Origins and the Theist

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Dondi

Naw, that isn't detracting from the thread. I think all this line of talk about evil and sin is relevant to the OP. Actually it just brings more questions about how each of these view affects one's perception of God.

For instance, in the literalist view, you have a cookie-cutter view of God that's fairly simple and easy to digest. God is good and perfect, Man was good and perfect, God and Man communed, Man sinned, Man seperated from God, God redeemed Man, Man returns to God.

In the other views, it is not so clear-cut, for now your have to look at the Genesis account is allegorical or poetic terms or whatever. If Man evolved, was there ever a point where he was in an Edenic state? But anthropology shows that Man and his ancestors killed each other occasionally. So when did sin enter in? How do you intepret the Genesis account anyway? What do you do with the Adam's rib line? And when did the Moral Law come into play? Obviously, in pre-Adamic cultures, there must have been some rules to govern society?

Path, you said that the 5th option is that God is in everything, buth immanent and transcedent. Does this mean God is evolving along with us? Is God learning from all this? Does God know the outcome? Are we a giant experiment in God's laboratory? (Seems like God wanted to start over, clean the slate in Noah's Flood) Does God change His mind, like when He wanted to off the Israelites, but Moses convinced Him not to?

I've tried twice now to write a detailed answer, but it ate it both times. I think God wants me to just shut up for the moment, LOL, so I'll get back to this later.

I'll just leave one line that sums up a lot of my thoughts...

I think God is experiencing the process of God through the manifestation of God.

And I don't think the literalist view is simple or easy, even without any scientific evidence at all. I struggled with it for years, which led me to plead with God for understanding in a way that I could reconcile many of the conundrums from a literal Genesis. Which led to the spiritual experience of panentheism. Which led me to the summary sentence above.

More later... God willing.

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

So, we come to the point in time alluded to by the Eden story...when the "eyes" of humans were opened and they gained the "knowledge of good and evil," which is to say their ignorance (and innocence) were stripped from them.

Perhaps at the point of language? Afterall, there would have to be a "word", a command that tells them not to do something. Even if God communicated to Adam in thought, it would mean that an idea is transferred from one mind to another. The Fall happened after Adam started naming all the animals. Which is why...

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Rules" to govern pre-Ademic cultures? Hmmm, I think that is kinda loaded or biased, in that it implies some things I just don't see. *Rules* implies writing, not evident until Hammurabi, or possibly a little earlier, but certainly long after Adam. Ah, but Genesis was written! Yes, but not by Adam.

...even if there wasn't written rules, there was an Oral Torah.

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by path of one

And I don't think the literalist view is simple or easy, even without any scientific evidence at all. I struggled with it for years, which led me to plead with God for understanding in a way that I could reconcile many of the conundrums from a literal Genesis.

Why? Does it seem like a too primitive an account?

What I meant by simple and easy is that up until the past couple of centuries or so, the Genesis account was taken as 'gospel'. There wasn't much in questioning it, people took for granted that that is the way it happened. And it was a clear explanation of why Man is in the sin-torn state that he is in now. The hope of redemption is to get back to Paradise.

But now the question to ask is, was there ever a Paradise to begin with?

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Dondi

Why? Does it seem like a too primitive an account?

No, not really. My troubles with it started long before my scientific knowledge. There are inconsistencies in the text itself, and issues of sin and paradise when I thought long and hard about the account. I'll share more later- I'm heading out hiking, but wanted to at least give a brief response.

What I meant by simple and easy is that up until the past couple of centuries or so, the Genesis account was taken as 'gospel'. There wasn't much in questioning it, people took for granted that that is the way it happened. And it was a clear explanation of why Man is in the sin-torn state that he is in now. The hope of redemption is to get back to Paradise.

I found that the doctrine around the account was clear, but the account itself was not. The more I read it, the more perplexed I became trying to fit it into the doctrine surrounding it. This was the heart of my dissonance about it- not the scientific stuff, but the internal issues I had with the text and tradition.

But now the question to ask is, was there ever a Paradise to begin with?

