On the other hand, the best philosophers make up new words for perfectly good reasons. Best not to avoid philosophy just because of the bad apples. — Joshs

Tell that to Heidegger... — Tom Storm

He’s one of those who does it for good reasons.

It was just a cheap shot. It's what I have in the absence of original thought.

The real problem here is not that he has made up a word, but that he doesn't know an argument from his elbow and has presented nothing remotely resembling one in his op. It's just a collection of random assertions. No philosophical problem is raised. God. Devil. God created the devil. Free will. Therefore God created donuts. But the devil is not a donut. Discuss.

the best philosophers make up new words for perfectly good reasons. — Joshs

Maybe.... Making up new words is certainly needed for technical and scientific writing, but some people seem to think that making up a new word means they've had a new thought.

Tell that to Heidegger... — Tom Storm

:grin:

...the best philosophers make up new words for perfectly good reasons — Joshs

And the worst for perfectly bad reasons. Despite it being a commonplace around this forum, making shit up does not make one a good philosopher.

Original sin does, to the extent that eating the fruit resulted in 1. man's ability to identify evil and do evil and 2. his expulsion from the make-believe garden; forced to live in the real world of disease, hardship, sorrow and pain. — Vera Mont

A fruit tree made me do it.

I doubt you comprehend how pathetic your argument here is.

ThinkOfOne, one supposes.

That'll be why idealism, not realism, is so appealing to those with a spiritual bent.

What a lot of nonsense you all talk. I made you and the world and you think I am mean because I didn't make it easy and comfortable for you. As if your everlasting comfort ought to be my priority. Perhaps don't worry so much about me, and learn to make each other's comfort a bit more your own priority, instead of the gleeful bickering. — God

↪Joshs That'll be why idealism, not realism, is so appealing to those with a spiritual bent. — Banno

The great idealist and theist Kant was the founder of modern realism.

“The “Critique of pure Reason” is the founding document of realism and to the present-day Kant’s discussion of realism has shaped the theoretical landscape of the debates over realism. Kant not only invents the now common philosophical term ‘realism’. He also lays out the theoretical topography of the forms of realism that still frames our understanding of philosophical questions concerning reality.” (Kant and the forms of realism, Dietmar Heidemann)

A fruit tree made me do it. I doubt you comprehend how pathetic your argument here is. — Banno

I doubt you comprehend that my clarification of the theological position is not an argument for or against anything.

I said that, according to the story in the Christians' reference book, evil is not caused by free will itself, but that man's suffering and free will both arise from the original sin.

The potential for natural evils already exists in the world. But man was sheltered from all natural suffering like disease, predators, parasites, falling off cliffs, getting stung by nettles, having to work for a living and growing old, as long as he was inside the divine garden. Because he ate the fruit, he was tossed out of the garden, and no longer protected from natural dangers.

Nor did I say the fruit compelled him to do evil; I said that it enabled him to distinguish between good and evil and choose which way to act.
(Adam's feeble excuse was "The woman gave me to eat" and so Eve got tossed out, plus extra punishment.
Nobody claimed this was fair; it was simply the prerogative of a miffed deity, just as Job's tribulations were the prerogative of deity making a wager with his rival.

This is true where god is fiction and just an enlargement of human tendencies, a wish fulfillment fantasy with all the sins of its creators, hence, genocide, rape, slavery as part of the divine plan. :wink: The result is a god, which like humans, is perfectly compatible with evil and tyranny. — Tom Storm

:fire:

:clap: :naughty:

This is true where god is fiction and just an enlargement of human tendencies, a wish fulfillment fantasy — Tom Storm

Well, what else can they be?

I think early religionists feared to give the almighty any negative qualities. — god must be atheist

If mythology is any indication, the early ones were fine with it. They made up entire deities to personify not only their own faults but larger concepts like death, war, deception, chaos, as well as destructive weather phenomena. In primitive religions, the line between benevolent and malevolent supernatural entities is not at all clearly drawn. And, of course, those spirits are limited in both power and intellect, so that a human can often get the better of them, or reason with them, or appease them.

