of course due to the "way" the religious often think, "they" would prefer the (+) sign because that would hold "valuation" also for them in considerations between their "preferences" and "non"-such ... very DUALISTIC when the opposites are most often even DICHOTOMIES ...
So then we need (have, need being "my" opinion, others may see it otherwise) the "third" aspect to have the FULL picture (BALANCE), that of those that see the BLEND between Religion and Science, a SPIRITUALITY (generic "brand"), that UNITES IT ALL ... the "=" of the BET (+=-).
Of course that is like Hegel's Dialectic of Thesis, Antithesis, and Synthesis.
What I did-not get from the article itself, was what Clarke wrote in his comment, that the Eastern (Russian) Orthodox had that "different" way of seeing the subjective/objective relationships than did the Western Church, actually making them closer in some degree to the (=).
Of course I see things different than all others here also, as everyone has their own specific views that are rather "personal" to them ... but in "this" diverse world of "differing" views, we are forced to "categorize" to some degree, otherwise we would never be able to properly "differentiate" for the sake of such discussions.
And when one gets right down to it ... each and all of our DIFFERENTIATIONS are only what we say and think they are ... those defining aspects of that which from a GOD's perspective MAY NOT even apply, considering that God is UNITY ... ???
The Christian teaching in the Orthodox, Roman, Anglican , and many Protestant sects includes the hierarchy of angels who correspond to the different levels or worlds made by the Creator. There are different representations of this hierarchy by theologians, but they all are based on the Old and New Testament.
A general chart:
First Sphere -
Seraphim
Cherubim
Ophanim (Thrones/Wheels)
Second Sphere -
Thrones (Gr. thronos)
Dominions (Gr. kuriotes)
Principalities (Gr. arche)
Third Sphere-
Powers (Gr. exousia)
Archangels
Angels
I should have clarified that I was speaking of scientific evidence. That billions of people have faith-based beliefs has nothing to do with that.
The notion of "science" you seem to have is limited to the rational faculty, what is called third-deminsional consciousness . But there are many higher levels of consciousness which are also scientific and verifiable . We have to distinguish between the knowledge of understanding, based on experience and verification and that of belief, which may be based on partial knowledge and experience. The different world religions have always had many levels of their teaching, and they reserved the higher levels for a few. They embodied the teaching in various ways for the body corporate : in doctrines and rituals, works of art and other cultural fields. Scientists today cannot build things they were able to.
"The different world religions have always had many levels of their teaching, and they reserved the higher levels for a few"
This is absolutely untrue of Christianity, the actual teachings of Christ and the Book, that is. There is NOTHING hidden from me, or you, which is available to some few, or some "leaders". Nothing.
If some crackpot chooses to claim otherwise, or some group of people wishes to call some doctrine or themselves special in that sense, they are outside the parameters of the Book, which CLEARLY states that NO OTHER writings are to be considered a valid addition to it's content. Period. If it ain't sitting right there when you open that Book, it's not relevant.
The "Church", any "Church", is NOT the Word of God. There are no secret texts, no secret doctrines, no secret anything. Anyone that reads that Book in all seriousness is precisely as "high" as anyone else that does so. It says God is not a respecter of persons, and it ain't just kiddin', it ain't saying that for "public consumption". It's the very point of Christ's existence as a human "sacrifice"; to "rend the Vail", to shred it completely, to proclaim every human being worthy of a one on one relationship to God.
It is always possible to play games with what the Book says, and always possible to invent rationales for dishonoring the message of Christ through this or that philosophical or hypothetical "stratification" of people, but it ain't in there. Something like the Catholic hierarchy is NOT about man's relationship to God, but man's relationship to man. You'll find no Pope, or Mr. Kyrill, denying that. They do not place themselves above the least of God's children, but at risk of their very souls. And they know that as surely as you know your name.
There is ONE Lord, Christ, and he too is a servant, absolutely obedient to the One and only Being worthy of worship.
Yes, the "notion" of science I have is definitely based on rationality. Actually, I think it is not just my "notion." It is the basis of scientific thought.
I know nothing about other "levels" of knowledge, nor have I seen any scientific evidence that verifies there are any. But I guess that is by definition, isn't it?
I certainly do not deny the possibility that they may exist, though.
What do you mean by "partial knowledge?"
Okay, using the word "experiment" as you have defined it makes sense.
Your explanation of natural processes and their possible relationship to a Creator is the reason that Evolution should not be rejected by religious people, in my opinion. In fact many believers in Intelligent Design will concede that "small evolution" happens and is part of His plan.
And then there are the others like Felix in this thread who spout the Bible and say that Evolution is a joke. I think the world has plenty of room for scientific thought and religious though to coexist. But there are some among us who will have none of it. The Bible triumphs over all! Fortunately, there are not too many of them. Most Christians are reasonable people who practice their faith privately and quietly, with no wish to force it on the rest of us.
There is nothing "wrong" with science, it's really just a word for careful investigation, but "science" is a very limited form of investigation, dealing ONLY in the most rudimentary of physical phenomenon. There isn't even a viable scientific "theory" for what thought is, let alone the more intricate aspects of human experience or consciousness. If one limits themselves only to what science has dealt with, one is basically in a tiny "box" of reality, as we each know and experience it.
