Evolution of God - Page 2

Islam says Allah is the only God.
Jews say their God is the only one.
Christians say God is the only God and Christ is His Son.

Who is right? All are in my opinion. The earliest religions where Shamanic in nature, this is simple logic, as early pre-civilization man lived intimately with his surroundings, and can be seen in the earliest surviving cave paintings, at Leaox (sp?) France. As well as in the oldest surviving belief system on the planet, found with the Australian aboriginals. Over time, these evolved into the human forms we see today, as humans began to gather in larger groups for mutual survival and civilizations evolved, and man edged further away from the intimate relations we once shared with Nature, the Egyptian deities are a perfect example of this transition.

Quite simply, all of our individual Gods and Goddesses where created by us, an example of the focused will of many people over a long period of time. No one can deny the Power of prayer after all, there are simply to many examples of the prayers affecting change in peoples lives, the 'miraculous' recovery of a patient a team of doctors thought beyond help for example. Now imagine the massed prayers of entire civilizations over long periods of time.

quote:

---

Islam says Allah is the only God.
Jews say their God is the only one.
Christians say God is the only God and Christ is His Son.

---

Perhaps there is only one GOD, only many & various preceptions of His Being? the first couple of sweat lodges I attended were something of a battle within myself as a christian.

quote:

---

One in particular was with a couple of ministers, I asked before hand 'how did they justify their actions . . . they reply 'look to myself'. which I took to mean I was on my own.

---

Christianity had given me a lot but the question of spirit was largely ignored. So I had to suspend my own belief (prejudgements) & enter into it. I found that it wasn't about religion, it was about 'spirituality'. Isn't this the true root of shamanism, helping to heal shattered souls?

So much of Paganism like Gnosticism has been lost. Both were pretty much open door, allowing any belief to begin with, that is probebly why these beliefs are very popular with new age.

Hindusim believed about the same but used different words. They believe in one Brahman and many Gods under Brahman. You could say they believe in one God and many angles under that one God and call it the Catholic Church.

All religion would pretty much be the same if we all spoke the same language. In all religions you would have your fanitics who would crucify science and your moderites who would try to save it.

Hinduism believes in One GOD - oh yes! Actually we believe that there is one supreme god and that other gods are LIVING BEINGS who exist at a level much higher than our own.
Also we believe that God exists throughtout nature and can manifest himself in any living form.

Apart from VISHNU, all other gods in Hinduism are reffered to as "adi devs" which literally translates as "demi-gods". The word "dev" or "devta" actually means DEITY and this words is often confused with god, but - it doesn't imply god hood.
In hinduism all the "adi-devs" or demi-gods are MORTAL!

They take AMRIT (DIVINE AMBROSIA), from this they have obtained their immortality, but they still age (only very very very very very slowly!). In Hinduism the demi-gods are given "respect" but anyone who worships them as the actual supreme god is considered wrong and misguided - this sort of misguidance exists in all religions.

"...misguidance exists in all religions."

Given that I just woke up and am not overly religious, to hear such detailed conversations about something no one has ever had any experience with past books, churches, tradition, and gossip is quite amusing, and maybe a little disturbing.

I mean no offense, but sometimes you just see the silliness in everything.

A non believer would take it as silly - no offense taken.

I think it very interesting how so many religions are so much the same, and maybe are the same, with just a different look and background.

When I started my study of religion, that is one of the things that amazed me was the sameness found on all corners of the earth from various time frames. One wonders, why do we not all belong to same church? But for every same thing there are hundreds of differences that keep us apart. To the point where Protestants and Catholics kill eachother, Christian, Jew and Arabs, kill eachother. And ofcourse you even have Arabs killing Arabs.

Lets not leave out the nonbelievers. Under the soviet union went to war on all believers.

This brings me to evil, which I admit, I have very little understanding of. A force that few will even acknowledge. I do not believe that this force is either male or female, nor do I believe that God is either male or female. Male and Female are physical traits not found in the spiritual world.

When we think of God comforting us, we think of mother. When we think of God punishing those who hurt us, we think of father.

Niether are true, its just how we see it.

"to hear such detailed conversations about something no one has ever had any experience with past books, churches, tradition, and gossip is quite amusing" - WHAT DO YOU MEAN NO ONE - I HAVE STUDIED HOLY BOOKS AND HAVE MUCH EXPERIENCE WITH TRADITION - IM NOT SOME CYNICAL, RUDE AND CRITICAL INDIVIDUAL WHO FOLLOWS SOME PATHETIC NEUTRAL PATH IN LIFE - I KNOW WHAT PATH I FOLLOW.

