What do you believe the Kingdom of God actually is, incidentally?

Actually I don't think we are too far different here.

The Kingdom of God is the sphere of God's dominion over all that belong to him. For now this rule is spiritual and manifested in the hearts of the believers. In the future it will be a literal earthly kingdom.

I think the definition you gave from Paul...Rom 14:17 is good.

The Kingdom in answer to the Phariblinds (my name for them) would come quietly and invisibly without fanfare that is associated with the arrival of a King. Christ was inaugurating a time that would bring the Kingdom rule to people's hearts thru Faith and not as was expected.

If not for the Jewish unbelief the earthly expected Messianic Kingdom would have been set up and established.

Because of Israel's rejection the kingdom still has not come and is yet future. God is today ruling thru the hearts of those who believe in Him.

But one day there will be a massive turning to God by Israel and then they will be restored. Then the Kingdom will come first in the form of the millennial reign of Christ (Rev 20) and then in its eternal form.

If you look at Acts 1:6 just before Jesus left to go back his disciples asked him if he was now going to restore the Kingdom to Israel. He told them it's not for them to know the time. Only God the father knows. So here we see that there will be a literal Kingdom and he did not discourage that hope.

So for now the Kingdom of God is manifested in the hearts of man but will someday be manifested here on the earth where Christ will rule physically. Some are thinking we're getting close.

So for now the Kingdom of God is manifested in the hearts of man but will someday be manifested here on the earth where Christ will rule physically. Some are thinking we're getting close.

This kingdom is but a shadow in the heart--surely not manifested; nor is it clear even among the faithful that Christ will rule physically; it is not in his character to rule, muchless return to this mess.

rather than the intellect and the heart combined. They know all about the world, but they know nothing of God.

Intellect does not preclude aspirations of what could or ought to be.

This kingdom is but a shadow in the heart--surely not manifested; nor is it clear even among the faithful that Christ will rule physically; it is not in his character to rule, muchless return to this mess.

Well first he's gonna clean up this mess before the rule....Rev 19 shows us a glimpse on this.

Not clear among the faithful? Who are the "faithful" who do not believe in this? The prophecies of the OT all point to this fact and was what was expected when he came the first time. The one who was fit to sit on the throne of David.

Psalm 2 is an example: Ask of me and I shall give thee the heathen for your inheritance and the uttermost parts of the earth for your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron you shall dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel. Be wise now therefore O you kings; be instructed you judges of the earth. Compare to Rev 2:27 & 19:15.

Intellect does not preclude aspirations of what could or ought to be.

No, but it can be a stumbling block.

I'm disappointed that Leauki hasn't decided to support his assertion that this isn't "intelligence vs. randomness". I think it is crass when someone insults your intelligence, pretends you are less educated in subject than them, and then just waltzes away when you try and explain your point. I get this a lot when people talk about ID. They don't want to address ID, they want to address creationism, or the creationists that are twisting the concept of ID.

The fact is there were biologists who in the last few decades wanted to explore the idea that maybe this wasn't always random genetic change suiting or not suiting a species. That maybe there were ways that nature itself could steer these geneti variances in a way that beneficial change was more often manufactured. Not AFTER thousands of freak mutations occured, were tested by natural selection and discarded, but designing the changes themselves.

You want to call that the "hand of God", fine. You want to think our alien overseers do it? Fine. You want to consider that "life finds a way" like Jeff Goldblum in Jurrasic Park... that's good too. ID isn't about faith. ID study is about the hypothesis that genetic changes aren't necessarily random change, but that they may occur in a "designed fashion".

The "designer" isn't really any more important to ID than the "creator" is to evolution. People like Leauki just fixate on Christians that want to hijack it, and in so doing help out scientific cronyism that wants to label any new idea that might possibly threaten their status. ATHEIST researchers that want to explore new areas have to combat the Pat Robertson stigma any time they question whether our evolutionary genetic leaps might not be so random.

Fek it, I'm just going to write up something on it I guess. Then instead of fighting like this with people who want to hit-and-run, I can just post a link and thumb my nose...

The fact is there were biologists who in the last few decades wanted to explore the idea that maybe this wasn't always random genetic change suiting or not suiting a species. That maybe there were ways that nature itself could steer these geneti variances in a way that beneficial change was more often manufactured. Not AFTER thousands of freak mutations occured, were tested by natural selection and discarded, but designing the changes themselves. You want to call that the "hand of God", fine. You want to think our alien overseers do it? Fine. You want to consider that "life finds a way" like Jeff Goldblum in Jurrasic Park... that's good too. ID isn't about faith. ID study is about the hypothesis that genetic changes aren't necessarily random change, but that they may occur in a "designed fashion".

