Why not--Maltheism? (Religion)
by xeno6696 
, Sonoran Desert, Monday, June 27, 2011, 23:04 (4896 days ago)
Dies Irae, Dies Illa, Solvet Cosmos In Favilla Vocamus Te, Aeshma-Deva!-I've often discussed my explorations of mysticism—especially of the Hermetic kind—and I think the followers of what they term "Left Hand Path" traditions have something important to say about many of the things we have discussed here. Lately, David's been showing us a side of himself, where he seems enamored with the "civilized" life man has created, seemingly to distance himself and ourselves from the rest of the animal kingdom. Actually David, much of your writing reminds me of St. John of the Cross, and his insistence that all things "good" that man does, isn't us, but is a manifestation of the holy God. My goal here is to explore some of the things that followers of the LHP point to as equals to what RHP religions follow. Specifically, the very fact that nothing in the universe is ever created without something else being destroyed. -Life as an essential force, feeds on the continuous destruction of other organisms, either by happenstance, on purpose, or by accident. Man, requires the destruction of plant material (at a minimum) in order to continue his existence. As the previous discussion of entropy goes, a fundamental law of the universe is that order always comes at the cost of more disorder. In most religions, every God has also its anti-God. However, we inherited from our Judeo-Christian traditions a God that is only good. -But Hindu traditions have also worshipped the "Left Hand of God." In Jewish Mystic traditions, the Left Hand Path comes from inverting the Sephirotic Tree of Life, and in investigating the realms of death—or hell. (This path can only be taken safely with the assistance of angels.) Modern LHP traditions have their own exegesis of canonical scripture, and indeed much of their own, and their picture of religion, of life, and the world is drastically different. -The role of destruction in the universe plays a central role in these cults. Therefore their views are also more confrontational. Man is not civilized, according to these mystics. They counter that our true nature is as predators. Watch what happens when law and order disintegrates in Africa. Where is order then? Where is our "civilization?" Law and order only exists because of an assertion of power. Destructive power. Fear isn't something to shy away from, its something to conquer; to use as a tool as well as exorcise from your mind. The lyrical play on Mozart's Dies Irae at the beginning of this post, is written by just such a mystic. As a part of his life, he murdered a man for his beliefs, and at the culmination of his musical career, he sacrificially ended his own life. The words he penned above, as well as the entire album he wrote, was a masterwork in worship of chaos and destruction. If you ever want to be chilled... yes, even for a skeptic such as myself, the album evokes powerful emotion.-At fundamental odds, is David—and all of western civilizations—concept of a loving caring God. The God(s) that Jon Nödtveidt worshipped were Gods that represented the same side of the same God, operating from the same principles of nature that many have observed for countless millennia. (The religion, is called "Draconian Setianism.") -What I bring to this discussion here, is in recognizing that the basic values of life reverberate through the cosmos. Creation can only come from the destruction of something else. There is no prime cause, unless the prime cause was itself destruction. This is in fact one form of divinity I have discussed in the past: the universe is the result of a dead God. Any order that exists has come at the expense of its own dissolution, but even its own efforts are eventually wasted. -The seventh aeon will soon pass as it has been foretold The false empires will crumble and all illusions shall be destroyed The enslavers tremble with fear, soon our stars align The forbidden gates begin to open by the power of our forceful sign -Daath - wisdom of the abyss is the key to the broken star Eleven angles pathways of chaos will bring forth our most wrathful god Qliphothic forces from beyond will usurp the tree of cosmic lies The sleeping dragon awakens smelling the elixir of our sacrifice -Dies Irae Dies Illa Solvet Cosmos In Favilla Vocamus Te Aeshma-Diva Dies Irae Dies Illa Solvet Cosmos In Favilla Vocamus Te Aeshma-Diva -This is the winter of the last aeon, the hungry end is coming soon Harbinger of the day of wrath will eclipse the sun and rape the moon -Unfold the starless aeon, the hungry end is coming soon Harbinger of the day of wrath will eclipse the sun and rape the moon -The snake will completely devour itself putting an end to the cycle of time Acausal flames will burn all to ashes erasing all signs of the demiurge crime Our dark gods of chaos will return, this time to rule forever supreme The dragon mother will then resurrect and end this cosmic dream -Dies Irae Dies Illa Solvet Cosmos In Favilla Vocamus Te Aeshma-Diva Dies Irae Dies Illa Solvet Cosmos In Favilla Vocamus Te Aeshma-Diva
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Why not--Maltheism?
