The Second Coming of Christ 1945 - a new interpretation

[Thomas]

Greetings Thomas,
An interesting conversation we’re having.

Indeed.

Helmut Koester may not be above criticism, but he was a very influential and highly regarded New Testament scholar

Oh, I'm not knocking him ...

He was Elaine Pagels’ professor at Harvard as well.

You can't blame him for that!

let’s consider the absence of apocalyptic sayings in the Gospel of Thomas, and sayings where Jesus speaks of himself as the Son of man.

OK.

It may be these sayings were revealed in resurrection appearances to one or more disciples of Jesus within the Q community, after the common oral tradition had spilt between his Gnostic and proto-orthodox followers, and were added to Q but not Thomas.

That's a rather large assumption, though, isn't it? I don't think we have evidence to support it. A possible supposition, of course.

Theology evolves over time for both Gnostics and Orthodoxy.

I'm not sure we can, or should, assume a distinction on those terms.

There was certainly a distinction between 'the Gnostics' (a whole range of circa 2nd century cosmologies) and 'the orthodox' – but take the opposition of Cerinthus and John, without going into too much detail, Cerinthus is regarded as 'a gnostic' but to suggest that his opponent John was not, is clearly erroneous.

We'd have to draw a distinction between the Gnostic teachings and gnosis as such.

From hereon, I'll use the term jnani from the Hindu tradition, to avoid confusion.

Unfortunately, the orthodox have always taken a dim view of those who refuse to accept their creeds. “Anathema sit” as the saying goes.

As did the Gnostics, to be fair.

This stems to some extent from the idea that believing the correct doctrine is essential for salvation ...

Which both sides adhered to 'religiously'

... but also reflects the need of the powerful to control peoples’ minds.

Now we're getting into a whole other argument, and frankly I'm not interested in that. Again, the argument applies both sides.

Gnosis cannot be conveyed in words and doesn’t come from reciting a creed.

The same goes for faith, though, doesn't it?

And yet, the right word at the right time ... and the Gnostics have their credo.

I’ll revise to say Jesus was a wisdom teacher who taught salvation through Faith and Gnosis. Not every Christian will achieve Gnosis; not every Buddhist will achieve enlightenment, yet Jesus and Buddha offer salvation to all who follow their path.

I rather say it as Jesus taught salvation. Being who He is, there is inherently stuff for the jnani, for the bhakti ... He's addressing humanity as such, rather than a particular inclination ...

For those Christians who receive Gnosis from Jesus, the Kingdom of God is a present reality, and his Second Coming is less of a concern; they already dwell in His Kingdom as perfect light, just as a living Buddha dwells in Nirvana. Hence the lack of an apocalyptic interest in Thomas.

I think that's a rather large statement, and I rather this it's mistaken. I have met the 'simple faithful' who are saints and have tasted the parousia.

As for Thomas, that's a hypothesis, but really without evidence.

I'm not decrying the jnani, I rather reject the idea that the jnani path is superior to the bhakti, that's all.

Some of our best mystics show both jnani and bhakti in balance, really you can't have one without the other – it's just that the jnani likes to organise, classify and put words on the experience, whereas the bhakti is not so inclined ...

René Guénon was undoubtedly a gnostic – but lived the life of a bhaktic – a rather mundane existence, a European Muslim living in a quiet Cairo backstreet...

Compare these sayings from Paul, in his (authentic) letter to the Corinthians, and Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas:
Already you are filled! Already you have become rich! Without us you have become kings! And would that you did reign, so that we might share the rule with you!
- I Corinthians 4:8 (RSV)

Cf. Apocryphon of James:
He [The Savior] said, 'Verily I say unto you, no one will ever enter the kingdom of heaven at my bidding, but (only) because you yourselves are full. Leave James and Peter to me that I may fill them.' And having called these two, he drew them aside and bade the rest occupy themselves with that which they were about.
- NHC I, 2,29-40 (Translation Francis E. Williams)

It's curious that in the so-called Gnostic Gospels, Jesus is always taking someone or other aside for special education ... I think it says more about the author than about Jesus.

- Disclaimer alert: I came to Gnostic Christianity by way of Buddhism and Yoga.

I came to Christian Gnosis by way of the Sophia Perennis.

This seems to suggest if you don’t have Gnosis, you don’t get in.

If it does, it's wrong.

Surely ordinary Christians like you and me who establish a sincere relationship with Jesus and strive to follow his teaching will also be saved.

