AletheiaRivers

YES! YES! YES and YES! I am starting to think that it is not the topics for discussion that have been the issue, but that we just need more people here. I've taken to pasting the link for this forum as part of my sig line on other forums. That is what brought me here. Aletheia

Ok then! I am currently involved in a dialogue group on the meaning of Genesis. Some are coming into the conversation from a conservative and literal perspective. Some others have a more liberal perspective. Others have a very "esoteric" perspective. Maybe I'll throw some of the ideas up here as well and see if it stirs any conversation. Aletheia PS: Not a theology student... yet.

I thought you made perfect sense. I have intuitive or philosophical beliefs as to "why we are here". I run into trouble if I try to fit my beliefs into a literal reading of Genesis. I can find my beliefs in a more esoteric reading of Genesis. I don't completely agree with any one esoteric view of Genesis though, but do come closer to some than others. I wish we could or would discuss more things of this nature here. I fear the interest is not there though. I've really enjoyed this thread! Aletheia

Happy Birthday from me as well! Aletheia

Welcome Ken! So glad to have you here. I look forward to your input. Aletheia

I think, for MYSELF only, that if I had original Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic texts written 5 minutes after the "events" occured, I would still take the Bible seriously, but not literally. It doesn't have anything to do with translation errors, for ME. I read and study the Bible to gain insight from the religious philosophers of that time period. I find much, much, much of what they had to say very intriguing and insightful. I don't know how else to explain my view CONCISELY to those who don't hold my view. I could say I take the Bible allegorically, but that wouldn't completely be true. I could say I take the Bible metaphorically, but that wouldn't completely be true. But to say that I take it seriously is completely true and I think, less argument inducing than the above two terms. Aletheia

From Zenchiku's BLOG: I was doing some reading last night on the Hebrew word "arum" which is translated as crafty or cunning in the Hebrew Scriptures and is used in Genesis in reference to the snake. It's also the same word that is translated as "Naked" when referring to Adam and Eve's not being aware of their nakedness in the end of Genesis 2. So the word is used to refer to Pure Childlike Innocence and also to Craftiness or Cunning. One Hebrew scholar made the point that the snake was so cunning that it didn't appear to be cunning at all: it was "transparent" or bare (innocent), but hid a cunning interior. However, snakes at that time in history represented wisdom and healing, so I would think that the view of the word "Crafty" could be better understood in a positive sense, as Wise. (That makes me want to read up on the story of Moses and the snake in the desert.) Only Christians ascribe evilness to the snake. They later interpreted the snake to mean "Satan". (To complicate matters, the Christian view of Satan is totally different than the Jewish view.) There are many esoteric views of what the snake represented. Too many to go into here, but one that I like is that before "eating of the tree", humankind was in a "protohuman, animal-like, innocent state" with no moral sense. Eating of the tree was an "evolutionary" step into a state of sentience making humans different than animals who have no sense of "right and wrong". Humans "became like God". They became "enlightened". So yeah, in this view of the story, humans "fell upward". It's only when we view the snake as being Satan or evil that humans fall downward. A lot of this was rambling, but it was fun. Aletheia

How about: "I take the Bible seriously but not literally." Just kidding. "Reading the Bible Again for the First Time: Taking the Bible Seriously but not Literally" is the title of a book by Marcus Borg (and a very good book I might add). I've never had a problem with the phrase. I guess conservative Christians might, but then, I would say they are being WAY too touchy. Politically correct apologetic language makes it awfully hard to communicate. "I take the Bible seriously, which means I use it as a guide for my life. But I don't take it literally, which is to say that I don't take the parables or metaphors or allegories literally, as in word for word truth, but I take them seriously. Oh, and even though some of the Bible is "history" I don't take that literally either because history is ususally written by the "victor" and also so much of the history in the Bible has been proven to be untrue by archeology. That isn't to imply that I think the Bible is not "true" or that I think it is a "myth", but actually they are a myth but the word myth is misunderstood, so please don't take offense at my using the word myth. And while we're at it, please don't take offense at my using the words literally or seriously or allegory or parable either...." LOL! I've had conversations where you had to apologize for every use of every word that someone doesn't agree with because they don't understand why you are using that word. I would hope that if someone is truly interested in conversation they would ask: "Could you explain what you mean by the statement? I'm not sure I understand."

Eckhart

I agree Fatherman. I wondered if I might have "demonized" the conservative perspective. I reread every post I've put up here since I signed up and think I've been fair. I hope so. If any conservative Christian who has read here has felt attacked by me, I apologize. My mom is a very conservative Christian and I certainly don't think she's of inferior intellect. Aletheia

DMAE. It's still a prescribed alternative to Ritalin in Europe. Aletheia

Des, I'm sorry. I was trying to be silly. I think I'm a pretty nice person and I often see the humor in any given situation. I thought you and I had gotten off on the right foot and so I felt good about teasing a little. I didn't mean to offend. Aletheia

LOL Des. I knew that, which is why I thought it strange that you seemed to suggest that James go to another board to debate. I was pointing it out that he is in the right place. I need to work on my irony skills I guess. Aletheia PS: Is "no converting attempts" in the forum rules? (I haven't read them. Sshhhh, don't tell.) How do you debate beliefs without coming across like you're trying to convert I wonder?

