The Couch

Man evolved from monkeys: Bhagvata

Comments on Man evolved from monkeys: Bhagvata

Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
Posted 07/20/12 - 10:20 AM:
Subject: Man evolved from monkeys: Bhagvata
Bhagvata Purana's Canto 5, Chapter 14, unless it was edited in twentieth century, highlights that some people believe that man evolved from monkeys. I think there has been a lively debate on creationism versus evolutionary theory of Charles Darwin(and forefathers).

How old is the theory of Monkeys being our ancestors in Greek, Egyptians or other texts if you have read them?



This source says that David Frawley dated Bhagvata Purana to be at least 3500 years, by composition and even more ancient by oral/myth tradition.

***Please Note: Different scholars date differently but it's well established that these are older than Darwin.



here
The Puranas mark a bridge between what is classed as late-Harappan (ce.1900BCE)
when the saraswati River dried up and the early Gupta period (400AD).
"Gods, Sages and Kings" By David Frawley and "In Search of the Dradle of
Civilisation"
by Georg Feuerstein also speak on the dates according to Historical Evidences as
well.
It appears generally by their dates, which ar based on Astronmical and
Archeological facts, that
the Vedas date between 7000BCE and ended sometyime around 2000BCE, with the
early Upanishads
and Brahmanas overlapping as early as 3000BCE.
But there were also earlier Puranas as old as the Vedas from which the present
have come down from.
As to Bhagwat Purana or Srimad Bhagwatam, it appears to have been composed after
Krishna's death (either around 3000 or 1500BCE) and was editied down to 500AD
in the late-Gupta era, when we see Hinduism was at it's height again and taking
over Buddhism. But most of it, going by the Purana itself, dates from at least
3500 years ago.
Traditionalists prefer 3000BCE as the date of it's Composition, or 1500BCE, but
this
being a traditional date would be the start of when it began. David Frawley
suggests this
also (Gods sages and Kings, P.132), as the Puranas are set in the Court of
Janamejaya,
but were part of Oral traditions and Myths (as also recorded in Mahabharat and
Ramayan)
that date back to Vedic times (ie. the stories about Prahlad, Vamana etc.)
Hope this helps!
Hari Om.


Bhagvata
Chapter 14: The Material World as the Great Forest of Enjoyment



(27) On the path of material existence one meets with these forms of misfortune associated with happiness and unhappiness, attachment, hate, fear, false prestige, illusion, madness, lamentation, bewilderment, greed, envy, enmity, insult, hunger, thirst, tribulations, disease, birth, old age, death, and so on. (28) Somewhere, under the influence of the illusory energy, mâyâ, one is, being firmly embraced by the creepers of the arms of a female companion, deeply embarrassed by finding oneself at a loss void of all intelligence and wisdom. In the wish to please her and find her a suitable place to live, one's heart gets engrossed in the concern and one's consciousness is seized by the talks and nice looks offered by the sons and daughters under the loving care of one's wife. Having lost the command over oneself one is then thrown into the endless darkness of a life in ignorance.