This is part of the heart of my own questioning about the text itself. Let me explain, at least briefly. Is man perfect if man is capable of disobeying God? Is Eden perfect if temptation exists? Is Eden perfect if the danger of the deceitful serpent exists? What perfect Paradise has a dangerous and tempting thing, that the all-knowing Creator knows will be too tempting for His creation to resist, and to top it off, a deceitful being that is in opposition to the Creator allowed to hang out in there?

It kind of always felt like a set up...

Like me allowing someone to come in and hold a juicy bone in front of my dog, all the while going "No, no- don't do that, don't take it!"

Doesn't seem quite right to me. Doesn't seem loving or perfect at all, really. Unless I'm missing the meaning and there is a purpose to it. That God knew humanity would gain knowledge of good and evil, that this was part of a plan, that the serpent was allowed because it, too, was part of the plan. And that all of that is somehow aligned with God's will and not just a dumb mistake that humanity made of our own accord.

Furthermore, it is unclear to me, if humans lacked the capacity to distinguish between good and evil before eating the fruit, how they were held to any moral standards of obedience in eating it to begin with. That is, if they didn't have the capacity to know good from evil, then how could they have a conscience to tell them the snake was suggesting doing evil, and to know that they were doing wrong? God seemed to judge them based on a measure they didn't have the capacity to live up to until after they already disobeyed. And it's like God blamed them for being deceived by the serpent. Deceit means that they didn't realize they were doing a bad thing- they were tricked into it. But they still paid the price.

None of it reconciled with Jesus or a loving God to me in any way that made sense.

It seems entirely logical that God could have made humans with free will but put them in an environment less conducive to the "Fall"- that is, kept the lying snake and tempting fruit away. You know, at least stacked the odds in our favor... knowing we were as puny as we were in the willpower departments...

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

I've tried twice now to write a detailed answer, but it ate it both times. I think God wants me to just shut up for the moment, LOL, so I'll get back to this later.

Sometimes I compose in Word, especially my extensive pieces, and copy-paste to CR, saves a lot of grief that way. But I know what you mean, the Good Lord does work in mysterious ways, and that could certainly be one way of saying "time out." He's sure done it to me...more than once.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Dondi

Perhaps at the point of language? Afterall, there would have to be a "word", a command that tells them not to do something. Even if God communicated to Adam in thought, it would mean that an idea is transferred from one mind to another. The Fall happened after Adam started naming all the animals. Which is why...
...even if there wasn't written rules, there was an Oral Torah.

Well, that's just it, how much rational thought goes in to developing language? Birds have a language, bees have a language, apes have a language, whales have a language. It might not be in a form that humans today typically recognize...but look at the horse and dog whisperers, they "understand" the animal language because they take the time to study and translate it. But this is not commonly accepted academically. Instead, academia tends to "force" or "train" other creatures to use modified human language. Koko the gorilla is one example, using human sign language. Kanzi I think is the name of another ape, bonobo?, that uses modified sign. Dolphins and parrots have also been taught to use modified human language. But it is important to note that animals have a limited capacity when it comes to understanding time. Time is largely irrelevent to them, when one looks at transcripts of conversations with these animals. They sense the now, “in the moment,” and to a lesser degree the past, especially experience. They remember, but they can't really project forward in time, certainly no more than a few minutes. This projected forward thinking is something remarkably unique to humans.

So to simply say "language is the threshold" is not specific enough to delineate a border, a point in time when "we" shifted from being animals to being humans with rational thought, understanding, comprehension. Spoken language narrows the field a bit, but then you encounter some controversy regarding the development of the hyoid bone and its role in speech...as in "did Neandertals speak?" There is a bit of banter back and forth among anthropologists about this, as I am sure Path can explain better than I. Written language came much too late to account for the emergence of thought...we had pretty obviously been thinking heavily long before then.

