BS: Theology question

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Mar 10 - 08:22 PM

Oh, the "If-Thens" we can describe!

"IF wishes were horses, beggars would ride."

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Mar 10 - 08:13 PM

If "God" is Everything, then everything is God's comment...

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Mar 10 - 07:49 PM

we have a reference for the Nietzsche...wonder when someone got God to comment? *grin*


and 200!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Mar 10 - 07:00 PM

"God is dead"--Neitchze

"Neitchze is dead"---God

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Mar 10 - 06:47 PM

"But existence may include things that exist but are not in that frame at all..."

ahh... that sneaky word 'may'! I don't even know how to approach asking in what sense 'exist' has meaning when we try to discuss such 'maybe' realms. Are they dependent on 'us' being here to conceive of them? Did/do they 'exist' prior to whatever went 'bang'?..(IF something went bang)....etc. ∞∞

Asserting such things in such realms is to me, (as you know), very little different than asserting and defining 'heaven' or 'god'. I can explain experience of such realms in ways (as you also know) that don't require as many premises....but my real point is that we can't really DO anything but assert and counter. My solution, such as it is, is to shrug and say, like the old man talking about modern songwriting, "Why, they're just singin' about air!"

Seems like we get into this regularly, hmmm? Maybe we oughta do like the old line about jokes and just number our assertions and rejoinders?

"Hey...that a #7!"

"Oh, yeah? Well # 14b to you!"

"Hummmpff..you are just #11ing!"

"Well, at least I don't #43!"

'twould save lots of typing, and the reaction of bystanders might provide some amusement....

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Mar 10 - 06:18 PM

"Nothing" is simply a mental concept. So is "something", because it's the concept that one thing can be separate from all other things, which again is a mental concept. "Everything" is, on the other hand, self-evident, because it leaves nothing out! Or does it? That depends on whether nothing really IS something, which seems unlikely. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Amos
Date: 21 Mar 10 - 06:06 PM

As for the subject of "nothing", why it depends on the framework within which you insist on defining something. If you, and possibly Heidegger, are intending to define all thingness in terms of space as commonly shared, time as measured in shared space, duration, measurable energy, mass, and such, why of course it is very paradoxical to even be looking at it.

But existence may include things that exist but are not in that frame at all. Imagination certainly exists, yet its rates and dimensions are not of space-time. So which somethings are you embracing in your re-bottling of Heidegger?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Mar 10 - 06:04 PM

"You knew that going in."

well.. I knew that is WAS an assertion...*grin*..."poppycock" is a subjective judgment. In many ways "why is there something?" IS the logically prior question, even if is is not the usual place folks start.. epistemological questions about "how can we KNOW stuff?" are more often cited as the place to start. (Kant and others thought so.)

(I hope you realize how much is buried in that assertion "There is no "All" there."... I think I agree about the 'in betweens', thought we may not agree about the categories)... and...hmmmm.. what we do is 'affect' our own destinies. (Congress may be a fine example of the attempt.)

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Amos
Date: 21 Mar 10 - 05:46 PM

Heidegger's assertion is poppycock, of course, Bill. You knew that going in.

As for what we might do if we figured it all out, that question is what ne might call an apathetic fallacy. There is no "All" there. There are a lot of in betweens, though.

To the degree that we figure them out in a way that proves workable or applicable, what we do with that ability s to improve our own destinies. What else? But workability of data is a tough criterion as even the most accurate or truth-like datums can be destroyed by stupidity in application. Take Congress, for example...



A

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Mar 10 - 05:14 PM

Martin Heidegger points out asserts that the only genuine philosophical question is "why there is something rather than nothing.

The subject of 'nothing' has been struggled with from many directions, and we speak of 'creation' as if we can conceive of what it would be like BEFORE 'creation'. We can define it..."sure, it's the absence of everything" .. and other various formulations, but everything we do, see, and use 'exists', and there is real doubt that it even makes sense to suppose that we can imagine 'nothingness'.

