quote:

Sean
I just went through a malware cleansing. The malware left seven ERRORs and one Warning, all of which were cleansed. Then today I tried to open a news file on a new war in Sudan, got a block, but it was because the article was permanently removed.

I am of the belief that our ONE GOD is stronger than the enemy, but that we shall have warfare until all is at peace. Our computer health is the evidence to keep going.
Donald

     I think it best to answer in a different topic since your subject diverges from the thrust Democracy has taken.
     It seems to me that all of us adopt a view of God (and of His enemy) that fits best our private needs. Thus God may be one or many or not exist at all, depending one's personal requirements. If I'm right it would be an error to preach monotheism to a pagan or for a pagan to undermine a monotheist's faith. And atheists should be rewarded for their silence by freedom from believers. After all, whatever God or Gods there be can certainly sort out our minor differences when the time to do so comes. Of course one and all should have the freedom to display their own convictions in a forum for that purpose, such as this one.
Seán

quote:

I am of the belief that our ONE GOD is stronger than the enemy, but that we shall have warfare until all is at peace.

Sean,

Thank you for starting this topic. Donald's statement which I just quoted shows that like most monotheists, and especially fundamentalist Christians, he is a de facto dualist. He asserts that "our ONE GOD is stronger than the enemy..." but based on his previous assertions about "the ONE GOD" and those I've read elsewhere what he really means is "but just barely." I've noticed that so-called Bible-believing Christians ascribe a LOT of power to Satan or the devil or whatever you want to call the force of evil.

Therefore as the second half of his statement indicates, he believes in the inevitability of warfare between the what he considers the forces of good and evil--AND their human representatives. This changes according to the political situation, but the present time it presumably means the adherents of radical Islam. Interestingly enough (but not surprisingly), Islam is also a proselytizing religion. Muslim fundamentalists hold very similar beliefs about the inevitability of conflict between good and evil, and not just conflict but a battle to the death of one or the other.

Donald is of course just as free to believe what he wants as I am to reject it--and despise it. I know you wish I wouldn't insist on my right to openly loathe fundamentalist Christianity, but as a Jew, a Gnostic and a Pagan (since I identify with all three, depending on context) I've been too often cast as "the enemy" to have much tolerance for dualism. If any at all.

--Linda

The beauty of this forum is the inclusion of dissenters, a sort of built-in dualism. :-)

Good point, Linda, about Muslim proselytism. I have watched this in action with my Muslim neighbors down the street, and we remain on speaking terms, as I do with their next door Mormons. Being a neighbor with Muslims, and enjoying choral singing with the Mormons, just illustrates that there can be a common spirit in living.

Yesterday my wife and I viewed the National Geographic DVD on China's lost girls. If I heard right, there are 20 million more boys than girls in China. Many girls in orphanages have found adoption in the U.S. That many boys is more than in all the Allied armies in World War II. It suggests that part of a quiet spirit demands near equality of the sexes, and disorder projects sexual warfare. The earthquakes in China also point out that they affect whoever is there to be affected, so humankind will seed its own destruction. Numbers are important to democracy.

The faith structures in monotheism have already ordered the lives of faith. The many similarities suggest social peace is possible.

Donald

quote:

The faith structures in monotheism have already ordered the lives of faith. The many similarities suggest social peace is possible.

"Social peace," huh? In other words, in the interest of good manners, you'll refrain from telling me I'm destined for eternal hellfire and damnation if I refrain from telling you you're a superstitious, bigoted fool? Excuse me if I am not too impressed with that kind of "tolerance." It's too flimsy and unstable, easily blown away by the next blood libel.

If your beliefs about "the other" are negative you are eventually going to act on them--or you will allow others to act on your behalf, which is how holy wars and jihads get started. In many ways that's much worse, since it authorizes others to do the killing in your name and with your blessing. After all, it's mainly conservative fundamentalist Christians and Jews (Israelis for the most part) beating the war drums for a brand-new war with Iran while we're still embroiled in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Did it ever occur to you not to have an enemy AT ALL? No Satan, no Antichrist, no "fallen angels," etc.

Certainly evil exists and has to be resisted wherever it appears, but is it absolutely necessary to have some person or ethnic group as the embodiment of it? I think Christianity could survive just fine without The Enemy, and so do many liberal Christians.

