|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Do you believe in a "Fall"?
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Over in Dead Horses, lilbuddha said quote:
a "fall", as generally represented,* is no more rational or likely than Adam and Eve. This stated within the context of Christianity.
*World perfect
bad thing happens
World impperfect
and went on to claim that a doctrine of a "Fall" required an equivalent lack of quote:
reading without a sufficiently critical eye
to the doctrine of six-day creationism.
I don't normally use the term "Fall" to describe what happened, but I certainly understand something to have happened as a result of which mankind's relationship with God suffered a critical setback, and this something to play a far more foundational and widely-accepted role in Christian doctrine than six-day creationism (which, in case of doubt, is a Dead Horse and as such not up for discussion here).
So I thought I'd find out what everybody else thought. What do you think the doctrine of the Fall is - and do you think it is the product of reading Scripture without a sufficiently critical eye?
[ 03. April 2016, 22:12: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
I believe in a figurative fall-- that the events of Gen. 1-3 describe the gap between the ideal state of humanity as intended by God and "the way things are"-- the far less than ideal state of humanity. We "fall short".
I don't believe in a literal Adam and Eve who ate a literal apple or any other sort of fruit and whose in thereby "infected" all of humanity. I believe they are a figurative representation of the state of the human condition.
From my pov, I would say those who follow a literal 6 day creation, and with it a literal Adam and Eve with a literal piece of fruit are failing to read Genesis with a sufficient "critical eye". But then, I suppose some with a different view of the inspiration of Scripture would say my less literal/ but still authoritative reading is a failure of critical reading. It's all relative.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
No I don't - it was one of the first things that made me go 'hang on a minute' about what I perceived to be shortcomings in the internal logic of Christianity when compared with what science tells us.
As I understood it (though am happy to be proved wrong or told otherwise) the Fall was seen as having an effect on the whole of creation i.e it wasn't just our sinfulness it was everything being slightly broken and wrong as a result of sin entering the world through our actions. So we once had vegetarian lions etc before we stuffed it all up.
I looked at the universe and saw this absolutely breathtakingly intricate, mind blowingly simple and yet complex vast place with such a fine balance that a few hundredths of a decimal place either way on any one of many measurements would see it unable to exist and wondered that if creation worked this well how was it broken.
I had a hard time seeing how an ape on tiny rock in orbit around a middling star in one of a billion galaxies could in any way affect that.
I certainly believe we have flaws but I don't believe we were perfect before we had those flaws. I think we've always had them and always will and our journey as a species is about learning to overcome and address those.
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
Generally speaking, I think I'm pretty much on the same page as cliffdweller. quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
As I understood it (though am happy to be proved wrong or told otherwise) the Fall was seen as having an effect on the whole of creation i.e it wasn't just our sinfulness it was everything being slightly broken and wrong as a result of sin entering the world through our actions. So we once had vegetarian lions etc before we stuffed it all up. . . .
I had a hard time seeing how an ape on tiny rock in orbit around a middling star in one of a billion galaxies could in any way affect that.
This gets at the point I alluded to in the other thread—conflating a Bronze Age understanding of "Creation" with a modern, scientific understanding of "the universe." I completely agree that the idea of vegetarian lions, or that human sin caused repercussions on how Uranus functions, is what results from a faulty attempt to force Genesis into a way-too-literal framework—and perhaps a conflation of Genesis with prophetic (and poetic) writings about the lion lying down with the lamb. It just doesn't work.
But I tend to think the original readers and audience of Genesis saw things quite differently. To them, "Creation" was essentially the Earth. Even the stars and the sun were seen as attached in some way to Earth, not as part of the much bigger universe we have some glimpse of now. If that's the "Creation" that is marred by human sin, then the effect takes on a different significance, I think. Human sin affects us not only as individuals, or even as societies—it also affects the world we inhabit. Whether it's burning or salting fields, pollution, abuse of animals, depletion of resources, or whatever, our sinfulness affects, or threatens to affect, "all of creation."
Viewed this way, it makes sense to me, and it fits with both the Genesis injunction to steward the Earth and the various references to "all creation" awaiting redemption, as well as all the parts of the Mosaic law on farming in such a way that the Earth isn't exhausted and can produce enough for all
[ 03. April 2016, 23:43: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Human sin affects us not only as individuals, or even as societies—it also affects the world we inhabit. Whether it's burning or salting fields, pollution, abuse of animals, depletion of resources, or whatever, our sinfulness affects, or threatens to affect, "all of creation."
But this is all just the consequence of human actions. The consequence of sinning if you will. This does not illustrate, nor need at all, a "Fall". The "Fall" needs a moment in time to reference a Before and After. And this does not fit the observable world or its history. IMO, it is inconsistent with Christianity in general.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But this is all just the consequence of human actions. The consequence of sinning if you will.
