Christianity

[promethean75]

"how Christians do rationalize the enormous suffering of children day in and day out given the description they provide us of this God they worship and adore."

And now, a word from the chilrens

[Alexis Jacobi]

So...you haven't read the Gita, right?

Wait. Are you saying that in order for me to have mentioned the Gita and its 16th chapter that I must have actually read it for my point to be valid?!? If that is not the most outrageous statement! You are so demanding!

Esteemed sir, of course I have read the Bhagavad-Gita. And I certainly have read the 16th chapter. I said "I am also quite sure that the the Bhagavad-Gita can be employed as a means to elucidate important aspects of Christian metaphysics" and I am now doubling ... no tripling-down on my assertion.

That chapter provides a person with a way to grasp the dual-nature of the world-picture, the metaphysical picture, also described by Christian metaphysics. Please don't jump to conclusions and assert that I am saying more than that. For I do recognize essential differences and they are of consequence.

And (again I suppose I must say) when I refer to Christian metaphysics I am referring to Mediaeval metaphysics and the *world-picture* as it was conceived at that point in time. There are similarities, naturally, between the various world-visualizing systems of the era, and so it makes sense that the Christian picture of the world -- divided as it is into celestial (heavenly) realm and a dense, possessive Terrestrial realm -- correspond one to the other in certain ways.

Ummm...nope. Not seeing it.

You're going to have to do more to convince me you've got a point there. What passage within 16 are you specifically thinking of?

I think this is where the problem lies -- that you will not be convinced.

Not so much a specific passage, though if I took a moment I could probably find one, but just as I said in a general metaphysical picture and simply in receiving a way to conceive of a perceived duality between the demonic and the divine. There must be a conception of what is at stake for an aware, concerned and responsible person. So Christianity is valid because it outlines what is at stake (our immortal soul unless I am very mistaken!) and similarly so does the Vedic conception.

One has to bring a sense of this *soul* into focus, and then to visualize it seated within the world-structure -- or trapped in the world-structure and as the Vaishnavas say stuck in a material entanglement from which, they say, there is a way out. And their religious conception describes what that way out is.

So similarly Christianity sees a similar condition -- the soul's entanglement in what the *Fall* pertains -- and also a way out. And an Avatar that sets this process in motion.

In this sense they are similar.

Ummm...nope. Not seeing it.

Still? Hmmmm. Is there a Krishna temple anywhere near you? Maybe if you eat some prasadam a light will go on?

And what I said is that many of them seem that way only because they have an access-level for simple folk.

Sure, I get that. The same is true with the *simple stories* from most religio-mythic systems. It is not so much that I object to this or have a problem with it, and it is exactly and precisely what I say and nothing less or more than what I say: the story no longer functions except among the simple-minded who can only take it literally, or among those who allegorize it.

Your characterization of the biblical narrative as "mythology based" is thus quite misleading.

No no no. What is misleading is your will not to understand what I am saying!

The origin story of Adam & Eve in a Garden is mythology. [You are going to have to do a lot more to convince me otherwise! ] But mythologies are laden with meaning. It takes an interpretive mind to receive and extract the meaning.

That is the only 'biblical narrative' that I referred to.

As to elaborated theories of evolution I leave that to the experts. I have one question though, and it always stops them dead in their tracks. It is in regard to the Archerfish. If such a fish evolved to that point of sophistication, there had to be some stage at which he spit but, like a surly clumsy teenager, it wound up dribbling down his chin or perhaps on his shoe! Think about it. I am really right on this one and not you and no no one will unseat me this time!

[Alexis Jacobi]

And if you believe that, let's see your alternate explanation. I'll simplify it. How did, say, Peking Man become Neanderthal Man, the alleged next evolutionary stage? Was it by mass mutation, or by a genetic adaptation developing from a single mating pair? Which answer do you favour?

So if I read you right it was that mating pair, or some pair like them, who were Adam & Eve in the Garden?

I need to be given some advance notice as to where this goes . . .

[promethean75]

But what really motivates the Christian forum board evangelist if we say that he has not the capacity to understand his own confusion and genuinely believes what he does with a feeling of absolute certainty?

Well, he feels that not only he will be praised by God, but also that he exercises good will toward others. He believes it is, or at least wants to make it his duty, and you cannot blame him here.

