So Um... Why Don't The "devout" Xians Stick It Out?

[Mriana]

Believers have always acknowledged that God works through secondary or intermediate causes.

 

Oh yes, giving credit to something external and supernatural instead of to humans themselves. As for the beauty of the earth, it is very beautiful and very awe inspiring. It is the external stimuli that triggers neuro-chemicals in the brain causing awe and wonder. It is only we humans who can save it and keep it beautiful. The earth is not for us to rape and pillage so we can use it's resources until it implodes on itself and is no more. Only we can take care of the earth, nothing external and/or supernatural to it. It is all internal to the human being, other animals, the earth, and the universe as a whole. The only thing that works through everything within in the universe are various elements which act and react to other elements. This in not a deity though. You're absolute beauty, is only a human concept, a dream, for there are no absolutes in this world and never will be. One cannot be satisfied if they believe there are absolutes and only something external to themselves can create it.

[centauri]

rayskidude' post='463063' date='Jun 23 2009, 11:11 PM']...But I know that Christianity is the only religion that acknowledges that we cannot be righteous before God, in and of ourselves, by keeping God's moral laws.

 

This is inconsistent with the Bible. The NT acknowledges that people can be righteous by keeping God's laws.

Luke 1:5-6

THERE was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.

And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

 

See, here's your same problem again - you lifted verses out of context, please read below what else is written in Luke chap 1;

 

Luk 1:20 And behold, you will be silent and unable to speak until the day that these things take place, because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled in their time."

 

Seems as though Zecharias had a lack of faith. Don't get me wrong - Zechariah & Elizabeth were excellent believers - but they were not sinless.

<SNIP>

See, Scripture is easy to understand - you just need to remember >> CONTEXT IS KEY!

I suggest you try to refrain from redefining the scripture to suit your agenda.

Here’s your problem:

You have tossed out Luke 1:5-6 and have implied that it cannot be trusted.

You can’t have anyone being righteous because that interferes with your theology.

Those verses do not say they were simply excellent believers, it clearly states they were blameless and righteous, keeping all of the law.

You have redefined righteousness to mean sinless.

That’s not the case. Keeping the law did not require anyone to be perpetually sinless.

That’s why atonement procedures were included in the law itself.

Remember, the scripture is easy to understand, you just need to remove your Christian bias.

[centauri]

Even in Christianity, doing some good works is required for salvation.

If you would like those good works to be part of predestination, that's fine, but they're still required.

People can be "right" before God by repenting from sin and keeping the law.

Psa 103:17-18

But the mercy of the LORD is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him, and his righteousness unto children's children;

To such as keep his covenant, and to those that remember his commandments to do them.

 

You are wrong again - this time on 2 accounts. Good works are not required for salvation - they are an evidence that salvation has come;

You are wrong again.

Some good works are required for salvation.

Jesus made that clear in Matt 25:31-46.

 

You are also wrong about the nature of repentance - it is a turning from sin AND and turning to GOD - for some reason you want to eliminate this important aspect of repentance.

Repenting and keeping the law are the key to salvation, which you can't have being true due to your Jesus fetish.

[centauri]

Long before Paul came along with his replacement theology, God stated that each person would die for their own sin and could save themselves by repenting and keeping the law.

Ezek 18:20-22,27

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.

All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live.

Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive.

 

And you actually think this repentance that Ezekiel is teaching about is done devoid of faith in God - in the absence of faith in God? From Where would you derive this theology?

Obviously, if a person repents of his sins to God, and keeps the law, they are having and displaying faith in God.

They are trusting in that law to bring blessings and salvation, just as the Bible promises.

Ezek 18:9(NIV)

He follows my decrees and faithfully keeps my laws.

That man is righteous; he will surely live, declares the Sovereign LORD.

 

You’re trying to establish your pet doctrine about God as being the only valid one, which is why Christianity is a replacement theology, denying the formula for salvation as defined by God in the Hebrew scriptures and introducing a much easier one in its place. The advantage being that it made the pool of potential converts much bigger.

[rayskidude]

Oh yes, giving credit to something external and supernatural instead of to humans themselves. As for the beauty of the earth, it is very beautiful and very awe inspiring. It is the external stimuli that triggers neuro-chemicals in the brain causing awe and wonder. The only thing that works through everything within in the universe are various elements which act and react to other elements.