   What astronomers and physicists do is try to understand as much as possible about 'what IS', and some of them think they have both data & theory to suppose that 'it' all started 14 billion 'years' ago with a 'big bang'. What went 'bang', and where THAT came from is pure speculation, and theological answers are just a way to avoid dealing with Heidegger's basic question and to satisfy those who just emotionally/psychologically NEED an answer. "God made it" is a nice answer, but *shrug*, this just removers the question one more level back..."why was there a 'god'?" ... It is a real nuisance in many ways to be so 'advanced' that we can ask such questions. ☺

For whatever reason, I can enjoy those images Hubble has brought us and be awed without needing an 'ultimate answer'.....and obviously, from my perspective, attempts to provide ultimate answers or speculate about types & realms of 'existence' beyond what we deal with every day must be viewed with suspicion.
(I have mentioned many times that I hold to the view that 'having a name for something' does NOT automatically confer on that concept....except AS a linguistic concept.)

What this means to me is....that *IF* any of the various theological/metaphysical assertions ARE, in fact, true, ... it is in spite of our thinking and reasoning on the matter...not because of our knowledge. There are just too many theological versions of the supposed 'truth', and when analyzed carefully, they cannot all be true. Generalized abstractions about 'true for me' simply miss the point.... no law against harboring them, but they are useful only in groups where others also use those locutions and agree among themselves that they LIKE the same ideas. When subjected to analysis, they are like metaphysical cotton candy...(which, obviously, can be very tasty at times.)

So.... I am awed by many things that are "beyond us", but I sorta think it's interesting NOT being able to answer all the questions....what would we DO if we figgered it all out?

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 21 Mar 10 - 02:43 PM

I don't mind religious people. I don't mind atheists either. But I fear fanatics of whatever persuasion (atheism included).

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Amos
Date: 21 Mar 10 - 02:24 PM

I think the biggest challenge when confronting the wide territory we label religious or spiritual is not having all the answers but being able to figure out what the right questions even are.

Just for example, Bill points out he cannot speculate on how this all came to be--the (to us) towering beauty of the immense unreachable scope of physical things and spaces.

But perhaps a better question might be, how could any part of it come to be? Complex systems from simple algorithms arise, given enough transactions along fairly simple rules.

But it also seems to me that even the simplest rule-set would have to include the part played by the viewpoint in defining space and positing the particles within it.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Mar 10 - 01:46 PM

"We've all experienced something that is beyond us."

Indeed we have...
this is called "The Pillars of Creation

It and others at this site provide me with as much mystery as I can handle.

The main page is one of the places I look at almost every morning. I am awed and humbled, and I simply cannot speculate on how it all came to be.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Mar 10 - 12:33 PM

"Some of us jump to the conclusion that we know all there is to know about everything, and then the discussion (and the exploration) stops."

Yeah, Joe! ;-D That is the problem in a nutshell when it comes to rigidly opinionated people (whether atheists or the religious). They already think they "know" everything they need to know about the subject under discussion. Boy, are they ever wrong about that.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 Mar 10 - 11:25 AM

In the whole area of religious faith, I think we're better off exploring the questions - and not trying to insist that we have the answers. We've all experienced something that is beyond us. Some of us call that God, and some of us don't.

Some of us jump to the conclusion that we know all there is to know about everything, and then the discussion (and the exploration) stops.

I get more than a little nervous around the fundamentalists of most religious (and non-religious) traditions, but I value most religious traditions almost as much as I value my own. At their best, they are a deep, honest exploration of the meaning of this life we live.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Amos
Date: 20 Mar 10 - 09:08 PM

Oh, indeed. You are asking the right questions.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Mar 10 - 08:19 PM

Yes, and no one is in a position to know about the actual thing unless they have encountered it directly. And if so, what small part or aspect of it did they encounter? And how much else would lie beyond that?

