God of obedience or God of Recognition?

[Devadatta]

I think Jesus made this very point in Matthew 23.

But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.

Shanti.

 

[seattlegal]

Perhaps this might help in our 'talking past one another," Devadatta:

I don't see the Garden of Eden as being a trap set by God.

This is one way that I look at it:

• If the tree is the knowledge of good and evil, then the fruit of that tree would be attachment/attraction towards what we perceive as good, and aversion away from what we perceive as being bad.
  
• Eating of the fruit of this tree would be naturally partaking of this attraction/aversion.
  
• Since the Fall of Man is associated with partaking of this fruit, then it would follow that the solutions to the problems associated with the Fall of Man would be counter-intuitive to this attraction/aversion. (Interestingly, there is a thread where I've applied a counter-intuitive solution to a problem associated with the Fall of Man here: http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/anger-9019.html )
  
• If, indeed, the things associated with the Fall of Man have such counter-intuitive solutions, then God was being straight up with us in telling us not to partake of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil--that we would have to exercise our free-will in some cases rather than to be on 'auto-pilot,' under the influence of the fruit of the tree.
  
• Interestingly, if this is the case, then the problem partaking of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is, in itself, counter-intuitive. What at first blush seems to be exercising our free-will actually leads towards the negating of our free-will, making us a slave to sin. (Compare Galatians 5, especially verses 13-18.)

I'm not saying that my interpretation is right and yours is wrong. {I haven't been able to fully explore all the implications to the analogy, for one.} I'm just hoping that this might help us understand one another better.

 

[Devadatta]

Perhaps this might help in our 'talking past one another," Devadatta:

I don't see the Garden of Eden as being a trap set by God.

This is one way that I look at it:

• If the tree is the knowledge of good and evil, then the fruit of that tree would be attachment/attraction towards what we perceive as good, and aversion away from what we perceive as being bad.
• Eating of the fruit of this tree would be naturally partaking of this attraction/aversion.
• Since the Fall of Man is associated with partaking of this fruit, then it would follow that the solutions to the problems associated with the Fall of Man would be counter-intuitive to this attraction/aversion. (Interestingly, there is a thread where I've applied a counter-intuitive solution to a problem associated with the Fall of Man here: http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/anger-9019.html )
• If, indeed, the things associated with the Fall of Man have such counter-intuitive solutions, then God was being straight up with us in telling us not to partake of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil--that we would have to exercise our free-will in some cases rather than to be on 'auto-pilot,' under the influence of the fruit of the tree.
• Interestingly, if this is the case, then the problem partaking of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is, in itself, counter-intuitive. What at first blush seems to be exercising our free-will actually leads towards the negating of our free-will, making us a slave to sin. (Compare Galatians 5, especially verses 13-18.)

I'm not saying that my interpretation is right and yours is wrong. {I haven't been able to fully explore all the implications to the analogy, for one.} I'm just hoping that this might help us understand one another better.

Hi again. Thanks for your interesting take on this. Let’s compare notes.

First, I should make clear that from my point of view this is a question of metaphorical language and its adequacy to the case. So when I say God “laid a trap” I’m only expressing in a brief way my sense that “the fall” is built into the human narrative; i.e., that it followed as a necessity. In the biblical narrative that necessity of course involves the will of God. In the narrative of the theory of human evolution that necessity involves the development of our cognitive abilities, and more broadly the development of human consciousness. In either case, for me the idea that human beings literally created their own dilemma through a primordial act of disobedience is incoherent, scientifically and theologically.

However, I do recognize here another metaphorical sense, as it pertains to spiritual practice. In the literal sense, I believe as human beings we find ourselves in, rather than trigger, our own dilemma (dukkha, to use an Indian term; alienation, to use an existential term), that we are in some sense “thrown”, to use another expression, into the world. At the same time, acting as if our disobedience truly was the root cause, taking on, internalizing, this primordial responsibility centers what for many people has historically been an effective spiritual practice. So I can understand why many defend it, or even see it as literal truth.

Your introduction of the attachment/aversion dichotomy for me centers even more directly on spiritual practice, especially Buddhist practice. In fact, your emphasis on the “counter-intuitive” has an exact parallel in early Buddhist discourses. The dhamma, we’re told is “subtle, difficult to see, running against the grain...” (of course this is very much in line with the “netti netti” of Upanishadic sages). The Buddhist counter-intuitive solution – non-grasping, letting go, courageous cultivation of awareness - runs against the grain in respect of the human instinct to grasp and evade, not just goods and evils, but mental constructs and fundamental realities. Of course, there is no original sin in Buddhism - dukkha has been with us since beginningless time. But like Christian practice, Buddhist practices internalizes the terms of the problem, and thus provides a method within our reach. In other words: we may not have created our dilemma, but here is what we can do about it.

