In the articles so far written about this subject on various sites I've read lately, "arguing the existence of the devil", the level of ignorance of the writers is so painfully apparent it is embarrassing to the rest of us.
Therefore, let us get a few things understood from the outset about Christianity, evil, and the possibility that there is such a thing as a devil:
(1) Christianity is NOT the "only" religion. ITI Traditionalism, is both a spiritual and a religious way; there are many varieties because there are many ITI cultures; there is not and never has been "an Indian culture" on this Turtle Island. Shinto, Bhuddism, Islam, Wicca, and Masonry are all spiritual ways having religious protocols, and name only a few of the many religious ways found among humans here on the earth.
(2) Christianity is NOT the "only valid" religion. To repeat, ITI Traditionalism, Shinto, Bhuddism, Islam, Wicca,and Masonry are all spiritual ways having religious protocols, and name only a few of the many religious ways found among humans here on the earth.
(3) Christianity is NOT the "first" or "first valid" religion. ITI Traditionalism has existed far longer than Christianity, and there are many other spiritual and religious ways that have, as well.
(4) Anyone who does not subscribe to Christianity is NOT "automatically" an atheist. This perspective is so ridiculous it doesn't deserve the dignity of further discussion. It shrieks of the ignorance of anyone who claims that all non-Christians are automatically atheists, though. Such people should do a long, intensive meditation on the old teaching, "it is better to keep your mouth shut and have people think you might be a fool, than to open it and remove any doubt". 'Hoof IN mouth' disease is another name for it, to speak tongue-in-cheek.
(5) Christianity is NOT "the number one" religion - anywhere. Even "if" a majority of people in any locale claimed to believe in the Christian way, that does NOT mean they actually follow its precepts. The behavior of far too many people who claim to be "good Christians" proves that.. The behavior of those who claim to 'follow' the Christian way does so even more.
(6) Simply because a person does not subscribe to Christianity does NOT mean they don't believe in the existence of evil. There are more devout people among nearly every spiritual way in the world than there are among so-called Christians. I, for one, much prefer quality to quantity, any time.
Now to the question of whether or not there is such a being as a devil. We must first answer whether or not such a being has a form, and if it has, does it have more than one form?
Since humans are visual creatures, whether evil ever has a form of its own or not is irrelevant. What is likely is that evil takes any of a variety of forms so that humans can relate to it. Mengele, Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer... all come to mind as candidates for evil taking a form so that humans can relate to it. Since the human being does not exist that can frighten me so far as my considerable experience has shown, then evil for me takes some other form(s). For me, human over-population is absolutely evil, and so is its nightmare progeny, global warming. I am the woman who Dances The Four Winds, which is a prayer to heal the sacred hoop of the world, so it is easy to see how I would see evil through this. For you, it may be otherwise.
Since evil is a reality, and it takes many forms, and evil definitely has strong effects throughout the life of every entity on the earth and has throughout time, then it may be said that at times, evil inhabits some physical entity and that becomes "a devil".
In the Traditional Way of my People, the Lakota, there is no such thing as "a devil", but there definitely are evil spirits. Similarly, there is no "hell"; there is only life here on the earth, which is definitely a place of suffering - often, considerable suffering.
The assaults on all ITI Traditional ways and cultures by so-called "missionaries" of the Christian way are definitely evil. Forced adoption of ITI children to non-ITI people, is definitely evil. Anything that makes an effort to destroy our Traditional spiritual and cultural ways and fabric is evil. Fortunately, we now have the Indian Child Welfare Act to prevent most such non-Indn adoptions, and we ITI have been becoming stronger and stronger in our efforts to not only stop the actions of "missionaries", but to reverse them.
Is there only one way to define evil? Probably. Anything that causes personal or cultural suffering is evil, no matter how 'well-intended' it is said to be. Evil comes into everyone's life because everyone at some time or other invites it in or doesn't do what they must to prevent evil's entry. Is that the work on one entity? No. Just as there are 404 Good Spirits, so there are many nasty ones. It is about balance, and the exact number doesn't matter.
Showing posts with label atheism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label atheism. Show all posts
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Monday, February 11, 2008
Stephen Hawking and the Reality of a Creator
I've been reading a book on Stephen Hawking, the British theoretical physicist who has ALS.
Dr. Hawking wrote a book in 1988, A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME; FROM THE BIG BANG TO BLACK HOLES. In it, he asks, "So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?"
The analogy for the shape of the universe he uses is that of the earth, having a point - somewhere - at the top, widening to the equator, then becoming smaller to a point - somewhere - at the bottom. Since there is no place on the earth that is identifiable as the point of beginning of the earth, so there can be no point of an end to the surface of the earth. Dr. Hawking takes the position that because this is so for the earth, if it is also true for the universe, then there is no need or place for a creator.
