God of obedience or God of Recognition?

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Genesis 2:15

15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.

Do the two great luminaries set 'to rule the day and to rule the night' have any choice in the matter? They were put there to give light, and to 'mark seasons, and days, and years.' (Genesis 1:14) It doesn't seem they have much choice in the matter at all. (Strict obedience in their 'rulership' over the day and the night.)

However, according to Genesis chapters 1 and 2, man was put here to take care of the earth, but unlike the two luminaries that rule the day and the night, man has some choice in how he goes about taking care of the earth, even to the point of assigning names to its creatures. (Genesis 2:19) A bit different, I would say.

Is this really a preoccupation with authority? I really don't see it that way. *shrugs*

Hey Seattle. I guess I'm a simple soul. A text which has human beings "subduing and having dominion" and heavenly bodies "ruling" appears to have a least some thematic weight. And this theme is hardly absent throughout the bible, to say the least.


But you know we're no doubt talking past each on this. We have diffeent readings, but if your reading involves your spiritual practice than it's the only one that really matters, especially if it contributes to the decent person you obviously are.


Shanti.

[mee]

Originally Posted by Devadatta

[/indent]and the trap God set to bring it off.
Shanti.

As its the bible we are refering to, i cant say i have read that thought in the bible .


but the bible does tell us just who is responsible , and it sure was not the most high God .


the one who is the father of the lie is the one that is responsible.

and as the bible tells us, it is impossible for God to lie , so it wasnt him .


but it was the most high God that came to our rescue to put things back to how they should be .

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Devadatta

A text which has human beings "subduing and having dominion" and heavenly bodies "ruling" appears to have a least some thematic weight.

I'm not so sure the issue of authority is a negatively tainted one. I don't see a connotation of aggression or abuse.

I'm not sure what the objection would be if G-d granted humankind the authority. Some Jewish theologians suggest that G-d may actually have entrusts more authority to humans than angels because He has given humans the ability to reason, to make moral judgments, and to exercise free will. If humankind was created in the image of G-d (Genesis 1:27), wouldn't we be expected to emulate G-d's caring for His Creation?

In this connection, does it make sense to see our moral struggle as being centered on the proper exercise of G-d given authority in order to do prove ourselves worthy of the privilege and honor. Doesn't this call for humility rather than the arrogance that could lead to doing harm?

Humans are the stewards of G-d's created order. I see the moral struggle as being part of what it is to take care of the earth in a way that reflects a love of G-d.

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

I'm not so sure the issue of authority is a negatively tainted one. I don't see a connotation of aggression or abuse.

I'm not sure what the objection would be if G-d granted humankind the authority. Some Jewish theologians suggest that G-d may actually have entrusts more authority to humans than angels because He has given humans the ability to reason, to make moral judgments, and to exercise free will. If humankind was created in the image of G-d (Genesis 1:27), wouldn't we be expected to emulate G-d's caring for His Creation?

In this connection, does it make sense to see our moral struggle as being centered on the proper exercise of G-d given authority in order to do prove ourselves worthy of the privilege and honor. Doesn't this call for humility rather than the arrogance that could lead to doing harm?

Humans are the stewards of G-d's created order. I see the moral struggle as being part of what it is to take care of the earth in a way that reflects a love of G-d.

Hi not-this, not-this. With the name you’ve chosen for these forums, I’d expect you to be a little less literalist.

I respect your sentiments and your good heart. But the merest glance at the histories of Christianity and Islam reveals the great difficulties inherent in this emphasis on authority and obedience. I hardly need to go through the list. But if you carefully read my original post, along with the follow-ups, you’ll see that I’m not condemning the whole tradition; I’m not saying that it’s purely negative. The point I’ve been at pains to make is that the doctrines of obedience to God, of Divine Law are not ends in themselves, as the literalists would have it, and to take them that way can be and has been dangerous.

Shanti.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Devadatta

Hi not-this, not-this. With the name you’ve chosen for these forums, I’d expect you to be a little less literalist.

I respect your sentiments and your good heart. But the merest glance at the histories of Christianity and Islam reveals the great difficulties inherent in this emphasis on authority and obedience. I hardly need to go through the list. But if you carefully read my original post, along with the follow-ups, you’ll see that I’m not condemning the whole tradition; I’m not saying that it’s purely negative. The point I’ve been at pains to make is that the doctrines of obedience to God, of Divine Law are not ends in themselves, as the literalists would have it, and to take them that way can be and has been dangerous.

Shanti.

I think Jesus made this very point in Matthew 23.

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

I think Jesus made this very point in Matthew 23.

But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.

Shanti.

[seattlegal]

Perhaps this might help in our 'talking past one another," Devadatta:

I don't see the Garden of Eden as being a trap set by God.

This is one way that I look at it:

• If the tree is the knowledge of good and evil, then the fruit of that tree would be attachment/attraction towards what we perceive as good, and aversion away from what we perceive as being bad.
  
• Eating of the fruit of this tree would be naturally partaking of this attraction/aversion.
  
• Since the Fall of Man is associated with partaking of this fruit, then it would follow that the solutions to the problems associated with the Fall of Man would be counter-intuitive to this attraction/aversion. (Interestingly, there is a thread where I've applied a counter-intuitive solution to a problem associated with the Fall of Man here: http://www.comparative-religion.com/...nger-9019.html )
  
• If, indeed, the things associated with the Fall of Man have such counter-intuitive solutions, then God was being straight up with us in telling us not to partake of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil--that we would have to exercise our free-will in some cases rather than to be on 'auto-pilot,' under the influence of the fruit of the tree.
  
• Interestingly, if this is the case, then the problem partaking of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is, in itself, counter-intuitive. What at first blush seems to be exercising our free-will actually leads towards the negating of our free-will, making us a slave to sin. (Compare Galatians 5, especially verses 13-18.)

I'm not saying that my interpretation is right and yours is wrong. {I haven't been able to fully explore all the implications to the analogy, for one.} I'm just hoping that this might help us understand one another better.

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Perhaps this might help in our 'talking past one another," Devadatta:

I don't see the Garden of Eden as being a trap set by God.

This is one way that I look at it:

• If the tree is the knowledge of good and evil, then the fruit of that tree would be attachment/attraction towards what we perceive as good, and aversion away from what we perceive as being bad.
• Eating of the fruit of this tree would be naturally partaking of this attraction/aversion.
• Since the Fall of Man is associated with partaking of this fruit, then it would follow that the solutions to the problems associated with the Fall of Man would be counter-intuitive to this attraction/aversion. (Interestingly, there is a thread where I've applied a counter-intuitive solution to a problem associated with the Fall of Man here: http://www.comparative-religion.com/...nger-9019.html )
• If, indeed, the things associated with the Fall of Man have such counter-intuitive solutions, then God was being straight up with us in telling us not to partake of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil--that we would have to exercise our free-will in some cases rather than to be on 'auto-pilot,' under the influence of the fruit of the tree.
• Interestingly, if this is the case, then the problem partaking of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is, in itself, counter-intuitive. What at first blush seems to be exercising our free-will actually leads towards the negating of our free-will, making us a slave to sin. (Compare Galatians 5, especially verses 13-18.)

I'm not saying that my interpretation is right and yours is wrong. {I haven't been able to fully explore all the implications to the analogy, for one.} I'm just hoping that this might help us understand one another better.

Hi again. Thanks for your interesting take on this. Let’s compare notes.

First, I should make clear that from my point of view this is a question of metaphorical language and its adequacy to the case. So when I say God “laid a trap” I’m only expressing in a brief way my sense that “the fall” is built into the human narrative; i.e., that it followed as a necessity. In the biblical narrative that necessity of course involves the will of God. In the narrative of the theory of human evolution that necessity involves the development of our cognitive abilities, and more broadly the development of human consciousness. In either case, for me the idea that human beings literally created their own dilemma through a primordial act of disobedience is incoherent, scientifically and theologically.

However, I do recognize here another metaphorical sense, as it pertains to spiritual practice. In the literal sense, I believe as human beings we find ourselves in, rather than trigger, our own dilemma (dukkha, to use an Indian term; alienation, to use an existential term), that we are in some sense “thrown”, to use another expression, into the world. At the same time, acting as if our disobedience truly was the root cause, taking on, internalizing, this primordial responsibility centers what for many people has historically been an effective spiritual practice. So I can understand why many defend it, or even see it as literal truth.

