Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Nick_A]

Where did this idea that Man is evil come from? How is the body evil?

I promise that I'll post a more complete response later, Nick, but I'll have to keep this one short for now. The idea that Man is evil, from my knowledge, comes from Romans as well; just a few chapters before what you were quoting:

Romans 3:23 [(a), I believe]
For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God

This verse tells me that all men are evil because of the nature of original sin. Am I mistaken?

Hi WS. Looking forward to your responses

Original sin is only that which denies Man's inner unity and keeps us living as a plurality. Man is dual natured. We have an animal part like a dog or a horse and also have the beginnings of a supernatural part or that which gives access to higher consciousnes and allows for our awareness of higher consciousnes. The connection between these two levels of reality which is in the emotions have become tainted with all sorts of negative emotions we are not born with but rather acquire from those around us and culture in general.

Christianity is about healing the connection and allowing the heart to function as it should for connecting "quality" of "being"

We accept mechanical evolution. But for Man, his evolution doesn't stop with mechanical bodily evolution of life on earth but rather continues into conscious evolution. This requires the healed heart to support our striving for consciousness.

If a person falls and breaks their hip and cannot walk, it doesn't make them evil. All it means is that their hip must heal for them to be right again. We have a fractured heart that denies us consciousness. It doesn't make us evil but rather requires healing with the help of already existing higher consciousness.

[whitetrshsoldier]

We have a fractured heart that denies us consciousness. It doesn't make us evil but rather requires healing with the help of already existing higher consciousness.

I think Ayn Rand's [and my] argument is that he is the one who created this all in the first place.

Let me clarify a bit. Imagine that somebody did create religion. They're essentially telling us that a god creates us. This god had a higher consciousness, omniscience, and omnipotence. He could have made us perfect and left us without the burden of temptation. He could also have cured us of this fractured heart from the very beginning.

Why do we require healing and help of a higher consciousness if this highest of beings created us in his image in the first place?

I think this is why Rand argued that religion was a farce, and that it was the ultimate trick played on mankind. Remember this ...

Look a little deeper, and you might see that this (religion) is a system of dependence. Throughout the history of man, dominant factions have always created new, unique ways to force portions of the population to become dependent upon them in order to maintain power.

Kings have done it by utilizing brute force. Governments through laws and the threat of imprisonment. Parents through guilt and minor punishment.

But religions have done this through the threat of eternal damnation - Which is genius, if you think about it, because it's probably the most powerful emotional control ever devised.

What do you think? How could a higher consciousness create us in his likeliness and then require us to turn to him for healing?

[Nick_A]

Hi Whitesoldier

First let me say that I appreciate your attitude. Whenever someone like me brings up the esoteric side of religion either in the secular Interfaith or atheist mindset, I've found through experience that it is not well received and usually met with open antagonism. You seem to be open minded with your question rather than just wanting to condemn.

First let me say that though Man was a cosmological creation, man on earth was a deliberate intention. That is why it is written that God created the days in Genesis and the LORD God refers to man on earth. This means for me that God is outside of time and space and LORD god including levels of consciousness exist within the confines of time and space.

Secondly, it is often assumed that the universe was created for Man but I believe that Man is a creation to serve the universe.

We know that the universe is a wonderful living machine within which everything is connected and science seeks to learn the laws that maintain it. However, the question is what it is for. From a theological perspective God is "I AM." But why does I need AM? That question isn't relevant here yet unless there was interest in it but if God does need Creation, its purpose isn't to serve us since we are so insignificant within it. Common sense says that we are to serve it.

The Bible asserts that Man was to serve in the garden with the potential for more but was not yet ready. Man was needed by Creation for a specific cosmic need so his conscious evolution and the awareness of his position within cosmological structure which would be revealed by the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil had to be temporarily prevented. This prevention lead to the fractured heart. Without conscious awareness that nourishes the heart, we rely on imagination which collectively creates our egotism based on imagination that denies the heart.

