LT:
I'm going to hang in there and argue on the evolution viewpoint, for a moment, because it's a philosophy that I hadn't thought much about before my recent reply to you, and I'd like the thrash it out a bit to see if it has any validity as a position (if you don't mind, that is?):Election by virtue of accident of birth is no more absurd than the premise of "natural selection".
Problem one is you are trying to bolt a supercharged V12 F1 engine to an ox cart. This has worked as well for proponents of Intelligent Design as it would in real life...
*snap, crash, ping, strange noise combining squashy ox type charateristics with hard metalic characteristics*
But let's see how far up the flag pole it gets, I too understand the fun of playing with an idea...
If man is evolving in their ability to "connect with the divine" (interpreted as "anointing", due to the often overwhelming nature of "first contact"), then it appears entirely feasible that some will and some wont succeed. Maybe some can and some cant, though I suspect the ability is inhernet in each of us, should it be awakened.
- No consideration of other explanations behind the anecdotal experience you describe as 'first contact'.
- No consideration of similar but contradictory (i.e. incompatible with your beliefs) anecdotal experiences other people have.
- Superimpostion of a theory of evolutionary biology upon a pre-existant theologcal theory; you are in effect saying that god has no more regard for humans than for diplodoci, and that the misfortunes of our immortal souls visited upon us by happenchance of birth are no more important to god than the misfortune of an single individual of a non-sentient, non-immortal souled species dying due to some defecit of evoltuionary development. I don't see how you can compare an animal dying as part of the chain of life to a human ending their physical life and be eternally disadvantaged.
It's got less to do with justice, and more to do with "this is just the way it is". That seems to have worked pretty well for the last few million years. Why, now that man has "intelligence", does that suddenly become injust?
Woah... don't make false linkages. Evolution 'just is'. You don't run fast enough, you're dinner. Fair is not a concept in it. To imply that it is is to make a strawman argument. We are told god created us in his image, and you are in effect telling me that god somehow gave us a concept of fairness (any class of kids anywhere in the world will be able to prove that humans have an instinct for fairness), whilst making us in his image when he in fact doesn't have a concept of fairness? If we hold that sentient creatures have different rights to non-sentient creatures, god should according to the Bible understand and agree with this.
What's humane about a lion killing a terrified gazelle for food, or a spider paralysing it's prey before sucking it's innards out, or many of the parasitic feeding processes we see in the natural world about us.
Nothing, they don't have to be; you're maing a false linkage/strawman.
Hence, we can dispense with the "humane God" image for a moment, as God isn't a human anyhow.
I disagree with your assertion for the scriptual reasons I have given. You have no scriptual basis for your assertions, no Malachi 3:7;
"And with each generation man shall draw closer unto god. (8) And hard luck is it unto those that are less evolved than others in their sense of spiritual connectedness with god, (9) for they shalt verily have the shitty end of the stick, and shalt gnash their teeth as they will be fully aware they are at an eternal disadvantage purely through accident of birth (unlike the beasts of the field who are not aware and whose thought dieth when they die, having not an invisable bit that carries on), (10) and that god giveth not a stuff about being fair, as although he has implaneted the concept in man's mind he practises fairness not.
I hypothesise that there are at least three things that appear to be inherited "awarenesses" in the human psyche (whether or not they are rationally refuted by an individual, later in life, may be another matter):
There is something "greater" than themselves,
... come on Little Toe. You can connect me up to the right equipment, stimulate my brain in the right way, and I will have a religious experience; to an individual perception is reality, but does that mean that perceptions per se are reality?
which created that which they see around them
This life is too short, and there must be some kind of "afterlife"
... there is?... you have proof...? That's a big suppostion to base a theory on, a bit like 'up quarks are made of cheese'... which of course you could prove one way or the other, whereas your suposition is not provable
Somehow they fall short or are inadequate in some measure, often leading to some kind of guilt in life
... you counter this one for me!;
(which I will grant has been exploited by religion)
... but in additon fail to consider that 'guilt' is an evolved instinct warning someone they have exceeded the social paramaters of the culture they are enculturated by and possibly risk sanctions for their behaviour. Looked at like that I'm sure other animals have a 'concept' of 'guilt', as without it social groups would be impossible as an individual organism would not know when it was in danger of having itself expelled from a group.
Heck, maybe I have that in reverse, and the "rational mind" is the higher state of evolution.
Well, as relgion came FIRST and rationality came SECOND, it's a reasonable argument!
However I'm inclined to believe that the rational mind was a necessary step in the comprehension and usage of a "spiritual" connection.
Of course; you're inclined to support anything which fits in with your 'theory of world', which is god based.
I also am inclined to support things which fit in with my theory of world, which is not god based.
The difference lies in the paradigms we use for evaluating what is good evidence for shaping our theory of world and what is bad evidence for shaping our theory of world. We differ there greatly.
As it happens my opinions have been reached experientially (through the "Spirit"), I just find affirmation of them through the experiences of others who took the time to write down their thoughts in years gone by.
For all that I would state my position as being reasonably Calvinistic, I think I'm granted a little eclecticism, given where I've come from and the strides made so far.
The only thing Calvanism has going for it is a slightly higher degree of internal logic than some other Christian varients. But Jehovah's Witnesses have a high degree of internal logic in their beliefs! In both cases, once one has taken a few beliefs on, the 'payload' is delivered.
I view it as analogous to the way a virus works; once through the immune system (when someone conceeds a point is 'reasonable'), a meme, or religous belief, can unwrap it's destructive payload, just as a virus (computer or otherwise) does. One minute you conceed, yes, well, God may do that... the next you might agree that it's reasobale to watch children die for want of blood... or for god to condemn people to an unsatisfactory and deficient afterlife through accident of birth. 'Cause heaven, by Calvanistic ideas, must be a very white European place... and I can't believe that god operates a colour bar, can you?
You see LT, one thing which I think you really need to consider is that anything that can be modified in a generational manner and have these modifications passed on intact or even improved upon can evolve. An idea can evolve if it has a vector in which to evolve, as surely as a virus can.
Science evolves all the time. So do religious idea. And whilst the scientific evidentary paradigm is like some 'check' system, the religious belief paradigm has no equivalent 'check' system. Thus a religous idea can exist forever as it is impossible to prove wrong; the ones that can be proved wrong die out, just like an animal that is unfit dies out.
You, in your battle to find god, are paradoxically fighting through millenia of highly evolved religious theories that are resistant to testing using the paradigms you use, and in fact seem totally reasonable when viewed internally as you seem to be doing.
As long as you are willing to accept that we have to base our immortal soul's fate on less evidence than we use to plan our pensions, and that this is 'reasonable', it is obviously very hard for you to change your viewpoint.
Other people have decided that it is NOT unreasonable to ask for reasonable proof, realise that individual perceptions are way too flakey to use as a basis for anything, and are highly suspicious of anything which requires them to believe things which are not proveable and which are only attestable to by subjective experience, as they realise that surrendering to a belief like that is like sticking your head in a bear trap.
You might decide to stick your head in a bear trap, but it'll be the last decison you make due to the efficient and developed design of bear-traps; not because bear-traps are 'true'.
All the best; it would be great to meet up one day.
