Allegory of Eden
Christopher Denney
is a really nice allegory for man's "uplift" from the animal state. I
know others have brought it up before, but I mean it really shows a
pretty deep insight on the part of the writers of the bible; that they
understood the essential "paradise" that animals live in, and how
attaining intelligence forever ejects us from that simplicity of life.
We are cursed not only to know our past, but to think about our
future; that curse is also our blessing, in that with it we exercise
far more power over our environment than we ever did as "mere animals"
and we are stuck with it.
There is no going back to the "Garden" because we evolved out of it,
only special brain surgery is likely to send anyone back. Our
intellect is our punishment for our intellect, that and our huge
honkin' heads causing great pain to our mothers. It has long been said
that "ignorance is bliss", we lost the bliss because we lost the
ignorance; really we lost the capacity for the level of ignorance
required to attain bliss. (most of us anyway)
It strikes me that the original stories that made up the bible were
created by fairly intelligent people, who may have had some pretty
insightful things to say. But it is frequently difficult to see the
insights through all the mysticism.
Mike Lyle
Yes. And, as I've said here before, the creator who didn't get what he
thought he was making is a common story line. But none of these insights
is actually very profound: true, but reasonably obvious.
--
Mike.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
are only allowed to eat some of them and not others. As they also do
to one another. Not so much a paradise for them, perhaps.
Am I still blocked out of talk.origins? Just wondering. If you don't
get to read this, then I guess I am.
Christopher Denney
You don't appear to be blocked.
Animals can't read, so I expect that what is says in the bible doesn't
matter to them.
Christopher Denney
wrote:
Note: Yes I know that humans ARE animals, just using the word animal
in the sense of "not human animal" for this discussion.
VoiceOfReason
I read an interesting twist on the Garden story from an Eastern
Orthodox web site. The interpretation was that, read a different way,
the Garden was set up in an already-existing world, with the
translation being more of a distinct, defensible area for God's
"chosen" to live in. It certainly makes more sense than the standard
fundie literal interpretation of the Genesis story.
Kalkidas
56a2-47c4-89b...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
> I was thinking this morning the whole fall of man/Garden of Eden thing
> is a really nice allegory for man's "uplift" from the animal state. I
> know others have brought it up before, but I mean it really shows a
> pretty deep insight on the part of the writers of the bible; that they
> understood the essential "paradise" that animals live in, and how
> attaining intelligence forever ejects us from that simplicity of life.
> We are cursed not only to know our past, but to think about our
> future; that curse is also our blessing, in that with it we exercise
> far more power over our environment than we ever did as "mere animals"
> and we are stuck with it.
What makes you think animals live in a "paradise"? Have you ever really
thought about it? They spend their entire lives looking over their
shoulders in fear that some predator is after them to kill and eat them.
That's "paradise"?
Animal life is short and violent, filled with terror. It's most
definitely not "paradise".
Rolf
> I was thinking this morning the whole fall of man/Garden of Eden thing
> is a really nice allegory for man's "uplift" from the animal state. I
> know others have brought it up before, but I mean it really shows a
> pretty deep insight on the part of the writers of the bible; that they
> understood the essential "paradise" that animals live in, and how
> attaining intelligence forever ejects us from that simplicity of life.
I am very intrigued by this incredible moment in time; when man first
realized himself as an identity; looking at the world around him realizing
things like 'up' and 'down', objects in the sky like the sun and the moon,
and their cycles. He realized concepts like 'life' and 'death' and much more
and embarked on his one-way tour of the physical - and of his own spiritual
world!
But the allegories and myths are lost on the fundamentalists. Any you are
right; we need smart people to decode the mystiscims. Their mode of thinking
necessarily must have been quite different from ours. But it is fun trying
to reset yourself and see what the world would look like through "Adam's"
eyes.
Rolf
> On Jan 2, 11:10 pm, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
> orig...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
>> I think the bible says that we can kill or enslave any animal, but we
>> are only allowed to eat some of them and not others. As they also do
>> to one another. Not so much a paradise for them, perhaps.
>>
>> Am I still blocked out of talk.origins? Just wondering. If you don't
>> get to read this, then I guess I am.
>
> You don't appear to be blocked.
> Animals can't read,
Lucky for them!
Mike Lyle
I know what you mean, and accept it in general, but isn't some of that
projection? Very few animals seem to have a clear idea of death (indeed,
many humans go to great lengths to deny its permanence), and I wonder
how closely animal fear corresponds to ours. (When I say "I wonder", I
mean it: I don't claim to know.)
I used to know somebody who had been on the losing side in a civil war,
and he said his time on the run was too busy to allow him to be afraid.
And one hears of hares which stand, in apparent calm, and watch the
beagles go by in full cry after one of their less lucky brethren.
Where Christopher's right is in that primitive man suffered no more than
the beasts' physical trials, but had started to undergo all manner of
conscious mental activity. That mental activity involved uncomfortable
confusion, painful decisions, abstract fears, and alarming igonorance.
--
Mike.
Frank J
wrote:
I often add that some (most? all?) of the "what happened when" claims
were reasonable hypotheses at the time given the minimal evidence that
they had. But then as now, the writers probably realized that
admitting uncertainty would have weakened the main point, which is the
"moral of the story." Allegories *work*, often better than "the whole
truth and nothing but the truth." Which is why it is reasonable to
suspect that some people who seem to believe one of the mutually
contradictory "literal" interpretations of Genesis might not.
