And God said it was good....

[Pinga]

From where I sit, you want your faith, and you're working very hard to separate out anything that could possibly be tested and found wanting. There is something more noble, to me, in the approach of someone like Jae, who thumps down a bible and proclaims he believes it (except where it's a game and he really doesn't), rather than holding one close and saying that you mostly believe it except where it's too embarassing or not practical to do so.

Because really, talking in circles and trying to believe some of it and metaphorize the unbelievable is no more credible that what Jae is saying.

Chansen, I respect your right to be an atheist, and to not agree or understand the faith of others. Is it your plan to argue each religion post in this forum, including the midline and the extreme? I'm just curious?

I don't see how this post is relevant to the opening post, other than as a dismissal of the individual's faith perspective who is responding.

I know by asking the question, I am taking the thread further off track; however, I am curious. Is this a place where GordW can post a thread about faith or bible interpretation and expect to have a conversation.

 

[Azdgari]

So Neo, if you're right, then we should find no fossils of human ancestors older than 18 million years because our ancestors at that time had no physical bodies, and fossils require physical bodies. Agreed?

 

[Neo]

The Human Soul overshadowed the form of early animal man, who was a already the result of what is called the "anima mundi", which is described as the "universal soul", the soul force behind all form. See http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anima_mundi.

This overshadowing of the Human Soul, apparently, takes a long, long time and is very gradual.

 

[Azdgari]

You weren't just talking about the "human soul" however, Neo. You made a physical claim: That our ancestors had no physical bodies before "the fall" - an event you've posited at 18 million years ago.

This is testable. One can check whether you're right or wrong about that. Are you willing to risk being wrong about something, by checking it against reality?

 

[Pinga]

Adzgari, not that I am in agreement with Neo, but how would you test if there was consciousness at a certain point. I took his point to being the difference in "enlightenment" not physical presence.

 

[Neo]

You weren't just talking about the "human soul" however, Neo. You made a physical claim: That our ancestors had no physical bodies before "the fall" - an event you've posited at 18 million years ago.

This is testable. One can check whether you're right or wrong about that. Are you willing to risk being wrong about something, by checking it against reality?

We are, according the teachings of old, dual in nature, being made up physically of a body of matter and spiritually of a soul of consciousness.

Physically, we can be traced back to the first living cell. Spiritually, we are eternal.

 

[Pinga]

Thanks for explaining Neo.

 

[Azdgari]

Adzgari, not that I am in agreement with Neo, but how would you test if there was consciousness at a certain point. I took his point to being the difference in "enlightenment" not physical presence.

He said that before "the fall" we didn't live in physical bodies. That's a physical claim.

 

[Azdgari]

We are, according the teachings of old, dual in nature, being made up physically of a body of matter and spiritually of a soul of consciousness.

Physically, we can be traced back to the first living cell. Spiritually, we are eternal.

Okay, so you believe that about the time when our physical ancestors lost their tails, human souls swept in and took possession of the bodies of these baboon-like creatures. There was a "fall" some time around then, you say. That's at least not a physical statement. Just a bizarre and random one. Why do you think that earlier primates were soulless, but later ones had souls?

 

[Pinga]

He said that before "the fall" we didn't live in physical bodies. That's a physical claim.

Hmm, I will let him defend it, but, I took it, based on all the links, etc, about our enlightenment. The post that followed seemed to mirror my understanding.

 

[Waterfall]

This Sunday those words are my preaching jumping off point.

Do we actually believe that all of Creation is good, as the first Creation story tells us? DO we act like it?

Remember that includes the mosquito, the measles virus, the bad driver who just cut you off...

This Sunday those words are my preaching jumping off point.

Do we actually believe that all of Creation is good, as the first Creation story tells us? DO we act like it?

Remember that includes the mosquito, the measles virus, the bad driver who just cut you off...

I suppose at the moment of creation, it was good, but how long can something remain good and constant before the creation itself starts to influence it's own outcome? How does one determine what is good when everything is good? Are there different degrees to "goodness"? Does some sort of chaos or differentials have to be present to know goodness?

 

[revjohn]

I suppose at the moment of creation, it was good, but how long can something remain good and constant before the creation itself starts to influence it's own outcome?

The question is answered in the narrative. Not long.

The question begged is whether or not the influence that Creation exerts against itself must result in an erosion of original good until there is nothing left that can be considered good.

How does one determine what is good when everything is good?

The evaluation is given by God. Is God's knowledge of what is good and what is evil dependent upon the fruit of that tree or might it already exist?

Are there different degrees to "goodness"?

Yes and no. Humanity appears to favour a degree system that runs from very good to very bad with arbitrary elements creating shades between these to points. The narrative of scripture does not indicate that God invests in any such shading. Mind you it isn't often we hear in the narrative God indicate things or people as good.

Does some sort of chaos or differentials have to be present to know goodness?

Good question.

