The Human Condition

Discuss the Christian Faith.
Ted
Posts: 5652
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:05 pm

The Human Condition

Post by Ted »

One of the things that has bothered me for years is the idea on the part of many that man is inherently evil. This approach is not psychologically healthy for anyone. In fact it is my belief that this approach itself is evil.

Shalom

Ted:-6
User avatar
theia
Posts: 8259
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 3:54 pm

The Human Condition

Post by theia »

Ted;753469 wrote: One of the things that has bothered me for years is the idea on the part of many that man is inherently evil. This approach is not psychologically healthy for anyone. In fact it is my belief that this approach itself is evil.

Shalom

Ted:-6


I think it's the biggest smokescreen ever, Ted. But I'm not sure why I think that.
Live the questions now. Perhaps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answers...Rainer Maria Rilke
Ted
Posts: 5652
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:05 pm

The Human Condition

Post by Ted »

rjwould:-6

I agree for the most part. I do have to question that no one is evil. A psychopath is one case in question. "Evil" in a religious sense may be questionable but in a social sense that is another question.

Shalom

Ted:-6
Ted
Posts: 5652
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:05 pm

The Human Condition

Post by Ted »

rjwould:-6

I know a couple. They have absolutely no conscience whatsoever. They will do anything to anyone, whatever is their pleasure.

Shalom

Ted:-6
Ted
Posts: 5652
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:05 pm

The Human Condition

Post by Ted »

rjwould:-6

Know one really understands why they behave this way. They and their behaviour seem one and the same and inseparable. The medical and psychological associations recognize the "illness" as incurable and the psychopath as unpredictable and extremely dangerous. Personally, from what I have seen I class it as evil in either a social or religious sense.

Shalom

Ted:-6
Ted
Posts: 5652
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:05 pm

The Human Condition

Post by Ted »

On the topic of the human condition I find it rather puzzling that many people classify individuals by one apparent criteria, their sexuality. It's as if no other factor counts. There are so many other more important issues to look at besides sexuality. Augustine was hung up on this and a good part of Christendom seems to still be hung up on it. It's almost as if being a kind and loving parent, refraining from injury to others, being compassionate etc. simply don't count.

That we are on the verge of destroying this planet or the human race or nuclear holocaust pales in view that someone is of an alternative sexual orientation.

Shalom

Ted:-6
drumbunny1
Posts: 189
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 1:29 am

The Human Condition

Post by drumbunny1 »

You know, I wouldn't say that most people are "evil" but I would rather say that most people are selfish, and this can be seen from other points of view as evil....whats evil is how the media only shows you the "evil" things and very few good, so most everyone just assumes that all other people are evil.....should I say evil again? :)
Ted
Posts: 5652
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:05 pm

The Human Condition

Post by Ted »

jester:-6

A new born child is unconsciously only interested in being fed to preserve its life. As it grows it does become somewhat self-centered. Is that a sin. I don't think so. It is the reality of learning. It takes a child awhile to learn that its hands are actually part of its existence. Thus it only knows itself and its mother who is its source of sustenance.

As it grows it makes choices the consequences of which it has no idea. It tries everything. It puts toys in its mouth. It shoves peas up its nose. I tries to smush the mashed potatoes down through the top of its head. Are these sins too? That is called the learning process. It has nothing whatsoever to do with evil or sin. It just is.

When a child gets to the point where it knows and understands what it is doing then it chooses an action. Then one might say it is right or wrong.

You talk of standards. Standards depend upon the culture in which they are located. It is culture that sets those standards. For instance in the south sea islands children are encouraged to experiment with sexuality when they are young. This is an acceptable practice based on the cultural milieu. It may or may not be acceptable in our culture but it is there. One cannot judge other cultures on the basis of the Judeo-Christian culture. Such a judgment is simply invalid.

To put it succinctly the idea of good and evil is cultural and is affected by the religious point of view in a particular culture.

It is time to put the myth, expounded by Augustine, of original sin, away. It is an invalid concept.

Shalom

Ted:-6
Ted
Posts: 5652
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:05 pm

The Human Condition

Post by Ted »

On many islands in the south seas it was a common practice to eat the brains of dead relatives thinking that they would acquire the strengths of the deceased. What they did end up with in many cases was croitsfeld jacobs disease (sp?) Was that a sin? I don't think so. It was a common practice of distant culture. How can one compare that culture to the Judeo-Christian culture? Such a comparison is like comparing apples to carrots.

Shalom

Ted:-6
Ted
Posts: 5652
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:05 pm

The Human Condition

Post by Ted »

The whole concept of "The Bible says it and I believe it" is part of the idolatry created by the reformation. This is where we place the Bible on a par with "The Word made flesh." The Bible thus becomes an object of worship which is no different than those who worshiped stone idols only in this case it is a paper one. One theologian referred to the Bible as a "paper pope".