Not if those human actions are seen as more than just actions—if they are viewed as symptoms of a more pervasive condition to which all humans are in some sense captive, and for which they are in need of salvation.
Which loops us back, I guess, to the recent thread on what is meant by sin.
As for whether this idea needs a "Fall," I didn't say it did, nor did I offer it to prove that there was a Fall. I said I generally agree with cluffdweller's description of "the Fall" as figurative language. I posited this understanding of how creation is marred by sin in response to the description of the Fall involving things like vegetarian lions, simply to show there are other ways to understand what is meant by how creation is marred by sin.
[ 04. April 2016, 02:33: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I do indeed believe in the Fall--I do not think God made us this way from the beginning, to be haters and backbiters and peaceless, self-centered, unhappy people at war with each other and with ourselves. And AFAIK every major religion and culture holds that there is something wrong with us, however you call it, and whatever you attribute it to. You could almost define religion (maybe psychology and politics, too!) as an attempt to deal with that reality. That dislocation in human nature is the result of the Fall.
As for arguing about the exact details of how it happened or in what it was constituted--that's probably a Keryg topic. I do accept the Genesis account, though I know the arguments most of you will raise against it. But I'd rather have the Lord chide me for being too credulous than have him say "Why didn't you believe me?"
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
As for arguing about the exact details of how it happened or in what it was constituted--that's probably a Keryg topic. I do accept the Genesis account, though I know the arguments most of you will raise against it. But I'd rather have the Lord chide me for being too credulous than have him say "Why didn't you believe me?"
I'm sure in my case the "Why didn't you obey me?" will be so much of a concern that the "Why didn't you believe this particular bit of myth" will be well overshadowed.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
if they are viewed as symptoms of a more pervasive condition to which all humans are in some sense captive, and for which they are in need of salvation.
This requires a god who is allowing you to be punished, or at least feel the burden, of actions of someone else. Fine for Zeus or Odin, but not so much for Yahweh.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Generally speaking, I think I'm pretty much on the same page as cliffdweller....
I completely agree that the idea of vegetarian lions, or that human sin caused repercussions on how Uranus functions, is what results from a faulty attempt to force Genesis into a way-too-literal framework—and perhaps a conflation of Genesis with prophetic (and poetic) writings about the lion lying down with the lamb. It just doesn't work.
I appreciate the shout-out, but in the interests of full disclosure, must confess that I do, actually, believe that God's original intent did in fact include "vegetarian lions"-- and possibly even "earthquake-free mountains"-- although I would reckon the emergence of non-vegetarian lions and earthquake-formed mountains far, far before the emergence of homo sapiens. I don't think it was Adam and Eve's sin that cause creation to go awry in that particular way, but I do believe it was the "corruption of creation" that happened back in the very beginning of the cosmos-- in the very first nanoseconds of the Big Bang or whatever our current theory of the origins of the universe. I am primitive enough to blame Satan for that one (***those chimes you hear are summoning Martin to come and condemn this for it's apparently blasphemous mythological lunacy***). So we cannot imagine how one could possibly have a "vegetarian lion" or an "earthquake-free mountain" since everything about a lion is made to be a predator, and the only way we know that you get a mountain is thru seismic activity. But I believe that's because we've never seen what God's original intent for creation looks like-- a non-corrupted creation.
So I don't think A&E are two individuals for are solely responsible for the "fall"-- the gap between the way things were intended and the way they are. But I think they represent that gap-- a gap that began in the first moments of the universe, but also continues to this day. So yes, the first humans (whatever version of primates first had the capacity for moral reasoning) fell, but we continued to fall, throughout every version-- thru the conquest of Canaan, and the conquest of the Americas, and the enslavement of Africans... on and on to this day. We fell, and we continue falling.
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Human sin affects us not only as individuals, or even as societies—it also affects the world we inhabit. Whether it's burning or salting fields, pollution, abuse of animals, depletion of resources, or whatever, our sinfulness affects, or threatens to affect, "all of creation."
I would very much agree. There is no corner unaffected by human sin. But the gap between the way things are and the way they should be is not just human-choices (although you could probably lay the lion's share at our door), which is why I think there's something to the whole "creation groaning" and the "lions laying down with the lamb" stuff. There is horrific, terrible suffering that has not human cause-- horrible diseases and natural disasters and predatory stuff that is part of that "gap".
While I don't agree with Lamb's more literal reading (although mine, as I suspected, is probably also too literal-- or "naive"-- for many as well)-- I would very much agree with what she said about all world religions pointing to this. All philosophies are trying to figure out "why is it so screwed up?". There is a very real sense in which we can observe "the fall" each and every day, right outside our doors-- and inside our very hearts.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
if they are viewed as symptoms of a more pervasive condition to which all humans are in some sense captive, and for which they are in need of salvation.
