Do not follow where the path may lead. Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
One man's trail...
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
A very hard question
God created us with a something that Christian's call the sinful nature - supposedly a destructive element of our psychology. I am wondering what was the original purpose of this part of ourselves?
13 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Darkness doesn't exist, it is the absence of light. Cold doesn't exist, it is the absence of heat (or energy). Is it possible that the sinful nature that we possess exists because of the absence of what died when Adam sinned?
Jeff... if God didn't create us with the bit of our minds that cause us to "sin" then are you saying that suddenly a part of our brains appeared out of thin air? I don't buy it... I think it is a very hard question and I don't think I've heard anything in the Christian camp that comes close to acknowledging what is going on... I'm not saying that God created us sinful, but he created us with the capacity to be sinful... I am wondering what the prior non-sinful thing was for?... for example he created us with canines so presumable we have always eaten flesh... I think the "story" is weak at this point and to investigate might uncover unhelpful assumptions...
The only argument I've heard about the "sinful" nature is that it is our ego's disconnecting from self and then needing to construct a false-self to take it's place because it has forgotten how to connect... the word relgion is about reconnection however most religious people today have no self of Self.. they are as disconnected as their non-religious counterparts hence statistics on divorce, debt etc are the same in the Christian church as outside... the church is not who it thinks it is... it is disconnected but believes otherwise...
sean - a cheeky response... conjectured ideas don't exist, they are the absence of truth...
according to me anyway... ;o)... appreciate your comments my friends... DM
Sean... maybe sin doesn't exist maybe it is the panic response to loss of connection with the Self / I am ness / Beingness... maybe the ego is feeling very alone...
I'm also curious that the central issue is knowledge of good and evil not knowledge of right and wrong.. it strikes me that knowing good and evil allows for fear... it strikes at the heart of the self-preservation instinct...
Jeff... you're probably right about us approaching it from different perspectives... I think for me, 1) I don't understand the story, and 2) I believe that the story, however inspired, is reflective of reality... so I am looking to reality to try and make sense of the story...
The interpretation of the genesis redemptions stories that I received don't explain why the church is in the position that it is today and why Christians don't really look any different than non-Christians whereas the stories claim there should be a remarkable difference.
I believe that the stories are inspired so I believe them when they say that knowledge of God should make a difference. I'm just trying to figure out where the discrepency lies, why it is there and how to move beyond the stuckness.
However I don't think there is a general Self awareness amoungst Christians so typically they are unable to answer the question. Typically they revert to the make believe, the magical, to fairy tale, to their own created story - much of what is commonly known as theology... <cheeky grin>...
You up for batting this around some more? If so I have a some probing questions for you...
Jeff... ok first question... when you say "He created us perfectly" what does that mean to you... I feel much is glossed over by that idea but little is gained... I personally believe we were created perfect... I believe we were created good... and are still good... personally I'm am not sure how to define perfection and I don't know what you mean by it... was that gentle enough <grin> DM
I have heard the same story, that we were “perfect” and fell, etc. etc., but like you, the story just doesn’t add up. Actually, all cultures and religions have a similar story to explain their origins. We were perfect and one with God, lost it, and now the quest is to regain it. This alone should raise a red flag, and look at every religion, their whole paradigm is one of trying to re-connect with God. But what if we were/are one with God all along, and what we are chasing is already true?
All religions consist of this basic theme, and I think it was the only way our primitive archetypes could explain the turmoil in the cosmos around them without knowing what we do about science today.
But back to the “perfect” thing: If the theory holds true, then we are to believe that there was an everlasting and perfect blade of grass before the fell. There was an everlasting perfect tree, lake, frog. But this theory fails the “unless a seed falls into the ground and die” test. In order for life to procreate on our planet, something must die, and therefore our universe could not have been as perfect before the fall as we are led to believe.
In order for there to be “sin” there needs to be some standard that says, this is wrong and that is right. The old covenant had such a standard, it was called the law. It was something the Jews (and only them) were held to, but now it’s been done away with. Or as Paul would say: Where there is NO law, there cannot be NO transgression of the LAW.
The rub is: there is some usefulness in some of the law which might benefits us. So, what if we turn the whole morality/sin thing into the functionality? For instance. We could dissect the Bible for hours to determine if smoking pot is sin or not. In fact, that’s exactly the debate going on between some people right now. Both camps using the Bible to claim why their take on the matter is right or wrong. Why it IS or IS NOT sin. But that’s a smokescreen that keeps many a religious mind busy.