Kalkidas
news:hhqf0v$h4i$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
Animals try to avoid death. Therefore, it's obvious that they know it's
something undesirable. They may not have a clear idea of what it is, but
neither do most humans.
> I used to know somebody who had been on the losing side in a civil
> war, and he said his time on the run was too busy to allow him to be
> afraid. And one hears of hares which stand, in apparent calm, and
> watch the beagles go by in full cry after one of their less lucky
> brethren.
>
> Where Christopher's right is in that primitive man suffered no more
> than the beasts' physical trials, but had started to undergo all
> manner of conscious mental activity. That mental activity involved
> uncomfortable confusion, painful decisions, abstract fears, and
> alarming igonorance.
"Primitive man" exists today, along with "civilized man". It has always
been that way. It is a myth that in the past there was only "primitive
man".
To call the animal state "paradise" is an abuse of language. That's my
point.
Mike Lyle
> "Mike Lyle" <mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in
> news:hhqf0v$h4i$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> Kalkidas wrote:
>>>
>>> What makes you think animals live in a "paradise"? Have you ever
>>> really thought about it? They spend their entire lives looking over
>>> their shoulders in fear that some predator is after them to kill and
>>> eat them. That's "paradise"?
>>>
>>> Animal life is short and violent, filled with terror. It's most
>>> definitely not "paradise".
>>
>> I know what you mean, and accept it in general, but isn't some of
>> that projection? Very few animals seem to have a clear idea of death
>> (indeed, many humans go to great lengths to deny its permanence), and
>> I wonder how closely animal fear corresponds to ours. (When I say "I
>> wonder", I mean it: I don't claim to know.)
>
> Animals try to avoid death. Therefore, it's obvious that they know
> it's something undesirable. They may not have a clear idea of what it
> is, but neither do most humans.
I don't think we can say that animals try to avoid death: even if they
do, we can't know about it. They try to avoid being knocked down,
bitten, throttled, etc; but that doesn't mean that it's _death_ they're
trying to avoid.
>
>> I used to know somebody who had been on the losing side in a civil
>> war, and he said his time on the run was too busy to allow him to be
>> afraid. And one hears of hares which stand, in apparent calm, and
>> watch the beagles go by in full cry after one of their less lucky
>> brethren.
>>
>> Where Christopher's right is in that primitive man suffered no more
>> than the beasts' physical trials, but had started to undergo all
>> manner of conscious mental activity. That mental activity involved
>> uncomfortable confusion, painful decisions, abstract fears, and
>> alarming igonorance.
>
> "Primitive man" exists today, along with "civilized man". It has
> always been that way. It is a myth that in the past there was only
> "primitive man".
No, I meant "primitive" more literally. The people of Arnhem Land or the
upper Amazon, for example, are not in that sense "primitive". Any
difficulty I might have with the term would be that culture must predate
H. sapiens properly so called, which would make the expression
"primitive man" meaningless. But we are discussing a story here, not an
ethnographic or zoological theory.
>
> To call the animal state "paradise" is an abuse of language. That's my
> point.
Well, if it comes to that, it would be an abuse of language to call
_any_ real state "paradise": but it fits perfectly well in Christopher's
interpretation of the fable, which is of its essence contrastive.
--
Mike.
Kalkidas
To declare that "I don't think we can say that animals try to avoid
death" is mere infantile sophistry. Grown-ups don't talk that way. Any
further conversation is useless.
bpuharic
wrote:
>
>To declare that "I don't think we can say that animals try to avoid
>death" is mere infantile sophistry. Grown-ups don't talk that way. Any
>further conversation is useless.
of course your religion has 'untouchables'...but you seem to have more
sympathy for animals than for other human beings
Caranx latus
Kalkidas
@speranza.aioe.org:
> In the "Devoid of a sense of irony" category:
>
>> Grown-ups don't talk that way. Any further conversation is useless.
>
Grown-ups understand when to stop wasting time on a person who is just
being childishly argumentative.
To call that "irony" is inappropriate, unless one is just being childishly
argumentative.
Caranx latus
I seem to have slipped out of your killfile, Kalky. Be a good chap and
put me back, please.
Mike Lyle
Your emotion surprises me even more than your discourtesy. Perhaps it
would have been less infantile had I said "I don't think we can say that
animals know that it is death that they may be avoiding when
they...etc." But I certainly don't want to intrude on your island.
--
Mike.
Kalkidas
> On Jan 3, 4:13�pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>> Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote in news:hhr0gv$48l$1
>> @speranza.aioe.org:
>>
>> > In the "Devoid of a sense of irony" category:
>>
>> >> Grown-ups don't talk that way. Any further conversation is
>> >> useless.
>>
>> Grown-ups understand when to stop wasting time on a person who is
>> just being childishly argumentative.
>>
>> To call that "irony" is inappropriate, unless one is just being
>
> I seem to have slipped out of your killfile, Kalky. Be a good chap and
> put me back, please.
I am using a different newsreader. I'm having so much fun going through
the whole process again! Enjoy.
Kalkidas
> Kalkidas wrote:
>> "Mike Lyle" <mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in
>> news:hhqpbr$8jh$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
[snip]
>> To declare that "I don't think we can say that animals try to avoid
>> death" is mere infantile sophistry. Grown-ups don't talk that way.
>> Any further conversation is useless.
>
> Your emotion surprises me even more than your discourtesy. Perhaps it
> would have been less infantile had I said "I don't think we can say
> that animals know that it is death that they may be avoiding when
> they...etc." But I certainly don't want to intrude on your island.