This requires a god who is allowing you to be punished, or at least feel the burden, of actions of someone else. Fine for Zeus or Odin, but not so much for Yahweh.
I think this is fair if we assume an Augustinian view of original sin as something inescapable but for which we are nonetheless punished if we don't happen to hear the gospel in a way where we can properly respond.
I don't think it fits with a broader narrative and understanding of the sin-condition or an other-than-substitutionary view of the atonement.
The fact of the matter is, the world is obviously not all good. So if God is good, then there are things that are obviously not as God intended. Again, I would agree with Lamb on this point. So once we get to that-- things are not right-- you're left with trying to explain it somehow.
I'm most drawn to an Openist pov which sees this brokenness as a result of God choosing to create a free universe-- one where we are free, and where (arguably, yes, Martin) there are other free spiritual beings. And our free choices affect things-- sometimes terribly, horrifically so. But as Nick proclaimed, God has graciously provided a way out. God is rescuing us-- rescuing all of creation-- and continuing to do so.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
The term "fall" is too mild. More like out and out rebellion.
Now, at what point did the rebellion begin? The temptation? The eating of the "forbidden fruit (whatever that could have been)?
No, it was in not owning up to what one did.
God: "Did you eat that which was forbidden?"
Man, "The woman which you gave me, made me eat of it."
God to woman: "Is that so?"
Woman: "The snake--which you created, God--enticed me."
In other words: "It is your fault, God!"
That is where the rebellion happened.
Do I believe in the Genesis story? Only as metaphor for a deeper truth.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
No I don't - it was one of the first things that made me go 'hang on a minute' about what I perceived to be shortcomings in the internal logic of Christianity when compared with what science tells us.
Your post beginning thus is a super one - spot on!
I like cliffdweller's, as always, thoughtful post too, but there is a problem in that there is no 'ideal state of humanity', and any deity is just as much a human idea. To improve the state of our own lives and that of others is of course a goal worth striving for.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I do, actually, believe that God's original intent did in fact include "vegetarian lions"-- and possibly even "earthquake-free mountains"-- although I would reckon the emergence of non-vegetarian lions and earthquake-formed mountains far, far before the emergence of homo sapiens.
A peaceful and harmonious universe is a non-existent one. Everything that is created is a result of destruction. So in your universe, we are not the flawed children of god, but the children of Satan.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I don't think it was Adam and Eve's sin that cause creation to go awry in that particular way, but I do believe it was the "corruption of creation" that happened back in the very beginning of the cosmos-- in the very first nanoseconds of the Big Bang or whatever our current theory of the origins of the universe.
This is essentially no different than Original Sin and has the problem I describe above.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
As with the discussion on the resurrection and Heaven, the question that (again) emerges for me in view of the posts so far is whether, or how, or the extent to which, any enduring truth in Scripture can be disentangled from its writers' cosmology.
(The view that it can't seems to be a major plank in the thinking of a lot of ex-Christians or non-Christians; I tend to think that it can).
I think I'm closest to cliffdweller on this, in that I believe the "fall" of humans was an outworking of evil already at large, although while I see something in 'creation groaning' I admit to doubts about vegetarian lions.
It seems to me that the whole Scriptural narrative revolves around the current state of humanity being imperfect compared to how it should have been in some space-time that's now wholly inaccessible to us, and the prospect of humanity being fully restored and redeemed in some space-time that we might glimpse or see through a glass darkly from time to time, but which also remains for now wholly inaccessible to us.
I see this linear progression as part of the warp and woof of the biblical narrative. If it's taken away, I personally find it really difficult to see anything anything of value left.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I see this linear progression as part of the warp and woof of the biblical narrative. If it's taken away, I personally find it really difficult to see anything anything of value left.
I'm not attempting to devalue Christianity. Just trying to reconcile the God Christians claim to believe in with views inconsistent with that God.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
If there's no fall then there's no need for a means of salvation - hence the cross is unnecessary.
[ 04. April 2016, 06:13: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
We live in a Universe where it's very hard not to sin. We need to eat every day, we need other stuff too. And the laws of physics dictate that sometimes we'll be competing for scarce resources. What's more, our brains overrule all other thinking when we don't get what we need.
It's very difficult not to be egoistic sometimes in such a situation. We can imagine another Universe where we won't have those needs or where they're met automatically. Some people think that this is what Heaven is like. In such a situation, it is easy not to sin.