There is no inherent contradiction between what the Book says of living organisms, and what science has revealed. Both are formed around the concept that creatures will reproduce "after their kind", based on the "seed" which is within the creatures themselves. It's not a question of Evolution verses Religion, and faith in one has no real bearing on faith in the other. Science has NOT revealed any significant evidence that there is no God, nor that living things were not "Created". We cannot make non-living things alive, even if we establish the most idyllic conditions we can image, and include the most advanced "precursors" of living organisms we can understand. "Science" has no grounds whatsoever to rationally object to "Intelligent Design", and that's just a fact.
One can say that ONLY what has been "scientifically proven" is acceptable as fact if one wishes, but that leaves an extremely small set of "facts". Like it or not, we either operate outside the limits of "science", or we don't operate as fully functioning human minds.
Your use of "faith" when you talk about science is incorrect. Science is not about "faith." It is about facts...observable facts, and the hypotheses that they support. Faith is about beliefs that have no basis in observable facts. That doesn't make faith wrong per se, but it puts it in a different category from science. You may believe whatever you wish to believe, but it does NOT make it fact.
The problem comes when people try to debunk science because it contradicts their faith-based beliefs...which I think is what you are trying to do.
I am amused by your statement that "science has not revealed any significant evidence that there is no God." Proving the non-existence of God would require that we examine every infinitesimal space in the Universe with a God Detector. But you, as a believer, can prove the existence of God with a single, verifiable incident. Please give me one.
Science objects to Intelligent Design because it has absolutely NO basis in science, and in fact is not science at all. That is what the court found in Dover, PA when the school board, dominated by evangelical Christians, tried to force it into high school science classes.
The set of facts that comprise scientific knowledge is limited, both by the limited time that we have had to accumulate them, and by our own limited intellectual capabilities. It is possible that we will never understand the answers to the great questions...origin of the universe, origin of life, origin of human consciousness. But the fact that we do not understand these things, as I said before countless times, does NOT mandate the intervention of a superhuman deity. It simply means we don't understand.
Perhaps the answers to those question will await the next step in evolution to a species with higher intelligence.
" Science is not about "faith."
Of course it is, there is no alternative. You have believed a lie, that "faith" is an extraordinary thing, when it is the simple act of accepting what we cannot know with certainty. When the Book says you cannot find God but by faith, it is NOT declaring the validity of wishful thinking, or acceptance of what is not reasonable. It is a simple pronouncement that God is not going to appear in a telescope one day, waiving at Bert or John. He's telling you He cannot be discovered by "science". Nothing more.
There are innumerable things which must be taken on faith, and the vast majority of what you place your faith in, regarding "science", you have not yourself witnessed, or are even aware of. You accept it on faith, for you have no choice. NO ONE actually knows what "science" knows, it is not even possible for humans to comprehend. No one on earth has even a tenth of the total picture in their mind when they speak of such things, they are operating on a series of faith based assumptions. That's the fact, whether you or I accept it, or not.
Yes, that is true, but science has a built-in mechanism to detect errors or fraudulent findings. It's called peer review. Other people try to duplicate the findings, or to refute them. When they withstand those attacks over time, and are corroborated, then they become part of the body of scientific knowledge. Still subject to re-review in light of new findings, of course.
If you distrust all of that, then you are...what can I call it..."anti-science," I guess, and I cannot offer you anything further in the way of argument.
But if you accept that, then scientific knowledge is NOT faith-based.
It is your faith-based belief. I don't believe any "lie" about that. I don't share your belief in the Bible.
"Yes, that is true, but science has a built-in mechanism to detect errors or fraudulent findings"
So say you, based on your faith in things unseen. I am a man of science, and know full well what it entails. For you to assume otherwise, is silly.
Have you nothing to say about your "faith"? Can you see that "science" too is faith based, or will you go on pretending faith in people you imagine to have done various things is something "solid"? It's not, and no amount of rationalizing will alter that. You have believed a lie, and cannot possibly know I have, period.
You claim to be a man of science, but you apparently know nothing at all about it.
Or if you ever did, you have apparently replaced it with religious faith.
It's sad, because you didn't have to do that. Lots of scientists are Christians...or Muslims or Hindus or whatever, and they still believe very much in science, and its methods of acquiring and verifying knowledge about the natural world.
You are the first actual "science hater" that I have ever known who claims to be a scientist. Most of them are uneducated fundamentalists who believe, as you seem to, only in what is written in THE BOOK.
This is my last post in this thread, and I will put you on notice that in the future, I may not bother to respond to your attack-style religious diatribes. This is the second thread recently that you have hijacked this way. Frankly, I am getting a little tired of you.
belief...here are a few more learned people's opinion of it:
"Evolution can be thought of as sort of a magical religion. Magic is simply
an effect without a cause, or at least a competent cause. 'Chance, 'time,'
and 'nature,' are the small gods enshrined at evolutionary temples.
Yet these gods cannot explain the origin of life. These gods are impotent.
Thus, evolution is left without competent cause and is, therefore, only a
magical explanation for the existence of life..."
Dr. Randy L. Wysong, instructor of human anatomy and physiology
"Darwin's theory of evolution is the last of the great nineteenth-century
mystery religions. And as we speak it is now following Freudians and
Marxism into the Nether regions, and I'm quite sure that Freud, Marx and
Darwin are commiserating one with the other in the dark dungeon where
discarded gods gather."
Dr. David Berlinski, Fellow of the Discovery Institute, has taught at Princeton,
Stanford, Rutgers and Columbia University
"Evolution is faith, a religion."
Dr. Louis T. More, professor of paleontology at Princeton University
"We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is time we cry, "The
emperor has no clothes."
