The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by enorbet I take considerable issue with any concept that includes considering existence as being "inflicted". Yes, Life is hard. It requires struggle. What manner of Life can you imagine that would not?

I can imagine an existence where people don't try to kill one another... guess I have an overactive imagination... The beauty of life that for some would be a gift: the music, the stars, sunrises, sunsets, flowers both fragrant and colorful, spouting whales, frozen dew on spider webs; laughing happy children; phosphorescent waves; lightening; dancing people--these are some of my favorite things--nevertheless it all gets stolen from victims of both violence, and the pecking disorder, which is another type of invisible violence that harms peoples dignity and self worth... Too much of either or both, and the gift is gone. The trust that good friends have--gone and unavailable to victims of extreme violence.

Maybe I've been blessed to have had just enough violence done unto me to glimpse what it could have been like had more happened, such that I can empathize, but I still cling to the peace that I found in all of my favorite things, and was not entirely stripped of being able to appreciate them; but I meet in the crowds the broken and ill who have not peace; I've met those who inflict the violence, and they have no more peace than their victims. I've seen police brutality; I've seen the aftermath of rape; none of them ever recovered all the way.. How could I ever want to risk that in a gift?

Maybe its mere statistics, and computing odds, but can you scientifically verify that your offspring are gong to get blessed with the beauty side of the spectrum enough to avoid the event horizon of suffering that some humans inflict on others beyond which there is no recovery?

So that's why I don't understand this practice of baby planning. I assume it is practiced by those who grow up in such so protected and sheltered that these innocent and naive beings can't conceive of the level of betrayal and treachery that awaits beyond the borders of their shire...

As for "meant to be" that is exactly what I mentioned as the fallacy of "seeing agency everywhere"... At the very least Chance does exist, so every miniscule detail is obviously not planned (and how boring would that be if it was?) so Agency is NOT everywhere, not for every sparrow or bacteria or particles winking in and out of existence constantly in the trillions every second, and again, if it were, it just means it is even less likely a human can grasp any aspect of The Mind of God, than e coli can grasp human concerns. That seems to me the pinnacle of sanctimonious hubris.

Yes, "meant to be" is a little cliche.

Why did you capitalize "Chance?" Perhaps even you attribute to Chance enough entity status to be worthy of a proper noun! Along with all the sparrows and bacteria and winking particles, we are constituents of a consciousness that has synergy: whose consciousness is greater than the sum of its constituent consciousnesses, which is a consequence from an expanded POV unavailable to individual constituents whose POVs are limited to the scope of their locales...

These baby lives that seem like chance, have been given big bang ballots by Infinite Happenstance, which comes with all the responsibility of getting to vote.. When I say "meant to be", I mean Infinite Happenstance has given them their ballot, not me.

As far as the seeming inexplicable cruelties done unto innocent babe by what seems like chance and the challenge that how can any omnipotent being be described as compassionate or benevolent in any way with the suffering that both of us have now mentioned: if a being is omnipotent, could it take away its own omnipotence? If it cannot, then it isn't omnipotent,... If it can, which it would have to be able to by definition, then perhaps it has. Perhaps it has decided to share its omnipotence with you, me, the fleas, and the sparrows, by giving us all ballots. By not marking our ballots with such cruelties, we eliminate them, in that time cannot contain Infinite Happenstance, such that there are some threads of infinite chance in which everyone marks their ballots kindly... [/QUOTE]

That seems more grandiose and conceited than the example of the flea floating down the river on his back with an erection yelling "Quick! Raise the drawbridge!"

I see the work of the pecking disorder trying to convince a man with a ballot that he is a flea. But even if he were, the flea has a ballot too, and so engorged, the flea just wants to give the operators a chance to save the structural integrity of their drawbridge, rofl.

I see violence as being at the extreme end of "struggle". I'm very confidant that if nobody had ever punched, stabbed, shot or robbed from another Life would still require struggle. Human needs don't all grow on trees, and even if they did one would still have to climb or cut down trees. Climbing or cutting are physical struggles, figuring what or how many is prudent to cut or climb is mental struggle. Both make us stronger and hopefully in the process, more collaborative and responsible.

Yes. I capitalized Chance because I see it as an exceptionally important and common factor of existence. Recognizing that it is, always reminds me of two valuable "old sayings"

1) "Never attribute to Malice that which is more easily explained by incompetence." It's probably wise to add "Poverty" as well even though "incompetence" might be seem as poverty of the mind or character.

