The following excerpt comes from Jesting Pilate, by Aldous Huxley (1926). Smilies act as footnotes written by me, Tiassa. Edited material removed by me, Tiassa. I accept responsibility for any contextual errors thus resulting, though I have confidence in the preservation of context.

The story so far ... Huxley, recording his travel outside of Jaipur, India, recalled a detail of his elephant tour, in which an old woman in a ruined village bestowed many a platitude upon our Brave New Writer and his companions for the blessings of their elephants (fuel for a week's cooking, by Huxley's estimate).


...I thought of the scores of millions of human beings to whom the passage of an unconstipated elephant seems a godsend, a stroke of enormous good luck. The thought depressed me. Why are we here, men and women, eighteen hundred millions of us, on this remarkable and perhaps unique planet? :D To what end? Is it to go about looking for dung--cow dung, horse dung, the enormous and princely excrement of elephants? Evidently it is--for a good many of us at any rate. It seemed an inadequate reason, I thought, for our being here--immortal souls, first cousins of the angels, own brothers of Buddha and Mozart and Sir Isaac Newton.

But a little while later I saw that I was wrong to let the consideration depress me. If it depressed me, that was only because I looked at the whole matter from the wrong end, so to speak .... :cool: The philosophical Martian would admire the dung-searchers for having discovered a use for dung; no other animal, he would point out, has had the wit to do more than manufacture it. ;)

We are not Martians and our training makes us reluctant to think of ourselves as animals. Nobody inquires why cows and elephants inhabit the world. There is as little reason why we should be here, eating, drinking, sleeping, and in the intervals reading metaphysics, saying prayers, or collecting dung. We are here, that is all; and like other animals we do what our native capacities and our environment permit of our doing. Our achievement, when we compare it with that of cows and elephants, is remarkable. They automatically make dung; we collect it and turn it into fuel. It is not something to be depressed about; it is something to be proud of. :) Still, in spite of the consolations of philosophy, I remained pensive.

(pgs. 83-85)



:D Remember, this is 1925 when he is traveling; I think his musings become even more poignant at six thousand millions of us.

:cool: Edited out--"Painting" metaphor; unnecessary to the present thread but hardly an extraneous rambling of Mr Huxley's.

;) I actually have done no real research on dung beetles, whom I've watched aplenty on nature special rolling balls of excrement; it seems to me, however, that Huxley is making a literary declaration, not a scientific one. While dung beetles, it would seem, would be documented by 1925 (again, I've done no research yet), I cannot say. Thus, instead of seeking a higher function of "use for dung", I would assert the philosophical argument at the heart of Huxley's reflections. Or else qualify our human use of dung as tool use, while discounting the dung beetle as environmental adaption; that's simpler, but not necessarily fair.

:) This I believe to be the argument at the heart of Huxley's reflections mentioned in the previous note.

................................

I'll admit that I had a better handle on the ideas I saw when I first saw them, but reflection always proving to be valuable, I just have to figure out the currency.

Thus I suppose I'll leave the greater body out there for commentary.

A unique thing worth pointing out to me: The idea of the philosophical Martian ... how far back does such an idea go (not necessarily "Martians")? It seems to me that humanity has rarely looked at itself from without, as this seems impossible to do. But looking in from a conceptual outside sheds great light on humanity. Let a zoologist compile videotape of human beings around the world greeting each other, talking casually, or lounging in streetside cafes; body language and other physical indicators show us that we're not behaviorally too different from chimpanzees, great apes, or any large mammal. (All us mammals smile, except the platypus, though I'm told it does have a bill configuration equating to a smile. (Hey, it's essentially a duckbill--I can't tell when a duck is smiling; I'd be scared if a duck was smiling. :D--no, there's no footnotes anymore.)

I mean, it's nice that we can go to the moon and all, and certainly we could not have done this without Newton--possibly without Buddha or Mozart, as well, but .... However, we must also consider that we would not have gone to the moon without the dung-collectors, either; especially in the past.

(There's a joke by one or another famous comedian about AZT, the drug used in HIV therapies, being derived from herring sperm. Will we speak so highly of the fishwhackers when all is said and done?)