But not here. And it has always been this way. There wasn't a moment that brought this about.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I appreciate the shout-out, but in the interests of full disclosure, must confess that I do, actually, believe that God's original intent did in fact include "vegetarian lions"-- and possibly even "earthquake-free mountains"-- although I would reckon the emergence of non-vegetarian lions and earthquake-formed mountains far, far before the emergence of homo sapiens. I don't think it was Adam and Eve's sin that cause creation to go awry in that particular way, but I do believe it was the "corruption of creation" that happened back in the very beginning of the cosmos-- in the very first nanoseconds of the Big Bang or whatever our current theory of the origins of the universe. I am primitive enough to blame Satan for that one (***those chimes you hear are summoning Martin to come and condemn this for it's apparently blasphemous mythological lunacy***). So we cannot imagine how one could possibly have a "vegetarian lion" or an "earthquake-free mountain" since everything about a lion is made to be a predator, and the only way we know that you get a mountain is thru seismic activity. But I believe that's because we've never seen what God's original intent for creation looks like-- a non-corrupted creation.
This to me smacks horribly of a 'God of the Gaps' approach to theology.
It seems like what you are saying is that the Universe is wrong to its fabric and its our fault or the fault of sin and not the fault of the creator of the universe at all. Is that correct?
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
I'm with the figurative view*. Over on the Dead Horses thread I wrote:
quote:
Trying to express how Genesis gives an explanation of the beginnings of the world in a comprehensible way, along with the other creation myths around the world, I got to the Fall narrative trying to explain why a God created world is not perfect. But I realised that this opens more than the eschatology can of worms, it opens up what is meant by a creator God.
Which got missed past something that did get noticed up on.
Unpicking that thought a bit, I was trying to say that all faiths have myths about creation and a fall to try and explain how the Earth came about and why that world is not as perfect as a God-created world should be. But as Nick Tamen suggested, that confuses between evolved universe and created Earth, and the problems of agreeing a literal Creator God as depicted in the Bible with the universe of the Big Bang and the likelihood of life on other planets.
That thread also started discussing Eutychus' linear arc and eschatology. Isn't our view of the Fall, Creator God and eschatology all come into our view of God? The same sort of thing that is being argued on the liberals thread? Whether our view of God is deism, theism or panentheism? How much science we are trying build into our world view and understanding of God?
* I probably should be supporting Thunderbunk over on the liberals thread, but
- I am so liberal as to be unhelpful;
- that thread grewed while I was busy and although I'm trying to convince myself I need some time off I have a mountain of work to sort out, so procrastinating on threads I've been reading is rather different to catching up with a monster.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
AndyHB
Apprentice
# 18580
|
Posted
I think it should be remembered that the early part of Genesis (probably Chapters 1-11) dates from after the Jews' return from Babylon, and is more likely a theological treatment of the nature of the Jewish God - as compared to the nature of the Babylonian gods that those who had been in exile would have been faced with. As such, it is expressing the fact that the perfectly created, had been damaged by sin.
--------------------
TWAM is always on the look-out for unwanted tools. Check-out website - www.twam.uk - for 'tools wanted' lists and collector contact details.
Posts: 17 | From: S.Wales | Registered: Apr 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
AndyHB
Apprentice
# 18580
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
So I don't think A&E are two individuals for are solely responsible for the "fall"-- the gap between the way things were intended and the way they are. But I think they represent that gap-- a gap that began in the first moments of the universe, but also continues to this day. So yes, the first humans (whatever version of primates first had the capacity for moral reasoning) fell, but we continued to fall, throughout every version-- thru the conquest of Canaan, and the conquest of the Americas, and the enslavement of Africans... on and on to this day. We fell, and we continue falling.
Biblical writers seem make it very clear that the problem has been with humanity - for instance Paul says that creation is waiting for mankind re-establish their relationship with God before creation as a whole can be renewed. It do not believe that the problems go back to the start of time, as some here seem to be suggesting.
--------------------
TWAM is always on the look-out for unwanted tools. Check-out website - www.twam.uk - for 'tools wanted' lists and collector contact details.
Posts: 17 | From: S.Wales | Registered: Apr 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
That thread also started discussing Eutychus' linear arc and eschatology. Isn't our view of the Fall, Creator God and eschatology all come into our view of God? The same sort of thing that is being argued on the liberals thread? Whether our view of God is deism, theism or panentheism? How much science we are trying build into our world view and understanding of God?
I have certainly been thinking along similar lines, with the possible exception of the last question.
quote:
Originally posted by AndyHB:
Paul says that creation is waiting for mankind re-establish their relationship with God before creation as a whole can be renewed.
Welcome on board!
I think (without looking) that Paul said "mankind's relationship with God to be re-established", not for "mankind to re-establish it".
quote:
It do not believe that the problems go back to the start of time, as some here seem to be suggesting.
