| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Mouldy Jester
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2003 6:30 pm Post subject: Re: Existence |
 |
|
"Judy Stein" <jstein@panix.com> wrote in message
news:19b3c03e.0312112109.3f80e682@posting.google.com...
| Quote: | penitent leper <bastaschs@peak.org> wrote in message
news:<002ctv0kkllij14cnl4a8561udgmf525i2@4ax.com>...
snip
And I agree that even with meaning, it is morally questionable to
bring choiceless innocent beings into existence without their
permission.
I've been following this discussion with great interest, but
I keep having the sense something's slightly askew. I think
I've put my finger on two related aspects that maybe can use
a little additional definition.
Your formulation above is actually nonsensical. There has
to be an existent being before it can give its permission
for anything; there's no way it can be asked for its
permission to be brought into existence until it's been
brought into existence.
|
This one I had thought about myself. I think, (I could be wrong here), I
mentioned just this issue in passing. However, I didn't add any
clarification to it or offer a solution. Actually, to be honest, I don't
have one as yet. Any ideas you have would be most welcome.
| Quote: | Second, what does "moral" mean in this context? Whose
morality are we talking about? Whose morality do we
*know* about other than our own? What kind of morality
preexists existent beings, and what basis do those beings
have to call it "questionable"?
|
This raises a lot of interesting questions, and I really like this type of
thinking. However, I am a bit too inebriated to think about it now, so could
I ask for a deferment until a more "sober" time? If you have any thoughts, I
would be very interested to read them.
| Quote: | I realize your formulation is really more rhetorical than
logical in terms of your choice of words, but I wonder if
there's any way to unpack it by being more precise.
|
--
Mouldy Jester
"I keep telling you, Gnosticism ain't dualistic."
-- Krag, (30th July, 2003) |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Judy Stein
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 13, 2003 7:08 am Post subject: Re: Existence |
|
|
"Mouldy Jester" <Noway@getlost.com> wrote in message news:<ExiCb.27041$VV6.627040@news.xtra.co.nz>...
| Quote: | "Judy Stein" <jstein@panix.com> wrote in message
news:19b3c03e.0312112109.3f80e682@posting.google.com...
penitent leper <bastaschs@peak.org> wrote in message
news:<002ctv0kkllij14cnl4a8561udgmf525i2@4ax.com>...
snip
And I agree that even with meaning, it is morally questionable to
bring choiceless innocent beings into existence without their
permission.
I've been following this discussion with great interest, but
I keep having the sense something's slightly askew. I think
I've put my finger on two related aspects that maybe can use
a little additional definition.
Your formulation above is actually nonsensical. There has
to be an existent being before it can give its permission
for anything; there's no way it can be asked for its
permission to be brought into existence until it's been
brought into existence.
This one I had thought about myself. I think, (I could be wrong here), I
mentioned just this issue in passing. However, I didn't add any
clarification to it or offer a solution. Actually, to be honest, I don't
have one as yet. Any ideas you have would be most welcome.
Second, what does "moral" mean in this context? Whose
morality are we talking about? Whose morality do we
*know* about other than our own? What kind of morality
preexists existent beings, and what basis do those beings
have to call it "questionable"?
This raises a lot of interesting questions, and I really like this type of
thinking. However, I am a bit too inebriated to think about it now, so could
I ask for a deferment until a more "sober" time? If you have any thoughts, I
would be very interested to read them.
|
You might get around the first problem by positing an eternal soul
of which permission would be asked by Whomever prior to initiating
the incarnation of that soul.
But that creates another problem: unless you're able to remember
your previous existence as a discarnate soul, for all you know you
*were* asked and *did* give permission in that state, for excellent
reasons that are inscrutable from your current embodied perspective.
(There are various metaphysical/religious systems, of course, that
provide speculative reasons--some more sophisticated than others--
that a soul might consent to being incarnated.)
As to the morality issue, I think the only recourse is to recast
the whole thing and simply acknowledge that it's *your* morality,
and that if you were Whoever, with the morality you have now as
an embodied critter, it would be immoral to cause beings to
incarnate (in this case, beings that didn't exist in any form
prior to incarnation.)
Or you could just keep it all on the plane of your embodied
existence and say that it would be immoral for *you* to
cause a being to incarnate (i.e., via procreation), since you
have no way of asking its permission beforehand. And if you
turned that into a categorical imperative, you'd be saying
procreation itself is immoral by the standards of beings who
came into existence via procreation.
But even this isn't as clearcut as it might seem. For all you
know, the being you cause to be embodied might be one of the
fortunate few for whom incarnation is one long relatively
unadulterated delight--and by not bringing it into incarnation,
you'd have denied it that delight without asking its permission.
Or you or others might even create an embodied Savior who would
know how to get us all out of this mess.
