Thoughts on evolution

[Tao_Equus]

I have always heard it called the Tree of Knowledge, never the Tree of Knowledge of Death. This is my bugbear about theology, it 'makes' it say what it wants to say when it wants to say it. I could just as easily assemble all the stories of Thomas the Tank Engine and create any biblical allegory.

tao

[mee]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I have always heard it called the Tree of Knowledge, never the Tree of Knowledge of Death. This is my bugbear about theology, it 'makes' it say what it wants to say when it wants to say it. I could just as easily assemble all the stories of Thomas the Tank Engine and create any biblical allegory.

tao

And Jehovah God also laid this command upon the man: "From every tree of the garden you may eat to satisfaction. But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will positively die."
GENESIS 2'16-17

That tree symbolized the all-wise Creator’s right to decide what is good and what is bad.


On the day of eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, the first human couple died in God’s eyes and headed downward toward their physical death.

What happened to them when they finally died? The Bible gives insight into the condition of the dead. "The living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, so they went to dust and died .

[wil]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I could just as easily assemble all the stories of Thomas the Tank Engine and create any biblical allegory.

tao

And that I wouldn't fault you for doing so. That is what Thomas is about as well. Teaching morals, explaining complex concepts thru simple stories. Unfortunately TtTE could be interpreted wrong, used for evil, used to lure children into an abhorent situation...it that TtTE's fault, the author, the director, the station that airs it, or is it the fault of the perpetrator? The bible, religions, can be used and misused like guns, cars, and knives...

[Thomas]

Hi Path —

Originally Posted by path_of_one

I think this is common to believe among Christians - that we are incapable of insight due to our fallen nature.

I think that is an erroneous view on two counts:
1 — That insight itself is not possible — the evidence suggests it is, but to what depth that insight penetrates — what veils are transparent to it — is something else. It is axiomatic that man can see no further than he could by nature, and I suggest that our modern lives fall far short even of our natural capacity. I think shaman etc., can access this order of insight (not that they necessarily do).
2 — The insight possible by Grace transcends that possible by nature, and that order we are incapable by virtue of our nature — fallen or otherwise. Having fallen however, that gift has been withdrawn, or rather in its loss, man falls back in upon himself "In nihil ab nihilo quam cito recidimus" (How quickly we fall back from nothing to nothing) was an epitaph of the early Christian era.

The profound insight of the order of a mystic, for example, is fleeting. He is unable to cause it, and unable to sustain himself in it. There is no technique to achieve or attain it (I'm not talking of at best psychodynamics and at worst psychedelics — but way beyond that).

So again, in talking insight, it's a matter of degree. I do not think, for example, the insight possessed of the Primordial Couple prior to the Fall is equal to the vision of the Christian mystic.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Nature radiates the truth of oneness, and I am simply open to her message. It is pure speculation to think that only humans receive this truth.

I believe natures radiates the truth of nature, but only the human perceives the supernatural within the natural. Point, in the natural world, and the creature looks at your finger. Only man looks in the direction you are pointing. (I know you can train animals to do many things ... but that's simply impressing a human activity upon them.)

Everything you've said about nature, I believe is your conceptualisation of nature — your interpretation of your experience. It's your belief, it's neither proven nor given — that is not to say it's not true, but it's your faith.

I might argue that you seem to anthropomorphise nature, whilst dehumanising man!

+++

Originally Posted by path_of_one

It is really impossible to distinguish what benefits society (stability, low violence, altruism) from religious ideals (the 10 commandments).

It's not what you do, it's why you do it.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

So long as we fail to fully embrace what we truly are, we fail to fully realize the Kingdom of God among us.

But you continually reduce human nature to the same as everything else. I see that as a huge contradiction — you seem to deny there is anything 'human'. Nature doesn't teach love, for example. Not much love in a tsunami, or a hungry tiger ... one can wax about birdsong and swans, but for every sunset, there is a storm, there is 'nature red in tooth and claw'

Originally Posted by path_of_one

How many species are as brutal, as cruel, as cunning in their violence and greed, as humanity?

There are such species though.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Transcendental values? Heck, we don't even measure up against natural values. My dogs and horses take care of each other better than many human parents give love to their own children.

