I may be mistaken...

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Sorry... I read it again the next day and wished I had phrased it differently .... if thats any consolation.

Regards

TE

Hi TE

It is nice to know you realised it was phrased badly (something I am often guilty of - type first, think later). So yes, it is a consolation, thank you.


As for the who or what created G-d issue, personally I think it is matterless. However, just to consider the issue even if there are a gaggle of gods but G-d is our 'universal department head', that still means that to us He is the One True G-d and no others deserve our worship. Even if we are a science experiment in the science lab of the gods, we are still servants of the One that created us surely?

Salaam

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, MuslimWoman!

Thank you for your response!

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

As for the who or what created G-d issue, personally I think it is matterless. However, just to consider the issue even if there are a gaggle of gods but G-d is our 'universal department head', that still means that to us He is the One True G-d and no others deserve our worship. Even if we are a science experiment in the science lab of the gods, we are still servants of the One that created us surely?

Yes! This points in the same general direction I was pointing.

[Tao_Equus]

Ok, let me try to put it another way.

Imagine a faculty of Gods, since you used the department head analogy i'l run with it. Somewhere there is a faculty head and under him are all the department heads. Our universe is in the hands of one of those department heads. We, being in terms of net mass contributed to the universe are tiny, insignificant and ultimately, I believe, unimportant. The department head maybe on some level aware of our existence but most likely as a concept and certainly not our every individual foible. The human body is host to millions of living multiplying and dying bacteria at any given moment in time. Are we aware of each and every one? We know they are there, but we dont know them by name and we certainly dont judge them. Maybe these ickle bacteriums too theorise about us!! Likewise Mr Dept. Head of Gods'r'us dont know us.
The "good" laws/regulations found in any Holy Book are basic common sense for social stability. They are far too 'human' to be anything else. The need for God that individuals have is multi-faceted but to believe Mr Dept. Head is going to judge you on whether of not you eat pork, swear, wear a hijab or anything else is just fanciful and very obviously stems from human leaders claiming divine sanction for the laws they made. So on that basis I stand by my belief that Mr. Dept. Head is no more knowable than Mr. Faculty Head or his boss, or his boss..... In some ways it is a grandiose arrogance to assume we understand God. Another all too familiar human trait.
This is why I keep coming back in so many of my posts to my assertion that the Nature of God cannot be found in a Holy Book. They are the work of men any of which was less educated than the average modern 12 year old and had no concept of what we have learned from science in the past 200 years. I dont deny many of the writers had great wisdom, but they lacked what we now know.
I believe the reason that so many of us 'feel' God is real is because in the most literal sense we are a part of God. Not part of His creation, as a separate article, but because Creation is itself the Nature of God. Just as the bacterium inside us live out countless generations without contact with anything, and beyond contact with anything else so we live within God and are incapable of ever seeing the totality. We can infer by our own existence that god exists, but like the bacterium God cant know us and we cant know God. The best we can do is realise our laws are human laws and respect them for that and to observe the beauty of creation and wonder at its profundity.

TE

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Tao!

Thank you for your thoughtful response!

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Ok, let me try to put it another way.

Imagine a faculty of Gods, since you used the department head analogy i'l run with it. Somewhere there is a faculty head and under him are all the department heads. Our universe is in the hands of one of those department heads. We, being in terms of net mass contributed to the universe are tiny, insignificant and ultimately, I believe, unimportant.

I didn't raise the issue, but I did agree with the concept, so OK. I think the matter of spirit is being overlooked. Now I must delve into greater specificity, using Christian terms because I am not familiar enough with other concepts, even though this is an exercise in speculation.

I see it a bit more like military ranks. Perhaps G-d is a general, a commander in chief...but I suppose there might be room for even higher officers, although from our perspective we aren't very likely to run into them for it to matter to us grunts. In between G-d and us are the commanding ranks, angels if you will, that do have some interaction in and among us, and who perhaps report to the higher ups.