Stepping back from the question of practice, my feeling remains that the fall makes most sense on the cognitive level (the conceptual divide good/evil), as opposed to the affective level (attachment/aversion). It seems to me that the apple represents a cognitive rather than affective shift. Adam and Eve we’re told had many delicious fruits at their disposal. But in the context of the biblical narrative one can imagine that they experienced these and other pleasures (and I hope there were other pleasures!) in a kind of Zen way: when hungry, when tired sleep, without grasping or clinging either to the object or to the experience. In this sense, it’s the cognitive shift represented by the apple that provides the conditions for the dukkha of attachment/aversion. (But I guess this parallels what you’re saying: that the ultimate fruit of the knowledge of good and evil is attachment/aversion.)

However, I don’t follow your argument here on how this shows that God, in the biblical narrative, did not pre-determine the fall, that it was instead man’s responsibility. I guess I’m not seeing the connection.

Thanks again for your interesting thoughts.

Shanti.

 

[Netti-Netti]

Hi not-this, not-this. With the name you’ve chosen for these forums, I’d expect you to be a little less literalist.

Don't mind me.

I respect your sentiments and your good heart.

Thank you, I'm working on it.

if you carefully read my original post, along with the follow-ups, you’ll see that I’m not condemning the whole tradition

No problem. I was just responding to your interpretation of the concept of humankind's "rule" over the planet. Again, don't think the dominion concept necessarily means tyrannical or abusive. But I'd like to get back to the concept of obedience a little later.

the ultimate fruit of the knowledge of good and evil is attachment/aversion.

This is an interesting thread, but I think it would help me if we could sort out some concepts. Real quick: There is no "attachment/aversion dichotomy." Aversion is a form of attachment. It's a desire for pleasurable sensory experiences that has been frustrated by unpleasant experience.

Attachment/aversion is a catch all term for the tendency of consciousness to drift either toward what are perceived to be attractive objects or away from what are perceived to be repulsive objects. It is part and parcel of the process of "clinging to pleasure and other feelings as though they were real and the delusory chain of thoughts connected therewith (wanting this, not wanting that)" Kunzang Pelden (p. 362). There is no moral dimension associated with this. It's sort of like ice cream preferences. For whatever reason, some people only want vanilla with a sugar cone and can't stand the sight of chocolate.

Another reason why morality is not at issue here is that we don't ordinarily choose a lot of the distractions that end up instigating Attachment/Aversion reactions. They're everywhere in the environment. It's part of our "throwness." (Heidegger)

Attachment/aversion is basically sensory bobber-on-an-ocean phenomena. It doesn't have to be dramatic. It could be a multitude of minor distractions that interfere with concentration. I see it as a normal state of affairs for an undisciplined mind. I don't see a connection to the Biblical description of the Fall. Maybe the connection needs to be developed or maybe terms other than "attachment" and "aversion" would be more fitting.

As described in the Buddhist wisdom literature, attachments and aversions are distractions that have no apparent (moral) significance beyond their effect on concentration. Unlike in Christianity where people are made to feel bad about admiring someone's physical person, in Buddhism distracting emotions like lust are just that - distracting or "unwholesome" emotions. They are considered "unskilled qualities" and they include distress as well as getting turned on by someone's admirable physical traits. (See the Bharadvaja Sutta SN 35.127: Bharadvaja Sutta )

I might add here that pleasure itself can be distressing because it reminds the individual of how short-lived pleasure is. From this standpoint, fulfillment of desire can actually be a source of suffering. And sometimes it's just too much of a good thing. You'll know what I mean if you put away a half a gallon of vanilla ice-cream in one sitting.

Buddhism encourages restraint and specifically encourages celibacy, but for the same reason that other relationships are to be avoided -- they are "inimical to concentration." Accordingly, aspirants are encouraged to seek solitude, which helps them avoid becoming attached to or repulsed by other beings or objects through the senses. The intended goal is "heedfulness" and it is accomplished by guarding the senses -- i.e., exercising "restraint over the ear... nose... tongue... body." (See the Pamadaviharin Sutta SN 35.97: Pamadaviharin Sutta )

In light of the traditional Buddhist use of the terms, I wanted to check with Seattlegal to make sure about the intended use in Post #22.