Science is now discovering that nature’s evolution is a lot more fluid and organic than the crude ‘brick-yard’ processes that traditional evolutionists first described. Books like ‘The Origins of Order’ by Stuart Kauffman, and ‘The Web of Life’ by Fritjof Capra, describe how nature’s potential for design and complexity is already present in the self-ordering of atomic entities, in the same way that it is present in the self-ordering of crystals, snowflakes etc.

In this sense, I agree with BakerStreet that nature unfolds in a “designed fashion”, and that “nature itself could steer these genetic variances in a way that beneficial change was more often manufactured.” But I don’t believe that there is any need for external intervention, whether it be from God or from aliens, in order for “gaps” to be filled. I believe that in time, appeals to the God of the gaps, and to ID itself, will become obsolete and considered antiquated. But in the meantime it makes for some good discussion and some interesting theories.

Nature’s self-creativity and autonomy actually sits well with the Christian concept of God. The Bible teaches us that “God is love”. It is true that love does not manipulate, control, cling or coerce. Rather, it provides the beloved with opportunities for growth, creativity and freedom.

Freedom is bestowed upon the beloved, in this case Creation, as a necessary act of love. I believe that God chooses to renounce all manipulative control by endowing Creation with self-creativity and autonomy. For God to let the cosmos ‘be’ does not mean a withdrawal. Rather, God’s Spirit underlies Creation, and intimately bonds with its natural processes at a deeper level. The divine Spirit sustains and inspires all cosmic creativity, and intimately participates in the long journey of life. Whilst God permits nature to evolve in a self-creative way, God’s Spirit underlies the whole cosmic process and empowers nature’s unfolding from within.

(The Bible describes God as the Creator and loving Father of all, whose Spirit underlies the whole universe and transcends Creation. God’s Spirit not only exists ‘up there and out there’, but is also the Ground of Being. I believe that this concept deepens our understanding of the Creator’s relationship with Creation. God is the Source and inspirer of all cosmic creativity, in the sense that without His divine sustenance and informing intelligence, nothing could exist, or evolve, at all.)

The element of freedom in Creation could also explain the suffering, pain and tragedy occuring throughout life’s evolution. Due to the risks and vulnerabilities of love’s ‘letting go’, we ought not be surprised to find suffering and tragedy occurring throughout life’s unfolding and growth. (The existence of suffering can be understood and experienced even at the human level of self-giving love.) However, the suffering involved in nature actually enriches Christian faith, because divine suffering is central to Christianity.

In the words of John F. Haught: “In the symbol of the cross, Christian belief discovers a God who participates fully in the world’s struggle and pain. ... Reflection on the Darwinian world can lead us to contemplate more explicitly the mystery of God as it is made manifest in the story of life’s suffering, the epitome of which lies for Christians in the crucifixion of Jesus. ... Christian faith provides us with an image of God that is not only logically consistent with but also fruitfully illuminative of the Darwinian picture of life.”

Christ’s crucifixion clearly demonstrated that love hurts.

(I hope Steven doesn’t mind, as this is his thread, but I need to put a copyright on this as I’ve lifted some of it from my book.) Copyright © 2006 Andrew Baker All rights reserved. January 2, 2006.

This kingdom is but a shadow in the heart--surely not manifested; nor is it clear even among the faithful that Christ will rule physically; it is not in his character to rule, muchless return to this mess.

Not clear among the faithful? Who are the "faithful" who do not believe in this? The prophecies of the OT all point to this fact and was what was expected when he came the first time. The one who was fit to sit on the throne of David.

I’m sure many of the Bible’s great revelations describe spiritual truths and cosmic occurrences that relate to the Heavenly realm. Revelations chapter 19, for example, which you referred to, begins: “I heard what sounded like the roar of a large crowd of people in Heaven ...”

To me, this sets the scene in Heaven. Incidentally, when Pilate asked Jesus “Are you a King?”, Jesus replied, “My Kingdom is not of this world.” (John 18.33-36).

I don’t believe that upon Christ’s second coming, He will stay here and rule physically on earth. Our puny human minds naturally can’t comprehend many of the deep spiritual truths that Christian revelation strives to express. Earthly symbols and worldly expressions are therefore often used in the Bible, particularly in the book of Revelations. Fundamentalists, however, seem to have a habit of interpreting these verses literally.

Genesis and Revelation are the two most attacked books in the bible. One is detailing our beginning and the other our ending.

