Creation myths

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
btw, the sun is not the only source of energy. i agree. so tell us what was in its place in the billions of years or the day the earth and the plans were alone.

and this just came to me. you never told me if you believed the earth to be revolving around the sun. hope you do, it would be really sad if you don't. so assuming you do, here is how the creation s ...[text shortened]... iverse along with the galaxy milky way from which we are a part of"[/b]

--end sarcasm--[/b]

Are you saying that the earth is a byproduct of the sun? If so, then the earth MUST have been created/come about later. However, if not, it had to come from somewhere. All heavenly bodies have orbits and are constantly rerouting orbits. As for what the earth was orbiting before the sun came on the scene, God only knows. 😉

Originally posted by Mexico
Major religions spun off the bible?

Come on I'll give you Islam and Christianity vieing for the most followers....

But as far as I remember Buddhism isn't far behind Islam and Hinduism is miles ahead of any of the other Abrahamic religions besides the top two.....

And the reason for their spread has a lot to do with:
1. christians we're for a very l ...[text shortened]... sser extent....

I could go on but its off topic, just wanted to call you on that statment.

Do notice that I said it was ONE of many reasons and not the only reason.

Glad you brought up Buddah. Here is what Buddah says regarding the creation of the universe.

"Conjecture about the origin of the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness and vexation to anyone who conjectured about it." LOL.

What can I say, I've gone mad!!! In fact, we all have gone mad conjecturing about the origins of the universe. 🙄

As for myself, I'll stick with a source that seems to have some answers. 😉

Originally posted by whodey
Do notice that I said it was ONE of many reasons and not the only reason.

Glad you brought up Buddah. Here is what Buddah says regarding the creation of the universe.

"Conjecture about the origin of the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness and vexation to anyone who conjectured about it." LOL.

W ...[text shortened]... universe. 🙄

As for myself, I'll stick with a source that seems to have some answers. 😉

Oh I know but, I was simply calling you on an inaccurate statement, generally I try to stay out of this circular debate of pointlessness.... However, Buddhism makes no statements about creation, because it has no relevance to the Buddhist path as far as I understand. Allowing people to draw their own conclusions, rather than dogmatically sticking to anything.

Tell me, if you can please resolve the following issues with the bibles story of creation, and further more explain why it must be the literal truth as opposed to a nice story, which explained the things people just didn't understand. With about as much backing as the world being on the back of 4 elephants who stand on a giant turtle and swim through space:

1) The age of the earth.
2) dinosaurs.
3) the lack of chronological logic
4) Introduction of absence of light after the prescence of light... dosen't make sense, especially when you consider that the whole thing is told in standard evening, morning cycles...
5) the Many many contradictions..... 1 that jusps to mind is Genesis 6:19-20 and Genesis 7:2-3... I might be wrong, but is about the animals in the ark anyway....

Originally posted by whodey
Are you saying that the earth is a byproduct of the sun? If so, then the earth MUST have been created/come about later. However, if not, it had to come from somewhere. All heavenly bodies have orbits and are constantly rerouting orbits. As for what the earth was orbiting before the sun came on the scene, God only knows. 😉

dude, you should really learn some physics. all heavenly bodies have orbits because they have something to orbit around. a body cannot have an orbit if nothing is there to orbit around as the bible implies.

yes, i am saying the earth is the byproduct of the sun. in fact that is how the solar system was created.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and_evolution_of_the_Solar_System
read that, it has pictures.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
dude, you should really learn some physics. all heavenly bodies have orbits because they have something to orbit around. a body cannot have an orbit if nothing is there to orbit around as the bible implies.

yes, i am saying the earth is the byproduct of the sun. in fact that is how the solar system was created.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and_evolution_of_the_Solar_System
read that, it has pictures.

Of course in the traditional sense, not everything has an orbit, or at least, not a perceivable one. For example, the sun orbits the center of the galaxy as does everything within that galaxy. However, what of the galaxy? What does it orbit around? Perhaps something. Perhaps nothing or at least not what we would call an orbit. I would just say that observing orbits is nothing more that observing how matter relates to each other as ALL matter interacts with ALL other matter no matter how slight that interaction may be.

Having said that, it is also true that matter is nothing more than star dust. So does the dust that orbits a particular star have to had originated from that star? I don't think so.

Originally posted by Mexico
Oh I know but, I was simply calling you on an inaccurate statement, generally I try to stay out of this circular debate of pointlessness.... However, Buddhism makes no statements about creation, because it has no relevance to the Buddhist path as far as I understand. Allowing people to draw their own conclusions, rather than dogmatically sticking to anything. 6:19-20 and Genesis 7:2-3... I might be wrong, but is about the animals in the ark anyway....

Here is a web site of the information I am quoting from.

http://www.geraldschoroeder.com/age.html

Just so you know, Creationists are split down the middle in terms of whether they are YEC or OEC. As for myself, I am an OEC. This particular theory is but one of many out there, but for me, it seems the most plausible thus far in many regards.

Originally posted by Mexico
However, Buddhism makes no statements about creation, because it has no relevance to the Buddhist path as far as I understand. Allowing people to draw their own conclusions, rather than dogmatically sticking to anything.

