Causing a Furher over Hitler wine

[Ray Barnes]

Hi Derek, I'm not sure if a single link can address the concerns you raise - but I am thankful for the respectful tone of your enquiry. Just to be clear, I think science and metaphysics are absolutely compatible. It's an extremely complicated thing. Being the Canadian equivalent of a CPA, I can tell you the intense study of spirituality from a pluralistic, universal, non-denominational perspective is at least 10 times harder than anything I have seen during or since my post secondary education. The questions you raise and which I contemplate, in some aspects, are ultimately unanswerable - and it is in my view folly to hold oneself out as having all the answers. The only constant is change and development.

There is more one could say, but for now, let me add, the potential of humanity, to realize its true essence, far surpasses the limits recognized by conventional science and orthdox religion. This is not to say that both of these branches of enquiry are unimportant. Far from it. These are pieces of a bigger puzzle. I have devoted 17 years thus far to the pursuit of this - and the journey is just getting started.

[Ray Barnes]

PS - I am again reluctant to continue this thread of discussion unless asked to elaborate, and also given the go-ahead by the forum owner to do so. I have absolutely no use for proselytizing, regardless of whatever one holds sacred. I am sure all of us have run into people who want to tell us their views on spiritual matters, and I am not that kind of person. Anyone who is very busy trying to convince other people in an unsolicited manner, is not convinced himself or herself.

[Derek T.]

Ray,

You have a rare gift of always managing to leave a conversation with more meaningful questions than answers. That is a rare skill, and not one that I can compete with competently.

I think the best way to settle this is over a couple of bottles of port and a lump of under-cooked cow.

Perhaps one day the opportunity to do that will present itself.

Derek

[Ray Barnes]

Derek, that might be a good plan. I think it is absolutely possible to reconcile science and spirituality, if one is prepared to re-examine their respective foundations. For the majority of people, I suspect this would be an extremely unpleasant experience, since it requires letting go of things one may well have taken for granted.

The history of the major monotheistic religions points to a pattern, one I am reluctant, again, to elaborate upon out of fear of offence to some members.

[Roy Hersh]

As long as we keep a civil discussion, respectful and restricted to this particular thread ... I say, have at it.

Putting a discussion on Darwin vs. Creationism into a thread started with a cache of wine with Hitler's image and that of his Swastika, is bound to be either extraordinarily boring or absolutely fascinating ... depending on your personal bent.

Spoiler alert ... anyone easily offended by such a topic, please look away NOW.


For those preparing to get into the fracus, you may want to brush up on the topic:

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b1 ... elonu.html

http://www.greatdreams.com/essay.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation%E ... ontroversy



I will be keeping an eye on this thread and hope that things will remain civil and respectful.

[Derek T.]

The history of the major monotheistic religions points to a pattern, one I am reluctant, again, to elaborate upon out of fear of offence to some members.

As I do not believe in any religon there is no need to convince me on that score.

Perhaps keeping it to Darwin v your theory would significantly reduce the risk of anyone being offended.

[Ray Barnes]

Well, I'm encouraged by Roy's and Derek's comments - and the second link in Roy's post alludes to the gap in the middle between the two spectrums. This kind of is what I have been seeking.

I don't see it, at this moment, as Darwin vs. my theory. It's more a matter of looking at both sides as objectively as one can, seeing the strengths and weaknesses of each, then trying to find a third force balance which amalgamates and resolves the best of each of them. In other words, it is a desire to take the whole debate to another level altogether.

Is anyone else reading these posts interested in further pursuing this? Or is it already getting annoying to some out there?

[Glenn E.]

I'm reading, but I'm mostly just curious.

I'm primarily agnostic. Whether or not a Supreme Being exists has very little effect on me. Similarly, whether or not the Theory of Evolution is correct is sort of beside the point. The former seems to imply (to most people) that I should behave in a certain way; I'm already set in my ways and do my best to "play nice" with everyone else. The latter operates over far too long of a cycle to concern me even if it is correct. X-Men notwithstanding.