The Bible has much to offer. It has the wisdom of the ages. For Christians God speaks to us through the very human words of the Bible. That is how it becomes sacred literature and "The Word of God".

The Bible is important. It is part of the authority of the church but it is not God and ought not to be worshiped.

Shalom

Ted:-6
Ted
Posts: 5652
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:05 pm

The Human Condition

Post by Ted »

jester:-6

I cannot see that a child whose only aim at that point in its life could be called self centered. Its motivation is purely self preservation. That is a natural human instinct.

The individual in any culture cannot possibly reject a god they have never heard of. The fact that they accept the reality of a divinity is in itself amazing.

I most certainly would not engage in cannibalism but I cannot judge these people from my culture in my era. We cannot judge with any validity ancient actions in an ancient culture. Their whole belief system and cultural structures cannot be compared to ours. They can only be judged on the basis of their own time and culture. I don't think their behaviour was stupid. It just was.

Shalom

Ted:-6
Ted
Posts: 5652
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:05 pm

The Human Condition

Post by Ted »

Personally I think that capital punishment is immoral. There are a few reasons for that. One is philosophical and the other physical. I do not believe for one moment the second murder is justified by the first. All it does is lower society to the level of the murderer. I thought the human race was beyond that type of thinking. We don't like to be referred to as animals and we ought not to behave as animals.

The second reason is we can never be sure we have the guilty party beyond a reasonable doubt. We have had a recent group of convicted murderers released because modern science has proven they did not do the crime. We would have condemned innocent people to death. If that is not murder than murder does not exist.

Thirdly we must consider the persons mental state. If the person is mentally ill or insane we accept the fact that they are ill. We can hardly blame a person for being ill.

For those who follow the Bible literally or otherwise it does clearly say "vengeance is mine says the Lord,"

Then we have the case of the person being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

It has been more than clearly shown that capital punishment is not in fact a deterrent. In fact in those countries that abolished it the murder rate has actually gone down.

I should also add that all of God's creation is sacred. "The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away". God and God alone can take life away. How dare we try to play the role of God?

Shalom

Ted:-6
Ted
Posts: 5652
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:05 pm

The Human Condition

Post by Ted »

jester:-6

I missed one point. I cannot judge whether anyone is an idolater. That is between the individual and God. God alone is the judge. What I do say, and with much support, that those who put the Bible on a par with God could be classed as idolaters. We are to worship God alone. When we place a book on a par with God we are worshiping that book.

Literalism can lead to a form of idolatry. The term the "Word of God" rightly belongs to only One, the Word made flesh.

Shalom

Ted:-6
Ted
Posts: 5652
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:05 pm

The Human Condition

Post by Ted »

jester:-6

I believe that God finds execution to be murder. Jesus taught us to behave in a much different way.

The system is working. Absolutely not. These men were preserved because here the state does not commit murder. If if did these men would in all likelihood have died. How can one say the system is working when men spend 20 years (David Milgaard) in prison for a crime he did not commit. How many innocent men have been executed in the US?

That you don't buy the mental illness defense is clearly a demonstration that you do not except modern science. It is a simple display of vindictiveness.

The idea that the law to impose capital punishment is mandated to the government is purely self serving. That would suggest that Stalin or Pol Pot or Adolf Hitler were well empowered to kill (murder) all those people. That would give the governments unlimited authority to; run Guantanamo Bay, release the names of out of favour spies or try to arrange for the death of D. Ellsberg or president Chavez or send an innocent Canadian to Syria knowing he would be tortured.

In using the term "wrong place at the wrong time" I am referring to the innocent folks arrested for a murder, tried and convicted and then sentenced to death for a murder they did not commit.

I see no where that government is so mandated.

In my view Capital punishment is immoral and contrary to the very teachings of Jesus.

Shalom

Ted:-6
Ted
Posts: 5652
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:05 pm

The Human Condition

Post by Ted »

jester:-6

I cannot help but respond to your comments to rjwould.

First of all Adam is purely a mythological character. He was never a real living human being. The Hebrew word translated to Adam actually means mankind. It is a collective noun. It does not refer to an individual.

The thought that because some guy from some distant time in the past sinned and thus we are all to blame is purely illogical. It would, if true, speak volumes about the justice of such a god.

The idea of the substitutionary death of Jesus also speaks volumes about such a god.

"God wanted to damn everybody, but his vindictive sadism was sated by the crucifixion of his own Son, who was quite innocent, and therefore, a particularly attractive victim. He now only damns people who don't follow Christ or who have never heard of him." pg.136, "God and Human Suffering", J. D. Hall.

This simply does not cut it. There are several interpretations of Jesus Crucifixion of which that is only one and one that I do not accept.

As for the remainder you can only speak for yourself.