So, let’s use the functionality test: Is it functional to smoke pot? Medically, we could argue that there might be some benefit to some terminally ill patients. Although, I would probably argue that they can extract the useful properties from it, and on the other hand, I don’t think government should legislate what people can do to their bodies either. But, it might not be functional for some people, as their DNA might predispose them to side effects which could cause them to become addicted to other substances.
The bottom line is, it could be functional for one and not for another. The whole world, and especially religion seems to want this cookie cutter approach for every human being, and hence the war over what is and is not sin.
Actually, “free will” is the easiest argument in the Bible to dismantle. God violates man’s free will from page one to the very last page. It also says that he blinded all men to see, so if we are at the mercy of those odds, then it really isn’t up to us to decide. We can only understand and once we do we can willingly follow along.
For starters, I have never found you unreasonable to have a discussion with.
Actually, I think the word “adoption” is slightly used out of context. In the true meaning as I understand it, is that God only had a covenant with Israel, but that through Jesus all were included (adopted) into the second covenant. Paul didn’t say be adopted, he said we WERE adopted. Big difference, but even putting that aside, if we could ever be separate from God, then God is not omnipresent. The separation was more in our belief/understanding that this is the case, as opposed to that being the truth. IMHO.
I think the laws of physics alone dictate that the “perfect” world Christian theology presume is impossible. Be fruitful and multiply was before the fall. If nothing died, and all was bliss, then nothing could multiply. Seeds still needed to die in order to multiply, very much like the world we know today. To me the whole story is an allegory to me, it’s not based in actual literal events, as there are clearly two different “creation” stories recorded in Genesis with conflicting information.
Actually, the law is our standard also. I would disagree, and yes, love is our standard, but love is not the law, and when Jesus said the law is summed up in love, I think he was trying to make a different point as opposed to saying that you can reduce the law down to only love. There are hundreds of laws which have no relation to love, and it’s a slippery road to equate the law with love in such simple terms, because sooner or later we are going to violate our own rules. Love is so much bigger than the law, and if a man still need the law in order to be “good” or “behave” like a responsible human being, then I think his is in big doo-doo. (Not you Jeff.) But that’s another debate. I get the essence of what you say, but I think we differ in the final execution of it.
Does God violate mans’ will? You betcha. Mary wasn’t asked permission to become the mother of Jesus. Try Eph 1.11, 11.32, John 6.44, Proverbs 21.1, and there hundres of examples in the Old Testament where God unilaterally acted without the permission of man. Yes, I do believe we make choices, which dictates the kind of live we experience on this planet. But somehow the whole “free will” theology distorted this one scripture to say man’s will is capable of triumphing over God’s will. It sounds kind of blasphemous to me.
Good to talk to you, and thanks Danger for asking tough questions.
That 'cheeky' DangerMouse is still here... I wrote a long reply on Monday and the browser ate it for lunch :o(... so I figured that reply wasn't meant to be... I haven't had the emotional energy to contribute and I am pondering what you both are saying... and trying to figure a way of expressing the gist of my thoughts behind the question...
but I want to say this... and forgive the mushy language... I had the biggest smile when I read what you both had written... my ol' heart was blessed and I feel happy... psalm whatever it is says how wonderful it is when bother dwell together in unity... it is like oil running down aaron's beard... I feel this about this conversation and in particular with you two in general... although I only know you on-line I get the good stuff of life from that... ;o))))))... this dialog will be going in my journal...
anyway back to the topic... I know the story well… but I think Christian’s tendency is to create thoughts around the story rather than engaging with the story as a partner in reflecting on life… my question arose as I am becoming increasingly aware of this in myself and starting to try and take elements of what I “believe” and take them back to life… I don’t have a good grip on what the “sinful nature” in reality is… so am wondering if my understanding is based on the story’s reflection or on a Christian second order (or beyond) construction… oh btw my theory is that the construction is utterly sinful… it totally missed the mark….
so jeff I am hearing your words defending the story but I get the feeling that your are defending a particular construction whilst at the same time being aware that there may be a construction and being incredibly open to other possibilities… I’m not saying my perspective is true… it’s just my perspective… it is really helpful being allowed into your thoughts but only confirms my suspicion that we as western fundamentalists don’t really understand what the f*** (flip of course) we are talking about…
I am not sure I am communicating and that’s probably because this is an area of exploration rather than insight for me… but enjoying the process immensely…
I’ll be away for a week getting Tony’d in Palm Springs… wish you guys lived near LA cause then we could do a beer or something… anyway… catch you later… acceptance and peace… DM
13 comments:
Darkness doesn't exist, it is the absence of light. Cold doesn't exist, it is the absence of heat (or energy). Is it possible that the sinful nature that we possess exists because of the absence of what died when Adam sinned?
