There's nothing about man's behavior which suggests he evolved like the rest of the creatures which, is my whole point. Why is man so superior, and yet so stupid in the way he manages things? Doesn't it actually belie the nature of the fall, from another realm perhaps?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Is that what the need is? To affirm a non-terrestrial origin for humanity? Or rather for man [sic]?


I don't know much---ah,let's be honest, I know zilch about Swedenborg. I know a lot of people put a lot of stake in what he said. But everytime something perks my interest, statements like these shut my interest down fast.

In the biblical tradition, which I know well, the fall was not a fall from some non-terrestrial realm or demigod status.

It was due precisely to the human attempt to overreach itself, to seek to become like gods. It was in fact the refusal to be simply human, as we were created to be, and to be content with our earthly home which was given to us to be our habitation, and with our earthly role, which was to care for the earth and its creatures.

Scientifically, everything about human behaviour suggests we evolved from the matrix of our primate ancestry. Our tool-making capacity, our social organization, our emotional life all have their counterpart in the primate world. And it may be that only the physical structure of their larynx prevented the advent of true speech among our nearest relatives. A few gorillas and chimpanzees have been taught American sign language and learned to communicate in this fashion. It is clear that they are capable of concept formation and original, not merely imitative, use of language. IQ tests have placed their intelligence in the 75-90 range. Well below average for humans, but not completely out of the ball park either.

If I say any more I will go on a rant, so I will close here. If you want to hear the rant--ask. I'm champing at the bit.

Stop and consider this: The earth may not be Mother Nature's prized possession. The earth may be just one of literally millions of planets where God's life/sentience experiments are taking place throughout the universe. Earth is at the optimum distance from our sun. We have the proper proportions of water, minerals and elements to support life. Everything is in delicate balance and surely has been designed that way to produce optimum results. Our particular experiment has been given a cosmic deadline of 10 billion years. That's how long it will take for our sun to burn up all of it's hydrogen before starting in on the helium it's been creating. When it starts burning it's helium, it will become a red giant and the sun's diameter will stretch out beyond the orbit of Mars, ending this little experiment.

We've already used up half of our 10 billion years. Thousands of other things could happen to destroy the entire earth before the sun inevitably does. Millions of other things could disrupt our environment and destroy what sentience we have here without actually destroying the whole planet. Tens of millions of things could happen that would delay our intellectual developement without actually destroying sentience, making it impossible to gain the knowledge that gluadys so eloquently talks about.

Given that there are billions of other galaxies out there, with a billion billion stars and googles of planets, I'm sure it would be safe to say that there are at least a million other planets in the exact same position from their suns as earth, with the exact same elemental ratios, with sentient life flourishing on them as we speak. If I were an all-knowing God who was interested in cultivating the perfect sentience without simply waving my omnipotent hand and creating it, and I had the universe to work with, I'd NEVER put all my eggs in one basket.

gluadys, will you rant, please? Please?

As far as evolutionary theory is concerned, I have no problems with it in terms of the natural world. However I do have a soul, and there's nothing about it which speaks to me about this. So, if you wish to romanticize about this whole evolutionary business that's your thing but, it doesn't tell us anything about why we're here.

However, it does refer to the kingdom of heaven which, is all about the hereafter (more so in the New Testament).

Yes, and the saga of human suffering continues.

Of course if we understood we were transplants, then these things must also be here in order to insure compatibility with our environment. Do you believe that God exists? If so, then why shouldn't everything evolve towards the likeness of what created it? Indeed, what better way to testify to God! Hence there should also come a point when the creation meets its creator, and this would have to be man. If in fact we were created in God's image, as it's clearly stated in the Bible, how much more trouble would it be for God to transplant us here?

No doubt. However, it sounds like Phi for All is all raring to go.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Iacchus, you have written quite a lot on this little site...but thus far, not a single thing which makes your claim ("I do have a soul") anything more than a bare assertion.

On the other hand, you have demonstrated very well your ignorance of evolutionary theory (ah, but when called on it, you back off and say it is ok "in terms of the natural world"--as if much more had been proven, not merely asserted). To the best of my knowledge, you have not admitted a mistake anywhere on this forum (I would be glad--no, overjoyed--to be proven wrong); at one point, your rebuttal to an argument is, and I quote, "meow". (no, I have not replied on that thread; you really, really would not like my answer.)

Please, try to salvage some respectability: Your original statement, "There's nothing about man's behavior which suggests he evolved like the rest of the creatures which, is my whole point", made no mention whatsoever about being limited to the natural world. Please, just admit that this statement is just plain wrong. Don't dance around it, don't equivocate, and don't meow. The only problem with being wrong is not learning from being corrected.