Your introduction of the attachment/aversion dichotomy for me centers even more directly on spiritual practice, especially Buddhist practice. In fact, your emphasis on the “counter-intuitive” has an exact parallel in early Buddhist discourses. The dhamma, we’re told is “subtle, difficult to see, running against the grain...” (of course this is very much in line with the “netti netti” of Upanishadic sages). The Buddhist counter-intuitive solution – non-grasping, letting go, courageous cultivation of awareness - runs against the grain in respect of the human instinct to grasp and evade, not just goods and evils, but mental constructs and fundamental realities. Of course, there is no original sin in Buddhism - dukkha has been with us since beginningless time. But like Christian practice, Buddhist practices internalizes the terms of the problem, and thus provides a method within our reach. In other words: we may not have created our dilemma, but here is what we can do about it.

Stepping back from the question of practice, my feeling remains that the fall makes most sense on the cognitive level (the conceptual divide good/evil), as opposed to the affective level (attachment/aversion). It seems to me that the apple represents a cognitive rather than affective shift. Adam and Eve we’re told had many delicious fruits at their disposal. But in the context of the biblical narrative one can imagine that they experienced these and other pleasures (and I hope there were other pleasures!) in a kind of Zen way: when hungry, when tired sleep, without grasping or clinging either to the object or to the experience. In this sense, it’s the cognitive shift represented by the apple that provides the conditions for the dukkha of attachment/aversion. (But I guess this parallels what you’re saying: that the ultimate fruit of the knowledge of good and evil is attachment/aversion.)

However, I don’t follow your argument here on how this shows that God, in the biblical narrative, did not pre-determine the fall, that it was instead man’s responsibility. I guess I’m not seeing the connection.

Thanks again for your interesting thoughts.

Shanti.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Devadatta

Hi not-this, not-this. With the name you’ve chosen for these forums, I’d expect you to be a little less literalist.

Don't mind me.

I respect your sentiments and your good heart.

Thank you, I'm working on it.

if you carefully read my original post, along with the follow-ups, you’ll see that I’m not condemning the whole tradition

No problem. I was just responding to your interpretation of the concept of humankind's "rule" over the planet. Again, don't think the dominion concept necessarily means tyrannical or abusive. But I'd like to get back to the concept of obedience a little later.

the ultimate fruit of the knowledge of good and evil is attachment/aversion.

This is an interesting thread, but I think it would help me if we could sort out some concepts. Real quick: There is no "attachment/aversion dichotomy." Aversion is a form of attachment. It's a desire for pleasurable sensory experiences that has been frustrated by unpleasant experience.

Attachment/aversion is a catch all term for the tendency of consciousness to drift either toward what are perceived to be attractive objects or away from what are perceived to be repulsive objects. It is part and parcel of the process of "clinging to pleasure and other feelings as though they were real and the delusory chain of thoughts connected therewith (wanting this, not wanting that)" Kunzang Pelden (p. 362). There is no moral dimension associated with this. It's sort of like ice cream preferences. For whatever reason, some people only want vanilla with a sugar cone and can't stand the sight of chocolate.

Another reason why morality is not at issue here is that we don't ordinarily choose a lot of the distractions that end up instigating Attachment/Aversion reactions. They're everywhere in the environment. It's part of our "throwness." (Heidegger)

Attachment/aversion is basically sensory bobber-on-an-ocean phenomena. It doesn't have to be dramatic. It could be a multitude of minor distractions that interfere with concentration. I see it as a normal state of affairs for an undisciplined mind. I don't see a connection to the Biblical description of the Fall. Maybe the connection needs to be developed or maybe terms other than "attachment" and "aversion" would be more fitting.

As described in the Buddhist wisdom literature, attachments and aversions are distractions that have no apparent (moral) significance beyond their effect on concentration. Unlike in Christianity where people are made to feel bad about admiring someone's physical person, in Buddhism distracting emotions like lust are just that - distracting or "unwholesome" emotions. They are considered "unskilled qualities" and they include distress as well as getting turned on by someone's admirable physical traits. (See the Bharadvaja Sutta SN 35.127: Bharadvaja Sutta )

I might add here that pleasure itself can be distressing because it reminds the individual of how short-lived pleasure is. From this standpoint, fulfillment of desire can actually be a source of suffering. And sometimes it's just too much of a good thing. You'll know what I mean if you put away a half a gallon of vanilla ice-cream in one sitting.