It's also pretty difficult to offend me. Get me riled up? Sure, on occasion. Offend? Not so much.

[Ray Barnes]

Glenn, you are more on the right track than you are giving yourself credit for, for reasons neither much understood or accepted in mainstream thought. Thanks for your input!

[Derek T.]

OK. At the risk of jumping on the landmine - now would be a good point for you to say something meaningful, Ray.

[Ray Barnes]

Derek, I agree, the pre-ambling, disclaiming, and caveats have been filed.

Let's fire a salvo at the creation side of the coin: first we need to define the creator, the created item, and the relationship between them. It is my view, a very unpopular one, that both atheism and anthropomorphic deism are incorrect. This is to say, if all of the three major monotheistic religions choose to worship a personalized deity, either alive, or dead and alive again, I believe this to be in error. The atheists reject the construct of such a deity but they fail to consider an alternative. This is critical, because if all of the mainstream religions work on a premise that humanity bears the image of divinity in some way, then a clearer understanding of divinity, in its projective nature, is required. If one can begin with this assertion, and try to support it, then one can reconsider how humanity - not to mention science - fits into the equation.

In metaphysical circles, a fundamental premise is to strive for an understanding of spirituality through a greater understanding of self, beyond the organic form. This does not call for any kind of new religion. If one considers religion to be a faith-based, ritual based, lifestyle, one could even go so far as to abstain from religion, in the conventional sense, altogether. This is a matter of self-reclamation, of excavating what I consider to be one's divine birthright. It is not, as is believed among some adherents of New Age thought, simply a matter of declaring it to be the case. It is a matter of getting down to real personal work, based on hard knowledge. Spiritual laws are logical and demonstrable.

There is much more that can be said, but I will stop for now.

[Ray Barnes]

On second thought, a little more. The people on the Creation side of the debate, when asked to present evidence to support their positions, point to their sacred writings, the most popular of which would arguably be the Holy Bible.

For the record, I consider much of what is written in that text, and for that matter in the Qu'ran, to be absolutely correct. Where I differ sharply with orthodoxy is in the understanding and application of the texts themselves. In the case of the Torah, there is a strong argument that its first book is grossly and severely mistranslated, such that its meaning is completely and tragicly distorted. I say tragic because i consider it to be a great literary masterpiece, of astonishing psychological depth.

Many of those who claim to be adherents of these sacred writings fail to understand their true identity, which is an allegorical representation of mind. They are not Associated Press styled reports of organic factual history, but portraits of aspects of consciousness. This in no way whatsoever makes them untrue. The fault lies in our misunderstanding, not in the texts themselves, for the most part.

The cosmic vision of the great scriptures has been used for the worst kind of injustice, by those of myopic, organic mind. The last 1700 or more years bear witness to the most barbaric forms of violence, often committed in the name of religious zeal. It makes one literally tremble. I personally consider the destruction of the Library of Alexandria to be one of the greatest tragedies of all - it has set the world back perhaps 500 years.

There is a means to use these great writings - a Key of Knowledge, if you like - to begin to unlock their true potential. And in so doing, to begin to unlock our own almost unfathomable true potential. These works are a blueprint of our own consciousness, expressed outwardly in three dimensional form throughout the physical world. To begin to see this divine pattern, is bona fide Creation. Until we begin to do this, we exist, but do not live.

[Ray Barnes]

On third thought, the Johannine Gospel is also a magnificent piece of writing - and often grossly misunderstood, especially by its orthodox adherents. There are some narratives there which both atheists and for that matter orthodox Jews dismiss as nonsense due to their physical impossibility. These narratives are interpreted literally by the majority of their adherents, and that is absolutely not why the narratives were written that way.

