Protestantism

» paper_turtle - Gen 11: 8 (pretend)

In response to Gen 11: 8 posted by Migisi:

They can pretend that God didn't fail to keep his angels from rebelling (Lucifer et al).
They can pretend that God didn't fail to keep his first human children naive and ignorant (Adam/Eve).
They can pretend that God didn't fail to wipe out all evil on the earth via a flood (Noah & kin).
They can pretend that God didn't fail to squash Man's genius, ambition, and progress (Babel).
.
BUT God is not the great puppetter. One of the first lessons in the Bible is that humankind was given free choice--and apparently this extends to God's angels, too (although the story of Lucifer is fragmentary and only *really* alluded to).
.
As I see it, the root cause of all of the above--the angel's rebelling, Adam and Eve disobeying, evil not being eradicated, and human amibtion still flourishing--is the ego. And when ego uses any positive force such as ambition for selfish ends, the result is always evil. WE **always** have free choice. God does not **ever** force us to do anything, never has, never will.
.
As I read the story of the tower of Babel, spiritual pride was the cause of the disruption in communications. Those who ordered the tower built wanted to be equal to *their* Gods. And as we have seen at this very site, spiritual pride always leads to a break down in meaningful communications.
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» paper_turtle - We Come At Reality

In response to We Come At Reality posted by redback:

Maybe twas a Bible lesson that greater understanding is limited to discretionary largesse from a Biblical God...never from each other.
.
In one sense I agree--people who meet each other at a spiritual level, recognizing that each person carries the divine spark, do tend to communicate better with each other.
.
On the other hand, it is human pride, hatred, prejudice, and intolerance--and this is always a choice--which creates barriers between people, even those professing to be people fo faith.
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» pink101 - Gen 11: 8 (pretend)

In response to Gen 11: 8 (pretend) posted by paper_turtle:

.
You make good use of words and, so, ideas come to our mind.
.
What do YOU mean by "spiritual pride"
.
Anyway, your posts bring up thoughts we can pursue.
.
When I think about the word, pretending, here, I mean that people pretend the Bible is the Revealed Word of God and by doing so, they set up a reality with which every person must deal. IF, that is, anyone wants to have any "meaningful communications," as you say.
.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - In Other Words

In response to Gen 11: 8 (pretend) posted by pink101:
.
If we are to have any "meaningful communications" I guess we're all going to have to pretend that the bibiical stories about floods and towers are absolute literal history. I will have a hard time swallowing that as I know what it means to build reality on any pretense.
.

-- posted by pink101

» paper_turtle - Gen 11: 8 (pretend)

In response to Gen 11: 8 (pretend) posted by pink101:

You make good use of words and, so, ideas come to our mind.
.
Thank you.
.
What do YOU mean by "spiritual pride"
.
Holier-than-thou;
.
the attitude of one who thinks he/she knows all the right answers to the cosmic theology quiz, and no one else quite gets it;
.
thinking only one's own congregation is worthy of respect, and its justified to hate, discriminate against, or ridicule anyone outside the fold;
.
a Pharisee--one who follows the letter, but not the spirit, of "the law".
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» paper_turtle - In Other Words

In response to In Other Words posted by pink101:

If we are to have any "meaningful communications" I guess we're all going to have to pretend that the bibiical stories about floods and towers are absolute literal history. I will have a hard time swallowing that as I know what it means to build reality on any pretense.
.
I completely disagree. If one is swallowing another's truth, he/she is incapable of speaking meaningfully, since he/she cannot speak truthfully. There can be no real meaning without truth.
.
The meaning I suggested for the stroy of the tower of Bable does not presuppose that the story is a literal truth. Poetry is truth, even if the situation presented is completely made up. The same is goes for the Bible.
.
To my mind meaningful communication is hardly ever about literal facts. Rather, it deals with what has meaning for the human situation--how we live, day to day, what gives our lives a sense of purpose and connection.
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» pink101 - In Other Words

In response to In Other Words posted by paper_turtle:

.
Thanks for the clarification.
.
I'm off with my two grand children both of whom are developing artists at the college level. We're going to visit a professional artist in her studio. I'll be back this evening.
.
I hope this site gains some reinvigoration with your return, Sister Turtle.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - Gen 11: 8 (pretend)