One might construct all kinds of variations on these basic themes.
But they all seem to have the annoying tendency to circle around
on themselves and wind up as self-referential conundrums or infinite
regresses, or devolve into endless speculation.
Unless one wants to invent or adopt a mythology that fills in all
the unknowns, one is probably better off going back to the basics
and simply asserting that from one's own perspective, this existence
stinks. Not very satisfying, but there it is. Indeed, that it's
so unsatisfying is arguably the most evil characteristic of embodied
existence as we know it. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 13, 2003 10:10 pm Post subject: Re: Existence |
|
|
penitent leper <bastaschs@peak.org> writes:
| Quote: |
Yep, and they also get pissed when it's pointed out to them that
their "knowledge" of religion is misinformed, incomplete, and
antiquated. Many of them are stuck in the 19th century "schools of
religion" notion that Jesus was "only a myth" and that his "myth" is
derived from pagan myths. When pointed out to them that there is good
cross cultural evidence suggesting the plausibility of Jesus, and that
the NT's mythic elements are not pagan, but Jewish, "skeptics"
frequently react with childish tantrums and loopy "logic". The world
needs to conform to their biases, or else.
|
There's no such evidence, and only inept scholars like Bultman, Pagels,
Petrement, Harnack, Crossan, Quispel, and other misguiders state a
historical Jesus,
unlike able ones like van den Bergh van Eysinga, Doughty, Robert Price,
Arthur Drews, Paul-Louis Couchoud, Jean Magne, Samuel Lublinsky.
Klaus Schilling |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
James
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2003 3:43 am Post subject: Re: Existence |
|
|
| Quote: | On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 13:57:14 +1300, "Mouldy Jester" <Noway@getlost.com> >wrote:
Hello, Gnostic Types,
I just wanted to throw a few thoughts out there for some discussion and
maybe get a few ideas and thoughts from the resident Gnostics here.
I have been thinking about existence and all, as I had a debate with a
friend regarding freedom of will and predestination. This debate got me
thinking about the one thing that we as people had no choice about: our
existence.
Even from an orthodox Christian view point, an existence brought into this
world is a pretty immoral choice to be made. We get brought into a world
that is filled with suffering interspersed with brief periods of joy.
Considering that no one consulted us, (and how could they if we do not
exist), then that makes the decision to bring someone into existence an
immoral choice. Especially as there is this threat of "hell" at the end, (if
you lean toward a conservative understanding of "hell"). So, with existence
as an immoral choice made by God, (even in Christianity), where does that
leave it?
One could argue, (as some philosophers have), that existence is inherently
better than not existing. However, I disagree. There is little to suggest
it, except from the hope of something better at the end, which makes this
world pointless. It still leaves us with an immoral act on the part of God,
I think.
However, the Gnostic idea of creation, and the emanations, is not without
merit in this case. Of course, there was no deliberate choice to trap us in
this world, except by the Demiurge, who is ignorant and sadistic anyway.
This system seems to solve the inherent immorality that this world's
existence seems to have.
What you think? I am interested in your thoughts.
|
Hello,
Yes, existence may see "immoral" at the present, but it wasn't
supposed to be this way. According to the truths recorded in the first
chapter of Genesis, God originally intended mankind to live forever on
a paradise earth. The only way death and sickness etc would enter into
the picture, was if Adam and Eve disobeyed. Sadly they did, and this
is where we now find ourselves. As the apostle Paul summarized it at
Ro 5:12,
"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death
through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all
sinned" (NIV)
But since all of God's unchangeable purposes are always fulfilled (Isa
55:11), then the earth must still become a paradise and have perfect
people on it. After all, God didn't make the earth for nothing. Isa
45:18,
"For this is what the LORD says-- he who created the heavens, he is
God; he who fashioned and made the earth, he founded it; he did not
create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited--..." (NIV)
Jesus knew about that upcoming paradise, and briefly mentioned it to
the criminal executed alongside of him (Lu 23:43), as well as his
statement at Mt 5:5,
"Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth." (NIV)
If all the righteous ones go to Heaven (as many churches teach), who
will be around to fulfill Jesus' words and "inherit the earth"? Did
Jesus error on this one? Not a chance.
Yes, existence at the present time can be a pain, but soon it will be
as it was meant to be. And we can even get a glimpse of the conditions
by God's own words at Re 21:3,4,
"3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Now the dwelling
of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his
people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4 He will
wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or
mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed
away." (NIV)
(Sorry if you were looking for "Gnostic Types", but I assume you would
prefer real truth over opinionized beliefs.)
Sincerely, James
***********************************
Want a FREE home Bible study?
Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?