 

Should I conclude form this that you hold to 'biochemical predeterminism'? as espoused by some prominent scientists - that all of life's pleasures, emotions, wonder, romantic love, etc are simply biochemical rxns in our brians over which we have no control - we are just slaves to our personal physiology?

 

It is only we humans who can save it and keep it beautiful. The earth is not for us to rape and pillage so we can use it's resources until it implodes on itself and is no more. Only we can take care of the earth, nothing external and/or supernatural to it. It is all internal to the human being, other animals, the earth, and the universe as a whole.

 

God certainly gave Adam & Eve the responsibility to be good stewards of the Creation He provided.

 

You're absolute beauty, is only a human concept, a dream, for there are no absolutes in this world and never will be. One cannot be satisfied if they believe there are absolutes and only something external to themselves can create it.

 

I'm sorry, but aren't these statments about the folly of absolutes actually absolutes themselves? How can you absolutely state that there are no absolutes?

[agnosticator]

Should I conclude form this that you hold to 'biochemical predeterminism'? as espoused by some prominent scientists - that all of life's pleasures, emotions, wonder, romantic love, etc are simply biochemical rxns in our brians over which we have no control - we are just slaves to our personal physiology?

 

That's funny coming from a slave of the christian god....

 

 

God certainly gave Adam & Eve the responsibility to be good stewards of the Creation He provided.

 

Adam and eve existed in real life?!

 

 

I'm sorry, but aren't these statments about the folly of absolutes actually absolutes themselves? How can you absolutely state that there are no absolutes?

 

How do you know there absolutely are absolutes when you absolutely are a subjective being?

[Mriana]

Oh yes, giving credit to something external and supernatural instead of to humans themselves. As for the beauty of the earth, it is very beautiful and very awe inspiring. It is the external stimuli that triggers neuro-chemicals in the brain causing awe and wonder. The only thing that works through everything within in the universe are various elements which act and react to other elements.

 

Should I conclude form this that you hold to 'biochemical predeterminism'? as espoused by some prominent scientists - that all of life's pleasures, emotions, wonder, romantic love, etc are simply biochemical rxns in our brians over which we have no control - we are just slaves to our personal physiology?

 

I do have a degree in psychology with emphasis on neuro-psychology, so yes, except I would not call it 'biochemical predeterminism'. In some respects we can control it. Buddhists monks do this through meditation. You can chose the music you listen to, to get the affect you want- relaxation, elation, etc and knowing this, one can chose to go to church or not to be among all the stimuli there in order to trigger numinous feelings, but these same feelings can be felt through nature and/or music. There are various ways to control the chemicals in one's brain and one doesn't have to be a slave to them. Neuro-psychology/Neurology has only begun to study this area and they have already found some interesting things concerning neurology and religion/spirituality. You can control the stimuli you are exposed to and there by control feelings of transcendence too.

 

It is only we humans who can save it and keep it beautiful. The earth is not for us to rape and pillage so we can use it's resources until it implodes on itself and is no more. Only we can take care of the earth, nothing external and/or supernatural to it. It is all internal to the human being, other animals, the earth, and the universe as a whole.

 

God certainly gave Adam & Eve the responsibility to be good stewards of the Creation He provided.

 

The story of Adam and Eve came from Babylonia mythology. Those two characters never existed. The story is a myth. The story of Eden came from Babylonia mythology too. The same goes for the two different creation stories- one came from Babylonian mythology and the other from Egyptian mythology. The stories were derived from one culture in the area and adapted to a specific culture- in this case polytheistic Jews at this time. Yes, Jews started out as polytheistic. You have a female goddess in the creation story too, but you have to understand mythology to spot her and yes, the Jews at one time had a male and female deity they worshiped. You can find all this in Victor H. Matthews (a former prof of mine and Episcopalian) books. You will also find info on this scattered in John Shelby Spong and Robert Price's books, not to mention the controversial Acharya S./AKA D. M. Murdock.

 

When all is said and done, it is all as Bishop Spong has said, God is a human creation and the Bible is not the inerrant word of God. It was inspired and written by humans without any divine inspiration what so ever. Egyptian mythology is all over the Old and New Testaments.

 

You're absolute beauty, is only a human concept, a dream, for there are no absolutes in this world and never will be. One cannot be satisfied if they believe there are absolutes and only something external to themselves can create it.

