universal evolution and the real and living creator god [yes thats right!]

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Paladin

As an aside, I was just wondering, if according to the most general application of evolution theory desirable traits, qualities and even species are eventually let go in favor of more desirable ones will the human race itself make the cut?

Why should we? We are diseased, we are weak, we coddle our infirm...and we kill our young before they are born. Doesn't look too promising to me, evolutionarily speaking.

[China Cat Sunflower]

Just as an experiment...If we take everything we know, from various sources which seem legitimate, combined with our own experiences, about God, we could make a kind of logical flow chart about it's attributes. "It's this, but it can't be this because of this over here", kinda thing. I propose that a close examination of the results would reveal much about what we're trying so hard to describe. Of course the temptation would be to construct a composite, consensus God. But that would negate the value of the cultural nuances in the source material. So I think we have to balance our urge to create whole systems against our desire preserve original context.

Chris

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

I feel it too. That sense that something is connecting everything in a way that I can't quite put my finger on. I have those aha! moments. I live for those moments! What you see is me flogging about at the very edge of my ability to put things into words. I want to make that effort. I want to keep pushing into the unknown, keep pushing myself out beyond the easy, stock definitions. I don't mind calling that "thing" that we're trying to explain God. I just don't want to limit it. I want to try to understand what It is of itself, not form it in my own image or make it a fuzzy blanket. There are so many possibilities beyond our little minds and our little world. I want to embrace and explore all of those possibilities.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

CCS- I couldn't say it better myself. I'm reading Eckhart Tolle right now and it is very affirming to a lot of that "pushing into the unknown" I've been increasingly doing over the years. The difficulty is always trying to communicate with people online. On the one hand, it's wonderful. On the other, it's really hard because you reduce the ineffable into words.

Gosh! Just goes to show even a blind pig can find a truffle now and then...

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Just as an experiment...If we take everything we know, from various sources which seem legitimate, combined with our own experiences, about God, we could make a kind of logical flow chart about it's attributes. "It's this, but it can't be this because of this over here", kinda thing. I propose that a close examination of the results would reveal much about what we're trying so hard to describe. Of course the temptation would be to construct a composite, consensus God. But that would negate the value of the cultural nuances in the source material. So I think we have to balance our urge to create whole systems against our desire preserve original context.

I can see the title of the book now, "G-d by corporate consensus."

Neat idea. I think the first severe challenge will be determining just which sources are to be deemed legitimate, and by what standards...

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Gosh! Just goes to show even a blind pig can find a truffle now and then...

He called me a blind pig. Did you see that?

The nerve of some people.

Mmmm...delicious truffles.

Chris

[China Cat Sunflower]

You know, you can bale the hay before it's dry, but green hay can burn down the barn. I wish religion and science would leave each other alone. Science always misses the point when it comes to spirituality. It cuts the alfalfa too close and stacks it too high. And religion, scientifically, is stuck in the middle ages. Gotta compartmentalize.

Chris

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

He called me a blind pig. Did you see that?

The nerve of some people.

Mmmm...delicious truffles.

Move over, I found it first!

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

I wish religion and science would leave each other alone. Science always misses the point when it comes to spirituality. It cuts the alfalfa too close and stacks it too high. And religion, scientifically, is stuck in the middle ages. Gotta compartmentalize.

I wish they would get along too, but like daddy used to say: "wish in one hand and $h!t in the other, and see which fills up fastest."

As long as political power exists, there will be people who will use whatever means available to extend their brand of it over others. It will probably take a paradigm shift in how we intrinsically view the world before any type of consensus can be achieved.

Then again, do we really want to all see and believe the same thing? It would get awfully boring in short order. If peace has a downside, it is boredom.

*YAWN*

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

I propose that a close examination of the results would reveal much about what we're trying so hard to describe. Of course the temptation would be to construct a composite, consensus God. But that would negate the value of the cultural nuances in the source material. So I think we have to balance our urge to create whole systems against our desire preserve original context.

I suspect the cultural nuances in the source material may actually point to something we are reflexively (is that a word?) loathe to consider; we are not alone in the universe.

I know the sci-fi buffs have a field day with it all, but they tend to present this as though we earth bound humans are the top of the pyramid...what if we are at the bottom? What if this whole experience we know as life in a human form on this planet is some exercise or experiment from some source race who planted us here so long ago we have forgotten, and our religions are merely poetic signposts to remind those who care to seek?

If "G-d" is not this subtle energy that connects all life (or perhaps even if G-d is), then perhaps the whole G-d concept thing is tied directly to our long forgotten desire to return to where our "Adamic" parents came from.

ooo-weee-ooo

yes, I'll have that tin-foil hat now please...