Can the argument say the same thing using terms that don't have the specific Buddhist meanings relating to conditioned and unstable sensory experiences and resultant "mental afflictions" ??......

 

[seattlegal]

In light of the traditional Buddhist use of the terms, I wanted to check with Seattlegal to make sure about the intended use in Post #22.

Can the argument say the same thing using terms that don't have the specific Buddhist meanings relating to conditioned and unstable sensory experiences and resultant "mental afflictions" ??......

I meant it in the sense that the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil does lead to moral dilemmas, which brings in the need for the Law, and the issue of obedience.

 

[Devadatta]

This is an interesting thread, but I think it would help me if we could sort out some concepts. Real quick: There is no "attachment/aversion dichotomy." Aversion is a form of attachment. It's a desire for pleasurable sensory experiences that has been frustrated by unpleasant experience.

Attachment/aversion is a catch all term for the tendency of consciousness to drift either toward what are perceived to be attractive objects or away from what are perceived to be repulsive objects. It is part and parcel of the process of "clinging to pleasure and other feelings as though they were real and the delusory chain of thoughts connected therewith (wanting this, not wanting that)" Kunzang Pelden (p. 362). There is no moral dimension associated with this. It's sort of like ice cream preferences. For whatever reason, some people only want vanilla with a sugar cone and can't stand the sight of chocolate.

Another reason why morality is not at issue here is that we don't ordinarily choose a lot of the distractions that end up instigating Attachment/Aversion reactions. They're everywhere in the environment. It's part of our "throwness." (Heidegger)

Attachment/aversion is basically sensory bobber-on-an-ocean phenomena. It doesn't have to be dramatic. It could be a multitude of minor distractions that interfere with concentration. I see it as a normal state of affairs for an undisciplined mind. I don't see a connection to the Biblical description of the Fall. Maybe the connection needs to be developed or maybe terms other than "attachment" and "aversion" would be more fitting.

As described in the Buddhist wisdom literature, attachments and aversions are distractions that have no apparent (moral) significance beyond their effect on concentration. Unlike in Christianity where people are made to feel bad about admiring someone's physical person, in Buddhism distracting emotions like lust are just that - distracting or "unwholesome" emotions. They are considered "unskilled qualities" and they include distress as well as getting turned on by someone's admirable physical traits. (See the Bharadvaja Sutta SN 35.127: Bharadvaja Sutta )

I might add here that pleasure itself can be distressing because it reminds the individual of how short-lived pleasure is. From this standpoint, fulfillment of desire can actually be a source of suffering. And sometimes it's just too much of a good thing. You'll know what I mean if you put away a half a gallon of vanilla ice-cream in one sitting.

Buddhism encourages restraint and specifically encourages celibacy, but for the same reason that other relationships are to be avoided -- they are "inimical to concentration." Accordingly, aspirants are encouraged to seek solitude, which helps them avoid becoming attached to or repulsed by other beings or objects through the senses. The intended goal is "heedfulness" and it is accomplished by guarding the senses -- i.e., exercising "restraint over the ear... nose... tongue... body." (See the Pamadaviharin Sutta SN 35.97: Pamadaviharin Sutta )
quote]

I’ve just had a shot of tequila so perhaps this isn’t the best time for this. You see, our new home stay from Mexico arrived and brought it as a gift... Actually licking the salt off my hand and biting into a lime was the best part, and maybe next time I should try it with a tequila substitute. Then again, it’s the tequila no doubt that makes the lime so tasty... Such are the travails of phenomenological analysis!

What you cite here about Buddhist practice is certainly basically true. I would only make a couple of points. First, whether we talk of an attachment/aversion dichotomy or call it just two forms of attachment I don’t think is terribly relevant here. There is reason to call this a dichotomy in that it refers to two affective movements, one toward the pleasant and another away from the unpleasant (with neutral impulses marking the line between), but I wouldn’t bother arguing the point any further.
Secondly, from my perspective the point of the parallel here between Christian and Buddhist practice is that each addresses our human dilemma in a fundamental way, and each does so by the interiorization of a method. The Christian method, it’s true, turns on a moral dichotomy, while the Buddhist method does not, but for me that doesn’t mean that the Buddhist method is any less fundamental. It isn’t just a matter of chasing away the distractions of meditation. Attachment/aversion is of a piece with tanha, or craving, at the root of our human dilemma, as outlined in the earliest discourses.

