jrossi@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (The Electric Sol) (01/01/90)
[This is a difficult one to deal with. Normally it is considered improper to post personal mail with permission of the person involved. However in this case apparently the person's return address doesn't work. I've removed the person's name. --clh] ***, my mail to you bounced, so here are my reponses to your email. >Just for the record, Adam and Eve were told to be "fruitful >and multiply" before the Fall, as the animals were commanded >in the like manner. (Man was given responsibilities over >all creations, as well -- see Genesis 1 and 2). thank you. what I find interesting is that they are commanded to do this before the creation of Eve. Notice how Gen. 1:27-28 precedes the creation of woman ( Gen. 2:21-23 ). However, it was my mistake in thinking they wouldn't have reproduced in an unfallen state, at least as I understood it. My only other problem with Genesis is the "subdue Earth" part, which as have seen, can lead to ecological catastrophe. The "Be fruitful and multiply" command is by far the simplest and easiest one to follow since it essenitally means "go and have lots of sex." The reason I equated sex and reproduction with a fallen state is the sense of shame I sometimes feel after sex. I equated symbolically the "knowledge of orgasm" as the knowledge of good and evil i.e the knowing of pleasure, in which we realize we are fleshly orgamisms subject to biological law, and the desire for sex and pleasure, a animalistic biological drive common to all animals. After the orgasm they saw their naked parts for what they were, and thus "knew" both pleasure ( sex, unity ) and pain ( no sex, disunity ) as part of their material reality. >Dave Mielke's position is not as unreasonable as you think. >The simplest reply would be, read up on Semiotics (Cassirer or >Percy is my recommendation). so you admit its unreasonable then... are Cassierer and Percy christians...are their works authoritative? Pretend I can't read, or don't the intellectual background to grasp these ideas. I'm not name dropping or using anyone else to support my observations as much as I am, much in manner of the boy who shouts the Emperor has no clothes, pointing out the obvious. >In semiotics (and probably in linguistics), it is acknowledged >that all thought is based on language (which is not necessarily >a spoken or a visual one -- e.g., Brille (sp?)). And language >is social in nature (i.e., it is taught not an instinct). >(Aside: for an atheist, the origin of language is an unanswerable >question and is no longer talked about or studied.) Hence, a >language-user always has a teacher (or teachers), someone (or >people) who is an external source (so there is no question of >trusting one's senses). even with braille, there is a need to trust one's senses i.e. the fingers of the deaf. my point with dave, is he can't come to trust God, without first trusting himself. He has to trust that he, himself can distinguish that which comes from the true God, and that which comes from the Adversary. He has to trust his own judgement, which eventually gets into trusting God i.e. he has to trust that God created him capable of understanding, and given him the ability to use, i.e. trust his senses, in deciding truth for himself. >Once a person masters (more or less) a language, it is up to him >to decide who he will consider as the final authority. As a >Christian, I would put God and His Word, the Bible, as the final I trust God, and have yet to see that this book is entirely of Him. >authority (the authority is returned from the language-teacher >to the Original Teacher). On the other hand, if I put myself as >final autho>rity (i.e., atheism or, as I would like to say, >autotheism -- belief in one's self as the god), then I would be >in a position to question my own senses, since I would no longer >have any external reference (language teacher(s)) I can rely upon. I believe I am a temporal, linear experience *within* the ongoing revealation, unfolding of the Divine Christ. My limited egoic exsistence, while flawed, is only capable of that which God allows. Any ability, talent, or insight that I have is not my own creation, but comes from he who created me. All flaws, and shortcomings, are in the end, to glorify God, for he has chosen the weak of the world to manifest his love. He has kept wisdom from the wise and revealed it to babes. He has made me weak that he might make me strong. But in the end, I am God as you are God, although neither one of us, alone is God, we are, in unity, One Being, Forever, Eternal, and full of Grace. >So, philosophers that end with themselves are stuck with mere >existence, at most But, as long as one rely on external reference >point(s -- depending on your ism's), then one have much more than >existence to work with. but exsistence is, at once, the full expression of the infinite and divine. God Bless a gnostic -- -jrossi@jato.jpl.nasa.gov "Constantly choosing the lesser of two evils -ames!elroy!jato!jrossi is still choosing evil." -Cptn. Trips **********************STANDARD DISCLAIMER******************************