Creation is order out of chaos rather than something out of nothing. Unless one runs with Creation ex nihilo.

 

[Inukshuk]

This Sunday those words are my preaching jumping off point.

Do we actually believe that all of Creation is good, as the first Creation story tells us? DO we act like it?

Remember that includes the mosquito, the measles virus, the bad driver who just cut you off...

I think that story has been mucked up in the translations ~ and the intent was that all that God created was perfect.

 

[Inukshuk]

[QUOTE="Pr. Jae, post If all creation was affected by the fall - that would include the sun as well.

= sun without Jesus / = sun with Jesus[/QUOTE]

God did not create the sun ~ God created light ~ and out of that light came darkness

 

[Jaebius]

[QUOTE="Pr. Jae, post If all creation was affected by the fall - that would include the sun as well.

= sun without Jesus / = sun with Jesus

God did not create the sun ~ God created light ~ and out of that light came darkness[/QUOTE]


Genesis 1:16.

 

[Waterfall]

The image I used was partly in response to your post on page 1 about creation being either true or a myth with a punchline. Creation is one place where religion intersects with science, and has there ever been an instance of religion disagreeing with science and religion winning out in the end? Ever?

Religion is how we "do" God, but it isn't God IMHO. Religion intersecting with science during creation? I doubt it.

 

[chansen]

Religion intersecting with science during creation? I doubt it.

As do I.

 

[Waterfall]

[QUOTE="chansen, post: 2333, member:]As do I.[/QUOTE]
Of course by the same token "science" is also something we humans do as another way to search for truth. Science also didnt intersect with creation either. Creation took place without any human influence. So the question still remains.....what influenced the beginning? Or was it random?

 

[Neo]

Okay, so you believe that about the time when our physical ancestors lost their tails, human souls swept in and took possession of the bodies of these baboon-like creatures. There was a "fall" some time around then, you say. That's at least not a physical statement. Just a bizarre and random one. Why do you think that earlier primates were soulless, but later ones had souls?

Fist of all, I'm no an expert on this subject and for the most part I simply parrot the ancient teachings and trust my intuition in what I read. From what I understand, however, nothing in nature is soulless, at least according to these esoteric teachings. Rocks, plants and animals all have a type of "universal soul", the "anima mundi" in and behind their existence. It is the presence of the "Human Soul" that differentiates human beings from the animal kingdom. But all the Kingdoms of nature work together towards the same evolutionary goal. Currently our planet, according to these teachings, is passing through it's 4th "round" of evolution, and with each new round a new expression of nature is displayed. We as human beings represent this 4th expression of nature. We as human beings are dual in nature, as we have physical, animal bodies on one hand but also the potential to become fully aware and express the eternal, formless aspect of our nature on the other.

The following is from the book, "A Treatise on White Magic", a book I'm currently reading.

Matter is the vehicle for the manifestation of soul on this plane of existence, and soul is the vehicle on a higher plane for the manifestation of spirit, and these three are a trinity synthesised by life, which pervades them all. Through the use of matter the soul unfolds and finds its climax in the soul of man.
...
The soul is as yet an unknown quantity. It has no real place in the theories of the academic and scientific investigators. It is unproven and regarded by even the more open-minded of the academicians as a possible hypothesis, but lacking demonstration. It is not accepted as a fact in the consciousness of the race. Only two groups of people accept is as a fact; one is the gullible, undeveloped, childlike person who, brought up on a scripture of the world, and being religiously inclined, accepts the postulates of religion - such as the soul, God, and immortality - without questioning. The other is that small but steadily growing band of Knowers of God, and of reality, who know the soul to be a fact in their own experience but are unable to prove its existence satisfactorily to man who admits only that which the concrete mind can grasp, analyse, criticise and test.
...
The soul . . . is neither spirit nor matter but is the relation between them. The soul is the mediator between this duality; it is the middle principle, the link between God and His form. Therefore the soul is another name for the Christ aspect, whether in nature or in man . . . The soul is the form-building aspect, and is that attractive factor in every form . . . which drives all God's creatures forward along the path of evolution, through one kingdom after another, towards an eventual goal and a glorious consummation.
...
The qualities, vibrations, colours, and characteristics in all the kingdoms of nature, are soul qualities . . . The qualities are brought into being through the interplay of the pairs of opposites, spirit and matter, and their effect upon each other.
...
The soul of mankind is not only an entity linking spirit and matter, and mediating between Monad and personality, but the soul of humanity has a unique function to perform in mediating between the higher three kingdoms in nature and the lower three.

 

[GordW]

It occurs to me that this week with the announcement of the Northern Gateway was an inconvenient week to have this sermon planned...

PrJae, do you read the Genesis account as science? because if you do I would point out that it says nothing about the nature of solar radiation, it also never says the creation is perfect (as I mentioned upthread). I suggest your comment about skin cancer is not Scripturally valid, as well as being scientifically questionable.