He further posits that there is no place for a creator - i.e., no reality of one - because, without a point of beginning, there is no possibility of "anything existing before time".
I believe Dr. Hawking is wrong, and that his position has a basic flaw. This basic flaw stems from the logic he uses to make his position. He appears to believe that if we cannot measure either "time", or the point at which "time" began, nothing existed before it except possibly energy, and nothing could have. Simply because there is no point of beginning - of time or anything else - that we mere humans can measure does not automatically insure that nothing came before the thing we call "time". In fact, 'nothing' has been proven to be impossible to exist; nature abhors a vacuum and there are no true vacuums to be found anywhere.. If there were, the basic laws of physics would be nullified. In short, Dr. Hawking depends on humans' ability to measure and quantify the universe in order to define both the universe and the reality, or lack thereof, of a creator, and his position is based on a premise that is a direct violation to the most basic laws of physics.
Moreover, the lack of a point of beginning or ending of the earth or any part of the universe in whole or in part proves the reality of a Creator, simply because it reflects the eternal nature of the Creator, Which has not beginning or ending Itself.
While Dr. Hawking is welcome to espouse any theory he cares to, the lack of ability to measure a thing does not prove it doesn't exist. The most basic laws of physics speak to this. What this lack does prove is that human technology is not infallible, may never achieve the perfection he seems to believe it can, and in any case, since physics has long ago proven that there is no such thing as a 'true' vacuum – i.e., a space containing absolutely nothing, there may well be a creator.
More than that, I believe absolutely that the universe is a logical creation, and that this in and of itself proves absolutely that there is indeed a creator. To believe in the logic that allows physics and mathematics to exist and to describe the mysteries of the universe and then to claim at the same time that the universe happened by accident is completely illogical. If the universe happened entirely by accident, logic could not function. Predictability would not exist. Chaos would rule, rather than entropy and predictability. The Big Bang may have happened, but it did not 'just happen'. There was a logic – a creator – that made it happen, if it happened at all.
Dr. Hawking wrote a book in 1988, A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME; FROM THE BIG BANG TO BLACK HOLES. In it, he asks, "So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?"
The analogy for the shape of the universe he uses is that of the earth, having a point - somewhere - at the top, widening to the equator, then becoming smaller to a point - somewhere - at the bottom. Since there is no place on the earth that is identifiable as the point of beginning of the earth, so there can be no point of an end to the surface of the earth. Dr. Hawking takes the position that because this is so for the earth, if it is also true for the universe, then there is no need or place for a creator.
He further posits that there is no place for a creator - i.e., no reality of one - because, without a point of beginning, there is no possibility of "anything existing before time".
I believe Dr. Hawking is wrong, and that his position has a basic flaw. This basic flaw stems from the logic he uses to make his position. He appears to believe that if we cannot measure either "time", or the point at which "time" began, nothing existed before it except possibly energy, and nothing could have. Simply because there is no point of beginning - of time or anything else - that we mere humans can measure does not automatically insure that nothing came before the thing we call "time". In fact, 'nothing' has been proven to be impossible to exist; nature abhors a vacuum and there are no true vacuums to be found anywhere.. If there were, the basic laws of physics would be nullified. In short, Dr. Hawking depends on humans' ability to measure and quantify the universe in order to define both the universe and the reality, or lack thereof, of a creator, and his position is based on a premise that is a direct violation to the most basic laws of physics.
Moreover, the lack of a point of beginning or ending of the earth or any part of the universe in whole or in part proves the reality of a Creator, simply because it reflects the eternal nature of the Creator, Which has not beginning or ending Itself.
While Dr. Hawking is welcome to espouse any theory he cares to, the lack of ability to measure a thing does not prove it doesn't exist. The most basic laws of physics speak to this. What this lack does prove is that human technology is not infallible, may never achieve the perfection he seems to believe it can, and in any case, since physics has long ago proven that there is no such thing as a 'true' vacuum – i.e., a space containing absolutely nothing, there may well be a creator.
More than that, I believe absolutely that the universe is a logical creation, and that this in and of itself proves absolutely that there is indeed a creator. To believe in the logic that allows physics and mathematics to exist and to describe the mysteries of the universe and then to claim at the same time that the universe happened by accident is completely illogical. If the universe happened entirely by accident, logic could not function. Predictability would not exist. Chaos would rule, rather than entropy and predictability. The Big Bang may have happened, but it did not 'just happen'. There was a logic – a creator – that made it happen, if it happened at all.
I am a Traditional person of my Lakota People. We have a creation story, as does every other culture on earth. I will tell a part of it here, because it reinforces my position.
