I would like to know...

[Sufi]

1. How would you explain (I said YOU not a book) the fact that there were animals on this planet before man and god does not show up until man is obviously well into his evolution? I have read many theories and would like yours. and not "because the bible tells me so".

There were neanderthals before men living on earth at the level of animals. When a man was evolved into thinking level about his own truth and the truth of life beyond the limitations of the five senses, he was no more a neanderthal but man. He tried his best to communicate to the others what he realized and observed as the reality of life beyond the limits of the five senses, and others sculpted an image of higher authority in their minds and named it as a god.

2. How would you explain how the faiths that believe in this same god are also structured like government and run like government? Is it not simply a way to control people?

Yes it is. But true attainers (spiritual masters) only communicated the truth that they realized. It is others who, upon hearing their messages, went to sculpt an image of god in their minds based on their conditionings.

 

[beyondtimeandspace]

1. How would you explain (I said YOU not a book) the fact that there were animals on this planet before man and god does not show up until man is obviously well into his evolution? I have read many theories and would like yours. and not "because the bible tells me so"

2. How would you explain how the faiths that believe in this same god are also structured like government and run like government? Is it not simply a way to control people?

I feel that RosaMagika's responses to these two questions very much reflects my own thoughts. I do not deny the notion of macro-evolution. I only question the Darwinian Theory. Furthermore, as RosaMagika said, just becuase we only have records of God as beginning at a certain point in human history, doesn't mean that God did not exist prior to then, or that humans made God up.

You asked me not to quote the Bible or any religious authority. However, I am in agreement with the belief that my Church holds. That is, that whether created by evolution, or otherwise, the human soul is not a result of evolution, but rather a direct creation by God at the moment that the human physics became sophisticated enough to be in union with a rational and free spirit. Prior to that time, the world may have, and most likely did evolve from the most basic life-form.

As for the second question, you seem to associate government with a means of control. Actually, while it may be the case now (and in several occasions throughout history) that governments are a means of controlling the populace, that is not how governments develope(d). Government developes out of a need for orderly social interaction, and begins from a given populace recognizing a problem, and organizing a solution. Governments in their basic forms are usually led by older, respected and learned members of the tribe, village, town, etc... Governments don't develope under the auspice of people-control, but rather as a means of organization of social interaction so that all those living under the government might benefit by it and live more easily and prosperously. Obviously this becomes more difficult as the population grows. In the end, due to a ever-increasing non-personal government (due to population), government becomes a means of power and control. However, just as secular governments develope to serve a need, so too did religious government develope to serve specific needs. The difficulty is placing the proper people into the positions of power, people who exhibit humility, zeal, desire to help others, intelligence, etc... While it isn't always the case that such people are placed in the religious governmental positions (obviously we are all human and prone to error), it is the endeavor of religious council to do so. For example, the Catholic Church has a group of Cardinals, who are offered such a position based upon their known activities in their local communities, as well as their understanding of Catholic teachings (amond other things which I couldn't be fully aware, not being a Cardinal myself). The current pope, Pope John Paul II, was chosen among a number of nominated Bishops, as chosen by the Cardinals. Bishops do not apply to be the Pope. Pope John Paul II actually turned down his first nomination (when Pope John Paul I was elected). It was only after his predecessor's short term in office that he accepted the position. He has proven to be an extraordinary leader, being the most travelled pope in history, having written many (I'm not sure about the most) encyclicals and letters to the Bishops and the Lay Faithful, as well as canonizing the most saints in history. There have been several popes in the history of the Catholic Church that bring shame to its name. But if the election process is done properly, then it is a wonderful thing.

