Go to Religion in the Modern World
- Add a comment
- Go to Are we all just monkeys?
Shamsuddin_Jim - are you on drugs?
I'm not taking your entire comment to task, just the way you say such things in absolute terms and apply them to everyone in an all encompassing manner.
posted by
gomedome
on July 19, 2006 at 7:08 AM
| link to this | reply
This world is a mere reflection of the Light of Unity
which we often call Love or God. The human soul cannot be satisfied without this Light which can only be found within and then everywhere. See The Bowl for today: <a href="http://www.blogit.com/Blogs/Blog.aspx/Bowl_of_Saki/">The soul's true happiness lies in experiencing the inner joy</a>
posted by
Shams-i-Heartsong
on July 19, 2006 at 6:04 AM
| link to this | reply
that no is a not...
posted by
Justi
on July 18, 2006 at 8:32 PM
| link to this | reply
gomedome
Here you go again giving me credit for things I do no possess. The A must have been lost in my DNA. I hate to climb even onto a foot stool. I've been blessed to hang on to my husband I could never hang from a branch. But I do love bananas.
posted by
Justi
on July 18, 2006 at 8:31 PM
| link to this | reply
Gome -
Oops! Sorry about that. I actually meant to write Superior being. I'm with ya on that!
posted by
sannhet
on July 18, 2006 at 2:28 PM
| link to this | reply
i believe
the universe itself is the being
our existence is the being.
being is being.
posted by
Xeno-x
on July 18, 2006 at 1:38 PM
| link to this | reply
Xeno-x - to me, everything that you are saying is just common sense
There are countless examples of intelligent design not being so intelligent or still being works in progress. This is my singule biggest beef with those who insist on a creationist perspective, so much of what is real must be overlooked or ignored to maintain the creationist mindset.
posted by
gomedome
on July 18, 2006 at 11:50 AM
| link to this | reply
Sunnybeach7 -- that ultimately is the truth
- eventually all of us will no longer need the answers and there is one thing that I am certain of on this regard; regardless of what religious folks like to believe, we all end up in the same place when it's over.
posted by
gomedome
on July 18, 2006 at 11:46 AM
| link to this | reply
arGee -- in reality it doesn't matter
Our existence could well be the result of a number of factors and influences, of which we will never fully know. A propigating event, either intentional or accidental could well have combined with the laws of the physical universe and been influenced by evolution over time to produce what we see today. The missing seconds prior to the hyper expansive event as contended in the Big Bang Theory, could well have been the handiwork of a being of some sort but I tend to think as you do; If a being set the creation of the universe in motion so many billions of years ago, there is nothing to indicate that this being is still alive or exists in any manner at all.
posted by
gomedome
on July 18, 2006 at 11:44 AM
| link to this | reply
10 million years
is a long, long time.
plenty can happen in that time
look at how short a time it took to develop broccoli and cauliflower and brussels sprouts, now different plant species, but from a common ancestor -- man made evolution.
look at how little it takes to develop the different dog breeds -- and the DNA of any dog, from a chihuahua to a St. Bernard to a Yorkshire Terrier is identical to that of their forebear wolf (my Yorkie acts like a wolf sometimes).
we revisit Darwin's finches. and Galapagos tortoises.
it doesn't take too much to realize that species do develop.
and the 10 million years -- that's about the time it took for humans to develop from an apelike ancestor.
some spark somewhere within the DNA --
let's do this
upright walking developed -- bipedalism -- in response to certain necessities -- needing hands free -- needing to see above the tall grasses -- those that were born with more upright gait had the advantage in the situation -- then hands were free. animal protein became more available by the way -- with free hands, more brainpower was needed -- tools, etc. -- and this basically snowballed -- leapfrogged, etc. -- use of hands developed the brain.
i don't buy anything extraterrestrial -- then another question is asked -- how did they develop? how did they evolve?
and I don't buy intelligent design; neither do you, of course -- I posted regarding the birth canal and the difficulties of women giving birth and all the deaths and birth and stillbirths and deaths of mothers giving birth -- it was a leading cause of death until modern medicine in the latter part of the 20th century -- you always to ask: was an intelligent designer responsible for that, thus the deaths of so many millions?
nope -- we developed right here on earth. that has been demonstrated amply.
it's the most beautiful of all the explanations -- part of the universe and a progressing --
posted by
Xeno-x
on July 18, 2006 at 11:41 AM
| link to this | reply
Gome
Yes, those ideas seem very unreal. Like a God that creates anything and everything there ever was...but then has to create man out of dust.
I have some theories about things but nothing to back them up. Until I find real answers that make sense to me, I just leave that open. I know eventually, one way or another, we'll all have the answers....or that we will no longer need them.
posted by
Afzal_Sunny7
on July 18, 2006 at 11:36 AM
| link to this | reply
sannhet - but you have chosen door number 3 when I have only presented
doors numbered 1 and 2.
I made a point of using the term "superior being" and not "supreme being" for a reason. The propigation of life by a being of some sort, when viewed out of the context of religious beliefs, does not automatically conclude that the being resoponsible was supreme in nature. I think it is reasonable to assume that if a being was responsible for creating our universe and all of the living things in it, that this being did have superior intellect to ours. All of the other aspects of the definition of this being are drawn from sources abstract to the contention, in this case, religious beliefs.
posted by
gomedome
on July 18, 2006 at 11:34 AM
| link to this | reply
Sunnybeach7 - in terms of the human race evolving from monkeys
I feel it is a good framework for an avenue of thought but not much more. There are too many gaps in the fossil record for example, for this type of evolution to ever have the gaps filled in. On the other hand, mythical stories handed down to us from the perceptions of ancient man, that have us being created from dust by an all powerful being, are simply ludicrous to me.
posted by
gomedome
on July 18, 2006 at 11:27 AM
| link to this | reply
Does it matter...
Which is correct? We have what is, and if a "creator" appears at some point, we could legitimately argue that the creator's neglect is tantamount to abandonment, and we could, therefore, claim independence. If we really are on our own, then we are independent, ipso facto.
So, as I said, what's the difference?
posted by
arGee
on July 18, 2006 at 7:25 AM
| link to this | reply
Gome -
Get your hibbidy dibbidy on? Doesn't work to well. To your question, if I had to choose, it would be the supreme being side.
posted by
sannhet
on July 18, 2006 at 6:57 AM
| link to this | reply
Hibbidy dibbidy is one for my brain store. I buy the second one.
posted by
_dave_says_ack_
on July 18, 2006 at 6:47 AM
| link to this | reply
Gome
I would agree....I don't buy either explaination completely either.
posted by
Afzal_Sunny7
on July 18, 2006 at 6:46 AM
| link to this | reply