junglecat

All archaic religions are about two things: prohibitions and sacrifice. Perhaps Jesus forgave his executors from the cross to show us, once and for all, that neither of these are effective for ordering society any longer. You are right! But you didn't read the sub-heading for this category: "We are all godless". You and I obviously don't exist here.

Yes, but to eat the fruit is to know, or to claim knowledge in the ultimate sense and therefore justify doing evil for a greater good. Cain kills Abel to get more of God's love. This is mimetic desire. Cain wants Abel's 'essence' and, tellingly, he founds the first city based on this principle. I would say obedience and disobedience is to know right from wrong in the relative sense. The temptation is to see the fall of man as a breaking of the law of God. The problem is that the law of God only comes after the fall of man, as a result of the fall. Jesus fulfills the law. Jesus took mankind's training wheels off, so to speak. We are now on our own, without the law and without sacrifice to quell violence.

If you're satisfied with an answer that makes no logical sense as it relates to the text, fine. Thanks for your contribution.

The chart you provided says nothing about violent deaths, only population growth. No one is disputing that the population is growing. Find me any statistics that show violent deaths are decreasing from at least the Roman Empire to today. Also, you continue to read right past the Genesis story. You tell us what the story 'feels' like while ignoring the crucial salient points in the story that run counter to your reading of it. "the fruit of the tree of knowledge was revealed wisom, not discovered... it still feels like a story on the level of "do not meddle with the affairs of wizards for you can be made crunchy and smothered in ketchup."" If you don't accept my reading of the story, counter it with your own reading that is backed up by the text. Changing crucial elements of the story is no way to interpret literature.

"Not at all. I based what I said on what I have seen. When people claim I am being judgmental, and when I've seen the term applied to others, it's because that person is judging yet is not perfect. Claiming that someone is imperfect and therefore cannot judge others is an ad hominem attack that does not address claims or conclusions.” The quote from Paul’s letter to the Romans is a related to Jesus’ words in Matthew: 'Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Go ahead, then, and complete what your ancestors started!’ " You're right, it's a deflection, but it's not scapegoating. Scapegoating is the process of transferring sin to a goat and sending it out into the wild to be eaten by a predator.” Yes, scapegoating has it’s roots in Jewish ritual killing. The goat is an innocent victim. The modern meaning of scapegoat is the killing (or driving out of the community) of an innocent victim. We scapegoat the past when we say “we would not have taken part with them in the shedding of the blood of the prophets.” A great example of this phenomenon is that of the modern media. They report of all the evils around the world perpetrated by nation states and terrorist organizations and they always exempt themselves as the guilty party. The truth is that the media is responsible for much of the evil in the world by what they choose to focus on. If it bleeds, it leads. This in turn encourages more and more violence. Nation states and lesser powers want more control. Their aim is not violence for violence sake (although I’m sure that for some this is an end in itself) - the aim is violence to get more power and control. This is ‘eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil”. It’s not simply doing “evil”. It can also be doing “good”. It depends on what one’s Machiavellian strategy calls for. "Violence is not escalating as history progresses. People all around the world live longer, less violent lives on average now than in any prior era.” I’ve heard this idea before. Steven Pinker has done much to promote this idea. The problem is WW2 is at the bottom of his graph. It reminds me of the joke about the man who fell from the top of a 100 story building. As he was passing the 20th floor a man leaned out the window and asked how it was doing. The falling man replied, “So far, so good.” Take your graph back to the industrial revolution or the enlightenment and you have a much different picture. It’s definitely getting more violent. "Claiming I cannot understand something is also an ad hominem attack that does not address what I said. You can say I was incorrect. What I said was that once Adam and Eve learned about good and evil they permanently took on obligation of being good and eschewing evil. They could not have been evil until they knew what it was.” They knew what was right and wrong/good and evil before the fall. God told them explicitly. The story reads that they could not eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It was Satan who told them this was because on that day they would be like gods, deciding for themselves what was ultimately good and evil and not God. God did not tell Adam this because it’s a lie. God tells them that to eat the fruit will lead to death. The issue of power and control is what is destroying our world. I say you don’t understand the story because you miss this central point. It makes all the difference. The story makes no logical sense the way you read it. The media is changing as well! Now nation states condemn and exile individuals that "leak" evidence of their wrongdoing. They say the crime is in the leak of the crime, not the crime itself. Russia is guilty of hacking the DNC and exposing the rigged primary. Julian Asange is guilty of pointing out the governments crime.

