1 result for (book:deavf1 AND session:882 AND stemmed:religi)

DEaVF1 Chapter 1: Session 882, September 26, 1979 3/41 (7%) evolution creationism universe evolutionists creationists
– Dreams, "Evolution", and Value Fulfillment: Volume One
– © 2012 Laurel Davies-Butts
– Chapter 1: Before the Beginning
– Session 882, September 26, 1979 9:14 P.M. Wednesday

[... 10 paragraphs ...]

Your now (underlined), or present moment, is a psychological platform. It seems that the universe began with an initial burst of energy of some kind (the “big bang”). Evolutionists cannot account for its cause. Many religious people believe that a god exists in a larger dimension of reality, and that he created the universe while being himself outside of it. He set it into motion. Many individuals, following either persuasion, believe that regardless of its source, the [universe]1 must run out of energy. Established science is quite certain that no energy can now be created or destroyed, but only transformed (as stated in the first law of thermodynamics). Science sees energy and matter as being basically the same thing, appearing differently under varying circumstances.

[... 26 paragraphs ...]

Yet most of what I wrote in Appendix 12 is still valid, to my mind, even though I’ve always wanted to expand (and expound?) upon all of it. There are a few things I’d put somewhat differently now, given the advantage of a couple of years’ hindsight, but Jane and I don’t really want to revise the material. We’d rather let it stand as is, representing our best knowledge and feeling of that time, including the way we put to use Seth’s own information on the subject. If that “best knowledge” was groping and imperfect, then so be it. I think it most interesting that the theory of evolution is now challenged by those who, like Jane and I, simply want to know whether it has a basis in scientific fact; and that it’s also come under virulent attack by those who generally believe in fundamentalist religions. The controversy over whether evolution ever really happened—and/or is happening—is far from resolved, whether in scientific, religious, or lay terms.

[... 1 paragraph ...]

So why do Jane and I think we’re on to something with the Seth material—that it can help if given the chance? Why haven’t others—our scientific, religious, and political leaders, or those in the fine arts, say—come up with ideas similar to those espoused by a Seth, and why aren’t those ideas common today? Seth’s kind of information must have surfaced innumerable times, I think, and for many reasons fallen short as broad coherent systems of thought. How would theology, or the sociology of science, answer any or all of these questions?

Similar sessions

DEaVF2 Chapter 11: Session 937, November 19, 1981 Floyd raccoon chimney genetic coon
DEaVF1 Preface by Seth: Session 881, September 25, 1979 billion creationists reptiles ambitious evolutionary
UR2 Appendix 12: (For Session 705) evolution Darwin appendix dna realism
DEaVF1 Chapter 1: Session 883, October 1, 1979 divine progeny inflationary unimaginable sleepwalkers