Oh come on Bluejay. I am sure that you can see the entire creation week as the beginning.
No, I actually canâ€™t. I see creation week spanning about 14 billion years since the Big Bang until at least the evolution of Homo sapiens within the last 1 million years. Thereâ€™s a big difference between â€œthe beginningâ€ and â€œthe beginning of man.â€
If that is the case, then what has the God that you believe in ever done that cannot be explained by science?
It has always been my contention that God has never done anything that cannot, in principle, be explained by science.
So you are saying that the genealogies in the book of Genesis are fabricated, and Jesusâ€™ genealogy in the book of Luke is worthless also.
Iâ€™m a Mormon: Iâ€™ve done my own share of work on my own family lines. A whole lot of it is fabricated. Do you believe that the ancient Hebrews were immune to this, that they somehow never made mistakes in passing their family records down by word of mouth for thousands of years, or that they were all so perfectly honest and humble that they never said â€œmy great-great-great grandfather was Barakâ€™s younger brother?â€ I see no reason to believe that.
You cannot separate the power of God from God.
I disagree. Where does the Bible say this?
Why do you disagree? Can you tell me your logic?
Why should I agree with you when you wonâ€™t show me where the Bible says God is His own power?
But I'm sure the materialistic explanation is closer to the truth than the "Big Poof" explanation. In fact, I'm sure the materialistic explanation is the best one that humans have ever come up with (Straggler's "God-hypothesis" included) and I will support it, work on it myself, and improve upon it until I die, and then, in the next life (I hope there is a next life), God (I hope there is one of these, too) can fill in the gaps that will inevitably remain.
Does this not seem a little contradictory? You rely upon materialistic explanations in this life, and look forward to a â€œnext lifeâ€ provided by a God that in no way can be explained by a materialistic explanation.
First, I rely upon materialistic explanations for the physical phenomena of this life: this does not mean I apply materialism to â€œspiritualâ€ things.
Second, because God is deliberately withholding materialistic evidence of Himself and of â€œspiritualâ€ things from me, I cannot ascertain whether these things are, in principle, explanable by materialistic means. However, I believe that they can be, in principle.
One problem I have often had in using careful calculations about past time periods and future events is that the concept of monotheism may suffer.
If people love monotheism for the ease it provides to their brains, we will love it whether it is true or not. It relaxes our thinking into a moment of bliss.
If evolution predicts higher and higher forms in the future, couldn't we assume that an endless chain of life in front of us is a prediction of myriads of gods?
Reconciling all those time periods is tedious work. 4.5 billion years of having an earth doesn't compare well with 1 million for human life on this earth. That is one reason that I like the concept of rounds the lifewaves (kingdoms) follow each other consecutively around the 7 globes on a continuous basis until each kingdom has had 7 periods of existence on each of the globes. In that amount of time, the kingdom is able to advance to the next level of existence. 49 globe periods make an animal a man and a man into a new kingdom.
Because typically a path of spiritual living PROMISES that we will go beyond our fellows and enter into a higher level of existence, there is a contradiction in the material. Am I able to predict that the entire kingdom progresses together toward a goal of "adeptship" or "girasas" kingdom which will culminate on the 7th globe in the 7th round or am I willing to admit that a few brave seekers make it early - even now in the mere 4th time around on the 4th planet?
The controversy can be solved by understanding that the girasas kingdom penetrate our nature making it seem as if we can live as they do for a short time during the 6th race and then rip it away from us during the separation of the 7th race.
Why do you care so much about what is written in Genesis, which is told to us to be a representation of the beginning of the 5th root race? It is an important beginning to some because I have encountered literature that specifically wishes to apply the term human ONLY to the 5th root race where a 1st through 4th race would not ever be referred to as human. In this event, the form has little to do with the consciousness of the race as the 3rd through 5th races would all be very similar in appearance and build. The 3rd is immersed in saying goodbye to the animal. The 4th is struggling with its solitude and having reached the goal, whereas the 5th is bent on producing a place in their body, mind, heart, and the very particle of our being that can be used as a safehaven for the girasas. To get that higher kingdom grounded in us so we can climb the ladder towards this is paramount for a human. Everything below it is undeserving of the term.
