Deconstructing the Hebrew creation myth

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

surly you will die

They did die - at least the them that they were. In tarot, the death card merely means change. For the new to be born (their newly wiser selves) their old selves (ignorant selves) had to "die" so to speak. Much as with how samsara has been described here - the old self of the last moment is dead, replaced by the new self of the present.

The "you" that God spoke to did die.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

But it is difficult to say.

As it is difficult to grow.

The suspicion one might raise against supposed 'noble savage' hunter-gather-perma-culture-type of tribes as is often suggested in these discussions is perhaps only one word: stagnation. Deadly.

Perhaps slow evolution can only possibly exist in between bloody revolutions. The little engine that could...

[reedsch]

I perceive that GROW is the operative word. Perhaps a young adult new to the working world looks back wistfully at the halycon days of college, but to regard this progression as some kind of decline is navel-gazing nostalgia. The bit of getting down on agriculture also strikes me as revisionist in the extreme, as does the whole idea that something is "wrong" with reality. That's part of the reason I wanted to scrutinize the Creation Myth, because it enshrines the "wrognness" of reality from the very start.

Here's one alternative explanation for you: that everything as it is now is EXACTLY AS GOD INTENDED:
-death is part of life
-violence is an integral part of the create-sustain-destroy cycle
-shit happens and sometimes the bad guy wins
-the cycle is continuous
-life is self-justifying

[Iolaus]

Diebert,

I think the idea that humanity must have been stagnating unless they became intensely neurotic and spiritually cut off just is an unthinking prejudice. The opposite might even be the case.

Reed,

We could certainly reinterpret Genesis, in more than one way, but I suspect that there is a whole lot more going on with it than you can know. I think there are information codes in there and that the cover story is just that - a cover for the masses, which could also contain a lot of truth, poetic truth, and some outright falsity. I don't think providing a factual account in accordance with the modern mind was ever their intention.

[kennyvii]

Iolaus wrote:

I have two interpretations of the fall. One, it was not bad, because we must indeed have knowledge of good and evil if we are to mature into an adult race. Innocence is babyhood. The path of knowledge of good and evil is the path to wisdom and enlightenment.

So mankind invites evil into the world through his own consciousness in trade for his innocence and he is better off?

Iolaus wrote:

Two, the fall from grace is a common theme around the world and reflects that during the time when humanity lived in harmony with nature they perceived things quite differently, and while they were not pure and completely ethical, their bad actions tended to be self-limited, and because they were hunter-gatherers, they just did not have things like overpopulation, division of labor, rich and poor, kings who could say "off with his head!" a priesthood to suppress and frighten the people, dogma and coercion, or heavy labor to produce their food. Hunter-gatherer people tend to work just an average of 3 hours a day, and while we might think they have a hard life with few comforts, they routinely consider the earth and the creator as generous and bountiful - i.e., a garden.

How far back did you go and how isolated a group of "hunter-gatheres" did you find to learn of this lost bliss?
Did you know that the average life span of a wolf in the wild is 2.5 yrs? And that 75% of wolves die under the jaws of other wolves? Civilization may not have been better for people but it has been better,at least, for dogs.

In this case, the 'apple' was agriculture.

Because why? the tree was planted in "the garden"?...You just said the garden represented the untamed wilderness of bliss, didn'y you?

[kennyvii]

I perceive that GROW is the operative word. Perhaps a young adult new to the working world looks back wistfully at the halycon days of college, but to regard this progression as some kind of decline is navel-gazing nostalgia. The bit of getting down on agriculture also strikes me as revisionist in the extreme, as does the whole idea that something is "wrong" with reality. That's part of the reason I wanted to scrutinize the Creation Myth, because it enshrines the "wrognness" of reality from the very start.

for what it is worth I agree that the idea of agriculture as being a turn away from bliss is hard to fathom.
But that the story agrees with apparent reality 9be it righteous or evil) I can not understand. Why do you think it was written if it only restates what is obvious? Calling it a myth may be my clue, being that you must not credit the author (or rather, producer) as having any point more important than mere story telling. Otherwise a brilliant person like you would naturally call it what it is: an allegory; something that was carefully crafted with a purpose to tell us something unapparent.

Much of the old Testiment is dull and was written by dullards for dull purposes but when you read Genesis don't you see it as different than the Levinical Laws and the begats that follow it? It may very well have been a story weaved together by Moses himself. A man whose life does not seem directed toward frivolous entertainment or pointless children's stories.