The human condition is what it is because of ingrained habit that prevents awakening to human potential defined in Christianity as re-birth. So man on earth is a devolution of Man but with the potential to regain what was lost due to serving a cosmic need.

We can build a plate. It can be dropped and split into many pieces. They are both the plate accept the plate as a whole is of a greater "quality" then when it is in pieces. This is the human condition. We exist in parts with the conscious potential for wholeness or conscious inner unity.

The origin of Man on earth was inner unity. Cosmic conditions caused a division into "parts" for each individual human being but these conditions no longer exist. All conscious help from above whether in the form of Jesus, Buddha, or whatever else had the intention of awakening Man to the human condition and what is lost by ignoring it being content in imagination.

"A man found an eagle's egg and put it in a nest of a barnyard hen. The eaglet hatched with the brood of chicks and grew up with them. All his life the eagle did what the barnyard chicks did, thinking he was a barnyard chicken. He scratched the earth for worms and insects. He clucked and cackled. And he would thrash his wings and fly a few feet into the air.

Years passed and the eagle grew very old. One day he saw a magnificent bird above him in the cloudless sky. It glided in graceful majesty among the powerful wind currents, with scarcely a beat on his strong golden wings. The old eagle looked up in awe. "Who's that?" he asked. "That's the eagle, the king of the birds," said his neighbor. "He belongs to the sky. We belong to the earth - we're chickens." So the eagle lived and died a chicken, for that's what he thought he was."

Anthony de Mello
(1931-1987) Jesuit Priest

Cosmic necessity, part of working in the garden, needed man's influence on earth represented here by the barnyard. However, Man has the potential for a perspective and purpose beyond the conception of life in the barnyard that our heart is called to and is now free to pursue. But our habits and attachments that are so much a part of our lives do not allow it. This is the human condition and not the intention of any personal God but rather what was necessary for the living machine with some unfortunate complications.

[whitetrshsoldier]

From a theological perspective God is "I AM." But why does I need AM? That question isn't relevant here yet unless there was interest in it but if God does need Creation, its purpose isn't to serve us since we are so insignificant within it. Common sense says that we are to serve it.

First is the religious justification for man's "manifest destiny" to rule over the earth, and why we are not meant to serve it.

Genesis 1:26-31
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. 28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." 29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so. 31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

Now common sense. You said "if god needs creation". Does he? If he really is omnipotent, which I would expect any god to be, I would say no. This would refute your argument that we are required to serve the earth.

The Bible asserts that Man was to serve in the garden with the potential for more but was not yet ready. Man was needed by Creation for a specific cosmic need so his conscious evolution and the awareness of his position within cosmological structure which would be revealed by the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil had to be temporarily prevented. This prevention lead to the fractured heart. Without conscious awareness that nourishes the heart, we rely on imagination which collectively creates our egotism based on imagination that denies the heart.

If we weren't ready, why did god create us? Pardon my very inappropriate and childish humor, but was this premature appropriation? This furthers my assertion, I believe, that the bible seems to imply that god needs us. This seems in my mind to defeat his omnipotence; does an all-powerful god rely on his own imperfect creation for solace?

The human condition is what it is because of ingrained habit that prevents awakening to human potential defined in Christianity as re-birth. So man on earth is a devolution of Man but with the potential to regain what was lost due to serving a cosmic need.

The cosmic need created, presumably, by an impatient god who created a being he knew to be incapable of living up to his intended purpose for them.

The origin of Man on earth was inner unity. Cosmic conditions caused a division into "parts" for each individual human being but these conditions no longer exist. All conscious help from above whether in the form of Jesus, Buddha, or whatever else had the intention of awakening Man to the human condition and what is lost by ignoring it being content in imagination.

But who created these "cosmic conditions"? This is Rand's assertion. We're supposed to believe that a benevolent god established these unfair rules, and put us here with this unfair advantage, but still loves us and wants us to sacrifice our lives and turn to him for mercy? Doesn't seem imprudent in the slightest?