There is also consideration of "the way," the Tao, the universal flow, the natural laws. Sin is not necessarily sin because a human believes it to be wrong, although I will grant that a lot of what is construed as sin probably is a failing of proper social intercourse. But there are also sins that circumvent (or try to) the universal laws.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

The department head maybe on some level aware of our existence but most likely as a concept and certainly not our every individual foible. The human body is host to millions of living multiplying and dying bacteria at any given moment in time. Are we aware of each and every one? We know they are there, but we dont know them by name and we certainly dont judge them. Maybe these ickle bacteriums too theorise about us!! Likewise Mr Dept. Head of Gods'r'us dont know us.

Do the bacterium have "guardian angels" that report to our minds? I see significant difference. On a "universal law" level though, those bacterium will go about doing what they are "designed" to do. I cannot see to the level of bacterium to find out what would happen if a single bacterium were to buck the trend and try to conduct its affairs contrary to the universal law. I suspect free will is an important distinction between us humans and bacterium.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

The "good" laws/regulations found in any Holy Book are basic common sense for social stability. They are far too 'human' to be anything else.

In general terms I agree, regarding cultural specificity and application. But why such encompassing similarity across time and culture? Why have all cultures sought the same answers to essentially the same questions? If G-d were naught, or solely an invention of someone's mind to mollify their tribal masses, why is religion not a unique undertaking, or at least a limited undertaking amongst the various tribes and cultures of humans?

This is always a sticking point I have yet to receive answer for from anybody.

Let me attempt to phrase another way. Let's suppose for a moment you are correct. "The 'good' laws/regulations found in any Holy Book are basic common sense for social stability," ONLY. So, one should think that an evolutionarily forward thinking human, likely of some influence over "his" tribe, figured out and realized that if he created one called G-d and placed all-encompassing authority in Him, then wrote a set of rules to keep his subordinates in line, AND somehow convinced the whole tribe it was true...then that might explain religion in one tribe / culture of people. Even allowing for cultural interaction over time, war and commerce, trading of wives, etc., it still wouldn't fully account for the encompassing search for spiritual truth found even in prehistoric times among hunter-gatherers. Let alone the persistent pervasive search ongoing in modern cultures! If this G-d were a fabrication, ONLY, at some point I would think it would become evident. Yet, there are far too many mysteries, far too many esoteric branches of the major faiths, far too many miracles and other evidences, to allow a full dismissal as simply human invention.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

The need for God that individuals have is multi-faceted but to believe Mr Dept. Head is going to judge you on whether of not you eat pork, swear, wear a hijab or anything else is just fanciful and very obviously stems from human leaders claiming divine sanction for the laws they made. So on that basis I stand by my belief that Mr. Dept. Head is no more knowable than Mr. Faculty Head or his boss, or his boss..... In some ways it is a grandiose arrogance to assume we understand God. Another all too familiar human trait.

Ah, but as arrogant as I can be at times, I have not ever on this site claimed or assumed I understand G-d. What is the title of this thread? I am speculating, like everybody else does. Only here, I am doing so openly, allowing for alternate views and expanding on my own view. Of course, we are now back at the vengefully exaggerated superhuman sitting with a gavel in hand waiting to pounce...decidedly not what I suggest at all. Perhaps it is the universal law itself that will bear witness and be our judge...I don't know or understand the mechanics of how it works. Certainly no more so than anybody else, of any religious stripe, if they are truly honest. We hold to what we believe, and hope and trust it works out in the end.

I think most of us try, pretty hard but not to the point of sainthood, to be decent human beings towards others, to the land, to nature and to spirit. I don't really think sainthood is a prerequisite to enter the hereafter, being decent with an honest heart and attitude is sufficient. These things, as I intuit them, are in tune with the Tao and pointed to go with the flow. These things are "judged rightly" by the universal law. IMHO, anyway.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

This is why I keep coming back in so many of my posts to my assertion that the Nature of God cannot be found in a Holy Book.

Of course not, the full nature of G-d is too vast for any human mind to wrap around.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

They are the work of men any of which was less educated than the average modern 12 year old and had no concept of what we have learned from science in the past 200 years. I dont deny many of the writers had great wisdom, but they lacked what we now know.