[Matt Gregory]

The OT is a compilation of a lot of different stuff; it wasn't written by one man. For example, there are actually two different creation stories in Genesis. The second one starts at chapter 5 and the story of the flood and everything came from a completely different tradition that I can't recall the name of.

[reedsch]

Calling it a myth may be my clue, being that you must not credit the author (or rather, producer) as having any point more important than mere story telling.

I meant to say Myth (in the Joseph Campbell sense of the word) rather than myth i.e. fable. Though fable is perhaps the most appropriate description, a story with a definite moral. Where the story came from is anybody's guess. It's purposes can also only be surmised. Part of my purpose in this thread was to (1) evaluate how profoundly our creation story conditions our worldview and (2) reevaluate/rehabilitate said creation story giving it a more positive drift/moral. I am profoundly burned out with the view that reality has an inherent wrongness to it, a view that seems to me firmly rooted in the creation story and nowhere else. SO attack the root!

[Iolaus]

Reed,

I did not say there was something wrong with reality. But there is definitely something wrong with humans. All civilized religions go with this as a premise. I don't know that any aboriginal ones do.

The whole idea of lost bliss and why agriculture is the start of it is well done in certain books, and I don't know if it is really possible to do it justice here.

The Genesis story (according to Quinn) is the tale of one aboriginal people's transition and encounter with civilization. Then as now, Cain kills Abel. Then as now, Cain feels like a fugitive on earth. And Cain is the founder of cities, of metal smelting, of kingship.

Kenny,

I fail to believe that 75% of wolves are killed by other wolves. Where do I read up on that?

So mankind invites evil into the world through his own consciousness in trade for his innocence and he is better off?

Well, I don't think the story is that simple. Like Matt pointed out, there are two stories woven together. In the account of Noah's flood, it is particularly obvious is you read the two side by side. But having embarked on our particular path of willfull interference in nature, the only way out is through.

I do have a certain premise that you must fully experience evil, including being evil oneself (through reincarnation no doubt) in order to learn its consequences and prefer the good. Being good is not the same as being innocent. But I am not sure if witnessing evil might not be just as useful.

How far back did you go and how isolated a group of "hunter-gatheres" did you find to learn of this lost bliss?

Actually, there is quite a lot of research, but many of those things are just pretty obvious. Look at the life of American Indians. They did not have authoritative kings, division of labor, significant differences of riches or power between one person and another, little or no crime, and certainly no elaborate religious dogma . That lifestyle just does not support any of that. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't denigrate the rigors of that life while preferring civilization, and then at the same time insist that the problems of civilization were had by them too.

[Iolaus]

Reed,

Buddhism has nothing to do with the Hebrew creation story, and its premise is that existence is suffering, and that we should learn to get off this terrible wheel of birth and death.

Nobody would buy the negativity if they didn't feel it. But I agree that it is a self-contained and self-referencing system, and that the miserable religion reinforces a lot of negativity, making it worse instead of better. I don't know why you focus only on the creation story, I think the whole dogma is just one big reinforcer of hopelessness and despair and negativity.

[reedsch]

But there is definitely something wrong with humans. All civilized religions go with this as a premise. I don't know that any aboriginal ones do.

And that is my point, that it is possible the premise is itself wrong, and that there is nothing fundamentally "wrong" with humans at all. In terms of hypotheses, this seems as valid and validatable (is that a real word?) as any of the others.

many of those things are just pretty obvious. Look at the life of American Indians.

Ouch. You are setting up a straw man by idealizing the Amerindian lifestyle.

I don't know why you focus only on the creation story,

Because it sets the stage for EVERYTHING that follows.

[reedsch]

Otherwise a brilliant person like you would naturally call it what it is: an allegory; something that was carefully crafted with a purpose to tell us something unapparent.

OK, I'll take the bait (especially after being set up like that): what is the unapparent point to the allegory?

...keeping in mind that the popular interpretation is what rules.

[kennyvii]

OK, I'll take the bait (especially after being set up like that): what is the unapparent point to the allegory?

...keeping in mind that the popular interpretation is what rules.

Hmmm, but I was just about to conceed your point that it could reasonably be called a myth....a couple of myths (Preistly and Yahwist) and some obvious editing after the Exile (possibly by Moses himself?) woven together into a parable.