I believe we participate in our incarnations, where we go and what we learn. Maybe I want to work on humility, so I choose a certain life circumstance that may help me with that. But I also believe that crap happens. I think that certain happenings, like the tsunami, are "unforseen circumstance" and that they are not a result of karma. And actually, by participating in our incarnations and in our learning processes, karma, as strictly understood, is not necessary. I also suspect that the lessons we learn can be compared to the "spirit of the law" versus the "letter of the law". We are here to learn the "spirit" of life and love and not the "letter". So we need not endlessly incarnate to experience absolutely every little thing. That's just my current take. I'm a work in progress. Aletheia

I guess so as not to confuse people, perhaps topics that are not meant to be debated should be put up on the "Progressive Christian" section instead of the "Debate" section?

The words "original sin" are not found in the Jewish or Christian Scriptures. Jew's have no concept of original sin, but they do believe in sin and punishment. Gen 3:16-19 - Eve has her "birth pangs" increased for disobedience. Adam is told the "ground is cursed" because of him and that "by the sweat of your face you shall eat bread until you return to the ground" from which you were taken. God did not say: "Every woman is cursed because of you. All women will now have childbirth pains (where they wouldn't have any pangs before)." God did not say: "All the ground is cursed for all eternity because of you. And Oh! You were immortal but now you're not." Adam and Eve disobeyed and were punished. They lived their lives "East of Eden" in toil and hardship. Actually, it's Psalms 51:5 - "Indeed I was born guilty, a sinner when my mother conceived me." David, lamenting his sin with Bathsheba. An expression of the guilt-prone nature of humanity. Job 14:1-5 - "A mortal, born of a woman, few of days and full of trouble, comes up like a flower and withers, flees like a shadow and does not last. Do you fix your eyes on such a one? Do you bring me into judgement with you? Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? No one can. Since there days are determined, and the number of their months is known to you, and you have appointed the bounds they cannot pass." Job, wondering if a mortal man, finite in nature, can be known by God. "Can I be made clean in your eyes and no longer a sinful mortal?" I thought these scriptures were interesting: Deut. 24:16 - "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." 2 Kings 14:6 - But the children of the murderers he slew not: according unto that which is written in the book of the law of Moses, wherein the LORD commanded, saying, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall be put to death for his own sin." Ezek. 18:20 "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." Ezek.33:20, "Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. O ye house of Israel, I will judge you every one after his ways." Jer. 31:29-30 In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge. But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge." I never contested that the concept of original sin is taught by Paul in the Christian Scriptures, so I won't go there. And like Fatherman said (and I said earlier), I believe the Genesis account to be allegorical anyway. I take the Bible seriously, but not literally. Aletheia

ROFL Thanks for making me laugh. It's been one of those days. Aletheia

But what form of Hinduism, I wonder? There are just as many sects of Hinduism as there are of Christianity and just as many differening viewpoints on the nature of God. You could compare the range of thought within Hinduism to the range of thought between conservative and liberal Christians. It's huge. Qualified Monism is making an inroads into New Thought. I doubt it will make any inroads into Christian Science. Aletheia

I think everyone should see the Power of Myth. Joseph Campbell completely opened up my eyes that a story can be profoundly true without being factually true. But it was Joseph Campbell (though he might not like it) and "Thou Art That", a book on the Christian myth, that made me really go "Hmmm." That book led me to "The God We Never Knew" (Marc Borg) and "Original Blessing" (Matt Fox) and "Coming of the Cosmic Christ" (Matt Fox) and "Seeds of Contemplation" (Thomas Merton). You'll hear people say (I've said it), that "There are many roads to God". I think what I meant to say was "There is one road to God, but just about any religion can help you to find that one road." And like Joseph Campbell (and Huston Smith and Matt Fox) shows so well, if you throw all the world religions into one big bucket, shake them up, and strip away the differences, you will find that one road. Truths are perennial (or primordial). What spiritual path (Religion) will help you find the road the easiest? That is different for every person. In some religions it can be very hard to find the road. It some religions it might be that only one or two adherants offer a glimpse of that road. For example, in Islam, I might think Rumi would be one. But then, he found it somehow, so I imagine others could too, without him. In Christianity, I'm glad I found the mystics: Marcus Borg (Read the chapter on Thin Places in Heart of Christianity), Matt Fox, Thomas Merton, Thomas Moore, Meister Eckhart, St. Francis of Assisi, St. John of the Cross, etc.. etc.. Aletheia

LOL! OK. I'll take the hint. Anybody have any favorite show tunes they'd like to share? "The love boat, soon will be taking another run. The love boat, promises something for everyone...." Aletheia

Crap! I did it twice now! In both my responses to Des, I said Jen. Sorry to both of you for being brain dead today. I'd edit, but the option isn't there now. Sigh. Aletheia