 

I'm sorry, but aren't these statments about the folly of absolutes actually absolutes themselves? How can you absolutely state that there are no absolutes?

 

Oh that is nice, but to say there are absolutes is problematic also.

[Ouroboros]

The story of Adam and Eve came from Babylonia mythology. Those two characters never existed. The story is a myth. The story of Eden came from Babylonia mythology too. The same goes for the two different creation stories- one came from Babylonian mythology and the other from Egyptian mythology. The stories were derived from one culture in the area and adapted to a specific culture- in this case polytheistic Jews at this time.

Isn't it crazy? Religious people (especially Christians and other monotheists) say Adam and Eve existed, but not Enki and Enlil; they say Noah existed, but not Gilgamesh. And why? Because their stories are supposedly "true", while the other stories are "myths".

[Mriana]

The story of Adam and Eve came from Babylonia mythology. Those two characters never existed. The story is a myth. The story of Eden came from Babylonia mythology too. The same goes for the two different creation stories- one came from Babylonian mythology and the other from Egyptian mythology. The stories were derived from one culture in the area and adapted to a specific culture- in this case polytheistic Jews at this time.

Isn't it crazy? Religious people (especially Christians and other monotheists) say Adam and Eve existed, but not Enki and Enlil; they say Noah existed, but not Gilgamesh. And why? Because their stories are supposedly "true", while the other stories are "myths".

 

It is crazy. I bet you they never even read any other mythical stories except their own. I bet the majority don't even know that Adam had a wife before Eve, who, because she knew God's name, had the power! Of course she refused to be under Adam and when she left she refused to return to Adam, mated with those in the area and had their children, who ate Eve's. Love that story. Great roll model for women, that Lilith.

[Ouroboros]

It is crazy. I bet you they never even read any other mythical stories except their own.

When I was Christian, I read some. I liked sci-fi, and fantasy, and read some old myths, but I think I actually did avoid them as much as I could. Subconsciously I probably knew that if I did, it would severely hurt my belief. It's a strange thing though, the mind being able to compartmentalize these things.

 

I bet the majority don't even know that Adam had a wife before Eve, who, because she knew God's name, had the power!

What was her name again? Edith, or something?

 

Did she have the power because she knew God's name? It sounds like witchcraft. Which Christians use too when they cast out demons in the name of Jesus.

 

Of course she refused to be under Adam and when she left she refused to return to Adam, mated with those in the area and had their children, who ate Eve's. Love that story. Great roll model for women, that Lilith.

 

Oh, Lilith was it. Fabulous stories. One day I might study it deeper... when I have more time.

[Mriana]

Yes, there is a whole superstition around it with hardline Jews or use to be. They put (or did) this special clothe on their newborn son until he was circumcised to keep Lilith away from him. After he was circumcised he was safe from Lilith. There didn't seem to be a fear of her eating the girls though or if there was, the prof didn't mention it.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

I preached a sermon on this idea drawn from the story of the "Greatest Commandment" (Love God and love your neighbor as yourself). Understanding that for me at that time, pretty much informed me that there was really no other sermon that would ever need to be preached. That all the rest was superfluous, or worse, religious politics.

 

I'm reminded of this quote from Karen Armstrong's book, The Bible-A Biography where she talks about the Pharisaic sage Hillel and how once he was asked to summarize the entire Torah while standing on one leg.

Standing on one leg, Hillel replied: What is hateful to yourself, do not to your fellow man. That is the whole of the Torah and the remainder is but commentary. Go study it

[Antlerman]

I am presupposing nothing in regards to this. There is scientific data that informs us this is what happens in nature. It's our job to fit our thinking to the data. No need for any presupposing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

 

This article simply observes the world today - with all the complexity and intracacy, and with an atheistic, mechanistic, evolutionary worldview, the authors surmise that emergence of various systems naturally occurs. The article never addresses the question: WHY do singular complex things work together to form complex systems, it just acknowledges they do. Why are there quarks, charms, positrons, dark matter, etc. Scientifically, we don't know - but we can observe, define, systematize, etc.

 

But given the fact that there are no known or observable events where we can say; "Look, this jus came together to form a winderful convergence/emergence/whatever - it's all speculation.

What? I don't understand. Are you saying we can't see emergent properties anywhere? They have countless examples. What do you mean "there are no known or observable events"?