This is the human condition and not the intention of any personal God but rather what was necessary for the living machine with some unfortunate complications.

This is why she damns the "human condition" as a creation of man. If god had created all, wouldn't he be responsible for the result of his actions? If I have a child, whether intentionally or not, am I not held accountable for it?

If god really existed, and was as benevolent as the bible describes him, would he really have been so reckless in his creation?

[whitetrshsoldier]

P.S.

I apologize if that reply seemed rather combative. I'm pretty passionate about this topic, as I hold religion partly responsible for my childhood anxiety and guilt. Please accept my comments as logical and rational, and understand that I don't intend any insult or injury.

I also very much appreciate your open-mindedness and acceptance of my critique of the bible and chrisitianity. It really allows me to check myself, to see if my contempt/disavowance of christian dogma is valid, and also affords me the opportunity to hear a logical rebuttal of my points, instead of the usual "you just have to have faith" response that I normally get from my family and other christians I know.

[Nick_A]

P.S.

I apologize if that reply seemed rather combative. I'm pretty passionate about this topic, as I hold religion partly responsible for my childhood anxiety and guilt. Please accept my comments as logical and rational, and understand that I don't intend any insult or injury.

I also very much appreciate your open-mindedness and acceptance of my critique of the bible and chrisitianity. It really allows me to check myself, to see if my contempt/disavowance of christian dogma is valid, and also affords me the opportunity to hear a logical rebuttal of my points, instead of the usual "you just have to have faith" response that I normally get from my family and other christians I know.

Well we're off to a good start. We don't have any animosity towards each other so don't feel the need to condemn. So I'll toast you with a shot of fine scotch and to our efforts towards understanding.

I've also had some hard times due to the effects of Christendom, a word I stole from Kierkegaard, that refers to man made Christianity. But for whatever reason I retained my interest in the deep philosophical questions like "Who am I" and "Why am I here" for example.

I was fortunate to stumble upon one of the best kept secrets in the West which is "Esoteric Christianity." I believe it is a Perennial tradition meaning it always was. Christ just actualized it. Often people are surprised to read this but it was always known

To conclude, the great Christian theologian, Saint Augustine in his Retractiones, wrote “The very thing which is now called the Christian religion existed among the ancients also, nor was it wanting from the inception of the human race until the coming of Christ in the flesh, at which point the true religion, which was already in existence, began to be called Christian.”

Naturally it devolved into all the sects we know of that dominate society. Anyhow, here is a superficial description of "Esoteric Christianity." It is far deeper but you'll at least get the basic idea and why the personal god is not necessary for it. In fact it was primarily through the adoption of the Hebrew God and becoming Rome's state religion that Christianity became its opposite. Instead of the intent to abandon the psychological need for power for the sake of re-birth, Christendom became a religion of power.

http://www.katinkahesselink.net/christi ... ianity.htm

Christendom became the secular religion normal for levels 1- 3. Level 4 is when a person becomes able to experience the value of Christianity and what is meant by acquiring new eyes and ears. It is only then when a person can develop their "being." in a balanced fashion leading to levels 5-7.

But this personal God became a part of Christendom and I believe people have been suffering for it ever since.

So when conversing with me, you will get a different take on Christianity which I believe to be more genuine and explains a great deal of things that do not make sense at least for me without its perspective.

[Nick_A]

Hi Whitesoldier

First is the religious justification for man's "manifest destiny" to rule over the earth, and why we are not meant to serve it.

Man is dual natured. He has the physical part normal for any animal and also a supernatural part, a seed, that makes possible the evolutionary results of conscious evolution..

The human condition has turned us upside down. Where consciousness should rule over the mechanics of our bodily reactions or the earth, our body and its acquired modes of reaction rule our higher parts. This is why it is said that man lacks consciousness. Consciousness and will could allow our body to serve us and a human higher perspective rather than us serving the body and our acquired thoughts and reactive emotions that deny consciousness. The Bible is just expressing the initial intent before the fall where things began to be turned around.

