"The Creator" is the Crucial Issue in Religion
-
- Posts: 1133
- Joined: October 23rd, 2019, 4:48 pm
"The Creator" is the Crucial Issue in Religion
In Islamism, the Qur’an states the all-knowing Allah created the heavens and the Earth, and all that is between them, in six yawm (each ranging from 1,000 to 50,000 years).
In Hinduism, There are many universes, with each following the destruction of the earlier, as created by Lord Brahma, maintained by Lord Vishnu, and destroyed by Lord Shiva. These three gods are all forms of Supreme One and part of the Supreme One. The Supreme One is behind and beyond all.
In Buddhism, Creation occurs repeatedly throughout time in cycles. According to [email protected]: “In the beginning of each cycle, land forms, in darkness, on the surface of the water. Beings who populated the universe in the previous cycle are reborn; some of them become the “new” humans in the new universe. Suffering and misery reign. That is where we stand today. Eventually, the universe breaks down; all living creatures return to the soul life, and the cycle repeats. There is no ‘Creation’ in the usual Christian-like way of looking at it. Some older Buddhist stories do indeed involve some kind of god or gods making the creation happen. Today, these are generally accepted as symbolic stories.”
Taoism is pantheistic in its view of the material world. The origin of creation is explained: "Tao is its own source, its own root. Before heaven and earth existed it was there. It gave spirituality to the spirits and gods; it gave birth to heaven and to earth." The word Tao is nothing less than an expression of the profound unity of the universe and of the path human beings must take to join rather than to disturb that unity. Translated from Chinese as Path or Way, Tao is more a beacon than an entity.
In Chinese mythology, chaos and harmony as one, termed Tai-chi, has been around until the beginning of time, when it gave birth to that double helix chasing each other inside a circle. In turn, this circle gave birth to four ways, which in turn gave birth to eight sooths, which in turn gave birth to sixteen something which I cannot translate, and so on.
No religion worth its salt can afford to evade the issue of ‘Creation’ without losing the ardent faith of its believers. The issue of there being a ‘Creator’ is so crucial that some would deny Buddhism as a genuine religion in its absence of a viable creator. In the same vein, Taoism is no more than the study of harmony in nature which must be accepted with due respect or suffer the dire consequence. Be that as it may, installing a creator would beg the question right-away: Where is the Creator from, as he apparently cannot create himself? In the absence of a definitive answer to this question, some would argue for the dismissal of the said creator as well as the religion, on what they would declare on sound mathematical and/or logical ground. I am not convinced that such argument is robust enough to withstand reasonable doubt, that a creator may always be around in the first place. If indeed God the Creator can be so disposed, sadly or fortunately we may still be vested in the serenity of Buddhism as we quietly accept the path recommended by Taoism, at the same time as we enjoy the rumination of mysticism.
- Papus79
- Posts: 1798
- Joined: February 19th, 2017, 6:59 pm
Re: "The Creator" is the Crucial Issue in Religion
When I think about faith of believers though through creation myths, when it comes to the people setting the origin of traditions that strikes me like it almost should be a 'who cares' or 'who wants to care' from the perspective that if you need puerile tales, dumbed down to the point of being literally wrong (which the whole system may be as well but the stories are the nursery-rhyme fidelity of the actual concept), to band people together, is that a good thing? I have to really put it in the realm of politics because it seems so much like it's about mass psychology and banding people together. In the middle east clearly there was enough tribal warfare that it was a big need to be able to generate myths to keep the local tribe or city fighting the other tribes for their autonomy. I have to wonder as well what happened when those models don't repeat, for example in the Phillipines - wasn't there the same constant battle for islands and isn't that where arts like kali, arnis, and eskrima came from? Seems like that territory would have been ripe for the same sort of theistic innovation yet, as far as I'm aware you don't have that.
Seems like when people are genuinely interested in creation or trying to encapsulate it they're really trying to figure out what the highest principals are, and you see some hint of that in the early pre-Socratic philosophers talking about which element they believed the world or cosmos was actually based in. These days similar interests are coming from different sectors at applying this same thirst for cosmic understanding to mathematical and geometric physics (just coming off of Eric Weinstein's interview with Sir Roger Penrose - great example of this).