Many thanks to Matt for yet again opening up interesting new avenues for exploration.-Yesterday I attended the funeral of a 13-year-old girl, killed by a hit-and-run driver (who has been arrested). The chapel was filled to overflowing ... the ceremony was relayed to people outside, and many adults as well as children were in tears. The service was not religious, but the woman who led it said two things that are relevant to Matt's question. This much loved little girl was adored by everyone for her humour, good nature and sheer enjoyment of life. The man who killed her has shown no remorse. The first comment was that the soul of the driver was as full of darkness as Amy's soul was full of light. The second remark was that we could rage against the premature death of this child, or we could be thankful for the 13 years of love and happiness that she had spread around her.-Matt writes: "What I bring to this discussion here, is in recognizing that the basic values of life reverberate through the cosmos. Creation can only come from the destruction of something else. There is no prime cause, unless the prime cause was itself destruction." I find this logic impossible to follow. You can't destroy something until it exists, so how can the prime cause be destruction? -The extreme concept of an evil god seems to me exactly on a par with, and just as unrealistic as, the extreme concept of a loving god. The forces of creation and destruction balance each other in both life and the cosmos, and this is probably the best clue we have as to the nature of a possible god, the inference being that it is the same mixture as we find within our human selves: full of light, full of darkness, creature and creator in the same image. -The dichotomy also fits in perfectly with an impersonal universe. Instead of a conscious good and evil god, you have the same balance without any god at all, or with an absent or dead god. Matt writes: "This is in fact one form of divinity I have discussed in the past: the universe is the result of a dead God. Any order that exists has come at the expense of its own dissolution, but even its own efforts are eventually wasted." Wasted? The conclusion is up to you. Either you are angry at the death of the child, or you are thankful for the 13 years of happiness. (You can be both, of course. Most of us probably view life as a tragicomedy.) Jon Nödtveidt's killing of another man and then of himself was a waste, and so was the killing of Amy, but her life was not. Those who knew her will remember her, there will be unconscious influences, for instance on her brother who may one day have a family of his own, ripples spread, destruction is followed by creation. So long as there is a present and a future, how can we say even a dead God's efforts are wasted? -Worship of chaos and destruction? What is the point? Why worship anything? Being here with the opportunity to flicker for an instant seems to me an end in itself, and it is one which I embrace with relish, whether there is or isn't a god, whether it's good or evil, good and evil, indifferent or dead.
Why not--Maltheism?
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, June 28, 2011, 18:34 (4895 days ago) @ dhw
Many thanks to Matt for yet again opening up interesting new avenues for exploration. > > ... years of love and happiness that she had spread around her. > -This story is indeed sad... here in Omaha, lax drunk driving laws has lead to something of 300 people in the city who have had 4+ DWI convictions. They're finally trying to do something about it...-> ... There is no prime cause, unless the prime cause was itself destruction[/i]." I find this logic impossible to follow. You can't destroy something until it exists, so how can the prime cause be destruction? > -It has to be; the fundamental nature of our cosmos is dissolution. The act of creating our universe--for it to make any sense with the laws of physics--had to result in an equal act of destruction. If a theology is to make any sense of this--it must conclude that either the universe was a result of another dying, or the creator dying. -Or phrased another way--the "singularity" that was the beginning of the Big Bang, had only two "choices." Stay put, or release its energy. As everything in the universe is a release of energy into abyss, it is clear that the universe is moving inevitably to its own cold death. This is underlined by observations in modern physics, where eventually there will be no energy in it at all. -> The extreme concept of an evil god seems to me exactly on a par with, and just as unrealistic as, the extreme concept of a loving god. The forces of creation and destruction balance each other in both life and the cosmos, and this is probably the best clue we have as to the nature of a possible god, the inference being that it is the same mixture as we find within our human selves: full of light, full of darkness, creature and creator in the same image. > -Ah, but my implicit point was exactly this: we are humans, so we humanize our Gods. The opposite of a human God is an inhumane monster; we don't want to fathom that we were created by evil. Why not? LHP religions are right: Predatory urges are as much a part of being human as being altruistic. Fury to the point of Murder was not only discussed by The Bard. It was also discussed by Poe... -Mad tragedy. Born of Chaos. -And the cycle of creation and destruction are not in balance at all; every act of order results in more total chaos/disorder/entropy. The balance--from the beginning--of our universe--is one tilted towards inevitable death. Without an injection of energy from the Sun; our balance is destroyed. And, it eventually will be destroyed. -> The dichotomy also fits in perfectly with an impersonal universe. Instead of a conscious good and evil god, you have the same balance without any god at all, or with an absent or dead god. Matt writes: "This is in fact one form of divinity I have discussed in the past: the universe is the result of a dead God. Any order that exists has come at the expense of its own dissolution, but even its own efforts are eventually wasted." Wasted? The conclusion is up to you. Either you are angry at the death of the child, or you are thankful for the 13 years of happiness. (You can be both, of course. Most of us probably view life as a tragicomedy.) Jon Nödtveidt's killing of another man and then of himself was a waste, and so was the killing of Amy, but her life was not. Those who knew her will remember her, there will be unconscious influences, for instance on her brother who may one day have a family of his own, ripples spread, destruction is followed by creation. So long as there is a present and a future, how can we say even a dead God's efforts are wasted? > -As for the dying God's efforts being wasted... eventually our universe will expand to the point where we no longer see stars. The universe becomes black, stars become so far apart that new stars can never be born. This universe is as finite as you or I; only over a timescale that we cannot truly fathom. You might consider this nihilistic, but even my own life will be meaningless about 2 generations after I pass. The same for our universe. Everything we hold dear--everything we cherish--is destined to be forever gone. Meaning; only has meaning for life. Sentient life. -> Worship of chaos and destruction? What is the point? Why worship anything? Being here with the opportunity to flicker for an instant seems to me an end in itself, and it is one which I embrace with relish, whether there is or isn't a god, whether it's good or evil, good and evil, indifferent or dead.-Worship? I don't recall speaking of worship. You must be talking about Jon's lyrics. To him, his religion reflected his understanding of the world. To what cruel vision, I know not--but I've studied his writings and the writings of those he followed. There is logic in what they teach, it's just abhorrent to my "civilized" morals. But I think David lacks that darker vista. There is no reason that any of these versions of religion are any less likely than the one he and I were both raised with. They are counter-values to what makes a good society. However, their exploration and psychological discoveries are just as important when discussing theology and mankind. -Don't worry. I'm not running off to become Crowley!