 

But my point is that nature does form higher and more complex systems without an active designer putting them together. This is the nature of nature and makes my point that it doesn't need an active, intelligent designer putting the systems together with a directed, specific, intentional design. Humans are what they are because we evolved from simpler systems to higher systems, not with "us" in mind, but one result of what happens in nature.

 

New systems are being created all the time. It was not some thing that happened in the past and now it's all here, which is the Creationist model of the universe which has zero supporting observations, mind you. The nature of nature is that of continual creation.

 

Now you can argue "why" is that what it is. And that's an interesting discussion. But it doesn't have anything to do with the underlying point that these systems as they are evolving, emerging from lower levels (cells from molecules, molecules from atoms, etc) are not happening, did not happen, does not require an intelligent designer to put the bits together. They are self-ordering. Do you believe Genesis is an allegory for continual creation?

 

The article also discussed laws and rules by which nature operates - strange terminology for systems that are inherently operating without design.

These rules and laws are not dictates from an author. Everything that is matter has properties. It's those properties which create certain limits or abilities. As those things interact with other things, you have something new that emerges from them, which can become its own thing comprised of, linked to, yet distinct from its component parts.

 

Again, are you acknowledging that nature is a self-ordering system in continual creation within itself, but that the whole ball of wax was made to do this specifically by a designer? That this is it's design? If so, it pretty much takes the whole literal Adam and Eve, literal reading of the book of Genesis and trashes that whole understanding of it.

 

But the fact is we use such terms because they accurately depact what we observe - nature follows very strict physical laws that operate within very stringent parameters (if some if these physical parameters were off just minutely from what they are, then the whole system falls apart). Wow - almost as is they were... specifically designed!

Are you saying everything, past, present, and future is specifically designed? By specifically designed, I mean not just life, but everything? Every form that emerges is specifically designed to be that one thing and one thing only? Is this what you saying?

 

A man's nipples were specifically designed for what reason, Ray?

 

The improbablility that such a complex & intricate amalgamation of living things and various weather cycles and symbioses and eco-systems have arisen on earth "just because" has always plagued science.

Oh, I think that there are definitely limits to how we approach science to really understanding nature. There will need to be some paradigm shifts that occur to take it to the next level, but don't congratulate the church for having the answer the whole time. Unless of course you are willing to redefine what "God" means?

 

As it stands one could argue the anthropic principle, that we could see it as perfectly order for us simply by virtue that this is what emerged and we enjoy our position in it. Of course there a near infinite places in the universe that is not designed for us, but we like to focus on the success and say it was "meant to be". I would deny that, in the specific forms that we are.

 

Life finds a way to exists in areas way too hostile for our species to live. And I don't doubt for one second that life exists prolifically throughout the universe. One could argue that life is an inevitability of the universe. But it doesn't mean the universe was made FOR life. It was also made for a rock's existence. Perfectly ordered for the rock, etc. We are a part of that system, but not its center of attention. And it's all a wonderful thing, really.

 

Which is more plausible then? A Creator that makes everything look like it occurred through natural processes, or processes that occur naturally and that created what we see

 

Believers have always acknowledged that God works through secondary or intermediate causes.

So you acknowledge that we are created through the natural process of evolution? If you deny this, then you aren't acknowledging that God does what you just said. In which case I'd say you're placing a bad reading of the book of Genesis above a real desire to understand. And that to me, would be an offense to God, were he the mind behind the system. Worshiping a belief above God, so to speak.

 

 

I'll pick up the rest of my response later....

[NotBlinded]

No, I don't say that enjoyment of nature requires belief in God - I state that the existence of complexity/diversity/harmony/balance/vastness/intracacy that we see in all of Creation points to an intelligent, conscious Designer/Creator. When you see a beautiful garden - you think as well of the gardener, do you not?

 

Those are actually two separate questions. The first, the existence of complexity, diversity, etc, is understandable without some intelligent being as the architect. Self organizing systems are seen in nature all the time without the need of miracles. They are repeatable, observable phenomena. Therefore, it could just point to nature as a natural system.

 

Yes, it could. But then you presuppose that such characteristics such as self-organization is inherent in the nature of matter; i.e., 'just because.' On the other hand, I presuppose that such characteristics of matter which lead to a universe of wonder, harmony, beauty, balance, with symbiotic relationships and self-organization, etc is the work of an infinitely wise & loving Creator who designed matter to have such characteristics that would generate this universe we see. SO the question is which of these theories is more plausible; Just because or wise Creator?

