God

[Tiassa]

Markx, re: Cambrian explosion &c.

Markx

I need to ask you the simple question I ask anyone pushing the scientific aspect of divine creation: Are we declaring the scientific process finished?

In my lifetime we've come across a couple of "new" human ancestors in the evolutionary theory; I can't remember for the life of me what they're called; I just know that one was a six-inch tall primate with tarsal and carpal structures as small as grains of rice.

Therefore, I must offer up a couple of common possibilities for your creation:

* Before the arrival of "complex" creatures in the Cambrian explosion, what would life have looked like? Well, for instance, quarriers just pulled a massive fossil set out of a quarry in Wisconson; a mass jellyfish dying. The condition of the fossils tells us a couple of things about it, including:

Such jellyfish strandings still happen every day somewhere on Earth, and have been going on for at least 500 million years. But because scavengers and burrowing animals usually disturb the jellies before and after they are buried, few fossils are found.

In the Cambrian, however, there were no land animals or birds to scavenge, and no worms or other burrowing animals churning the sediments and ruining the traces left that one day so long ago, said Hagadorn.

Although the exact identity of the ancient jellies is not known, there is a good chance they were like today's jellyfish and lived as predators. That makes the Wisconsin discovery even more important because these fossils are a big missing piece in understanding some of Earth's earliest food chains.

I just spent a few minutes a pdf on precambrian microbial life. I need to read through it again for specific relevance, but it's an interesting paper nonetheless. Much of the fundamental evolution of complex life took place in the water; some of that live makes up the fossils we find above sea level; much of that has been cycled out of relevant existence by seafloor spreading and subduction.

We might, however, accepting the vagaries of a geological time-scale, note that small shelled creatures were already evolving in India around 540 mya; I found this geological .pdf. which includes a table of fossils detected by the study it supports. It appears (exo)skeletal formation occurred in this region 590-540 mya.

My whole point being that there are a lot of good fossils we haven't found yet. Think of how much evidence gets destroyed by nature: do you expect the key answers to be widespread and apparent, or do we have to work hard to get them out? Do we claim to have seen every available fossilized species on Earth? Is any one era's fossil record complete? Not by a long shot, and that's why I stick my nose in here.

It seems that when people seek an explanation of divine creation, they seek a literal interpretation, that there is an anthropomorphic agent--called God--who invented a Universe for no particular reason and decided to create life, apparently, insofar as any of the reliable holy texts can assert, to collect worship and foster a sense of authority. You'll notice that even Christians disregard their only accurate "definition" of God, that God is greater than that which can be conceived. Attempting to conceive God in this way, through a creation myth, still equals a scaling-down of a larger idea into its figurative modes.

And here I'll tack on an editorial point: What is this polarization of issues? Perhaps religion can only function within limited modes, e.g. dualistic. But science is not dualistic; if a piece of data, and therefore the conclusions drawn from a scientific experiment prove incorrect, then all it means is that this particular piece of science is incorrect; we do not automatically skip to the dualistic conclusion that religion is, therefore, correct. Thus, a lack of evidence toward one point does not necessarily create evidence toward a dualistic opposite. Were we in a murder trial, the confines of the process dictate that a lack of evidence of guilt must necessarily indicate a lack of guilt. What, however, is so closed about the scientific process?

In the end, it's like the Big Bang, astronomy, and the mythologies of the name of God? Why should the name of God cause creation to undo? Since Hebrew is also a mathematical alphabet, we might postulate that the "name of God", as such, in its various expressions, constitutes either a data set or a formula for obtaining that data set. In terms of the Big Bang, is the "name of God" a mathematical expression for the instability that became the catalyst to the Universe, and thus set within its confines all that can be? In terms of cosmology, they say Hubble can almost see to one of the predicted barriers of the Universe; what if it's there, and we see the creationary fire? What equations will we learn from watching genesis in action?

And this is what I mean when I say divine creation becomes limited. Divine creation is possible in theory; the need to personalize it according to one version of God or another is its undoing.

