Rev. Erudite Redneck, B.S., B.S., M.A., M.Div.

Y'all start.

So what is it?

Don't answer that, I should read the links first.

Thanks, lets see where this leads.

Lee
PS
Can I mention the 'E' word on this thread?
 

Hi ER,

OK - had a quick look at ‘Creation Spirituality’, well it seems the pope doesn’t like – is that a good or a bad thing? :)

”Creation Spirituality begins with the notion of creation as an original blessing as opposed to original sin.”

OK… fair enough, so no mention of ‘the fall’ (or was the creation of Adam the first blessing?) or why Jesus was crucified was it not for the Original Sin then?

Oh, and does this web page explain your position on Original Sin/Blessing?

I could do with some help on this one (as I always do when it comes to understand your position). The web page doesn’t seem to give much justification to explain Fox’s interpretation either.

As for the “original sin” page, lots of different interpretations on that, quoting the beginning to start us up
Original sin is, according to a doctrine in Christian theology, humanity's state of sin resulting from the Fall of Man. Like other theological terms, the terms "original sin" and "ancestral sin" are not found in either the Old or the New Testament, though the sinfulness of humans is frequently addressed, but the doctrine that the terms express is claimed to be based on passages in the New Testament written by Paul the Apostle, such as Romans 5:12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15:22.

So does Original Sin exist or not?

Also like the Islam bit from that page:-
Islam regards the concept of “original sin” and the need for atonement by God Himself - via dying on the Cross - as a pure invention of those who came after Jesus Christ, declaring themselves as Christians. The difference is that Muslims think Christians believe original sin is something Adam and Eve did that God holds us accountable for, while Christians believe it is more a tendency to sin.

So Islam think the Christians are just making up the dying on the cross business? I wonder why?

Also, this “tendency to sin” is an interesting point as well, what do you think?

OK, back tomorrow.

Lee
 

Lee is always in a rush! Like a butcher, slap-dash slicing and dicing and stacking and wrapping and labeling things.

:-)

The headline is "Let's talk about 'Original Sin,' " not "Here's my take on 'Original Sin.' "

My take on it? That is the least important direction this discussion could go, so it'll be awhile.

Nothing kills a conversation like staking out one's positions immediately, because then one spends all one's time defending and justifying oneself, not thinking through matters.

I'd rather talk about what "Original Sin" means, how it has historically fit into Christian doctrine-theology, the challenges posed by Darwin, the church's response, and reaction, what the fact of Jesus's crucifixion meant pre- and post-Darwin, and so on. Much, much moe interesring than there mere matter of what I think.

But not right now. It's 3:59 a.m., I have a sick truck, and everyday problems occupying my mind and jalapeno sausage digesting, which are why I'm up at this ungodly (so to speak hour.

And, there are other thoughtful peeps lurking, who I hope will participate.
 

Hi ER,

Sorry you are not well… but hey, you can now blog 24 hours a day it seems.

I'd rather talk about what "Original Sin" means, how it has historically fit into Christian doctrine-theology, the challenges posed by Darwin, the church's response, and reaction, what the fact of Jesus's crucifixion meant pre- and post-Darwin, and so on. Much, much moe interesring than there mere matter of what I think.

I like the sound of it… sorry for rushing it, but you didn’t give me much to go on so I just took a few blind shots – but you knew I would.

Get well

Lee
 

Original sin seems to be a concept developed by Irenaeus in the second century. I mean Jesus, his Disciples, Moses, the OT Prophets etc. did not expound on it. No just the old boy who was putting down all the competing forms of Christianity. And then comes along Augustine who says that original sin is transmitted via the woman's womb and that's how men get it like it was a STD or something.
Original sin is just a construct of the proto-Roman Orthodox sexually repressed misogynistic that has been use to condemn mankind for nearly 2000 years.
What good has it meant to people?
 

Like the hooker said, "If it's really original, it'll cost you an extra twenty."
 

Howdy,, Miss C.! And may I add:

Hoot! :-)
 

But then there's this, Paul, writing in Romans 5: 12-19.


Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned -- for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.

The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification.

For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.

So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.

For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.


Hard to come to any coother conclusion that this: Paul, whole he didn't use the term "original sin," saw sin and condemnation descending to and through all humanity. But it looks to me like he also is saying that he sees forgiveness and justification spreading from Christ to all humanity. Hmmm.
 

First, with a blush and a sigh, let me just say that I am taking down my final post and jumping back in the game as it were. No explanations, but the rift with drlobojo was the immediate cause, and now that my own culpability for that particular disagreement has been discovered (you like that passive voice?), and I have made my apologies, if not amends, I feel much better about moving forward.

OK, to the topic at hand.

First, I am glad that ER quotes Romans in this context, because while it is common to say Augustine or Irenaeus or someone else "invented" the doctrine, its roots lie in this particular passage. Also, while Matthew Fox is correct that creation should be seen as a blessing, the Pope was correct to chastise him for ignoring the reality that the blessing was tainted by human disobedience, mitigating (to an extent) that blessing (God curses not just humanity, but the earth itself in Genesis).

Having said all that, I would like to ask a couple questions that might seem pedantic. I am not trying to be so; I am only trying to make a point, which I will name at the end.