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Why not--Maltheism?
Dhw (quoting Matt): "... There is no prime cause, unless the prime cause was itself destruction." I find this logic impossible to follow. You can't destroy something until it exists, so how can the prime cause be destruction? MATT: It has to be; the fundamental nature of our cosmos is dissolution. The act of creating our universe--for it to make any sense with the laws of physics--had to result in an equal act of destruction. -Sorry, but if the act of creating results in an act of destruction, how can you say the act of destruction is the prime CAUSE?-MATT: If a theology is to make any sense of this--it must conclude that either the universe was a result of another dying, or the creator dying. This presupposes that creation is CAUSED by destruction, whereas your initial argument is that creation results in destruction. Even that doesn't necessarily mean the destruction of the creator. What is inevitable is the destruction of the thing created.-MATT: Or phrased another way--the "singularity" that was the beginning of the Big Bang, had only two "choices." Stay put, or release its energy.-So where did its energy come from?-MATT: As everything in the universe is a release of energy into abyss, it is clear that the universe is moving inevitably to its own cold death. This is underlined by observations in modern physics, where eventually there will be no energy in it at all. There have been innumerable theories concerning the death of the universe, including the big crunch, the big freeze, the big heat, and let's not forget all the other universes in a multiverse, or all the universes that preceded this one, or all the universes that will follow this one...Forgive me if I remain a little sceptical about the various predictions. -MATT: [...] we are humans, so we humanize our Gods. The opposite of a human God is an inhumane monster...-No it isn't. Inhumane is the opposite of humane, which means kind and merciful, not cruel, not causing unnecessary suffering. If "human" has an opposite, I guess it's non-human, and it's patently absurd to say that everything non-human is a monster. As for humanizing our gods, my point is that I can't believe a god could create love, hate, humour, cruelty etc. if it didn't even know what they were. And so we might possibly deduce the nature of the creator from its creation.-MATT: We don't want to fathom that we were created by evil. Why not? LHP religions are right. Predatory urges are as much a part of being human as being altruistic. -In which case we weren't created by evil or by altruism but by a mixture of the two.-MATT: And the cycle of creation and destruction are not in balance at all; every act of order results in more total chaos/disorder/entropy. The balance--from the beginning--of our universe--is one tilted towards inevitable death. Without an injection of energy from the Sun; our balance is destroyed. And, it eventually will be destroyed. And then perhaps something else will take its place. Who knows?-MATT: As for the dying God's efforts being wasted... eventually our universe will expand to the point where we no longer see stars. The universe becomes black, stars become so far apart that new stars can never be born. This universe is as finite as you or I; only over a timescale that we cannot truly fathom. You might consider this nihilistic, but even my own life will be meaningless about 2 generations after I pass. The same for our universe. Everything we hold dear--everything we cherish--is destined to be forever gone. -What happened to my Buddhist friend Gotamatt, who told us again and again that only the present was real. Your prediction concerning the end of our universe may be right (you and I will never know), but that does not invalidate the experiences of the present, or the experiences each of us will have in our future. We were not talking about eternal meanings. Even if God is dead, and our universe will crunch, freeze, burn, that does not make my immediate present and immediate future worth nothing to me or to the people who know me, and I'd rather have had this life than no life. I regard it as unreasonable to argue that everything is wasted unless it has eternal meaning. Be thankful for the good things of now, and give your wife a hug. MATT: Meaning; only has meaning for life. Sentient life. -Agreed. So?-MATT: Worship? I don't recall speaking of worship. You must be talking about Jon's lyrics. -That is how you described his words ("a masterwork in worship of chaos and destruction") and I was responding to this reference.-MATT: There is logic in what they teach, it's just abhorrent to my "civilized" morals. But I think David lacks that darker vista. There is no reason that any of these versions of religion are any less likely than the one he and I were both raised with. They are counter-values to what makes a good society. However, their exploration and psychological discoveries are just as important when discussing theology and mankind.-I agree ... the all-good god is as unlikely as the all-bad. So why bother with either? And if worship of chaos and destruction leads to chaos and destruction (or murder and suicide in Jon's case), why bother with that? Go and give your wife another hug.
Why not--Maltheism?
