Protestantism

» paper_turtle - Gen 11: 8 (pretend)

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

I understand what you've posted. But my reply had to do with Paper's suggestion of a possibility for sentience within DNA - relating to free will. That is, DNA, as a ~separate~ organism, having
- the ability to perceive the relationship between itself and its environment, developing a separate identity (self-consciousness)
- the ability of an organism to act with judgment (sapience)
- being capable of accessing and processing information (cognition)
- and DNA making a ~conscious~ decision to grow/change.
.

Think of sentience as awareness. When we stick our finger on a hot stove our skin is aware of the heat and we instinctively pull our finger away. Its not a conscious decision--we just do it. We instinctively respond to any threat to our life or body. We don't reason it through, we just act. But we act on the basis of awareness. The only "relationship" involved is stimulus and response. Even the most basic organism respond to stimulus--including plants. There has to be some kind of awareness involved in the response, although not necessarily consciousness as we might think of it in a human.

-- posted by paper_turtle

» Migisi - Migisi POV

In response to understanding posted by redback:

.
100% literal vs 100% metaphorical and all points in between: If the stories of Adam, Ark, Babel are analogous to contemporary facts of life but based on ancient myth rather than true events, I'd as soon draw inspiration from the existing healthy pool of ancient philosophers. But it seems to me the Bible wants us to accept underlying events as facts.
.
Being pragmatic, I have difficulty understanding how people are able to accept cultural/religious legends as 100% ~fact~. I can, however, accept that within ~some~ legends, there ~may~ be an element of moral truth or fact. What the intended 'higher' messages or lessons were then or now largely depends on the reader's interpretation and spiritual leanings, IMO.
.
As for me (the pragmatic), I conclude that Genesis is the ~Hebrew~ 'book of beginnings' i.e. cultural/religious explanations of origins. As such, I look for the 'first' within each story. IMO, Earth creation, Adam, Cain, the Flood, Babel, etc. are mythical legends of 'firsts' - offering primitive mystical answers to unanswerable questions on how things came to be.
.
Every culture has its creation/origins legends. Some were adopted/copied from other cultures and modified to fit/include their own perceptions of deity and particular societal mores.
.
If we were examining, say, Far Eastern, Asian, or Native American creation/origin stories here (rather than these Hebrew legends), Bible adherents would find it extremely difficult (if not impossible) to accept any of them as fact or truth. They'd be scoffing and demanding supporting 'evidence'. I think the big difference is that the Native Americans and most other cultures ~acknowledge~ that their stories are indeed legends. Unlike the Abrahamic religion adherents, most don't insist that their stories ~must~ be believed as 100% fact and truth.
.

-- posted by Migisi

» pink101 - Migisi POV

In response to Migisi POV posted by Migisi:

.
"...the big difference is that the Native Americans and most other cultures ~acknowledge~ that their stories are indeed legends. Unlike the Abrahamic religion adherents, most don't insist that their stories ~must~ be believed as 100% fact and truth."
.
I think you have hit the nail on the head in your claim here.
.
But, there are TWO major traditions in Judeo/Christian thinking. There is a tradition that sees these stories as metaphors to reality. Admittedly, that tradition has been shoved and pushed into the recesses; but, it IS there. In fact, it seems to me that there is a constant struggle between the two traditions. It will be good when the tables get turned. Society will be the beneficiary.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - Gen 11: 8 (pretend)

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

.
...We instinctively respond to any threat to our life or body. ... although not necessarily consciousness as we might think of it in a human.
.
In your example, there is no ~conscious thought or decision involved. The recoil is an entirely natural response to a physical threat to survival. We were talking about 'free will' and ~conscious~ decision making. In that, we can ~consciously~ over-ride our survival instincts (like a soldier who intentionally falls on a hand grenade - knowing he'll surely die - but ~deciding~ to die anyway - to save is comrads.)
.
I think we've gone WAY off topic, but it's fun now and then. What's the 'higher message' behind the Babel story, from your POV?

-- posted by Migisi

» Migisi - Migisi POV

In response to Migisi POV posted by pink101:

.
There is a tradition that sees these stories as metaphors to reality.
.
How is the Babel story a metaphor to today's reality - from your perspective? I know you've mentioned language, and I agree this mythical story explains the origin of the different dialects in the world. Do you get a 'higher message' from the story??

-- posted by Migisi

» pink101 - Me Too

In response to Migisi POV posted by Migisi:
.
It is a message about obedience to a higher authority without having to be told to get in line.
.
It is about the futility of human endeavor that is not lodged in guidance from an authority given by God.
.
That's what it meant when it was first told and it is what it means in today's religious circles. God WILL destroy whatever humanity builds for its own purposes unless he is involved in the decision making. God WILL NOT be mocked!
.
You can't win for losing.
.
For example, you have strayed from the pathways you once knew were correct. So, you are in a place of peril.
.
Me too.
.

-- posted by pink101

» paper_turtle - Gen 11: 8 (pretend)

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

Migisi asked me:
What's the 'higher message' behind the Babel story, from your POV?