I think there is a suggestion in the Bible that evil was around as a force in the universe before it had a moral impact on humans.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think there is a suggestion in the Bible that evil was around as a force in the universe before it had a moral impact on humans.
There's also some ambiguity about exactly what the state of the Cosmos was outside 'the garden' proper.
Equally, it's possible that any 'Fall' worked backwards as well as forwards.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
The notion of 'The Fall' (not the band, alas): 'You are born sick and commanded to be well'. The explanation I usually heard in Charismania was that God gave us free will and we chose to rebel. This brings up questions of omniscience ('God didn't know we would do that'/'God knew we would do that'; neither are satisfactory). Moreover, I was also frequently told (and it is heard practically every week in UK Charismania) that God has always known about you since before you were born and has great plans for you (determinism). If the latter claim is true, then why was his plan for the Fall to happen anyway? The notion that the Fall happened because of free will in the context of a deterministic theology is a pretty difficult circle to square.
K.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
As others have said, I believe that humanity is fallen (indeed, falling) as we fail to live upto the ideal God has set. And, that fallenness has impacts on the rest of creation. Does that require a pre-existing perfection from which we have fallen? I don't believe so.
The most important thing about the Fall is not what we left (if indeed we did), but where we are and where we are going. We cannot change the past, but we can work towards a better future. And, in Christ, God has given us a means to rise up towards the ideal standard that we fail at on our own. Rather than dwelling on the past, the gospel call is to look forward in hope of a re-creation in which the imperfections of the here and now are healed.
I find value in the concept that God is still creating the heavens and the earth, and that he has chosen to let the free agents present within that ongoing creation to participate in the process. The end of the day, when God declares everything good and very good is in our future, not our past. The day when humanity is created in the image of God is when we are raised in the image of Christ.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Komensky: I feel your pain; I think the positive concept missing from your thumbnail sketch is grace.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
we are raised in the image of Christ.
Raised as in life-after-death resurrected, or not?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I'm agnostic on life-after-death. But, in Christ we are empowered to live a new life today, in the here and now, and to work towards redeeming the whole of creation. To work for peace and justice today, to work towards reconciling all things to God in Christ in the present world we have been entrusted with.
So, maybe there is a life-after-death resurrection. But, there certainly is new life in Christ today, and the call to live that new life today.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
The problem with focusing on life after death and the resurrection of all things to come is that it can mean that we ignore any need to create the Kingdom on Earth now. Isn't that what the Fall is about? That creation is flawed and we should be striving to improve things?
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I find value in the concept that God is still creating the heavens and the earth, and that he has chosen to let the free agents present within that ongoing creation to participate in the process. The end of the day, when God declares everything good and very good is in our future, not our past. The day when humanity is created in the image of God is when we are raised in the image of Christ.
Yes - notions of 'the fall' are very Augustinian. I prefer Irenaeus's idea that the world isn't finished uyet - we are still evolving and that explains why things go wrong.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The problem with focusing on life after death and the resurrection of all things to come is that it can mean that we ignore any need to create the Kingdom on Earth now. Isn't that what the Fall is about? That creation is flawed and we should be striving to improve things?
Increasingly, I think you're on to something seeing the "linear arc and eschatology" as a watershed in terms of approaches and concepts.
I agree that the danger of futurist eschatology (and of an over-emphasis on the "Fall") is neglecting the here and now, but I think it is a danger only if the idea is pushed to the extreme.
The paradigm I'm most familiar with sees the Church age as being in tension between "now and the not yet". Morally, the human condition is, I think, pretty much unchanged through the ages; certainly, I see the same sort of problems in the families of the patriarchs in Genesis as one can find today.
As said on the DH thread, the result for me is working towards accommodation and compromise in an attitude of grace, whilst living in hope of a fuller and more complete resolution when all things are made new.
(One of the major insights for me of these discussions is that a fully realised eschatology might have much less room for compromise, because the only chance for success is in the here and now. And be still less compromising if it's thought there's nothing inherently flawed in the human condition to start with.)
The more I think about it, the harder I find it to see anything in Scirpture other than a beginning, a middle - with a crisis in every sense of the term, the incarnation/death/resurrection/ascension of Christ, in the middle of the middle - and a future end.
The idea of hope itself seems inextricably bound up with that progression to me. Not only do I find it really really intellectually difficult to imagine the narrative making any sense without that linearity (and symmetry), I find it really difficult to imagine any source of hope.
[ 04. April 2016, 14:52: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Curiosity Killed
The problem with focusing on life after death and the resurrection of all things to come is that it can mean that we ignore any need to create the Kingdom on Earth now.
You say that like it's a bad thing ...
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
If we assume that, historically speaking, ambiguity we will always have with us... does that change things?