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, June 29, 2011, 23:51 (4894 days ago) @ dhw
dhw...-You seem to think this is more than exercise? Maybe I need to reintroduce myself! Rest assured I am still your kindly Buddhist friend. But no question or topic is taboo for me. While I appreciate your concern, all I'm doing is approaching the normal subject of God from a completely different direction. You could say its an exercise in Nietzschean Perspectivism... -I'm not approaching this from a moral vantage point, though these values always permeate discussions of religion. What I'm talking about is looking at our deity--at this point a highly abstract one--from the path less traveled. -You're already hinting at my direction when you discuss there being a balance of creation and destruction--though I will hold that the evidence is quite clear what the fate of the universe will be. Though this point is tertiary, I will discuss it first.-You bring up the Big Crunch. The Big Crunch was tossed out when investigations determined that the universe was accelerating three times the speed of light, and it was further determined that this expansion was accelerating... continued observations have confirmed this, and the cause appears to be our dark matter & energy within the universe. With only 4% of "normal" matter in the universe, any heat scenario is dead in its tracks. With these observations, I do not think there is a reasonable alternative than the "heat death" scenario. (objects so far apart that the sky turns black, and the average energy of the universe fades to absolute zero.) Multiverses & the like are out, because there is no observational evidence. -Gone is the discussion of prime cause. Chicken and egg, cause and effect. Consider what I said more poetry. -I get the feeling that you are repulsed by the majority of the topic of "dark gods" but you missed the central point I tried to make in the original post: The root belief is that all of these "dark, evil gods" are considered to be the essence of the creator tied to destruction. Especially in Hindu religion... (Google Maha Kali sometime.) But in that last response you're picking at the text but not the substance.-I bring up the topic because I mean to point out that it seems that for the most part, man seems to only consider that his Gods are good; that they benefit him in some way. In David's case, God cares enough for us to break all the normal rules in the universe to create us. Whatever he tries to say to the opposite, the direct suggestion is that man is special because we were created, that god loves us, and even if God only intervenes 50% of the time--he still clearly cares enough to only do enough work that it is hidden within the confines of chance. This suggests mischief at the most benign. Chaotic misanthropy on the opposite end of the spectrum. -I find this anthropomorphic deity (not singling you out David!) as repulsive as anthropomorphizing animals. It's one-sided. It turns the world on its head; it is a Platonic ideal. -Now I have to return a bit to morals. LHP religions take a view that believing only in the goodness of creation neglects reality. I actually fully agree with this. One must learn to accept the bad with the good. But our society primes us so much for the opposite that it becomes impossible to really explore this part of our nature. And no, I'm not saying "go out and hurt people," but study the psychology and the emotion behind these acts. When I'm wronged... I rage. All religious teachings tell you to bottle this rage... but a well known problem in game theory demonstrates that the winning strategy (indeed the one that seems to be most exercised when dealing with man) is the one where you initially reciprocate negative behavior and then offer to help on the next turn. (forgiveness.) -The answer (as usual) lies somewhere in the middle--but don't forget to explore those dark roads!
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Why not--Maltheism?
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, June 29, 2011, 23:54 (4894 days ago) @ dhw
I forgot one final part of my message. "Maltheism" is the belief that the creator God is inherently evil. Not that this God should be worshipped--far from it.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Why not--Maltheism?
by David Turell , Wednesday, June 29, 2011, 01:42 (4895 days ago) @ dhw
Worship of chaos and destruction? What is the point? Why worship anything? Being here with the opportunity to flicker for an instant seems to me an end in itself, and it is one which I embrace with relish, whether there is or isn't a god, whether it's good or evil, good and evil, indifferent or dead.-This covers my own feelings perfectly. The chance to have lived a life to its fullest contains its own rewards. Matt certainly hasd a very dark side in his thinking. And I still feel a 'first cause' has to be recognized. I am currently reading "New Proofs for the Existence of God; Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy", by Robert J. Spitzer, S.J. & Ph. D. He is extremely well grounded in current cosmologic physics and theory.
Why not--Maltheism?
by David Turell , Wednesday, June 29, 2011, 01:51 (4895 days ago) @ xeno6696
> At fundamental odds, is David—and all of western civilizations—concept of a loving caring God. -You continue to make the same mistake. I am not sure of any of God's characteristics, although in my book I view God as more caring. I didn't think my readers would be intersted in concepts of panentheism or why I think Spinoza (as did Einstein) is close to the truth. On the other hand, I do quote Adler's estimate of how interested God is in human affairs, that he possibly answers prayer at a 50/50 level of liklihood.
Why not--Maltheism?