In response to Gen 11: 8 (pretend) posted by paper_turtle:
.
One of the first lessons in the Bible is that humankind was given free choice--
.
Yes, that's the story. But why did the Bible God do that? God hadn't given free will to any other earthly creations. Everything behaved as God had designed it to. Didn't that please him? Why introduce a flaw into his design?
.
God admired his past handiwork and said it was all 'good'. Maybe 'good' wasn't good enough... maybe 'good' didn't stimulate God. Perhaps God became bored with his perfect design, so he created a being with a high functioning mind ~like his~ (not just an animal brain to govern bodily functions)?
.
As I see it, the problem arose when that creature actually ~used~ that high functioning mind - at times, not in the way God liked. It was then that God realized he'd neglected to include an operating manual in the free-will package. Maybe God didn't have one yet because he didn't know how this choice thing would work in humans. After centuries studying X million human test subjects, God finally assigned Moses to draft his two chapter operating manual - Deuteronomy and Leviticus.
.
and apparently this extends to God's angels, too (although the story of Lucifer is fragmentary and only *really* alluded to).
.
Another interesting legend. Allegedly, the angels were God's first test subjects for free will. The results clearly showed the idea was a flop. So, God tested the concept on humans, and again, the results failed to please him. Maybe God should've tried it out on less dangerous and destructive creatures first? Maybe on worms or tadpoles. Or, maybe he should've abandoned the idea altogether, since, IMO, it's obvious that he doesn't allow any variation from his rules.
.
As I see it, the root cause of all of the above.... --is the ego.
.
The ego is one's sense or awareness of self. Who created that in Man?
.
WE **always** have free choice. God does not **ever** force us to do anything, never has, never will.
.
Yes, we have a choice. We either do God's will (whatever that is), OR we're condemned to eternal Hell. Some 'choice'! Fear is force, and the Bible is full of it.

-- posted by Migisi

» redback - understanding

In response to We Come At Reality posted by paper_turtle:

"In one sense I agree--people who meet each other at a spiritual level, recognizing that each person carries the divine spark, do tend to communicate better with each other."

Can't say we trip over them every day, but I find that people who tend to communicate better with each other seek a mutual respect..an inclusive goal for in-common benefit. Are fair dinkum in spirit even if clumsy in delivery. Those that make the extra effort where it's not really an "effort" in the negative sense of the word...probably make better inroads into greater understanding. And I intended 'greater understanding' to be a few notches up from 'better communication'. I'm not sure tho' of a "divine spark" on my understanding of the term...as a determinative factor.

In Genesis, the Bible seems able to be read at a number of levels. Of course, we can overlay our discussions with broader concepts...the genesis of ego and negative traits like "human pride, hatred, prejudice, and intolerance" and other issues raised by Pink.

I'm trying not to do that. Here, I'm simply trying to understand what is intended by the Bible message without first declaring any undying belief in it. I try to suspend the judgement of 'belief' and other (negative) judgements until Babel et al makes better sense. Who knows how flawed that approach is...but it's the way I'm looking at it. And I don't come here with a clean slate but a developed moral compass so maybe Genesis may never make better sense.

Paper...your deep thoughts are always valued to me. But, I have to tell you...I don't read much affirmations of it in our current travels through Genesis. Maybe Genesis' context cannot be undeerstood without New Testament input...and if so, we're on a hiding to nothing here.

What part does our "God-given" 'intelligence' play in the development of ego and pride? We are given conditional 'free will' or allowed to keep what we always had? Both human AND divine consequence? Tis hard to remove the God Factor.

-- posted by redback

» paper_turtle - Gen 11: 8 (pretend)

In response to Gen 11: 8 (pretend) posted by Migisi:

.
I wrote:
One of the first lessons in the Bible is that humankind was given free choice --
.
Migisi responded:
Yes, that's the story. But why did the Bible God do that? God hadn't given free will to any other earthly creations. Everything behaved as God had designed it to. Didn't that please him? Why introduce a flaw into his design?
.
God admired his past handiwork and said it was all 'good'. Maybe 'good' wasn't good enough... maybe 'good' didn't stimulate God. Perhaps God became bored with his perfect design, so he created a being with a high functioning mind ~like his~ (not just an animal brain to govern bodily functions)?
.
.
God said it was good--he didn't say it was perfect. And what God created did not remain static. Things have changed, a great deal, since the world was first formed. Quantum physics indicates that creation is still happening, in deep space in those places once considered vacuums (according to string theory). And I wonder--doesn't evolution imply some kind of choice, at least on an organic level? If we look at the natural world, isn't the lesson one of constant growth and change? How could humankind grow and change without **both** conscious minds and free will?
.
A while ago you wrote that you switched off the power to your son's room so he couldn't isolate himself at the computer on Christmas day. In one sense you forced him--but looking at the larger picture, he consented out of love for you, and no doubt he did so willingly and happily. Humankind derives no joy from the things it is forced to do. When we do not perceive ourselves as being free we are miserable, and keep fighting to be free as long as we can. This seems to be wired into us. Animals are the same: a wolf in a trap will chew off its own leg rather than die a captive.
.
But when we act out of love, we find life a joyful and rewarding experience. When we give our children love, they want to please us, and so they do what we ask them to do. We guide them, but we also allow them to be themselves. In this way we teach them strength and healthy self-reliance.
.
If we abuse our children and force them to comply, they do not thrive, and most often they wait for the day they can rebel against their oppressors. They do not learn constructive ways of behaving. They do not learn to think for themselves. They do not develop the inner resources to make the tough choices which will help them become healthy and wise adults.
.
I believe it is the same with God. God is not a petty ogre who demands abject obedience. God does not use fear. Fear and love cannot coexist. And God is Love.
.
.
I wrote:
and apparently this extends to God's angels, too (although the story of Lucifer is fragmentary and only *really* alluded to).
.
Migisi responded:
Another interesting legend. Allegedly, the angels were God's first test subjects for free will. The results clearly showed the idea was a flop. So, God tested the concept on humans, and again, the results failed to please him. Maybe God should've tried it out on less dangerous and destructive creatures first? Maybe on worms or tadpoles. Or, maybe he should've abandoned the idea altogether, since, IMO, it's obvious that he doesn't allow any variation from his rules.
.
See what I said above, about evolution. Also, consider genetic mutation, which can produce some very beneficial results (such as those which are used, through hybridization, to produce vegetables with a higher yield or disease resistance).
.
In addition, see what I said about God not using fear. Your view of God is apparently quite different from mine--and I assure you I am far from the only person in the world who sees God in this way. If I believed God were as you depict God, I would want nothing to do with this being. No same person would, IMO.
.
.
I wrote:
As I see it, the root cause of all of the above.... --is the ego.
.
Migisi responded:
The ego is one's sense or awareness of self. Who created that in Man?
.
I was using ego in a different sense. Below are the definitions of ego I found in my dictionaries. For the sake of convenience, I have also included definitions for the id and the superego.
.
ego:
1. Metaphysics: a conscious thinking subject;
2. Psychology: the part of the mind that reacts to reality and has a sense of individuality;
3. self-esteem
ego ideal:
1. Psychology: the part of the mind developed from the ego by an awareness of social standards;
2. (in general use) idealization of oneself
(Source: Oxford Complete Wordfinder)
.
ego:
1. The self, the individual as aware of himself;
2. [Colloquial] egotism, conceit;
3. Philosophy: the self, variously conceived of as an absolute spiritual substance on which experience is superimposed, the series of acts and mental states introspectively recognized, etc;
4. Psychoanalysis: that part of the psyche which, developing from the id, experiences the external world through the senses and consciously controls the impulses of the id: distinguished from superego, id
.
id: in psychoanalysis, the part of the psyche which is regarded as the reservoir of the libido and the source of instinctive energy; it is dominated by the pleasure principle and impulsive wishing, and its impulses are controlled through the development of the ego and the superego
.
superego: in psychoanalysis, the part of the psyche which controls at an unconscious level the impulses of the id; conscience of the unconscious
(the last three all from New World Dictionary)
.
I was thinking about ego in the common, everyday sense as those impulses which are only about the preservation of the self. These are not always bad, but when they are governed by fear, they can become downright evil.
.
Since self-awareness in innate in humans, it is (obviously) something we are born with. If one believes in God, then God designed us to be self-aware. And if God designed us to be self-aware, then how could the same God condemn us for being how we were designed to be? If we only believe that humankind evolved, then self-awareness must have some function in assuring our survival. I believe one function of self-awareness is to help us get along with each other. If we are not self-aware, we cannot develop empathy.
.
.
I wrote:
WE **always** have free choice. God does not **ever** force us to do anything, never has, never will.
.
Migisi responded:
Yes, we have a choice. We either do God's will (whatever that is), OR we're condemned to eternal Hell. Some 'choice'! Fear is force, and the Bible is full of it.
.
The Bible as **you** read it is full of fear. The Bible as **I** read it is not. And the concept of hell was developed much later than Genesis. In fact, much of the concept of hell was developed after the Bible was written by extrapolation of what I consider some rather obscure and arcane texts. As I indicated above, it hardly seems sane for God to give us free will and then punish us for using it. I don't believe in hell--and as before, I am far from the only person who holds a similar view. Once again, if I believed in hellfire and brimstone I would want nothing to do with such a God. I'm sorry this is the God you see.
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle