Is Humanity Fallen?

[AletheiaRivers]

I don't know if this makes a whole lot of sense

 

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

Edited January 14, 2005 by AletheiaRivers

[des]

Well I don't think translation errors account with my issues of taking it literally, either.

I doubt there is any translation error in something like "Genesis two"-- there may be--

but I don't think that's the issue. I have read of differences in translation between

the NIV and the NRSV for instance. If you read them you see some differences in

arguments for say universalism and conditionalism-- though one could argue that the translations were chosen to reflect pov and not the other way around. (Though I don't believe in a literal hell and heaven anyway.)

 

The other thing is that the "real thing" would still have influences of culture and audience. So one of the gospels, I can't remember which, has more verses that seem to correlate with prophesy. Did it really happen like that? Or were the verses put in so that things seemed like they correlated with prophesy, so that people would be more likely to say that yeah Jesus is the Messiah as foretold? I mean they weren't written right at the time of Jesus' life.

(Even if they were people do not have perfect memories.) It strikes me as an issue as to what Jesus actually did say and what was attributed but never said. Of course if you believe it to be inerrant than that wouldn't be an issue.) Someone on another board asked if we thought Jesus believed what he said. I never have felt there was any issue like that. The issue has always been for me, whether he said what they said he said. Yikes how twisted is my syntax. :-o

 

>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.

 

Oh yeah!? I wish you would try this out. I love that whole Genesis story. ( I have a lot of interest in creation myths anyway.) I think it is just filled with all sorts of meaning. I am not sure what it all is of course. And you are much more, um well, you sound like a theology student or something. I mean no offence. :-)

 

 

--des

[AletheiaRivers]

Oh yeah!? I wish you would try this out. I love that whole Genesis story.

 

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.

Edited January 15, 2005 by AletheiaRivers

[BeachOfEden]

When the fundamentalist use the phrase "The Bible is with out error," I find it to be very grab-bag meaning....Cause like I said before, I neither understand 'their' meaning of "The Bible," nor the phrase "With out error." It's like saying, "The barbie doll is made without a flaw." The question would be, "Thee barabie doll?" What does that mean? As if there is only one barabie doll in the world? millions roll off an assembly line everyday. Also which brand? Metel?

 

Also, I can see what you all are saying that whether the Bible translations have been altered or not have nothing to do with your belief. But take AletheiaRivers' fundamental aunt, for example. Aletheia said that this Campus Crusade aunt of her's is very smart and it sounds like she likes to do bibical research. Well, maybe deep insdie it has always botherd her that the bible seemed sexist and she wondered how Jesus could be that way, or maybe deep down inside she can't stomac the idea of a literal hellfire...well, if a moderate or Progressive could share with her a book on conditionalism or maybe the book, "What Paul Really Said about Women," then she could read the author's smart bibical research into the actual original Greek and Hebrew words and their meanings, and 'if' such a thinking person cared to look at such information...then this might lead them to more progressive thought.

[irreverance]

I am currently involved in a dialogue group on the meaning of Genesis.

Ecclesiastes 1.2: "'Utterly meaningless," says the Teacher. 'All things are meaningless!'"

[AletheiaRivers]

Aletheia said that this Campus Crusade aunt of her's

 

Pssst! That was Des, not me.

 

Aletheia

[AletheiaRivers]

"Meaningless" - Hebrew word is "hebel". Also translated as "Vanity".

 

The word literally means "breath" or "vapor".

 

In Ecclesiastes, it is used as a metaphor for things that cannot be grasped either physically or intellectually, things that are ephemeral, insubstantial, enigmatic or absurd.

 

Elsewhere in the Bible, human-beings themselves are said to be "hebel".

 

Aletheia

[des]

Yes that was my sister in Campus Crusade. Interesting how you expresss that she may have other motives for being a born again. I think for one thing she went from one legalistic religious system to another. From Christian Science (which is highly legalistic) to fundamentalism which is highly legalisitc. Another thing is that our dad was very critical--

so she goes to a religion with a very strict and critical "Father". Why didn't I go that way?

