Created by vs. Descended from?

[Carcano]

Everyone else is less or more acquainted, and painfully so, with aging, illness and death, with human imperfection. So for such people, to think one is a kin to God or gods, requires an inferior understanding of divinity, in which God, too, is plagued by the same problems that humans are plagued by - namely, aging, illness, death, greed, anger, delusion.

The German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche wrote that...

"Man's digestive system is the only thing preventing him from believing he is a God!"

Notice he did not mention SEX...which is very easy to equate with divinity.

A divine heredity however does not necessarily mean a descended humankind must be perfect, only that they have divine origins which were corrupted through inter-breeding with lesser beings.

A similar theory was held by Adolf Hitler, who believed that South America remained backward relative to North America due to inter-marriage with the tropical natives on a grand scale.

 

[wynn]

The German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche wrote that...

"Man's digestive system is the only thing preventing him from believing he is a God!"

Sheesh. Man's digestive system - and a lot more!

Notice he did not mention SEX...which is very easy to equate with divinity.

Eh? In which world? In whose mind? Only for someone who has very limited ideas of divinity.

A divine heredity however does not necessarily mean a descended humankind must be perfect, only that they have divine origins which were corrupted through inter-breeding with lesser beings.

I guess some people learn this early on, some never do.

 

[Carcano]

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.

The are three grades of divine creation relative to humankind...good, neutral and bad.

In the Hebrew paradigm, God creates the male and female body as inherently BAD, but without any awareness of it. In other words, without shame.

This awareness is something Adam and Eve must steal from the tree of knowledge.

Suddenly, their eyes are opened, realizing this human body must be hidden from sight.

Thus a culture of self-loathing was the inevitable result, completely alien to the culture of Greece...where even the Gods are nude and lovin it!

 

[wynn]

Thus a culture of self-loathing was the inevitable result, completely alien to the culture of Greece...where even the Gods are nude and lovin it!

The Greek focus on the human body is ambiguous, and has its dark side. Surely you are aware of how highly the Greeks esteemed beauty, and that a common belief was that a beautiful person is also a morally good person. And that as a consequence of this, the majority of humans - given that the majority are not particularly good-looking - were considered morally inferior.
So the Greek focus on beauty has in it another form of self-loathing.

In comparison, the Hebrews were at least democratic and egalitarian in their negative estimation of the human body. The Greeks, on the other hand, were promoting serious discrimination based solely on a person's looks.

 

[Balerion]

Pfffft.

Yet another round in a rat maze with Balerion.

Hopefully next time the OP takes care not to post so close to your habitat...

 

[Balerion]

Eh? In which world? In whose mind? Only for someone who has very limited ideas of divinity.

I think perhaps you have very limited ideas of sex.

 

[IfIonlyhadabrain]

In the Hebrew paradigm, God creates the male and female body as inherently BAD, but without any awareness of it. In other words, without shame.

This awareness is something Adam and Eve must steal from the tree of knowledge.

Suddenly, their eyes are opened, realizing this human body must be hidden from sight.

Thus a culture of self-loathing was the inevitable result...

This isn't even close to what is taught by Jews or Christians. In fact, that's not even what the Bible reads!

Genesis 1:27-31

"27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them...
......

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day."

God created mankind as inherently good.

"Knowledge" in the context of Hebrew scriptures meant intimate experience. A simple example that makes this clear is in the New Testament, when Mary is visited by Gabriel and is told that she is to bear and give birth to a son. Her response is a question, in which she asks how this can be since she "has not known man." Knowledge of good and evil, in the context of the creation myth, regards experiential knowledge, not of good, but of the difference between good and evil, which requires the experience of evil.

The tree is a symbol of "source." Trees have branches and bear fruit, and the kind of branches and fruit depend on the source, the tree. Geneologies, or family trees, were extremely important to the Hebrews, as they indicated where they came from.

The tree of good and evil, then, in the context of the creation myth is about the source of evil, which, when partaken of, enters the partaker into the intimate knowledge of the difference between good and evil. Simply put, partaking of the tree of good and evil simply means to commit evil. And it represented the source of evil in two ways. First, it was the source of human evil, the first sin. Second, put into the context of the story, it was disobedience to the will of God. Thus, in Jewish thought, evil action always amounted to disobedience to the authority of God.

