A Clarification of the Debate

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Seems the discussion is trending upon speculation, and nothing is being offered outside of views and opinions.

Of course this isn't something that should be discouraged, because ones thoughts and views do express considerations others may not have previously made themselves, and the collective massing of various points of view can result in a benefits all can utilize.

Since there are Lines in the Sand or Sides being drawn, I feel clarification of my views should be duly noted.

1: I am a Christian, of no religious body or group.
2: I believe we have been given the Inspired Word of GOD.
3: I see nothing Biblically speaking that dismisses the view of either side of this topic.

I have no difficulties in accepting the "Fossil Record". Some may argue this would be impossible, but it is the manner inwhich the Genesis Account is laid forth, that I find both arguements are part and parcel of the same details expressed in those generally short and segmented passages of Genesis Chapter 1.

A simple Study of the Text, and it is clear, the Creationist View point could imply varying periods of time for the "Days" expressed in Chapter 1 of Genesis. A Day is a 24 Hours Period of time, as expressed today, but what if I utilize this word in the following context.

Science teaches us about the Day of the Dinosaur.

Now some "Literalists" could suggest we should apply a 24 hour period as the span of time being discussed, yet the Fossil Records suggest the Day of the Dinosaur exceeded 100 Millions of years. An Age of the Dinosaur, or the Era of the Dinosaur is what Science teaches us about.

The point of this is the term Day, which the Translators use does cover various periods of time in the Original Context. Sun Up til Sun Down, Sun Up to Sun Up (The 24 Hour), and goes on to express and Era or an Age.

What occurred, Biblically Speaking between Genesis 1;1 and Genesis 1:26, is a measure that science itself suggests span Billions of year. (I can't recall off hand but I think 45 Billion was their dating estimate for "In the Begining").

And what occured between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 is subject to debate. My Views tend to be that it is a calculated miss-translation due to the environment of the time, (1611 AD). Remember most still considered the earth was the center of the Universe, and the Sun revolved around the Earth, and the Church was the Crown, and they spoke for GOD, and the ever controlling term hearsay.

Take the Original Text and Genesis 1:2 could easily indicate, "And the Earth Became a Waste and a Desolation....", apposed to what is expressed now.

The implications of this, being submitted to the Masonic King James, could result in pre-mature death.


We have a Fossil Record. It is evidence that life was a process. It took Millions of Years for changes to transpire and none of this is contrary to the Bible's Teachings.

As a Christian, I firmly believe the Creationist View is also accurate, with one disclaimer. It's a Recreationist View. I believe even science supports this, for the most part. Some will dismiss it,, since there eyes are preset to finding the "Missing Link" to show the transition from what the Fossil Record bears to Modern Man. Personally to them, good luck! It is a testament to sticktoitteness, but a effort based in time spent wasted.

The Missing Link is expressed in Genesis 1;26 with the recreation of Man, as a spieces, and the advent of the Hunter / Gatherer.

Now, this would mean, I believe in the Event of Intelligent Design. It was a Event which had taken Billions of Years. It was "Tweeked" (so to speak) about 65-35000 Years ago, with the introduction of Man in Genesis 1;26.

I do not believe in the term evolution.

Support for this is based directly on the introduction of Man in Genesis 1;26. We have "DEVOLVED" significantly since then. We do not show Stewardship of the Land, or the Flora and Fauna. We now live decades, apposed to centuries. We have little regard for our fellow man.

But this Devolution is not because of the Designer/GOD. It is the Free will of Man, and the choices that Man has made that is at fault.

The Designer made things right. We ourselves are the reason for the Problems We have.

Trust I didn't scare anyone, and I hope the views are met with consideration. They are simply offered for discussion and not to demean the views Other's have.

Ciao

Shane




posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Fair enough. My humble answer to your question is that it *MAY* be acceptable to allow suffering when one can prevent it, depending on your reference point. Most of us agree that helping hungry people in Ethiopia is not simply something we can do. It is something we should do. We should also end the abuse of animals as well as the abuse of humans. However, most of us would also agree that we would probably not change the laws of Physics to end all suffering if we could, because our own lives would be altered to the extent that "we" would not exist in our current form. And, no matter how fervent one's faith in one's religion---be it Navajo spirituality, Rastafarianism, Hinayana Buddhism, or any other civilized faith that does not call for killing unbelievers or electing Rick Santorum----we would not want God to end our lives simply to end suffering either. If we had the choice, most of us would accept the suffering for the sake of the joy of existence. Even those who do not agree with my statement above generally do not pray for an end to the joy in exchange for an end to the suffering. (Exceptions should seek counseling for depression, not thread wars on ATS)

My feeling is that intuitively we sense that we have lessons to learn on the Earth plane, before we can move beyond the suffering. All illusion from that other side, where the Creator is, but from our standpoint here simply abolishing suffering is also abolishing joy. Pleasure and pain are illusions ultimately, imo, but on this plane they are important. Even if one does not agree that this plane is ultimately illusion (you probably do not, my atheist friend, and I do call you friend) we can agree that they are important here and I would not minimize that. Hence the need for compassion. It is in compassion that I have felt closest to God as I understand God to be.