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Amos
Date: 20 Mar 10 - 08:09 PM

It's not surprising, Little Hawk if you realize they are talking about precious but distorted pictures rather than the actual thing.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Mar 10 - 07:49 PM

The Bahais see it that way too, Bill. They think that Mohammed and Jesus and Buddha and Zoroaster and Baha'Ullah and Krishna and all the other great prophets of history were sent at different times to different groups of people from the same divine source. Any reasonably open-minded religious person sees it that way in my opinion. The particular prophet that people are generally drawn to is simply the one they're already most familiar with through their family and their culture, and that's not surprising.

What is surprising is how many of them seem to get the bizarre notion that their particular prophet is the only right one! (not just for them, but for everybody) That's really a foolish attitude to take, and it leads to all kinds of strife.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Mar 10 - 06:54 PM

"Allah and God are one."

As I understand it, Islam, at least generally, understands this idea better than most Christian groups do....they just say "Muhammad was sent to US while Jesus was sent to YOU."
They don't quite understand why many Christians want THEIR version of Theology to be the only one.


"I praise anyone who seeks to be loving to others, whatever their faith, or lack of..."

As one with a marked "lack of it", that's where I agree with you, Jerry.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Amos
Date: 20 Mar 10 - 06:52 PM

In looking back over descriptions by individuals who have come into contact with actual living divine consciousness from whatever culture, I am coming to the conclusion that while there is only one universal force or presence or Cause in the universe, there are dozens of disparate pictures of it. When one cannot reach to genuine, he will settle for and embrace on of those pictures. The difference between the real deal and the many pictures is that the pictures can conflict with each other, causing great anxiety and mayhem in the minds of men, something the real deal does not do when contacted directly.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Stringsinger
Date: 20 Mar 10 - 03:53 PM

Kendall, in order to deal with this issue the "god" in question has to be described hopefully in detail. As I see it, all the religions describe their god a little differently. Obviously the Jewish god is different from the Islamic god and even in Islam, their notions of what a god is conflicts with one another. This is true with the Protestant and Catholic gods as well. Many have different ideas about what constitutes a "supreme being". Just capitalizing these words shed no light on any description.

This conversation can't be rational because religious conviction overrides any attempt toward discussion. The best that can be done is to go to the source, the Koran, the Torah, the Bible, or any other "holy" book that purports to describe a god. Even then, the description is muddied by interpretations and prejudices.

If one claims that there is only one god, then it is their burden to prove it if they expect others to accept that claim. I see the problem as radical differences in who believes what god prevails which culminate in wars and bloodshed.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Mar 10 - 03:41 PM

Guest, I know I'm a limited being. I don't expect to "understand God" any more than I expect to understand existence, life itself, destiny, fate or any other grand subject like that. I'm interested in all these things, but I don't expect to understand them. I do expect, however, to find ways in which to improve my general attitude and behaviour and to become, hopefully, a better and wiser person in the process, and I think that's what religion and philosophy are basically about: becoming a wiser and better person while experiencing life...which is beyond our understanding.

We're not here to understand it. It's way too big for that. We're here to live it in the best way we can manage.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 20 Mar 10 - 03:22 PM

Tonbight, my wife and I are going to the annual dinner recognizing those in the community who giveN un-failing to those in need. Those honored include Chriatians, Muslims,and Jews. The host of the dinner is the mosque that my son-in-laws belong to. The Immam (or minister in Christian terms) is a good friend of our family and attends the annual church anniversary of my daughter-in-law who is pastor of a Baptist Church. The Immam loves my book: reflections on Christian Life. At family gatherings, when I say grace I say, "We ask these things in the name of our Savior, Jesus Christ and Allah."

Today I've been writing about the word "mankind." A woman who runs a small store in the neighboring town fervently spoke about the need for man to be kind. It was an interesting perspective that has led me to look at other words more deeply. If all men/women could be kind to each other rather than all the incesscent fighting that goes on, we'd surely be a lot better off. Every group of people is guilty of this...

