In the Beginning...

[Leoreth]

A witty saying proves nothing - Voltaire

In other words, I thought this was a discussion thread, but having context free quotes thrown at me is also nice I guess.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

So we have learned that moral judgements are not universally shared.

Moral judgements may be universally shared but it doesnt make them the highest truth. There may be some higher morals yet or larger truth independent of morals. But this truth is never revealed through "majority position".

Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything. –

 

[Lexicus]

Depends on the circumstances. If the human does something that harms the animal or otherwise encroaches on their territory or threatens them, they are justified in acting on their instinct.

I think it's kind of ridiculous to talk about whether an animal's action in eating a human was 'justified.' Animals kill and eat each other, it has nothing at all to do with morality.
While humans may not be the only animals that have some kind of moral sense, it's pretty silly to suggest that humans don't have a sense of morality that's developed far beyond the capacity of any other animal.

 

[timtofly]

A witty saying proves nothing - Voltaire

In other words, I thought this was a discussion thread, but having context free quotes thrown at me is also nice I guess.

The devil is in the details. If humans were different from the animals biologically, would we even be in the same dimension? The whole point that is being missed, is we are not the same biologically, as when we were created. Thus we can only imagine ourselves as just another animal.

This thread is hardly about what is moral and what is not. This thread was about how Adam was in a different form, and it seems that most here, think we started out as animals, but we still seem to be, so nothing changed then. The proof seems to be the change, was moral, but that is being disbunked, by the arguments made. We have no clue, if animals are moral, but they may be?

Morality is a reality, but it is only justified from the knowledge of evil, and the need to have control over that knowledge.

There is also evidence, that humans were different from animals, but now we are the same, and knowing that, does not seem to help us one bit.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

The devil is in the details. If humans were different from the animals biologically, would we even be in the same dimension? The whole point that is being missed, is we are not the same biologically, as when we were created. Thus we can only imagine ourselves as just another animal.

What kind of process do you have in mind? In some physical characteristic we differ from the people of middle age who were of smaller stature. I could imagine that in fact we are going through cycles in evolution rather then following some more or less straight line but I dont see how you could claim "different biology" for the ancestors.
Humans live in different dimension than animals but not in regard to biology. Its our mental, psychic and spiritual capacity which opens for us new ranges of consciousness and being.

This thread is hardly about what is moral and what is not. This thread was about how Adam was in a different form, and it seems that most here, think we started out as animals, but we still seem to be, so nothing changed then. The proof seems to be the change, was moral, but that is being disbunked, by the arguments made. We have no clue, if animals are moral, but they may be?

We are animals but only in part. Clearly our intellectual, imaginative, creative and other capacities constitute our non-animal and non-physical part. But biology is concerned predominantly with the physical so from its pov man is seen as higher animal.
If humans developed these capacities in course of their post-animal or transitioning evolution then I dont see reason for declaring that nothing has changed.
If our biological or spiritual capacity would be less then of our ancients then perhaps we are witnessing some cycle in evolution but it doesnt necessarily disapprove some kind of evolutionary movement.

Morality is a reality, but it is only justified from the knowledge of evil, and the need to have control over that knowledge.

Morality is knowledge which reflects existence of supraphysical reality. If there was no reality above existence of physical matter and senses morality would by impractical and an insanity. We use morality to mentally control the above-physical reality which is beyond our current vital and mental capacity to absorb and channel which gives us an impression of existence of so-called evil.

There is also evidence, that humans were different from animals, but now we are the same, and knowing that, does not seem to help us one bit.

If this statement was true it could help us in the sense that we could look for possible way of transmutation to the original and purer state. The question is if its practical and desirable.

 

[Berzerker]

Do you accuse people of immorality when they kill and eat animals?

I might, but if a human killed and ate other people I would accuse them of immorality

 

[Leoreth]

Moral judgements may be universally shared but it doesnt make them the highest truth. There may be some higher morals yet or larger truth independent of morals. But this truth is never revealed through "majority position".

I think you missed a crucial "not" in my post.

The devil is in the details. If humans were different from the animals biologically, would we even be in the same dimension? The whole point that is being missed, is we are not the same biologically, as when we were created. Thus we can only imagine ourselves as just another animal.

This thread is hardly about what is moral and what is not. This thread was about how Adam was in a different form, and it seems that most here, think we started out as animals, but we still seem to be, so nothing changed then. The proof seems to be the change, was moral, but that is being disbunked, by the arguments made. We have no clue, if animals are moral, but they may be?

