Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark T. Sandrock) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Creation Message-ID: Date: 10 Nov 90 13:24:56 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Lines: 63 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu mm@blake.u.washington.edu (Eric Gorr) writes: >I am in debate right now with a room mate on how to interpret specifically >the account of creation. What I lack the knowledge of is those "experts" >within the christian faith which do not support the literial interpretation >of the account of creation..... The problem with previous "literal" interpretations of the Creation account of Genesis is that they contained a fundamental "self-centered" bias, which has lead to an inevitable conflict between science and religion--the endless "Creation versus evolution" debate. But this conflict need not exist. Why is there a "self-centered" bias in the "literal" interpretation of the Creation account? Why did we once believe the earth was flat? Why did we once believe the earth was the center of the Solar System? Why were those who tried to say otherwise subject to persecution? Because anyone could see "literally" that the earth was flat, and that the sun did go around us, no? This does not, however, justify being closed to new knowledge when it does come to our attention... We are responsible for what we choose to believe. The simple fact is that the Creation account in Genesis *is* quite literally true, but this does not mean that it is referring to this small insignificant planet upon which we all must dwell for a time. Instead, the Genesis account describes the *original* Creation, the Creation of the Spiritual Sphere. Or should not the spiritual world also contain that which we see in this world? Land, water, plants, animals, etc.? This material world in which we find ourselves is properly described by the term "Subsequent Creation". So we see very simply that the whole Creation does consist of two fundamental sections: (1) Original (Spiritual) Creation, and (2) Subsequent (Material) Creation. The first of these, the Original Creation, was indeed created directly from out of God. The second, Subsequent Creation, was *not* directly created, but rather subsequently *developed* as a natural consequence of the Original Spiritual Creation. Thus, Creation *and* evolution are both correct concepts within the *whole* of Creation! The Divine Sphere *alone* has existed from all eternity. I don't see that this knowledge should be particularly difficult to grasp, it is only a matter of wanting to see and to understand, and then the pieces do indeed begin to fall into place everywhere to fill in all the gaps. These explanations are based upon my own understanding of the Grail Message, "In the Light of Truth", by Abd-ru-shin, and it is the Grail Message itself (and not me nor anyone else) which is the authoritative source of answers for all questions of a spiritual nature. It has been kindly suggested to me that I should not make such statements, but I have to say what I know to be true. What is good and true in the Bible is only confirmed and explained by the Grail Message, whereas all that is false in the hitherto existing human interpretations must be stripped away. The human spirit can find true liberation and redemption in the truth itself, and by no other means. What is more important than just this? With kind regards, Mark Sandrock -- BITNET: sandrock@uiucscs Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Internet: sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu Chemical Sciences Computing Services Voice: 217-244-0561 505 S. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL 61801