The creator question might be akin to the question of 'is there a true north that I can align myself with?', ie. for most thinking people if they can do something better they want to.
Hope that response wasn't too ambling, just that as we try to get our heads around the universe we only get better to varying degrees over time at pulling back from the impulse to project ourselves all over everything.
-
- Posts: 52
- Joined: February 21st, 2020, 6:50 pm
Re: "The Creator" is the Crucial Issue in Religion
I think religious Origin scriptures were secularly understood when initially written but devolve to become 'religious' in time due to lost context to words.
Here, for instance, the term, "God" used to have another terms, "El om" or "El-oh-om", meant "the (one) source", "the sources", or, for inclusion of those who are religious, the 'superior source' (to which some later assigned as 'good' versus the dualistic neutral amoral meaning implied by a mere 'source'.)gad-fly wrote: ↑March 1st, 2020, 12:55 am In Christianity, the Holy Bible starts with Genesis: In the beginning, God creates Heaven and Earth. The Earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light . . . God saw all that He made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
"Al-la" means "the one". Again, this can be understood as the one cause or Nature itself regardless of whether is or is not religious and so was originally more universal across different groups of people then.In Islamism, the Qur’an states the all-knowing Allah created the heavens and the Earth, and all that is between them, in six yawm (each ranging from 1,000 to 50,000 years).
India was like a 'dead-end' to the continent (versus a route to elsewhere) and held a virtual 'paradise' for many different views. It thus went against the rival changes that begun in Egypt via AkhenAten's ONE SOURCE dictum that evolved into the latter Judaeo-Christian religions. Thus Hinduism kept the tribalism in a multicultural form and so actually represented the collective groups of various different 'source' beliefs from original distinct tribes and their 'ancestral myths' included to define one's culture among the variety. The better times permitted this collective-set to evolve into one that includes them all where individuals could pick or borrow from the other. You likely won't get such compliance of diverse views to become one without a period of relative isolation and a healthy environment where no one is THREATENED by the difference of opinions of originally distinct views.In Hinduism, There are many universes, with each following the destruction of the earlier, as created by Lord Brahma, maintained by Lord Vishnu, and destroyed by Lord Shiva. These three gods are all forms of Supreme One and part of the Supreme One. The Supreme One is behind and beyond all.
Buddhism is an evolution of Hinduist multicultural confusion of sources. If all these distinct sources could be true, then perhaps they are all still part of one but in distinct places or times. This may have led to a proposal that while they all cannot be true at once, they can be true in independent life stories.In Buddhism, Creation occurs repeatedly throughout time in cycles. According to [email protected]: “In the beginning of each cycle, land forms, in darkness, on the surface of the water. Beings who populated the universe in the previous cycle are reborn; some of them become the “new” humans in the new universe. Suffering and misery reign. That is where we stand today. Eventually, the universe breaks down; all living creatures return to the soul life, and the cycle repeats. There is no ‘Creation’ in the usual Christian-like way of looking at it. Some older Buddhist stories do indeed involve some kind of god or gods making the creation happen. Today, these are generally accepted as symbolic stories.”
Taoism is pantheistic in its view of the material world. The origin of creation is explained: "Tao is its own source, its own root. Before heaven and earth existed it was there. It gave spirituality to the spirits and gods; it gave birth to heaven and to earth." The word Tao is nothing less than an expression of the profound unity of the universe and of the path human beings must take to join rather than to disturb that unity. Translated from Chinese as Path or Way, Tao is more a beacon than an entity.
In Chinese mythology, chaos and harmony as one, termed Tai-chi, has been around until the beginning of time, when it gave birth to that double helix chasing each other inside a circle. In turn, this circle gave birth to four ways, which in turn gave birth to eight sooths, which in turn gave birth to sixteen something which I cannot translate, and so on.