Jeff... if God didn't create us with the bit of our minds that cause us to "sin" then are you saying that suddenly a part of our brains appeared out of thin air? I don't buy it... I think it is a very hard question and I don't think I've heard anything in the Christian camp that comes close to acknowledging what is going on... I'm not saying that God created us sinful, but he created us with the capacity to be sinful... I am wondering what the prior non-sinful thing was for?... for example he created us with canines so presumable we have always eaten flesh... I think the "story" is weak at this point and to investigate might uncover unhelpful assumptions...
The only argument I've heard about the "sinful" nature is that it is our ego's disconnecting from self and then needing to construct a false-self to take it's place because it has forgotten how to connect... the word relgion is about reconnection however most religious people today have no self of Self.. they are as disconnected as their non-religious counterparts hence statistics on divorce, debt etc are the same in the Christian church as outside... the church is not who it thinks it is... it is disconnected but believes otherwise...
sean - a cheeky response... conjectured ideas don't exist, they are the absence of truth...
according to me anyway... ;o)... appreciate your comments my friends... DM
Sean... maybe sin doesn't exist maybe it is the panic response to loss of connection with the Self / I am ness / Beingness... maybe the ego is feeling very alone...
I'm also curious that the central issue is knowledge of good and evil not knowledge of right and wrong.. it strikes me that knowing good and evil allows for fear... it strikes at the heart of the self-preservation instinct...
DM
Jeff... you're probably right about us approaching it from different perspectives... I think for me, 1) I don't understand the story, and 2) I believe that the story, however inspired, is reflective of reality... so I am looking to reality to try and make sense of the story...
The interpretation of the genesis redemptions stories that I received don't explain why the church is in the position that it is today and why Christians don't really look any different than non-Christians whereas the stories claim there should be a remarkable difference.
I believe that the stories are inspired so I believe them when they say that knowledge of God should make a difference. I'm just trying to figure out where the discrepency lies, why it is there and how to move beyond the stuckness.
However I don't think there is a general Self awareness amoungst Christians so typically they are unable to answer the question. Typically they revert to the make believe, the magical, to fairy tale, to their own created story - much of what is commonly known as theology... <cheeky grin>...
You up for batting this around some more? If so I have a some probing questions for you...
Chat soon my friend... peace DM
Jeff... ok first question... when you say "He created us perfectly" what does that mean to you... I feel much is glossed over by that idea but little is gained... I personally believe we were created perfect... I believe we were created good... and are still good... personally I'm am not sure how to define perfection and I don't know what you mean by it... was that gentle enough <grin> DM
oops sorry I mean I don't personally believe we were created perfect...
Hi Danger
I have heard the same story, that we were “perfect” and fell, etc. etc., but like you, the story just doesn’t add up. Actually, all cultures and religions have a similar story to explain their origins. We were perfect and one with God, lost it, and now the quest is to regain it. This alone should raise a red flag, and look at every religion, their whole paradigm is one of trying to re-connect with God. But what if we were/are one with God all along, and what we are chasing is already true?
All religions consist of this basic theme, and I think it was the only way our primitive archetypes could explain the turmoil in the cosmos around them without knowing what we do about science today.
But back to the “perfect” thing:
If the theory holds true, then we are to believe that there was an everlasting and perfect blade of grass before the fell. There was an everlasting perfect tree, lake, frog. But this theory fails the “unless a seed falls into the ground and die” test. In order for life to procreate on our planet, something must die, and therefore our universe could not have been as perfect before the fall as we are led to believe.
In order for there to be “sin” there needs to be some standard that says, this is wrong and that is right. The old covenant had such a standard, it was called the law. It was something the Jews (and only them) were held to, but now it’s been done away with. Or as Paul would say: Where there is NO law, there cannot be NO transgression of the LAW.
The rub is: there is some usefulness in some of the law which might benefits us. So, what if we turn the whole morality/sin thing into the functionality? For instance. We could dissect the Bible for hours to determine if smoking pot is sin or not. In fact, that’s exactly the debate going on between some people right now. Both camps using the Bible to claim why their take on the matter is right or wrong. Why it IS or IS NOT sin. But that’s a smokescreen that keeps many a religious mind busy.
So, let’s use the functionality test: Is it functional to smoke pot? Medically, we could argue that there might be some benefit to some terminally ill patients. Although, I would probably argue that they can extract the useful properties from it, and on the other hand, I don’t think government should legislate what people can do to their bodies either. But, it might not be functional for some people, as their DNA might predispose them to side effects which could cause them to become addicted to other substances.
