On the Christian doctrine of original sin

[BrentRichards]

I would be interested in hearing (reading) how you seperate the doctrine of Original sin from a literal reading of the Garden of Eden narrative? (maybe you don't see the need? I don't know) But how do you understand Orginal Sinfulness if there was no LITERAL Fall? If you read my anthropology post above you know that I believe that we humans evolved to be the people we are (evolution being a tool in the hands of a sovereign God, of course, but evolution nonetheless). I don't believe that the world was created in seven literal days or that the world is only 4,000 plus years old. So how do I make sense of the Fall in that context? I DO believe in a Fallen world, but I'm not at all sure HOW I do. can you help me, Oh Calvinist demi-god?

New thread, as threatened ... er, promised.

(added) WARNING: If you're not interested in Christian theology, you may not think much of this thread... I think Dave and I are just trying to prove we've been to seminary (wink) ...but you're welcome to chime in anyway. Post number 4 below has a couple "Cliff's Notes" (actually, "Brent's Notes") on the doctrine we're discussing.

[scott snedeker]

New thread, as threatened ... er, promised.

First Separated has two a's

Second......Umm what is the question?

Could you translate for my pointy pagan ears?

[BrentRichards]

I will freely admit I am in a tension on this ... I had a lot of biology in undergrad, and am still an amateur naturalist (no, NOT naturist, get that picture out of your head if you know what's good for you) ... which means I've spent enough time with evolutionary theory to know that it's pretty darn solid. The (literal) creationists who try to introduce "problems" with the theory as if these problems could eliminate the whole body of scientific knowledge are, to say the least, a bit off. I am definitely a "directed evolutionist" ... I would have used the term "intelligent design" some years ago, but it's been co-opted by people whose beliefs on the matter don't come very close to mine, so ...

Short answer then is, yes, I see the Genesis account as figurative. In fact, I am a major OT figurativist (I just made that word up ... did I get close to a real one?). I think the OT is largely made up of stories meant to illustrate the nature of God and his relationship to His people (Redemptive History). Because of that, I struggle with a strict Calvinist "Federal Headship" idea of original sin. I haven't, admittedly, worked out my balance on this one yet.

The working base of my original sin doctrine (and this may not be terribly orthodox) is the "like begets like" concept ... an imperfect and decaying world (which this is, even biologically) cannot beget perfect beings. Even if the decay (fall) didn't begin with a single, literal individual, it is here now, courtesy of "the First Adam" ... that is, the humanity that came before us.

Since, as I believe it, Genesis doesn't literally tell us how we got here, I suspect it doesn't literally tell us how we were imbued with spirit ... did God at some point in evolution decide: "This one is now a human, I will breathe my spirit into him" (a literal Adam) ... or was it something more along the lines of (and this is my leaning, speculative as it is) a development of self-awareness and God-awareness worked through the same evolutionary processes? (Which, I think, is no less well described by God "breathing His spirit" into his Creation? If the latter is the case, then with that awakening spirit, it would seem, would come awakening sin and decay, as well. In short, if Creation was not a discrete (time-wise) "fiat" event, need the Fall be one?

No, I don't believe God is Thermodynamics, if that's what this is sounding like. But I definitely don't believe we have to adhere to a 7 day young earth literalist model to take God's Creation, man's spirit and sin, and the whole of redemptive history seriously.

Again, this is muddy for me, and pretty far afield from my evangelical and Calvinist roots, but I believe it is both evangelical and Reformed to struggle to make sense from ALL the truth at our disposal.

Make any sense? Calling Cardinal Jimenez? Or at least The Church Police? "'Ello, 'ello, 'ello, what's all this then, AMEN?"

[BrentRichards]

First Separated has two a's

Second......Umm what is the question?

Could you translate for my pointy pagan ears?

Actually, suspected the topic wouldn't interest too many who don't accept the doctrine of original sin, but here's what you'll probably need to know to follow this thread:

Original sin, in its most literal form, assumes this:

God created Adam and Eve.
Adam and Eve sinned by eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
Adam and Eve were therefore banned from the Garden of Eden, and from access to the Tree of Life.
In sinning, Adam is thought to "stand in" for all of humanity that followed ("Federal Headship")
Therefore, all people are born sinful, bearing the mark of Adam's (Original) Sin.

The question Dave is asking, then, is if you don't accept the Creation narrative as literal (which neither he nor I do), what does that do to the rest of the doctrine above?

It's the kind of "intramural debate" we Christian theologian types like to trot out to torture ourselves with now and again ... but naturally, all are welcome to participate!

[Progo35]

In replying I have to preface my words by saying that I take the Bible as literal and figurative. If the Bible says that there was a man and a woman named Adam and Eve and they ate the forbidden fruit, than I'm willing to believe that they did. That all comes down to divorcing logic from faith in deciding what you are going to believe. Faith, by its very nature, is a belief that can not be scientifically proven-otherwise, it would no longer be "faith."

However, in addition to being a literal account, I believe that the Fall is also a metaphorical depiction of what happens when people stop listening to God: they hurt themselves and have to live with the consequences. God warned them about the consequences, he was grieved by their fall, but He gave them a choice about what they were going to do. Similarly, the Bible advises us not to have sex outside of marriage, not because God is trying to screw us over, but because of what happens when we do-we leave ourselves vulnerable to emotional exploitation, pregnancy, STIs, etc.

So, if you take the account of Genesis figuratively, you could still come up with the Original Sin doctrine, because it shows that even in a perfect paradise, Adam and Eve, aka humanity, acted according to their own desires instead of God's, which is a pretty good definition of sin.