Now common sense. You said "if god needs creation". Does he? If he really is omnipotent, which I would expect any god to be, I would say no. This would refute your argument that we are required to serve the earth.

Our animal part serves the earth just as does any other aspect of organic life on earth. What does it do? It eats itself sustaining what we call the balance of nature where plants and animals consume other plants and animals. Organic life eats itself and collectively serves the purpose of transforming substances. Take away our lofty opinions of ourselves and what do we objectively do? We transform substances through our bodily processes as does the rest of organic life.

Why conscious potential or consciousness without contents needs contents of consciousness or "creation" is another question outside of this thread.

If we weren't ready, why did god create us? Pardon my very inappropriate and childish humor, but was this premature appropriation? This furthers my assertion, I believe, that the bible seems to imply that god needs us. This seems in my mind to defeat his omnipotence; does an all-powerful god rely on his own imperfect creation for solace?

You are assuming God created man on earth. I am suggesting that man on earth is a creation of consciousness WITHIN creation (LORD God) and not OUTSIDE of creation from its source.

Consider the universe as a large company. The head which you never see is away. At the top levels we have the infinity of galaxies. Each galaxy has a virtual infinity of suns and many suns have planets and many planets have moons.

Our earth is smaller than a quantum particle in the context of this enormity. The earth is simply not that important to warrant any more then the potential conscious connection to higher consciousness appropriate to its level.

Again it must seem odd that the earth sustains life in a way that seems unnatural to the rest of the universe around it. This I believe to be what was necessary to fix a cosmic problem it would be hard to go into now.

The cosmic need created, presumably, by an impatient god who created a being he knew to be incapable of living up to his intended purpose for them.

Cosmic needs are cosmic needs. it wasn't an impatient God that did anything but higher consciousness corrected a problem. The point is that man was capable of being as intended. I am suggesting that his energies required another use for a temporary time rather then living up to his "being" potential.

But who created these "cosmic conditions"? This is Rand's assertion. We're supposed to believe that a benevolent god established these unfair rules, and put us here with this unfair advantage, but still loves us and wants us to sacrifice our lives and turn to him for mercy? Doesn't seem imprudent in the slightest?

Here I agree with you and Rand. This isn't a matter of a benevolent God but just fixing a problem that required Man's temporary involuntary sacrifice. Now that this sacrifice is no longer necessary the "Ways" including Christianity provide paths normal for different types of people to awaken to the human condition within Plato's cave and strive to leave these psychological confines.

Creation has to include friction so as to continue. This friction Buddha called suffering.

One of the most popular books on Simone Weil is called "Gravity and Grace." It consists of a collection of her writings. She coined the expression gravity and grace to explain two universal pulls. One is gravity and pulls matteriality further into creation and a necessary part of the vertical process of creation. She is using gravity in a different way then the usual. The attraction of Grace is what allows for the help necessary for evolution or the vertical direction of "being" back towards the source.

Christianity is becoming able to open to grace through the conscious willingness to become open to experience the human condition within ourselves.

When Rand denies Christianity she is rebelling against Christendom and its personal God. But this isn't Christianity.

My concern is that so many do not realize that they are throwing the baby out with the bathwater having acquired their understandable negative reactions towards religion.

[Burning Giraffe]

I do think the arguments made in Atlas Shrugged are often relatively weak and more like preaching and unbacked asserting than well-developed philosophical arguments.

However, I think she does a good job of painting a picture of how putting the principles she supports in practice would work and how it will benefit humankind. Similarly, she paints a picture of what she dislikes about the principles she opposes and the way society is run.

Specifically, I think she does a great job at showing the way that political freedom leads to socioeconomic prosperity and the way that slavery and routine government bailouts can economically hurt almost everyone by undermining people's work ethic and by allowing corruption. By allowing corruption, I mean the people given major governmental power to supposedly help others and bailout people in need of welfare tend to actually use the power for self-serving purposes.