The bottom line is, it could be functional for one and not for another. The whole world, and especially religion seems to want this cookie cutter approach for every human being, and hence the war over what is and is not sin.
Ok, enough rambling, I hope that makes sense.
peace!
Jeff
Actually, “free will” is the easiest argument in the Bible to dismantle. God violates man’s free will from page one to the very last page. It also says that he blinded all men to see, so if we are at the mercy of those odds, then it really isn’t up to us to decide. We can only understand and once we do we can willingly follow along.
just my 0.02
Sorry
I meant to say:
Where there is NO law, there is NO transgression of the Law.
Hey Jeff
For starters, I have never found you unreasonable to have a discussion with.
Actually, I think the word “adoption” is slightly used out of context. In the true meaning as I understand it, is that God only had a covenant with Israel, but that through Jesus all were included (adopted) into the second covenant. Paul didn’t say be adopted, he said we WERE adopted. Big difference, but even putting that aside, if we could ever be separate from God, then God is not omnipresent. The separation was more in our belief/understanding that this is the case, as opposed to that being the truth. IMHO.
I think the laws of physics alone dictate that the “perfect” world Christian theology presume is impossible. Be fruitful and multiply was before the fall. If nothing died, and all was bliss, then nothing could multiply. Seeds still needed to die in order to multiply, very much like the world we know today. To me the whole story is an allegory to me, it’s not based in actual literal events, as there are clearly two different “creation” stories recorded in Genesis with conflicting information.
Actually, the law is our standard also.
I would disagree, and yes, love is our standard, but love is not the law, and when Jesus said the law is summed up in love, I think he was trying to make a different point as opposed to saying that you can reduce the law down to only love. There are hundreds of laws which have no relation to love, and it’s a slippery road to equate the law with love in such simple terms, because sooner or later we are going to violate our own rules. Love is so much bigger than the law, and if a man still need the law in order to be “good” or “behave” like a responsible human being, then I think his is in big doo-doo. (Not you Jeff.) But that’s another debate. I get the essence of what you say, but I think we differ in the final execution of it.
Does God violate mans’ will? You betcha.
Mary wasn’t asked permission to become the mother of Jesus. Try Eph 1.11, 11.32, John 6.44, Proverbs 21.1, and there hundres of examples in the Old Testament where God unilaterally acted without the permission of man. Yes, I do believe we make choices, which dictates the kind of live we experience on this planet. But somehow the whole “free will” theology distorted this one scripture to say man’s will is capable of triumphing over God’s will. It sounds kind of blasphemous to me.
Good to talk to you, and thanks Danger for asking tough questions.
That 'cheeky' DangerMouse is still here... I wrote a long reply on Monday and the browser ate it for lunch :o(... so I figured that reply wasn't meant to be... I haven't had the emotional energy to contribute and I am pondering what you both are saying... and trying to figure a way of expressing the gist of my thoughts behind the question...
but I want to say this... and forgive the mushy language... I had the biggest smile when I read what you both had written... my ol' heart was blessed and I feel happy... psalm whatever it is says how wonderful it is when bother dwell together in unity... it is like oil running down aaron's beard... I feel this about this conversation and in particular with you two in general... although I only know you on-line I get the good stuff of life from that... ;o))))))... this dialog will be going in my journal...
anyway back to the topic... I know the story well… but I think Christian’s tendency is to create thoughts around the story rather than engaging with the story as a partner in reflecting on life… my question arose as I am becoming increasingly aware of this in myself and starting to try and take elements of what I “believe” and take them back to life… I don’t have a good grip on what the “sinful nature” in reality is… so am wondering if my understanding is based on the story’s reflection or on a Christian second order (or beyond) construction… oh btw my theory is that the construction is utterly sinful… it totally missed the mark….
so jeff I am hearing your words defending the story but I get the feeling that your are defending a particular construction whilst at the same time being aware that there may be a construction and being incredibly open to other possibilities… I’m not saying my perspective is true… it’s just my perspective… it is really helpful being allowed into your thoughts but only confirms my suspicion that we as western fundamentalists don’t really understand what the f*** (flip of course) we are talking about…
I am not sure I am communicating and that’s probably because this is an area of exploration rather than insight for me… but enjoying the process immensely…
I’ll be away for a week getting Tony’d in Palm Springs… wish you guys lived near LA cause then we could do a beer or something… anyway… catch you later… acceptance and peace… DM
Hey DM
Enjoy your time in PS, and give me a call if you are up to it. Not sure if you have my number. And enjoy ole Tony!
:-)
later
;o(... I didn't have your number... but did have an outstanding time...
Post a Comment