Divine creation stories reflect something; of all Creationists I would ask that you let that something be greater than politics of personal psychology.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[Bambi]

Originally posted by Markx

Ok I still would like to know. It has lot to do with subject we are dealing with here. We are not just dealing with science but wider topic of creator and purpose of we beeing here.

Ok, just as long as we keep in mind that our need for meaning has nothing to do with what is actually real or not.

My personal understanding is that existence in all totality does not have any purpose or meaning – because reality is not intelligent or conscious. So there is no intrinsic purpose or meaning in anything. We as intelligent agents create meaning by virtue of forming associations between objects and ideas. We declare purpose when we state some desired outcome.

When it comes to my own life, I do not view myself as a special entity somehow separated from the rest of the universe. I am merely an infinitesimal subset of the universe’s total state. I am one of the universe’s many manifestations. My life within the universe is a timeline of a tinsy subset of the universe.

I understand that the universe progresses wholistically – that every part of it can eventually affect some other part (ignoring superluminal spacetime expansion for the moment.) During my short existence, therefore, I have the opportunity as a conscious being to leave a deliberate imprint upon the universe – in other words, I have a chance to consciously affect the universe’s state for the rest of its existence. This opportunity I value highly, as having permanently affected the universe’s state is the only way I can make a difference between having existed vs. having never existed at all as a sentient individual. This gives meaning to my life – but not in an absolute sense, and not even in terms of myself. Rather, the meaning is in the eyes of some imaginary sentient observer looking back on my life from the future.

Again, my life has no intrinsic purpose. However, I choose to make it a purpose for my life to at least have no negative impact on the universe, or even have a positive impact. Such judgements of negativity vs. positivity are again not absolute and not in terms of myself. They are again made by some imaginary future observer. Of course that imaginary observer is in effect imbued with my views and opinions, since after all I’m the one who is making the relevant judgements. So the purpose of my life is also quite relative with respect to me. I see impact as non-negative when the net outcome does not impart any harm to life or sentience (as opposed to an alternative outcome that would result if no action is taken at all.) I see impact as positive when the net outcome is beneficial to life, sentience, or both. I choose such a purpose for my life because if I were that imaginary observer, that’s the sort of net effect I would find preferable and satisfactory.

But could it be possible what have you read in school is changed now or slightly change perhaps? I am sure it has been a while since you were in HS.

It’s been 8 years since I was in high school, and 3 years since I finished college. Ever since, I’ve been diligently keeping up with the latest news and trends in science and technology. I’m pretty sure that if any major shift in science occurred within that timespan, I would be aware of it. May I be so intrusive as to in turn inquire about your own level of scientific awareness?

Originally posted by Markx

When terrestrial strata and the fossil record are examined, it is to be seen that all living organisms appeared simultaneously. The oldest stratum of the earth in which fossils of living creatures have been found is that of the Cambrian, which has an estimated age of 500-550 million years.

While the Cambrian “explosion” is factual, it is not true that “all living organisms” in existence today appear in those strata. What we see there are a lot of precursors to modern life forms.

Prior to (and even overwhelmingly during) the Cambrian, living organisms did not have any shells or skeletal structure that could be fossilized. Without such ‘hard’ components, it is nearly impossible for life to leave detectable imprints (though some have been left and found), especially in deposits as old or older than 500 million years, most of which had undergone various geological compressions, partial melting, and deformations since then.

During the Cambrian, shells and exoskeletons developed so we “suddenly” see lots of different skeletal remains in those strata. In addition, the particular Cambrian deposits that introduced the “explosion” are very rare in terms of the way they formed and so were able to preserve imprints of soft-bodied animals. This does not mean that many of the soft-bodied animals did not exist before the Cambrian. In fact, an increasing number of Vendian (pre-cambrian) life forms that are precursors for Cambrian life is being discovered even now. In addition, the appearance of the various life forms is not truly sudden. It still spans millions of years. See, for example, here: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/cambrian/camblife.html Keep in mind that in focusing on the Cambrian you are missing the 3.3 billion years of evolution that preceded it (oldest confirmed life fossils are dated to around 3.8 billion years ago.)