--Linda

Donald,
     I, too, was intrigued by the apparent contradiction of your claim to monotheism and your assertion that God will win against the Enemy. Logic dictates that a worthy Enemy of God must be godlike too, which plays havoc with the idea of a single God. However, my own rule that everyone's religion is shaped to meet the individual's needs, does not require that religion to accord with the laws of logic. Therefore I do not challenge your assertion, but am hoping you will clarify it.
Seán

Linda,
     As a Jewish Gnostic your monotheism is unquestioned, but as a Pagan it is suspect. Perhaps the brightest moments of of my childhood stemmed from reading stories about the many deities of Olympus and their outrageous behavior. Has modern Paganism been so pruned and plucked that the Goddess is left without companions?
Seán

quote:

Originally posted by Sean:
Linda,
     As a Jewish Gnostic your monotheism is unquestioned, but as a Pagan it is suspect. Perhaps the brightest moments of of my childhood stemmed from reading stories about the many deities of Olympus and their outrageous behavior. Has modern Paganism been so pruned and plucked that the Goddess is left without companions?
Seán

Sean,

This is WAAAAY more complicated than it sounds! First of all, Gnosticism in the traditional Christian heresiologist's view (i.e. Tertullian, Irenaeus, ad nauseum) is considered dualistic, not monotheistic, for reasons I understand but don't sympathize with very much. That isn't the basis for my attraction to Gnosticism, which was basically in spite of the dualism and not because of it.

Different strokes for different folks, though: There are some modern Gnostics who insist that dualism is absolutely essential if you are going to be the genuine article--a real, authentic Gnostic in the original sense. They believe that if you aren't a dualist you might as well call yourself something else, and never mind those of us who find value and meaning in the other aspects of Gnosticism.

In other words, the dualists are the self-proclaimed Gnostic purists, and like all purists they annoy the hell out of those who don't measure up (or down) to their standards. However there is another school of modern Gnosticism that is more monotheistic and in recent decades more "green" than in the old days. They are also a lot less defensive than they used to be. Feuds and flame wars tend to break out between the two factions on a regular basis. Oh, the joys of being an insider! Sometimes I really wish I didn't know about this stuff, although I've been heavily embroiled in it in the past. Nowadays I just try to stay out of it.

I'll have to answer the Paganism part of your question tomorrow because I'm too tired tonight. I've been on the computer too long again.

--Linda

Does "dualism" refer to the belief that Good and Evil are locked in battle? (If that's what it means, it doesn't make much sense to me, either.)

Re "I think Christianity could survive just fine without The Enemy, and so do many liberal Christians."

Somehow I'm left with the impression that the extremist subsets of Christianity are its primary enemy. But what do I know?

Henry

Henry,
     Dualism specifies two deities, one good and the other evil. Combat between them is optional, although to be expected. If Linda corrects me, accept her version. I am but a postulant.
Seán

quote:

Originally posted by Sean:
Henry,
     Dualism specifies two deities, one good and the other evil. Combat between them is optional, although to be expected. If Linda corrects me, accept her version. I am but a postulant.
Seán

Sean,

That's about right, although I'd say conflict between them is inevitable. I'm not an expert, though. I do know that the Zoroastrian (Parsi or Farsi) religion of Persia is supposed to be the classic dualistic religion. I don't know much about it except for the names of the gods--Ahura Mazda is the power of good and Ahriman is the power of evil. But even in that one where the powers are pretty evenly matched, good is supposed to eventually win out, I believe after a horrific Armageddon-like final battle. I haven't had a chance to google it, so don't quote me on that!

--Lindda

Hmm. If they're the ones in charge and are about evenly matched, who or what is it that decides what is "supposed" to happen?

Henry

According to the biblical story, the original hierarchy was God on top, then the angels, and later humanity. Satan, the head of the angels, got power hungry, and God threw him out of the hierarachy of Heaven. He took a third of the angels with him.

The conflict thus never had even sides. This governed the conflict, with God in constant charge, and Satan and fiends jutting in like earthly terrorists. When Satan's brood gets chained, there will be peace on Earth.

This sounds a lot like Islam, where the many deities in the Kaaaba when Mohammed came on the scene were thrown out. The solution of jihad, however, means war has not ceased on planet Earth yet. The pebbles from the pilgrims against the pillars representing Satan during Haj are like democracy, votes against but still needing a force to defeat. Can you believe, there were so many pilgrims the organizers had to build more pillars?