Morality is a reality, but it is only justified from the knowledge of evil, and the need to have control over that knowledge.

There is also evidence, that humans were different from animals, but now we are the same, and knowing that, does not seem to help us one bit.

If we define the difference between humans and (other) animals in terms of human perceptions of the world, then of course we will find that they are different.

I might, but if a human killed and ate other people I would accuse them of immorality

As I have recently learned in another thread, you can do that as long as you are being polite about it.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I think you missed a crucial "not" in my post.

Indeed. I even misread the first post of yours I was making reply to (*facepalm*). I had a tough day and am getting

 

[tetley]

I'm not following this discussion(s), but I can speak to the OP:

If we take "In the beginning" back to the original Hebrew in which it is written, it's "Bereshit bara Elohim et hashamayim ve'et haaretz". Or literally, " In the beginning, Gods created the Heavens and the earth.". Not only is heavens plural--but so is Gods. But lest we take this too far and say that not only is there no spiritual Heaven (only outer space) and that Genesis 1:1 supports polytheism, we have to take the Hebrew Shema into account: "Shema Yisrael, Adonai eloheynu, Adonai ehad". Or literally, " Hear, Israel, the Lord is our Gods, the Lord is one.". That comes from the same Torah from which comes Genesis (Deuteronomy 6:4).

Well that's weird. How can something plural (Elohim) be one? We do that all the time in the English language. Take the words "scissors", or "jeans", or "summons". Those are uniplurals. They are plural words, but they refer to a single thing. A so-called "pair" of scissors--nope, it's only one. In fact, if we occasionally say, "a scissor", that is considered synonymous with a pair of scissors.

So yes, it refers to heavens in the plural--in fact, it also refers to Gods in the plural. But that does not mean there is no Heaven, just as Genesis 1:1 does not support polytheism. Deuteronomy 6:4, in the same Torah, explicitly says as such. It's simply a uniplural form.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

The devil is in the details. If humans were different from the animals biologically, would we even be in the same dimension? The whole point that is being missed, is we are not the same biologically, as when we were created. Thus we can only imagine ourselves as just another animal.

We weren't "created." We evolved. And what is this "same dimension" nonsense? If you see a bird in the sky, are you and the bird in different dimensions? No. You're both in the same, 3-D universe as the rest of us.

We have no clue, if animals are moral, but they may be?

Some animals have a sense of what they consider right and wrong, fair and unfair, and they can be selfish.

I had a cat who would not kill mice. She wouldn't play with dead mice. The one time I observed her touching a mouse was when she caught one, carried it very gently from where she caught it, and then she let it go. She then hopped up on a chair and watched while another cat and I worked together to catch the mouse (it promptly tried to hide, of course).

I don't know why she wouldn't kill them or play with them. She exercised her predatory instincts on small insects, but not on mice. I can only speculate that they may have reminded her of kittens, and she had psychological issues with kittens, as two of hers were taken away before she was ready to let them go. She may have considered it wrong to hurt small furry animals.

I might, but if a human killed and ate other people I would accuse them of immorality

In our modern Western society, this is indeed considered immoral. However, there have been cultures in which cannibalism was considered moral, and for them it would have been immoral not to engage in cannibalism.

 

[timtofly]

What kind of process do you have in mind? In some physical characteristic we differ from the people of middle age who were of smaller stature. I could imagine that in fact we are going through cycles in evolution rather then following some more or less straight line but I dont see how you could claim "different biology" for the ancestors.
Humans live in different dimension than animals but not in regard to biology. Its our mental, psychic and spiritual capacity which opens for us new ranges of consciousness and being.

It would seem that the human species tends to allow for a wider range of variation as opposed to other species. That would give humans the advantage of having a semblance of cycles allowed in the change of the species over the years.

Even if we discover a new species can we really say we observed it evolving from another species?

Even today the occult and certain religions accept that there is a spiritual dimension. There are beings that reside in that dimension. Religion claims that sin is a moral concept that came upon humans, and it happened with Adam. Religion also claims that humans have lost their spiritual self, or never had it in some cases. I just read today that the Chippewa's creation story starts out that they were humans with no identity or knowledge. A messenger (from the gods) came one day and taught them about life, clothing, and how to start advancing in their evolutionary process. In other words working their way back to a spiritual dimension.