Go to the only authorized source:
http://www.watchtower.org
*********************************** |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kater Moggin
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2003 7:07 am Post subject: Re: Existence |
|
|
James <voja@surfbest.net>:
| Quote: | According to the truths recorded in the first
chapter of Genesis God originally intended mankind to live forever on
a paradise earth. The only way death and sickness etc would enter into
the picture, was if Adam and Eve disobeyed.
|
Ain't what Genesis says. On the story there, God informed
Adam that eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good
and evil -- I'll just call it the apple -- would mean death the
same day. But according to Genesis, Adam and Eve did _not_
die the day they ate the apple. Far from it: Adam lived until
he was nine hundred and thirty years old (Genesis 5:5).
Forced to improvise, the Creator cursed Adam and Eve along with
their as-yet-unborn descendents and even the earth that he
had made. In the words of a well-known rabbit, "What a maroon!"
-- Moggin
to e-mail, remove the thorn |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
penitent leper
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2003 10:50 am Post subject: Re: Existence |
|
|
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 01:07:06 GMT, Kater Moggin <moggin@attbiTHORN.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | James <voja@surfbest.net>:
According to the truths recorded in the first
chapter of Genesis God originally intended mankind to live forever on
a paradise earth. The only way death and sickness etc would enter into
the picture, was if Adam and Eve disobeyed.
Ain't what Genesis says. On the story there, God informed
Adam that eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good
and evil -- I'll just call it the apple -- would mean death the
same day. But according to Genesis, Adam and Eve did _not_
die the day they ate the apple. Far from it: Adam lived until
he was nine hundred and thirty years old (Genesis 5:5).
Forced to improvise, the Creator cursed Adam and Eve along with
their as-yet-unborn descendents and even the earth that he
had made. In the words of a well-known rabbit, "What a maroon!"
|
As usual, excellent points. Nice to see you're still kickin'
around.
- pl - |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2003 4:16 pm Post subject: Re: Existence |
|
|
James <voja@surfbest.net> writes:
| Quote: |
However, the Gnostic idea of creation, and the emanations, is not without
merit in this case. Of course, there was no deliberate choice to trap us in
this world, except by the Demiurge, who is ignorant and sadistic anyway.
This system seems to solve the inherent immorality that this world's
existence seems to have.
|
it's the only acceptable way of thinking
| Quote: |
Yes, existence may see "immoral" at the present, but it wasn't
supposed to be this way.
|
this is a lie invented by right-wing fundamentalists like Falwell
| Quote: | According to the truths recorded in the first
chapter of Genesis, God
|
it was an evil demiurge who is responsible,
an archdemon of corruption worshipped by false Christians like Wojtyl/a.
| Quote: | originally intended mankind to live forever on
a paradise earth. The only way death and sickness etc would enter into
the picture, was if Adam and Eve disobeyed. Sadly they did, and this
is where we now find ourselves. As the apostle Paul summarized it at
Ro 5:12,
5:12 is a ruthless interpolation into Romans by the patristic forgers |
like Tertullian. It's absent in the prior truer version of Marcion,
as shown by Detering's reconstruction.
Inept scholars like Harnack, Petrement, Pearse, and the likes believe
most naively or viciously in the authenticity of the Paulinics.
Decent scholars like Couchoud, van den Bergh van Eysinga, Edwin Johnson,
Georges Ory, Drews, Robert Price, Samuel Lublinsky don't.
| Quote: | "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death
through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all
sinned" (NIV)
|
only fools believe the lies of Tertullian
| Quote: |
Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?
|
Jehovah is the Root of all evilness,
abominable to the core,
like its foul brethren Satanael, Samael, Sakklas
Corrupt demons like Iehveh miscreated the world
which is an abominable dungball due to their foul works.
The Saviour has to destroy the evil works of that ieovah bastard.
Klaus Schilling |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Mouldy Jester
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2003 4:20 pm Post subject: Re: Existence |
|
|
"James" <voja@surfbest.net> wrote in message
news:tej1uv8lvnhp8j6b2opfm28e4unaqkgrdb@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 13:57:14 +1300, "Mouldy Jester" <Noway@getlost.com
wrote:
[snipped] |
| Quote: | Hello,
Yes, existence may see "immoral" at the present, but it wasn't
supposed to be this way. According to the truths recorded in the first
chapter of Genesis, God originally intended mankind to live forever on
a paradise earth. The only way death and sickness etc would enter into
the picture, was if Adam and Eve disobeyed. Sadly they did, and this
is where we now find ourselves. As the apostle Paul summarized it at
Ro 5:12,
"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death
through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all
sinned" (NIV)
But since all of God's unchangeable purposes are always fulfilled (Isa
55:11), then the earth must still become a paradise and have perfect
people on it. After all, God didn't make the earth for nothing. Isa
45:18,
"For this is what the LORD says-- he who created the heavens, he is
God; he who fashioned and made the earth, he founded it; he did not
create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited--..." (NIV)
Jesus knew about that upcoming paradise, and briefly mentioned it to
the criminal executed alongside of him (Lu 23:43), as well as his
statement at Mt 5:5,
"Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth." (NIV)
If all the righteous ones go to Heaven (as many churches teach), who
will be around to fulfill Jesus' words and "inherit the earth"? Did
Jesus error on this one? Not a chance.