But you’ve touched on some of this in your post. And unless I’m missing the point your real concern here is to show that there is an incommensurability between these Christian and Buddhist forms of practice. And I certainly agree that the distinctions as well as the parallels are important to keep in mind, and in that sense I appreciate what you’re saying here.

But again my perspective is that these two forms of practice are not ultimately incommensurate in that they address the same fundamental human reality and follow a parallel binary course, good/evil for one, and desirable/undesirable, let’s say, for the other. In both cases, we’re addressing that primordial shift in human consciousness, a certain level of self-awareness (whether it came all at once or in incremental stages) where human beings became cognizant of the infinitude of their desires and the finitude of their means.

Now as we know in the Abrahamic tradition this contradiction becomes decisively moralized in a cosmic conflict between good and evil. I guess what’s hard for many of us grown up under the influence of this tradition to understand is that the underlying conflict is more basic, simpler than that, that it doesn’t necessarily need to be cosmically moralized to be solved. But again, many of us are so trained to this that any alternative seems simply amoral. But of course that isn’t the case. We know that other religious traditions, like other cultures, prize morality just as highly. They just don’t tend to use morality in a cosmic sense, to frame the ultimate questions.

So, sure, Christian and Buddhist practice tends to diverge along these lines, and that can have great importance in the overall fabric of their lives. As you suggest, we do well to recognize the distinctions, especially as conditions warrant. And of course Christian and Buddhists tend to define their spiritual goals differently – but then that depends on which Christian and which Buddhist you ask, and how you read between the lines!

So the differences are there. But my core inclination is always to look for identities, even though it may take a lot of digging through differences to reveal them.

Shanti.

 

[Netti-Netti]

Seattlegal wrote:

tree is the knowledge of good and evil, then the fruit of that tree would be attachment/attraction towards what we perceive as good, and aversion away from what we perceive as being bad.

Yes, I think eating of the fruit of the tree of Knowledge is an archetype scenario for discovering the conflict through sin. It's tantamount to the discovery of free will, which can imply conflicting choices.


Paradoxically, the term "Fall" implies a loss of stature even though it's a monumental step toward realizing the potential for moral perfection inherent in human existence. The Fall enabled the human to becomes aware of finitude while at the same time discovering a capacity that the Creature has in common with the Creator. The soul is an aspect of G-d made manifest within the created order of things. The soul

"has the potential and some of the actual capacity of G-d himself.. This potential expresses itself as the ability to go beyond the limits of a given existence . to move freely, and choose other path...It is, on other words, the power to will and to create." ​

~Adin Steinsaltz

We can respond to the ‘thrownness’ (Heidegger's "Geworfenheit") of our being in the world in a way that actualizes our potential within that existential context. Or we can give in to facticity and passively allow he situation to define us completely.

It seems to me that the Tree of Knowledge scenario was G-d' idea of creating an opportunity for sin that would facilitate the sinner's discovering that they have free will and that they have the ability to make a choice in the direction of actualizing themselves though Grace or in the direction of diminishing ourselves through corruption.

Interestingly, if this is the case, then the problem partaking of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is, in itself, counter-intuitive. What at first blush seems to be exercising our free-will actually leads towards the negating of our free-will, making us a slave to sin.

It seems it was important for us to discover that for ourselves. Unity with G-d would be meaningless to us except against a backdrop of alienation from G-d.

I would say that the fruit is a simultaneous awareness of alienation and the capacity for sin as separate person from G-d. We may experience this as dissonance in relation to conflicting choices - i.e., the choice between grace and corruption. That conflict is ever-present. Practically speaking, it can be seen as an approach-avoidance conflict.

It seems G-d wanted Adam and Eve to be aware of the conflict and their power to exercise free will and autonomy. What I'm not clear about is whether free will is actually an illusion that we shed ourselves of as we recognize and affirm G-d's will.

If we give up on our own personal will, the exercise of which is largely misguided, and align ourselves with G-d's will, then there is no longer much room for personal will. Note that the Bible describes the transition from being a slave to sin to being a slave to righteousness.

 

[Devadatta]

It seems it was important for us to discover that for ourselves. Unity with G-d would be meaningless to us except against a backdrop of alienation from G-d.