I am not in a position to deny your assertion. I do see what I feel to be a huge flaw. In trading the religious dogma of scientific prominence over religion, one effectively negates those millenia of wisdom alluded to.

Science is about how, religion is about why.

Think back for a moment to when your first child was born...Science tells us that a child develops from an egg and a sperm, gestates for 9 months or so, and *POP*, out comes an infant human. But I'll wager that was not the thoughts going through your mind at the time. I would bet you were filled with overwhelming awe and wonder, unfathomable joy, and profound love for both the child and his mother. Why?

As much as I have seen some allude to science understanding the soul of humans and thereby try to lay claim to that realm, science is not equipped as a discipline to do so. Science in the purest (and purist) sense was never intended to do so.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I believe the reason that so many of us 'feel' God is real is because in the most literal sense we are a part of God. Not part of His creation, as a separate article, but because Creation is itself the Nature of God. Just as the bacterium inside us live out countless generations without contact with anything, and beyond contact with anything else so we live within God and are incapable of ever seeing the totality. We can infer by our own existence that god exists, but like the bacterium God cant know us and we cant know God. The best we can do is realise our laws are human laws and respect them for that and to observe the beauty of creation and wonder at its profundity.

That is certainly a possibility. We won't know until the time comes, and even then maybe not.

[Sunny C.]

Originally Posted by Juan

In general terms I agree, regarding cultural specificity and application. But why such encompassing similarity across time and culture? Why have all cultures sought the same answers to essentially the same questions? If G-d were naught, or solely an invention of someone's mind to mollify their tribal masses, why is religion not a unique undertaking, or at least a limited undertaking amongst the various tribes and cultures of humans?

This is always a sticking point I have yet to receive answer for from anybody.

I won't presume to answer your question, it's a good one. I would suggest, though, that religion evolved to provide a central repository for the collective tribal knowledge. The only way for a tribe to get ahead, civ-wise, and considering short lifespans, was to organize a tribal cult to preserve the oral tradition of what the generations of the tribe had figured out about how nature and the world works. It was a hard won luxury for hunter gatherers to spare people from bustin' ass to get the tribe food and fight off enemies. But eventually they did manage to spare some people to make things like pots and other useful wares for internal consumption.

And, of course, there had to be a ruling body, and that strong man and his buds needed to control the tribal cult for obvious reasons. It wasn't a bad thing either because as clans and tribes got organized, and kept track of the times and seasons and the almanac of tribal events and discoveries made, and evolved primitive forms of governance the people's lives improved and civilization advanced. Religion helped make all of that possible by recording the oral tradition and providing ritual and symbolic status for the rulers.

But the dude's who had to memorize all the stuff about the tribe and everything that had ever happened soon needed mnemonic devices real bad. How to store knowledge? Well, they didn't have writing, and they didn't have cameras, but...if a picture is worth a thousand words, or names of ancestors perhaps, you can perhaps compress that information into a verbal picture relayed through a story. And if you have a lot of stories and a lot of ancestors (there being an emphasis placed, perhaps, on the import of bloodlines within a much larger tribal, or pan-tribal structure), those can be compressed into archetypes which play the role of luminaries in a more complex mythological story.

[Sunny C.]

I'm not sure why religion isn't seen as evolving into it's ultimate purity through divesting itself of no longer necessary functions like science and politics. Why should it still be a tool of hegemonic control? I can't understand the nostalgia for ritualistic anachronisms. If we want to make use of the compressed knowledge we have to re-solvent it, not by trying to climb inside and act it all out again, but by comparing it with our own experiences. We have evolved socially and culturally over the past couple of thousand years haven't we? Why would we want to play act something that doesn't take into account the intervening millenia and give us credit for all the stuff we've learned since then?

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

We, being in terms of net mass contributed to the universe are tiny, insignificant and ultimately, I believe, unimportant.