That's a negative argument, though, isn't it? Much of your critique of humanity seems founded on negatives.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

As is hierarchy.

If there is no order to the cosmos, then both our arguments are pointless.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

No, they are not necessarily. Hierarchy demands higher and lower. That does not need to mean inferior and superior, but yes, higher and lower.

Yes, nothing wrong with that. Things depend upon things. Without some things, other things can't exist, so yes, nature is all about the relationship between things, both horizontally and vertically. Without the vertical, you could not have complex organisms.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Relationships may be equal - that is, horizontal rather than vertical. Hierarchies are necessarily vertical, and this is not the only way to have a relationship.

No, but it is a fundamentally necessity for nature.

I sense a distaste of verticality, but a bad relationship does not mean relationships are bad. I would gently argue that your view of hierarchy lacks objectivity?

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Here, though, it is not a hierarchy, but a bunch of parts that work in an emergent system.

That's a hierarchy ... something emerges, built on something ...

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Hierarchy implies higher and lower.

Yep. Like up and down.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

To some extent, this works in the body (i.e., you need your heart and brain more) but in others, it doesn't (you need both your heart and brain equally).

Yep. But you could get away without a leg. Not without a brain ...

Originally Posted by path_of_one

The various parts of the body communicate and interact without a clear order of "who" is in charge - you would think the brain, but that would be an incomplete story on anatomy and physiology...

But we don't spontaneously turn into cats, or chairs ... so something's calling the shots ...

Natural Law, or the Laws or Nature, are hierarchical. Survival is hierarchical. Darwin. I don't see how you can get round it ... all nature, evolution, development, works that way ... without it, there would be no impetus for change.

Thomas

[wil]

Originally Posted by Thomas

1 — That insight itself is not possible — the evidence suggests it is, but to what depth that insight penetrates — what veils are transparent to it — is something else. It is axiomatic that man can see no further than he could by nature, and I suggest that our modern lives fall far short even of our natural capacity.

Namaste Thomas,

I read that Queen Helena, mother of Constatine, on no historical or archeoligical evidence had visions and created basilicas on every holy place in Israel that we have today. On what basis have we accepted that and continued telling folks that this site is the historic site of x, y, or z.

Just strange how much credit we give those long gone, who had less to go on than we, and how much we discredit our potential today.

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I have always heard it called the Tree of Knowledge, never the Tree of Knowledge of Death. This is my bugbear about theology, it 'makes' it say what it wants to say when it wants to say it. I could just as easily assemble all the stories of Thomas the Tank Engine and create any biblical allegory.

Actually sophistry's not my schtick:
"But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death." Genesis 2:17.

It's a common error though Tao ... many people assume they know what Scripture says, but never think about what it says ... or assume that what it means to them must be what the scribe intended.

Thomas

[Tao_Equus]

I am very tempted to launch into a history of exactly how the Churches have used this line and its accompanying verses to justify actions and policies that are about as bad as they get. But just this once I will restrain myself

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by wil

Namaste Thomas,

I read that Queen Helena, mother of Constatine, on no historical or archeoligical evidence had visions and created basilicas on every holy place in Israel that we have today. On what basis have we accepted that and continued telling folks that this site is the historic site of x, y, or z.

Just strange how much credit we give those long gone, who had less to go on than we, and how much we discredit our potential today.

I don't think we do ... I agree that my implication was just that, but I think that insight in this age can be equally deep and profound, in fact must be, as that which is seen is eternal, and available to all men in all ages.

But I would argue she had more to go on — Christianity today is so confused and confounded with the rejection of tradition, and the acceptance of every opinion, no matter how contrary or contradictory, more than any question she had in her day.

Whether she created basilicas as a pragmatic move to support her son, or whether she did so as an act in response to faith ... or both, or indeed whether she did at all, in the absence of evidence ... remains a question that can be argued.

We accept it on the basis of testimony, if there is no hard evidence to support it, other than testimony, there is no hard evidence to the contrary. It remains then simply part of the story, but it is not doctrine nor dogma, nor does it form the Deposit of Faith.

