Can belief in a higher power be combined with Evolution

[taijasi]

Can these be combined? Definitely, imo.

Once we have seen that the concept of `God' presented to the ancients was in keeping with their [collective, average] level of understanding and the type of world need in X era, we can see that progressive revelation has brought us to the present point. That point is not uniform for all of us today, any more than it was for the people of ancient Greece, ancient Egypt or ancient Israel.

CHEMistry, fwiw, comes to us etymologically from its parent Nation, Khem, or ancient EGYPT. These people knew enough about our constitution - both human & microcosmic, as well as planetary/solar & macroCosmic - to revolutionize the current fields of medicine, physics, astronomy and biology many times over. Time will tell how much we are willing to inherit from the Wisest among our forefathers ... and how much will be lost, once again, to the shifting sands of Pyramid-land.

Sands stirred, at present, by the same unrest in the West which leads the most foolish among our so-called `leaders' to shove the stick up there a little further, sit down a bit more firmly upon their proverbial log and say, "no compromise." Gee, no, THAT doesn't set a bad example of DEMOCRACY. Certainly not!

At any rate, false dichotomies are created when people try erroneously to mix modern evolutionary thought with such foolishness as a Dubya-believing or Sarah Palin-type Biblical literalist ... the 7-Day Genesis allegory of HEBREW Scriptures ~ gone horribly, horribly wrong after the Bible beaters swipe this stuff and fail to apply anything like intelligent thought ... thus leading to "Satan put dinosaur bones there to deceive you," or "Your ancestors rode on the backs of dinosaurs like horses!"

It's the continued creation of a Higher Power in humankind's rather limited own self-image which I think we should be examining. Some do tend to view [the relationship between Humanity and the Divine] after the fashion of Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel ceiling imagery. That said, I have always favored William Blake's `Ancient of Days,' personally. What impresses me, however, is the idea that this is the Divine, creating the Cosmos - but clearly not ex nihilo ... for I have never considered `God' to be *NOTHING*.

Ex nihilo, NIHIL FIT.

I mean, come on, we all have plenty of thoughts, feelings about ~ and probably a wide variety of experiences of ~ the Divine. Why else are we here?

I tend to think they all intersect, somehow and on some level, but less like a giant jigsaw puzzle which only makes sense when we assemble them ... and more like the fractal pattern which repeats, even down into the individual and specific. That makes my, your, everyone's experience [thoughts, reality] worthwhile, valid, a testament to something `Beyond,' unto itself.

Yet there is something definitely worth sharing in what each and every one of us has been through, is going through, and that makes our participation in a Collective quite useful, quite necessary. Something GREATER than any of us individually is Evolving. It takes place within the life of each of us, yet it also touches every `other.' It is partially evident within Society, and societies [if we study history], but you know, History ain't over. Is it?

Egypt, Libya and even the good ol' U.S. of A., however divided we seem to be at present, politically, all seem to speak to this Evolution of ~~ which Humanity is here to experience, to discover, to discuss and to participate in ... with increasing Love, Intelligence and PURPOSE.

If you think you've got it all figured out, might I humbly suggest you take that hood off, smile and reveal your Humanity [and humility] ... and join the rest of the gang? We might just pull through, but in the bigger picture, I suspect the Higher Power is interested in this happening through Humanity, not despite us.

[Heaven help the holdouts ... but woe unto them.]

 

[Sam Albion]

Man does not simply strive for survival and perpetuation of his offspring. Man strives to... become a theoretical physicist, a Booker prize winning novellist, the curer of cancers. He strives to become a better Jew, a better Muslim, a finer sportman, a better lover. All men strive for perfection, in their way. Unless they're... brain dead.

Evolution is not simply the process in which humans have unintentionally become, by way of accident and quirks of fate. Man does not simply subconsciously strive to procreate; man also consciously strives, to change, to be great, to be the best, better than what came before, he willfully studies and strategises, he thinks. The evolutionary development of man is not wholly accidental; man has a hand in his own development. He does not just feed his offspring; he educates them too.

I agree- there is no evidence of their being "a grand plan". I never said such a thing myself. I think that we all have our own version of "the grand plan", though, and I think ideologies, philosophies and religions are man's plans for perfection. Imperfect, yes, but not so imperfect we should consider ourselves no richer than the hairy arsed apes we once were.