Hi TE

Yep can agree we are unimportant and insignificant in the grand scale of things. However, if we create something (a garden, a fish tank, etc) does that not become important to us? Are we not bothered when one of our fish dies or our roses get greenfly? For me the answer is yes, so it would logically follow that all G-d has created is important to Him. I find this a very difficult conversation, as to me trying to define G-d is like a broken pencil.....pointless.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

The department head maybe on some level aware of our existence but most likely as a concept and certainly not our every individual foible.

Why do you assume that? Is that not trying to define G-d in human terms, with human attributes? I believe, as virtually all religions have, that G-d is al-Basir (the all Seeing), al-Alim (the all Knowing) and al-Raqib (the watchful).

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

The human body is host to millions of living multiplying and dying bacteria at any given moment in time. Are we aware of each and every one? We know they are there, but we dont know them by name and we certainly dont judge them. Maybe these ickle bacteriums too theorise about us!! Likewise Mr Dept. Head of Gods'r'us dont know us.

Okay I hope you have some time spare, here are the names of mine

Bob
Bill
Kate
Sarah

Ok only kidding

Again that only works if you see G-d in human terms. I can see what you are saying, if we are a science experiment is there a 'big head' up there watching each individuals deeds day and night - seems unlikely....in human terms. However, factor in the intelligence and technology that would be required to create a complex universe as a science experiment. Here we get lost again because our meagre minds cannot fathom or imagine that level of intelligence. In the same way as bacteria would see us in terms of their own knowledge and abilities.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

The "good" laws/regulations found in any Holy Book are basic common sense for social stability. They are far too 'human' to be anything else.

Ok let us stick with the science experiment. If Albert Einstien were to explain the theory of relativity to a group of 4 year olds what would happen? After 30 seconds of open mouthed drooling (the kids not Einstien) they would clamber off to find something sticky and smelly to eat or rub on their faces. So if G-d came to explain the science of the universe to us, what would happen? We would suddenly become super intelligent beings that understand science way beyond our capabilities or we'd get bored and go looking for trouble? So of course the Books were given in terms we can understand. To suggest that some chaps suddenly woke up one day and said "let's take all the fun out of life, yeah people will love that idea" would be to suggest billions of people follow prophets that were clearly in need of a frontal labotomy.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

So on that basis I stand by my belief that Mr. Dept. Head is no more knowable than Mr. Faculty Head or his boss, or his boss..... In some ways it is a grandiose arrogance to assume we understand God. Another all too familiar human trait.

You get no argument from me here, pure arrogance driven by the human ego.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

This is why I keep coming back in so many of my posts to my assertion that the Nature of God cannot be found in a Holy Book.

Again no argument from me, G-d tells us in the Quran that He cannot be understood by humans.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

They are the work of men any of which was less educated than the average modern 12 year old and had no concept of what we have learned from science in the past 200 years.

Here we only agree to a point. I accept that men, for their own power struggles and greed have interfered with the teachings of the Prophets (pbut) but that does not mean to me I should reject everything as fabricated by man. It is relatively easy to see the 'footprints' of man in the history of religion but anything we can see as 'twisted' we can choose not to accept. There are a couple of things in Islam I do not like (because they go against my own desires) but I accept them as from G-d and so follow them. There are also things which I am told I must follow that I simply reject because I deem them man made.

As for modern science, the message of the Quran was not intended as a reference book of proofs for the sceptical, it was given as a way of life, a form of social and individual structure, if you like a guidebook for the faithful.

It is strange, we largely agree but for different reasons. It would be futile to attempt to understand G-d, as we simply do not have the intelligence to understand Him. In the same way as the bacteria cannot understand us. However, this does not lead me to conclude that G-d knows nothing of us or that man has created this whole idea just to control the masses. When I read the Quran I can feel G-d, yet when I read the many interpretations of it I can, without doubt, feel the interference of man. This does not lessen my faith, I accept humans are greedy and weak but that is no reason for me to reject the message of G-d, he gave me the intelligence to recognise the difference.

Salaam

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Sunny C.!

Thank you for your thoughtful response!

Originally Posted by Sunny C.