(29) It so happens that because of the cakra of the Controller, the Supreme Lord Vishnu His disc of Time, the influence of which stretches from the first expansion of atoms to the duration of the complete life of Brahmâ, one has to suffer the symptoms of its rotating, with which in due course, swiftly before one's eyes, without a blink, all lives of the entities, from Brahmâ to the simplest blade of grass, are spent. Directly of Him, the Controller whose personal weapon is the disc of Time, one is afraid at heart. Not caring about the Supreme Lord, the Original Person of Sacrifice, one accepts as worshipable that what misses any foundation, preoccupied as one is with one's self-made gods who are like buzzards, vultures, herons and crows and who are denied by the scriptures of our civilization. (30) When one as a conditioned soul by the atheists - who themselves are cheated - is cheated even more, one takes to the school of the brahmins. But with them [as neurotic, difficult people] not finding satisfaction in the good character of engaging with the sacred thread according to principle and scripture, nor in the trusted culture of dutiful worship of the Supreme Lord and Original Person of Sacrifice, one turns to the association of karmis [karma motivated people or s'udras] who are not purified in behaving according to the Vedic injunctions. And with them one, in a materialistic sex life maintaining the family, finds oneself in the company of those who think they descended from monkeys [instead of spiritual masters]. (31)[b] In that condition to one's own judgment without a trace of doubt enjoying [like the monkeys] with a serious lack of knowledge and insight, one forgets how short life is when one, staring into each other's dejected faces, hankers for gratification and material results. (32) Sometimes, exactly like the monkeys in their trees, delighted in one's home in which one always strives for a greater comfort, one spends one's time caring about and having fun with the wife and children. (33) One is as a conditioned soul confined to the sensual path and thus abides, out of fear for the elephant of death, by a darkness as deep as that of a mountain cave. (34-35) In relation to the objects of one's senses one is sometimes [as said] with one's inability to counteract the insurmountable miseries of the heat and cold of nature, other living beings and one's own existence, caught in sadness because of [the enmity that rose about] whatever little bit of wealth one in mutual transactions happened to acquire by cheating. (36) Now and then running out of money and bereft of accommodations for sleeping, sitting and eating one must endure the derision and such of the people that rose as a consequence of what one by a lack of success in one's desire decided to acquire in a dishonest way. (37) Even though one, because of financially determined relations, more and more relates in enmity, one nevertheless engages in marriages which, based on this desire [to advance materially], consequently end in divorces. (38) On this path through the ocean of matter one is plagued by the different miseries of a material existence, to which anyone himself - or anybody else for that matter - now and then thinks that he has won and then again thinks that he has lost. Thereto one experiences in giving up [deceased] relatives and welcoming newborn babies in ones bondage at times a lot of sorrow, illusion and fear to which one loudly cries while one at other times is so happy that one starts to sing. Up to the present day save for the saintly souls no one of this entire world of self-interested human beings has ever returned to the one [place of God] where this material course started and of which the defenders of the peace declare that it is also the end station. (39) Materially motivated human beings do not follow the instructions of yoga nor do they attain this [supreme abode] which is easily attained by the wise who naturally living and abiding by peace are in control of their mind and senses. (40) Even when one is the saintliest of kings, victorious in all fields and expert in performing all the sacrifices, one is but an earthly human being who has to lay down his life, has to give up the fight, has to meet his demise because of the self-created enmity with others and has to stop considering things in terms of 'mine' [compare 1.2: 13]. (41) Taking shelter of the creeper of karma [engaging in remedial actions] one somehow or other may be freed from the misfortune of one's hellish position [of being entangled in the material world], but whatever the higher world one thus is promoted to, one again treads that way the worldly path of self-interested activities.

(42) There is not a single king able to follow even in his mind the path that we celebrated here as the way of the great soul Jada Bharata[India is called Bharata or Bharatavarsha after him] , the son of the great saintly king Rishabhadeva, any more than a fly can follow Garuda, the carrier of Vishnu. (43) It was he who gave up the difficult to forsake wealth of a family, friends and well-wishers and the royal realm. Fond of Uttamas'loka, the Lord praised in the verses, he, only in his prime years, renounced all that occupied his heart like it was stool. (44) To those whose minds are attracted by the loving service unto the killer of Madhu [Krishna] performed by the greatest souls, everything that is so difficult to give up, the world, the children, relatives, riches and a wife, all that is desirable of the goddess of fortune and the best of the demigods their glances of mercy, is of no significance; and that befitted him as a king. (45) 'The Enjoyer of all sacrifices, the Propounder of the Religion, He who teaches by the regulative principles [the vidhi see 1.17: 24], the yoga in person, the teacher of analysis [sânkhya, see Kapila: 3.25], the Controller of the Creation, Nârâyana the shelter of all living beings, unto Lord Hari I offer my obeisances!', was what he prayed aloud with a smile, even when he resided in the body of a deer.
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
Posted 07/20/12 - 10:59 AM:

HA!

When I first read this, "Man evolved from monkeys", I, at first, thought it said, 'Man evolved from monsters'.

If the thread had, indeed, been titled 'Man evolved from monsters', I would have said: 'obviously'.
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
Posted 07/20/12 - 11:24 AM:

henry quirk wrote:
HA!

When I first read this, "Man evolved from monkeys", I, at first, thought it said, 'Man evolved from monsters'.

If the thread had, indeed, been titled 'Man evolved from monsters', I would have said: 'obviously'.



Hahaha laughing

I did not choose title carefully. It should have been--Man did not evolve... or 'Creationism' in Bhagvata. I think almost every religion would say that God created man.

But that does not necessarily reject evolution if you think through it.