What, exactly, is the "sin" of which we are speaking? Is it specific acts that, if committed, divide us from God? Is it a condition inherent in something we can call "human nature" that separates us from God? Is imputed sin, and imputed righteousness, different, or similar, as Paul would seem to suggest? Finally, what is the goal of the corrective to this condition being offered by God in and through the sacrificial death and resurrection? Is it metaphysical? Is it ethical? Is it demonstrative (i.e., are we to see Jesus as a moral and life exemplar, without any need for Jesus to be divine/human, or to start mining neo-Platonism for categories by which to explain what's going on)?

I ask these questions because, while providing a basis for discussion is important, these questions are still begged by the articles themselves, and need fleshing out. Augustine, for example, is quite clear that the original sin was not the disobedience in the garden, but concupiscence, or sexual desire (here, Augustine seems to be projecting his own failings on to all of late-Roman humanity). This was expanded upon through the Middle Ages to the point where the sole source of sin and evil lay in the desire women create in men. This still echoes in many Protestant fundamentalist circles, which operate partly out of a fear and loathing for the power represented by female sexuality and potential female independence. Yet, "original sin" has had many definitions, and understandings, over the centuries - some of which are quite silly - all of which assume the words have some kind of inherent meaning and power, needing only to be fleshed out in different contexts.

My point here is to take a step back and ask whether the words really are meaningful at all. Do they describe a reality we can understand, as for example Reinhold Niebuhr claimed by saying that human sinfulness was the only Christian doctrine for which there is demonstrative evidence? Does "sin", in some generally agreed upon form, actually refer to the human ability to perform acts of monstrous evil? Is it a relative term, i.e., having reference only to our relationship to God? If this last is the case, is this a generic state in need of no further understanding, or is there some specific content to that relationship, a specific divine ordinance, as it were, the breaking of which is "sin" (I am ruling out "concupiscence" here, because I just don't see any Biblical warrant for the idea that human sexual desire is the source of human separation from God)?
 

GKS! I am sooo glad to see you. I missed you like ... a brother. :-)


Just a snippet, because I just got yet another rejection letter, and I am goign to go have a stuff drink a d ceegar, and I don't care if it IS Monday night. Between that and my truck being cocked out, probably to the tine of $3,000 I don't have, I'm just in a moood.

The "sin" I think that matters, the one that is THE definition of separation from God is: We are not God.

There is God.

We are Not God.

Adam, the story goes, was also Not God, but was closer, in the kind of communion with God we can only hope for. And he still went his own way, as was his "right" as a human bean. And so he became Not God more. And all his children.

Talkin' within' the metapphor here. But I don't see how evolution would change much. At some point, human beans became God-conscious -- and there was "Adam."

Must smoke and drink and licks wounds and whimper now.
 

Excellent stuff written here, shows I have so much I still need to understand.

Drlobojo wrote:-
Original sin is just a construct of the proto-Roman Orthodox sexually repressed misogynistic that has been use to condemn mankind for nearly 2000 years.

ER wrote:-
Hard to come to any coother conclusion that this: Paul, whole he didn't use the term "original sin," saw sin and condemnation descending to and through all humanity. But it looks to me like he also is saying that he sees forgiveness and justification spreading from Christ to all humanity. Hmmm.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford wrote:
First, I am glad that ER quotes Romans in this context, because while it is common to say Augustine or Irenaeus or someone else "invented" the doctrine, its roots lie in this particular passage.

What, exactly, is the "sin" of which we are speaking? Is it specific acts that, if committed, divide us from God? Is it a condition inherent in something we can call "human nature" that separates us from God? Is imputed sin, and imputed righteousness, different, or similar, as Paul would seem to suggest?

Finally, what is the goal of the corrective to this condition being offered by God in and through the sacrificial death and resurrection? Is it metaphysical? Is it ethical? Is it demonstrative (i.e., are we to see Jesus as a moral and life exemplar, without any need for Jesus to be divine/human, or to start mining neo-Platonism for categories by which to explain what's going on)?

ER wrote:
Talkin' within' the metapphor here. But I don't see how evolution would change much. At some point, human beans became God-conscious -- and there was "Adam."

I’ll wait for ER to say “GO” before I run around like a mad butcher (or whatever it was) on all these comments.

However, since ER has raised the ‘E’ question, I would like to comment on just this last point for now in the hope to explore it further later.

Firstly, if my understanding of evolution is correct, I don’t think you get a single “Adam” – evolution is far too slow and gradual for that isn’t it?

So I don’t think it would have been one moment a monkey doesn’t know how to think about God to suddenly their child thinks “I know who God is now but I will ignore/disobey him”.

Is this a problem for Christianity and ‘Original Sin’?

Reading the passage from Paul is difficult to understand this ‘one transgression there resulted condemnation’ if there were several thousands different “Adam’s” as I think evolution suggests and it would mean no single transgression… and erm, what was this ‘one transgression’ again Paul wrote about even IF evolution jumped from non-thinking monkey to thinking monkey?

