Question about Evolution/Creationism etc.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Silver Cheetah: quote: Originally posted by Arledrian: It's a relatively new religion, about 150 years old, and it maintains the belief that all of the world's so called 'founders of religion' (Krishna, Zoroastro, Buddha, Christ, Muhammad, Il Bab and Bahaullah) are actually all messengers from the same God. I've found a few minor flaws here and there, or at least parts to the religion that aren't properly explained, but it certainly has a few interesting and quite revolutionary ideas [img]smile.gif[/img] www.bahai.org

All messengers from the same god. Well, without having read the other four pages of this thread (sorry, very bad! [img]smile.gif[/img] I would have to agree, although my terminology would be a little different. I think I'd rather put it as 'tapping into the same divine source. Seems obvious to me! Religions that yell about there only be one true god, and that god is their god, come across as childish and ridiculous, not to mention dangerously divisive. Either there is one god, or there isn't. And if there is, stands to reason that everybody's worshipping the same one, just calling it/he/she whatever (gender is also ridiculous when applied to 'god') by different names. What's so hard about that?[/QB][/QUOTE]Because it's like calling a tree and water the same name and assuming them to be the same.

The "God" of pantheism is a different kind of being to the God of monotheism.

Yes Islam, Judaism and Christianity all worship the Creator Personality. The difference is the path.

However, Buddhism, Hinduism, Bahai and other pantheistic religions have a totally different concept of what God is.

What is so hard to understand about that?

Let's not forget that the end results are all different. That in the Torah/old Testament, Gods rewards occur in this life (hence we have a lot of rich Jews ) In the New Testament we have heaven, eternal life with God. With Buddha's path we have removal from the Karmic cycle of pain. (ceasing to exist) With Hinduism we have union or absorbtion into the unified soul, which everything is part of .

In Hinduism we are part of God. God is not a seperate entity as he is with the monotheistic religions.

The key is not merging beliefs, but accepting the person that disagrees with you. That is tolerance.

Tolerance and absorbtion are different. If you merely absorb other beliefs into your own, you still end up only tolerating that which you believe.

True tolerance tolerates intolerance

I've had the most wonderful conversations with Buddhist Monks when I was in Tokyo. Mutual respect, not mutual agreement is the key.

[ 04-23-2002, 07:27 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Silver Cheetah]

Originally posted by Yorick: How I see it is that "God" is what we call the awareness that has always existed, is outside time and brought forth everything into being. He just is. "I am" (YHWH) is how he identified himself to the early Jews. He is, not was or will be. What does outside time mean? What the heck is God? We'll never totally comprehend him. Like a cat will never comprehend a human. The fact that there are so many aspects about God that are beyond everything we experience (no begginning for starters) is one more little piece of evidence that humans did not create the concept of God. As humans we can only create from our experience. From what we've sensed. A professional creative learns to manage their influences. Keep experiencing new things to keep ideas flowing and thus create hybrids of all they see, hear, taste or smell. Giving newer perspective. God on the other hand is like nothing in nature. Evrything has a beggining because WE have a beggining. We cannot remove ourselves from this reality. God just is. He doesn't need a beggining. He is the one constancy in a universe of perpetual motion. Macro to micro, everything is moving. Blood pumps through our veins, our lungs move, the earth moves around the sun and tilting axis. The solar system moves around the galaxy, the galaxy around the local group, the local group around the ever expanding universe..... And all through this, time moves and changes. The moment is what we exist in, yet can never be truly captured nor held. Is NOW the present? Of course not. In speaking the word, there is a beggining, an end, and the moment of understanding what the word is. Time is motion. But God is constant. The same yesterday as today. And yet God is love. When you have God inside you, you have love inside you. So vast and incomprehensible, yet so loving and personable. Desiring relationship with each individual. Creating us flawed so he can forgive, so he could become part of his creation as Christ, and give us more life. Life in addition to the intensely wonderful experience this life is.[/b]

Yorick, um, this is what I have a real problem with in your thought - this concept that the divine source is constant, unchanging. Could you explain the thinking behind this, because it just doesn't make sense to me.

