All sciences, knowledge, arts, wonders, institutions, discoveries and enterprises come from the exercised intelligence of the rational soul.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is Christianity support?
- Thread starter Godobeyer
- Start date
All sciences, knowledge, arts, wonders, institutions, discoveries and enterprises come from the exercised intelligence of the rational soul.
I watched the video.
You sure the person that made that video is not a Baha'i because he used a word that is not often used but Baha'is use it sometimes namely shibboleths.
"It constitutes a challenge, at once bold and universal, to outworn shibboleths of national creeds—"
And almost every word for word of that video,was taken out of a Baha'i book. I'd say that if the person is not a Baha'i then he has been strongly influence by the Baha'i teachings as these concepts were first pioneered by Baha'u'llah.
Even some of the words are taken from this passage regarding the unification of humanity.
"It represents the consummation of human evolution—an evolution that has had its earliest beginnings in the birth of family life, its subsequent development in the achievement of tribal solidarity, leading in turn to the constitution of the city-state, and expanding later into the institution of independent and sovereign nations."
Here's the link below to the text it lifted all its ideas from, written in the 1950's. If this is what is inside your head then you and I are united already because what you are saying is you believe in the Baha'i ideals.
http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/se/WOB/wob-56.html
Last edited:
Hello brothers and sisters
EDITED
I met today a Christian he said :" God could have created Adam (pbuh) and the other creatures using evolution."
I am not deny God created univers by steps,"6 days" but I am mention to creatures , and especially Adam(pbuh) and Eve (pbuh)
Then what is Bible said about creation of creatures ? does Bible support creation of creatures or support evolution of creatures ?
Simply put, not all Christians take the origin of man story, as literal. Some take it as an allegory or metaphor.
I think it's cool how you discuss these things with people you meet...I need to do that more often.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
The soul has no connection to the mind.
it is our connection to God.
it is our connection to God.
That way of stating it sets religion against science when that religion's adherents refuse to accept that the evidence from science shows their prophet was wrong, saying such things as "science has been wrong before and we believe one day it will confirm the prophet was right when it's currently saying he was wrong". That my friend, is not harmonizing science and religion. It's placing faith above and against science.
Now, as far as prophets predicting scientific truths, ages before science established them, well, let me be frank here. 99.9% of the time this "prediction" is an interpretive sleight of hand. Typically in everything I've seen it's usually and after-the-fact interpretation of their words that "sounds like" what we see today and the words are made to fit the end result, magically making it an accurate prediction. The reality is its reading back into the text a current understanding, looking with colored glasses on that colorizes the past with a contemporary meaning, such as saying the Biblical verse that "He stands upon the circle of the earth", shows a prescience, scientific knowledge of the spherical earth! I see that again and again, applied to Moses, to Jesus, to Muhammad, to whoever the believer wants to believe had "magical" knowledge, thereby validating their "prophethood", as if Magical Knowledge was the measure of that.
Here's the thing about Divine Knowledge. It has nothing to do with knowing the lottery ticket numbers in advance. It has nothing to do with knowing facts of science 3000 years before modern science did. It has nothing to do with being able to pull bunnies out of hats. It has nothing to do with magic tricks. It has nothing to do with being infallible and inerrant. To reduce it to these things makes a trivialization of Divine Revelation to a dog and pony show at a child's birthday party. That criteria for someone being a "prophet" scares me, as someone with enough desire to believe motivating the person can read anything to make it a "magical predictions", regardless of the rest of what that person has to say. The focus is completely wrong, and what's more completely irrelevant.
Words of Truth, need no magic trick to validate the person speaking them. The words stand or fall on their own. "He that has ears to hear, let him hear". It's not "My words are true, and here, look, a bunny rabbit from this empty hat! Believe me now?" What's that? Why is the bunny rabbit necessary? And furthermore, those who are "wowed" by the magic trick, are they really even hearing the words? If so, why couldn't they stand on their own? It smacks of showmanship trying to outperform your competitors. Tricks are part of sales and marketing, and have nothing to do with actual Divine Knowledge.
For one thing, I've already disproved this. Mercury is a planet, and I guarantee you there can be no life on it. It's too close to the sun. But furthermore, and to the point, to make a statement like this is NOT Divine Revelation. Any science fiction writer might say such things, and probably did by that time. Many times science fiction becomes "science fact". But does this mean Gene Roddenberry was a prophet of God? Some might believe that.