The "Tao" and/or "Dao", as well as "Tai" were etymologically rooted terms for "two things in one", like that "Good and Evil" both are in the 'source'. Note too that "three" states also come in play as meaning that the third is the 'con-tra-diction'. [con = "with", tra- "three", -diction = "state(s)"]
Just sticking with your term "Creator" without pointing out other interesting things about the above origin scriptures, I think the idea is rational if you removed the context of these records as speaking of "Divinity" (a word itself that represents those 'sources' that are divided in state from the rest of reality, dualistically or contradictorily.)No religion worth its salt can afford to evade the issue of ‘Creation’ without losing the ardent faith of its believers. The issue of there being a ‘Creator’ is so crucial that some would deny Buddhism as a genuine religion in its absence of a viable creator. In the same vein, Taoism is no more than the study of harmony in nature which must be accepted with due respect or suffer the dire consequence. Be that as it may, installing a creator would beg the question right-away: Where is the Creator from, as he apparently cannot create himself? In the absence of a definitive answer to this question, some would argue for the dismissal of the said creator as well as the religion, on what they would declare on sound mathematical and/or logical ground. I am not convinced that such argument is robust enough to withstand reasonable doubt, that a creator may always be around in the first place. If indeed God the Creator can be so disposed, sadly or fortunately we may still be vested in the serenity of Buddhism as we quietly accept the path recommended by Taoism, at the same time as we enjoy the rumination of mysticism.
I think then your OP is pointing out how religion literalizes our common Natural 'source' as a type of conscious and 'conscience' one that chose to cause us by arbitrary whim. It wouldn't be harmful except for where it conflicts with the value interpretations of "good" or "evil". The mono-theist expects this divine source to be ONLY "good"; the Taoist would treat this divided in two to be both "good and evil". The rest are usually mixes of these two value-begging concepts.
So the threat of religion relates to how they presume morals/values are either dicated by this 'source' and have to be strictly unique and universal or without value (dualistic) or both (trinity ...inclusive of the contradiction of being "good" or "evil" or "both good and evil"). Where one thinks the scriptures were inspired of a literal conscience and conscious being, the differing creation origins are what ultimately POSTULATES what those supporting them belief are as absolute proof of their prefered morals and values.
@Papus79, I agree to your post response too and believe some of what I said is implied in what you said.
-
- Posts: 1133
- Joined: October 23rd, 2019, 4:48 pm
Re: "The Creator" is the Crucial Issue in Religion
Hence the claim of Buddhism and Taoism as religion in the narrow sense of the term must be open to challenge. I would say they are more belief and philosophical approach to be practiced with.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7934
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: "The Creator" is the Crucial Issue in Religion
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: "The Creator" is the Crucial Issue in Religion
These three categories have the same historical roots.gad-fly wrote: ↑March 1st, 2020, 12:55 am In Christianity, the Holy Bible starts with Genesis: In the beginning, God creates Heaven and Earth. The Earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light . . . God saw all that He made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
In Islamism, the Qur’an states the all-knowing Allah created the heavens and the Earth, and all that is between them, in six yawm (each ranging from 1,000 to 50,000 years).
In Hinduism, There are many universes, with each following the destruction of the earlier, as created by Lord Brahma, maintained by Lord Vishnu, and destroyed by Lord Shiva. These three gods are all forms of Supreme One and part of the Supreme One. The Supreme One is behind and beyond all.
This is actually an exception to God the creator, since unadulterated Buddhism has not creator but is polluted with a range of syncratic interlopers across Asia where it grew
In Buddhism, Creation occurs repeatedly throughout time in cycles. According to [email protected]: “In the beginning of each cycle, land forms, in darkness, on the surface of the water. Beings who populated the universe in the previous cycle are reborn; some of them become the “new” humans in the new universe. Suffering and misery reign. That is where we stand today. Eventually, the universe breaks down; all living creatures return to the soul life, and the cycle repeats. There is no ‘Creation’ in the usual Christian-like way of looking at it. Some older Buddhist stories do indeed involve some kind of god or gods making the creation happen. Today, these are generally accepted as symbolic stories.”