Buddhism encourages restraint and specifically encourages celibacy, but for the same reason that other relationships are to be avoided -- they are "inimical to concentration." Accordingly, aspirants are encouraged to seek solitude, which helps them avoid becoming attached to or repulsed by other beings or objects through the senses. The intended goal is "heedfulness" and it is accomplished by guarding the senses -- i.e., exercising "restraint over the ear... nose... tongue... body." (See the Pamadaviharin Sutta SN 35.97: Pamadaviharin Sutta )

In light of the traditional Buddhist use of the terms, I wanted to check with Seattlegal to make sure about the intended use in Post #22.

Can the argument say the same thing using terms that don't have the specific Buddhist meanings relating to conditioned and unstable sensory experiences and resultant "mental afflictions" ??......

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

In light of the traditional Buddhist use of the terms, I wanted to check with Seattlegal to make sure about the intended use in Post #22.

Can the argument say the same thing using terms that don't have the specific Buddhist meanings relating to conditioned and unstable sensory experiences and resultant "mental afflictions" ??......

I meant it in the sense that the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil does lead to moral dilemmas, which brings in the need for the Law, and the issue of obedience.

[Devadatta]

[quote=Netti-Netti;148442]This is an interesting thread, but I think it would help me if we could sort out some concepts. Real quick: There is no "attachment/aversion dichotomy." Aversion is a form of attachment. It's a desire for pleasurable sensory experiences that has been frustrated by unpleasant experience.

Attachment/aversion is a catch all term for the tendency of consciousness to drift either toward what are perceived to be attractive objects or away from what are perceived to be repulsive objects. It is part and parcel of the process of "clinging to pleasure and other feelings as though they were real and the delusory chain of thoughts connected therewith (wanting this, not wanting that)" Kunzang Pelden (p. 362). There is no moral dimension associated with this. It's sort of like ice cream preferences. For whatever reason, some people only want vanilla with a sugar cone and can't stand the sight of chocolate.

Another reason why morality is not at issue here is that we don't ordinarily choose a lot of the distractions that end up instigating Attachment/Aversion reactions. They're everywhere in the environment. It's part of our "throwness." (Heidegger)

Attachment/aversion is basically sensory bobber-on-an-ocean phenomena. It doesn't have to be dramatic. It could be a multitude of minor distractions that interfere with concentration. I see it as a normal state of affairs for an undisciplined mind. I don't see a connection to the Biblical description of the Fall. Maybe the connection needs to be developed or maybe terms other than "attachment" and "aversion" would be more fitting.

As described in the Buddhist wisdom literature, attachments and aversions are distractions that have no apparent (moral) significance beyond their effect on concentration. Unlike in Christianity where people are made to feel bad about admiring someone's physical person, in Buddhism distracting emotions like lust are just that - distracting or "unwholesome" emotions. They are considered "unskilled qualities" and they include distress as well as getting turned on by someone's admirable physical traits. (See the Bharadvaja Sutta SN 35.127: Bharadvaja Sutta )

I might add here that pleasure itself can be distressing because it reminds the individual of how short-lived pleasure is. From this standpoint, fulfillment of desire can actually be a source of suffering. And sometimes it's just too much of a good thing. You'll know what I mean if you put away a half a gallon of vanilla ice-cream in one sitting.

Buddhism encourages restraint and specifically encourages celibacy, but for the same reason that other relationships are to be avoided -- they are "inimical to concentration." Accordingly, aspirants are encouraged to seek solitude, which helps them avoid becoming attached to or repulsed by other beings or objects through the senses. The intended goal is "heedfulness" and it is accomplished by guarding the senses -- i.e., exercising "restraint over the ear... nose... tongue... body." (See the Pamadaviharin Sutta SN 35.97: Pamadaviharin Sutta )
quote]

I’ve just had a shot of tequila so perhaps this isn’t the best time for this. You see, our new home stay from Mexico arrived and brought it as a gift... Actually licking the salt off my hand and biting into a lime was the best part, and maybe next time I should try it with a tequila substitute. Then again, it’s the tequila no doubt that makes the lime so tasty... Such are the travails of phenomenological analysis!