I would be pressed to give specific names of researchers, but I have read things over the years that point to certain milestone moments in human development that demonstrate an ever increasing use of thought, forethought, and reasoning. Some animals in rare demonstrations show this in limited ways...Tao has pointed in the past to observations done with crows that were pretty cool, using tools. Chimps are known to make and use very simple tools, like a stick maybe chewed on one end to scoop up termites or something. But it is exceptionally rare to see any other creature except humans deliberately go out of their way for a specific resource, like maybe a type of stone (flint or obsidian), and bring it back and work it into a tool and use it. Or make a tool somewhere else and carry it to the jobsite to do whatever.

Now, the use of fire according to some I have read dates back nearly 200 thousand years, but at that time they were using natural fire. It is supposed that humans figured out ways to carry fire with them, probably with something like what Native Americans would use, which I cannot accurately describe but I am aware of the use. Making fire, on the other hand, involved specialized skills and tools that had to be developed over time. But those I have read on this say that didn’t occur until fairly recently, I think it was about 20-30 thousand years ago. Ten thousand years is a big span, but I’m going by memory here and its been a little while since I looked at this. This would place it squarely in the period of time when those gorgeous cave paintings in Lascaux and elsewhere were being done. Associated with the cave paintings, at least in some caves, is evidence of ritual and ceremony. There are other artifacts that coordinate with these things, carved venus figures and lowenmensch. But all of this is relatively late.

The use of ocher body paint dates at least as far back as 80-90 thousand years ago, as well as carved and worked ostrich shell decorations and fishings tools, between the Quafez Israel and Blombos Cave South Africa finds. Even Australia enters the picture quite early, Lake Mungo dates something like 60-70 thousand years ago…and how did he get to Australia over the ocean?

I find it all very interesting…but it is too complex to put a finger on one specific point in time and say “yeah, that’s it!” Neandertals get into the act…just how “human” were they? They certainly don’t quite qualify as the “Nephilim” as described in the Bible, yet there is evidence they were able to interbreed with Cro Magnon (our ancestors). Which raised more than a few eyebrows, and no doubt spurred on the current catalogue of the human genenome, which so far shows that Neandertal genetics did not survive into the modern era. (Or if it did, it’s a closely held secret) But Neandertals had bigger brains and were more robust than the gracile humans that came out of Africa and took over the world. But the Neandertals had an awkward thumb anatomy that limited their ability to use handled tools. The taller, likely more nimble and better armed (clubs and spears) Cro Magnon eventually superceded the Neandertal; whether by war, attrition or both is unclear.

This is why I say it is difficult to pinpoint a precise moment in time when we can say rational thought dawned on humans. But it is clearly evident that at some point in all of this rational thought did develop.

Anything you want to add, Path? Did I hit the high points?

[Dondi]

I guess what I meant was the development of speech. The point when Og picks up a rock and in his mind it is called an 'Uga', but in Grog's mind it called a 'Pog', but then they realize that they have to come to some sort of an agreement and settle for 'Puga'. A kind of a realization that the sounds that are coming out of their mouth can form common words between them, you know? It wouldn't be unlike the Helen Keller moment when she realizes the word for 'water'. Hey, instead of beating our heads over this and beating sticks an making 'Garghga' sounds, lets try to communicate in this fashion. When did the power of speech first form?

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Dondi

When did the power of speech first form?

That's just it...we have no way of knowing.

What archeological remnant is left over and buried from a sound? If it rots, we are at a loss to say. If it leaves no trace, the best we can do is guess.

The things they find to base their guesses on are things like bone and stone and ceramic...things that last a very long time in the right conditions. But sounds leave no trace. I can't go in your backyard tomorrow and figure out what your dog sounded like last year if the dog is no longer there...see?

So when it comes to language, it is those "words" written on clay tablets that have survived the longest. It is truly a miracle we have anything at all of the Dead Sea Scrolls, so many of them simply disintegrated in the researchers' hands and blew away with the wind. What we know of the evolution of language is based entirely on written language. Extrapolating from that, they take educated guesses at what came before, but they will tell you there is really no way to know for sure, because there is nothing left behind for them to draw from.