I'll add this as well, I very much predict we will find life on other planets (not everyone of them of course). But this prediction has nothing to do with Divine Revelation. It's an extrapolation based upon observation and a "sense" about the nature of Life itself being prolific throughout the Cosmos. I'm not the only one who feels this way. And when science confirms our strong suspicions, does that then mean we all predicted this through Divine Revelation? Why not? What's the difference?
And what of everyone else who has predicted the day we find life elsewhere, like me? Are we all Divine Prophets because we speculated something that turned out to be true? Do you see what I mean here by sleight of hand interpretations being selectively applied to validate one's prior beliefs? You're not motivated to believe I'm a divine prophet, so that "prediction" of mine will be selectively ignored.
My criticism is not when something has yet to be proven, yet it is currently believed to be true. Rather my critism is when something has be actively disproven, shown to be false, with undeniable evidence showing the falsehood of the claim simply being swept aside and dismissed saying instead, "One day we'll be proved right". That is intellectual dishonesty. It is not something I can respect. It is not harmonizing science and religion.
To quote from that Statement on Evolution article I linked to before,
Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life. In those few instances where predictions can be inferred from Biblical passages (e.g., groups of related organisms, migration of all animals from the resting place of the ark on Mt. Ararat to their present locations, genetic diversity derived from small founder populations, dispersal ability of organisms in direct proportion to their distance from eastern Turkey), creationism has been scientifically falsified.
Scientifically falsified is not at all the same thing as something science has yet to discover. It's already examined the claims and proved why the claim is not valid, nor can every be valid! You cannot ignore this falsification part of science, and claim to embrace it. That is disingenuous and false to say the least.
If you don't want to accept the science in favor of the Prophet of God model of truth and knowledge, that's fine. But you cannot claim to "Harmonize science and religion", while rejecting the facts that science teaching, ignoring and dismissing what it proves to be false. If you were to say, "I believe in the Prophet over science and it doesn't matter what science says because he's always right,", then you are choosing to ignore science, and that may be valid for you to do. But don't then claim to embrace science when you reject it this way.
This statement kind of reminds me of those who say, "I'm not a racist. Some of my best friends are Blacks!", yet their lives completely ignore Black cluture and has very little to no actual understanding of Blacks and what their struggles in a racist society is like. It's a token "equality".
The fact you reject what science has falsified, claiming one day your Prophet will be proved to be right against science which has actively disproven what he is claiming (that humans are not part of the animal kingdom), is simply mouthing respect to science, with absolutely no substance behind the claim. "I love science, but it's just not as enlightened as we are.".
One last comparison to this, "One day, you'll see", approach to ignore what science has already established beyond further debate, it's like Jim Carey in that movie Dumb and Dumber, where the girl he is attracted to rejects his advances to go on a date. He asked, "So what are the chances of a guy like me going out on a date with a girl like you?" She responds, "About one in a million". He pauses, then with a glint of hope in his eye says with excitement, "So.... you're saying I have a chance!!! Yessss!!!".
If Jesus of Nazareth, a man who lived 2000 years ago was able to stand before me today and make statements about the natural world of which he would have had no knowledge of, and had inherited understandings of from the culture of his time than I knew weren't valid, I would in loving embrace correct him. And he, being a humble servant of God, would very likely listen to me. I would hope, otherwise I might become a little disillusioned about him.
I do not believe the Truth of God has anything to do with magical knowledge about physics and evolutionary biology. My respect of Jesus has to do with Eternal Truth, not magical science.
To add a few more thoughts to the last statement I made in my post a few minutes ago. Your question about how I would respond to Jesus making statements about the natural world I knew were scientifically inaccurate is a very provocative and pertinent question! My response reveals a lot about the distinctions of truth I hold, and the contrast of approaches to that that you and I take. I could and probably will spend all day thinking about this. It touches on many points, more than you likely realize. I hope my response also provokes some thought on your part. I'd enjoy focusing on this point with you for a while, if you'd like.
The first missing link ever presented, the Piltdown Man, was bogus and it took nearly forty years to discover this forgery (Howells, 1993). Haeckel (Haeckel, 1984, p. 116) dicussed the Java Man, the finding of the Dutch military physician Eugen Dubois in 1891, as the missing link between apes and humanity. Today many fossil findings are known which allow to trace back human evolution. Putative predecessors of the human species lived about 5 million years ago in Africa (Clark, et al., 1994; Leakey, et al., 1995; Leakey, 1994; Tattersall, 1997; White, et al., 1994; White, et al., 1995; WoldeGabriel, et al., 1994).
