Comparitive Religion

[_Roger Morrison]

WOW!!! X 3???

1. Sono-Hito, your questionare is too wordy for the average guy/gal... I'll try to get back it to...but, don't really know what purpose it is intended to serve???

2. Lynnr, you frighten me ;-)!!! Really, i can't imagine anything much worse than for Fundies to bond with Mormies... I'll (try to) get back on that too.. Maybe you should consider your essay in a seperate topic/thread???

3. Valorus, you seem to ask some significant questions that i can quite readily (attempt to:-) address later... Warm regards to all, Roger

[_Roger Morrison]

Valorius, you said:

While they are many breeds of birds, they all grow the same way. A male and a female bird come together. A nest is built. Eggs are laid. Eggs are cared for. Baby birds hatch. They are nurtured by their parents. They grow feathers and strengthen their wings. They take test flights, then a maiden flight, with the parent usually in close proximity. Eventually they separate from their parents, and bein the cycle anew. They all grow, however, the same way, and they all become what they are destined to be as a species. Their external nature, their colors and songs and sizes and habits differ, but their internal nature is alike. They have all learned the same things - what to eat, how to chirp and sing, how to fly. They become birds. Humans come in different colors and sizes, speak different languages, and have different traditions. But there is some essential element that binds them all. What is the commonality? What is it of human growth that is the same, that makes us all humans instead of each individual a separate species? What is "true human nature"?

You are correct. In the bird/animal kingdoms there ar many species, each with distinctive purpose in the food/survival chains: Predators, scavengers, herbavors, carnivors each wearing their distinctive 'colours, and emitting their own sounds. A canary and/or a crow adding its notes to natures "Sound of Music"... In that system the aggressive is easily identified to the intended victim...

With us humanoids, such is not the case. While we are born into distinct 'races' and raised in different 'ethnicities' blood can be transferred between all, dependent only on four blood-types common to all races of the human specie.

Yet we too tend to have predators, scavengers, submissives, dominants, heroes and cowards... each seemingly fitting into our historical survival campaigns...
As momma-&-poppa-bird, nest and egg, so do human parents. BUT, will their (human) EGGS hatch a predator?? This depends not on their DNA/nature. But, rather, generally speaking, on their NEST--nurturing! To your paragraph pasted below, i 've added my comments in bold...

What is the origin of evil? RM: The nest! Given your remarks on evil ("works of man are purely those of man. And should be judged as such." and "we do not believe in any inborn sin from which you must be saved from. RM: I agree! Though if you do cause harm, restitution is owed in some form or another."), what is it in human nature that allows a person to want to cause harm, and to succeed in causing harm? RM: Nest/nurturing in all avenues of exposure... And what is it that makes a person want to make restitution? RM: Maturing, awareness & becoming empathatic--"Golden Rule"... And how is restitution determined? Is evil, in your system, only physical? Do you recognize spiritual evil such as hurting the 'heart' of a person? RM: I sure hope so...

Simplistically, i suggest the NEST Trump's the EGG! Society will improve as nesting techniques improve/evolve to produce thinking, feeling, perceptive, questioning chicks/roosters :-) ... Education rather than indoctrination... THE problem with parochialism & sectarianinism: few questions allowed and wrong answers given, in general... My fear IF LYNNR'S program ever got off the ground... Warm regards, Roger

[_Valorius]

To your paragraph pasted below, I 've added my comments in bold...

What is the origin of evil? RM: The nest! Given your remarks on evil ("works of man are purely those of man. And should be judged as such." and "we do not believe in any inborn sin from which you must be saved from. RM: I agree! Though if you do cause harm, restitution is owed in some form or another."), what is it in human nature that allows a person to want to cause harm, and to succeed in causing harm? RM: Nest/nurturing in all avenues of exposure... And what is it that makes a person want to make restitution? RM: Maturing, awareness & becoming empathatic--"Golden Rule"... And how is restitution determined? Is evil, in your system, only physical? Do you recognize spiritual evil such as hurting the 'heart' of a person? RM: I sure hope so...