My "island" where actual living beings live? Thanks, I'll take it over a
world of confusion. Enjoy your unemotional solipsism where you can't be
sure anyone's alive but yourself.
Steven L.
news:hhqf0v$h4i$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
That's true.
But "very few" is not the same as "none."
There's pretty good evidence that chimpanzees and elephants understand
the significance of death, and even mourn their dead. Elephants have
even been observed to cover their dead, much as we cover a dead human.
--
--
Steven L.
sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the "NOSPAM" before sending to this email address.
Steven L.
news:11270c18-56a2-47c4...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
> I was thinking this morning the whole fall of man/Garden of Eden thing
> is a really nice allegory for man's "uplift" from the animal state. I
> know others have brought it up before, but I mean it really shows a
> pretty deep insight on the part of the writers of the bible; that they
> understood the essential "paradise" that animals live in,
It's not a paradise, but life for an animal tends to be a lot simpler
than for us humans.
> and how
> attaining intelligence forever ejects us from that simplicity of life.
That's true,
but so what?
Humans who lived 2,000, 5,000, or even 11,000 years ago were just as
intelligent as humans today. Their science and technology were
primitive. But they had thinkers, storytellers, philosophers, artists,
among their people just like we do today. We tend to forget they were
backward, but not stupid.
A culture's myths wouldn't have stood the test of time if they didn't
have some lasting significance.
SortingItOut
wrote:
> Kalkidas wrote:
> > "Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in
> >news:hhqpbr$8jh$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
> >> Kalkidas wrote:
> >>> "Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in
I'm not sure how this subthread spun out of control so quickly. It's
true that we can't really know what goes on in the mind of most
animals, but I think the point of Kalkidas' initial post is still
valid. Even if we can be sure that there is actual terror or fear,
there almost certainly is all sorts of pain and misery experienced in
the animal world due to temperature extremes, drought, hunger,
disease, injury, etc. It's hard to imagine that animals live in
paradise.
Boikat
> "Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote innews:hhqpbr$8jh$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Kalkidas wrote:
> >> "Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in
So, you're saying that you know, beyond a goubt, that animals have a
sense of mortality? Isn't that supposed to be a "distinguishing
feature" that supposedly set humans apart from all other creatures?
> Grown-ups don't talk that way.
How would you know?
> Any
> further conversation is useless.
Right.
Boikat
john wilkins
>
> A culture's myths wouldn't have stood the test of time if they didn't
> have some lasting significance.
>
others", and nothing more...
Kermit
So "childishly argumentative" means "disagreeing with you", or
"reexamining ideas", or "suggesting possibilities". Understood.
My cat is dying, and is more cuddly than she used to be. She certainly
feels poorly, but does she think she's dying? Humans have the same
instinct for self-preservation, but know they are going to die
eventually. Some deal with it by convincing themselves that they
aren't "really" going to die.
Kermit
Mike Lyle
> "Mike Lyle" <mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:hhqf0v$h4i$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> Kalkidas wrote:
>>> Animal life is short and violent, filled with terror. It's most
>>> definitely not "paradise".
>>
>> I know what you mean, and accept it in general, but isn't some of
>> that projection? Very few animals seem to have a clear idea of death
>> (indeed, many humans go to great lengths to deny its permanence),
>> and I wonder how closely animal fear corresponds to ours. (When I
>> say "I wonder", I mean it: I don't claim to know.)
>
> That's true.
> But "very few" is not the same as "none."
>
> There's pretty good evidence that chimpanzees and elephants understand
> the significance of death, and even mourn their dead. Elephants have
> even been observed to cover their dead, much as we cover a dead human.
>
few...seem...clear": one must cover one's arse!
I wish that chap hadn't flounced out: this is interesting. But I suppose
his outrage indicates that he had no more to contribute anyway. He may
also have guessed that my "many humans go to great lengths to deny
[death's] permanence" wasn't an altogether innocent comment...
--
Mike.
Robert Camp
> "Mike Lyle" <mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in
> news:hhqpbr$8jh$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> Kalkidas wrote:
>>> "Mike Lyle" <mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in
>>> news:hhqf0v$h4i$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>
>>>> Kalkidas wrote
<snip>
>>>
>>> To call the animal state "paradise" is an abuse of language. That's
>>> my point.
>>
>> Well, if it comes to that, it would be an abuse of language to call
>> _any_ real state "paradise": but it fits perfectly well in
>> Christopher's interpretation of the fable, which is of its essence
>> contrastive.
>
> To declare that "I don't think we can say that animals try to avoid
> death" is mere infantile sophistry. Grown-ups don't talk that way. Any
> further conversation is useless.
Hard to believe your fear of considering ideas that threaten your
preconceptions could be any more obvious.
RLC
Kermit
wrote:
> I was thinking this morning the whole fall of man/Garden of Eden thing
> is a really nice allegory for man's "uplift" from the animal state. I
> know others have brought it up before, but I mean it really shows a
> pretty deep insight on the part of the writers of the bible; that they
> attaining intelligence forever ejects us from that simplicity of life.
> future; that curse is also our blessing, in that with it we exercise
> far more power over our environment than we ever did as "mere animals"
> and we are stuck with it.