I would suggest, though, that religion evolved to provide a central repository for the collective tribal knowledge. The only way for a tribe to get ahead, civ-wise, and considering short lifespans, was to organize a tribal cult to preserve the oral tradition of what the generations of the tribe had figured out about how nature and the world works. It was a hard won luxury for hunter gatherers to spare people from bustin' ass to get the tribe food and fight off enemies. But eventually they did manage to spare some people to make things like pots and other useful wares for internal consumption.

I can see this, and agree. I have argued before that there must be something to the "G-d concept" for prehistoric peoples to find time and make effort in that direction. Time was exceedingly valuable to them, there wasn't the luxury of time to be wasted. As you pointed out, what time wasn't spent foraging or hunting, was spent in defense from predators and rivals, chipping stones into tools, in some cases creating various artwork (beads, pottery, flutes, "Venus" fertility figures) probably as tools and simple entertainment. I have no doubt they watched the stars. And some number of widely disbursed Cro-Magnon also painted cave walls, from Portuagal, Spain and France, through Italy, all the way to China. (Too vast a distance to be only one tribe)

Into this mix they found the time for spirit quest. If there were nothing to spirit quest, why bother? If there were nothing to find, why did every tribe we know of spend time looking?

Originally Posted by Sunny C.

And, of course, there had to be a ruling body, and that strong man and his buds needed to control the tribal cult for obvious reasons. It wasn't a bad thing either because as clans and tribes got organized, and kept track of the times and seasons and the almanac of tribal events and discoveries made, and evolved primitive forms of governance the people's lives improved and civilization advanced. Religion helped make all of that possible by recording the oral tradition and providing ritual and symbolic status for the rulers.

Certainly. I do see a distinction between the shaman and the tribal leader (chieftain), not impossible to be both, but very seriously taxing on one's energies. I sense this is why the "class distinction" if you will between chieftain and shaman, one that remains for the most part to this day. The shaman may well influence the chieftain, perhaps even vise-versa, and for social cohesion it is well the two cooperate. But the paths are distinct.

Originally Posted by Sunny C.

But the dude's who had to memorize all the stuff about the tribe and everything that had ever happened soon needed mnemonic devices real bad. How to store knowledge? Well, they didn't have writing, and they didn't have cameras, but...if a picture is worth a thousand words, or names of ancestors perhaps, you can perhaps compress that information into a verbal picture relayed through a story. And if you have a lot of stories and a lot of ancestors (there being an emphasis placed, perhaps, on the import of bloodlines within a much larger tribal, or pan-tribal structure), those can be compressed into archetypes which play the role of luminaries in a more complex mythological story.

This probably assists in explaining the cave paintings, perhaps the "Venus" figures, maybe even Neandertal flutes, I would think even song and dance. I suspect (along with some researchers) that beadwork and other ornamentation was a sign of status, perhaps wealth (although not likely measured as we do today). Of course, there are tribes even today that place a great emphasis on memory, the Navajo for one. Mnemonic devices may well serve to assist in that regard, it is difficult for an outsider to read without a crib sheet. I have long wondered the purpose behind the cave paintings...were they teaching devices for how to conduct a hunt? Were they thank offerings to the spirits of the animals or the Creator of those animals? Were they merely records of successful hunts? No one single answer serves, as there are frequent anomalies. Why paint a predator one doesn't hunt or eat? Why paint a man in a horned mask? Why paint so deep in caves, much deeper than the living spaces?

And what is the psychological drive behind delving so deeply into caves with little more than torchlight to begin with? Is there some Freudian or Jungian explanation...and how does it weigh against a tribal cave dwelling mind? Were prehistoric psyches similar enough to our own we can make reasonable associations, or was the tribal mind sufficiently different from our own as to make such associations almost impossible?

Originally Posted by Sunny C.