Yes.

Jesus died for us too.

Yes.

But great holy men such as St Anthony and the Desert Fathers, who achieve Gnosis and become “full” abide at a higher level.

That's a whole other discussion right there.

I go with the Parable of the Sower (Matthew 13). "But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty."

So each produces fruit according to their measure – some 100, some 60, some 30 – but all enter paradise, and for them, the experience of the beatitude is 100% ... what matters is I give my 30 everything I've got. That's what counts, not the 30.

- Bear in mind, I’m a heretic.

Well none of us is perfect!

Let us continue our search in fellowship.

Indeed.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Well none of us is perfect!

You can say that again!

People say we've got it made,
Don't they know we're so afraid,
I-i-solation.
We're afraid to be alone,
Everybody got to have a home, isolation…
- Lennon -

 

[Autogenes]

Greetings Thomas,

I’m a little slow getting back to you this time. We may not be as far apart as it might seem. You accept the soteriological value of Gnosis, but apparently don’t like the Christian Gnostic sects that emerged in the second century. Your objections seem to be primarily moral and philosophical. Bear in mind, other than the Nag Hammidi Library, most of what we know of the Gnostics was written by their opponents. Your opponents are sure to portray you in a negative light. The Romans said some pretty nasty things about the Christians that weren’t so nice. It may be true that some who believed they possessed Gnosis where “puffed up” about it, or maybe venerated by their peers. The same was probably true among Buddhists who became enlightened and attracted a circle of reverent admirers.

Within three centuries of the Buddha’s Parinirvana (I wouldn’t say “death,” that would be inaccurate) eighteen different schools, or sects of Buddhism had emerged, each with its own version of the abhidhamma, the metaphysical and philosophical writings that were added to the earlier Sutras (sayings) and Vinaya (moral and monastic orders) as part of the Buddhist Tripiṭaka. Later came the Mahayana and the esoteric Tantric Vajrayana, completing three turnings of the Wheel of Dharma.

My own preference back in the day was Samkhya, the Hindu philosophy connected with the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali. I became something of an authority on the subject, much to the amusement of my engineering office co-workers at the time. Eventually I realized great saints and buddhas have emerged from many diverse traditions, and the philosophical and theological disputes are a secondary concern. Are only those who believe the “right” philosophy or theology welcomed into heaven? That would be quite a mishap for someone who mistakenly chose the wrong philosophy at the start of their journey, unless they made a coursev adjustment later on. (I don’t mean to suggest philosophical discourse is without merit.)

Your comment:

“It's curious that in the so-called Gnostic Gospels, Jesus is always taking someone or other aside for special education ... I think it says more about the author than about Jesus. It's curious that in the so-called Gnostic Gospels, Jesus is always taking someone or other aside for special education ... I think it says more about the author than about Jesus.”

Consider Matt 13: 10-11: The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?”
He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.

Every good teacher tailors the lesson to the student. You can’t teach calculus to someone who hasn’t mastered algebra. Teachers of esoteric Wisdom have always delivered teachings privately to advanced students when they are perceived ready to receive. Teachers within esoteric traditions also preach to the masses and officiate at public ceremonies and religious festivals.

When Jesus teaches love and forgiveness, this is clearly a message for all to hear. When Jesus speaks of the Kingdom of God as a present reality people don’t perceive, this would be the time for the “secret teachings.” Two thousand years later, people are still debating what He meant.

From an earlier post:

Autogenes:
Do you see Jesus as primarily an apocalyptic teacher?

Thomas:
I see Him primarily as a Redeemer.

What do you mean by that? From what are we redeemed, and how is the redemption accomplished?

As I understand orthodox theology, we are redeemed from the original sin committed by Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Death entered the world as a consequence of original sin, and salvation from sin and death was accomplished when Jesus sacrificed Himself and rose bodily from the tomb 3 days later. To receive the gift of salvation and ultimate bodily immortality, one must believe the bodily resurrection of Jesus is true, and presumably make at least some effort to follow His teachings.

If this doctrine were true, there could be no real salvation outside of Christianity, because you have to believe Christian doctrine to be saved.

I realize original sin is interpreted to mean separation from God. But how did this separation occur and how are humans at fault? Humans aren’t the only ones separated from God. The other animals are separated from God as well, and all are subject to death. Animals suffered and died long before humans appeared on Earth. If death didn’t enter the world from original sin, then Christ’s atonement for original sin wouldn’t convey victory over death for the believers.