It's also suggested by some Vedic scholars that the avatars of Vishnu like Fish, Tortoise, Boar, Short-man, half-man-lion, dwarf etc suggest evolution of life on earth, suggesting also that all life-forms are divine descendants.

wiki wrote:
The ten best known avatars of Vishnu are collectively known as the Dasavatara (a dvigucompound meaning "ten avatars"). This list is included in the Garuda Purana (1.86.10"11).[24]
The first four are said to have appeared in the Satya Yuga (the first of the four Yugas or ages in the time cycle described within Hinduism). The next three avatars appeared in the Treta Yuga, the eighth descent in the Dvapara Yuga and the ninth in the Kali Yuga. The tenth, Kalki, is predicted to appear at the end of the Kali Yuga.[25]
Matsya, the fish-avatar who saved Manu – the progeniter of mankind from the great deluge and rescued the Vedic scriptures by killing a demon. Story can be found in the Matsya Purana.
Kurma, the tortoise-avatar, who helped in the Samudra manthan – the churning of the ocean. Story can be found in the Kurma Purana.
Varaha, the boar-avatar, who rescued the earth from the ocean, by killing her kidnapper-demon Hiranyaksha. Story can be found in the Varaha Purana.
Narasimha, the half man-half lion avatar, who killed the tyrant demon-king Hiranyakashipu, to rescue the demon's son Prahlada, who was a Vishnu-devotee
Vamana, the dwarf-avatar, who subdued the king Maha Bali. Story can be found in the Vamana Purana.
Parashurama, sage with the axe who killed the thousand-armed king Kartavirya Arjuna
Rama, the king of Ayodhya and the hero of the Hindu epic Ramayana
Krishna, the king of Dwarka, a central character in the Bhagavata Purana and the Mahabharata and reciter of Bhagavad Gita. However, in the original Dasavatara stotra, Balarama, the elder brother of Krishna, is stated as the eight incarnation, while Krishna (Lord Kesava) is the source of all the incarnation.[26]
Gautama Buddha
Kalki ("Eternity", or "time", or "The Destroyer of foulness"), who is expected to appear at the end of Kali Yuga. Story can be found in the Kalki Purana.


Note: That last but all three avatars were persons born as kings because creation has proceeded far enough to give birth to enough complex and sophisticated life-forms in Bharatavarsha, that kings are rulers of cities.
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4673
Posted 07/20/12 - 12:58 PM:

Thinker13 wrote:
I think almost every religion would say that God created man.

But that does not necessarily reject evolution if you think through it.

As a pantheist, I feel comfortable saying "God created man", although I mean it just as much in an evolutionary sense as in the sense of intelligent design. A monotheist would interpret that same phrase much differently, I think.
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
Posted 07/20/12 - 1:21 PM:

libertygrl wrote:

As a pantheist, I feel comfortable saying "God created man", although I mean it just as much in an evolutionary sense as in the sense of intelligent design. A monotheist would interpret that same phrase much differently, I think.



I read about some churches accepting Darwin. Was it true or just a rumor? A monotheist should also not have a problem if he accepts that life evolved on planet. If evolution is change, then it's very difficult for any religion to stay mute about it--i mean who could deny that everything including species doesn't change with time? Then it's only a matter of careful and meticulous observation which reveals the nature of changes in species.
thedoc
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 15, 2011

Total Topics: 41
Total Comments: 982
Avatar thedoc
Posted 07/20/12 - 3:14 PM:

Simply put, I would say God created Man and Evolution is how God did it. Also Evolution does not state that man evolved from monkeys or any of the existing apes, but that all have evolved from a common ancestor.
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
Posted 07/20/12 - 3:30 PM:

thedoc wrote:
Simply put, I would say God created Man and Evolution is how God did it. Also Evolution does not state that man evolved from monkeys or any of the existing apes, but that all have evolved from a common ancestor.



Indeed.
cripes
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 22, 2009
Location: the SE portion of a state in the NE part of the US

Total Topics: 18
Total Comments: 157
cripes
Posted 07/22/12 - 9:13 AM:

thedoc wrote:
Simply put, I would say God created Man and Evolution is how God did it. Also Evolution does not state that man evolved from monkeys or any of the existing apes, but that all have evolved from a common ancestor.
That, of course, infers that all creatures are equal in God's eyes, which is contrary to what Christianity teaches. How do you square that?
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
Posted 07/22/12 - 9:24 AM:

cripes wrote:
That, of course, infers that all creatures are equal in God's eyes, which is contrary to what Christianity teaches. How do you square that?



Did Christ himself teach that you should not love trees, animalia, places and everything manifested?