Most of the life forms found in this strata have complex systems like eyes, gills, circulatory system, and advanced physiological structures no different from their modern counterparts.

Overstatements and exaggeration. Even the modern “counterparts” of those ancient life forms are more sophisticated – not to mention all the other life forms that emerged after the Cambrian.

Richard Monastersky, the editor of Earth Sciences, which is one of the popular publications of evolutionist literature, states the following about the "Cambrian Explosion" which came as a total surprise to evolutionists:


A half-billion years ago, the remarkably complex forms of animals we see today suddenly appeared. This moment, right at the start of Earth's Cambrian Period, some 550 million years ago, marks the evolutionary explosion that filled the seas with the world's first complex creatures. The large animal phyla of today were present already in the early Cambrian and they were as distinct from each other as they are today.

( Richard Monastersky, "Mysteries of the Orient", Discover, April 1993, p. 40)

Any thing you like say on that?

etc…

Just one example of the sort of Jedi mind tricks and loaded language characteristic of creationist propaganda. The so-called “evolutionists” have known about the Cambrian explosion for nearly half a century now; a 1993 Discover article would hardly come as a surprise to any but the ones who just came back from Mars.

On a side note, observe the difference between “evolutionist” literature and creationist literature. The former is not afraid to wash its dirty laundry in public – as a matter of fact, it’s a requirement for it to do so (science, peer review, things like that.) The latter gleefully points at the others’ dirty laundry as proof that its own sh*t don’t stink.

Back to the main issues, while the various “explosions” (Cambrian included) of the fossil record do present a difficulty to the classical 150 years ancient Darwinian gradualist evolution, they do not either invalidate the fact that evolution occurred nor do they preclude better theories of the process from emerging.

Now, rather than continuing to dig up creationist crap why don’t you try and learn what it is they are attacking in the first place? After all, it doesn’t serve you very well to evaluate blatantly partisan criticisms while being ignorant of the very thing the criticisms are addressed at. They deliberately exploit your ignorance, and you aren’t doing anything about it.

trilobites that appeared in the Cambrian period all of a sudden have an extremely complex eye structure. …

This eye emerged 530 million years ago in a perfect state. No doubt, the sudden appearance of such a wondrous design cannot be explained by evolution and it proves the actuality of creation.

Horseshit. Trilobites ranged from totally eyeless to endowed with sight. And among the sighted trilobites there were many varieties of eye structure. And no, eyes did not “suddenly” appear in a “perfect” (whatever that means) state – not even in trilobites. See, for example, here for more information:

http://www.aloha.net/~smgon/eyes.htm

Moreover, the honeycomb eye structure of the trilobite has survived to our own day without a single change. Some insects such as bees and dragon flies have the same eye structure as did the trilobite.* This situation disproves the evolutionary thesis that living things evolved progressively from the primitive to the complex.
(R.L.Gregory, Eye and Brain: The Physiology of Seeing, Oxford University Press, 1995, p.3)

To take the first two sentences, and from them draw the conclusion in the third sentence is a little weird to say the least. If anything, the observation indicates that the honeycomb structure has been passed down through time as a successful adaptation – even while the rest of the organism changed countless times (i.e. consider the difference between a dragonfly and a trilobyte.) Moreover, while the honeycomb arrangement of the eye has not changed, the fine structure of the eye has indeed evolved. For example, see here:

http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Nov99/new_eye.5.1.hrs.html

Douglas Futuyma, a prominent evolutionist biologist admits this fact and states: "Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from preexisting species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence." (33 Douglas J. Futuyma, Science on Trial, New York: Pantheon Books, 1983, p. 197)

This is such amazing bullshit I hardly believe my eyes. These assholes take an introductory passage designed to paint the confrontation between evolution and creationism, and cast it as Futuyama’s actual support for creationism! Un-friggin’-believable. By the way, if you have no idea who Futuyama is, try his book titled “Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution”. You can get it online from Amazon. There truly is no limit to how low the creationists sharlatans will go.

