K

Amos and/or Magazine,

There's a huge difference between creation and the Creation and between fall and the Fall. Please explain how the ability to observe natural creation means that one accepts the world. Also, how does perception of natural fall lead one to the rejection of the world?

Nature is filled with examples of ebbs and flows, waxing and waning, creation and annihilation. I don't deny that. What I question is how these observed phenomena imply the correctness of Catholicism - or any theism for that matter.

Amos

Oh but K, the Church is crammed with pradoxes and controversy. The Church has always tried to submerge its members into the division between good and evil, pleasure and pain, poverty and richess, male and female, East and West, Heaven and hell, and every other division you can think of. Heck even the design in architecture serves to present this message and I am now thinking about the distinct difference between the "Madeleine" and "Nothre Dame" in Paris.

The Creation and Fall of the Bible tell of how we are divided between our own God identity and our ego identity as found in the 'shame-no shame' dichotomy of Gen.2:25 and Gen.3:7. This second identity was created after Lord God placed the first 'dam' as an obstacle (the first "thou shalt not") before us to which we responded and became an 'Adam' in our second nature. In this second nature we are isolated from our first nature and it is between these two natures that "natural creation" is possible for the obvious reason that without division neither chaos nor harmony can be conceived to exist.

Our second nature is our human nature and the prefix -hu is added to 'man' to isolate our earthliness as 'human' while at the same time it indicates that man without the -hu is a heavenly creature (if you allow me to posite heaven opposite to earth).

Neither acceptance of the world (as in Naturalism or Existentialism), nor in denial of the world (as in Conservativism or Puritanism) can solve this paradox beteen our two natures but according to the Church it must be exhausted in the confrontation between these two. That the possibility to be successfull exist is obvious from the fact that our ego identity is only a product of our imagination and therefore can be annihilated (or raptured if you prefer). As a side note, based on this must we condemn suicide as an act of cowardice in that we kill the wrong identity.

I hope that this is what you were looking for, and I should add here that Catholicism is a religion for sinners and not for self proclaimed Christians.

Do you realize that the word "phenomena" rieks with oblivion and if the church is Infallible there better be no oblivion?

[ September 24, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

K

Amos:

I can never tell if you're serious or not. I'll assume that you are. If you're not, I guess the jokes on me for attempting to continue the conversation.

Anyway, your position seems to be to presuppose the dual spiritual/physical nature of humanity and the existence of the Christian God. From there you proceed to show that the teachings of the Church can be used to explain these things. I'll pull out what I believe to be the salient points of your post. Please correct any fallacious simplifications or misunderstandings.

1. The Church teachings are rife with examples of divisions and paradoxes in the world and our nature.

2. Our nature is a paradox because the Church says it is (see 1.).

3. Using the teachings of the Church, we can be successful in dealing with the paradox in our lives (because of 1. and 2.).

This seems extremely circular to me.

I see perfectly consistent and useful explanations for the struggle between good and evil in purely naturalistic explanations. They require no doctrines of the Creation and the Fall.

Amos

Yes I am seriuos, rest assured.

2)It is becausewe are divided in our own nature that the Church says we are divivded.

3)It is not good enough to deal with the paradox because that would indicate that we must live with it. The paradox can be resolved and that is the aim of the Church.

The consolation to the paradox of life is to be found in the philosophic mind and not just in a philosophy we have in mind.

[ September 24, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

K

Amos:

So, to restate with your corrections.

1. The Church teachings are rife with examples of divisions and paradoxes in the world and our nature.

2. It is because we are divided in our own nature that the Church says we are divided.

3. It is not good enough to deal with the paradox because that would indicate that we must live with it. The paradox can be resolved and that is the aim of the Church.

Given this line of reasoning, I would ask the following. How do we know that we are divided between Heaven and earth if we aren't using the teachings of the Church? Why is it undesirable to live with the paradox? How does the Church aim to resolve the paradox? What is wrong with naturalistic explanations of our desires and behaviors if they can account for all of our actions?

Amos

Because we are divided in our own mind between our conscious and subconscious mind. Since we cannot make our own subconscius mind make the subject of our inquiry it is inspiration (illumination) that always tells of this unknown source of wisdom the Church calls God.

The paradox is very good prior to midlife. The paradox creates unrest in our own conscious mind and is what motivates us towards different goals. After midlife it is best if this paradox is resolved so old men won't have dreams and don't suffer during old age (it's cheaper for health care too).

To resolve the paradox is the mystery of faith and only and all mystery religions are aware of this (each their own) "way" to self liberation. Since our faculty of reason must be annihilated it can never be a rational action or even pursued by our faculty of reason.

There is nothing wrong with rational explanations except that they are never explained by the scientist in view of the entire perspective of the human condition and social environment beyond that. I am sure that we have enough science together to explain why things are the way they are but it would just be better if we could change the future and avoid problems before they arise. I believe that this is how and why civilizations rise and fall and is why the mythology is for the survival and prosperity of the tribe.

Jobar

Jobar huddles in his deeply buried laboratory, cackling gleefully, pressing buttons

Amos

But Magazine was right in his observation and the Catholic Church is right in their ideas about salvation. In the end nothing else matters.

Panta Pei

...and since the paradox is real and perpetually subject to conscious contemplation...where they are right they are also wrong.



Damn...I think I'm getting the hang of this!

Jobar

Originally posted by Amos:
Because we are divided in our own mind between our conscious and subconscious mind. Since we cannot make our own subconscius mind make the subject of our inquiry it is inspiration (illumination) that always tells of this unknown source of wisdom the Church calls God.

But we can do this, Amos. All our studies of the mind reveal it to be firmly grounded and inseparable from the physical universe around us. We are not apart from it. All the divisions we make are temporary and changeable. If you want to call this illumination God, fine; but it may just as well be called science, or consciousness, or philosophy. I personally think that as long as one realizes it is *not* separate from ones own self, it is illuminating whatever it's named.

The paradox is very good prior to midlife. The paradox creates unrest in our own conscious mind and is what motivates us towards different goals. After midlife it is best if this paradox is resolved so old men won't have dreams and don't suffer during old age (it's cheaper for health care too).

But the paradox is always artificial. Some see this early in life, and, relaxing, play the game of life-and-death more freely and joyfully. Some never see it, and may suffer from clutching at life and fearing death right up to their graves. Yes, age and experience often brings wisdom, but this is certainly not guaranteed! Wisdom cannot be taught; it must be learned.

To resolve the paradox *is* the mystery of faith and only and all mystery religions are aware of this (each their own) "way" to self liberation. Since our faculty of reason must be annihilated it can never be a rational action or even pursued by our faculty of reason.

Yes to the first sentence, but NO to the second! Reason can also serve as a path to wisdom- in fact it is the path I have walked, and still walk. Our reason must overcome the mistake of putting itself above all; it's not "I think, therefore I am" but rather "I am, therefore I think." Once this is done, and our rational mind recognizes itself to be a part of nature and not a ruler over it, we no longer must grasp and strain for our ideas; instead they may come naturally, and unstrained.

There is nothing wrong with rational explanations except that they are never explained by the scientist in view of the entire perspective of the human condition and social environment beyond that. I am sure that we have enough science together to explain why things are the way they are but it would just be better if we could change the future and avoid problems before they arise. I believe that this is how and why civilizations rise and fall and is why the mythology is for the survival and prosperity of the tribe.

All right, but you can as meaningfully replace 'the mythology' with 'science', and 'the tribe' with 'humankind'!

[ September 25, 2002: Message edited by: Jobar ]</p>