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
Sin and the Fall are separation from God, and are therefore their own punishment. I maintain this is a perfectly Augustinian position to hold.
That all creation is originally good is fundamental to Christian theology. That all creation is in bondage to sin and in need of liberation is there in Paul. As God is outside time, I think it possible that the fall of sentient beings in general can separate the universe from God throughout all time.
Not that I believe that at any state temporally or cross-temporally there were only two humans involved or an unusually articulate snake.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I do, actually, believe that God's original intent did in fact include "vegetarian lions"-- and possibly even "earthquake-free mountains"-- although I would reckon the emergence of non-vegetarian lions and earthquake-formed mountains far, far before the emergence of homo sapiens.
A peaceful and harmonious universe is a non-existent one. Everything that is created is a result of destruction. So in your universe, we are not the flawed children of god, but the children of Satan..
No. We were created by God, in the image of God. So we are still children of God. But we have been affected both by our own choices and (IMHO) by the choices of Satan and other spiritual forces. That "corruption" has impacted us by, among other things, marring or distorting the image of God-- but that is different than destroying the image of God. It does not make us children of Satan, but it does mean that we are not isolated islands either. We have been impacted by our own sin, by other people's sins, by Satan and things like Wink's "myth/cycle of redemptive violence".
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I appreciate the shout-out, but in the interests of full disclosure, must confess that I do, actually, believe that God's original intent did in fact include "vegetarian lions"-- and possibly even "earthquake-free mountains"-- although I would reckon the emergence of non-vegetarian lions and earthquake-formed mountains far, far before the emergence of homo sapiens. I don't think it was Adam and Eve's sin that cause creation to go awry in that particular way, but I do believe it was the "corruption of creation" that happened back in the very beginning of the cosmos-- in the very first nanoseconds of the Big Bang or whatever our current theory of the origins of the universe. I am primitive enough to blame Satan for that one (***those chimes you hear are summoning Martin to come and condemn this for it's apparently blasphemous mythological lunacy***). So we cannot imagine how one could possibly have a "vegetarian lion" or an "earthquake-free mountain" since everything about a lion is made to be a predator, and the only way we know that you get a mountain is thru seismic activity. But I believe that's because we've never seen what God's original intent for creation looks like-- a non-corrupted creation.
This to me smacks horribly of a 'God of the Gaps' approach to theology.
It seems like what you are saying is that the Universe is wrong to its fabric and its our fault or the fault of sin and not the fault of the creator of the universe at all. Is that correct?
I think you're misusing the term. To some degree all theology, and indeed all scholarship, is a "God of the gaps" theology. There are gaps in our knowledge obviously, and we as humans try to "fill in those gaps" by figuring out what we don't know. "God of the gaps" is usually used to describe a fallacious argument style where the arguer suggests that the mere fact that there are gaps is proof of God-- we don't know how this happened or that happened, therefore there must be a God. I'm not doing that. Rather, I'm trying to do what all religions, philosophies, and even science does-- figure out "why things are the way they are". You may find my hypotheses implausible or unsatisfactory, but the fact that I'm attempting to understand why things are the way they are is not in and of itself a "God of the gaps" argument.
I am saying there is something wrong with the universe, or at least with our world. Again, I believe this is obvious. As Lamb already pointed out, this is one commonality between virtually every religion and philosophy-- that things are seriously messed up. The question is why.
Really, there are only a few possibilities:
1. God is good, and evil/suffering is an illusion, or doesn't matter in the so-called "big picture". I think this is an insult to those who suffer.
2. God is not good
3. God is good in the broad general sense but doesn't really care about our individual lives (making "good" a very relative term)
4. There is no God
or, what I am arguing for:
5. God is good, and is not responsible for the evil we see/experience.
#5 is the tradition Christian worldview, but I think has gotten mucked up by Augustine & Calvin-- who seem to ping pong between #5 and #1 in a way that makes we want to throw up my hands and say they're sounding a lot like #2-- God is not good.
IMHO, the only logical way to argue #5 is the Open view that God created a world that was good and perfect, but was also free. Where humans are free but also where there are other free creatures (probably spiritual beings). God did this because God values most of all love, and love must be free to be real. In a world that is free, God cannot determine (although he can anticipate and plan for) the free choices made by free creatures. Those choices impact them (i.e. our sin impacts us) but also others (e.g. other's choices impact us, including choices made by Satan or other free spiritual beings)-- because we are not isolated autonomous units but are interrelated beings.
I think makes the best sense of what has been revealed to us in Scripture (which I believe to be true) and what we can observe empirically of the world around us.