In Genesis we have a similar story of a naked Adam who lacked a knowledge the gods had. The difference though is that it seems Adam was created at the same time as all the gods, except for an unknown reason, God left Adam in a state of perfectness without the knowledge of evil. I do not include good, because other than not having a mate (which some may view as good) Adam knew good, just not in the contrast of evil. The account did not say that Adam was a stupid mortal. It said that he named all the animals known to exist at Adam's time. That would indicate reasoning and the ability to classify biology. He even knew that he could not mate with them. I am not sure if that knowledge came from experience or Adam was just smart enough to understand that part of biology. Technically there was no need for morals at all, because there was no evil to cause a duality of thought.

My claim is that when Adam disobeyed, the result was mortality. Sin was the separation from the spiritual reality that all the Sons of God had. The Sons of God had access to our dimension, but after the Flood that access was denied to them. I don't think they died in the Flood. Humans retained the biological reproductive ability to mate and have offspring with the beings in the spiritual realm. By the time of Christ it was claimed that beings in this dimension could not have offspring.

It would seem from the Bible, that humans could do nothing to gain access to their original state. That would not happen until after a physical death in this dimension.

The notion that humans evolve from one species multiple times, or can be re-incarnated over and over until they reach a desired state cannot be found in the Bible as a means to immortality. The only means was death.

We are animals but only in part. Clearly our intellectual, imaginative, creative and other capacities constitute our non-animal and non-physical part. But biology is concerned predominantly with the physical so from its pov man is seen as higher animal.
If humans developed these capacities in course of their post-animal or transitioning evolution then I dont see reason for declaring that nothing has changed.
If our biological or spiritual capacity would be less then of our ancients then perhaps we are witnessing some cycle in evolution but it doesnt necessarily disapprove some kind of evolutionary movement.

Is there a biological component to immortality? Can the entropy nature of biology be reversed? Observing that things change is not proof that they can change as you are describing. If there is a spiritual dimension it has nothing to do with the physical world that we can observe. More than likely it has nothing to do with the physical universe that we can observe either. The length of one human life span, and even retained human consciousness seem to indicate that humans can only guess at such cycles. We do not even accept as a whole that Jesus Christ rose from the dead even when other humans claimed they lived during the event. How can we keep the knowledge of life in our consciousness thousands of years before that?

Morality is knowledge which reflects existence of supraphysical reality. If there was no reality above existence of physical matter and senses morality would by impractical and an insanity. We use morality to mentally control the above-physical reality which is beyond our current vital and mental capacity to absorb and channel which gives us an impression of existence of so-called evil.

I think that we only use morality to justify every day choices, and that is about the extent of it. Morality is about as temperamental as the humans who claim they know what is or is not moral.

If this statement was true it could help us in the sense that we could look for possible way of transmutation to the original and purer state. The question is if its practical and desirable.

Not really. Such knowledge gets us assumptions. Even if we could figure out how to be immortal, it will not get us into the spiritual dimension. That door is locked, and we would have to give up our ego to even find the key, much less open the door. Giving up our ego is not very practical, especially in this day and age. Of course every human is offered a chance to obey God, and such obedience is a knowledgeable faith. This faith is not blind nor can it be taught to us by other humans. Obeying God has always been practical, but going through it may not be desirable nor even a realization that we changed the world around us until after we die. And the effects may go on for generations.

If we define the difference between humans and (other) animals in terms of human perceptions of the world, then of course we will find that they are different.

We find differences in species. That is why we use the term species. I suppose if we were an immortal species, it would provide a difference far greater than an evolved change. The fact that cells would automatically regenerate over and over again. There are some species that can do that in a limited form. They would seem to fall so far away in an evolutionary scale to prove that the human species one time enjoyed that luxury. The story in Genesis seems to indicate that ability was lost and not gained.

According to your video that is a goal to work towards, because it was lost. It was not evolved away either. It was there and then it was not.

We weren't "created." We evolved.

Do you have observable proof that we evolved, or is that a concept that a human came up with to show that one species can evolve into another one. I have a concept of a flying car, but even though I have seen cars change styles over the years, I have yet to see my car evolve into a flying vehicle. I have never even heard of horses evolving into cars. Unless it was the time I almost hit a couple of horses in the process, as there was a buggy behind them as I passed. Ok, I am sorry, but you provided a cat story, and I could not resist my car story.

