Monism, Dualism, Emanations, Etc...

# 07 May, 2013 22:16
XtrialbyfireX	I think one of the hardest things for any religion (or philosophy that proposes some kind of intelligent/divine source) is to provide a logical explain as to where evil comes from. I'm not an expert on the following explanations, but I do find them pretty fascinating. In monism all things come from the same sources (Taoism is monistic if I'm not mistaken?): I think the explanation is usually that all things contain both good and evil. (However I do not personally understand how the source can be both esteemed and have elements of evil? It's hard for me to wrap my head around the fact that cute bunny rabbits and flesh eating bacteria both come from the same source.) (On a side note the writer of Isaiah, in the Old Testament, believes in a monistic system when he writes “I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.” This is to signify the ultimate power of God, but does nothing to address the problems such a statement causes). In dualism there are two opposing sources that are constantly warring. I think you could consider Orthodox Christianity dualistic, but that is not technically accurate, since both sides are not considered equally powerful. My question with orthodoxy's explanation of evil is fairly similar b/c an evil “opposite” in nature was created by sin/disobedience, however it would seem the evil aspects of the fall of man are still made by the creator, i.e. parasitic organisms, physical pain, thorny plants, animals and humans eating meat, etc. It seems obvious that the evil that results from free will is destructive, but the kind of “evil” or chaos that exists in the natural order seems somewhat premeditated in the creation myth of Genesis, to the point where it seems obvious to question whether or not the creator is malevolent. The system I am most comfortable/enamored with is Emanations (which I believe ancient Christians borrowed from Platonists.) In emanations God always existed, and his first thought was so powerful it created a second divine being (Christ in Christianity), and that being's first so powerful it creates another divine being (Sophia aka The Holy Ghost), and so on and so on. Each being is created/emanated with free will, (and each emanation is slightly less powerful than the last, like a copy of a copy). Some of the lesser emanations choose to do all sorts of evil which creates the chaos of the world we live in (In Christianity this evil comes from two sources, ignorance which creates the chaos (tornadoes, earth quakes, deer ticks) of the natural order.) I'm told emanations is so old that we don't know where it originated from. I prefer that system b/c it provides a pretty solid explanation as to how evil can exist and the divine source can still be completely pure. Are there any other popular systems out there? I'd be interested in hearing about any of them. Any thoughts? (I'm not trying to to make any sort of grand statement, just killing some time and trying to stimulate some conversation.) quote

# 07 May, 2013 22:16

I think one of the hardest things for any religion (or philosophy that proposes some kind of intelligent/divine source) is to provide a logical explain as to where evil comes from. I'm not an expert on the following explanations, but I do find them pretty fascinating.

In monism all things come from the same sources (Taoism is monistic if I'm not mistaken?): I think the explanation is usually that all things contain both good and evil. (However I do not personally understand how the source can be both esteemed and have elements of evil? It's hard for me to wrap my head around the fact that cute bunny rabbits and flesh eating bacteria both come from the same source.) (On a side note the writer of Isaiah, in the Old Testament, believes in a monistic system when he writes “I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.” This is to signify the ultimate power of God, but does nothing to address the problems such a statement causes).

In dualism there are two opposing sources that are constantly warring. I think you could consider Orthodox Christianity dualistic, but that is not technically accurate, since both sides are not considered equally powerful. My question with orthodoxy's explanation of evil is fairly similar b/c an evil “opposite” in nature was created by sin/disobedience, however it would seem the evil aspects of the fall of man are still made by the creator, i.e. parasitic organisms, physical pain, thorny plants, animals and humans eating meat, etc. It seems obvious that the evil that results from free will is destructive, but the kind of “evil” or chaos that exists in the natural order seems somewhat premeditated in the creation myth of Genesis, to the point where it seems obvious to question whether or not the creator is malevolent.

The system I am most comfortable/enamored with is Emanations (which I believe ancient Christians borrowed from Platonists.) In emanations God always existed, and his first thought was so powerful it created a second divine being (Christ in Christianity), and that being's first so powerful it creates another divine being (Sophia aka The Holy Ghost), and so on and so on. Each being is created/emanated with free will, (and each emanation is slightly less powerful than the last, like a copy of a copy). Some of the lesser emanations choose to do all sorts of evil which creates the chaos of the world we live in (In Christianity this evil comes from two sources, ignorance which creates the chaos (tornadoes, earth quakes, deer ticks) of the natural order.) I'm told emanations is so old that we don't know where it originated from. I prefer that system b/c it provides a pretty solid explanation as to how evil can exist and the divine source can still be completely pure.

Are there any other popular systems out there? I'd be interested in hearing about any of them.

Any thoughts? (I'm not trying to to make any sort of grand statement, just killing some time and trying to stimulate some conversation.)