As far as my understanding goes: Every self-realized soul be it Jesus, Buddha or Krishna, teach that you should love everyone because everyone is God.

To say this to a devout Christian might be a little difficult because they think that God, Son and Holy Ghost are divine trinity and all others are sinners. That's also true in the sense that we all have inherited some programming because of the power of God 'karma' for manifestation so that God realizing itself might become more vibrant playful and realized--in other words, you may say that by playing through various cycles of creation, sustenance and destruction God is merely playing and after a point, evolution stops and destruction starts because of the Adharma(evil), which works by way of Maya--making people deluded by ego, attachments, anger and violence.

I agree that there might have been adulteration of original sayings from Christ and it's not possible that God doesn't consider everyone equal.

Even chief avataras of Vishnu, the supreme personality of Godhead manifests in form of various animals suggesting a evolutionary link in form of stories.

Buddha has so clearly stated that you should be compassionate towards all sentient beings and so have Jain masters(Zen masters as well)

In other words, I agree with Cripes. smiling face
cripes
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 22, 2009
Location: the SE portion of a state in the NE part of the US

Total Topics: 18
Total Comments: 157
cripes
#10 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 07/22/12 - 9:51 AM:

libertygrl wrote:

As a pantheist, I feel comfortable saying "God created man", although I mean it just as much in an evolutionary sense as in the sense of intelligent design. A monotheist would interpret that same phrase much differently, I think.
Speaking of intelligent design...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGKRurORkCA
thedoc
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 15, 2011

Total Topics: 41
Total Comments: 982
Avatar thedoc
#11 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 07/22/12 - 11:00 AM:

cripes wrote:
That, of course, infers that all creatures are equal in God's eyes, which is contrary to what Christianity teaches. How do you square that?



I don't, there are some things that mainstream Christianity teaches that I do not accept without question. For example in todays sermon the pastor stated that other religions 'do not have access to God' probably based on the verse by Jesus that "No-one comes to the Father except through Me." I am coming to the concept that there are many paths to God, and this statement is a bit troubling. There are other teachings that I have a different intrepretation than accepted dogma.
cripes
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 22, 2009
Location: the SE portion of a state in the NE part of the US

Total Topics: 18
Total Comments: 157
cripes
#12 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 07/22/12 - 11:07 AM:

thedoc wrote:



I don't, there are some things that mainstream Christianity teaches that I do not accept without question. For example in todays sermon the pastor stated that other religions 'do not have access to God' probably based on the verse by Jesus that "No-one comes to the Father except through Me." I am coming to the concept that there are many paths to God, and this statement is a bit troubling. There are other teachings that I have a different intrepretation than accepted dogma.
(Removing values of right and wrong)You'd agree then that eating meat is cannibalistic and all living creatures deserve rights equal to that of humans? You'd agree that pet ownership is a form of slavery.
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#13 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 07/22/12 - 11:13 AM:

cripes wrote:
Speaking of intelligent design...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGKRurORkCA


I can address to every point he gives and 'proof' for it is as impossible to give as impossible it's to refute those who refute 'intuition, anumana and imagination,' i. e. Charvakas and Atheists. But lets see following first.

Speaking of mocking the 'intelligent design,' short-sighted assessment disregarding the majesty of universes created which are very well written about in many scriptures including Bhagvata; The modern Science is a very new religion in opposition to 'intuition,'{Eistein,Kekule and many other geniuses created theories by hunches and intuition and then 'faith' along with 'reason' guided them through--look how much we respect Einstein today but he did not respect our use of nuclear energy but it was inevitable; this much for Science without faith and intuition and Dogma of many religious wars in last three-four centuries has been horrendous. Mahabharata did use missiles and other powerful weaponry---that 3-5000 years old battle might have caused destruction of some key places--but then there is no evidence so who knows what kind of missiles they actually were!} similar to charvakas(atheists/hedonists/epicureans,) and only if there could be nuclear-natural disaster-free scientific progress of say 1000 years, Science will be in a position to really start validating some religious theories. I cannot say 'wait and watch' because chances are that this physical form of mine will not be present then, but then, who knows what Science may come up with!
thedoc
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 15, 2011

Total Topics: 41
Total Comments: 982
Avatar thedoc
#14 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 07/22/12 - 2:31 PM:

cripes wrote:

You'd agree then that eating meat is cannibalistic and all living creatures deserve rights equal to that of humans? You'd agree that pet ownership is a form of slavery.