Allah and God are one. Allah doesn't have an "only begotten son."

I praise anyone who seeks to be loving to others, whatever their faith, or lack of...

Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Mar 10 - 03:10 PM

It's classic circular bit of reasoning, based on assuming what religious 'truth' is, then arguing from your own premises to suit predetermined conclusions.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Wesley S
Date: 20 Mar 10 - 01:43 PM

And it took you two years to come to that conclusion?

Thanks for your imput.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: GUEST,Humans are limited beings.
Date: 20 Mar 10 - 04:17 AM

Reading all your guys comments only shows that the human mind, as great as it is, is only limited to its ability. All comments to "Theology questions" is nothing more than falling into the trap of the short comings of mankind understanding of GOD. Theology = rationalizing (studying, questioning, assuming, etc.) of mankind limited ability to know what/who God is. Religion = is the act (rituals, practices, etc.) of mankind limited ability to show what/who God is. The comments verify this; you guys will continue to go around but not get any closer to understanding God than you were in the beginning; maybe even more confused or worse hardheaded. I've studied (experts and the many sacred books that derive from their beliefs) and talked with people for quite a bit about religions/cults/occults/atheists (in their respectful area) and most people/books will only give you what is their best expert thought (limited mind) can explain what/who God is. Very very few can explain God through their heart because they haven't connected with or experienced Him; to really understand someone you need to know what is in their heart and not what you see on the outside (this is common sense to make a relationship strong). I know some religions only show this love/connections by their actions (doing good, helping others, etc.), which are important, but is showing the limits of their God (only loves the one that are good and not the bad ones). I've found that an all powerful God can love all (good or bad) and we can get to know him better.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 May 08 - 09:54 PM

But I think it would make sense that people everywhere would generate the same kinds of uncertainties, and questions.

                   As a sideline event, I understand there seems to be some kind of a resurgency in Zoroastrianism. Does anybody have any comments or knowledge about what that's all about?

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Penny S.
Date: 22 May 08 - 01:56 PM

There were also people travelling between India and the Middle East, and similarities between the Gospels and the Bhagavad Gita are not in the least surprising.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 May 08 - 04:51 PM

Yes, indeed there are such similarities, and such similarities are not surprising...if there is any such thing as TRUTH, in a spiritual sense...or in any sense. You see, if there is such a thing as TRUTH, then it follows that the wisest teachers in any past society would tend to express it in ways that were quite similar. Therefore it would surface in some way in all the religions and philosophies.

I think that we may assume there is such a thing as Truth. We may then also be willing to admit to the possibility that people have had ways of tapping into it for as long as human beings have existed, and that it can therefore be found in all religions...though the nitpickers and fanatics and naysayers can always find lesser cultural details and differences to squabble over
and fight about. And they do. ;-)

A healthy mind focuses mainly on similarities and seeks accord. An unhealthy mind focuses mainly on differences and seeks conflict.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Kim C
Date: 21 May 08 - 04:32 PM

I admit I know just enough to be dangerous - but I have found a great similarity between some Hindu sacred texts and the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament.

Like this: "I am the beginning, the end and the middle of the creations, O Arjuna of the sciences I am the science of the self (brahma-vidya), of those who argue and debate I am the argument."

Sounds like "I am the Alpha and the Omega," don't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Penny S.
Date: 21 May 08 - 04:16 PM

I watched a programme I had recorded last night, about fundamentalist Christian groups attempting to influence UK government over various issues, one being the building of a mosque in London. Apart from the way they were praying - telling god what he would presumably already know, and issuing what seemed very like instructions about his preventing this building, there were some disturbing insights into how at least one of them saw Allah.