There is a problem here when either side takes the view that there are only two options. The problem being one that sees an either or situation. One of outside creator vs one of no outside creator. What I find a little ironic is that, when understood as this alone, both sides are claiming the fundamental properties of the universe to either be created, like clay or somehow fully automated clay.

 

I think it is entirely possible that the self-organization of matter (for what that means) has inherent the intelligence of creation. Just as the acorn has the properties of the oak tree already in it, the big bang (if that's how it all started) had everything there is already inherent in it. This view sees nature as alive, not just a dead planet. It brings god back into creation instead of setting it apart. Creation is god.

 

It has to do with they way one views reality. If both sides view all of reality as being something that needs a jump start, like Newtonian billiard balls, then you will get this either or question that you posit. If one's view of reality sees cause and effect as a single process that doesn't need a being on the end of the que stick, this question doesn't arise. Nature is a self-organizing, spontaneous process.

 

Awhile back Antlerman and myself discussed intelligence as a property of nature, not as a part of it, but inherent in all parts. I call this intelligence god, Antlerman calls it nature. What's in a name when the effect is the same?

[NotBlinded]

I acknowledge the beauty that exists today, but if the modicum of beauty you see in this world - or that can even be generated in this world today - if that is your hope - you're welcome to it. But you will only be disappointed by its continually being marred. Only God can (and will, thankfully) restore the Earth to Absolute Beauty.

How in the hell would you even recognize absolute beauty without first knowing a little hell and ugliness? At least Siva the destroyer is recognized as necessary and worshiped in the trinity of Hinduism. Satan plays a pretty important role in your theology also.

 

From this post it seems you are more interesed in what happens after death to your ego than what happens during life.

[NotBlinded]

Life finds a way to exists in areas way too hostile for our species to live. And I don't doubt for one second that life exists prolifically throughout the universe. One could argue that life is an inevitability of the universe. But it doesn't mean the universe was made FOR life. It was also made for a rock's existence. Perfectly ordered for the rock, etc. We are a part of that system, but not its center of attention. And it's all a wonderful thing, really.

Yes! Sorry, but you make wonderful sense AM. Life is a propery of the universe just like the oak tree is a property of the acorn and as planets and stars are a property of space. The whole thing was there from the begining as probablitites. Wonderful...

[Antlerman]

There is a problem here when either side takes the view that there are only two options. The problem being one that sees an either or situation. One of outside creator vs one of no outside creator. What I find a little ironic is that, when understood as this alone, both sides are claiming the fundamental properties of the universe to either be created, like clay or somehow fully automated clay.

 

I think it is entirely possible that the self-organization of matter (for what that means) has inherent the intelligence of creation. Just as the acorn has the properties of the oak tree already in it, the big bang (if that's how it all started) had everything there is already inherent in it. This view sees nature as alive, not just a dead planet. It brings god back into creation instead of setting it apart. Creation is god.

Actually my dear, you haven't given me a chance yet to go to that level here. I was merely trying to establish something here with Ray first. I actually agree with more than you realize at this point. I'm just trying to establish that "intelligence" as Ray sees it, that it was specifically and deliberately designed to be "this" or "that" is not really what I would accept as true or supportable on any number of levels. I did refer in my post above this one about there needing to be a paradigm shift in science in order to go to the next level. That level is, and I agree, where science and "God" meet.

 

Just keep reading....

 

It has to do with they way one views reality. If both sides view all of reality as being something that needs a jump start, like Newtonian billiard balls, then you will get this either or question that you posit. If one's view of reality sees cause and effect as a single process that doesn't need a being on the end of the que stick, this question doesn't arise. Nature is a self-organizing, spontaneous process.

I whole heartedly agree. I think our points of view stemming from a Cartesian Dualism creates a false premise. Cause and effect are not the end all way of looking at the world. A light ray is both a wave and a particle, not one or the other.

 

Awhile back Antlerman and myself discussed intelligence as a property of nature, not as a part of it, but inherent in all parts. I call this intelligence god, Antlerman calls it nature. What's in a name when the effect is the same?

Again, I agree. I can easily accept this as "God" if I should feel the need to express it in those terms, which frankly often I do. I said to Ray in the post above this one, that he could claim "the church was right", but only if he was willing to reexamine and redefine the picture of God that the church posits. And we're getting ahead of myself here, but I argue now that much of what is expressed in religious texts are in fact expressions of this 'impression' people have had of this "god", but expressed in the language and context of their culture's myths.