No wonder you always worry about offending, you are easily offended.

" I HAVE STUDIED HOLY BOOKS AND HAVE MUCH EXPERIENCE WITH TRADITION"

Which is exactly what I said. This is the only knowledge people have of their "gods" they put so much effort, argument, and apparently emotional oversensitivity.

"IM NOT SOME CYNICAL, RUDE AND CRITICAL INDIVIDUAL"

Uh huh, because that was polite of you, correct?

"WHO FOLLOWS SOME PATHETIC NEUTRAL PATH IN LIFE"

Are you making assumptions about me? That would be silly of you.

"I KNOW WHAT PATH I FOLLOW."

"Wisest is she who knows she does not know"

What you know is the teachings of others, of which you can't even know who did or said what for certain, let alone if what they say is in any way true.

And as for a path, if you are referring to being nice to people or not being a vicious person and feel you need to be told to do so or follow the writings, stories, beliefs of others than thats your choice and thats fine. If you need that than I would hope you do it.

And if you are arguing that you know anything claimed in any relgion as fact to be such without doubt, than I will gladly ask how and probably argue that you are wrong, and if you are offended by that, than perhaps a debate forum is not for you.

The Great Mysterious, Wakan Tankan
The Four Directions or Winds
The Tale goes that the four brothers (winds) are given the task of setting forth into the world & establishing their directions upon the world.

quote:

---

Once the 1st direction is defined then the other direction are established.

---

The eldest son chose the direction of the longest shadows but the 2nd was the first to establish his direction, the rising sun in the East. The 3rd established his direction opposite his elder brother to the West and the 4th brother established his direction to the South opposite the eldest brother.

quote:

---

Native conceptions are based on points & circles such that by observing one may come to know the by the passing of shadows

---

As the eldest established in the land of the long shadows, his direction establishes time & the seasons as well as the directions upon the earth.

quote:

---

Their system of order is a binary form, Great Mysterious exist in the center of all things which establishes all things (their direction) and each level is a subdivision by dividing in two, thus all things are a manifest of the One and all things that exist are connected.

---

quote:

---

"...misguidance exists in all religions."

Given that I just woke up and am not overly religious, to hear such detailed conversations about something no one has ever had any experience with past books, churches, tradition, and gossip is quite amusing, and maybe a little disturbing.

I mean no offense, but sometimes you just see the silliness in everything.

---

Granted - you just woke up. I must admit I don't know what you find silly or disturbing. I know you well enough to have known not to be offended. But I'm not sure you explained yourself very well.

Most proclaimed "left" individuals do not believe in God or in God the same as a believer. I can understand silly from your point of view. But a discussion about how all religions are the same, how is that disturbing.

Granted, I don't have a masters degree, and I don't have a Bachelors degree. I don't even have an associates degree.

Like most people here, I've read a few things and heard a few things. Even Enstein didn't know for sure - nobody does. We hope - what we hope for we believe, and it is counted for us as faith.

"Most proclaimed "left" individuals"

Uh, I'm not proclaimed left, if this is due to my name here I've tried to explain that... My name is Portwood, I was in the Navy, Port means left, they called me that at one time, nothing political.

"But a discussion about how all religions are the same, how is that disturbing."

Because they tend to act as if they aren't, and then fight over it. Yes, some recognize, but often still become defensive over something they can't be sure of, I see defensiveness on issues of faith to be a display of a lacking of faith or an uncertain or weak faith.

Again that is not to be offensive, I speak in a clinical fashion on matters of psychology, and this usually deals with people's insecurities, including my own.

Which is probably the biggest thing people misunderstand about anything I have to say especially in a personal sense, is that it includes me, what you can't be sure of, neither can I.

Is it safe to say that there is at least the chance in there being a difference between "Fact" and "Faith"? I would say so.

And what I can say about how many people react to any form of challenge or question about their faith or "knowledge" (information they have faith in) is that they react like an insecure, dependant, and addicted person facing exposer of denial of their true beliefs. That they know they do not know, but choose to have faith in, because they want to. Which in no way makes its true or right for certain, just your choice.