That primitive God, like that primitive man, has evolved. God now lives, not in heaven, but close to quarks. Instead of being "The War Lord", he's now the "interconnectivity of all beings". God may be a fiction, an imaginary friend, but, shucks, it's better to aspire to be a God than be happy as an ape...

surely?

 

[OAT]

Re: religions are man-made?

God wants us to think for ourselves, to think rationally, to be articulate, autonomous, independent, practical and make good judgments, not to blindly follow orders.

I don't buy this because I can't even get past the notion that God exists. For me, the way the world is points to the non-existence of God rather than its existence. And given the way the world is, if God exists, he is an evil God.

Even if a good God exists, I see no logic and no purpose in his creation of us humans because by definition, God should be self-sufficient.

Most people would define God as omniscient and omnipotent. But such a God is logically impossible.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Wil —

So, as you reject metaphor, are you are saying the kingdom of God is literally inside you?

Does everyone have their own kingdom inside themselves?

If there's only one, how do others get to it if you've got it?

I'm trying to understand how you understand that text.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[taijasi]

Perhaps it's time for our Roman Catholic friend to consider the discussion on other threads [Theosophy on the Virgin Birth ~ SPACE], tie this together with what 19th Century Science had to offer ... and start taking to heart the art from all those stained-glass windows.

Sacred Heart

Or is this only so much hocus-pocus to you?

Too much to integrate? Too many categories to set aside?

According to Plato, "God is the Great Geometer."

Let's see, in order to become so did God have to check with little ol' planet Earth, current [early 21st Century, AD] understanding (and lack thereof) of all things scientific & religious, according to Vatican experts and Papal authority ... or ANY OTHER under the SUN ~ both visible and INvisible [vide the GAYATRI, and carefully note each line]?

Umm, methinks not. But let me get this here Tower just a little bit higher ~ and I'll ask.
Meanwhile, Vonnegut says to wear your sunscreen.

HA!

Oh but seriously, wil, don't let me put words in your mouth. I quite look forward to your reply!

Cheers ...

 

[Thomas]

Hi Wil — scrub the question above ...

What I can't understand is, if you reject metaphor, and yet you stand by this text, as Unity also seems to depend on 'ye are gods' and 'greater than this shall ye do' (even though taken totally out of context, but that's another discussion, I suppose) — then do you understand it literally?

Are you are saying the kingdom of God is literally inside you? That it is a subjective mental state or disposition, rather than an actuality?

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Saltmeister]

Re: religions are man-made?

I don't buy this because I can't even get past the notion that God exists. For me, the way the world is points to the non-existence of God rather than its existence. And given the way the world is, if God exists, he is an evil God.

Even if a good God exists, I see no logic and no purpose in his creation of us humans because by definition, God should be self-sufficient.

Most people would define God as omniscient and omnipotent. But such a God is logically impossible.

It seems to me that you won't accept God if He doesn't fit your concept of an "ideal God." The question I would like to ask is, why does God have to meet all these requirements? Whether it's a good God, evil God, self-sufficient or inadequate God, omniscient and omnipotent God to me it doesn't really matter.

He created the universe. Good or evil, there is nothing we can do to escape His power. It doesn't really matter if this God is omniscient, omnipotent or not. He would be so much more powerful than us. It's relative. It doesn't matter if this God is self-sufficient. That requirement to me is irrelevant and unnecessary and has more to do with people's preconceived notion of an ideal God.

The Tanakh describes its God as something beyond human imagination and understanding, but I don't remember anything about it/He being omniscient, omnipotent or self-sufficient. Even if it does say something like that, it's most likely just commentary (and perhaps flattery as well).

Oh and what exactly do you mean by "self-sufficient," anyway? The simplistic view is that God shouldn't need any help to do "anything." Did you read the fineprint?

You're an educated person, right? Regardless of how much power a person, group, organisation, machine or weapon has, the world is far more complex than that. America has enough firepower to destroy an entire country and perhaps even the entire human race. But that wouldn't be very ethical behaviour. What if you were to ask the American President to kill off all the terrorists without harming any civilians? That would be more difficult.

America has a lot of military power and therefore destructive power, but if you ask America to solve a more complex political issue with more complex ethical constraints, the task becomes harder. Of course, in theory God could easily achieve what America can't: kill off all the terrorists in a country without harming any civilians.