That may be more than you want to answer with one post.

I can’t accept the traditional theological interpretation of Jesus’ death and resurrection. I see the resurrection as a spiritual event, both for Jesus and for us. Jesus appeared to His followers in a subtle body, not the fleshly body He wore before His crucifixion.

It’s easier for me to recognize Jesus as a teacher who shows a path to salvation, much as Buddha had done in India five centuries earlier. Jesus is unique for His emphasis on love and forgiveness; a true teacher of both Bhaki and Gnosis.

A teacher can also be a redeemer, freeing one from ignorance (separation from God) to Gnosis, (union with God), though only for those who listen and understand.

From whence did ignorance arise? Original sin?

We’ve shared a high-level discussion of some controversial topics, with differing opinions and without hostility. That’s rare in today’s world, almost a miracle.

Praise be to God.

 

[Thomas]

I’m a little slow getting back to you this time.

So am I!

You accept the soteriological value of Gnosis, but apparently don’t like the Christian Gnostic sects that emerged in the second century.

I'm not alone in that. Some contemporary Greek philosophers were equally caustic of certain syncretic aspects of the so-called 'Gnostic' movements ... of course, we need to be careful here, as 'Gnostic' itself was a label quite liberally applied many centuries later.

Your objections seem to be primarily moral and philosophical.

I don't think so.

My issue is syncretism, as opposed to synthesis.

Some of the Gnostic cosmogonies cannot sit alongside Genesis without contradiction, for example, whereas I've seen comparisons between the Biblical account and other religious systems as, if not complementary, at least not contradictory.

Then we have different narratives for the same event – was Christ crucified, apparently crucified, was an angel crucified, was Judas crucified, was another crucified in His place? Depends on who's Gnostic account you rely ... but they all reject the idea of crucifixion and resurrection without sound reasoning.

So in terms of historical movements, I'm far more a supporter of the various Platonic schools of gnosis than the 2nd century movements badged 'gnostic' – allowing that the only resources we have are pejorative.

If pushed, I'd say their 'fault' is the mixture of mythos and logos without clear metaphysical insight. The Kabbalah (and I'm no Kabbalist) manages to combine the two and present a clear metaphysic.

Your comment:
“It's curious that in the so-called Gnostic Gospels, Jesus is always taking someone or other aside for special education ... I think it says more about the author than about Jesus... "

Every good teacher tailors the lesson to the student. You can’t teach calculus to someone who hasn’t mastered algebra. Teachers of esoteric Wisdom have always delivered teachings privately to advanced students when they are perceived ready to receive. Teachers within esoteric traditions also preach to the masses and officiate at public ceremonies and religious festivals.

Agreed, and Peter, James and John seemed to have been picked out from the Twelve at times ... but that's not my point.

None of the canonical scribes claim their teaching is a secret teaching imparted to them only, whereas a number of the 'Gnostic' texts do just that.

What do you mean by that? From what are we redeemed, and how is the redemption accomplished?

From the separation from God – 'their hearts are far from me' (cf Isaiah 29:13; Ezekiel 33:31; Matthew 15:7–9) – achieved by a change of heart.

If this doctrine were true, there could be no real salvation outside of Christianity, because you have to believe Christian doctrine to be saved.

That's the hardline view ... not one that I subscribe to, personally, nor is

I realize original sin is interpreted to mean separation from God. But how did this separation occur and how are humans at fault?

One might argue that 'the Fall' was inevitable, and perhaps so, but it was not God-ordained.

The fault is putting oneself first – love is putting the other first.

In terms of Gnosis, I'd say the practice is of detachment and humility (I'm not sure you can have one without the other – whether the two terms are an objective and subjective term for the same thing).

Animals suffered and died long before humans appeared on Earth.

I think Scripture is perhaps talking of a spiritual death.

I can’t accept the traditional theological interpretation of Jesus’ death and resurrection. I see the resurrection as a spiritual event, both for Jesus and for us. Jesus appeared to His followers in a subtle body, not the fleshly body He wore before His crucifixion.

To me that's the old dualist dichotomy.

If something can be real in the spiritual domain, why not real in the physical domain – 'as above, so below'.

Jesus is unique for His emphasis on love and forgiveness; a true teacher of both Bhaki and Gnosis.

I'm not so sure He's unique in that regard, although I could be wrong.

A couple of points:
I probably push the envelope further than most in that I do not accept this world as merely a staging post to a better place.