Our Lakota Creation Story teaches: Long, long ago, before measurable time existed, and so, before the world (= universe) existed, everything existed, but it was formless. We Lakota call this formless condition 'being in the void'. A void is not an empty space; no such place exists. Void means “the absence of physical form”. Yet, there was life, because everything is made up of spirit (energy) at its most basic.
A proof of this would be lightning. We can see lightning and its effects, but we cannot see the parts that make it up, and we know it is pure spirit, pure energy. Yet, among our People, there are those wakan (mysterious / holy) people who can call the lightnings – the Wikangli Oyate – and work with them. These are the heyoka – sometimes called the Thunder Dreamers.
Anyway, the many parts within the void may not have had form, but they did have a connection to each other; we say, "they were related"; and they knew this and that they made up a whole, because the world (= universe) is composed of spirit at its most basic, and spirit has no one form itself, yet It is everywhere.
For whatever reason, suddenly the group consciousness began to wonder what Its various parts were like. It wondered about this for awhile, until finally Its curiosity was so great It decided to find out.
It began to separate out some of its most basic spirit energy, since Power has many levels, and what eventually formed, was Inyan, the Rock, which later became the Earth.
As the most basic spirit energy separated out and formed Inyan, the Rock, some of the Power of Takuskanskan – Something Holy Moving, which is spirit / energy, which is always moving – also leaked out. As it turned out, it had to be this way, although we don't know why, or need to know why, and it could not be reversed without great difficulty.
The color of this Power was bright blue, and became the disc of the sky. This shade of blue is the holiest of the colors. The point when Takuskanskan began to separate out some of Its most basic spirit energy and it became Inyan as it solidified into having form, is when Time began.
We Lakota have known these things far longer than the majority culture has existed. And, whether we argue Dr. Hawking's question from the perspective of the newcomer, physics, or from that of ancient knowledge from my people's culture, we know his question and his belief that there is no Creator, is wrong and his logic is flawed; that he has apparently overlooked some basic tenets of physics and logic. Just because something has always been does not mean there is no creator - it means there must be a creator, since only the form, or lack of it, is the point of contention. The universe IS the Creator, then; resolving Itself into Its myriad parts, in order to learn what It is really all about. The ongoing formation of the universe is a voyage of self-discovery by the Creator. Hechetu ye.
Monday, January 28, 2008
On The Reality of A God-Power - or Not
I'm a shameless read-aholic. I read labels, signs, just about anything that isn't pornographic. I may disagree absolutely with what I'm reading, wonder at the mentality of the writer, but if I don't read what the writer has to say, how can I debate it? If it's dangerous to true freedom, in particular?
Recently, I was scanning headlines, and one of them had to do with the question, "Is There Really A God?" A second one had to do with asking "Is God Dead or Alive?" As an in-the-bones Traditional and one of those females who always has at least one question, I find these two questions uproariously funny.
When you stop to think that both questions / essays were written by so-called leading Christian theologians, it is enough to make me laugh until I can barely breathe even now; more so because they were both serious. To sum up my reaction, it was "hahahahahahahaha-hoo-hoo-gasp-wheeze", with tears running down my face.
I nearly drove my elders to distraction with, "... I have a question" when I was a child. I was raised to work to puzzle out the answers to my questions before I asked for help, so I really have a problem with those two questions. I mean, how can anyone wonder?
The answer is in the Traditional Teachings I was raised on. Our Creation Story teaches that initially, everything existed, but was formless. We call this 'being in the Void'. Suddenly, That Which Is Holy began to wonder what It was really like; what Its parts were; their natures; and so on. In order to find out, It began to separate a piece of Itself out from the Void; and eventually this solidified and became Inyan, the Rock which has, over the eons, become our Holy Mother, the Earth.
"Inyan" is pronounced "EE-yahngh", with the 'n' nasal as in French. Lakota is a nasal - glottal language.
As That Which Is Holy separated out the part that became Inyan, some of Its Power also seeped out and became the disc of the Sky.. The color of this Power is the shade of blue we see in the sky on a clear day. This is more or less, I suppose, why so many of us ITI People consider turquoise to be holy.
This process of separating Itself into Its myriad parts in order to understand what It is really all about continues now, and will until the end of time. What is called "God" by so many is thus absolutely real. There couldn't be a universe without It. And you couldn't exist either, let alone read this blog.
As for "is God dead?" - If "God" were to die, the universe would cease to exist. And you couldn't be reading this. If certain conditions are met, or not met, our Traditional Teachings provide that the world will indeed end.