But when we consider problems at the metaphysical level, the problem becomes harder even for God to solve, particularly when it has ethical constraints. If God is all-knowing, then ultimately nobody has free will. God knows everything and could pretty much manipulate all events in the universe to suit His goals. God's ethical integrity goes out the window.

The easiest way to deal with this dilemma is to assume that if there is a God, it would be what I might call a "postmodern God." This postmodern God doesn't need to fulfill any of the requirements you listed above to be acceptable to us. He can be good, bad and fallible but it really doesn't matter that much anyway.

I say it is a "postmodern God" because I take a "postmodern" view on a lot of things. I have become disillusioned with the idea of absolute morality, and absolute objectivity. Life isn't black and white. There are so many different ways of thinking about our experiences, so many views and opinions, so many questions to ask. There is no objective reality. Reality is subjective. The universe may have a clearly defined state, but events and processes in it can provoke so many different experiences in people. The possibilities are limitless.

This God created the universe and is far more powerful than any living being. Nobody can escape His power. The Abrahamic God gave us an ultimatum. We have a limited amount of time to respond to that ultimatum. Judaism, Christianity and Islam have different versions of that ultimatum.

It may seem that this Abrahamic God has mismanaged whatever agenda He had for the human race. It doesn't matter if it isn't perfect. It doesn't have to be. Life isn't perfect.

He may be a good God but He may also be a evil God. But regardless, there is nothing we can do about it. If your boss is an arrogant and pompous idiot you may be able to do something about it. But God being God, there is nothing you can do.

For better or worse, some of us will take the risk and see what happens -- to respond to the ultimatum. Out of curiosity, some of us will do it just to find out what happens. That dream job you always wanted or that beautiful woman across the street may not measure up to your expectations, but wouldn't you want to find out anyway?

 

[Thomas]

... and start taking to heart the art from all those stained-glass windows.

Interesting that the Anonymous Author of Meditations on the Tarot, who was a theosopher of no little renown and Steiner's heir to the Anthroposophy Society, converted to Catholicism after an experience under the stained glass windows of the Cathedral at Chartres.

Whilst on that topic, one would do well to meditate on the idea of stained glass for, in its own way, stained glass is nothing more than embodied light, and in this way corresponds to the human person who is similarly, and potentially superlatively, embodies light (cf John 1:4-5).

Or is this only so much hocus-pocus to you?

Ah! The irony! For the unaware, that pejorative conjuration derives from the Rite of Consecration of the Roman Liturgy: 'Hoc est enim corpus meum' ("For this is my body") so, as I am sure that none here can be in doubt, I do absolutely believe that Rite to signify a greater reality than you might be able to appreciate.

Too much to integrate?

Again, it is I how absolutely believe in the integration of the two realms in the Incarnate One: "And the word (Verbum, Logos, Aum) became flesh", I tend to view theosophy as rendering the one void, and in so doing reduces the pursuit of the other to the chimera of mental abstractions.

Too many categories to set aside?

I have no need to set categories aside, rather I see the one that unites them all. Theosophy, on the other hand, dazzles itself with infinite categorisation of everything, and thus sees nothing 'in the round'.

I quite look forward to your reply!

Actually Andrew, whilst I respond to your questions, and ask my own, I've given up any hope of ever getting an actual reply to the points which I think 20th century theosophy (post HPB and utterly removed from historical theosophy per se) is incapable of responding to.

Like any good salesman, all you do is talk over any issues raised in the hope that the sheer weight of words will win the day.

Viz: The discussion of the soul where a number of questions remain unanswered, for one.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Denying the interconnectedness is the greater hubris.

I'm not denying the interconnectedness, I'm denying that 'me' and 'God' is the same thing. I'm saying that the contrary view collapses real the interconnectedness of all things into a mere mental or abstract relation.

I believe absolutely in the interconnectedness of things, but I also believe that God, as we conceive it, transcends all things ...

I suppose I'm saying that everything is greater than the sum of its parts, but nevertheless everything is the sum of its parts ... except God, who is One, Simple, not compound, nor caused, nor composed ...

God bless,

Thomas

 

[taijasi]

Thomas, what is it that makes you so uncharitable, acerbic and dodgy? I mean, is it the aging process itself, as you move through your 50s, 60s or what-have-you? Because if so, you are headed for some difficult days. I would try to encourage you, but while I have known dozens of seniors (some in their 90s, one at 101) with tremendously positive attitudes, these are mostly esotericists. They are not interested in *shutting others down*, which is what you're all about. And of course, their hearts and minds are quite open to Truth in all its many forms and presentations, which means they don't fear others' beliefs and worldviews just because of a few differences. I wish you'd take a lesson.