Secondly, if God used the evolutional method, then there is another problem I think – our ‘sins’ are the result of evolution. I cannot wish to have a better eye or a back that doesn’t ache – I have evolution to thank for that, so neither can I be expected to wish away ‘sin’ or not ‘sin’ if it is in my nature can I – whatever sin is of course still undefined or not agreed upon at least. (Actually, this is a problem even for the original creation story about Adam and Eve I think – God made us the way he did, according to the bible)

Thirdly, how and where does Jesus come into all this? Let’s assume, by some means, Jesus’ crucifixion meant ‘something’ to mankind (whatever it is). Why God did decided to wait so long? Mankind has probably been around for over 100,000 years, why wait 98,000 years to come down in a desert to die on a cross – does this make any sense?

OK… probably getting ahead of myself again. Though it is interesting stuff.

Thanks again ER for raising the question.

Lee
 

Cool thread. I am interested in Geoffrey's reset of Augustine's concept of original sin as that of the flesh, and of ER's note of becoming God-conscious. These two items remind me of Sigmund Freud's understanding of the development of the self and what he considered as conflict and a source of neuroses. Freud is thought to be a good sociologist by his understanding of the Victorian mindset, similar perhaps to Augustine's own projections on to his society.
Geoffrey removes Augustine's definition from the discussion as not having biblical warrant, much in the way we view Freud's preoccupation with sexual (id/superego) conflict in neuroses.
But Augustine (and Freud) were not just trying to describe their own or society's lusts; they were trying to describe a greater truth--that of original sin or neuroses. Why then are they missing the boat?
Perhaps it is in the underlying sense of self or "consciousness" that one can find the definition. Both Freud and Augustine were trying to answer the question "What's wrong with us?" To answer that requires looking at one's self, that is, finding conscious awareness.
The story of the garden of eden, er, climaxes with the awareness of nakedness. Is this sex? Knowledge of good and evil, etc.? Or is this perhaps just awareness in general:
There is God
We are not God
But, we "are."
But herein lies a question which has always gnawed at me: If the original sin is that of our own conscious awareness; what is the alternative? Put another way: what if Adam didn't take that bite?
 

Gee ER ain't rejection a bitch! Kind of makes you want to be a pill bug and hide under a rock don't it. However, you won't get the recognition and opportunities that you deserve unless you subject yourself to it. Dang paradox.

First, Islam does not recognize "original sin" only that Adam was the first to sin.

"Islam strictly promotes the notion that the punishment of sins will only be faced by those who commit them. Sin is not a hereditary trait or ‘stain’ passed to one’s progeny one generation to another. All people will be accountable to what only they themselves did in this life. Therefore, even though the Quran mentions the sin of Adam and how he was banished from the Garden, it places no responsibility on the shoulders of his progeny."
Adam repented and God forgave him.


“…No person earns any (sin) except against himself (only), and no bearer of burdens shall bear the burden of another…” (Quran 6:164)

See:http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/13/

Secondly does Romans actually contradict the Law? “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.” (Deuteronomy 24:16)

Or does it say, sin entered by Adam, and that's all. There is a big difference between the theological "Original Sin" and the metaphorical origin of sin.

If all men have "Original Sin" then Jesus could not have been born and thus remained sinless, cause Mary's womb would have been contaminated with said STD. Thus the Romans cleaned up Mary with the Immaculate Conception in 1856, but realized in the 1060's that they would have to take that concept all the way back to Eve to make it work and so declared it null.

As for evolution and sin, well I would by that sin and soul evolved at about the same rate. So that somewhere sometime some Homoerectus looking at the campfire said "shit, so that what that's all about" and went out and fashioned an image of mother earth to help him remember his insight.
 

First, yeah, I missed you, too. All of you, even that old curmudgeon.

Second, thank you, Lee, for bringing up evolution in this context, to which I shall return. For Doc, who brought up Siggy F. in relation to Augustine - what a great juxtaposition! Wish I had thought of it.

I shall backtrack a bit and mention that I think Augustine's "projection" was prompted by the licentiousness of late-Roman paganism, just as Paul's call for sexual purity and chastity was a radical counter-cultural rallying point during the heyday of Roman debauchery. I am not reducing Augustine's theologizing to psychological projection, anymore than I would reduce Freud's psychological theories to projections of his own fascinations with female sexuality, or latent pedophilia, or anything else. I do think both men were a bit sex-obsessed, but only because each lived in a time, much like our current historic moment, in which we are both sex-besotted and have difficulty talking about sex in an adult, constructive manner.

I only "removed" Augustine's definition of original sin from discussion in the same way I would remove Luther's, Thomas's, Calvin's, Barth's, Tillich's, and even Niebuhr's; they are historical artifacts, from which we can learn, but upon which we lean to our peril. That's all.

Anyway, on evolution and the issue of original sin. In one respect, it does call in to question any Augustine-like attempt to create a biological/ontological genetic explanation for it. However, this occurs only if we take the first chapters of Genesis literally, rather than seriously. The authors were not seeking to explain "what happened" so much as "why are things the way they are now" - the reasons why human beings tell stories. Truth exists behind the falsehoods of every great novel; to use a word I hate, "myth" is no different. Its literal truth or falsehood should not be an impediment towards seeking the truth behind the words on the page.

I think ER's breakdown - there is a God, and we aren't God - gets to the heart of the matter more than anything else, and sets aside the whole issue of evolution quite nicely. We remember that the issue is humanity's status before the Divine throne, rather than some intrinsic "thing" or "stuff" that makes us do things that are bad.
 