Yes, another exception to "the creator"Taoism is pantheistic in its view of the material world. The origin of creation is explained: "Tao is its own source, its own root. Before heaven and earth existed it was there. It gave spirituality to the spirits and gods; it gave birth to heaven and to earth." The word Tao is nothing less than an expression of the profound unity of the universe and of the path human beings must take to join rather than to disturb that unity. Translated from Chinese as Path or Way, Tao is more a beacon than an entity.
Empty speculation.
In Chinese mythology, chaos and harmony as one, termed Tai-chi, has been around until the beginning of time, when it gave birth to that double helix chasing each other inside a circle. In turn, this circle gave birth to four ways, which in turn gave birth to eight sooths, which in turn gave birth to sixteen something which I cannot translate, and so on.
No religion worth its salt can afford to evade the issue of ‘Creation’ without losing the ardent faith of its believers.
What's your point?The issue of there being a ‘Creator’ is so crucial that some would deny Buddhism as a genuine religion in its absence of a viable creator. In the same vein, Taoism is no more than the study of harmony in nature which must be accepted with due respect or suffer the dire consequence. Be that as it may, installing a creator would beg the question right-away: Where is the Creator from, as he apparently cannot create himself? In the absence of a definitive answer to this question, some would argue for the dismissal of the said creator as well as the religion, on what they would declare on sound mathematical and/or logical ground. I am not convinced that such argument is robust enough to withstand reasonable doubt, that a creator may always be around in the first place. If indeed God the Creator can be so disposed, sadly or fortunately we may still be vested in the serenity of Buddhism as we quietly accept the path recommended by Taoism, at the same time as we enjoy the rumination of mysticism.
It is no surprise that humans have been interested in their origins, and that this should be widespread. Religions have tried to answer this question without any knowledge, understanding or evidence. Such is their failing to offer a useful or meaningful answer.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: "The Creator" is the Crucial Issue in Religion
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2020, 11:01 am The "Tao" and/or "Dao", as well as "Tai" were etymologically rooted terms for "two things in one", like that "Good and Evil" both are in the 'source'. Note too that "three" states also come in play as meaning that the third is the 'con-tra-diction'. [con = "with", tra- "three", -diction = "state(s)"]
I am stunned when people make stuff up just to support their opinions. For years I refused to believe that anyone would do such a thing. Now I have been forced to accept that it happens all the time, all over the place. The practice has even reached philosophy forums, the last place such things belong, you might've thought....Etymological dictionary wrote:Contradiction [...] from contra "against" + dicere "to say, speak"
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Posts: 52
- Joined: February 21st, 2020, 6:50 pm
Re: "The Creator" is the Crucial Issue in Religion
I don't care what some particular dictionary CLAIMS is the case different from what I proposed. Neither has more weight of direct measure to the actual detemined exact origins. However, unless you simply prefer a means to reduce your concern to participate by trusting whatever 'authority' you prefer, the roots I suggested infer the same meaning regardless as it evolved. The root particled terms I mentioned there ARE related by understanding how we devise terms based upon literal phonetic sounds from our inital environments. Thus word roots act as memes that derive from a common memetic pool where all the distinct meanings have come from in one given language.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 3rd, 2020, 7:32 amScott Mayers wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2020, 11:01 am The "Tao" and/or "Dao", as well as "Tai" were etymologically rooted terms for "two things in one", like that "Good and Evil" both are in the 'source'. Note too that "three" states also come in play as meaning that the third is the 'con-tra-diction'. [con = "with", tra- "three", -diction = "state(s)"]I am stunned when people make stuff up just to support their opinions. For years I refused to believe that anyone would do such a thing. Now I have been forced to accept that it happens all the time, all over the place. The practice has even reached philosophy forums, the last place such things belong, you might've thought....Etymological dictionary wrote:Contradiction [...] from contra "against" + dicere "to say, speak"
In logic, you have (1) a rule about identity, (2) a rule that proposes its negation, and (3)both. The (3) is a "contradiction" which means that X an not-X coexist. THAT is the more rational etymology. Many terms get mutated on the level of their memes by enviromental causes, like politics, religion, and culture. Thus etymology tends to be important for many to monopolize theirs as 'true' uniquely to hide some discontention that they fear will expose their own beliefs. And while I am no exception, my own monopoly to define the parts is sufficient to help understand the present meaning with clarity. So it doesn't matter whether I am precisely correct. I just give CHARITY to those roots that are most common to many words and infer the roots to be based on the phonetical sounds we hear in nature.