Since I'm now digressing into possibly offensive jokes, I'll wrap up. Essentially I think this is a poignant survey of the human condition. Despite the foundations of society among the dung-collectors, as such, it is difficult to consider the faces of poverty racing toward steaming elephant crap with such joy on their faces and not wonder if maybe we haven't blown the whole thing out our collective ear.

Maybe I'm just seeking people's reflections on Crap. It certainly seems so. But there's a very important point to these kinds of reflections; perhaps most important is that despite the best things we do for society, it hasn't occurred to anyone how yet to stop living on the grace of elephant recta.

thanx ... I'm obviously rambling,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited July 10, 2000).]

Hi Tiassa,

“Maybe I'm just seeking people's reflections on Crap. It certainly seems so. But there's a very important point to these kinds of reflections; perhaps most important is that despite the best things we do for society, it hasn't occurred to anyone how yet to stop living on the grace of elephant recta.”

Yup, or on the grace of societies waste. Some of the most poignant manifestation of mankind’s adaptability, creativity and survivalist nature, but almost more importantly the sqaulidness of the human condition, and the accompanying reflection on societal values, has to be the street people of our big cities, patiently pulling their grubby shopping carts filled with the detritus of the human machine. The garbage gets recycled, and this supports their very breath of life. Is it not remarkable that what we throw out as a matter of economic course, buys the food and drink, for the lost souls on the fringe of our strange society. The people of the streets become the dung beetles of humanity, slowly rolling their precious, yet to us worthless, cargo. Obviously seeing life from the rear end.

And then into my mind jumps the lyrics of Pearl Jam`s “Crazy Mary” And I think Eddie Vedder said the above more succinctly. “ That what you fear the most, might meet you halfway …”

Take care

Ummm ... okay.

Wow. Actually, I'm a little breathless.

Would "Fabu" be too ridiculous? (You wouldn't believe my grin right now.)

Thank you, Stretch. Absolutely wonderful .... :D :D :D

But otherwise I have no useful comment yet. (It's like Special K cereal, y'know? Where to go from that? Not so much how to improve perfection, as the slogan went, but I can't imagine staining that with philosophical ramblings right now. It's too pretty.)

thanx much,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

What a topic. To me, the dung and it's function is irrelevant. It seems that the martians, and you yourself, are most concerned with our internalization of the crap, our possession and ownership of it, and our brilliant use for it in our own brilliant, self-induced evolution. Not. To me, it all depends on a human's intentions behind the crap. God gave us that crap, and the elephant it came out of, and the planet that the elephant came out of, and the universe that the planet came out of. And I'd bet that the martians would take credit for it, but He created the martians too.

It's all about recognizing the dung for what it really is. It only seems ridiculous to live your life collecting dung, if you think that collecting the dung is what matters. What matters is why you're collecting it. Are you greedy with it or do you share it? Do you idolize it, or is it just shit? Do you own it, or does God own it? Is dung worth warring over? Dung rights? Are dung collectors exploited by fat cat dung traders? Is dung technology for the purpose of helping mankind, or for the purpose of getting someone rich, or obtaining power? Life isn't about dung. It's not about things. It's about God. I'd bet that Someone with the right perspective and a relationship with God, a submission to God's will, could do more good with a pile of dung than someone without God could do with all of the other resources in the world.

------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.

[This message has been edited by Lori (edited July 11, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Lori (edited July 11, 2000).]

Lori--

Being that you're not entirely finished yet, I'll reserve it to a single question. I have accented the vital part of the quote which strikes me the most curiously.

It seems that the martians, and you yourself, are most concerned with our internalization of the crap, our possession and ownership of it, and our brilliant use for it in our own brilliant, self-induced evolution.

How internalized? I consider it a poignant reflection on this earthly human family?

How possession and ownership? It almost sounds like a capital issue, though had they any capital, the dung-searchers would not be seeking dung.

While I recognize that you're not finished with your sentiments, I'm getting an initial Piers Plowman sort of vibe that the dung-searchers issue somehow has struck you as a question that should not be asked. On the one hand, I would hope to be wrong about that, but to the other, I'm curious how one would arrive at such a conclusion, as such. Again, as you said you're not finished, I'm entirely aware that such issues might become perfectly clear to me when you have.