As far as I know it was Christianity that apportioned both traits and jurisdictions so strictly; banished all bad stuff to hell and raised all good stuff to heaven, even as it magnified and exaggerated the deities themselves.
I'm guessing this was part of civilization's (most effectively, the Roman Empire's) denial and banishment of nature from all belief systems, just as they did from the cities. And it was enthusiastically taken up by Western mercantile, expansionist societies, spreading Christianity and business to the heathen parts of the world.

I said that, according to the story in the Christians' reference book, evil is not caused by free will itself, but that man's suffering and free will both arise from the original sin. — Vera Mont

All this does depend on which Christian you speak too. I've met plenty of reverends, priests and nuns who do not believe in original sin and see this, and many of the Bible stories, as allegories and myths expressing a broader truth. Christians, like all religious folk, take a book and a practice and render it meaningful through subjective or intersubjective interpretations.

American Bishop John Shelby Spong (Episcopalian) put it rather well -

The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.

John Shelby Spong

There never was a time when we were created perfect and fell into sin and needed to be rescued. We are evolving people; we are not fallen people. We are not a little lower than the angels. We're a little higher than the apes. It's a very different perspective.

John Shelby Spong

Well, what else can they be? — Vera Mont

Indeed but some consider them facts.

All this does depend on which Christian you speak too. — Tom Storm

What the book says doesn't depend on their interpretation. I was referring to the book itself. If Christians don't believe it, so much the better.... unless they replace it with the weird shit televangelists are spewing.

The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.

John Shelby Spong

So, he's got no use for either testament? Cool.

What the book says doesn't depend on their interpretation. I was referring to the book itself. — Vera Mont

And this is the entire point. The book itself is contradictory and messy, and it can't speak. There is no interpretation free account of the Bible, or any book when it comes to that. Can you point to a church or an individual who, in your judgement, has exactly the right interpretation? Even determining this would require subjective preference, surely?

We are not a little lower than the angels. We're a little higher than the apes. It's a very different perspective. — John Shelby Spong

:fire: :monkey:

Fox the fox
Rat on the rat
You can ape the ape
I know about that

:up:

And this is the entire point. The book itself is contradictory and messy, and it can't speak. — Tom Storm

I only pointed to one cause-effect relationship in one story in a book with thousands of stories.

Can you point to a church or an individual who, in your judgement, has exactly the right interpretation? — Tom Storm

Of course not! That's why I never consult religionists, or anyone with a vested interest in a particular interpretation. Myths speak for themselves, and they comment on some aspect of human thought, social development or relationships. My own interpretation is the only one I feel either competent or authorized to report.

Myths speak for themselves, and they comment on some aspect of human thought, social development or relationships — Vera Mont

I would maintain that myths do not speak for themselves - they do not 'speak' until someone gives them a voice by deriving a meaning from them - whether that be a pauper, a professor, or the Pope. If a myth seems to comment on human life, it is because someone hearing or reading it has determined the commentary. Interpretation.

Incidentally, in relation to Christianity it is interesting how interpretation has evolved over time. The idea that the Bible can be read as some kind of positivist text is a recent one.

The contrary, literalist campaign within Christianity is actually quite recent. It developed among more or less extreme Protestants after the Reformation – largely indeed in the last century in the US. It was consciously designed as a competitor with science, providing equal certainty by comparable methods. It is thus a political phenomenon, acting in some ways like a cargo cult. It has enabled relatively poor and powerless people to use their Bibles (which the Protestant Reformers had provided) to shape a rival myth of their own. They see this as an alternative to the materialist glorification of science and technology which they have perceived – with some reason – as the oppressive creed of those in power.

- Mary Midgley

I would maintain that myths do not speak for themselves - they do not 'speak' until someone gives them a voice by deriving a meaning from them - whether that be a pauper, a professor, or the Pope. If a myth seems to comment on human life, it is because someone hearing or reading it has determined the commentary. Interpretation. — Tom Storm

Didn't someone have to tell, sing or write it first? If so, they presumably did that to communicate something to someone else.