As an artist myself, I am changed by each picture I paint, each poem I write, each dance that comes into being through my body. I am changed by each experience. And each creation is informed by the last - i.e. my abilities/ability to access the creative force becomes greater each time I use my ability to create.

Are you saying that god is outside the creation, and everything that happens is nothing to do with him... to put it another way, do you believe that god set the universe in motion, and the rest is our responsibility to sort out?

Because if so, I can see how the notion of an unchanging god might fit with that. But if god co-creates with us, on an ongoing basis, then, (we being made in god's image, as the bible tells us) is it not logical that god would be affected by 'his' creative process? The idea of a 'static' creator worries me. If we are truly created in god's image, then how can we be dynamic, ever growing, ever changing, ever learning from our experiences, and god not?

I know you believe that the absolute is perfect, and has no need to change, and is outside the creation. But that feels all wrong to me. I feel the created universe of which I am a part to be divine, alive and changing, and as far as I'm concerned, it is part of the divine source.

It's my feeling that 'god' created the universe in order to experience itself fully. What fun is it being the absolute, with everything perfect, nothing changing, bliss for ever and ever and ever, nobody to tell you how great you are [img]smile.gif[/img] .....

Okay, I'm teasing a little, but why did god create the universe in the first place, in your opinion? You can say out of love, but how love something not yet in existence? I say it was out of curiousity, and the need to explore. Physical life is god's way of experiencing itself. Anyway, that's my theory, and I love it!!

Oh dear, not expressing myself very well here. But anyway, I think you get my drift.

[Sir Michael]

So, Yorick, you didn't speak to my point...how can you explain people, who in the name of organized religion, espouse viewpoints like those of Jack Chick or that Mac guy??? It's not exactly conducive to good feelings about religion if I have been told (as I have, many times) that I am going straight to hell if I don't follow such and such religion.

Also, I don't think most people are as tolerant and open-minded as you (well, to a point--you won't allow anyone to question the existence of God or faith or religion, but you will tolerate other faiths). I know several Christians and Mormons, and you can't believe the intolerance and hatred they have for one another. And don't even get my started on what they think of Jews. It's not strong enough to escalate to hate crimes, but it strikes me as dangerous nonetheless.

[Silver Cheetah]

Originally posted by Yorick: Because it's like calling a tree and water the same name and assuming them to be the same. The "God" of pantheism is a different kind of being to the God of monotheism. Yes Islam, Judaism and Christianity all worship the Creator Personality. The difference is the path. However, Buddhism, Hinduism, Bahai and other pantheistic religions have a totally different concept of what God is. What is so hard to understand about that? Let's not forget that the end results are all different. That in the Torah/old Testament, Gods rewards occur in this life (hence we have a lot of rich Jews ) In the New Testament we have heaven, eternal life with God. With Buddha's path we have removal from the Karmic cycle of pain. (ceasing to exist) With Hinduism we have union or absorbtion into the unified soul, which everything is part of . In Hinduism we are part of God. God is not a seperate entity as he is with the monotheistic religions. The key is not merging beliefs, but accepting the person that disagrees with you. That is tolerance. Tolerance and absorbtion are different. If you merely absorb other beliefs into your own, you still end up only tolerating that which you believe. True tolerance tolerates intolerance I've had the most wonderful conversations with Buddhist Monks when I was in Tokyo. Mutual respect, not mutual agreement is the key.

I agree with you about mutual respect! I'm not too hard and fast on beliefs, - mine are pretty fluid, I guess. As I change and evolve, and my understanding of the world changes, my beliefs evolve to reflect that.

The only time I lose respect for other people's beliefs is when they try to impose them on me, or on those around them. Beliefs are individual things - everyone has the right to decide for him or herself what they choose to believe. (Obvious, but I thought I'd say it anyway...... [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Sir Michael]

Beliefs are individual things - everyone has the right to decide for him or herself what they choose to believe. (Obvious, but I thought I'd say it anyway......

