Valorius: “Well, it is a story, a "genesis myth." But as the Roman origin myth had some truth behind it, I believe, whether it were that those varmints Romulus and Remus were brothers, revolutionaries against the Tarquins, or the first co-consuls, so the Adam and Eve story has truth. There was a beginning of humanity."
Roger Morrison: “Yep, there was a beginning...”
Valorius: “The beginning of true humanity is also the beginning of language (Adam going around making up words for everything). There was probably a conflation of stories, with Enosh (?) winding up a descendant of Adam rather than a first man like Adam. It is unfortunate we didn't get all the women's names, too. But somehow there had to be a first. It is too unlikely an event to have, like, a thousand or even a hundred of the first individuals of a species all spring into existence simultaneously on the first day of the first month of the first year of the presence of mankind on the earth. "Generation" takes time.
On the other hand, there had to be both a 'first man' and a 'first woman.' It would have done little good to have one man and no women, or a thousand men and no women, or a million women and no man. It takes two to tango. What are the chances that when the first individual of a new species appears, another one of opposite - I mean another one of complementary gender also appears within a time frame that allows the two to mate? If some God or "intelligence" weren't handling that, I doubt we'd have one percent of the species we have today!”
Roger Morrison: “Not sure if you're presenting this to be more factual than theoretical??”
Factual. :)
Roger Morrison: “I agree OTOH that "some" thing sparked/initiated the creation process. 'What/how/when/why', to this point in my mind I cannot begin to postulate:
God. :)
Roger Morrison: “Nor do I really care, cuz that's behind.”
Unless it’s God, because He is “eternal.” : )
Valorius: "Adam and Eve were learning about their environment and about themselves. They could see clearly what the animals, birds and bugs were doing. The result was baby animals, baby birds, and baby bugs. But the baby animals, birds, and bugs didn't do that sort of thing! They had to wait for time to pass, for their physical bodies to develop, before they, too, could produce baby animals, baby birds, and baby bugs. Adam knew that was the natural order. Besides the obvious knowledge available from "the things that are," maybe God told him, too. That's what I've heard."
Roger Morrison: "By A&E I assume you simply mean, '1st man & wo-man'? Starting from scratch, they DID have a lot to learn. As yet do we ;-)... I respectfully suggest, best not to believe all-you-hear..".
Yes, of course. That is their traditional position: first couple, First Mom and First Dad of all people. Father and Mother, Great Father and Great Mother, First Father and First Mother. An awesome responsibility.
Valorius: "Adam and Eve "fell
(cute:-) in love." They had Cain and Abel before they were completely ("perfectly") ready. …"
Roger Morrison: "What parents are "...completely...ready..."?!? All parents effect the bodies & minds of their kids; for good or ill. Are you forgetting this is a mythical story??"
Truth lies in myth. Oops, I mean, some truth
exists within myth! (Did Campbell say that?) No parents are prepared to be perfect parents today, but for a different reason than why the first couple were unready. The first couple had not learned what families were all about, that is, how to nurture a family. They had no direct example to follow, only representative examples among the birds and bees and cats and dogs and monkeys and flowers. I mean, God put them there for more than just food. Dan and Alexandra were supposed to learn from them. Nature was their schoolhouse and their lesson-books. Today, on the other hand, we fail not for lack of example, but
because of the examples! Maybe we are simply advanced simians; we mimic so well.
Valorius: "It amazes me that Jesus did as well as he did, because he didn't have very much help, either. But he got a lot further along the path to that proverbial, unagreed upon "perfection"
Roger Morrison: "Very interesting statement! One that I readily agree with, cuz I don't believe he was divine either. IF he had been, he would have been, and according to the tale he was, the "...proverbial "perfect" man..." "
Actually, I do think he was "divine," but not in the extreme sense that Catholics take that. More like divine in the sense of good and holy and in close relation to God. Not “God” but “patterned after God,” goddish.