What do you think of Atlas Shrugged and the philosophical ideas in it?

Feel free to post any short excerpts or quotes from the book that you especially like. Also, please post any questions you have for the group about the book.

Thanks,
Scott

I have read Atlas Shrugged five times (the last being when I read it to me wife last year). So it is still fresh in my mind. It is important to remember that this is a work of fiction, with the exception of the lengthy Galt speech, it was intended to demonstrate principles by analogy, by inference. It was not a deductive treatise.

That said, I adore Ayn Rand, as I adore Nietzsche and Hume, Aristotle, Smith, and Locke. I love any thinker that loosens themselves from the herd instinct, the cleverly designed social platitudes, and the mob-mentality that seems to motivate so much philosophical balderdash.

Three points on Rand's work in Atlas Shrugged. I am a Christian and I, nearly, totally agree with everything she has to say about the faults of religion. I guess you could call me a reluctant Christian. Secondly, the morality she presumed was a bit cold, colorless, and hard. The world needs a passionate morality. Otherwise, only the devout disciples of any moral system will be able to follow it. Thirdly, her political ideals are only possible in a strict constitutional republic, where politicians simply lack the power to help social groups, economic classes, corporations, or PACs. The inherent corruption within Democracy makes her political philosophy irrelevant. The two cannot coexist.

[Burning Giraffe]

I wonder if I told John Galt that I was a capitalistic Christian, if he would let me join his merry band----or would he just say: "Take a hike, God Boy!" And THIS guy is held up as the hero.....don't get it.

I would say no. I think they would attempt to discuss the matter with you, since their view on religion was that it was solely a control created to manipulate human emotions. But, as a good Christian, I think the same would be true in reciprocate; you would most likely make an attempt to influence them.

The main belief is that everything has to be analyzed using objective reasoning, and I think the prevalence of objectivists SHOULD acknowledge that healthy debate regarding any subject, including religion/morality/etc., is vital to maintaining freedom and liberty.

That being said, her views on morality and relationships were extremely warped. Not sure if you all knew this or if it really matters, but she did have an affair with a young man later in her life, with her husband's consent, who eventually cheated on her, which broke her heart. Maybe this was an expression of some insecurity she had with her own feelings?

Not all forms of Christianity are incompatible with Rand's Objectivism. Religion has been as abusive and vicious as Government, and we all ought to be a bit weary of it. However, like the Asatru, Ayn Rand had a real problem dealing with the insecurities and realities of love. She simply couldn't wrap her mind around how something that makes Man so dependent and compromising could be a good thing. Only, she didn't understand that while love may make us dependent and compromising, it is an act of sheer will to do so. To want another persons happiness as much as our own is the most difficult thing to really do.

First, to want another person's happiness, you have to really KNOW the other person, because what makes them happy may very likely be different from what makes us happy. Secondly, you have to learn to think differently. Not just how will "X" affect me, or how will "X" affect us... but how will "X" affect her? You have to think in terms of both of you. And Rand was simply too passionate about the dangers of selflessness that the idea of real, romantic love was a problem. If only she would have realized that loving another human being isn't selfless.

[anarchyisbliss]

I just started Atlas Shrugged. So far it's okay. I really enjoy her writing style and the dialogue and flashbacks, but I made a big mistake that I hope I never make again. I did some research on objectivism and found out that I disagree completely with it, which is making me want to not even finish the book because I know that I disagree with her. But I guess I'll finish it just to be open minded.

[whitetrshsoldier]

I would say no. I think they would attempt to discuss the matter with you, since their view on religion was that it was solely a control created to manipulate human emotions. But, as a good Christian, I think the same would be true in reciprocate; you would most likely make an attempt to influence them.

The main belief is that everything has to be analyzed using objective reasoning, and I think the prevalence of objectivists SHOULD acknowledge that healthy debate regarding any subject, including religion/morality/etc., is vital to maintaining freedom and liberty.