[path_of_one]

I'll add some stuff, but you did hit the high points.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Well, that's just it, how much rational thought goes in to developing language? Birds have a language, bees have a language, apes have a language, whales have a language. It might not be in a form that humans today typically recognize...but look at the horse and dog whisperers, they "understand" the animal language because they take the time to study and translate it. But this is not commonly accepted academically.

I have two answers here- from anthropologist Kim and from Druid Kim. Anthropologist Kim would say that human language is different from other animals in the complexity of our symbolism and structure. Druid Kim would say that all animals, especially social ones, have a "language" in terms of a means of communication, and even plants kind of do. In my experience, the language of non-humans relies more on collective empathy and visual telepathy, and humans kind of much up that process by the constant noise of language. What we lose is a sense of constant group communication in near silence, but what we gain is specificity and the capacity to teach detail.

But it is important to note that animals have a limited capacity when it comes to understanding time. Time is largely irrelevent to them, when one looks at transcripts of conversations with these animals.

Kanzi and other bonobos and chimps seem to understand time in a rudimentary sense. Kanzi, for example, understood that when someone was on the phone with him and said they were at the store and did he want anything, that if he asked for something, it would be a long time until he received it. There is some sense of future planning among apes even in the wild, as chimps have been observed to plan group action to go kill another chimp at a time that would catch him off gaurd. But in terms of days, weeks, months- measuring time- no, I haven't heard of any animals doing that but us.

I'll throw out there that my mom's dog understands that "tomorrow" means sometime in the near but not immediate future. He does remember that word was said and will occasionally (every few hours) come back and remind you that you said it by asking again for whatever it was he wanted before (a ride in the car, a walk, etc.).

I think more to the point, though, is that so far none of the chimps and bonobos who learned sign language or symbols (Kanzi spoke with a big board of random symbols that each meant a word, not sign language- he hit the appropriate symbols and the board spoke the actual words for him)- none have started discussing God or death or philosophizing about things. Language seems to remain in the realm of practical meaning.

Spoken language narrows the field a bit, but then you encounter some controversy regarding the development of the hyoid bone and its role in speech...as in "did Neandertals speak?" There is a bit of banter back and forth among anthropologists about this, as I am sure Path can explain better than I.

Exactly. The hyoid bone and vocal tract, unfortunately, is very delicate and doesn't survive in the fossil record. So, there are a lot of disagreements about when language originated, and most are speculations based on what we guess would be too socially complex to teach without it. Lots of discussion about things like if making hand axes (H. erectus) was too difficult to teach through observation, if making and keeping fire was, etc. But it seems unlikely (to me and many others) that Neanderthals were hunting large game in groups, had fire, had a relatively complex tool kit, were burying their dead with some sort of social meaning, and were caring for the elderly and disabled... all without some sort of language.

Written language came much too late to account for the emergence of thought...we had pretty obviously been thinking heavily long before then.

Exactly again. Written language comes with larger scale civilizations and is very late to the game. It's more or less meaningless in the debate about the origins of spoken language.

Chimps are known to make and use very simple tools, like a stick maybe chewed on one end to scoop up termites or something.

Kanzi figured out on his own how to make stone tools. They provided some various types of rock in the vicinity and a situation in which he needed a stone tool to get at a treat (to cut open a hide over a container of treats). After a while of frustration, he looked around and played with whacking the rocks together, rather systematically it appeared, until he figured out which rock shattered well into a cutting edge.

Maybe necessity is the mother of invention- in the wild, they really don't seem to have a need? But then, Kanzi is "The Ape of Genius." It is possible that Kanzi is sort of like the chimp version of Einstein.

In terms of tool use in the wild- capuchin monkeys use rocks to bash open shellfish. Ravens use cars to run over nuts for them, so they can crack them open. Apes will mimic lots of things humans do if they come in contact with them regularly in the wild. Orangutans will learn to wash humans' clothes, for example, by watching women at the stream. Of course, it is a useless activity for an Orang. But their social nature combined with their environment-induced isolation from each other causes them to interact this way. My only guess at why they do it is because they find it enjoyable and a social activity.

