Questions for Liberal Christians

[Penumbra]

I have a few questions for liberal Christians. By "liberal Christian", I am referring not to a political position, but instead to a type of Christian that basically accepts all or most of biological evolution (such as theistic evolution and so forth), or isn't as incessant about the belief that their religion is the only path to god, or that doesn't take the Bible too literally. I included "ors" between those statements because for the discussion, you don't need to be all of those things, just one or some will suffice.

My questions are,

1. If you do accept some form of evolution, and therefore believe that humans were not among the first creatures in this universe, then what is your view as to why suffering exists? Christian doctrine generally attempts to explain the apparent mismatch between a perfect and benevolent god and this universe by claiming that the universe was originally made "good" and that mankind corrupted it with sin. But if creatures have been living and dying and mass extinctions have been occurring long before humans came around, and in general suffering can occur by means outside of human control, then this seems to contradict this explanation. What, then, do you use as a different explanation? Or do you modify the first explanation somehow, and if so, in what way? Why does suffering exist?

2. Christian doctrine generally claims that mankind is sinful and that Jesus, who is god and also the son of god, died for the sins of mankind so that god can forgive humans that believe this story and that put their faith in Jesus and accept his sacrifice and so forth. If you are a Christian that doesn't necessarily believe that Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, agnostics, atheists, Sikhs, Taoists, etc. or some subset of that list will be denied what Christians might call salvation in the afterlife, then how do you interpret this whole sacrifice thing involving Jesus? What did the sacrifice involve? And for what reason? And for whom? And why was it necessary? And what are the obligations of humanity to it? Or do you abandon the concept of the sacrifice altogether as some later idea from St. Paul and others and suppose that Jesus was not involved in a sacrifice? Expanding upon this, what are your general views about Jesus? If you were to briefly and concisely explain his purpose and who he was, and why he is central to your beliefs, what would you say?

3. What are your views as to the content of the Old Testament? Things that include stoning homosexuals, killing every man, woman, and child in a village, wrathful vengeance, killing people for approaching his alter or doing work on the Sabbath, and so forth. Do you feel that your god was like this once but is not like this anymore? Or that this is still an aspect of your god's personality? Or that the authors of those portions of the Bible were mistaken about god? Or something else?

4. What is your view towards prayer? What forms of prayer are acceptable or useful, and what is their desired result? In what ways do Jesus or Yahweh respond to them?

5. In what way do you feel that Christianity most accurately explains your religious/spiritual viewpoint compared to other religions? What is it specifically about Christianity that makes you refer to yourself as a Christian and not, say, a Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, etc.

Of course, if one or more questions do not apply to you but some do, or this is just entirely too long, please feel free to only answer part of my post.

Thanks,
-Lyn

 

[Eliot Wild]

I have a few questions for liberal Christians. By "liberal Christian", I am referring not to a political position, but instead to a type of Christian that basically accepts all or most of biological evolution (such as theistic evolution and so forth), or isn't as incessant about the belief that their religion is the only path to god, or that doesn't take the Bible too literally. I included "ors" between those statements because for the discussion, you don't need to be all of those things, just one or some will suffice.

My questions are,

1. If you do accept some form of evolution, and therefore believe that humans were not among the first creatures in this universe, then what is your view as to why suffering exists? Christian doctrine generally attempts to explain the apparent mismatch between a perfect and benevolent god and this universe by claiming that the universe was originally made "good" and that mankind corrupted it with sin. But if creatures have been living and dying and mass extinctions have been occurring long before humans came around, and in general suffering can occur by means outside of human control, then this seems to contradict this explanation. What, then, do you use as a different explanation? Or do you modify the first explanation somehow, and if so, in what way? Why does suffering exist?

Sorry, I've been stumped by this one too. You got me on the very first one. Why didn't you start with something a little easier, like, "Will the Meek really inherit the Earth, as Jesus said?"

Seriously, my questions in the past can essentially be summed up as, "Why would a perfect Creator conceive, engineer and construct a flawed creation?"

Perhaps, perfection is merely an abstract human construct? It doesn't really exist in practice, not even with the divine. Perhaps chaos is a reality. Perhaps what we term imperfection because of seemingly inherent defficiences, is still a divine creation, perfect in its function, which is to make it possible for the discerning conscience to connect, reconnect, evolve, or otherwise assimiliate with the divine?

Really though, you got me.

2. Christian doctrine generally claims that mankind is sinful and that Jesus, who is god and also the son of god, died for the sins of mankind so that god can forgive humans that believe this story and that put their faith in Jesus and accept his sacrifice and so forth. If you are a Christian that doesn't necessarily believe that Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, agnostics, atheists, Sikhs, Taoists, etc. or some subset of that list will be denied what Christians might call salvation in the afterlife, then how do you interpret this whole sacrifice thing involving Jesus? What did the sacrifice involve? And for what reason? And for whom? And why was it necessary? And what are the obligations of humanity to it? Or do you abandon the concept of the sacrifice altogether as some later idea from St. Paul and others and suppose that Jesus was not involved in a sacrifice? Expanding upon this, what are your general views about Jesus? If you were to briefly and concisely explain his purpose and who he was, and why he is central to your beliefs, what would you say?

I should qualify my beliefs at this point. I am an agnostic Christian. I have found no conclusive evidence to satisfy my own mind that there is or is not a verifiable divine presence in our reality. However, I like what Jesus taught. I believe it to be absolutely TRUE that I should treat people with compassion and love, that I should treat them the way I would want to be treated.

I don't believe that Jesus is necessarily the only mechanism for connecting with the divine. I'm not even sure that he was divine. But I think he might have been on to something. I think he taught valuable lessons. I think these lessons contained truth. Will they get me into heaven someday? Will they allow me to take up a divine residence with the Creator of the Universe eventually? As crazy as it may sound, I find the answer to these questions less important than how I should act toward others while passing through this way.

3. What are your views as to the content of the Old Testament? Things that include stoning homosexuals, killing every man, woman, and child in a village, wrathful vengeance, killing people for approaching his alter or doing work on the Sabbath, and so forth. Do you feel that your god was like this once but is not like this anymore? Or that this is still an aspect of your god's personality? Or that the authors of those portions of the Bible were mistaken about god? Or something else?

I don't believe the Bible to be in the infallible word of God. I don't believe God, if He exists and really does want to communicate His truths to man, would choose to utilize a medium as fallible and corruptible as written language. It seems to me he could used mathmatics or another more undefilable medium.

Perhaps man's attempts to explain God, in such things as the Bible and other ancient texts, are fallible human perspectives of things perceived to be divine? More often than not, the human observations and writings didn't understand or otherwise fell woefully short of capturing the actual truth.

4. What is your view towards prayer? What forms of prayer are acceptable or useful, and what is their desired result? In what ways do Jesus or Yahweh respond to them?