2) "There but for fortune go you and I"

@slac-in-the-box: When I see a discussion like the one below, I see people not liking what they see and trying to resolve it philosophically. You're darn right not to like what you see.

But that pre-supposes that things were supposed to be this way. That's false. A much different future was envisaged for our first humans who promptly spoiled the party for both themselves and their descendants. [Cue for 2 angry knee-jerk responses from enorbet here - we don't agree on everything] .

Ignoring the predicted noise, if you revisit the early chapters of genesis looking out for where things went wrong, You'll observe the sudden fall from favour in Genesis chapter 3. In short, this system with all it's woes was never the plan. This is the only diversion by a hard mountain road that gets us back to where we should be.

So never blame God. This was never the plan. Better PM me if you're curious, because there's a lot of "Industrial Noise" on a public forum.

Originally Posted by enorbet I see violence as being at the extreme end of "struggle". I'm very confidant that if nobody had ever punched, stabbed, shot or robbed from another Life would still require struggle.

The struggle of acquiring skills: getting around or removing the rock in the way of the flowerbed or veggie plot can be a struggle, sending jolts of rocky resistance from the impact of tools up into the bones blistering and callousing the hands; yet this does not rob one of the enjoyment of flowers and veggies in the end! With violence, otoh, there is an event horizon of suffering beyond which the enjoyment of the fruit of the struggle ceases, and it is only flat empty hollow unhappy impotent non-existence, maddened by pain and plans of revenge which would only perpetuate more violence... recovery from this state requires the miraculous: it wouldn't be infinite happenstance without that possibility. But it is a difference: struggle, when prevailed over, strengthens; whereas violence only harms and perpetuates itself; the violent suffer and have not peace.

To me, "the story of Adam and Eve in Eden" was never more than an obvious myth. An expression of the "magical, pristine state" from which humanity of course subsequently "fell" to wind up in the present world of thorns and weeds.

(I find no joy in the obvious fact that "women" were supposed to be "responsible for" this fall ... just as they had supposedly been "born from Adam's rib" in a forever-subordinate social state ... but I guess that it doesn't surprise me either. This particular religious tradition never had a role for women.)

So, this is a somewhat-different creation myth, but in the context maybe not unexpected.

All I'm going to say in response, business_kid, is "I'm not angry... with you or any pie in the sky"

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs To me, "the story of Adam and Eve in Eden" was never more than an obvious myth. An expression of the "magical, pristine state" from which humanity of course subsequently "fell" to wind up in the present world of thorns and weeds. (I find no joy in the obvious fact that "women" were supposed to be "responsible for" this fall ... just as they had supposedly been "born from Adam's rib" in a forever-subordinate social state ... but I guess that it doesn't surprise me either. This particular religious tradition never had a role for women.) So, this is a somewhat-different creation myth, but in the context maybe not unexpected.

There is no harm in conjecture: possessiveness. I don't think it's the sex and change of partners creating jealousies that put women footing the bill for original sin because men were the ones writing; I think its how much possessiveness is attached to intercourse--how much is it linked to dowries and social status? Bonobos don't have much possessiveness attributed to intercourse, such that changing of partners does not create potential for violent conflict... it is the possessiveness... if dude hadn't been so possessively saying "my woman", she wouldn't have tried the another in the first place, creating the jealousy that triggered the trigger pulling...

The doctrine of original sin is another kind of hard to take literal doctrine... I just interpret it as humanity was already extremely bloodstained when she was tacitly handed to us, by virtue of us being born into it, such that by the time we learn language and can interpret humanity for ourselves, we are already stained from it...

There might not have been a fall: perhaps humanity has always been bloodstained, but has always had the ability to wonder what it would be like if we weren't violent, creating a potential peaceful ideal humanity that then was supposed to have existed before we turned violent. In such a scenario, since we all can wonder what it would be like to not be violent, then this condition may not be our past, but our present, in which case, it could more accurately be described as a rising than a fall!

Umm ... that latest post of yours is "rather rambling."

---

To me, "the Garden of Eden" is just an expression of "utopia." Which is intended to express the reality that – the world in which we live has thorns and weeds and lots of hard work and mosquitos and everything else. Therefore, it is certainly not "utopia," and never will be again.

It is significant to me that one of the two Forbidden Trees represented "the knowledge(!) of 'Good and Evil.'" Likewise the other, which Adam and Eve did not taste from, represented "eternal life."