Again there's this tarnationed deal with definitions. I
do beleive Jesus was perfect. I do not believe he "knew" everything and could "do" everything. He was perfect in doing what God gave him to do. He was perfect in faith, in obedience, and in accomplishing his mission and duty. Secularists and fallen non-secularists alike see "perfection" from a different perspective. People wish they didn't make mistakes. They see their ‘mistakes’ as the original cause of the troubles in their lives. So they see perfection as not making any mistakes, because if they were “perfect,” mistakeless, they wouldn’t have any problems and it would be like living in heaven. As though Ted Bundy not making any mistakes would have made him a better person; he just would have gotten away with murder for a longer time.
Life is challenge. It will always be so. We are not to be kept in a crib and drink from a milk bottle till we die of old age, and then go to our “reward.” What reward? For lying around not moving, not taking chances, not making mistakes and dutifully, honorably, politely fixing them? “After the race is run, the athlete is crowned.” We are here not because we already love perfectly, but to learn to love “perfectly”. That learning process isn’t circumvented by a pill nor a prayer. It takes entering into difficult, problematic social relationships, and coming out of them “loving your enemy.” It’s not a punishment, it’s not a test. It’s just a process of development. We grew in the womb, we grow in the air, we ascend to otherwhere.
Roger Morrison: "I think one of the Hallmarks of Jesus was his perception of the injustice and ignorance of his time & of those officiating in Jewism who where generally responsible for the spiritual/psyche burdens his people bore."
Yes. A prime Jewish virtue was justice. They had fallen away from the ideal, even just the lesser Mosaic, concept of justice, so that Jesus' presence was both a blessing and a threat to their image as competent judges. Is any virtue more cherished in the Old Testament than Justice, with Wisdom close behind?
Valorius: Oh, I misunderstood. I thought you meant Adam and Eve were at the bottom, perhaps even buried a few feet under the bottom, below the angels, to where even the sacrifice of themselves was too ungodly to be accepted, so they had to sacrifice animals, which were more pure beings, closer to God's ideal. But if you meant from where they fell, humanity fell still further, that may be correct. That would mean there was no hope for humanity. …”
Roger Morrison: “Maybe you did misunderstand me. I'll clarify: Humanoids started at the bottom of the "learning-incline"... From there we have, over XYZ years, progressed/evolved to our present state--and are ever continuing to do so, IMSCO. Am I to understand you subscribe to the inate depravity of the human species? As taught by many Christian sects... "Humanity...under control of Satan..."??? I don't personally think, nor believe, that to be the case."
Not innate depravity, no. I think that is maybe a 16th-18th century innovation??? But there is something I can call a "tendency" to do harm to others for one's own self benefit. That's what animals, do, of course. It is something that humans must overcome if they are to have value greater than puppies and guppies. We haven't overcome it by racial segregation nor by racial integration, so it probably isn't primarily in the physical DNA. It's probably something spiritual. It requires a spiritual solution. It requires God's Hand.
Obviously, Satan has had strong influence (“control”?) over many people. The spiritual progress I see in world history is that of Satan losing control and God regaining control. Satan’s control is control by force, fear, threat, and death. God’s control is what has been called “a dominion of love.” People are better motivated by love and praise than by threats and violence.
While intellectual and technological progress is being made, some people would be hard put to define the moral progress in light of the surrounding, worsening immorality. Satan only lied, Eve only seduced, Adam only fell with a woman. Crimes today seem more gross than the Canaanites'. I've read transcripts from the Nuremburg trials, the history of torture, and other finely graphic accounts of man's proverbial inhumanity to man. The quality of inhumanity has not diminished. So one who does argue for historical moral improvement (with which I agree, by the way!) ought also to provide an explanation of how increasing moral depravity can exist alongside it, and how we can eliminate the latter entirely. That's just my opinion.
Roger Morrison: "I do not see Noah or Abraham as characters (Mythical or otherwise) pulling us up. Do you?"
Yes, I do. Not today, of course. But in their time, that is what they did. They set the stage, they were given the baton. They were called to set an example. Abraham gave an instance of faith to God. I don't know the details, but somehow there was a 'divine' relationship. Abraham did something that impressed God. God communicated something to Abraham. Abraham obeyed God. Abraham may not have been his name; it is a suitable title.