These are questions that have to be decided by scientists. Scientists, as I see them, do not JUST search for the truth. They attempt to solve real problems that exist in current conditions on earth. We look to them to get us out of the "hot water" we are in.
What may happen is that scientists may prefer to exhaust their methods before admitting that the problems are beyond their scope of expertise, but before that happens, scientists can lead us towards a practical ability to work for an "ascension" of the human being.
What we learned in church last week was also Matthew. Matthew 5 contains the Beatitudes and it was discussed how the 10 Beatitudes are Jesus Christ's commandments and he says shortly after they are given that "If we love him, we will keep his commandments." He doesn't say to keep the commandments given by Moses. He says to keep his. What is curious when we compare the commandments to the Beatitudes is that we notice a sectioning of the 10 in this way: Moses' law is the first 4 are of God's relationship with man and the last 6 are man's relationships with each other. Beatitudes show first 4 as admonitions to help us live with lack. For example, "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven." Then 3 are given in a more positive vein, encouraging mercy, purity, peace, and the last 3 refer to withstanding persecution due to 1) righteousness sake, 2) for God's sake, 3) as other prophets before you who reach the great reward in heaven.
The sectioning in this way shows me a forebearance of the negative occurrences, an appreciation for the positive occurrences, and a return to the forebearance of the negative. Down - Up - Down whereas the commandments are virtually higher to lower only. Still when we cause the same break in the commandments we notice one thing: The 4, followed by a breaking of the 6 into 3 and 3 show the 1st 3 referring to bodily processes such as honor thy father and mother, do not kill, and do not commit adultery, and the last 3 referring to physical objects and their use: Do not steal, lie or covet.
This got me pondering on how instrumental it may be for the humans who live on earth to reach an ascension not only with their beloved habitats (our plants and animals and elements can ascend with us), but also that we find a way to ascend our machines and our gadgets as they speak volumes about what humans are and our ideas of pleasure.
Can scientists help me to ponder out how all of this ascension can occur by turning the attention, not only to deciphering the communications that occur with a higher kingdom, but applying science to problems that are facing our race as it turns towards an ascension process and away from the descent of man.
if the Bible is proven to be contrary to fact, and there is no God, then it would be totally irrational to believe in God. If that is the case then we should all become atheists. That also means we should do whatever we want to do.
I mostly agree with you here, except for the last part. You imply that any moral law we use can only come from an outside source, more specifically God. But if one asks Bible-believers whether they believe an adulteress should be stoned to death, nowadays they most likely deny this. They will say that some things in the Bible must be seen in context and not taken literally, indeed interpreted in a more modern sense, whereas other things, like turning the other cheek, are quite readily taken as absolute morals which can easily be incorporated in the ways of modern life.
But if that's the case, then we must face a problem: which parts of the Bible have to be taken literally and which are eligible for interpretation? A choice will have to be made. What moral, though, could lie at the basis of such choices? They are, after all, moral choices themselves. The Bible does not tell us which parts to take literally and which to interpret. So the moral basis for these choices must come from somewhere else.
One can differ in opinion about the source of this moral, but one thing must now be clear: if the Bible would be proven untrue, even though it might imply - or at least hint at - the non-existence of God, it would certainly not imply that we would have lost our only source of morality.
I think that the real source of our morality is much older than any written book in any culture. I think it is innate in our society to have certain rules about what to do and what not to do, for the simple reason that a society of social beings such as ourselves would most probably not survive, let alone thrive, to the extent that we in fact have up to now, without such rules.
And any society that invents writing is almost certainly going to write down its moral code. Enter the Bible, the Koran, Buddhist scripture, and so on, and so forth.
"The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false."
I think the hardest part for anyone to swallow of your hypothesis is the cyclical time. Hardly anyone believes in cyclical time anymore except those with eastern religion philosophyâ€™s. This is an outdated world view based on observing repetitive patterns in nature. Most people view time as linear now a days, bi directional possibly but not cyclical.