Well I rebelled against religion for awhile. I was nothing and claimed to be agnostic for awhile, then I went thru many religious experiments. I was in Encounters for Christ (or something) that was an Christian encounter group, I was in a small group of women that started a little group which was maybe theist. I read up in Buddhism. I also had a lot of therapy, and figured out what goes on with CS as well as dad.

 

>Also, I can see what you all are saying that whether the Bible translations have been altered or not have nothing to do with your belief. But take AletheiaRivers' fundamental aunt, for example. Aletheia said that this Campus Crusade aunt of her's is very smart and it sounds like she likes to do bibical research. Well, maybe deep insdie it has always botherd her that the bible seemed sexist and she wondered how Jesus could be that way, or maybe deep down inside she can't stomac the idea of a literal hellfire...well, if a moderate or Progressive could share with her a book on conditionalism or maybe the book, "What Paul Really Said about Women," then she could read the author's smart bibical research into the actual original Greek and Hebrew words and their meanings, and 'if' such a thinking person cared to look at such information...then this might lead them to more progressive thought.

 

It wouldn't work (or better than you than me :-)). She is also very "right" all the time. A progressive would never get a word in edgewise or she would never hear it. I also don't think she ever really experienced Biblical sexism. She reads the Bible now, but she didn't before she converted. If she has any questions, she isn't aware of them.

 

Aletheia:

>I am currently involved in a dialogue group on the meaning of Genesis.

 

Xian quotes:

Ecclesiastes 1.2: "'Utterly meaningless," says the Teacher. 'All things are meaningless!'"

 

And vexations of the spirit or something. :-)

Bring it on Aletheia. I'm all for meaninglessness and vexations of the spirit. :-)

 

--des

[BeachOfEden]

"Yes that was my sister in Campus Crusade. I think for one thing she went from one legalistic religious system to another. From Christian Science (which is highly legalistic) to fundamentalism which is highly legalisitc. Another thing is that our dad was very critical--

so she goes to a religion with a very strict and critical "Father". Why didn't I go that way?"

 

Precisely! That is also what i find with the JW's! They go from JW to Assembly of God or Southern Baptists! That IS precisely what my own web pages I made addresses. WHY JW's usually simply rotate fundamental faith groups instead of becoming more Progressive.

 

I did not go that way. It never interested me! When I left JW I study Natural Deism and UU and Native American. Then I studied all Progressive denominations like Disciples of Christ and United Methodists and then, I finally ened up finding the TCPC.

 

I could never and still can not figure HOW and WHY a person who leave a fundamental faith group like CS or JW and simply trade in for Southern Baptist or the like.

[des]

Re: highly legalistic to highly legalistic:

>Precisely! That is also what i find with the JW's! They go from JW to Assembly of God or Southern Baptists! That IS precisely what my own web pages I made addresses. WHY JW's usually simply rotate fundamental faith groups instead of becoming more Progressive.

 

Well I think there are reasons for it: I think they actually feel comfortable with legalism. Not everyone, but many of them. So they go to something that is also legalistic. They really need the structure. Being a progressive, where no one tells you what to think or how to think it, that's frightening to some people. They would rather go where someone tells you how to think. BTW, it wasn't initially easy for me. I went around feeling a bit lost for awhile.

 

Another thing is that sometimes, like in my sister's case, there are psychological reasons-- like having a critical father, having very strict parents, or something like that. They go to a belief system that copies their parenting. Unlike my sister I had a lot of therapy, so I had a chance to analyze what kind of parenting I got.(My sister had therapy but ended up getting "Christian therapy".)

 

I think that they may go thru the same searching but find some fundamentalist group, like Campus Crusade, that is more than happy to help them. They befriend them and they are immediately surrounded by all these people who care about them. Now of course, if they should question the beliefs well they might not be so easily cared about. I did run into such groups, but I felt more suspious (I am maybe a bit more suspicious in nature anyway-- being autistic). I thought they had ulterior motives. But some people won't feel this way.

So *initially* they go in because these people are so loving to them, then they feel pulled in by group psychology. They are also very effective at handling doubting sorts of questions.

What do progressives have to offer in this regard? You go to a progressive church and you get more questions. Whereas fundamentalists answer the questions. I never liked people answering questions with Bible verses, but other people might not be bothered by this. I think it was Buber who said "The Bible says this, the Bible says that. What does thou say?"