There is no doctrine nor dogma that states that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the Gospels attributed to them, as you know ... just that they were written, and that they are inspired, with the Holy Spirit as their source and man as their author ... tradition and evidence supports the thesis that they indeed were the authors, but the hypothesis remains one of healthy theological debate ... the simple fact is the argument in their favour is stronger than any argument against.

Likewise, there is no doctrine nor dogma that insists we believe in Adam and Eve as the biological parents of the human race. The first eleven chapters of Genesis is, in Catholic eyes, a mythology.

The fact that, as we stand, science and theology generally agree on phylitic monogenism in no wise contradicts the essential lesson of the myth. The two exist harmoniously on different planes.

Thomas

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I am very tempted to launch into a history of exactly how the Churches have used this line and its accompanying verses to justify actions and policies that are about as bad as they get. But just this once I will restrain myself

But that would be immaterial to the point, as man's actions in response to Scripture do not prove nor disprove its validity. I could launch into a history of exactly how the Churches have used this line and its accompanying verses to justify actions and policies that are about as good as they get — but where would that get us?

I could argue against the science of medicine on the same lines ... consider Mengele or Harold Shipman ...

Thomas

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Thomas

1 — That insight itself is not possible — the evidence suggests it is, but to what depth that insight penetrates — what veils are transparent to it — is something else.
2 — The insight possible by Grace transcends that possible by nature, and that order we are incapable by virtue of our nature — fallen or otherwise.

I entirely agree, although I think that which we have by nature is given by Grace. What can we have that is not from God, but only from ourselves?

Having fallen however, that gift has been withdrawn, or rather in its loss, man falls back in upon himself

I don't believe humanity is fallen, I believe it continually chooses to fall. That is, Christ is the bridge to God and the veil has been torn. However, people continue to look away from God and rely on themselves. We could embrace our full potential ("Greater things than this will you do...") but, thus far as a species, we do not. Individuals manage to do this from a variety of religions, but no mass movement has yet arisen.

The profound insight of the order of a mystic, for example, is fleeting. He is unable to cause it, and unable to sustain himself in it.

Perhaps this is your perspective, or the Christian perspective. But I put forth that in other religions- Buddhism, for example- the insight that is attained is maintained. Enlightenment is not a fleeting moment, but becomes a state of consciousness. I would argue that some of the accounts of the saints seem to indicate a similar trajectory. Moments of profound insight yield permanently transformed consciousness.

Of course, I agree that we are unable to cause it or sustain it. But then, I also believe we are unable to cause or sustain anything in and of ourselves. Nothing exists without God, and God is the source of all insight. God can manifest in various ways to provide that insight, but the heart of mysticism is a relationship with God.

I believe natures radiates the truth of nature, but only the human perceives the supernatural within the natural.

Well, we believe different things. There is scant evidence for either of our claims, which was my original point. Science can be used to back up either view (though I put forth that the more anthropologists and primatologists study humankind and animals, the less clear distinction we find in science). Mostly, however, science points out that we cannot know this scientifically. So all becomes conjecture and faith in our own perception.

You would say nature radiates the truth of nature, and only humans perceive the supernatural within it. I would say nature is the garment of God and radiates the truth of the Divine, and we perceive the supernatural within it because that is what is there... That animals process symbols differently than humans is irrelevant, as it is not good scientific evidence for or against how they process interaction with the Divine or their role in teaching humans. You might say that pointing is a poor example to boot- most animals do not have hands that are as mobile and do not communicate through intermediate symbols but rather through sharing emotion and thought. When I am in a herd of horses, if I still my own mind enough and hang out long enough, I eventually can sense what they sense, move when they move, startle when they startle. There is no need to point when everyone in the group shares thought and emotion as one entity. Tough to explain, but I gave it a go.

Everything you've said about nature, I believe is your conceptualisation of nature — your interpretation of your experience. It's your belief, it's neither proven nor given — that is not to say it's not true, but it's your faith.

Of course, what else could it be? It is the same for you and every other person on earth. That was my original point- we can't know, we can only choose beliefs based on either our own experience or what we are told by others.

I might argue that you seem to anthropomorphise nature, whilst dehumanising man!