What is it in a human that allows nest/nurturing to have such an affect on him?

What is it in a human that makes it possible for him to experience awareness and empathy or compassion. I believe it is his Conscience. Maturation is not a 'thing' so much as the development of a thing. Okay with that?

Simplistically, I suggest the NEST Trump's the EGG! Society will improve as nesting techniques improve/evolve to produce thinking, feeling, perceptive, questioning chicks/roosters :-) ... Education rather than indoctrination... THE problem with parochialism & sectarianinism: few questions allowed and wrong answers given, in general... My fear IF LYNNR'S program ever got off the ground... Warm regards, Roger

Yes, everything starts in the family. Adam and Eve screwed that up. They raised one son to be a murderer, and the other, apparently to irritate the first so much that he got himself killed. If there is a "good version" to this story, I have no idea what it would be. If Adam and Eve had followed their Prime Directive - "Hands off for now!" - things might have turned out better. Things, and families.

Hi-yo, I'm away.

[_Roger Morrison]

Val, does your sign-off mean yer into the sunset, never to return? I hope not, as i took your questions with some degree of seriousness... Copied, pasted, considered, responded, & now i hope to paste below... IF the process holds all together???: Look's like it worked! I'm in italics? Or at least IDed by "RM:"

Lone Ranger’s Post

What is it in a human that allows nest/nurturing to have such an affect on him?

RM: Might it be the infant state of total-dependency? A state shared with all mammal infants. As well the commonality of cuteness–puppies, kittens, etc... Just-the-way-it-is... However in the animal-kingdom instincts might make parent-roles more instinctively responsible. Hence within a specific species there tends to be less individuality–generally speaking–than we find in humanoids, who are exposed to a variety of parenting styles/models and social environments. Could it be we are “made” more sensitive to environmental/nesting influence to facilitate intellectual & spiritual evolution?

What is it in a human that makes it possible for him to experience awareness and empathy or compassion. I believe it is his Conscience. Maturation is not a 'thing' so much as the development of a thing. Okay with that?

RM: OK, a process affected by input–ideal to not-so-good/horrible, in its development. Genetics cannot be discounted to some degree in the process as well, I suggest. Yet, conscience can be all but (totally?) deadened in a dysfunctional/violent/abusive “nest”, IMSCO.

1.
Roger Morrison wrote:
Simplistically, I suggest the NEST Trump's the EGG! Society will improve as nesting techniques improve/evolve to produce thinking, feeling, perceptive, questioning chicks/roosters :-) ... Education rather than indoctrination... THE problem with parochialism & sectarianinism: few questions allowed and wrong answers given, in general... My fear IF LYNNR'S program ever got off the ground... Warm regards, Roger


Yes, everything starts in the family. Adam and Eve screwed that up. They raised one son to be a murderer, and the other, apparently to irritate the first so much that he got himself killed. If there is a "good version" to this story, I have no idea what it would be. If Adam and Eve had followed their Prime Directive - "Hands off for now!" - things might have turned out better. Things, and families.

RM: Let’s you and I, at least, not forget A&E are characters in a fable. Their parenting skills–as well as that of Grandpa-God–were not well founded on principles of non-favouritism and love within the family constellation.

Unfortunately, this tale has been taken as ‘truth’ over the centuries. As it still is in the minds of many who consider themselves followers of “God”. A fact quite likely that, as you seem to suggest, might root the problems within the human family. BUT, “Halleluliah!” Times they are a changing!

Awareness/consciousness/conscience are leading to empathy rather than enmity that was proposed/exemplified by the “God” of the Old Testament as He interceded brutally for His favourites, showing absolutely no compassion toward his/their enemies.