Logically, there are a number of possibilities. If there is one God, then he who is called God by Germanic speaking peoples, Dieu or similar in Latin derived languages, and Allah by Palestinian Christians and Muslims must be one and the same, since there is no other. If there are more than one, then either one, or another, may be right, and others wrong, or all of them are wrong. If there are none, then the question about their being the same or different is irrelevant.

The leader of the praying group had an alternative. There are two very powerful beings, one good and one evil. Since he who is called God by this sort of Christian cannot be the same as he who is called Allah, then Allah must be the other one. Whom he named.

Since this second being in whom I have no belief is bent on evil, it seems very odd that he inspires so many Muslims to lead quiet, contemplative and good lives. Presumably as a smokescreen to hide the few violent ones. Which raises the question of why the other, good deity, allows so many violent followers among his flock.

I think the folk interpretation of the nature of Old Harry, Nick and his other cognomens is much more healthy than the extreme religious view.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 May 08 - 07:18 PM

I heard it was rescheduled for Thursday!

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 May 08 - 06:51 PM

At the end of which day? Can we expect the next a week Tuesday?

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Slag
Date: 20 May 08 - 06:29 PM

You know Rig, intelligent people tend to agree with me. All the rest of them just say stupid things.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 May 08 - 10:36 AM

At the end of the day, rational thinking people are beginning to see religion as the last vestige of tribalism.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: GUEST,Joe
Date: 20 May 08 - 09:51 AM

He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 May 08 - 09:19 AM

Sounds about right to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: freda underhill
Date: 20 May 08 - 04:12 AM

akhanda   mandala   karam   vyuptam    yena         cara caram
endless   round    formed permeating that which moving unmoving

(lines from an early Hindu text, description of "God", an entity which is endless, and continuously pervades all things moving and unmoving)

freda

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Slag
Date: 06 May 08 - 06:40 PM

I Kings 18:17-41, for one. So it would seem.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: PoppaGator
Date: 06 May 08 - 02:56 PM

Return to basics:

Kendall's original post says:

"A dear friend of mine insists that the one we call "God" and the one the Muslims call Allah are two different beings...

Does this guy actually believe two such different beings might actually exist? How dumb is that?

I can accept people not believing that God exists, believing in God, and even believing that something more-of-less like a God might exist. These would seem to be the only alternatives since deep in pre-history (theism, atheism, agnosticism).

But "two different beings" actually existing ~ "our" good God and "their" bad or false one ~ what's up with that? Do they fight with each other, or what? Does the good guy always win? Sheesh!

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Slag
Date: 05 May 08 - 07:17 PM

And since this is a music site, from "Tumbling Tumble Weeds"

   "I know when night has gone
    There's a new world born at dawn..."

When (or IF) I should die, does that mean that the universe no longer beholds itself? I have watched as other beings have winked out of existence and yet I continue and the world continues. That pretty much convinces me that SHOULD I, too, wink out, IT will continue...for a while yet.

And yes, LH, I can argue both side. I can see it both ways. The deepest reality is that which lies at the core of your being. That is always the target of the brain washers. If they can get you to doubt the "Watcher Within" then they (whoever they are) can break you. The human soul is not quantifiable beyond "one", that is, one per person. It cannot be measured or weighed and yet it is that soul which directs our behavior. Where is the soul? Where is Heaven, indeed? Where the Lord is, there am I. The Apostle Paul said "Let your conversation* be, as it were, in heaven." *The meaning of conversation here actually means how one conducts their life. Yes there is a judgement and this life is your presentation of the evidence. I could say more about that but then I'm drifting from the topic a little--- Or preaching!

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 May 08 - 08:41 AM

I'm not denying it. I think it's 100% real within its own terms. I just don't think that those are the only terms, that's all. There may be other realities, and from the vantage point of those, this one may seem unreal.

For instance, Slag, I think you believe in Heaven, don't you?

Okay, so where is it? Can you touch it? Can anyone? Can we fly a plane there...or a spacecraft? It would seem not.

