Over time, several key theories concerning the methods of the universe have impressively spelled out various reasons why nature acts as it does. Modern times have found physicists racing for a reconciliation theory, one which takes the several generally accurate theories and attempts to tie them together while simultaneously patching the holes: a Grand Unified Theory (GUT).

So, then, what about a GUG? Is it possible that, buried within the seeds of every religion is at least one fundamental truth which may be extracted and placed alongside truths from every philosophy? Can the symbols be placed beside each other, correllated, coallated, and compared? Can common ideals be explored and merged, and theological schisms traversed? In other words, can the various theories of God, like the various theories of the Universe, be reconciled under the notion of a Grand Unified God?


------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)

But not before a GUT is completed. After all, we wouldn't want our GUG to contradict some fundamental principle of a GUT, or vice versa -- would we?

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

There will be no unification of gods as long as we have religion.

Case in point: Northern Ireland.

On an individual level it is posible, but when it comes to a group of pepole (even if it is only 2)a lot of nasty things tend to happen. We have allready seen the results of a unified theory of God, you get the I'm right your wrong pissing match. Then you get pepole like me who stand back and say, "but in my view your all wrong!". There would have been a lot less slaughter (hey wasn't that a name of a band?) if the religons of the world would have accepted the fact that religion is only to provide comfort and lay down a set of basic morals that one choses to live by. Not the controlling factor witch the world should take as the only truth and obey to the letter so they may live up to the expectations of a man made (false)God that intentionaly created a flawed child. On top of this, this false God then chastise his children for being his flawed creation, then providing and easy out along the lines take me as your savior and all will be forgiven. Excuse me, but what is to be forgiven. It's his mistake not mine. Yet I still take responsibility in my own life. How about him? Ok I started going off on a tangent with but I will stop... for now.


------------------
The Belief that there is only one truth and that oneself is in possession of it
seems to me the depest root of all evil that is in the world
-Max Born

tiassa,

A possible Grand Unified Theory combining all the elementary forces in one description would be a mathematical thus logical construct.
If I understand you correctly the GUG would also be a logical construct of some sort where all the true statements about a supreme being find their place. This however raises the question again : can logic be applied in relation to supreme beings ?
I think we covered that track already in an other thread where we came to the conclusion that this was not the case.
Any restriction to a supreme being is already a contradiction on itself. Any set of "truths" about this being is already a restriction on itself therefor doomed to fail.

The way I see it is that we see god as the ultimate furfillment of our longing for eternal and radical freedom. It serves as a beacon, a goal, a meaning to life, to it all. As finite creatures we long for the infinite that is where all these thoughts about life after death and god come from. One could call it some kind of group therapie on a large scale in order to cope with the stinging existential questions that are ultimatly unsolvable.

------------------
"If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants."
Isaac Newton

Plato ....

If not logic/logos, what then of ethic/ethos? (Let me note that I'm thinking around a Hegelian definition of ethos that I haven't read in years.)

I think the limitations you're describing here are true if we restrict a religious argument, for instance, to a Christian, a Muslim, a Hebrew, and a Satanist; after all, they're arguments largely regard semantics.

If, by that example, we were to include non-Abramic traditions (I know it's a stretch to throw Satanism in there, but ....), so that the argument now included a Sikh, a Buddhist, a Witch, an Atheist, a Camus devotee, Hegelian and Kantian thinkers ... ad infinitum ... the terms of the alleged logical process changes dramatically.

Take a Judeo/Christian example: Thou shalt not kill. Easy enough ... I don't need a warning from God, necessarily, to understand that. Throughout various core philosophies, various reasons are given for behavioral moderations and restrictions. But certain common terms of being float to the surface. Start with things like no murders. Work through those things as much as possible--coallating, corresponding, &c. Then look at various mythical ideas: why do certain numbers occur among so many sacred ideas? How about linguistic changes in the deities' names?

If we collect all we can of the various religions and philosophies, and pull out the matching aspects and use them as a framework, can we start unifying theories of God until we have a better understanding of how God functions or how we relate to Godly function?

A Grand Unified Theory of physics will tell us much about how and why the universe works. It will not give us the true name of the universe. It will not justify. It will simply show how and maybey why, and hopefully give us insight to how best to engage the universe. In that sense, so long as Gods stomp the Earth, it might be a good idea to figure out how They operate; why They operate as they do; and how best to engage Them.