Maybe it's just that each time you misuse your God-given intellect for self-seeking and ego-glorification rather than for the uplifting of others, you realize that in one false move, one slip of that acerbic tongue, you have sold yourself, your God and your Savior short?

Don't sweat it old bean; I happen to know that even the best of us make such mistakes from time to time. Supposedly, even Apostles.

Still, you're going to have to meet people on the level if you want to have meaningful discussions. It does no good to play all superior-like, slam the door on the bottom floor, then climb back up in your ivory tower. The only person you're fooling when you do that is - YOU.

So I'll meet you where you're ~ meetable. And as for the rest of it ...
[Don't worry, we've both got lifetimes.]

~~

Now, Thomas, the beginning of John is esotericism quite pure ... and really about as simple as it gets. The parallel to the Creation story of Genesis should be obvious. HPB presented us the same from the Stanzas of WHO again??? How's your grasp of phonetics these days?

As for stained glass, yes, I quite agree that there's some inspiration there. Might be about all that's left for some, in their waking moments right before and right after the homily. Still, because this means so much to me, I insert an image of a figure which has especial meaning to me as an esotericist. It is St. Patrick, though I would have to watch the TV special to remember the source of the artwork. No matter, the image alone is what spoke, and speaks to me ...

I do absolutely believe that Rite to signify a greater reality than you might be able to appreciate

Well, actually there's some alchemy that I'm hoping you'll get around to sooner or later, in one of these lifetimes, in between all your jabs and jeers. You will find, eventually, that you have things quite backward. I mean, come on, it's only the whole world that you're holding up ... your Soul, my Soul, Christ [and the World Soul]. So Thomas, as you are so fond of crying out to others, let's watch the ad hominem. Remember, the subtlety of your attack changes nothing.

I tend to view theosophy as rendering the one void, and in so doing reduces the pursuit of the other to the chimera of mental abstractions

This is not quite how any Theosophist I know views the flesh. Nor is it how we regard the Masters and the Path, including the best exemplification of how to tread the latter, as rendered by the Chief of the former. Perhaps you should discuss the matter with other Theosophists in order to broaden your understanding and correct this error. For this is exactly what you have: an obvious obstacle in your perception of how Theosophists regard the sthula-sarira, that non-principle of Consciousness and of Being [being purely the vehicle or upadhi of such], the physical body.

Of course, it will matter little that some of us take Christed Jesus for our greatest source of Inspiration, serving as our best example of how to MASTER this non-principle. I think it might be far more helpful for you to speak with Theosophists who do not necessarily see things as I see them, for I have never claimed to speak for all Theosophists, nor do I pretend to represent an enlightened esotericist after ANY fashion. I can only defend my own understanding, and I can certainly assure you that in MY life, Christ and the Masters are not "the chimera of mental abstractions."

Maybe you could demonstrate, in some other form than these attacks on other people's beliefs at IO, just how it is that Christ is for YOU ... as anything other than some prolonged mental masturbation. And of course, you'll have to come up with something that's safe to share with someone besides that guy in the confession box.

I have no need to set categories aside, rather I see the one that unites them all. Theosophy, on the other hand, dazzles itself with infinite categorisation of everything, and thus sees nothing 'in the round'.

ROFL, I see! First you feel it is necessary to bash me on the forums for being stuck in Theosophy's endless categorizations, then you proclaim that THOMAS does not NEED to set such categories aside ... for THOMAS, high and mighty THOMAS, can see BEYOND them!!!

Man, you are about as integrated and wholistic [let alone transcendent of the need to categorize] as swiss ... umm, cheese.

Yes, Thomas, pretty much full of holes is how I see you and your understanding. But I have long since learned that it isn't my job to sit here and try and fill in all that empty space with MY take on things. Not only would it be completely unsatisfactory for YOU [any arguments?] ... it would pretty much be a waste of my time, inasmuch as even if we DO give you the right answers, you'll just spit 'em back out again.

Does it take a certain degree of [W]HOLISTIC understanding to recognize that something transcends the System and GIVES that very system its raison d'etre, the next GOAL [in a sequence] toward which it, with its varying & increasingly-integrating parts are STRIVING?