I feel the need to speak well for the sake of the present pope, since there are many who would speak badly of him. Many people feel that he is living like a king in the vatican, reaping the lavishments of the wealth that is stored there. This is the farthest thing from the truth. Between writing letters and encyclicals, meeting with international political leaders, meeting with members of the clergy, with pilgrims, and making his weekly audiences, praying, eating, and who knows what else, not to mention contending with his illness, he get about 4 hours of sleep every night. If living like a king means complete selflessness in attending to the needs of the lay faithful, and the clergy, as well as dealing as a peacekeeper with many international affairs, then by all means, he is a king. What he does not do, however, is sit around eating grapes and getting foot massages. Governments that usurp power and overlord over the people are not ones that live in endless service to those people. It may be that the governmental form that many religious organizations have do allow for tyrants, and controllers, but just because it allows for it, doesn't mean that is what it was meant for.

 

[MagiAwen]

Rosa

That's a ridiculous and uneducated question.

I disagree. While, like has been pointed out recently by TheErk, I am not that great on explaining myself. Again one of the reasons I joined, so I can learn how to communicate more effectively in written terms, it may be what you infer from my question that seems uneducated.

Some people content that there were no people before Christianity. You may think this silly and uneducated, and I tell you that there are many out there that have said this to me. They may not frequent this forum, however, I know they are out there in the world. I have had people tell me there is no history before Christianity. And although you and I know this is silly, they apparently cannot get it.

But thank you, Rosa, for answering my “uneducated” question. If it was so uneducated why did you even bother to answer?

We can't say that before man, God wasn't here -- we simply have no man-written documents from before that time

I can see that point of view. Obviously, if a god created man, he would have had to of been here first.
But…

as, simply, there were no men (in the sense of homo sapiens) there yet to make them.

Now I get lost in your statements. I’m going to make a few [comments] based on this part of your sentence and possibly you can straighten out what you mean.

1. If we take out the part that is in parenthesis, it basically says….”simply, there were no men there yet to make them [historical documents]”. To me, you are saying that man did not exist before god. (ok) My question, though, does ask…with the evidence of the fossil record (also meaning humans), how does god not show up until man is well into evolution [if god was to have created man]. If what I am reading and inferring you’re your post is correct, you are saying man was not here until god created him. (again ok) Except…
2. Reading your sentence with the parenthesis in place (in the sense of homo sapiens), leads me to believe you agree that there are fossil records of .. uh.. man-like animals(?) but man really wasn’t created until god made him. Does this mean that god made things like us but kept practicing?

You seemed appalled at this post…I’m sorry that you feel that way. I know for you science people it is hard to answer what I am looking for, not only because I am not phrasing things correctly but that you are all so hell bent on thinking a certain way. Time to get out of the box. The whole purpose of this thread (as I have said many times) is to get people’s ideas. It is not about scientific fact or even theological fact or theory…just what about people believe and feel.

I see many people around the religion section here talking about they believe this or that but when it comes down to it it is always about what they have been taught by others. I obviously need work on my question asking approach (and I am learning), because I am very slowly getting the feedback that I asked for…with others assuming I am asking or inferring things I am not.

Rosa

"Why do you believe in God?" is a non-question.

Possibly, but I did not ask you or anyone else in here this question. I asked a minister who apparently was not as offended as you are and he was able to answer me without batting an eye, and I was satisfied with that answer. He could answer it without resorting to “Because I do.” I guess in the same why I can answer why I believe what I believe without restorting to the same.
Some people’s first reaction might actually be, “Because that is what I have been told all my life.” Some people need to think for themselves and just because you might be able to, Rosa, not everyone is.

Beating down my questions does not make them non-questions simply because you cannot see the merit of it. There is a reason behind it. I wanted your FEELINGS, not what you have been fed or told by others, not book learned theory…FEELINGS. I understand that this is a “science” forum…and I am asking you to think differently. I think I get a mix of it from you, but it’s not all you that is shining through. And really…if anyone has a reason for believing anything and the answer is simply “cuz”…that’s not good enough. Same thing applies in other things…such as….I may ask a person, “Why do you believe in quantum theory?” Now that is not a non-question or an uneducated question from my standpoint. Do you believe in it just because you were told or do you believe in it because you have a personal investment in it and find that it makes rational sense to you? And if so, why does it make rational sense to you.

