Created by vs. Descended from?

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Carcano, Apr 4, 2013.

  1. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,865
    The text of Genesis is very clear on this, and light years from your convoluted analogizing.

    Adam and Eve didnt cover up because they had disobeyed God...they covered themselves on recognizing the body as inherently evil.

    "And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons."

    "Who told you that you were naked"...God later asks.

    How could one ask such a question...not knowing what clothing is?

    Nakedness is simply the absence of clothing.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,865
    The court of Athens consigned Socrates to drink the hemlock for questioning the validity of the local religious traditions...not because he was ugly.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    By defining "material" and "spiritual" exclusively by the intent with which they are undertaken or pursued, you are implying that there is no object or action that is inherently material or spiritual. In a roundabout way, you've actually agreed with me; I have said from the start that religions are not actually asking their proponents to abandon material desires, rather that they are simply claiming that their current behaviors will not achieve the desired result, and offering the "true" path to satisfaction (which, not incidentally, is always billed as the ultimate and greatest satisfaction) via an alternative set of behaviors. In other words, they're still requiring you to desire tangible things like life, health, happiness, comfort, etc., they're just insisting that you'll find these things at the end of this long and winding path they've laid out for you. They dress it up in terms like "spiritual," but as you've just said, it's a rouse rather than a real thing.

    Of course, you probably don't even realize that the claim "there's more to this life that what we see,' is in itself an expression of desire for material wealth, happiness, comfort, and health. By adopting a theistic worldview as you have, you see the universe as inherently lacking because you believe there is a paradise beyond this plane of existence. So you're not really transcending desires at all, you're simply assuming that your desires will be fulfilled entirely after death.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,865
    The Norse traditions are very interesting on this question...representing a kind of third alternative to creation vs descent.

    The first man and women are called ASK and EMBLA...and are simply 'found' by the Gods, just lying around like seashells!

    Instead of stealing their human qualities, they are gifted by the Gods with Spirit, Sense, Blood and Colour.

    From the prophesy of the seeress...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Völuspá


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. IfIonlyhadabrain Registered Member

    Messages:
    84
    What I'm giving you is Judeo Christian theology. If you want to read it your way, feel free. Just know that your reading isn't reflected in the way Jews and Christians think about this stuff. There is nothing inherently evil in the body, in Judeo-Christian theology. You're thinking of gnosticism, which is specifically condemned in Catholic theology.
     
  9. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    I said: The Greeks themselves had him killed for not fitting in.


    Mormon doctrine is similar; in it, God is not described as the creator, maintainer and controller of the Universe, but as someone who was once a man, living in an already existing universe, and who later became exalted to godhood.


    My my, that is just so discriminatory against people who are born with disabilities, who are naturally not particularly good-looking, or those who suffer disease, injury and death later on.


    You wouldn't consider these to be representative of mankind, eh?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    There are three kinds of actions: mental, verbal and physical.


    Only in your mind.
    :shrug:
     
  11. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    I'd dispute that, but for now I'm just curious what you hope to accomplish by saying such a thing.

    No, it's really there in your words.

    :shrug:
     
  12. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    the point is that you insist on defining key terms in a manner that doesn't exceed your experience.

    IOW its not so much that you are an outsider (since even an outsider can work theoretically with terms beyond their experience) ... but rather that you fail to acknowledge that you are an outsider (and hence don't have a problem laying down your law that all subsequent discussion must not violate your pre-existing favoured paradigm)
     
  13. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Understanding that there are mental actions helps one understand how two people can externally do the same kind of thing (such as eat an apple), but with different intentions.


    And you are the Law, right.
     
  14. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    No term we've discussed requires a special or unique experience to define. This really does seem like a non-sequitur, and one you're employing out of desperation rather than conviction. You're not supporting it with any evidence, or even an argument, whereas I have explained how and why the "immaterial" is not really immaterial, and what religions really want from their followers.

    If at any point you feel more confident in your position, feel free to take me up on it. I found the outset of this discussion to be very interesting, and I'd love to pursue it further.

