The Creation of Man

[Zoomerz]

Re: The Creation of Man

I beg to differ. A lot depends on what definition of the Absolute you hold. If this is the existence, as I may suggest, there is no question at all, and everything is the manifestation.

Hi Dmitri; First of all, I've purposely tried NOT to define "the Absolute" as you call it. I understand your purpose is to find a basis for everything, but, I'm more inclined to distill "the Absolute" from the sum of it's parts, than vice versa. The reason is obvious. If you start with an absolute "premise", and your premise is wrong, the house falls down, without foundation. If, on the other hand, you try to understand the foundation (or absolute) from the nature of it's parts, you have a better chance of defining the foundation in the end. (MHO).

As for everything being the manifestation, I would agree with that. What is, is. However, if you re-read my context, I spoke of a "direct manifestation", and my meaning was that man was not DIRECTLY created by God, or a "direct manifestation". Of course, indirectly, if God did create the little grey men, then, of course, man is certainly a part of his creation. But none of this rhetoric even attempts to prove or disprove God's existence.

It may also be that we are eternal not only in us, but as is, as all movements of all particles in the Universe are at each given moment. I like the Buddhist concept that nothing comes and nothing goes in the Absolute. Although it may feel a nice expectation to have eternity after the d..th as something better, we may already own it by being here and now. This may not address specifics of our purpose well, but rather be a matter-of-fact description of the world.

Trying to portray man as just another component of universal matter is certainly contrary to Christian doctrine. Further, "eternity after death" is a manufactured destiny by orthodox Christianity (the post-Constantine era). Gnostic Christians definitely believed in reincarnation, which would be more consistent with "universal energy" principles. As for a purpose, I wouldn't even attempt to go there at this point in my knowledge. "Insufficient data"!! heh....

Anyway, thanks for your insights.

Z-

 

[Dmitri]

Re: The Creation of Man

A Webster?s dictionary defines the word ?believe? as ?to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so.? May I suggest that to believe in such defined way is the same as to be biased? Brainwashing can make for a lot of people of some uniform beliefs, some of whom may be ready to fight for their beliefs, and now things can get aggressive and politically manipulative. For this matter, I do not completely trust any authority, a person or a text, be it the most holly words or a Nobel Prize winner. I am not particularly against religions; I just like to keep a distance. About the Absolute, I would say, I think it exists, because a much more reasonable explanation of the world and existence itself should follow. When it comes to morality, anyone civilized knows what's what. As to details, why should people fight over rituals, names, words, or anything at all?

 

[Cubby]

Re: The Creation of Man

I'd imagine that our role in the universe is like any atomic structures role in a body. "insignificantly significant".. each individual component never makes up the whole being when isolated even though it's an important aspect of that being, and all beings in the immediate scope of their awareness can only fathom thier current position. No matter how many "Wholes" we can define here and ultimately the eradication of this entire atom we call Earth would be like a needle prick on some being's skin.

See a world in a grain of sand?

Of course, how could this be proved? We only have every neuron, proton and electron held in an atomic atmosphere, holding together molecular atmosphere, holding compounds of linked structures that share like traits(around the sun we go, the moon around us)
No matter how minutely we describe it, or macro-involved. Science is an art of isolation and religion an act of unification(each have their political twists and turns and ego-trippers and even those who denied a truth for "the greater good").
Either way, we're a blip in time to the universe and many of our "regrowing" cells are a blip to us... They're bloody important though in large groups as far as we can tell though which is probably why religion is so intent on community involvement.. We're not serving much purpose but our own otherwise and that's a virus' job... just look at our enviroment and the rule of corporation and the market over individuality, constitution will recognize a wealthy business and it's expensive lawyers rather than those in the right. Almost naturally establishing a pecking order in our great competition to be the best in something, usually money or ways to attain money or fame or other material/ego games which can be fleetingly gratifying and semi-progressive, non-progressive or reverse and go back on human capabilities all together.

 

[StarLord]

Re: The Creation of Man

Our 'role' here is very simple. First to gain Experience, try to keep from repeating the same mistake over and over again, Learning. From that we gain Knowledge. While working with that Knowledge we have gained we acquire Wisdom. After a few million Incarnations on the Wheel Of Life, hopefully our Comon Sense is up and running so that when we are accosted by things like the concept of Sin and Death, we inwardly know that those concepts are false and not for us, so we keep searching for that which resembles what we inwardly know as truth.

I seriously doubt that anyone here considers ET as God. While ET may have had a hand in manipulating our ancestors DNA, due to a 'request' from a higher power, that hardly makes them a God. Just a simple messenger with an important task to perform.

While the 'church' may have been instrumental in some fashion of realinging us towards a more 'positive' path, it also failed miserably in helping mankind to become aware of not only himself but of the gifts that all of us were born with.

Waiting for 'the pie in the sky, by and by' sure makes a great concept for a song, but as a way to become closer to Spirit and our own real nature falls about a few thousand miles short of the finish line. Being a good 'anything' in hopes of salvation after your life is much the same as waiting on the corner for the person you just paid to return with your merchandise. A huh. they'll be right back....