No, I abide by my second to the last statement in the post above. I also go further into detail about this in the second chapter of my book if you care to take a look. Also, the idea where I refer to the 22 chapters in Revelation and then draw the number 23 is not fully developed (at this point) so if you can get past that you might actually glean something from what I'm trying to say. I also might suggest you read it in accord with chapter 1 and chapter 3, as the first three chapters basically support each other.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

LOL! Evolution is a scientific theory and like all of science is strictly about the natural world. So if you have no problems with it in terms of the natural world you should have no problems with it, period.

I assume your real problem is with the fact that humanity is part of the natural world, right?


It most decidely is not "all about the hereafter". It is about a great many other more important things. It happens to deal with the hereafter as well. But it is no excuse to become so heavenly-minded we end up being of no earthly good, as the saying goes.


Are you talking an alien origin for humanity? There is some evidence that the building blocks of life exist extra-terrestrially, and could have contributed to the development of life on earth. But that was long ago and does not apply to the subsequent diversification of life into various species, including the human species.

Why do you find it so repulsive to be a terrestrial creature?



Yes. I am a Christian.




Ah, the light dawns. You want evolution to be Platonic instead of Darwinian. But that would be to take evolution out of science and into philosophy. I am afraid that biological evolution is very Darwinian. The point is not to approach the perfection of ideal Platonic forms but to adapt to the immediate natural environment. And because species do better at surviving if they reduce competition by adapting to a variety of different environments, no way can they all be going toward the same overall goal. They are better advantaged if they become attuned to their special niches. That is why there are so many different species.


What better way? How about this? To display the full richness of the being of God through the myriad differences of each individual species, each a unique testimony to its creator and each a glory in its own place without seeking any other than the one it was created for.


So you think the aim of evolution should be to turn all creatures into humans and thence into God? Well, you are speaking of a totally different concept than biological evolution then. And one that is at odds with all we know of biological evolution.

And a totally different religious concept than Christianity as well.

gluadys, once again I am impressed by your writing. I am also reminded (it is to my shame that I need to be reminded) that the vast majority of Christians have absolutely no problems whatsoever with Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. I know that, I know that I know that, and yet, for some reason, around this forum I keep forgetting.

Are you saying you don't believe in the spiritual world, and that man is endowed with a spirit (soul) and this is where he returns when he dies?

My problem? I just don't see the need to glorify that which doesn't need to be glorified.

Oh, it most decidedly is all about the hereafter for the vast majority of people who are already there.

Yes, and haven't you heard that God is not the God of the dead, but of the living? ~ Matthew 22:31-32

No, I'm talking about the Garden of Eden or, some higher spiritual plane.

I don't find it so repulsive in as much as I feel like I'm stuck between two worlds, and the world we're living in is like The Matrix.

A very worn out term ...

Man is either a fallen creature or he isn't, and that's the whole point of this thread.

We are all of the body of God.

If God and the Universe are one, then it stands to reason that everything should aspire to be like that which created it, because they're very much one and the same.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Doesn't everything on this planet in effect worship the sun? In other words, would evolution have occurred without it? So in that respect the sun becomes the one constant in the equation, and indeed is that which is most like God (the Father). Whereas the earth (the Mother) in accord with evolution, portrays the life which evolves and reaches (like plants) towards that which created it.

So, did anyone get a chance to read the thread, The Sun in Heaven?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

That is partially correct. I affirm a spiritual aspect of existence. I do not believe it is a separate world which is our "true home". I do not believe in a human soul which is separate from a human person and travels into and out of the human realm.

These are neo-Platonic ideas which were to a significant extent absorbed by the early church, even though in many ways they are incompatible with Hebraic theology and encourage a negative attitude to God's creation which is quite contrary to sound Christian theology.

The Hebraic point of view is that the soul is a union of body and spirit or the life of the body (Gen 2:7 "and man became a living soul") Thomas Aquinas, following the lead of Aristotle, saw the soul as the form of the body---and unlike Plato, Aristotle denied that forms had a reality apart from the material of the body.

The Judaeo-Christian perspective also sees the kingdom of God as including all of creation. Paul speaks of the whole creation anticipating its release from the futility of bondage and decay. Biblically the new world is always seen as a new earth as well as a new heaven, as including body as well as spirit. This is most clearly seen in Revelation 21 where the new Jerusalem descends "as a bride" to earth.

In short, in complete contrast to neo-Platonism, the biblical vision is not one of restoring a wandering human soul to its true home in some non-earthly realm, but of bringing the kingdom of heaven to earth and incorporating the whole earthly, material order into the realm of God's reign.

Within this vision, from humanity's beginning to its eternal destiny, the earth is always the habitation of humankind. We are made of earth (adam from adamah), we belong to earth, we are the children of earth as much as we are children of God and even in eternity, earth IS our true home.