Darwin himself recognised the possibility of this when he wrote: …
The Cambrian Period is nothing more or less than Darwin's "fatal stroke". This is why the Swiss evolutionist paleoanthropologist Stefan Bengston confesses the lack of transitional links while he describes the Cambrian Period and says "Baffling (and embarrasing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles us". (Stefan Bengston, Nature, Vol. 345, 1990, p. 765)

Darwin’s theory does not apply to the Cambrian very well. Check out the punctuated equilibrium theory if you want to see just one of the alternatives.

As may be seen, the fossil record indicates that living things did not evolve from primitive to the advanced forms, but instead emerged all of a sudden and in a perfect state. In short, living beings did not come into existence by evolution, they were created.

bs.

 

[ismu]

we're seems out of topic here...

There are lots of explanation / proof about existance of God. Creation of universe only one of them. Since theory of evolution still in debates among scientist, we better take a look at things more acceptable to our (human) limitations.

I don't see anyone arguing this real evidence in my prev post:

... the Qur'an itself is proof of existance of Allah. In Qur'an God says (wich verses i forgot, may be markx can help), that Allah himself maintain the originality of Qur'an. Qur'an is one of prophet Muhammad's miracle (proof) wich is we still can see today. Any attempt to spread twisted version of Qur'an in this earth was never succeed and will never succeed. This is one big proove we can actualy see!
[/u]

 

[Bambi]

Re: we're seems out of topic here...

Religious book was copied verbatim in its original language for 1500 years and that's proof of God?? Huh???

On the other hand, what do you make of the many Muslim sects in existence? Sunni, Wahhabi, Sufi, Shi'ite, ...

Then, there actually are variants of Qur'an:

http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Text/warsh.html

And the accepted book is not a hand-me-down from some divine authority but a compilation assembled by a commission. The same commission subsequently banned and destroyed all sources and variants of the compilation, and such policy of sheer dogma has been enforced over the centuries not by some supernatural power but by the ultra-conservative priests of Islam.

Islam is just another religion, so get over it.

 

[ismu]

Originally posted by Bambi
Religious book was copied verbatim in its original language for 1500 years and that's proof of God?? Huh???

Have you look at the contents and compare it with any other state of the art stuffs? Even your attitude now responding this information already predicted in there

On the other hand, what do you make of the many Muslim sects in existence? Sunni, Wahhabi, Sufi, Shi'ite, ...

It's only different perception in learning from single source. You can learn about... let say... thermodynamics on MIT, or other college. It doesn't matter isn't it?
Btw, all of those sects you've montioned still based on the same source, Quran. Much less mess than having many sects AND using several holybook called old testimony and new testimony *), or else. We may have different perception about quarks composing neutron, proton an electron, even we've learn from the same handbook about physics of matters. Is that mistake from the book, or people who read it?

Then, there actually are variants of Qur'an:

http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Text/warsh.html

They have same characters in arabic version. Theese difference are only dialect in saying the words. And did you see at the bottom of the page? The meanings of those are still the same. How about theese mistakes? *)

And the accepted book is not a hand-me-down from some divine authority but a compilation assembled by a commission. The same commission subsequently banned and destroyed all sources and variants of the compilation, and such policy of sheer dogma has been enforced over the centuries not by some supernatural power but by the ultra-conservative priests of Islam.

Of course there is a commision, like all other religions have. But can others maintain the originality? How do you think God should maintain the originality? Any mistake will automatically self burned? Get real! .

Islam is just another religion, so get over it.

Yes another, just like others. Why get over it? How do you wish God should give a proof to people about His exixtance? Show up big grins at your front door? I don't think so. The proofe is in the universe, in us, in holybook. God doesn't need us to keep His existance.

We all have freedom to believe or disbelieve. It's all up to us, and the consequences is up to Him.

*) This is not attempt to abuse other religion, but using more 'popular' reference should be more acceptable. Sorry for you inconvenient.