This is not the same as "original sin" as articulated by Augustine. Augustine would see original sin as deriving from two particular individual ancestors, which "stains" us from birth with guilt. We are guilty because of someone else's sin. To Augustine, we are incapable of choosing anything other than sin, and yet we are condemned even before we choose sin, by that sin and the sin of our ancestors. It is part of the way God created us. This is not what I believe and why I say Augustine, while saying he's arguing for #1 and #5 really sounds a lot more like #2. To me there is nothing good in that "good news".
I believe we are impacted by other people's sins, but we are not guilty because of them. We are guilty of our own free choices, not our ancestor's. Again, I read Gen. 3 as a figurative story-- a parable that helps explain "why things are the way they are." I would agree with another poster that it appears to have been written as a response/rebuke to the Babylonian creation myths.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
fyi: that last part re original sin flows from my response to Macrina but also responds to this question:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
]Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I don't think it was Adam and Eve's sin that cause creation to go awry in that particular way, but I do believe it was the "corruption of creation" that happened back in the very beginning of the cosmos-- in the very first nanoseconds of the Big Bang or whatever our current theory of the origins of the universe.
This is essentially no different than Original Sin and has the problem I describe above. [/QUOTE]
Long appts this morning, then trying to catch up late in the day from the left coast to what you've all were discussing while I was sleeping... On the flip side, now y'all will be sleeping while I'm yammering on and on...
[ 04. April 2016, 21:02: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by AndyHB:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
So I don't think A&E are two individuals for are solely responsible for the "fall"-- the gap between the way things were intended and the way they are. But I think they represent that gap-- a gap that began in the first moments of the universe, but also continues to this day. So yes, the first humans (whatever version of primates first had the capacity for moral reasoning) fell, but we continued to fall, throughout every version-- thru the conquest of Canaan, and the conquest of the Americas, and the enslavement of Africans... on and on to this day. We fell, and we continue falling.
Biblical writers seem make it very clear that the problem has been with humanity - for instance Paul says that creation is waiting for mankind re-establish their relationship with God before creation as a whole can be renewed. It do not believe that the problems go back to the start of time, as some here seem to be suggesting.
Obviously I disagree. In particular, I disagree with your introductory thesis that the Bible makes this "very clear."
Yes, the Bible is clear that human sin is primarily responsible for the human condition, which is why I said we have the "lion's share" of the responsibility. But the Bible also talks about what I've mentioned-- the "groaning of creation"-- the way creation itself has been impacted, in ways that sound far more expansive (although global warming does indicate human activity to be, yes, pretty expansive...)
Yes, if you take Gen. 3 literally then the Fall only goes back as far as the first two humans. But if you take it figuratively, as I do, it is describing the human condition. And prophesies like "the lion laying down with the lamb" suggest there is something wrong with aspects of creation itself (the food chain itself, the need for predators to prey on the weak, the "red in tooth & claw" aspects) which cannot be laid at humanity's door. This coincides with our experience, where there is suffering (childhood diseases, birth defects, natural disasters) that similarly cannot be laid at the door of human choices.
It is convenient to lay the explanation for all the evil in the world at the feet of "free will"-- and indeed, much of it can and will stick. But not all of it. So any explanation that wants to seriously address the problem of evil has to go beyond that to address the problem of natural evil as well.
Martin, however, will join you in your dismay at my talk of Satan and minions and other such primitive notions...
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I find value in the concept that God is still creating the heavens and the earth, and that he has chosen to let the free agents present within that ongoing creation to participate in the process. The end of the day, when God declares everything good and very good is in our future, not our past. The day when humanity is created in the image of God is when we are raised in the image of Christ.
Yes - notions of 'the fall' are very Augustinian. I prefer Irenaeus's idea that the world isn't finished uyet - we are still evolving and that explains why things go wrong.
This is closer to what I'm suggesting. It fits well with inaugurated theology... the notion that the Kingdom of God is both "now" and "not yet." In this in-between era we can see glimpses of what we were meant to be but were never able to be-- but in that glimpses of what we will one day become, through God's grace. "We" meaning all of humanity but also all of creation-- the new heaven and new earth.
[ 04. April 2016, 21:14: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
Still working my way through all that's been said while I've been sleeping/working here in lala land. Perhaps instead of yammering on I should have just started and ended with this:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I find value in the concept that God is still creating the heavens and the earth, and that he has chosen to let the free agents present within that ongoing creation to participate in the process. The end of the day, when God declares everything good and very good is in our future, not our past. The day when humanity is created in the image of God is when we are raised in the image of Christ.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Can I ask you the same question I asked Alan?
For the avoidance of doubt (again), this is not some sort of orthodoxy test, this is me trying to be sure of what you're agreeing with.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
6. God is love. Love hurts.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
6. God is love. Love hurts.
Yes. Although I'd say #6 is really just the working out of #5.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Can I ask you the same question I asked Alan?