FKC, you’ve referred to Genesis and Revelations in the same sentence more than once. Most Christians have concluded that Revelations contains mostly metaphorical and allegorical verses. Should we not also conclude the same about Genesis – at least chapters 1 and 2 which document our beginning?

The "designer" isn't really any more important to ID than the "creator" is to evolution

One of the biggest logical problems facing adherents of ID, especially Christians and other theists, is the reality of suffering and tragedy occurring within living systems, and in nature. We've all seen TV documentaries showing how living creatures eat other creatures, or are eaten themselves, in their struggle to survive in the world. But furthermore, some of the biological 'flaws' in living systems are horrendous. If we believe that God is responsible for ID, in the sense of external manipulation, then we must either conclude that God is incompetent, or that He’s a sadist. I think that ID is more suited to people who believe that aliens are involved.

FKC

(sorry KFC, i meant KFC!!)

I don’t believe that upon Christ’s second coming, He will stay here and rule physically on earth

Well then Andy you haven't done your HW.

Jer: 23:5 says: Behold the days come says God that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch and a King shall reign and prosper and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.

Isa 9:6-7: For unto us a child is born unto us a son is given and the government shall be upon his shoulder and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom to order it and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.

Basically saying here that the everlasting rule of Messiah on the throne of David awaits the second coming of Christ. This was written about 700 years before he was even born. We see alot of what you might call symboliic things come true in the OT and in the same way Christians expect the rest to come true in the second coming.

The Angel said to Mary: He shall be great and shall be called the Son of the Highest and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David. And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Luke 1:32-33

This promise is not now being fulfilled simply because the church is not the house of Jacob and Christ is presently at the right hand of God which is never equated with the throne of David.

Fundamentalists, however, seem to have a habit of interpreting these verses literally.

Ya, that's a big problem now isn't it? Think I should stop that?

Most Christians have concluded that Revelations contains mostly metaphorical and allegorical verses

Hmmm how many is most? I don't know any personally that believe as you say. And I know alot of Christians. I do agree that's a belief out there. But only because if you allegorize something you can make it say what you want it to say. There's an agenda behind it. Do you have an agenda that warrents your belief to go in that direction?

So is the bible, allegorical? Is it literal? Yes. It's both. But in this instance it's very clear that He is coming back and HE is going to rule on this earth. It was also very clear in the OT that He would be born and HE would die. It was not symbolic...it was literal. It happened, it's history. Now we're just waiting for the rest of the story to happen. It will.

God said it, That settles it....and it doesn't matter if you or I believe it.

label any new idea that might possibly threaten their status.

As I've said many times before it is not a new idea; it is in the hijacking that has made it seem new.

However, the suffering involved in nature actually enriches Christian faith, because divine suffering is central to Christianity.

Nevertheless, it is arrant justification for sadism. I ask the same question as Ivan in Bros. K asked his brother. "Would you as God go ahead with creation if it meant the suffering of just one child?"

No, but it can be a stumbling block.

Are you denying the benefits of ehhanced thinking in order to make a better world?

However, the suffering involved in nature actually enriches Christian faith, because divine suffering is central to Christianity.

Nevertheless, it is arrant justification for sadism . . . "Would you as God go ahead with creation if it meant the suffering of just one child?"

I believe that a greater good will arise because of the existence of suffering, rather than in spite of it. If we believe in a God who is all-good, all-powerful, and all-knowing, then we can rest assured that the final outcome is already assured – goodness will prevail, and a lot more wisdom will have been garnered in our souls because of the existence of pain and struggle.

When we arrive back in Heaven after death, I'm sure we'll see that if we had never been given the opportunity to experience the negativity of life on earth, then our souls would possess a lot less strength and wisdom. Pain and negativity can be used by the soul to promote growth and strength. I believe that painful experiences on earth turn into positive learning, and good fodder for the soul, at the end of the day, (i.e. in our eternal life in Heaven.)

God’s wisdom is infinite, and I'm sure He knows what He’s doing. I think the following insight from Denis Edwards is great: "God's omnipotence can be understood as God's capacity to enter into love with all its costs. Divine omnipotence is really the divine capacity for love beyond all human comprehension.”

All in all, it is only by eating the fruit of good and evil that we "become like God, knowing good and evil”, and can thus acquire the full scope of wisdom.

Fundamentalists, however, seem to have a habit of interpreting these verses literally.

Ya, that's a big problem now isn't it? Think I should stop that?

