Created by vs. Descended from?

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

  1. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    A word's etymology is a chronicle of its history, not a definition. As I showed before, roots and past meanings do not imply current meaning in a word. So pointing out what a word used to mean in no way helps discern the meaning of a word today.

    Of course, what's lost here is that nowhere in the word's history was it ever defined as "faithfulness or loyalty to God," as you previously insisted, so you are incorrect when you say "it is there in its etymology." It most certainly is not. And your initial claim--that "belief" has a "complex structure of meanings [which make it un]suitable for precise analysis"--is not supported by anything you've said since.

    "Faith" once implied loyalty, but faith is not the same word as "belief."

    Even if the word did suffer from the problem you say it does, that would not prevent "precise analysis" of the concept of belief. For example, the term "atheism" actually does have the problem you speak of, in that it can actually mean a lack of belief in gods, or an active belief that no gods exist--which are two quite different ideas. Yet atheism is no stranger to precise analysis. We, and others, have had long and fruitful discussions about its meanings on this forum and others, and the murkiness of the word itself has never been a hindrance to that. Actually, a murky or imprecise term tends to promote analysis, since it's relatively ineffective as a shorthand for a single mindset or worldview.

    In other words, you seem to creating a problem that isn't there.

    That's a vague comment. Care to get specific?

    You're strawmanning. I never claimed that I or atheists or non-believers were authorities in anything. I pointed to the dictionary, which offers the definition of the word as used by English-speakers today. As Fraggle has pointed out before, English is a democratic language, so definitions are based on how the word is actually used. No one is claiming authority. Maybe you should put down the :m: for a little while so you can keep track of the actual arguments being made.
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2013
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,212
    wynn,

    Who doesn't agree that ''to believe'' is not an inherent ability?

    What is it that people don't understand?

    One, there are various reasons why we fall into these conditions, which I'm sure you are aware of, but I don't see how this ties in to the fact that ''to believe'' is inherent within humans, and that they already understand it.

    Two, what do you mean by ''evil by nature''?

    Who said anything about people being ''perfectly knowledgeable?

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    There may be some miscommunication here.

    You said:

    I'm not sure what exactly you meant here in this particular case. But we have had similar discussions before, and then, you were referring to the idea that we are all God's servants, and that we all know this, but that some choose to deny it.

    But even if this is not what you meant, what I said remains: some people are very skeptical about notions of belief altogether; not rarely, it's people who consider themselves atheists.


    No, I am not aware of why we fall into those conditions.


    Being inherently able to do evil things; having an impeccable moral compass, being able to tell right from wrong, but nevertheless freely choosing that which is wrong.
    However, concepts of evil tend to be internally inconsistent. But that's something for the Abrahamists to worry about. Although they don't ever seem to worry about it ...


    If you don't consider people perfectly knowledgeable by nature, then you can't blame them for falling into a state of delusion and ignorance, nor criticize them for doing so.


    Actually going against God's desires.
    I don't think the idea of "going against God's desires" is internally consistent, though. If living beings such as ourselves are parts and parcels of God, then then they cannot actually go against God's desires - unless we posit that God is insane. And we're not going to posit that, for the time being.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,212
    wynn,

    I think there is definately some miscommunication.

    "Believe" is something that we do flawlessly, because it is inherent. Everybody has the ability and everybody uses it whether they think they do or not. The complex issues of'what is mind, intelligence, reasons why we believe, etc, do not detract or surpass our ability to ''believe''.


    Seeking satisfaction of bodily desires for the sake of gratifying the senses for ones own pleasure. This results in a) getting some satisfaction but always wanting to maintain or increase it without success, or not getting what you want. Both situations increase anxiety, eventually leading to lust, greed, and anger. In this state we fall into these conditions becoming more and more entangled.

    Okay.


    Firstly, I'm not criticizing anyone. Secondly, if we ''fall'' into such states, then it begs the question ''where did we fall from?''


    What are God's desires?

    jan.
     
  8. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    In that case, okay.


    Yes. And typically, some major theistic religions do provide a scenario for that. In roundabout, this scenario goes that we were originally perfectly knowledgeable, perfectly God's servants, but then due to our own selfishness fell into illusion and then disgrace.

    But if we in fact originally are perfectly knowledgeable, perfectly God's servants - how can we possibly be selfish?? Such scenarios of the Original Fall don't add up.