It is supposed that humans figured out ways to carry fire with them, probably with something like what Native Americans would use, which I cannot accurately describe but I am aware of the use.

We hypothesize that people were using fire long before making it, yep. You can carry coals with you if you load up a little carrying tool correctly. But I think (I'd have to look up the resources, as it isn't my area of specialization) that making fire came about earlier than 20-30K years ago. After all, we were domesticating plants and animals by 10K years ago. I think making fire came about approximately at the time of the Neanderthals and modern H. sapiens. I don't think Neanderthals could have survived in Europe during the Ice Age without the capacity of making fire; under such conditions, the likelihood of natural fire sources such as lightening would be rare and the need for fire very great.

Some sites that were thought to be very early fire sites (H. erectus) were found later to be sites of spontaneous combustion. Some things like bat guano in caves can spontaneously combust.

I think it's most likely that the sequence of innovation is something like:
stone tools and scavenging
better stone tools and scavenging (and probably stuff like gourd containers, that wouldn't make it in the archaeological record)
better stone tools and using fire, possibly a little opportunistic hunting
good stone tools and making fire, possibly with language, and with cooperative hunting
cooperative hunting, taking care of elderly, beginning of social ritual (burial), language
add in art and more social complexity

Even Australia enters the picture quite early, Lake Mungo dates something like 60-70 thousand years ago…and how did he get to Australia over the ocean?

Yes, we shouldn't forget Australia. People were out there very, very early. At the time, sea levels were lower (due to being tied up in ice) so people could walk quite a ways on land that is now under water. However, the Wallace Line, a spot where there was certainly always water, showed that people had to have had some method of seafaring to make it to Australia.

Early human migrations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They certainly don’t quite qualify as the “Nephilim” as described in the Bible, yet there is evidence they were able to interbreed with Cro Magnon (our ancestors).

The Neanderthals are another huge area of debate. We don't have the whole of either species' genetics figured out, so it's difficult to say whether they interbred or not. They were so very much like us in a lot of ways, it seems a very odd thought that there was no interbreeding and that modern humans outcompeted them. We just don't know.

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Dondi

How do you intepret the Genesis account anyway?

I primarily interpret Genesis in terms of what the meaning is for me today. The value of creation myths in all religions is that they point to truths about the ideal state of relationship between humans and God, among humans, and humans and the earth. I think Genesis has profound wisdom in terms of our origins (from the Spirit of God and the earth), that light preceded our solar system, that the animals were created as companions for us and not as food (originally)- that they were possible partners for Adam rather than mere resources, that we were created as caretakers of the earth (basically, as gardeners), that God walked with us. I don't read Genesis as having the purpose of telling us the details about how everything came to be, but rather as having the purpose of telling us the ideal state (Edenic state) that we could exist in.

What do you do with the Adam's rib line?

I think it's symbolic. Woman was created equal (from his side) and close to him (the two were one flesh).

And when did the Moral Law come into play? Obviously, in pre-Adamic cultures, there must have been some rules to govern society?

In hunter-gatherer cultures (pre-Adamic, pre-agricultural), there are no laws in the sense of codified standards, and there are no courts. However, this does not negatively impact society. Communities are so small (generally, 10-20 people living together) that they are highly interdependent. Informal social sanctions such as gossip and avoidance go a long way to enforcing good behavior when you have few people to interact with. There is little need for law when you live in a small family group, and everyone was raised with the same standards, informally taught. Traditional hunter-gatherers would generally not meet more than about 100 people in their entire lifetime. So these informal methods worked very well. There was always the ultimate informal but serious threat as well that if you were violent or otherwise extremely dangerous to the group, you might get left behind. Which is a death sentence because you wouldn't be able to survive alone.