A direct link between modern higher primates and homo Sapiens expected by some scientists at the time of `Abdu'l-Bahá's visit in the States, however, was never found. Today it is assumed that homo sapiens and the modern higher primates have a common ancestor, but are not directly linked.
“The lost link of Darwinian theory is itself a proof that man is not an animal. How is it possible to have all the links present and that important link absent? Its absence is an indication that man has never been an animal. It will never be found.”
Excerpt From: Bahá, Abdu’l. “The Promulgation of Universal Peace.” Bahá’í
The missing link is still missing and good luck finding it.
A direct link between modern higher primates and homo Sapiens expected by some scientists at the time of `Abdu'l-Bahá's visit in the States, however, was never found. Today it is assumed that homo sapiens and the modern higher primates have a common ancestor, but are not directly linked.
“The lost link of Darwinian theory is itself a proof that man is not an animal. How is it possible to have all the links present and that important link absent? Its absence is an indication that man has never been an animal. It will never be found.”
Excerpt From: Bahá, Abdu’l. “The Promulgation of Universal Peace.” Bahá’í
The missing link is still missing and good luck finding it.
Oh my. Please read this: http://futurism.com/there-is-no-missing-link-in-evolution/
After that nicely written and reference article brings you up to speed about science, let's come back to talking about what I would say, versus what you would say to Jesus if he told you he believed the sun rotates around the earth.
I already read that link. I came across it today.
Let's recapitulate: Evolution within species is fully accepted. We accept that within their own kingdom there is evolution.
So the broad concept that life evolves is accepted.
How - is the question. We do not believe that there is mutation between kingdoms but that they evolve within their own paradigm.
So the original germ or cell which gave rise to the evolution of the human was already imprinted with a human gene and like the embryo it may have looked like a fish or an animal but it was always, like the embryo, a human seed.
And it was planned not accidental or self creating. Self perpetuating yes, once it received its initial momentum. Evolution unfolded the way it was programmed to.
So you see everything from an atom to a seed or a cell is 'programmed' to perform a certain function. Then there is a Programmer, the greatest Scientist of them all - God. He used evolution to His ends.
I would question every person on earth but never Christ. I would accept as truth whatever He told me because He is not a normal fallible human but possesses infallible knowledge from God.
He cannot err. So whatever He says would be truth or become true once He stated it.
Christ was the son of a carpenter. Now world leaders bow their knee in respect 2,000 years later. Such a Figure I have no doubt about and would accept unquestionably and unhesitatingly His Words.
And you chose to simply ignore or disregard what it had to say because it didn't agree with your religious beliefs?
Which of the six biological kingdoms does the human species belong to?
I believe humans belong to the Animalia kingdom. That's what every scientist alive recognizes. So yes, all species within the animal kingdom, which would include humans, do not cross over into other kingdoms. People will never become plants, other than when they are pushing up daisies, so to speak. But they do evolved to create other species within that kingdom. That's what the science proves to be a scientific fact.
But that it is responsible for the creation of species, including our own as humans is rejected? Then how is it you say you embrace science?
Then you do not embrace science, but reject it. Period.
Again, the only reason I am hammering this with you is because in order for me to "harmonize science and religion", I must embrace and accept what science teaches. If you are asking me to simply ignore and disregard the evidence in favor of faith, I cannot. To do that for me would be a matter of both intellectual suicide and negatively affect my spiritual health as a result of such denialism. I've gone that path before and had to reject the so-called "authority" of those who claimed the truth of God who rejected human knowledge, either overtly or subtly such as I hear being done in this making up one's own scientific facts to support their religious beliefs.
Am I to consider this scientific? Can you point me to the research that indicates this please? Or is this just simply speculative metaphysics which lacks any corroborating scientific evidence? If this is scientifically true, we should see some indication of this, rather than mountains of evidence to the contrary. Again, let's come back to scientific falsification. That's what this claim is. It's scientifically falsified. Do you just choose to ignore that? And then how is that not a form of intellectual suicide?
No it wasn't. You can't just make up scientific explanations, and not offer support! You are not allowed to do that. I am not allowed to do that. No one is allowed to do that and call it science. Do you accept your claim is not a scientific claim? Do you accept that science not only does not support this, but that it contradicts it with miles and miles of evidences? If you say yes, you recognize that, then we can have a different conversation. But as long as you claim it's scientific truth, it is something I certainly would never be able to accept, nor anyone else who respects and embraces science without scientific proofs backing it up. You cannot make a scientific claim, and not have any science to back it up with. No getting around that.