I believe this world is just one aspect of the multitudinous states of being, and that my being is an instance of 'Being-as-such'; in that sense this world is as important as as valid as any other – although Buddhism does declare that this particular instance of being is rather special compared to other possible modes of being – and that deliverance from this mode or state of being to the Ultimate State, if you will, is a possibility.

I think that an element of our particular mode of being is 'reflective' in the sense of a particular awareness of the Divine and a sense of union that might not be conscious throughout the entire animal kingdom.

+++

Must go now ... but I have been enjoying our conversation immensely.

Peace be with you.

 

[Autogenes]

Greetings Thomas, and others who may be following our discussion,

From your last post: My issue <with Gnosticism> is syncretism, as opposed to synthesis.

I’m not sure the distinction, but the Gnostic mythology and philosophy certainly drew from multiple sources, mostly Jewish, Egyptian and Greek. I like the way they put it all together to express a revolutionary religious idea. I agree it’s not compatible with Genesis, much to the point. I can understand the notion of the Creator as a malevolent being might be objectional to Christian belief. The creator God of Israel, Yahweh, is worshipped as God the Father. Elaine Pagels glossed over this detail in The Gnostic Gospels, which offers a somewhat promotional view of Gnostics. I didn’t begin to grasp Gnostic mythology until I read Kurt Rudolph’s book Gnosis.

The Hindus have a Trinity of Brahma, the Creator, Vishnu, the Sustainer, and Shiva, the Destroyer. Brahma is not considered evil, but most Hindus worship Vishnu or Shiva, who destroys illusion which binds us to this world. Buddhism teaches cyclic reality, both in terms of personal reincarnation, and cosmological cycles. There’s no creation that sets the ball in motion, just endless cycles, without beginning or end. But samsara is duhkha, which doesn’t translate as “a nice place.” Better to awaken to nirvana. Yet Mahayanists famously insist samsara and nirvana are one. Perhaps as the Kingdom of God is a present really, if one could but realize it.

The Gnostics are the only ones to proclaim outright that the Creator God is evil, as far as I know. But as mentioned in an earlier post, I believe that stemmed from what happened (or didn’t happen) at Qumran, not to mention Masada and Jerusalem. The Essenes and other Jews believed, when push came to shove, their God would save them, as the Holy Scriptures and Teacher of Righteousness promised. But He didn’t… It’s not hard to see why Yahweh suffered a diminished reputation in the second century, at least in some circles. And if samsara is dukkha, perhaps the Creator isn’t so nice after all. I don’t have a problem with that. I see it as creative mythology, consistent with the Gnostic ideal of transcendence from the physical realm. I don’t see the physical universe as created by a higher being with salvific intent. I don’t know what caused the big bang, but I don’t believe it was Yahweh. I see the gods of all religions as anthropological personalities given to spiritual beings to enable their devotees to worship and enter into relationship. Yahweh in the Torah is quite different than Jesus in the Gospels.

Gnostics do have a harsh view of the world, no doubt. Hard to reconcile with the feeling one receives from witnessing a moonrise over the Cascades. Certainly, much of the evil that circulates in the world is of the manmade variety, perhaps a kinder and gentler beast might have fared better, but suffering and death come with the territory.

- I agree Jesus’ message of love and forgiveness was not unique, but strongly emphasized in His teaching and a distinguishing characteristic of His ministry.

From your post:

Autogenes said:

I can’t accept the traditional theological interpretation of Jesus’ death and resurrection. I see the resurrection as a spiritual event, both for Jesus and for us. Jesus appeared to His followers in a subtle body, not the fleshly body He wore before His crucifixion.

To me that's the old dualist dichotomy.

If something can be real in the spiritual domain, why not real in the physical domain – 'as above, so below'.

I’ll confess to dualism. I don’t believe the spirit realm and the physical universe are the same. Consciousness is, by nature, aware of the physical world, and seems to become fragmented when experiencing the world through the sense of an embodied being. I don’t believe a divine creator being intervenes in the world in a supernatural manner, Yahweh parting the Red Sea or Jesus walking on water in defiance of gravity, though all religions seem replete with stories of this nature. I do believe in psychic phenomenon however, clairvoyance and precognition, because I have experienced them myself. Science provides no explanation, so a spiritual realm we can interact with must exist. Spirit pervades the physical realm, but are they the same? Not to me.