All human societies have ethical standards. Just the details and their methods of enforcement differ. Once you get to agricultural societies, these are sufficiently large to begin to warrant law and court systems, because there is a level of independence and anonymity that allow more selfish behaviors without immediate consequences from those around you. This is taken to the extreme in modern urban areas, where people can live in almost total anonymity and practice unethical behavior indefinitely until they are caught by formal and impersonal law enforcement. In traditional small-scale societies, unethical behavior is generally noticed almost immediately, because everyone knows everyone.

Does this mean God is evolving along with us?

This is where that one cryptic statement I wrote comes in. I believe that God just is. God exists in a state of all things and all time- an eternal moment. But in another sense, through His creation, God experiences and embodies evolution. God is evolution, just as God is every other natural process. He's just more than all this, too.

So, God doesn't evolve along with us (to me). But God does evolve as us. Yet, God is always the same.

Another way to think about this is to look at the Mandelbrot images. God is the equation that manifests the images, and so God is also the ever-changing images. God is both unchangeable and eternal (the equation) and ever-changing, evolving, and dynamic (the manifestation of the equation).

Is God learning from all this? Does God know the outcome? Are we a giant experiment in God's laboratory? (Seems like God wanted to start over, clean the slate in Noah's Flood) Does God change His mind, like when He wanted to off the Israelites, but Moses convinced Him not to?

Yeah, that part confuses me and I tend to think that people misinterpreted what was going on. I don't think God is experimenting and I don't think God gets convinced by people to do anything. But I can see how from a human perspective, this would seem to be how things are. That is, that would be a valid human experience of God, though I would say that doesn't make it accurate about God's actual nature.

[lunamoth]

Hi Dondi,

I'm also going to take an option #5, or #6 since Path already took #5.

Also, I see there are a lot of posts and I've not read them all. I'm betting Path and I see things similarly, so forgive me if I say some of the same things.

Third, I've been thinking about this topic since you posted it, and I'm afraid I'm not going to be able to do it justice, but I'll try to give you my view.


***

As I said in my first post, I don't see any conflict with the idea of God creating it all by a big bang, abiogenesis and evolution, or by other means we've not yet even had an idea about. I don't think the Genesis story is literal-factual, and in fact I don't think the writers of that story ever intended it to be read that way. It was written to tell us about God, our relationship to God, and our relationship to each other.

We understand how babies are conceived, grow in the womb and are born, and yet don't we all believe God created each one of us and has a relationship with each one of us? So, we don't need to have an extraordinary and supernatural thing happen to attribute it to God. God does it all. God stops thinking, breathing, willing, and we all come to an end. So, it's far from a hands-off thing. God does not need to tweak or guide. God breathed and it all came to be.

From our perspective, mired in time, it would seem that God is there like the mid-wife, waiting and waiting for a self-reflective, conscious being to finally get to the right stage, but I don't think 'time' or 'waiting' is applicable to God the same way it is to us. And, the universe was full of creation going on before we arrived...the creation of the stars and planets, the expansion of space, the incredible and improbable process of abiogenesis, metabolism, photosynthesis, respiration, cells, organisms, animals...all creation, and finally man, a sentient creature capable of moral autonomy. And it is the dawning awareness of 'self' and moral autonomy which is the story of Genesis.

So, from a theological and scientific perspective, I just have never seen, or quite frankly understood, why there was a conflict for anyone about this.

***

So, what about the Genesis account of creation. I'll state right off that I don't think the Pentateuch was written by Moses, or all by one person, but by several people over hundreds of years. I've learned about the Documentary Hypothesis, which indicates that there are at least four main writers of much of the Pentateuch, some of the stories are very ancient, but they are very much mixed in with parts that were written during and even after the Babylonian exile. The first part of Genesis, Gen 1-2:4, was probably written by the Priestly writer post-exile in the fifth century BCE. It represents a highly developed doctrinal statement that says, among other things:

1. We don't know what God was doing before our world came into being; God's beginning is unknowable to us.

2. Nothing in the world is divine; the whole world is God's creation and distinct from God.

3. The point of all creation is the creation of humanity.

4. The world is good.

Points 2, 3 and 4 are value statements, not scientific statements, and they are all theological statements about God and His creation. Because they are value statements, I see no conflict at all with a creation by things like abiogenesis and evolution. The point, to me, is, about God and human relationship to God. Humans have great value to God.