I believe that we can afford some healthy breathing space from extreme scriptural fundamentalism, FKC. Bear in mind you're talking to a bloke here who interprets the Garden of Eden in Genesis 2-3 as the Heavenly realm. It makes better sense to me, and it’s also written in the Qur’an, which I believe is also inspired by God. I don’t believe that Christianity holds a monopoly on the Truth. I've learned that when our world religions are merged, we find a better picture of Ultimate Reality. I’m more interested in the deeper, underlying messages of religious revelation.

We all have different points of view, though, and I don't expect other people to agree with me. I think that the key lies in finding peace with our own personal interpretations, and to not let other people’s views cause friction or annoyance. To keep an open mind to other people's views is healthy too.
We must accept that we all interpret the world and our Holy Scriptures through different ‘lenses’. If we can find inner peace, regardless of other people's behaviour or views, then we're on the road to mastery in life, in my view.

God said it, That settles it....and it doesn't matter if you or I believe it.

I agree with you. God said that Adam and Eve were created in Heaven, and I strongly believe it. He said it in the Qu'ran. As I've said before, if you had been born into a loving Muslim household, then I'm sure you'd believe it too. Many fundamentalist Muslims claim that Christians will perish in the Muslim-hell, however, just as many fundamentalist Christians claim that Muslims will perish in the Christian hell. But I think there's room for growth in the fundamentalist mindset.

Intellect does not preclude aspirations of what could or ought to be. No, but it can be a stumbling block.

Are you denying the benefits of ehhanced thinking in order to make a better world?

The intellect can become a stumbling block in the face of "the Infinite", (which, as you said earlier KFC, is really the Holy Spirit). When the intellects demands "proof" of God, then it becomes a stumbling block. But I think we can find a good balance. We can begin to live in a better world when we exercise the speandour of our mind and our heart's capacities. This too will enable us to get along better with our bro's and sisters. We're all God's children, after all

believe that we can afford some healthy breathing space from extreme scriptural fundamentalism, FKC. Bear in mind you're talking to a bloke here who interprets the Garden of Eden in Genesis 2-3 as the Heavenly realm. It makes better sense to me, and it’s also written in the Qur’an, which I believe is also inspired by God. I don’t believe that Christianity holds a monopoly on the Truth. I've learned that when our world religions are merged, we find a better picture of Ultimate Reality. I’m more interested in the deeper, underlying messages of religious revelation.

This is new age stuff Andy. You said you were a Christian. This is foreign speak for a Christian. A Christian follows Christ, not other gods (and there are many). Mohummud is not Jesus. You can't follow both. Islam says Jesus was not God. Jesus said he was God. You have to decide. You can't say they are both right. You just said Christ does not have a monopoly on the truth. What did he say? John 14:6

God said that Adam and Eve were created in Heaven, and I strongly believe

No Adam and Eve were created in the Garden. Not heaven. It was like heaven but it was not. All indicators seem to point to the area of Iraq.

Think about this. Sin was established in the garden. Sin was reconciled in the garden. Christ was buried in a garden tomb. Mary Magdelene was crying when she saw a man and supposed him to be the gardener. The first Adam committed and brought sin to all peoples in a garden and the second Adam released all that will accept him from sin in a garden.

We're all God's children, after all

Are we......all?

Are you denying the benefits of ehhanced thinking in order to make a better world?

Depends on what your definition of enhanced thinking is.

What I was saying in an answer to another comment was that our intellect quite often gets in the way of our coming to God. Those that depend on their own intellect do so to no avail. They cannot save themselves. They do not have all the answers. Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies.

God said he has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise and chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty. David and Goliath come to mind. So does a baby king that came into the world. Defies all logic. But it works. Quite often our intellect blinds us to the reality of what's really important.

Although I have the gift of prophecy and understand all mysteries and all knowledge and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains and have not love I am nothing. 1 Cor 13:2

What I was saying in an answer to another comment was that our intellect quite often gets in the way of our coming to God. Those that depend on their own intellect do so to no avail. They cannot save themselves. They do not have all the answers. Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies.

Though there seems to be dichotomy with faith and reason, Kant claims that faith followed reason. That is, reason observed an otherness, since we cannot be responsible for creating ourselves without knowing what the other is but accepts as rational. Faith translated the What to Who.

BTW, I agree that Andy has been all over the lot.

That is, reason observed an otherness, since we cannot be responsible for creating ourselves without knowing what the other is but accepts as rational. Faith translated the What to Who.