There has ALWAYS been a means to experience the 'hereafter' Before we check out. There have ALWAYS been teachers and inner Masters or Guides
to instruct us in that arena. Just because something is NOT in a particular book most certainly has nothing to do with it's actuality and reality.

 

[Dmitri]

Re: The Creation of Man

I agree. I think, first, we have eternity here and now already in our possession by being part of the Absolute, and we do not have to wait till we die and possibly see something better, although we may. Second, we cannot presume we are the greatest and ultimate in the Universe, because we do not look like that, and there are plenty of other stars, planets and also physical time curves around us, with very probable life and intelligence out there. Not that there are only the Sun and Earth and us (or one of us) and one species of plant to feed on.

And we sure question everything, as questioning is in our nature, partly because we know little and what we know is incorrect, to some or other extent. I do not approve of any books that leave no room for doubt; this is why I keep a distance from religions, without rejecting them completely though. And most of all, I hate Darwinism. It has been proved wrong by quite a few big scientists, - mathematicians, statisticians, biophysicists, biologists ? e.g., F. Hoyle, W. Dembski, L. Spetner, M. Behe, F. Crick, and others, whom Darwin should not have thought of rivaling in either their knowledge or reasoning capacity (or not marrying one?s own sister for that matter, since you are supposed to know better as an evolutionist). Not to mention that Darwin simply did not have descent biological knowledge to base a theory on, say something enen close to knowledge of a college kid now, besides Darwinism itself, of course. Yet it persist, persists, persists. I think we need to stop it as best as we can, without giving way to religious fundamentalists though. It is anti-scientific. It hampers our economy, particularly drug discovery big business and so our health, especially health of cancer patients; it waists hundreds of millions of our dollars annually on disoriented research; it discredits science, it distracts minds of a lot of people, it gives a false perception that we know who we are. This is serious.

 

[Zoomerz]

Re: The Creation of Man

Dmitri;

And breeds hatred from perceived difference, and cultivates death. More people have died over religious difference than any other cause.

p.s. Nice post Star

Z-

 

[Dmitri]

Re: The Creation of Man

And Darwinism is a religion. It is based on circularity: natural selection is its god, and Darwin is its prophet. There are several apostils--developers to the worse, most died recently though. The biggest active one, genuinely blunt-witted, Dawkins is still out there in Cambridge. The beliefs exist despite plethora of the evidence to the contrary. They do not allow for any arguments to the contrary; they do not listen to any arguments, all is based on a firm assumption (although felt like a conclusion) that this is right and even scientifically proven. It is worse than any other religions: nazi?s ideology was based on it; yet people forget quickly, partly thinking ?a good god could be put to a wrong use?. It is worse than other religions also because it found its ways to be taught at schools. It poisons minds and harms humanity. Let?s get it out of schools, colleges, and out of science; and let?s get it over with soon.

 

[Dmitri]

Re: The Creation of Man

I do not mean to cultivate death, heh. Let them all live a long and happy life, all idiots and those who are held unaware included.

 

[Zoomerz]

Re: The Creation of Man

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Dmitri\")</div>

I do not mean to cultivate death, heh. ?Let them all live a long and happy life, all idiots and those who are held unaware included.[/b]

LOL, I know you didn't mean it that way. I added that little bit for spice, mostly as an attack on religious fundamentalism....And I agree wholeheartedly that Darwinism could easily be considered a religion of sorts.

Z-

 

[StarLord]

Re: The Creation of Man

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Zoomerz\")</div>

Dmitri;

And breeds hatred from perceived difference, and cultivates death. More people have died over religious difference than any other cause.

p.s. Nice post Star

Z-[/b]

Thanks Zoomerz.. Right you are there. You know, if folks would stop to think, they would find that it's not the message they have a problem with but the Messenger. Quetzalquatl, Pythagoras (mystery schools) Sidartha Guttama/Buddah, Mohammad, Jesus and way beyond those into the mist of time.

The message has pretty much been the same, albeit in different ways. Yet if one took the time to peruse the information in each path, striking similarities underly each and every path. A means to spiritual liberation, there has always been a Superior Being, when we are done here we go on to a higher place, there are proper ways to behave with our fellow man, there are ways not to behave, etc........

Some of those paths teach/have taught about spritual liberation During our life time, while others have been changed from their origional intent to make their adherents wait until they pass from this realm.

You may note that most of the blood shed has been over who's prophet / messenger is the right one. Remember growing up, "My Dad is Bigger Than Your Dad!"....? Funny how some things never change. If one approaches religion like viewing a wagon wheel, many spokes lead to the same center.
No spiritual path has a patent on salvation. It is utterly naive to take the stance that only one's path offers the salvation that Soul requires on it's journey home. It is utterly naive to elevate a messenger to the status of the supreme being.

We are ALL Soul. Those messengers whom since time immemorial have chosen to come here and uplift the consciousness of the time are no greater than any of us. They are simply farther along the path. That, in essence is the only difference. To hold fast to the assumption that one single messenger is the only way or means to salvation is to practice black magic upon one's self. It's just as absurd to consider that we are the only thinking life form in the Universe.