Even if Buddhism dogmatically opposes dogmatically sticking to anything? LOL. Of course, I am not dogmatically sticking to the theory of Schreoder, rather, I simply think he is on to the truth of the matter.


I have to give credit for Buddha in one respect which is, he seemed to know his limitations in terms of understanding the universe only from his own little sphere of observations. At least he did not make up some story half cocked such as a turtle trying to catch a bus to Alberkurky who was then attacked by a giant serpent and whom was shortly thwarted by the turtle once he took off his shoes and threw them at him. This then gave the turtle inspiration to create the universe.

Originally posted by whodey
Here is a web site of the information I am quoting from.

http://www.geraldschoroeder.com/age.html

Just so you know, Creationists are split down the middle in terms of whether they are YEC or OEC. As for myself, I am an OEC. This particular theory is but one of many out there, but for me, it seems the most plausible thus far in many regards.

yeah it doesn't work.

Originally posted by whodey
Of course in the traditional sense, not everything has an orbit, or at least, not a perceivable one. For example, the sun orbits the center of the galaxy as does everything within that galaxy. However, what of the galaxy? What does it orbit around? Perhaps something. Perhaps nothing or at least not what we would call an orbit. I would just say that obse ...[text shortened]... he dust that orbits a particular star have to had originated from that star? I don't think so.

yeah, this post is absolutely pointless. earth was created first. first as in no sun, stars were created before it. so it had nothing to orbit around. it had nothing to exert gravitational pull. it was simply floating in a soup of light like a dumpling. one half in the light and one in the darkness. so it was still, unless you believe there was another magical force causing it to move.
there was no matter to which to relate.

the sun formed and the planets were born as lumps from the sun that got away. among them earth.

but your theory of the earth being created separately, after that the solar system and then somehow the solar system trapping the earth and placing it in exactly the right place is much more likely.

the theory how the earth formed has been in place for more than 100 years. it has been improved of course, but basically the idea remained the same.

why in the world would you hold so dear to your heart an impossible and
quite i logic story just because it is in the bible is beyond reason. you actually find it reasonable that god would choose a bunch of nomadic herders from the middle of the desert and make them his chosen only to have his son killed brutally by them later.

can all problems be solved with "God knows", "God has a plan" or is it our duty towards god to make use of our reason and figure things our for ourselves?

im adresing the first part of this thread.please excuse my spelling.
moses the man who wrote genesis and other books wasnt much of
an orator or i dare say speller either.first point,these books in
there original language and context differ dramatically from your current KJV of the bible.the translation from ancient hebrew and greek
coupled with the adulteration of script passed down from the holy
catholic church and king james make it very difficult for any creationist
to argue or vie with a scientific answer to our existence.6000 years
rediculous!!the only other plausible explanation to our existence is
alien plantation!any big bang or evolution from science dims each
year as darwin and his missing link are slowly becoming a proven
farse of a theory.good luck in your quest!!!!?

Originally posted by whodey
Do notice that I said it was ONE of many reasons and not the only reason.

Glad you brought up Buddah. Here is what Buddah says regarding the creation of the universe.

"Conjecture about the origin of the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness and vexation to anyone who conjectured about it." LOL.

W universe. 🙄

As for myself, I'll stick with a source that seems to have some answers. 😉

I wonder where you got THAT quote from.

This might (though I doubt it) clarify your usual ignorance and misunderstanding of the belief systems of Buddhism at least in this regard:

Buddhism and Cosmology

What are the consequences of the concept of interdependence on cosmological ideas in Buddhism? The concept of interdependence implies that the elements of the conventional reality we are all familiar with do not possess an existence that is permanent and autonomous. This thing exists because something else exists, that happens because this has occurred. Nothing can exist by itself and be its own cause.
Everything depends on everything else. Suppose that there is an entity that exists independently of all the others. This implies that it is not produced by a cause, that is, either it has always existed or it does not exist at all. Such an entity will be unchanging since it cannot act on others and others cannot act on it. The world of phenomena could not function. Thus interdependence is essential for phenomena to manifest themselves.
Because the concept of interdependence implies that nothing can exist by itself and be its own cause, it goes against the idea of a creative principle, a First Cause or a God that is permanent, all-powerful, that has no other cause than itself, and which created the universe. In the same vein, Buddhism rejects the idea that the universe can be born out of nothing - a creation ex-nihilo - because the universe has to depend on something else to emerge. If the universe was created, it is because there was a potentiality already present. The coming into being of the universe is merely the realization of that potentiality. One can thus interpret the Big Bang as the manifestation of the phenomenal world emerging from an infinite potentiality already in existence. In a poetic language, Buddhism speaks about of "particles of space" which carry in them the potentiality of matter. This is strongly reminiscent of the vacuum filled with energy that is thought to have given birth the material content of the universe in the modern Big Bang theory. Material phenomenon and things are not "created" in the sense that they go from a state of non-existence to one of existence. Rather they go from an unrealized state to a realized state. Once it has come into existence, the universe goes through a series of cycles, each composed of 4 stages: birth, evolution, death and a state where the universe is pure potentiality but has not manifested yet itself. This cyclic universe has no beginning nor an end.

http://www.purifymind.com/BuddhismCosmology.htm

That seems to have "some answers" to me.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I wonder where you got THAT quote from.