That's right. I don’t think that it ends with faith, however. Intuition also plays a great part. Without intuition, I’m sure that faith alone would be somewhat empty, especially to the intellect. I think that the intuition of one's heart is closely knitted with love. KFC’s quote hit the nail on the head: “I may have all the faith needed to move mountains, but if I have no love, I am (or have) nothing.” (1 Cor 13:2).

I agree that Andy has been all over the lot.

I’m not sure what you mean here? Do you mean that my views have gone all over the shop, or that I’ve covered the lot?

This is new age stuff Andy. You said you were a Christian. This is foreign speak for a Christian.

I think that any form of spiritual insight which goes beyond the small scope of fundamentalism would be described as “new age”, by a fundamentalist. I know that I run the risk of sounding arrogant here, and I suspect that I should really remain silent, (which is probably the wisest option). But I’ve got so much passion for this subject I’m going to share my views anyway.

I personally believe that humanity will eventually grow out of extreme religious fundamentalism, i.e. the view which claims that ‘their’ religion is right, whilst all the other religions are wrong. (I know that you say that it’s not about “religion”, it’s really about God, but I think that part of the narrow-mindedness of fundamentalism is that fundamentalists tend to have a blind-spot to the fact that their “God” which they follow, (i.e. Allah, Jesus, or Braham etc.), primarily depends on which religion they follow, which in turn depends on which household or culture they’re born in. In this sense, 'God' and fundamentalist 'religion' are really the same thing.)

I believe that there is only One God, and that all our world religions are in touch with the same God, only from a different perspective and cultural context. I know you don’t agree with this, KFC, but I’ve seen too much of the ‘other side of the fence’ to conclude otherwise. I used to be a traditional fundamentalist, from the age of about 16-23. I’m now 33, and I’ve learned that there’s a whole wide world beyond the tiny bubble of fundamentalism, which fundies typically turn a blind eye to, (scientific discoveries included).

I’m sure that as humanity’s spiritual awareness rises, which is a natural by-product of humanity’s spiritual growth and evolution, then not only will humanity become more aware of the deep common ground that exists within our world faiths, but we will also become more aware of the small-mindedness and irrationality of extreme religious fundamentalism, (at least in its traditional sense. From a certain point of view I’m certainly a fundie at heart. I believe in the literal divinity of Jesus, the crucifixion and the resurrection; and in a literal interpretation of the tale of Adam and Eve - with a slight twist, as you know. But FKC, as I tried to explain on your other thread The Genesis Account in reply #11, I believe that this interpretation makes better sense of, and enriches the meaning of the classic Christian revelation.)

With this said, I believe that other people are where they need to be, and we shouldn’t judge other people’s point of view. By totally accepting other people’s reality, we express true universal love, which I believe is the nature of God anyway. Very new age, I know, but I think that it’s sufficiently aligned with ‘the Truth’.

I personally believe that humanity will eventually grow out of extreme religious fundamentalism

"humanity" here, I should have said the popular western mind, which is what I was referring to primarily

believe that there is only One God, and that all our world religions are in touch with the same God, only from a different perspective and cultural context

I believe in the literal divinity of Jesus,

Well this is what I'm having trouble with Andy. How do you reconcile these two statements? Jesus said I am God, I am the Truth, There is no other way. How can you say the "other religions" are in touch with the same God when they say Jesus is not the truth, Jesus is not God and Jesus isn't the only way? To me you seem confused.

But I’ve got so much passion for this subject I’m going to share my views anyway.

Passion is a good thing. Lukewarm is the utmost worse thing. I am glad you shared your views. But I do think you have so much passion you're all over the place. It's like putting too much soap in the washing machine....you're coming out in all directions. Not that I'm saying you're all wet, mind you!!!

but I’ve seen too much of the ‘other side of the fence’ to conclude otherwise

So have I. I've been involved in many cults and other religions as well. And I'm a bit older than you...consider me your older sister!!

You have to be so familiar with the truth you can spot the LIE when it pops up. I've been studying the TRUTH for many years and I can confidently say after all this studying and the help of the HS I can spot the lie. Maybe cuz it always bothered me when I was younger that I would be tricked and wouldn't be able to hear the shepherd's voice. I don't like to be deceived.

So keep studying......and don't lose the passion.

that I’ve covered the lot?

Only natural in your persistence in continuing the dialogue that a reader begins to percieve some contradictions. But overall you've been consistent and eloquent.

Passion is a good thing. Lukewarm is the utmost worse thing. I am glad you shared your views. But I do think you have so much passion you're all over the place.