No, being judgemental is a way to deflect guilt from oneself and place it squarely on another. It's called scapegoating. We do it with the past. The point is we cannot place blame on the recent past any more than we can place blame on ancient Babylonian or Egyptian culture. We can seek to understand why people did what they did in the past. Of course we should learn from the past. Unfortunately this is what we never do. This is why violence is escalating as history progresses. I think you and Neeel can't understand these things because you equate sin with death. You equate eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil with evil. All this while not believing there is such a thing as evil or good and that death is a natural process. In doing this you miss the point of the story.

I can't thank you enough for your insight. "Such a mind, to remain active, must remain open, remain non-finally-judgemental." I can only think of St. Paul- "You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things." Scapegoating the past is the most prevalent thing we do as humans. Of course we would never do those things today! We are so much more superior! The Jews built monuments to prophets whose bodies they didn't have. What are they saying when they do that? If we were there, we wouldn't have killed them. We all say that and we all kill the prophets.

Can you give me your thoughts on my comparison of the story of the Taoist farmer and the Genesis story of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? I've come to a stalemate with Neeeel and would really like a second opinion.

Of course I don't expect you to agree with me. This is a matter of interpretation. I can certainly see a parallel in the two stories. It's a logical comparison. But you keep repeating yourself. I'll drop it after this post and let you get the last word. I do appreciate you clinging desperately to your view. Still, I would love to hear anyone else chime in.

http://bigthink.com/articles/hyper-rationality

Ok. So you don't see the Taoist story as pointing to the philosophical death. I respectfully disagree. Let it rest.

Excuse me. When you said, "It's not about the stories" I assumed you meant the stories didn't matter. No, I still don't see any logical contradiction. I see both stories as pointing out the philosophical dead end of 'eating the fruit'. It sounds to me as if you're saying the Taoist is not and Genesis is. The Taoist says the changes can never be fathomed, which to me equate to a philosophical dead end in siding with the crowd. The Genesis story is saying the same thing but you disagree because you equate death with 'bad outcome'. Is that right, or have I misconstrued your argument?

How would you define sin as it relates to the Genesis story?

Think about the townspeople who are saying alternately "good fortune" and "bad fortune". In what way can we say that either of their conclusions are a "bad outcome"? They aren't. They are either good or bad. The same applies to Genesis. I really don't understand how you can say the stories don't matter. I would never say that the "death" that results from eating the "fruit" in both stories is equal to one choice, to one half of the tree. It's the tree of good and evil. This is, ironically, the sticking point for you. As a strict rationalist, you can't see the Genesis story as anything but a black and white issue. There is no possibility of a view that paradigmatically transcends man's sense of good and evil. You don't have a problem with the Taoist story because it does not state explicitly that making the relative choice between good and evil leads to a philosophical death. But I can predict your reply. There is really no point in continuing the debate as it will only frustrate both of us. May I suggest we drop it and leave it open to others to chime in. Maybe they can shed a new light on the topic.

Do you or don't you equate evil with death? How do you define these terms as they relate to both stories? Yes, the Taoist story's point is that we can never know the ultimate outcome of any chain of events. The Genesis story is saying the same thing, albeit in positive terms. God clearly says, "don't eat the fruit. it will lead to death" If the farmer follows the crowd and variously mourns and rejoices at each link in the chain/tree, he is lead into a philosophical death. He cuts himself off from the fluidity of outcomes by committing to any particular event as being good or bad.

It’s not a contradiction. It’s the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that God command man not to eat from. It’s a contradiction to think that God is saying it is ‘good’ to not eat the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil- or that it’s ‘evil’ to eat from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God says do not eat the fruit because you will die. Maybe you are assuming death is equivalent to evil?

You are wonderful and I applaud you! Question: When the writer of "The Taoist Farmer" wrote, "Thence, good fortune turns into bad fortune, and bad fortune turns into good fortune. These changes never reach an end, their complexity can never be fathomed." was he suggesting that wisdom was in the townspeople's reaction to the series of events or in the farmer's response?

That's very funny and ironic! I've been lectured over and over again how atheism is not a belief in anything- and rightly so! You are actually saying that "not eating the fruit" is an action. I've heard about C.S. Lewis that when the gun of his argument misfired he would pistol whip his opponent. Thanks for the illustration.

For the Taoist farmer to "eat the fruit" would be for him to agree with the townspeople. It sounds like you are saying the opposite. Is that true or am I reading you wrong? Can you clarify your position?