Eating meat is no more cannibalistic that eating plants which are also living beings.

Wild animals have their rights, sometimes more-so than humans. Domesticated animals are raised much like other crops, should we turn all plants back to the wild and not gather, or hunt anything for food. If you choose to go without food that is your choice, not mine.

In a wild pack the 'Alpha Male and Female' rule, are the lower ranked members of the pack any less slaves than the pet of a human? And the pet of a Human is usually better cared for than a wild animal.

Life lives on death, that is the way of nature. Humans who choose to deny or ignore that are not fully human and probably not really alive.

Is cannabilism wrong?
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#15 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 07/22/12 - 4:44 PM:

Coming to Jesus' statement.

Krishna has said in many places including Shrimad Bhagvad Geeta that "Whoever comes to me by whichever means in whatever form, finds me."


The only required thing is 'true faith,' and surrendering to God.

Surrendering in the sense that you acknowledge your limit and on the same hand accept that divine is the ultimate cause inside every heart, manifested and beyond.

cripes
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 22, 2009
Location: the SE portion of a state in the NE part of the US

Total Topics: 18
Total Comments: 157
cripes
#16 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 07/22/12 - 5:05 PM:

thedoc wrote:



Eating meat is no more cannibalistic that eating plants which are also living beings.
I disagree in that fowl and four legged creatures are more closely related to us. However, acquiescing to your interpretation, I suppose It depends what level of cannibalism one's comfortable with. The question though is: where, as conscious beings, do we get our permission to consume other animal species if not from something recognized as a "higher power" such as belief in a God?
thedoc wrote:
Wild animals have their rights, sometimes more-so than humans.
See, that sentence sounds condescending as if rights are something we grant as opposed to natural. Still, the point stands that if we grant that we all came from a common ancestor and that's been God's plan all along, why then do we not recognize the rights of ALL of our animal cousins? Also, if you're correct that evolution is how God "created" man that would mean anyone who claims to know God and doesn't recognize that are not truly Godly, are they. It would seem to me that if that fundamental truth is not being communicated from the pulpit, what business does one have believing anything coming from it?
thedoc wrote:
Domesticated animals are raised much like other crops, should we turn all plants back to the wild and not gather, or hunt anything for food. If you choose to go without food that is your choice, not mine.
I'd prefer to keep this in context. However, for the record, I'd prefer to permit Natural Selection to run it's course.

thedoc wrote:
In a wild pack the 'Alpha Male and Female' rule, are the lower ranked members of the pack any less slaves than the pet of a human? And the pet of a Human is usually better cared for than a wild animal.
We're not wild animals, we have the ability to reason and empathize. And, according to what you've written, that's been God's plan. If God intended for us to be products of evolution, why then give us empathy and reason if not to employ them?

thedoc wrote:
Is cannabilism wrong?
I suppose that depends on one's morality.
thedoc
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 15, 2011

Total Topics: 41
Total Comments: 982
Avatar thedoc
#17 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 07/22/12 - 9:43 PM:

cripes wrote:

We're not wild animals, we have the ability to reason and empathize.



This is very much in question. Looking at the world in general how can you say that many "Humans" are not behaving like 'wild animals' with guns? Reason and Empathy are also in short supply. On this point I must agree with Sunlights assessment of the human condition in general, but I would contend that participants on a forum are more conscientious than average, at least I would hope so.
thedoc
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 15, 2011

Total Topics: 41
Total Comments: 982
Avatar thedoc
#18 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 07/22/12 - 9:49 PM:

cripes wrote:

See, that sentence sounds condescending as if rights are something we grant as opposed to natural.



All rights are natural, but many are impinged by others.
thedoc
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 15, 2011

Total Topics: 41
Total Comments: 982
Avatar thedoc
#19 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 07/22/12 - 9:53 PM:

cripes wrote:

I suppose that depends on one's morality.



More-so one's culture, in some primative societies ritual cannabalism was practiced as a way of honoring the dead. In others it was used by one group to terrorize and control another.
thedoc
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 15, 2011

Total Topics: 41
Total Comments: 982
Avatar thedoc
#20 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 07/22/12 - 10:00 PM:

cripes wrote:

I disagree in that fowl and four legged creatures are more closely related to us. However, acquiescing to your interpretation, I suppose It depends what level of cannibalism one's comfortable with. The question though is: where, as conscious beings, do we get our permission to consume other animal species if not from something recognized as a "higher power" such as belief in a God?