> only special brain surgery is likely to send anyone back. Our
> intellect is our punishment for our intellect, that and our huge
> honkin' heads causing great pain to our mothers. It has long been said
> that "ignorance is bliss", we lost the bliss because we lost the
> ignorance; really we lost the capacity for the level of ignorance
> required to attain bliss. (most of us anyway)
>
> It strikes me that the original stories that made up the bible were
> created by fairly intelligent people, who may have had some pretty
> insightful things to say. But it is frequently difficult to see the
> insights through all the mysticism.
It may have been an allegory for growing out of the state of childhood
innocence, or perhaps the transformation of the tribe from hunter-
gatherer to hardworking farmer. Or both.
Cain the murderer raised crops in the field. His brother Abel
sacrifice animals, which God (the state of innocence, the oneness with
all) "liked" better.The farmer killed the hunter and established
cities. Sounds almost like a cultural history. Three thousand years
ago this process was still going on to a significant degree. Like
Remus and Romulus, Cain was The Founder, which wasn't a problem for
bronze age Sumerians or their neighbors. But once the stories got
written down, and literalists got hold of them, they had the problem
of explaining what it means for the oldest son of the only two other
people at the time marrying and starting a city.
I don't know what the original writers intended (and of course it was
an amalgamation of many oral stories), but one can believe these
stories by claiming they are allegories and not deny verifiable
realty. Biblical literalists are just sad.
There was likely an oral teaching - an explanation - being passed
down; it may or may not have been an official, inside tradition.
Allegories always have much of the rorschach ink blot about them.
Kermit
Christopher Denney
> Christopher Denney <christopher.den...@gmail.com> wrote in news:11270c18-
> 56a2-47c4-89b4-f1dd7277e...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
Why would you think they live in terror?
Look up the word anthropomorphism, and think about your answer.
If a life is short and ends violently, but one is happy up until the
end, is it good or bad?
If life is long and miserable and ends peacefully is that better or
worse, and why?
Many people think of the lives of animals as ideal, no worrying about
rent or taxes, no bothering with what outfit to wear or what team to
root for.
You just live, eat, procreate and die, no stress.
Of course, the ones that get chased by predators have some stress, but
it's short lived; one way or another.
Mike Lyle
Which is why I said "I know what you mean, and accept it in general";
but he flounced off instead of having a subtle discussion. Creationists
don't seem to do subtle.
--
Mike.
Christopher Denney
You know, one other thing I keep wondering. Certain of the more
religious persons on this group have commented that there was no death
before the fall. How is it then that there was a "tree of life" that
was moved to prevent us from tasting that fruit also. What would the
point of there being such a tree, if everything was immortal already?
Kalkidas
news:da085f7c-393f-4d4b...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
The issue is not whether animals "think" they're dying. The issue is that
they seek to avoid death. They cry out when they're being killed. They
scream when they're in pain, they cry when their children are being
killed. They run away from predators who would kill and eat them. Etc.,
etc., etc.,.........
That's so obvious that I'm surprised to see why you would bother to be
argumentative about it.
Or is it that you have to save face by bashing the creationist, even if
it means coming down on the side of the irrational?
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>:
>Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote in news:hhr0gv$48l$1
>@speranza.aioe.org:
>
>> In the "Devoid of a sense of irony" category:
>>
>>> Grown-ups don't talk that way. Any further conversation is useless.
>>
>
>Grown-ups understand when to stop wasting time on a person who is just
>being childishly argumentative.
Yes, we do.
Bye now...
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Kalkidas
news:3cedfc0c-804a-42b3...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com:
[snip]
> I'm not sure how this subthread spun out of control so quickly. It's
> true that we can't really know what goes on in the mind of most
> animals, but I think the point of Kalkidas' initial post is still
> valid. Even if we can be sure that there is actual terror or fear,
> there almost certainly is all sorts of pain and misery experienced in
> the animal world due to temperature extremes, drought, hunger,
> disease, injury, etc. It's hard to imagine that animals live in
> paradise.
They must contradict anything the creationist says at all costs, even at
the expense of their reason.
Mike Painter
> Why would you think they live in terror?
> Look up the word anthropomorphism, and think about your answer.
> If a life is short and ends violently, but one is happy up until the
> end, is it good or bad?
Many animals exhibit traits that indicate fear or terror.
What would you call it if an animal runs from a thunderstorm until the storm
passes it or it drops from exhaustion? Fun?
I had a dog once that got out and started across the street to wag it's tail
at a kid.
He got hit.
Months later when he had fully recovered a kid walked into the back yard and
Cecil went charging to say hello. About 20 feet away he went down on his
side in a totally submissive posture. I say it was becasue he associated a
young person with pain and was afraid.
He certainly "appeared terrified of vacuum cleaners and gunshots until he
went deaf.
What do you call this?
Mike Lyle
[...]
>
> You know, one other thing I keep wondering. Certain of the more
> religious persons on this group have commented that there was no death
> before the fall. How is it then that there was a "tree of life" that
> was moved to prevent us from tasting that fruit also. What would the
> point of there being such a tree, if everything was immortal already?
It's a folk-tale, Chris. Expect loose ends and unpolished surfaces. And
more than one legend has got stuck together here. Or you could say that
the Tree of Life thing only became a threat to the gods once Adam and
Eve had gained knowledge of good and evil: immortal humans living an
innocent animal life without that kind of discrimination wouldn't have
been a problem. Why this actually mattered need not be explained:
there's nothing in the rule-book that says gods are nice guys--even
Christianity is uncertain about that. Anyhow, Kermit's right about the
Rorschach blots: these stories are made for us, not we for the stories.