But, c'mon, Lori ... is it really so bad to reflect on the value of "the squalid people"? Is it really irrelevant?

thanx much,
Tiassa ;)

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Hello All~
What a great god we have. He's(for lack of a better term) given us famine, strife, war, disease and now he's giving us crap. Goddamn, ain't he a generous motherf***er!!

Tiassa,

No really, I think it's a good topic. Dung collecting is just as good as any other metaphor for idolatry. It doesn't HAVE to be idolatry, but that lies in human intent. See, I guess to me, the concept of atheism inherently implies idolatry of the physical world, and of ourselves, and of our dung even. Does what I finished saying help answer your questions any?

------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.

Lori--

Sincerest apologies possible, but I don't see the idolatry metaphor. Huxley (imho) was contemplating the fact that a large segment of our human community still relies upon excrement to survive. If I might ....

Life isn't about dung. It's not about things. It's about God. I'd bet that Someone with the right perspective and a relationship with God, a submission to God's will, could do more good with a pile of dung than someone without God could do with all of the other resources in the world.

I choose this merely as an example toward my failure to see the idolatry metaphor. That someone could do better with God and no dung than someone with no God and much dung is, in itself, a concept which I have absolutely no argument with.

But I'm not sure that's Huxley's central point. But, as God gave us the elephant, its crap, and the ground it lands on, so also did God give an old woman in Jaipur, in 1925, the need to fling herself upon it and bestow her greatest thanks and compliments upon the travelers.

Human beings tend to see squalor in squalor. Huxley, I think, had a moment in which he witnessed beauty amid squalor; FTR, that's part of what I read in it, as well as the puzzle of where that beauty comes from. As Huxley noted, these dung collectors are the "first cousins of the angels, own brothers of Buddha and Mozart and Sir Isaac Newton". (We might add, "and Jesus" to that, as well, for effect.) All else being equal, is there not some beauty--at least comparable to that of knowing gravity or composing symphonies--in the simple act of human beings rising above their God-given squalor?

That, I think, is the vital theme. (But that's just me and ... we all know what that's worth.)

thanx much,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Beauty and squalor are in the eyes of the beholder. It depends upon your perspective, right? I get it. That's where my perspective regarding God comes in. The beauty nor the squalor reside in the dung or the collection or use of it, but in the heart of man. Tee hee!

The idolatry stance comes from the fact that it seemed the only perceived beauty that was found amidst the perceived squalor was regarding the creative use of dung, or the "dung technology", or the dung contribution margin. Am I misunderstanding? Or is the perceived beauty amidst the perceived squalor actually the collector who is happy and at peace with his life of dung?

I guess instead of seeing the Martians view of man, I tend to try to see God's view of man. And God doesn't see any squalor in dung collecting you know? Am I being a knuckle-head or what?

------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.

[This message has been edited by Lori (edited July 11, 2000).]

Lori--

I don't think you're being a knucklehead at all. Actually, inasmuch as I understand you, you got it. And, perhaps strangely, I see where you're drawing the idolatry from, but isn't it slightly ... make that, overtly cynical? (Not that cynicism is bad, at all.)

Of the Martian view, I think it's cute because it's 1925 and Huxley's expressing this particular way of viewing a system with a Martian metaphor. I think it's cute, coming from Huxley. Otherwise, I might also comment that such a removed perspective as the Martian metaphor suggests is infinitely amusing, and sometimes even valuable. Watch people and drop all of your assumptions about what human behavior means; we're a pretty strange bunch, this human menagerie. But certain things do seem to make sense. The collection and utilization of elephant droppings being one of them. But that's only if you're a Martian. ;)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Teehee, this all kind of reminds me of my life so far.


I have lived as one of human kinds dung beetles, and been content in that.

I was lifted from the dung heap and saw that there was other dung, and been content in that.

I grew in my understanding, knowledge and wisdom to see the place that the dung came from, and been content in that.