Personally, I don't pray, at least not in the sense that most Christians and other religious followers often refer to the practice. I communicate with God through expressions of wonder at the possibility of him. I am amazed at the engineering of the universe. If He exists, I believe he accepts my adulation and my confusion at his work and his purpose, if there is one.

5. In what way do you feel that Christianity most accurately explains your religious/spiritual viewpoint compared to other religions? What is it specifically about Christianity that makes you refer to yourself as a Christian and not, say, a Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, etc.

I hope I covered that above. I'm not trying to be snied, please don't think that. I just need to refreshen my scotch and I'm hopin' I explained this through exposition of my answers above.

Of course, if one or more questions do not apply to you but some do, or this is just entirely too long, please feel free to only answer part of my post.

Thanks,
-Lyn

Sorry if I am not exactly the sort of Christian you were looking for. As you might have guessed, maybe, I usually find my perspective to be challenged by most other "Christians".

 

[Penumbra]

Sorry, I've been stumped by this one too. You got me on the very first one. Why didn't you start with something a little easier, like, "Will the Meek really inherit the Earth, as Jesus said?"

Seriously, my questions in the past can essentially be summed up as, "Why would a perfect Creator conceive, engineer and construct a flawed creation?"

Perhaps, perfection is merely an abstract human construct? It doesn't really exist in practice, not even with the divine. Perhaps chaos is a reality. Perhaps what we term imperfection because of seemingly inherent defficiences, is still a divine creation, perfect in its function, which is to make it possible for the discerning conscience to connect, reconnect, evolve, or otherwise assimiliate with the divine?

Really though, you got me.

I should qualify my beliefs at this point. I am an agnostic Christian. I have found no conclusive evidence to satisfy my own mind that there is or is not a verifiable divine presence in our reality. However, I like what Jesus taught. I believe it to be absolutely TRUE that I should treat people with compassion and love, that I should treat them the way I would want to be treated.

I don't believe that Jesus is necessarily the only mechanism for connecting with the divine. I'm not even sure that he was divine. But I think he might have been on to something. I think he taught valuable lessons. I think these lessons contained truth. Will they get me into heaven someday? Will they allow me to take up a divine residence with the Creator of the Universe eventually? As crazy as it may sound, I find the answer to these questions less important than how I should act toward others while passing through this way.

I don't believe the Bible to be in the infallible word of God. I don't believe God, if He exists and really does want to communicate His truths to man, would choose to utilize a medium as fallible and corruptible as written language. It seems to me he could used mathmatics or another more undefilable medium.

Perhaps man's attempts to explain God, in such things as the Bible and other ancient texts, are fallible human perspectives of things perceived to be divine? More often than not, the human observations and writings didn't understand or otherwise fell woefully short of capturing the actual truth.

Personally, I don't pray, at least not in the sense that most Christians and other religious followers often refer to the practice. I communicate with God through expressions of wonder at the possibility of him. I am amazed at the engineering of the universe. If He exists, I believe he accepts my adulation and my confusion at his work and his purpose, if there is one.

Thank you for your response. Frubals to you.

I hope I covered that above. I'm not trying to be snied, please don't think that. I just need to refreshen my scotch and I'm hopin' I explained this through exposition of my answers above.

Maybe you could clarify it a little bit more. You mention that you like a lot of the teachings attributed to Jesus. What are some of the teachings, aspects, or attributes of Jesus that bring you to refer to yourself as a Christian, specifically? What unique aspects of this religion do you like compared to other major world religions and major figures within those religions?

Sorry if I am not exactly the sort of Christian you were looking for. As you might have guessed, maybe, I usually find my perspective to be challenged by most other "Christians".

Oh it's fine. I'm not looking for any specific type of Christian other than one that can, at least in part, fit within one or more of the descriptions at the beginning of the post, which you certainly seem to.

Thanks,
-Lyn

 

[Eliot Wild]

Maybe you could clarify it a little bit more. You mention that you like a lot of the teachings attributed to Jesus. What are some of the teachings, aspects, or attributes of Jesus that bring you to refer to yourself as a Christian, specifically? What unique aspects of this religion do you like compared to other major world religions and major figures within those religions?

I like Jesus' focus on love, peace, tolerance, non-materialism. I certainly can't call it "FAITH" because I place very little value in that concept. Call it self-evident truths, perhaps, but it just seems to me that Jesus placed value in things that a god would place value in.

That's not a good answer, I know. Hell, the obvious follow up to that would be, "Well, if these truths are self-evident, then why did we need Jesus to point 'em out to us?"

I believe in self-evident truths. Any participant in a game of linguistic paradoxes knows that to state otherwise is to state a truth. So, truth exists, or so it seems to me. I then must build on that initial truth, or at least accept that somethings are more true than others.

I personally think Jesus was unnaturally adept at recognizing and communicating those truths; truths, although self-evident, that perhaps aren't so recognizable as such until another points them out. This certainly isn't conclusive proof by any stretch of the imagination that Jesus was divine. But it is compelling evidence in his favor.

I am not a Christian in the sense that I believe we must make some willful acceptance of his divinity. I don't buy into the idea of "salvation", at least not as it is usually proposed by other Christians.

I have, however, observed that man has a selfish nature. It is in our DNA. We are hardwired to place our interests and the best interests of those close to us above those of others. This can also be seen as an effect of natural selection, survival of the fittest, or something like that. It might be more accurate to say that it is my HOPE based on, as yet inclusive, evidence obtained from my observations and reasoning that Jesus was on to something. He seemed to imply in his teachings that we should rise above our selfish natures.

Again, I am not inclined to call it faith, but I do find it to be a compelling proposition that we are essentially immaterial beings riding wave upon wave of natural motions or degrees in some wild, yet contained, process of spiritual evolution. Of course, that could just be the scotch talking.

 

[Eliot Wild]

Oh, I forgot to mention the following:

As to your question about comparitive studies of religion, I am simply more familiar with Christ's teachings, at least what is attributed to him, moreso than any other.

In all honesty, I am very ignorant of other religions. Hence, my presence on this forum on a regular basis. Truth is, I will take truth over nonsense wherever I can find it.

However, from what little exposure I have had to other religions, there are quite a few non-Christian ideas and principles that I find also compelling. Believe it or not, I like the idea of reincarnation. Of course, that might just be the Transcendentalist influence of some of my favorite authors like Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau.

There is another regular on this forum who I must give credit to: Her screen name is "Storm" and she labels herself a panantheist, or something like that. Not to be confused with "pantheist". But she once described God as being "immanent within the material universe and transcending it." I really like that description.