Donald

     Dualism: God/Satan; Good/Evil. Humans seem to dote on opposites. We can't simply metabolize, we must anabolize and metabolize in equal measure, else we'll be ill instead of well. As sure as day and night succeed each other, the young will replace the old. Are these pairings facts or fallacies merely reflecting the binary operation of our brains?
     One cosmic failure to discern an antithesis is for the property of entropy which ensures that every structure, unsupported, eventually will break down completely. I've sometimes wondered why it is that no one postulates an extropy as the countervailing force. Extropy would make explaining, for example, how living creatures can keep growing increasingly complex in their aggregate while they march from an ancient yesterday onward toward forever. Of course individuals, at this moment, still have expiry dates.
Seán

I haven't read the Religion Forum or posted in it in months. Just dropping by to say that I read the comment

quote:

Certainly evil exists

and wanted to mention that it doesn't.

There are behaviors/actions that we can judge to be good or evil. But evil itself does not exist in any sense.

Nor does good exist.

(Although a golden retriever comes close.)

The concepts of good and evil basically are metaphysical concepts. The view that they're embedded somehow in a human body or brain is not valid.

See:

http://www.slate.com/articles/..._say_no_.single.html

for an interesting discussion.

Just sayin'

Carry on.

Jeff

quote:

Dualism: God/Satan; Good/Evil. Humans seem to dote on opposites. We can't simply metabolize, we must anabolize and metabolize in equal measure, else we'll be ill instead of well. As sure as day and night succeed each other, the young will replace the old. Are these pairings facts or fallacies merely reflecting the binary operation of our brains?

Sean,

I think it's very important to make a distinction between dualism and duality, which is not the same thing at all. Dualism refers specifically the opposition of good and evil, and not to the other binaries or polarities, such as male and female, day and night, or as you said anabolism and metabolism, diastole and systole, etc. All of these are seen as complementaries rather than opposites, because that's exactly what they are! Without them life as we know it would be impossible.

Good and evil OTOH are in a class by themselves. Obviously I can't speak for everyone, but I don't think most people see them as complementaries, or if they do it isn't reflected in the world's mythologies. Good and evil are the only pair of opposites seen as irreconcilable opposites, not complementaries like the right and left halves of our brains but in conflict with each other.

It's my personal belief that every religion or philosophy ever invented is an attempt to answer the universal question: Why is everything so fvcked up? All of them are more or less unsuccessful. I gave up looking for the "best" answer to that question a long time ago. Now I just focus on what I consider the least spectacular failures. Dualism is one of the more spectacular ones (as usual in my never-humble opinion) because it's the most simplistic and least interesting, and it also encourages such horrendous projections.

--Linda

quote:

Originally posted by CompGuy:
The concepts of good and evil basically are metaphysical concepts. The view that they're embedded somehow in a human body or brain is not valid.

See:

http://www.slate.com/articles/..._say_no_.single.html

for an interesting discussion.

That link says empathy/lack of empathy is a better description and I agree with that. It also says lack of empathy in psychopathology is a brain thing and I agree with that. They are what they are but we still have to stop them.

For me, angels in Eden includes us in both the past and the future. Before the return to Eden we seem to be getting more polarized as both those with empathy (STO Service to Others) and those without empathy (STS Service to Self) are acting with more urgency. This all goes in cycles even long before the return to Eden. Solar system and human experience cycles are kind of lining up to hopefully undo what was done when the cycles produced the Fall. It's all a natural Golden Age cycle thing.

Us being polarized and close to returning to Eden hints at Angels being polarized too. Us humans almost completely are as Gurdjieff (and Jeff) said, mechanical creatures. To awaken is kind of to balance thought/emotions/body such that you connect to your higher centers. Eden is an easier physics for this and will likely produce a decent number of low level angels. Eventually you get physical as well as psychic evolution/control of your self. At the highest level there is only empathy to the point where they are only advisors (mainly for lower level angels with empathy).

Sean

LOL

The failure of that magnificent piece is the postulation of equality. Mankind progresses until we are no more. Day and night have many more days and nights ahead of them.