It’s time for the “Two-New-Commandments” delivered by the reformer of Judaism, to be applied!! What do You think? Warm regards, Roger

[_Valorius]

No, I didn't ride away. Old habits are hard to break, that's why the Hi-ho. I learned it from some cute little western dwarves.

Yes, people can kill their consciences. Then it takes decades or millenia to restore them. Some things we read about people doing, we can't believe they are human beings despite the bodies they are in.

I realize that ornamental details have been added to the Adam and Eve/Hayya story. I do not know who figured it out or how, but the gist of it seems undeniable. It must have been the first humans who failed to establish good relationships, whether those relationships were with God, with their Conscience, with each other, or all three. If the first humans had been perfect, they would have been able to bequeathe a tradition of perfection onto the descendants. Obviously they did not, for the second generation seems worse than the first. God, or our Consciences, or both have through the generations been trying to re-establish what was lost and develop it into a perfect family. "Perfect" means one with God in heart and desire. (My temporary, lame definition for this context). It means peace and harmony in the family, and peace and harmony and cooperation between families. It means sacrificing oneself for the sake of the family and so on.

Well, sure, I'm all for Love God as thou lovest thy (conscience) self, and Love They Neighbor (as long as thy neighbor doesn't act like a beast; I exclude murderers of children and a couple of other kinds of bad people from consideration as neighborly or even human, for that matter).

I do not see Jesus as a reformer of Judaism, any more than Jeremiah or Ezekiel were. They were "restorers" of what the Jews had gotten away from. In Jesus' case, he was also one to lift the Jews and the nation of Israel to a higher spiritual level, as Moses had done before him (but differently than did Moses).

God didn't intercede brutally. He didn't cause the problem in the first place. That was Adam and Hayya or whatever we call the first humans. Being created in God's image, it is our responsibility to "create" ourselves. If we don't create ourselves, then we are like everything else, monkeys and slugs and squash and bacteria. They follow their instinct. We are to follow our Conscience (original mind, spirit, God). Maybe God can help now and then. Maybe there really were miracles in Moses' day, and I believe Jesus performed some "miracle healings" in his day.

Now God might be able to give a revelation, like "This land is yours; go and possess it." It's up to the people who get such a revelation to decide whether that means that God wants them to kill every man, woman, child, and cow on the land, or to go there and convert the people to Judaism (or whatever religion of a given time best reflects God's Will). That's human responsibility.

The Quran has a passage that says Jews were told they could exact an eye for an eye, and Christians were told to forgive; but to Muslims it was given to do whichever they wished. So now today many Muslims believe it is okay to exact an eye for an eye. But that is not what the Quran says. The Quran says they can choose; but it does not say the two choices are equal! That's human responsibility.

Mormonism says (clearly in the past, foggily today) that the Catholic Church is a monstrous whore that perverts the Bible, whose leaders are seeking wealth and power and those alone. If that were true, the Mormon Church has had the choice of avoiding the Catholic Church (it is, after all, Satan's church upon the waters), or to approach the Catholic Church, as Jacob did with Esau, give gifts, as Jacob did with Esau, show respect and honor, as Jacob did with Esau, by bowing down to its leaders and asking for their blessing, and through love unfeigned and patience (i.e., "long-suffering") eventually elevate the understanding of Catholic Theologians so they are in harmony with Mormonism's teachings. Knowing a bit about Catholic Scholasticism, however, I would venture that any theological dialogue might result in the conversion of more Mormons than Catholics.

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi Val, thanks for your response. Seems we might not be as close in our thoughts as i first concluded. Wrongly?? I'll insert my thoughts below in bold...

No, I didn't ride away. Old habits are hard to break, that's why the Hi-ho. I learned it from some cute little western dwarves.

Yes, people can kill their consciences. Then it takes decades or millenia to restore them. Some things we read about people doing, we can't believe they are human beings despite the bodies they are in. RM: Agreed, although Holacaust atrocitiy seemed quickly repented of??? Other injustices--power elites/poverty--are too often too socially acceptable...

