Religious Views On Evolution

Aussie Thoughts said:
Not to muck up the gears with the advent of a spanner, but has anyone stopped to consider that the truth may be the 'Red Balls' themselves and the illusive green ball we seek is in fact a fallacy?
Click to expand...

No, I can honestly say that I've never quite looked at it that way before. I'm still trying to wrap my head around the concept, but I think I like it.

BigJoeNobody said:
You could contend that your view is right by a way that directly contradicting the Quran, perhaps by saying there are multiple gods, or no omnipotent gods at all.
Click to expand...

Actually, I would never suggest that there is more than one God. Nor would I suggest that God is anything less than omnipotent. What I would suggest is, what we are dealing with are differing cultural interpretations of the same God and that, an omnipotent God could certainly manifest themselves in more than one form. Perhaps even simultaneously.
 
Omnipotence would allow any G!d worth her salt to be able to be seen by billions simultaneously all in different images, speaking different languages, and telling the story that would allow them to understand it with their social construct....

Now if each were to turn to the next they'd all be trying to relate their understanding of the same event....

you know....like here... now...
 
Namaste Jesus said:
Actually, I would never suggest that there is more than one God. Nor would I suggest that God is anything less than omnipotent. What I would suggest is, what we are dealing with are differing cultural interpretations of the same God and that, an omnipotent God could certainly manifest themselves in more than one form. Perhaps even simultaneously.
Click to expand...
My apologies if you thought I was directing an accusation at you in these matters. I was merely making a generalized statement. Perhaps I should have used the Pronoun "One" rather than "you". I shall keep that in mind for later.
 
BigJoeNobody said:
My apologies if you thought I was directing an accusation at you in these matters. I was merely making a generalized statement.
Click to expand...
No misunderstanding. I was just commenting on your general statement and making one of my own. No apology needed.;)

wil said:
Omnipotence would allow any G!d worth her salt to be able to be seen by billions simultaneously all in different images, speaking different languages, and telling the story that would allow them to understand it with their social construct....

Now if each were to turn to the next they'd all be trying to relate their understanding of the same event....
Click to expand...

Indeed sir! Spelling of God not withstanding. :D

Consider (Acts 2: 1-11)

The word of God was spoken in only one language, yet all the different nationalities in attendance heard it in their own language. Which I'm sure was subject to cultural interpretation once relayed to their respective peoples. Could this explain why the various scriptures throughout the world are similar. Yet, none are exactly the same?
 
Namaste Jesus said:
Could this explain why the various scriptures throughout the world are similar. Yet, none are exactly the same?
Click to expand...
In my feeble mind and rose colored glasses....yes.

The differences are our lack of ability to understand and translate fully all which we were infused with...

Issac Newton can try to explain calculus to me....but if I don't have the algebra and trig foundation it falls on deaf ears...and while I may grock how wonderful and enormous it all is....me explaining it to someone else and them getting something out of it is another matter altogether.
 
Devils' Advocate said:
Are you not saying ...
Click to expand...
LOL, I'm getting confused now.

Let's backtrack. All I was doing was challenging a commonly held opinion:
"Thinking that ... any religion has it all 100% correct ... is illogical.[/quote]
Simply because such opinions when widespread tend to be received as 'facts' or 'reasonable', when in fact they're neither.

And I asked a number of questions:
Does it not assume, for example, that Enlightenment is not attainable through the practice of Buddhism?
That Divine Union is not attainable through the practice of Christianity?
That Harmony with the Cosmos is not attainable through the practice of Daoism?

To declare such an opinion, surely:
1: One would be expected to have a full and complete understanding of the religion in question?
2: One would need to evidence that no-one has ever attained the 'goal' or 'end' spoken of by that religion?
3: Personal experience of the 'goal' or 'end' in question to qualify the person to make such a proclamation?
4: Evidence to show the 'Way' of which the Tradition speaks is deficient?

That's all.

If someone of faith turns up here and declares their tradition is 100% sufficient to attain its declared end, they draw a fair amount of flak and ridicule ... I just thought I'd pop in and flag the imbalance.
 
Devils' Advocate said:
Is it possible to have a complete understanding of anything?
Click to expand...
I would have thought not, especially where religion speaks of that which transcends human understanding.