The popular interpretations are that these are two storys about the same thing; both "true" accounts only from different perspectives.

But if one account is "true" then the other is an obvious lie; they are not congruent, they refute each other. I see this as a point of major importance. See, if the second account is wrong then everything Jesus said and did makes sense but if the second account is true then I may as well join the fundies and go back to reading my bible with a shoe horn and a hammer.

I don't think Adam and Eve (mankind) was kicked from The Garden of Eden (the original harmonious state of creation), I think this is the horendous dream of men playing God (egotism).

That's what's unapparent and that is what a man like Moses would have known and tried to convey somehow, through the ages.

[kennyvii]

Kenny,

I fail to believe that 75% of wolves are killed by other wolves. Where do I read up on that?

Well, I live in Alaska. I read that in our local paper. It was a number of years ago. It was a study of the life cycles of wolves in Mt. McKinnely Nat'l Park. The rest are killed by moose probably. You probably need proof that wolves eat each other also, no? I want to find that study or a new one also so I will see what I can do for us.

How have you been taught how most wolves die? What does Mort Farley say? Do they ascend to heaven after three decades of vegitarian bliss?
Have you ever considered how a moose dies? It usually takes only six days; isn't that nice? Six days of running battle with 40 starving wolves under the moon light. That's what a moose has to look forward to. A few lucky ones fall through the ice crossing a river. And they are lucky because they are the ones that weren't seperated from their mother as calves and torn in half. Once the moose is completely devoured the wolves will drop back and eat every drop of blood. Moose wouldn't have been made so tough if there were a god. Nature is merciless. Everything in nature is half starved to death all its life until it gets torn apart by something bigger and also starving to death. Nature never allows six fat wolves. Nature always opts instead in that place for 20 miserible starving wolves. That is the balance of nature. Nature is hell, truely.

kenny wrote:

So mankind invites evil into the world through his own consciousness in trade for his innocence and he is better off?
Iolaus wrote:
Well, I don't think the story is that simple. Like Matt pointed out, there are two stories woven together. In the account of Noah's flood, it is particularly obvious is you read the two side by side. But having embarked on our particular path of willfull interference in nature, the only way out is through.

That is interesting. I have not paid much attention to the Noah story. Still, any interference in nature strikes me as worthy. I should study the Noah story more. Thank you.

I do have a certain premise that you must fully experience evil, including being evil oneself (through reincarnation no doubt) in order to learn its consequences and prefer the good. Being good is not the same as being innocent. But I am not sure if witnessing evil might not be just as useful.

I respect this. I dont' agree but however normal it is around here, I love it when people think about stuff like this.

Kenny wrote:

How far back did you go and how isolated a group of "hunter-gatheres" did you find to learn of this lost bliss?

Iolaus wrote:

Actually, there is quite a lot of research, but many of those things are just pretty obvious. Look at the life of American Indians. They did not have authoritative kings, division of labor, significant differences of riches or power between one person and another, little or no crime, and certainly no elaborate religious dogma . That lifestyle just does not support any of that.

They were hunter and gatherers so it is true that they wouldn't have industrial type organization but that they didn't have "crime" is silly because they didn't have laws, per se or governments per se but still they had rules and harsh disciplines for breaking them. Much much harsher than civilized types like us would dream to apply. And what makes you think they didn't have dogmas? or have need of dogmas? Dogma is only bad when it becomes obsolete for one reason or other.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't denigrate the rigors of that life while preferring civilization, and then at the same time insist that the problems of civilization were had by them too.

Was I doing that? I dont' see it.

I edited a few lines of hyperbole this morning.

[Iolaus]

Reed,

And that is my point, that it is possible the premise is itself wrong, and that there is nothing fundamentally "wrong" with humans at all.

But there is a difference between saying there is something wrong with relaity, and saying there is something wrong with humans. There is something wrong with humans, because they have assessed themselves as lost, and unhappy.

Ouch. You are setting up a straw man by idealizing the Amerindian lifestyle.

I do tend to idealize aboriginal life, but I merely in this case mentioned several components of civilized life that they lack, which is not a strawman.

Because it sets the stage for EVERYTHING that follows.

Well, you may be right about that. But I say the feeling comes first, and the story weaving is the natural human tendency to make sense of the inner sensation by justifying or explaining why it is so.