I wasn’t sure if I believed in nirvana at first, until I realized the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered only a year after Nag Hammadi. I had three thoughts in rapid succession:

Thought No. 1: My God, that’s the Second Coming of Christ.
Thought No. 2: I can’t just keep this to myself, but how would I explain it, and who would believe it.
Thought No 3: I’ll be an old man someday, pitching an idea everyone thinks is crazy.

Your closing remarks:

I believe this world is just one aspect of the multitudinous states of being, and that my being is an instance of 'Being-as-such'; in that sense this world is as important as as valid as any other – although Buddhism does declare that this particular instance of being is rather special compared to other possible modes of being – and that deliverance from this mode or state of being to the Ultimate State, if you will, is a possibility.

I think that an element of our particular mode of being is 'reflective' in the sense of a particular awareness of the Divine and a sense of union that might not be conscious throughout the entire animal kingdom.

- The world we inhabit is vast and mysterious no doubt, and underlain, I believe, by an eternal, omnipresent consciousness, also the root of our individualized consciousness; the Atman and the Brahman, or the Divine Spark within. To awaken that spark to eternal consciousness is to become one with God. We share much with our fellow beasts, but the capacity for oneness with God seems to be uniquely human, at least on this planet.

More to say, but I’ll leave it here for now.

I hope it won’t offend anyone if I wish you a Merry Christmas!

 

[Thomas]

Greetings –

From your last post: "My issue <with Gnosticism> is syncretism, as opposed to synthesis."

I’m not sure the distinction ...

Synthesis is contemplating A in the light of B, and B in the light of A, and arriving at a conclusion.
Syncretism is contemplating A, and 'redefining' B according to A.

+++

... the Gnostic mythology and philosophy certainly drew from multiple sources, mostly Jewish, Egyptian and Greek. I like the way they put it all together to express a revolutionary religious idea.

Well we'd have to discuss the ideas, as the Gnostic masters each had their own system.

I can understand the notion of the Creator as a malevolent being might be objectional to Christian belief.

I would have thought that was objectionable to any belief?

The Hindus have a Trinity of Brahma, the Creator, Vishnu, the Sustainer, and Shiva, the Destroyer.

Indeed, and some Hindu authorities argue that Westerners don't quite grasp the Trimurti, but rather present it as a Hindu version of the Trinity. That's syncretism. The Hindu teachings are quite distinct.

Perhaps as the Kingdom of God is a present really, if one could but realize it.

I'd say so.

The Gnostics are the only ones to proclaim outright that the Creator God is evil, as far as I know.

Quite. I'd say it's a logical nonsense.

'Evil' is by definition contrary to the Will of God – so the Gnostics came up with the creator Demiurge who was, unaccountably, ignorant about his/her own actions and the outcomes – for me there's simply too much imprinting the gods with human shortcomings.

Plato argued the same against the Greek pantheon – if they are Gods, why are they subject to the worst human vices?

It’s not hard to see why Yahweh suffered a diminished reputation in the second century, at least in some circles.

I'm not sure how Jewish those circles were.

I see it as creative mythology, consistent with the Gnostic ideal of transcendence from the physical realm.

I see that as the same-old, same-old.

I see the uniqueness of the Judeo Christian ideal as transcendence within the physical realm – that's far more exciting for me – not just the soul, but all creation finding its end in the Divine.

The old model is basically Platonic:
The souls exist in the eternal contemplation of the Divine;
They inexplicably fall away;
The Divine creates the physical world to catch and contain the falling soul.

(Some Gnostic schools introduced an abortive attempt at a creation to explain the necessity to create the world to contain the soul.)

In Greek the triune is Stasis (rest) Kinesis (movement/fall) Genesis (becoming – the world) via a series of emanations from the higher to the lower.

The view was the world was a place of punishment.
A later refinement, for example Origen, had the world a place of pedagogy, where souls learned to be good to return to the source.

The whole thing was turned on its head by the Genius St Maximus the Confessor:
Genesis (becoming, or coming into being, from nothing to something, creatio ex nihilo, the Alpha) – Kinesis (movement) – rest (in the Divine, the Omega)

I don’t see the physical universe as created by a higher being with salvific intent.

Nor do I.

I see the gods of all religions as anthropological personalities given to spiritual beings to enable their devotees to worship and enter into relationship.

I can agree – although I see that 'relationship' predates the gods.

And I think the Johannine scribe said it best: "Dearly beloved, we are now the sons of God; and it hath not yet appeared what we shall be. We know, that, when he shall appear, we shall be like to him: because we shall see him as he is." (1 John 3:2)
I think the gnosis implied in that statement is a benchmark test for every other model.