I realize that ornamental details have been added to the Adam and Eve/Hayya story. RM: "Hayya"? I've Googled & Wikkied but??? What-is-it? I do not know who figured it out or how, but the gist of it seems undeniable. RM: Believable, unbelievable? It must have been the first humans who failed to establish good relationships, whether those relationships were with God, with their Conscience, with each other, or all three. If the first humans had been perfect, RM: Prototypes are seldom, if ever perfect :-) they would have been able to bequeathe a tradition of perfection onto the descendants. RM: What humanity was bequeathed is intelligence and the ability to eventually learn from mistakes... Obviously they did not, for the second generation seems worse than the first. God, or our Consciences, or both have through the generations been trying to re-establish what was lost and develop it into a perfect family. RM: Seems you give credence to what i've concluded is the Judaic "fable" of creation??? "Perfect" means one with God/Nature? in heart and desire. (My temporary, lame definition for this context). It means peace and harmony in the family, and peace and harmony and cooperation between families. It means sacrificing oneself for the sake of the family and so on. RM: Yes...

Well, sure, I'm all for Love God as thou lovest thy (conscience) self, and Love They Neighbor (as long as thy neighbor doesn't act like a beast; I exclude murderers of children and a couple of other kinds of bad people from consideration as neighborly or even human, for that matter). RM: Very human attitude. One of our proclivities that Jesus tried to coach us beyond, as i read 'Him'... Not yet understood...

I do not see Jesus as a reformer of Judaism, any more than Jeremiah or Ezekiel were. RM: Jerry & Zek may have been reformers as well, but not quite of the caliber of Jesus?? They were "restorers" of what the Jews had gotten away from. In Jesus' case, he was also one to lift the Jews and the nation of Israel to a higher spiritual level, as Moses had done before him (but differently than did Moses). RM: Seems he wasn't too successful. Will you give evidence of his lifting "...the Jews and the nation of Israel.."?? Other than a few followers the "Nation", unfortunately, remained very much as it was...

God didn't intercede brutally. He didn't cause the problem in the first place. RM: Then was Abraham a schitso hearing voices that weren't there? That was Adam and Hayya or whatever we call the first humans. Being created in God's image, it is our responsibility to "create" ourselves. If we don't create ourselves, then we are like everything else, monkeys and slugs and squash and bacteria. They follow their instinct. RM: We tend to follow "leaders" who are not always leading in the right direction, with 'our' good as their intension... We are to follow our Conscience (original mind, spirit, God). Maybe God can help now and then. RM: Not the Bible-God, IMSCO... Maybe there really were miracles in Moses' day, and I believe Jesus performed some "miracle healings" in his day. RM: That's part of "The Old, Old Story, that 'many' like to hear..." an old time hymn.

Now God might be able to give a revelation, like "This land is yours; go and possess it." It's up to the people who get such a revelation to decide whether that means that God wants them to kill every man, woman, child, and cow on the land, or to go there and convert the people to Judaism (or whatever religion of a given time best reflects God's Will). That's human responsibility. RM: The Bible doesn't read that way. One of the reasons that thinking, conscienced folks do not take the Bible as much more than historical mythology.

The Quran has a passage that says Jews were told they could exact an eye for an eye, and Christians were told to forgive; but to Muslims it was given to do whichever they wished. So now today many Muslims believe it is okay to exact an eye for an eye. But that is not what the Quran says. The Quran says they can choose; but it does not say the two choices are equal! That's human responsibility. RM: You probably know more about the Quran than i do...