Re, "there is a God, and we aren't God ..."

That idea leaves room for Fox and his "Original Blessing" and the notion of "incompleteness" being "sin" rather than a state of heriditary badness, or evil, or whatever.

I hasten to add that "original blessing," like "original sin" is a way to wrap one's brain (and heart) around a bundle of profundities.

Not the "truth," per se. Which is permanently elusive, I think.
 

Matthew Fox is a protege, in a sense, of Tielhard De Chardin, the French theologian/philosopher of religion, who attempted to weave a congruence of Catholic theology and neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory, so there is a compatibility there. There is also the traditional Catholic teaching on creation, which sees its corruption mitigated by the original blessing (to which Fox's title refers) by God in the first creation story at the end of Genesis 1. Protestantism, with its emphasis on human sinfulness and our state relative to God's grace de-emphasized the whole question of creation to the point that some fundamentalists today do not give a fart in a windstorm for our planet because, as they all seem to know, Jesus is coming back soon, so why take care of things, right?

Anyway, just thought I'd toss that out there.
 

Incompleteness. Hinduism refers to this as apoorti, the opposite of poorti- the completeness of self- knowledge and thus a oneness (or as close as one can become in Moksha) with the divine. Paradoxically, poorti occurs with the shedding of one's worldly conception of self. Buddhists take this to the extreme by attempting to "dematerialize" the self.
This incompleteness reminds me of Aquinas and the two parts of original (and all) sin. First, Augstinian lust and second, deviation from God and divinity. It is this second part in which incompleteness appears to reside.
I am not sure, though, that Aquinas would view the paradoxic elimination of the worldly self by an internal awareness as movement towards the divine. I am also not sure, if this level of self awareness is possible, so perhaps it is, like ER's Truth, permanently elusive. Which puts me back at square one, so I'm gonna go read the food blog again.
 

Remember that De Chardin was also a paleontologist and co-discover of Peking-man. I have often wondered about his concept of soul as it relates to the evolution of man. In a way it is simplified and captured by Lucas in the First(re: 3rd) Star Wars.
Teilhard de Chardin says that "for a soul to have a body is enkosmismene." That is to have our roots in the cosmos. We are drawing spiritual power through our roots in Creation. This in the movie Star Wars when Lucas defines the amount of spiritual power and mysticism one has with the Force down the quantity of midi-clorians.

My own version of this concept is to imagine spiritual mitochondria being transferred soul to soul over time. Mystical genetic transfer along with the physical genetic material that makes up the body.
So back to my Homoerectus, who was the first Dude to get enough spiritual mitochondria to say, hey, I'm me. Everything else is other. I am myself. Realization of "Self" might just be the "original" sin.
 

Drlobojo said: "Realization of "Self" might just be the "original" sin."

That sounds an awful lot like some liberation theologians, i.e., that the desire for autonomy, the imperial self over and against all others and even the world - as demonstrated by the primal act of defiance of eating of the tree of knowledge against the specific ordinance of the LORD. Before this, the two were of one body, bone of my bone and all that; they even enjoyed unselfconscious sexual union and nakedness. Only in defiance did separation come in, the breaking of primal community and solidarity. The real expulsion from Eden was the realization of their own autonomy; everything else was just a manifestation of that first sin.
 

Cogito ergo sin.
 

As GKS said, liberation theology emphasizes a person's self-actualization as part of God's divine purpose for humankind. Under this scenario, self-actualization would be the original sin. So I guess we owe Eve a debt of gratitude for our precious individuality.

Say where do Catholic babies who die before Baptism, and thus are steeped in original sin, go these days?
 

Last night as I lay aching from, taking doWN termite and carpenter invested fence, AND putting back up six sections of extra heavy duty wood fencing, a little country type song about this kind sin tried to form itself in my mind.

So far this is all I got:

"I Love me more than you,
and that's why we are through,
Cause you don't love me
near as much as I do."

Anyone want to add to it?

You know maybe this could lead to a new type of music "blog generated".
 

that should have ought to have been, " ...carpenter ANT invested fence..."
 

LOL. I was imagining men with nail aprons crawling all over your fence as you dismantled it.

Hey, if I trade what's left of my truck for a nontruck, you gonna let me use your truck to haul stuff? I need a fence panel NOW, as a matter of fact.

Um-hmm. I'm fixing to be on the other side of the divide for ahile again, maybe: The trucked are always the best friends of he truckless. LOL
 

Second verse:

So here I sit alone
Lovin' on myself
But it's good that yer gone
I don't need yer damn help
 

Chorus:


On one hand
yer leaving
left me feelin' real bad

The other hand
is holdin' on
to the one you once had



(Note: I hear this as a waltz, purdy slow one).
 

"The trucked are always the best friends of he truckless. " LOL

That's for sure. Especially in the People's Republic of Ann Arbor, where no one drives anything that isn't a Prius or some other tiny little car that runs on happy thoughts and rainbow marshmallows.

Ugh. I couldn't tell you how many times I've helped friends move.

"The other hand is holdin' on to the one you once had"

The one (hand?) you once had? Is this person a pirate? ;)
 

You can use my truck if I can use your Harley.
 

Well, I was tryin' to make it vaguely autoerotically naughty! He's lovin' on hisself, right?