The Taoist Farmer 道人 近塞上之人有善術者，馬無故亡而入胡，人皆弔之 。其父曰：「此何遽不為福乎！」 Among the people who lived close to the border, there was a man who led a righteous life. Without reason, his horse escaped, and fled into barbarian territory. Everyone pitied him, but the old man said : "what makes you think this is not a good thing?" 居數月，其馬將胡駿馬而歸，人皆賀之。其父曰：「此何遽不能為禍乎！」 Several months later, his horse returned, accompanied by a superb barbarian stallion. Everyone congratulated him. But the old man said: "what makes you think this is cannot be a bad thing?" 家富良馬，其子好騎，墮而折其髀，人皆弔之。其父曰：「此何遽不為福乎！」 The family was richer from a good horse, his son enjoyed riding it. He fell and broke his hip. Everyone pitied him, but the old man said: "what makes you think this is not a good thing!" 居一年，胡人大入塞，丁壯者引弦而戰，近塞之人，死者十九，此獨以跛之故，父子相保 One year later, a large party of barbarians entered the border. All the valid men drew their bows and went to battle. From the people living around the border, nine out of ten died. But just because he was lame, the old man and his son were both spared. 故福之為禍，禍之為福，化不可極，深不可測也。 Thence, good fortune turns into bad fortune, and bad fortune turns into good fortune. These changes never reach an end, their complexity can never be fathomed. The story in Genesis is much like this Taoist story. God instructs man not to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The tree can be thought of as a series of events, choices, and consequences. The Taoist farmer is faced with the same choice. For him, to ‘eat the fruit’ is to decide what is ultimately good and bad. Wisdom is knowing these changes never reach an end and can never be fathomed. Therefore to ‘eat the fruit’ leads to death, philosophically speaking. "Information is not knowledge, Knowledge is not wisdom, Wisdom is not truth, Truth is not beauty, Beauty is not love, Love is not music and Music is THE BEST" -Frank Zappa

Yes, there has been a definite slide into 'progressivism' for a long time. But just in the past year I have seen many younger conservatives gain a voice in the public sphere, Milo, Gavin McInnes, etc- and while they are definitely giving a fresh face to conservativism they are not a homogeneous bunch. This trend is a natural mimetic shift. The important thing to keep in mind is that conservatism is not going to save us. It could easily be that this natural push back could escalate the violence if it is not kept in check with Christian principles. Jesus gave us the best advice on how to avoid runaway violence: Matthew Chapter 5: 38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. He is not advocating masochism. He is warning us of our innate potential for our own violence to get out of hand. When conflicts arise, and they inevitably will, that is the moment when we must drop everything to prevent the violence from escalating. It's not a political program, it's salvation in the broadest anthropological sense. How does this look as boots on the ground? I don't think it necessarily means laying down all arms and being killed. There is a spectrum of aggression and violence. Much of what we confront as aggression is not physical violence and can be diffused by responding with love instead of aggression- no matter how justified our natural response to push back may be. A man who comes across as aggressive has most likely been the victim of abuse himself. Having empathy and understanding of his story can help curb our natural reaction to push back. It sounds simple but it is hard work. This is the most difficult Christian discipline. The good thing is you need not be a Christian to practice it and see immediate benefits in the world. This is why I say the non-aggression principle is not enough to save humanity from it's own violence. Merely refraining from initiating violence will only work if all people do it at the same time. The problem is there is a chain of violence that is as long as the history of culture. The violence has a life of its own at this point. It's the 'image of the beast' that we can't seem to shake. The beast is a phantom, for sure. It's the opposite of the Christian 'holy spirit', the advocate for the defense. It boils down to something Jesus said over and over again, "Love one another."

I love Mozart the man, and his music. I read biographies, critical analyses, musicologists. Ironically, I am fascinated with the imitative aspect of his music as well. I think a large part of his success was his fantastic capacity to imitate. He is a model for me. A musical and cultural hero. It's not necessary for me to have a drive to write better music than Mozart to see that it's mimetic. And he was a very funny and good natured fellow! Current favorites: concerto for two pianos in Eb K365 and the Coronation mass in C. And all his operas are very telling. Although he was not a librettist he had a lot more to do with them than you might think. Sure, there are basic biological reactions to food, but this falls under the category of instinct. You can call it whatever you want but it's a drive that is more or less homogeneous to the species and not particular to the individual. Instinct is important, no doubt, but it is mimetic desire that drives all culture, politics, religion, and yes, even philosophy. I know I would probably get a lot of kick back from some here to suggest there are fashions in philosophy- but there are! Christianity is based on the fundamental revelation of the innocence of the victim. Christ set off a chain of imitations that is changing the entire world. We are at the point in history where many can't even recognize how ingrained this change has become.

Sure, I understand that, but why here on a page that is populated by Christians and anti-statists?

He is funny, isn't he? What is it they say- 'Don't feed the trolls'?

Are the benefits that great? Especially when Jesus warned specifically about not taking oaths? Honestly, I can't see the good in any of this. Why would anyone fight for worthless state granted privileges? If there is some good in all this, please somebody point it out.