But of course, when we look around, we see that we do not live with this dignity and perfect relationship with God and each other. Something is wrong.

Sin.

***

The Genesis story, not even the next portion about the Fall, does not really explain where sin comes from. Having glanced quickly at some of Path's posts above, you can see that if you try to read it literally you end up with some pretty sticky questions about God, like why would He tempt us knowing our weaknesses, why allow the snake in the garden, why have the tree there, why punish us when He had total control in making us?

***

The story of the Fall illustrates that we choose sin. The story of the Fall describes what sin is, and how it is a factor in human history. The story is much older than the Priestly narrative and by the time it was included in the written forms of the Bible it was seen as an explanation of how sin first came into the world. The distinction, to me, is that this story came to be regarded as an explanation for the creation of man and the first sin…but it is an idea that formed over many centuries. It takes into account the history of the Jewish people, how they view God and their relationship to God, all a changing and developing theology then caught in time by the change from oral tradition to written tradition.

To me, nothing about the (tragic!) state of human affairs is negated by the fact that we were formed by ‘natural’ means rather than literally like a pot is thrown from clay. We want moral autonomy…yet having the ‘gift’ of knowing good and evil and relying on our own choices is a responsibility we tend to bear with horrific results. We are separated from God, we are ‘fallen,’ because we choose our will over God’s (perfect love).

Hubris, overreaching pride. How can anyone doubt that there is ‘original sin’ when we experience it every day? How can anyone doubt that we need salvation? The story of the Fall is very true and we don’t need to believe in a literal Genesis account to know this first-hand. As soon as we knew ‘self’ we knew ‘other,’ and could choose self over other. And we do.

The Fall is our alienation from God and from each other, the (tragic!) human predicament. We experience this first hand…we don’t have to figure it out or guess about it! But God has a salvation plan.

***

Well, I’m out of steam now. If you have questions I’ll try to clarify, but it’s a HUGE topic.

[Dondi]

Juan, Luna, and path, First, I just wanted to thank you all so much for the replies so far. I'm really getting an education here. Luna, you are right, this is a huge topic, lots of directions one can venture into, easy to veer into rabbit holes. I'll try to keep up with everyone, but it will be hard if we start branching. But great stuff so far!As far as the origin of language is concerned, I guess we could speculate about it all day long, but with the lack of definitive evidence (like hyoid bones and vocal tracts) we're probably just spinning our wheels. I think what we were trying to establish is the point that Man became conscienciously aware of morality, or the sense of right and wrong, to the point that raised us above the morality of the rest of the animal kingdom. The point where it was no longer a matter of instinct, but moral will.

The concept of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, looking at the Genesis account, had to do with the conflict of the will. Symbolically, the command not to eat of the Tree opened up another avenue above our instincts. It set up a desire outside of our own. It introduced the concept of altruism, as the dictionary defines it as "unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others". In this case, obedience to the Divine. Our natural instinct are to do what WE want. The Moral Law runs counter to that. Prior to this, there were no terms, no obligations. When Eve saw the fruit that is was good for food and desirous to make one wise, she was being propelled by her instincts. Yet there was internal conflict when there wasn't before the command. A person who does not know the law is under no obligation to fulfill it.

In the evolutionary track, Man (or even proto-man, if we consider Neanderthals) came to a realization of right and wrong when he discovered altruistic conscience. It's not that we choose sin, for without the law, there is no sin, it's just instinct.

Maybe the story isn't about Man being Good as first, but Man being Bad at first(or selfish, instinctive). The Law gives the opportunity to be good.

ETA: There are several places in scripture that suggests that God can write the law is written in our hearts. The written or oral law isn't suffient is bringing us completely into a perfect altruistic state, but that the Spirit of God is necessary to infuse the law into our hearts as we come to trust Him.