--
Mike.
Mike Lyle
I can't speak for Chris, but I call it the same as you do. But if we can
guess an animal's feelings in that case, then we can guess them in other
cases, too. And that poor dog clearly had a period of life in which he
_did not_ suffer those particular memories and fears. We don't have to
watch wild animals and birds for long before we can conclude that they
don't spend their whole lives in what we'd call fear: even more
striking, as I mentioned earlier, sometimes animals will behave in what
seems like an unperturbed manner even in the very presence of predators.
I'm a little surprised that Chris's interpretation--which is, after all,
the usually accepted one--of the Eden fable has stimulated such an
interesting debate. It's a _story_, folks! An allegory, imperfect of
course, of awakening consciousness and conscience. And this is literary
criticism.
--
Mike.
Kermit
Indeed. I seem to recall Yahweh commenting to the others (who were
they - the other gods, with whom he used to walk?) "They have eaten of
the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, if they also eat of the Tree
of Life, they will be like us".
And so he booted us out. Nice. Literally taken, he punished us for the
sins of Adam and Eve, committed before they knew right from wrong. A
literalist would have to say that not only were innocents punished for
the sins of other innocents, but as you point out, they were in danger
of acquiring immortality, even though there was no death yet... And it
sounded like the only way Yahweh could prevent us from becoming gods
was to toss us out of the garden. This really reads like an old fairy
tale - like Jack and the Beanstalk, only Jack doesn't succeed in
getting the family treasure back :(
Perhaps "Good and Evil" are a metaphor for the ability to
discriminate, a result of acquiring language. This could be said to be
a claim that the process of becoming a full human is the very process
which removes us from the garden (the animal state of pre-language).
Or insert your own allegory here; I'm easy.
Kermit
Kalkidas
> On Jan 3, 6:52�am, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>> Christopher Denney <christopher.den...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:11270c18-
>> 56a2-47c4-89b4-f1dd7277e...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > I was thinking this morning the whole fall of man/Garden of Eden
>> > thing is a really nice allegory for man's "uplift" from the animal
>> > state. I know others have brought it up before, but I mean it
>> > really shows a pretty deep insight on the part of the writers of
>> > the bible; that they understood the essential "paradise" that
>> > animals live in, and how attaining intelligence forever ejects us
>> > from that simplicity of life. We are cursed not only to know our
>> > past, but to think about our future; that curse is also our
>> > blessing, in that with it we exercise far more power over our
>> > environment than we ever did as "mere animals" and we are stuck
>> > with it.
>>
>> What makes you think animals live in a "paradise"? Have you ever
>> really thought about it? They spend their entire lives looking over
>> their shoulders in fear that some predator is after them to kill and
>> eat them. That's "paradise"?
>>
>> Animal life is short and violent, filled with terror. It's most
>> definitely not "paradise".
>
> Why would you think they live in terror?
Because, unlike you, I actually talk with them and know about their
lives, and they do not fear me, whereas you most likely pay some butcher
to kill them so you can taste their flesh and remain insulated and in
denial about the whole world beyond your small anthropomorphic mental
fantasy, like a typical soulless vampire.
One thing I can promise you, though: you are going to experience animal
life for yourself. Perhaps the actual contact with non-anthropomorphic,
life will do you good.
Christopher Denney
That's the one I recall too. Always got shushed when I asked who 'us'
was.
> And so he booted us out. Nice. Literally taken, he punished us for the
> sins of Adam and Eve, committed before they knew right from wrong. �A
> literalist would have to say that not only were innocents punished for
> the sins of other innocents, but as you point out, they were in danger
> of acquiring immortality, even though there was no death yet... And it
> sounded like the only way Yahweh could prevent us from becoming gods
> was to toss us out of the garden. This really reads like an old fairy
> tale - like Jack and the Beanstalk, only Jack doesn't succeed in
> getting the family treasure back :(
>
> Perhaps "Good and Evil" are a metaphor for the ability to
> discriminate, a result of acquiring language. This could be said to be
> a claim that the process of becoming a full human is the very process
> which removes us from the garden (the animal state of pre-language).
That was kind of the what I was trying to show, I'm glad I'm not the
only to see it. :)
bpuharic
wrote:
kalkidas has the same view of people that gordon gecko said WASPS do:
he loves animals. he hates people
Dick C.
news:fac01a4e-7a4b-466f...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
My idea is that it is a much elaborated story of how one tribe went
from hunter gatherer to farmer. Moving from the Garden of Eden, where
the people did not have to toil in the fields, to the hard work of
farming.
--
Dick #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@gmail.com
heekster
wrote:
>SortingItOut <eri...@home.com> wrote in
Such an unsubstantiated generality is usually the product of a
malfunctioning mind.
Kermit
> Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:fac01a4e-7a4b-466f...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
<snip>
> > Or insert your own allegory here; I'm easy.
>
> My idea is that it is a much elaborated story of how one tribe went
> from hunter gatherer to farmer. Moving from the Garden of Eden, where
> the people did not have to toil in the fields, to the hard work of
> farming.
Yeah, that makes sense of Cain and Able.
Now, about the Tower of Babel...
<rubs hands together>
>
> --
> �Dick #1349
> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
> safety
> deserve neither liberty nor safety."
> ~Benjamin Franklin
>
> Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
> email: dic...@gmail.com
Kermit
Burkhard
I have wondered about this. If true, would it not be extremely kind
to kill and eat his reincarnated self double quick, so that he has
another go at getting upgraded and need not toil unnecessarily long
as, say, rabbit?