And which of the marvellous works of God are not to be glorifed to the praise of God? The Psalmist, speaking of our bodies, says we are "fearfully and wonderfully made". Is the Psalmist wrong? The bible and the Qur'an (and would I knew other scriptures better) are filled with pages and pages detailing the wonders of creation, the better to fill us with awe at the wisdom and power and glory of God.


In its plain, literal sense, the garden of Eden is just a garden, not some higher spiritual plane. But, of course, it can be given many mystical meanings.

However, I still do not comprehend why one should view humanity as a transplant from anywhere.


A very Platonic view. It was once said of Plotinus, the founder and leader of the neo-Platonic school that he lived "as though he was ashamed to have a body." The idea of the body as a prison of the soul is central to Platonic philosophy and has its counterpart as well in Hinduism where salvation is seen as release from samsara, the wheel of birth, death and rebirth to which we are bound as long as we maintain ego-attachments to this world.

These have been called "world-denying" beliefs. By contrast the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic tradition with its emphasis on the goodness of the material creation is seen as a "world-affirming" belief. And from within that belief I would prescribe study of the natural world as an antidote to its "Matrix"-like feeling. I stress "natural world". Being too immersed in the impersonality of modern secular urban culture is a soul-destroying experience.

But Plato and the Israelite prophets had very different notions of what it means to be fallen. Plato sees it in terms of ontology--we have fallen from our true nature into an inferior nature which has trapped us.

The prophets see it in terms of morality---we have fallen out of our true relationship to God through our sinful rebellion against our Creator.

To Plato, to be fallen, means that we are no longer divine and we must strive to re-cover our divinity.

To the prophets, to be fallen, means that we strive illegitimately to become divine and so cut ourselves off from our Creator and God. And we depend on God's grace and forgiveness to restore us to our true human place within the Creation.

btw: a must-read book Ishmael by Daniel Quinn. (Not Christian propaganda. Not an overtly religious or mystical book at all. Just the wisdom of a gorilla.)

That is the classical perspective of pantheism. I am more attracted to its variant: panentheism, as it sees the being of the universe and the being of God as containing each other rather than identified with each other.

I have also been intrigued with the thinking of John Polkinghorne on this. He sees panentheism as being the future rather than the current state of the universe-deity relationship. If you have never read him, I highly recommend his books: Faith of a Physicist and Belief in God in a Scientific Age.

But if God and the Universe are one, then God is not the Creator of the Universe.

Emphasis added.

The title of this thread is "Evolution vs. Creationism". But it is evident that neither evolution nor creationism is the subject you are speaking about.

You have apparently connected the biological theory of evolution with your Platonic understanding of human destiny.

But as far as I can see they have practically nothing in common. Nor, as far as I know does your philosophy bear any resemblance to the aberrant form of Christian thinking known as creationism.


However, once you understand that biological evolution is not connected in any way with Platonic thought, there is nothing inherently incompatible in the two ways of thinking. Darwinian evolution would still have its place in a Platonic cosmos.

gluadys,

If you're trying to tell me that heaven and hell doesn't exist then I've got news for you. Did you read my posts on Ruling Love and A Vision of Marital Love?

No, the title of this category is "Evolution vs Creationism" which, I've described as follows ...

So the part I'm dealing with here -- which, is really my whole intent behind starting this forum -- is in what way are these two theories compatible? In other words there must be truths on both sides of the fence, and in no way is it possible for it to be one way or the other.

Well I hate to post and run here but, at least I think I've highlighted our main differences. Will try and get back to the rest of your post when times permits, Okay?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

This is so typical for you Iacchus. A question out of the blue that has absolutely no apparent relation to what you quoted from my post. You are jumping to wild conclusions without rhyme or reason. At least I don't see any relationship. How do my comments on the difference between Platonism and the theory of evolution relate to an alleged denial of the existence of heaven and hell?

On your recommendation I glanced at them. But they are not your composition I take it? They seem to be cut and paste from a translation of Swedenborg's writings.

No disrespect intended to mystics, but I don't respond well to mystical writing. Too esoteric for my taste, and highly undisciplined.

Consider this sentence in the Rule of Love post:

"It has been shown above that both heaven and hell are composed of societies, and that they are all distinguished according to differences of love."

It has been shown......???? No it hasn't. It has been asserted. Not shown at all. On what basis does Swedenborg, or anyone, claim to know the societal structure of heaven? On what basis does he claim to know that humans at death turn into angels (good or bad)?

And why should I believe him rather than say, Joseph Smith or Sai Baba or L. Ron Hubbard or anyone else claiming a special revelation?


correction noted. This thread is about an alleged flaw in the theory of evolution.