Man. Song writin' are hard.

LOL
 

Back to self-actualization being the first "sin." That's why "sin," with all its baggage, doesn't fit.

Self-awareness-actualization is just consciousness.

"I am, but I am not God" is God consciousness -- the sentient creature's acknowledgement that the creature has been created by a creator.

Could be that in that last bit rides the sum total of both "sin" and redemption.


Could it be that God consciousness itself is a part of evolution? Those who get it, get it, and those who don't are terminal strains of humanity?
 

God's awareness part of evolution?
It depends on the amount of midi-clorians you have inherited. Or maybe anti-midi-clorians.
So maybe when we finally gather together all of these god particles within us and voluntarily give them back to God he will be fully aware. Sin would be keeping them for ourselves.
 

Do what?
 

Do what?
 

Sorry drlobojo, but as we've learned from The Phantom Menace, any explanation that invokes midichlorians, automatically sucks. :)
 

OK, think spiritual mitrochondria.
That gives an evoluntioanry basis to sin and soul and connects back to de Chardin. Indeed it connects all living things to gether in a spiritual way. Good mystics that,
me and my brother Bear, and Ber Rabbit, and all them skin walkers.

I was thinking for the tune, something like "You don't love me half as much as I love You." and then flip it to, " You Don't Love Me , Half as Much as I do Me". i like the auto-erotica, what's redneck for that?
 

ER said: "Do What?"

Returning God to God.
We are an element of God and he needs us to return ourselves to him for him to be whole. That's why eventually all will be saved, because we all are part of God.
Think of "God" as "Home".

Sin, is delaying that return.
Not going home.
 

OK, I get it.

Is that Gnostic or Scott Adams?
 

Why, drlobojo, you pantheist mystic you . . . ;)
 

Hi all,

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford wrote:
some fundamentalists today do not give a fart in a windstorm for our planet because, as they all seem to know, Jesus is coming back soon, so why take care of things, right?

I think this is a good reason why we need less fundamentalists.

drlobojo wrote:
Say where do Catholic babies who die before Baptism, and thus are steeped in original sin, go these days?

Actually, this question shows it is not just the fundamentalist that has caused problems. How many mothers have been put through a living hell because of this idea?

drlobojo wrote:
This in the movie Star Wars when Lucas defines the amount of spiritual power and mysticism one has with the Force down the quantity of midi-clorians.

I wonder how long it will take for Star Wars and the Jedi to become a ‘true’ religion.

I think it is getting close. Are we seeing a start of a religion?

At the moment people know it is just story, but still sign their religion on official government documents as Jedi. In 200 years time, when the actual films are lost and forgotten – I wonder what will be remembered. Will Luke Skywalker be the new Jesus?
 

Actually Jedi is a recognized religion in the UK. But we needn't go that far for the concept. Consider, please the body thetans of LRH and the scientologists.
 

I have a lot of catching up to do on this thread, so once again I’ll just bullet point the topics of particular interest.

Doc wrote:
If the original sin is that of our own conscious awareness; what is the alternative? Put another way: what if Adam didn't take that bite?

But of course with evolution you don’t have an Adam looking at a fruit tree.

The message in Genesis fails on this point – no Adam is thinking whether they should or should not take a bite.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford wrote:
Second, thank you, Lee, for bringing up evolution in this context, to which I shall return.

You are welcome, I’m glad you all are happy to discuss it, because I cannot get my head around it.

Anyway, on evolution and the issue of original sin. In one respect, it does call in to question any Augustine-like attempt to create a biological/ontological genetic explanation for it. However, this occurs only if we take the first chapters of Genesis literally, rather than seriously.

Literally it fails, of course, because it goes against the evidence of evolution.

So let’s take it ‘seriously’ as you suggest for a moment.

The authors were not seeking to explain "what happened" so much as "why are things the way they are now"

I think we have already agreed it fails on the “what happened”.

As for the why?

Well, the message in the bible doesn’t stop at just Genesis does it? We need to understand both this message in Genesis, and the need for the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.

I don’t think this ‘big’ question has been addressed yet.

I think ER's breakdown - there is a God, and we aren't God - gets to the heart of the matter more than anything else, and sets aside the whole issue of evolution quite nicely.

No, this just ignores the question – it doesn’t answer it in anyway.

The problem remains unaddressed – why did Jesus have to be crucified, for what reason? In Genesis and with Paul’s writings highlighted by ER we are given a reason – the problem is that evolution invalidates this reason. There was no single Adam eating a fruit.

If our ‘sin’ is ‘conscious awareness’ then this is a by-product of the evolutionary process – it is not a sin as Genesis and Paul implies and doesn’t require anyone being nailed to a cross.

To relate this back to Fox and ‘original blessing’ – why would anyone need to be killed for such a blessing? Why is this ‘blessing’ so wrong that someone needs to die?

The ‘serious’ message given in the bible doesn’t look quite right at the moment when I consider evolution as fact.

ER wrote:
Could it be that God consciousness itself is a part of evolution? Those who get it, get it, and those who don't are terminal strains of humanity?

Am I part of the “terminal strains of humanity” now? Cool – I want that on my passport.

I’m sure evolution will have a lot to say about religion and the belief in gods, but that would be a different story.