Mormonism says (clearly in the past, foggily today) that the Catholic Church is a monstrous whore that perverts the Bible, whose leaders are seeking wealth and power and those alone. RM: LDSism has down-played that arrogant, ignorant lip-slip for some time... all goes to make up their profile. If that were true, the Mormon Church has had the choice of avoiding the Catholic Church (it is, after all, Satan's church upon the waters), or to approach the Catholic Church, as Jacob did with Esau, give gifts, as Jacob did with Esau, show respect and honor, as Jacob did with Esau, by bowing down to its leaders and asking for their blessing, and through love unfeigned and patience (I.e., "long-suffering") eventually elevate the understanding of Catholic Theologians so they are in harmony with Mormonism's teachings. Knowing a bit about Catholic Scholasticism, however, I would venture that any theological dialogue might result in the conversion of more Mormons than Catholics. RM: LDS 19 year-old barely informed, misinformed or uninformed "Missionaries", in much more than their theology and mythology, are increasing disadvantaged in our time of inquirery and information.

The Jacob/Esaua story is one of my favourites. An excellent tale of poor parenting, and deceit. (Much like the "Original Family":-) At the scene you attend Jacob has been trembling in shame & fear. The only thing his selfish, materialistic mind could suggest was to bring-gifts... Never thought of as pay-offs, in the higher mind of Esau who went forth to meet his twin with brotherly-love and forgiveness. Like the father of the Prodigal vs the mean spirit of his brother. I often speculate that "we" might have a better world if our religious heritage had been built upon, "Abraham, Isaac, and Esau" :-)??? Warm regards, Roger

[_Valorius]

Other injustices--power elites/poverty--are too often too socially acceptable...

I was thinking of murder and sexual molestation. Power elites and poverty – Jesus said the poor will be with us always. I think the power-seekers will, too.

I realize that ornamental details have been added to the Adam and Eve/Hayya story. RM: "Hayya"? I've Googled & Wikkied but??? What-is-it?

I thought Hayya was the Hebrew/Arabic/Mandaen word that the Anglish Peoples represented by “Eve,” for which purpose I do not know.

RM: What humanity was bequeathed is intelligence and the ability to eventually learn from mistakes...

And a tradition of disobedience and violence. Hence the need for a “Messiah” to show us “The Way” back to God’s/humanity’s ideal (best/harmonious/most successful) life-style.

Obviously they did not, for the second generation seems worse than the first. God, or our Consciences, or both have through the generations been trying to re-establish what was lost and develop it into a perfect family. RM: Seems you give credence to what I've concluded is the Judaic "fable" of creation???

I give it credence as a representation or intuitive understanding of how things transpired in such a way as result in humanity having a culture of mutual hostility, greed, violence, and sexual depravity, or indiscipline, if you will.

In Jesus' case, he was also one to lift the Jews and the nation of Israel to a higher spiritual level, as Moses had done before him (but differently than did Moses). RM: Seems he wasn't too successful. Will you give evidence of his lifting "...the Jews and the nation of Israel.."?? Other than a few followers the "Nation", unfortunately, remained very much as it was...

Sorry, can’t do that. As you know, the response to Jesus’ efforts was insufficient even to keep him alive, let alone establish what he intended. I said he was “one to lift” by which I meant that was his role, but not that he succeeded in it. Unfortunately.

God didn't intercede brutally. He didn't cause the problem in the first place. RM: Then was Abraham a schitso hearing voices that weren't there? That was Adam and Hayya or whatever we call the first humans. Being created in God's image, it is our responsibility to "create" ourselves. If we don't create ourselves, then we are like everything else, monkeys and slugs and squash and bacteria. They follow their instinct. RM: We tend to follow "leaders" who are not always leading in the right direction, with 'our' good as their intension... We are to follow our Conscience (original mind, spirit, God). Maybe God can help now and then. RM: Not the Bible-God, IMSCO... Maybe there really were miracles in Moses' day, and I believe Jesus performed some "miracle healings" in his day. RM: That's part of "The Old, Old Story, that 'many' like to hear..." an old time hymn.

Miracles seem to have happened. How they happened, I do not know. I’m sure some were more or less “natural,” like the loaves and fishes.