Ah, but if I do, it is in a long and well-founded tradition of what has seemed most natural to human thought. And it is a viewpoint that tends to lead to sustainability and love for all beings, so I think it is pragmatic as well. While there are problems with some of the theory, Kay Milton's "Loving Nature" explains much of the anthropology and cognition behind seeing the person-hood of Nature.

I would argue, from my view, that I do not anthropomorphize nature at all. Indeed, I do not see Gaia as very human-like, nor have I experienced much commonality between how it has "felt" to perceive and communicate as other beings and how it is to be human. In fact, in the moments I have perceived reality very differently (as water, as a tree, as a horse, as a deer, etc.)-- it was profoundly different than my usual waking consciousness as a human being, and each was incredibly distinctive from each other. So I am not arguing that Nature is like humankind. I am arguing that humankind is another bit of Nature- unique, special, but not in any scientifically proven way and this uniqueness is not any more or less than the uniqueness of any other group of beings in Nature. Basically, I would argue that I perceive the person-hood of all beings, but all people are not the same. Bird-people and elemental-people and tree-people are very distinct from each other and from human-people. A person is not the same thing as a human.

As for dehumanizing humankind, I just call it as I see it. I've studied humans for a while now, and the more I study them, the more I find we are only different from other living beings by degrees. I can't change what biology and cognitive science reveal; I can only report. Now, it does not mean that I don't see that humans have a unique spiritual role. Because I do. But then, so too do I feel that each group of beings in Nature has a unique spiritual role. I believe humans were supposed to be stewards, but we do a fairly lousy job. Doesn't change what we are at our core, but seems that humans mostly operate now in a fog of sleep-walking, and don't recognize themselves.

It's not what you do, it's why you do it.

I entirely agree, but that is faith. Science reveals little difference.

More to come...

[path_of_one]

But you continually reduce human nature to the same as everything else. I see that as a huge contradiction — you seem to deny there is anything 'human'.

No, just because I do not see humans as uniquely unique doesn't mean I don't see humans as unique. Nothing is the same as everything else, yet the unity is more present than the diversity. I don't deny that there is something that is human, I just am honest when I say science has not been able to pinpoint clear distinction. Various spiritual traditions have beliefs on the distinction, but that is not the same as arguing it coincides with the science.

Nature doesn't teach love, for example. Not much love in a tsunami, or a hungry tiger ... one can wax about birdsong and swans, but for every sunset, there is a storm, there is 'nature red in tooth and claw'

I think Nature does teach love. Why do you say there is no love in a tsunami or a hungry tiger? Just because Nature isn't all fluffy bunny rabbits and flowers doesn't mean that there isn't love in the full cycle of creation and destruction. Endings are beginnings. It isn't the type of love that we like to think about- that is easy and comfortable. But it is love at its most profound- love that is linked to creativity and sacrifice and continuity.

I would say if you cannot see that Nature teaches love, we must have very different ways of perceiving love and/or very different experiences of Nature's gifts of insight.

Much of your critique of humanity seems founded on negatives.

What can I say? Humanity is in discord with both God and Nature. We're unsustainable and mean and cruel, even to each other. I think there are some wonderful qualities in humanity too, but as a group we have failed thus far to realize them.

If there is no order to the cosmos, then both our arguments are pointless.

I find there is order. It just isn't the order that you are finding.

Things depend upon things. Without some things, other things can't exist, so yes, nature is all about the relationship between things, both horizontally and vertically.

Well, yeah. I'm not saying there aren't vertical relationships, but you had said relationships were all about the vertical. I am saying there are many ways to be in relationship, of which vertical is only one.

Without the vertical, you could not have complex organisms.

Explain please?

I sense a distaste of verticality, but a bad relationship does not mean relationships are bad. I would gently argue that your view of hierarchy lacks objectivity?

I don't find verticality distasteful, but I also do not see it where it isn't in evidence. Just because things are in relationship does not make the relationship vertical. In cognitive science, we find that humans sometimes assign verticality to orders of objects where there is none. I'm just pointing out that while some relationships are vertical, many are not, and we can force that type of classification schema, but it would be erroneous.

That's a hierarchy ... something emerges, built on something ...