Why, umm, YES, I agree with that. This is what Christ Jesus was able to read within each and every one of the disciples that He selected ... even when some of these were among the multitudes, being several more lifetimes away from the reaching of equivalent goals [than the more carefully chosen, and clearly symbolic 12 Apostles]. Jesus knew the future for the CHRIST WITHIN each one of the SYSTEMS [Human beings], and thus was able to meet their needs, without feeling some strange temptation to criticize these INDIVIDUALS for their tendency to categorize each other.

He might have pointed out, even time and again, that there is the ONE, even the THREE in ONE, transcendent ... also the SEVEN ... yet nowhere did Christ deny categories, and since one Master working under the Christ's instruction has provided us with much to aid in our understanding, taking into FULL ACCOUNT our continued use of the categorizing and analytical portions of the mind/brain, in addition to those faculties [Atma, Buddhi, Higher Manas] which SYNTHESIZE, view [W]Holistically and try to INTEGRATE, I think I'll stick with Who and What got me to where I am today, in my present understanding ~ perhaps little thanks to folks like Thomas who really just want to beat this stuff down ...

... again, since it doesn't fit into HIS [or their] personal, preferred, comfortable and familiar little CATEGORIES.

Now, back to the program:

God bless,

First of all, although I do like the consistency of the `God Bless' ... and far prefer it to the consistency of your bashing ... I really think you ought to keep your closing more in line with the acerbic, condescending tone of your over posts. Think about that. I mean, it reminds me somewhat of a 12th Century Templar who might behead a Saracen on the battlefield, but then pray for the future and Salvation of his immortal soul [a foolish misunderstanding in itself], before proceeding to hack & slash another enemy.

You will know, if it takes until your `Life's Review,' that I am not, and never have been, your ENEMY. I am, of course, determined to face every challenge you - or anyone - issues directly, where I know that the True Teachings of our HIGHER POWER are being challenged unjustly and wrongly, especially where the challenger really ought to know better. Where it is simply ignorance, possibly combined with positive motive [despite great ignorance], I really try to tread lightly. In your case, Thomas, any person at these forums - or elsewhere - is quite justified in pulling out most of the stops.

I say `most,' because I know you well enough ... and you do, truly, deserve the benefit of the doubt. For example, though I am not an Asekha Adept, I do not need to be one in order to grok & experience the Transcendence [of Consciousness, and yes, of categories, as you mention] which reveals the `BOTH-AND' state of Being and Understanding. If one of us is waiting around for the other to finally get it, I daresay there are a bunch of us, wondering when YOU will see that it is not always [if often at all] necessary or useful to split hairs, or create dichotomies where none need exist. It's the old problem of the One and the Many ... and I keep hoping you'll see that it need NOT be a problem at all. **sighhhhh**

I've given up any hope of ever getting an actual reply to the points which I think 20th century theosophy is incapable of responding to.

Well my friend [I refer to our relationship upon the Soul plane], please note that you will find a response from me exactly commensurate with your desire to learn and to exchange, plus your openness to broaden your horizons and deepen your grasp on the Verities [for while I cannot pretend to lay claim to them either apart from, or exclusive of YOU, I can certainly affirm my willingness to assist - as best I'm able - in a mutual effort to grasp, expand upon and co-embody them].

I believe your statement here sums up aptly your entire take on Theosophy, and since the teachings of HPB [via a handful of Adepts], et al pretty much form the bedrock of my worldview and entire pursuit as an Aspirant to Discipleship, I suspect you will never quite understand my GOALs, my motivation, my strength or my methodology. These, however poorly and inadequately adapted or employed, are at their best a reflection of those as taught by the Great Ones ... and while I claim complete responsibility for each & every shortcoming, I also know that each success, in the final analysis is owing to THEM.

And since THEY, in your Book [let us give thanks that it is but a page in a Greater BOOK] simply do not exist, I think you see where that leaves us.

Like any good salesman, all you do is talk over any issues raised in the hope that the sheer weight of words will win the day. Viz: The discussion of the soul where a number of questions remain unanswered, for one.

I will, because I feel that it matters - and I think it's safe to say my reasons are pretty much inscrutable to you - reply to your post on `Questions about the soul,' but I think you will find the length an uncharacteristic `short & sweet,' as is well appropriate. For while I full realize that most of what I say will fall on deaf ears in the present case, I know that others are watching, others are listening, and of these, MANY do both hear and see.

