|
Post by taylorsman on Aug 16, 2005 9:32:16 GMT
For many years I have had a lot of difficulty with the bog standard and accepted wisdom of Darwinian Evolution especially as stated by the likes of Prof Dawkins. Concepts such as Blind Watchmakers and random development are even somewhat offensive to me as a believer in an Omnipotent, Omnisicient and Omnipresent God, a belief system reinforced by my Masonic involvements. When I consider the "Hidden Mysteries of Nature and Science" I cannot possibly accept that such wonders from the immensity of the Universe to the infinitesimal structures of the Atom are just a result of chance and lucky coincidences.
However I have always been equally unhappy with the various Creation Legends of the Bible and other such "Holy Books" such as God making the Earth in 7 days or Eve out of one of Adam's ribs etc.
Intelligent Design where the Universe and all in it has developed owing to the power of a Guiding Intelligence is far more satisfactory to me and fits in nicely with the Masonic concepts of "TGAOTU" , "Grand Geometrician" etc and of Order in the Universe.
Now that is my take on this and, as they say these days, it works for me.
|
|
jmd
Member
fourhares.com
Posts: 1,081
|
Post by jmd on Aug 16, 2005 15:53:39 GMT
There are other alternative views to those two extremes, Taylorsman, such as found, for example, in Evolution and the New Gnosis (the link is to a review).
|
|
|
Post by middlepillar on Aug 16, 2005 19:59:01 GMT
There are other alternative views to those two extremes, Taylorsman, such as found, for example, in Evolution and the New Gnosis (the link is to a review). Thanks for the link! [page 4] The magisterium of religion will oppose the New Gnosis, even though it observes the same direction in causal logic, because it presents the possibility that all religious belief systems -- which today are irreconcilably varied -- could themselves be the subject of critical enquiry. Given time, this could mean the end of religious dogmas and the authoritarian structures which depend on it. This is something that I have been thinking for quite some time, and I also feel there are other alternatives, I am not at all comfortable with either! From the impossible to the uncomfortable? (I just dont think its that easy!). Taylorsman thanks for an interesting subject.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Aug 16, 2005 22:47:11 GMT
Taylorsman This site has some most interesting destructions of the traditional theories www.lloydpye.com/A-Origins1.htmHis book is : Everything you know is wrong. Cheers Russell
|
|
|
Post by taylorsman on Aug 17, 2005 6:18:15 GMT
Thanks Russell, an interesting and useful link.
|
|
|
Post by atarnaris on Aug 17, 2005 22:21:34 GMT
Intelligent Design where the Universe and all in it has developed owing to the power of a Guiding Intelligence is far more satisfactory to me and fits in nicely with the Masonic concepts of "TGAOTU" , "Grand Geometrician" etc and of Order in the Universe. Now that is my take on this and, as they say these days, it works for me. Bro Taylorsman, Assuming that there is a Omnipotent, Omnisicient and Omnipresent intelligence. Why would It/he/she create the Universe (or the multiple variants of this one)? Not being disrespectful to you, just trying to start a debate. Omnipotent, Omnisicient and Omnipresent
|
|
|
Post by taylorsman on Aug 17, 2005 23:25:53 GMT
Why would it NOT start a Universe? there is of course the school of thought that God is the Universe and the Universe is God, pantheism i suppose?
|
|
|
Post by whistler on Aug 17, 2005 23:48:08 GMT
Well for starters if you were the Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent - how would you fill your time. This is also not being disrespectful, the problem is the difficulty of understanding something without a beginning. we can of talk about Logos and more but still what came before, what started it all it is good to exercise ones mind on the subject . There is something missing. Within each seed is an imprint of something that came before - Even if the Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent one is the point within the circle, how infinite is that point . On an equally absurd subject how about the cricket
|
|
ruffashlar
Member
Lodge Milncroft No. 1515 (GLoS), Govanhill Royal Arch Chapter 523 (S.G.R.A.C.S.)
Posts: 2,184
|
Post by ruffashlar on Aug 20, 2005 23:36:35 GMT
Then there is Solipsism: I am solus ipsus, myself alone in the Universe; I am the Universe; I am God.
But, you know, if we allowed ourselves the luxury of intelligent thought on that one, we'd really take it as far as it would go: if I were God, as well as the only Being in the Universe, I'd be able to behave like a perfectly ordinary individual, unaware of my God-Nature, while at the same time doing the impossible task of also running the entire Universe and being Omniscient of everything and Omnipotent at doing the job perfectly.
After all, I can't see much point in being God if you can't do the impossible 24 hours of the day you exist sempiternally outside of. Can you?
|
|
ruffashlar
Member
Lodge Milncroft No. 1515 (GLoS), Govanhill Royal Arch Chapter 523 (S.G.R.A.C.S.)