 

[Markx]

Originally posted by Bambi




Bambi,
It is very interesting to hear all about science. And yes I am new to this I recently start taking interest on this subject for about a year or so. Now it made it more interesting for me. But thank you for your input. But I still like to say that, Evolution doesnot disapprove GOD. It simply make more logic that there is a creator. Now even if you think every thing was happened becasue of science, and It is very likely did but science came from God. I think it is more of debate on faith then just science. I like to say that science and religion do go togather, Well some religions do omit science totaly but not all religions.
Also thank you for your input regarding your life and why you are here I mean purpose of life. I am no judge of your thinking and beliefs so I would not comment or discuss any of that with you
I do admire you scientific knowledge but when it comes to religion, You don't know much about Islam. I don't expect you to either. I think you rely mostly on web and search for keywords?.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"" Religious book was copied verbatim in its original language for 1500 years and that's proof of God?? Huh???

Then, there actually are variants of Qur'an:

http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Text/warsh.html

And the accepted book is not a hand-me-down from some divine authority but a compilation assembled by a commission. The same commission subsequently banned and destroyed all sources and variants of the compilation, and such policy of sheer dogma has been enforced over the centuries not by some supernatural power but by the ultra-conservative priests of Islam.

Islam is just another religion, so get over it. """
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Ahh an interesting thing you posted above, Your source of information is amazingly prejudice group of people, Their sole intention to degrade Islam and Quran. I wasn't expecting some one like you to get Islamic info from Typical Anti Islamic site. But that is also ok with me, Since all their propagnda is made up. Proven wrong historicaly, Scintificaly, they went so far that they produced their own copy of Quran and lableling it written by some arabic name. It shows the rotten nature of people and the limits they cross to prove one's religion above others. It is also interesting that they have no knowledge of Arabic and they try to translate Quran With wrong translation and use it as a very authenticated copy. You don't go to Eye doctor if your tooth is hurting. You go to dentist. The most proper translation from Arabic to English is by Yusuf ali.

Quran remains in it's original language and form, from the time of Prophet and still is in it's original form. Never been changed or altered. There are copies of Quran from the time of prophet and then from the time or Ali and uthaman and they are all the exact same. It will start a whole new debate here, But I just like say that your source and info is not just wrong but beyond that.
It is the only religion that make sense. Give very proper defination of God. Unlike other two major religions.

 

[Tiassa]

Sufism and Islam

Bambi pointed out the diverse sects of Islam, noting Sufi among them; while this is technically correct, it should be pointed out that Sufism has existed for a long time--before, even, Prophet Muhammed. There are stories that Abraham (yes, the Abraham) was rejected by a Sufi master for his impatience.

In the meantime, it is when an aspirant submits to a Sufi program that he is advised, Keep the commands of Allah and abstain from things prohibited, among other things, and learns there is no Agent save Allah, no Adorand save Allah, and no Existent save Allah. Sufism is such that as it has chosen a religious text--e.g. Qu'ran--we are supposed to find this significant; the harmony between the words of the Prophet Muhammed and the perspectives of Sufis somehow harmonized. Yet despite this apparent synergy, as Gairdner noted in his 1912 essay, during the fifth (el-Nafsu-l-Radiya) and sixth (el-Nafsu-l-Mardiyya) stages of training, the Sufi begins abandoning set prayers and religious practices.

In the end, it seems the Qu'ran is an excellent source for those who wish to be servants of a book; the Sufi progression includes the progression from the aspirant There is no God save Allah to the personalization and realization There is no God save Thee, and finally the fulfillment of knowledge, There is no God save I. It is not an arrogant assumption of wizardry, but a metaphysical result which, like Crowley's Law of Thelema, requires certain insight and knowledge to comprehend.