    Everything that happens, happens according to God's desires anyway, this is a given if God is the creator, maintainer and controller of the Universe and the living beings in it; thereforee, what God's desires are, is actually moot.
     
  9. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    And that's the only reason? Seriously?

    The short answer is that we're not perfectly anything. Even if a god existed, there is nothing to suggest we are intended to be perfect creatures in any sense.

    But again, how you do explain the risk-reward system inherent to every religion? If we aren't selfish, and aren't supposed to be selfish, why are we lured with promises of everlasting live, knowledge, health, or wealth, and threatened with eternal hellfire or the total absence of life, knowledge, health, or wealth? Why are these risks and rewards at the very heart of every faith? Why does religion hinge on our desire for comfort and happiness and fear of discomfort and misery?

    Two things: First, where do you get this concept of God from? Two, why broach the subject of evil if you insist it doesn't exist?
     
  10. vulcan947 Registered Member

    Messages:
    26
    what is an angel then

    messenger or divine #???
     
  11. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    The original fall was due to eating of the symbolic tree of knowledge of good and evil. What such knowledge does is divide natural neutrality into good and evil and thereby dividing creation; dissociation. Natural creation is neutral allowing integration such a eco-systems. Once you start to divide this into piles of good here and evil there, nature becomes unnatural leading to death.

    Let me give an example. Lions kill animals to survive. If we defined all killing as evil, we might attempt to stop the lion from killing t appease our belief system. This seems good on the surface and has an appeal to certain people. This will protect his helpless prey, which is good. However, it will cause long term problems for the lions. As the lions die off, now the prey has no natural checks and balances. They start to self destruct due to overpopulation, starvation and disease; you shall surely die. Nature worked perfectly when all was neutral, but gets screwed us when defined by human good and evil.

    In modern times, liberalism, which is more feminine than conservatism, love to make laws and regulations. They like to divide minutia into good and evil based on their own subjective definitions. Liberalism likes pitting groups against each other (we are good (99%) and they are evil (1%)). Religion is evil and atheism is good. The bible equated the tree of knowledge with Eve or the female, as is still the case. The more masculine aspects of culture believe in fewer laws; Adam.

    In Eden, although Eve eats first, she is conned into this by a masculine spirit; Satan. He tells her what she want to hear (white lies) to make her "feel" good about herself. She then nags the men until they conform. In modern times the role of Satan is played by male leadership with two faces. A rich democrat is not part of the 1% due to two-face.

    The dual standard of liberalism, shows the main problem with knowledge of good and evil. There is often subjectivity behind laws of good and evil. Objective law of good and evil could have benefit. But what happens more often than not is subjective laws of good and evil for special interests.

    Perfection implies tree of knowledge of good and evil; limited data set. We are not perfect because this would make you under Satan and the tree of knowledge. The tree of life, like life, embraces all of creation; completeness.
     
  12. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,212
    wynn,


    Because we have decided to act independantly. A single drop of a great ocean, although being part and parcel of the ocean, loses it's greatness. We have become attached to the body, which is a product of material nature, and as such we identify with this nature as reality. The conditioned living entity wants to be happy, and satisfied, and being under the illusion that I am my body, seeks satisfaction of the body through sense gratification. Happiness is experienced by the (conditioned) living entity, but it is mostly always short lived/temporary, so the living entity continues to secure happiness never really realising that there is no long term happiness to be had in a temporary environment. Due to this ignorance the living entity becomes frustrated and there starts the decline.


    That's like saying a presidents desire is send people to death row or prison, when the fact is, prisons are necessary in order to keep criminals from creating havoc.

    jan.
     
  13. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,212
    wellwisher,


    I disagree. The ''original fall'' is due to envy. We wished to become like God, no longer wanting to serve. The story of Eve partaking of the forbidden fruit, is an act which depicts that. Good and evil are actions. Good acts are acts which are closer to to our original, spiritual nature, and evil acts are acts which are further away. Nature is simply a field of energy which appears to be vibrant and alive because we observe it as such.


    I think the tree of knowledge of good and evil is about the knowledge of the dualistic principles of nature, and learning how to utilise nature in a way that you can live like gods.

    jan.
     
  14. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Apparently your dislike for me hinders you from understanding if-sentences when I write them.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    And now you will, of course, try to find ways to blame it all on me ... as usual ...
     
  15. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    If originally we are perfectly knowledgeable, perfectly God's servants
    then we cannot decide to act independently.