So why do you believe in it when you have no tangible proof? If it is real, it probably exists in a reality completely apart from this time-space continuum that we think of AS reality (physical reality).

And if it does exist, then I would think that it's a realer reality than this one, given the status of Heaven in a spiritual sense! ;-)

Yet we have no tangible proof of it. Why would my belief that this tangible reality is illusory be any stranger than your belief that Heaven is not illusory?

You realize, it's all happening in your brain. Your brain receives signals which it then translates as touch, sight, smell, taste, and sound. Thus you perceive this world we live in...or you at least think you perceive it. If your brain ceases to function, this world (at least for you) ceases to exist. It is no more. It vanishes.

But are you then no more? Are you dependent on your brain or is it the other way around?

You don't know. You can only make an assumption about that. Ditto for me.

This world may be an illusion...as suggested in some Eastern religions...but we have no way of testing that out, because our own existence as physical beings would be part OF the same illusion.

Think of it as a giant virtual reality game on a computer, via the Internet. Everyone who logs in and plays the game (gets born) sees exactly the same game, with all the same stuff, but they all play individual roles which differ, and they wander around in different parts of the game, and they look at things in the game from different angles, and they have different reactions to things they encounter in the game, and they use their free will. Thus, you have a totally consistent interactive world within the software of the game and it appears to be totally real...as long as the players think think it is. In fact, it appears to be the ONLY reality.............until someone turns off the computer or the power fails (you die)! Then it's gone. Vanished.

It was an illusion.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Slag
Date: 05 May 08 - 01:38 AM

The thing that pokes holes in the Illusion theory is how adamant the "Illusion" is. I can experience the object, say Yosemite Valley and some one else can also experience it and you can fly a fellow in from Borneo to also experience it and by golly! all the experiences gibe! There may be psychological angles which you pointed out LH (and you called THOSE variances "illusion") and variation in the physical points of view, etc. but the place has a reality (key word there) all it's own. Our "words", which are once removed from reality (all language is metaphor) may cause some consternation but the physical presence cannot be denied. This is why science works! Repeatability of experiments. I have another word for "illusion" if someone holds fast to that concept and denies reality: delusion!

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 May 08 - 10:28 PM

No.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Joe_F
Date: 04 May 08 - 10:10 PM

Are all the limericks about a young lady named Sue about the same young lady?

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 May 08 - 01:25 PM

Whose illusion? Why, yours and mine, Slag! ;-) And everybody else's here. We all had to have bought into the illusion in the first place or we wouldn't even be here.

I'm glad you're enjoying your life. If one is going to have a dream, better that it be a happy one than a nightmare, right? My particular dream is probably a bit different than yours, but we've fairly much agreed on the larger aspects of the playing field in the dream...just not on our exact interpretation of those aspects, that's all.

In other words, we both agree where the fence is, where the 30 yard line is, where the goalposts are, where the grass is...but one of us thinks the fence is ugly and the other one thinks the fence is attractive. One of us thinks the game is the be-all, end-all, the other thinks it's probably a waste of time, one wants the blue team to win, the other doesn't really care, one wants cotton candy, the other would rather have a hot dog, and so on. Just a matter of individual taste, I guess.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 04 May 08 - 10:30 AM

Slag, Little Hawk - get a room, as they say. LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Slag
Date: 04 May 08 - 01:38 AM

Whose illusion? Yours or mine? If it's your, please don't stop dreaming. I like my life!

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 May 08 - 11:42 PM

I am making no such assumption. I have no idea what was around at "the beginning" and I doubt that anyone else really does either. ;-) In any case, I think time itself is a form of illusion which arises from the illusion of separation, so the idea that there has to be a beginning is not one I necessarily subscribe to. I don't think the Inifinte has either a beggining or an end. Now if you want to theorize that an illusion (like the Universe) has a beginning...well, perhaps so. ;-) But only in its own terms...which are illusory.

Actually, there are a ton of great books out there which talk about this stuff.