Kenny,

But if one account is "true" then the other is an obvious lie; they are not congruent, they refute each other. I see this as a point of major importance. See, if the second account is wrong then everything Jesus said and did makes sense but if the second account is true then I may as well join the fundies and go back to reading my bible with a shoe horn and a hammer.

You will really have to elaborate here. And what are the shoehorn and hammer for?

That's what's unapparent and that is what a man like Moses would have known and tried to convey somehow, through the ages.

It seems whoever sewed the Bible together was trying to cover the difference, not show it. What do you think Moses was trying to convey?

You probably need proof that wolves eat each other also, no?

Well, yeah.

What does Mort Farley say?

I don't know. I read one of his books many years ago.

Have you ever considered how a moose dies? It usually takes only six days; isn't that nice?

I realize I don't happen to be an expert, but I doubt this. Does it sometimes happen? Probably. But a six day hunt to get a meal? Something is wrong with the picture here. That can't be the norm. I have certainly watched my share of nature programs, and sometimes they are quite in-depth. A couple involved watching a lion pride for months. There were a couple of bad scenes. A baby elephant got trampled and his leg was broken. Elephants are pretty nice but eventually they had to move on. The poor thing hobbled along painfully all day trying to catch up, and a group of half-grown lion siblings ambushed him. Even though they were near two, they were too stupid to finish him off so they just dug in. It took several hours before he died.

But they also filmed many scenes of hunting, and nothing like a six-day hunt. I guess I hadn't thought about exactly how animals die in the wild. They don't die of alzheimers. I suppose getting killed when you're getting feeble is as good a way as any.

That's what a moose has to look forward to.

Yea, it's bad. Let me tell you what you have to look forward to. A nice heart attack of you're lucky. If not, diapers, spoon feeding, a bloated body, shortness of breath, skin that tears...
if you have any marbles and you probably won't, you'll pray for wolves.

Moose wouldn't have been made so tough if there were a god. Nature is merciless. Everything in nature is half starved to death all its life until it gets torn apart by something bigger and also starving to death. Nature never allows six fat wolves. Nature always opts instead in that place for 20 miserible starving wolves.

This just doesn't jive with what else I've seen. I have seen a few wild animals, and they weren't skinny. None of the animals I've seen on TV have been skinny. Maybe wolves have a hard life, or maybe your area has been partially disrupted? Even the caribou, who live a very hard life, can be skinny in the worst of the winter, and even a few die, but mostly they look good.

And maybe you could update your idea of God. Anyway, if you are right, it lends credence to the idea that this place is fallen! One of my premises is that we are in hell now. That isn't as negative as it sounds. Hell has many levels, and some are rather paradisical. One of the several wicked designs of the Christian dogma, is to keep people in denial of their true situation, so that they won't realize how dire it is. They dream of a future in heaven and a future in hell. That way they won't look so hard for the exit. The exit is always now, never the future.

but that they didn't have "crime" is silly because they didn't have laws, per se or governments per se but still they had rules and harsh disciplines for breaking them. Much much harsher than civilized types like us would dream to apply.

What do you know about this? There is no harsher treatment of minor crimes than has been done under civilization. How does 100 lashes grab you? How does being sent to Australia in a penal colony for stealing bread grab you? How about getting your hand chopped off?

And what makes you think they didn't have dogmas? or have need of dogmas?

What makes you think they did? It is true that any human society is going to have a story, and if you were an Amerindian, you probably had to go with whatever that society came up with, unless you were quite the thinker, simply because you wouldn't have the kind of exposure to ideas. But they had nothing like a systematized and millenia-long written documents that got built up like the Christian dogma. I wonder why your views on most things seem so dismal?

Dogma is only bad when it becomes obsolete for one reason or other.

All dogma is obsolete.

[reedsch]

Dogma is only bad when it becomes obsolete for one reason or other.

All dogma is obsolete.

Dogma is a tool for crafting the social organism. One can't build a meme without it; a necessary evil, as it were.

The whole concept of a "fall" clearly implies that one had been in a previously "raised' (or non-fallen) state. There is nothing factual to support this assertion. Nature is messy, but the mess seems to be inherent to the system and not the result of degeneration or some otherwise external agency, particularly not the result of a decision on anyone's part.

I submit the original duality is chaos/order.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I think the idea that humanity must have been stagnating unless they became intensely neurotic and spiritually cut off just is an unthinking prejudice. The opposite might even be the case.