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, June 29, 2011, 03:34 (4895 days ago) @ David Turell
> > At fundamental odds, is David—and all of western civilizations—concept of a loving caring God. > > You continue to make the same mistake. I am not sure of any of God's characteristics, although in my book I view God as more caring. I didn't think my readers would be intersted in concepts of panentheism or why I think Spinoza (as did Einstein) is close to the truth. On the other hand, I do quote Adler's estimate of how interested God is in human affairs, that he possibly answers prayer at a 50/50 level of liklihood.-I don't really think it's a mistake... in several instances you have used words to compare man such as "king," "civilized," suggesting that our nearest relatives are so far removed from us that that no comparison can be made.-Have no doubt, I agree with adler about our ability with language... but even the rapid rise of man as you discuss, suggests from a theological perspective, at least a benign creator. But when you look at the destructive part of nature, lhp mystics bear some witness here: what kind of God creates a competition among his creations, with death and extinction as its final result? Further.. if we ARE made in an image... and we are the pinnacle... what does that say for the overall purpose and nature of man?-As a Buddhist, these are questions tha vex me from a spiritual perspective. Sometimes, I no longer wish to believe, and it is in exploring this portion of nature that makes theism difficult.-I know you think my other thoughts dark, but they give me no heartburn. Knowing that my memory will probably not last makes me work harder to be remembered...-You have much in common with Emerson, David. Find the essays "Circles," and "The Oversoul." These are two optimistic passages I often find refuge in.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Why not--Maltheism?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, July 02, 2011, 09:58 (4891 days ago) @ xeno6696
The seventh aeon will soon pass as it has been foretold > The false empires will crumble and all illusions shall be destroyed > The enslavers tremble with fear, soon our stars align > The forbidden gates begin to open by the power of our forceful sign > > Daath - wisdom of the abyss is the key to the broken star > Eleven angles pathways of chaos will bring forth our most wrathful god > Qliphothic forces from beyond will usurp the tree of cosmic lies > The sleeping dragon awakens smelling the elixir of our sacrifice > > Dies Irae Dies Illa Solvet Cosmos In Favilla > Vocamus Te Aeshma-Diva > Dies Irae Dies Illa Solvet Cosmos In Favilla > Vocamus Te Aeshma-Diva > > This is the winter of the last aeon, the hungry end is coming soon > Harbinger of the day of wrath will eclipse the sun and rape the moon > > Unfold the starless aeon, the hungry end is coming soon > Harbinger of the day of wrath will eclipse the sun and rape the moon > > The snake will completely devour itself putting an end to the cycle of time > Acausal flames will burn all to ashes erasing all signs of the demiurge crime > Our dark gods of chaos will return, this time to rule forever supreme > The dragon mother will then resurrect and end this cosmic dream > > Dies Irae Dies Illa Solvet Cosmos In Favilla > Vocamus Te Aeshma-Diva > Dies Irae Dies Illa Solvet Cosmos In Favilla > Vocamus Te Aeshma-Diva- Firstly, I have to ask who ever said that the Judeo-Christian God was ONLY a loving God? "Fear God and give him glory.." is repeated throughout the old testament and there are numerous accounts of God's destructive nature. Don't lump religidiocy in with what is actually in printed in the text. -In the Kabbalah's account of Adam and Eve there is a portion that does not exist in the traditional Torah where Adam returns to the Garden of Eden and is confronted by the angel that transforms into the devil and finally again into God. The concept of both creative and destructive natures of God(s) is literally in every religion. However, saying that all order comes from destruction is a bit of a misnomer and misrepresents the law of entropy. Yes, humans eat plants, but the plant is not destroyed(it merely changes its form of existence)(2nd Law of Thermodynamics). This is where we cut to the scene of a monkey holding a baby lion up to an African sunrise and start singing the 'Circle of Life'. -Secondly, this poem you linked has the flavor of a poem from Ancient Babylon called the Seven Fiery Phantoms which by accounts seem to be referring to some Ancient Meteorological event.-Seven are they, they are seven; In the caverns of ocean they dwell, They are clothed in the lightnings of heaven, Of their growth the deep waters can tell; Seven are they, they are seven.-Broad is their way and their course is wide, Where the seeds of destruction they sow, O'er the tops of the hills where they stride, To lay waste the smooth highways below,— Broad is their way and their course is wide.- Man they are not, nor womankind, For in fury they sweep from the main, And have wedded no wife but the wind, And no child have begotten but pain,— Man they are not, nor womankind.-Fear is not in them, not awe; Supplication they need not, nor prayer, For they know no compassion nor law, And are deaf to the cries of despair,— Fear is not in them, not awe.-Curséd they are, they are curséd, They are foes to wise Êa's name; By the whirlwind are all things dispersed, On the paths of the flash of their flame,— Curséd they are, they are curséd,-Spirit of Heaven, oh, help! Oh, Spirit of Earth! They are seven, thrice said they are seven, For the gods they are Bearers of Thrones, But for men they are Breeders of Dearth, And the authors of sorrows and moans.
Why not--Maltheism?