I agree that passion is a good thing. But I don’t think I’m all over the place. It can be difficult to put some things into words, especially when talking about such deep issues. To me, any contradiction or absurdity is due to the limitation of words, as I believe that it's a sound belief. (It's more than a belief to me.) I hope it doesn't sound like I'm preaching this stuff. I remain silent about it out there in the 'real world', so I think this ranting can get a bit out of balance in JU. I've learned that it's better to walk the path than to talk the path.

Well this is what I'm having trouble with Andy. How do you reconcile these two statements? Jesus said I am God, I am the Truth, There is no other way. How can you say the "other religions" are in touch with the same God when they say Jesus is not the truth, Jesus is not God and Jesus isn't the only way? To me you seem confused.

I’ll cut and paste a similar response from another thread...

Jesus is the way, the only door and keeper. I believe that other religions are in touch with Christ, only from a different perspective and cultural context, whether they recognise Him as Jesus or not. I personally believe that Christianity reveals more light of Truth than any other religion. But I also believe that other religions reveal glimpses of the same light, (i.e. “the true light that gives light to every man” John 1.9). When the underlying revelations of our world’s religions are merged, we can get a broader scope of the full picture - of which Christ is supreme head.

Bear in mind, Christ is God. To use an analogy, think about the Solar System. Imagine that the sun represents God (i.e. Christ). Now imagine that the planets in the solar system represent different religions or cultures. People on different planets could turn to the same sun to get heat and light. Each planet might give the sun different names, and might see it from a different perspective, but would still receive light and heat from the same Source.

Now, Christ – One with the Father - is the Sun. Imagine that a sunbeam (Jesus), came to planet Earth and declared, “I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one goes to the Sun except by me”. Earthlings (Christians) would understandably believe that Christ is the only way to the Sun. However, imagine that a Martian-Muslim landed on earth, and declared that the Sun was actually called “Allah”. Furthermore, Mars hadn’t received a personal visitation from a sunbeam, and denied that such a sunbeam really mattered, or even existed. (Although the Martians had seen different angles of the sun which Earthlings couldn't see, due to a difference of views.)

After hearing the Earthlings’ testimony, Martians with a narrow mind, who didn’t realise that all the planets were harmoniously one in the same Solar System, would call Earthlings “wrong”. Similarly, Earthlings who weren’t aware of their place in the Solar System would also call the Martians’ testimony “wrong”. But if they all got together, chatted amongst each other, and combined each other’s views, they might see the bigger picture and realise that they're all actually “right.”

I’ve probably gone round the houses with this one, and you might disagree, but that's how I see it.

And I'm a bit older than you

Not necessarily . . .

I've been involved in many cults and other religions as well. And I'm a bit older than you...consider me your older sister!! You have to be so familiar with the truth you can spot the LIE when it pops up. I've been studying the TRUTH for many years and I can confidently say after all this studying and the help of the HS I can spot the lie. Maybe cuz it always bothered me when I was younger that I would be tricked and wouldn't be able to hear the shepherd's voice. I don't like to be deceived. So keep studying......and don't lose the passion.

Here is where I go off the radar for most western religionists. There’s two different kinds of age – the age of one’s soul, and the age of one’s earthly mind and body. I sincerely believe, (due to something within me that is more-than-intuition, incidentally) that I’ve been here and done it, and have experienced and lived the various different points of view, from an atheist, to a fundie, to a Buddhist, to a Muslim – in different life-times. (I know that’s off the scale for a Western fundamentalist, but there you go.)

When Eastern wisdom is merged with Western wisdom, the full picture of Ultimate Reality is finally disclosed. But if we can’t even see the common ground that exists between something as similar as Christianity and Islam, then we’re not ready to hear about the common ground that exists between East and West.

Either way, consider the following words from Zen Buddhist Master, Thich Nhat Hanh, (who, incidentally, was born in Vietnam. That might explain why he’s a Buddhist).

“Real dialogue makes us more open minded, tolerant and understanding. In a true dialogue, we allow the good, the beautiful and the meaningful in the other's tradition to transform us. ... When we have peace within, real dialogue with others is possible … The career of the practitioner is the career of enlightenment. Enlightenment here means ‘Touching the ultimate’.”

Hahn continues, “When we touch the ultimate dimension of reality, we get the deepest kind of relief. Each of us has the capacity to touch Nirvana. … Christian contemplation includes the practise of resting in God which I believe is the equivalent of touching Nirvana. …. The Kingdom of God is available here and now. The energy of the Holy Spirit is the energy that helps us touch the Kingdom of God. … I do not think there is that much difference between Christians and Buddhists. … A truly happy Christian is really a Buddhist. And vice-versa". (‘Living Buddha, Living Christ’, Thich Nhat Hanh.)