This might (though I doubt it) clarify your usual ignorance and misunderstanding of the belief systems of Buddhism at least in this regard:

Buddhism and Cosmology

What are the consequences of the concept of interdependence on cosmological ideas in Buddhism? The concept of interdependence impl rifymind.com/BuddhismCosmology.htm

That seems to have "some answers" to me.

Dear God, I've released the Buddha police!!!

I'll take your word for it. The site I got it from seemed to be legit. Then again, so does yours, so we'll go with yours. As the great Buddha might say, who am I to impose any one right answer on another? 😉

Originally posted by Zahlanzi

can all problems be solved with "God knows", "God has a plan" or is it our duty towards god to make use of our reason and figure things our for ourselves?[/b]

To have a working relationship with God, if there be one, you would be obligated to place your faith in him at some point. This is because, if there be a God, such a God would have superior reasoning abilities than yoiur own, hence, at times it would behoove one to then rely on his superior insight than that of our own. Otherwise, we may as just as well ignore him if he exists, thus no faith would be needed and no relationship started. He would be as dead to us as if he did not even exist.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I wonder where you got THAT quote from.

This might (though I doubt it) clarify your usual ignorance and misunderstanding of the belief systems of Buddhism at least in this regard:

Buddhism and Cosmology

What are the consequences of the concept of interdependence on cosmological ideas in Buddhism? The concept of interdependence impl ...[text shortened]... rifymind.com/BuddhismCosmology.htm

That seems to have "some answers" to me.

Rather they go from an unrealized state to a realized state.

I read a Torah commentary the other day that made exactly this point, pointing to the words v’ha-aretz hayetah tohu v’bohu: “and the earth was formless and chaotic” (my translation). If I can find that particular commentary to cite, I will; but it was opposing the conventional notion of creation ex nihilo.

Both the Jewish Publication Society (JPS), and the Stone Edition Tanach (Orthodox), treat this is a clause of the opening sentence—

JPS: “When God began to create heaven and earth—the earth being unformed and void…”

Stone: “In the beginning of God’s creating the heavens and the earth—when the earth was astonishingly formless…”

Another version I have seen begins: “With [that is, “by means of”] beginning, God created…”

Nondualistic Judaism (the river in which I swim—and perhaps the majority view, as opposed to dualism) does not admit of any nihil that somehow confronted/bounded the divine Ein Sof (“Without end”; think Brahman). In one kabbalistic interpretation (that of Isaac Luria), Ein Sof formed within itself a kind of womb-space (an act called tzimtzum), which might be called the tehom (“deep” ) in Gen. 1:1. In any event (and all of this ought to be read as allegory and metaphor—“midrash”—in the light of mystery), there was nothing for God to create from but God-self; there was not “a nothing” that could be treated as if it were some kind of “something” (such as empty space; even dimensionality is formed in the womb of Ein Sof). Nor was there any other “something”—there was just Ein Sof.

Therefore, Moshe Cordovero (a predecessor of Luria) could say—in a statement that reflects the same underlying philosophy as Vedanta:

“The essence of divinity is found in every single thing—nothing but it exists... Do not attribute duality to God. Let God be solely God. If you suppose that Ein Sof emanates until a certain point, and that from that point on is outside it, you have dualized. Realize, rather, that Ein Sof exists in each existent. Do not say, ‘This is a stone and not God.’ Rather, all existence is God, and the stone is pervaded by divinity.”

—Rabbi Moshe Cordovero (16th century, quoted in Daniel Matt, The Essential Kabbalah)

Note: Ein Sof means “without end.” It is the totality that has no edge, because it is the totality; and the ground of being in which, from which, and of which all being emanates, however that is so. It is the ultimate term for “God” in Jewish mystical (nondualistic) theology.


Needless to say, there is no single “doctrine” of creation in Judaism. The Zohar offers a different (but still nondualistic) reading of the opening verses of Genesis.

Originally posted by whodey
Well to say that ALL Hindus/Jews do not take their creation stories literally would be incorrect just like it would be to say that ALL Christians take the account in Genesis as literal.

To illustrate my point, I will direct your attention to a Jew who is also a scientist whom I have talked about before. His name is Dr. Gerald Schroeder who takes the Genes ...[text shortened]... u want the building blocks to play with to try and get them to work, make them yourself. 😉

I guess my point is, is that the Genesis account in terms of ancient myths is about as accurate as there is out there no matter your interpretation of it. In addition, as with most stories in the Bible there is more truth in these stories than people like yourself give them credit.

What if one's interpretation of genesiac account is that it is not truth-apt and therefore neither true nor false? I mean, what does a myth such as this even assert, really? I take such myths as anthropologically relevant and insightful, but I don't waste my time pretending that they can boast "accuracy". If you force me to take it at face value, then have it your way: in that case, your genesiac account is outrageously false and arbitrary, like any religious myth.