As far as I can understand from reading her posts, God and the universe co-exist on some developmental level, evolving and/or changing regularly in some way. Mine is a horrible characterization that is probably woefully off the mark. But I find something comforting and admirable in that sort of proposition. Perhaps it is not God that is evolving, so to speak, since He is God and therefore should be fully developed, but perhaps he manifests Himself in various ways and our evolution, as well as that of all of nature, is another manifestation of God.

 

[Penumbra]

I appreciate the full responses. Thanks for your time and I'm glad you responded to my thread.

-Lyn

 

[Eliot Wild]

Thanks for asking such rivoting questions. I actually tracked this thread down when I saw it mentioned in another. To be candid, I initially thought it might have been a condescending attempt to expose the fallacies in Christian principles, as many supposed "sincere" inquiries tend to be on this forum.

However, I was pleasantly surprised to find the questions to be fair, sincerely inquisitive and seemingly without a hidden agenda.

And please don't get me wrong, I suppose there is nothing wrong with exposing fallacious thinking wherever it is found. God knows, I will certainly question popularized Christian dogma when presented to me by others.

Your questions were worth responding to.

 

[Penumbra]

Thanks for asking such rivoting questions. I actually tracked this thread down when I saw it mentioned in another. To be candid, I initially thought it might have been a condescending attempt to expose the fallacies in Christian principles, as many supposed "sincere" inquiries tend to be on this forum.

However, I was pleasantly surprised to find the questions to be fair, sincerely inquisitive and seemingly without a hidden agenda.

And please don't get me wrong, I suppose there is nothing wrong with exposing fallacious thinking wherever it is found. God knows, I will certainly question popularized Christian dogma when presented to me by others.

Your questions were worth responding to.

Thank you.

Tone can be difficult to convey on a message board, and I tend to avoid suger-coating things, so I'm glad you did not mistake this post for something condescending.

-Lyn

 

[dmgdnooc]

Penumbra, I should say at the outset that I do not meet all of your criteria.
　
1. I know of a horse that broke its leg in the field, struggled up on to 3 hooves, broken leg at an obscene angle, bone protruding through flesh, and proceeded to crop the grass apparently unconcerned. Is this the 'suffering' that you describe?
The horse's owner was frantic, with tears of despair, the vet was caled and the owner attempted to console the beast, though the beast remained apparently unconcerned. Is the suffering of the owner the 'suffering' that you describe?
In due course the vet arrived and put the horse down. Or is the 'suffering' you describe that the only practical solution was to put the horse down?
　
Scriptural 'suffering' has the purpose of bringing back the lost and those out of the way.
A Christian is matured by the things that s/he suffers.
　
2. IMO, both sin and the nature of Christ are different to what you describe.
Eve listened to the words of the serpent and the desires of her own heart, Adam heard the words of his wife. Jesus lived by every word that proceeded out of the mouth of God and continues to do so.
As 'coats of skins' were provided for Adam and Eve, to cover their nakedness, Jesus' sacrifice has provided a covering for all sin. All that is required is to put him on.
The idea of a sacrifice for sin providing a covering for sin's effects is in Genesis 3, it could hardly be a later device invented by Paul.
Jesus was/is the Lamb of God. The true, or antitypical, lamb of which the lambs of Genesis, Exodus etc are said to be shadows.
　
3. IMO, the OT, and the NT, must be read in context. So, if you bring up a specific passage I will attempt to deal with it in its context.
God has not changed, He is immutable, and the message has not changed - so its 'something else', for me, by default.
　
4. Prayer is an expression of the desire to communicate with God.
Prayer is effective but as to there being a response to every prayer - I'm just not privy to every prayer.
The responses that I have received to prayer range from the mundane to the fantastic and include many 'wait and see' scenarios. I think that I often ask too much too soon.
　
5. As long as Jesus kept speaking. I would sit and listen.
The prospect of being able to do that in his Kingdom is so exquisitely attractive to me that I can imagine no greater joy. Christianity, and only Christianity, offers me this prospect.
　
Hope that's enough for a first approximation answer to your questions.
You obviously have a familiarity with the Bible, can you say how you obtained it and why.
　

 

[Penumbra]

Penumbra, I should say at the outset that I do not meet all of your criteria.

That's fine. Thank you for your post.
　

1. I know of a horse that broke its leg in the field, struggled up on to 3 hooves, broken leg at an obscene angle, bone protruding through flesh, and proceeded to crop the grass apparently unconcerned. Is this the 'suffering' that you describe?
The horse's owner was frantic, with tears of despair, the vet was caled and the owner attempted to console the beast, though the beast remained apparently unconcerned. Is the suffering of the owner the 'suffering' that you describe?
In due course the vet arrived and put the horse down. Or is the 'suffering' you describe that the only practical solution was to put the horse down?
　
Scriptural 'suffering' has the purpose of bringing back the lost and those out of the way.
A Christian is matured by the things that s/he suffers.

I'm not entirely sure what you are meaning to say here. Is the example of the horse meant to imply that you don't believe animals have the capacity to suffer?

I could ask it another way. What, would you say, was the time that humankind could have been considered good and un-fallen? Which period of history?
　

2. IMO, both sin and the nature of Christ are different to what you describe.
Eve listened to the words of the serpent and the desires of her own heart, Adam heard the words of his wife. Jesus lived by every word that proceeded out of the mouth of God and continues to do so.
As 'coats of skins' were provided for Adam and Eve, to cover their nakedness, Jesus' sacrifice has provided a covering for all sin. All that is required is to put him on.
The idea of a sacrifice for sin providing a covering for sin's effects is in Genesis 3, it could hardly be a later device invented by Paul.
Jesus was/is the Lamb of God. The true, or antitypical, lamb of which the lambs of Genesis, Exodus etc are said to be shadows.

Ok so you view Jesus as an actual sacrifice. That's basically an orthodox view.

And for clarification, I'm not saying Paul invented the concept of a sacrifice. I've seen several Christians state that Paul turned Jesus' death against the Romans by developing the concept of the sacrifice of Jesus. A subset of self-described liberal Christians I've discussed things with don't particularly view Paul as important in their faith, so I was merely presenting that as one of the options as answers.
　

3. IMO, the OT, and the NT, must be read in context. So, if you bring up a specific passage I will attempt to deal with it in its context.
God has not changed, He is immutable, and the message has not changed - so its 'something else', for me, by default.

I am not particularly interested in presenting a specific verse and turning this into a debate about what is ethical and what is not regarding the Old Testament. I've done that many times before with others and probably will again in other places. The fact that you seem to believe that the god as described in the Old Testament is your god has answered question #3.
　

4. Prayer is an expression of the desire to communicate with God.
Prayer is effective but as to there being a response to every prayer - I'm just not privy to every prayer.
The responses that I have received to prayer range from the mundane to the fantastic and include many 'wait and see' scenarios. I think that I often ask too much too soon.
　
5. As long as Jesus kept speaking. I would sit and listen.
The prospect of being able to do that in his Kingdom is so exquisitely attractive to me that I can imagine no greater joy. Christianity, and only Christianity, offers me this prospect.