The first thing you need to do is either use words with their common meanings or explain the meaning you wish to give to them. I assumed that "evolution" referred to the scientific theory of common descent with modification by the mechanism of natural selection. But it appears that it means something quite different to you.

I understand creationism to refer to the theory that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old and that the early chapters in Genesis 1-11 are an actual account of literal history. This is a peculiar belief held by an ultra-conservative sect of Christianity. It happens to appeal to many American Christians. It is also starting to show up among certain fundamentalist Islamic sects.

Creationism is a pseudo-scientific notion that is not to be confused with the doctrine of creation. The latter is a theological position held by all theists.

Now I have no idea what you mean by creationism. I am not sure from your posts if you are a Christian or hold the Christian scriptures in any sort of reverence. You seem to be something of a Platonic gnostic. So I don't know why you would defend creationism.


Based on the common meanings I have given above, evolution and creationism are not compatible. Evolution dates the origin of life no more recently than 3 billion years ago. Creationism denies the existence of the earth any earlier than 10,000 years ago. Evolution posits a genetic relationship between every species on earth. Creationism insists there is no genetic relationship between what they term "kinds" and especialy no genetic relationship between humans and other animals.

But since you have a completely different understanding of evolution and may have a very different understanding of creationism, I cannot say whether or not they are compatible in your frame of reference.

Yes, and one of these days we might get past all these words and see it for what it really is. That's what the mysticism is all about.

And at the end of the day, when all is said and done, all this knowledge won't do us a damn bit of good. Do you know why? Knowledge is not wisdom! ... Albeit those who claim to be knowledgable seem to be wise in their own eyes. Oh well ...

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Yes, and what was that old addage ... "Those who say, 'don't know,' and those who don't say, 'know?'" Meow ...

By the way, did you know a cat has three names? These are the three degrees of knowledge, the third degree being that which is only truly wise. Meow ...

__________________
Hey, did you know that a cat has three names? ... 1) The name that his master calls him ... 2) His scientific name and ... 3) The name that nobody knows but the cat himself? Meow ...

In other words you don't believe in an afterlife. So what's the point of being saved, if not from this earthly existence and, to conquer death, as you referred to in another thread.

So let me get this straight, Plato believed in the hierarchy of heaven and hell that ruled over the earth, right? And, that each of us were endowed with immortal souls? If so, then Plato was right on!

So, has anybody acutally witnessed the new Jerusalem or, anything else for that matter, descending from God in the physical sense?

Did you know that there's a world of spirits which exists directly between heaven and hell, that coincides most with the natural world? And, that a worldly church exists there in that sense as well? That in effect this whole thing with the book of Revelation was conducted there?

If this were the case, it would coincide perfectly well with the theory of evolution. However, it does very little to bridge the gap between science and religion. Escpecially if it dispenses with the notion of an immortal soul.

I think perhaps you're placing too much emphasis on the glory of God here. Which kind of strikes an accord with fanaticism. Now that isn't to say the Universe is not a testament to God, because it is, but neither does it mean He has to sign His name all over everything does it? If so, it suggests all He wants from us is our lip service, and I really don't think that's part of the plan. I think what He wants is for us to come to know and appreciate Him from the standpoint of being our own unique beings ... even if that means turning our backs to Him from time to time. In other words how could you come to know, if not first from the standpoint of not knowing?

This is all contingent on whether you believe you have a soul or not, and if there is an afterlife. Did you get a chance to my post in this thread? (third post).

Are you saying God cannot be the author of his own being? If not God, then who? Was there something prior to God? Or, is God the primal cause? Otherwise you have the problem of infinite regression, which is to say, something came out of nothing. Which makes more sense to you?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

And yet what may seem out of the blue to you has been my line of reasoning all along. Which, I'm only trying to bring to your attention.

Mysticism speaks only of the mystery which has yet to be solved ... for those who are uninitiated that is.

Sure it has, it has been to shown to Swedenborg and to all those who dwell in heaven. Did you get a chance to read Swedenborg's Biography?

Do I expect you to accept everything I say hook, line and sinker? Absolutely not.

Nope, I accept the theory of evolution whole hearteldy, except for the noted exception, the origin of man.

The only problem I have with Creationism (hey, at least it acknowledges God) is that it takes things which were meant to be allegorical as literal ... with respect to the age of the earth that is.

Where did you come up with the notion of 10,000 years? You didn't get a chance to read Chapter 2 of my book did you?

It's funny how one or two things which might seem insignificant (to some) can make a big difference.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

ok. See new thread "Gender, Science and the Dark Side of Dualism"

If I were in school, I would attempt a thoroughly researched thesis on this. But for now, you get my top-of-the-head totally unreferenced (but not unreferenceable) analysis of why dualism is a dangerous philosophical concept.

Now that I agree with!!!