I’m disappointed in you response actually. I expected more.

I think god would be disappointed if the only reason you believed in him was, “just cuz”. If he exists I would think that he would want you to have a personal reason…if not, what the hell is free will for? Don’t you think he would want you to have a desire and reason for following him or do you think he just wants worshipers that blindly worship for no other reason than….’cuz.

it is not in my interest to persuade you of my belief.

Good. That is not what this thread is about.

But you cannot make yourself want to believe, neither can you fully rationally and analytically come to the decision to believe in God (or to disbelieve in God, for that matter).

I agree but again, that is not what this thread is about.

Once more, the best you can rationally and analytically come to, is Pascal's wager.

Once more, I am not trying to argue any type of point in this thread. This thread is for information only. I don’t want to argue any point. I just want to know what people personally believe. Why is this so fucking hard for you people? I have no motives other than to know people’s true feelings of the subject.

 

[MagiAwen]

Beyond…

just because we only have records of God as beginning at a certain point in human history, doesn't mean that God did not exist prior to then, or that humans made God up.

Ok. Again, I will say I am not arguing people’s beliefs, I just wanted to know what they were. I make no argument, I simply am asking. And again, I know that it is a hard concept for some of the people here to accept.

So from your statement here you are not throwing out that god could have been made up by humans? Did I get that correctly?

That is, that whether created by evolution, or otherwise, the human soul is not a result of evolution, but rather a direct creation by God at the moment that the human physics became sophisticated enough to be in union with a rational and free spirit. Prior to that time, the world may have, and most likely did evolve from the most basic life-form.

Yes, thank you. That answered my question. And one of the few so far that have touched on the spiritual aspect of the subject. I have to ask…when you say soul is not of evolution but creation of god, do you mean that man may have existed beforehand but it is when god created the soul and then man realized this “soul part” of him that he then became to know god? If I have that incorrect please let me know…you are the first person I have come across that has made this distinction.

I understand what you are saying about government and so forth. What you present is a very plausible theory of the evolution of community and social structure and I do not disagree with it. It is very much a realistic way of looking at how that aspect of humans came about.

As far as the pope is concerned. Thank you for putting that in there, however, I never have had many questions about the pope and have certainly never questioned his deeds or their valuable nature and have never questioned his intentions or actions.

Thank you for the post…it has given me some to think about.

 

[Jenyar]

I think god would be disappointed if the only reason you believed in him was, “just cuz”. If he exists I would think that he would want you to have a personal reason…if not, what the hell is free will for? Don’t you think he would want you to have a desire and reason for following him or do you think he just wants worshipers that blindly worship for no other reason than….’cuz.

Which god would be disappointed? Why would he want us to have an agenda, if believing in him was as natural as believing in anyone or anything else? If you mean why do we have faith in a particular God or gods, that's a different question.

1. How would you explain (I said YOU not a book) the fact that there were animals on this planet before man and god does not show up until man is obviously well into his evolution? I have read many theories and would like yours. and not "because the bible tells me so"

I agree with Rosa. How do you know when God "showed up"? Are you talking about religion, spirituality, or what?

1) A child does not think about his parents as "mom and dad" until he's reached a certain maturity, when those descriptions start to make sense. Before that, the relationship between them exists undefined.

2) A relationship does not exist before both parties are present and able to interact. A tree does not only start existing when it is first perceived. Before then, "tree" might not apply, but its existence is unaffected.

3) If that relationship is broken and then resumed, the other party doesn't disappear and then reappear when the relationship is restored, even though we might only remember the reconciliation. History (and memory) gravitates towards events - non-events simply go by unnoticed and unrecorded.

Yes, thank you. That answered my question. And one of the few so far that have touched on the spiritual aspect of the subject. I have to ask…when you say soul is not of evolution but creation of god, do you mean that man may have existed beforehand but it is when god created the soul and then man realized this “soul part” of him that he then became to know god? If I have that incorrect please let me know…you are the first person I have come across that has made this distinction.