It depends on what you think the idea of being 'spiritually cut off' really signifies. It seems to me the opposite of what many believe.

Stagnation and 'intense neurotic' episodes throughout the ages is not something I'd reserve for humanity only. There are many empirical reasons to suspect nature itself works this way to recover as well as discover new pathways for genetic material as well as the collection of neurons that have something to do with 'mind'.

Anyway, why would you think that "overpopulation, division of labor, rich and poor, a priesthood to suppress and frighten the people, dogma and coercion, or heavy labor" are things not in harmony with nature? What if they are in harmony but the idea that it's not is going against nature? It's all assuming our understanding of nature is 'in harmony' with nature. But the Lie is also part of nature, naturally.

[kennyvii]

All dogma is obsolete.

"dogma" is probably like the word "myth" so we have different meanings in our heads. Mine seems to agree with Webster but I am learning there are philisophical turns to common words in this place.

What do you know about this? There is no harsher treatment of minor crimes than has been done under civilization. How does 100 lashes grab you? How does being sent to Australia in a penal colony for stealing bread grab you? How about getting your hand chopped off?

Again, when I think about civilization I think of my civilization with its ability to put people into prison and sometimes to medicate and in a few cases to change conditions for a criminal such that he no longer is under the original pressure to commit crimes.

If you go back further though,than even you have here, you may see that the 100 lashes was actually a form of mercy because is offered deterrent to other would-be offenders compared to the next practical alternative which might have been extermination of whole groups of people.

This just doesn't jive with what else I've seen. I have seen a few wild animals, and they weren't skinny. None of the animals I've seen on TV have been skinny. Maybe wolves have a hard life, or maybe your area has been partially disrupted? Even the caribou, who live a very hard life, can be skinny in the worst of the winter, and even a few die, but mostly they look good.

After spending over an hour surfing around for my wolf study I certainly understand how you could have a much warmer and cuter idea of primeval nature. If you should find yourself curious about wolves some time and go surfing don't bother looking at search titles like "wolf song" or "friend of the wolves society" or anything with "child" in the title. Finding straight honest information about the 'big fuzzie wuzzie wulf" is like trying to get a non-pc glimps of a second hand smoking study or anything about "global warming". I know my study is out there. I know there are still real scientists and naturalists who actually don't have any agenda but facination with the truth of their subjects but it ain't easy to find them.

And maybe you could update your idea of God. Anyway, if you are right, it lends credence to the idea that this place is fallen! One of my premises is that we are in hell now. That isn't as negative as it sounds. Hell has many levels, and some are rather paradisical. One of the several wicked designs of the Christian dogma, is to keep people in denial of their true situation, so that they won't realize how dire it is. They dream of a future in heaven and a future in hell. That way they won't look so hard for the exit. The exit is always now, never the future.

Yes, this interesting to me. I left Christian study about 4 years ago because I wanted a new look at life and truth. I thought I could someday aproach the subject from a fresh perspective. I don't like being baited back into this subject but also I can't resist.

Yea, it's bad. Let me tell you what you have to look forward to. A nice heart attack of you're lucky.

How true! I was a nurse helper for four months in New Jersey. You know of what you speak. When I am convinced this world cannot be ascended I will start the "Logans Run Society for Merciful Deaths" . But not yet...

I realize I don't happen to be an expert, but I doubt this. Does it sometimes happen? Probably. But a six day hunt to get a meal?

Are you calling me a drama queen?...

[kennyvii]

Dogma is only bad when it becomes obsolete for one reason or other.

All dogma is obsolete.

Dogma is a tool for crafting the social organism. One can't build a meme without it; a necessary evil, as it were.

The whole concept of a "fall" clearly implies that one had been in a previously "raised' (or non-fallen) state. There is nothing factual to support this assertion. Nature is messy, but the mess seems to be inherent to the system and not the result of degeneration or some otherwise external agency, particularly not the result of a decision on anyone's part.

I submit the original duality is chaos/order.

Does it make any difference to your idea of the "fall" if its actuallity was mere obfuscation of reality and not a change of reality? What if the reality is that mankind is still standing in the original garden and the source of being is still content with it's expression; including mankind? Do you see duality in the first account of creation?

[Iolaus]

Reed,

Dogma implies a certain amount of authority and rigidity. If you do not accept certain key dogmas of Christianity, you are denied the sacraments, for example. I don't see that as being the same as a people having a mythos.