The covering of the body was a symbol of shame. It is simple psychology. When people are guilty, they try to hide their sins, or they try to hide themselves. There is also a secondary element present. Jewish thought was that after the fall, humanity was subject to concupiscence. This is an inclination to sin. Part of concupiscence is that people will look at other people as objects, rather than subjects, as they are. The covering of the body is meant to be a protection against that. Again, we see this in every day behaviour. If someone walks in on you while your having a shower, your first instinct is to cover up. Not because you hate your body, but because you don't want them to gawk, or treat you like meat.

 

[Carcano]

The Greek focus on the human body is ambiguous, and has its dark side. Surely you are aware of how highly the Greeks esteemed beauty, and that a common belief was that a beautiful person is also a morally good person. And that as a consequence of this, the majority of humans - given that the majority are not particularly good-looking - were considered morally inferior. So the Greek focus on beauty has in it another form of self-loathing.

Theres no significant evidence the Greeks believed beauty was an indication of morality.

Socrates was reputed to be quite UGLY and yet was renowned for his contribution to ethics.

In any event, you are like a schoolteacher who wants to bring shame on the bright students for making the dull students feel dull.

 

[Carcano]

In fact, that's not even what the Bible reads!

Genesis 1:27-31

God created mankind as inherently good.

Indeed, thats what is written in chapter ONE, but in chapter TWO there is a different paradigm afoot when God creates Adam.

Yes! God creates mankind and womankind first....and then creates Adam as the first ancestor of the Hebrews specifically.

 

[Carcano]

"Knowledge" in the context of Hebrew scriptures meant intimate experience. A simple example that makes this clear is in the New Testament, when Mary is visited by Gabriel and is told that she is to bear and give birth to a son. Her response is a question, in which she asks how this can be since she "has not known man."

This is another example of how the culture of self-loathing has filtered down into Christianity.

Mary cannot even bring herself to reference the physical contact involved in sexual procreation...and thus replaces reality with abstractions of 'knowing man'.

 

[Carcano]

The tree of good and evil, then, in the context of the creation myth is about the source of evil, which, when partaken of, enters the partaker into the intimate knowledge of the difference between good and evil. Simply put, partaking of the tree of good and evil simply means to commit evil.

Partaking simply yields awareness of the difference...as you just pointed out, and then contradicted your own statement.

 

[wynn]

Theres no significant evidence the Greeks believed beauty was an indication of morality.

It's certainly what we were taught at school about the old Greeks.

Socrates was reputed to be quite UGLY and yet was renowned for his contribution to ethics.

Later on, in the European history of reception of Greek culture, yes. The Greeks themselves had him killed for not fitting in.

In any event, you are like a schoolteacher who wants to bring shame on the bright students for making the dull students feel dull.

Where do you get this from ...

If the bright students are really bright, nothing can bring them down.

 

[Balerion]

I can't believe I missed this steaming pile earlier.

But God is not really at the center of this model. When someone seeks to please god, they do so because it is in their best interest. This is why these god-pleasing faiths almost always offer some kind of risk-reward system. It always comes back to selfishness.

Actually, the risk-reward system comes back to bad faith, or the conviction that one is actually an impostor, an alien in the universe, and that the universe is trying to destroy one.
If one believes oneself to be an integral part of the universe, issues of risks and rewards don't enter the picture.

This makes no sense at all. First of all, there is nothing about a universe to which you are integral that makes risk-reward propositions impossible. You'd have to make the claim that our wellbeing is integral to the universe, which is an entirely different claim, and your work is only just begun as you still need to explain why our material existence has different rules (ie why it's okay for us to suffer in this[/i realm, but not in the other).

Finally, this is not what bad faith is. I presume you're talking about the existential concept, and if you are, you're completely off-base. Bad faith is the adoption of false values, not the assumption that one is not part of the universe. As usual, you've half-assed an argument around a concept you are wholly unfamiliar with. Why do you even bother? At this point, don't you realize people are going to sniff out the BS? Why am I even bothering to ask? You're just going to emote in some childish way and duck out like a coward, again.

 

[wynn]

I can't believe I missed this steaming pile earlier.

This makes no sense at all. First of all, there is nothing about a universe to which you are integral that makes risk-reward propositions impossible. You'd have to make the claim that our wellbeing is integral to the universe, which is an entirely different claim, and your work is only just begun as you still need to explain why our material existence has different rules (ie why it's okay for us to suffer in this[/i realm, but not in the other).