Devils' Advocate said:
In my areas of interest, I have a solid foundation - I would never in a million years pretend that I understand them completely.
Click to expand...
Nor I. That's why I voiced my opinion on the matter.

Devils' Advocate said:
Under those circumstances I don't see how it is possible for anyone to 'know' that any one religion is 100% correct.
Click to expand...
Or, by the same token, incorrect ... ?
 
I think we are agreeing....100% sufficient to achieve the goal is different than 100% correct in all ways or 100% truth?

As while we (as interfaith accepting individuals) are striving to say we can accept that others beliefs are fine and will achieve the same goal.....most of our religions do not.
 
Thomas said:
LOL, I'm getting confused now.

Let's backtrack. All I was doing was challenging a commonly held opinion:
"Thinking that ... any religion has it all 100% correct ... is illogical.
Click to expand...
Simply because such opinions when widespread tend to be received as 'facts' or 'reasonable', when in fact they're neither.

And I asked a number of questions:
Does it not assume, for example, that Enlightenment is not attainable through the practice of Buddhism? NO
That Divine Union is not attainable through the practice of Christianity? no
That Harmony with the Cosmos is not attainable through the practice of Daoism? no

To declare such an opinion, surely:
1: One would be expected to have a full and complete understanding of the religion in question? no
2: One would need to evidence that no-one has ever attained the 'goal' or 'end' spoken of by that religion? can't prove a negative attained in a time and space we can't connect with
3: Personal experience of the 'goal' or 'end' in question to qualify the person to make such a proclamation? no
4: Evidence to show the 'Way' of which the Tradition speaks is deficient? no

That's all.

If someone of faith turns up here and declares their tradition is 100% sufficient to attain its declared end, they draw a fair amount of flak and ridicule ... I just thought I'd pop in and flag the imbalance.[/QUOTE]

I stated 100% sufficient to attain the desired end is different than having it all 100% correct.
 
Hi Wil –

I'm glad you'll allow that each religion is entirely sufficient in and of itself to attain its end, which is really all that I'm interested in.

On the four points, at first glance I found your answers surprising, but then realised that my insertion of the word 'opinion' might have been an own-goal on my part. I agree that one doesn't need to know nor understand anything to have an opinion.
 
wil said:
As while we (as interfaith accepting individuals) are striving to say we can accept that others beliefs are fine and will achieve the same goal...
Click to expand...
And if the belief of others holds that the goal differs?
 
Thomas said:
And if the belief of others holds that the goal differs?
Click to expand...
But isn't this moving the goalpost?

Trying to understand here:
The vast majority of what pass muster as religious faiths are attempts to reach out and connect with the Divine. The only exceptions I can think of are essentially self-focused toolboxes for manipulation (of matter, people, money, etc.)...and that is presuming I have anything close to an accurate understanding.

If the goal is the top of the mountain, and 85% is sufficient for the vast majority, then as a generalization I would think the goal is sufficiently similar to say "yes."

If by "the goal differs" you suggest the minority of "faiths" with self-serving interests, then I would suggest that the goals never were the same, and the logic simply doesn't apply to that minority. They are in essense outside of the sample box.
 
wil said:
I don't see the two of you on the same page...but that is just me.


I think maybe 85%, a B- is good enough to get to the top of the mountain.... You don't need 100%?

If'n there is a G!d... I can really see an atheist getting a pass (not all atheists, just like not all religionists)
Click to expand...
"Or as I like to tell the C students, you too can become President!"
 
juantoo3 said:
But isn't this moving the goalpost?
Click to expand...
Who's goalposts? Where in any sacra doctrina is it said that all paths lead to the same peak?

This idea seems a quite modern and contemporary meme. It's a dogma of the non-religious, which the traditionalist questions at his or her peril.
 
It was considered abhorrent
juantoo3 said:
I admit to knowing nothing of Intelligent Design past hearing the term from time to time.

Having said that, why is the idea that G!d is somehow behind/within/a portion of every natural thing such an abhorrent idea? That is the fundamental precept of Native American and other tribal belief systems...what educated westerners call "animist." Even the rocks are alive.
Click to expand...
Because the church fathers viewed the universe as an anti-God principle. God was the complete and total antithesis of creation; Hence, Gods was said to be void of body, parts, passions, compassion, wholly immutable, etc. God and the world were like oil and water; they don't mix.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top