Two Primary Philosophies

[treeplanter]

Seems to me that, at the end of the day, there are just two basic human philosophies competing for supremacy

Transcendentalism
and
Existentialism

Transcendentalism posits the existence of two worlds; a perfect one and the corrupt copy that we currently inhabit
Transcendentalism incorporates concepts such as God, soul, destiny, fate, a Divine Plan
In short, we are the pawns of a higher power – created and put into place for a specific purpose

Existentialism, on the other hand, posits that existence precedes essence
In other words, there is no fate, there is no destiny, there is no Divine Plan
If there is a God – He/She/It remains ‘hands off’
In short, it’s up to each of us, as individuals, to create the meaning in our own lives

The former, denying personal responsibility as it does, engenders constraint
The latter, requiring personal responsibility as it does, engenders empowerment

I’m not going to bother asking which is, in general, the preferable mode of personally being – under the thumb of another or free of the thumb?
It goes without saying that freedom is the better!

Nor am I going to ask which is, in general, the preferable mode to impose upon one’s children – that they be under the thumb of another or that they be free of the thumb?
Again, it goes without saying that freedom is the better!

What interests me, though, is how and why Christians maintain that it is good and just that a father god place us under His thumb rather than allowing us the freedom of thumblessness?

 

[stiggy wiggy]

As a fan of existentialism, what is your opinion of Soren Kierkegaard, the greatest existentialist thinker of all time, IMO?

 

[Gus Bovona]

Seems to me that, at the end of the day, there are just two basic human philosophies competing for supremacy

Transcendentalism
and
Existentialism

Transcendentalism posits the existence of two worlds; a perfect one and the corrupt copy that we currently inhabit
Transcendentalism incorporates concepts such as God, soul, destiny, fate, a Divine Plan
In short, we are the pawns of a higher power – created and put into place for a specific purpose

Existentialism, on the other hand, posits that existence precedes essence
In other words, there is no fate, there is no destiny, there is no Divine Plan
If there is a God – He/She/It remains ‘hands off’
In short, it’s up to each of us, as individuals, to create the meaning in our own lives

The former, denying personal responsibility as it does, engenders constraint
The latter, requiring personal responsibility as it does, engenders empowerment

I’m not going to bother asking which is, in general, the preferable mode of personally being – under the thumb of another or free of the thumb?
It goes without saying that freedom is the better!

Nor am I going to ask which is, in general, the preferable mode to impose upon one’s children – that they be under the thumb of another or that they be free of the thumb?
Again, it goes without saying that freedom is the better!

What interests me, though, is how and why Christians maintain that it is good and just that a father god place us under His thumb rather than allowing us the freedom of thumblessness?

1. Great distinction between transcend. and existen.

2. Surely you’ve been here long enough that you can predict the answer to your question.

 

[Komodo]

I don't know if you can divide things up that neatly. Take Buddhism, for example. In one way it's "Transcendental," because it invokes the concepts of eternal, other-worldly laws: Dharma and Karma. In another way it's "Existential" because it teaches that "it's up to us" to find the causes of our suffering, and to follow the path that results in its extinction.

(Can't remember the source but one Buddhist, when asked whether Buddhists believe in gods, said that if gods exist, they have their own problems and they can't solve your problems for you, so it's not really an issue worth pondering.)

 

[SteveB]

Seems to me that, at the end of the day, there are just two basic human philosophies competing for supremacy

Transcendentalism
and
Existentialism

Transcendentalism posits the existence of two worlds; a perfect one and the corrupt copy that we currently inhabit
Transcendentalism incorporates concepts such as God, soul, destiny, fate, a Divine Plan
In short, we are the pawns of a higher power – created and put into place for a specific purpose

Existentialism, on the other hand, posits that existence precedes essence
In other words, there is no fate, there is no destiny, there is no Divine Plan
If there is a God – He/She/It remains ‘hands off’
In short, it’s up to each of us, as individuals, to create the meaning in our own lives

The former, denying personal responsibility as it does, engenders constraint
The latter, requiring personal responsibility as it does, engenders empowerment

I’m not going to bother asking which is, in general, the preferable mode of personally being – under the thumb of another or free of the thumb?
It goes without saying that freedom is the better!

Nor am I going to ask which is, in general, the preferable mode to impose upon one’s children – that they be under the thumb of another or that they be free of the thumb?
Again, it goes without saying that freedom is the better!

What interests me, though, is how and why Christians maintain that it is good and just that a father god place us under His thumb rather than allowing us the freedom of thumblessness?

Sure is a good thing we who follow Jesus believe in Jesus and not merely a philosophical construct that is built on the understanding of humans.

I'm thinking that you really should keep learning.


There's so much more than you're seeing.

 

[CrowCross]

What interests me, though, is how and why Christians maintain that it is good and just that a father god place us under His thumb rather than allowing us the freedom of thumblessness?

A two year old toddler is under the "thumb" of their parent. Would that be wrong?

 

[SteveB]

A two year old toddler is under the "thumb" of their parent. Would that be wrong?