But, as to imsu's point about the legitimacy of the Qu'ran--Yeah, we're all impressed. What, did you miss the fact that such silly excuses for metaphysics and philosophy didn't work for the Christians? Why denigrate the Qu'ran by making such irresponsible, unfounded, and unsupportable claims as the Qur'an itself is proof of existance of Allah. What, the Bible raises Christ as the savior, but it doesn't make it so. Crowley took dictation from Aiwaz for the Book of Thelema according to the "History", so the existence of the Books of Thelema are their proof of legitimacy. Funny, though, how the existence of a Didache or Gospel of Mary Magdelene isn't proof of its own legitimacy. Imsu, if nobody took the point up before, it's because there is no point to take up. As I look through your paragraph, I see nothing to refute except faith statements, and as we all know from dealing with the Christians, there's really no point. Bambi made a reasonable attempt to undertake the pseudo-issues you've asserted, but you cannot demonstrate your own claim of the legitimacy of the Qu'ran, so I would suggest that you stop defaming it with your arrogance.

And there's something I'll throw out to anyone of faith: what is this trend that "knowledge" is more important than knowledge? The personalized reductions of God argued here at Sciforums have little or no actual "knowledge" to them insofar as meditated insight. Why is it, for instance, that when a Christian says, "I've given this a lot of thought and study," they still come up with the same unsupportable horsepucky that the superstitious freaks on the teleministries come up with? And yet here we see the same reduction of Islam taking place, the diminishing of God until It fits well within a person's paradigm.

Remember that the Beatles were bigger than Jesus.

Faith is not knowledge.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[ismu]

tiassa...

Thanks for remind me about arrogance and I would say sorry if anyone feels inconvenient of my statements.

My purpose was, just as a rational reason; if we looking for something (in this case God), we better search it in best resources available. We all know that Quran also approve with all original sources of other big 4 religions. It's will be easier if we start with the right, unaltered concept of God.

 

[Markx]

Re: tiassa...

Originally posted by ismu
Thanks for remind me about arrogance and I would say sorry if anyone feels inconvenient of my statements.

My purpose was, just as a rational reason; if we looking for something (in this case God), we better search it in best resources available. We all know that Quran also approve with all original sources of other big 4 religions. It's will be easier if we start with the right, unaltered concept of God.

Interesting ismu. It would be a good start, I agree.

 

[Rick]

Hello everyone please find some time to take this poll for statistics purposes of my own.as i see only 25 have just voted and there are so many who havent.please.
PS:I am sure Cris will make out meaning of this reply.as from the stats.

bye!

 

[Hoth]

The poll results so far surprise me a lot. Only 12% think God is the controller of the world? I assume in the general population the majority would say that, right?

 

[Cris]

Hoth,

Oh how I wish that were true.

 

[blonde_cupid]

God is something, alright.

A minor female in my care went missing recently. Local police wouldn't even file the report before 24 hours had passed. Frustrated and frantic, on my way home from the police station, I screamed outloud...

Oh, GOD, where IS she???!!!

I heard the name of a town and a street I'd never been to before. I drove the 30 minutes to that town, found her car on that street and called the local police. After they heard how I found the car, they canvassed the neighborhood with her picture and found her locked up in an apartment with the man who abducted her from a mall parking lot.

Apparently, God knows what he had intended to do with her.

 

[Markx]

Originally posted by blonde_cupid
God is something, alright.

A minor female in my care went missing recently. Local police wouldn't even file the report before 24 hours had passed. Frustrated and frantic, on my way home from the police station, I screamed outloud...

Oh, GOD, where IS she???!!!

I heard the name of a town and a street I'd never been to before. I drove the 30 minutes to that town, found her car on that street and called the local police. After they heard how I found the car, they canvassed the neighborhood with her picture and found her locked up in an apartment with the man who abducted her from a mall parking lot.

Apparently, God knows what he had intended to do with her.

Town and state name please?. We would like to verify this. On the other hand I respect your feelings and no offense to you. But if you are making these things up. I think you need serious help then. Some sort of anti depressing medicine or some thing of that nature. :bugeye:

 

[blonde_cupid]

Markx,

***Town and state name please?. We would like to verify this.***

What is it that "we" would like to verify? Who is "we"?