And do you know what those ends are? Are you familiar with the concept of anthropomorphizing? Can you explain to me what your understanding of what that term means?
I'm going to talk about the question of questioning Jesus in the next post as it bears it own detailed response.
Last edited:
What about your prophet? Would you question him? I thought the Baha'i are taught to question everything, including religious authority. Am I mistaken? Unquestioning belief is a requirement in there?
Oh, but that's not what the Bible teaches. It says he was as human as the rest of us, and rightly so! "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are..." Jesus the man was fallible. Jesus hit his finger with a hammer and bled, he got angry, he made mistakes, and so forth. The Bible teaches he grew. The only way humans grow is to learn through a series of errors and corrections. Jesus became who is was because he had to learn it, just like the rest of us.
What set's a Jesus apart from others is multiple things. But first and central to that is a deep spiritual core, or rather to say a deep opening to that spiritual core in himself, to God, to the Kingdom of God. "God was with him", is a way to say he "walked with God", or was in touch very clearly and openly to the Divine. He of course was not the only one ever to have this, but spiritually realized individuals throughout history, and today have and do. What makes him stand out in no small way is really simple "timing". One of the proverbs says, "A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in vessels of silver." And that's really the case in the matter of a Jesus at a time of political, social, and culture climate where such Wisdom could take hold and grow, like a mustard seed. Such things are known as movements, which sweep through a culture and society, evolving that environment from within, transforming it into an image of this Idea which took hold of people and moved them forward. This than becomes a religion, defining the culture, and the rest is literally history.
But back to the spiritual Core of Jesus. It's the same Core in you and me. It is the Eternal. The Infinite. The Divine. To know that, is to know the Mind of God. To bask within that is to transform your own mind and everything thing else in your life, including your own thoughts and ideas. But in no way does this mean being infallible intellectually! That is a different type of knowledge. There is Knowledge, with a capital K which is Knowledge of the Eternal itself. And then there is knowledged with a lowercase k, with is constructed models of human knowledge of relativistic perceptions of reality.
To claim that a Jesus would magically understood our scientific knowledge of today is the pure imagination of a mythological creation. Now, more importantly than that is this. That Jesus would not know this does not in anyway need to diminish his Knowledge of the Divine! When one comes to a Knowledge of God, one doesn't not magically acquire all technical data available about math and history and science and philosophy! It just simply does not work that way, and it does not need to work that way!
What worries me about the approach to the "Divine Prophet" that you are holding to is that you do not allow for them to "not know" something! You halt any knowledge that goes beyond them. You stop learning, closing yourself off to anything that challenges understanding. To me, Jesus, if he was as spiritually Awake as I believe, would be happy if we actually outgrew his own understanding! Now that, is the sign of a True Teacher. A true teacher marvels and revels in his students surpassing even his own understandings! That to me is my image of a true Prophet, and true Teacher.
There is a big difference between sinning and making errors of mistaken ideas and beliefs. Do you understand the difference?
Nope. The fact that we can be like him, means it has nothing to do with being infallible and inerrant. Being like Jesus, means what made Jesus Christ, was not being without error academically, scientifically, socially, factually, and so forth. That's a notion of Jesus that makes him an impossible teacher to follow or to try to be in ourselves. It "kicks Jesus upstairs", puts him out of reach of any of us, as Alan Watts famously put it. That's not a Prophet of God, but a fiction of our childlike fantasies of supernatural superheroes, who are "not like us", unlike Jesus who was just like us. It's impossible to become a Superman hero in reality. It's not impossible to be all that Jesus was. In fact Christians are called to be that.
I wouldn't. I respect him too much not to question him if I feel he is in error.
Last edited:
This is our beliefs on the infallibility of Christ, Baha'u'llah and the other Prophets. Their Voice is the Voice of God. Whatever they say is what God has spoken.
"Whatsoever They say is the utterance of God, and whatsoever They do is a righteous deed, and to no believer is given the right to object; rather must he show forth absolute submission in this regard, for the Manifestation of God acts with consummate wisdom, and human minds may be incapable of grasping the hidden wisdom of certain matters. Therefore, whatsoever the universal Manifestation of God says and does is the very essence of wisdom and conformable to reality.”
. “Some Answered Questions.”