Until this moment, they did not know of "good and evil." They did not know that they "were naked." And, they never thought to "clothe themselves" nor to "feel shame," nor to "hide themselves from God."

To me, the point of this story is not the magical prior-state that they came from, but the "reality state" that they now found themselves in – with, of course, no way to go back.

To me, this entire story is intended to be symbolic, and nothing more.

Elements such as "Adam's rib" and "the woman did it" are, to me, "merely part of the myth." Since I consider them to simply be "part of the story," I do not strive to "explain" them. I have better things to do.

This is actually not very different from the "first man" and "first woman" mythologies of countless other human cultures. I owe no particular allegiance to any of them.

I agree sundialsvcs and furthermore not only symbolic myth, but reflecting the times, rather obviously dated and not All Knowing, All Loving, etc. This is Old Testament concept of God, as vindictive, churlish, fickle and violent as most other early Deities were supposed to be. This view and judgment is of course circa 2023 and reflects our times, our environments which lends further credence to the likelihood that Scripture is always written by human scribes whether they heard "a Voice" or just followed what the ruler(s) wanted to create a back story for rules and regulations...."render unto Caesar" and all that.

Without specifically addressing your comments, @enorbet, I think that we must always recognize that "the gods" of ancient traditions were always a direct product of their immediate situations. They were always "war(!) gods." If their armies were victorious in any particular war, it was because they had done all the right sacrifices so that "God" was with them. Per contra, if they got their asses whupped, it was because "God" was against them.

But also, as you say, "the 'books' themselves were always subject to similar censorship. When we today regard "the texts" as they now present themselves to us, we must "very bluntly consider" this reality. Even if we cannot now specifically point to "when and where," we must anticipate that "it did."

Like it or not: "ancient religion" and "ancient politics" can never be separated.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs To me, the point of this story is not the magical prior-state that they came from, but the "reality state" that they now found themselves in – with, of course, no way to go back.

The point finally reached in the rambling post is that this expression of utopia known as eden was never a back to have fallen from, but rather a future to rise to... we conceive of a utopia by contrast to experience... there cannot be a way to go back to something we never had... but there could be a way to go forward to something we can conceive.

Yahoo

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs that latest post of yours is "rather rambling."...

A danger is trying to make it more concise without rambling further...

The rambling post addressed three separate topics related to fall of man, and only one was responding to or in consideration of your post, particularly, the part in which you "find no joy in the obvious fact that 'women' were supposed to be 'responsible for' this fall," a part which could be read in many ways: do you mean that the part about Eve convincing Adam thereby getting blamed is so known that it is obvious? or do you mean that it is obvious, from a male pov, based on any experience with any female, that of course they're to blame, a condition that is sad enough to not take joy in--which I don't think, but could see how it could be read that way--or the way I read it: that you take no joy for the clear chauvinism which has unfairly blamed the woman in this myth? So many vectors of interpretation, made me conjecture over that unfairness, and attribute it to a result of possessiveness.

The other paragraphs weren't really related directly to the blaming women bit, but more just considering this very strange tradition that claims that people are born guilty. When myths and religious traditions just get too far fetched to take literally, as is the case with talking snakes and fruits of immortality, and perfect innocent babes already sinners, I wonder if what these traditions are getting at could be reworded in the lingo of our time so that it doesn't seem so nonsensical. So this "original sin" myth just boils down to the nastiness in our traditions that shape us before we're even aware we were shaped...

And the final paragraph of rambling does apply to the myth: what if it's not a fall, but a rise? This myth is just an expression of utopia, as you claim; so instead of expressing it as something lost, as in the case in many creation myths, why not express it as something to strive for?

None of the ramblings are criticisms of your post: rather just a series of triggered reflections.

"Something to strive for?" A very interesting idea. Nonetheless, not what I consider to be an objective of the original "teller of the tale." I'm afraid that it was intended to describe: "Paradise Lost."

Originally Posted by De Selby Human existence being an hallucination containing in itself the secondary hallucinations of day and night (the latter an insanitary condition of the atmosphere due to accretions of black air) it ill becomes any man of sense to be concerned at the illusory approach of the supreme hallucination known as death.

That quote from Brian O'Nolan aka Myles na gCapaleen and many other things makes about as most of the recent posts. FTR, 'De Selby' is fictional, and treated as an authority to convince you of whatever nonsense he's peddling you at that moment.

It seems to be actually on topic! See you later ladies and gentlemen.