Gnostics do have a harsh view of the world, no doubt.

I see that as its primary flaw. A lack of metaphysical insight.

Autogenes said:
I’ll confess to dualism.

And the Gnostics read Scripture (non-dualist) through dualist eyes – we still tend to do so, a leftover of the profound impression of Hellenistic thought that underpins philosophy.

I don’t believe the spirit realm and the physical universe are the same.

Nor do I, but they are One, Or 'all in all'. Each in its oewn domain is 'good'. The human walks – or should – in both worlds.

 

[Autogenes]

Greetings Thomas and Merry Christmas to All,

You make a lot of interesting points in your last post. I share your admiration and respect for Origen, one of the greatest philosophers and theologians of antiquity. I’m less familiar with Maximus the Confessor, but he apparently like Origen, he had some trouble with the authorities (over a seemingly trifling matter), was tried for heresy, his tongue ripped out and his right hand mutilated, and died in exile, though later canonized and his theology rehabilitated at the Third Council of Constantinople. It was safer not to have an opinion in those days.

Thomas:

'Evil' is by definition contrary to the Will of God – so the Gnostics came up with the creator Demiurge who was, unaccountably, ignorant about his/her own actions and the outcomes – for me there's simply too much imprinting the gods with human shortcomings.

Explaining the nature and origin of evil is one of the major difficulties in Christian theology. If God is almighty and purely good, why is the world filled with evil, and what is the source of evil? The Devil? The Demiurge? Is matter itself “evil?” It might be better to simply observe that matter facilitates the propagation of evil. Once a torture victim’s spirit leaves the body, evil has no further power to inflict suffering. One's view of Mother Nature might depend on whether you're watching a sunset in the San Juan Islands, or trying to survive a drought is sub-Saharan Africa. Is evil eternal, without beginning or end, or will evil one day be banished from the world by God when Jesus comes again? Most Christians would answer yes to this last question, I believe.

Can there be suffering in the absence of evil? Is a mosquito evil for sucking blood from its host and spreading disease? Most would say no. Yet mosquitoes cause a lot of disease and suffering. Can an unknowing force of nature spread suffering throughout the world without evil intent? Would a human be evil if he (or she) sucked blood out of people (or stole their property). What if circumstances beyond a person's control force them to steal to survive, or to feed their family, is that evil? Jesus might say “Judge not, that ye be not judged.”

Will suffering continue after God banishes evil? Will He banish ticks and mosquitoes that cause disease as well? What about parasites afflicting the whales?

The whole idea of a transformed earth, without old age, disease and death (the essential facts of life that led Prince Siddhartha Gautama to renounce the world and seek enlightenment) begins to look like a wish that can never come true. The Essenes and other Jews of the Second Temple period believed the coming Messiah would usher in such a world without injustice, evil or death, and when Jesus the Messiah didn’t deliver the goods on the first visit, surely He would on the second. While this expectation may have seemed reasonable two thousand years ago, from the perspective of modern science and cosmology (a perspective the ancients lacked), it seems unlikely . For the last 16 billion years consistent physical laws have governed throughout the universe - billions of galaxies with billions of stars within each of them, as Carl Sagan loved to remind us. Are we really to expect the whole process will come to a screeching halt for a “great reset" on a new planet earth?

More likely is a new earth that doesn’t include a human presence. Most of the other mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians will probably face extinction as well. The next mass extinction is already well under way. All we need is WWIII to kick it into high gear. Ticks and mosquitos will likely be the survivors. All the spirits will be caught up to the spiritual realm known to Tibetans as the Bardo, the space between death and rebirth, where one’s karma determines whether the dreams are blissful or ugly. Having established a relationship with Jesus in life will help one navigate the waters of the Bardo to the Pleroma of Light, no doubt.

Thomas:

I think the Johannine scribe said it best: "Dearly beloved, we are now the sons of God; and it hath not yet appeared what we shall be. We know, that, when he shall appear, we shall be like to him: because we shall see him as he is." (1 John 3:2)

To this I will add: “and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” Matthew 28:20

Let us now celebrate the coming of our Messiah, Redeemer and Teacher of Righteousness and Gnosis. May He lead us from darkness to Light.

 

[RJM]

Am appreciating this thread discussion

 

[georgeingraham]

Although I do not participate on the forum much, I also am very much enjoy following this thread.