The problem here tho is a little complex and a lot ironic. There is a way to improve the world and the life of men in general (this improvement starts with an 'M'), so we end up having those christians who mean well, actually becoming one of the greatest obstacles in the way of making that improvement.

Now this is a very awkward thing to deal with. The question is, what does one do with them?

If there were a 'god', this is what brings the atheist closest to it. They both must share in the acknowledgement of this most ominous irony; the existence of the Christian.

[Immanuel Can]

Ummm...nope. Not seeing it.

You're going to have to do more to convince me you've got a point there. What passage within 16 are you specifically thinking of?

I think this is where the problem lies -- that you will not be convinced.

Actually, the problem is that you've given no evidence.

Not so much a specific passage, though if I took a moment I could probably find one,

Well, how about one, then?

...a general metaphysical picture...

Ah. So nothing specific, then. That's the same problem we're observing with your claims about what "Christianity" believes and requires...so much generalization at so great a distance that unlike objects look alike.

And what I said is that many of them seem that way only because they have an access-level for simple folk.

Sure, I get that...the story no longer functions except among the simple-minded who can only take it literally, or among those who allegorize it.

Oh, I see...you might know some Hindus, but you don't know enough about Christians. So the comparisons are flawed the other way.

Hmmm.

The origin story of Adam & Eve in a Garden is mythology. [You are going to have to do a lot more to convince me otherwise!

But you dodged my question.

Do you believe in evolution by way of species-group leap-forward, or do believe in evolution by reproduction, and do you realize there definitely had to be an original mating pair? It matters how you answer.

So please have a go. I'll accept either answer, or if you've got a different one, I'll accept that.

[Immanuel Can]

And if you believe that, let's see your alternate explanation. I'll simplify it. How did, say, Peking Man become Neanderthal Man, the alleged next evolutionary stage? Was it by mass mutation, or by a genetic adaptation developing from a single mating pair? Which answer do you favour?

So if I read you right it was that mating pair, or some pair like them, who were Adam & Eve in the Garden?

I need to be given some advance notice as to where this goes . . .

No problem.

My claim was that there was an original mating pair. You said there wasn't. I wanted to know how you thought that worked.

[Dubious]

And if you believe that, let's see your alternate explanation. I'll simplify it. How did, say, Peking Man become Neanderthal Man, the alleged next evolutionary stage? Was it by mass mutation, or by a genetic adaptation developing from a single mating pair? Which answer do you favour?

So if I read you right it was that mating pair, or some pair like them, who were Adam & Eve in the Garden?

I need to be given some advance notice as to where this goes . . .

No problem.

My claim was that there was an original mating pair. You said there wasn't. I wanted to know how you thought that worked.

Let's put it this way. They weren't human but they were mammalian. Do you really need a sex education course to know that sex is one of the main drivers of evolution.

Let's start with the shrews. We haven't yet identified the original pair that started the procedure, and never will, ending with people who still believe that believing in Jesus is going to save their souls. Had that original couple known that they probably would have preferred being stepped on by a dinosaur before causing more damage.

[Immanuel Can]

Do you really need a sex education course to know that sex is one of the main drivers of evolution.

Of course not. But anybody who laughs at the idea of an original mating pair surely must.

We haven't yet identified the original pair that started the procedure,

I didn't ask you to. I know nobody's got a time machine.

I just asked if, logically, everybody realized that an original mating pair was bound to be the right answer as to how each phase of evolution was to take place, or whether some believe in simultaneous, identical, asexual group mutation.

Isn't it obvious which answer makes sense?

[Dubious]

Whatever the original mating pair was it wasn't Adam and Eve as depicted in the bible; that's for sure. I know there are a lot of begats in it but they're all human.

Whatever or whenever the original pair was we have no way of knowing except it had nothing in common with humans during its incipient stages; nor was it predetermined during that very long process to resemble what we now call human.

It's futile to expect biology lessons from the bible, except for one thing...they really knew all about begating!

[Immanuel Can]

Whatever the original mating pair was it wasn't Adam and Eve

Okay, you call them "Og" and "Oog," the mating Neanderthals, or "Ek" and "Eek," the mating Piltdowns. I don't, but you can.

The point is very simple: there's nothing irrational or unusual about saying that the human race began with an original mating pair. Take the Biblical narrative or take your "ascent of man" theory, and you have to begin with the same assumption. In fact, it's irrational and implausible to believe anything else.

[Alexis Jacobi]

My claim was that there was an original mating pair. You said there wasn't. I wanted to know how you thought that worked.

The line that you are taking here is very odd, but I also recognize that it is necessary in order to harmonize your views. You are trying to reconcile two explanatory systems, two different epitemes, and to do that you are forced to locate, at least conceptually, the mating pair. If you wish to go this route have at it.

For the sake of helping you along I will say that I admit that there was a mating pair for the branch of humankind known as homo sapiens.

There, that wasn’t hard. I still have my dignity!

Is it your contention that the Biblical story of Adam & Eve is a — what is the word I seek — a history of this mating pair? If so where did this mating pair come from? Did either of them have a forebear? Or are you claiming that they were created by Divinity and that they were created in a deathless, immutable condition? Were the mating pair homo sapiens? or some evolutionary precursor? (I assume that you will stick to the story-line in Genesis and assert that this original mating pair was created by God more or less as the Genesis story tells it).

Moving on to the Bhagavad-Gita . . .

Well, how about one, then?

A quote that proves my assertion is what you are asking for…

The chapter is variously translated, as you know, and I am examining one translation which summarizes the outline of the chapter as “Embracing the Divine and Shunning the Demonic”. It deals on ‘the nature and fate of souls who shun the divine’ and describes ‘the threefold gates of Hell’ as well as ‘the right understanding of scriptural guidance for the conduct of life’.

It goes on to define, in enumerated form, the traits and qualities of those who ‘embrace the divine’:

Fearlessness, purity of heart, perseverance in acquiring wisdom and in spiritual practice, charity, subjugation of the senses, performance of holy rites, study of the scriptures, self-discipline, and straightforwardness.

Non-injury, truthfulness, freedom from wrath, renunciation, peacefulness, non-slanderousness, compassion for all creatures, absense of greed, gentleness, modesty and lack of restlessness.

Radiance of character, forgiveness, patience, cleanness, freedom from hate, absence of conceit.

All editions of the BG that have commentary always go through this list and define why those qualities are needed. And that comprises the *lore*, as it were, of the spiritual tradition.

Then it goes on to define ‘The nature and fate of souls who shun the divine’. It offers a list of those qualities and the activities that derive from them.

The Bhagavad-Gita says: “The divine qualities bestow liberation; the demonic qualities lead to bondage”. It then goes on in this chapter to speak about the demonic qualities and tendencies.

For example:

“The demonic know not the right path of action or when to refrain from action. They lack purity and truth and proper conduct. They say “The world has no moral foundation, no abiding truth, no God or Ruler; is produced not by a systematic causal order; its sole purpose is lustful desire — what else?

With their feeble intellects, such ruined men cling to their erroneous beliefs and commit many atrocities. They are enemies of the world, bent on its destruction.”

I could of course continue in this but I hardly need to. It should be evident that what I asserted is true: there is a strong similarity between the Vedic understanding of the nature of man and the nature of the world, and that of the Christian metaphysical system which, I suppose I can say, deals on the same condition of man. It states what this condition is, generally, and proposes meliorating pathways.

I am pretty sure what in all of this you will critique — a missing element as it were, and one that you see as crucial and distinguishing — but I will leave it to you to point that out, if indeed you do see that.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Oh, my offence is rank. It smells to heaven.
It hath the primal eldest curse upon ’t,
A brother’s murder. Pray can I not.
Though inclination be as sharp as will,
My stronger guilt defeats my strong intent,
And, like a man to double business bound,
I stand in pause where I shall first begin,
And both neglect. What if this cursèd hand
Were thicker than itself with brother’s blood?
Is there not rain enough in the sweet heavens
To wash it white as snow? Whereto serves mercy
But to confront the visage of offence?
And what’s in prayer but this twofold force,
To be forestallèd ere we come to fall
Or pardoned being down? Then I’ll look up.
My fault is past. But oh, what form of prayer
Can serve my turn, “Forgive me my foul murder”?

[Immanuel Can]

You are trying to reconcile two explanatory systems,

No, I'm not that ambitious. And I would never try to "reconcile" a lie with the truth.

