Created by vs. Descended from?
- Thread starter Carcano
- Start date
Carcano
Valued Senior Member
The great catastrophe of western history was the adoption of the Judean paradigm by the Roman Emperor Constantine. By 'western' I'm referring to the realm north and west of Gibraltar and Constantinople.
A cultural link to the ancient ethos of the Greek world was only re-established by the 'Sun King' Louis XIV (1661-1715)...who created an aesthetic of beauty unblemished by Hebrew self loathing.
Note this portrait of his family depicted as descendants of Hellenistic deities, with their symbols of divinity...the crescent moon, the trident and the cornucopia.
A cultural link to the ancient ethos of the Greek world was only re-established by the 'Sun King' Louis XIV (1661-1715)...who created an aesthetic of beauty unblemished by Hebrew self loathing.
Note this portrait of his family depicted as descendants of Hellenistic deities, with their symbols of divinity...the crescent moon, the trident and the cornucopia.
And as I said to you, a word that has several meanings does not imply every meaning regardless of context. The context in which a word is used implies a particular meaning, such as the case in the OP, which uses "descent" in a genealogical sense. In that context, "descent" does not imply lesser value or status, and to suggest that it does is idiotic. And that's exactly what you're doing when you tell him he should use a different word because of the supposed connotations the word carries.
Of course, now you admit to it, but only after denying it first. Why the games?
:shrug:
It's not sarcasm when you say exactly what you mean. To wit:
your "sarcasm" said:
what you "really meant" said:
In both instances, you are explicitly stating that experience requires no thought or philosophy, so you weren't being sarcastic. Maybe you were trying to be, but you didn't succeed.
If that were true, then no philosophy would exist, since philosophy comes from experience. Anyway, the point was that one doesn't need mysticism or the promise of an afterlife to view their neighbors as more than competitors. Strictly from a survival standpoint, one could theoretically view their neighbor as an ally.
I'm curious to know why you think it's important to love your neighbor, however.
Carcano: You posted the following:
I suppose the second part of the above is a description of Big Bang theory. I view Big Bang theory as having some ad hoc notions (primarily inflation) which are questionable. However, it seems to be the best explanation for the observed expansion of the universe.
Just as the facts of evolution must be accepted (with or without acceptance of evolution), the facts of expansion seem unassailable.
Science does not view the origin of life (abiogenesis) as part of the theory of evolution, which the above implies. While current notions probably attribute abiogenesis as due to some random event or series of random events, I do not think there is any widely accepted theory dealing with this subject.
I suppose the second part of the above is a description of Big Bang theory. I view Big Bang theory as having some ad hoc notions (primarily inflation) which are questionable. However, it seems to be the best explanation for the observed expansion of the universe.
Just as the facts of evolution must be accepted (with or without acceptance of evolution), the facts of expansion seem unassailable.
Not unless
1) we want to argue that creation necessitates that every individual be created like the product of some mad artist working furtively to avoid even the slightest bit of similarity to anything else previously created.
So male nipples become just as much a design flaw as red hair (since, you know, some kids get teased like hell about it and truly wish they didn't have red hair and it serves no apparent purpose)
IOW its not clear in what manner having recourse to systems somehow under cuts the notion of creation
Or/and
2) that (metonymic, empirical) analysis of reality is so complete that it is capable of discerning a non-functioning design aspect from a functioning one
The games are all in your head.
Pop quiz:
If Balerion were to actually read Wynn's posts the first time he "reads" them, he would:
a) get the flu
b) get chickenpox
c) get smallpox
d) get rabies
e) other
What is sometimes called "self-loathing", may simply be the recognition of human fallibility and imperfection.
Not everyone who points out how fallible and imperfect humans are, is self-loathing.
Let's review.
wynn said:
me said:
wynn said:
Essentially, what you did was this: "I didn't say blue, I said blue."
Man, you get silly when you're desperate.
Lady Elizabeth
Registered Member
Balderdash;- Red hair w/corresponding fair skin is most prevalent in North-Western Europe where the condition is actually beneficial. Lower melanin levels actually allow individuals to manufacture greater amounts of vitamin D than others in poor light conditions; therefore evolutionary advantageous.
Conversely, men possessing nipples simply serves no purpose, well, none other than to completely dismiss the concept of a creator.
Is it possible that God created anomalies, imperfections and problems, so humans would have to use their brain? We learn more from mistakes because they make us think. While necessity is the mother of invention. The imperfect is perfect for learning because it places humans in a position where they need to use their brains and ingenuity to complete the perfection. If there are genetic defects in creation humans need to learn to control genetics and thereby contribute to creation.
A good teacher will challenge students, rather than spoon feed them. That might require messing up their ordered world, so they have to use ingenuity and reason to level the boat. It is only in the future that one will see how this apparent chaos leads one to the ways of self reliance; student becomes the master. The bible says you are Gods, so training began with imperfections.
A good teacher will challenge students, rather than spoon feed them. That might require messing up their ordered world, so they have to use ingenuity and reason to level the boat. It is only in the future that one will see how this apparent chaos leads one to the ways of self reliance; student becomes the master. The bible says you are Gods, so training began with imperfections.
