Religion II

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

"Animals give us a clue"? Animals are moral creatures? ]

I know you feel the emotions of your cats. Don't deny it. Love of animals (mostly domesticated), and their love of man although not exactly the same is a common bond that all went thru in a similar development in the evolutionary growth of social groups.

You may cringe that I used "evolution".

Whether it was god or evolution, the final outcomes of emotional interactions along with instinctive impulses, are present in many social animals. All animals do not go around lying and cheating ALL others in their group. Rarely do they lie to us.

When cats or dogs fight, they are not evil or sinners.
A rather poor human misconception of reality popularized by dualistic thinking. Good versus evil does not cover 1000 shades of gray. Emotional awareness, empathy and sympathy help us understand and judge others. The ability to put oneself in anther's place requires love.

We and our pets share much.

It is not "morality" It is a direct emotional experience between sentient beings. Same for our human children.

You appear to have cut yourself off from the simpler things.

YouTube (Short URL)

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

I know you feel the emotions of your cats. Don't deny it. Love of animals (mostly domesticated), and their love of man although not exactly the same is a common bond that all went thru in a similar development in the evolutionary growth of social groups.

You may cringe that I used "evolution".

Whether it was god or evolution, the final outcomes of emotional interactions along with instinctive impulses, are present in many social animals. All animals do not go around lying and cheating ALL others in their group. Rarely do they lie to us.

When cats or dogs fight, they are not evil or sinners.
A rather poor human misconception of reality popularized by dualistic thinking. Good versus evil does not cover 1000 shades of gray. Emotional awareness, empathy and sympathy help us understand and judge others. The ability to put oneself in anther's place requires love.

We and our pets share much.

It is not "morality" It is a direct emotional experience between sentient beings. Same for our human children.

You appear to have cut yourself off from the simpler things.

https://youtu.be/FWzLgkK-sQc

Humpty...animals aren't moral entities. Pretty simple to understand, really.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Humpty...animals aren't moral entities. Pretty simple to understand, really.

That is the point. The dogmatic doctrine of Original Sin is not either. Rather a doctrine of "unearned guilt"

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.co...iginalSin.html

Original sin is not just misguided. It is fundamentally evil. It is an inversion of morality. A proper, objective morality requires man's life to be his moral guide. Original sin claims that his life is an affront to good. That his own life is not the standard of good, but the standard of evil. To the degree that a man tries to live, he must think of himself as evil. To the degree to which he destroys his life, he is praised as good. If accepted, this doctrine will cause unearned guilt. If practiced, it will cause death.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/brother...n-of-morality/

The concept of “original sin” is possibly the most wicked doctrine of traditional Christianity. The very thought that a newborn is innately evil, and therefore condemned to an eternity of torture, is (pardon the pun) unforgivable. It stems from the—not so new—creationist question concerning the origins of morality.

You creationists use it to spin it as a moral issue.

I think morality should be intellectually fair and objective, and emotionally loving.

Original sin is neither.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by hcap

I know you feel the emotions of your cats. Don't deny it. Love of animals (mostly domesticated), and their love of man although not exactly the same is a common bond that all went thru in a similar development in the evolutionary growth of social groups.

You may cringe that I used "evolution".

Whether it was god or evolution, the final outcomes of emotional interactions along with instinctive impulses, are present in many social animals. All animals do not go around lying and cheating ALL others in their group. Rarely do they lie to us.

When cats or dogs fight, they are not evil or sinners.
A rather poor human misconception of reality popularized by dualistic thinking. Good versus evil does not cover 1000 shades of gray. Emotional awareness, empathy and sympathy help us understand and judge others. The ability to put oneself in anther's place requires love.

We and our pets share much.

It is not "morality" It is a direct emotional experience between sentient beings. Same for our human children.

You appear to have cut yourself off from the simpler things.

https://youtu.be/FWzLgkK-sQc

Simple Gifts was also incorporated into Aaron Copland's Appalachian Spring.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

Simple Gifts was also incorporated into Aaron Copland's Appalachian Spring.

Of course. The original ain't bad either. The version I chose displayed the lyrics in order to inform Box of some simple things.

Appalachian Spring is great but, this is my favorite version....

YouTube (Short URL)

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

That is the point. The dogmatic doctrine of Original Sin is not either. Rather a doctrine of "unearned guilt"

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.co...iginalSin.html



http://www.patheos.com/blogs/brother...n-of-morality/

The concept of “original sin” is possibly the most wicked doctrine of traditional Christianity. The very thought that a newborn is innately evil, and therefore condemned to an eternity of torture, is (pardon the pun) unforgivable. It stems from the—not so new—creationist question concerning the origins of morality.

You creationists use it to spin it as a moral issue.

I think morality should be intellectually fair and objective, and emotionally loving.

Original sin is neither.

Man's life is an affront to both God and to all that is good. Listen to what Jesus taught:

John 12:25
25 "He who loves his life loses it; and he who hates his life in this world shall keep it to life eternal.
NASB

The writer you quoted obviously has a very high opinion of his [moral] life. But Jesus did not share that high opinion of man. In fact, those have a such a high opinion of themselves (love their own life) will lose it, said Jesus. The gospel message is that one must die to self and live in the Spirit unto God through Christ. Only God has the power to transform human nature.

And let's not forget something, Mr. Hcap....all newborns who grow up eventually come to understand that they are sinners! Eventually, a time comes when babies understand the difference between good and evil. It is at that time that they become morally culpable and accountable to God.

The offer of salvation -- life eternal -- goes out to all men. But Jesus also taught that men don't come to Him (The Light) for salvation because they love the darkness since their deeds are evil.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

And let's not forget something, Mr. Hcap....all newborns who grow up eventually come to understand that they are sinners!