[greymare]

the whole humans being at the bottom of the food chain kind of thing makes me wonder. A book I read once commented on a lot of things like that... I wont bore you with the details but.... if you look at humans in general, compared to the other creatures on this planet. we seem to be the alien ones. I mean, we are weak, we need infinite amount of stuff to keep us alive,even the most primitive peoples who have very little still rely on stuff. and by stuff I mean, shelter, weapons/tools etc. yes, I KNOW im not as educated as a lot of you but., at least the animals evolved...we just changed everything else around us. we arenot suitted to any climate. im trying to make a point but i dont think im succeeding very well.i know what i mean even if you guys dont. (ill just return to my corner of the lounge)

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by greymare

the whole humans being at the bottom of the food chain kind of thing makes me wonder. A book I read once commented on a lot of things like that... I wont bore you with the details but.... if you look at humans in general, compared to the other creatures on this planet. we seem to be the alien ones. I mean, we are weak, we need infinite amount of stuff to keep us alive,even the most primitive peoples who have very little still rely on stuff. and by stuff I mean, shelter, weapons/tools etc. yes, I KNOW im not as educated as a lot of you but., at least the animals evolved...we just changed everything else around us. we arenot suitted to any climate. im trying to make a point but i dont think im succeeding very well.i know what i mean even if you guys dont. (ill just return to my corner of the lounge)

You do make a thoughtful and relevant point Grey. In terms of the evolutionary development of ever more sophisticated tools and the reliance on them for our survival, and by this I include agriculture and husbandry, most of us would find it very difficult to survive if they were all removed. Can you imagine Paris Hilton surviving long if plonked deep in the Congo? Or Elton John in the frozen wastes of the Siberian tundra? Only the most hardy, resilient and determined individuals would stand any chance of surviving without the trappings of modern civilisation.

A dachshund can breed with a wolf, a tiger with a lion, they are all clearly identifiable as individual species. So interbreedability is not always a true criteria to define speciation. I still agree that contemporary man is not enough diverged from his recent ancestry to qualify as a new species. But I do think that time is close.

Tao

[Ciel]

Originally Posted by greymare

the whole humans being at the bottom of the food chain kind of thing makes me wonder. A book I read once commented on a lot of things like that... I wont bore you with the details but.... if you look at humans in general, compared to the other creatures on this planet. we seem to be the alien ones. I mean, we are weak, we need infinite amount of stuff to keep us alive,even the most primitive peoples who have very little still rely on stuff. and by stuff I mean, shelter, weapons/tools etc. yes, I KNOW im not as educated as a lot of you but., at least the animals evolved...we just changed everything else around us. we arenot suitted to any climate. im trying to make a point but i dont think im succeeding very well.i know what i mean even if you guys dont. (ill just return to my corner of the lounge)

Hi Greymare,
It's a valid point. My daughter and her family have recently returned from six months of traveling world wide and this is also her observation. The products of the western world are mainly superfluous compared to the richness of the people living their lives according and at one with their own cultural design. And more so, most of the world would place no further value on this than to see it as money making tourist industry.

- c -

[Ciel]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Then again, do we really want to all see and believe the same thing? It would get awfully boring in short order. If peace has a downside, it is boredom.

*YAWN*

Juan,
You know I've often wondered if humanity is more afraid of peace than war.

- c -

[greymare]

another question.... why didnt humans that live in cold climates develop fur like all the other animals did. yes, I have seen a few hairy backed men,but thats not what I mean. theanimals evolved thick down and fur to protect from the extremes, weve been around long enough, surely it wasnt a case of ....nah, Ill just kill that animal and wear his fur instead. ugh.

[Tao_Equus]

Hi Path,
I know your game! You are just being a typical woman!! Trying to talk me into submission!!

Originally Posted by path_of_one

I think we impose them if we insist on using them..... People choose to label each other. No one is forcing us to do so.

Labels are just a means of identification and we cannot avoid them if we wish to communicate effectively. Simplification works well for large groups but rarely applies to individuals or even small groups. If you were to take all the Christian groups in the US and label them individually they have as many Gods as the Hindu's. So its not possible for me to recognise every denominations individual variances in a brief post, and crucially they do have a collective persona as observed from the outside. The US and Islamic nations can be fairly labelled as having governments that openly make appeals to a God given righteousness. And this is what I firmly set my sights on.

I agree religious doctrine is problematic. But I don't think doctrine has much to do with God or with spirituality. So I don't conflate the two. Spiritual awakening, an awakening of the consciousness, is a very different process with different outcomes from religious conversion.

I recognise the difference between your ideas of the spiritual and those of the average by rote Christian of the Bible Belt. The trouble is I think that the "sheep" of such flocks hold a lot more power and influence than you give them credit. They elected George W Bush..... twice. Its true this is in great part the fault of the apathy of the electorate that did not bother voting, those that as you suggest have another God, consumerism. But according to all polls I have seen around 75% of Americans claim affiliation to a religion and the swing is away from traditional moderate beliefs to more extreme, hardline interpretations of Christian doctrine. This is extremely worrying. For whilst you, and I, can separate out doctrine from what it means to be a spiritual person very many do not. Many of the sects of Christianity in the US use aggressive techniques of recruitment including black sheeping of family members that refuse the call. It is hammered from the pulpits that if they are not with us they are satans children and against us. Peer pressure in some communities is enormous. And this trend is growing. As L Ron Hubbard is famously quoted saying, the best way to get rich is to start a religion. There is a pandemic sweeping America of small Baptist and Evangelical ministries that are founded by people who hear Hubbard's words only too keenly. And the likes of Bush is only too happy to sell them political favours for the votes they can command. The meaning of the doctrine is irrelevant. Its is purpose in use, how it is commanded to serve the purpose of the charlatans that is the real issue I wish to highlight. To do so I have to generalise, paint with a broad brush. It is not, however, all inclusive.