Now I see how a Edenic "Paradise" isn't necessary to the story. The Fall could just be that Man is banned from going back to his mere instincts. He's going to have to learn to love.

[Dondi]

So, what about the Genesis account of creation. I'll state right off that I don't think the Pentateuch was written by Moses, or all by one person, but by several people over hundreds of years. I've learned about the Documentary Hypothesis, which indicates that there are at least four main writers of much of the Pentateuch, some of the stories are very ancient, but they are very much mixed in with parts that were written during and even after the Babylonian exile.

I don't really want to get into a huge discussion about the origin of the text. Suffice to say, IMO, that when one starts to unravel the text like this, it starts to muddy the waters with validity issues. If the Documentary Hypothesis is true, then which parts of scripture can we rely on in giving us the 'truths' we seek from it. After all, if some Babylonian-era priest wrote part of the Torah and attributed it to Moses, it kinda projects an element of deceit into it, which makes the scriptures at that point is rather hard to digest.

I'm not knocking you for what your take is on it, luna, but how do you reconcile this issue?

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Dondi

I don't really want to get into a huge discussion about the origin of the text. Suffice to say, IMO, that when one starts to unravel the text like this, it starts to muddy the waters with validity issues. If the Documentary Hypothesis is true, then which parts of scripture can we rely on in giving us the 'truths' we seek from it. After all, if some Babylonian-era priest wrote part of the Torah and attributed it to Moses, it kinda projects an element of deceit into it, which makes the scriptures at that point is rather hard to digest.

I'm not knocking you for what your take is on it, luna, but how do you reconcile this issue?

I disagree that approaching the text by the Doc. Hypoth. necessitates questioning the "validity" of the Bible. Quite the opposite for me. In fact it was a huge relief to find this way of looking at the Bible.

Judaism has centuries of interaction with, interpretation of the Torah that Christians basically ignore. I look at the OT without that context and I can't understand it, or what I might think I understand I can't relate to. Much of the history looks like a tribal, warrior God, even while other parts show a highly developed ethics and theology. How did this come to be? How can I find my spiritual heritage in the OT?

I've found that trying to understand the answer to the first question has helped me with the second.

And I welcome the same approach to understanding the NT. I'm not a fan of the Jesus Seminar because they also make the same mistake, IMO, of thinking that only what is most historically accurate is of importance. My faith is not based upon the literal-factualness of certain things in the Bible, but on the living faith, the living Christ, I know today in my life, in my church, in my community. Christ is very much alive and part of my life. So, I start where I am, with what I know and trust, and approach all of the Bible from this starting point.

Just being the person I am, it would never be convincing for me to start with a book and base my faith upon it's historical accuracy. If I did, then it would be like I'm basing my faith on archeological evidence, rather than on trusting God.

The Gospels and other letters of the NT indicate to me that God broke into the world in a new way, a way that showed unequivocally that God is love and our calling is to love God, love each other, and take God's love out into the world. I believe that God accomplished this through the life of Jesus, his life, death and resurrection. A love so strong it conquers death. This is the lens through which I approach all Bible study. The NT is the testimony of a community that this is what happened. Just as the OT is the testimony of a people that God is with them.

So as the adage goes, I'm not sure if this is how it happened, but I know that this is true.

As for my 'testimony,' I'm not really a liberal Christian because I accept that Christ is the Son of God, the Trinity, the Resurrection all based on faith. I'm perhaps considered socially liberal because I think we should not treat people differently because of their gender, race, or sexual orientation, but I would say I'm theologically conservative.

So, in sum I don't think there is any element of deceipt at all just in considering that the Bible was written in many parts, by many people, and changed many times to reflect a developing theology. It is our family story.

[Dondi]

Luna,

One final question on this, then I'm done. In regards to the Doc. Hypo., would you say that an "oral tradition" based on the Penetatuch stayed intact though the centuries as passed down from generation to generation until it was written down at a later date by these different writers (J, E, P, D). Or at least piecemeal source documents that were compiled or referenced (much like the supposed Q document (or Mark for Matthew and Luke )for the NT)?