 

The other thing that in my seeking, I ran into many divergent views first, not last. That might have been a factor. I was also politically liberal--more liberal than my sister, that maybe had something to do with me veering away from more conservative religious views (although I believe that you could be politically conservative and progressive religiously and vice versa-- it usually follows). I was active in the civil rights movement circa 1960s.

 

--des

[des]

Re: Genesis.

Maybe I'll throw some of the ideas up here as well and see if it stirs any conversation. 

 

Throw away! Wait that didnt' come out right.

 

 

 

PS: Not a theology student... yet.

 

You do an excellent pretending job. :-)

BTW, we'll see how this all works. I'm trying to get up to date with my quoting.

 

--des

[Lolly]

Another thing is that sometimes, like in my sister's case, there are psychological reasons-- like having a critical father, having very strict parents, or something like that. They go to a belief system that copies their parenting. Unlike my sister I had a lot of therapy, so I had a chance to analyze what kind of parenting I got.(My sister had therapy but ended up getting "Christian therapy".)

 

I think this is such a good point. In response to someone who was asking the question elsewhere of why people ascribe all sorts of superstitious beliefs to their concept of God, I wrote the following:

 

 

My take on this whole question of why people believe silly things and call it God is that it has to do with the level of emotional or spiritual maturity, both personal and cultural.

 

It has been said that man created God in his own image, and while I don't necessarily agree with this 100% I would certainly concede that man personifies God in accordance with his own emotional needs. I believe this has an awful lot to do with our desire to feel safe, to feel protected, to feel like there is some purpose or meaning to our existence.

 

Some people believe in a God that comes off like a very strict and punishing parent. This abusive personification of God probably resonates with anyone who had a parent like that and especially in societies or cultures where the rule of law is very strict and violent. Toe the line, and this God will reward you with safety and will refrain from destroying your life.

 

Some people believe in a loving God that comes off more like a caring, nurturing parent. This nurturing personification of God probably resonates with anyone who had a less strict upbringing or with anyone who is attracted to a familial ideal of promoting personal growth above order. Toe the line with this God and you will be cared for and loved.

 

That some people have the capacity to conceive of a non-authoritative God which isn't a projection of our fears or a response to our need to be protected probably says something about those people too, but being one of them I am going to refrain from too much conjecture here.

 

I will say that I think that beliefs can move through a progression as a person or society matures and ages. I also believe that the greatest religious teachers probably understand this, and use metaphors and images which are appropriate to the time and people they are teaching.

 

I do believe that we tend to seek the religious flavor that fits our emotional and psychological landscape. If we change and grow, that landscape also changes, and we might find ourselves rejecting and refining what is sensible to us as we age.

 

On the other hand, if we remain in a closed system where the proper beliefs are fed to us and we are dissuaded from questioning, this sort of growth can't happen. We will instead remain mired in one view, one way of seeing, where the religious structure inhibits us from moving forward.

 

I've never been to a CS church, so I have no idea what that is like. I can relate to the JWs, though, because for a brief time I flirted with the idea of joining them and I went to several meetings at the local Kingdom Hall. I will say that the security they were promoting was very compelling and I can really see why it would be difficult to leave that society once one has been fully integrated into it.

 

Fortunately for me I was never able to get comfortable with the unquestioning aspect of their doctrine, so I eventually stopped going.

 

So *initially* they go in because these people are so loving to them, then they feel pulled in by group psychology. They are also very effective at handling doubting sorts of questions.

What do progressives have to offer in this regard? You go to a progressive church and you get more questions. Whereas fundamentalists answer the questions.

 

Have you ever noticed how painful it is to objectively examine a very cherished belief? I think we defend our beliefs as passionately as anything else we could name, probably because we are very attached to our definitions of self.

 

For a person to whom this definition is extremely important, to question beliefs is a big threat. To change what one believes at a core level is like a kind of death. Once you accept that something you believe is not rational or sensible, you fundamentally cannot be that believing person ever again... and many people have their entire self-worth tied up in what they believe.

 

I remember reading an article somewhere that talked about this, and why it's hard to talk to fundamentalists. I'll see if I can dig that up and post it here.

[BeachOfEden]

"I've never been to a CS church, so I have no idea what that is like."

