01-16-2008, 12:00 AM
"Perhaps it's a good thing to hear your comments on these ideas before heading down roads that are not interesting to you."
These things are interesting. In fact, I am one of the biggest fans of the History channel and Discovery, not to mention archeological findings and archeologist's conclusions on those findings. Though I may differ in my interpretations of those findings.
That there are gods is not at issue. In fact, the Psalms says that we are gods. Native cultures can call on gods and yet believe in a Great Spirit. Catholics pray to saints. In the Don Juan system there is the "Unknowable". In the Bible it is called "I am that I am." In Qabala it is the "Ain" or nothingness.
If cultures from the past believed in a "Unknowable", "First Cause" or "Causless Cause" archeology would have no way of knowing except by description and their is no way to describe it except maybe by the symbol of a circle. Which is zero, nothing, no thing. The point within a circle would then be number 1 symbolic of the "First Manifestation" of God.
Those symbols are in very old paintings and stone carvings.
"Even if the stream and the forest are "one" it's not their unity that defines them, but their differences."
To define something is not necessarily a good thing spiritually speaking. When we analyse we break things apart in order to understand them with our rational brain/mind.
I would rather "experience" (to know in the Biblical sense) the forest/stream than "learn" facts about the forest and the stream.
"The natural world" is a catch all phrase for a lot of discrete, but interconnected systems."
Or it is a term that attempts to capture the belief that it is one system. This is one of those things that seem to border on belief. Our beliefs define our reality. If I believe a thing to be true, it is true for me and everything I see will serve only to confirm my belief. The same goes for everyone. Rare is the individual that will take such a "quantum leap" of faith to see things completely opposite to their accustom way of seeing things.
This is the meaning of the often misused term of "repentance". It means to turn as a door on a hinge. To change your mind.
"Ultimately, within our current understanding of the way things are, there are four fundamental powers that run the universe.
Two are hidden within the atom, two are electricity and gravity. There is no indication that these fundamental forces have a common source."
Neither of which Science has any idea as to what they are.
Issaac Newton believed the closest power to that of gravity was love. Science, not knowing how to understand gravity invented a "graviton" to help explain how it works. But no one has ever seen a graviton.
"Animism and totemism arise spontaneously in all tribal societies. Those are not "revealed" religions, but deduced religions that American Indians have in common with Aborigine and Ainu populations.
The details differ, but the principle is always present."
How would Science know whether or not some dieties from thousands of years ago are revealed or not? They don't even believe in revelation. Not that they are wrong or right about this, but it is a reasoning that is "stacked against" anything supernatural ever existing.
Science only accepts evidence that can be seen, measured, catagorized, and quantified. That leaves them completely inappropriate judges of these things.
The ancient Hebrews believed in a God that commanded them to make no graven images. If they had had no written language to convey this idea, what would archeologists have been able to tell us about the ancient Hebrew's belief in their God? That they were atheists?
I'm not against archeology, in fact I sometimes think I would have been very happy to have been one. But when dealing with the concept of an unknowable God there are too many ways to misinterpret or ignore symbols left to us by the ancients.
"It may be late tonight or tomorrow before I can tie these ideas tofgether and add more."
I have just been offered two jobs (when it rains it pours) so I will not be able to post as often in the near future, but I will try to check in once a day or two.
I am not trying to be argumentative either. I do enjoy our discussions.
My post also may seem disjointed. That is because they are and also because I sometimes begin to approach a subject in one way and then something else occurs to me. And I'm too lazy to go back and delete the first thing I wrote down.
Bob
These things are interesting. In fact, I am one of the biggest fans of the History channel and Discovery, not to mention archeological findings and archeologist's conclusions on those findings. Though I may differ in my interpretations of those findings.
That there are gods is not at issue. In fact, the Psalms says that we are gods. Native cultures can call on gods and yet believe in a Great Spirit. Catholics pray to saints. In the Don Juan system there is the "Unknowable". In the Bible it is called "I am that I am." In Qabala it is the "Ain" or nothingness.
If cultures from the past believed in a "Unknowable", "First Cause" or "Causless Cause" archeology would have no way of knowing except by description and their is no way to describe it except maybe by the symbol of a circle. Which is zero, nothing, no thing. The point within a circle would then be number 1 symbolic of the "First Manifestation" of God.
Those symbols are in very old paintings and stone carvings.
"Even if the stream and the forest are "one" it's not their unity that defines them, but their differences."
To define something is not necessarily a good thing spiritually speaking. When we analyse we break things apart in order to understand them with our rational brain/mind.
I would rather "experience" (to know in the Biblical sense) the forest/stream than "learn" facts about the forest and the stream.
"The natural world" is a catch all phrase for a lot of discrete, but interconnected systems."
Or it is a term that attempts to capture the belief that it is one system. This is one of those things that seem to border on belief. Our beliefs define our reality. If I believe a thing to be true, it is true for me and everything I see will serve only to confirm my belief. The same goes for everyone. Rare is the individual that will take such a "quantum leap" of faith to see things completely opposite to their accustom way of seeing things.
This is the meaning of the often misused term of "repentance". It means to turn as a door on a hinge. To change your mind.
"Ultimately, within our current understanding of the way things are, there are four fundamental powers that run the universe.
Two are hidden within the atom, two are electricity and gravity. There is no indication that these fundamental forces have a common source."
Neither of which Science has any idea as to what they are.
Issaac Newton believed the closest power to that of gravity was love. Science, not knowing how to understand gravity invented a "graviton" to help explain how it works. But no one has ever seen a graviton.
"Animism and totemism arise spontaneously in all tribal societies. Those are not "revealed" religions, but deduced religions that American Indians have in common with Aborigine and Ainu populations.
The details differ, but the principle is always present."
How would Science know whether or not some dieties from thousands of years ago are revealed or not? They don't even believe in revelation. Not that they are wrong or right about this, but it is a reasoning that is "stacked against" anything supernatural ever existing.
Science only accepts evidence that can be seen, measured, catagorized, and quantified. That leaves them completely inappropriate judges of these things.
The ancient Hebrews believed in a God that commanded them to make no graven images. If they had had no written language to convey this idea, what would archeologists have been able to tell us about the ancient Hebrew's belief in their God? That they were atheists?
I'm not against archeology, in fact I sometimes think I would have been very happy to have been one. But when dealing with the concept of an unknowable God there are too many ways to misinterpret or ignore symbols left to us by the ancients.
"It may be late tonight or tomorrow before I can tie these ideas tofgether and add more."
I have just been offered two jobs (when it rains it pours) so I will not be able to post as often in the near future, but I will try to check in once a day or two.
I am not trying to be argumentative either. I do enjoy our discussions.
My post also may seem disjointed. That is because they are and also because I sometimes begin to approach a subject in one way and then something else occurs to me. And I'm too lazy to go back and delete the first thing I wrote down.
Bob