Hope that's enough for a first approximation answer to your questions.

Ok, thank you for your answers. If you wish to elaborate on that one question I asked about your first answer, you are welcome to.
　

You obviously have a familiarity with the Bible, can you say how you obtained it and why.

I have read several scriptures like the Bhagavad Gita, Qur'an, Bible, and some Buddhist texts. I've also researched various religions and denominations and some of the history of them, and have spent considerable time discussing religion with believers of all sorts so that I could get a more personal and direct view. And as far as Christianity goes, I also was raised as a Catholic to some extent.

-Lyn

 

[dmgdnooc]

I'm not entirely sure what you are meaning to say here. Is the example of the horse meant to imply that you don't believe animals have the capacity to suffer?

I could ask it another way. What, would you say, was the time that humankind could have been considered good and un-fallen? Which period of history?
[/size] 　

From your point 1.
I do accept some form of evolution .... so creatures (horses) have been living .... (and suffering) .... long before humans came around. And suffering can occur outside of human control.
　
The story of the horse is a true one, not a fiction, and it describes the 3 types of suffering that you mention in that long breath of a point 1.
　
My point in relating the story is that suffering takes many forms and more often than not depends on a particular pov to be understood correctly.
I do think that animals suffer but they certainly don't suffer as human beings do.
If it had been me, you too I think, with a bone protuding through the flesh of my leg I would not have even been thinking of a sandwich let alone munching on one.
Animals experience suffering differently to human beings, the horse told me so by her actions, and I simply do not know how much of a difference that is to make more of a comment than to note that the difference exists.
　
On one level, I think the 'fall' of Eden is a memory from pre-historical times. That is before the advent of written historical records.
　
Human beings (so it appears) first visioned Gods in the forces of nature, fecundity, the migrating herds, rivers, the sun, moon etc. The oldest religious iconography depicts the ideas in a direct and unambiguous manner - cave paintings of the herd, grossly pregnant and generally featureless 'venuses' and the like.
　
Developing the idea of divinity in natural forces we eventually began to give form to the idea in art that abstracted the notion into animal forms, the storm bird, the bull of heaven, etc.
　
It was only after it became clear that man had been given dominion over (some at least of) the forces of nature; when rivers had been tamed for irrigation, herds domesticated, crops planted and harvested by design; religious iconography begins to depict gods as being human.
This is true in Mesopotamia, and there are exceptions to the rule.
Egyptian iconography (with animal headed gods) demonstrates the incompleted transition phase, stalled or frozen in time. I'm not sure of the why of the incomplete transition there.
　
I think that the 'fall' of the Bible is a record of this new idea in the history of religion, the idea that Divinity could be represented as a human being.
The profound psychological shift, from an inability to depict Divinity in human form to an almost universal depiction of Divinity in human form, began in earnest, far as I know, about 6000 years ago.
　
Thorkild Jacobsen has good things to say about this, if you can get hold of The Treasures of Darkness, or some other of his books, you will find him informative on this subject.
　
You have read some good spiritual works, I trust that we share an affection for them.
　

 

[Penumbra]

From your point 1.
I do accept some form of evolution .... so creatures (horses) have been living .... (and suffering) .... long before humans came around. And suffering can occur outside of human control.
　
The story of the horse is a true one, not a fiction, and it describes the 3 types of suffering that you mention in that long breath of a point 1.
　
My point in relating the story is that suffering takes many forms and more often than not depends on a particular pov to be understood correctly.
I do think that animals suffer but they certainly don't suffer as human beings do.
If it had been me, you too I think, with a bone protuding through the flesh of my leg I would not have even been thinking of a sandwich let alone munching on one.
Animals experience suffering differently to human beings, the horse told me so by her actions, and I simply do not know how much of a difference that is to make more of a comment than to note that the difference exists.

I don't know much about horses, but I wouldn't particularly say that if a horse can eat with a bone protruding from his leg that all animals experience suffering (at least physical suffering) in a different way. I've unfortunately seen some animals suffer pretty badly. I hear that horses have little blood flow in their legs, which apparently explains why their legs cannot heal properly if they are damaged, and I'd imagine it also has an effect on the amount of pain they feel in their legs (the amount of tissue, quantity of nerves, etc.) I'm not much of a biologist, though, and have little personal experience with horses.

Seeing as how this is not a debate subforum, I'd prefer not to get into a debate on animal suffering. You seem to acknowledge that animals do suffer in certain ways.

On one level, I think the 'fall' of Eden is a memory from pre-historical times. That is before the advent of written historical records.
　
Human beings (so it appears) first visioned Gods in the forces of nature, fecundity, the migrating herds, rivers, the sun, moon etc. The oldest religious iconography depicts the ideas in a direct and unambiguous manner - cave paintings of the herd, grossly pregnant and generally featureless 'venuses' and the like.
　
Developing the idea of divinity in natural forces we eventually began to give form to the idea in art that abstracted the notion into animal forms, the storm bird, the bull of heaven, etc.
　
It was only after it became clear that man had been given dominion over (some at least of) the forces of nature; when rivers had been tamed for irrigation, herds domesticated, crops planted and harvested by design; religious iconography begins to depict gods as being human.
This is true in Mesopotamia, and there are exceptions to the rule.
Egyptian iconography (with animal headed gods) demonstrates the incompleted transition phase, stalled or frozen in time. I'm not sure of the why of the incomplete transition there.
　
I think that the 'fall' of the Bible is a record of this new idea in the history of religion, the idea that Divinity could be represented as a human being.
The profound psychological shift, from an inability to depict Divinity in human form to an almost universal depiction of Divinity in human form, began in earnest, far as I know, about 6000 years ago.
　
Thorkild Jacobsen has good things to say about this, if you can get hold of The Treasures of Darkness, or some other of his books, you will find him informative on this subject.
　
You have read some good spiritual works, I trust that we share an affection for them.

Thank you.

Since you've explained what you interpret the fall as and when it occurred, can you clarify as to why that would be considered a fall? I'm not sure I see a connection as to why the inability to depict gods in human forming eventually turning into an ability to do that would be considered a fall. It is said in Genesis and by many Christians that, before the fall, God judging things as good. In what primary ways were things good?