Dr. Hsu, geologist at the Geological Institute in Zurich
"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in
the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research but
purely the product of the imagination."
Albert Fleishman, professor of zoology & comparative anatomy at
Erlangen University
"Evolution is a fairy tale for adults."
Dr. Paul LeMoine, one of the most prestigious scientists in the world
"It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned
as a student....have now been debunked."
Dr. Derek V. Ager, Department of Geology, Imperial College, London
"The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove
the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do."
Dr. Robert A. Milikan, physicist and Nobel Prize winner
I was thinking of "partial knowledge" in terms of scale. In a practical sense, an apprentice advances in a craft stage by stage . To be ordained as a minister , certain qualifications have to be met , in some churches the ability to receive the holy spirit to perform the sacraments. In intellectual fields there are appropriate criteria.
The scientific method is based on principles derived from rational thought. There are higher levels of thought that have their own principles and methods. They all are related acording to scale.
I can see you making many rather "mystical" attacks on me, based apparently on some magical power you think you possess which enables you to telepathically see into my mind, but I nowhere see any attacks I made on you. You don't ever explain what it is I said that constitutes these attacks, and not having such a magical power, I can only guess. I would in this case guess that it is insulting to you to be told you are basing your beliefs on faith. Sad, if true, since virtually every moment of human consciousness is simply crawling with that particular gift. It is the very foundation of reason itself. Without it, we would be helpless imbeciles.
I have no idea what you're speaking of. Could you explain please?
"This is absolutely untrue of Christianity, the actual teachings of Christ and the Book, that is. There is NOTHING hidden from me, or you, which is available to some few, or some "leaders". Nothing."
>>>>
Historians, theologians and so on recognize there have been esoteric, mesoteric and exoteric levels of knowledge and teaching in the different Christian churches as in all the world religions.
Your personal experience may be valid for you. As there is God in every man we all are related and all one. To claim that your knowledge is superior to others is another matter, whether spiritual or otherwise. This is not just a religious question .
Christian scripture is not considered an authority in meeting the requirements for confirmation in the Episcopal church.
I don't think the word creation was mentioned in the quotes...let alone creationism. You're not in High School anymore, Bruce, try looking at theories more objectively.
I know that you don't let men of science influence your' well-programed Stepford mind, but, since you brought it up here's my other posting on the issue of Monkey Theory versus Intelligent Design:
"The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 nought's after it...It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of Evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence."
Sir Fred Hoyle, highly respected British physicist and astronomer
"Everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of which our modest powers must feel humble."
Albert Einstein
"The vast mysteries of the universe should only confirm our belief in the certainty of its Creator. I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe"
Werner von Braun, father of space science, September 7, 2002
"It is hard to resist the impression that the present structure of the universe, apparently so sensitive to minor alterations in numbers, has been rather carefully thought out...The seemingly miraculous concurrence of these numerical values must remain the most compelling evidence for cosmic design."
Physicist Paul Davies, "God and the New Physics"
"The world is too complicated in all parts and interconnections to be due to chance alone. I am convinced that the existence of life with all its order in each of its organisms is simply too well put together. Each part of a living thing depends on all its other parts to function. How does each part know? How is each part specified at conception? The more one learns of biochemistry the more unbelievable it becomes unless there is some type of organizing principle---an architect."
Scientist Allan Sandage
"Meanwhile, their' evolutionists unproven theories will continue to be accepted by the learned and the illiterate alike as absolute truth, and will be defended with a frantic intolerance that has a parallel only in the bigotry of the darkest Middle Ages. If one does not accept evolution as an infallible dogma, implicitly and without question, one is regarded as an unenlightened ignoramus or is merely ignored as an obscurantist or a naive, uncritical fundamentalist."
Dr. Alfred Rehwinkel
"For over 20 years I thought I was working on evolution....But there was not one thing I knew about it... So for the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people, the question is, "Can you tell me any one thing that is true?" I tried that question on the Geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, A very prestigious body of Evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, "Yes, I do know one thing, it ought not to be taught in High School"....over the past few years....you have experienced a shift from Evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith...Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge."
Dr. Collin Patterson evolutionist, address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, Nov. 1981
"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."
Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie [Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in France]
"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.' A tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure juggling [Tahmisian called it]."
[quoting T.N. Tahmisian, physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission].
"I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens, many people will pose the question, "How did this ever happen?"
Dr. Sorren Luthrip, Swedish Embryologist
"We have now the remarkable spectacle that just when many scientific men are agreed that there is no part of the Darwinian system that is of any great influence, and that, as a whole, the theory is not only unproved, but impossible, the ignorant, half-educated masses have acquired the idea that it is to be accepted as a fundamental fact."
Dr. Thomas Dwight, famed professor at Harvard University
Finally,
[In a letter to Asa Gray, a Harvard professor of biology, Darwin wrote:] "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."—*Charles Darwin, quoted in *N.C. Gillespie, Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation (1979), p. 2 [University of Chicago book].
"As there is God in every man we all are related and all one"
Not so. I am me, and you are you. You're going to have to come up with something a lot more convincing than philosophical conjecture to persuade me otherwise. I don't believe in things that make no sense, and for which I have seen no evidence. I'm not saying you must be wrong, but I will not believe you are right just because such a thing strikes you as extra special fair or something. It don't seem at all fair to me, and even if it did, I don't run the joint, it only matters what He finds fair, no one else. That's why He's called God.