There is a difference between understanding something to be a symbolic representation or explanation, chosen preferrence, a possibility or likelyhood, or a factual reality.

I like that distinction clarified, and in the debate and conversations on the issues of faith and belief in religion and knowledge, people often make claims they can't substantiate, contradict themselves or their basic logic, and just as often get sensitive when having it pointed out or questioned.

If we had a good answer we wouldn't get upset, when we don't know or we feel threatened, we react defensively, and we ALL do it, even me.

Im not afraid of being offensive to other people, i always apologise as i know my views may not nessesarily be accepted by others, that doesnt mean that you ridicule people LEFTWOOD, live and let live - thats all, everyone is entitled to their opinion, that doesnt mean you simply make amusment out of it, its not about being offended, its about being open minded and respecting others beliefs whether you follow them or not.
= quote "to hear such detailed conversations about something no one has ever had any experience with past books, churches, tradition, and gossip is "quite amusing", and maybe a little disturbing"

WHAT EXACTLY DO YOU FIND QUITE AMUSING OR DISTURBING LEFTWOOD? - OTHERS PEOPLES BELIEFS, YOU THINK THATS DISTURBING? - LOL (by the way im not offended by you and a think a debate forum is very much suited to me - lol - thankyou).

People like you are something that VERY MUCH AMUSES ME as you always seem to be looking for cracks in peoples ideals (regardless of what you think buddy this is what I PERCIEVE) - PLEASE DO TELL ME IF OTHERWISE. i respect peoples belief and im not "afraid" if they are offended as we are only humans and humans often missunderstand each other.

You are agnostic - right?

"An agnostic thinks it impossible to know the truth in matters such as God and the future life with which Christianity and other religions are concerned. Or, if not impossible, at least impossible at the present time".
= http://www.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/humftp/E-text/Russell/agnostic.htm

You keep an open mind about belief systems and dont believe that anything written (holy books e.t.c.) can be proven to be ABSOLUTLY GENUINE RIGHT -your belief is higly sensible and i respect it and agree with it! - whether you believe me or not! lol

But i follow that which i follow not because i dont know any better but because ive studied it and accepted its overall message regardless of whether it is genuinely of some divine origin, people often believe in something becuase what is writen is highly useful in life, religion in my opinion is guidance and if the guidance provided helps us become better humans with a better (good) mind and a better (kinder) heart than is my opinion that validity of that system of belief is irrelivent.

quote -
"And what I can say about how many people react to any form of challenge or question about their faith or "knowledge" (information they have faith in) is that they react like an insecure, dependant, and addicted person facing exposer of denial of their true beliefs".
- THIS OFTEN IS TRUE BUT MY REACTION TO A SO CALLED "CHALLENGE" (WHAT IS THIS GLADIATORS! = LOL) IS NOT OFFENCE OR INSECURITY ITS A DISSAPOINTMENT DUE TO THE LACK OF OPEN MINDEDNESS IN THE OTHER PERSON- THATS HOW I FEEL.

quote = "And as for a path, if you are referring to being nice to people or not being a vicious person and feel you need to be told to do so or follow the writings, stories, beliefs of others than thats your choice and thats fine. If you need that than I would hope you do it". FOR THE FIRST TIME LEFTWOOD YOU HAVE ACTUALLY ATTEMPTED TO TRY AND UNDERSTAND HOW I FEEL ABOUT MY FAITH - THANKYOU!!!

But if you keep going around saying things like you are "disturbed" and find things "silly" then you really are making yourself look narrow minded and well - pathetic.

quote
"Wisest is she who knows she does not know"

is say "wisest is she who knows the path she follows but not its destination"

We have the intelligence to "choose" what we want to believe in, what we "know" ourselves to believe in, but what the outcome of the journey is - no one knows - its one of the greatest mysteries of life, what is important in my opinion is that we follow the path we choose well and know it well, regarless of its validity as i said earlier.

YOUR AN INTELLIGENT PERSON PLEASE DONT MAKE IT SEEM OTHERWISE - BLESS YOU.

"WHAT EXACTLY DO YOU FIND QUITE AMUSING OR DISTURBING LEFTWOOD? - OTHERS PEOPLES BELIEFS, YOU THINK THATS DISTURBING? - LOL"

Not everyone's for that would be silly of me.