-Lyn

 

[dmgdnooc]

It sounds like we could discuss 'animal suffering' without disputing the matter.
My protective instincts towards animals and outrage at their mistreatment first manifested at the age of 8, when I ruined a family 'treat' by walking out on a circus performance that involved whips and other aspects of degradation and cruelty to the performing animals.
Almost 50 years have passed since then and my sensibilities on the subject are no less keen, merely more intellectually sound.
I LOL and offer thanks for your churning of my memory.
　
The sin that entered in Genesis 3 is an aspect of humanity's psychological framework.
Paul calls it 'the carnal mind' and has it in opposition to the 'spiritual mind'.
He is describing the duality of human nature and how that impacts on the way we think about God and our relationship with Him.
　
The 'fall' resulted from the thinking or reasoning of the serpent being accepted by and incorporated into the minds of our Edenic parents.
A new idea entered into human thinking and permanently imprinted on our neural pathways.
Our Edenic parents had accepted that they could be like God in a way that was more than just in image.
　
The 'fall', the 'entering in of sin', the new idea is demonstrated in the archaeological records of religious iconography.
There indeed was a dramatic shift in human thinking that at first permitted, and then universalised, what had previously been unimaginable.
The psychological framework that governs human thinking was forever changed.
The change occured in Eden, a Sumerian name for the great central grasslands between the Rivers, and the time of the change approximates the Bible's chronology for its Edenic 'fall'.
　
It is also interesting to note in this regard that among the first depictions of man as god is the so called 'Master of Animals'. Adam, you will recall, was given dominion over all God's creation on Earth, he was a master of animals.
　
I think the principal way that things were 'good' before the fall is in the absence of sin.
Animal thinking was in animal heads and human thinking was in human heads and the 2 had not been caused to mix.
　
Maybe you can now begin to perceive that the Genesis account of Eden and the 'fall' has, at the very least, some substance in fact and should not be written off as a mere fantasy of mythology.
It incorporates ancient oral traditions and comments on the substance of those traditions in a surprisingly perceptive way that finds resonances with modern historiographical, sociological and psychological principles.
　

 

[Penumbra]

It sounds like we could discuss 'animal suffering' without disputing the matter.
My protective instincts towards animals and outrage at their mistreatment first manifested at the age of 8, when I ruined a family 'treat' by walking out on a circus performance that involved whips and other aspects of degradation and cruelty to the performing animals.
Almost 50 years have passed since then and my sensibilities on the subject are no less keen, merely more intellectually sound.
I LOL and offer thanks for your churning of my memory.

Well in my experience I've seen a parrot rip out all of its feathers due to neglect. Certain parrots are very social animals and if they don't get the attention that they deserve, they get mentally disturbed and a common behavior is that they rip out their feathers. (And ripping out large feathers is drastically more damaging than ripping out hair, as the diameter of the feather is significant and the parrot has very, very thin skin). In addition to that they will sometimes do repetitive or abusive actions that are not satisfied unless the creature is being petted or cuddled. So it's a combination of both physical and emotional pain in an animal.

And if you've ever known a badly abused dog, you'll see that it behaves radically different from a loved dog. A dog that is currently experiencing pain or suffering, whether it's from beatings, hunger, etc. tends to be very timid, or very aggressive, or some mixture of both, shakes, makes odd noises, and in general is a pitiful sight to see. In addition, even years later when such a dog is taken in and loved, it may become more and more like a dog that was always loved but may always have some mental scars. For instance they may always be jittery among strangers, or may be startled if a hand is raised near it- it depends on the specific animal and the specific nature of the suffering it once felt.

When a cat's tail is stepped on, it doesn't just continue doing whatever it was doing like a horse that continues to eat with bone protruding from its leg. It goes crazy and screeches, just like a human might do if you step on her toe, and then runs away and licks its tail (whereas a human might put ice on it or something).

And I've also seen pets die. Seeing a dog die from organ failure is a painful and sad thing to watch.

The fact that this sort of suffering existed for millions or billions of years, to me, is a curious thing to reconcile for liberal Christians. (Conservative or fundamentalist Christians, on the other hand, might insist that this is not the case and that nothing suffered before a literal Adam and Eve sinned.) I am interested in understanding the ways in which liberal Christians interpret suffering and history on Earth.
　

The sin that entered in Genesis 3 is an aspect of humanity's psychological framework.
Paul calls it 'the carnal mind' and has it in opposition to the 'spiritual mind'.
He is describing the duality of human nature and how that impacts on the way we think about God and our relationship with Him.
　
The 'fall' resulted from the thinking or reasoning of the serpent being accepted by and incorporated into the minds of our Edenic parents.
A new idea entered into human thinking and permanently imprinted on our neural pathways.
Our Edenic parents had accepted that they could be like God in a way that was more than just in image.

Can you explain in what way they thought they could be like god?
　

The 'fall', the 'entering in of sin', the new idea is demonstrated in the archaeological records of religious iconography.
There indeed was a dramatic shift in human thinking that at first permitted, and then universalised, what had previously been unimaginable.
The psychological framework that governs human thinking was forever changed.
The change occured in Eden, a Sumerian name for the great central grasslands between the Rivers, and the time of the change approximates the Bible's chronology for its Edenic 'fall'.
　
It is also interesting to note in this regard that among the first depictions of man as god is the so called 'Master of Animals'. Adam, you will recall, was given dominion over all God's creation on Earth, he was a master of animals.
　
I think the principal way that things were 'good' before the fall is in the absence of sin.
Animal thinking was in animal heads and human thinking was in human heads and the 2 had not been caused to mix.

I'm not sure what this means. If humans evolved from other species, then I don't see what is meant by saying that animal thinking was in animal heads and human thinking was in human heads. Even humans have very primitive aspects of our brain along with our more developed reasoning centers.

In addition I'd question the absence of sin, or at least ask you to clarify what you mean. From some history I've seen, arrow heads and such have been found in human remains dating very far back. Animals of many sorts commit violent behavior.

And I suppose I should ask if you'd want to live several thousand years ago before written history. I know I wouldn't. I mean the life expectancy was extremely low and the quality of life was pretty bad too. Without modern medicine, many health problems are not treatable. For me personally, I would have been dead before I was born if not for modern medicine, and even if that were not the case, I'd have died a few years later from severe illness. Now in some parts of the world we have very ethical societies that care about the happiness of others, establish ethical laws, establish charity organizations, and so forth. I don't think there's any specific time in history in which I'd rather live than right now, so I don't really see any sort of fall.
　

Maybe you can now begin to perceive that the Genesis account of Eden and the 'fall' has, at the very least, some substance in fact and should not be written off as a mere fantasy of mythology.
It incorporates ancient oral traditions and comments on the substance of those traditions in a surprisingly perceptive way that finds resonances with modern historiographical, sociological and psychological principles.

Well, to me it's mythology with substance. I don't think it's unnatural that humans would search for understanding as to why their world is the way it is and why they experience things that are not very good. In fact at this current time I have a thread in the Hinduism subforum where I am asking Hindus to explain their views of the origin of human suffering and/or human souls.