I would say that the fruit is a simultaneous awareness of alienation and the capacity for sin as separate person from G-d. We may experience this as dissonance in relation to conflicting choices - i.e., the choice between grace and corruption. That conflict is ever-present. Practically speaking, it can be seen as an approach-avoidance conflict.

It seems G-d wanted Adam and Eve to be aware of the conflict and their power to exercise free will and autonomy. What I'm not clear about is whether free will is actually an illusion that we shed ourselves of as we recognize and affirm G-d's will.

If we give up on our own personal will, the exercise of which is largely misguided, and align ourselves with G-d's will, then there is no longer much room for personal will. Note that the Bible describes the transition from being a slave to sin to being a slave to righteousness.

Devadatta wrote, way back in the first post:
So here the point is not the superficial one of the necessity of free will, of choosing between good and evil, but the deeper necessity of the fall into duality as the precondition for the summum bonum of mutual recognition between human consciousness and ultimate reality.


Ah, words, words, words! These two quotes sum up our differing agendas. My aim is to look for a way of stating a fundamental human dilemma that’s inclusive of various narrative/ideological/constitutional strategies. (How well I succeed at this is of course open to dispute.) Your aim – and do correct me if I’m off-base – is to cast this same human dilemma into an exclusive discourse, drawing on a very distinctively Judeo-Christian point of view with all the machinery of sin, moral drama, free will, or lack of it, etc.


Now, this is not an attack. Your discourse is in the language that makes sense to you, and I wouldn’t presume to propose for you any substitute. But I do want to point out the difference between identifying core commonalities among differing traditions on the one hand, and trolling different traditions for elements to support one’s pre-established discourse on the other hand. The one is an exercise in pluralism, the other in apologetics.


Of course, if you believe and are correct that in the end there is only one truth, then apologetics is a noble enterprise and my pluralism sadly misguided.


I hope you don’t take this the wrong way!


Shanti.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

But I do want to point out the difference between identifying core commonalities among differing traditions on the one hand, and trolling different traditions for elements to support one’s pre-established discourse on the other hand. The one is an exercise in pluralism, the other in apologetics.

Excellent point!

Chris

 

[Netti-Netti]

Ah, words, words, words! These two quotes sum up our differing agendas.

I have no agenda.

My aim is to look for a way of stating a fundamental human dilemma that’s inclusive of various narrative/ideological/constitutional strategies.

If you had some additional detail concerning specific issues before I respond to some of your previous comments, I'd be interested....

Your aim – and do correct me if I’m off-base – is to cast this same human dilemma into an exclusive discourse, drawing on a very distinctively Judeo-Christian point of view with all the machinery of sin, moral drama, free will, or lack of it, etc.

Actually you are way off base. I'm setting the stage for a hopefully broader view.

Now, this is not an attack. Your discourse is in the language that makes sense to you, and I wouldn’t presume to propose for you any substitute. But I do want to point out the difference between identifying core commonalities among differing traditions on the one hand, and trolling different traditions for elements to support one’s pre-established discourse on the other hand.

I have no pre-established discourse. I'm just going with the flow here, brother.

The one is an exercise in pluralism, the other in apologetics.

Me an apologist of for the Judeo-Christian point of view? I respect all religions and am an apologist for none.

Let's see. In the past couple of days I've discusssed Buddhism and existentialism, and I responded to something Seattlegal had said that pertains directly to the issues you raised about the Genesis account at the opening of the thread. I also threw in some Jungian ideas about attachment style. The conclusion of my last post alludes to Benedict De Spinoza's rather unorthodox rejection of free will.

At another discussion forum I tried to sort out some issues pertaining to Islam and I was assumed to be a Muslim. Another member of this forum thought I was a Hindu. If you check, you'll see almost all of my initial posts here as well as a number of recent posts deal with Buddhism..

Have you got me figured out yet?

 

[Devadatta]

I have no agenda.


If you had some additional detail concerning specific issues before I respond to some of your previous comments, I'd be interested....


Actually you are way off base. I'm setting the stage for a hopefully broader view.



I have no pre-established discourse. I'm just going with the flow here, brother.



Me an apologist of for the Judeo-Christian point of view? I respect all religions and am an apologist for none.

Let's see. In the past couple of days I've discusssed Buddhism and existentialism, and I responded to something Seattlegal had said that pertains directly to the issues you raised about the Genesis account at the opening of the thread. I also threw in some Jungian ideas about attachment style. The conclusion of my last post alludes to Benedict De Spinoza's rather unorthodox rejection of free will.