Example: "Ra", the supposed 'god' falsely assumed, must have been an 'energy' term of dispersion, like "ray", and the common associations, like that the scariest most powerful image of sound would be to the wild animals, the lion being most dominant in our early African roots. The male lion's mane also associates to how the sun shines its rays and also represents something most powerful of all! So "ra" refers to the suns light and most words with "-r-" sounds then reference things like 'sight' and 'power'.
"are", "or", "ray", "air", "aura", are examples of words that are linked to this same orinal concept.
So, when you hear/see "Abram" or "Abraham", the "-ra-" in the name means 'to see' with more probability to the ancients shared general meanigs across many cultures of the day.
So, "God" is associative to "good"; "write" is associative to "right" [in the ancient past, 'the literal person admonished as correct by Nature could only write with their right hand or be assumed both 'wrong' and 'left' out of consideration for official scribe duty; "area" comes from "array" from a "ray", and most memetically, "ra",..... etc, etc.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: "The Creator" is the Crucial Issue in Religion
So an etymological dictionary, with no axe to grind, describes the etymological history and derivation of the word, but you disagree. OK, that's your privilege. But communication relies on the shared understanding of the words we use. So I cannot communicate with you. Fare well!Scott Mayers wrote: ↑March 3rd, 2020, 8:33 amI don't care what some particular dictionary CLAIMS is the case different from what I proposed. Neither has more weight of direct measure to the actual detemined exact origins. However, unless you simply prefer a means to reduce your concern to participate by trusting whatever 'authority' you prefer, the roots I suggested infer the same meaning regardless as it evolved. The root particled terms I mentioned there ARE related by understanding how we devise terms based upon literal phonetic sounds from our inital environments. Thus word roots act as memes that derive from a common memetic pool where all the distinct meanings have come from in one given language.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 3rd, 2020, 7:32 am
I am stunned when people make stuff up just to support their opinions. For years I refused to believe that anyone would do such a thing. Now I have been forced to accept that it happens all the time, all over the place. The practice has even reached philosophy forums, the last place such things belong, you might've thought....
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Posts: 52
- Joined: February 21st, 2020, 6:50 pm
Re: "The Creator" is the Crucial Issue in Religion
Why did you choose the label, "Pattern-chaser" if you don't notice that those who "chased the pattern and own them before you" has already been set in stone by how they got to be the fortunate authors of the 'etymology' reference you have faith in?Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 3rd, 2020, 8:44 amSo an etymological dictionary, with no axe to grind, describes the etymological history and derivation of the word, but you disagree. OK, that's your privilege. But communication relies on the shared understanding of the words we use. So I cannot communicate with you. Fare well!Scott Mayers wrote: ↑March 3rd, 2020, 8:33 am
I don't care what some particular dictionary CLAIMS is the case different from what I proposed. Neither has more weight of direct measure to the actual detemined exact origins. However, unless you simply prefer a means to reduce your concern to participate by trusting whatever 'authority' you prefer, the roots I suggested infer the same meaning regardless as it evolved. The root particled terms I mentioned there ARE related by understanding how we devise terms based upon literal phonetic sounds from our inital environments. Thus word roots act as memes that derive from a common memetic pool where all the distinct meanings have come from in one given language.
Communications is TWO-WAY negotiation. You presumed falsely that I was using the etymology to prove something deductively when the argument is simply inductive, a 'pattern' that I presented by my own seeking. I wasn't saying that you should go away if you didn't agree with me. I was saying that I shouldn't give up my argument or go away just because you could suggest some mere opinion you think makes better sense.