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, July 02, 2011, 14:52 (4891 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Firstly, I have to ask who ever said that the Judeo-Christian God was ONLY a loving God? "Fear God and give him glory.." is repeated throughout the old testament and there are numerous accounts of God's destructive nature. Don't lump religidiocy in with what is actually in printed in the text. > -I'm not confusing this; but by and large most branches of Christianity view the NT as the whole and the OT as purely historical. The God represented by Christ (when read without the light of the OT) seems puzzling. Rev. Bell (who has recently cast doubt in evangelical sources in regards to Christ and Hell) seems to me to take such an approach. References to hell and Satan are meagre through the entire book, and only takes an extremely small role in the Synoptic Gospels. (Unless of course you put more weight on John and Judas being possessed by Satan.) -My studies have underlined Bell's view. The NT represents a new covenant, and overturns many pieces of OT law. There is very little to say about Hell and damnation--especially in the NT. But the focus in Christian religion is clearly upon these foundations:-1. Nonviolence. (Turn the other cheek, instead eye for an eye.) 2. Christ's death was as an atonement sacrifice for the entire human race. 3. Treat the sick with compassion and love. 4. Treat the poor with compassion and love. -These are four points you directly glean about God's nature here, especially if you're a full-fledged Trinitarian. The only reference to punishment or damnation here comes when you start reading in Acts; but even then "Eternal Death" in Jewish spiritual terms simply means being severed from God. It doesn't mean hellfire. -But from a broad perspective, LHP religions were wiped out after the advent of Christianity. As a group, we selected the "good" parts of our God only, and downplayed the negative. In the time of Christ, most peoples used their Gods to describe the psychological states of people--if you were drunk, you were infused with Bacchus, for example. War cults and death cults all served roles in early religion--look at Carthage and Ba'al Hammon. These cults advocated a more predatory nature of God and thought that we should value THAT nature of God, namely a respect and reverence out of fear. My goal with the OP was to point out that this is distasteful to modern "civilized" man, and that we pick and choose pretty rampantly what parts we wish to promote. Man does have a predatory nature, is it absolutely correct to try and abolish this? (Religion tries to abolish... I think we really just redirect it.) I have a very "holistic" (pardon the pun) view here that is looking at how religion has changed for us over time, and I find it interesting that the final religious choice is one that supports government and organization. -> In the Kabbalah's account of Adam and Eve there is a portion that does not exist in the traditional Torah where Adam returns to the Garden of Eden and is confronted by the angel that transforms into the devil and finally again into God. The concept of both creative and destructive natures of God(s) is literally in every religion. However, saying that all order comes from destruction is a bit of a misnomer and misrepresents the law of entropy. Yes, humans eat plants, but the plant is not destroyed(it merely changes its form of existence)(2nd Law of Thermodynamics). This is where we cut to the scene of a monkey holding a baby lion up to an African sunrise and start singing the 'Circle of Life'. > -I agree with you, mostly. I hope I've clarified some of this above...-What do you use for your Kabbalistic source? I've only got an encyclopedia written by a modern Rabbi. -You also forgot to mention Lilith!-Yes the form of the plant changed, but the direct result is more disorder (entropy). You'll lose 90% of that plant to heat for the 10% that joins your body. "Destroyed" is an appropriate term here--because the form of that plant you ate will never again exist in that construction or series of connections.--> Secondly, this poem you linked has the flavor of a poem from Ancient Babylon called the Seven Fiery Phantoms which by accounts seem to be referring to some Ancient Meteorological event.-This doesn't shock me. Left-hand-path religions have a tendency to synthesize elements from very diverse religious traditions. The same album I took that from also has songs to Maha-Kali, and Tiamat--Indian and Babylonian traditions respectively. -Where did you get that poem? I would love to get my hands on more, reading that made my fingers burn for my novel...
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Why not--Maltheism?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, July 02, 2011, 16:41 (4891 days ago) @ xeno6696
I forget the source of that poem originally, I will look it up and link it. -As for the other, I may have mentioned it on here before(not certain), but I was raised in a household of Jehovah's Witnesses, and branched out into studying other religions when I was very very young with the complete commendation of my family/congregation. They considered research to be fundamental to making a personal choice regarding religion. Anyways, the JW's tend to take a very holistic approach to Christianity, including refusing to adopt a lot of popular but textually unsupported views.(Like the trinity, hellfire, infant baptism, and the 'rapture', etc) There was never a question in my mind about the balanced nature of the Judeo-Christian God, and that concept has only been reinforced with every other religion I have studied since then. -My point with the plant analogy is that though the plant will never exist in the same form again, its nutrients sustain order in us, and then we give back to the soil to sustain the next generation of plant life. To me, the changing of forms is not a destructive act in this case as it is a necessary symbiosis that grants life to all involved. At the risk of sounding like Forest Gump, life is like a box of Legos. No matter which way you build it or break it, you still have Legos. -While I do not claim any particular faith, one of the fundamental tenets of my own personal beliefs is that there is balance in all things. Chaos and order. Life and death. Creation and Destruction. None of these things are inherently good or bad, they simply are.
Why not--Maltheism?