[Pablo Rafael]

In replying I have to preface my words by saying that I take the Bible as literal and figurative. If the Bible says that there was a man and a woman named Adam and Eve and they ate the forbidden fruit, than I'm willing to believe that they did. That all comes down to divorcing logic from faith in deciding what you are going to believe. Faith, by its very nature, is a belief that can not be scientifically proven-otherwise, it would no longer be "faith."



Progo,

I appreciate your post. (It is close to what I believe, so it has to be good, right?) :D
I think that the Bible needs to be looked at literally and figuratively. To see it only one way loses meaning.

Coming from a Lutheran / Catholic background I feel that original sin is not some guilt that permeated down through the generations. It is however, the tendency of people to sin. No one since Christ Himself has been perfect. We all make those bad choices.

Not to be overlooked is that we were created in the image of God. We are the face of God that many people see. Though we make bad choices, we also have the freedom to make good choices. Original sin is erased by Christ's death and resurecction. We are free to live lives that glorify God. When we live lives of love, we show forth the image of God that is in all of us.

Too often people think that original sin means that you have to pay for your parent's and grandparent's sin. That is not how I read the Bible at all on the subject. It is not inherited guilt but simpy a statement that we will all sin, no one is without sin.

Why God has let us have the freedom to choose to do good or evil puzzles me to no end. I will just have to be content that He knows more than I do.

Brent, I appreciated your posts too. I don't want to ignore what you have to say. You are a great asset to these forums. :)

Tu Amigo, Pablo

[Eugene]

Since, as I believe it, Genesis doesn't literally tell us how we got here, I suspect it doesn't literally tell us how we were imbued with spirit ...

Well then it seems hardly worth the bother of reading, and your guess is as good as mine. Who needs a religion that can't answer questions of origin and destiny?

[u-dog]

with all due respect beloved friends, this thread originated with my question to a fellow Calvinist and a fellow "modernist" I want to stick with my original question.

I do not believe that Genesis is a literal account of the Creation.
If you DO believe that it is, thats fine... but go play some place else for a little while OK?

But having said that I have to respond to one thing that Progo said"


However, in addition to being a literal account, I believe that the Fall is also a metaphorical depiction of what happens when people stop listening to God: they hurt themselves and have to live with the consequences. .

The story of the Fall is NOT about disobedience in general but a particular form of disobedience, a kind of FUNDAMENTAL disobedience -- namely IDOLATRY. The forbidden tree is "The tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil". The serpent convinces Eve to eat by saying that the only reason that God forbids eating it is that God knows that humans will be just like God if they do. Ergo, Eve eats because she wishes to be "just like God" IDOLATRY not "naughtiness" is the original sin.

Consequently, Jesus life, death, and resurrection must be salvific because it somehow restores the proper relationship between humanity and God which was disrupted by the IDOLATRY of Adam and Eve... an Idolatry which somehow has distorted the fabric of Creation itself.

SO...

IF Genesis is NOT a literal account of Creation OR the FALL how did human beings come to have this capacity for idolatry in the first place? Were we created with this imperfection as part of our matrix? If so, then is God responsible for human Idolatry? If not... where did it come from?

Here is a somewhat fuzzy stab at a theological anthropology of original sin and I would like to hear what people think of it -- but ONLY THOSE PEOPLE WHO CAN ... EVEN FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT ... ACCEPT MY PREMISE THAT GENESIS IS NOT LITERAL. If you can't go there with me? then just shut and listen OK? Maybe go start a parallel thread where we can all assume the Genesis IS literal.

OK, here goes:

1. Humanity evolves from lower animals (under God's sovereign authority and direction) to have a variety of traits and abilities that select for genetic and biological survival. Among these traits is a fear/suspicion/hatred for the "other" and a tendency toward violence. These things are not evil or sinful in this primieval state because they result in humanity's thriving and spreading globally.

2. However these genetically successful creatures are not God's final objective. God intends them to become spiritual creatures who live in loving, obedient, relationship with God and with each other and with the rest of Creation. At a certain point the very characteristics which resulted in the success and survival of humanity (and which were therefore "good") become a liability in phase 2, the fashioning of spiritual creatures to live in harmony with God and others. The traits which brought phase 1 to a successful conclusion now are impeding the successful conclusion of phase 2.

3. These genetic traits/characteristics which WERE good but are NOW evil/sinful, ARE the original sin. The particular point in time when the creator moves from Phase 1 (biological evolutionary success of the "earth creature" Ha'Adama) to Phase 2 (the spiritual evolution of the children of God) can be thought of as "The Garden of Eden moment" --- The moment when the "Good" creation of a good God becomes tainted. Since Phase two is still in progress and we are still acting out of our biological nature, still fearing the other, still trying to be God, still hating, still killing. We are still "tainted" by sin and Creation is Still "groaning" (ie global warming, polution, mass extinctions etc).

4. The center piece of God's plan for Phase two is the incarnation of the Word of God and his self sacrifice and generous giving of himself for "the other" the outsider, the foreigner, the undeserving... and his resurrection and victory over the ultimate animal reality... DEATH.

Ok... so thats it. Andrew? Brent? Others who are willing to argue within my parameters? what do you think?

Dave

[BrentRichards]

Well then it seems hardly worth the bother of reading, and your guess is as good as mine. Who needs a religion that can't answer questions of origin and destiny?

Saying the Bible (Genesis specifically) doesn't answer the question of origin (I said nothing about destiny, that's your addition) LITERALLY does NOT mean it doesn't answer it MEANINGFULLY. If God only cared to give us instructions, the Bible would read like a VCR manual. Thankfully, it does not.

Beyond that, I'm with Dave. Please don't hijack this thread! Play nice, people!