Time will ferret you out, Thomas. And I will not turn away, I will weep with you; I will not deny where we have met, I will affirm it.

When the Earth moves beneath your feet, and you ask, "Was it there, all along?" ... I will simply smile. And if I can benefit from your newfound Humility, I too will see something of my Savior that perhaps I have not hitherto seen.

Oh what lessons are in store.

 

[Sam Albion]

I don't see Thomas as being... "uncharitable, ascerbic, and dodgy" (wow, what a strapline that is!) in this thread. I do find him ... an ultra, but, here, he's actually supporting your wild assertions, Andrew -- he's just saying it's not exclusive to Theosophy!

He's saying- theosophy is a bit poo, and to that, I must concur!

Or am I reading a different thread?

 

[OAT]

@Saltmeister,

You started from the premise that God (whatever he is) exists. I don't. I basically started by asking which is more likely, that God exists or that God does not exist. Then based on reasonings coupled with observation of the state of the world, I concluded that it is much more likely that God does not exist.

The way you look at God (postmodern as you called it) is interesting. If that is the way God is, it would appear that there is no way to distinguish God as you see him and a being of from a much more highly advanced civilization than us humans.

 

[taijasi]

Francis (btw, hello again!), you are quite right about some things sounding quite wild. If most of us are told that there are `magic men' [and women] who can pretty much just poof in and out whenever they like, it sounds like mere ...

... oh wait a minute, I see. It's in step with Nature, or with a Higher Power, just not in ways that we ourselves are quite accustomed yet to traveling.

So, even the seemingly unimportant parts of what many a Theosophist has come to believe, equally as bits of the Roman Catholic's faith in things like Trans-substantiation, will be flung aside by modern, scientifically-inclined and -minded individuals.

Yet some of us know [GNOsis] far better by now. So we really don't care whether others buy it or not.

That may seem untrue, as one observes what great lengths a Thomas or an Andrew goes to to defend his Faith/belief/worldview on a public forum ... or during a long, Saturday evening discussion in the local pub. But this isn't because either man is WRONG.

I love to decry false dichotomies [and most of them are exactly that], but when it comes to tapping my proverbial stick on the ground and affirming what I've witnessed, I do sometimes forget that the other person's experiences are NO LESS VALID. That goes for scientist, theologian, atheist or fellow esotericist ...

Now, what I dislike - because I feel it very disingenuous - about some of our past interactions, is that Thomas will come right out and say such things as, "Ah, but what you're saying IS less valid."

Actually, this is a common problem [error, shortcoming] ... and can have disastrous results if what we're really just trying to do is understand one another, and get a better idea where one is coming from.

But you see, this gets right squarely back to the point ~ and kind of what you're saying. Where one is coming from, which is what may lead to some of the WILDEST of assertions in the first place, is, frankly, just a little bit TOO wild for some of us to accept.

This is where it's important to do the reality check *before* posting [and before that last Guinness] ... instead of after the time limit on post edits has expired.

I mean, let's face it, if you haven't had an OOBE, NDE or something close enough so as to help you to confirm that yes, these things do indeed exist, then many people will fall back on the more pervasive, as yet acceptable worldview that, oh, in fact the material world IS all there is [or it sure certainly seems that way to the majority, objectively speaking] ... and thus the burden of proof is on the religious types, or the mystics and shamans to try and demonstrate otherwise.

Meanwhile, I may be well aware [or not] of a dozen various UFO craft within a two mile vicinity of my neighborhood, and it in NO WAY contradicts religion, science, Theosophy or Roman Catholicism.

Understanding a little about Douglas Adams' sense of humor, yet his uncanny 5th Ray knack for grasping the subtler points of FTL space travel ... comes in handy at this point. The Infinite Improbability Drive will eventually return all circumstances to normal, but if you aren't at least a little bit changed by the end of the 5th book in the Trilogy [Pentacles revel!], it probably means you need to wait a little while and reread them.

I mean, who else would have come up with a Point of View Gun, which gun I might add, needs to be the standard sidearm for anyone who regularly posts on open forums like IO. Use at will, and see how long it takes for us to remember that:

• What goes around, comes around.
• When the tables are turned ... (which side did you say you wanted to be on again?),
  • Therefore, even for practical and obvious reasons,
• DO UNTO OTHERS ~.

Evolution, for those who are paying attention, teaches us these magnificently. We have the option to learn Life's lessons with a feather, or with a Mack truck ... and I'm convinced we can take the speed course, or we can learn with the masses. Best is when we do not kick against the pricks.