Etymology control is very significant most specifically to cultures, religions, politics, and even economics. So the dictionaries we use are just reflections of those authors that get endorsed in ways that would not insult their own beliefs and can best be used to manipulate what the masses should NOT interpret as roots that affect them.
For instance, "Adam" and "Eve" are actually titles, not proper names when written. The character's labels were initially animating Nature and society as "the first solid"[=="Adam") and "what follows" (==Eve). So the words that share roots to "Adam" are (adon, ado, Aten, Odin, Autumn, odd, etc.) So given the vast majority of people still adhere to some religion and with roots to the Judaeo-Chrisitan bible, those most religiously threatened by this etymology will do what they can to control the narrative of what truly IS or is NOT the eytymology of certain terms. The periods of change occurs when some group finds offense to some term or symbol and then gets it banned if not destroyed so as to disconnect those people's association to the meaning.
And in the term, "Adam", the interest of all the Judaeo-Christians who literally believe a real man named, Adam, existed, would be unwelcomed to learn that the origin of Judaism is due to the destruction of the Egyptian empire, and it would be most desirable to prevent anyone from noticing how "Aten" is the root of the latter "Adam" which would point to Egyptian religion IS the more older religion.
-
- Posts: 52
- Joined: February 21st, 2020, 6:50 pm
Re: "The Creator" is the Crucial Issue in Religion
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑March 3rd, 2020, 9:25 amWhy did you choose the label, "Pattern-chaser" if you don't notice that those who "chased the pattern and own them before you" has already been set in stone by how they got to be the fortunate authors of the 'etymology' reference you have faith in?Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 3rd, 2020, 8:44 am
So an etymological dictionary, with no axe to grind, describes the etymological history and derivation of the word, but you disagree. OK, that's your privilege. But communication relies on the shared understanding of the words we use. So I cannot communicate with you. Fare well!
Communications is TWO-WAY negotiation. You presumed falsely that I was using the etymology to prove something deductively when the argument is simply inductive, a 'pattern' that I presented by my own seeking. I wasn't saying that you should go away if you didn't agree with me. I was saying that I shouldn't give up my argument or go away just because you could suggest some mere opinion you think makes better sense.
Etymology control is very significant most specifically to cultures, religions, politics, and even economics. So the dictionaries we use are just reflections of those authors that get endorsed in ways that would not insult their own beliefs and can best be used to manipulate what the masses should NOT interpret as roots that affect them.
For instance, "Adam" and "Eve" are actually titles, not proper names when written. The character's labels were initially animating Nature and society as "the first solid"(=="Adam") and "what follows" (==Eve). So the words that share roots to "Adam" are (adon, ado, Aten, Odin, Autumn, odd, etc.) So given the vast majority of people still adhere to some religion and with roots to the Judaeo-Chrisitan bible, those most religiously threatened by this etymology will do what they can to control the narrative of what truly IS or is NOT the eytymology of certain terms. The periods of change occurs when some group finds offense to some term or symbol and then gets it banned, if not destroyed, so as to disconnect those people's association to the meaning for all the future ahead of them.
And in the term, "Adam", the interest of all the Judaeo-Christians who literally believe a real man named, Adam, existed, would be unwelcomed to learn that the origin of Judaism is due to the destruction of the Egyptian empire, and it would be most desirable to prevent anyone from noticing this: how "Aten" is the root of the latter "Adam" which would point to Egyptian religion AS the more truer origins.
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: "The Creator" is the Crucial Issue in Religion
Abuse of etymology.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑March 3rd, 2020, 8:33 am Example: "Ra", the supposed 'god' falsely assumed, must have been an 'energy' term of dispersion, like "ray", and the common associations, like that the scariest most powerful image of sound would be to the wild animals, the lion being most dominant in our early African roots. The male lion's mane also associates to how the sun shines its rays and also represents something most powerful of all! So "ra" refers to the suns light and most words with "-r-" sounds then reference things like 'sight' and 'power'.
