|
It just occurred to me that non-action may mean not hanging on to expectations. You still act, you just do not focus on a specific outcome. Regardless of what happens, you continue doing what you believe is right.
To be extremely shallow, I'm reminded of the end of Wrath of Khan.
Spock has his own choice, but Kirk is coming from a different system of logic, where 'the math' doesn't matter, and choices are made from a place of hope (even if that hope is ultimately unreasonable, as if, by force of will, he can make someone not die). Kirk is the one who refuses to budge for reality, refuses to accept inevitability or the 'no-win scenario' but never gives up (which sometimes even works, if not in this case). So, in that respect, Kirk *appears* to be following that path, doing what he feels is right, and damn the rest of the universe telling him that he's wrong. But Spock is the one better embodying the principal, IMO, taking a path that he feels is the right action, and ignoring the fact that it's going to kill him, because he's not thinking of what will be, or what might be, or what the consequences will be in the long-term, he's doing the right thing, right now, that he feels must be done.
Both of them are taking very different positions, and both of them are coming from very similar places (both strong-willed people, sure of the correctness of their stance). In the end, I think Spock is the one who is embodying the principles, as he isn't trying to bend the universe to his will, but surrendering to the requirements of the moment.
IMO, and no offense meant to those who've spoken about it upthread, the verbiage used in 'Tao-speak' is off-putting to the Western mode of thought, which is very much action-oriented. The 'hero' of Western cinema or literature is the manly man who goes out and does things, which is right there in the terms, 'Action Hero' or 'Action-Adventure.' We don't celebrate passivity or introspection or non-action or deliberation or, in too many cases, looking before one leaps or thinking before acting (or thinking at all...). To someone who has grown up on a diet of Western thought, it feels a little bit *wrong* and a little bit like the sort of 'fortune cookie wisdom' that came out of the mouth of the Sphinx in Mystery Men. At some level, it feels like Tao principles of success through non-action, of *understanding* or 'grokking' a situation and treasuring wisdom over sudden (and perhaps unwise) action is a slap in the face of John Wayne and all that is right and true and red-blooded rootin'-tootin' tobacoo-chewing American.
Is not Spock taking action, though? That seems to confirm my point that non-action is no more the middle way than action without thought. Surely, everyone can not sit, facing South until we all die of dehydration.
I have experienced being 'in the zone'. And I recognize it comes when I am not trying. But there is still an effort even if it is just extremely efficient.
|
Is not Spock taking action, though? That seems to confirm my point that non-action is no more the middle way than action without thought. Surely, everyone can not sit, facing South until we all die of dehydration.
I don't think the point is to sit facing south until you die of dehydration, but to go and get a drink but only take as much as you need. I think that is the balance point between inaction and action.
So…Kung Fu Panda…at the end, when Master Shifu is trying to sit quietly and Po interrupts with, "I'm hungry."
Meditation is good, but sometimes you just need to eat?
So…Kung Fu Panda…at the end, when Master Shifu is trying to sit quietly and Po interrupts with, "I'm hungry."
Meditation is good, but sometimes you just need to eat?
That was Zen. This is Tao.
That was Zen. This is Tao.
NICE!
That was Zen. This is Tao.So…Kung Fu Panda…at the end, when Master Shifu is trying to sit quietly and Po interrupts with, "I'm hungry."
Meditation is good, but sometimes you just need to eat?
Dying... dying...
I am sorry I ambushed you, Moff.Accepted and reciprocated. I was getting pretty "miffed" (or something) and needed to take a step back. Sorry I didn't get back to you on this and sorry about some of my responses.
Forgiven, forgotten. I could give you all the reasons I did what I did, but none of them are reasonable. If it is any consolation, I single you out because I respect you. Crazy, is it not? I engage you because I feel you actually listen. There are others, no names, who I would simply say to myself there is no point, they are not listening.
|
|
So if we were designed by god, how come we have superfluos parts, inefficient parts and such? For example why do we have wisdom teeth, teeth that cannot generally fit well on the jaw so they have to be removed otherwise they cause problems, why do we have vestigal tailbones? Why do we have knee joints that are actually very inefficient for the quality of life the majority of humans live, they wear out easily. If god doesn't make mistakes how come we humans have a few in our physiology?