That's what I don't understand either.
I'm grateful that my parents restricted my activities as a child growing up.

He sounds like he's bitter because his parents didn't toss him the keys as a 5 yr old, and let him drive the Lamborghini into a wall, because it seemed like it'd be fun.

I'm grateful my parents prevented me from sticking a fork into the electrical outlet when I was 9 yrs old. Or drinking ammonia as a 5 yr old.


Tree's complaint makes no sense at all.

 

[CrowCross]

Tree's complaint makes no sense at all.

I like the choice of word description..."thumb"....Adam was given two commands....be fruitful and multiply which I don't think Tree would have a problem with that thumb pressure and don't eat from a certain tree. But like Adam, Tree would want to believe the lie of Satan....Thing is Tree wouldn't need Satan to deceive him. Treeplanter would simply walk to the center of the garden, pick the fruit and chomp into it with out being persuaded. TAKE THAT GOD....he would scream. I'll do whatever I want to do. Kinda like the clay telling the potter what to make.

 

[SteveB]

I like the choice of word description..."thumb"....Adam was given two commands....be fruitful and multiply which I don't think Tree would have a problem with that thumb pressure and don't eat from a certain tree. But like Adam, Tree would want to believe the lie of Satan....Thing is Tree wouldn't need Satan to deceive him. Treeplanter would simply walk to the center of the garden, pick the fruit and chomp into it with out being persuaded. TAKE THAT GOD....he would scream. I'll do whatever I want to do. Kinda like the clay telling the potter what to make.

Indeed!

Given the situation that Adam faced, I have come to the conclusion that I'd have done what Adam did....
For what appears to be the same exact reasons as Adam...

 

[CrowCross]

Indeed!

Given the situation that Adam faced, I have come to the conclusion that I'd have done what Adam did....
For what appears to be the same exact reasons as Adam...

Do you think Adam was present when Eve was having her little talk with the serpent?

 

[SteveB]

Do you think Adam was present when Eve was having her little talk with the serpent?

I've wondered about that for a long time.
It's written...

Gen 3:6 WEB When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took some of its fruit, and ate. Then she gave some to her husband with her, and he ate it, too.

About a decade ago read Mark Twain's fictional book about this. It got me to thinking about it.


Once I began to reason through it, I was wondering why she was talking to the serpent about it.
Where was Adam?
Had she already talked with Adam and then the serpent came along and started talking to her about it?

But it appears that Adam was sitting there with her.

It's clear that Adam had already talked to her about it.

Gen 3:2-3 WEB 2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees of the garden, 3 but not the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden. God has said, ‘You shall not eat of it. You shall not touch it, lest you die.’”

She changes what God had told Adam.
My thinking is that Adam told her...

Yeah, God said, don't eat it, but I'd say.... why play with a bad idea, don't even touch it!


Ever watch the movie with Mark Walberg, where he's a sniper? He's on the mountain and pulls out the digital voice recorder, and in the dialog he comments- this is kryptonite! Anyone who has it will get killed!

I'm thinking that whatever the actual dialog was between Adam and Eve about it, it was that kind of conversation....

Adam's adding to God's Word to Adam gave a foothold to the serpent to call God a liar.

 

[CrowCross]

I've wondered about that for a long time.
It's written...

Gen 3:6 WEB When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took some of its fruit, and ate. Then she gave some to her husband with her, and he ate it, too.

About a decade ago read Mark Twain's fictional book about this. It got me to thinking about it.


Once I began to reason through it, I was wondering why she was talking to the serpent about it.
Where was Adam?
Had she already talked with Adam and then the serpent came along and started talking to her about it?

But it appears that Adam was sitting there with her.

It's clear that Adam had already talked to her about it.

Gen 3:2-3 WEB 2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees of the garden, 3 but not the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden. God has said, ‘You shall not eat of it. You shall not touch it, lest you die.’”

She changes what God had told Adam.
My thinking is that Adam told her...

Yeah, God said, don't eat it, but I'd say.... why play with a bad idea, don't even touch it!


Ever watch the movie with Mark Walberg, where he's a sniper? He's on the mountain and pulls out the digital voice recorder, and in the dialog he comments- this is kryptonite! Anyone who has it will get killed!

I'm thinking that whatever the actual dialog was between Adam and Eve about it, it was that kind of conversation....

Adam's adding to God's Word to Adam gave a foothold to the serpent to call God a liar.

I always wondered if Adam was there....why didn't he step in and tell Satan where to go? What didn't Adam say...God said...don't eat it.

I once heard...and this is sheer speculation...that Eve ate the fruit and Adam knowing her condition from eating the fruit ate it so He wouldn't be separated from Eve....True love.

 

[SteveB]

I always wondered if Adam was there....why didn't he step in and tell Satan where to go? What didn't Adam say...God said...don't eat it.

Except for the verse I quoted..I'd agree... he wasn't present for her dialog with the serpent.

I once heard...and this is sheer speculation...that Eve ate the fruit and Adam knowing her condition from eating the fruit ate it so He wouldn't be separated from Eve....True love.