That being said, her views on morality and relationships were extremely warped. Not sure if you all knew this or if it really matters, but she did have an affair with a young man later in her life, with her husband's consent, who eventually cheated on her, which broke her heart. Maybe this was an expression of some insecurity she had with her own feelings?

Not all forms of Christianity are incompatible with Rand's Objectivism. Religion has been as abusive and vicious as Government, and we all ought to be a bit weary of it. However, like the Asatru, Ayn Rand had a real problem dealing with the insecurities and realities of love. She simply couldn't wrap her mind around how something that makes Man so dependent and compromising could be a good thing. Only, she didn't understand that while love may make us dependent and compromising, it is an act of sheer will to do so. To want another persons happiness as much as our own is the most difficult thing to really do.

First, to want another person's happiness, you have to really KNOW the other person, because what makes them happy may very likely be different from what makes us happy. Secondly, you have to learn to think differently. Not just how will "X" affect me, or how will "X" affect us... but how will "X" affect her? You have to think in terms of both of you. And Rand was simply too passionate about the dangers of selflessness that the idea of real, romantic love was a problem. If only she would have realized that loving another human being isn't selfless.

I feel bad now that I mis-spoke, and I just wanted to clarify. When I said "No" I meant that Galt wouldn't say 'take a hike',

or would he just say: "Take a hike, God Boy!" And THIS guy is held up as the hero.....don't get it.

as a true Objectivist wouldn't disregard something just because it was an ideology or belief, in and of itself.

As I said: "The main belief is that everything has to be analyzed using objective reasoning, and I think the prevalence of objectivists SHOULD acknowledge that healthy debate regarding any subject, including religion/morality/etc., is vital to maintaining freedom and liberty."

Just wanted to make sure I corrected myself, BG. Sorry if I sounded completely ignorant - after re-reading what I wrote, I'm embarrased myself!

[A Poster He or I]

I am curious if anyone in the forum has seen the new movie "Atlas Shrugged: Part 1" currently playing in very limited release, and what you thought of it.

I saw it earlier this week. Vis-a-vis the novel it is astonishingly disappointing, not so much because of its low-budget production (the production values were pretty good, actually). Rather, the film reflected very much how it was produced by believers in Ayn Rand: their comfort with the ideas involved yielded a screenplay that assumes the viewer is either invested in Objectivism or is intelligent enough to simply see via the main characters' actions how the values of capitalism outweigh any alternative.

The result is the most perfunctory telling of the story and the most flat delivery of the message that I could have imagined. Atlas Shrugged is probably the last novel I'd ever choose to try to tell via understatement, but that is what the production chose to do.

[Machiavelli]

Atlas Shrugged was a great suggestion and i read it a few moons back.

Many have said that it was actually ghost written by European Masons which details their plans for the financial system, how intriguing!

As for God, anyone, ANYONE who states mankind was created, definitely without doubt has a long way to go r.e critical thinking. To add to that, does anyone think that the heavy editing of the Bible would constitute the real teachings of the mythic hero / suicide Jesus? This Sun-Son has been written about in many cultures and is pagan in original. Check Horus for one.

"Jesus (the Sun) the light of the world".

[Algol]

"...does anyone think that the heavy editing of the Bible would constitute the real teachings of the mythic hero / suicide Jesus?"

To analyze Christ properly ,in my opinion, we must take Jesus at His own words, which means that I am only going to regard the first four books of the Bible and Revelations. I do this because in these text and these alone do we here Him speak. All the other books are what the disciples interpret as Christ (especially those written by Paul who never met Jesus).

"This Sun-Son has been written about in many cultures and is pagan in original. Check Horus for one."

I agree that Christ appears pagan in origin, but I wouldn't call Him Horus. He has all the makings of a Dionysus. The eucharist is based on both Demeter (the bread as His body represents the reproduction of nature) and Dionysus (His blood as wine is correlative to the initiation into divine mystery. Dionysus is said to have brought the mystery of wine making throughout the world).