What you cite here about Buddhist practice is certainly basically true. I would only make a couple of points. First, whether we talk of an attachment/aversion dichotomy or call it just two forms of attachment I don’t think is terribly relevant here. There is reason to call this a dichotomy in that it refers to two affective movements, one toward the pleasant and another away from the unpleasant (with neutral impulses marking the line between), but I wouldn’t bother arguing the point any further.
Secondly, from my perspective the point of the parallel here between Christian and Buddhist practice is that each addresses our human dilemma in a fundamental way, and each does so by the interiorization of a method. The Christian method, it’s true, turns on a moral dichotomy, while the Buddhist method does not, but for me that doesn’t mean that the Buddhist method is any less fundamental. It isn’t just a matter of chasing away the distractions of meditation. Attachment/aversion is of a piece with tanha, or craving, at the root of our human dilemma, as outlined in the earliest discourses.

But you’ve touched on some of this in your post. And unless I’m missing the point your real concern here is to show that there is an incommensurability between these Christian and Buddhist forms of practice. And I certainly agree that the distinctions as well as the parallels are important to keep in mind, and in that sense I appreciate what you’re saying here.

But again my perspective is that these two forms of practice are not ultimately incommensurate in that they address the same fundamental human reality and follow a parallel binary course, good/evil for one, and desirable/undesirable, let’s say, for the other. In both cases, we’re addressing that primordial shift in human consciousness, a certain level of self-awareness (whether it came all at once or in incremental stages) where human beings became cognizant of the infinitude of their desires and the finitude of their means.

Now as we know in the Abrahamic tradition this contradiction becomes decisively moralized in a cosmic conflict between good and evil. I guess what’s hard for many of us grown up under the influence of this tradition to understand is that the underlying conflict is more basic, simpler than that, that it doesn’t necessarily need to be cosmically moralized to be solved. But again, many of us are so trained to this that any alternative seems simply amoral. But of course that isn’t the case. We know that other religious traditions, like other cultures, prize morality just as highly. They just don’t tend to use morality in a cosmic sense, to frame the ultimate questions.

So, sure, Christian and Buddhist practice tends to diverge along these lines, and that can have great importance in the overall fabric of their lives. As you suggest, we do well to recognize the distinctions, especially as conditions warrant. And of course Christian and Buddhists tend to define their spiritual goals differently – but then that depends on which Christian and which Buddhist you ask, and how you read between the lines!

So the differences are there. But my core inclination is always to look for identities, even though it may take a lot of digging through differences to reveal them.

Shanti.

[Netti-Netti]

Seattlegal wrote:

tree is the knowledge of good and evil, then the fruit of that tree would be attachment/attraction towards what we perceive as good, and aversion away from what we perceive as being bad.

Yes, I think eating of the fruit of the tree of Knowledge is an archetype scenario for discovering the conflict through sin. It's tantamount to the discovery of free will, which can imply conflicting choices.


Paradoxically, the term "Fall" implies a loss of stature even though it's a monumental step toward realizing the potential for moral perfection inherent in human existence. The Fall enabled the human to becomes aware of finitude while at the same time discovering a capacity that the Creature has in common with the Creator. The soul is an aspect of G-d made manifest within the created order of things. The soul

"has the potential and some of the actual capacity of G-d himself.. This potential expresses itself as the ability to go beyond the limits of a given existence . to move freely, and choose other path...It is, on other words, the power to will and to create."

~Adin Steinsaltz

We can respond to the ‘thrownness’ (Heidegger's "Geworfenheit") of our being in the world in a way that actualizes our potential within that existential context. Or we can give in to facticity and passively allow he situation to define us completely.

It seems to me that the Tree of Knowledge scenario was G-d' idea of creating an opportunity for sin that would facilitate the sinner's discovering that they have free will and that they have the ability to make a choice in the direction of actualizing themselves though Grace or in the direction of diminishing ourselves through corruption.

Interestingly, if this is the case, then the problem partaking of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is, in itself, counter-intuitive. What at first blush seems to be exercising our free-will actually leads towards the negating of our free-will, making us a slave to sin.

It seems it was important for us to discover that for ourselves. Unity with G-d would be meaningless to us except against a backdrop of alienation from G-d.

I would say that the fruit is a simultaneous awareness of alienation and the capacity for sin as separate person from G-d. We may experience this as dissonance in relation to conflicting choices - i.e., the choice between grace and corruption. That conflict is ever-present. Practically speaking, it can be seen as an approach-avoidance conflict.