Now God might be able to give a revelation, like "This land is yours; go and possess it." It's up to the people who get such a revelation to decide whether that means that God wants them to kill every man, woman, child, and cow on the land, or to go there and convert the people to Judaism (or whatever religion of a given time best reflects God's Will). That's human responsibility. RM: The Bible doesn't read that way. One of the reasons that thinking, conscienced folks do not take the Bible as much more than historical mythology.

It does not say so explicitly, no. But the lack of explicit detail does not absolve the reader of using his head and figuring out how to do something without the necessity of “cutting off Laban’s head.” There are alternatives to just about every dilemma. (Otherwise it would be called a monolemma, right?) When Jesus said “Take up your cross and follow me,” that was pretty darn clear. But surely nobody thinks what he meant was go hang yourself.

Mormonism says (clearly in the past, foggily today) that the Catholic Church is a monstrous whore that perverts the Bible, whose leaders are seeking wealth and power and those alone. RM: LDSism has down-played that arrogant, ignorant lip-slip for some time... all goes to make up their profile.

They repudiate the principle but do not denounce the source. Same as for Adam-God, Celestial marriage (i.e., plural wivery) and blood atonement.

If that were true, the Mormon Church has had the choice of avoiding the Catholic Church (it is, after all, Satan's church upon the waters), or to approach the Catholic Church, as Jacob did with Esau, give gifts, as Jacob did with Esau, show respect and honor, as Jacob did with Esau, by bowing down to its leaders and asking for their blessing, and through love unfeigned and patience (I.e., "long-suffering") eventually elevate the understanding of Catholic Theologians so they are in harmony with Mormonism's teachings. Knowing a bit about Catholic Scholasticism, however, I would venture that any theological dialogue might result in the conversion of more Mormons than Catholics. RM: LDS 19 year-old barely informed, misinformed or uninformed "Missionaries", in much more than their theology and mythology, are increasing disadvantaged in our time of inquirery and information.

Well, heck, then, send the Prophets and Apostles, surely they are knowledgeable, or if not, will be blessed with what to say at the time they need to say it. Don’t you think they could hold their ground with Catholic scholars of scholasticism, early church history, Biblical exegesis, and apologetics? 8D

[_Mephitus]

Quite an impressive essay for a dilettante like myself, lynnr. I appreciate the potential for education here.

Sono Hito, I am involved in multiple religions, but am not ready to present anything about them yet.

I've considered your questions. There are additional questions which come to my mind when I think about the nature and value of a particular religion, and in fact when I think about my own relation to the cosmos, to God, to people, my own divided nature. I wonder if you would consider adding these questions to your list:

What is the origin of life?

What is the purpose of life? This is a key question for Mormons.
Thanks for the feedback, ADDED


What is the origin of evil? Given your remarks on evil ("works of man are purely those of man. And should be judged as such." and "we do not believe in any inborn sin from which you must be saved from. Though if you do cause harm, restitution is owed in some form or another."), what is it in human nature that allows a person to want to cause harm, and to succeed in causing harm? And what is it that makes a person want to make restitution? And how is restitution determined? Is evil, in your system, only physical? Do you recognize spiritual evil such as hurting the 'heart' of a person?

Human nature is that of survival, generaly you do what you instintualy feel you must to survive. The idea that "evil" comes from some other-worldly cause is something I've never come across within Asatru. Even those within the Eddas that could be called evil only do dis-honorable things when attempting to grow in their own power or abilities at the direct detriment to others. As far as restitution is concerned, it all depends on what the situation is. I kill your livestock, replacement would be appropriate. I destroy your property, fixing it or paying for its repair would be expected. If the crime is truly heinous, such as murder, the idea would be to stop the person (by death if needed) so they would not be able to harm/threaten another. Remember where these tenants/ideas came from, people who HAD to know that the people around them where reliable and trustworthy just to survive.


You wrote, "becomming very drunk is deeply frowned upon because it can lead to very foolish behavior". Why is behaving foolishly frowned upon?