This doesn't even make sense. Male nipples don't force people to use their brains, and there are certainly many greater wonders in the world than that, so nipples as an abstract lesson from God doesn't fly. And what kind of lesson would it be if the result made people think that the whole process is by chance rather than by design? I mean, looking into why men have nipples, one comes away with the understanding that all human embryos follow the female template, which totally debunks the story of God creating woman from man's rib.
Are we talking about hair or skin?
Pretty sure hair doesn't generate vitamin D ... much less red hair
Given that you just took the topic of hair and extrapolated it to broader contextual issues of biological necessity and function in the world of systems, its not clear why you suddenly decided to throw your blinkers on and pretend to be stupid in the next paragraph
:shrug:
Last edited:
Lady Elizabeth
Registered Member
lightgigantic said:
If you knew the slightest whisper of a snippet regarding the MC1R recessive gene variant you'd realize most individuals possessing 2 copies will have both red hair and eumelanin deficiency, producing a fair non-tanning skin often concurrent w/freckles. It's this lack of pigment that allows increased amounts of UV light to pass unhindered into the skin and generate the aforementioned Vitamin D.
lightgigantic said:
Believe me, when I say the idiocy is all purely yours.
Last edited:
Lady Elizabeth
Registered Member
Yeah, even with a 50:50 probabilty the bible totally gets it so utterly wrong.
If you look at culture, men invent most of the new, while women help integrate the change; Eve comes from Adam. Why do you think women work so hard to be like the men? Eve follows in the wake of Adam. The bible symbolism is more consistent with the spirit and not biology, with the spirit more connected to the brain/mind. This is how you infer, instead of assume.
Women create biologically through birth and maternal instinct. The males do not have the same system draw and gain bandwidth. Males create and give birth to ideas and inventions; use the bandwidth. The classic example used to be when men and women drive the male will try to improvise and the female will want to stop and asks for directions. The male is creating. The female wishes to take what is already created.
An analogy between created and descended would be Henry Ford, who was a self made man. He created his empire without education and from humble beginning; created from nothing. His children and children's children descended from him, with a silver spoon in their mouth. From this position of opportunity and privilege, many of the descendants added their own mark, helping to move the family creation into the future. Jesus was descended from King David. While Adam was created.
Lady Elizabeth
Registered Member
The only consistancy the bible has, is that it was written by a bunch of imbecile nutjobs.
Oh my god, what a screwed up view of reality. Do you think it is possible that the contributions of women has been hampered in any way by the fact that they have been systematically denied the right to make those contribution?:facepalm:
I feel like I have been transported back to the 1950s or better yet to a Taliban meeting.
Last edited:
Ah, talking about yourself again ...
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip? - To get to the same side.
And you still haven't explained what is wrong with male nipples.
Unless we are to believe that your say-so makes it so?
lg,
In any structure personal gratification rules everything, even the case of self sacrifice for someone else - that feeling of being selfless is a liberating experience even if short-lived if death is the outcome. For any action the question is always asked, even if subconsciously, what do I get out of this?
For current leading theistic religions actions are governed by personal survival, follow the rules or burn in hell, for example - or be good to others and be rewarded in heaven. Even those who argue against the reward and punishment motive and assert their actions are because it is the right thing to do - the result is pride of such an achievement, i.e. personal gratification.
For non-theistic spiritual constructs the same self centered perspective pervades. Betterment of self for future reward/afterlife/ascension/rebirth/reincarnation or whatever the expected end result.
For any religious/spiritual structure there is no reason to adhere to such regimes unless there is a clear personal gain. True altruism cannot exist within a religious paradigm, since one always expects an ultimate reward - the promise offered by every religion - immortality/survival.
For non religious structures there is also self centered actions. For many it is simple material wealth or fleshly pleasures while they exist, for others many of the same sensations for the religious are also effective - e.g. helping others is gratifying, etc. For the intelligent, rational self interest makes for a compelling moral structure, e.g. it would be in my best interest to support a civilized social structure that creates health services, and a non-violent environment, and where everyone is kind and loving to each other.
But that is also true with a hierarchical worldview. The self always comes first in any structure. People help others because that action is pleasurable to them (it feels good to be helpful), or they voluntarily feel humble when something superior is recognized; to achieve true humility is itself exhilarating.
In any structure personal gratification rules everything, even the case of self sacrifice for someone else - that feeling of being selfless is a liberating experience even if short-lived if death is the outcome. For any action the question is always asked, even if subconsciously, what do I get out of this?
For current leading theistic religions actions are governed by personal survival, follow the rules or burn in hell, for example - or be good to others and be rewarded in heaven. Even those who argue against the reward and punishment motive and assert their actions are because it is the right thing to do - the result is pride of such an achievement, i.e. personal gratification.
For non-theistic spiritual constructs the same self centered perspective pervades. Betterment of self for future reward/afterlife/ascension/rebirth/reincarnation or whatever the expected end result.
For any religious/spiritual structure there is no reason to adhere to such regimes unless there is a clear personal gain. True altruism cannot exist within a religious paradigm, since one always expects an ultimate reward - the promise offered by every religion - immortality/survival.
For non religious structures there is also self centered actions. For many it is simple material wealth or fleshly pleasures while they exist, for others many of the same sensations for the religious are also effective - e.g. helping others is gratifying, etc. For the intelligent, rational self interest makes for a compelling moral structure, e.g. it would be in my best interest to support a civilized social structure that creates health services, and a non-violent environment, and where everyone is kind and loving to each other.