It seems G-d wanted Adam and Eve to be aware of the conflict and their power to exercise free will and autonomy. What I'm not clear about is whether free will is actually an illusion that we shed ourselves of as we recognize and affirm G-d's will.

If we give up on our own personal will, the exercise of which is largely misguided, and align ourselves with G-d's will, then there is no longer much room for personal will. Note that the Bible describes the transition from being a slave to sin to being a slave to righteousness.

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

It seems it was important for us to discover that for ourselves. Unity with G-d would be meaningless to us except against a backdrop of alienation from G-d.

I would say that the fruit is a simultaneous awareness of alienation and the capacity for sin as separate person from G-d. We may experience this as dissonance in relation to conflicting choices - i.e., the choice between grace and corruption. That conflict is ever-present. Practically speaking, it can be seen as an approach-avoidance conflict.

It seems G-d wanted Adam and Eve to be aware of the conflict and their power to exercise free will and autonomy. What I'm not clear about is whether free will is actually an illusion that we shed ourselves of as we recognize and affirm G-d's will.

If we give up on our own personal will, the exercise of which is largely misguided, and align ourselves with G-d's will, then there is no longer much room for personal will. Note that the Bible describes the transition from being a slave to sin to being a slave to righteousness.

Devadatta wrote, way back in the first post:
So here the point is not the superficial one of the necessity of free will, of choosing between good and evil, but the deeper necessity of the fall into duality as the precondition for the summum bonum of mutual recognition between human consciousness and ultimate reality.


Ah, words, words, words! These two quotes sum up our differing agendas. My aim is to look for a way of stating a fundamental human dilemma that’s inclusive of various narrative/ideological/constitutional strategies. (How well I succeed at this is of course open to dispute.) Your aim – and do correct me if I’m off-base – is to cast this same human dilemma into an exclusive discourse, drawing on a very distinctively Judeo-Christian point of view with all the machinery of sin, moral drama, free will, or lack of it, etc.


Now, this is not an attack. Your discourse is in the language that makes sense to you, and I wouldn’t presume to propose for you any substitute. But I do want to point out the difference between identifying core commonalities among differing traditions on the one hand, and trolling different traditions for elements to support one’s pre-established discourse on the other hand. The one is an exercise in pluralism, the other in apologetics.


Of course, if you believe and are correct that in the end there is only one truth, then apologetics is a noble enterprise and my pluralism sadly misguided.


I hope you don’t take this the wrong way!


Shanti.

[China Cat Sunflower]

But I do want to point out the difference between identifying core commonalities among differing traditions on the one hand, and trolling different traditions for elements to support one’s pre-established discourse on the other hand. The one is an exercise in pluralism, the other in apologetics.

Excellent point!

Chris

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Devadatta

Ah, words, words, words! These two quotes sum up our differing agendas.

I have no agenda.

My aim is to look for a way of stating a fundamental human dilemma that’s inclusive of various narrative/ideological/constitutional strategies.

If you had some additional detail concerning specific issues before I respond to some of your previous comments, I'd be interested....

Your aim – and do correct me if I’m off-base – is to cast this same human dilemma into an exclusive discourse, drawing on a very distinctively Judeo-Christian point of view with all the machinery of sin, moral drama, free will, or lack of it, etc.

Actually you are way off base. I'm setting the stage for a hopefully broader view.

Now, this is not an attack. Your discourse is in the language that makes sense to you, and I wouldn’t presume to propose for you any substitute. But I do want to point out the difference between identifying core commonalities among differing traditions on the one hand, and trolling different traditions for elements to support one’s pre-established discourse on the other hand.

I have no pre-established discourse. I'm just going with the flow here, brother.

The one is an exercise in pluralism, the other in apologetics.

Me an apologist of for the Judeo-Christian point of view? I respect all religions and am an apologist for none.

Let's see. In the past couple of days I've discusssed Buddhism and existentialism, and I responded to something Seattlegal had said that pertains directly to the issues you raised about the Genesis account at the opening of the thread. I also threw in some Jungian ideas about attachment style. The conclusion of my last post alludes to Benedict De Spinoza's rather unorthodox rejection of free will.

At another discussion forum I tried to sort out some issues pertaining to Islam and I was assumed to be a Muslim. Another member of this forum thought I was a Hindu. If you check, you'll see almost all of my initial posts here as well as a number of recent posts deal with Buddhism..

Have you got me figured out yet?