[BrentRichards]

with all due respect beloved friends, this thread originated with my question to a fellow Calvinist and a fellow "modernist" I want to stick with my original question.

I do not believe that Genesis is a literal account of the Creation.
If you DO believe that it is, thats fine... but go play some place else for a little while OK?

But having said that I have to respond to one thing that Progo said"




The story of the Fall is NOT about disobedience in general but a particular form of disobedience, a kind of FUNDAMENTAL disobedience -- namely IDOLATRY. The forbidden tree is "The tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil". The serpent convinces Eve to eat by saying that the only reason that God forbids eating it is that God knows that humans will be just like God if they do. Ergo, Eve eats because she wishes to be "just like God" IDOLATRY not "naughtiness" is the original sin.

Consequently, Jesus life, death, and resurrection must be salvific because it somehow restores the proper relationship between humanity and God which was disrupted by the IDOLATRY of Adam and Eve... an Idolatry which somehow has distorted the fabric of Creation itself.

SO...

IF Genesis is NOT a literal account of Creation OR the FALL how did human beings come to have this capacity for idolatry in the first place? Were we created with this imperfection as part of our matrix? If so, then is God responsible for human Idolatry? If not... where did it come from?

Here is a somewhat fuzzy stab at a theological anthropology of original sin and I would like to hear what people think of it -- but ONLY THOSE PEOPLE WHO CAN ... EVEN FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT ... ACCEPT MY PREMISE THAT GENESIS IS NOT LITERAL. If you can't go there with me? then just shut and listen OK? Maybe go start a parallel thread where we can all assume the Genesis IS literal.

OK, here goes:

1. Humanity evolves from lower animals (under God's sovereign authority and direction) to have a variety of traits and abilities that select for genetic and biological survival. Among these traits is a fear/suspicion/hatred for the "other" and a tendency toward violence. These things are not evil or sinful in this primieval state because they result in humanity's thriving and spreading globally.

2. However these genetically successful creatures are not God's final objective. God intends them to become spiritual creatures who live in loving, obedient, relationship with God and with each other and with the rest of Creation. At a certain point the very characteristics which resulted in the success and survival of humanity (and which were therefore "good") become a liability in phase 2, the fashioning of spiritual creatures to live in harmony with God and others. The traits which brought phase 1 to a successful conclusion now are impeding the successful conclusion of phase 2.

3. These genetic traits/characteristics which WERE good but are NOW evil/sinful, ARE the original sin. The particular point in time when the creator moves from Phase 1 (biological evolutionary success of the "earth creature" Ha'Adama) to Phase 2 (the spiritual evolution of the children of God) can be thought of as "The Garden of Eden moment" --- The moment when the "Good" creation of a good God becomes tainted. Since Phase two is still in progress and we are still acting out of our biological nature, still fearing the other, still trying to be God, still hating, still killing. We are still "tainted" by sin and Creation is Still "groaning" (ie global warming, polution, mass extinctions etc).

4. The center piece of God's plan for Phase two is the incarnation of the Word of God and his self sacrifice and generous giving of himself for "the other" the outsider, the foreigner, the undeserving... and his resurrection and victory over the ultimate animal reality... DEATH.

Ok... so thats it. Andrew? Brent? Others who are willing to argue within my parameters? what do you think?

Dave

Hmmm... I'm intrigued. My initial reaction is that this may be a helpful framework. I must mull. (Now where's my ginger and allspice?)

[andrewlittle]

I do not believe that Genesis is a literal account of the Creation.
Okay, so far. Humanity wasn't around for the creation - it was a later insertion by God into the order of things - therefore, humans could not develop a literal account.

Likewise, if God by divine revelation was to convey the events of creation to humanity at a later time, God would still be talking to cultural "infants" in that concepts for these early people would be limited to what was known and understandable. How do you teach small children - through story. I believe God to be the seminal parent, so God would be the seminal communicator to as yet undeveloped and incomplete humans - this, I believe has not changed. We are still not perfected in humankind and cannot grasp the mind and will of God completely, just in elementary ways - so God communicates in ways we can understand.

The story of the Fall is NOT about disobedience in general but ... IDOLATRY. Ergo, [Culture] eats because [it] wishes to be "just like God" IDOLATRY not "naughtiness" is the original sin.

Idolatry = haugthiness, not naughtiness. (Fair?)

I hope I'm not being picky here. Hav'vah, translated as "Eve", only occurs twice in Genesis, and the word "EVE" does not appear again until the New Testament. The closest literal translation of this word is "tent village" which, in my opinion at least, would serve as the closest thing to culture at the time. Culture, in this sense, is portrayed as leading humanity astray, and is it any wonder that in that day and age (or now, for that matter) it is attributed with feminine traits. Female=bad, male=good - where have we seen that crappe before.

I am sorry, but this reeks to me of humanity's capacity to "blame" someone else for bad stuff. It wasn't humanity - it was the culture. It wasn't me, it was them - ooh, better yet, it was her. She made me do it because she was weak and gave in to temptation. As usual, this kind of finger pointing just makes the pointer look even more pathetic.

Consequently, Jesus life, death, and resurrection must be salvific because it somehow restores the proper relationship between humanity and God which was disrupted by the IDOLATRY of Adam and Eve... an Idolatry which somehow has distorted the fabric of Creation itself.
Okay, no problem.

IF Genesis is NOT a literal account of Creation OR the FALL how did human beings come to have this capacity for idolatry in the first place? Were we created with this imperfection as part of our matrix? If so, then is God responsible for human Idolatry? If not... where did it come from?