I'm not sure why religion isn't seen as evolving into it's ultimate purity through divesting itself of no longer necessary functions like science and politics. Why should it still be a tool of hegemonic control? I can't understand the nostalgia for ritualistic anachronisms. If we want to make use of the compressed knowledge we have to re-solvent it, not by trying to climb inside and act it all out again, but by comparing it with our own experiences. We have evolved socially and culturally over the past couple of thousand years haven't we? Why would we want to play act something that doesn't take into account the intervening millenia and give us credit for all the stuff we've learned since then?

This is where I feel the distinction between institutional religion and the personal spirit quest is important. In effect, I can be religious without religion. It is a bit harder row to hoe, institutional paths provide highway markers and guideposts, without which the path is less certain. But you are correct in that divesting the spirit quest of politics and science frees one to better see what IS, rather than providing a preset (and socially / culturally approved) answer negating the individual need to ask the initial questions to see for themselves. "Just believe what we tell you, and everything will be just fine." Silly me, I don't believe that, I have too many unanswered questions.

It can be a delicate balancing act...accepting the wisdom of ages without surrendering to the attendant politics and superstitions of the moment. My continuing two cents.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, MuslimWoman!

Thank you for your thoughtful post!

As it is addressed to Tao I will leave it alone for now, but to say I find very much I agree with.

Thanks again!

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, MuslimWoman!

Thank you for your thoughtful post!

As it is addressed to Tao I will leave it alone for now, but to say I find very much I agree with.

Thanks again!

As salaam aleykum Juantoo

Please feel free to jump in whenever you like, even if I am not speaking directly to you - I just love open discussion.

Salaam

[Dondi]

We all have our own vision quests. But there is something about making the journey together in a communal setting. How else does one deal with people? How else do we learn to love one another? There is something about getting together with like-minded people on the same course and goals which, working in cooperation, deepens the significance of the experience.

[Tao_Equus]

Thank you Juantoo

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, Tao!

Thank you for your thoughtful response!

I didn't raise the issue, but I did agree with the concept, so OK. I think the matter of spirit is being overlooked. Now I must delve into greater specificity, using Christian terms because I am not familiar enough with other concepts, even though this is an exercise in speculation.

I see it a bit more like military ranks. Perhaps G-d is a general, a commander in chief...but I suppose there might be room for even higher officers, although from our perspective we aren't very likely to run into them for it to matter to us grunts. In between G-d and us are the commanding ranks, angels if you will, that do have some interaction in and among us, and who perhaps report to the higher ups.

Here is a major (pun-ish me if you like )) difference between us. I simply do not believe in miracles or angels of any kind. I do believe that the reality that we operate on is greater than that commonly perceived and it is this that results in what may appear to be miracles or prayers answered...for example. But these are natural phenomena not divine. Although we appear to operate on 4 dimensional planes I suspect the truth is we use several more without ever truly being aware of it. This is why prayer is sometimes effective. If you imagine for a moment that we are not separate entities but are part of a 'soup' of intercommunicating matter then its quite easy to visualise how a prayer is like a signal to what I'd compare to a central nervous system. Repeat that prayer often enough and with sufficient will then it is picked up and the "whole" sets in motion what is required to remedy it. Of course most prayer is half-hearted mantra or thoughtless repetition and never registers on the nerve endings. I think will is key to this. Will is a powerful force that keeps people alive when they should by rights die, and the opposite too. Where its absence lets people die who need not. But I digress.

There is also consideration of "the way," the Tao, the universal flow, the natural laws. Sin is not necessarily sin because a human believes it to be wrong, although I will grant that a lot of what is construed as sin probably is a failing of proper social intercourse. But there are also sins that circumvent (or try to) the universal laws.

The Tao in its appreciation that that that is is unfathomable, ungraspable and impenetrable comes closest to my own way of thinking....as you might guess... of anything that might be considered a religion. Which it is not.... to my mind anyway. To me the Tao, as a philosophy, does not speak of 'universal law' but of the proper governance of man for man. But as water cannot flow uphill so man cannot fundamentally go against what the parameters of greater nature permit. Even child murder is a crime within humanity and not a sin before nature. I cannot and do not subscribe to the elevation of mans law to universal law. And further I feel that it is the effort to do this that results in religiously motivated atrocities. It may seem pretty obvious that religious differences result in the claim of divine sanction to behave against humanity but it seems to me few people actually care to see that this will never cease to be the case till our spirituality is totally divorced from human law.