Look at communism- there is a system that did away with religion, yet retained the underlying problem. The problem is identity formed by association with "isms."

The Bolsheviks did away with religion for precisely the reasons I stated. Because it was a tool, a servant of the ruling elites. It is interesting to note that now Orthodoxy is allowed and receiving government patronage in Russia its high priests encouraged its flock to go out and vote for Putin.

That is not true. Some people find empowerment and happiness, and leave behind fear and hatred, by finding the underlying meaning in those books.

I would argue that such people would have found the same things had these books not existed. Perhaps even quicker and with less struggle and confusion.

This is heartening. I feel much better once I know someone's background, and that it is a broad one, no matter what the topic.

I think to be honest that recently I have tended to have more sympathy with Dawkins and, on reflection aided by your question, have to admit that I have been sort of emulating his style of argument. I do see much of what he says as empirically valid, and he is the 'underdog' in the big debate and I have a tendency to back the underdog. But I by no means accept him as an authority beyond question. Infact all of his books are so over inflated that they are almost unreadable. All could be condensed down to a page or two each.
My own motto to myself is, " do not be afraid to be wrong". i try to listen and adapt my overview as new information becomes available. Nothing in this whole wide multiverse is static, why should I make an exception for my views!!

The societies are gone (mostly, not all), but the capacity for people to re-invent religion as it used to work is not. The rapid growth of Pagans, earth-centered religions, and so forth indicates a re-inventing, a rediscovery of religion as a path toward community (both among humans and with Nature). I think there is value on looking at our entire history, not just history since state-based society, and evaluate where we are at now. What improved? What didn't? What can we learn from those folks before agriculture?

Again I appreciate your sentiments here but what you really describe is a romanticism that takes place on the very fringes of wider society. Those people who adopt such beliefs are those least likely to evangelise, vote or get involved in more mainstream debates let alone actions. And where they do they would most often be found in environmental movements rather than outright political ones. So they are so unrepresentative that they hardly figure.

We have evolved to be hunter-gatherers living in small groups. While society has morphed into something quite different, our brains and bodies are still "stuck" in hunter-gatherer mode. I think we can learn a lot about solutions for current crises by realizing we are not geared psychologically or biologically for the types of societies we now have. If we can reassess and thoughtfully bring in what is more healthy for us, merging the two, we could do a lot of good. (And this is not just in the way of religion and social relationships, but also stuff like nutrition and exercise.)

I agree entirely. My hope is that technology will re-instate the idea of community identity on a global level. One of the main stumbling blocks to this is the dogmatic nature of imposed religious mainstreams. Attack this and you also tackle the political mechanics that control the whole edifice. If people are made aware of how they are being religiously duped it is a tiny step to see how they are being politically manipulated. By talking to people round the world we come to realise we are all the same, with the same needs and desires and that it is not us that create the divisions, but our leaders who milk us and kill us with divide and conquer ideologies.

In the hands of dysfunctional, fearful, ego-driven people, science is but one more way to imprison others.

unfortunately science is bound to the funders. I agree with what you say. But again believe tackling the issue of dogma is the key to releasing everything else from the yoke of servitude.

I think the hope is to find ways to change people's consciousness- to redirect emotion and spiritual drive toward goodness, beauty, wonder, unity.

Again I agree. I think a key to doing so is to persuade people that they will not find God in a book or preaching from a pulpit. And that if only they talk to each other across geographical and cultural boundaries they would realise they are all brothers and sisters.

OK, why is it still present in non-religious societies (i.e., Communist ones)?

Communism, of the Stalinist or Maoist type were religions. No crucifix with Jesus nailed to it but endless statue alters of their divine leaders.

I disagree. Before we even have the capacity to understand religion, we are taught things that already are attacks on our freedom.

Just because patriarchal stereotyping takes place before religious indoctrination of an obvious type takes place does not mean that they are not the same thing. Religion has defined and maintains these stereotypes.

Which is just one more way to reify categorical differences between people, divide them... and conquer.

**Cacophony of claxons, sirens and bells rings** Presenter with designer suit and brilliant white sparkly toothy smile stapled to his face walks forward and hands Path of One the prize for using the word "reify" in a debate.

As for groups, anyone starting one? I mean, truly, a group that is just for unity and equality and has NO "isms" and is accepting of everyone? I'd join.

Maybe not a single one as of yet. Maybe we should start one!! I am a paid up and active member of WDM (world development movement) and Amnesty International. I support the dissemination of truth by subscription to New Internationalist magazine. But as yet no there is no group that is doing all I would like to see being done. But it is a huge remit.

Tao