"Your personal experience may be valid for you."
You're darn tootin'. You got a better way for ascertaining the truth? Shall I poll folks, or just assume everything anyone tells me is true? Not on my life.
"Christian scripture is not considered an authority in meeting the requirements for confirmation in the Episcopal church."
Then I'll be very unlikely to join such a stupid sounding church. What the hell are they basing their beliefs on? It was revealed to me in no uncertain terms that that Book is the word of God. I have NO CHOICE in the matter. Perhaps something else is also of that nature, but as I said, I don't believe rumors. You got's to provide PROOF, cause that's what I got when I asked God myself.
I couldn't care less if that satisfies anyone else, and why would I? You think I'm foolish enough to deny an all powerful God that demonstrated His existence, and affiliation with that Book, beyond any doubt? Dream on, He ended the debate "manually" for me. It's out of my hands. He clearly took it out, and that is just so. God's are like that, I guess.
"We have now the remarkable spectacle that just when many scientific men are agreed that there is no part of the Darwinian system that is of any great influence, and that, as a whole, the theory is not only unproved, but impossible, the ignorant, half-educated masses have acquired the idea that it is to be accepted as a fundamental fact."
People are so terrified of death and the "animal" world that they are easily seduced and led into a fantasy world. They pile made up story upon made up story comlplicate and make impossible any rational or reasonable or logical discussion and have throughout time fought any scientific advancement that has ever occured ... which really means they are unable and uninterested in reality.
"you are dead mentally and you just don't know it."
Can you not see how impossible it is for you to know such a thing on your own? We are just people, and without some intervention from something a whole lot more knowledgeable about this reality, we cannot determine such things. When you speak so, you are "playing God", in a very pompous way, and since you say you do not believe God is even real, you have eliminated the only rational means you could have for a foundation to such a belief. Which is it; Is there, or is there not, any way to see such truths?
I am not, nor have I ever been "terrified of death". It doesn't even bother me much, I accepted it long ago, under circumstances that made it look immanent. Your "theory" holds no water. Certainly not in my case.
> something a whole lot more knowledgeable about this
> reality, we cannot determine such things.
John, you are so incoherent in almost everything you say
if there is something intervening to help you determine
things its not doing a very good job.
By the way, I did not say I did not believe in God, or a
God, or morality. Any God that I believe in is entirely
part of this universe, perhaps built into its fabric as
energy, and atoms are ... or you do luddites not believe
in physics either?
you have programmed yourself in such a way to behave
as if to fool your fellow humans that you are not scared
of death before I am willing to believe in magic.
You all manipulate your fantasy world around science and
you have been on the run for centuries now because you
are afraid of death, and evil as well.
"John, you are so incoherent in almost everything you say"
Something wrong with your question generator? If what I say is not clear to you, it is perfectly acceptable to ask about it. I can't help but suspect you would rather NOT understand me, for that obvious reason.
"You all manipulate your fantasy world around science and
you have been on the run for centuries now because you
are afraid of death, and evil as well"
Sure Mr god. You see all, through time and space, no doubt
"Any God that I believe in is entirely
part of this universe, perhaps built into its fabric as
energy, and atoms are ... or you do luddites not believe
in physics either?"
That ain't "physics", it's occultism. And no, I don't believe in the occult.
And you do, right Mr god? Oh, pray tell; How big is it?
Geez dude, you're like a teenager. Have you even given any serious thought to this stuff? Or are you just making it up as you go?
I really don't want to insult you, and on some matters you make good sense, but here, you find it appropriate to simply declare what is so, without the slightest attempt to explain how you came by all these ultimate truths. It's goofy time. I gotta go. Take care.
I do, however, know that God does exist existentially. He is real to me very personally through experience. I could not begin to explain it to you seeing that you can't even handle the material concepts of existance let alone anything beyond the phenomenal. You are spiritually challenged to a quite unimaginable degree. Descartes was certain only of his existance because he could think. The only thing I am absolutely sure is real is God. I am not at all certain that anything created is actually real outside of the mind of God, but, God is real.
There is one thing that practically all men and women of science and philosophy are agreed upon and that is the unreliability of inductive reasoning. The only absolute science is mathematics which is a priori knowledge. The eternal verities are only tapped into via deductive channels. None of the great philosophers has ever questioned the Aristotelian concept, via Parmenides, of an ultimate reality or mover. They may have different concepts of this Absolute and of it's make-up, but, they don't deny that it IS. Even Buddhist speak of an 'Ultimate Grounds' of all things the immanent, omniscient, and transcendent Reality a primal, eternal, sustaining essence within all beings and phenomena. The emanator of all beings and all universes. This primordial Buddha is viewed by the Jonangpa school of Tibetan Buddhism as absolute, eternal, omnipresent, supreme Knowingness/Awareness (jnana) beyond the limitations of ordinary consciousness. The Tibetan adept, Dolpopa, writes: "It is absolute, never relative. It is the true nature ... It is gnosis, never consciousness. It is pure, never impure. It is a sublime Self, never a nothingness. The Tibetan Sangpa Kagyu school of Buddhism speaks of the Ultimate Reality as pure, spotless, changeless Mind that is present in all things, all times and in all beings and which can never die. Kalu Rinpoche elucidates: " ... pure mind cannot be located, but it is omnipresent and all-penetrating; it embraces and pervades all things. Moreover, it is beyond change, and its open nature is indestructible and atemporal."