-Lyn

 

[idea]

I have a few questions for liberal Christians. By "liberal Christian", I am referring not to a political position, but instead to a type of Christian that basically accepts all or most of biological evolution (such as theistic evolution and so forth), or isn't as incessant about the belief that their religion is the only path to god, or that doesn't take the Bible too literally. I included "ors" between those statements because for the discussion, you don't need to be all of those things, just one or some will suffice.

I'm a Mormon, we believe in a pre-mortal life. I believe that the word create (bara) in the Bible is incorrectly translated - it should be transform.

see Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon

"shape, form, fashon, transformations" - to mold what eternally exists (not create out of nothingness)
here is an article that I wrote if you are interested:
Did God create out of nothing?
"the origins debate is pointless, there is no origin."

My questions are,

1. If you do accept some form of evolution, and therefore believe that humans were not among the first creatures in this universe, then what is your view as to why suffering exists? Christian doctrine generally attempts to explain the apparent mismatch between a perfect and benevolent god and this universe by claiming that the universe was originally made "good" and that mankind corrupted it with sin. But if creatures have been living and dying and mass extinctions have been occurring long before humans came around, and in general suffering can occur by means outside of human control, then this seems to contradict this explanation. What, then, do you use as a different explanation? Or do you modify the first explanation somehow, and if so, in what way? Why does suffering exist?

Great question!
I am going to mix together some Mormon teachings, with some personal ideas -

Life before us? Mormons believe that God has created "worlds without number". I believe that life existed before Eden. We are given an account of our world, and no others. (keep in mind "world" can refer to a planet, or a creative period.

(New Testament | Revelation21:1)
1 AND I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away

Rev 21:1 - new world built on the ruins of older ones. I think Eden was placed on the ruins of /in the midst of / an older world.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If God created out of nothingness, then He is responsible for all the sin/mess we see on Earth. "I'm like this because this is how I was created" would be true, if God created us out of nothing.

instead, God is cleaning up a mess He did not make. We can gain eternal life because we are eternal beings, and eternal = no beginning, and no end.

Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon

it would be impossible for us to gain eternal life, if we had a beginning because eternal life = life without beginning, and without end. The same word used to describe God describes us. Our spirits are as old as God. We call Him "Heavenly Father" because He adopted us in heaven. He happened across us, adopted us, and sent us here to earth to gain bodies, learn, and be tested.

 

[idea]

2. Christian doctrine generally claims that mankind is sinful and that Jesus, who is god and also the son of god, died for the sins of mankind so that god can forgive humans that believe this story and that put their faith in Jesus and accept his sacrifice and so forth. If you are a Christian that doesn't necessarily believe that Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, agnostics, atheists, Sikhs, Taoists, etc. or some subset of that list will be denied what Christians might call salvation in the afterlife, then how do you interpret this whole sacrifice thing involving Jesus? What did the sacrifice involve? And for what reason? And for whom? And why was it necessary? And what are the obligations of humanity to it? Or do you abandon the concept of the sacrifice altogether as some later idea from St. Paul and others and suppose that Jesus was not involved in a sacrifice? Expanding upon this, what are your general views about Jesus? If you were to briefly and concisely explain his purpose and who he was, and why he is central to your beliefs, what would you say?

Mormons do not believe in the trinity, so Jesus and Heavenly Father are - just like the Bible states - Father and Son.
thread on trinity: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/98698-do-you-believe-trinity.html

only 4 people here believe in it. page 6, #59 is where I chime in on the trinity thread with scriptures that clearly show the trinity is bunk.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
The atonement is for everyone - not just Christians. Mormons do temple work for everyone throughout the entire world because the atonement is for everyone. In the temple we perform proxy baptisms for those who have died without the opportunity. This life is not the only place in which to learn about Jesus, and accept him.

Baptisms for the Dead



We use the Bible, but we use the book of Mormon too - the records of another people - because God speaks to the entire Earth, not just the Jews, not just us.

see: 2 Nephi 29

7 Know ye not that there are more anations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the bisles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the cearth beneath; and I bring forth my dword unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth?
8 Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the atestimony of btwo nations is a cwitness unto you that I am God, that I remember one dnation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two enations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also.

9 And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the asame yesterday, today, and forever; and that I speak forth my bwords according to mine own pleasure. And because that I have spoken one cword ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my dwork is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever.

10 Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my awords; neither bneed ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written.

Here is another article I have written concerning the fact that the Bible is incomplete:
The Book of Mormon - by Jamie Turner - Helium


Thanks for the thread! Great questions!

 

[idea]

atonement:
from:
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...ristians-why-jesus-had-die-4.html#post2094015

For me, it has to be more than words... I mean you can say "I love you enough to die for you"

the greatest love possible:
(New Testament | John15:13)
13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

so you can say it - but until you actually do it, the love is just a theory, it isn't real... There is a big difference between saying "I would die for you" and actually dieing for someone - until the death happens, the love is not real, it's just a good intention...

so Jesus really did die for us, the love is real.

We do things for those who love us, I mean really love us. Say your parents, grandparents, or spouse, or kids love you, think the best of you, their joy and happiness is all wrapped up in you - if you fail, they feel horrible, if you succeed - they are filled with joy. Because their well-being is so wrapped up in yours, you puch yourself, try to be good, succeed - not for selfish endeavors to make yourself feel good - but for them. You go to school / work / etc. etc. for your parents/spouse/kids... it's like that with Jesus. He loves us - loves us more than our parents, spouse, kids - loves us so much he died for us. What we do/don't do either causes him pain or joy - so we act, not for ourselves, but for him... it's not about us not wanting to feel guilt, but about accepting the love that is offered us, we don't want to cause Jesus anymore pain/sufferring. We don't deserve it, we didn't earn it, but if we don't accept it, it would be like not accepting the gift your mom tries to give you at Christmas, or telling your spouse "I don't want to stay with you anymore" when they love you and you are their entire life... so the love - real love (real death, real sacrifice, not just words) - binds us together, and changes how we act... it's not just about "me, myself and I" anymore, because everything we do affects not just "me myself and I" - everything we do affects Jesus, and others who love us - so we end up living for them.

and this

Here's a little parable (well more than a parable, something that happened) that explains how it works - at least to me it explains it... ok so here is the story:


Quote:
There was a boy fighting in the Union Forces. 19 years old. Went to sleep on guard duty. And the opposition broke through and wiped out a whole flank of the army. Several hundred were killed, including some of the best friends of this young man. But he survived. Court-martialed. Sentenced to die. He expected to die. He thought it was only just that he die. And president Lincoln was ready to sign his death warrant for his execution and a little mother appears on the scene.