The whole concept of a "fall" clearly implies that one had been in a previously "raised' (or non-fallen) state. There is nothing factual to support this assertion.

Actually, we don't know one way or the other. We have so few facts at our disposal, and such closed minds with which to interpret what little we do have.

Then there's the question, if we have fallen, is it just us or did we drag the planet down with us? If we are not fallen, it indicates that we have brains capable of that which they have never been used for. And I find that strange.

I submit the original duality is chaos/order.

It's a good thought.

Diebert,

People feel spiritually cut off. They don't have to understand it but that is the way they feel, and I think they are right.
Explain to me a little how nature gets neurotic.

Anyway, why would you think that "overpopulation, division of labor, rich and poor, a priesthood to suppress and frighten the people, dogma and coercion, or heavy labor" are things not in harmony with nature? What if they are in harmony but the idea that it's not is going against nature? It's all assuming our understanding of nature is 'in harmony' with nature. But the Lie is also part of nature, naturally.

You could be right, but the only use such a process would have would be as a spur to right things. Things are not in harmony when they create lack of inner coherence inside a person, with suppressed and forgotten feelings and longings, the origin and true nature of which the mind spends energy repressing, and when said people use nature in ways that destroy it. I'd say this disharmony is part of Reality, but certainly is not harmonious. So in this case I am using the idea of being in harmony with nature as meaning promoting life and success, as opposed to death and failure.

Kenny,

If you go back further though,than even you have here, you may see that the 100 lashes was actually a form of mercy because is offered deterrent to other would-be offenders compared to the next practical alternative which might have been extermination of whole groups of people.

But if you do a study of the use of torture by governments you'll find a horrifying and sad history of gratuitous and also quite stupid use of excess violence.

If you are happy with our current civilization, you should realize that you are happy because it is so different from other previous ones, which were more negative.

I hear what you're saying about the search for non pc truth, but I am not convinced you've got it regarding the lives of animals, mostly because you have accepted that the worst parts are the norm, and I don't think that is so.

Yes, this is interesting to me. I left Christian study about 4 years ago because I wanted a new look at life and truth. I thought I could someday aproach the subject from a fresh perspective. I don't like being baited back into this subject but also I can't resist.

Well you've come to the right place and I promise I'll never lead you back where you've been.
What do you mean you left Christian study? Were you in seminary?

Now, what do you mean about ascending this world?
And what are you doing in Alaska? Will you be more cheerful when the days get longer?

Are you calling me a drama queen?...

I might if you're gay. Are you gay?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

People feel spiritually cut off. They don't have to understand it but that is the way they feel, and I think they are right.

Yes, some people feel something is not quite right or that something is 'missing'. I'd say their observation is valid but their interpretation most often stinks. Will understanding it make them feel better? I doubt it. And I think that's the moment their version of 'spirituality' is born; unplugging the little awareness they had in the name of becoming more comfortable.

Explain to me a little how nature gets neurotic.

One could define anything that is perceived as excessive or extremely upsetting as a neurotic state. Or one could talk about a neurosis being a mental or emotional disorder, but I'd say it's just a form of damage to a complex mechanism. A damage which is also perhaps an opportunity to something new.

So in this case I am using the idea of being in harmony with nature as meaning promoting life and success, as opposed to death and failure.

But aren't you agreeing with the commonplace idea that life becomes meaningful and fertile because of death, and success needing multiple failure to even get a chance?

An animal which feeds on other animals while fighting its competition for its survival is not opposed to death. It's perfectly comfortable which its reality. In harmony but not very conscious. Consciousness would bring disharmony in the creature and incredible fear with within its wake deception which are perhaps the only ways to survive from here on.

[kennyvii]

Kenny,

I hear what you're saying about the search for non pc truth, but I am not convinced you've got it regarding the lives of animals, mostly because you have accepted that the worst parts are the norm, and I don't think that is so.

No, I offered you the results of a study and you won't accept them without me producing that study. This is not me thinking nature is worse than it is; it is you desiring to believe that nature is better than it is. My problem at the moment is that I live close enough to the subject that much of what I believe doesn't come from outsiders writing books or articles but by just being raised in the midst of it and not being prepared to support what I know.

Yes, this is interesting to me. I left Christian study about 4 years ago because I wanted a new look at life and truth. I thought I could someday aproach the subject from a fresh perspective. I don't like being baited back into this subject but also I can't resist.