Here is a somewhat fuzzy stab at a theological anthropology of original sin and I would like to hear what people think of it -- but ONLY THOSE PEOPLE WHO CAN ... EVEN FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT ... ACCEPT MY PREMISE THAT GENESIS IS NOT LITERAL. If you can't go there with me? then just shut and listen OK? Maybe go start a parallel thread where we can all assume the Genesis IS literal.

OK, here goes:

1. Humanity evolves from lower animals ... to have a variety of traits and abilities that select for genetic and biological survival ... fear/ suspicion/ hatred for the "other" and a tendency toward violence. These things ... result in humanity's thriving and spreading globally.

2. However these genetically successful creatures are not God's final objective. God intends them to become spiritual creatures who live in loving, obedient, relationship with God and with each other and with the rest of Creation. The traits which brought phase 1 to a successful conclusion now are impeding the successful conclusion of phase 2.

3. These genetic traits/characteristics which WERE good but are NOW evil/sinful, ARE the original sin. [We] are still acting out of our biological nature, still fearing the other, still trying to be God, still hating, still killing. We are still "tainted" by sin and Creation is Still "groaning" (ie global warming, polution, mass extinctions etc).

4. The center piece of God's plan for Phase two is the incarnation of the Word of God and his self sacrifice and generous giving of himself for "the other" the outsider, the foreigner, the undeserving... and his resurrection and victory over the ultimate animal reality... DEATH.

Since I brought up Daniel Quinn in another thread, I'll use another of his concepts - leavers and takers.

In God's love, God created humanity (now I don't particularly care if that was an instantaneous creation or a development from single celled creatures over millions of years - to me it's irrelevant how God chose to create.) Since God did not want automatons, but rather wanted humans to love and revere God and all that God had created of their own volition, God took the leap of faith to imbue humankind with free-will - self-determination. In healthy child-rearing, we emulate this process with our children.

God placed (or they developed) humans in the world of God's creation, providing a system which would satisfy all of humanity's needs. The order, I believe, was relatively simple. Use what you need, leave the rest. God created "leavers" - people who existed in the "paradise", used what it had to offer, but only according to their need, not their greed.

Humanity, however, ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Humans took it upon themselves to arrange creation hierarchically in terms of use and value to themselves. Humans began to judge "value", rather than ascribe inherent value to all God created, and so doing took on the mantel of God in determining what deserved to live or die, to flourish or flounder. Value was ascribed based on usefulness to the sense of "values" that were inherently self-serving. Humanity started to want to accumulate - moved from leavers to "takers".

Along with "taking" or accumulating comes all manner of competitive ideologies - many with negative consequences. Now, unless we were to value ourselves as "less" than God intended, we needed the ultimate scapegoat, along with ultimate excuse. Enter the serpent (personified evil), feminized (or other-ized) weakness, and "original sin". Translate - I couldn't help it. Rationalize - God wants me to survive, so I have to overcome the negatives to continue to accumulate - that's what God wants. End result - Christianized capitalism (oh, sorry, that's too big a leap, as yet).

We created to live in a world in which we could continue to co-create - care for and ensure that God's creation flourished. We, however, placed values on what God created - values decided solely on usefulness and worth to us - not God. We re-created (not co-created) God creation to suit our purposes, and then decided that since we have done that, it must be what God intended. Ultimately, whether you call it Satan, original sin, or whatever, we lay the blame at God's feet because we cannot or will not accept responsibility for our own actions. With the arguments that say we cannot return to a "leaver" culture, because culture as we know it will collapse, we place supreme value not on God's creation, but our own. We make the base assumption that what we are and have and do was God's intent, instead of assuming that we have constantly and consistently sinned against God's intent.

I would proffer that original sin is self-interest, and that it was not a necessary component of living in God's creation. It has, however, become critical to surviving in our own creation. And, to pacify and justify ourselves, we decide that that is what God wanted all along.

Idolatry is a result of self-interest, not visa versa.

[BrentRichards]

Welcome Andy ... knew you'd join us here sooner or later ... tempting little theological carrot ...

[u-dog]

Ok... Thanks for sharing Andy... anyone else?

LOL... just kidding! I am sick today -- praying to the porcelain goddess regularly so I'm not on the top of my game and that was pretty heavy stuff. I have the energy to respond to a couple of things.

1. I was NOT trying to dump on poor Eve ... tradition has done more than enough of that. The narrative itself makes clear that blaming Eve is not the point. the pattern of the narrative is

1) snake tempts Eve => Eve sins=> Eve tempts Adam => Adam sins

2) God questions Adam => Adam blames Eve => Eve blames the snake.

3) God punishes the snake => God punishes Eve => God punishes Adam.

No way you can blame the feminine for this mess without taking major scissors to the text.


2. In comparing your solution to mine, is it accurate to equate hunter/gatherer culture with "Leaver" and agricultural/pastoral/civilized culture with "taker"?


There's more but I have to either go lie down or puke again

Dave:sick:

[Pablo Rafael]

1. I was NOT trying to dump on poor Eve ... tradition has done more than enough of that. The narrative itself makes clear that blaming Eve is not the point. the pattern of the narrative is

1) snake tempts Eve => Eve sins=> Eve tempts Adam => Adam sins

2) God questions Adam => Adam blames Eve => Eve blames the snake.

3) God punishes the snake => God punishes Eve => God punishes Adam.

No way you can blame the feminine for this mess without taking major scissors to the text.



I guess what we really have to know when deciding whether to blame women or men for this mess of sin is the answer to the #1 question of all time.
Was it a girl snake or a boy snake?

[andrewlittle]

Androgynous. Maybe the original egg wasn't too warm or too cold, so it didn't develop gender.

[Daniel]

The Fall. Original Sin.