 

[Tiassa]

Blonde Cupid

To share my own version of a similar story:

One fine spring day I received a call from my best friend; a close friend of hers had gone missing with only a mysterious phone call asking for help. My friend was in Seattle, I was in Salem, Oregon, and the missing friend was somewhere in Los Angeles. Being the cavalry type, it was my notion to go charging right in; a battle plan could be developed on the way. It was good enough for Seattle; I was to wait until she arrived, a mere several hours, during which time my request of a local friend for ... ahem ... specialty support ... resulted in a party of four committing several federal weapons violations in melodramatic preparation for "the worst". Watching the bright moon as we came down the south side of the Siskyous, I took a second or two with my Goddess, to remind her--as such--that one of her sisters had called for help and that was good enough for four of us so that was good enough for Her.

Long story short, the weapons were unnecessary; we eventually found our quarry in bad shape, waiting for us on the south side of the Vine. We've never discussed what happened, but our friend was quite surprised to be alive at the end of it.

On the surface I might say, Look, my Goddess can do it,too, but such comparisons undermine the more important point--the efforts of people to assist others. What, in terms of God, do we tell the families of Polly Klaas or Danielle van Dam? Why, then does God come to aid Chance Devila, Alexandra Slider, or Emily Sasser? This, a classical theological conundrum, has suffered many a dismal excuse for an answer, and remains an open question in terms of the attribution of the Will of God.

Once upon a time, says the legend, two souls arrived in Heaven, one of a child and one of a man. The child asked God why the man was awarded a higher rank in heaven than he, and God responded that the man had lived and worked to gain His favor. The child asked God why he was not given the chance to live and work toward His favor, and God responded that he had foreseen sin and suffering for the child, and called him home before darkness could conquer him. Whereupon a mighty wail arose from below, as the voices of the damned cried aloud, why, God, why were we not called home before the darkness conquered us?

I'm just glad our friends are home safe. It's not so much a matter of thanks for the adventure; such gratitude is not warranted, but life is a million times better that she can say it in the first place.

thanx,
Tiassa

(PS on edit: It's worth mentioning that the drive home ... the party split out of necessity and, upon returning to Salem, it had been thirty-one hours nonstop on the road. Given that I roared north through the mountains while hallucinating; given that the creepy whistle coming through the windshield wipers that kicks in at 104 and disappears at 112 mph only fed the state of mind; given that mountains bled that night ... getting home might well be evidence of divine participation I never said my Goddess didn't have a first-class sense of humor; to the contrary, I've always noted that she does.)

 

[blonde_cupid]

tiassa,

You sound like a great friend to have, so, I hope you don't mind my asking... Please drive carefully? Else, you might bleed in the mountains!

I can hear you now... Yes, Mom...

***Look, my Goddess can do it,too,..***

That reminds me... God* sure is something, alright.

***What, in terms of God, do we tell the families of Polly Klaas or Danielle van Dam?***

Honestly, I'm not very good at comforting people with words. Lending an ear and a shoulder, giving a hug are the type of things that I'm better at. So, I would probably just listen to what they had to say.

Here is what the van Dam family tells us, in terms of God*:

"With today's confirmation that our beloved Danielle will never again be physically present in our lives, we are experiencing the depths of sadness, loss and grief which only parents who have lost children under similar circumstances can fully comprehend.

Love has conquered evil, in our community. This is Danielle's legacy and we couldn't be more proud. As we were praying, this morning, with the incredible volunteer searchers who actually found our daughter, our personal prayer was that God would share our little angel with everyone who helped to find her.

Danielle was a very special, beautiful, loving little girl. We miss her desperately but find comfort in knowing that she is now safe again and at peace. For Danielle, our family, friends and neighbors, we thank you for unifying us into such a giving community. We will be forever grateful to all of you."

Seems like their comments tie-in nicely with your assessment:

***...such comparisons undermine the more important point--the efforts of people to assist others.***


God* - Whoever/Whatever your higher power might be.