I mention this because those on the Darwinist side of the question look at these writings as evidences to assert the superiority of their position. Regrettably, neither side of the question, for the most part, really understands these writings in any great depth. The paradox is that both sides are right and wrong at the same time on the debate because they neither understand nor accept each other, and one could further argue that neither side really understands its own position entirely. All of which suggests to me that the debate has to be completely re-examined on both sides.

[Ray Barnes]

First of all, my apologies to everyone here for submitting this stuff in bits and pieces. Suffice to say, it is not an easy subject.

The Creationists for the large part look upon the Book of Genesis (in transliterated Hebrew, Bereshyt) to explain the biological origin of organic humanity. Plainly and simply put, based on the extant popular Engish translation of the Hebrew original text, much of the narrative is absolutely impossible and makes no sense whatsoever. This is grist for the Darwinist mill.

The Hebrew original is makes much more sense when read in its original language and interpreted according to the metaphysical structure (the Autiot) of the Hebrew alphabet, or the ancient Qabala. I am not alluding to what Madonna and others espouse, but something else entirely. Read from this perspective, the Bereshyt is a masterpiece in illustrating the elements of spiritual consciousness. It's not an organic history book at all. The characters in this book are allegorical.

The Darwinian side of the subject warrants exploration as well, which I will do. It is my view that we are soul images whose purposes and reasons for being can be found in the scriptures, encased in organic vessels whose originations are at least partially explained according to scientific theory. The ultimate purpose of our presence here is not adequately explained by either conventional side of the debate. Thanks.

[Derek T.]

Very interesting stuff. I look forward to reading your thoughts on Darwin.

[Ray Barnes]

Thank you Derek. I am glad to see that so far everyone is still getting along respectfully, something I believe Roy considers to be a high priority, as I also do. I still haven't forgotten your port invite.

[Derek T.]

Thank you Derek. I am glad to see that so far everyone is still getting along respectfully, something I believe Roy considers to be a high priority, as I also do. I still haven't forgotten your port invite.

Ray,

I want this to go on record, just in case what is about to follow gets ugly. We are here for one reason. That reason is that we love Port. The invitation to drink some fine port transcends all else. There are no Darwinian/Creational reasons why sharing some Port would be problematic.

As previously explained, I believe in no god or higher being. I am absolutely convinced on that. Trying to convince me that I am wrong on that score would be like trying to convince me that pink port is a good idea.

I do think, in a very general sense, that Darwin nailed it. I think he was/is absolutely correct in terms of variation and evolution. But he doesn't deal with spirituality, which provides me with a very easy dilemma to resolve.

I cannot and will not argue with any of your assertions relating to religion, simply because I am not sufficiently well informed to do so. I know that I don't believe any of it, but am not sufficiently arrogant to believe that I might not be wrong.

[Ray Barnes]

Hi Derek, I'm perfectly ok with the inevitable disagreement - as long as it is respectful, which so far it is, from where I am sitting. Like I said before, I am not a proselyte. In some respects, we may both be incorrect. Learning, which involves some painful unlearning, is a continuous exercise?

Pink port is a bad idea?

(just kidding )

We 100% agree on one essential, that we're all here for good port, not to mention madeira and Portguese table wine, the latter of which I am appreciating more all the time.

[Ray Barnes]

i had the usual bi-weekly door visit from a couple of JWs - something I expect many of us here can relate to. One of them was trying to hand out a pamphlet of their perspectives of Armageddon and the End Times. I couldn't be bothered trying to persuade them that the whole Book of Revelation is the allegorical portrayal of the cosmology of the soul, and a classic piece of Jewish mystical literature.

Derek, I haven't forgotten about Darwin. Just wanted to slip that comment in, this is too much fun.

[Eric Menchen]

We are here for one reason. That reason is that we love Port. ... Trying to convince me that I am wrong on that score would be like trying to convince me that pink port is a good idea.

You heathen Or are you defending the faith? Or must the old ways change? Is pink port an evolution?

I think further discussing this over a bottle is the best way to proceed, but that's just me.