Ouch.

My only other comment about Theosophy, since I don't think this is the proper forum to dive in on that subject, or on Roman Catholicism, is that it's all well and good to offer one's opinion and firmly held belief, which may be: "Oh, I don't believe in ___, where ___ = or are such things."

But you see, let us say that a firm skeptic, a man of science who has been trained to accept NOTHING which he cannot prove empirically, is told that there are Angels. He will find any way under the sun to disprove the assertion that Angels exist, simple because it is not something which he BELIEVES. He has not yet [if indeed it is possible] had the [or an] experience which PROVES it for him, to his satisfaction. Indeed, we might find it easy to understand that it would take a whole stream of such experiences to convince the diehard skeptic.

And maybe that's why such beings don't get bogged down trying to make fools of us, since they know that it is little steps which such skeptics must take ... leading bit by bit to a greater understanding of the worlds within, and beyond.

Meanwhile, that skeptical scientist may have forgotten more about quantum physics or astronomy than that lovely Angel-believer will ever be able to stomach or grasp in fifteen more well-spent, hard-studying lifetimes.

So we all must round out the Dodecahedron, within our boxlike little worlds, heads raised to the vaulted Temple roof above, and hearts dedicated to the same Grand Enterprise for which all of this has come into existence ... again.

I think a good discussion could ensue (and Thomas deserves that interchange, elsewhere), and I plan to start one, or pitch in a thought or two on the Alt forums, soon as I have a chance. It's uncool to hijack an awesome thread, however. So with mention by OAT of more advanced civilizations, and since I know as well as I know my own foot that our atmosphere is just TEEMING with them, I can't wait to see what folks are gonna talk about next!

Goldilocks Zone, anyone?

 

[Thomas]

Hi Andrew —

... as anything other than some prolonged mental masturbation.

Oh dear ... what a pity ... Andrew, I have tried and tried throughout to respond to your points and questions politely, and with supporting references. When confronted with question you don't like, your default response is a smokescreen of vented spleen, a tirade of offensive and insulting remarks.

We're done.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[wil]

Hi Wil —

So, as you reject metaphor, are you are saying the kingdom of God is literally inside you?

Does everyone have their own kingdom inside themselves?

If there's only one, how do others get to it if you've got it?

I'm trying to understand how you understand that text.

God bless,

Thomas

Hi Wil — scrub the question above ...

What I can't understand is, if you reject metaphor, and yet you stand by this text, as Unity also seems to depend on 'ye are gods' and 'greater than this shall ye do' (even though taken totally out of context, but that's another discussion, I suppose) — then do you understand it literally?

Are you are saying the kingdom of God is literally inside you? That it is a subjective mental state or disposition, rather than an actuality?

God bless,

Thomas

We teach that there is a power within each of us, that is far greater than anything outside of us.

on the surface seems to be the same enigma as 'there are no miracles and it is all a miracle'

All we have is us. All we can control is us. I cannot change you. I can only change my perception. Which in turn has such power to move mountains...

How can there be more power within each of us...than anything that exists outside of all of us.

Because we hold the keys to the kingdom... we alone are our connection to the allness... there is no intermediary except our own consciousness.

You ask me why I believe this or that, so I simply provided the answer from the book that you use as a guide, from the words you believe to be spoken by the Son of G!d. I find it interesting that you then reject that reference that you believe in since I believe in it as true...but not accurate. Yes I believe the bible to be metaphor, allegory, metaphysics....yes even historical fiction...as we know there are dates wrong, numbers wrong, stories wrong...when it comes to archeological history. So I believe the essence to be true, but not accurate.

As the kindom of heaven and hell are places in consciousness in my understanding, not physical locations... I mean as a group us Abrahamics have been justifying our books for over 2000 years... as we parted the firmament, the waters above and the waters below and had the sieve that was above rain on us...and then the cosmonaut says....yup, no heaven up here.... we move it someplace else...no it isn't there but...err....ahh...

The fundies have taken their justification to the extent of 'proving' that dino's and man walked the earth the same time, that the grand canyon was created by instant canyonifcation from the flood, and that the reason folks lived so long long ago was that the waters above were a dome of frozen ice surrounding the earth and the sunlight didn't penetrate so easily, but when man was so damning themselves with such pagan rituals and the devil was so strong it was melted and the water returned to the earth flooding the land....