Evolution is a biological process of copying the information already there. Let me know when your cats evolve into a totally new species that can have viable offspring and cannot have offspring with cats themselves, and perhaps I may become a believer.

And what is this "same dimension" nonsense? If you see a bird in the sky, are you and the bird in different dimensions? No. You're both in the same, 3-D universe as the rest of us.

I realize that humans have just recently been mulling over the thought that time may be the fourth dimension. Is there a fifth, sixth, seventh, etc, and do we know what they are? If time is the fourth dimension, that would be a change in the actual physical aspects of space determining the ability to observe the dimension we are in. It seems to me that if you accept evolution as taking millions of years to change from one species to another, then you just limited yourself to a dimension that cannot change within those two points. Your time dimension is stuck in a 4 billion year time frame. While it may expand, how can you get past the point of time starting. One is forced to view time as not fixed between two linear points. Time may not be part of two physical realities (linear), but based on something beyond what can be observed.

That may be too simple of an example, and some people think that time can be divided into shorter points of reference where things change rapidly. But that has never been observed either. Actually the ancients wrote about such an event and many people have interpreted their writings in many ways. Yet they failed to say they observed the animal kingdom evolving with rapid species changes. Or if they did, they used the word created or outside forces caused the change, and not the dimension of time itself. They did give a glimpse at another dimension or even multiple ones that can no longer be observed or for that matter proved in any scientific way. I think there have been some experiments in species consciousness which may lead to a dimension after time.

Some animals have a sense of what they consider right and wrong, fair and unfair, and they can be selfish.

I had a cat who would not kill mice. She wouldn't play with dead mice. The one time I observed her touching a mouse was when she caught one, carried it very gently from where she caught it, and then she let it go. She then hopped up on a chair and watched while another cat and I worked together to catch the mouse (it promptly tried to hide, of course).

I don't know why she wouldn't kill them or play with them. She exercised her predatory instincts on small insects, but not on mice. I can only speculate that they may have reminded her of kittens, and she had psychological issues with kittens, as two of hers were taken away before she was ready to let them go. She may have considered it wrong to hurt small furry animals.


In our modern Western society, this is indeed considered immoral. However, there have been cultures in which cannibalism was considered moral, and for them it would have been immoral not to engage in cannibalism.

Are your cats evolving into a new species, because they show signs of morals?

That is the point some here are claiming happened to humans at a certain point.

 

[El_Machinae]

Evolution is a biological process of copying the information already there. Let me know when your cats evolve into a totally new species that can have viable offspring and cannot have offspring with cats themselves, and perhaps I may become a believer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canine_transmissible_venereal_tumor

It's an entirely new organism, it evolved from an individual dog, and it cannot reproduce with what we consider 'dogs'.

 

[Lexicus]

It would seem that the human species tends to allow for a wider range of variation as opposed to other species.

Actually, humans are relatively genetically homogeneous compared to other species.

Do you have observable proof that we evolved,

Yes. There is massive observational proof that humans evolved. Vestigial organs, our skeletal structure which is not designed for bipedalism, genetics, embryonic development, etc, etc...

Evolution is a biological process of copying the information already there. Let me know when your cats evolve into a totally new species that can have viable offspring and cannot have offspring with cats themselves, and perhaps I may become a believer.

This is a funny YEC trope that I've run into often. I suggest googling 'genetic mutation'.

 

[warpus]

It's like saying "Show me a solar system forming its planets, I want to see it unfold with my own eyes, before I believe it"

But that crap takes millions of years, dude... meanwhile your eyes only last 80

 

[Leoreth]

Yes. There is massive observational proof that humans evolved. Vestigial organs, our skeletal structure which is not designed for bipedalism, genetics, embryonic development, etc, etc...

But do we *really* knooooooow?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Do you have observable proof that we evolved, or is that a concept that a human came up with to show that one species can evolve into another one. I have a concept of a flying car, but even though I have seen cars change styles over the years, I have yet to see my car evolve into a flying vehicle. I have never even heard of horses evolving into cars. Unless it was the time I almost hit a couple of horses in the process, as there was a buggy behind them as I passed. Ok, I am sorry, but you provided a cat story, and I could not resist my car story.

Evolution is a biological process of copying the information already there. Let me know when your cats evolve into a totally new species that can have viable offspring and cannot have offspring with cats themselves, and perhaps I may become a believer.

