Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl00733)

>>>>>>>cut<<<<<<<<
>>>
>>This is an interesting question. As I understand it, there can be nothing
>>outside the cosmos because 'All that Is' is the Cosmos and 'All that Is'
>>would not be that if it could be outside itself. The Cosmos could be thought
>>of as an evolving thing also therefore it is forever expanding and there are
>>no limits to it. The Cosmos is full of Universes that may be said to have
>>arrived via the big bang. As above so below, and as we are never ending so
>>are all other things but all other things are expressions of the Cosmos. I
>>read an interesting thing on Eternal being equated with unchanging and if
>>that was the case nothing was eternal because everything was changing and
>>evolving for ever. I guess it depends on how one understands it.
>>>
>>Bee Brown
>>Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch.
>>Theos Int & L
>>
>>I think the entire difference here is not of opinion but of definition. I
>personally define as "Cosmos" that which was "created" or "formed" by the
>"Big Bang", as such there are many Cosmoi (pl) but if you regard the
>"Cosmos" as everything..then of course nothing can, by definition, be
>outside of everything. I think perhaps it would be best if there was a
>better word for the container of creation.
>
>alexis dolgorukii
>
How would you define a universe? Would that be the container for solar
systems and the Cosmos as container for universes? The Urantia Book has much
to say on this subject and makes interesting theories but it seem such a
vast subject to think about that labels are hard to pin down as to their
meaning. Did the SD have a word for the container of creation? I have read
it but I can't remember if it was mentioned. I suppose it was the circle
with the dot in it or was it just the circle before the dot appeared.
>
Bee Brown
Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch.
Theos Int & L