Incidentally, in relation to Christianity it is interesting how interpretation has evolved over time. The idea that the Bible can be read as some kind of positivist text is a recent one. — Tom Storm

Of course. (Keeping in mind that The Bible isn't a single book but many and most of them were unavailable to the Catholic laity until recently. So they depended on the New Testament and whatever the priest told them, while the conservative Protestant sect leaders leaned heavily on the Old Testament for their fire-and-brimstone revivals.)
Living religion, like any other aspect of culture, is never static. The interpretation of religious texts (or narratives and traditions that have been adopted by religionists) always changes with the need of the institution. There' no point sticking to old dogma if the congregation wanders off looking for a more user-friendly doctrine... because there is always a hedge-priest or prophet to give it them... unless you can engineer a fundamentalist revival through a revolution or political shift. There is a shift in America now toward Orthodoxy in Judaism, at the same time it's declining in Christianity and Islam (after an upsurge of both in the last decades of the 20th century).
None of that influences the stories of ancient mythology, any more than the use of mangoes in chutney influences the nature of mangoes.

Didn't someone have to tell, sing or write it first? If so, they presumably did that to communicate something to someone else. — Vera Mont

Some of the assumptions here - 1) that authors always have a specific intention and can convey it; 2) that an author doesn't want a range of interpretive possibilities; 3) that it is possible for people to arrive at a single interpretation based on a single authorial intention. None of these seem demonstrable.

And finally, whatever an author's intention, what happens is interpretation. As someone who wrote journalism for many years, I would say it's also the case that authors are not always clear in what they are saying. The finished story may not reflect the author's intention. And how do you demonstrate what the author's intention is? Again, interpretation.

Some of the assumptions here - 1) that authors always have a specific intention and can convey it; 2) that an author doesn't want a range of interpretive possibilities; 3) that it is possible for people to arrive at a single interpretation based on a single authorial intention. None of these seem demonstrable. — Tom Storm

I made no assumption about an author's intentions, abilities or desires. I only presumed that they meant to communicate something to other humans. If they made up a story just to entertain themselves, it wouldn't be written down, and if nobody liked it, it wouldn't have been passed on and recorded.

And how do you demonstrate what the author's intention is? Again, interpretation. — Tom Storm

I could have sworn that's what I said I was doing.

My own interpretation is the only one I feel either competent or authorized to report. — Vera Mont

I only presumed that they meant to communicate something to other humans. — Vera Mont

This is what I am addressing. 'Communicate something' means open ended interpretive possibilities from the author to us. Which is fine. It leads to a multiplicity of potential meanings.

My own interpretation is the only one I feel either competent or authorized to report. — Vera Mont

That's fair. So you are saying subjective interpretations of myth are all that matter? I thought you were saying there was a true version of any myth - the author's intention? If you're not saying that, then we're good to go. :wink:

'Communicate something' means open ended interpretive possibilities

Does it, when you're placing a dinner order? Or giving instructions to an employee, or explaining to your wife over the phone where to look for the file you forgot and need her to bring to a meeting? Verbal communication normally has a message that is expected - or at least intended - to convey information from the speaker to the hearer. It's normally that way in written communications, as well. The more open-ended it is the less communication takes place. If they can read into it whatever they like, why bother writing at all? Let 'em write their own!

That's fair. So you are saying subjective interpretations of myth are all that matter? — Tom Storm

I didn't say what matters; only what I'm qualified to report on. Matter - to whom?
To someone with a vested interest in one particular interpretation, it matters greatly that theirs prevail. Preachers seem to put a lot of effort into convincing their congregations that their version is the right one, rather than encouraging them each to make a subjective guess as to the meaning of scripture. To a scholar, an interpretation is worthless unless it sheds light on some aspect of anthropology - and it can't do that if it doesn't correspond to known facts about the period and people in question; if it doesn't add to a body of accumulating knowledge. Radical interpretations must be supported by other evidence. But mine is mundane secular anthropology, nothing noteworthy.

I thought you were saying there was a true version of any myth - the author's intention? — Tom Storm

I didn't even posit a particular author or intention for this story - it's far too old. Every story must have been told by someone before it could be heard and interpreted by anyone else, that's all. This one probably goes back to long before there were identifiable Hebrews, to the Sumerian culture (The Akkadian one is more violent.)

The origins of humans are described in another early second-millennium Sumerian poem, “The Song of the Hoe.” In this myth, as in many other Sumerian stories, the god Enlil is described as the deity who separates heavens and earth and creates humankind.