The idea is that keeping your wits about you so that no enemies may catch you at a time when you are not at your top.(or that you would give away something vital about yourself or others than can be used against you/them) Wisdom and personal control are held as very high esteems. But so is enjoying one's self, its the balance of things where the personal control comes in. The concept is actually directly taken from the Havamal (words of the high one) as well. (See below)

Havamal Stanza 12
Less good than they say for the sons of men
is the drinking oft of ale:
for the more they drink, the less can they think
and keep a watch o'er their wits.

What is the process for overcoming evil (in oneself), for removing even the possibility of intentionally causing harm to others? Granted, that external restitution may be made to offset a physical harm, what can one do to eliminate the possibility of repeating the harm?
The obtaining of wisdom and the pursuit of honor for yourself and your kinsmen.

You write, "Asatru teaches that as with nature, the idea that there is a singilar way of life or spiritualism would stagnate and wrong humanity. Much like there are thousands of different breeds of birds, there are many ways of growing as a person. So long as that person proves to be honorable, let them live as such."

While they are many breeds of birds, they all grow the same way. A male and a female bird come together. A nest is built. Eggs are laid. Eggs are cared for. Baby birds hatch. They are nurtured by their parents. They grow feathers and strengthen their wings. They take test flights, then a maiden flight, with the parent usually in close proximity. Eventually they separate from their parents, and bein the cycle anew. They all grow, however, the same way, and they all become what they are destined to be as a species. Their external nature, their colors and songs and sizes and habits differ, but their internal nature is alike. They have all learned the same things - what to eat, how to chirp and sing, how to fly. They become birds. Humans come in different colors and sizes, speak different languages, and have different traditions. But there is some essential element that binds them all. What is the commonality? What is it of human growth that is the same, that makes us all humans instead of each individual a separate species? What is "true human nature"?

This is answered pretty well by a previous poster. The way in which you ask the question, its more philosophical than that of a religious sentiment by which im familiar of working with in Asatru. I was merely attempting to use something easy to conceive than to use some obscure or hard to understand ideal. I guess if you really want to get down to it, i could give an overly simplistic saying of "live honorably, for yourself, your ancestors, your kinsmen, and your future children"

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi Val, you make some interesting comments. Not all of them clear to me. How do you describe yourself re Mormonism--TBM, RM, married, kids, etc? From your previous post:

I was thinking of murder and sexual molestation. Power elites and poverty – Jesus said the poor will be with us always. I think the power-seekers will, too.

Might a lot of the violence you point to be lessend in a society that lived more as Jesus laid out in his Mount Sermon where in power-elites didn't do their thing and poverty was dispelled? "...the poor 'in-spirit' with you..." As Christian charity Trump's religious sectarianism...

thought Hayya was the Hebrew/Arabic/Mandaen word that the Anglish Peoples represented by “Eve,” for which purpose I do not know.

Maybe best stay away from such uncertainties... "the blind leading the lame" :-)

And a tradition of disobedience and violence. Hence the need for a “Messiah” to show us “The Way” back to God’s/humanity’s ideal (best/harmonious/most successful) life-style.

Old Testament stuff... Jesus was more original than wanting to go back. Jesus taught how to move forward with "The Two New Commandments". His message had to do with human relationships and understanding one's self as all-powerful ... move "mountains". A far cry from the repressive, authoritarian Judaic elite that laid heavy burdens... "...my burdens are light..."

I give it credence as a representation or intuitive understanding of how things transpired in such a way as result in humanity having a culture of mutual hostility, greed, violence, and sexual depravity, or indiscipline, if you will.

"...intuitive understanding..."??? Yours or the story's authors?? Can you imagine a different scene, where humanity is yet to overcome ignorance and evolve "...line upon line...precept upon precept..." learning as going from the state you describe?