That is not hierarchy. By definition, hierarchy implies ranking. Just because there are emergent properties, does not indicate ranking among a group of objects. The more I read of modern physics and biology and evolutionary theory, the more it becomes clear to me that science supports a reality that is not generally hierarchical. Rather, it supports a reality that is interactive. Nothing is “in charge,” but order emerges out of the mutual and horizontal interactions between the bits and pieces. I find this in physics, ecology, biology, and social science.

But we don't spontaneously turn into cats, or chairs ... so something's calling the shots ...

I don’t see it as much of a hierarchy for me to believe God exists and manifests order in Nature. Not, God calls the shots. But rather, Nature was created by God and is a manifestation of the Creator. So, it is not surprising to me that out of the interactions in Nature, order emerges. Just because there is order doesn’t mean there is hierarchy (ranking).

Natural Law, or the Laws or Nature, are hierarchical. Survival is hierarchical. Darwin. I don't see how you can get round it ... all nature, evolution, development, works that way ... without it, there would be no impetus for change.

Really? Because all that I have learned in evolutionary theory, in modern physics, in science in general indicates that there are very few natural laws, and none seem to operate the same at different levels of inquiry. That’s why there is the hunt for the “theory of everything.” Second, reality seems to be interactive with emergent properties rather than ranked. Scientific inquiry didn’t stop with Darwin and Newton. Theory has advanced since then and so has the data. And I can’t see how hierarchy or the lack thereof has much to do with change- perhaps you could explain?

Please be aware, Thomas, I am not saying your worldview is wrong. I am just pointing out that I have a very different one to point out that there are many ways to interpret experience and observable reality. We are both of us grounded in faith; the science brings more questions than answers.

[Thomas]

Hi Path —

Originally Posted by path_of_one

No, just because I do not see humans as uniquely unique doesn't mean I don't see humans as unique...

With you now. I can go with that. I suppose I would argue the 'uniquely unique' dimension is the nature of the dialogue with God.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

I think Nature does teach love.

I think you're making a very human qualitative value about nature ... dare I say you're conceptualising it?

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Well, yeah. I'm not saying there aren't vertical relationships, but you had said relationships were all about the vertical. I am saying there are many ways to be in relationship, of which vertical is only one.

Agreed, sorry I misled you there.

(The symbol of the cross, arms outstretched ... that's the horizontal ... )

Might have come across a bit patriarchal (bad verticality) — I think vertical relationships are natural, but that the superior/inferior attitude 'we' accord it, is utterly wrong. In all that, love is the great leveller ... in love we are one, then length and breadth, width and height, all disappear ... it's all one ... sheesh, I'm beginning to sound like you!

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Please be aware, Thomas, I am not saying your worldview is wrong. I am just pointing out that I have a very different one to point out that there are many ways to interpret experience and observable reality. We are both of us grounded in faith; the science brings more questions than answers.

Ditto, I am actually enjoying and learning from this discussion. Science, as you might guess, is not my strong suit ... and I do hope I have not caused offence.

Perhaps when this is done, you'd discuss paganism with me? Not with 'me Christian/you pagan' overtone, but perhaps a comparison of the mythopoeic and philosophic world view ... again, that might be just how you'd expect a Christian to see it, so I could be off on the wrong foot right from the start ...

Anyways,

God bless,

Thomas

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Thomas

With you now. I can go with that. I suppose I would argue the 'uniquely unique' dimension is the nature of the dialogue with God.

Oh, I definitely agree, in a way. But even then, I think all types of beings have a unique way of being in communion with God. But yes, I think humans definitely have a unique spiritual role here on earth- that of steward- and this implies a particular kind of dialogue with God since I believe stewardship is a spiritual as well as a practical thing.

I think it is not an accident that humans have reason and think abstractly as they do, but that if this is not balanced with spiritual insight gained by experience and not by philosophy, we forget the one-ness and are unable to properly fill our God-given role.

That said, I suppose you could say I think we are stewards and yet there are other stewards as well, of other types. The elementals, the tree-spirits, the spirits of place... these have their own wisdom to impart, and work with us to provide for the continuity and fullness of Nature, if we listen.