 

[Tiassa]

Yeah, there is that ....

Blonde Cupid

It's worth mentioning that my mother wasn't thrilled when she finally heard the tale. On the one hand, well, there is no other hand ... but I digress ...

Your kind words as well ... now, should I digress to preen? Let it be, let it be ...

The only point I would deign to argue, and this at risk of undermining the point we've reached in the topic, is that while the van Dam family statement does, in fact, reflect the best of prayers in trying times, and the comfort of faith in such times, it must be pointed out that this prayer comes after, for the lack of a better term, God fails to answer the prayer to bring the girl home alive.

Long enough sentence? I'll try never to deliver it in person in a speech; I'm not sure I could pull it off.

But if I argue with the notion of the successful result being a gift from God, it is because the notion of a poor result being a gift from God just doesn't ring right. Truly, to say that the brutal passing of a child is the will of God is a fair assessment; as your footnote notes, the range of God is limited only by the scope of human vision. And here the road forks, for we can pursue the hound down the trail demonstrating the negative results of diverting grief through faith (e.g. the rise of devils), or consider metaphysically the "motives" of God in calling children home in such a manner. After all, what could be so important that a murderous pervert should be an instrument of God? But such are the ways of God, and especially when we assign such traits to it as Him or Will or Love or Good.

Thus, when I ask what God gets the van Dam family or the Klaas family, it is because they apparently are not as deserving in the grand scheme, or that their suffering is somehow more necessary, compared to the Devinda, Slider, or Sasser families. Such a perspective is hasty, though, and depends on God having enough limitations as to have a specific will unto which we might appeal. It does, of course, depend also on God being a childish bastard, but what, truly, does history show?

Here I am left to reiterate the point: if the positive result is a gift from God, what, then, of the negative? Is someone's faith not strong enough? Is it predestined? This is where the diversions come from, and I'll stay off that vicious cycle of deception-failure-deception (religion as a vice) because no matter how close I tread to it, I recognize that its place in this is accepted and it's hardly a central factor. (And thus is irrelevant.) But people seek these answers because they need them. When the wisdom of the world cannot bring comfort, they turn to God, and here we slam straight back into the questions of why, so it sounds like I'm harping on them.

But it's the central reason to why I argue the point at all.

thanx much,
Tiassa

 

[blonde_cupid]

tiassa,

***Here I am left to reiterate the point: if the positive result is a gift from God, what, then, of the negative? Is someone's faith not strong enough?***

I think it's more a matter of how we perceive that which comes from God* - which I tend to think is everything. We assign attributes of good and evil/positive and negative, etc... to life situations based on what we determine them to be rather than, possibly, what they just are.

When I cried out, it was not done through faith but in desperation. I was not even thinking about the possibility that I might get an answer. Quite honestly, when I heard what I heard I doubted myself. It was just a matter that, at that point, there was not much left for me to do. Instead of going home to pace, fret, hope, pray and wait for the 24 hours to be up, I felt a need to act on what I heard and decided to drive immediately to the location I heard spoken. It worked out for what I perceive to be the best. But, is it?

Compare my charge's situation to that of the van Dam family. In our case, there was not the great 'unification of the community in love' that was reported to have been experienced in the van Dam's community.

So, which should we perceive as the greater gift from God*? Is deliverance of what we pray for/cry out for the only measure of success?

I think there is a strange balance in the universe which necessitates not only that which we perceive as good/positive but also that which we perceive as evil/negative.

But, really... are our perceptions correct considering what we know/don't know about the biggest picture?

Is having needs a limitation/imperfection on our part or, is it possible that having needs brings us closer to perfection as human beings?

O.K. - I can see that I'm very tired right now and I need some rest. If this comes across as nonsense, I apologize and I'll try to make more sense the next time.

 

[Markx]

Originally posted by blonde_cupid
Markx,

***Town and state name please?. We would like to verify this.***

What is it that "we" would like to verify? Who is "we"?

Why is it so important to you? Simple names woul be nice.
Thanks.