 

But just listening to others..I am learning alot.

 

"I can relate to the JWs, though, because for a brief time I flirted with the idea of joining them and I went to several meetings at the local Kingdom Hall. I will say that the security they were promoting was very compelling and I can really see why it would be difficult to leave that society once one has been fully integrated into it."

 

Lots of times of Fundamentalist that are Protestant like Southern Baptists are ignorant understanding this about JW's. They fail to understand why seekers would be appealed to JW instead of their Evangelical Protestant church. I explain this one my Progressive XJW site. The reason JW's appeals to many much more so than say Southern Baptists or Calvary Chapel..is that unlike these '2' Fundamental Protestant churches...JW's gives the 'idea' that they are very earth-friendly and animal friendly. This contrast greatly to the "Rapture' belief of Protestant Fundamentalism where they teach the earth will literally be burned up.

 

A brief look at JW tracts will show a very positive appealing picture of humanity dwelling in unity with the earth and animalkind. This IS what appealed to me when I was raised in it. The problem is..that like Fundamental Protestant's exclusive ideas of how to get into heaven...jW's also hold a very exclusive view on how one can live forever in paradise conditions on earth..and their also lies a very contridictive message as regards to animals in the paradise Kingdom. one momemet they are saying that humanity will enjoy animals forever in paradise..then the next they, like their Fundamental Protestnat cousions, are saying only man is made in God's image and therefore ONLY humans will live forever and that animals will continue to die.

 

I reject this most strongly..for many reasons. First I think they should consider Acts 3:11 that tells that "Jesus comes in the RESTORATIOn of 'ALL" things..." and that it does NOT just say humans only. Secondly, people love their pets, animals and if they died in paradise then this means people WOULD experience pain and suffering and sarow in paradise which goes against the Bible's promise in revelation of "No more, pain, suffering, or dieing anymore...for the former things have past away.-" Or if people did not expereince sadness at their pets death..then this would mean that had no love for animals and this too would contridict the Bible.

 

Still, '2' positive things with JW's...(1) The reject the idea that hell is an eternal place of fire reserved for the evil, enbracing conditionalism instead. But they still retain the exclusive salvation theiry that all fundamentalist hold to.

 

(2) The rejct the "Left Behind" earth being burned up belief of the Fundamental Protestants.

 

 

Here's a good tip...even though the Roman Catholic Church and JW's are fundamentalist, still both rejct the rapture threat and hellfire..so you CAN often use their resources on such topics to support Progressive Christian thought/view points.

[DCJ]

A little bit of self-examination will show that we are indeed fallen. It's not that we're incapable of choosing good, it's just much easier for us to choose evil. Spend a normal day making mental notes of the "good" or "bad" things you do throughout the day. I'll bet your evil deeds far outnumber your good deeds. It's very difficult to do good (showing love toward that stranger), but doing evil comes naturally (lustful thoughts, cursing that person on the highway...)

 

A look at the last century also destroys the modernist myth of the goodness of man and the moral evolution of humanity.

 

Any of us in a position of supreme power would be capable of unspeakable evil. Even King David, the "man after God's own heart," thought nothing of having Bathsheba's husband killed simply because David wanted her for himself. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, as they say...

[des]

Well DCJ, I don't argue, would never argue, that we often make the wrong choices, and it is easy often times to make them. I'm not sure it is ALWAYS easier to make the wrong ones.

I don't even question that we will always sin (or whatever term you want to use).

What I question is that we are *created* to sin. That we are born that way. I question such terms as "sin nature" or "original sin", as if we took on somehow the sins that Adam and Eve committed (as I think this is an allegory anyway). Even if it weren't allegorical, I don't believe that we would be capable of sin outside society. Make a child feral (well dont' literally :-)) and I think the child will be wild and frightened but not really sinful. And I don't think that young children are sinful, even if disobedient. It takes a certain awareness of right and wrong, which doesn't come til later.

 

So it isn't that we do wrong that I question at all, merely the tie of sin with Adam and Eve's sin. And that we are born into sin. We may be born into society that has influenced us at various levels that are less than good though...