So even the supposedly atheistic Buddhist admit to an Absolute Reality. Your' failure to grasp this sets you apart from reasonable people. You are fixated on the changeable, the relative, the unreliable not what really IS.
>Clarke,
"As there is God in every man we all are related and all one"
Not so. I am me, and you are you. You're going to have to come up with something a lot more convincing than philosophical conjecture to persuade me otherwise. I don't believe in things that make no sense, and for which I have seen no evidence. I'm not saying you must be wrong, but I will not believe you are right just because such a thing strikes you as extra special fair or something. It don't seem at all fair to me, and even if it did, I don't run the joint, it only matters what He finds fair, no one else. That's why He's called God.
"Your personal experience may be valid for you."
You're darn tootin'. You got a better way for ascertaining the truth? Shall I poll folks, or just assume everything anyone tells me is true? Not on my life.
>>>>
John,
Perennial wisdom, and all civilizations , have expressed ( in their science, art and religion) the principle that humanity was created by a Creator. There is one humanity. In the case of Christianity, it reaffirms the teachings of past civilzations and Christ , as former Messengers, introduces new metaphors through the course of his ministry. Much of his role on Earth recapitulates the Egyption religion's story in form and sequence. Many Christian rituals that developed after his ministry were copied , ready-made from those of Egypt. The "Christ" role exists in previous religions, as the Zorastrian and and the life of the Buddha. Each Messenger and mission was unique , yet also related to the the others. One creator, one humanity. There is only one reality, but diverse teachings enable us to seek it, and to learn to live in conformity with it.
_____________________________________________________
>"Christian scripture is not considered an authority in meeting the requirements for confirmation in the Episcopal church."
Then I'll be very unlikely to join such a stupid sounding church. What the hell are they basing their beliefs on? It was revealed to me in no uncertain terms that that Book is the word of God. I have NO CHOICE in the matter. Perhaps something else is also of that nature, but as I said, I don't believe rumors. You got's to provide PROOF, cause that's what I got when I asked God myself.
I couldn't care less if that satisfies anyone else, and why would I? You think I'm foolish enough to deny an all powerful God that demonstrated His existence, and affiliation with that Book, beyond any doubt? Dream on, He ended the debate "manually" for me. It's out of my hands. He clearly took it out, and that is just so. God's are like that, I guess.
>>>>
John,
There are those who believe they know "God," or "Christ." But none are "God" or "Christ." The tail doesn't wag the dog. In reality, the quality of their being and their understanding and wisdom is relative to that of others. By their fruits you will know them. Martin Luther knew "God" and "Christ" (and the Devil whom he threw feces at.) He was a reformer of Christianity, based on his individual insight, which was relative to that others.
"The tail doesn't wag the dog"
Precisely. And here is where what you call "higher thinking" and such, comes into play. Someone named Martin Luther is not the dog. He won't EVER be the dog. You, nor I, nor the whole of humanity is the dog. There's just one possible doG here. Just one.
Yet, there you are disbelieving your own rational thought, and reintroducing Mr. Luther as if not a tail, but as if somehow relevant to the existence of God. To go up a level in our thinking, we must realize that the truth is not in doubt, just because our mind is in doubt. We must keep in mind that all such details do indeed have perfectly rational explanations, no matter which of our options turns out to be the actual reality of the universe, which is to say, of God, in this case. There is nothing at all to be gained by delving into possible explanations then, period.
If the God of the Book is real, it is just so, and all the details we are aware of WILL fall in line. If the God of that Book is not real, they fall in line as well. All that we wonder about this or that aspect of the matter is irrelevant, we are just an ignorant tail. If we do not "back down", and surrender our attachment to our particular reasoning, born of our ignorance, we CANNOT move ahead in our thinking, but must forever (relatively speaking) remain mired in our own confusion.
So . . . we cannot proceed ANY further on our own. And we can bitch about it all we want, to no avail. God or no God, we don't move any further without Him wagging us, the tail. That is just so, and the mature mind realizes that, and tries to find God somehow. It does not waste any more time getting the "lay of the land", for it sees that there is but one possible way to end it's doubt.
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child, but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
They are but words, and have no inherent truth value. Good simply means that which brings about beneficial things, and evil that which is harmful or destructive. That such things exist is blatant. We don't drink bleach, drinking bleach is "evil" to us. If someone forces me to drink bleach, they are evil.
What's the freakin' mystery here?
As for what "may" be evil, it just "might" be the insistence of any religious view that theirs is the only VALID way to God ... and that "their" God is better than an-other's. Because for God to be God there can only be ONE for a UNIverse ... and anything less than that is but at best possibly a god.
John, as for "your" view of God, I see it a bit limited to just your view IF I read you correctly. It seems that you have anthropomorphized "Him" ... IMnsHO.
John and Felix, here's a few for you: "Christ in you your hope of glory," our friend Paul said. To me, that is an example of the principle that there is a spark of the divine in all of us. "The kingdom of God is within you," said Jesus. "These things and greater things shall you do," said Jesus.
I know you fundamentalists would rather see us as miserable sinners, but we were created in the image and likeness of God. But you boys just keep thinking what low life creatures you are, it won't bother me.
As far as science, when do you think the dinosaurs lived, before or after Adam? If you believe the creation story, then how do you justify the dinosaurs living 245 million years ago? Come on fellows, stop denying that there is such a thing as evolution. Religion and science/evolution can walk hand-in-hand. But you have to stop reading the Bible as a textbook.