RAM
What do they say? Is it civilized or are they like ASI kind of
loonie.
Give us some flavor of this conversation.
> > and know about their
> > lives,
Tell us about their lives!
bpuharic
wrote:
>Christopher Denney <christoph...@gmail.com> wrote in
>news:9d0d919b-c3c9-4100...@f5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
>
>>>
>>> Animal life is short and violent, filled with terror. It's most
>>> definitely not "paradise".
>>
>> Why would you think they live in terror?
>
>Because, unlike you, I actually talk with them
wow a guy who talks with cockroaches. betcha they have a similar
mentality
and know about their
>lives, and they do not fear me, whereas you most likely pay some butcher
>to kill them so you can taste their flesh and remain insulated and in
>denial about the whole world beyond your small anthropomorphic mental
>fantasy, like a typical soulless vampire.
>
>One thing I can promise you, though: you are going to experience animal
>life for yourself. Perhaps the actual contact with non-anthropomorphic,
>life will do you good.
that's all right. he loves animals
but his religion teaches some people are 'untouchable'. those are
lower than animals.
Christopher Denney
Lol, you have no idea what you are talking about.
My friends growing up called me Dr. Doolittle because I could walk up
to most animals and they wouldn't run.
The real skittish wild ones would typically run at the sight of
humans, but domestic ones don't usually run.
I have approached a wild moose (non-mating season, I'm not that
stupid) to within 10 feet in the Colorado Rockies.
I used to feed squirrels and birds in my yard (when I had one) and the
squirrels would come running if I got out the bag of peanuts and
tossed them out in the yard.
I have also helped to raise a steer that I subsequently ate, twice. I
am not a butcher, so I leave them to their job. I have participated in
the beheading of chickens and other fowl, but I do not hunt. I give
thanks to the animals that I kill, because it hurts nothing to do so.
I do not pray over dead meat, but I am always thankful when I have it.
In general I get along with animals better than most people, I have a
great respect for life and the planet I live on, I do not live under
the delusion that a natural part of the cycle of life is somehow
wrong. Death and dying are are of the cycle, things kill and eat other
things to live, it is not barbaric nor inhuman, it is a part of life.
So please save us your very christian sounding self serving self-
righteousness
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
I'm not sure who the creationists are this month. The first post was
kind of pro-Genesis but in a non-literal way. And specifically OP's
view seems to be that animals don't suffer death, because they don't
understand it or anticipate it. Only humankind committed the sin of
becoming intelligent enough to fear death.
But if this is Christian or Jewish theology, it's a new angle to me -
but that wouldn't be hard.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
I think Buddhists are vegetarians, so presumably the answer is "no".
Anyway, maybe it's easier to be good as a rabbit, and earn your
upgrade, than it is to be good being whatever he'd become next.
Mike Lyle
Sound, very sound. In my own experience, when I kept stock my cattle,
sheep, and pigs went to slaughter calmly, without any sign of fear.
(That's at home or in a small local slaughterhouse: I can't speak for
the industrialised places.) If life in the wild is as horrible as our
fun-Hindu makes out, these animals had the best of it.
--
Mike.
Kalkidas
> Lol, you have no idea what you are talking about.
> My friends growing up called me Dr. Doolittle because I could walk up
> to most animals and they wouldn't run.
> The real skittish wild ones would typically run at the sight of
> humans, but domestic ones don't usually run.
> I have approached a wild moose (non-mating season, I'm not that
> stupid) to within 10 feet in the Colorado Rockies.
> I used to feed squirrels and birds in my yard (when I had one) and the
> squirrels would come running if I got out the bag of peanuts and
> tossed them out in the yard.
> I have also helped to raise a steer that I subsequently ate, twice. I
> am not a butcher, so I leave them to their job. I have participated in
> the beheading of chickens and other fowl, but I do not hunt. I give
> thanks to the animals that I kill, because it hurts nothing to do so.
> I do not pray over dead meat, but I am always thankful when I have it.
> In general I get along with animals better than most people, I have a
> great respect for life and the planet I live on, I do not live under
> the delusion that a natural part of the cycle of life is somehow
> wrong. Death and dying are are of the cycle, things kill and eat other
> things to live, it is not barbaric nor inhuman, it is a part of life.
> So please save us your very christian sounding self serving self-
> righteousness
You're a murderer. Enjoy paying for it.
Christopher Denney
I enjoy eating meat, tough. If I am a murderer, then so are you. Even
if you discount the microscopic.
If, somehow, there is an after life, I will be judged with a clear
conscience; I will not apologize to you or anyone else for being
myself.
bpuharic
wrote:
>
>You're a murderer. Enjoy paying for it.
your religion encourages the degradation of human beings. why are you
complaining?
William Morse
> I was thinking this morning the whole fall of man/Garden of Eden thing
> is a really nice allegory for man's "uplift" from the animal state. I
> know others have brought it up before, but I mean it really shows a
> pretty deep insight on the part of the writers of the bible; that they
> understood the essential "paradise" that animals live in, and how
> attaining intelligence forever ejects us from that simplicity of life.
> We are cursed not only to know our past, but to think about our
> future; that curse is also our blessing, in that with it we exercise
> far more power over our environment than we ever did as "mere animals"
> and we are stuck with it.