It is amazing the lengths we will go to maintain our paradigm....to keep that rug from getting pulled out from under us....makes us wonder exactly who has built the house upon the sand does it not??

 

[Thomas]

Hey Wil —

We teach that there is a power within each of us, that is far greater than anything outside of us ... Which in turn has such power to move mountains ... Because we hold the keys to the kingdom ...

Wil — your whole argument is based on metaphors ... then you say:

I mean as a group us Abrahamics have been justifying our books for over 2000 years... as we parted the firmament, the waters above and the waters below and had the sieve that was above rain on us...and then the cosmonaut says....yup, no heaven up here.... we move it someplace else...no it isn't there but...err....ahh...

So, by the same rule, there is not an energy source within each of us that is more powerful than anything outside (try you v gravity) ... man cannot move a mountain by his own strength or his own will ... there is no key in you, nor is there a kingdom ...

It is amazing the lengths we will go to maintain our paradigm....to keep that rug from getting pulled out from under us....makes us wonder exactly who has built the house upon the sand does it not??

You're telling me! Your position is riddled with contradictions — you rubbish myth and metaphor, then quote myth and metaphor at me, you elect to allow these metaphors because they suit your agenda, you disallow those because they don't ... so in effect you use Scripture where it can be interpreted to validate a position, and ignore those bits of Scripture that don't, by a process that's completely arbitrary.

Sorry ... but there you go.

Thomas

 

[taijasi]

NOW who's the one ducking out of discussion, eh Thomas?

To me:

When confronted with question you don't like, your default response is a smokescreen of vented spleen, a tirade of offensive and insulting remarks.

To wil:

Your position is riddled with contradictions — you rubbish myth and metaphor, then quote myth and metaphor at me, you elect to allow these metaphors because they suit your agenda, you disallow those because they don't ... so in effect you use Scripture where it can be interpreted to validate a position, and ignore those bits of Scripture that don't, by a process that's completely arbitrary.

Sorry ... but there you go.

YOU HYPOCRITE

first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye

Meanwhile, stop putting down others' belief, faith and worldview, simply because you do not, and apparently CANNOT understand. Try deepening your OWN understanding, THEN come back and play ball.

Maybe part of the reason some of us understand more of God's Kingdom is that we have EXPERIENCED more of it than you have, whether within, in the hearts and minds of others, or in the groups to which we belong .... and NOT just while warming nice new pews on Sunday, staring at the gold candlesticks and getting all dreamy about the stained glass.

Door's open; feel free to use it when you feel like walking back in. And yes, it swings BOTH WAYS, even though I may not.

 

[wil]

Hey Wil —


Wil — your whole argument is based on metaphors ... then you say:

So, by the same rule, there is not an energy source within each of us that is more powerful than anything outside (try you v gravity) ... man cannot move a mountain by his own strength or his own will ... there is no key in you, nor is there a kingdom ...


You're telling me! Your position is riddled with contradictions — you rubbish myth and metaphor, then quote myth and metaphor at me, you elect to allow these metaphors because they suit your agenda, you disallow those because they don't ... so in effect you use Scripture where it can be interpreted to validate a position, and ignore those bits of Scripture that don't, by a process that's completely arbitrary.

Sorry ... but there you go.

Thomas

There is no key and no kingdom? We can't move mountains?

I rubbish metaphor and mythology?

Golly T, all knew to me!!!

I've been embracing myth and metaphor.

And the Jesus tells us the kingdom is within, and all we need is faith of a grain of sand....

and oh...In case you hadn't noticed man conquered gravity before we were born...

 

[Thomas]

I rubbish metaphor and mythology?

What I mean is, you reduce it to a 'figure of speech' that you choose either to accept or ridicule as you will, whereas tradition, and indeed many philosophers, regard metaphor and myth, and the symbol, as ascending to places where language cannot rise.

And again my point ... those scriptural metaphors you elect to embrace, 'kingdom within' etc., can all be grouped under the heading of 'self-serving' and egocentric exegesis, whereas those metaphors that refute such ideas, that place the human person as being utterly dependent for his being on God, you reject.

and oh...In case you hadn't noticed man conquered gravity before we were born...

Really? Then why is one of the only two pre-programmed fears in the human instinct, that of falling?

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Hi Andrew —

YOU HYPOCRITE

This is supposed to engender further discussion?

Thomas