Let me know when you understand that spayed cats cannot have offspring.

Are your cats evolving into a new species, because they show signs of morals?

That is the point some here are claiming happened to humans at a certain point.

Did I ever claim these things?

 

[Berzerker]

If we take "In the beginning" back to the original Hebrew in which it is written, it's "Bereshit bara Elohim et hashamayim ve'et haaretz". Or literally, " In the beginning, Gods created the Heavens and the earth."

Some researchers believe a more accurate rendering of Gen 1:1 is "In the beginning of God's preparation of Heaven(s) and Earth", or, "In the beginning when God was preparing Heaven and Earth".

If we take Gen 1:1 as written we end up with a problem - God created the Heavens and Earth in Gen 1:1 but Heaven and Earth dont appear in the story until the 2nd and 3rd days. Did God create Heaven in Gen 1:1 and then again on the 2nd day? Did God create Earth in Gen 1:1 and then again on the 3rd day? And where in the story did God create the water? It appears before the 1st day and it covered the Earth.

In our modern Western society, this is indeed considered immoral. However, there have been cultures in which cannibalism was considered moral, and for them it would have been immoral not to engage in cannibalism.

And your point is? Btw, given your superior reading comprehension you should have no problem actually quoting me claiming people are not animals.

God left Adam in a state of perfectness without the knowledge of evil.

If ignorance of good and evil is perfect, is God less than perfect for knowing good and evil?

My claim is that when Adam disobeyed, the result was mortality.

Where does God say that? The result of the disobedience was the knowledge of good and evil, a knowledge shared by God(s). Having acquired that knowledge Adam was expelled so that he'd remain mortal. Thats what God said, "behold, the man has become like us knowing good and evil. Let us block his path to the tree of life lest he partake and live forever."

You seem to think Adam had already eaten from the tree of life when Genesis clearly states expulsion was to prevent access to the tree.

Do you have observable proof that we evolved

The fossil record shows several million years of human/hominid evolution from small-brained apelike bipedal critters leading to us. Is that proof we evolved from them? Its evidence... Good evidence.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

And your point is? Btw, given your superior reading comprehension you should have no problem actually quoting me claiming people are not animals.

You're so used to arguing with me, you even argue when I'm agreeing with you!

You said:

...if a human killed and ate other people I would accuse them of immorality

I agree that in our society, cannibalism is immoral. However, this is not a universally-accepted idea. There have been societies where cannibalism was not only moral, but also expected. People were seen as immoral if they refused to engage in cannibalism.


As for the second part of your post, you previously said:

Morality is a human notion, one we dont associate with animals

I think it's clear enough that you're saying that humans are not animals.

 

[Berzerker]

You're so used to arguing with me, you even argue when I'm agreeing with you!

"However" agrees with me? I said it was immoral for people to kill and eat other people and you said cannibals disagree with me. If you were agreeing with me, you found a way to disagree in the same response. So what was your point?

As for the second part of your post, you previously said:

I think it's clear enough that you're saying that humans are not animals.

Here's what I said:

Morality is a human notion, one we dont associate with animals

That doesn't mean we're not animals, it means morality is a human notion we dont associate with animals. If a shark kills a surfer (or another shark) we dont accuse the shark of immorality.

You said:

Berzerker acts as though humans are not animals. The fact is that we are animals. We have more capabilities in a lot of ways than other animals - abstract reasoning being one of them - but that doesn't mean that other animals don't have a sense of right and wrong.

You just cited differences between humans and animals, were you claiming humans are not animals?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

"However" agrees with me? I said it was immoral for people to kill and eat other people and you said cannibals disagree with me. If you were agreeing with me, you found a way to disagree in the same response. So what was your point?



Here's what I said:

Morality is a human notion, one we dont associate with animals

That doesn't mean we're not animals, it means morality is a human notion we dont associate with animals. If a shark kills a surfer (or another shark) we dont accuse the shark of immorality.

You said:



You just cited differences between humans and animals, were you claiming humans are not animals?

Cannibalism is a concept that was covered in my cultural anthropology courses. Both of us live in a modern, Western culture that considers cannibalism to be immoral. You think it's immoral, and I think it's immoral. However, I'm pointing out that "cannibalism is immoral" is not a universal concept. What is so hard to understand about that?

You obviously missed the word "other" in my previous post.