That spiritual connection had already been made in Genesis 1: God breathed life into Adam. That "breath" was translated "soul" - that which gives us life. Without something of God, a recognition of Him wouldn't be possible - we'd have nothing to recognize Him by. It doesn't mean that the faculty is God, though. That's a conclusion many come to - and which leads to the idea that He was created by us. That's like being born with a bracelet around your arm, and coming to the logical conclusion that it must be part of you. History has shown that humans rarely came to such an "uninformed" conclusion.

2. How would you explain how the faiths that believe in this same god are also structured like government and run like government? Is it not simply a way to control people?

"It" controls nothing. Just like communism controls nothing and democracy controls nothing: they're what we call systems. A relationship is also a system, with natural hierarchies and structures. That's simply the way things are organized ('organization' is another word that can be used). Wherever there are relationships, it is in the interest of that relationship that chaos and confusions should be avoided. A son does not automatically tell his father when to do something and what to do unless their relationship - in other words, their institution of "family" - allows for it.

So the answer is: for the same reason anything else is organized. When authority, relationships and interactions exist, they will be ordered in *some* way.

Control is simply one possible activity within that system. I assume you mean the stigmatized one-dimensional version of it - in the sense that oppression and suppression is involved. But in most organizations, control is a regulated activity, implememented in accordance with a greater mission or vision (the corporate philosophy), and it's implemented by "controls": points of accountability. The CEO is "in control". the directors are "in control", and ultimately, every member is also "in control". Such control is empowering, expedient. Forceful or intimidated control is unhealthy and leads to the destruction of relationships, and breaches in communcation. The dictator is dependent on his balance of power to remain an "authority", which is why revolution is such an effective countermeasure.

 

[MarcAC]

I simply would like YOUR thoughts, not something written in the Bible or some other religious document. Again, I am asking for your thoughts. Please do not quote scripture at length and get in fights and get off topic.

Strange and betraying sentence as the Adstar seemingly realised. I can even see why the Adatar found it funny. This thread only asks for NEW theories. "YOUR" thoughts was seemingly forgotten by most posters because they're all posting theories developed by other persons. This thread should be completely blank save for unheard of hypotheses. A Trick Thread.

 

[water]

Some people content that there were no people before Christianity. You may think this silly and uneducated, and I tell you that there are many out there that have said this to me. They may not frequent this forum, however, I know they are out there in the world. I have had people tell me there is no history before Christianity. And although you and I know this is silly, they apparently cannot get it.

So? Are they a threat to you? Or do you simply dislike them?

But thank you, Rosa, for answering my “uneducated” question. If it was so uneducated why did you even bother to answer?

Ah, sarky.

1. If we take out the part that is in parenthesis, it basically says….”simply, there were no men there yet to make them [historical documents]”. To me, you are saying that man did not exist before god.

This a forced and hasty generalization!
You are basically arguing like someone who says that a room does not exist until he enters it. It is empircism taken to absurd extremes: If you don't see it, it isn't there. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!

(ok) My question, though, does ask…with the evidence of the fossil record (also meaning humans), how does god not show up until man is well into evolution [if god was to have created man]. If what I am reading and inferring you’re your post is correct, you are saying man was not here until god created him. (again ok) Except…

What evidence of God's existence before the times of homo sapiens do you expect to find, before man made the first artifacts and documents (at least those that were found so far)?

Do you think that there would be some Paleozoic stones, written in English with the message "God was here"?!

2. Reading your sentence with the parenthesis in place (in the sense of homo sapiens), leads me to believe you agree that there are fossil records of .. uh.. man-like animals(?) but man really wasn’t created until god made him. Does this mean that god made things like us but kept practicing?

This is screwed, sorry, but it is.
Do you agree with what the theory of evolution says?

You seemed appalled at this post…I’m sorry that you feel that way. I know for you science people it is hard to answer what I am looking for, not only because I am not phrasing things correctly but that you are all so hell bent on thinking a certain way.