We are an element of God and he needs us to return ourselves to him for him to be whole. That's why eventually all will be saved, because we all are part of God.

This sounds too much like New Age what-not

“Think of yourself as stardust, and soon you will be returning back to the universe.”

You sure you don’t want to be a deist?

Think of "God" as "Home".

Sin, is delaying that return.
Not going home

Nice idea, but it is just wishful thinking on its own.

Lee
 

Hi Doc,

Actually Jedi is a recognized religion in the UK.

I was thinking of just that when I wrote my comment – actually I was one of those who entered ‘Jedi’ as their religion in the census when I lived there.

It seemed funny at the time... childish now.

But we needn't go that far for the concept. Consider, please the body thetans of LRH and the scientologists.

LRH?

As for scientologists – it would be funny if people didn’t really believe in it. Just goes to show, mankind will believe in almost anything sometimes.

Lee
 

Lee, I think you are close, but not dead-on right, about a lof of the things you assert. (Much like myself.)

Like "wishful thinking." You're close! But it's not wishful; it's hopeful. And there is a difference.

Ah, but since *everything* to do with faith to you is "wishful thinking" -- something that I conclude from your statements here and elsewhere, as well as your unending questions (which betray you, I think; you don't want to learn, as you claim, you just want to know my and others' latest answers, so you can continue the cycle) -- you may conclude that my assertion of "hopeful thinking" itself is wishful thinking.
 

Hi ER,

I think you are close, but not dead-on right, about a lof of the things you assert. (Much like myself.)

I don’t mean to sound too assertive or anything, I am just questioning as you know.

Being wrong is nothing new for me though.

Like "wishful thinking." You're close! But it's not wishful; it's hopeful. And there is a difference.

Would you prefer if I now use the phrase “hopeful thinking”?

wishful - “wishing for something, or expressing a wish or longing”?

hopeful - “feeling fairly sure that something that is wanted will happen”?

Not a huge difference, since I would like to know why you are fairly sure, but if it makes you happy :)

Ah, but since *everything* to do with faith to you is "wishful thinking"

Have you shown it to be anything else BTW? Is it based on evidence and reason? If not, what is it based upon?

Let’s look again for a definition to help us.

Faith – “belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof”?

You have rightly noticed, and commented several times, that I don’t know what faith is – maybe you could help me out by defining it better than the quote above, or at least tell me the value of it in finding the best/right/correct conclusions in a given situation?

Maybe evidence is a better thing to have than faith? However, the question about faith is taking this topic/thread in another direction. Of course I would like to learn more about it but do not want to sidetrack this thread further.

something that I conclude from your statements here and elsewhere, as well as your unending questions (which betray you, I think; you don't want to learn, as you claim, you just want to know my and others' latest answers, so you can continue the cycle)

How do you learn without asking questions?

By doing?

What do I need to ‘do’ to think that the existence of the Christian God is more likely than the non-existence of the Christian God? (Looks like I just have to keep asking questions, even when I want to ‘do’ for a change)

Maybe I should stop asking questions all together about God and just follow?

It’s not that I want your ‘latest answer’, I want to know the answer you tell yourself that that resolves the simple question I have raised regarding evolution, the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus – this shouldn’t be asking too much. You have been a Christian since you were 8 years old you once told me, you must have asked and resolved this simple question in that time. If not, why not?

You know what I think, I just trying to give opportunity to be shown I am wrong in my conclusion. I could be... can you explain why?

If you have not yet found an answer to my question (or one that you are happy with)... then no problem - I will go and ask the question to the next Christian who wants to discuss it further and stop asking the question here.

We can move onto the next topic of your choosing if you like, or we can leave it here until the next time.

Thanks

Lee
 

The concept that we have a bit of God in us and that it will return to God in the end is found in a lot of belief systems over a very long time. There are all sort of permutations of it.

I remember being at a Quaker wedding once, sitting quietly for 45 minutes contemplating my inner light. Problem was, everywhere I look in my soul, there wasn't a glimmer to contemplate. So I ended up watching the birds in the tree outside for most of the time.

Definitely this particles of God in us is in most of the "Gnostic" systems.

Many of the early non-gnostic Christians also had similar beliefs.

Karma can be seen as collecting enough "God" to get to stay at home at last.

Re-incarnation systems carry the same concept. When you finally purify the enough of the stuff you don't have to return, of course until the next cycle of the dance of the cosmos in about 60 billion years. Shiva is in his/her third dance , I think.

New Age, most probably it is in there somewhere, most stuff is.

Many many of the Christian Mystics over the centuries have had this basic belief.

Stardust, yep aren't we all. It takes at least 3 generations of stars to cook the heavy elements after all. Everything that we are, eat, breath, drink, or what ever was stardust somewhere in time. We are just borrowing the stuff for the time being and then we have to shit it, exhale it, piss it, or rot it back into the system. As the great Carl Sagan said, "We are all star stuff."

Kinda hard to slip "original sin" in there somewhere isn't it.

Pantheist? I prefer Enigmatic as my religion and Christian as my culture.
 

Hi drlobojo

Stardust, yep aren't we all. It takes at least 3 generations of stars to cook the heavy elements after all. Everything that we are, eat, breath, drink, or what ever was stardust somewhere in time.