Since I am the woman who Dances The Four Winds, which is a prayer to heal the Sacred Hoop of the world, it is part of my job to know if that is going to happen in the foreseeable future. I've been trying to get people's attention about human over-population since I was a child. The gross excess of humans on our Holy Mother the Earth these days have thrown her ecosystems into great imbalance. Global warming speaks eloquently to that.
Does that mean the world will end, from my view? Not the entire world. Not the universe, either. Humans have become a cancer in the web of life, and we are facing mass deaths of humans and some other species as a result of human cultural arrogance.
But "God" will continue; there's no question of that from where I sit.
Recently, I was scanning headlines, and one of them had to do with the question, "Is There Really A God?" A second one had to do with asking "Is God Dead or Alive?" As an in-the-bones Traditional and one of those females who always has at least one question, I find these two questions uproariously funny.
When you stop to think that both questions / essays were written by so-called leading Christian theologians, it is enough to make me laugh until I can barely breathe even now; more so because they were both serious. To sum up my reaction, it was "hahahahahahahaha-hoo-hoo-gasp-wheeze", with tears running down my face.
I nearly drove my elders to distraction with, "... I have a question" when I was a child. I was raised to work to puzzle out the answers to my questions before I asked for help, so I really have a problem with those two questions. I mean, how can anyone wonder?
The answer is in the Traditional Teachings I was raised on. Our Creation Story teaches that initially, everything existed, but was formless. We call this 'being in the Void'. Suddenly, That Which Is Holy began to wonder what It was really like; what Its parts were; their natures; and so on. In order to find out, It began to separate a piece of Itself out from the Void; and eventually this solidified and became Inyan, the Rock which has, over the eons, become our Holy Mother, the Earth.
"Inyan" is pronounced "EE-yahngh", with the 'n' nasal as in French. Lakota is a nasal - glottal language.
As That Which Is Holy separated out the part that became Inyan, some of Its Power also seeped out and became the disc of the Sky.. The color of this Power is the shade of blue we see in the sky on a clear day. This is more or less, I suppose, why so many of us ITI People consider turquoise to be holy.
This process of separating Itself into Its myriad parts in order to understand what It is really all about continues now, and will until the end of time. What is called "God" by so many is thus absolutely real. There couldn't be a universe without It. And you couldn't exist either, let alone read this blog.
As for "is God dead?" - If "God" were to die, the universe would cease to exist. And you couldn't be reading this. If certain conditions are met, or not met, our Traditional Teachings provide that the world will indeed end.
Since I am the woman who Dances The Four Winds, which is a prayer to heal the Sacred Hoop of the world, it is part of my job to know if that is going to happen in the foreseeable future. I've been trying to get people's attention about human over-population since I was a child. The gross excess of humans on our Holy Mother the Earth these days have thrown her ecosystems into great imbalance. Global warming speaks eloquently to that.
Does that mean the world will end, from my view? Not the entire world. Not the universe, either. Humans have become a cancer in the web of life, and we are facing mass deaths of humans and some other species as a result of human cultural arrogance.
But "God" will continue; there's no question of that from where I sit.
Friday, January 25, 2008
On the Reality of Ghosts
There is a picture posted on the Internet in "Odd News" today that shows a ghost, along with the question, 'what do you think it is?'
Someone posted the opinion that it was nothing but a collection of physical effects and some sort of mass delusion. Following is my reply on said opinion:
Given that it is a spirit (= ghost) that makes a body ‘alive’, and its leaving a body that makes said body ‘dead’, it is the height of arrogance and sophomorism to claim there is no such thing as a ghost.
As a Sun Dancer, therefore a Traditional spiritual person of my ITI people, the Lakota, I am best qualified to speak on such things than you are. You need education to end your ignorance, takoszja, from which stem your arrogance and sophomorism.
Atheism has its place, but not as authority on things spiritual. It’s likelier to be a ghost than it is to be a result of some chance coming-together of various effects. There is no such thing as accidental coincidence in the universe, takoszja - there is only the fact of incidents coinciding in time.
Someone posted the opinion that it was nothing but a collection of physical effects and some sort of mass delusion. Following is my reply on said opinion:
Given that it is a spirit (= ghost) that makes a body ‘alive’, and its leaving a body that makes said body ‘dead’, it is the height of arrogance and sophomorism to claim there is no such thing as a ghost.
As a Sun Dancer, therefore a Traditional spiritual person of my ITI people, the Lakota, I am best qualified to speak on such things than you are. You need education to end your ignorance, takoszja, from which stem your arrogance and sophomorism.
Atheism has its place, but not as authority on things spiritual. It’s likelier to be a ghost than it is to be a result of some chance coming-together of various effects. There is no such thing as accidental coincidence in the universe, takoszja - there is only the fact of incidents coinciding in time.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)