Not obvious at all, Silver Cheetah, and I think the world would be a better place if everyone felt the same way you do...

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Silver Cheetah: Yorick, um, this is what I have a real problem with in your thought - this concept that the divine source is constant, unchanging. Could you explain the thinking behind this, because it just doesn't make sense to me. As an artist myself, I am changed by each picture I paint, each poem I write, each dance that comes into being through my body. I am changed by each experience. And each creation is informed by the last - i.e. my abilities/ability to access the creative force becomes greater each time I use my ability to create. Are you saying that god is outside the creation, and everything that happens is nothing to do with him... to put it another way, do you believe that god set the universe in motion, and the rest is our responsibility to sort out? Because if so, I can see how the notion of an unchanging god might fit with that. But if god co-creates with us, on an ongoing basis, then, (we being made in god's image, as the bible tells us) is it not logical that god would be affected by 'his' creative process? The idea of a 'static' creator worries me. If we are truly created in god's image, then how can we be dynamic, ever growing, ever changing, ever learning from our experiences, and god not? I know you believe that the absolute is perfect, and has no need to change, and is outside the creation. But that feels all wrong to me. I feel the created universe of which I am a part to be divine, alive and changing, and as far as I'm concerned, it is part of the divine source. It's my feeling that 'god' created the universe in order to experience itself fully. What fun is it being the absolute, with everything perfect, nothing changing, bliss for ever and ever and ever, nobody to tell you how great you are [img]smile.gif[/img] ..... Okay, I'm teasing a little, but why did god create the universe in the first place, in your opinion? You can say out of love, but how love something not yet in existence? I say it was out of curiousity, and the need to explore. Physical life is god's way of experiencing itself. Anyway, that's my theory, and I love it!! Oh dear, not expressing myself very well here. But anyway, I think you get my drift.

Great post Cheetah. Thanks for the thought and conversation. [img]smile.gif[/img]

If I can answer as best I can...

The root of the difference in opinion is our perspectives on God (as I mentioned in my above post) You points make perfect sense if God is actually part of everything. If I were a pantheist I'd agree with you totally. [img]smile.gif[/img]

But the idea that God is seperate from creation is what drives my theology.

If all is one, then there is no real relating. No real communication. The discovery is discovery of self. Self discovery. If so then all is self love, not real love. The concept that all is one, fills me with intense lonliness. Lonliness to the core.

It also restricts the creative power of God. Which is more powerful? To morph yourself into many different manifestations, or to create seperate conciousnesses? Millions of them!

If I, a human feel lonliness simply exploring the concept of being part of the only being in the universe, how much more would God? I find the idea that we are created to give and receive love - real relationship with a being seperate to us, rings so much truer for me. Makes so much sense of all things.

You are relating your experiences as an artist, and that I applaud. Much truth can be gained from such endeavour. However I believe the thinking is flawed because it's not allowing for the difference in human creation from Gods creation.

We, as I've said, can only create from what we've experience. Not ex-nihlo. From nothing.

Whatever created everything has created from nothing. Thus though we can echo some of Gods experience in creating on us, we cannot limit our experience of creating on God.

We cannot create a being that is self aware or itself creative, with the ability to either love us and seek us out, or reject us.

Our whole lives are spent in discovery. Learning. Yes learning about ourselves, the way we function, feel, react - the way the world is. Indeed we do change.

But is there not in you a core person that has remained the same since childhood? The inner child? Our actions, the way we approach a situation, the amount pain affects us, tastes - yes all these change. But the receptor does not. It is the same mind that experienced day 1 at school that is reading this post.

So why would a being outside of time change? What does being outside of time mean? Does that mean God invented time? Or that time is a tool of Gods?

The God of the Bible is outside time however. It may mean he thinks all thoughts, and performs all actions at once - Omniscience. Omnipotence.

Who knows....

God describes himself as just being. "I am".

You've presented a well thought out, well written post Cheetah. Respect sister. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I'll close simply by saying that our views differ at their ultimate source. That yours make sense if viewed from the lens of unity with everything. I would hope if viewed from the lense of a seperate creator, mine have been successfully conveyed.