"are", "or", "ray", "air", "aura", are examples of words that are linked to this same orinal concept.
So, when you hear/see "Abram" or "Abraham", the "-ra-" in the name means 'to see' with more probability to the ancients shared general meanigs across many cultures of the day.
So, "God" is associative to "good"; "write" is associative to "right" [in the ancient past, 'the literal person admonished as correct by Nature could only write with their right hand or be assumed both 'wrong' and 'left' out of consideration for official scribe duty; "area" comes from "array" from a "ray", and most memetically, "ra",..... etc, etc.
-
- Posts: 52
- Joined: February 21st, 2020, 6:50 pm
Re: "The Creator" is the Crucial Issue in Religion
I used it as 'supporting' case to demonstrate speculation on religious origin-claims that CAN be more rationally be interpreted as secular writings and/or passed-on contemporary politics and education of the day when they were recorded that gets distorted from their origin in an evolutionary manner.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑March 3rd, 2020, 9:42 amAbuse of etymology.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑March 3rd, 2020, 8:33 am Example: "Ra", the supposed 'god' falsely assumed, must have been an 'energy' term of dispersion, like "ray", and the common associations, like that the scariest most powerful image of sound would be to the wild animals, the lion being most dominant in our early African roots. The male lion's mane also associates to how the sun shines its rays and also represents something most powerful of all! So "ra" refers to the suns light and most words with "-r-" sounds then reference things like 'sight' and 'power'.
"are", "or", "ray", "air", "aura", are examples of words that are linked to this same orinal concept.
So, when you hear/see "Abram" or "Abraham", the "-ra-" in the name means 'to see' with more probability to the ancients shared general meanigs across many cultures of the day.
So, "God" is associative to "good"; "write" is associative to "right" [in the ancient past, 'the literal person admonished as correct by Nature could only write with their right hand or be assumed both 'wrong' and 'left' out of consideration for official scribe duty; "area" comes from "array" from a "ray", and most memetically, "ra",..... etc, etc.
Perhaps you could expand upon what you mean by my supposed "abuse of etymology". This is a philosophy forum. CAn you express what this is and what it is not to help me understand what you mean?
-
- Posts: 1133
- Joined: October 23rd, 2019, 4:48 pm
Re: "The Creator" is the Crucial Issue in Religion
Good lesson learnt from what you have written. It is heavy reading, going through several times, up and down. Perhaps you can summarize in a single post for easier referral. Thank you.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑March 3rd, 2020, 9:59 am
I used it as 'supporting' case to demonstrate speculation on religious origin-claims that CAN be more rationally be interpreted as secular writings and/or passed-on contemporary politics and education of the day when they were recorded that gets distorted from their origin in an evolutionary manner.
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: "The Creator" is the Crucial Issue in Religion
Words are signifiers only and do not encapsulate meaning. When a homonym branches off the meaning is not preserved but separates along a different branch. You cannot learn deeper meanings by an assumed evolution since the emptiness of signification is not pressured by selection - it is the concept itself which undergoes the selective pressure - so that for two distinct words carrying the same meaning the persistence of each of the words is not directly related to the sound or the spelling but by the persistence of the word's concept's usage and usefulness.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑March 3rd, 2020, 9:59 amI used it as 'supporting' case to demonstrate speculation on religious origin-claims that CAN be more rationally be interpreted as secular writings and/or passed-on contemporary politics and education of the day when they were recorded that gets distorted from their origin in an evolutionary manner.
Perhaps you could expand upon what you mean by my supposed "abuse of etymology". This is a philosophy forum. CAn you express what this is and what it is not to help me understand what you mean?
In this way it matters not a jot what you call an idea, its about the persistence of the idea regardless of the word used to describe it.
This is empirically obvious since other languages have different words to express the same thing other languages also have.
And whilst different cultures may use the same word, its meaning for each of those cultures can be utterly different.
The signifier is arbitrary. The signified is everything.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023