Some people have pointed out the difference between evolution and natural selection. That is true. I believe that natural selection cannot fully explain why some "mutations" are helpful. It cannot fully explain the evolutionary process. It can explain that helpful traits are selected, leading to a process of speciation. Sexual selection gets in there too of course, since as all of you guys know women love guys with red tail feathers and a cool beak. However, natural selection is the ultimate leveler. Life *COULD* have become extinct through natural selection long ago. It is a refining process, not a creative process.

I am not sure that Bergson's "Elan Vital" can be fully thrown out the window just yet. I am also a closet Lamarckian, albeit a lapsed Lamarckian since my genes are a bit too lazy to learn their lessons in life. Instead of the Anthropic Principle, I would call my thinking the Biophic Principle. Life is a principle that I believe is inherent in Nature. Not imposed by the outside from a God purely on the outside of things as religions imagine, nor created from randomness, but placed by the Artist as an inherent principle within existence itself. If M-Theory is right, and there are other branes, then I tend to think that those branes would have their own form of life. It may not be carbon based, and it may have different philosophical constants. But, I think it is probably there.

My point here is that suffering has to be experienced. Perhaps as the Buddha taught, suffering is overcome by our not clinging. If the Creator simply took suffering away, the lessons of not clinging and of compassion would not be learned. My sense also is that my words are not new to you, but simply reminders of a deep wisdom in your own soul. Sorry if I sound arrogant or know-it-all. Believe me, I am not.



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Shane
 


Interesting post. I just wanted to point out that there is no such thing as devolution. Evolution does not mean that things have to get better, it only means that things adapt to their environments and change accordingly. You cannot evolve backwards or unevolve. A creature will continue to change slowly over time, there's no better or worse, there is only survival and procreation.



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


My last response was a little long winded (although I hope you read it). Let me follow the sage advice that Jubal Harshaw wanted to give to Valentin Michael Smith and be a proper gentleman by leaving other mens' souls alone. No more pretense to religious wisdom. Let me give you a clear statement that I think you will respect even if you disagree with. You have stated that any Higher Power could not be good because of the fact that He allows evil in the world. (Gender pronoun merely linguistic) That is a hard question, and since it does not deal with Creation and Evolution I will simply state my response and then allow you the last word.

My best idea of how to address your point is simple. If we as spiritual beings are created in the Divine Image, a spiritual Image beyond form and matter, "Image" being spiritual in this context, then it means that we resemble God in many respects. We are not so much to "emulate" God because we already do emulate God. Hence, we suffer because God suffers. That is what compassion means, to suffer with. We could possibly pray to have suffering removed but we would lose part of what is vital in life, its authenticity. Why does God suffer? My sense is that it is an existential thing. Suffering is part of concern for every creature. It is part of the dialectic of opposites that define existence. Part of being in the Divine Image is suffering because life is an existential clash of opposites, paint on a canvass, and thus we have to suffer to experience it deeply.

The question is not whether we will suffer. The question is whether we suffer well. Most of us suffer for ourselves and that is the real tragedy. Suffering without attachment, with simple wisdom and compassion, is when we are really adult about it.

That is my best guess. I let you have the last word and take my leave.



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthEvolves

My point here is that suffering has to be experienced. Perhaps as the Buddha taught, suffering is overcome by our not clinging. If the Creator simply took suffering away, the lessons of not clinging and of compassion would not be learned. My sense also is that my words are not new to you, but simply reminders of a deep wisdom in your own soul. Sorry if I sound arrogant or know-it-all. Believe me, I am not.


Views being expressed eloquently. Kuddos.

But does it have to be experienced? Suffering?

Now don't get me wrong, since I fully realize suffering is a daily occurrence for many, if not all, in some respect or level, but is it we suffer due to choices we made or suffer due to it becoming an inherent trait associated with the process of advancement. (Some would refer to it as evolution apposed to advancement
) .

I opt to consider it began with the choices made by Mankind, that have led us to such a situation. Choices made long ago, but still followed to this day.

Not something inspired by an Intelligent Creator - GOD. Not something we (collectively speaking) had - have to endure.

Ciao

Shane



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs

I just wanted to point out that there is no such thing as devolution.


I tend to be sarcastic at times, and it reflects badly when I need to use terms I do not specifically agree with.


Evolution does not mean that things have to get better, it only means that things adapt to their environments and change accordingly.


I would generally affix this within the Survival of the Fittest area. Be that as it may.

But I do understand your point.

My intent was to position the 6th Day Speices of Man in light of how they had been created. Man as a spieces today is a far cry from what it once was.

But in my defense, spell check did not flag my fabricated term either.


Have a good day

Ciao

Shane



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Shane
 


Has anyone seen "Paris after Midnight," the Woody Allen film about a film writer who finally finds out who he is by traveling back in time and seeing the writers and artists of Paris in the twenties? That was one awesome movie. The reason I bring it up is it is my idea of what we are doing on this planet. We are finding out who our essential selves are.