Yes, existence at the present time can be a pain, but soon it will be
as it was meant to be. And we can even get a glimpse of the conditions
by God's own words at Re 21:3,4,
"3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Now the dwelling
of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his
people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4 He will
wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or
mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed
away." (NIV)
|
This is all good and well, but it does nothing to address the fact that none
were asked if they wished to exist or not. God did not ask, and neither did
any person.
| Quote: |
(Sorry if you were looking for "Gnostic Types", but I assume you would
prefer real truth over opinionized beliefs.)
|
It seems a bit arrogant to call what the gnostics offer "opinionised
beliefs" when all that you have offered is quotes from a book that you have
dubiously interpretted.
Your comments say more about you than about the beliefs you criticise.
--
Mouldy Jester
"It is dangerous to be sincere unless you are also stupid."
"Martyrdom is the only way in which a man can become famous without
ability."
-- George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950) |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Mouldy Jester
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2003 4:22 pm Post subject: Re: Existence |
|
|
"Kater Moggin" <moggin@attbiTHORN.com> wrote in message
news:moggin-01CA7C.20011617122003@netnews.attbi.com...
| Quote: | James <voja@surfbest.net>:
According to the truths recorded in the first
chapter of Genesis God originally intended mankind to live forever on
a paradise earth. The only way death and sickness etc would enter into
the picture, was if Adam and Eve disobeyed.
Ain't what Genesis says. On the story there, God informed
Adam that eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good
and evil -- I'll just call it the apple -- would mean death the
same day. But according to Genesis, Adam and Eve did _not_
die the day they ate the apple. Far from it: Adam lived until
he was nine hundred and thirty years old (Genesis 5:5).
Forced to improvise, the Creator cursed Adam and Eve along with
their as-yet-unborn descendents and even the earth that he
had made. In the words of a well-known rabbit, "What a maroon!"
|
Welcome back. Good to see you again.
--
Mouldy Jester
"It is dangerous to be sincere unless you are also stupid."
"Martyrdom is the only way in which a man can become famous without
ability."
-- George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950) |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2003 4:26 pm Post subject: Re: Existence |
|
|
Kater Moggin <moggin@attbiTHORN.com> writes:
| Quote: | On the story there, God informed
|
It's of course an evil demiurge who informed them,
a miserable poerverter and misguider of mankind.
Thus the Testimonium veritatis correctly states:
But what sorta god is that?
Fools are those who repreatedly read Genesis and don't notice
what an abominable archon that false god of the tanakh is!
| Quote: | Adam that eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good
and evil -- I'll just call it the apple --
|
The day and the hour will come for reaping the highest apple from the tree.
Ach thig an la is thig an-t am airson an ubhal as aird air a chraobh a bhuain.
Klaus Schilling |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Roger Pearse
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2003 8:20 pm Post subject: Re: Existence |
|
|
pessolo@freemail.it wrote in message news:<873cbiqvli.fsf@debian.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-shoot-me>...
| Quote: | James <voja@surfbest.net> writes:
originally intended mankind to live forever on
a paradise earth. The only way death and sickness etc would enter into
the picture, was if Adam and Eve disobeyed. Sadly they did, and this
is where we now find ourselves. As the apostle Paul summarized it at
Ro 5:12,
5:12 is a ruthless interpolation into Romans by the patristic forgers
like Tertullian. It's absent in the prior truer version of Marcion,
as shown by Detering's reconstruction.
Inept scholars like Harnack, Petrement, Pearse, and the likes believe
most naively or viciously in the authenticity of the Paulinics.
Decent scholars like Couchoud, van den Bergh van Eysinga, Edwin Johnson,
Georges Ory, Drews, Robert Price, Samuel Lublinsky don't.
|
Wild and vicious allegations of forgery are not acceptable to honest
people.
| Quote: | "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death
through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all
sinned" (NIV)
only fools believe the lies of Tertullian
|
Abuse comes easy to some. No-one else supposes Tertullian to have
anything to do with this.
| Quote: | Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?
Jehovah is the Root of all evilness,
abominable to the core,
like its foul brethren Satanael, Samael, Sakklas
Corrupt demons like Iehveh miscreated the world
which is an abominable dungball due to their foul works.
The Saviour has to destroy the evil works of that ieovah bastard.
|
Which tells you everything you need to know about this person. Sadly
no-one can prevent this person making statements which he made up
himself.
All the best,
Roger Pearse |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