I stopped believing in these things many years ago, but that doesn't mean that I don't think they don't mean something. My sense is that the Creation Story is very much saying something, but like a code, one has to ponder its meaning. This is what one doesn't do the more literal minded one is. At least, that's what I've observed.

Of course, I can trace my thoughts about this to the writings of Joseph Campbell. He clued me into the observation that the Judeo-Christian story of the beginning of everything doesn't stand alone among creation narratives. In fact, any culture that's been around long enough has this kind of story. What's fascinating to me is the similarities between them.

The other root of my thinking comes from Buddhism and other non-Christian perspectives.

To put it simply, I find myself positing that Adam and Eve being thrown out of the garden is a metaphor for a human being who las lost touch with its full awareness of what it is, that is, part and parcel of Love itself. Some might call it the awareness of enlightement, where the small I is encompassed in the larger Self, the drop of water in the ocean.

Another way of saying it: the Fall is what it means to have an ego with all the attendant concerns: "Enough about me....what do you think of me?"

[BrentRichards]

To put it simple, I find myself positing that Adam and Eve being thrown out of the garden is a metaphor for a human being who las lost touch with its full awareness of what it is, that is, part and parcel of Love itself. Some might call it the awareness of enlightement, where the small I is encompassed in the larger Self, the drop of water in the ocean.

Another way of saying it: the Fall is what it means to have an ego with all the attendant concerns: "Enough about me....what do you think of me?"

Are you sure you're Buddhist? This is pretty Christian orthodox! [grin]

[BrentRichards]

Androgynous. Maybe the original egg wasn't too warm or too cold, so it didn't develop gender.

Oh, c'mon, we all know snakes are phallic symbols ... so blame the guys!

[BrentRichards]

Andrew ... your take of Adam as Humanity and Eve as Culture is fascinating (it would be the original "Nature vs. Nurture" argument) ... has someone written on this, or is it an Uncle Andy original?

[andrewlittle]

Andrew ... your take of Adam as Humanity and Eve as Culture is fascinating (it would be the original "Nature vs. Nurture" argument) ... has someone written on this, or is it an Uncle Andy original?

Yep, that's the product of a sick mind.

I can blame Quinn for the "leaver/taker" stuff, though.

And, yes, Dave, leaver/taker would be roughly equivalent to the hunter/gather vs cultivator stuff. I think we're talking similar languages.

[Daniel]

Are you sure you're Buddhist? This is pretty Christian orthodox! [grin]


Sometimes I'm not sure what I am! That said, maybe Buddhism and Christianity aren't as far apart as some suppose. I think the nexus (that's a cool word) where they connect is compassion and love.

[BrentRichards]

Sometimes I'm not sure what I am! That said, maybe Buddhism and Christianity aren't as far apart as some suppose. I think the nexus (that's a cool word) where they connect is compassion and love.

A dear friend of mine considers himself to be in a middle ground between Buddism and Christianity, and I'm often amazed how close his thinking is to mine ... my evangelical training would have led me to assume it wouldn't be.

Nexus is a cool word. It's also a cool Dan Fogelberg song.

[u-dog]

I had a budhist parishioner for awhile. he had married a Christian girl during the war (he was japanese American from Hawaii) attended church with her every Sunday of their marriage, took communion, and understood Christian theology and spirituality far more profoundly than most christians. He continued to worship regularly even after she died. He chose NOT to be baptized because he didn't want to offend his family. He said he never stopped being a Buddhist.

I believe him. I also believe that he and Nellie will be together in Paradise when the time comes. if Calvin doesn't like it... well.... he's dead who cares what he thinks.

[Gregory_de_Bois]

Yep, that's the product of a sick mind.

I can blame Quinn for the "leaver/taker" stuff, though.

And, yes, Dave, leaver/taker would be roughly equivalent to the hunter/gather vs cultivator stuff. I think we're talking similar languages.

You need to write a book about the nuances in the Hebrew scriptures. I mean, if I ever write a paper on anything that has to do with scripture and historical, cultural, or linguistic context, I need to be able to quote you. Don't die anytime soon! Or else....

[u-dog]

You need to write a book about the nuances in the Hebrew scriptures. I mean, if I ever write a paper on anything that has to do with scripture and historical, cultural, or linguistic context, I need to be able to quote you. Don't die anytime soon! Or else....


He's WAY too Mean to Die, Greg. And he makes all that stuff up anyway. He doesn't really know anything.

[Gregory_de_Bois]

He's WAY too Mean to Die, Greg. And he makes all that stuff up anyway. He doesn't really know anything.

Ah snap! He is a good liar. He would be immortalized if he did die, at least if he had written the book on everything he doesn't know.

[andrewlittle]

He's WAY too Mean to Die, Greg. And he makes all that stuff up anyway. He doesn't really know anything.

Ah snap! He is a good liar. He would be immortalized if he did die, at least if he had written the book on everything he doesn't know.

There's an adage about knowledge that goes something like:
First, there's the stuff you know you know. Next, there's the stuff you know you don't know. Lastly, there's the vast majority of stuff to be known that you have no idea that you don't know.

I find that way too restricting. I can go with the first two notions. But, that last one, I don't think so. From my perspective it should read, "Lastly there's the vast majority of stuff to be known that people have no idea that I know - if I can only make it sound plausible, they'll be convinced."

It works something like this.

"What do you suppose that black thingy next to the air conditioner compressor is, Uncle Andy?"

"Well, Alphonse, that's a floydt valve."

"Ooh! What does it do?"

"It controls the flow of reconstituted anhydrous petrolium distillates to the floydt receptor in the cold module."