If god made us perfect, we would all be exactly alike. I do not know about you, but I do not think I would enjoy being exactly like everyone else.
|
If god made us perfect, we would all be exactly alike. I do not know about you, but I do not think I would enjoy being exactly like everyone else.
Why does "perfect" = "clone"?
Besides, the Bible doesn't say that he made us "perfect". At best it says that God made us in "His image" -- but what exactly that means has been debated quite a bit.
|
|
So if we were designed by god, how come we have superfluos parts, inefficient parts and such? For example why do we have wisdom teeth, teeth that cannot generally fit well on the jaw so they have to be removed otherwise they cause problems, why do we have vestigal tailbones? Why do we have knee joints that are actually very inefficient for the quality of life the majority of humans live, they wear out easily. If god doesn't make mistakes how come we humans have a few in our physiology?
I'm not sure if I'm really going to answer this, but a few thoughts anyway.
Your question has the assumption that the end result is not what God intended. That's kind of big assumption. I don't really even know what God intended.
You are also assuming that aspects of us are mistakes. And not only that, but mistakes made by God. But what is that based on? Because they don't work the way that you want them to?
Lastly, what were our bodies intended to do? I don't believe that God intended for me to sit in front of a computer for 8-10 hours a day. I don't think that he intended for us to consume mass quantities of high-fructose corn syrup. We are doing quite a bit that I don't think God intended us to do to our bodies. To me, that's like blaming the manufacturer when you try and use a screwdriver as a hammer and it doesn't work quite right.
|
|
The historical answer of Christianity is that God did make us perfect. But as a species, we blew it for ourselves and the rest of the world.
Maybe. I think that the idea there is that "God is perfect" and "God made us" and (somehow) therefore "we are perfect". That really isn't Biblical though. Also, what exactly does "perfect" mean?
|
|
Ok here's the point, why do we have a tailbone but no tail? Why do we a flaw with our jaw where we have to many teeth to fit comfortably. As for the knee joint thing it wears out if your an athlete or over weight or anywhwere in between. Thats what I mean by inefficient.
Ok it has been brought to my attention that certain people can be born with a condition call atavism where they can have vestigial tails but why? Why do we have extra points that don't serve a point. Many animals have tailbones too, except they're connected to tails that serve a purpose. Certain primates have wisdom teeth or the equivalent but they have larger jaws.
|
|
Ok here's the point, why do we have a tailbone but no tail? Why do we a flaw with our jaw where we have to many teeth to fit comfortably. As for the knee joint thing it wears out if your an athlete or over weight or anywhwere in between. Thats what I mean by inefficient.
If by using "magic" God created Adam and Eve -- then there really is no reason for a tailbone. Otherwise, I believe that he was using "stock" that already existed. And it's a byproduct of that.
As for the other things, I really don't have an answer for that. But again, what was man like thousands of years ago? Did they rip out their wisdom teeth? Were they pushing thousands of people around on wheelchairs because of their knees?
We drive cars everywhere. We breathe toxic fumes all the time. We have created chemicals to preserve food stuffs. Etc. Is this really what God intended? Even people who do their best to try and stay "healthy" can't keep from being even a little bit contaminated. Our bodies have physically changed a fair amount over the past few thousand years. Even some over the past few hundred years. Are these changes because of what God intended to happen or are these changes our bodies' best attempt to keep up with how fast we are changing the environment around us? And it just hasn't had the evolutionary chance to loose our unnecessary wisdom teeth, or build us better knee joints.
|
|
Thousands of years ago you died before the age of 40 most of the time, so knees not so much a problem, The teeth thing well it would cause a lot of pain eventually pushing some teeth out loosing the front incisors making it harder to eat meat, but again you were middle age at 20 so given another 20 years you were dead anyway.
|
|
Ok here's the point, why do we have a tailbone but no tail? Why do we a flaw with our jaw where we have to many teeth to fit comfortably. As for the knee joint thing it wears out if your an athlete or over weight or anywhwere in between. Thats what I mean by inefficient.
Tailbones (and no tail, leading to lower back pain), appendix and no need for such a thing (leading to occasionally fatal-'splosions), vonemerasal (sp?) organs to smell when our females go into heat, and no such estrus cycles in humans (leading to sinus problems, as the useless cavaties get inflamed and infected).