"As for what "may" be evil, it just "might" be the insistence of any religious view that theirs is the only VALID way to God"
I don't understand why you can't just speak for yourself. Are you proposing we exclude our own view, so as to acquire the glorious label 'inclusive'? This doesn't make a lot of sense. I don't worship words, like 'inclusive', and I don't think being "inclusive" is anything sacred or inherently "validating". If some imbecile wants to worship a tree, that has nothing to do with me, I don't owe that person equal time or anything. People come up with all sorts of goofy ideas, and God is not shifting and wavering as we conjecture. He is whatever he is. (That happens to be the name He calls Himself in the Book; "I am what I am") I don't impose any limits on Him whatsoever. If you wish to declare that "exclusive", that's your call, but it really just puts the horse before the cart.
"John, as for "your" view of God, I see it a bit limited to just your view IF I read you correctly."
Um, yeah. It's called sanity on my planet.
"It seems that you have anthropomorphized "Him""
No, He "Godthropomorphized" me. He gets to do such things, that's why I call Him God. I suppose other folks worship gods that can't create beings similar to themselves, but mine does just as He pleases. Again, that's where the whole "God" thing comes into play.
"I know you fundamentalists would rather see us as miserable sinners, but we were created in the image and likeness of God."
Well, sure we are created in His likeness, but not His completeness or fullness or whatever. That's all the "sinners" thing is about, a simple acknowledgement that we are not perfect, in the way God is. I don't see how anyone could doubt that, we are all quite prone to error and selfishness, it seems. It's just like calling a glass half full, when the glass is filled halfway.
One can declare themselves perfect, but nobody in their right mind is going to believe it. What is wrong with acknowledging we need some help? Do you honestly believe we don't?
You are just repeating your belief, based on the same assumptions and reasoning based on a priori postulates.
There is not here, if we accept that there is a higher level of intelligence and being.
We who are Here - humanity in corporate and individually - cannot comprehend the knowledge and being of There , but There can fully comprehend our level. There is a relation of scale, just as there is a relation of scale in humanity. A thousand years to us may be a brief moment to a higher being.
A sacred text can be no more than a representation of the knowledge and being of another level. It can serve as a means of relating Here to There in order to conform to the will and purpose of There, which is beyond our comprehension. Everything created is subject to the authority of the Creator . Human beings to relate to There also have to relate the rest of creation.
Creation is a process in time. Everything changes and we participate in the process like those on a journey to an undiscovered country, stage by stage, encountering new tests with each stage.
We do not the future, although we can learn to see when we are going in the right direction and when we are lost and failing to progress. We have the record of those who have preceded us and the support of those who are journeying with us, some of whom have more experience than we do. We do not advance in understanding without a change in being . Knowledge got through the mind alone is not able to change being or understanding. New wine in new bottles. Everything we know at one stage will be taken away at the next one and we will have unlearn what we knew and learn anew.
"You are just repeating your belief, based on the same assumptions and reasoning based on a priori postulates."
No I didn't Clarke, I challenged you to face facts; You will NOT come to resolve the matter without His intervention. It ain't going to happen. We simply cannot become gods, and bypass His authority. One can waste many years pretending one can, but it's logically obvious that we will not do so if God is real. We ain't Him, so we can't "know" Him, He must reveal Himself to us.
"A sacred text can be no more than a representation of the knowledge and being of another level."
It can if He makes it so. It can be a "doorway" to Him, in the understanding sense. He's right there when we read it with a sincere and humble desire to learn, it's not just the words themselves. You get the teacher to boot, in real-time. It happened to me, even though I never imagined such a thing was possible. I was more than a little shocked, I assure you. I'm pretty sure it's what happens a lot, and why it's called the "living Word".
I know it's rather remarkable to consider, but you really have to get over the whole limitations on God thing. It certainly is not something people can do, but again, He ain't "people", He's an all powerful God. He does all sorts of things we think of as impossible, routinely.
You are saying the same thing, that is your personal testimony. You are one human being among many. Everyone is at some stage of evolution in terms of becoming more complete but all are incomplete. The relation to the higher provides the "daily bread," the food for work to become more complete. What is given from on high must be used rightly if the individual is to grow. The more evolved the more is given. It never gets easier for responsibility increases with growth . Sacred texts and teachings are manuals for learning but they have many levels of understanding corresponding the understanding of different individuals. The practical work is like learning to drive - it can't be done from a manual. "Enlightenment" is relative for there is always one level of being to complete and the next to begin.
You testify from a religious point of view. It is one of various partial ways . The growth of being and understanding is a practical science . All roads to lead to Philadelphia, as St Paul says. But at the stage of Philadelphia, the different ways merge into one way.
"You are saying the same thing, that is your personal testimony"
No, no, no, no. I am challenging you. How you respond is up to you.
Tell me; Do you believe you can come to understand God on your own?
(If ANYONE EVER gives you ANYTHING other than "personal testimony", walk away, there is no such thing as anything else. NEVER.)
I will get back with a more complete response later.
"John, well one thing is for sure ... you sure do seem to WORSHIP your God of THE Book."
Yep, guilty of being sane, as charged.
It's so easy to pretend no one experiences what we would rather not be true, and then accuse them of foolishness and gullibility, for not behaving according to our own experience, isn't it? But, if they really DID experience what they claim, how pointless and cruel to mock them for believing what they themselves witnessed plainly. You mock an honest man, cause you would rather he not tell you what he saw.