Do the bacterium have "guardian angels" that report to our minds? I see significant difference. On a "universal law" level though, those bacterium will go about doing what they are "designed" to do. I cannot see to the level of bacterium to find out what would happen if a single bacterium were to buck the trend and try to conduct its affairs contrary to the universal law. I suspect free will is an important distinction between us humans and bacterium.

Again if you imagine for a moment that both the bacteria and us are a part of the same 'soup' then they could well be interacting pro-actively. They may not be concious and have the illusion of independence we do, (you only have to realise the importance of ecosystems to realise we are not at all independent), but I feel fairly certain given a battery of info I've read down the years that even humble bacteria react and respond to conditions.

Why have all cultures sought the same answers to essentially the same questions?

There is a very simple answer to this, the "soup" again. I like to call it Gaia of course

Let me attempt to phrase another way. Let's suppose for a moment you are correct. "The 'good' laws/regulations found in any Holy Book are basic common sense for social stability," ONLY. So, one should think that an evolutionarily forward thinking human, likely of some influence over "his" tribe, figured out and realized that if he created one called G-d and placed all-encompassing authority in Him, then wrote a set of rules to keep his subordinates in line, AND somehow convinced the whole tribe it was true...then that might explain religion in one tribe / culture of people. Even allowing for cultural interaction over time, war and commerce, trading of wives, etc., it still wouldn't fully account for the encompassing search for spiritual truth found even in prehistoric times among hunter-gatherers. Let alone the persistent pervasive search ongoing in modern cultures! If this G-d were a fabrication, ONLY, at some point I would think it would become evident. Yet, there are far too many mysteries, far too many esoteric branches of the major faiths, far too many miracles and other evidences, to allow a full dismissal as simply human invention.

Again its the 'soup'.

Ah, but as arrogant as I can be at times, I have not ever on this site claimed or assumed I understand G-d.

Juantoo, forgive me if I ever come across as personal in such debates and let me assure you I never am. I wholly respect your views and opinions and value the thinking they force me into. I am not here to deride or belittle anybody nor their ideas and beliefs. I come here because I find debate on these never-solvable questions fun and stimulating. Of course some I have little patience with but even then I endeavour to be respectful even when what I hear I find laughable. I know I do not always succeed but I do try

I am not in a position to deny your assertion. I do see what I feel to be a huge flaw. In trading the religious dogma of scientific prominence over religion, one effectively negates those millenia of wisdom alluded to.

Science is about how, religion is about why.

Science is not a spiritual quest I agree but it has opened up can after can of worms for the churches. Spiritual and common wisdom has no effect on science. Science can does give added dimension to the whole that we know, and the rate of growth of human knowledge is phenomenal. For those of us enquiring and individualistic enough to take what we need from where we find it this presents no issues. I do not and will never be an advocate for science as a spiritual discipline but it is our most powerful tool to...as I said in my last post... wonder at its profundity. So for someone like me it strengthens my belief in the existence of that super-entity we debate about.

Think back for a moment to when your first child was born...Science tells us that a child develops from an egg and a sperm, gestates for 9 months or so, and *POP*, out comes an infant human. But I'll wager that was not the thoughts going through your mind at the time. I would bet you were filled with overwhelming awe and wonder, unfathomable joy, and profound love for both the child and his mother. Why?

Yes creation is invariably an ecstatic experience to behold or partake in.

Kind Regards

TE

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Dondi!

Originally Posted by Dondi

We all have our own vision quests. But there is something about making the journey together in a communal setting. How else does one deal with people? How else do we learn to love one another? There is something about getting together with like-minded people on the same course and goals which, working in cooperation, deepens the significance of the experience.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

Hi TE

Yep can agree we are unimportant and insignificant in the grand scale of things. However, if we create something (a garden, a fish tank, etc) does that not become important to us? Are we not bothered when one of our fish dies or our roses get greenfly? For me the answer is yes, so it would logically follow that all G-d has created is important to Him. I find this a very difficult conversation, as to me trying to define G-d is like a broken pencil.....pointless.