Yep, the sun is a population I (one) star I believe, there being II and III before it. (Such a strange numbering system – what comes after the Sun? Population 0 – Nope, the Romans didn’t have a concept of the number zero did they? I guess no one has to worry about the system yet for a few more billion years)

We are just borrowing the stuff for the time being and then we have to shit it, exhale it, piss it, or rot it back into the system. As the great Carl Sagan said, "We are all star stuff."

Makes sense.

Kinda hard to slip "original sin" in there somewhere isn't it.

Yep – I agree, the story/message of Adam and Eve looks a bit strange knowing all this - but it wasn’t me who wrote it in a book all those years ago, so it isn’t a question I have an answer for.

Pantheist? I prefer Enigmatic as my religion and Christian as my culture.

I wonder what ‘Enigmatic’ is? – sounds a bit mysterious :)

Culturally – yeah, I would have to agree with you having myself been raised in a country where the official religion is the Church of England.

Sounds like you reject Christianity though as an idea, is that correct? Does this mean you don’t believe in Jesus Christ and are a deist?

Cheers

Lee
 

Hmm. Maybe I have talked all around it, maybe because I answer questions, and follow the threasds of thread that interest me, and that I have serious qualms over. And that one isn't one of them.


But, I'll take a stab at it directly. But I'll tell you up front. I don't intend to answer a single question from you about it. Partly because, to be blunt, I mean what I said about why I think you ask incessant questions: You love the game. You ask questions of Christians to get answers -- not to "learn" anything about truth, because by your own admission, there is no truth that a Christian can possibly have that you would accept since it's tangled up in faith and it can't be tested and "shown" to you, in a way that you define. You win that game every time, because you've rigged it. You refuse offers of evidence because you reject that it's evidence. You reject testimony because you reject the assertion that there is a life of faith that also employs reason, and a reasonable way to live life that embraces faith.


1. Humankind has God-consciousness now. You deny it, both personally and globally. That's fine with me.

2. Whether God-consciousness came with the breath of God onto a handful of a dust, or it evolved just as other forms of human consciousness evolved, it exists now. My direct answer to your question about evolution in this context is that it is irrelevant.

3. The core of God consciousness is the understanding that "I am, but I am not God."

4. Rome authorities crucified Jesus for reasons having nothing to with theology.

5. Many, I guess most (not sure about that) of his followers, who were Jews, came to interpret his death, within the context of their religion, as a sacrifice to God -- the ultimate sacrifice to God, rendering further sacrifice unnecessary, said sacrifice understood to atone for sin -- a concept which has been debated every day since, and which some Christians today recognize as part of their religious heritage, but not exactly the best way to explain the meaning of the crucifixion. There are numerous theories of atonement. I personally tend toward the "moral influence view" but I don't think it's necesarry at all to pick one and fight for it. Because, as I'e said, I don't think that Christianity is a matter of stacking up certain beliefs. It's a way of life centered on allegience to Jesus -- meditating on the person of Christ, seeking, finding, discarding, seeking some more, etc., but keeping Christ, as a conduit to God, at the forefront of one's heart and mind, and life. I accept that the origins of Christianity are in Judaism and in Jewish sacrifice. But I am not a Jew. Because I believe that I am, but I am not God, and I don't find any way for me to "get to" God on my own -- one might say that I'm lost on my own -- it follows that there would have to be some provision made for me to "get to" God apart from myself. I think the Jesus story, whether Jesus is seen as Son of God (whatever that means exactly) or Son of Man (whatever that mwasn exactly) or a glimpse at Logos-Wisdom-Sophia, is a hopeful story of how God intervened in some way to reconcile all of us humans saddled with a God-consciousness but separated from God, despite the longing we have to be in full communion with God, because we are not God, back TO God. Whether the crucifixion was a bargain, a pay-off, a sacrifice in the Jewish sense, the supreme example of love, whatever -- those are things to ponder. But not, in my view, to worry too much about. It happened.

6. The Resurrection. First instance of God breaking through the chasm between God and "not God." The Resurrection of Christ is a present reality, not an event in the past. I am NOT joshing when I declare that Jesus Christ was palpably present with me as I drove to Arkansas to say good-bye to my dying mother. Among other instances.

There you go. You will find it whooly unsatisfactory. Not a lick of science, and not much reason, in it -- other than my early declaration that evolution is utterly irrelevant to the meanings of "sin," and the crucifixion and resurrection. Not a lick of Bible in it, either, notice. This stuff is NOT mere words on pages. This stuff is NOT just stacks of doctrine.

But I will not engage you on any of it. Not a bit. And I defy you to say again that I haven't hazarded an answer.

You may, of course, post another comment -- to the ether.
 

Oh, and as usual, the faith life being a journey, not a destination and not a set of unnassailable doctrines or firm conclusions, I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks, change my mind of chuck it all and start over.
 

And here's a revision:

Rather than ...

"The Resurrection. First instance of God breaking through the chasm between God and "not God."

I mean:

The Resurrection. A profound instance of God breaking through the chasm between God and "not God."
 

LOL. And I hear DrLobojo snorting and scoffing and mumbling, "That ER is still pretty much a traditionalist, after all!"

And I hear Neil: "Saved and confused! Saved and confused!"

And I hear EL, "ER should be glad he got saved when he was a young'un."