The present state of political, evangelical religions indicates that the original instruction manuals were either desperately inadequate, or else a practical joke that nobody's figured out yet.

thx,
Tiassa

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited November 12, 1999).]

tiassa,

If I remember correctly, Hegel's ethic is not really a way to unify people but rather to keep them seperate in their respective paradigms of ethics. I thought he was an extreme relativist regarding ethics and morals in as that each moral system had as much value as any other so the peaceful Tibetan monks aren't any better then the militaristic nazis. Perhaps you know Hegel's philosophy a bit better and am I doing him wrong to simplify it to much but I don't think relativism is any bases for an absolute framework to position a global ethical system on.

Any way I do agree that there are a lot moral and ethical issues who are compatible in all the religions and philosophies in the world. However to distill form those "laws" anything of consequence about a supreme being already demands for a leap of faith because you must assume that these laws are brought upon us by this god. An other reason for their similarities is that they are thought up by humans and that these humans share the same basic evolutional process.
Therefor I really must plead for a clear distinction between ethics and thoughts and ideas about deities. The only reason why these two have always been intermixed is a historical one. Once we accept that there is no reason why a debate about universal moral values shouldn't be possible.
We already have a document along those lines : the universal declaration of the human rights. One could argue that it was meanly a creation of western people but I think it is a good starting point.

------------------
"If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants."
Isaac Newton

Plato--

Actually, all I was getting after there was that, while logic may not suffice ... I'm pulling up the old Greek roots "logos" and "ethos". I'm not as familiar with Hegel as I would like to be. I'm simply trying to recall a comparison he gave of the two ideas, as it might give a new set of argumentative considerations where logical processes fail in the subjective.

After all, there must be a method of examining subjective material as objectively as possible. Logic itself can be useful, but the postulates, it seems, would be preceded by a massive list of "If/then" assumptions. And that list of assumptions might be the key to cracking open the common vein of all religions.

thx,
Tiassa

------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)

I don't know too much about GUT's or GUG's but I do believe that there is at least one universal fundamental truth and that is, LOVE!
Even the biblical definition of love is a good starting point, COR 13:4-7.
You know, really! it's all you need.

Tablariddim--

If I say your post is the most intelligent thing I've read from you, please understand ... I simply couldn't comprehend the rest of it.

Beyond all else, I must agree that love is the one thing the entire human institution could use a little more of.

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)

Never mind Tiassa.


-TOO MUCH TAHINI CAN SPOIL THE HOUMMOUS-

Whatever you say, Tabby!

------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)

In John 14:6 Jesus said:
"I am the way and the truth and the light. No one comes to the father except through me."

Reconcile that. =P

However, it is possible that there will be people who will be saved through Jesus without realizing that Jesus was the source of that salvation. C. S. Lewis has written:


Is it not frightfully unfair that this new life should be confined to people who have heard of Christ and been able to believe in Him? But the truth is God has not told us what His arrangements about other people are. We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him. But in the meantime, if you are worried about the people outside, the most unreasonable thing you can do is remain outside yourself.

Romans 2:12-16 also sheds some light on this subject.

I hope scientists do discover a toe soon. Toe=theory of everything. More evidence for the big bang, thus more evidence for a creator.

Vinnie

Praise Jesus!!!

------------------
Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

Ilgwamh--

Unfortunately the most part of your post is exactly the kind of thing that prevents people from unifying their notion of god.

Strangely, it seems almost more important what name people call the ultimate mystery than the nature of that mystery.

I liked the Fred Hoyle quote. I can disagree with it theoretically, but there's nothing about it I disagree with in principle. The universe is amazingly perfect. But I find it interesting that, in general, the whole of humanity seems to prefer fighting about what the name or gender or color of god is rather than putting their heads together and figuring it out.

One of the first things I'm trying to ask myself of late is ... A lot of people think they know what god is, and I cannot object to that; if we look at any one of those images, what is god not? The problem I'm having is this: If god is everywhere and everything, then god is also present in everything I find evil. If that is true, then god is either pointlessly cruel; or, more likely, considering a balance much larger than humanity itself. In this scale, I find it much easier to reconcile the idea of omniscience or omnipresence, as well as timelessness, as attributes of god.

--Tiassa

------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)

Tiassa,

Could it be that you are looking for or trying to discribe something thats is not there? My belief is that the notion of god / satan came strickly from people. They could not handle the bad parts of themselfs or others around them and nore could take in the fact that they also possess very good qualitys at the same time. So they externalized the two parts and attributed all that was good (devine) to a god and all that was bad (evil) to satan. Why, you may ask. Well so they can feel good about themselves when they do bad becuase they can simply fall back on the, "it was satan's influence that caused me to do it" and look to a devine being for forgiveness, that we seem to have a verry hard time giving to ourselves for even for the most minor of faul ups in life.

------------------
The Belief that there is only one truth and that oneself is in possession of it
seems to me the depest root of all evil that is in the world
-Max Born

666--

At my most liberated, yes, I'm trying to describe something that's not there.