 

I don't, however, agree that all of us are capable of unspeakable evil. I think that the unspeakable evil some people have done, well they have compared the brain patterns of

mass murderers and the rest of us and they are vastly different. I think the worst evil most of us are capable is *allowing* evil (such as what happened in Nazi Germany. Most people did NOT exterminate anyone, but people did allow it because of many factors and one was that the church allowed it-- a social institution.) BTW, I don't believe that because if we were in a situation that we had absolutely power that we would do great evil that the sin is in US.

I think that it is the power itself that corrupts, and that absolute power corrupts absolutely.

What we need to guard against are organizations that allow absolute power, and not be concerned about what we might do under such circumstances.

 

I'm inclined not to believe that thinking thoughts is by itself evil. I know Jesus said (or was quoted as saying) that thinking bad thoughts is as bad or almost as bad as doing them.

But taken to extremes we see that that is not the case. If I say were to imagine dropping on a-bomb on a city, I would not have killed anybody. I tend to think that the belief that thinking bad thoughts is really bad leads to magical thinking. Christian Science really gets into this in a very big way. It leads to a LOT of emotional problems in CSists.

 

I'm not sure of your statement that your bad things will really outweigh your good things.

As I think about today, I can't think of anything either too bad or too good. So it is with most days, I think. And even if I just haven't thought hard enough, well I still don't think that would imply that we have a sin nature.

 

BTW, I think that in some instances it is hard to do good. I think some of the cases you mention, are,well due to frustrations that are a part of the world (such as cursing a person on the highway), but when you actually have to make a sacrifice to do good, well I think that's part of what Jesus meant about the difficulties of discipleship.

 

I still really like Matt Fox's statement that original sin is anthropocentric and denies billions of years of God's blessings.

 

Hey look, if you carry a thread long enoguh it eventually goes back to topic. I always wondered about that. :-)

 

--des

Edited January 18, 2005 by des

[ComradeInChrist]

Interesting.

 

One of the ideas that I have been toying with for the past while is about the difference between the more conservative Christians and the progressives.

 

It seems to me that it comes down to social control.

 

As a progressive I embrace freedom and diversity. I believe there are many paths to God and each of us must find our own way with the help of the Spirit.

 

The conservative Christian seems to believe in a rigid doctrine which does not allow much in the way of difference. I believe that some people need that structure. The structure also provides a means of social control. Most conservatives seem to believe in a strict "law and order" type of Christianity.

 

The difference, as I see it, is that I see the human race as basicly good. The conservative sees mankind as fallen and inclined to evil.

 

I do not agree with the conservative world view. However it not for me to judge anyone elses spiritual path. I will complain however at any attempt to force this view on anyone else.

 

I hope I haven't offended anyone with my characterization of conservative belief. I am not a conservative and may be misrepresenting what they believe.

[des]

CC,

 

You might be interested in books like "Stealing Jesus" Bauer, "Original Blessing" Matt Fox, etc. I'm sure there has got to be a list somewhere. Bauer talks about legalistic Christians rather than fundamentalists.

 

I agree that since I tend to think that everyone will find their own path (or at least hopefully) that some people's paths lead to Fundamentalism. So I can at least accept their viewpoints for them. I guess what bothers me is that they would tend not feel that way for me.

 

Yes, I would make the differentiation between things like human society (being difficult and not created perfectly, will tend to create problems). I also think there are some genetic issues to evil behavior. I have met kids who were hurting animals, kicking people in the head at age 5, etc. I have since found about attachment disorders, where children cannot relate to others normally. Sometimes this is due to alcohol in utero. They've found mass murderers have drastically different brain patterns than normal people. Basically they have poor working of the frontal lobe, which has to do with judgement and curbing of instinct.

 

I also think that a lot of negative (I don't mean real evil things that go on) but the daily types of "sins" that people do-- well a lot of them are based on misunderstanding, fear, etc. I recall an incident in which a fellow workmate and I just couldn't get along. We were not very nice to each other and said nasty things, back and forth. The boss couldn't take it, so she basically made us talk to each other. After awhile, we got to know each other and respect, if not like, each other. We came from very different backgrounds and had differing world views-- which I think created the tension when we had to work with each other.

 

I'm not saying by this that I think there is no evil in the world though, or no sin.

 

--des