Unlike some Pagans, I don't see the nature spirits as gods or goddesses. I see them as other types of people, along with the types of people I can easily perceive with my usual 5 senses- other mammals are the easiest for most humans to connect with because they are the most like ourselves. But I see person-hood in everything- "Rocks are people too, just slow-moving, quiet ones." All have their own relationship to God, their own role, their own wisdom and energy. I respect them as equals to myself, but of course they are different. We are equal in importance and in potential, but what our highest purpose is differs, which is necessary for Nature to function.

I think you're making a very human qualitative value about nature ... dare I say you're conceptualising it?

Of course, all humans conceptualize everything. The instant I try to communicate my experience from the realm of spirit to the realm of language, it is mucked up. But I can say, I really don't see Nature as human. Nature, to me, has two meanings in this conversation- first, an umbrella term to mean everything in physical reality, and more specifically, everything on earth and second, the equivalent of saying "Gaia" or "The Earth Mother"- as a being of its own. In a way, there is some sort of equivalent as well that means All- the Universe- but I have no name for that. I think that Gaia, or Nature in this sense, has a consciousness, an awareness, a person-hood. But Gaia is not human-like at all. It's like saying we anthropomorphize God. No, we recognize God is more than us but encompasses what we are. What we recognize are qualities we share with God, not qualities God has that are human. So too with Gaia. Gaia is not human, but I can recognize things in myself that resonate with my experience of Gaia. As clarification, I see Gaia not as God or even as a god, but rather as a manifestation of God (as we all are). God is always more than the sum of the parts...

Now, the interesting thing is that I can step outside of being human and have moments of perception that are profoundly different- that I experience as being water or wind or a dog or a tree. I can experience one-ness with Gaia too. I can experience God. But at heart, I cannot know that my experience is what their reality is. I learn from it, but I'm aware it is only my experience of reality. I can't know actual reality, or if there is even such a thing, outside of believing there is, fundamentally, God and that may be the only absolute.

Agreed, sorry I misled you there.

No problem- all seems more clear now! I think we actually see much the same, but of course we have distance and language to confound us, so it takes a bit of work to hash it out. Tower of Babel, anyone?

(The symbol of the cross, arms outstretched ... that's the horizontal ... )

I very much agree- I am not as opposed to verticality as I may seem. I just misunderstood and thought you were saying all order was based on it. There are many reasons I have a Celtic cross tattooed on my back... there are many meanings for me in the symbol of the cross...

I think vertical relationships are natural, but that the superior/inferior attitude 'we' accord it, is utterly wrong. In all that, love is the great leveller ... in love we are one, then length and breadth, width and height, all disappear ... it's all one ... sheesh, I'm beginning to sound like you!

LOL- in love, we all sound the same! I agree that some verticality is natural, and that the superior/inferior thing is a human mistake. I think humans like to assign verticality where there isn't any, too, and also to classify everything when some things are best left unclassified, but I don't think it's a sin or anything, just a cognitive error. It helps us organize our thoughts about the world, but unfortunately can also keep us from discovering what reality is rather than what we think it should be.

Ditto, I am actually enjoying and learning from this discussion. Science, as you might guess, is not my strong suit ... and I do hope I have not caused offence.

Not at all, Thomas. I always love discussing with you, because I learn a ton about the orthodox Catholic viewpoint, which is often surprisingly similar to my own. (Or maybe that should not be surprising... ) As for science, even though I try to keep up on it, everything is so specialized and there are oodles and tons of new stuff coming out every day. I make tons of mistakes, no doubt, and have gaps in my knowledge a mile wide. All we can do is try. The biggest thing I try to do is recognize the limits of science and definitely of my knowledge of science, and figure out where "anthropologist Kim" leaves off and "spiritual-mystic-Path-of-One" begins. (Of course, it isn't that tidy, but I try.)

Most of all, I think much of what matters the most is not accessible through scientific inquiry. The science and even the religion is often a mental exercise for me- fun, but what is most fundamental in life for me is neither science nor religion- it is my personal relationship with God. It is spiritual experience. The deepest truths in my own life, that have caused me to advance the most in love and peace, have been in the spirit and not in the mind.

Perhaps when this is done, you'd discuss paganism with me? Not with 'me Christian/you pagan' overtone, but perhaps a comparison of the mythopoeic and philosophic world view ... again, that might be just how you'd expect a Christian to see it, so I could be off on the wrong foot right from the start ...