At the most conventional I can manage, though, is to say that I agree with your assessment of the god/satan duality. What I'm wondering, in the end, is what principles exist in every religion. If we look at common patterns within the cultures constructed around the various religions, are we looking at a trait that transcends religion and is more accurately described as a human trait? When these ideas, perhaps the conventional human virtues, are put together into one philosophy, what will that look like?

thx,
Tiassa

------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)

People do not fight over such trivila matters as the color or gender of god. People fight over what gods teachings are...muslims and christians, though they believe in the same god (Yaweh), their respecitve messiahs are so different as to almost demand disagreement. People fight over the very basic aspects of god, not trivial matters.

And when questioning god, I must remind you of the book of Job:
God says to Job when Job is questioning god
"Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding."(Job 38:4
After a series of similar questions god says
"Shall a faultfinder contend with the almighty? He who argues with god, let him answer it."(Job 40:2)

The basic point is such: If you are not omnipotent like god, you cannot even begin to question him.

Tiassa,

If we are looking at basic human virtue would it be better call it the grand Unification of Morals and not God? God as portrayed is not human and does not contain the same virtues as us. Which leads to a question that is off topic. If he (god) is so diferent than us why does he expect the same level of greatness? Now back to the topic. We (society) should be trying to bring together a foundation of universaly accepted morals. Istead of trying to unify the world's religions, since it is a highly personal topic and not a topic for any one to tell another to chose.

corp.hudson,

How do we even know god is omnipotent? Becuase I read it in a book?? I don't belive everything I read. Blind faith will only lead you to the sluaghter. Were was I when he built the fuundation of the earth? Well I wasn't around to even say he built the foundation of the earth. Does he have a patent or some other proof to show he made the earth? Please something other than drug induced ramblings in a mistranslated book. If I can not question him becuase he is diferant and can't understand him, how can you question me? I am diferent than you. Besides that, how am I suposed to build any sort of trust with him if I can't question him and how can he understand us?

------------------
The Belief that there is only one truth and that oneself is in possession of it
seems to me the depest root of all evil that is in the world
-Max Born


[This message has been edited by 666 (edited November 21, 1999).]

666--

To express how I regard the word "god" itself would require ages of discussion over what anthropological and sociological functions god serves. In this sense, I would be seeking a unified god. But yes, I think a Grand Unification of Morals is sufficient, too. No matter what, though, GUG or GUM, it would be an absurdly difficult idea to sell.

thx,
Tiassa

------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)

Tiassa said
"then god is also present in everything I find evil"

Can you please define evil for me? I have a feeling we would end up talking past one another in this area with out defining evil first and sticking to that definition when the word is used. Webster may define evil as being "morally bad" but what does that mean? Being morally bad is to deviate from God's will. With that as a definition of evil can God go against his own will? It seems pretty illogical unless he has a personality disorder. Maybe that's where the Trinity comes in, but I highly doubt it.

You also said
"When these ideas, perhaps the conventional human virtues, are put together into one philosophy, what will that look like?"

I think we would look like Pagans praying. More specifically the Pagans Jesus was referring to in Matthew 6:7

"And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words."

(niv text note on verse 6:7)
babbling like pagans... They used long lists of the names of their gods in their prayers, hoping that by constantly repeating them they would call on the name of the god that could help them. Jesus is not necessarily condemning all long prayers, but meaningless verbiage in praying.

There you have it. Unify the worlds religions and we become babbling Pagans. Unify the universal morals that exsist between the world's religions and you would be just wasting your time. They are already unified. Romans 2:10-16 states that the law is written on our hearts.

Romans 2:10-16
There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile;
10
but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.
11
For God does not show favoritism.
12
All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law.
13
For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.
14
(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law,
15
since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)
16
This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

Vinnie

Praise Jesus!!!



------------------
Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

I may sound negative in my posts but I have a lot of respect for these metaphysical ponderings of "world peace." Getting along peacefully and not killing each other is a good thing but, being practical, something like this probably won't happen until the antichrist comes, if then. When I was a child I wondered why people did "stupid" stuff and thought I knew the solution to the problems but my solution would have contented least that which we need the most.

This reminds me of a joke I saw recently:

Two fellows are talking religion. One says to the other, "Sometimes I'd like to ask God why he allows poverty, famine and injustice when he could do something about it."

"What's stopping you?" asks the second.

And the first replies, "I'm afraid God might ask me the same question."

Vinnie

Praise Jesus!!!

Hi Vinnie,

For clarification of who created evil, please turn to Isaiah 45:7: "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

By the way, I really liked your "joke". It illustrates a very valid point - we all have the power to make good things happen or prevent bad things from happening or to help make things better when bad things do happen. Instead, most of us sit around waiting for God to do something about it, and then blame God when things turn ugly.