 

[Thomas]

Greetings Autogenes, and a Merry Christmas to you and yours,

I’m less familiar with Maximus the Confessor, but he apparently like Origen, he had some trouble with the authorities ...

Maximus championed the theological argument against Monothelitism (a compromise Christology) that took on a political dimension because Emperor Constans II was trying to silence discord in the Church because the empire was under threat from external forces. As ever the Church refused to be silenced, and eventually Pope Martin I convened the Lateran Council of 649 in which Monothelitism was condemned. Pope Martin and Maximus were arrested in 653 by Constans II, a supporter of the Monothelite compromise. Pope Martin was condemned without a trial, and died before he could be sent to the Imperial Capital. Maximus was, as you say, tortured and later died of his injuries and ongoing ill-treatment.

'Evil' is by definition contrary to the Will of God

Well in the Abrahamic Traditions, yes.

Explaining the nature and origin of evil is one of the major difficulties in Christian theology.

It's a perplexing problem, indeed.

Personally, I draw on general metaphysics to best explain the situation – my post On the Question of Evil argues the case – and I say 'general metaphysics' because it fits the Platonic and Abrahamic Traditions on the one hand, and the Hindu, Buddhist and I believe Daoist Traditions on the other.

If God is almighty and purely good, why is the world filled with evil, and what is the source of evil?

Because the world is not God, and this particular world is governed by finitude and contingency, so the dimension of evil is an inevitable necessity where human freedom is allowed.

Is matter itself “evil?”

No, as 'evil' is a moral ill, by necessity willed in the knowledge that it is a wrong.

Is evil eternal, without beginning or end, or will evil one day be banished from the world by God when Jesus comes again? Most Christians would answer yes to this last question, I believe.

Well evil is 'eternal' as a consequence of relativity ... so as long as there is other-than-God, there is the potentiality of other-than-the-good.

A world without evil does not preclude a world without earthquakes or volcanoes, nor mosquitoes nor viruses.

Can an unknowing force of nature spread suffering throughout the world without evil intent?

Yes, as it simply is what it is ...

Will suffering continue after God banishes evil? Will He banish ticks and mosquitoes that cause disease as well? What about parasites afflicting the whales?

I rather think it's primarily our perception will that will change, having said that, I cannot see the full consequence of the condition I hold in faith.

The whole idea of a transformed earth, without old age, disease and death ...

Well here we go into eschatological speculation. Paul said "For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality." (1 Corinthians 15:53) and "Death is swallowed up in victory." (v54) "The sting of death is sin" (v56).
It may well be that is a world without sin we have put on incorruption and immortality, because we now live in the spirit (which orders the flesh), rather than in the flesh (in which the spirit of confined and curtailed) – thus it may well be that we grow up, grow old and die, but rather pass into another state, and so death and suffering cease to be how they are viewed today – but I would stress that the root of death is sin, rather than natural calamity.

While this expectation may have seemed reasonable two thousand years ago, from the perspective of modern science and cosmology (a perspective the ancients lacked), it seems unlikely

I don't see the physical sciences as having any relevance in the discussion.

Are we really to expect the whole process will come to a screeching halt for a “great reset" on a new planet earth?

I see it as the 'halt' is where we are now, the 'great reset' will lift the barrier, as it were.

All we need is WWIII to kick it into high hear.

My fear is extinction is on the cards anyway, WWIII will be superfluous.

Let us now celebrate the coming of our Messiah, Redeemer and Teacher of Righteousness and Gnosis. May He lead us from darkness to Light.

Amen.

I would only add, then lead us on into the Divine Darkness:
"Supernal Triad, Deity above all essence, knowledge and goodness; Guide of Christians to Divine Wisdom; direct our path to the ultimate summit of your mystical knowledge, most incomprehensible, most luminous and most exalted, where the pure, absolute and immutable mysteries of theology are veiled in the dazzling obscurity of the secret Silence, outshining all brilliance with the intensity of their Darkness, and surcharging our blinded intellects with the utterly impalpable and invisible fairness of glories surpassing all beauty."
(Dionysius the Areopagite (St Denys in the Orthodox Traditions) "The Mystical Theology", Ch1 para 1)

 

[Thomas]

I would add, by way of explanation, that beyond gnosis is agnosia:

Agnosia is not ignorance or any lack of knowledge, rather the realisation that light/knowledge belongs to the formal order, and that the Absolute can only be approached by agnosia, by that which is beyond and above knowledge.