I have always considered cannabalism as eating others of your own species. Other animals are outside our species therefore not cannabalism. It is more a question of which other living beings you wish to consume to live. Most dietary restrictions are based on religious superstitions and not from any biological consideration.
SUNLIGHT
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 28, 2012
Location: united kingdom

Total Topics: 64
Total Comments: 931
#21 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 07/28/12 - 8:17 AM:

thedoc wrote:



This is very much in question. Looking at the world in general how can you say that many "Humans" are not behaving like 'wild animals' with guns? Reason and Empathy are also in short supply. On this point I must agree with Sunlights assessment of the human condition in general, but I would contend that participants on a forum are more conscientious than average, at least I would hope so.

....................................................................
I also agree with the doc here , the fall of man means what ?..to fall from his original spiritual state down to the level of the beast state and as doc correctly pointed out whats happening in the world today is ample proof of that


thedoc
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 15, 2011

Total Topics: 41
Total Comments: 982
Avatar thedoc
#22 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 07/28/12 - 11:55 AM:

I think that useing the terms like 'Ascending & Descending' or 'Rise & Fall' in mans relation to nature or in reference to evolution is problematical. Many will see it as a connotation of superiority of one over the other. In evolution species change in response to changes in the environment. Creatures living today might not survive a 500 million years ago and any living creature from that time might not survive now. A Python will not survive in the artic, and a Seal will not survive in the Sahara desert, each species is in it's own place. The Bible states that man is to have dominion over the animals, but too many read this as a Master - Slave relationship, but in reality it is more like the trainer of a race horse and God is the owner. The trainer does not have absolute authority over the animal but is charged with caring for it.

At this point I fear that Sunlight and I may part company. The 'Fall' as described in the Bible is symbolic of man becoming aware of the 'self' in a way that is much different than animals. Before the 'Fall' Man was an animal in a natural state of predator and prey base survival. After the 'Fall' Man became aware of his own mortality and with that the concept of life after death, as indicated by the burials from that period. Man believed that there was something that lived on after the physical death and included objects in the grave that would be needed in the live after death. Nature is not a state of animals living together in a Bambi like existance, but is often vicious and cruel. Human hunters strive for a quick clean 'Kill' so the prey will not suffer unduly, wild predators have no such concern and once the prey is down will start to feed, sometimes while the prey is still alive. It is most often in mans treatment of other men that the 'beast state' is demonstrated most clearly.

There has been discussion on other forums of animals being mistreated on 'factory farms' where livestock is raised for food. It really doesn't make economic sense, as a mistreated animal will not be as healthy or be as good a product as animals who were treated properly. Farmers would not go into a field of corn with a club and flail away at the corn plants just to be cruel, they care for the plants so as to get a better crop. Likewise proper care of an animal would yeild a better crop in the end. There is something seriously wrong with 'farmers' who raise animals for food in poor and inhumane conditions.
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#23 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 07/28/12 - 1:18 PM:

thedoc wrote:
This is very much in question. Looking at the world in general how can you say that many "Humans" are not behaving like 'wild animals' with guns? Reason and Empathy are also in short supply. On this point I must agree with Sunlights assessment of the human condition in general, but I would contend that participants on a forum are more conscientious than average, at least I would hope so.


Very low indeed. nod takes a bow
SUNLIGHT
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 28, 2012
Location: united kingdom

Total Topics: 64
Total Comments: 931
#24 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 07/29/12 - 12:34 AM:

QUOTE THE DOC :Before the 'Fall' Man was an animal in a natural state of predator and prey base survival.
.................................................
I disagree here smiling face man was created in the image of GOD and GOD is no animal , the fall represents the descent of man into he lower animal state , man only became predator after the fall from the garden into the world outside the garden or below the paradise state he was originally placed in..

Edited by SUNLIGHT on 07/29/12 - 2:20 AM
Search thread for
Download thread as
  • 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5



Sorry, you don't have permission . Log in, or register if you haven't yet.



Acknowledgements:

Couch logo design by Midnight_Monk. The photo hanging above the couch was taken by Paul.

Powered by WSN Forum. Free smileys here.
Special thanks to Maria Cristina, Jesse , Echolist Directory, The Star Online,
Hosting Free Webs, and dmoz.org for referring visitors to this site!

Copyright notice:

Except where noted otherwise, copyright belongs to respective authors
for artwork, photography and text posted in this forum.