Finally, this is not what bad faith is. I presume you're talking about the existential concept, and if you are, you're completely off-base. Bad faith is the adoption of false values, not the assumption that one is not part of the universe. As usual, you've half-assed an argument around a concept you are wholly unfamiliar with. Why do you even bother? At this point, don't you realize people are going to sniff out the BS? Why am I even bothering to ask? You're just going to emote in some childish way and duck out like a coward, again.

Why do I bother with you? Certainly not because of you.

 

[Balerion]

Why do I bother with you? Certainly not because of you.

Evasion.

 

[lightgigantic]

LG -



What say you to this?

He is just talking about what he knows by dint of his own experience.

 

[wynn]

He is just talking about what he knows by dint of his own experience.

Oh, we know that already.

However, I really am interested in understanding the difference between the material and the spiritual, and the juxtaposition he proposed struck me as an interesting trigger.

I'd say at this point that the vital difference between the material and the spiritual is the attitude or intention with which one approaches actions (ordinary, daily actions), and the choice of actions.
Whereby material actions are driven by either ignorance or the conviction that life as it is usually lived is as good as it gets and the most anyone could ever wish for or attain; while spiritually driven actions aim to progressively transcend such an outlook.

 

[lightgigantic]

Oh, we know that already.

However, I really am interested in understanding the difference between the material and the spiritual, and the juxtaposition he proposed struck me as an interesting trigger.

I'd say at this point that the vital difference between the material and the spiritual is the attitude or intention with which one approaches actions (ordinary, daily actions), and the choice of actions.
Whereby material actions are driven by either ignorance or the conviction that life as it is usually lived is as good as it gets and the most anyone could ever wish for or attain; while spiritually driven actions aim to progressively transcend such an outlook.

yes, that's about the size of it.

One's intention or consciousness is what one is wagering for either spiritual or material ends.

People have difficulty understanding this because externally it appears as though the same action is being performed by different persons.

("he sleeps, I sleep .... he eats, I eat .... How is his sleeping or eating different from mine?")

 

[IfIonlyhadabrain]

Indeed, thats what is written in chapter ONE, but in chapter TWO there is a different paradigm afoot when God creates Adam.

Yes! God creates mankind and womankind first....and then creates Adam as the first ancestor of the Hebrews specifically.

Again, this is incorrect. The two accounts are separate creation myths. The literary styles are different. This indicates they are two separate accounts that have been placed together. The first account is regarding general creation, the second account regards the creation of man specifically, leading into the fall account. The two accounts aren't meant to be read as one signle narrative.

This is another example of how the culture of self-loathing has filtered down into Christianity.

Mary cannot even bring herself to reference the physical contact involved in sexual procreation...and thus replaces reality with abstractions of 'knowing man'.

This is also incorrect. You're taking modern day paradigm and trying to apply it to a time and culture that was entirely different. "Knowing man" is a cultural colloquialism, similar to "getting down," "making love," "having sex" (yes this is a colloquialism, since the word sex used to mean what we today mean by the word gender), etc. For them, "knowing man" wasn't an abstraction. It was a phrase that meant exactly sexual intercourse. Knowledge, in the modern sense, has become abstracted. For them, knowledge was more tangible, based in real experiences. Thus, "knowing man" meant having a real experience of a man, in a deep sense. This meant sexual intercourse. Call it what you like, it means the same thing. It is your supposition that it means they were self-loathing. But that's not actually supported by the text.

Partaking simply yields awareness of the difference...as you just pointed out, and then contradicted your own statement.

No, I didn't. By "intimate knowledge" I was building on my previous point that knowledge in this context meant experience. Therefore, partaking meant acting, entering into an experience by action. That experience is evil, which is entered into by evil action. No contradiction. It isn't mere awareness. They would have had a theoretical understanding of evil. But no concept of what it was to experience it. Thus, priorly they would have had a theoretical awareness of the difference of good and evil. Their knowledge afterward was experiential, gained by deliberately committing an evil act.

 

[Balerion]

He is just talking about what he knows by dint of his own experience.

I'm disappointed you've taken this tact. You could have addressed the points I raised, but instead you made some condescending comment to an outsider. I suppose the weakness of your position didn't allow a direct response.