My sense is that "evolution" did not give rise to consciousness. Rather, it was Consciousness that gave rise to evolution and the physical plane. But, hey, that's me. Watch the movie it was great!



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 01:32 AM
link   
reply to post by EarthEvolves
 


It *MAY* be acceptable to allow suffering when one can prevent it, depending on your reference point. Most of us agree that helping hungry people in Ethiopia is not simply something we can do. It is something we should do.

The comparison does not obtain. Halting an African famine is beyond the limits of the possible for most of us. But with God – as His propagandists are forever assuring us – nothing is impossible. The constraints that prevent us cannot exist for an omnipotent being. If God wished to end all suffering in the universe this instant, all He (reputedly) has to do is snap His divine Fingers.

So why doesn't He?


(Because) suffering has to be experienced... If the Creator simply took suffering away, the lessons of not clinging and of compassion would not be learned.

Even you must see that this is a very silly answer. Why could He not simply create us with detachment and compassion built in? For an omnipotent being, it should be easy.


We would not want God to end our lives simply to end suffering either.

Surely an omnipotent being should be able to put an end to suffering without putting an end also to the sufferer?


reply to post by EarthEvolves
 


If we as spiritual beings are created in the Divine Image, a spiritual Image beyond form and matter, "Image" being spiritual in this context, then it means that we resemble God in many respects. Hence, we suffer because God suffers.

An omnipotent being that suffers is an omnipotent being that cannot be very bright.


The question is not whether we will suffer. The question is whether we suffer well.

The question is not whether or how, but why we suffer.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 02:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Watch "Paris After Midnight" some time. A writer discovers himself in Paris by traveling back in time to meet Getrude Stein, Hemingway, and other writers of that time. In the course of finding himself, he finds suffering in the relationship with the woman he is about to marry. At any minute he could stop traveling back in time, but he cannot because he would not be who is truly was if he did.

So it is with the viewer. At any moment we can stop the movie and end the character's suffering but for some reason we choose to follow the movie to the end. We even forget that it is an illusion because the character teaches us that good fiction is best written when it is more real than non-fiction. I think that there are deep metaphysical lessons in such a movie. I think the best metaphysical lesson is in Woody Allen realizing that casting himself as lead romantic role is probably not a good idea for a love movie set in Paris (Hong Kong maybe).

By the way, why is this forum so filled with racists? It seems like every time a I turn around blacks are vilified. This type of thing only does the work of the forces of repression.

Joke: How many COINTELPRO agents does it take to change a light bulb?

Answer: COINTELPRO no longer exists but, OK, since you are persistent in your FOIA request the answer is one.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by EarthEvolves
 

Unfortunately for the comparison, God doesn't feel a compulsion to watch and see how the story comes out. He already knows how the story will come out.

I suppose there are so many racists on ATS because there are so many racists in the world. I have travelled widely, yet never have I come across a culture in which racism is unknown. Part of our legacy of original sin, you might call it.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


There is nothing "original" about racism. There is nothing creative about it. If it is an original sin then it is a boring original sin.

I think that you have a lot of good questions. Instead of talking to me, I would take them to Creator Himself---or Herself, however Creator manifests to you. If the sound is silence, I would not confuse that with non-existence. Silence is a teacher. In fact, it is too bad that we have so much noise pollution. The forests could really do better ecologically if humankind would shut up a little more. I practice meditation personally. But, in your case, maybe just asking Creator the questions you have asked me would be good. Just ask out loud and wait for an answer. I don't think I can answer them as well. I am being honest. I have tried my best but I would go to the Source and not to someone who posts about Bigfoot on a web forum.

Let me end my part in this thread (I would not have continued this far if you had not raised interesting and valid points) with a story. I believe it is from India, if I am not mistaken. I do not remember the entire story so I will ad-lib it a bit, with respect:

Once a man prayed that God would come and accept his sacrifice. He was a devout Hindu, a no nonsense religious guy. My guess is that he wanted the Avatar Vishnu to come, but I have not studied Hinduism in a while so I don't really remember the whole story. In any case, he prayed and prayed, and still no answer. The man left the sacrifice outside, and went in to his hermitage. He then came outside and a dog was eating the sacrifice. He beat the dog savagely for daring to blaspheme what was holy, especially since that dog was in a "lower" incarnation than he was, a Brahmin. He set out another sacrifice, and another dog came and did the same thing. He beat the dog. Over and over again this happened, with a different dog each time. Then, it all stopped and the sacrifice just stayed there.

Eventually the man fell asleep and had a dream of God. "Why did you not come and take my sacrifice? Why am I bereft?" God answered him and said that He tried to incarnate as Man's Best Friend to accept the sacrifice, but in each form He took He was beaten savagely. Eventually, God said, I just stopped coming. It did not seem that you were really ready to accept me as I truly manifest.

I wish I could remember the actual story. It was a good one!

Best of luck Astayanax.






top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join