Noah had obeyed God, and that was counted to him as righteousness. Noah knew what his goal was. He obeyed and saved several lives, it seems. That may have occurred around 10-15,000 years ago.
Abraham demonstrated greater faith; he did not know what his goal was, but nonetheless took off for a place that he was to receive as an inheritance, not knowing where he was going; and also, and again by faith, "he received power of procreation". "Therefore, from one person, and this one as good as dead, descendants were born, as many as the stars of heaven and as the innumerable grains of sand by the seashore." Story-tellers told a story about a man who at a very advanced age apparently miraculously had a child. The same man traveled he knew not where, and received for his faithful, diligent wandering a reward, a new land. Maybe Melchezidek gave him some special spot. I think so. That was the start of Abrahamland.
I realize that Abraham and Sarah weren't out alone in the desert somewhere suffering and eking out a living. Abraham was a powerful leader with a private army. God works through powerful leaders, too - Moses (virtual son of Pharaoh), Cyrus, the Maccabees. I do believe he does 'work with' people. That I do not enjoy the details of the interactions does not prevent me from believing them. My belief isn't based on every strand of evidence that one might wish to call for. My belief is based on, among other things, my understanding of and faith in God. Also on the stories, whether legendary or mythical, because I know that such stories almost without exception are outgrowths of actual events. The names might change over time, extra miracles might be added. But there is a core truth. Back to those authors, yes they had intuition. God is perceived intuitively. Maybe He is perceived intellectually (examination of facts), logically (reasoning extending from facts), aesthetically, emotionally, even socially ("when I look into your face, I see the face of my God"), and that's fine with this ranchero. I declare, He is also perceived intuitively, and possibly, for some people, instinctively.
Roger Morrison: “OTOH, I tend to interpret, "..."God" loved the world so he sent Jesus to clean up the mess he had made of things..." (Jhn 3:16:-) Sort-of like the second generation of a mediocre family business taking over & achieveing undreamed of success. Marriots come to mind...”
A bit like a demiurge?
Valorius: “…”
Roger Morrison: “Yes. IMSCO, when anyone, scientist or ecclsiast, makes absolute statement to that effect, their credibility suffers immeasurably. THE reason, IMSCO, that LDSism is simply another--actually the most pretentious--human construct in the religious industry.”
Ah-ha, Kumbaya! A SUPERLATIVE. I’ll have you know, I’ve been trained to watch out for those! Unfortunately, and I mean that sincerely, no alternative candidate comes immediately to mind.
I agree that absolute statements, "final solutions," can weaken a person's credibility. There are absolutes, but we shouldn't rush to make absolute statements about them. Absolutes are values, our words are relative.
Valorius: “But that Madrid fellow, he's presented in books and on video some very decent material.”
Valorius: “I'm not familiar with the "fellow". Clue me in, please. Thanks for yer civility Lone Ranger. Save those silver bullits for the dragon. Warm regards, Roger”
Oh, Horse-Bags, I can’t remember details! This ridin’ the open range is wearin’ down my mind.
Patrick Madrid, sometimes a pretty good Catholic apologist. I've got a couple of his books (somewhere!). I just discovered that he has his own forum for Catholic apologetics.
http://www.envoymagazine.com/Forum/default.asp
I haven’t looked into it yet, but intend to. I think he does better speaking. He’s more concise and clear, at least he was to me. Some of his published material fell short of my expectations, but that could be because this darned mask keeps sliding down over my eyes. Makes them all filmy. That’s why we need God, my co-conversor friend of timely discussions, to remove the film from our eyes . . . and ears . . . and hearts . . . and brains . . .
Best Western Wishes (no pun!),
Valorius
"[The Lord] doeth NOTHING save it be PLAIN unto the children of men" 2 Nephi 26:33
"Then why tell us not to seek after the 'mysteries' of the Lord? What mysteries?" - Valorius