Yoy are absolutelty right. I shall give myself a good kicking for overlooking that. I have spoken about the nonsense of scripture in the past/ On the other hand people do turn to their holy books to seek answers which they regard as truth
So, why did god create the masses who would not understand his mysteries or, for that matter, mysteries that could not be understood by the masses ? Seems perverse to me. I have always been told that all men were created equal and in the image of god. So, how do you explain the idea of the "masses". Are they made in the imperfect image of god ? Does it make sense to you ? "Jesus spoke in parables" If you accept that a parable is a story whose purpose is to illustrate a point, then Hans Christian Andersen spoke in parables, as did Aesop, La Fontaine and the Brothers Grimm to mention a few. In what sense is Jesus' parables superior ?
All very good questions Myles. I have asked myself the same questions. It would seem a whole lot easier and a lot more clear, if God just came out with it and made an annoucment on that big PA in the sky. But that is not his way, the value is not in being there. It is in getting there. God is both chaos and order, perfection and imperfection...though to be honest perfection and imperfection are terms more for human comprehension than meaningful terms for God. God exists in a place of unlimited potential. We are an expression of some of that potential. The value we add with our lives is in our journey. The scriptures, the guidance they provide help us along the way. Parables are stories to illustrate a point. They use symbols to communicate ideas in a more complex and multidimensional way. Throughout history, there has been the religion of the masses and there have been mystery cults active behind religions. There are those who can only handle religion in certian ways, they have no need or desire for higher levels of understanding. They like truthful, but basic understanding and there is nothing wrong with that. Others will want more. And that is why there have always been and still are mystery cults behind most major western religions.
I think you are talking of two levels of bs. The masses fart, the elect flatulate. How did you come by all this knoledge of god ?
You are funny Myles! He speaks to me at night. How else do you think I get this good stuff Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. In addition, I am a member of one of those mystery cults/organizations, and I have been a student of the subject for a number of years. The God vs No God question has been on my mind since high school. It has been my personal quest if you will. There are a number of good texts on the subject. People too often think of God as a limited being within a single universe, our universe. God is much larger than just our universe. God exists in a place without space and time. He exists in all universes. I ask you Myles to think about what it would be like to exist in a place without space and without time. What would that be like?
God is simply represented by the infinite amount of nonsense one can know about absolutely nothing. The core issue is that supernaturalism is inherently hostile to intellectual freedom A god that needs or a god that wants is a god that lacks. none of these so called gods ever seem to have what I would consider god like qualities
Believe what you wish Uncle, but religion in it's highest form is supreme reason and logic. In lesser and corrupt forms, I would agree with you in that it could hinder reason and logic. It is like any tool we use. Used correctly, it is valuable, misused and it can cause destruction.
Ok, lets start with the book of Genesis. One of the main characters in Genesis is the first man, Adam. Today, through modern genetics we are able to prove beyond a doubt that there was indeed a first man. The Penatuch (Old Testiment) predicted and named the first man. We are just now able to verify that the genetic record supports the fact that there was a first man. A single first man to whom we are all related. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/06/0624_050624_spencerwells.html
I was not aware that Genesis is based on genetics. My understanding is that those who believe Genesis to be literally true are against evolutionary theory which has the support of scientists and informed people all over the world. How could the OT predict the first man when it was not written till donkeys' years after Adam and Eve were said to have been created?
I am not sure where you are coming from. I have not practised meditation but my understanding is that it is a form of introspection, or withdrawing of the senses - what I would call sensory deprivation. I have read of experiments on Zen monks who showed a remarkable ability to control their bodies in various way and in which their brain states were recorded. But I cannot see how logic enters into it. What am I overlooking ?
It was actually a fairly empirical process. they tried it, they felt better, they suggested it to others, they felt better. Now science has backed up a wide range of benefits. The logic was moving from the intuition that this might be useful, to noticing that it was found to be useful - pleasurable, destressing, relaxing, concentration improving, whatever - and suggesting that more people try it. That is logical.
The Old Testiment is not based on genetics. It is the work of revelation. My point was that the Bible said there was a first man and a first woman. It is a fact that is now supported by science and was first revealed in the Bible. How people interpret Genesis is another story. Remember, I said there is a tendency for religion to be corrupted. Remember I said some people get lost in the words. The Bible is primarily a spiritual document and should not be intrepreted in a literal fashion as many do. But regardless, the Bible came to the conclusion that there was a first man and a first woman. Science and the Bible come to that conclusion with different methods, but they are both in agreement. The New Testiment is a virtual owners guide to human behavior...explaining how we should behave not for God's benefit but for our own benefit. The act of worship, the rituals are not for God..although we do them in his name. They are in fact for us. Remember also, that I said the Bible is about truth. I think many times our ability to reason is severely impared by our current lack of knowledge...our reasoning skills are very limited. We too often try to apply our linear reasoning skills to situations that require quantum reasoning skills.
In short, you're saying that the Bible has been revealed but we must not take it literally. That make it worthless in my view. Science doesn't say there was a first man as you suggest; quite the opposite, it proves that man had precursors. So the Bible is wrong.
Myles, modern genetics does say there was a first man and a first woman. That is the evidence. That does not mean that there were not precursors. Please show me where science says there was no first man. I showed you the link to legitimate scientific site that said otherwise.