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, July 02, 2011, 18:29 (4891 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
I forget the source of that poem originally, I will look it up and link it. > > As for the other, I may have mentioned it on here before(not certain), but I was raised in a household of Jehovah's Witnesses, and branched out into studying other religions when I was very very young with the complete commendation of my family/congregation. They considered research to be fundamental to making a personal choice regarding religion. Anyways, the JW's tend to take a very holistic approach to Christianity, including refusing to adopt a lot of popular but textually unsupported views.(Like the trinity, hellfire, infant baptism, and the 'rapture', etc) There was never a question in my mind about the balanced nature of the Judeo-Christian God, and that concept has only been reinforced with every other religion I have studied since then. > -Now the lack of Rapture is interesting, because I thought it was the Watchtower that messed up on at least 3 "Jesus returns" predictions... what is canon here?-> My point with the plant analogy is that though the plant will never exist in the same form again, its nutrients sustain order in us, and then we give back to the soil to sustain the next generation of plant life. To me, the changing of forms is not a destructive act in this case as it is a necessary symbiosis that grants life to all involved. At the risk of sounding like Forest Gump, life is like a box of Legos. No matter which way you build it or break it, you still have Legos. > -Except that this isn't true; the Sun is the source of our "balance" and it too operates by creating more entropy and disorder than it creates in order. (The heat & light received by hydrogen fusion is what powers our world.) The plant my nourish and sustain you, but only for as much time as it takes to go and destroy the next plant. Again--you lose 90% of that plant as heat. You only keep 10% of that plant's energy and the rest of that energy is free and cannot be easily reclaimed. -Once the Sun runs out of H, so do we, and so does our world. It isn't a balance at all my friend, it's a continuous progress towards dissolution. Our world is as finite as we are.-> While I do not claim any particular faith, one of the fundamental tenets of my own personal beliefs is that there is balance in all things. Chaos and order. Life and death. Creation and Destruction. None of these things are inherently good or bad, they simply are.-I'm interested to see how you'll respond to the idea of a fundamental balance in nature, because the continuous state of decay in terms of energy does not suggest balance at all. Entropy fundamentally challenges all notions of balance.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Why not--Maltheism?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, July 03, 2011, 01:06 (4891 days ago) @ xeno6696
I'm interested to see how you'll respond to the idea of a fundamental balance in nature, because the continuous state of decay in terms of energy does not suggest balance at all. Entropy fundamentally challenges all notions of balance.-Fortunately, it is not up to me to answer this challenge, as it has already been answered by people much smarter than I am. http://www.spontaneousorder.net/-Physics may create disorder, but life creates order. Yin and Yang. There is always a balance.
Why not--Maltheism?
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, July 03, 2011, 16:31 (4890 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
I'm interested to see how you'll respond to the idea of a fundamental balance in nature, because the continuous state of decay in terms of energy does not suggest balance at all. Entropy fundamentally challenges all notions of balance. > > Fortunately, it is not up to me to answer this challenge, as it has already been answered by people much smarter than I am. > > http://www.spontaneousorder.net/ > > Physics may create disorder, but life creates order. Yin and Yang. There is always a balance.-A well-written piece... but you're engaging in the Cartesian dualism it discusses in the abstract: The order that life represents is fractional to the amount of energy it takes to sustain it, and THAT energy is lost to entropy. Life's order only exists because of the disorder created by the Sun, and the net overall balance in the universe is more disorder.-This article simply tries to say that Life's order negates the second law. It simply doesn't... it can only exist because the 2nd law exists...-The Sun's surface is 6000K. However, the temperature in the core is 15Million Kelvin. -That means that only 0.0004% of the total energy produced by the Sun, is available to earth. Technically speaking, much less, because we don't even receive all of it. Most of it is lost to interstellar space. The amount of order created by man, only comes at the expense of even more disorder. (lets not even talk about cities yet.) -Your average human requires 	 2000 calories = 5.22289535 × 10^16 MeV a day. -If you eat plants only, a plant only offers 1% of what it captured in terms of sunlight into usable chemical energy. (Order at the cost of more disorder.) When you eat the plant, only 10% of it joins your biomass, the rest is lost to heat (entropy). Yep. That's right. It creates more disorder for you and I to live. We need on average 2000 calories to live, and that means that 18000 calories were lost just to provide you with that 2000 calories. (Technically more, this doesn't account for the energy permanently lost from the sun.)-So to summarize: Only 0.0004% of the Sun's energy is available to earth. Of that only 0.01 of it is provided by plants for use by higher forms of life. (0.01 x 0.0004 = 0.000004%) The amount of energy lost is catastrophically huge. It cannot be maintained indefinitely. -I can do this all day, but the end result is that life creates more disorder in the universe than it creates in terms of self-organization. This fact is utterly ignored by the paper (as it devolves about halfway through to an argument against Darwinian evolution, using the 2nd law as its basis.) Life creates order, but again the amount of energy required to sustain it results in a net loss of 99.9996% of the Sun's energy into the cosmos. What I'm telling you directly refutes that paper.-Life exists because of the 2nd law, not in spite of or in contradiction to it.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Why not--Maltheism?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, July 03, 2011, 23:18 (4890 days ago) @ xeno6696
Life exists because of the 2nd law, not in spite of or in contradiction to it.-I think you misunderstand my position. I do not think that life exists in spite of, or in contradiction to, the second law of thermodynamics. I am saying that order exists in symbiosis with chaos. Chaos brings order brings chaos in a never ending cycle. And while I do not doubt for a send your mathematical skills or the proof in your equations, I would argue that your use of heat as the only form of energy being received from the sun betrays the inaccuracy rather potently. It is not just heat, light, radiation, or any other one thing vibrating down the wave spectrum that we receive and use, but the entire spectrum. And while not all, or even most, energy is absorbed directly by earth or its inhabitants, that does not negate the powerful affects that the non-absorbed energy plays in maintaining order. What keeps the planets' cores molten, and their bodies spinning? What effects to the other astronomical bodies in the solar system, other than our sun, have on planet earth? There are recent theories about EM waves being the responsible party for gravity, waves that can only be generated by stars. Without these waves pushing against the celestial bodies from various directions the planets' orbits would degrade and life would cease to exist. Don't limit the scope to what directly impacts what you can taste, touch, see, smell, and hear. Look further out and see that the requirements for life on this planet extend far beyond our own solar system and quite possibly beyond our own galaxy.-Sorry if I got a little off track there.