------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

Hi Searcher.
I'm well aware of Isaiah 45:7 except it doesn't say "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

It says "I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I the Lord, do all these things."
niv

The 10 plagues God sent to Egypt could be considered disaster.

Vinnie

Praise Jesus!!!

Vinnie,

Perhaps I should have specified that I use the King James version, which indeed says what I typed, exactly as I typed it (whatever other sins I may commit - misquoting the Bible is not among them).

------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

Hi searcher. My personal favorite Bible is the niv. My problem with the kjv is the language. It uses words like thee, thou, saith, bretheren. I find it a little hard to read.

I'd have to think the niv is right here using the word disaster. The niv is not perfect though. It was translated by humans just like the kjv was and, more likely than not, contains errors. But I think the word disaster fits better with our definition of evil.

This is a definition of evil from a christin apologetics book written by two philosophy professors.

Handbook of Christian Apologetics" written by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli.

[Evil (i cut some paragraphs out)
If evil were a being, the problem of evil would be insolvable, for then either God made it--and thus he is not all good--or else God did not make it--and thus he is not the all-powerful creator of all things. But evil is not a thing. Things are not evil in themselves. For instance, a sword is not evil. Even the stroke of the sword that chops off your head is not evil in its being--in fact, unless it was a "good" stroke, it will not chop your head off. Where is the evil? It is in the will, the choice, the intent, the movement of the soul, which puts wrong order into the physical world of things and acts: the order between the sword and an innocent's neck rather than a murderer's neck or an innocent's bonds.

Evil is real, but it is not a real thing. It is not subjective, but is not a substance. Augustine defines evil as disordered love, disordered will. It is a wrong relationship, a nonconformity between our will and God's will. God did not make it; we did. That is the obvious point of Genesis 1 and 3, the stories of God's good creation and humanity's evil fall.]

I'll check out a concordance later and look up some scripture but I have to get ready for work. Have a great weekend!

Vinnie

Praise Jesus!!!

The problem with KJV is not the language (though that definetly poses a problem), but the mistranslations. It was translated to fit in with King James views of religion, not what was really written. It was also not entirely translated from the original texts-something we (for the most part) have the luxury of today.

I'm well aware of the problems the kjv has but a lot of people use it. I just didn't want to cause others to stumble. Its a widely used version of the bible. I just let it be. If it was the new world translation then we would have a problem. :)

Some bibles aren't meant for theological study. The first bible I read was the living translation. It broke the Bible down into easy to understand laymen terms. It was definately not a Bible to use for apologetics or theology though. But hey, just like the kjv, it served its purpose.

The thing I really like about the niv study bible is the text notes. They didn't take a "religious" stance on the proximity of the flood nor on the genesis account of creation.

Vinnie

Praise Jesus!!!

Ilgwamh:

Let me apologize first for the delay in my response. It's been a weird week.

As to evil .... If left to me to set a definitive regard for evil, it would be as follows: There exists a relationship between humans and the universe around them that we have yet to properly perceive. With life, the first order seems to be survival: sustenance and propagation. I find those things which distract humanity from advancing within the universe to be evil.

However ... I don't think it really matters what my definition of evil is, as regards the phrase you've quoted.

I note that you are an expert in the babblings of pagans? Thank you for your definitive antithesis to unification.

So, if I have it correctly, from what you've expressed:

* Unity of theology will result ONLY in chaos and discord, except ....
* Obliged unity under Christ will result in perfect harmony.

If only things were that simple, Vinnie.

When you name God--that is, when you make God something--what are those things It is not? If you insist that the only name for God is that accorded by Chrisian wisdom, then there is no union, only dominion. Likewise if that God is named Allah or Buddah, or if that God is a Goddess. Or a bull. Or a tree.

Like all things evil must be also of God, so must those names that you would not afford It. At the core of this whole question, I suppose, is that I don't get the use of labels. "God MUST be these things described in this book, but CANNOT be the things described in this book." Or song, or tone, or image, or anything. That kind of thinking does not seem to be productive--it's almost Taliban in its rigidity.

ALSO ... I wanted to ask about your 11/21 post in which you quoted a joke about asking God why It allows poverty, etc. .... So, if God asked you what your excuse is, what would your answer be? All else aside, if you had a direct line from your kitchen to God's ear, what would the answer be? Personally, my first reaction would be to tap my foot pointedly and say, "Excuse me? But this was YOUR show from the word go ... how did you expect people to get it right without a better instruction manual?" It almost becomes like a marital fight in which each party makes assumptions about the motivations and responsibilities of the other.

thx,
Tiassa

------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)