Posts: 2,184
|
Post by ruffashlar on Aug 22, 2005 3:21:42 GMT
I see I'm alone in that, too.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Aug 22, 2005 5:34:39 GMT
Ruff
I wonder if the constructs of omniscience etc are a bit anthropomorphic.
If you take the view that the universe is the body of incarnation of the creator then it is clear that much of the omniscience is sensory rather than conceptual.
And omnipresence is by function of incarnation.
And omnipotence is subject to natural laws on all the planes of existence
Cheers
Russell
|
|
ruffashlar
Member
Lodge Milncroft No. 1515 (GLoS), Govanhill Royal Arch Chapter 523 (S.G.R.A.C.S.)
Posts: 2,184
|
Post by ruffashlar on Aug 23, 2005 16:05:01 GMT
I wonder if the constructs of omniscience etc are a bit anthropomorphic.Russell, Very perceptive of you*. The reason God has to be all those words starting with Omni- is, of course, because they are all the things mankind is not, and damn well wishes he were. I agree that it kind of limits God to being all the Omni-whatsits that we aren't; in other words, he is really defined in terms of us. Infinite, because it's what the imagining monkey knows himself not to be. __________________ *Sorry, that was an unintentional pun; but still, I have to admit, a dreadful one. ;D
|
|
|
Post by maat on Aug 23, 2005 23:32:46 GMT
Ruff said - "The reason God has to be all those words starting with Omni- is, of course, because they are all the things mankind is not, and damn well wishes he were."
A possible interpretation of God's relationship with us...
If God is all - Omni - then it follows that we are part of God. Some have interpreted this to mean that they are God. But I was reading somewhere that it is helpful to think of the relationship somewhat along the lines that say Shakespeare had with the characters in his plays. All the characters were created by Shakespeare and it is his thoughts and ideas that bring the characters to life. However, many authors will tell you that these characters, their creations, often take on a life of their own and the author is often surprised and delighted at the result.
So here we have a creator, the created (who are part of the creator but not the creator) and an ongoing process of discovery. Should the Omniscience bit bother you.. the author can always write the last page first..
Cheers Maat
|
|
ruffashlar
Member
Lodge Milncroft No. 1515 (GLoS), Govanhill Royal Arch Chapter 523 (S.G.R.A.C.S.)
Posts: 2,184
|
Post by ruffashlar on Aug 24, 2005 4:17:38 GMT
If God is all - Omni - then it follows that we are part of God.
A little Latin lesson: "all" is totus; omni- is part of the declension of omnes, "everyone".
So it actually follows that God is part of us.
Thus, (although I'm prepared to believe that Shakespeare is God) God is not Shakespeare: it is we who are Shakespeare, and God is our character.
He is Hamlet, or Lear, or Macbeth, already mad from Scene One and playing all the other parts himself. God is a jobbing actor playing The Reduced Shakespeare Company's one-man production of The Tragedy of Hamlet, the Mild Cigar from Benson & Hedges in a Portaloo at the Edinburgh Fringe.
The audience of three kids and a dog is very appreciative, but the theatre correspondent for The List is lying coke-brained in the sheugh choking on his own vomice. A bad review could save this show, if only anyone were watching. But the Ladyboys of Bangkok are playing at the Usher Hall, Motörhead are supporting The UK Subs at the Gilded Balloon, and besides it's Burly Versus Tonker on Commercial Street, which is where all the serious beardies will be, so who's really paying attention to God tonight?
|
|
jmd
Member
fourhares.com
Posts: 1,081
|
Post by jmd on Aug 24, 2005 13:13:11 GMT
This view certainly gives a whole new dimension to the answer to the question:
|
|
|
Post by middlepillar on Aug 24, 2005 21:49:42 GMT
This view certainly gives a whole new dimension to the answer to the question: But JMD surely that is the answer! in the end we always trust our own instincts. Myself I am comfortable with Ruffs take on things even if he gets there by a completely different way from me!
|
|
jmd
Member
fourhares.com
Posts: 1,081
|
Post by jmd on Aug 24, 2005 23:04:22 GMT
I personally value the very important sense of trusting in oneself and in one's intuitions (that are, in any case, for me distinct to 'instincts').
With regards to intuitions, one of the considerations is that they arise from a movement of the spiritual realms ever present, though generally veiled, within the material world.
In my last post, I was more referring to the implications of ruffashlar's statement that 'Thus, (although I'm prepared to believe that Shakespeare is God) God is not Shakespeare: it is we who are Shakespeare, and God is our character' and a little later that 'God is a jobbing actor [..]'. If God is our 'character', the implication is that s/he arises out of not only our own fantasy, but that our trust is to be placed in the creative process of our own fantasies in cases of difficulties or danger.