I could try setting up a thread in comparative. It would be interesting to me, too. I'm a funny sort of Pagan just like I'm a funny sort of Christian. I can't let go of monotheism and Christ enough to be "properly" Pagan (if there is such a thing)- can't wrap my mind around polytheism except in a philosophical way, and I can't let go of the uniqueness of Christ. Then again, I can't let go of my fundamentally nature-based spirituality enough to be properly "Christian," either.

I think in both cases, you can study religion in the standard way, by looking at myth, practice, philosophy, ethics, etc. Of course, what will be interesting is that the diversity within both Christianity and Paganism is probably as notable as the differences between them. Perhaps even moreso in Paganism because Pagan traditions, for the most part, while sharing many of the same concepts and practices, are located in a wide variety of cultures and places. And we have no centralized authority as you do.

There is a saying... Ask 10 Pagans a question about their religion and you will get 11 answers.

Peace and Blessings to you, too, Thomas-

Path/Kim

[Quahom1]

It's called "Biologos" And it works. Can't see the whole of the "elephant" up close. Have to step back and look at the whole "elephant", in order to comprehend the magnitude of the creation.

That someone designed and set into motion all of this universe is without question. But the "Author" also designed his creation to evolve (just as He planned it to do), is now also without question.

His plan is perfect, and we are the results (so far).

v/r

Q

[Bishadi]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Scripture presents all humanity descended from the Primordial Couple, Adam and Eve, technically called monogenism — until recently a discredited theory in the eyes of evolutionists, who generally favoured of a Darwinian evolution of man based on polygenism — multiple sources.

And if the change was to atoms and energy, then evolution is perfected in th knowledge of how mass and energy associate. In which the current sciences suggest evolution is real but the physics governed by planck's constant remain true to entropy, thereby the combining in a mathematical frame does not exist in public teachings

But that is changing. A paradigm shift is about to occur that not only addresses the sciences by correcting the error of planck but also shares how ever lasting life is by choice.

It is axiomatic that original sin, or The Fall, is not and was not an 'inevitability' in the evolutionary process, nor was it accidental ... 'sin' requires the free act of the will to choose what it knows to be morally wrong ... the pagan and gnostic practice of equating sin with knowledge, and avoiding the moral dimension altogether, is an erroneous interpretation of Scripture, and misses the point entirely.

So the adam and eve story suggests the original sin was choice? When the seal or actual understanding is that the day of choice was the day man became aware of existence. He became aware of choice (the apple) and thereby began his self awareness (the fig leaf) and thereby isolated 'himself' from nature (left the garden)...

So the truth is that apple day, was one of the greatest in evolution.

It is equally axiomatic therefore that a wilful and knowing action brought about the downfall of humanity.

If that be the case then why are we all here, with choice, making babies and all still alive?

My own personal speculation, of this moment, is that prior to the Fall humanity was collectively as well as individually conscious, and that no individual acted independent of the collective body — we were as one — a degree of unity that we can only dream about, but that all spiritual traditions talk of — a transcendental union.

In a sense but choice was not available prior as in the garden mankind was like the beast, strictly instinctive (one with nature and existence)

Remember in Scripture, Adam and Eve fell, not one and then the other, so in this way I can read a collective sin, but that does not mean that the individual can shirk responsibility for it, as humanity is wont to do.

Likewise after the Fall they saw themselves as distinct and distinctly different creatures ... they saw themselves externally ... they lost sight of that collective interiority.

They had no 'words' prior to consciousness. Words are what convey experiences.

The genius of the Hebrew Scribe was in presenting a moment in the evolutionary history of a species as a story about two people.

if that be the case why is it that not until the 20th century was the adam and eve story still misunderstood.

The seven seals are the conveyable representation of the parables in biblical teachings.

i.e... 'raising the fathers to the flesh' is the seventh seal!

and if you are reading much on this site......... the answer now exists!

Why? Because the evolution of knowledge continues, with or without the religious right trying to suppress the truth.

Evolution is nothing to debate but to perfect. Then teach the children so never again can theologies ever damage Understanding again