1. You will always find what you are looking for, as long as you know exactly what it is that you are looking for, and if you believe that you can find it.

2. Everybody is "so hell bent on thinking a certain way", including you.

Time to get out of the box.

Look who's talking.

The whole purpose of this thread (as I have said many times) is to get people’s ideas. It is not about scientific fact or even theological fact or theory…just what about people believe and feel.

In that case, we can have no discussion whatsoever -- then this thread is to be like a box, filled with papers on which each person wrote their *opinion*.

I see many people around the religion section here talking about they believe this or that but when it comes down to it it is always about what they have been taught by others.

There really is no other way. If you're savy enough, have seen enough films, read enough books etc. etc. you could eventually say that we are all quoting quotes, and you find find the source "reference". Nobody holds ownership over ideas. If my favourite colour is pink -- it's not like I have really invented this preference, is it? You could say that I copied it from someone who also likes pink, who copied it from someone who also liked pink and so ad nauseaum. Duh.

I obviously need work on my question asking approach (and I am learning), because I am very slowly getting the feedback that I asked for…with others assuming I am asking or inferring things I am not.

People always make inferences, it's the way language and communication work. There is no 1:1 relationship between reality and the words we have used to tell about this reality.

Yes, and you ought to work on your question asking approach.

Possibly, but I did not ask you or anyone else in here this question.

I addressed this question as it fits to the topic.

I asked a minister who apparently was not as offended as you are and he was able to answer me without batting an eye, and I was satisfied with that answer.

Huh. I am not offended. Stop making stupid insinuations.


He could answer it without resorting to “Because I do.” I guess in the same why I can

answer why I believe what I believe without restorting to the same.
Some people’s first reaction might actually be, “Because that is what I have been told all my life.” Some people need to think for themselves and just because you might be able to, Rosa, not everyone is.

Your point?

Beating down my questions does not make them non-questions simply because you cannot see the merit of it. There is a reason behind it.

Yes. And the reason is a long line of holistic causality, ultimately impossible to verbalize.

I wanted your FEELINGS, not what you have been fed or told by others, not book learned theory…FEELINGS. I understand that this is a “science” forum…and I am asking you to think differently. I think I get a mix of it from you, but it’s not all you that is shining through.

"Feelings" I would bloody show you if we'd meet in person.

And really…if anyone has a reason for believing anything and the answer is simply “cuz”…that’s not good enough.

You ask for my "feelings", and when I answer you have the nerve to say "that's not good enough"?! Sheesh.

Same thing applies in other things…such as….I may ask a person, “Why do you believe in quantum theory?” Now that is not a non-question or an uneducated question from my standpoint.

There is a phenomenological difference between believing in God and believing in a certain scientific theory.

Do you believe in it just because you were told or do you believe in it because you have a personal investment in it and find that it makes rational sense to you? And if so, why does it make rational sense to you.

What do you *want* me to say? That I believe in God because ... that truck that hit me didn't kill me even though it very well could? No. Because I didn't fall off the cliffs even though I was just about to? No.
If one wants to answer *your* questions one must think like one of Pavlov's dogs -- and I don't think that way.

I’m disappointed in you response actually. I expected more.

Your problem!
You asked for feelings, for opinions, and now you're disappointed because you expected more?! And you are, like, God? Whew.

I think god would be disappointed if the only reason you believed in him was, “just cuz”.

And you have a direct line to God, and you know what he thinks, huh?

If he exists I would think that he would want you to have a personal reason…if not, what the hell is free will for? Don’t you think he would want you to have a desire and reason for following him or do you think he just wants worshipers that blindly worship for no other reason than….’cuz.

You anthropomorphize terribly, and at the same time do as if you weren't anthropomorphizing.

Once more, I am not trying to argue any type of point in this thread. This thread is for information only. I don’t want to argue any point. I just want to know what people personally believe. Why is this so fucking hard for you people? I have no motives other than to know people’s true feelings of the subject.

It is not hard; it is just that you come back and fucking say that "just because" is not fucking good enough *for you*. You want *opinions*, yet you go and *evaluate* them.

