Discussion in 'Religion' started by Jan Ardena, Apr 8, 2018.
Since all creation myths are essentially fiction, does it really matter?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Well, if you want to launch a relevant criticism and step outside of preaching to the choir by labelling everything and anyone you disagree with as "abrahamic", then yes.
It doesn't matter how you label it, it's all just primitive speculation. The only value in the myths is what they can tell you about the cultures they're derived from, not what they can tell you about actual cosmology.
Exactly the same as it is now.......Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
What we believe has absolutely no bearing on reality.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Ummm ... but you did just label it .... so if you want to take the subject outside of the labeling game (regardless whether you want to use "primitive speculation" or "abrahamic"), you will have to start moving in the direction of relevant argument and critique.
Well, we are moving further and further away from this unusual generic "abrahamic" label, and into the "primitive speculation" label ... but either way, it's not apparent how you are talking about anything other than your own values, opinions, etc.
These creation myths have a number of descriptive labels that can be applied, myth being one of them. Do you object to that one as well? Primitive speculation is about as objectively accurate as I can imagine. How else would you describe millennial old mysical musings?
As I said earlier, the onus is on you if you want to take the discussion beyond your choir group. You are just throwing around a bunch of labels that have no ultimate significance beyond your own opinions snd beliefs.
The labels I used were accurate descriptions of these ancient human constructions. What other labels would you care to add?
To what end?
To make the circumference of your circular reasoning "bigger"?
One of Jan's beliefs seems to be that all "scriptures" ultimately say the same thing about what's important, they all reference the same God and they all present more or less obscured versions of the message that's supposedly presented most clearly and perfectly in the Bhagavad Gita. Since the scriptures of the various religions contradict each other at various points, one can only harmonize them by 'picking and choosing' particular passages that sound similar in each one and best conform with the BG.
The ISKCON theology with regards to the subject of this tread is discussed on page 8 here (highlighting by me):
"In common with many followers of Vedantic tradition, devotees of Krsna distinguish between Krsna consciousness, or pure love of God (sanatana-dharma), and what is commonly understood as religion (dharma). In his introduction to Bhagavad-gita, Srila Prabhupada explains: Sanatana-dharma does not refer to any sectarian process of religion. It is the eternal function of the eternal living entities in relationship with the eternal Supreme Lord... The English word religion is a little different from sanatana-dharma. Religion conveys the idea of faith, and faith may change... but sanatana-dharma refers to that activity which cannot be changed."
Hence Jan's interest in Nuri Vittachi's remarks in the O.P. The idea seems to me to be that we are all eternal transmigrating souls. All souls are in an eternal relationship with God/Krishna. But during some lifetimes some of the souls struggle and deny that relationship, convincing themselves that they are atheists. The ideal is to replace struggle and denial with ceaseless never-ending bhakti.
The Krishna devotees emphasize divine creation.
Since all "scriptures" supposedly teach the same thing and reveal Krishna when rightly understood, and since most internet atheists seem totally obsessed with Biblical Christianity and its Hebrew roots, it makes sense to discuss creation as described in the scriptures that are recognized by the people one is talking to.
Since Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 almost certainly came from earlier polytheistic creation myths - a few of them. For example, Genesis 1 likely came from the Egyptian creation myth. The Egyptian myth has many of the same elements - separating the earth and the sky, the first day, creating dry land etc. This was a common motif for Egyptians due to the Nile's regular floods - fertile dry land rising out of muddy waters was a powerful image for them. Of course, in the Egyptian version all those components (sky, waters, land, sun) were separate gods, so it needed some editing before it could set the stage for Genesis.
I'm not sure what any of your ideas have to do with ideas of intelligent universal creation.
JamesR suggested Iceaura is correct in discerning an Abrahamic idea of creation.
I asked what would that mean (since Iceaura's use of the word seems to say more of the chip he has on his shoulder than any accurate understanding of the world). This prompted a reference to numerous, mostly polytheistic and Animistic cultures, as some sort of response. Now you are attempting to track the cultural connection betwern Egypt and Judaism .... which, even if we are to grant your ideas the greatest charity, says nothing about discussing monotheistic ideas of creation outside of the abrahamic atheist rhetoric. It's a common ploy : talk about "all ideas of God" or "all ideas of religion" and when we get down to brass tacks, find out they are mostly talking about christianity (and usually protestantism).
You are still not taking it out of the "abrahamic". IYHO, are all monotheistic ideas of creation "abrahamic"?
How about to make some relevant point about the value of creation myths in general, or their contrasting value in particular. If you don’t want a circular discussion, stop talking in circles and open it up.
I am. At the moment I am pointing out the circular usage of the term "abrahamic" and that despite links to wiki pages, most in present company are not even vaguely familiar with "all religions" so their subsequent opinions never leave the realm of values and beliefs.
Don't wait for others, go ahead and make your case with contrasting examples.
Labels to contrast your labels?
What would be the point?
So you can at least establish what your position is regarding the value of creation mythology.
Like any creation story involving a god, which doesn't adhere strictly to the Garden of Eden narrative that appears in the Old Testament/Torah.
Christianity (all brands), Judaism and Islam all share the same basic Creation myth. Some adherents to those religions allow a more flexible interpretation that the literal one pushed by the fundamentalists, but the core ideas are the same - universe created by God, human beings specially created by God, etc.
Which non-Abrahamic monotheist traditions are you thinking of, specifically?
Which ideas of intelligent universal creation are you thinking of, specifically?
I suggested that Jan Ardena has adopted certain Abrahamic ideas of creation. If you want to know his views more specifically, you'd be better off asking him.
I'm not sure exactly what your complaint is, at least as it applies to what I wrote.
Are you saying that Jan Ardena adheres to some other "monotheistic idea of creation", rather than the Abrahamic one? If so, maybe you ought to say where you believe his Creation story diverges from the Abrahamic story.
Or maybe you're saying that while you personally believe the Abrahamic creation story is not true, you know of some other monotheistic creation story that you believe is true. If that's the case, then there's no reason not to let us all in on your secret.
Or maybe you're just having a generalised whine about how people talk too much about the major monotheistic religions, while ignoring some other brand of monotheism that interests you more. If that's the case, we can discuss your preferred brand of monotheism and its Creation story. Just tell us what you want to discuss.
Thanks for your information regarding the Hari Krishnas' beliefs. I am not very familiar with them. Now I'm beginning to wonder whether Jan is actually still a practicing Hari Krishna. At a minimum, the evidence suggests that he is a lapsed one.
As you say, he is very careful (these days) to hide his connection to any particular faith tradition. Maybe he's embarrassed to admit it, for some reason.
In that light, Jan's stance on atheism on this forum makes a lot of sense. Probably he really believes that atheists are troubled souls in unknowing (or knowing) denial of Krishna.
I checked out the link to the "evolution" resources on the Hari Krishna site. The first article I read there quotes as authorities two well-known Christian creationists, Philip Johnson and Michael Behe, both discredited promoters of the fraud of so-called "intelligent design".
Whether Jan gets his creationist views first-hand from Christian Americans at the Discovery Institute or second-hand via Hari Krishnas who cut and paste from them makes very little practical difference. Either way, we're dealing with the same misconceptions and false propaganda.
In the first article I read from the Krishnas, I immediately picked up two or three of the usual untruths above evolution that the Christian creationists like to put out. Whether these are quoted out of a deliberate attempt to mislead readers, or out of ignorance of the science is something we could debate, but the fact that it is misinformation remains either way.
Separate names with a comma.