> only special brain surgery is likely to send anyone back. Our
> intellect is our punishment for our intellect, that and our huge
> honkin' heads causing great pain to our mothers. It has long been said
> that "ignorance is bliss", we lost the bliss because we lost the
> ignorance; really we lost the capacity for the level of ignorance
> required to attain bliss. (most of us anyway)
>
> It strikes me that the original stories that made up the bible were
> created by fairly intelligent people, who may have had some pretty
> insightful things to say. But it is frequently difficult to see the
> insights through all the mysticism.
>
that humans have the knowledge of good and evil. Cats, for instance,
don't. So it is OK for cats to torment a mouse, but if humans did it the
torment would be a sin. Yes the animals live in the "paradise" of not
having to second-guess their actions in the light of knowledge of good
and evil.
Yours,
Bill Morse
Kent Paul Dolan
> The issue is not whether animals "think" they're
> dying. The issue is that they seek to avoid death.
> They cry out when they're being killed. They
> scream when they're in pain, they cry when their
> children are being killed. They run away from
> predators who would kill and eat them. Etc., etc.,
> etc.,.........
> That's so obvious that I'm surprised to see why
> you would bother to be argumentative about it.
> Or is it that you have to save face by bashing the
> creationist, even if it means coming down on the
> side of the irrational?
So, on the basis that you think animals have the
same anticipation of death as humans do when they
are "deathly ill", does that make it your contention
that the universe hss somehow set up a whole
pantheon of sky pixies, one for each animal species,
and same-imaged deities to sacrifice their first
born offspring to "save" the "souls" of those
animals, the very conclusions some fairly daft
humans come to about their own fears and
anticipations of death?
xanthian.
If I am destined for Hell, I want it to be the Hell
of the amoebas. Just how high and hot a flame does
it take to torment a single celled animal, anyway?
bpuharic
<xant...@well.com> wrote:
>Kalkidas wrote:
>
> > The issue is not whether animals "think" they're
> > dying. The issue is that they seek to avoid death.
> > They cry out when they're being killed. They
> > scream when they're in pain, they cry when their
> > children are being killed. They run away from
> > predators who would kill and eat them. Etc., etc.,
> > etc.,.........
>
> > That's so obvious that I'm surprised to see why
> > you would bother to be argumentative about it.
>
> > Or is it that you have to save face by bashing the
> > creationist, even if it means coming down on the
> > side of the irrational?
>
>So, on the basis that you think animals have the
>same anticipation of death as humans do when they
>are "deathly ill", does that make it your contention
>that the universe hss somehow set up a whole
>pantheon of sky pixies,
that's kind of creationism in a nutshell: pixies
and on that basis they think they know about quantum physics,
relativity, nuclear structure and evolution
which, of course, is entirely logical
Burkhard
> Kalkidas wrote:
>
> �> The issue is not whether animals "think" they're
> �> dying. The issue is that they seek to avoid death.
> �> They cry out when they're being killed. They
> �> scream when they're in pain, they cry when their
> �> children are being killed. They run away from
> �> predators who would kill and eat them. Etc., etc.,
> �> etc.,.........
>
> �> That's so obvious that I'm surprised to see why
> �> you would bother to be argumentative about it.
>
> �> Or is it that you have to save face by bashing the
> �> creationist, even if it means coming down on the
> �> side of the irrational?
>
> So, on the basis that you think animals have the
> same anticipation of death as humans do when they
> are "deathly ill", does that make it your contention
> that the universe hss somehow set up a whole
> pantheon of sky pixies, one for each animal species,
> and same-imaged deities to sacrifice their first
> born offspring to "save" the "souls" of those
> animals, the very conclusions some fairly daft
> humans come to about their own fears and
> anticipations of death?
>
Kalkidas is a bit more sophisticated than that, I think (and please
correct me if I'm wrong K., this is a honest attempt to reconstruct
your position) . If I got him right, he postulates that there is an
eternal object, soul, which survives even if its temporary carrier
dies. So there is no human soul or cow soul, but only a soul which is
sometimes is incorporated in a human and sometimes in a cow. If you
treat in you human form a cow badly, your punishment might well be to
be a cow next time round yourself, and then you can only hope that
someone does not eat you.
Me, I don't quite understand how there can be an object that changes
all its properties and stays still the same, or why if this is the
case I should feel responsible for this "it" when it becomes something
other than me - one of the reasons the Buddhists rejected this idea. I
also have ethical objections, since punishment for something that was
in an important sense not you seems wrong, and ultimately just a
thinly veiled attempt to exculpate the gods by accusing the victims -
of course something we find in similar form in all regimes, see e.g.
Victorian (or neo-con) attitudes to poverty.
Burkhard
Possibly, but how good can you get as a rabbit in the art of seeking
awareness of god I'm unsure. Our rabbits seemed to be a bit
preoccupied in seeking carrots, sex and awareness of owner for
petting. It finally falls apart as far as can see if he really thinks
of this as punishment (which I'd say look suspiciously like a Western
projection) rather the a mere causal chain. If you are reborn as a
rabbit as punishment for not having been good as human, then me eating
your reincarnated self fulfils this punishment and that should count
for, not against me. So tuck into asd many rabbits as you can, the
B***d had it coming!
Kalkidas
2b1354...@a5g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:
Yes. I appreciate your accuracy in stating the Vedic position.