 

Anyway, good to see you back.

[Antlerman]

Life finds a way to exists in areas way too hostile for our species to live. And I don't doubt for one second that life exists prolifically throughout the universe. One could argue that life is an inevitability of the universe. But it doesn't mean the universe was made FOR life. It was also made for a rock's existence. Perfectly ordered for the rock, etc. We are a part of that system, but not its center of attention. And it's all a wonderful thing, really.

Yes! Sorry, but you make wonderful sense AM. Life is a propery of the universe just like the oak tree is a property of the acorn and as planets and stars are a property of space. The whole thing was there from the begining as probablitites. Wonderful...

Exactly.

 

To me the whole of trying to prove one's theology correct is to spend their whole energy in justifying a belief, not seeking to find and express truth as a living thing. They make it outside themselves. It's not.

[Onyx]

Oh yes, giving credit to something external and supernatural instead of to humans themselves. As for the beauty of the earth, it is very beautiful and very awe inspiring. It is the external stimuli that triggers neuro-chemicals in the brain causing awe and wonder. The only thing that works through everything within in the universe are various elements which act and react to other elements.

 

Should I conclude form this that you hold to 'biochemical predeterminism'? as espoused by some prominent scientists - that all of life's pleasures, emotions, wonder, romantic love, etc are simply biochemical rxns in our brians over which we have no control - we are just slaves to our personal physiology?

 

It is only we humans who can save it and keep it beautiful. The earth is not for us to rape and pillage so we can use it's resources until it implodes on itself and is no more. Only we can take care of the earth, nothing external and/or supernatural to it. It is all internal to the human being, other animals, the earth, and the universe as a whole.

 

God certainly gave Adam & Eve the responsibility to be good stewards of the Creation He provided.

 

 

 

Ah, chemicals are beautiful in themselves. They give us keys to the world but if they didn't, we as humans, would never exist. Alternatively, we'd experience existence in another way. Or if you follow parallel universes/alternative theories - there could be a multiplic bunch of existences (humans wouldn't even be called humans) with chemicals completely different from ours... in short, there's so much possibilities but we know little about the realities.

 

If god were to exist - he'd have to have chemicals to enable his perceptions and consciousness so he'd have to talk to Moses without having to be dead or nonexistent or non-sentient or all three. So in a way, are you saying that The Ultimate Master is slave to His Own Chemicals and is miserable?

[Mriana]

Oh yes, giving credit to something external and supernatural instead of to humans themselves. As for the beauty of the earth, it is very beautiful and very awe inspiring. It is the external stimuli that triggers neuro-chemicals in the brain causing awe and wonder. The only thing that works through everything within in the universe are various elements which act and react to other elements.

 

Should I conclude form this that you hold to 'biochemical predeterminism'? as espoused by some prominent scientists - that all of life's pleasures, emotions, wonder, romantic love, etc are simply biochemical rxns in our brians over which we have no control - we are just slaves to our personal physiology?

 

It is only we humans who can save it and keep it beautiful. The earth is not for us to rape and pillage so we can use it's resources until it implodes on itself and is no more. Only we can take care of the earth, nothing external and/or supernatural to it. It is all internal to the human being, other animals, the earth, and the universe as a whole.

 

God certainly gave Adam & Eve the responsibility to be good stewards of the Creation He provided.

 

 

 

Ah, chemicals are beautiful in themselves. They give us keys to the world but if they didn't, we as humans, would never exist. Alternatively, we'd experience existence in another way. Or if you follow parallel universes/alternative theories - there could be a multiplic bunch of existences (humans wouldn't even be called humans) with chemicals completely different from ours... in short, there's so much possibilities but we know little about the realities.

 

If god were to exist - he'd have to have chemicals to enable his perceptions and consciousness so he'd have to talk to Moses without having to be dead or nonexistent or non-sentient or all three. So in a way, are you saying that The Ultimate Master is slave to His Own Chemicals and is miserable?

 

I'm confused. Which one of us are you talking to? I think I answered rayskiddude's question above which was almost similar in another post and said nothing about being a slave to anything. On the contrary, I mentioned Buddhist monks controlling their neurology and alike with meditation. Thus why I'm confused. However, I agree, IF there were a god, IT (because there is no gender with chemicals) would have to be some sort of a chemical element or alike. On slight change in human chemistry, one elemental change, and we would not be humans. We'd be some other ape or maybe a cat. It was all in how the chemicals combined in this vast world of evolution.