"Whatsoever They say is the utterance of God, and whatsoever They do is a righteous deed, and to no believer is given the right to object; rather must he show forth absolute submission in this regard, for the Manifestation of God acts with consummate wisdom, and human minds may be incapable of grasping the hidden wisdom of certain matters. Therefore, whatsoever the universal Manifestation of God says and does is the very essence of wisdom and conformable to reality.”
. “Some Answered Questions.”
You're defining man as an anatomical animal body.
We define him as a human being with completeness, with reason, intellect and spirituality so we're speaking of two different things here.
To us we know the human kingdom and the human being.
It's a case of how one defines the term 'man'.
The link provided was just the same in defining the material body not the human being.
We define him as a human being with completeness, with reason, intellect and spirituality so we're speaking of two different things here.
To us we know the human kingdom and the human being.
It's a case of how one defines the term 'man'.
The link provided was just the same in defining the material body not the human being.
Windwalker how do you understand this?
“For Bahá’ís, the science of evolution is accepted, but the conclusion that humanity is merely an accidental branch of the animal kingdom—with all its attendant social implications—is not.”
Excerpt From: Bahá, Abdu’l. “Some Answered Questions.” Bahá’í
“For Bahá’ís, the science of evolution is accepted, but the conclusion that humanity is merely an accidental branch of the animal kingdom—with all its attendant social implications—is not.”
Excerpt From: Bahá, Abdu’l. “Some Answered Questions.” Bahá’í
No I certainly am not. I have said otherwise on numerous occasions. We are more than just our animal instincts. We have evolved higher mind and act on more than just instinct impulses. We are artists and scientists and dreamers. I have gone into that defining how our species is a much more highly evolved animal species. But what I am utterly clearly about is, yet once again, biologically, we are part of the animal kingdom. That is a scientific fact that you are in denial of. Spiritually, cogntively, and so forth, I recognize we are unique and not just confined to our biology, which is in fact animal. Our "humanness" is what includes all these other things such as spiritual, imagination, and so forth. Our being "homo sapien" is our biological animal species. Is that clearer now?
I realize I type a lot of words and perhaps you just simply skim over most of them, but I have been clear about this on several occasions. I don't like have to repeat things more than a few times when I believe I've been very clear about them. Here's a great quote from Plotinus I think captures what I am saying here. "Mankind is poised midway between the gods and the beasts." We are midway because we come forth from the beasts while our spirits climb to the heavens. Get it now?
If I say "homo sapien" will you then admit that biologically, scientifically speaking our biology is part of the animal kingdom and agree with science? From what you've said previously, you seem to deny that too. Am I wrong?
This is not scientific, but philosophical. Is that how you claim to "harmonize science and religion", but redefining what science is?
Again, you need to be honest here. There is no way I could tell myself I'm harmonizing science and religion when I have to cut out the parts I don't like, or live holding out promissory notes saying "one day they'll confirm the prophet is right". That's living in denial to me, and that hurts me spiritually.
Fine. Then I won't say "man" or "human" if I am talking about our biology that is part of the animal kingdom. I will refer to our bodies, to our biological species as "homo sapien", and I will refer to our spiritual natures as our "humanness". Is that satisfactory to you? Does that agree with the prophet for you to accept?
When I have been talking in this context about "human beings", I have tried to be as abundantly clear as possibly. "Biological species". I am and have been talking about our bodies, which scientifically speaking is in fact, 100%, no debate, facts are in, part of the animal kingdom. I have not talking about the "philosophical human". When it comes to the philosophical human, or rather the "metaphorical human", I agree with you! But you don't seem to agree with science in denying we are biologically speaking part of the animal kingdom as "homo sapien". That is where my insistence you are in error is targeted on. Not this other stuff. You seem to be saying in every post you deny that we biologically speaking are in fact animals, and that is NOT harmonizing science and religion. It's denying science fact.
Why can't the body be animal and the soul divine? What is so hard for you to accept about this? Why the anxiety on your part? Does it threaten your belief in the infallibility of the prophet and put your faith at risk? Personally, I believe that is exactly the issue. Science creates a crisis of faith for you because you believe the prophet can't be wrong about science, so it leads to this type of denialism.
I on the other hand, actually do harmonize science and religion by accepting what they each teach and harmonize the revelations of faith with the revelations of science, showing how it all manifests God. I seem to be doing what the Baha'i' promise to do, but then resort to denying and redefining the science when it doesn't agree with them. One should in fact test the teachings to see if they hold up to what it claims. Faith needs to remain open and flexible, not rigid and closed. Evolution is a bottom up unfolding realization, not a top-down dictation. Faith needs to be allowed to evolve, just like the whole of God's Creation itself.