It seems pretty clear to me that we've got a lot of animal parts, that are actually bad for us, as non-animals. Human women have *never* gone into heat, so I don't need an organ specifically designed to smell when they do, but I've got it, and boy howdy, do I not appreciate the sinus headaches I get when it gets inflamed (and I envy the 30% of people whose VN organ has sealed up completly and doesn't get infected! I wish mine had gone fully vestigial!).
Evolution doesn't preclude creation. Darwin sure didn't think so, being devout, and Gregor Mendel didn't think he was engaging in heresy when he started cross-breeding peas and formulating notions about natural selection. Random mutations cropping up all over the place, like kids with Down's Syndrome or the dude who works down the street who has a tiny little shriveled left arm, just like his dad, doesn't mean that a pattern wasn't set into place, like a big computer program, and that we are the end result of that 'plan.' The 'system' isn't perfect any more than the weather is perfect, or the tectonic plates are perfect, or the behavior of animals is perfect (the earth was made for us, after all, and yet, via floods and earthquakes and stuff, it sure does keep killing us off, dunnit? Similarly, we were supposed to have 'dominion over the beasts,' and yet man-eating tigers and sharks and poisonous snakes and malaria-bearing mosquitos sure don't seem to be terribly obedient...).
Nothing down here is supposed to be perfect. Not us, not the weather, not the beasts of the fields, not the health of our bodies. It's kind of the whole point of faith, to want to believe that there is a *better* place, where it does all make sense, and there is no lower back pain or appendicitis or impacted wisdom teeth or sinus headaches.
'In his image' never meant 'perfect copies.' If it did, women would look like men, and we'd all look like Adam and it would get creepily incestuous real fast...
I've got a hole in my heart, between the chambers. I don't blame God for that. It just happened. The design for the human heart is pretty good, I just got a crappy one. A bad roll of the dice. Another bad roll of the dice placed me in a country where it can't be fixed. Such is life. Nobody ever said it was going to be fair.
|
|
Thousands of years ago you died before the age of 40 most of the time, so knees not so much a problem, The teeth thing well it would cause a lot of pain eventually pushing some teeth out loosing the front incisors making it harder to eat meat, but again you were middle age at 20 so given another 20 years you were dead anyway.
Possibly. But our bodies are changing. A while ago, I tried to google if our brains were getting bigger. I got nothing. All I got were a whole mess of articles that said that our brains and head were getting smaller. (Note that this is size and has nothing to do with intelligence.) Well, shoot. If our heads are getting smaller, but the DNA strands are still telling us that we need wisdom teeth then we're going to have problems.
We are certainly living longer. But there's more to it than just that.
There are a very large number of examples of REALLY crappy design that are in no way the result of wear and tear, or of chemical exposure, or of gradual inefficiency creeping in due to the entropy of sin or whatever... but they make perfect sense if you start with a simpler critter and then co-opt existing structures to serve new purposes, while changing the general shape of the organism. Things like the cavity between the ovary and the fallopian tube (which serves no useful purpose at present, but can lead to ectopic pregnancy); or the fact that the birth canal goes through the pelvis (squashing the baby's head) instead of around it; or the fact that the urethra passes through the prostate (ask 1 in 4 men what that eventually leads to, if they live long enough); or the fact that the recurrent laryngeal nerve loops from the brain to the larynx by way of the aortic arch (in giraffes, this means 20 extra feet of nerve!); etc.; etc.
There are a large number of examples of "design" that makes no sense at all unless the Creator's design goal was to make the body as miserable and as inefficient as possible -- but that make perfect sense if you start with a simpler organism, then co-opt existing features to new roles, while drastically changing the adult shape of the organism. Things like the birth canal passing through the pelvis instead of around it, or the urethra passing through the prostate gland instead of around it, or the small gap beteen the ovary and the fallopian tube, or route of the recurrent laryngeal nerve from the brain to the larynx -- by way of the aortic arch. This means that either (a) critters evolved from simpler ones, and/or (b) they were created from simpler ones through direct modification (rather than re-designed), and/or (c) some trickster God did his utmost to make it look that way. Note that although I personally tend to accept answer (a), the three choices are in no way mutually contradictory -- as Moff points out, maybe God is an evolutionist, for example.
There are a large number of examples of spectacularly inefficient "design" that are inherently present (they're in no way the result of misuse or chemical exposure) -- but that makes perfect sense if you start with a simpler organism, then co-opt existing features to new roles, while drastically changing the adult shape of the organism. Things like the birth canal passing through the pelvis instead of around it, or the urethra passing through the prostate gland instead of around it, or the small gap beteen the ovary and the fallopian tube, or route of the recurrent laryngeal nerve from the brain to the larynx -- by way of the aortic arch.