I studied the ways of production and systems of command and soon found myself no longer in the role of a dung beetle, and been content in that.

I am today in a place of being a dung producer, a master of my profession, savouring and enjoying the spoils of great labour, no longer to suffer the indignity of the dung heap, and yet still I find an echo in me that sometimes wishes I was still amongst the simple dung beetles. For in my heart I see they have no vision but that of the dung heap.

So I find myself frequenting their abodes and haunts. I find myself amongst them but no longer one of them. I have been changed and now long for them to see that they also can see beyond the dung heap.

And I have seen to be content in all that I am, in that which I posses and that which I may lose. For the richest treasures I have found are not made of dung, wood, bricks, metal or even the most precious stones.

They are treasures of the heart, treasures that can be found where ever we reside in life's journey.

And I am content in that.

Philippians 4:11 Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content.


Allcare

Tony H2o




[This message has been edited by Tony H2o (edited July 12, 2000).]

See Tiassa? Tony's the guy who finds peace and happiness in his life of dung!

Oh, and I confess to being a horrible cynic at times, but I don't think I'm being cynical regarding idolatry. It's just a perception. Actually, one that is based upon absolute truth; nothing is ours, it's all God's. It's easier said than put into practice, but contemplate the effects or possible outcomes of such a perception, like on a global scale. It's interesting food for thought.

------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.

[This message has been edited by Lori (edited July 12, 2000).]

Tony--

Yes, I am smiling right now. Cute metaphors, with which I cannot argue. Thanx much, kind sir. ;)

Lori--

I cannot comment any further on the idolatry ... I'm sorry but I'm just not seeing it.

Any inquiry I can make might assume far too much of your aspects of idolatry. However, one thing you're right about--it's all God's, and therefore no worry of mine who's crawling in the shite. On that level, I can say that both Mr Huxley and I are thankful to be free of our idolatrous burdens. (Really, I'm just poking for the heck of it ... :D )

thanx much,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Tiassa,

I'm just not explaining it right. It's not that hard to understand. It's the difference between there being a God who is the Creator and His will, and there not being a God, and He isn't our Creator, and there exists no will of His. If God exists, then the universe belongs to Him, and everything in it belongs to Him, even our own selves, bodies and souls. If God exists, then His will is what is right, and what is good, and should be what we seek in our lives above all else. If God doesn't exist, then the universe is up for grabs. He doesn't own it, we do if we claim it, or earn it, or steal it, or whatever. Then we would own ourselves as well, as purely physical beings, and our will becomes our truth, or our right and wrong. Instead of worshipping God, we worship ourselves and the physical things of this world. It's a mutually exclusive concept Tiassa. By default, if you don't worship God, then you worship the physical world. That's what is meant by idolatry. To truly have faith and to worship God in the ultimate way, you give up yourself and your earthly possessions, your natural instincts and desires and emotions of the flesh, and you live for His will above all else, even friends and family and money and earthy comfort. You put your life in His hands, and trust Him completely. That is faith. Anything short of that...any distraction....any earthy thing that you are not willing to let go for Him....is idolatry. Now do you understand?

------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.

Lori--

My big question, I suppose, is vague: By whose perspective ...?

The way I'm reading Huxley, combined with the perception I'm getting from our exchange here, I'm left holding a rhetorical extremity: That the vision of human poverty and depravity should do nothing to inspire us to raise the condition of our human brethren, lest we give in to idolatry or the open defiance of God.

As I said, a rhetorical extremity.

For instance, part of what's hazy for me:

By default, if you don't worship God, then you worship the physical world. That's what is meant by idolatry.

Here I must assume, "...if you don't worship [the Christian] God, then you worship the physical world." This assumption comes from the fact that there are several conceptions of God by which this isn't true. However, assuming that my assumption is correct, I'm not seeing idolatrous worship of the physical world. What, specifically, is the act of idolatry we're debating?

To truly have faith and to worship God in the ultimate way, you give up yourself and your earthly possessions, your natural instincts and desires and emotions of the flesh, and you live for His will above all else, even friends and family and money and earthy comfort.