From my point of view, Hahn is certainly in touch with the same “Sun” as Christians. Furthermore, it's the heat and light which the Sun provides that really counts, rather than dogmatic rules and differing names. (I’ve described before how the Eastern worldview fits in with the West’s view of Heaven in the after-life on other threads, so I won’t repeat it all again. God forbid. That thread went on for weeks.)

Anyway, I hope I haven't gone on too much here, and I hope I'm not too much of a thorn in the side. It's my primary passion in life, so please let me know if I've gone on too much already.

Andy, Enough already!

I thought so! no probs

Amen.

Enough talk about the common ground between world religions, I agree.

I just want to add a bit more about the issue of Intelligent Design. I’ve just finished reading a book called 'Darwin's Black Box', by Michael J. Behe, who pioneered the concept of I.D., and I’ve got a few things to say about it.

Behe’s discoveries can be summed up in the following 2 paragraphs: "What has biochemistry found that must be explained? Machines - literally machines made of molecules. ... Each of the steps and structures that Darwin thought were so simple actually involves staggeringly complicated biochemical processes that cannot be papered over with rhetoric. Darwin's metaphorical hops from butte to butte are now revealed in many cases to be huge leaps between carefully tailored machines."

Behe continues: "The result of these cumulative efforts to investigate life at the molecular level is a loud, clear piercing cry of design! The result is so unambiguous and so significant that it must be ranked as one of the greatest achievements in the history of science."


Even though Behe might be right in his conclusion that biological systems exhibit complex design, I think that his appeal to ‘external intervention’ might be misguided. (If you're interested, some good views from the other side of the fence, which refute Behe’s claim, that I didn't mention in the other post, can be found in Kenneth Miller’s book, ‘Finding Darwin’s God’. Miller is a Christian, and even though the issue about where God fits into the picture is left open, for other people’s insights to fill - (John F. Haught takes us a step further, for example, in his book ‘God After Darwin’, but there is still plenty of room for more insights. I’m sure we’ll come full circle to a traditional concept of the Christian God, only interpreted from a more mature point of view, but that's just my intuition) – in the meantime, Kenneth Miller’s book does an excellent job in showing how nature itself can be sufficient unto itself to give rise to such complex design.)

The point I wanted to make is that even if ID’s appeal to external intervention is ultimately refuted, or proved wrong, ID will have succeeded in shifting the religious argument for “design” to a deeper, more secure level. ID will have succeeded in demonstrating that design and self-organisation is inherent within the fabric of the cosmos. As was said in the other post, contemporary science, of the materialistic kind - outside the field of I.D. - has now revealed that nature’s potential for design and complexity is already present in the self-ordering of atomic entities, in the same way that it is present in the self-ordering of crystals, snowflakes etc.

A natural system which positively nurtures the arrival of complex biological machines, and which in turn sponsors the arrival of life and sentient beings, renders suspect belief that we live in a purposeless and accidental universe.

In view of this, it takes a larger leap of faith to conclude that we exist “accidentally”, than to conclude that life has been endowed with transcendent purpose. The additional dimension of human spirituality, and our inner-intuition, which I’m sure will unfold and blossom to a more mature degree in the next phase of our evolution, will be the final nail in the coffin for materialists. Yet ironically, by that time, as we will surely be more aware of the true nature of God, (i.e. unconditional love), then I believe that even the former atheists will be happy to accept the good news that God actually exists, and will be thankful for having taken a step closer to knowing the Truth.

With all this said, I’m open minded to the fact that ‘external intervention’ might have taken place in nature's unfolding. But if it did, it might not have been by God Himself. I think there are too many biological ‘flaws’, and if God chose to manipulate the cosmos in such clinical ways, then due to the suffering and flaws involved in nature, we would have to conclude that God is either incompetent or a sadist.

But here’s some food for thought from Stuart Wilde’s book, ‘The Quickening’. It was written about a decade before the term “Intelligent Design” was even heard of, and to me Wilde is way ahead of his time, even by today's standards:

“As we become more metaphysically sophisticated, many of the old questions can no longer be covered over. .... It seems to me that the first animals that developed on the planet, out of the microbe soup, must have been assisted by energies in an inner, higher evolution, maybe from another dimension. Perhaps it was Angels. ... These heavenly bodies oversaw the animal evolution through the critical period from microbe to ape and then on to where the ape was accepted by the divinity of the soul and became human. ... It is possible that once evolution reached the critical cusp of moving from animal to ape-man, and the souls that would eventually enter the physical planes got ready to make their first moves, that perhaps a very Great Power had to oversee this in order for it all to be in balance. We would consider this Great Power to be God.”