We sound like we believe the same things. Cool. I don't know. Anyone know the answer? I'll probably go Google it. Exactly! But isn't it funny how many Christian sects teach that, until they ate of the tree, the didn't have the knowlege of "good and evil". Some groups teach that they had free will first (like my old church), but many teach that it was the act of eating that GAVE them the free will to do evil. LOL. We had a very small group, maybe 30-50. One of the advantages of living in Utah is when "alternative" Christian thinkers come to town, not many of the Mormons go. Yup. Like I said. No original sin, no need for "salvation". I, too, interpret Grace differently. Me either. That's one good thing that the JW's did for me. Oh, and meeting my husband too. I agree. He was a radical. A reformer. A social prophet. He stirred things up and made people think. Some people liked what he had to say, some didn't. Those that didn't had him executed. Aletheia

Jen, Just an FYI: Don't use the "Quote" button at the top of the post. Use the "Reply" button at the bottom. That way it won't repost the entire thing. Unless of course you meant to do that. Then it's ok. Once you get "inside" the reply function, you can use the little buttons to put the quote box around things. It's not nitpicking. It is a big difference. Panentheism is "Everything is IN God" but God is More, as well. Aletheia

Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition! Cute, cute, cute. Aletheia ps: by "ammunition" I in no way meant to infer that hunting season is open.

Hi again! I just spent the past hour responding to your other post. I'll probably repeat some of that here. Hope you don't mind. Original sin. What a pain in the butt concept. (Thank you Paul.) The words "original sin" don't exist in the Bible or in Jewish writings. A quote from Ben Zion Bokser that I like is: "The story of the fall of Adam expresses in allegorical form the constant necessity that man be vigilant against temptation." Jewish ethics requires the idea that humans decide for themselves how to act. This is so because temptation, and with it the possibility of sin, allows people to choose good and thus have moral merit. "Eve" was tempted and succumbed. "Adam" was tempted and succumbed. "Eating" of the tree did not make them mortal. "Eating" of the tree did not give them free will. They were already mortal and already had free will. And they certainly did NOT pass on sin and death to their descendants. There are so many layers to the Genesis story. It's fascinating. An even deeper layer is Esoteric Judaism (and Christianity), but we won't go into that here. I've met him ya know. Matt Fox. I attended a workshop that he did, here in Utah. Really nice man. I would love to go to one of the Techno Masses. They sound way cool. It's his way of trying to involve the youth in something that can open their hearts to God. It's his way of helping them to experience mysticism. I definitely agree that the concept of original sin is anthropocentric and it seems to have started with Paul. Don't get me wrong, Paul had some beautiful thoughts about God. I truly appreciate his (and Luther's) view of faith as opposed to works to gain "salvation". BUT (and it's a BIG but), if he hadn't proposed "original sin" in the first place, we wouldn't have to worry about being "saved" by faith instead of works. LOL! I'm reading "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" again. Have you read it? There's this planet with WAY advanced technology that makes planets for people who want a custom planet to live on. Turns out, they made the planet earth. Recently, our current planet earth is destroyed by a group of intergallactic real estate developers. So this advanced race decides to make a new one. (I am skipping a lot of detail here.) The reader walks in on the planet being made, pretty much as the makers are burying fake dinosaur bones. You get the impression they are doing so mostly to mess with the future human inhabitants. Maybe you could tell your sister about this theory and see what she thinks of it? Here's a quote I found that sums it up: I agree, if by sin we mean we sometimes do bad things to each other and to this planet. But, now that I think about it, I really hate the word "sin" because of all the baggage that has come to be associated with the term. Sin to establish independence from God is definitely found in esoteric Jewish and Christian thought (especially Gnosticism). I find it intriguing, but a little TOO hidden. First we have to define what acts or lack of acts are considered sinful. If someone believes (perhaps like your sister), that BREATHING is a sinful act than yes, we all sin. But like I said above, that is "original sin", which I reject. If you follow the STRICT Jewish definition of sin, then wearing cloth of mixed fibers is a sin, because disobeying any law in the Torah is a sin. All humans "sin". Even if it is something as simple as yelling at someone who didn't deserve to be yelled at. But much of what is defined by religion as "sin", isn't sinful, imo. I guess that's why I don't much care for the term. As I mentioned in the other thread, I believe that the very nature of reality is "libertarian free will" (or radical free will). I don't believe we have an inherrant sinful nature. I do believe we have choices. I don't think Jesus was born to atone for original sin. I don't believe in substitutionary sacrifice. I don't believe God would require such an act. It's sick, imo. It was brought up in another thread that Jesus wasn't sent or asked to atone for mankind. But maybe, once he was here, he volunteered? I haven't explored that idea much. To me, it begs the question: What did he volunteer to fix? Original sin? I reject that. Karma? My jury is still out on Karma. Was Jesus just a man? Was he divine? An avatar? I haven't decided yet. I believe Jesus was a mystic, a healer, a teacher and a social prophet. I do believe following "the way" that Jesus taught can lead us to a life fully immersed in God. I think Christianity is more about a "Way" than about dogma or belief. Aletheia