"Cool"

"Yes, I am. By the way, Alphonse, do you know that the woman who invented the floydt valve was a direct decendent of the Syro-Phoenician woman with the constant flow. In Syro-Phoenician, floydt mean cork."

"Wow! You know everything, Uncle Andy."

"Yes, I do. By the way, did you know that Andrew is Scottish for 'manly', but Andy is Hebrew for 'better looking than a u-dog'?"

[u-dog]

Hey Andy! You are pretty good with the Techno-babble, my wife says you obviously watch too much Star Trek.

[Dash]

Andy, did you learn from Calvin's dad, or did he learn from you?

Calvin: Why does the sun set?
Dad: It's because hot air rises. The sun's hot in the middle of the day, so it rises high in the
sky. In the evening then, it cools down and sets.
C: Why does it go from east to west?
D: Solar wind.

C: Why does the sky turn red as the sun sets?
D: That's all the oxygen in the atmosphere catching fire.
C: Where does the sun go when it sets?
D: The sun sets in the west. In Arizona actually, near Flagstaff.
C: Oh.
D: That's why the rocks there are so red.
C: Don't the people get burned up?
D: No, the sun goes out as it sets. That's why it is dark at night.
C: Doesn't the sun crush the whole state when it lands?
D: Ha ha, of course not. Hold a quarter up. See, the sun's just about the same size.
C: I thought I read that the sun was really big.
D: You can't believe everything you read, I'm afraid.
C: So how does the sun rise in the east if it lands in Arizona each night?
D: Well, time for bed.

[Dash]

Hmmm...I forgot I was having some thoughts recently that were actually related to the topic of this thread. The conversation over in the "Bible Words" reminded me, so here goes:

Eve = Tent (didn't know that, thanks guys) = Body
Adam = (by way of the story and metaphor) breath of god = spirit

All evil (pain) in the world is due to our physical incarnation (at least that's how I read the story). We sense our banishment from the garden (that is the realm of spirit) and we curse this "tent" (represented by Eve...mistakenly laid on women) this temporary dwelling. Because of the hardships we endure and the feeling of exile...we imagine that we have been punished and that therefore there must be a reason for the punishment--a first sin, for which we all continually suffer.
Other aspects in the story that I see...

Covering with fig leaves = sensing the spirits in Nature (spirits hiding in trees)...begs the question, "Is Nature imbued with a soul"...first incarnation in trees???

Covering with animal skins = taking animal form (second incarnation??)...inhabiting animals...specifically this primate body...tent...dwelling.

The great flaming sword angel guarding the gates of Eden = our terrible fear of death and the great dividing of our soul from our body that we must face to re-enter that paradise.


I dunno...whatchya think?

[u-dog]

Hmmm...I forgot I was having some thoughts recently that were actually related to the topic of this thread. The conversation over in the "Bible Words" reminded me, so here goes:

Eve = Tent (didn't know that, thanks guys) = Body
Adam = (by way of the story and metaphor) breath of god = spirit

All evil (pain) in the world is due to our physical incarnation (at least that's how I read the story). We sense our banishment from the garden (that is the realm of spirit) and we curse this "tent" (represented by Eve...mistakenly laid on women) this temporary dwelling. Because of the hardships we endure and the feeling of exile...we imagine that we have been punished and that therefore there must be a reason for the punishment--a first sin, for which we all continually suffer.
Other aspects in the story that I see...

Covering with fig leaves = sensing the spirits in Nature (spirits hiding in trees)...begs the question, "Is Nature imbued with a soul"...first incarnation in trees???

Covering with animal skins = taking animal form (second incarnation??)...inhabiting animals...specifically this primate body...tent...dwelling.

The great flaming sword angel guarding the gates of Eden = our terrible fear of death and the great dividing of our soul from our body that we must face to re-enter that paradise.


I dunno...whatchya think?

I think you are a FLAMING GNOSTIC !!!!! Thats what I think. (:love: but I love you anyway! :love:) The kind of body/spirit dualism that you are describing is very GREEK but quite foreign to the Semitic world view.

The Hebrew word for "soul" is "Nephesh" which is related to the word for neck or throat. In other words the place where Ru-ach (breath, wind, spirit) meets Body. The Hebrew understanding of human anthropology is that we are totally integrated (body with spirit). In Genesis, Ha'Adama (the earth creature) remains a handful of mud until God breaths his/her Spirit into him.

[BrentRichards]

Nonetheless, the "tent" idea is not insignificant ... I never put it in touch with Eve ... but the theme of our incarnation here as a "tent" (same as "tabernacle") recurs frequently throughout Scripture ... most notably in 2 Cor 5:1 ... "Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands."

The idea of the fleeting nature of our physical existence is not unimportant ... and a shade of dualism does creep into the NT understanding, or at least, is easy to read there, wouldn't you say, Dave? In any case, the "tent" or "tabernacle" isn't an insignificant concept in Scripture (John 1 - "The word became flesh, and tabernacled among us.") ... I never saw it starting with Eve.

[BrentRichards]

First, there's the stuff you know you know. Next, there's the stuff you know you don't know. Lastly, there's the vast majority of stuff to be known that you have no idea that you don't know.

Uncle Andy's in good company ...

Sq5mQLArjmo

[BrentRichards]

Double posted, sorry

[u-dog]

Nonetheless, the "tent" idea is not insignificant ... I never put it in touch with Eve ... but the theme of our incarnation here as a "tent" (same as "tabernacle") recurs frequently throughout Scripture ... most notably in 2 Cor 5:1 ... "Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands."