But yes actually, people's beliefs, for people's actions are based on their beliefs, and should their beliefs be wrong or misguided then so might their actions. And when people "believe" in a system that promotes any form of intolerance or egocentric (or whatever word best suits, religion) ethnocentric or other such centric notions they often promote notions other than those that I agree with.

Again, there is a difference between those who blindly follow, and regardless of whether you do, far too many do. And I have issue with that. If they are blind and accept they don't know and simply promote the possitive, I respect that as well. Its those who get nasty about it that are usually most stuck in denial of what they can and can't know.

"you always seem to be looking for cracks in peoples ideals"

Actually, any time I hear someone say they "know" something, I cringe, and therefore probe and question.

""CHALLENGE" (WHAT IS THIS GLADIATORS! = LOL)"

hehe, no, challenge is a word that applies when using the term belief or know. Because anything to the contrary challenges a belief or established knowledge or fact. But definitely some react as though it were gladiators to be sure.

"religion in my opinion is guidance and if the guidance provided helps us become better humans with a better (good) mind and a better (kinder) heart than is my opinion that validity of that system of belief is irrelivent."

Unfortunately too many don't share that, though I would venture to think that those who are honest with themselves do, its more a problem with those who feel they must be right and must prove it over all others. Those who feel that what they believe must be the word of God etc. or its not worth. Because they lose the point of religion in our agreed opinions.

"is my opinion that validity of that system of belief is irrelivent."

Yes, but most religious followers don't share this opinion. And thats the problem. And thats why the validity issue becomes relevant because so many make claims of validity and then claim to have access to the only truth which can only be found in their specific belief or religion.

"But if you keep going around saying things like you are "disturbed" and find things "silly" then you really are making yourself look narrow minded and well - pathetic."

Only if one doesn't know what I'm saying or where I'm coming from, or if people are judgemental. And I would say that if someone claims a "belief" as factual knowledge, then they are being pathetic, and their actions as consequence are often disturbing, and so when I hear of such types of beliefs, I may become disturbed. I referred to the debate on religion as a whole which includes these people regardless of whether you are one.

Simplified: Whats silly is the similarity wrapped in claims of distinction and uniqueness, whats disturbing is the extent people have gone throughout history to defend this notion.

"We have the intelligence to "choose" what we want to believe in"

A definition of the word belief is to accept as truth. And accepting something as truth regardless of whether it is, is irresponsible, whereas treating it as a possibility or probability is not, and defending it as factual truth to the death against proposed ideas and even evidence to the contrary is, however, disturbing.

And though many claim to believe in a certain belief or belief system, my experience with the faithful has shown me that people tend to accept the possitive of a given religion as a preferrence or hope of what is, but I'm not too familiar with any religion being formed of ALL good and happiness. And between that and the very real part of society that demands loyalty, they get caught between the reality of what they truly believe, which is they don't know what is just what they want things to be, but get caught between that and the notion that they have to believe something specific, or else they may end up in hell for "believing" the wrong thing.

Regardless of yours or my sensible approach, we can't forget that some "believe" that if you don't believe what they believe, then you are going to suffer eternally and that their belief system includes pushing this "salvation" belief on others. To the point where they even threaten children with eternal damnation, and that is a very accurate description for how some approach enforcing their belief.

I guess this is the difference between a personal and passive belief as opposed to an aggressive demanding belief "system". Which some "believe" in.

"YOUR AN INTELLIGENT PERSON PLEASE DONT MAKE IT SEEM OTHERWISE - BLESS YOU."

I'm human, it will seem otherwise regardless, emotion is not always sensible, be it my expressed emotion, another's interpretation of it, or their own emotional reaction to me or in genereal, I will seem otherwise as everyone else will as well.

quote:

---

"An agnostic thinks it impossible to know the truth in matters such as God and the future life with which Christianity and other religions are concerned. Or, if not impossible, at least impossible at the present time".
= http://www.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/humftp/E-text/Russell/agnostic.h
tm

---

Is that what an agnostic is - thanks.

Leftwood - it was the name - Navy huh - Me too, but I guess you knew that.

This is between you and Rajpal - looks like you worked a lot out.

I think if both of you would have met me when I was 26, I don't think either one of you would have liked me. I think it was around that time I voted for Reagon - but he wasn't as bad as Bush.

People do change.

"People do change."

What brought such drastic change for you? I'm of independant political persuasion.

"An agnostic thinks it impossible..."

Then that is not me, I can't claim such a thing, that would be silly.