I talk about my personal meaning in posts 73 and 76.

peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» Migisi - PT & Migisi

In response to PT & Migisi posted by paper_turtle:
.
The narrative begins with the people of Babel wanting "to make a name for ourselves; or we shall be dispersed over all the earth." (vs 4)
.
The Jewish Encyclopedia explains that the 'name' they made for themselves was actually the creation of a 'god' (an icon, idol) other than Yahweh. It should read "to make a god for ourselves..". Yahweh wasn't really upset with them building a temple tower, but with their creation and worship of a 'false' god to which that temple tower had been dedicated. Later, we find the Hebrews building temples to Yahweh, and Yahweh was okay, even pleased, with that.
.
I'm confused as to why it was undesirable (or evil) to want to remain together, to build a city, form a community, and not to scatter - scattering would force each to fend for himself in a dangerous world where marauding tribes would destroy them.
.
God sees what they are doing and sees that the people are "reaching" for the heavens. (vs 5).
.
Hasn't humankind always reached for the heavens? The Babylonians could only build a tower, its height limited by physical laws. We've built satellites to explore the terrestrial bodies we see every night, and set our feet on the moon's surface, and suspended stations in space where we may live someday. If God objected to Man reaching for the heavens, he shouldn't have given Man the capablities which enable us to do so.
.
What I see God objecting to is not their ambition but their presumption. They want to be SOMEBODY, so that they can "lord it over" others.
.
Presumption of what? They were indeed SOMEBODY already - far more sophisticated and successful than the pastoral tribes. Remember Noah's curse on Ham (Canaan) and his descendants? It was Ham's descendants (allegedly Nimrod) who built this great city of Babel. Noah's God was making good on that curse - by disrupting their communication and scattering them - so they could later be overwhelmed and enslaved by Noah's favorite sons' descendants. It would be Seth and Japheth's descendants who would 'lord over' them.
.
But suddenly the people are all speaking different languages. in vs 8 the story reports the people being dispersed--which means they have lost their sense of community and their group power.
.
Later, those who dispersed would build their own cities and powerful nations elsewhere, and develop their own separate cultures sharing one specific language. Do you suppose this was God's intention all along? He wanted Man to scatter and fill the earth - not keep all his eggs in one basket (Babel), so to speak?
.
But God didn't swoop down and crush them. he didn't rain fire and brimstone on them.
.
Not yet. He'd do that later, in Sodom and Gomorrah.
.
... but fame is, and the desire for fame is what brings them down.
.
Babylon didn't fall overnight. The Babylonian Empire lasted a VERY long time, and its fame is still intact. Remnants of it still exist.

-- posted by Migisi

» paper_turtle - PT & Migisi

In response to PT & Migisi posted by Migisi:

The Jewish Encyclopedia explains that the 'name' they made for themselves was actually the creation of a 'god' (an icon, idol) other than Yahweh. It should read "to make a god for ourselves..". Yahweh wasn't really upset with them building a temple tower, but with their creation and worship of a 'false' god
.
Yes--and I think that "false god" also symbolizes taking oneself (or one's group) as a god--being attached to power, prestige, fame, etc. They wanted to impress people, be seen as gods themselves--and this sort of desire stems from feelings of inadequacy and anxiety. They thought they were weak and powerless. In psychological terms they wer overcompensating--which is why I used the word hubris, (which alsayw makes me think of some bristly creature strutting about and snorting loudly).
.
I'm confused as to why it was undesirable (or evil) to want to remain together, to build a city, form a community, and not to scatter - scattering would force each to fend for himself in a dangerous world where marauding tribes would destroy them.
.
I was thinking of community in a general sense, and not the sense in which one thinks of a community of believers or fellows. And I was thinking that their sense of power derived from their belonging to a particular group--a modern parallel would be Nazis or the KKK, an authoritarian group which is primarily interested in power used for destructive ends. If the people of Babylon were forced to go it on their own rather than have the identity of the group to give them a sense of power they would soon learn both humility, and the necessity of building inner resources.
.
It was not, then what I think of as a true community--a gathering of people with a commitment to work together for the common good.
.
Hasn't humankind always reached for the heavens? . . . If God objected to Man reaching for the heavens, he shouldn't have given Man the capablities which enable us to do so.
.
As I see it, it wasn't that they had high aspirations about accomplishing something beneficial for all of humankind. They just wanted to satisfy their over-arching pride. They wanted to be seen as something more than human.
.
They were indeed SOMEBODY already - far more sophisticated and successful than the pastoral tribes . . .
.
Yes, I'm aware of that. But think about any movie star. Is heshe ever satisfied with the level of fame he/she has achieved? Is a wealthy person ever satisfied with however many millions he has, or does he keep going after more? When one places one's sense of identity and security in external objects he/she will never, ever be satisfied. Besides, greater prominence means more enemies to worry about.
.
Babylon didn't fall overnight. The Babylonian Empire lasted a VERY long time, and its fame is still intact. Remnants of it still exist.
.
Yes I know that--and so did the person who originally composed the story. Its not really the point. The point is that human pride always gets its comeuppance.
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» Migisi - Me Too

In response to Me Too posted by pink101:
.
God WILL destroy whatever humanity builds for its own purposes unless he is involved in the decision making.
.
I did get that inference too. I think vs 6 is very telling:
.
6 The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them."
.
In this passage, do you sense the LORD's ~worry~ about his human creation spinning out of his control? His observation that they were making their own way, accomplishing great things, becoming successful ~without him~ .... therefore they'd have no reason to remember, need, thank, or worship him?
.
However, if they were scattered, living on their own - they'd live in desperation and peril, and have to rely on him again?
.
Why was God fretting about Man's potential -- "nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them"? Can we relate God's worries back then to today.... God knew we'd turn a good thing into a bad thing (example: like knowledge of atomic energy for electricity used for weapons)?

-- posted by Migisi