Here, again, I'm standing with a couple of assumptions in how I read your wrods. Do we give up life, as well? Should the old woman with the elephant dung simply consider the hopelessness of her situation and wither and die? For then we're Camusites without conflict.

You put your life in His hands, and trust Him completely. That is faith. Anything short of that...any distraction....any earthy thing that you are not willing to let go for Him....is idolatry. Now do you understand?

This, in general, I understand. But it's not applying well for me here .... Above, I asked about the specific act of idolatry. A little bit of clarification there would probablyclear up, at least, this part of the question.

thanx much,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Tiassa,

By God's perspective, which would reflect absolute truth. By our perspective, which would try to understand it and live it to the best of our ability.

Ok then, the question to you would be...What raises the condition of our human brethren? There is only one answer to that...God. God's love working through man's intent in his heart. What truly is the cause of human suffering and depravity? What truly is the cause of joy in this world? Does it have anything to do with creature comforts? Does it have to do with lifestyle? With things? Environment? Does it depend on other people and how they treat you? What they think of you? Money? Power? Sex? What? No, none of those things. Peace comes from God, even in the middle of the worst storm of your life, in the middle of the desert, in the lion's den, or in the dung heap, He's still there. Everything else is extremely relative. Joy and suffering come from the heart...the soul. If you believe that it comes from things, that is idolatry. If you believe it comes from other people, that is idolatry. If you believe that you create it, that is idolatry.

"Therefore I say to you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink; nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air, for they neither reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?"

"Truly I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, 'Be taken up and cast into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says will come to pass, it will be done for him."

Perspective: "You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts. For what is highly esteemed among men is an abomination in the sight of God."

"The kingdom of God does not come with observation; nor will they say 'See here, or see there!'. For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you."

"The things which are impossible with men, are possible with God."

"Woe to the flesh that depends on the soul; woe to the soul that depends on the flesh."

And finally, there's a scripture that says something like..."Whosoever loses his life, shall find it; whosoever keeps his life, shall lose it." Or something like that. It's not about giving up Tiassa, or being powerless or hopeless...it's about the opposite of that. If you put your faith into the things of this world, or yourself, or others, you will always be missing the mark, and ultimately hopeless. Put your faith in God, and be hopeful and powerful in spirit, and for the right reasons, and you will be blessed.

------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.


[This message has been edited by Lori (edited July 18, 2000).]

Lori ...

Again, I can offer only humble apologies. It isn't that I'm trying to be difficult, but that I'm utterly confused by this point. My confusion stems from the following segment of your 7/11 post:

Dung collecting is just as good as any other metaphor for idolatry. It doesn't HAVE to be idolatry, but that lies in human intent. See, I guess to me, the concept of atheism inherently implies idolatry of the physical world, and of ourselves, and of our dung even.

That's the whole reason I picked up on the idolatry vein--I just don't get where it comes into the subject.

Of our exchange since--there's very little here to disagree with in terms of basic theory. But I'm having insane difficulty applying any of it to where I started; until your post, notions of idolatry were the furthest thing from my mind. FTR, the better idolatry story in Jesting Pilate comes from Batavia, Java:


Nor is it to the spirits alone that they pay their devotions. There is no God but God and Mohammed is his prophet. No doubt. But a cannon is cylindrical and, long before they became Moslems, the Javanese were worshippers of the reproductive principle in nature. An immemorial phallism has crystallised round the old gun, transforming it from a mere brass tube into a potent deity, to be propitiated with flowers and little lantern, to be asked favours of with smoking incense. Men come and, standing before the sacred symbol, silently implore assistance. Women desirous of offspring sit on the prostrate god, rub themselves against his verdigrised sides and pray to him for increase. Even white ladies, it is said, may be seen at evening alighting inconspicuously from their motor cars at the Penang Gate. They hurry across the grass to where the God is lying. They drop a few gardenias and a supplication, they touch the God's unresponsive muzzle; then hurry back again through the twilight, fearful of being recognised, of being caught in the flagrant act of worshipping at the shrine of a God, who was being adored a thousand generations before Adam was ever thought of and beside whom the Gods of Zoroaster and the Vedas, of Moses and Christ and Mohammed are the merest upstarts and parvenus. (207-8)


Now that's idolatry! ;)

However, I'm not finding any act or notion in the earlier Huxley material about elephant crap that inspires me to notions of idolatry. Truly, what you write of idolatry sounds agreeable to me in the context of idolatry. But I don't see the connection to the elephant crap.

thanx much,
Tiassa :D

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Ok, one more time...

The original question was "Why are we here?".

An initial interpretation was that "to collect dung" must be an inadequate reason. Which I would agree.

Then the martians put in their two cents, and from their perspective, the inventive nature regarding our use of the dung, glorifies dung collecting and collectors, and gives us a good reason.

So ultimately, the point seems to be that we are here to glorify ourselves in our works, our technologies, and our possessions (whether it be dung or whatever). THAT'S NOT TRUE. That Tiassa is idolatry.

The real reason why we are here is to glorify God. That's it. Everything else is given. Glorifying God is a sweeping statement, and umbrella encompassing many circumstances, but the intent remains the same in the heart of man. It doesn't have anything to do with dung, the collection of it, or the technology of it...nothing. I'm saying that the martians perspective is skewed...it's like Satan's perspective...He wants us to worship this world and the flesh. I'm trying to offer up God's perspective by contrast.

Where in the hell did you get that quote about the idolatry???? Is that for real? Before Adam...explain please, that's very intriguing.

Do you understand now?



------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.

Why is our goal, our reason for being to glorify God? Why does he need glorifying?

------------------
Why?

Lori--

Quickly, since I actually have real work in front of me (for once).

I finally get it. :D :D :D

At least, I finally understand the connection you're drawing, though I must admit it's a thoroughly unique perspective to me in the sense that I can honestly say I never would have picked up that perspective. I wanted to mention that for now, but I hope to be a little more useful later.

Of the idolatry story from Batavia, Java ... it's another of Huxley's observational musings. The cannon to which he refers is a 19th-century affair, formerly brass, I believe, left over from one or another quasi-colonial skirmish. Which puts the reproductive perspective at an odd juxtaposition.

However, of the God being older than Adam ... I am of the sentiment that the world is older than its faith-calculated origin in 4004 BCE. However, that aside, it would seem that most of the world ignored the specifics of the Judaic God, and subsequently of the Christian God. Among those infidel cultures is a common regard for the power of human creation. Even if we accept Adam as the first human being, the animals that existed before him--even and especially if we accept that part of Genesis in which Adam is created after the animals--there is a prevailing notion among nature leaning toward species propagation. The "immemorial phallism", as Huxley describes, is representative of fertility-cult behavior that exits throughout human endeavor. For the record, there is a god, Bel, who appears throughout Western culture and even has some associations to Africa. Bel is related to the El of elohim, and also to Ba'al. But disparate cultures recognized Bel through different historical periods. It could be an association that will be tied to mother-tongue research, as some researchers claim to have traced all of the world's major languages (and some of the obscure tribal dialects as well) back to two language sets that bear enough common traits to compel the researchers to seek the singular "mother" language.

But that's the brief perspective on a God older than Adam. This God is merely the God of the operating function of life: propagation and perpetuity of species.

Too much time, actually ... I've made myself late, though nobody will notice. ;)

thanx much ...
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Alf,

God doesn't NEED glorifying. You just don't like that word. Has to do with humility. But anyway, all glorifying really means is having faith in the knowledge that God exists and is your Creator and that there is a right and wrong that He created and to strive to do the right thing because you have faith and love Him. It's not easy you know...not for us anyway, we're tainted genetically by Satan. Glorification is nothing more than an acceptance of inherent truth...that's it. Now that's not so bad is it? ;)

Which leads me to my next question...

Tiassa,

Baal is Satan. I can't reconcile the timing either. There are many questions raised in scripture regarding the creation. It could be a recreation. There are people who present interpretation of scripture that says that Satan ruled a kingdom on this earth before Adam. Before his fall. What if the planet was destroyed when he fell. I think that Satan did have something to do with our creation...I think that he genetically tainted us with our predisposition to sin (fall of man)...and that's why I think that the mark of the beast will be a genetic manipulation.