    I wasn't talking about myself, obviously, since I'm not the one you made the comment to. You and I were having a conversation, then you abandoned it seemingly when my arguments had frustrated your own, opting instead to make a remark to wynn about what's wrong with my position. It's this choice of reaching out to a third-party for comfort instead of continuing the dialogue that disappointed me. But again, you clearly don't feel confident in your position, so you're running away. I get it, I just wish it weren't the case.

    :shrug:

    [edit: To your point, however--and I feel that it's important I address this--there isn't anything about your claims that require a new paradigm. Let's review:

    Your initial claim in this thread was that a spiritual or religious model puts God at the center of the worldview, which I countered with the observation that all religious and spiritual pursuits hinge on selfish desires, hence keeping oneself firmly in the center of the worldview regardless of what is said of God's position. You seemed to deflect this, asking in response how this can be so when such desires are not extant in the life of someone who adopts a spiritual worldview. Obviously, this statement utterly ignores my previous contention that those desires are not simply extant in those who adopt a spiritual worldview, but that spiritual pursuits require them to be of any effectiveness whatsoever. When I further explained this to you, your response was to call it "hedging bets," and cited a Vedic verse about how those who enjoyed materialistic pleasures would be hindered in their devotion to the Supreme Lord. Not only did this fail to contradict my point, it actually helped to illustrate it: Devotion to the Supreme Lord encompasses all of the "opulences" that one would seek in what you would call a "material" sense--health, life, comfort, happiness, purpose, etc., thereby demonstrating that spiritual "enlightenment" is achieved merely by valuing the opulences offered by a deity over those offered by a department store.

    So there doesn't seem to be a need for a new paradigm or any special experience. If you'd like to make a case for why there needs to be, I'm all ears, but as of yet you've offered claims and little else]
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2013
  15. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    Understanding that intentions are not actions keeps one from making such contradictory and uselessly confusing statements such as that.

    Another ego defense mechanism. Who doesn't own their own words?

    :shrug:
     
  16. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,865
    The Greek creation story is found in the Argonautica where Deucalion and his cousin Pyrrha, both offspring of Titans, survive the great global flood conjured by Zeus, king of the Olympian Gods.

    They are tasked with the re-population of the earth, and do so by throwing stones behind them as they walk through the world. Stones they believe to be the bones of the great earth mother...Gaia.

    In a sense, this makes us all her descendants!


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    In one sense, there is no need in matters of enlightenment or spirituality: people are either interested in it, or they aren't.

    And those who are interested, will do what it takes.

    Those that aren't interested, will don't engage with those issues at all.

    Although there are peculiar groups of those who aren't interested but pretend to be; and those who are interested but pretend not to be.
     
  18. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    I obviously didn't mean there was a need to become enlightened. What I meant--indeed, what I said--was that there is no need for a new paradigm or special experience in order to understand the concept. LG tried to dismiss my argument out of hand as being "the dint of [my] experience," as if in order to see things from his perspective, one must share his experience. It's silly on his part, since what we're talking about doesn't require anything other than examining the claims of the various spiritual and religious claims made by humans.

    Again, why is it suggested that you "become spiritual?" So you can gain something. What becomes of you if you don't? You miss out on something great, or you lose something you already have. What is heaven if not the ultimate opulence? What is hell if not the ultimate poverty?
     
  19. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Again:
    In one sense, there is no need in matters of enlightenment or spirituality: people are either interested in it, or they aren't.
     
  20. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    Again:

    I never said there was.
     
  21. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Ah. You seem like a person who was carried into a monastery by force, and is being kept there by force, and who desperately wants to get out of the monastery.

    Hint: Nothing is keeping you here in this conversation with myself and LG; at least nothing on our part.
     
  22. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    Why do you say that? Because I'm critical of your intellectual cowardice and dishonesty? Hint: If you don't change how you present yourself, you'll never get a different response. (And it doesn't take a God to see that you're a troll)

    Certainly not. Both of you actively avoid discussions that challenge your worldview.
     
  23. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,419
    Balerion, you just don't get it.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    jan.
     

Share This Page