> Me, I don't quite understand how there can be an object that changes
> all its properties and stays still the same, or why if this is the
> case I should feel responsible for this "it" when it becomes something
> other than me - one of the reasons the Buddhists rejected this idea. I
> also have ethical objections, since punishment for something that was
> in an important sense not you seems wrong, and ultimately just a
> thinly veiled attempt to exculpate the gods by accusing the victims -
> of course something we find in similar form in all regimes, see e.g.
> Victorian (or neo-con) attitudes to poverty.
The soul does not change in essence. It is eternally the same conscious
being. But consciousness can have different objects, and it can become
conditioned to identify with those objects. The conditioning is an
accident (in the Aristotelian sense) in that, when the objects of
consciousness change, the conditioning changes.
A soul in a dog's body becomes conditioned to identify itself as a dog.
It is not a dog, but since it perceives through dog senses and dog mind,
and is in the company of dogs, it comes to think of itself as a dog. It
is locked in to dog-consciousness.
There is a lot more to transmigration, of course. But I wanted to address
your objection about the soul changing "all its properties".
jillery
>
> - Show quoted text -
Serious question here. Is it considered a punishment? I was told it
is considered a means to "re-learn" in the your next life what you "un-
learned" in your previous life.
Burkhard
I would agree with you, but Kalkidas used the expression
Kalkidas
eaa2b9...@k9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
Actually, the type of body one receives is due to the state of
consciousness. A man who thinks and lives like an animal is likely to
receive an animal's body in his next life. A man who lives like a saint
is likely to receive a better-than-human body in his next life.
Free will exists. Punishment is corrective, not motivated by hatred.
bpuharic
wrote:
>
>Actually, the type of body one receives is due to the state of
>consciousness. A man who thinks and lives like an animal is likely to
>receive an animal's body in his next life. A man who lives like a saint
>is likely to receive a better-than-human body in his next life.
>
>Free will exists. Punishment is corrective, not motivated by hatred.
and then, of course, his religion has untouchables..
a sorry assed religion if ever was one
Free Lunch
talk.origins:
Are there religions that don't cause problems?
bpuharic
wrote:
none of them do! they're all perfect and have outstanding morals...
and they're willing to tell you so.
jillery
> jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote in news:996e7023-5300-4d84-80b5-
> eaa2b9c7b...@k9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
>
> - Show quoted text -
How is the state of consciousness determined. When is it determined?
Who or what determines it?
Kalkidas
news:b65e5912-1b55-474c...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:
> On Jan 26, 4:02�pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>> jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote in news:996e7023-5300-4d84-80b5-
>> eaa2b9c7b...@k9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
[snip]
>> > Serious question here. �Is it considered a punishment? �I was told
>> > it is considered a means to "re-learn" in the your next life what
>> > you "un- learned" in your previous life.
>>
>> Actually, the type of body one receives is due to the state of
>> consciousness. A man who thinks and lives like an animal is likely to
>> receive an animal's body in his next life. A man who lives like a
>> saint is likely to receive a better-than-human body in his next life.
>>
>> Free will exists. Punishment is corrective, not motivated by hatred.-
>> Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> How is the state of consciousness determined. When is it determined?
> Who or what determines it?
The person's own desires, from his free will, determine his state of
consciousness. We are free agents, but in a limited universe. Therfore,
we are free to desire and act however we want, and there are
consequences.
Burkhard
> Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in news:11bc6fd2-51f5-471d-8435-
> 2b1354099...@a5g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:
And I appreciate it, but it seems to me to still begg the questions.
We are normaly able to distinguish objects because they have different
material properties. I'm not you because I have a different size,
different weight, different memories etc. Now you seem to say that
_all_ these material properties are accidental (as they change through
transmigration) Fine, but this still leaves the question of how we
distinguish different, not-embodied souls. What are the type of
properties a soul has that are not a property of the object it
inhabits? Christians don't have a problem with that, since there is
strictly one soul per person, a person has a fixed life span, fixed
experiences and (some) fixed properties, so souls can be
distinguished.
Hinduism doesn't have this notion, so it needs a different answer.
Yours would need to come up with a new type of individuating property
for souls that is not material. Other answers have been tried in
different schools and traditions, and for the moment I find them more
promising - you can e.g. consider the individual soul as an illusion
too - the ultimate illusion and the one to get rid of is the most
difficult - some versions of buddhism go down that route. Or you can
say that while the soul is real, it is not individuated - all
individual souls are one, atman is brahman, and hence without form,
qualities, or attributes.
Both seem to me to be conseptually sound. but I can't see how your
approach is consistent in claiming both transmigration _and_
individuated souls.
Kermit
One could also see this as allegory for one life. Your behavior now
(not just in moral terms, but other habits of thought, social
relationships, etc.) determines who you will be in the next moment.
More significantly, who you are at twenty largely determines who you
are at twenty five, etc. Live brutishly, and you become a brute. Live
the average life of the Western middle class, and your middle age will
be superficial and ultimately unsatisfying. Life a life of focus, and
you become focused (the Japanese call it cleaning and polishing your
sword). Live a kind and charitable life, focused and calmly
energetic, and you become a Bodhisattva - enlightened before death.
D.T Suzuki said that karma stays at its own level - physical activity
and diet produce physiological changes; fiscal responsibility produces
monetary consequences, spiritual activity yields spiritual rewards.
Those who think that the untouchables are being punished for not being
righteous enough in a previous life are as superficial and
uncharitable as the white Christians of the nineteenth century who
said that punishing black folks was appropriate godly behavior, for
God was angry at them for being the children of Ham. Or something.
Kermit