At another discussion forum I tried to sort out some issues pertaining to Islam and I was assumed to be a Muslim. Another member of this forum thought I was a Hindu. If you check, you'll see almost all of my initial posts here as well as a number of recent posts deal with Buddhism..

Have you got me figured out yet?

Hi not this - but maybe that! You know my last post is one of those one regrets making - it was a tad grumpy. So I apologize for that.


On the other hand, so far you haven't engaged much with the substance of my post. You appear to be following your own parallel track. Which is fine, but kind of limits discussion. And when you come in trying to define terms you feel are being misapplied by other mortels, when you attempt to "sort things out", when you challenge others to "figure your out", well, that's the sort of pomposity that reminds me of....well, of me! So there you go -from my side at least, let's call this skirmish of pomposities a draw!


Cheers, Shanti, etc.

 

[Netti-Netti]

According to the Genesis account, why did God create human beings? In my outsider reading I get the sense of two distinct motives:
1. That God created human beings to serve Him.
2. That He created human beings to recognize Him.

My initial reaction is that this is largely a theoretical distinction that is often not apparent within a religious lifestyle. Recognition of G-d invariably implies a desire to to serve Him.

A sense of duty to serve has been an aspect of G-d consciousness for literally thousands of years - in preHindu times. Do we have reason to believe it's different in Judaism, Christianity, or Islam?

 

[Netti-Netti]

On the other hand, so far you haven't engaged much with the substance of my post.

I know that and I appreciate your patience.

You appear to be following your own parallel track. Which is fine, but kind of limits discussion. And when you come in trying to define terms you feel are being misapplied by other mortals, when you attempt to "sort things out".....

Clarification of terms is often helpful. I'm thinking Seattlegal used the term attachment/aversion when maybe she meant conflict. That being the case, what she wrote -- which you described as an "interesting take" -- might mean something substantially different from what it did before. I suppose it would depends on how you interpreted her words. However, consider the possibility that you need to revise your reply to her given that intrapsyschic conflict is modulated by various tensions that are logically orthogonal to the moral properties of the choices one is faced with. For example, consider the effect of inertial tendencies on motivation.

I'm actually much more interested in the psychology of religion than some abstract doctrinal issues that are unlikely to be resolved in any final way. It is unclear whether that's irrelevant to the issues you were raising, but for some reason you feel like I have strayed too far and need to be redirected.

I don't think I'm interfering with anyone else responding to your opening post. But let me know if you feel my presence in this thread is unproductive.

 

[seattlegal]

Devadatta wrote, way back in the first post:
So here the point is not the superficial one of the necessity of free will, of choosing between good and evil, but the deeper necessity of the fall into duality as the precondition for the summum bonum of mutual recognition between human consciousness and ultimate reality.

Ah, words, words, words! These two quotes sum up our differing agendas. My aim is to look for a way of stating a fundamental human dilemma that’s inclusive of various narrative/ideological/constitutional strategies. (How well I succeed at this is of course open to dispute.) Your aim – and do correct me if I’m off-base – is to cast this same human dilemma into an exclusive discourse, drawing on a very distinctively Judeo-Christian point of view with all the machinery of sin, moral drama, free will, or lack of it, etc.[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]

Wasn't your original post directly addressing the Judeo-Christian point of view?

(The following really belongs in the Abrahamic garden, but thinking that some there might find it an unwelcome growth, I decided to plant it in a more unruly place.)

According to the Genesis account, why did God create human beings? In my outsider reading I get the sense of two distinct motives:
1. That God created human beings to serve Him.
2. That He created human beings to recognize Him.

Now, this is not an attack. Your discourse is in the language that makes sense to you, and I wouldn’t presume to propose for you any substitute. But I do want to point out the difference between identifying core commonalities among differing traditions on the one hand, and trolling different traditions for elements to support one’s pre-established discourse on the other hand. The one is an exercise in pluralism, the other in apologetics.

Methinks your original post would fall under the category of apologetics.

Of course, if you believe and are correct that in the end there is only one truth, then apologetics is a noble enterprise and my pluralism sadly misguided.


I hope you don’t take this the wrong way!


Shanti.

I hope you don't take this the wrong way.

 

[Netti-Netti]

According to the Genesis account, why did God create human beings? In my outsider reading I get the sense of two distinct motives:
1. That God created human beings to serve Him.
2. That He created human beings to recognize Him.