What I'm doing instead is simply refuting the claim that believing in an original mating pair is somehow unscientific or irrational. It is, in fact, the only plausible thing one can believe in. And I merely point out that even the Evolutionist ends up doing the same thing.

For the sake of helping you along I will say that I admit that there was a mating pair for the branch of humankind known as homo sapiens.

Thanks, but I was in need of no help.

Being somewhat Biblically literate yourself, you will no doubt already know that the name "Adam" means "earth man," and the name "Eve" means "living." The first man is a creature of the earth, and the first woman, being essential for procreation, is the mother of all the living. So nothing in those names is anything but accurate.

But if Duby wants to call them "Og" and "Oog," then I'll laugh, but allow him the latitude.

If so where did this mating pair come from?

God. Did you read Genesis? It's not hidden there.

That's one of the key differentiators between Theism and Materialism. Theists see the human race as a unique divine creation, made in the image of God Himself; Materialists have to see man as an accidental spawning of indifferent chance, until recently a kind of morphing monkey.

The difference in accorded dignity is automatic, after that. No wonder that, as our political ethos becomes less Christian, we are more and more willing to manipulate, rob, poison, corrupt and kill each other. Today's news speaks for itself on that.

Moving on to the Bhagavad-Gita . . .

Fearlessness, purity of heart, perseverance in acquiring wisdom and in spiritual practice, charity, subjugation of the senses, performance of holy rites, study of the scriptures, self-discipline, and straightforwardness. Non-injury, truthfulness, freedom from wrath, renunciation, peacefulness, non-slanderousness, compassion for all creatures, absense of greed, gentleness, modesty and lack of restlessness. Radiance of character, forgiveness, patience, cleanness, freedom from hate, absence of conceit.

What I see is a list of things that all mankind knows instinctively are good (with the possible exception of "renunciation," which is specifically Hindu). I would say that even Atheists know these things are moral, even though some of them claim to deplore them.

“The demonic know not the right path of action or when to refrain from action. They lack purity and truth and proper conduct. They say “The world has no moral foundation, no abiding truth, no God or Ruler; is produced not by a systematic causal order; its sole purpose is lustful desire — what else? With their feeble intellects, such ruined men cling to their erroneous beliefs and commit many atrocities. They are enemies of the world, bent on its destruction.”

Yes...this again is pretty common knowledge, I think. I'm not seeing any special "Christian" element in this, beyond what all men know already.

Maybe you're mistaking the term "Christian" for meaning, "Having a sense of morality." I think the Atheists and agnostics, to say nothing of Muslims or Zoroastrians, would probably be unhappy if we were to suggest they lack awareness of the sorts of things you quote above.

I think we all know that stuff. Don't we? And I don't think it's only "Christian," but rather reflective of universal moral conscience.

[Immanuel Can]

Oh, my offence is rank. It smells to heaven.
It hath the primal eldest curse upon ’t,
A brother’s murder. Pray can I not.
Though inclination be as sharp as will,
My stronger guilt defeats my strong intent,
And, like a man to double business bound,
I stand in pause where I shall first begin,
And both neglect. What if this cursèd hand
Were thicker than itself with brother’s blood?
Is there not rain enough in the sweet heavens
To wash it white as snow? Whereto serves mercy
But to confront the visage of offence?
And what’s in prayer but this twofold force,
To be forestallèd ere we come to fall
Or pardoned being down? Then I’ll look up.
My fault is past. But oh, what form of prayer
Can serve my turn, “Forgive me my foul murder”?

Funny. I just cited the same passage in another thread. "Great minds..." I guess.

[Dubious]

The point is very simple: there's nothing irrational or unusual about saying that the human race began with an original mating pair. Take the Biblical narrative or take your "ascent of man" theory, and you have to begin with the same assumption. In fact, it's irrational and implausible to believe anything else.

For that to be true we would have to know the exact time we became human in order to identify the original mating pair. Of course no such specific time can be denoted that on this or that day we emerged as human making the idea of an original mating pair an Adam & Eve story...a strictly denoted incipience which in evolution doesn't exist. On the 6th day god said let there be and thus we became. Before god spoke man didn't exist. Only through intentional creation, as declared in myth and religion, can there be an original mating pair.

It's irrational and implausible to believe anything else.