You can see the echoes coming down a millennium or so, and the notion is further supported by the prominence of rivers in the Genesis creation myth

“The Debate between Bird and Fish,” water for human consumption did not exist until Enki, lord of wisdom, created the Tigris and Euphrates and caused water to flow into them from the mountains.

What physical record of that literature remains is fragmented, and obviously, other influences must also have entered the oral tradition of nomadic peoples like the Jews, who came into contact with many nations before they occupied Jericho and settled there, so I don't think it's possible to trace any of the stories to a single definitive source.
I don't think authorship or author's intention really enters into the assessment of myths. The stories of ancients peoples were told and retold from memory, embellished, adapted, combined, translated many hundreds or thousands of times before anybody wrote them down. But they all had to begin with a human being attempting to communicate ideas to another human being.

But they all had to begin with a human being attempting to communicate ideas to another human being. — Vera Mont

Sure, and then interpretation. And around we go. :razz:

And around we go. — Tom Storm

You can. I won't.

Before Christianity there was Zoroastrianism. The Jews were not dualistic but saw good and evil as a continuum, more or less good or evil. Cyrus the Great was a Zoroastrian and his troops rescued the Jews from Babylon and returned them to Isreal. Then he ordered that Persia would pay to have the Jewish temple rebuilt. He saw enough sameness between Judaism and Zoroastrianism for the religions to be compatible.

A problem with Zoroastrianism is the mass filled it full of superstitious notions that ruined the original wisdom of the religion and the same happens to Christianity. The religion is all broken up with different interpretations. It is a problem that caused Constantnoble to fall because they weakened themselves by dividing and making war on each other. One side promoting superstition and the other side taking a stand against religious icons that promote superstition.

Personally, I think the best way to understand Christianity is to study all religions and mythologies that influenced Christianity. Here is a link to Zoroastrianism.

Zoroastrianism was a dualist faith that originated in Persia, and over the years it has influenced a number of other faiths. Even though we may not recognize it today, it has been an influence on a number of world religions, especially on Christianity and Islam. Zoroastrianism is a belief system that stresses how we as human beings were meant to strive for our full potential. A primary tenet of the faith is that righteous and upstanding people will participate in the rewards of paradise, while the evil-doers will undergo punishments in hell. — Jezel Luna

Is life a continuum of good and evil or is it dualistic? I don't know if we should use the word "bad" or "evil" because the word evil implies a supernatural force. The idea that Christianity is opposed to superstitions is nuts! In the past, people feared Satan and demons as well as the jealous, revengeful, and punishing God. Today most Christians seem to be in complete denial of the evil forces, other than a quilt trip for being less than perfect and believing we need to be saved by a supernatural force.

All this does depend on which Christian you speak too. — Tom Storm

True.

Everything about Christianity depends on whcih Christian you speak to.

I converesed with Christians on this forum who thought they were the only christians in this great, wide world.

Furthermore I argued with a person here who insisted on very strict interpretations of the Holy Books, and when I put it to him, he denied he was a Christian, or even a god-fearing person.

This has not much to do with the original topic, other than some christians can't accept that god has any bad or negative qualities, and some others can.

3. Humans have free will and they created evility with their moral displestitude. — god must be atheist

1. Assuming that 3 is right, it does not explain the existence of the devil. — god must be atheist

You need to define evil first,
"Evil is lack of good"

If you agree with this definition, then evil isn't creatable.

ex. Night isn't created, night is lack of light.
There is no special celestial object which would shine night like there is Sun which shines light.

Thus the devil wasn't created but become so due to lack of good.

A google search for "displestitude" reveals your usage as the only combination of those letters to exist on the internet.

You need to define evil first,
"Evil is lack of good"

If you agree with this definition, then evil isn't creatable — SpaceDweller

In this sense evil is a natural and avoidable opposite created simultaneously with good. After all how can we know what is evil without good? If everything was utopian we would have no concept of evil it would be meaningless.

How the bloody hell does that even begin to be an argument? — Bartricks

Man, as a person just getting into philosophy, this worries me. If I do my best in constructing an argument that happens to be sorta shitty due to my lack of experience, should I expect to be reamed like this? Is this kind of conduct expected around here?