The first motive appears to bear some affinity with the Mesopotamian creation stories that are thought to predate the biblical accounts. In at least some of these stories the gods are said to create human beings as slaves. So you have a recapitulation on the cosmic scale of prevailing social conditions; like earthly rulers, the gods need legions of minions to build their temples and ziggurats, make their sacrifices, etc. And the central need of every ruler, earthly or celestial, is obvious: they need obedience.

You're right, Mesopotamian creation myth Enuma Elish, shows that mankind was supposed to serve the gods. However, there is no a priori reason to believe that the monotheistic G-d of the Bible is among these Mesopotamian mythic gods or, for that matter, patterned after the depiction we see in the Enuma Elish story.

Further, be aware that the notion of a central Creator was present in the patriarchal religion of the Canaanites:

Elohim (אֱלוֹהִים , אלהים ) is a Hebrew word which expresses concepts of divinity. It is apparently related to the Hebrew word ēl, though morphologically it consists of the Hebrew word Eloah (אלוה) with a plural suffix. Elohim is the third word in the Hebrew text of Genesis and occurs frequently throughout the Hebrew Bible......
​

The Wiki notes "the use of the word Elohim found in the late Bronze Age texts of Canaanite Ugarit, where Elohim ('lhm) denoted the entire Canaanite pantheon (the family of El אל, the patriarchal creator god)."

El is the Canaanite creator g-d, who was characterized -- not as a slave driver who demanded obedience -- but as beneficent and non-hostile "father of mankind' and "creator of creatures," "the Compassionate One."

For your interest, Talmudic term for G-d is Rachmana, which means "the Compassionate One." This apparent overlap in G-d concepts is not definitive by any means. But it does suggest that ancient Canaanite mythology depicting a kindly patriarchal creator god was a source for Hebrew divinity constructs.

God in Genesis needs obedience too, and provides a little drama of obedience in illustration.

I disagree. The G-d you have in mind would have been very naive to think that the serpent would not be successful in tempting Eve. The Tree of Knowledge scenario was G-d's idea of creating an opportunity for sin that would facilitate the process of discovering the capacity for free will. All went according to plan. I really don't think G-d expected things to turn out different.

I also disagree with the suggestion that G-d needs obedience. Obedience is an issue for souls who recognize their dependence on and duty to the Creator. More about this later.

 

[Devadatta]

My initial reaction is that this is largely a theoretical distinction that is often not apparent within a religious lifestyle. Recognition of G-d invariably implies a desire to to serve Him.

A sense of duty to serve has been an aspect of G-d consciousness for literally thousands of years - in preHindu times. Do we have reason to believe it's different in Judaism, Christianity, or Islam?

Okay, let us indeed try to sort this out.

I’ll start by explaining my impression of your trail of posts, which led to my momentary grumpiness. First, you take issue with my characterisation of authority and obedience as being “negative”, when even a cursory reading of the post would show that I was hardly making so simple a claim. Instead, I was pointing to the problematic of authority/obedience in the Abrahamic tradition. Not only that, you cite specifically traditional theological rationales. Second, you jump all over the Buddhist analogy with a welter of references to the effect that attachment/aversion is a superficial affair and not intrinsic to the practice, as it most certainly is. Similar arguments dismissing Buddhist practice as necessarily falling short of Christian truth is familiar from the work of Catholic apologists. Thirdly, ignoring my response to these forays you launch into a theologically loaded analysis. Adding all this up, I had the distinct impression that you were very much defending a particular theological point of view, as opposed to responding to the general questions posed in the thread. Perhaps you were playing some other game, but in that case I’m sure you’ll understand and forgive my misapprehension.


But above, in this post, you finally come clean. You are not taking in the distinctions or points I’m making because they did not fit your theological views. I have no problem with that. God bless you. But I’m a plain speaker and would have preferred a more direct response from the getgo
Below, however, you retrogress:


Netti Netti speaks:
However, consider the possibility that you need to revise your reply to her given that intrapsyschic conflict is modulated by various tensions that are logically orthogonal to the moral properties of the choices one is faced with. For example, consider the effect of inertial tendencies on motivation.


Netti, Netti, my friend, you know this is angel dust, and far from the first you’ve thrown in your wake. I don’t claim to be familiar with every bit of psychological or philosophical jargon out there but I know when I’m being snowed. Besides, I’m a bit of a wordsmith myself, and you’re not going to baffle me with mere words.

Look, let’s part here as friends. We have different perspectives, and no need for debates that will lead us nowhere.