Make up your mind: Do you want to merely collect opinions, or do you want a discussion?

 

[MagiAwen]

Jenyar

Which god would be disappointed? Why would he want us to have an agenda, if believing in him was as natural as believing in anyone or anything else? If you mean why do we have faith in a particular God or gods, that's a different question.

A god.
I don’t know if it would/would not want you to have an agenda, but at least that answers whether or not you believe he does. Thank you.
No I do not mean that, or I might have asked that.

How do you know when God "showed up"?

I meant showed up in man’s history. I thought that was implied but apparently it was not.

Are you talking about religion, spirituality, or what?

Whichever as it applies to you. I was inquiring of people’s inner feelings about the questions.

MarcAC

"YOUR" thoughts was seemingly forgotten by most posters because they're all posting theories developed by other persons.

Yes it has been for the most part.

This thread should be completely blank save for unheard of hypotheses. A Trick Thread.

It was not indended for unheard of hypotheses. It was intended for personal thoughts and feelings. But it is turning out to seem like a trick thread because it seems that everyone wants to argue and I could care less about arguing.

Rosa

So? Are they a threat to you? Or do you simply dislike them?

Uhhh… no, I just wanted to be able to understand their feelings and ideas on the subject. I do not dislike and am not threatened by anyone.

[This a forced and hasty generalization!
You are basically arguing like someone who says that a room does not exist until he enters it. It is empircism taken to absurd extremes: If you don't see it, it isn't there. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence![/quote]

I am assuming you are seeing what isn’t there because I am not arguing with you or coming to any conclusions. I picked your sentence apart because it says two different things to me and I do not think I fully understood your thought.

Apparently I misunderstand your words as much as you misunderstand mine.

What evidence of God's existence before the times of homo sapiens do you expect to find, before man made the first artifacts and documents (at least those that were found so far)?

Do you think that there would be some Paleozoic stones, written in English with the message "God was here"?!

You crack me up Rosa. I am not expecting to find evidence. I was…but of course not much anymore, expecting people’s feelings about it, how they still held onto their beliefs because of it. Some people have been able to understand that and have posted without a problem. I have found out the general consensus of what people feel and think about it is the much the same as mine, yours, and everyone else’s.

This is screwed, sorry, but it is.
Do you agree with what the theory of evolution says?

LMAO. I think I will follow your example and not answer the question. I was asking for your clarification of your personal thoughts/feelings, not argue creation.

1. You will always find what you are looking for, as long as you know exactly what it is that you are looking for, and if you believe that you can find it.

2. Everybody is "so hell bent on thinking a certain way", including you.

1. Good statement.
2. Since you find it so difficult to answer the original post, and considering what you have posted, I’m positive you have no idea the way I am thinking no matter how many times I say it.

In that case, we can have no discussion whatsoever -- then this thread is to be like a box, filled with papers on which each person wrote their *opinion*.

Oh, now you see what I mean after all that? But of course if I ask a question about someone’s thoughts/feelings/opinions I’m arguing? Nay, I’m just asking questions so I can understand.

Huh. I am not offended. Stop making stupid insinuations.

You called it a non-question. It looked to me that you were offended by the question since you continued to discuss it as if I had asked you the question.

You anthropomorphize terribly, and at the same time do as if you weren't anthropomorphizing .

It is not hard; it is just that you come back and fucking say that "just because" is not fucking good enough *for you*.

I had asked in my post for people not to do that so I could actually get an answer.

You want *opinions*, yet you go and *evaluate* them.

No, I don’t want to evaluate them, I want to understand them. But as long as people think that is what I am doing, I’ll never understand some of you. Although it is curious why some people that have posted I understand perfectly and others when I ask for clarification or say, this is what that statement says to me, is that correct? They go batshit.

I want to collect opinions, but I want to make sure I understand those opinions. So I might ask a question…and apparently this is wrong.

 

[exsto_human]

people are ignorant