I like your point. Perhaps you are right but your logical response is a human one. I fail to see any evidence that God shares such sentiments. In that regard you are out on the limb of faith once again. The 2 examples you give are very good in that they are living things we nurture and cherish for their beauty. The other living things that we nurture and cherish are those things that we would eat. Would you be as quick to believe that we are but a snack for God?
I never try to define God, I just try to get the most complete picture of what is given our limitations. The nature I see has no benevolent nor wrathful, vengeful God. I see nothing anthropocentric outside of man himself.

Why do you assume that? Is that not trying to define G-d in human terms, with human attributes? I believe, as virtually all religions have, that G-d is al-Basir (the all Seeing), al-Alim (the all Knowing) and al-Raqib (the watchful).

Both you and Juantoo seem to have got this impression where it is clear to me I am divorcing human behaviour from God at every turn. The meaning behind what you quote me on intends to convey the idea that we are a part of, or inside, God. I don't quite know how you extract anthropocentrism from that quote. I believe that what we 'feel' as God, that which drives the essence of spirituality in the vast majority of us, is our communion with a greater whole. A communion we cannot extract ourselves from any more than a blood cell can live an independent life outside of the body. This does not infer that God is manlike in any way. But neither does it infer that God is concious of us, where for analogy we become the blood cell in the 'body' of God.
I must point out however that in your opening paragraph you very distinctly anthropomorphised Gods nature. I do not see God in human terms but I look at creation with human eyes. I try at all times to use logic and observation using logic to understand the physical universe. Being raised in a religion-free household by poorly educated parents every track of seeking I ever followed has been my of own choosing. Like many kids I loved science and it was from this love of science I came to my own conclusion that there exists a governing super-nature. Because we are a part of this super-nature, (however infinitesimal a part we may be), and are thus in constant unconscious communication with that whole we have this sense we define as spirituality or belief in God. Its a real thing. But it is poorly understood by most religions. Spirituality is, I believe, our sense of perception of the whole. Nothing more. But if you think about it for any length of time you will I am sure begin to see that it explains every facet of the esoteric and has a beauty and simplicity that becomes stunningly obvious. OMG!! I'm proselytising!!! Lmao.....wonders will never cease

Again that only works if you see G-d in human terms. I can see what you are saying, if we are a science experiment is there a 'big head' up there watching each individuals deeds day and night - seems unlikely....in human terms. However, factor in the intelligence and technology that would be required to create a complex universe as a science experiment. Here we get lost again because our meagre minds cannot fathom or imagine that level of intelligence. In the same way as bacteria would see us in terms of their own knowledge and abilities.



Ok let us stick with the science experiment. If Albert Einstien were to explain the theory of relativity to a group of 4 year olds what would happen? After 30 seconds of open mouthed drooling (the kids not Einstien) they would clamber off to find something sticky and smelly to eat or rub on their faces. So if G-d came to explain the science of the universe to us, what would happen? We would suddenly become super intelligent beings that understand science way beyond our capabilities or we'd get bored and go looking for trouble? So of course the Books were given in terms we can understand. To suggest that some chaps suddenly woke up one day and said "let's take all the fun out of life, yeah people will love that idea" would be to suggest billions of people follow prophets that were clearly in need of a frontal labotomy.

Again here throughout these 2 paragraphs you actually ascribe man-like qualities to God while attempting the opposite. You cant have it both ways!!!

As for modern science, the message of the Quran was not intended as a reference book of proofs for the sceptical, it was given as a way of life, a form of social and individual structure, if you like a guidebook for the faithful.

Then why do I hear so often from Muslims these challenges
to defy the ineffable nature of the Q'uran? As I have come to know you a bit on this forum I can only say that you are atypical of Muslim's I have met here. So while I absolutely respect where you are coming from forgive me if I still continue to bash Islam at times


Kind regards

TE