She says, “President Lincoln, when this war started, I had a husband and six sons. First I lost my husband, and one by one I lost five of my sons. Now I only have one son left and he’s sentenced to be executed with a firing squad because he went to sleep. He feels awfully badly, he lost some of his best friends and he expects to die. President Lincoln, I’m not asking for the sparing of this boy’s life for his sake, but for his mother’s sake. He’s all I have left. For my sake could you spare him?” President Lincoln said, “For your sake, little mother, I will spare him.” And as far as I know President Lincoln was never criticized for that decision.

OK - so, why was Pres Lincoln never criticized? Why were the parents of all kids who were killed ok with letting this 19yo live? They were ok with it because the little mother had paid a price - that 19yo's life had been bought by the blood of his father/brothers. It's not about the 19yo anymore, or what he did. It is about the husband / brothers that died / little mother.

so, why won't anyone criticize God for letting ppl off the hook? same reason - a price has been paid. It is not about us anymore, it is about Jesus and what he did for us.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cypress
The idea is that Jesus died on the cross to free us from our sins.
But why was that necessary?
When God wants to forgive sins why can't he just do it, since he is almighty?
Why must he send someone to earth to die?

so, consider the same story as above, only this time - what would have happened if the little mother had not lost her husband/sons? If she had sacrificed nothing, there would be no "just" reason to let the 19yo off the hook. With the sacrifice, it was "just" to let the 19yo live. Do you see the difference? God has to uphold justice. - the sacrifice was the only way to have both justice and mercy.

wall of words, sorry. You had a lot of questions!

 

[idea]

Eden / the tree:

LDS.org - Ensign Article - “In the Beginning”: A Latter-day Perspective

The Lord gave Adam and Eve four commandments in the Garden of Eden. They were to multiply and replenish the earth (see Gen. 1:28; Moses 2:28; Abr. 4:28). They were to govern the earth wisely (have dominion over it) (see Moses 2:28; Abr. 4:26). They were not to partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and if they did they would experience serious consequences (see Gen. 2:17; Moses 3:17; Abr. 5:13). And they were to remain with each other (see Gen. 2:24; Moses 3:24; Abr. 5:18). In the case of two of these commandments—to multiply and replenish the earth and to refrain from partaking of the tree of knowledge of good and evil—Adam and Eve had to choose which they were to obey. Procreation was not possible for them in their immortal state (see 2 Ne. 2:22–25), yet Heavenly Father would not rob them of their agency by making the choice for them. President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: “The Lord said to Adam that if he wished to remain as he was in the garden, then he was not to eat the fruit, but if he desired to eat it and partake of death he was at liberty to do so.” 19 In essence the Lord told Adam that there were two directions to go, each with its unique consequences—and that Adam was to choose which one.

From President Brigham Young we learn: “Some may regret that our first parents sinned. This is nonsense. If we had been there, and they had not sinned, we should have sinned. I will not blame Adam or Eve. Why? Because it was necessary that sin should enter into the world; no man could ever understand the principle of exaltation without its opposite; no one could ever receive an exaltation without being acquainted with its opposite. How did Adam and Eve sin? Did they come out in direct opposition to God and to his government? No. But they transgressed a command of the Lord, and through that transgression sin came into the world. The Lord knew they would do this, and he had designed that they should. Then came the curse upon the fruit, upon the vegetables, and upon our mother earth; and it came upon the creeping things, upon the grain in the field, the fish in the sea, and upon all things pertaining to this earth, through man’s transgression.” 20


http://scriptures.lds.org/2_ne/2/22-25#22

2 nephi 2:11-the end
opposition is needed in all things.

The theory of relativity is based on the idea that some things do not exist without opposition. Velocity for example - a single object in a void with nothing to compare it to has no velocity. With nothing to compare it to, you cannot tell if it is moving or not. For such an object velocity is not zero – it is not anything. Velocity does not exist except through opposition.

Velocity, force, … life does not exist without death… or more descriptively, sentient life – what does it require to be sentient? To be able to think, to have a free will – to be a perfect creation? Thought, free agency – requires choices. Now I suppose you could argue – choose between an apple and an orange – two harmless choices – rather than choose between the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil – sure, you could limit your choices in this way – but you would also be limiting your depth of existence, your depth of free will. God is infinite, and in the eternal scheme, He has given us potential for limitless free will. I say potential, because we can limit our choices. Choosing evil limits choices, choosing good opens up more choices – an addict does not have the choice to obtain anymore – someone who is divorced can no longer choose to stay married etc. etc.. One definition of “good” is – all things that preserve your free agency.

good does not exist without evil… good is a relative term... it requires evil in order to define it. Just another extension of the theories of relativity.

It must needs be that there was an opposition…


2 Nephi 2:11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my first-born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.
12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.
13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.
14 And now, my sons, I speak unto you these things for your profit and learning; for there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be acted upon.
15 And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, after he had created our first parents, and the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and in fine, all things which are created, it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter.
16 Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other.


all things must have vanished away.... either everything exists, or nothing does.

from another old post

 

[dmgdnooc]

Well in my experience I've seen a parrot rip out all of its feathers due to neglect. Certain parrots are very social animals and if they don't get the attention that they deserve, they get mentally disturbed and a common behavior is that they rip out their feathers. (And ripping out large feathers is drastically more damaging than ripping out hair, as the diameter of the feather is significant and the parrot has very, very thin skin). In addition to that they will sometimes do repetitive or abusive actions that are not satisfied unless the creature is being petted or cuddled. So it's a combination of both physical and emotional pain in an animal.

And if you've ever known a badly abused dog, you'll see that it behaves radically different from a loved dog. A dog that is currently experiencing pain or suffering, whether it's from beatings, hunger, etc. tends to be very timid, or very aggressive, or some mixture of both, shakes, makes odd noises, and in general is a pitiful sight to see. In addition, even years later when such a dog is taken in and loved, it may become more and more like a dog that was always loved but may always have some mental scars. For instance they may always be jittery among strangers, or may be startled if a hand is raised near it- it depends on the specific animal and the specific nature of the suffering it once felt.

When a cat's tail is stepped on, it doesn't just continue doing whatever it was doing like a horse that continues to eat with bone protruding from its leg. It goes crazy and screeches, just like a human might do if you step on her toe, and then runs away and licks its tail (whereas a human might put ice on it or something).

And I've also seen pets die. Seeing a dog die from organ failure is a painful and sad thing to watch.

The fact that this sort of suffering existed for millions or billions of years, to me, is a curious thing to reconcile for liberal Christians. (Conservative or fundamentalist Christians, on the other hand, might insist that this is not the case and that nothing suffered before a literal Adam and Eve sinned.) I am interested in understanding the ways in which liberal Christians interpret suffering and history on Earth.
　
Can you explain in what way they thought they could be like god?
　
I'm not sure what this means. If humans evolved from other species, then I don't see what is meant by saying that animal thinking was in animal heads and human thinking was in human heads. Even humans have very primitive aspects of our brain along with our more developed reasoning centers.