Cheers, Shanti, etc.

Oops! I see your further post below, which is of a different character. I'll go ahead with this (after all, honesty is best) but respond to your new post, as well, briefly, one last time?

 

[Devadatta]

You're right, Mesopotamian creation myth Enuma Elish, shows that mankind was supposed to serve the gods. However, there is no a priori reason to believe that the monotheistic G-d of the Bible is among these Mesopotamian mythic gods or, for that matter, patterned after the depiction we see in the Enuma Elish story.


Further, be aware that the notion of a central Creator was present in the patriarchal religion of the Canaanites:

Elohim (אֱלוֹהִים , אלהים ) is a Hebrew word which expresses concepts of divinity. It is apparently related to the Hebrew word ēl, though morphologically it consists of the Hebrew word Eloah (אלוה) with a plural suffix. Elohim is the third word in the Hebrew text of Genesis and occurs frequently throughout the Hebrew Bible......​

The Wiki notes "the use of the word Elohim found in the late Bronze Age texts of Canaanite Ugarit, where Elohim ('lhm) denoted the entire Canaanite pantheon (the family of El אל, the patriarchal creator god)."

El is the Canaanite creator g-d, who was characterized -- not as a slave driver who demanded obedience -- but as beneficent and non-hostile "father of mankind' and "creator of creatures," "the Compassionate One."

For your interest, Talmudic term for G-d is Rachmana, which means "the Compassionate One." This apparent overlap in G-d concepts is not definitive by any means. But it does suggest that ancient Canaanite mythology depicting a kindly patriarchal creator god was a source for Hebrew divinity constructs.


I disagree. The G-d you have in mind would have been very naive to think that the serpent would not be successful in tempting Eve. The Tree of Knowledge scenario was G-d's idea of creating an opportunity for sin that would facilitate the process of discovering the capacity for free will. All went according to plan. I really don't think G-d expected things to turn out different.

I also disagree with the suggestion that G-d needs obedience. Obedience is an issue for souls who recognize their dependence on and duty to the Creator. More about this later.

-- As for as Elohim, etc., goes; I think that's interesting. In points to the fact that Abrahamic God is an improvement over the Mesopotamian, a point I would never deny. Again, I was at pains to point out the problematic in the tradition, that it's mixed, ambigious, that there are dichotomies, i.e., commasionate/authoritarian, etc. I would only differ with you I suppose in suggesting that the Abrahamic tradition, as the headlines indicate, has never quite resolved this contradiction or escaped its primtive origins.


-- And where did I say the biblical was naive? You're using a different to make the same point: that the fall was part of the plan.


-- On obedience, you're right, we would need more extended discussion on that. We'd have to more clearly understand what each of us is really saying on this subject.

Cheers.

 

[Devadatta]

Hi Netti Netti. I've repeated the above here because of all the sloppy typing. The editing function never seems to work for me on this site.

-- As for as Elohim, etc., goes; I think that's interesting. In points to the fact that the Abrahamic God is an improvement over the Mesopotamian, a point I would never deny. Again, I was at pains to point out the problematic in the tradition, that it's mixed, ambiguous, that there are dichotomies, i.e., compassionate/authoritarian, etc. I would only differ with you I suppose in suggesting that the Abrahamic tradition, as the headlines indicate, has never quite resolved this contradiction or escaped its primitive origins.

-- And where did I say the biblical God was naive? You're using a different narrative turn to make the same point: that in biblical terms the fall was part of the plan.

-- On obedience, you're right, we would need more extended discussion on that. We'd have to more clearly understand what each of us is really saying on this subject.
Cheers.

 

[Devadatta]

Wasn't your original post directly addressing the Judeo-Christian point of view?



Methinks your original post would fall under the category of apologetics.


I hope you don't take this the wrong way.

Oh, gee, Seattle, didn't I very early on say that for me these are metaphorical languages, didn't I mention the parallel narrative of the theory of evolution? I was pretty clear that I was outside the barn, which is why I placed the thread where I did.

Apologetics? That's just for my wife. Daily.


Cheers, Shanti, etc.

 

[seattlegal]

Hi Netti Netti. I've repeated the above here because of all the sloppy typing. The editing function never seems to work for me on this site.

I think the time limit for editing posts is 20 minutes, or there abouts. To get the editing feature to work, click the "Edit" button, then click the "Go Advanced" button on the next screen, make your edits, then click the "Save Changes" button.