Shalom

Ted:-6
Ted
Posts: 5652
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:05 pm

The Human Condition

Post by Ted »

jester:-6

Actually I believe that Christ's crucifixion was important. The fact is there are several interpretations to that crucifixion. You present only one. I disagree with that interpretation but that does not make your interpretation invalid.

Scriptural application I suspect we would agree more on. The truth, whether in the form of myth or historical accuracy, is still valid.

Shalom

Ted:-6
Ted
Posts: 5652
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:05 pm

The Human Condition

Post by Ted »

jester:-6

On creation from the Jewish Encylopedia.

The descriptions are naive and anthropomorphic, telling of man's home in Eden, his divinely given mate, his progress in knowledge, his sin, his banishment from paradise, and the fate of his children.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view. ... 8&letter=A

JewishEncyclopedia.com - ADAM.

In his book "Legends of the Bible", pg xiii Jewish writer Louis Ginsberg writes the following concerning the nature of the legends of the Bible among which he classifies the creation stories:

"Even when the legends were assembled in special books, the principle of their arrangement was purely mechanical; they were sturng to the passages of Scripture which they employed or elaboated. This method gove them the false appearance of being a running commentary of sections or selections of the Writ."

It is clear from two Jewish sources that the Jewish people themselves do not view the creation stories as actual history.

Again from the Jewish Encyclopedia.

The Mosaic account of creation is not to be accepted literally (see Drummond, "Philo Judæus," i. 293). Creation was not in time. "It is folly to suppose that the universe was made in six days, or in time at all." The expression "six days" merely indicates the most perfect arrangement ("De Allegoriis Legum," i.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view. ... ter=C#2959

JewishEncyclopedia.com - CREATION:

There is a wealth of information in the Jewish Encyclopedia.

Shalom

Ted:-6
Ted
Posts: 5652
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:05 pm

The Human Condition

Post by Ted »

jester:-6

From my perspective I do not see the Bible as inerrant. Thus my faith, my trust is in the God to whom the Bible attests. It is my experience that I go by, the experiential reality of the risen Lord. The book is not the source of my faith but the Risen Lord.

I have no need for an inerrant Bible.

Shalom

Ted:-6
Ted
Posts: 5652
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:05 pm

The Human Condition

Post by Ted »

First of all those of the Jewish faith who do not take the historicity as reality still accept the truths in the Bible. People are still hung up on this false enlightenment idea that if it is not historically accurate it is not true. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Just checking "Understanding the Old Testament by B. Anderson and he confirms what I have said as does the "One volume Commentary".

Why write it that way? Why include apparently explicit genealogies? They wrote in that style to lend an air of historicity. They included genealogies to make the story seem complete. It was their way of showing some form of continuity. If you go to the NT you have the same thing. You have two different genealogies of Jesus. Both were common to the ancient style of writing. None of that detracts from the truths the stories present.

There are two creation stories. They are different. One came from the J tradition and one came from the E. tradition. In addition there were other oral traditions as well. That is also why there are two Noah stories mixed in together.

As I've said elsewhere I have no problem if one wants to see them as historical in a personal way. However, how many folks have been turned off the faith by being asked to believe what they see as absurd?

Shalom

Ted:-6
User avatar
nvalleyvee
Posts: 5191
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:57 am

The Human Condition

Post by nvalleyvee »

I was told when I was about 6 that girls are born with the sin of evil from tempting man with the apple in the Garden....we gave the apple. I was beat - to beat the sin out of all girls who cast mankind out of the Garden for temptation. I was kicked out of Sunday school for saying I did not believe Jesus was my Savior. I told them he was a man and had good things to say but NO - not anyone who was going to save me. Dang... I had too much crap going on in the name of Jesus.

I got to stay home with Meem - my Grandma. We cooked - we talked - we gardened - we LOVED each other. She told me that preacher was full of **** and had never once come to see her until he wanted a good Sunday dinner. Then he started to come over every Sunday after her husband died. Money was the issue. My Meem told him to get the HELL out of her house. I was so very proud of her. I just wanted to be just like her.

She was hard working and never took any crap from anyone.
The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement..........Karl R. Popper
Ted
Posts: 5652
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:05 pm

The Human Condition

Post by Ted »

nvalleyvee:-6

Some "church?" that was.

Jester is correct. You got the best of the deal.

If you are interested read my post #31 in "Ted and jester." You will see some experiences somewhat like yours.

Shalom

Ted:-6
Ted
Posts: 5652
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:05 pm

The Human Condition

Post by Ted »

jester:-6

Wonderful post and process. I commend you.

You say that truth corresponds to reality. I can generally go along with that. However, it raises the question about the nature of reality. Is there or is there not a reality beyond the physical? Do we or do we not accept the reality of God, the Holy Spirit etc.? If we do then there is a reality beyond the physical and what we can see; a reality that can only be shown to exist through experience. As I see it your definition of reality is far too narrow.