Why not--Maltheism?
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, July 04, 2011, 04:16 (4890 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Life exists because of the 2nd law, not in spite of or in contradiction to it. > > I think you misunderstand my position. I do not think that life exists in spite of, or in contradiction to, the second law of thermodynamics. I am saying that order exists in symbiosis with chaos. Chaos brings order brings chaos in a never ending cycle. And while I do not doubt for a send your mathematical skills or the proof in your equations, I would argue that your use of heat as the only form of energy being received from the sun betrays the inaccuracy rather potently. It is not just heat, light, radiation, or any other one thing vibrating down the wave spectrum that we receive and use, but the entire spectrum. And while not all, or even most, energy is absorbed directly by earth or its inhabitants, that does not negate the powerful affects that the non-absorbed energy plays in maintaining order. What keeps the planets' cores molten, and their bodies spinning? What effects to the other astronomical bodies in the solar system, other than our sun, have on planet earth? There are recent theories about EM waves being the responsible party for gravity, waves that can only be generated by stars. Without these waves pushing against the celestial bodies from various directions the planets' orbits would degrade and life would cease to exist. Don't limit the scope to what directly impacts what you can taste, touch, see, smell, and hear. Look further out and see that the requirements for life on this planet extend far beyond our own solar system and quite possibly beyond our own galaxy. > > Sorry if I got a little off track there.-No... not off track. -But I don't think your main critique here has much bearing; allow me to explain, and ask you for a reformulation if you think I'm reading you incorrectly.-I assume we agree that entropy is the measure of disorder in the universe. I assume we agree that life is definitely order. -My initial agreement to LHP religion was on the topic that on average, order can only be created or maintained at the expense of more disorder overall. -This is a restatement of the 2nd law. -This is what is observed. -Your main critique is in asserting that I don't talk about the other energy coming from the Sun. I disagree with this critique.-Heat, (K) is a measure of energy--total output. This includes light and ALL radiation that is emanated from the sun. That's why I chose it. To get from K to calories you simply perform a couple of mathematical transformations. Those numbers include both the heat energy from the sun as well as the light received (and transformed into energy by plants). EM waves are just light--and are therefore also included in the calculation of K. -Gravity is a different kind of energy, but I think this is the only place you go off topic--the primary source of energy for life is the Sun. Our orbit is an equilibrium between the earth's mass and the sun's mass; so there isn't really a deep impact between different gravities here (unless you count asteroid strikes!).-Your suggestion that celestial bodies further out having a deep impact upon us is further mitigated by the fact that gravity again balances out according the the inverse square law... our sun and its position to other stars and the milky way are in a similar state of equilibrium to the planets around our sun. -Your final argument I'm having a hard time with. I can only see an extremely narrow band of light, and most of the other things I've discussed don't lend themselves easily to the 5 senses. (MeV is not a concept eyes, ears, nose, mouth, or skin readily appreciate... only my mind...) -And there are an estimated 10,000 suns like hours within the hypothesized "hospitable zone" around our Milky Way... so while we're all we know, there's reason to doubt we're all that's there. -Being around a special sun, around a special arm circling a special galaxy on a doomsday course with Andromeda... still doesn't defeat the fact that that ALL of that order has been created at the expense of the 2nd law's ruthless enforcement...-http://www.bartol.udel.edu/~seckel/courses/phys_811/units.pdf (For a good listing of all the conversion factors--light, mass, heat, energy... they are all the same...)
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Why not--Maltheism?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, July 02, 2011, 16:46 (4891 days ago) @ xeno6696
edited by unknown, Saturday, July 02, 2011, 17:01
http://www.archive.org/stream/harvardclassics50eliouoft/harvardclassics50eliouoft_djvu.txt-This is where I found that poem originally while researching some esoteric teachings.-**Unfortunately, I just tested the link and it no longer contains the complete works that were listed in it originally. I will see if I can find you another source.**
Why not--Maltheism?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, July 02, 2011, 17:11 (4891 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
I can't not find a faithful copy of it, but if you enjoyed it, then I highly recommend this site. It has a rather large library of free to read transcriptions of ancient texts.
Why not--Maltheism?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, July 03, 2011, 01:40 (4891 days ago) @ xeno6696
My sources for the Kabbalah are kind of scattered. There are a lot of good translations of different texts on: http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/index.htm-and- http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org