Evolution, to a believer, must be seen as real, but not having a beginning, if God has life.

Evolution, to a believer, must be seen as real, but not having a beginning, if God has life.


Evolution is an explanation of how life began.


God, if he were real, is said to have eternal life without a beginning. If God is eternal, and has life, then life must also be eternal and without a beginning just as is attributed to God.


Therefore, life and evolution of life must, to a believer; be eternal and without a beginning just like God.



Life then, to a believer; had no beginning just as believers believe God had no beginning. God is life.


This fits well into the law of evolution, which posits that life came to earth from space, which provided the earth with the building blocks of human life.


If an evolving process like evolution is real, which it is, then any original version of God must be in a constant state of evolution and change. That is what makes God unknowable.



Is life, to intelligent believers, eternal and without a beginning?


Regards

DL

 

TSK!

 

It is a simple logic trail.

Regards
DL

 

Humans have a problem understanding infinity. Even scientists use a symbol that doesn't go on forever, it makes a twist and returns. I've always felt that god was created to fill the void of trying to understand infinity. And, if there truly is a god, there would be an infinite number of them.

 

I agree.

I don't know if I fully agree with our seeking understanding of infinity. We understand the concept of never ending infinity. We just can't explain it scientifically or religiously. I don't think we have an argument though unless you have something to add or show.

Thinking in fractals and matrix type thinking and God's above Gods is a common theme in Gnostic Christian thinking. I think we might have invented or popularized those notions.

Regards
DL

 

Regards
DL

 

That doesn't add up. For one thing we do know many things that are in a constant state of change and evlution. For another, the idea that God 'has life' as we have it is merely an assumption without any basis. 'God and creatures' is the usual formula used in Christianity. Creatures are alive, God's existence is beyond what humans think of as 'life'.

You claim elsewhere that you are God - how can you know that if God is unknowable?

Also the whole basis of Gnosticism which you falsely claim to represent collapses completely if you think God is unknowable, as Gnosis means knowledge of Divine reality.

 

An assumption yet to be proven.

Who denied this? Not I.

I agree. All that is said of the supernatural Gods are assumptions and lies if the speaker literally believes what he is saying. The existence of a supernatural realm or God have yet to be proven.

If we are created in such a God's image though, and we have life, it is a good assumption that a supernatural God would have life, or something analogous to it. Make up your own word.

You pointed out my assumption and I return the favor. I do not agree with you given what I put above on the word "life". I await your suggestion on what to call what God has. Super life perhaps. But then if in his image, we would also have that.

I also claimed that you can be God. This aside.

You are comparing apples and oranges if you re-read what I put on us being God.

I never claimed to be a supernatural entity. Remember please, I do not believe in the supernatural even though some here are trying to put that brand on me. I see that as obtuse.

You are defining Gnosis wrong. I have given this before. You might not have seen it. That or you are just too stuck into your own thinking to absorb anything new. We all protect our paradigms.

Please try to keep your denigrating personal G D garbage out of an otherwise intelligent reply.

Regards
DL

 

You've given us a lot of complete nonsense.

If you think I'm defining Gnosis wrong, then tell us in your own words what it means - not I repeat some unrelated video clip.

The OT which was univerasally rejected by Gnostics says God made Man in his own image. So if as you claim you are a Gnostic, why use the texts of the Christians whom you hate so much and which were rejected by those you claim to represent?

I'm not getting into a game of trying to define God. Suffice it to say that God has, or even IS existence, which doesn't imply 'life'. God is often thought of as a spirit - not as you seem to think some kind of inflated human.

 

It is related. It shows the way, basically, to find your Father Complex through meditation. That is where we store our basic instincts.

We are Gnostic Christians and if we would have rejected the O.T., we would have rejected the consolidated bible and would be able to use it for the purpose it was written. To create discussions and debates. The same reason we wrote our myths. Needless to say that we have not rejected it. We just know how to read it in a better and non-literal way.

I do not hate Christians. I am married to one. I hate the Christians who call evil good.

Do you call Yahweh good or evil?

You seem to think that that is the only decent definition. You ignore that the old emperors called themselves Gods and their sons, sons of God.

Any version of God can only exist in your head. If you let that truth over inflate your ego, that is your problem.

To avoid that is why I take the divine definition out of apotheosis when I speak of mine.

Regards
DL

 

The Gnostics of antiquity and the Cathars both rejected the OT. If you read it, that's your own business, but nothing to do with the Gnostics, whose myths 'we' had no part whatsoever in writing.

I already told you clearly what I think about Yaweh. ..

I don't spend a lot of time in thinking about the emperors who claimed to be gods - but so what? It was to help consolidate political power.

You appear to think your own ego is god. That's the only version of god that seems to exist in your mind.

 

How is evolution an explanation for how life began?
Lol. Ain't nothing evolved from nothin.

 

Show your reference.

I can agree that we redetected the literal reading of it. If not, we would have likely not called God a vile demiurge out of rear. We did not fear that myth, but did not reject the O.T. Your reference might change my view. Who knows.

I may have a better memory than you but do not recall what you wrote so how about a little co-operation and reminder, which would have taken you the same amount of time. Or are you just her to be belligerent?
Good or evil will do. KIS for the lurkers.

So what just makes my point that the term God was not always for a supernatural entity.

True. I can only have one ideal as the best rules and laws to live life by.

How many ideals can your ego handle if more than one?

Regards
DL

 

I don't think I indicated it was.

Evolution does not say we began from nothing. They posit amino acids and energy.



Regards
DL

 

Try 'The Apocryphon of John' - one of the main texts in the Nag Hammadi Library.It gives an account completely differnt from that of the OT of creation and the story of Adam.
In general the Gnostics thought of the OT God as the evil demiurge.

 

I said that Yaweh is a kind of projection of the qualities of an iron age king onto God.

 

You said it brah

 

Wrong! Evolution is an explanation of how life developed after it began. The Theory of Evolution is Not an Explanation for the Origin of Life