Well you've come to the right place and I promise I'll never lead you back where you've been.
What do you mean you left Christian study? Were you in seminary?

no, I always wanted to but it has never been possible to agree with any institution enough for me to be comfortable putting my name to it.

Now, what do you mean about ascending this world?
And what are you doing in Alaska?

It's all part of my ascention. This is the highest place in America I could find.

Will you be more cheerful when the days get longer?

no

I might if you're gay. Are you gay?

I'm happier than I seem.

[Iolaus]

Diebert,

I don't think I'm following you very well. I just don't see applying the term neurosis to nature, or comparing the problems people have with nature as a whole.

But aren't you agreeing with the commonplace idea that life becomes meaningful and fertile because of death, and success needing multiple failure to even get a chance?

No.

An animal which feeds on other animals while fighting its competition for its survival is not opposed to death.

I don't know that I implied they were.

Consciousness would bring disharmony in the creature and incredible fear and within its wake deception which are perhaps the only ways to survive from here on.

Animals are very conscious of death and very afraid. Not sure what you mean about the deception.

Kenny,

Let's go back a bit. I am not sure where the first and second creation accounts are. Perhaps you mean the first and second chapters. I would have taken the second chapter as a kind of synopsis, although it's true they are different. I also noted that Genesis 3:6 states that Adam was with Eve when she ate the fruit, and yet there is so much speculation that always involves Eve being first alone with the serpent when she ate it. He must have gotten her alone, but Adam was not far off.

The second story states that God made Adam before the animals! Anyhow, I'd like you to explain what you said here-

See, if the second account is wrong then everything Jesus said and did makes sense but if the second account is true then I may as well join the fundies and go back to reading my bible with a shoe horn and a hammer.

Genesis 1 seems a bit more positive, and also more equal for man and woman, whereas the second chapter places woman at the top of all creation, while allowing the shallow to interpret it that Adam was preeminent.
I just can't see how Jesus fits into it better in one than the other. You must be considering Gen 3 as part of the second account. And maybe it is but the first account seems to leave off after the sixth day and just not go any further.

But I'm intrigued by this statement of yours. It sounds like you are disagreeing with the negativity of the fundies, and you think that Jesus also does not fit with the negativity of the fundies, which is very close to my thinking.

Now, you say that I don't accept your study about wolves. Well, I haven't seen it. But I am not taking a side either way, I just think more data is needed. But so far, while I am well aware that things can be rather painful and merciless, I do not think what you describe is the general norm for animal life.

[Iolaus]

Kenny,

Does it make any difference to your idea of the "fall" if its actuallity was mere obfuscation of reality and not a change of reality? What if the reality is that mankind is still standing in the original garden and the source of being is still content with it's expression; including mankind?

Your reply was to Reed but he doesn't believe in a fall. As for me, I think the fall was one of perception, and yet perception has the ability to change reality to some degree as well. So I agree with what you say above.

Once my daughter took me to a beautiful swimming spot in West Virginia, but the local young had left piles of trash and broken glass around. She was incensed at their carelessness, and she said, "I mean, what if this were heaven?!"

There is a lot of poignancy in that statement. There those people were, lolling about in heaven, disrespecting it, blind to it, and full of guilt and loathing and judgementalism about who is going to go to heaven someday - as though heaven could ever be occupied by the irresponsible - as though heaven has a gatekeeper other than one's own mind, and there was my daughter, not blind or disrespectful of the paradise, but yet cut off from it.

Do you see duality in the first account of creation?

Duality is everywhere. No creation without duality. The universe runs on duality. The first account of creation is that of bringing order to chaos. You think of duality as something bad, but that is only because our perception gets stuck and we can't see behind the duality is unity. Duality is how unity moves and creates.

[reedsch]

Your reply was to Reed but he doesn't believe in a fall.

I am not referring here to beliefs. One can look at the creation story as a hypothesis explaining the current reality i.e. Why Things Are The Way THey Are. My point is that there are other hypotheses that may be better at covering the data points. Occam's Razor suggests to me that the whole elaborate drama of garden and serpent and apple is, even symbolicly, far too elaborate. Evolution is like watching the grass grow, not very exciting.

As I mentioned, there would be no need for either Judaism or Chriatianity in their current forms were it not for the (posited) Fall.