------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.

[This message has been edited by Lori (edited July 20, 2000).]

Lori--

I was under the impression that any deity not bearing a name from the Christian trinity was, by your opinion, Satan. If Bel-become-Ba'al is Satan, then so is that El that spoke to Abraham and became the patriarch's Elohim. Which means that the name most unspeakable to the Jews designates Satan, which I must admit the Jews would probably disagree with since a capital-S "Satan" is a purely Christian phenomenon.

Of Satan's involvement with creation, there are a number of superstitious tales arising from medieval Islam and Christianity which reflect that possibility. At least one story goes so far as to suggest that Satan formed man, but was unable to breathe life into the creation; appealing to God, the Devil receives God's assistance, and life is given. Of course, this story was designed during a period when the primary considerations given our divine inception pertained to why God would fashion such imperfect, crude sinners. It also leans toward Manichean dualism such as seen in several philosophical movements deemed heretical.

I thought this might also be insightful, but I must make sure I have it correctly ... Essentially, the Muslim regard for the fall of Satan, as it has been explained to me both in print and voice, involves the act of Satan refusing to supplicate himself to Adam; where God chose to take this as an act of open defiance, Satan saw the situation as a no-win encounter, for God Himself had instructed Satan to honor no one and no thing but God. Thus, by that myth, Satan will be redeemed at the last hour; the universe, apparently, cannot function on any True Principle under that theology unless the redemption point is correct.

By the way, if the mark of the beast is on the hand or the head ... doesn't that describe part of Jewish ritual? A small prayer box on a cord wrapped around the wrist in a specific manner? A scroll to be fastened to the head? As consideration toward that notion, I'm wondering how important are the seeds of anti-Semitism reflected in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, such as the Letter to Diognetus or the Epistle of Barnabas? I'd assert the mark of the beast to be political, spun of human desire, and therefore a carefully-balanced fiction/neurosis before I'd assert it to be genetic. Of course, I'm also prepared for the genetic aspect to realize itself disastrously should we accidentally gene-therapy some essential human function out of the mix.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

OMA--

Why is our goal, our reason for being to glorify God? Why does he need glorifying?

Dandy-fine question, kind Alf. A couple of thoughts ....

Okay, divinity of anybody aside, what happens to a religion when we observe its precepts much as a not-so self-righteous vegetarian does? Perhaps treating the ideas as a guideline to happiness because it creates the natural conditions by which it is most possible for the human animal to achieve the inward state called happiness. If Christianity were a practical philosophy instead of a religion, we might see Christians living every day in close communion with their idea of God, but the larger part of their conduct would be taken up simply living. The ideals of their faith would be actualized in conduct to the best of the individual's ability, though not by any divine threat, but by the comfortable knowledge that this is how one keeps their community healthy and harmonious, and their earthly future secure. Thus, as one eats well and, by precepts of Life, not God, treats themselves physically, spiritually, and otherwise, in a manner that permits them to best perform in their life, we might find that they are actually glorifying God by honoring the advice attributed to him. But that's just loose, wild-eyed dreamings. Reality, unfortunately, is so much more harsh.

When we put authority into the equation, so that faith no longer reflects maximized potential in life, but rather the calculated, written political policies of an organization competing to secure its profitability in the world, the idea of glorifying God quickly becomes one of supplication and infantile submission.

Thus, if glorifying God is simply getting the most out of life while assuring the good will of the self and the community, as well as the posterity of God's human endowment, then certes, the point of life would be to glorify God. However, if glorifying God actually constitutes what we see among our most visible representatives of faith (from the Televangelists, the Pope, the people at their ballot boxes, &c.), then I'm not surprised that we still have a society in which people can't get on with their lives without instructing others regarding What God Wants.

As to why God needs glorifying ... I have two answers to offer, neither of which suits me well, but still .... The first, of course, is that this is Not A Question For You To Ask. The other is that God is not as perfect as we think, and needs the loving reinforcement. I like that one, but it requires my assuming that God really is as small as a human institution's collective imagination.

And that pittance is all I've got at the moment ...

thanx much,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)