This means that either (a) critters evolved from simpler ones, and/or (b) they were created from simpler ones through direct modification (rather than re-designed), and/or (c) some trickster God did his utmost to make it look that way. Note that although I personally tend to accept answer (a), the three choices are in no way mutually contradictory in a philosophical sense -- as Moff points out, maybe God is an evolutionist, for example.
Or when sin entered the world the "template" was corrupted.
Quandry: Did Adam & Even have belly buttons?
Or when sin entered the world the "template" was corrupted.
If by "corrupted" you mean that a number of organs and vessels were completely rerouted throughout the body, than that statement could work... but at that point I'd call it a "redesign" rather than a simple "corruption."
Quandry: Did Adam & Even have belly buttons?
Since neither was technically "born" like we are, (with an umbilical cord attached) I doubt it. :)
I guess Ymir didn't have one either, then. What about Odin, Vili, and Ve?
I guess Ymir didn't have one either, then. What about Odin, Vili, and Ve?
Probably not. If they're not born out of a womb, they wouldn't have one.
Edit- since the three brothers were born from a giantess, maybe they would.
Probably not. If they're not born out of a womb, they wouldn't have one.
Dunno, maybe; that would mean that there were large storehouses of lint that they lacked access to. Never know when lint might be needed in a pinch. Odin might have re-bound Fenrir with it, instead of letting the monster swallow him.
Why does "perfect" = "clone"?
Well that depends on your definition of 'perfect'. In the context it was offered, I took it to mean 'like god' as the question was posed to believers and believers often equate god to perfection. If god is perfection and we assume his creations are perfect, then his creations would have to be exactly like him for any deviation would not be perfect. I am perfectly ready to accept there are a couple of problems with that assertion.
One, that is not the only definition of 'perfect'. Two, a perfect creator does not necessarily have to create perfect creations.
Perhaps the question should have been proposed, "Why did god create such vulnerable creations?" However, that is a large assumption for me to make regarding Jeremy's original post.
If that were closer to his meaning, it still does not really prove or indicate anything. Who could know god's motives and that we are squishy does not disprove god created us.
I think Kirth hit closer to what Jeremy was getting at. Superfluous organs do seem to fit with evolution.
One, that is not the only definition of 'perfect'. Two, a perfect creator does not necessarily have to create perfect creations.
If a perfect creator bungles his creation then it can't be said to be perfect. (To be perfect it would have to be without flaws.) An imperfect creation then becomes one of the creator's attributes, which is incompatible with perfection.
But duff design isn't really an argument against a creator god in itself (since the god could be incompetent, evil, you name it). It's just an argument against an omnipotent, omniscient, perfect creator god. In a sense it's sidestepping the argument from design by accepting its premises for the sake of argument and then pointing out that the universe doesn't suggest the kind of creator that the apologist is generally interested in selling.
The direct attack on the argument from design is similar, and in fact very close, but a bit more sophisticated. It would begin with denying the premise that the universe reveals evidence of a purposeful design, likely by citing all kinds of waste, inhospitably, path-dependency, and the like in nature. One would use most of the same facts, but deployed a bit differently. Then one could top it off with parsimony.
Separately, it might be possible to have different ways to be perfect but I'm not sure that it is. Perfection appears, at least to my first glance, to be uniform, unitary kind of thing. Perfect is perfect. But not all attributes are logically compatible. How could one be both perfectly X and perfectly not-X? Perfectly good and perfectly evil?
Plato worked around it by declaring that one or the other of these incompatibilities was really perfect and the other not relevant, so his god was perfectly good but not perfectly evil. But late in his writing he starts expressing some doubts about this, and about the perfect divorced-from-reality ideals themselves. I think his example was perfect muddiness, but it's been years since I read it.
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.
Prior to the Fall, every animal was vegetarian. Yet now there are carnivores. We're talking about sin doing some serious rearranging of internal anatomy to accomplish that.
If sin can turn an herbivorous tiger into a carnivorous one, then I do not see it as a stretch for sin to also tweak us with wisdom teeth, vestigial tail bones, extraneous sinus cavities, appendices, and the pinky toe.