In addition I'd question the absence of sin, or at least ask you to clarify what you mean. From some history I've seen, arrow heads and such have been found in human remains dating very far back. Animals of many sorts commit violent behavior.

And I suppose I should ask if you'd want to live several thousand years ago before written history. I know I wouldn't. I mean the life expectancy was extremely low and the quality of life was pretty bad too. Without modern medicine, many health problems are not treatable. For me personally, I would have been dead before I was born if not for modern medicine, and even if that were not the case, I'd have died a few years later from severe illness. Now in some parts of the world we have very ethical societies that care about the happiness of others, establish ethical laws, establish charity organizations, and so forth. I don't think there's any specific time in history in which I'd rather live than right now, so I don't really see any sort of fall.
　
Well, to me it's mythology with substance. I don't think it's unnatural that humans would search for understanding as to why their world is the way it is and why they experience things that are not very good. In fact at this current time I have a thread in the Hinduism subforum where I am asking Hindus to explain their views of the origin of human suffering and/or human souls.

-Lyn

You say that animals suffer a combination of 'both physical and emotional pain'.
I agree and would add that they may also suffer on a moral level.
　
I recall an article (from New Scientist, a good enuf ref at this level of discussion) that summarised a series of experiments showing that dogs have a sense of equity.
They have, to some degree, a sense of right and wrong which is the basis of human moral understanding.
　
The point about suffering is that it appears to be an aspect of life, all creatures suffer, to this or that degree. It goes with the territory of being a living creature.
　
Scriptural suffering is said to have positive effects on the sufferer, or to have the purpose of affecting the sufferer in a positive way.
I trust God that positive things have resulted, or positive opportunities have been presented, in the suffering of the world.
I can see that it has been the case in the things that I have suffered in my life; and I can't really be sure that it has not been so in every case, so I am left to trust.
The Bible often figures suffering in the birth pains that bring forth a new life.
The babe is born, the suffering forgotten; it has all been worth the while when the babe is born.
　
In Eden it was thought that if they ate of the tree and acquired the knowledge of good and evil then they would be like God; because God knows both good and evil.
The idea was not entirely incorrect.
　
The Edenic pair were created, brought forth from the Earth, formed of the clay (called out from the herd, if you like) to live by every word that proceeded out of the mouth of God.
The thoughts in their heads were to begin with the word of God, their reasoning processes were to be applied to the word of God, and their actions were to reflect the thoughts in their heads.
Then the serpent intruded itself and put in their heads a chain of specious reasoning about God and their position and relationship with Him.
　
In evolutionary terms this could indicate a misfunction, or unwarranted dominance, or intrusion into the higher brain functions by the reptilian brain.
　
It was not possible for Sin to operate prior to Eden.
Paul says 'I had not known sin, but by the law .... for without law sin was dead'
The law of Eden 'thou shalt not eat of it' was necessary before Sin could enter.
Prior to Eden there was no law, so Sin was dead.
　
Ironic, if Sin had not entered, and sent us rushing headlong down the path of agriculturalism, urbanisation etc you, and those in simlar case, would not exist; would have died as a spontaneous abortion, perhaps killing your mother in the process.
　
I have no desire to live in those pre-Edenic days; I live now, and look forward in time to Christ's return; I am aware of the blessings of living in this time and am thankful for them.
　
I'm heartened to hear you acknowledge that there is substance to early Genesis.
The more that I look at and think about the chapters the more astounded I become at just how much substance there is.
　

 

[doppelganger]

1. If you do accept some form of evolution, and therefore believe that humans were not among the first creatures in this universe, then what is your view as to why suffering exists?

Suffering is a psychological experience of the loss of one's attachments. Suffering occurs because there is separation between a person's sense of self and everything else, causing them to cling to impermanent things in hopes of creating a comforting feeling of immortality and ease the feelings of existential angst that come with "being" and the corresponding awareness of death and impermanence. In poorly-applied doctrinal terms, this gets rendered "suffering is caused by sin, and sin is separation from God," but because of all the cultural and psychological baggage involved, in many instances, the idea of "sin" actually gets used to reinforce feelings of separation and isolation and increases suffering for many unwitting "Christians" and their social leaders.

Just goes to show that one who is not a master, should not use a master's tools.

2. . . . Or do you abandon the concept of the sacrifice altogether as some later idea from St. Paul and others and suppose that Jesus was not involved in a sacrifice? Expanding upon this, what are your general views about Jesus? If you were to briefly and concisely explain his purpose and who he was, and why he is central to your beliefs, what would you say?

Jesus is a character in several metaphorical stories meant to illustrate profound philosophical and psychological truths about love. The separation between the individual ego and "God" is psychological and grammatical. Each individual is both separate from "God" through their thoughts, but inextricably intertwined with everything else in the universe, regardless of the apparent separation one sees and comes accustomed to relying on. Jesus, being both man and "God," illustrates the notion that sacrificing one's need to cling to one's self and the attendant attachments that go along with that are the reason we cannot experience an at-one-ment with "God." The point of the "sacrifice" is that love breaks through the arbitrary barriers between things and people that the ego projects to protect itself and by sacrificing the ego in compassion and understanding, you become one even with your enemies.

3. What are your views as to the content of the Old Testament? Things that include stoning homosexuals, killing every man, woman, and child in a village, wrathful vengeance, killing people for approaching his alter or doing work on the Sabbath, and so forth. Do you feel that your god was like this once but is not like this anymore? Or that this is still an aspect of your god's personality? Or that the authors of those portions of the Bible were mistaken about god? Or something else?

The Old Testament is a hodge-podge of various Hebrew writings that have been pulled from their cultural and historical context and arranged, both together and with "New Testament" writings, for the purpose of making them seem like something they are not. There are many beautiful philosophical writings in the "Old Testament" (Ecclesiastes, Job, the first chapter of Genesis . . . to name a few). There are also lists of social rules that reflect the values and pragmatic needs of the time and place when they were written.

4. What is your view towards prayer? What forms of prayer are acceptable or useful, and what is their desired result? In what ways do Jesus or Yahweh respond to them?

I think prayers of petition in which one asks "God" to do magical things for one's self are not only silly, but ultimately reinforce separation and lead to an unhealthy form of passive nihilism. For myself, I regularly engage in quiet times of mental release and regular practices of introspective meditation.

5. In what way do you feel that Christianity most accurately explains your religious/spiritual viewpoint compared to other religions?

It doesn't explain my religious/spiritual viewpoint any more accurately than any other tradition. The only place where there's a rule that says you can only find meaning in one religion at a time is in people's imaginations and psychological hangups. I find a great deal of beauty in many of the early Christian writings, and a profound psychological truth in the foundational stories. I find this with most any "wisdom tradition" that inspires people though. One just has to look.