Yep...
That's my speculation too.
Once he realizes that she ate the fruit, he knew exactly what that meant... she'd die!
This was more than he was willing to deal with.
He was with God in the garden. He had everything... EXCEPT Eve.
I can't imagine the level of loneliness he was facing, but apparently it was enough that he'd rather die with Eve, than to live without her.
True love? That's what I'd say!

A rather curious thing too...
Jesus said,
if anyone wants to be my disciple, let him pick up his cross and deny himself daily.

A form of death to self!

Something else...
husbands, love your wives as Christ loves the church and gave himself for her.......

Seems like this goes back to the garden!
As Adam went with Eve to death, so must we, as followers of Jesus go to death with Him.

A fact? Don't know. It's not included in the narrative. But it is a common sense idea.

So... here we are, some 6000 years later...

Sigh....
Come quickly Lord Jesus!!!!!!

 

[CrowCross]

Except for the verse I quoted..I'd agree... he wasn't present for her dialog with the serpent.


Yep...
That's my speculation too.
Once he realizes that she ate the fruit, he knew exactly what that meant... she'd die!
This was more than he was willing to deal with.
He was with God in the garden. He had everything... EXCEPT Eve.
I can't imagine the level of loneliness he was facing, but apparently it was enough that he'd rather die with Eve, than to live without her.
True love? That's what I'd say!

A rather curious thing too...
Jesus said,
if anyone wants to be my disciple, let him pick up his cross and deny himself daily.

A form of death to self!

Something else...
husbands, love your wives as Christ loves the church and gave himself for her.......

Seems like this goes back to the garden!
As Adam went with Eve to death, so must we, as followers of Jesus go to death with Him.

A fact? Don't know. It's not included in the narrative. But it is a common sense idea.

So... here we are, some 6000 years later...

Sigh....
Come quickly Lord Jesus!!!!!!

Good input.

Just a side note...was Adam and Eve clothed in a shekina like light which was lost when they fell? They were naked.

 

[SteveB]

Good input.

Just a side note...was Adam and Eve clothed in a shekina like light which was lost when they fell? They were naked.

Whatever they were dressed in, it allowed them to live unashamed of being naked.

I have heard of what you described before.

While the book was written by a calvinist, puritan pastor, it's a good book.

Human Nature in its Fourfold State.
Thomas Boston, published 1811.

It's basically a bible study on Human nature.

I really enjoyed the first 60 or so pages, which described their state of being prior to the fall.

He actually gives all the Bible verses to corroborate his writing.

 

[The Pixie]

Just a side note...was Adam and Eve clothed in a shekina like light which was lost when they fell? They were naked.

The story in Genesis is about coming of age. Adam and Eve were like children, in a state of innocence. Eating the fruit was like instant puberty, and with it came knowledge of sex and embarrassment at being naked.

It is interesting that you two seem to advocate being child-like:

A two year old toddler is under the "thumb" of their parent. Would that be wrong?

You liken us to being like toddlers under God's rule. There is very much an idea here that we should be like children

Matthew 19:14 “Jesus said, 'Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.' ”​

It is pretty clear Christianity is, in part, a desire to believe there is a "sky daddy" who will look after you.

Galatians 3:26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith,​

 

[The Pixie]

He actually gives all the Bible verses to corroborate his writing.

Wow. I did not realise Christians could do that.

 

[Caroljeen]

The story in Genesis is about coming of age. Adam and Eve were like children, in a state of innocence. Eating the fruit was like instant puberty, and with it came knowledge of sex and embarrassment at being naked.

Why did they need to eat of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil to know about sex?

It is interesting that you two seem to advocate being child-like:

You liken us to being like toddlers under God's rule. There is very much an idea here that we should be like children

Matthew 19:14 “Jesus said, 'Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.' ”​

It is pretty clear Christianity is, in part, a desire to believe there is a "sky daddy" who will look after you.

Galatians 3:26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith,​

Why does it surprise you that God assumes a father to child relationship with us?

 

[The Pixie]

Why did they need to eat of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil to know about sex?

Why did they need to eat of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil to know they were naked?

It is a just-so story; that is part of the premise. It is the tree of knowledge, remember.

Why does it surprise you that God assumes a father to child relationship with us?

The world is a scary place. It does not surprise me in the least that Christians want to believe there is a "sky daddy" up there looking after them, to replace their actual father as they grow up. As a kid it is comforting to know your mum and dad are looking after you. As a grown-up, it is comforting to know your "sky daddy" is doing that.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

The world is a scary place. It does not surprise me in the least that Christians want to believe there is a "sky daddy" up there looking after them, to replace their actual father as they grow up. As a kid it is comforting to know your mum and dad are looking after you. As a grown-up, it is comforting to know your "sky daddy" is doing that.

There is no sky daddy with or without quote marks. You made him up. Does that sound familiar?

It does not surprise me in the least that some stupid atheists want to believe that Christians believe that there is a "sky daddy" up there looking after them, since these dumb atheists care more for an inaccurate clever phrase than they do for the truth, which involves our trust in our Heavenly Father. And yeah, it is comforting. He's called the Comforter.