Evolution doesn't preclude creation. Darwin sure didn't think so, being devout...
I don't believe this is an accurate statement. Darwin was Christian at one point but its pretty clear that he lost faith over the course of his lifetime. He makes it quite clear that any faith he had in God ceased when his favorite child died as he tells us so in his personal writings. Beyond that we have his correspondence with his wife who was devout and its clear that they essentially work this out between them so that they can both live with the fact that she is a devout Christian while he is not.
If sin can turn an herbivorous tiger into a carnivorous one...
That's a pretty big "if." So big, in fact, that you essentially abandon all mechanistic cause and effect in the world, and resign yourself to anarchy, ad hoc miracle, and divine fiat.
Prior to the Fall, every animal was vegetarian. Yet now there are carnivores. We're talking about sin doing some serious rearranging of internal anatomy to accomplish that.If sin can turn an herbivorous tiger into a carnivorous one, then I do not see it as a stretch for sin to also tweak us with wisdom teeth, vestigial tail bones, extraneous sinus cavities, appendices, and the pinky toe.
According to the Bible, the Fall happened within the scope of human history. There were, after all, two humans present. If all animals were vegetarians before this, then we should see no evidence of things like carnivorous dentition in the fossil records that predates humanity. You can't have carnivores in an era where everyone is a vegetarian, or everyone is no longer a vegetarian.
Exactly when we should start calling the fossils human is a subject of rather intense and tangled debate. But let's give you some extra leeway and call it ten million years. Anatomically modern humans are only around 100,000 years old, but I'm feeling charitable. Two orders of magnitude is pretty generous, right?
That said, let me introduce you to Sue. Sue is a Tyrannosaurus Rex. (Be aware that the link includes full frontal nudity...of a Tyrannosaurus Rex.)
Notice that mouth full of teeth she has? The teeth of carnivores are specialized to tear flesh and generally eat meat. They are not like the teeth of herbivores, which are flatter. We actually have a mix, because we're omnivores. Compare this tiger's dentition with this cow's dentition.
Sue's species went extinct about sixty-five million years ago, or fifty-five million years before, by my extremely charitable allowance, anything that could be reasonably be called a human walked the Earth and one of them got a hankering for some special fruit.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
If sin can turn an herbivorous tiger into a carnivorous one...That's a pretty big "if." So big, in fact, that you essentially abandon all mechanistic cause and effect in the world, and resign yourself to anarchy, ad hoc miracle, and divine fiat.
You don't necessarily abandon all mechanistic cause and effect. You believe in a catastrophic event (the Fall) that changed the universe and everything in it on multiple levels: physical, metaphysical, psychological, behavioral, etc. A Christian belief in miracles doesn't mean you don't also believe in causality, but that you believe that the natural order is affected by its supernatural Creator. It's the difference between theism and deism.
Except, Sam, you're talking to someone who likely rejects all of the geological, physical, and chemical evidence of an old earth, and who likely thinks dinosaurs and people lived together, despite the evidence to the contrary.
You don't necessarily abandon all mechanistic cause and effect. You believe in a catastrophic event (the Fall) that changed the universe and everything in it on multiple levels: physical, metaphysical, psychological, behavioral, etc. A Christian belief in miracles doesn't mean you don't also believe in causality, but that you believe that the natural order is affected by its supernatural Creator. It's the difference between theism and deism.
But unless you're speaking some language other than Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, or plain English, "corruption" does not imply "totally redesign." If it does, then the Fall didn't just "change" things, it warped them on a level comparable to Mechanus becoming Limbo.
Except, Sam, you're talking to someone who likely rejects all of the geological, physical, and chemical evidence of an old earth, and who likely thinks dinosaurs and people lived together, despite the evidence to the contrary.
Cowboys back then were SO COOL!
My great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great Josephus Jade was a rootin' tootin' gunfighter who robbed stagecoaches from velociraptorback.
That musta been somethin' ta see.
Board ate my post. Jesus saves. Charlie didn't. :(
That's what your ideas get for being so tasty.
Except, Sam, you're talking to someone who likely rejects all of the geological, physical, and chemical evidence of an old earth, and who likely thinks dinosaurs and people lived together, despite the evidence to the contrary.
Sure, but I was trying to be generous. He doesn't necessarily have to think that this is a historical reenactment even if he believes the other stuff.
Pretty bad at it, I suppose. It's just not my nature. :)