Maybe the ID-adherents are right after all, even in the traditional ‘external interventional’ sense. The flaws and suffering in nature might simply be due to the freedom which God has bestowed upon Creation, which would be a necessary act of God’s love.

The story of life’s unfolding on earth might be a combination of natural processes and divine intervention – even directly from God. The more I think about this, (I’m thinking aloud here), and the more I read and write about it, the more I become sympathetic with the original ID camp. I might join the fundies after all.

Since you like to read......

You might now want to balance what you just read by reading...."Defeating Dawinism by Opening Minds" by Philip Johnson a Professor at Berkley. I've got the book. I've heard him on radio as well.

In his book he talks about Behe and Darwin's Black Box.

Just in case...you're interested.........

Hi KFC, how are you?

Thanks for your recommendation. I’ve already read Johnson’s book and a couple of his others. I think they make a good read. There seems to be a little circle of authors who bounce off each other and form a good debate. While atheistic writers like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennet express the ‘Neo-Darwinian’ view, the likes of Behe, Johnson and Denton express the views of ID.

I’m sure both camps make valid points which should be considered. Even though the ID folk deny that they are Biblical literalists or creationists, their main objection seems to be the view that natural selection can account for every living thing in the natural world. Natural selection is the inherently blind, random and mechanical process, and I think that Johnson and co. have good reason to doubt that this is the sole mechanism of evolution. But their appeal to Intelligent Design as a sole alternative might be somewhat narrow.

Contemporary science is now revealing that there is a lot more to evolution than the blind processes of natural selection alone. Evolution is a more organic and fluid process than Neo-Darwinists would have us believe, as self-organisation and intrinsic ‘design’ is already inherent within atomic entities. (See books like ‘The Origins of Order’ and ‘At Home in the Universe’ by Stuart Kauffman, or ‘The Web of Life’ by Fritjof Capra.)

I personally believe that all these different views are right, and that nature’s unfolding is a combination of natural selection; and the organic, self-organising processes, as described by Kauffman and co.; and Intelligent Design.

The work of scientists like Kauffman is fascinating, because it shows that the ‘inner-logic’ inherent within matter is frankly profound. Atomic entities work together in order to form the most gob-smacking biological systems, not unlike the way ants might work together to form their integrated ‘sand castles’. Not only does this occur on a tiny scale, as in Behe’s field of biochemistry, it also occurs on a larger scale. If we read about the digestive system of a human being, for instance, which most of us take for granted, it’s enough to blow our mind. To think that such a harmonious system arose ‘accidentally’, purely via the crude brick-yard mechanism of natural selection, is absurd in my view, and it also takes a massive leap of faith to believe it, far greater than a religionist’s.

Richard Dawkins' underlying philosophy is that "the preservation of DNA is the ultimate rationale for our existence". Such a claim is Dawkins’ personal belief system, rather than imperative science, and this is one of Philip Johnson’s objections. Dawkins has (con)fused science with his own scientific idealism. If we are to adhere to a Neo-Darwinist worldview, then we’d believe that the digestive system of a human being exists purely for the ‘purpose’ of enabling inanimate strings of DNA to exist. This is baloney to me. Indeed, the belief that "the preservation of DNA is the ultimate rationale for our existence" is like believing that the important goal of cookery is the production of recipes, and the cakes themselves are unintended by-products of the recipes.

DNA information itself is more fascinating than most people give it credit for. Intelligible information is contained in every living cell, and there is enough information in a single human cell to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica – all 30 volumes of it - four times over. It is this kind of information which allows the biochemical machines, as described by Behe, and the digestive systems of animals etc., to be ‘built’ by the raw materials (i.e. by the inanimate atoms). But by definition, the ‘design’, or form, of this information is transcendent, or invisible, (i.e. not made of atoms). Essentially, it is metaphysical energy.

Now, imagine that scientists detected radio waves from outer space, which could be de-coded or ‘read’ in such a way as to reveal an intelligible language – in alphabetic syntax – which contained an actual message. What would scientists’ reactions be? Inevitably there’d be celebrations, for finally discovering “proof” that a source of intelligence exists in outer space other than ourselves. Yet exactly that has been discovered in nature and in the genetic code of DNA. But because such a code may indicate the existence of a Creator, or divine intelligence, scientists rush to the conclusion: “Let’s just chalk it up to chance. There is no God!” Either that, or our scientists cannot see the wood for the trees.