I suppose, to perhaps use a ruffashlarianism (though I do not quite have the mastery in language with which he graces these boards), there are whole communities who live in such castles and for which psychiatrists collect handsome rents.
|
|
ruffashlar
Member
Lodge Milncroft No. 1515 (GLoS), Govanhill Royal Arch Chapter 523 (S.G.R.A.C.S.)
Posts: 2,184
|
Post by ruffashlar on Aug 25, 2005 14:22:51 GMT
...our trust is to be placed in the creative process of our own fantasies in cases of difficulties or danger
Indeed, why not? As assuredly it is from there that the phantasms of fear and doubt arise, why not our faith and resolve also? When we whistle to help us feel brave, aren't we really just imagining we are brave, and trying to believe in that fantasy?
Put it another way. Put yourself in the position of someone who is so depressed that they have no longer any rational idea of themselves, but keep imagining they are a terrible burden on their friends and family, the secret cause of everyone's misery, and think everyone would be so much happier without their continued existence. For that person to get better, they would have to form an imaginary self-image as someone full of self-worth, loved and cherished by all who know them, and then to believe in that fantasy. It might indeed reflect the facts as they are in reality, but until that person actually believes in that reality, it and their other, valued self are as much a fantasy as the jobbing actor playing to an empty house in Edinburgh.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Aug 25, 2005 22:32:37 GMT
>keep imagining they are a terrible burden on their friends and family, the secret cause of everyone's misery, and think everyone would be so much happier without their continued existence.
In my limited experience of such people, this is a symptom of the mind being interfered with by other entities.
So there may need to be metaphysical assistance.
Cheers
Russell
|
|
|
Post by maat on Aug 29, 2005 0:42:31 GMT
"Well for starters if you were the Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent - how would you fill your time?" - Whistler
"if I were God, as well as the only Being in the Universe, I'd be able to behave like a perfectly ordinary individual, unaware of my God-Nature, while at the same time doing the impossible task of also running the entire Universe and being Omniscient of everything and Omnipotent at doing the job perfectly." - Ruff
DAY DREAMING!? - Maat
"THE ALL is MIND; The Universe is Mental." - The Kybalion
This Principle embodies the truth that "All is Mind." It explains that THE ALL (which is the Substantial Reality underlying all the outward manifestations and appearances which we know under the terms of "The Material Universe; the "Phenomena of Life"; "Matter"; "Energy"; and in short all that is apparent to our material senses) is SPIRIT, which is itself UNKNOWABLE and UNDEFINABLE, but which may be considered and thought of as AN UNIVERSAL, INFINITE, LIVING MIND. It also explains that all the phenomenal world or universe is simply a Mental Creation of THE ALL, subject to the Laws of Created Things, and that the universe, as a whole, and in its parts or units, has its existence in the Mind of THE ALL, in which Mind we "live and move and have our being." This Principle, by establishing the Mental Nature of the Universe, easily explains all of the varied mental and psychic phenomena that occupy such a large portion of the public attention, and which, without such explanation, are non understandable and defy scientific treatment. An understanding of this great Hermetic Principle of Mentalism enables the individual to readily grasp the laws of the Mental Universe, and to apply the same to his well-being and advancement. The Hermetic student is enabled to apply intelligently the great Mental Laws, instead of using them in a haphazard manner. With the Master Key in his possession, the student may unlock the many doors of the mental and psychic temple of knowledge, and enter the same freely and intelligently. This Principle explains the true nature of "Energy," "Power," and "Matter," and why and how all these are subordinate to the Mastery of the Mind. One of the old Hermetic Masters wrote, long ages ago: "He who grasps the truth of the Mental Nature of the Universe is well advanced on The Path to Mastery."
And these words are as true today as at the time they were first written. Without this Master-Key, Mastery is impossible, and the student knocks in vain at the many doors of The Temple."
Jesus was referred to as a Master - was it his mental mastery that enabled him to work his miracles - Water/Wine - Calm the storm - Walk on water etc.
Don't forget that Jesus said whatever he could do we could do also. Mind over matter - we do it in the sports arena, pain management, etc - Hypnotism is a find example of the subject. Scientists have even achieved repeatable results when they did experiments on the germination and growth rate of seeds when given regular doses of prayer - positive mental affirmations - hate and 'nothing at all'. If you are interested - prayer and positive mental affirmations won and were equal in their results....nothing at all second and the hate seed actually died.
Much to ponder upon here.
Maat
A very interesting subject.
|
|