The idea of the fleeting nature of our physical existence is not unimportant ... and a shade of dualism does creep into the NT understanding, or at least, is easy to read there, wouldn't you say, Dave? In any case, the "tent" or "tabernacle" isn't an insignificant concept in Scripture (John 1 - "The word became flesh, and tabernacled among us.") ... I never saw it starting with Eve.


Point well taken, Brent, it is common in the NT but then the NT is largely a Koine Greek document written by people who live, breath, and have their being in a largely Greek/Roman world. It's also significant that our Faith testifies to a BODILY RESURRECTION in which we are made alive not as disembodied spirits but in brand, spanking (take a deep breath Stevie, thats not what I'm talkin about) new spiritual BODIES.

[alakazoom87]

Sometimes I'm not sure what I am! That said, maybe Buddhism and Christianity aren't as far apart as some suppose. I think the nexus (that's a cool word) where they connect is compassion and love.

Little bit the same on the outside, but nothing the same on the inside.

[u-dog]

Little bit the same on the outside, but nothing the same on the inside.

Comparison would imply that one has experience of both. What is your experience of the "inside" of Buddhism? Daniel has been "inside" both Christianity and Buddhism. Tell us about your experience of Buddhism Zoom!

[tdogg]

The spine of both beliefs is love and compassion born of love. Without that, you would not have Christianity (as taught by Jesus not necessarily practiced by those who call themselves Christians) nor would you have Buddhism.

Not so different if love is truly on the inside.

[Daniel]

Little bit the same on the outside, but nothing the same on the inside.

As tdogg has eloquently written, the spine of both faiths is love and compassion.

I find it benefical to focus on similarities rather than differences. Substance rather than form. Focusing on the latter only leads to division, competition and idolatry. Of course, Buddhism and Christianity are not the 'same'.


~

Gay people aren't exactly the 'same' as straight people, yet we have more in common than we have differences.


~


I've never forgotten a conversation I had with my mother about a matter of faith. I said something she didn't like and she said: "How can you talk about my Jesus that way." To which I responded. "I didn't know you owned him."

To her credit, she laughed.

[alakazoom87]

Comparison would imply that one has experience of both. What is your experience of the "inside" of Buddhism? Daniel has been "inside" both Christianity and Buddhism. Tell us about your experience of Buddhism Zoom!

Don't have much time to write a long post, so I'll give you the gist of all that I need to say.

Buddha is dead, Christ is a live.

[andrewlittle]

Don't have much time to write a long post, so I'll give you the gist of all that I need to say.

Buddha is dead, Christ is a live.

If that's the best you can do, given the short amount of time available to you, why would you bother at all?

The elephant gun works! You don't see any elephants in IOwa, do you?

[u-dog]

Don't have much time to write a long post, so I'll give you the gist of all that I need to say.

Buddha is dead, Christ is a live.


a live what?

Oh! sorry. I get it.;)


Yes, well, I can attest to the second statement from my own personal experience so I won't disagree with you there. However, having never been a Buddhist or studied Buddhism I can't really witness to the truth of that first statement.

Cuz that's what "witnesses" do Zoom. They tell what they know directly... things they have actually seen themselves and experienced first hand. So I can witness to the amazing ongoing life of Christ in the world because I have experienced it. I can't witness to the "deadness" or inefficacy of Buddhism or any other religious experience because I have not seen it or known it or experienced it myself.

[Dash]

You know, I have wondered if Jesus knew Buddhism. I know that he traveled as a small boy, and also the Decapolis was surely a crossroads of philosophical trade as much as any other.

It's like Paul's talk of "seeing through a glass darkly" which seems lifted straight out of Plato... I've too sensed the oneness of the message Jesus brought with that of Buddhism.

It shares much with Hinduism as well. Gandhi was as much a devotee of Christ as of Krishna, you know.

[Daniel]

Don't have much time to write a long post, so I'll give you the gist of all that I need to say.

Buddha is dead, Christ is a live.

But this soooooo smacks of my " My Daddy could beat up your Daddy any day, so there!" However, this kind of statement always says less about one's father than it does the child on the playground saying it.

I'm sorry you were so brief zoom, your two line rejoinder leaves much to be desired.

[BrentRichards]

But this soooooo smacks of my " My Daddy could beat up your Daddy any day, so there!" However, this kind of statement always says less about one's father than it does the child on the playground saying it.

I'm sorry you were so brief zoom, your two line rejoinder leaves much to be desired.

Please, don't encourage him to write more. I don't want to hear it.

[BrentRichards]

I must say more, though I know I will regret it.

Truth be told, I remain a firm believer in the exclusive nature of salvation in Christ. My Scriptures do certainly suggest that there is no other way than the completed work of Christ. However, they don't tell me that that means that someone must "pray the sinners prayer" or attend a certain church, or even identify with the Christian faith to be saved. God says "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy." Not, fortunately, "I will have mercy on whom alakazoom says I may have mercy."

So, short story, I, as a Christian, believe that everyone in heaven will be there BECAUSE OF THE COMPLETED WORK OF CHRIST ... even if they've never heard of Him! Those whom God saves, He saves through His gracious provision. Not through their "faith" (I place it in quotes because it means some pretty strange things the way some folks use it), not through their goodness, and certainly not through their excoriation of others who don't agree with them! Grace alone.

By the by, I am in good company in this opinion ... it was the belief of C.S. Lewis, that heretic!

Zoom, I keep promising not to address you, but I must. I was you when I was in college, and I still sting over the memory of how I talked to people. Truth hurts, so here it is:

Nothing said here is going to change your mind one iota (you ignored that question last time I posed it, which was a pretty clear answer). And, frankly, your method is not going to change anyone else's mind, either. Your profile openly declares that you're here to "witness" to us, but know that your brand of "evangelism" is good for one thing -slaking your own conscience. I hope you feel good about your arrogant pronouncements here, because no one else does. You're not changing hearts and minds, unless it's to make them even surer that Christians are jerks --nothing makes my life as a Christian more difficult than Christians like you. The "offense of the gospel" is NOT the same thing as the offensiveness of the messenger. I hope one day you'll learn that.