If you find fault in my reasoning, say so, and I will listen. If you think you see dishonesty, accuse me plainly, and let me defend myself. But if all you want is for me to keep quiet about what I have witnessed, you can "go to hell", (though I hope you never do, and doubt God would begrudge you some petty blundering, I certainly don't). ; )
What I'm fairly sure is going on here is nothing more than various attempts to "kill the messenger", euphemistically speaking. You have before you an honest, and reasonably articulate person, willing to answer any questions you might have about what they encountered upon attempting to approach God through that Book. You don't seem in the least bit interested though, and prefer to hold on to the concepts and imagery you made up yourself about such things. So be it, I can only offer what I have.
What you fear, I once feared, and I understand. I don't mind, but you really could make better use of the situation, I think.
>> It seems that I decided to go with more detail ... :-) <<
Jerry, … "As for what "may" be evil, it just "might" be the insistence of any religious view that theirs is the only VALID way to God"
>> I said the above because (as I have said before) that becomes a very Inclusive view for the practitioners and at the very same time is then Exclusive of all others … many others also having views that are considered AT LEAST as valued and valid. <<
I don't understand why you can't just speak for yourself.
>> I do speak for myself and that includes how the thinking of others affects me AND OTHERS even … you see, I am concerned about the whole of humankind here on earth, not just myself. <<
Are you proposing we exclude our own view, so as to acquire the glorious label 'inclusive'? This doesn't make a lot of sense. I don't worship words, like 'inclusive', and I don't think being "inclusive" is anything sacred or inherently "validating".
>> John, if WORDS had no special meaning you would not value "The Book" so much, I would think. We know that they have little meaning to our president who claimed to be a "uniter not a divider", but Jesus (as a representative of God) spoke about loving your brother, forgiveness, atonement and reconciliation … all "words" of "validation" that are Inclusive NOT exclusive. IMnsHO. <<
If some imbecile wants to worship a tree, that has nothing to do with me, I don't owe that person equal time or anything. People come up with all sorts of goofy ideas, and God is not shifting and wavering as we conjecture. He is whatever he is. (That happens to be the name He calls Himself in the Book; "I am what I am") I don't impose any limits on Him whatsoever. If you wish to declare that "exclusive", that's your call, but it really just puts the horse before the cart.
>> As for putting the horse before the cart, I would say that is what so many that are religious are doing when they use creed and dogma to define God and relationships between man and God … IF that were not done people could have an untainted experience with God that was personal and true without all of the "baggage" that insists things must be a certain way along the lines of those religious beliefs. I can attest that I have done so and that is why I can have a much larger picture of what God must or could be all about, one that is Inclusive of everyone and everything … no restrictions what-so-ever. <<
"John, as for "your" view of God, I see it a bit limited to just your view IF I read you correctly."
Um, yeah. It's called sanity on my planet.
>> I suppose that must mean that in your view, that those who see nature and animals as a part of God's creation and thus having some kind of "spirituality" that they can relate to, then they are just insane … ? <<
"It seems that you have anthropomorphized "Him""
No, He "Godthropomorphized" me. He gets to do such things, that's why I call Him God. I suppose other folks worship gods that can't create beings similar to themselves, but mine does just as He pleases. Again, that's where the whole "God" thing comes into play.
>> I suggested "that" possibility because you seemed to be saying that God uses His "powers" to do things … maybe similar to what you said earlier about the doG wagging the tail (us), NOT the other way around. Which brings me to case of relativity … where Martin Luther would be a comparative "tail" relative to God, but his flock of Lutherans would be a tail of Martin's … relativity does change things and meanings.
As far as I am concerned (and countless others), creation IS the body of God … as is our personal physicality our own body "under" the "control" of our "ego" as far as most are concerned. In such a relationship it is maybe our "cells" that are equivalent to the whole of our body, much as maybe the human life form is, to the "Body" of God. … just maybe.<<
>> Maybe I will take this opportunity to speak of some other issues that have been here brought up by others such as Carla and Clarke, who I am more in tune with on these issues of (+=-), we being more "=" and yourself being more "+" in comparison, IMnsHO.<<
>> I myself have written, because I believe it so, that the human was created PERFECT by God, then metaphorically, AFTER "the fall" (by "your" Book) the human was deemed a "sinner" in comparison ONLY.<<
>> This concept of mine would have our children being born PERFECT in accordance with the Intention of God, here on this realm of earth/world. Thus you might consider that Adam and Eve were created (born in a sense) PERFECT in "that" realm, but children are created and born perfect (note lower case letters) here in this realm. <<
>> It is then a matter of their environmental upbringing as to whether they retain that perfection, or most likely to lose it to some degree according to how an uninformed society "programs" them as they grow up.<<
>> The point being that when any person here on earth actually and really develops a Spiritual relationship with the Spirit of God, they then are AT-ONED "back" with God "again", then being truly "born again", "saved" or "enlightened" … actually then being "qualified" as a relative "god" (note lower case letters). That then returning them back to a relative "earth" perfection.<<
>> A huge part of the problem with religions such as Christianity then becomes the view that all are "sinners" and can thus be no-where near "perfection" … I beg to differ with that view because (based upon experience) it seems to "trap" people in subservient roles to "authorized" leadership opinions when it comes to religions. People then often seem to put themselves as religious people ABOVE others not of THEIR standing. They are encouraged to stay that way as long as they continue to live here … that not only LIMITS them from further available spiritual "advancement", but causes frictions with other peoples … some of which have led directly to war even. Based upon those "attitudes" we may well have such a situation coming in our near future between Christians and Muslims based upon current "trends" based upon such "EXCLUSIVE" thinking.<<
>> The only "help" we need then is the TRUTH that is available most pure right from Inside of each of us from our own higher Self (Soul) that is available there as Carla said earlier. <<
>> As for your comments to Clarke, where you ask him if one can come to understand God on their own … I would say that some would do better on their own than follow the dogma of institutionalized religions in many cases. I know that I did … that of course with God's help … but not with help of "religion", in spite of religion in my case.<<
>> I will cut this off now as I go to your latest comment <<
Apparently, not much of anything a devout Christian might think or do is even potentially legitimate to you. If this is a demonstration of "inclusive", it's obvious you ain't gonna let me in your club. Better just count me out Jerry, I can't even recognize half that stuff, I'm just a regular sort of person. You guys just go on ahead, I'll be fine.