I respectfully suggest, Man didn't "fall" to that. He "rose" from that state! Humanoids are still learning. As we learn, our brutish, selfish tendencies give way to conscienced conscious and sympathy comes closer to empathy. The Two New Commandments come into play..

Well, heck, then, send the Prophets and Apostles, surely they are knowledgeable, or if not, will be blessed with what to say at the time they need to say it. Don’t you think they could hold their ground with Catholic scholars of scholasticism, early church history, Biblical exegesis, and apologetics?

Heck no. They couldn't take the riggor ;-) Other than being LDS indoctriated, i don't know how well they'd do discussing broad Christianism and the application of Sermon-on-theMount principles such as correcting poverty, applying justice, eschweing wealth and peace-among-nations making.

Probabably no better or worse than the RC & other sectarian "scholars". They too are in denial of those real "fundamentals" while dazzling the world with tales of magic and dreams of golden streets... Believed at the peril of human progress; physically and spiritually... Warm regards, Roger

[_Valorius]

All evil will be lessened in a society whose members style their lives after Jesus. Temptations would still come, and it would be up to the community to be sensitive to people going through temptations.

I didn’t mean a Messiah to show us the Way back to the Old Testament, but to that ideal that preceded the Old Testament. When God first “breathed life” into the first human(s), what was He thinking!? He must have had some way to give Adam and Eve clues as to what they were supposed to do. They “fell”. That’s obvious. Something wrong has inflicted human society since forever. So Jesus wanted to “go back” and “undo” that original failure. Jesus could be a second Adam if he could fix Adam’s mistake, do what Adam was supposed to do, not repeat the act that infected humanity with ‘sin’ (a predisposition to selfishness at the cost of others’ welfare). Jesus was willing to sacrifice his own welfare for 'otherishness'. In that sense, his mission was a success; he became "Second Adam".

“Intuitive understanding,” mine or the story-teller’s? The story’s authors of course! They are the ones with the intuitive understanding. There must be many people with such intuition. Some were called prophets, some dreamers, some crazy. I can imagine scenarios, alternatives to the Genesis story of the beginning of humanity, and have written one as an exercise in fiction writing. But to imagine alternatives, and to articulate them, is neither to establish them nor to disestablish the Genesis story. It's alright as far as symbolic telling goes. I realize people today want a clearer explanation. "Seek and we shall find."

"He 'rose' from that state." Okay. Here's the result: In the beginning were Adam and Eve. The fall occurred, after which Cain killed Abel, Lot’s neighbors attempted to sodomize his guests, Isaac's sons sold their younger brother, the Jews worshipped golden calves, the Israelites gave a strong start to kill every soul in Canaan, and a coalition of selfish Jews, legalistic Romans, and cowardly Christians brought about the death of "The Son of God". If that is rising, let us descend to loftier heights. ;)

I bet you knew I was being a bit facetious about the capability of the G.A. to hold their own in the face of systematic theological arguments. I wasn’t thinking of those external, social applications (poverty, justice, peace), but of the logically established foundations: The necessity of the existence of God; The unity of God’s Nature; Creation; Eternity; Relationships; Subjectivity; Personality; etc.. The formalized arguments developed by the Catholic Church (and others). By ‘scholars’ I did not mean pedagogically approved professors and researchers. I meant the students and doctors of Scholasticism proper, and of modern Catholic apologetics. Untrained minds would be devoured in minutes. Respectfully speaking, the LDS seem to lack a coherent, consistent system of apologetics, McConkie, McMurrin, and others notwithstanding.

The Catholic apologists whose arguments I have encountered mentioned miracles incidentally and golden streets not at all. I believe you are referring to evangelicals or charismatics, to Catholic laity, or to some sort of Catholic clergy with which I am unfamiliar. The backbone of Catholic apologetics, Thomas Aquinas, eschewed “magic and dreams” to lay the primary foundation for his systematic theology/ontology. He entered into discussion of miracles later, if I am not mistaken. My focus was always on his proofs of God, not miracles or Christ's role.