Magazine

There are two opposed tendencies in human thought--the tendency to accept the world, and the tendency to reject it. These correspond to the Christian doctrines of the Creation and the Fall.

Accepting the world corresponds to the Creation. It means seeing the world in terms of satisfaction of natural desires and fears, multiplicity, action, and interpreting the whole in terms of the parts. Rejecting the world corresponds to the Fall, and it means seeing the world in terms of denial of natural desires and fears in favor of loftier concerns, unity, inaction, and interpreting things as being part of the All.

Most belief systems don't balance the two tendencies equally. For instance, naturalism and mythology tend toward a Creation-orientation, and Buddhism and Platonism tend toward a Fall-orientation. But balancing the two is desirable, and Catholicism is the very best at balancing them. At least, that's what makes sense to me.

K

Magazine:

What makes you believe that balancing acceptance of the world and rejection of the world is a desirable thing? What does it even mean to say that you have balanced acceptance and rejection of the world? And how does Catholicism balance the two?

Wyz_sub10

What are the "Christian doctrines" of the creation and fall?

I know what the two events are, but I don't think they are "doctrines". I certainly don't agree with your analogy that Creation = satisfaction of natural desires and fears. Obviously, Creation did not allow for satsifaction of natural desires. If it did, man would not have been punished for eating from the tree of life.

As for the Fall, what does the denial of natural desires and fears have to do with "interpreting things as being part of the All"?

I agree with K. Why do you need to balance acceptence and rejection in any case?

Sorry, but I don't get your logic at all. I do not see Creation and Fall as doctrines, and I definitely do not see how they correspond to accpeting or rejecting the world.

IMHO, creation in the bible refers to the need to be loyal and unquestioning to an authority. You have been given rights/freedoms/etc. and in accepting them, you must conform to demands without question. The fall refers to the harsh consequence of not follwing rule 1.

In religious circles, the fall has been used to justify every unfortunate event that happens that followers cannot rationalize a loving god doing. Hence, we are to blame for our misfortune. I certainly cannot see this as abandoning desires in favour of unity and inaction. (and I cannot see how these two relate in any case)

[ September 23, 2002: Message edited by: Wyz_sub10 ]</p>

daemon

I see no correspondence between either of your belief sets and the actual beliefs of anyone, except perhaps yourself. If you want to back up your hypotheticals, you'll need to show more of a linkage.

Keith Russell

Greetings:

I must be immune to these tendencies.

I don't 'accept' or 'reject' the world.

I accept claims which are true, and reject those that are false. In cases where the claim is arbitrary, and can neither be proved true or false, I withhold belief pending additional evidence.

Keith.

Magazine

Creation corresponds to satisfying your natural desires because the natural desires were created to be good. When I explained a Fall orientation, I meant one uncorrected by the Creation tendencies. A Fall orientation denies natural desires in favor of unity and inaction because if the evil of the world is realized, but the goodness of Creation is not, unity and inaction are the logical consequence.

Balancing the Creation and the Fall is good because that's the only way to make an effort to change things for the better. If there is too much acceptance of the world, you will want to keep things the way they are, and that's not always a good thing. Too much rejection of the world makes the effort seem hopeless or pointless.
The Creation and the Fall both explain an aspect of the truth about the world.

I guess what I'm saying is that some people act as if the Creation were true, but not the Fall, some vice versa, but the best course is to affirm both. And Catholicism does the best job of insisting that both are true.

Jobar

Magazine, I want to introduce you to Amos. Amos, Magazine. I am sure you two will have some quite interesting conversations, which no one else here will be able to make head nor tail of.

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000627" target="_blank">Heeeeeeeeeeeeeere's Amos!</a>

[ September 23, 2002: Message edited by: Jobar ]</p>

K

Magazine:

I don't believe in the Creation or the Fall. Where does that put me? I accept the natural world - meaning that I believe the natural world is all there is. I don't believe in objective morality or sin. I still believe in working to make the world a better place for humanity. What could Catholicism possibly offer me to improve my outlook on life?

Amos

Hi Magazine,

Your Creation and Fall are maybe like my Evolution and Involution. In politics they would be called Liberal and Conservative and Catholics do make good Liberals. Above all, Catholics try to remain loyal to both their teachings and to their senses which is quite possible with the confessinals in place.

K, you probably have some warped idea of the Creation and Fall story because the natural world is full of Creation and Fall.

Panta Pei

Jobar is obviously trying to create anti-matter here

As a reformed catholic (aka humanist), let me suggest to any interested readers that these creation/fall, evolution/involution, conservative/liberal, etc. metaphors may also be percieved (by the more analytical) as merely the positive/negative charges found naturally occurring in the cause/effect universe...which we are all a part of.

Shaken...not stirred.



PS ~ ...Amos, ya still got it!