For the avoidance of doubt (again), this is not some sort of orthodoxy test, this is me trying to be sure of what you're agreeing with.
to keep continuity, here's the question:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Komensky: I feel your pain; I think the positive concept missing from your thumbnail sketch is grace.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
we are raised in the image of Christ.
Raised as in life-after-death resurrected, or not?
Yes, I do believe in life-after-death resurrection, which should surprise exactly no one-- I'm pretty solidly evangelical in my beliefs. But I do believe the transformation that Alan is talking about is more than just that. Really, the resurrection is just the extension of what has come before-- just as Christ's resurrected body bore some continuity as well as some differentiation with what his incarnate body/life was like. So I believe the transformation Alan is talking about both in us and in creation is ongoing. In humanity we would describe it as "sanctification." In creation/society/the world as a whole we might describe it as "kingdom activity". Just as we see signs of the "old age"-- the world as corrupted by sin and Satan (signs like genocide, disease, abuse, decay and death), so we see signs of the Kingdom to come-- both in humanity and in the world (love, compassion, courage, restoration). So we don't just sit back and wait for the "new earth" and letting the planet go to hell-- because this IS our now and future home. Rather we are active participants now in anticipating the life of the Kingdom and leaning into the life to come.
[ 04. April 2016, 21:51: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
No it isn't. God is FULLY responsible. Not a super-Satan.
[ 04. April 2016, 21:56: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm agnostic on life-after-death. But, in Christ we are empowered to live a new life today, in the here and now, and to work towards redeeming the whole of creation. To work for peace and justice today, to work towards reconciling all things to God in Christ in the present world we have been entrusted with.
So, maybe there is a life-after-death resurrection. But, there certainly is new life in Christ today, and the call to live that new life today.
We should live as if there were only today. Only now. As there will always will be.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
No it isn't. God is FULLY responsible. Not a super-Satan.
Ah, I was wondering what was taking you so long-- had me worried!
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Fret not, your graciousness can't stop me.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
As for arguing about the exact details of how it happened or in what it was constituted--that's probably a Keryg topic. I do accept the Genesis account, though I know the arguments most of you will raise against it. But I'd rather have the Lord chide me for being too credulous than have him say "Why didn't you believe me?"
I'm sure in my case the "Why didn't you obey me?" will be so much of a concern that the "Why didn't you believe this particular bit of myth" will be well overshadowed.
We've got all eternity for uncomfortable conversations. Although, thank God, I have reason to hope that his passion and resurrection will cover all my screw-ups and take the sting out of interacting with him!
Besides, isn't this rather like the typical parental "Why did you do that?" which gets shouted after one crashes the car, stays out all night, steals from a store, etc. etc. etc. The only answer ("because I fucked up") is precisely the one they know already and don't want to hear again, and will probably belt you for repeating.
I live in hope that God is more intelligent than to ask those sort of questions.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Besides, isn't this rather like the typical parental "Why did you do that?" which gets shouted after one crashes the car, stays out all night, steals from a store, etc. etc. etc. The only answer ("because I fucked up") is precisely the one they know already and don't want to hear again, and will probably belt you for repeating.
I live in hope that God is more intelligent than to ask those sort of questions.
I am reminded of the story told by C.S. Lewis about Joy Gresham's cat, which of course came to join his household. It was not supposed to be in his study, apparently, and so it leapt in through the window. It landed on a pile of papers on his desk, skidded across the desk, and plopped onto the floor. And immediately began grooming of course.
Lewis's response could have been as you described. What he said was, "Would my stepcat like a saucer of milk?"
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Augustine. He's to blame for this isn't he? Some mixture of trying to explain himself to himself, and trying to justify structures of the nascent church. The Fall condemns people before they are born. Pious and harmful nonsense if taken literally and semi-literally.
Humans are not by nature evil. I've held children as they are born, and held older people as they died. Neither is evil by definition. Christian or any other religion. Rather people are capable of both good and evil. You'd think we might have figured this out by now, given the burnings in the middle ages, rape by clergy scandals, etc within churches, and things like wars and random murder-terror outside. Evil is just part of our potential. We don't need a fall to explain it. Built into us as part of who we are. DNA. We can be good.
Better to consider that we have co-evolved with all of the other life and that we have the possibility to avoiding our animal nature "red in tooth and claw" and behave with charity toward each other. Though we seem capable only of doing this on a one-to-one basis or in small groups.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
no prophet - I'd query your assertion that humans are not by their nature evil. This BBC article discusses the evolution of evil by looking at evil behaviour in the animal kingdom. The conclusion is that animals show all of the Dark Tetrad and all of these may have evolutionary advantages.
[ 05. April 2016, 05:45: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I hope He WILL ask. For that way we'll learn.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