I don't speak for the forums, or for Soulforce, I just speak for me, and I am personally inviting you to go away until you're prepared to behave a little more like a loving Christian. Nobody invited your particular brand of "always-righteousness," and you're killing conversations left and right. Take the time you're using here and use it to go talk to Jesus. It will be time better spent. Don't forget to shake the dust off your feet as you go.

[alakazoom87]

I must say more, though I know I will regret it.

Truth be told, I remain a firm believer in the exclusive nature of salvation in Christ. My Scriptures do certainly suggest that there is no other way than the completed work of Christ. However, they don't tell me that that means that someone must "pray the sinners prayer" or attend a certain church, or even identify with the Christian faith to be saved. God says "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy." Not, fortunately, "I will have mercy on whom alakazoom says I may have mercy."

So, short story, I, as a Christian, believe that everyone in heaven will be there BECAUSE OF THE COMPLETED WORK OF CHRIST ... even if they've never heard of Him! Those whom God saves, He saves through His gracious provision. Not through their "faith" (I place it in quotes because it means some pretty strange things the way some folks use it), not through their goodness, and certainly not through their excoriation of others who don't agree with them! Grace alone.

By the by, I am in good company in this opinion ... it was the belief of C.S. Lewis, that heretic!

Zoom, I keep promising not to address you, but I must. I was you when I was in college, and I still sting over the memory of how I talked to people. Truth hurts, so here it is:

Nothing said here is going to change your mind one iota (you ignored that question last time I posed it, which was a pretty clear answer). And, frankly, your method is not going to change anyone else's mind, either. Your profile openly declares that you're here to "witness" to us, but know that your brand of "evangelism" is good for one thing -slaking your own conscience. I hope you feel good about your arrogant pronouncements here, because no one else does. You're not changing hearts and minds, unless it's to make them even surer that Christians are jerks --nothing makes my life as a Christian more difficult than Christians like you. The "offense of the gospel" is NOT the same thing as the offensiveness of the messenger. I hope one day you'll learn that.

I don't speak for the forums, or for Soulforce, I just speak for me, and I am personally inviting you to go away until you're prepared to behave a little more like a loving Christian. Nobody invited your particular brand of "always-righteousness," and you're killing conversations left and right. Take the time you're using here and use it to go talk to Jesus. It will be time better spent. Don't forget to shake the dust off your feet as you go.

Sorry for being rude earlier. I was making the distinction between Christianity and any other belief. I believe as a Christian, that Christ died and then rose again from the grave, He is alive! However, Buddhism follows the teachings of a man that lived and then died.


P.S.
Since when was C.S. Lewis is a heretic?

[keltic63]

Sorry for being rude earlier. I was making the distinction between Christianity and any other belief. I believe as a Christian, that Christ died and then rose again from the grave, He is alive! However, Buddhism follows the teachings of a man that lived and then died.


P.S.
Since when was C.S. Lewis is a heretic?


You really don't get it, do you zoom?

from your above statement, we can assume the following:

the teachings, sayings, writings, concepts, discoveries, inventions, improvements, technological advances, even ideas, that can be attributed to the work of someone, male or female, WHO IS NOW DEAD, should be considered of no value whatsoever.

Michelangelo, Newton, Plato, Socrates, DesCartes, Marie Curie, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, George Washington, Guttenberg, Martin Luther, John Calvin, George Washington Carver, Harriet Tubman, Frank Lloyd Wright, Picasso, Vincent Van Gogh, etc, all of their intellectual work is declared null and void by virtue of their passing from this life.

I can see why you work so well with Jr. High students, your ability to reason, create hypotheses, test them, and make rational evaluations is stuck at an early adolescent level.

[tdogg]

Your profile openly declares that you're here to "witness" to us, but know that your brand of "evangelism" is good for one thing -slaking your own conscience.

A thought I just had... perhaps Zoom isn't necessarily here to witness to us (although he thinks he is), but for us to witness to him. A more profound way to look at why he is actually here. We have a lot of work to do, one Zoom at a time....:cool::rolleyes::rainbow:

[u-dog]

A thought I just had... perhaps Zoom isn't necessarily here to witness to us (although he thinks he is), but for us to witness to him. A more profound way to look at why he is actually here. We have a lot of work to do, one Zoom at a time....:cool::rolleyes::rainbow:


PREACH IT SISTER T-DAWG !!

[BrentRichards]

Since when was C.S. Lewis is a heretic?

That's all you got from my post? My sarcastic reference to Lewis's "heresy"? ... of course I don't think he's a heretic. Don't you? How much of his work have you read?

Do you know, for example, that he smoked three packs of cigarettes a day (between pipes), swore, and drank with his students? He lived for 30 years with a women to whom he was not married, and was not related (most biographers doubt their relationship was sexual, but it certainly would have raised evangelical eyebrows). One of his longest-standing friendships was with an openly gay man (gasp!) named Arthur Greeves. He clearly believed in evolution, and held that the Genesis account was a symbolic story with its roots in earlier pagan myth. He believed that people of other faiths could be saved without converting to Christianity, and toyed with the idea that animals (pets) might have souls.

So this fits with your version of Christianity how? Do you ignore it? Deny it? Throw him out "with the bathwater?" Or can you see him as an example of how genuine, powerful, culture-changing Christian faith may not always flow in the channels YOU expect it to?