I have no problem with the fact that God does speak to us through the Bible every bit as much as he speaks to us through other writings and other people. The Bible becomes for me the "Word of God" because God does speak to me through the very human words of the Bible. It is not the "Word of God" for me by virtue of its authorship. It is not God dictated.

Being human we all make mistakes, errors etc., whatever you want to call them. That is why we are told not to read the Bible and rely on our own understanding. That is why we look to the ancient church fathers, educated clergy, theologians, other Christians, much prayer and following in the way we feel we are being called. Will I deny my calling? Of course not. My experiences have shown me that I am on the right path. Many things have happened that are beyond coincidence for one thing. Secondly on my path I have realized that though the Bible is metaphorical for the most part that it is a truly profound book and God inspired, but not God dictated. Though history, science and archaeology do not support an inerrant Bible does not in any way take away from the profound truths that it presents.

I missed your comment on something cannot be true and untrue at the same time that it cannot exist and not exist at the same time. If you read some of quantum physics you will find that those two statements are simply not true. Add to that particular aspect the proven point that a photon of light can be both a wave and a particle at exactly the same time and that atoms are continually winking in and out of existence; that atoms apparently communicate with each other across the whole of the universe. Those points are only a few of the unbelievable but proven aspects of reality.

How do I or you for that matter know that I am a Christian? That is a good question but it is one that hints at judgment. I think the Bible does give a rather important comment here; "By their fruit you shall know them." One can also compare how I live with the wisdom found in the Bible. One can also look at how the church receives what I do and say. Add to that my experiences and the experiences of others as well as their efficacy. Now you will say that that is subjective. Of course it is. There is no such thing as pure objectivity. It does not exist. Everything that man experiences through any of his senses are filtered through his/her brain. It automatically becomes subjective. That includes all that we see, hear, feel, smell and taste; all of our experiences including reading.

A clarification--Karen Armstrong.

There is only one absolute in all of reality and that is God. For me truth is based on whether or not my position has proven to me to be the correct one and the factors mentioned elsewhere in this post go along with that.

An interesting question, again for thought: How do you know that you have the right interpretation? That in itself is subjective.

You might find the following interesting in that it comments on the use of language within the religious sphere.

A good book to read on this topic is "A History of God" by Karen Armstrong. She writes and interesting and scholarly account of the history of man's belief in God.

It is interesting that many claim the Buddhists do not believe in God. This is, however, untrue. Their position is much like mine. They refuse to discuss the existence of God because they believe that the divine power behind creation cannot be described or defined in human language. God is above and beyond existence. None of our words or phrases can deal with the topic. In fact they do not like the term "God" because:

"This is largely because theists use the word "God" in a limited way to refer to a being who is not very different from us.. Like the sages of the Upanishads, the Buddha insisted that nirvana could not be defined or discussed as though it were any other human reality.

Attaining nirvana is not like 'going to heaven' as Christians often understand it. The Buddha always refused to answer questions about nirvana or other ultimate matters because they were 'improper' or 'inappropriate.' We could not define nirvana because our words and concepts are tied to the world of sense and flux. Experience was the only reliable 'proof'.' His disciples would know that nirvana existed simply because their practice of the good life would enable them to glimpse it." pg 31-32, "A History of God", Karen Armstrong.

If you wish a Buddhists comments on Nirvana I can give a quote.

Shalom

Ted:-6
Ted
Posts: 5652
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:05 pm

The Human Condition

Post by Ted »

jester:-6

Just trying to match you in length of post. LOL

Shalom

Ted:-6
Ted
Posts: 5652
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:05 pm

The Human Condition

Post by Ted »

jester:-6

I do think it is vitally important on our part to trust that God will communicate to us what he wants. The comments attributed to Jesus in John 16:13ff are extremely important and vital to our understanding of human progress as it relates to our faith in God.

"I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come."

Clearly Jesus is saying "you are not yet ready to hear them. You will not understand." It seems to me that the clear implication is that things will be revealed to us as we are able to understand. Jesus did not want us stuck with 1st cent. thinking. He wanted us to grow into the future and grow with it.

The folks of his day were told what they could understand in metaphorical terms, which were probably best at the time. Jesus knew well that knowledge and understanding grow and change. Now, under the guidance of the "Spirit of Truth" we have new stories and myths to tell as our understanding of truth becomes more sophisticated.

Thus we are called to a developing, transforming relationship with the God manifest in Jesus of Nazareth. God is the only absolute and I believe that a following one is change.

Shalom

Ted:-6
Ted
Posts: 5652
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:05 pm

The Human Condition

Post by Ted »

Here is a link to a man who has a phenomenal grasp of the human condition.

http://www.centeringprayer.com/wklyart.htm

Weekly Article

Shalom

Ted:-6
Post Reply

Return to “Christianity”