[ 04-23-2002, 08:22 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Silver Cheetah]

Originally posted by Sir Michael: quote: Beliefs are individual things - everyone has the right to decide for him or herself what they choose to believe. (Obvious, but I thought I'd say it anyway......

Not obvious at all, Silver Cheetah, and I think the world would be a better place if everyone felt the same way you do...[/QUOTE]:Hugs Sir Michael very hard:

Read your post re the environment earlier. I've spent an awful lot of time making the same points, backed up with references et al. Doesn't work with people from the US, mostly. The green backlash in your country has been so great that seems to me that environemntalism as a concept has been largely discredited. (For a whole number of reasons.) In Europe, I think people generally are much more aware when it comes to the issues. If we are to succeed when it comes to raising awareness re the environment, we have to find rather more positive ways of doing it. Unfortunately, people react very badly to lists of negatives, (as I have found out to my cost!) and have a tendency to go into complete denial. I personally don't see the problem with acknowledging that we have major problems. Yorick however(correct me if I'm wrong here, Yorick [img]smile.gif[/img] I know you will! ) won't have anything to do with any statement that might implicate overpopulation as a causatory factor in where we are now as regards planetory environment, - I imagine due to the fact that god told humankind to go forth and multiply and fill the earth. Things change, and what might have made sense in a planet with a tiny population doesn't necessarily translate into our current situation. That's one of the problems I have with the concept of a 'static' creator god. That dude needs to move with the times... directives supposedly given in past ages are doing us no good at all currently, in my opinion anyway....

[ 04-23-2002, 08:35 PM: Message edited by: Silver Cheetah ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Sir Michael: So, Yorick, you didn't speak to my point...how can you explain people, who in the name of organized religion, espouse viewpoints like those of Jack Chick or that Mac guy??? It's not exactly conducive to good feelings about religion if I have been told (as I have, many times) that I am going straight to hell if I don't follow such and such religion. Also, I don't think most people are as tolerant and open-minded as you (well, to a point--you won't allow anyone to question the existence of God or faith or religion, but you will tolerate other faiths). I know several Christians and Mormons, and you can't believe the intolerance and hatred they have for one another. And don't even get my started on what they think of Jews. It's not strong enough to escalate to hate crimes, but it strikes me as dangerous nonetheless.

How do I explain Jack Chick, and the Mac guy? Simple. They are Americans. I don't think most Americans are as tolerant and open minded as you (well to a point - you won't allow anyone to tell you how beautiful humanity is) I know several African Americans and Italian Americans and you won't believe the intolerance and hatred they have for one another. And don't even get me started on what they think of the Jews.....

Generalisations are of the devil are they not? If you see an open minded Christian before then it means a Christian CAN be open minded. It doesn't mean all are.

As far as allowing debate? Am I not debating? I don't agree with someone who says there is no God. Never have I said someone can't say that. Heck!

Part of my reaction is the failure to contain my desire to share Gods love. My Granddad described Christianity as being "one hungry beggar, telling another hungry beggar where to find bread."

Well, sometimes I feel like blurting out where the food is. So you can share it.

I'm not going to get all hurt if you refuse. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Silver Cheetah: [Yorick [img]smile.gif[/img] won't have anything to do with any statement that might implicate overpopulation as a causatory factor in where we are now as regards planetory environment, - I imagine due to the fact that god told humankind to go forth and multiply and fill the earth. .

Nah. I'm just aware of how cities like Singapore have managed to fit so many into a small clean pretty place, and how the car has made city sprawl ridiculous.

Choices - mismanagement, not numbers have caused/will cause the problems in my book.

But we've been there before [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Silver Cheetah: That's one of the problems I have with the concept of a 'static' creator god. That dude needs to move with the times... directives supposedly given in past ages are doing us no good at all currently, in my opinion anyway....

Easy Tiger...

Changeless doesn't mean repeating actions like a robot.

I never suggested God was 'static' but changeless.

Besides, the New Testament IS a 'new set of directives' if you like.