[NotBlinded]

There is a problem here when either side takes the view that there are only two options. The problem being one that sees an either or situation. One of outside creator vs one of no outside creator. What I find a little ironic is that, when understood as this alone, both sides are claiming the fundamental properties of the universe to either be created, like clay or somehow fully automated clay.

 

I think it is entirely possible that the self-organization of matter (for what that means) has inherent the intelligence of creation. Just as the acorn has the properties of the oak tree already in it, the big bang (if that's how it all started) had everything there is already inherent in it. This view sees nature as alive, not just a dead planet. It brings god back into creation instead of setting it apart. Creation is god.

Actually my dear, you haven't given me a chance yet to go to that level here. I was merely trying to establish something here with Ray first. I actually agree with more than you realize at this point. I'm just trying to establish that "intelligence" as Ray sees it, that it was specifically and deliberately designed to be "this" or "that" is not really what I would accept as true or supportable on any number of levels. I did refer in my post above this one about there needing to be a paradigm shift in science in order to go to the next level. That level is, and I agree, where science and "God" meet.

 

Just keep reading....

Oh Antlerman...I didn't mean you! I was actually talking about Ray making the statement of either this or that and I was using this priori as a basis for my argument. Your quote just got caught in the process. You know that I know how you view experience.

 

Honestly, I had to reply to this before I kept reading. I'm sorry for not explaining better before I went off, but I did add this part at the end, "I call this intelligence god, Antlerman calls it nature. What's in a name when the effect is the same?" I was with you, as usual.

 

Now...to finish reading the rest of your post, with much anticipation!

[NotBlinded]

It has to do with they way one views reality. If both sides view all of reality as being something that needs a jump start, like Newtonian billiard balls, then you will get this either or question that you posit. If one's view of reality sees cause and effect as a single process that doesn't need a being on the end of the que stick, this question doesn't arise. Nature is a self-organizing, spontaneous process.

I whole heartedly agree. I think our points of view stemming from a Cartesian Dualism creates a false premise. Cause and effect are not the end all way of looking at the world. A light ray is both a wave and a particle, not one or the other.

Yes. I think we use our measurements of reality much in the same way the the religious use their icons...as the geniune thing and not as an abstract pointing device. Take time for instance - sometimes cause and effect are seen as, well, something that causes something else to happen because of the time we notice between the two seemingly separate events. One happens now, the result happens later. This leaves us with blinders to what is really going on. Put the clock aside and we can see it as a natural process of nature. Some things happen with extreme speed while others happen slowly, but only in the context of time. It's all unified.

 

Awhile back Antlerman and myself discussed intelligence as a property of nature, not as a part of it, but inherent in all parts. I call this intelligence god, Antlerman calls it nature. What's in a name when the effect is the same?

Again, I agree. I can easily accept this as "God" if I should feel the need to express it in those terms, which frankly often I do. I said to Ray in the post above this one, that he could claim "the church was right", but only if he was willing to reexamine and redefine the picture of God that the church posits. And we're getting ahead of myself here, but I argue now that much of what is expressed in religious texts are in fact expressions of this 'impression' people have had of this "god", but expressed in the language and context of their culture's myths.

I think that maybe that is why Jesus (or whoever wrote the words) may have had a hard time expressing, and being understood, what he wanted to say about his divine experience. All he knew was the language and context of his culture and its myths. He could have greatly expounded on it if he had been born in India.

 

Anyway, good to see you back.

Thanks Antlerman and it's wonderful to read your insights again.

[NotBlinded]

A man's nipples were specifically designed for what reason, Ray?

 

Oh, oh, oh...I know! Can I answer this please?

[Antlerman]

A man's nipples were specifically designed for what reason, Ray?

 

Oh, oh, oh...I know! Can I answer this please?

Oh oh, I smell a set up here... I give. Why?

[NotBlinded]

A man's nipples were specifically designed for what reason, Ray?

 

Oh, oh, oh...I know! Can I answer this please?

Oh oh, I smell a set up here... I give. Why?

Purple Nurples! (That wasn't really what I was thinking, but you weren't supposed to call me out on that!) HA!