Last edited:
Such a conclusion, that we are "merely an accidental branch of the animal kingdom—with all its attendant social implications," is NOT a conclusion of science! It's a conclusion of Philosophical Materialism, which is NOT science. I too reject Philosophical Materialism. Do not confuse that with science. Do not deny and reject that, by falsely attempting to deny the science it uses.
Am I possibly clearer to you now?
So then I am correct. It is based upon "unquestioning belief" where you are not allowed to challenge, question, or otherwise disagree with the teachings. I had this impression from somewhere that the Baha'i' encouraged all those things, that they encouraged independent investigation. I must have been mistaken. Thanks for clarifying.
That approach would never work for me because as I said earlier this morning, faith needs to be allowed to evolve like the whole of God's Creation. Faith needs to be part of the natural order of things. I serve God through my evolving faith.
Thinking more about this whole "unquestioning belief" approach to things. In a certain approach this works when you are dealing with children who simply need to obey their parents because they are not capable of mature thought yet. (Apply the same to the newly converted in a religion who are "children", not capable yet of understanding deeper matters of faith). When little Billy at 4 years old is told he can't do something, when he responds "Why!?", chances are probably high that question is really more about challenging authority, not about a genuine inquiry of the reasons behind the "rule". It's only that when Billy becomes a young man that he has the necessary prerequisite understanding and maturity that he can examine the rationale behind the rules, and to apply them dynamically as opposed to statically in black and white boxes of truths.
A young, immature person, or believer in the faith, needs simple, clearly defined static rules and "truths" to follow that are not too confusing for him at that stage of development. That's necessary and positive for him at that developmental stage. It teaches the basics about rules and boundaries. But if that's all he ever got in life, "unquestioning belief", how is he expected to ever mature? How does he ever hope to discover truth on his own and learn to internalize things?
Being a good obedient little soldier is not the true goal of being a true "human being", IMO. If the height of being human was to shut your mouth and shut your mind and just believe, then I think that's a very different idea of spirituality than I have. If the goal is to mature and become a teacher of Wisdom yourself, to "let your light so shine before the world," then that is a religion I would follow. But that is not accomplished by "unquestioning belief". That just gets you in the door, and only for a short time until you mature beyond that, I would hope.
I have a saying I live by. It is better to call Jesus brother than to call him Lord.
A young, immature person, or believer in the faith, needs simple, clearly defined static rules and "truths" to follow that are not too confusing for him at that stage of development. That's necessary and positive for him at that developmental stage. It teaches the basics about rules and boundaries. But if that's all he ever got in life, "unquestioning belief", how is he expected to ever mature? How does he ever hope to discover truth on his own and learn to internalize things?
Being a good obedient little soldier is not the true goal of being a true "human being", IMO. If the height of being human was to shut your mouth and shut your mind and just believe, then I think that's a very different idea of spirituality than I have. If the goal is to mature and become a teacher of Wisdom yourself, to "let your light so shine before the world," then that is a religion I would follow. But that is not accomplished by "unquestioning belief". That just gets you in the door, and only for a short time until you mature beyond that, I would hope.
I have a saying I live by. It is better to call Jesus brother than to call him Lord.
Last edited:
Yes clearer. How do you understand God's role in evolution if any?
My understanding is you say man is a higher primate? Yes or no?
That he evolved from the lower kingdoms yes or no?
Is a part of the animal kingdom and is not an independent species yes or no
That his evolution was not planned or directed but just happened naturally biologically. Yes or no
These are your views as I am understanding. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
The body animal and the soul divine you said. .......... is this a scientific view if not what part does biology play in this comment? I.e. are our souls part of our biology?
Is our soul also evolved from the animal?
How is the soul born?
Do animals or primates have identical souls to us?
I do read your posts but the lines seem blurred for me here's why. You say 'biologically'. So do we get our reason and intellect and abstract thought from our biology? Are we what we are scientifically, religiously, economically, emotionally, socially all our aspects because or due to our biology and animal instinct? In saying that we are is a higher primate then you are saying that our advancements are all due to our being biologically higher right? Yes or no.
Does everything we are come from us biologically?
I'm looking for common ground here. I'm trying to understand not reject anything. Harmony between science and religion will require efforts from both to try and understand that each are different aspects of one truth not in competition.
Where there is doubt, sometimes we must pass no verdict but learn from each other to help guide each other.
We both can't fly without each other.
Last edited: