reply to post by jiggerj
That's a good point, but I wish you wouldn't just take a tiny piece of what I said and then try to attack me on that point alone which can take things
out of context and move the bar unfairly I promise not to do that in this debate, but to take a person's whole idea and intended meaning as it is.
On your point you're right in a way, but comparative mythology runs a little deeper than you give it credit. Much of it involved, yes the
personification or archetypal representations of various natural processes and forces, often to encode the mythology with the annual cycles of life
and the elements of life - not unlike a primitive type of science. However I don't think they, at least not at the esoteric level, understood these
things so much as individual Gods (personalities) but a powerful forces of nature, at all levels from the terrestrial to the cosmic and relating to
man in his quest both for greater security in the world and to undestand his place within it. Sure they were projections in an attempt to understand
the natural world and the nature of the human being, but in working with these representations I think something else was at work something more
significant, meaningful and profound.
For the purpose of this thread however we're not going to be referring to the primitive attempts to understand the interrelationships within nature
and between man and the forces of nature and the elements of the natural world, not a "manmade God". I will however aim to show that through the
creation that indeed - God speaks
, where these ancient mytholgies represent the earliest and best attempts by man to understand and to
recognize the creative voice of that which is speaking to man and announcing the greater Glory both of the creation and of man's true place within it.
So what I'm saying is that while they may have been close but no cigar as they say, that nevertheless there may still be a cigar in the midst which
these mythologies attempt to describe yet at the most estoteric level (of the priests) only represent, symbolically and at most only partially (as a
mythological mask of God).
What I hear you saying is that now that all these representations of the Godhead have been blown away that there's only one God left to kill.
I encourage you however to look at it from another perspective as an ongoing process of an attempt to represent a deeper more fundamental
understanding about the creation and man's place within it whereby we've intuitively known all along that by the sheer virtue of our own existence and
that of the creation within which we are emersed (at it's center) that something meaningful and significant is being represented and even communicated
to us through the Magesty of Creation and that it's for
us to recognize and see, and appreciate.
After all what would the world be without man to appreciate it? If you know anything about some of the latest ideas of modern quantum science like the
maxim that to be is to be percieved then you'll reocognize just how deep the subject-object relationship goes, and you wouldn't say what everone is
templed to say ie: without man it would be a better world when without man, the very dimension of the world would not be the same at all. Man
completes the world with his self awareness observation of it, and the world may even be designed with this fact in mind, just to be clear and to
drive the point home.
So early man intuitively understood something of this fundamental relationship and "communication" (communion with) and attemped to give it voice and
symbolic representation in the mythos he created to explain it, not like we do today as it set apart from us as a bunch of things and pieces, but
within a relational frame of reference to something deep and profound and fundamental within and without and throughout all the cycle of life within
which he found himself emersed. Remember to that context and meaning or framing is decisive and that therefore symbolism is also decisive, for man in
understanding his place in the world at all levels.
In other words that it might not be as "primitive" and "childish" as you and as most of us according to our "modern" worldview and interpretation of
life would give it credit.
What I will contend as this thread progresses is that all these are masks of God but that there is only one God, one condition and one living spirit
of infinite intelligence who's many manifestations in the natural order including us, are expressions of the originating Creative Agency by
and therefore by intelligent design
What you and the atheist position will then be forced to take in response when I'm done is that no intent can be seen and that life as we know it in
all of it's forms must occur and have arisen as a purely random happenstance without meaning, significance, or purpose ie: purely by accident and thus
without any intelligence, let alone superintelligent design. You will have to show this to be true if we are to accept your argument as having any
validity relative to what I'm going to bring forward, as I explained in the OP of this thread.
I still need to make the final argument, but just in case you're leaning forward in this debate with jaws clenched, teeh on edge and your knife of
"reason" poised to cut and hack away at what I'm going to put forward, I would like to encourage you, at this juncture anyway, to just stop, relax and
self examine in terms of where that motivation might be coming from.. let us not forget the fundamental open-mindedness and willingness lurking at the
very heart of atheism based on it's true
edit on 16-3-2013 by NewAgeMan because: typo reads better