Entropy is a state, the tendency of things to remain in their present state. I like to believe that religion at its best has people living and working at the state that gives them maximum life, barring severe accidents and/or illness. I also believe it comes with a God attached, who is able to provide when necessary.
I don't see God being used in the OCCUPY rebellion.
Donald

quote:

Entropy is a state, the tendency of things to remain in their present state.

Nope--just the opposite. Entropy is the tendency of things to go from order to disorder. Entropy is only constant in a completely isolated system, and completely isolated systems do not exist in reality.

Jeff

Jeff,
Re good and evil—
     The neuroscientific article you cite is interesting, although a trifle costive. I note the author ends by sanctioning usage of the words for lack of better currency. I do that myself sometimes: Surcharges I describe as purely evil things, while discounts I deem good. I suppose the sellers see it just the other way around, but they are less enlightened.
Seán

quote:

I think it's very important to make a distinction between dualism and duality,...—Raksha

Linda,
     I must quibble: Is not dualism a duality? Otherwise, I willingly concede the points you're making. At the level of religion the Good/Evil pairing is indeed unique; we have no objective way to sort the immaterial.
Seán

quote:

Entropy is a state, the tendency of things to remain in their present state.—EQ

Donald,
     Jeff is right about entropy; the property you refer to is called inertia. As for Satan and his minions, I can't fathom why God would make or tolerate entities hostile to His plan.
Seán

quote:

Originally posted by bluelamp:

quote:

Originally posted by CompGuy:
The concepts of good and evil basically are metaphysical concepts. The view that they're embedded somehow in a human body or brain is not valid.

See:

http://www.slate.com/articles/..._say_no_.single.html

for an interesting discussion.

That link says empathy/lack of empathy is a better description and I agree with that. It also says lack of empathy in psychopathology is a brain thing and I agree with that. They are what they are but we still have to stop them.

Bluelamp,

This is the paragraph that jumped off the screen at me:

quote:

And so evil for Baron-Cohen is just "zero degrees of empathy." And I’m left with the nonempathetic feeling that his boast that he is "replacing" evil with nonempathy is more a semantic trick than a scientific discovery. It’s another instance of what one of the authors in an important collection of academic papers from MIT Press called Neuroethics, calls "Brain Overclaim Syndrome."

My emphasis. That said, though, I don't totally disagree with the semantic trick, since lack of empathy is the defining characteristic of the whole sociopathic range of bad people, from the garden-variety narcissist to the full-blown psychopath.

Another observation: Did you happen to notice that nobody including the neuroscientists, considers sociopathy or lack of empathy as anything but a pathology? That goes along with my theory that there is probably a higher consensus on what constitutes good and evil than on any other metaphysical construct (and I agree that's what it is), including the existence of God. What was the promised "gift" of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, after all?

--Linda

quote:

...humans almost completely are as Gurdjieff (and Jeff) said, mechanical creatures.—Bluelamp

     The only members of the cosmic populace you speak of, with objective evidence confirming their existence, are the humans. I tend to avoid adding other beings to the pot until their presence is required to explain demonstrated facts. Otherwise there is great danger of falling into error. If there is, as you suggest, to be a return to Eden, I suspect humankind will cause it, using sweat and cerebration, with no outside help whatever.
     Do you find my thinking flawed?
Seán

quote:

Originally posted by Sean:

quote:

I think it's very important to make a distinction between dualism and duality,...—Raksha

Linda,
     I must quibble: Is not dualism a duality? Otherwise, I willingly concede the points you're making. At the level of religion the Good/Evil pairing is indeed unique; we have no objective way to sort the immaterial.
Seán

Well the duality can spring from the One:

http://cassiopedia.org/glossar..._and_Service_to_Self

The concepts of service to others (STO) and service to self (STS) are the central cornerstone of the teaching of first Ra and then Cassiopaea. We find these same fundamentals expressed in different terms throughout esoteric culture... Cosmologically, the Cassiopaeans speak of 'dual emergence' from the One. This is the source of all which is and this is where the first duality comes into being. The principle of free will, at its various levels of manifestation, mediates between these. This can be compared to Gurdjieff's first triad, the Sun Absolute dividing in three at the start of the ray of creation. In the most abstract sense, the existence of two dissimilar forces or tendencies plus free will is the simplest basis for an open universe. All the forms of creation follow from these, through a series of increasingly restricted or mechanical levels of being. These levels correspond to the densities of Ra and Cassiopaea or the cosmoses of the 4th Way.