    You are still not stating what you believe our original position is.


    In that case, you are arguing that things can happen in this Universe that go against God's desires.
    You might want to rethink that!

    Also, you seem to think that it is our true nature that we are criminals.


    In that case, our original position is not that of being perfectly knowledgeable, perfectly God's servants.

    If we were able to envy God, then we weren't perfectly knowledgeable, perfectly God's servants.
     
  16. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,212
    wynn,

    Why can't we?



    We're not discussing my belief. We're discussing how it could be possible to become selfish based on what you put foreward.

    Then read it again.
    This universe acts how it's supposed to act, neither for or against God.

    Not really. Most of what I've been saying implies that our true nature is spiritual.



    Does ''perfect'' mean we cannot fall from a ''perfect'' position? If yes, why?
    Or does it mean we are ''perfectly'' what we are, but can fall if we choose?


    jan.
     
  17. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    Your days of evading my questions are over, troll.

    Have a nice life.
     
  18. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    An ordinary human servant to a human master may indeed desire to act independently at some point, and to envy the master; in fact, it's common enough.
    But you seem to be taking this mundane scenario and use it as a model that is supposedly adequate for understanding the relationship between an individual person and God.
    I don't think it is. Human masters are not worthy of full submission, but the Supreme Personality of Godhead is, at least as far as definitions go. This is why the mundane relationship between a human master and a human servant cannot serve as an adequate model for the relationship between God and the individual person.


    You yet need to present some reasoning for how it could be possible that a perfectly knowledgeable, perfectly obedient servant would envy his or her master.


    ?? Are you now proposing a doctrine like Mormonism?? Where God steps into an already fashioned Universe??


    That doesn't really say much, and certainly not enough for the purposes of this analysis.

    Unless you wish to argue that the desire to enjoy independently of God is a spiritual property of the individual living entity.

    But then this suggests that the pre-Fall scenario was one of tension, one of an unwilling servant, doomed to a servitude he'd rather not comply with.


    Yes, this is one of the things it means.
    If our original position is perfect, then we can't lose it.


    I suspect that original fall scenarios as typically purported by mainstream theisms are simply attempts to manipulate people into submission or to get them to shut up.
     
  19. quinnsong Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,621
    The reason for the fall is very simple, "man cannot live on God alone!" Spirituality is secondary, it is an option of which we have many.
     
  20. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    On the contrary, "man cannot live in matter". Regardless in which way you want to dress your options, it can be guaranteed that it begins at birth, culminates in death, and passes through stages of disease and old age.
     
  21. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    Just because we die doesn't mean we haven't lived.
     
  22. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,212
    wynn,

    There are various types ''relationships'' and relationship between brahman and Parambrahman is, on what could be described as the most basic level, one of being the same in nature and quality, differing in size. There are other aspects to God which are also God personified, and different souls are drawn different aspects. Some souls after liberation from material nature, sometime eventually develop a desire to enjoy like God, and fall down by accepting a material body for godly enjoyment.
    You should look more into this, if you haven't already. It will answer your questions once and for all.

    The souls that reside with Him never leave Him, but that is the topmost section of the spiritual world. Other liberated souls may worship different aspects of His Being (which are also personified). In the BG it explains the different levels of devotion.
    Bhakta yogi, jnana yogo, and karma yoga. Each of these will result in liberation, but of these only Bhakti yoga is never being conditioned again.

    By not wanting to obey, or thinking he doesn't need to obey.

    God creates the universe, with the (eternal) material energy, thereby creating a marginal energy which is a fit habitat for the living entities.

    You should look this stuff up.

    I beg to differ. It's the perfect starting point.
    All anyone can do is accept or deny it.

    Spiritual property?

    Do you have desires?

    Not really. It could be out of a desire to act in a specific capacity, but under the illusion that one is the greatest servant.

    When Lord Brahma played that trick on Krishna, he thought he was at least on the same level. He didn't mean Krishna any harm. IOW he was under illusion. God's creation is so brilliant you could be forgiven for thinking it's real.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    The soul remains completely in tact.
    An illusion isn't real, one only thinks it to be.


    Anything mainstream is ultimately about commerce, and as such is subject to the whim of the top dog.
    If I knew what ''mainstream theism'' was, I'm quite sure it wouldn't hold too much water for me.

    jan.
     
  23. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    yet regardless how you choose to live, you die ....
     

Share This Page