Says who?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Man's life is an affront to both God and to all that is good. Listen to what Jesus taught:

John 12:25

John 12:25 King James Version (KJV)

25 He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.

I prefer KJV

Not quite your interpretation.


This refers to letting go of one's fractured grasping ego (limited understanding) and reaching beyond mundane things.

http://dangxia.org/englishfile/lowerself.html

The struggle to awaken begins with the work to both recognize and control the lower self. The world of the lower self is characterized by the state of imagination (uncontrolled mind activity), illusionary suffering, and undue preoccupation with trifling matters. The lower self is not a single being inside of us, but rather the collection of attitudes, dreams, mechanical habits, and the animal-like nature that dwells within us.

...Angelus Silesius (17th c. German priest, mystic and poet) : God (the Higher Self), whose love and joy are present everywhere, cannot come to visit you unless you (the lower self) are not there.

Born again means discarding the lower self for the higher. Some call the inner struggle "seeking God, Buddha or Allah."

Some don't verbalize it and possibly ruin it by naming it. Nor can we explain easily the inner divine and how it may connect with a possible outer divine "spirit"

Separating the wheat from the chaff is this struggle.

....he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal

If we love the lower things too much we get distracted from the search, and struggle.

Remember the bit about serving two masters?

It has nothing to do with evilness!

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

I prefer KJV

Not quite your interpretation.


This refers to letting go of one's fractured grasping ego (limited understanding) and reaching beyond mundane things.

http://dangxia.org/englishfile/lowerself.html


Born again means discarding the lower self for the higher. Some call the inner struggle "seeking God, Buddha or Allah."

Some don't verbalize it and possibly ruin it by naming it. Nor can we explain easily the inner divine and how it may connect with a possible outer divine "spirit"

Separating the wheat from the chaff is this struggle.

If we love the lower things too much we get distracted from the search, and struggle.

Remember the bit about serving two masters?

It has nothing to do with evilness!

Both versions are saying the same thing.

Loving the "lower things" are all things OF this world, including ourselves. This is why Jesus told his disciples that even though they are IN the world, they are not OF it (Jn 15:19; 17:14-16). But contrast that with what he told the Pharisees who hated him:

John 8:23
23 And He was saying to them, "You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world.
NASB

This is why Jesus also taught that they had to be "born again" -- born from above. If the natural man's life is so great as the guy you quoted earlier seems to think (and you also seem to think) , then why would Jesus tell Nicodemus In John 3 that he had to be born a second time!?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by hcap

Of course. The original ain't bad either. The version I chose displayed the lyrics in order to inform Box of some simple things.

Appalachian Spring is great but, this is my favorite version....

https://youtu.be/fYi9Vr8bHJY

Same one I listen to!

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Says who?

Says common sense for one. As we grow older, we mature and our understanding of things are broadened. But if you need a scripture, which I'm sure you'll pervert with some allegorical interpretation anyway, then try this these few on for size:

Deut 1:39
39 And the little ones that you said would be taken captive, your children who do not yet know good from bad — they will enter the land. I will give it to them and they will take possession of it.
NIV

And,

Isa 7:15-17
15 He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. 16 But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.
NIV

Not all of us grow up and continue to THINK like a child!

1 Cor 13:11
11 When I was a child, I used to speak as a child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.
NASB

The fact that you even asked such a foolish question suggests strongly that you have never done away with childish things.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by boxcar

1 Cor 13:11
11 When I was a child, I used to speak as a child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.
NASB

So when you use a pejorative (Humpty) to refer to someone, that doesn't count as speaking like a child? You have to get rid of name calling before you can claim you "do away with childish things."

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

So when you use a pejorative (Humpty) to refer to someone, that doesn't count as speaking like a child? You have to get rid of name calling before you can claim you "do away with childish things."

All of us at times let our our little child out; but some of us who are Humpties never grow up. A distinction with a difference...

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Says common sense for one. As we grow older, we mature and our understanding of things are broadened. But if you need a scripture, which I'm sure you'll pervert with some allegorical interpretation anyway, .....

Sometimes our "mature" understanding does not include your version of original sin, as passed down by the literal minded, who have lost track of the proper meaning of things. And spin what is important into what is not, and vice versa.

It is a far cry from "common sense". Your misunderstandings of un-distorted allegorical and psychological fables in scripture, may be your version of "common sense". After many generations of distorted and de-valued interpretations got concocted by people who made things up out of whole cloth, and continue to confuse the map for the territory.

Jesus came to fulfill JEWISH LAW. The meaning of that law had become lost and distorted by Jewish scribes and pharisees who made that error and institutionalized that map of Jewish law into the actual territory of that law.

Forgetting what it described and pointed to.

Christianity used this fable of a corrective effort by Jesus and his message to get things back on course. At least as a fable. However most literal Jews did not buy this. We can all go past the literal and recognize the literary fable and the allegorical because at their root all Abrahamic religions speak of things in the same way. Non-Abrahamic religion are similar but "god" is not a given

Another way of thinking of "original sin" is as one of man's propensities to lose the essence of what he once knew when first in the world and then mistakenly learned from misguided adults, to substitute overly intellectual maps for that simpler territory. Building convoluted towers of babel in the process.

Children and pets can help us see past the outer and into the territory. Ascribing human concocted morality and arbitrary codes of religious conduct are only maps.

Without a reality check, often convoluted towers of babel result.

[hcap]

Getting kicked out of the garden of eden may refer to growth into adulthood, building our personal maps.

And perhaps some civilizations and cultures getting boggled down in excessive overly intellectual creation and proclamations of thees maps.

Guess it might be better to eat the apple of the tree of life before overly analyzing the apple of thee tree of yes/no.