Jerry, … "John, well one thing is for sure ... you sure do seem to WORSHIP your God of THE Book."
Yep, guilty of being sane, as charged.
>> I said that because my relationship with God is as a Son to the Father, more of what I understand to have been the relationship of Jesus to His Father, one of many things, but not of HERO WORSHIP, just maximum respect, awe and Unconditional Love … being the same God of the Book(s) of many kinds and types, just not an idolization. AND, every bit as sane as another, I believe. <<
It's so easy to pretend no one experiences what we would rather not be true, and then accuse them of foolishness and gullibility, for not behaving according to our own experience, isn't it? But, if they really DID experience what they claim, how pointless and cruel to mock them for believing what they themselves witnessed plainly. You mock an honest man, cause you would rather he not tell you what he saw.
>> As I read the preceding I could just as well see myself asking that question of you John as it pertains to what I say I believe based upon my own experience … the difference being though that I am not guilty as you seem to be charging me … the only thing I criticize is the narrowness of such views that exclude others from having at least equally valid views from their own personal experiences. <<
If you find fault in my reasoning, say so, and I will listen. If you think you see dishonesty, accuse me plainly, and let me defend myself. But if all you want is for me to keep quiet about what I have witnessed, you can "go to hell", (though I hope you never do, and doubt God would begrudge you some petty blundering, I certainly don't). ; )
>> The "faults" that I find are but those I have continually expressed and meaning only what I have said to the best of my ability. I do not think I have ever considered you "dishonest", maybe dis-informed :-) <<
>> By the way, I believe I have had some "glimpses" of hell at times and it would be a hell of a place for those that believe they might somehow go there. But I also believe my own personal relationship with my God will pretty much insure that I will not have to concern myself with that. <<
What I'm fairly sure is going on here is nothing more than various attempts to "kill the messenger", euphemistically speaking. You have before you an honest, and reasonably articulate person, willing to answer any questions you might have about what they encountered upon attempting to approach God through that Book. You don't seem in the least bit interested though, and prefer to hold on to the concepts and imagery you made up yourself about such things. So be it, I can only offer what I have.
>> No John, I do not believe in killing. I also believe in free speech, but it sometimes becomes necessary to disagree with and maybe correct some messengers some times. That for the sake of the OTHERS that some messages are aimed at, that to PROTECT the innocent from falling into a trap and being damaged. I am always interested in the stories of others as to their spiritual understandings … it is often the religious "details" that I would reject … and I always attempt to offer the reasons why. <<
What you fear, I once feared, and I understand. I don't mind, but you really could make better use of the situation, I think.
>> John, I personally do not believe that I fear anything, the only concerns that I have is whether I am understanding and cooperating properly with my Spiritual mission in the time that I have yet remaining here on earth. I am ALL FOR making the very best use of that time and that is why I spend so much of it here on Gather on the subjects I am involved with here … I welcome CONSTRUCTIVE criticism (though I will not promise to change without good reason). <<
>> Peace be with you all … <<
"John, I personally do not believe that I fear anything"
Yeah, I figured. I considered taking some time to use some "special" wording, like; "feel resistance to approaching without your guard up" or "hesitant to allow some significant consideration of", but hoped you might take it in context for what it is. I don't know, lately you haven't seemed all that finicky to me, and I thought you had loosened up a bit.
Hey, I got the message, like I said, better just transcend or whatever without me, I'd only be in the way. Really, I'll be fine.
You wrote:"Tell me; Do you believe you can come to understand God on your own? "
>>>>
No human being "knows God," for the Creator is a Mystery. We are all learners and seekers of the laws of creation and how to live in conformity with those laws. This is the path to evolution . "The Kingdom of Heaven" is within . It is present now, but it is in potential in each incomplete human being as Christ and others have demonstrated. Each individual owes his possibility of evolving to those who have preceded her/him. He has his place in relation to others, those more evolved , those less evolved. He cannot evolve one bit unless he puts another in his place. No individual evolves except by his own effort and work. "God and the devil can't help the man who does not work on himself." But all are called.
You write in terms of the emotional way , the religious way. There is the intellectual way, as in yoga. There is the way of body, as with the fakir. Each way develops one part of the human and leaves the rest undeveloped. All the parts need to be developed in a human being in order to evolve his whole being.
As I wrote: "You testify from a religious point of view. It is one of various partial ways . The growth of being and understanding is a practical science . All roads to lead to Philadelphia, as St Paul says. But at the stage of Philadelphia, the different ways merge into one way. " This way has been called "the rapid path." It combines all the partial ways. It is a practical science.