And I hear Pastor Timothy, "ER is going straight to hell."
 

Hi ER,

Thanks for the replies; I’ve read them all, but not sure if you want a reply back from me.

You may, of course, post another comment -- to the ether.

Erm... Is this telling me to ‘stick my comments where the sun doesn’t shine’, sorry no more questions you said, so that will be my last one until you feel you want me to enter further into a debate.

It has been fun debating with you all, and not because I seen this as a game. It hasn’t been for me, I just like the debate as I have said many time now already. I think ER you are on the same page, or you would not be putting up these challenging questions.

I have learnt new ideas, learnt a lot about what some say it takes to be a Christian and I have been corrected on many previously woolly ideas. It has, for me, been valuable.

Yes I ask questions, but as a way to get answers, I see this as learning – if you see this as anything else, then fair enough.

And yes you are right I don’t see much value in faith, but I have asked for the value gained from faith many times now and nothing in its favour has been presented. If (and I will repeat if) Christianity rests on faith then it is not for me until the value of faith has been shown. I would have ‘hoped’ for at least a little testable evidence so I could take the faith-pill with a little more pleasure – a spoonful of sugar and all that. As I have repeated, if what you can test about God, Jesus or the bible fails, then there is no good reason to accept what cannot be tested about God, Jesus or the bible.

Since you believe in God, you must believe (I assume) that God made me to think and reason this way, and I see no good reason to believe in faith – it is that simple for me.

You do of course, I don’t – I think we will always differ on that, so lets be happy about it – it certainly doesn’t worry me. It has given us both something to talk about for the last few weeks. How dull it would have been if we all agree :)

Now to explain my position a little further on other matters you outlined about me, since the person you have described I do not recognise.

I don’t refuse evidence ‘out of hand’, any more than you reject the evidence for the Koran ‘out of hand’ so it is a little unfair to throw this claim around.

Neither have I rejected testimony ‘out of hand’, I don’t expect you to believe everyone in America who says they have been taken away by aliens to met Elvis and so neither should you expect me to accept testimony ‘out of hand’ without questioning it.

I will challenge any testimony, and value their testimony based on their claims, what part of their claims can be tested and trust I have in that person.

I do believe you when you say you felt Jesus was with you on that car journey, but I cannot accept it as evidence on its own for God or Jesus.

Maybe there is a simpler, more natural explanation – at times of stress the mind does do some wonderful things. My mother-in-law is certain she heard her dead mother on the phone telling her that ‘everything was OK’ just a few days after the funeral. Is this also evidence for Jesus and God or that people in times of stress can hear voices that are not really there?

So I have to question what your testimony is actually evidence for – there is a subtle difference here.

The fact remains though is that Jesus didn’t tell you any divine knowledge, so although it may have been comforting for you, it is not the quality of evidence that Jesus or God could (and I say should) provide to convince others of his love and existence. If it is important for me to follow Jesus, then Jesus should be a little more ‘helpful’.

So, rounding off - thanks once again for your time and everyone elses – it has been fun. If you want to continue, then just fire up the debate again, if not, you know where I am if ever you get bored again and need more taxes paying

See ya

Lee
 

That wasn'y a brush-off. Just on this partcular thing: Take it or leave it.

And you know how to bookmark a whole blog, not just a particular post. So you know know where *I* am.

The ER Roadhouse usually has something interesting going on. You are always welcome.
 

Lee said: "Sounds like you reject Christianity though as an idea, is that correct? Does this mean you don’t believe in Jesus Christ and are a deist?"

No, not at all. I do believe. I don't adhere to the "exclusivity" of Christianity.
That is a narrow Roman Orthodox interpretation of Jesus' statements. I believe that Jesus is the Way, the Tao, but even Jesus says that he has other sheep that we don't know about. But who is Jesus anyway? Is he a one time historical figure actually named Thomas, or maybe Joshua, or what ever? Or is he a God created incarnation of God's reflection, and an Avatar, who has repeatedly over time and space has spoken to many cultures,on many continents, on many planets, under many names and guises, but still the same One Avatar responsible to the same God outside of existence.

Thus Enigmatic.
 

Late coming to this, since I've never found the idea of Original Sin terribly useful. People are sinful. I'm not sure I care terribly much about how they got that way.

But the Genesis notion that the original sin was thinking you know better than God is certainly instructive. It's true, whether or not it really happened.

Meh. Sorry, that's as far as I can get worked up to think about Original Sin. :/
 

RE, "It's true, whether or not it really happened."


YES YES YES YES YES.

Truth is not something that can be reduced to a mere set of fricking facts! Ockham's razor and fundamentalist fervor and atheistic preaching be damned. So to speak.
 

Hi ER,

The ER Roadhouse usually has something interesting going on. You are always welcome.

...and it’s a pretty good Roadhouse, so thanks, I will pop in and ask my 'silly' questions when I am feeling confused (which is most of the time when I think about God, faith and religion)

Cheers

Lee
 

Hi drlobojo

No, not at all. I do believe. I don't adhere to the "exclusivity" of Christianity.

Sorry, my mistake – it just sounded rather different to the ‘usual’ Christian definition – though this actually seems common place at this Roadhouse. It’s good you all can agree on something right.

Thus Enigmatic.

Fair enough.

Lee