No I believe that they would be mutually exclusive. Linear designating a clear beginning/ end. Where time moves from event to event in a line. Cyclical designating a repetitive beginnings and endings. Where the cumulative events do not move to a goal, but instead to a new beginning. My only objection to it would be the arrow of time where we can clearly see that the universe is ever increasing in entropy. To me this indicates that time is linear, but that may not be the case in the entire universe. To be perfectly honest I really cannot understand alot of what you are saying in the original post I responded to. Where are you getting these ideas from? The only ideas I have seen before presented in such a way would be either eternal return or eastern philosophy religions.
Added by edit: It may be possible that the two concepts of time are not so mutually exclusive. Time may be a dimension stretched out on such a large level that to the human mind it appears flat or linear but is in fact curved. Think of the horizon of the earth, or the curvature of space time. It may be possible that as we think of the universe as a whole. We could imagine a cosmic uroboros where on the grand scale we have the large scale structures of the universe swallowing the smallest scale structures and in turn giving rise to the large scale(Imagine from Joel R Primrick and Nancy Ellen Abrams). If time and space are so inseparable so as to talk of one you also are talking about the other (space time) than time itself may also be curved just the same as space. All just assertions however, since I lack the fortitude of thought and evidence to say so with any reliability.
Further explanation (see topic Raising Standards under Free For All)
The way in which current science has the kingdoms divided, human is part of the animalia kingdom.
If we can present kingdoms in this new fashion, we could determine that the animal kingdom went extinct and through the descent of the human kingdom, the array of animal populations extended through the entire range whereas when the animal kingdom itself was present on earth (due to the 4th round being a midpoint in the 7 rounds), a mid range of animal forms had been attained previous to the human descent. It was the descent of the human kingdom that stimulated a growth from animal (attained evolution) up through all intermediary stages to the midpoint of the human kingdom.
As the girasas descends, the humans may or may not experience a distant awareness of the forms attainable in future rounds (5th through 7th). The matter becomes complicated by the condition or state of the round changing dramatically from fire, air, water to earth and then to ether in the 5th round. It is described in THE SECRET DOCTRINE as a state that is more permeable where two bodies can pass through each other rather than bounce off each other.
The change in condition for the round puts a damper on the joint existence of recognizable forms from later rounds existing in the earthy state of the 4th round. Yet what we see happening is a more complete range up to the human gaining their own individual form, by the addition of many types of animals that did not exist when dinosaurs did.
When a cyclic evolution is investigated, it would be determined that a new kingdom comes into existence replacing the old kingdom. Plants replace minerals, animals replace plants, humans replace animals, girasas replace humans, and the cycle rather than the similarity of DNA, determines whether or not the being is in a specific kingdom.
Since dinosaurs lived on earth for a period of time prior to humans, they can be seen as existing as a kingdom (animalia) separate from humans. Now humans are existing as a top lifeform deserving of the term kingdom. If there is a chain of existence and they each require a period on earth where they are the sole top achiever, then their decline is accompanied by the increase of the replacement kingdom and it is the interaction between two distinct types of kingdoms that causes rapid growth and change in their constitution and the improvement of their total being simultaneously. The form, mind, emotions of the human would all improve conjointly under the influence of the girasas kingdom because we attempt to exist as they do and reach the heights that they exhibit to us. We envision ourselves in their shoes and quite literally the two distinct lives would for a time occupy the same "feet".
Fourth, if the Bible is proven to be contrary to fact, and there is no God, then it would be totally irrational to believe in God. If that is the case then we should all become atheists. That also means we should do whatever we want to do. There would be no universal moral law in the universe. Whatever benefits us or pleases us most in this life, we should pursue. It means the only right and wrong that exists is dictated by society. The only penalty for crossing these boundaries is punishment by society. These defintions of right and wrong could vary greatly from society to society. There is no reason that society cannot decide that anything is right (regardless of our present moral understandings) based upon the desires of society. This can include killing infants, the elderly, the handicapped, etc. because they are not productive or wanted. This can include exploiting those who are weaker. The playing field is wide open. It is not unimaginably idiotic. I can sure imagine it, and it does not look very good.
You assume that all morality comes from the Judeo-Christian scripture? There was morality long before the scripture was written. As for the end of the above statement, There are societies that do just what you say in one form or another. Try white supremacists, Neo-Nazis & the KKK, all three are Christian.
There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969