For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
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!
I think this is where the problem lies -- that you will not be convinced.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?
Still? Hmmmm. Is there a Krishna temple anywhere near you? Maybe if you eat some prasadam a light will go on?Ummm...nope. Not seeing it.
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.And what I said is that many of them seem that way only because they have an access-level for simple folk.
No no no. What is misleading is your will not to understand what I am saying!Your characterization of the biblical narrative as "mythology based" is thus quite misleading.
] But mythologies are laden with meaning. It takes an interpretive mind to receive and extract the meaning. So if I read you right it was that mating pair, or some pair like them, who were Adam & Eve in the Garden?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Mar 07, 2022 6:33 pmAnd 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?
Actually, the problem is that you've given no evidence.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 07, 2022 9:51 pmI think this is where the problem lies -- that you will not be convinced.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?
Well, how about one, then?Not so much a specific passage, though if I took a moment I could probably find one,
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....a general metaphysical picture...
Oh, I see...you might know some Hindus, but you don't know enough about Christians. So the comparisons are flawed the other way.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.And what I said is that many of them seem that way only because they have an access-level for simple folk.
But you dodged my question.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!
No problem.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 07, 2022 9:59 pmSo if I read you right it was that mating pair, or some pair like them, who were Adam & Eve in the Garden?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Mar 07, 2022 6:33 pmAnd 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?
I need to be given some advance notice as to where this goes . . .
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.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Mar 07, 2022 11:31 pmNo problem.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 07, 2022 9:59 pmSo if I read you right it was that mating pair, or some pair like them, who were Adam & Eve in the Garden?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Mar 07, 2022 6:33 pmAnd 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?
I need to be given some advance notice as to where this goes . . .
My claim was that there was an original mating pair. You said there wasn't. I wanted to know how you thought that worked.
Of course not. But anybody who laughs at the idea of an original mating pair surely must.
I didn't ask you to. I know nobody's got a time machine.We haven't yet identified the original pair that started the procedure,
Okay, you call them "Og" and "Oog," the mating Neanderthals, or "Ek" and "Eek," the mating Piltdowns. I don't, but you can.
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.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Mar 07, 2022 11:31 pmMy claim was that there was an original mating pair. You said there wasn't. I wanted to know how you thought that worked.
A quote that proves my assertion is what you are asking for…Well, how about one, then?
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.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.
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.“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.”
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”?
No, I'm not that ambitious. And I would never try to "reconcile" a lie with the truth.
Thanks, but I was in need of no help.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.
God. Did you read Genesis? It's not hidden there.If so where did this mating pair come from?
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.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.
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.“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.”
Funny. I just cited the same passage in another thread.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Mar 08, 2022 4:46 amOh, 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”?
"Great minds..." I guess.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.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Mar 08, 2022 2:39 am
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.