In the metaphysical traditions there are two kinds of darkness: the sub-darkness and the super-darkness, between which lies, as it were, an octave of light, the world of forms. Thus the nether-darkness and the Divine Darkness are not the same, for the former is absence of light, while the latter is said to be an excess of light. The one symbolises mere ignorance, and the other transcendent unknowing - a beyond-knowledge not obtained by means of the discursive reason.

Damascius, Of the First Principle: "But I would suggest that in their desire to indicate the principle beyond all things, different philosophers employed a different word, or rather sacred word to be truthful, some calling it simply “the One,” and others calling it simply “God,” others “Time”’? or “Occasion” or “the Good.” But we assume that it is essentially ineffable because it is beyond every intellection. Rather, the Egyptians hail it as the Ineffable, since they call it “unknowable darkness,” and invoke it three times as “darkness.” (Part III, Section vii, Chapter 46)

Scripture says "The light shineth in the darkness" (John 1:5 is the Logos, as Principle and the foundation of all intelligibility, which can be likened by direct association to "Let there be light" of Genesis 1:3).

The great mystical works all point at unknowing and darkness – St John of the Cross, Meister Eckhart, The Cloud of Unknowing ...

"Therefore, first let each become godlike and each beautiful who cares to see God and Beauty. So, mounting, the Soul will come first to the Intellectual-Principle and survey all the beautiful Ideas in the Supreme and will avow that this is Beauty, that the Ideas are Beauty. For by their efficacy comes all Beauty else, but the offspring and essence of the Intellectual-Being. What is beyond the Intellectual-Principle we affirm to be the nature of Good radiating Beauty before it. So that, treating the Intellectual-Kosmos as one, the first is the Beautiful: if we make distinction there, the Realm of Ideas constitutes the Beauty of the Intellectual Sphere; and The Good, which lies beyond, is the Fountain at once and Principle of Beauty: the Primal Good and the Primal Beauty have the one dwelling-place and, thus, always, Beauty's seat is There."
(Plotinus, The Enneads, 1.6.9)

 

[Autogenes]

Greetings friends and Happy New Year,

I’ve been a bit distracted over the holidays.

Reflecting on the fate of St. Maximus the Confessor, there were a lot of debates in ancient times about the two natures of Christ and how that should be understood. It’s a mystery with a complicated history. The Christological controversies of the 7th century were taken very seriously at the time there can be no doubt, and when you mix religion with politics, violence is a likely result…

Your comment on my comment regarding mass extinction on Earth:

Autogenes: All we need is WWIII to kick it into high gear.

Thomas: My fear is extinction is on the cards anyway, WWIII will be superfluous.

I agree global warming would likely drive humans to extinction without a need for atomic bombs. Global warming will cause population migrations as lands become uninhabitable, and we’re already seeing a rise in right-wing, anti-immigrant nationalism across the globe, which will only worsen as the world gets hotter. This could lead to political instability and demagoguery. Any one of a wide number of hot heads could push the red button. Global warming could just be what lights the fuse, as it were. And how much longer before our luck runs out? With the current crop of world leaders, it’s hard to be optimistic.

Another comment from Thomas:

Thomas: The root of death is sin, rather than natural calamity.

Please elaborate. What is sin, and how is it the cause of death? As I understand the concept, sin results from a moral failure on the part of the sinner. Is it sinful for a man to become aroused by an attractive woman? It might be argued the arousal in men results from testosterone and is necessary for the propagation of the species. Why should responding to testosterone in a natural way be considered sinful? Even Jimmy Carter admitted to it. Of course, the response to desire could be sinful, but I can’t regard desire itself as sinful. I didn’t invent testosterone, and neither did Jimmy Carter. Yet both Jesus and Buddha council against lustfulness.

I suggest birth is the root cause of death, rather than sin. In Buddhism, desire and craving lead a soul to seek rebirth, sexual craving especially. Death is the inevitable consequence of physical embodiment. It happens to every plant and animal that was ever born. Sin has nothing to do with it, as far as I can see. An enlightened being may spiritually transcend the physical limitations of embodiment, but still shuffles off the mortal coil in due time, as did Buddha himself, entering nirvana or becoming one with Brahman or Christ, depending on the tradition one follows. Others may inherit the subtle bodies of angels or hungry ghosts, depending on their karma. In Buddhism all such beings eventually descend into flesh and blood rebirth, assuming babies continue to be born. After WWIII (or late stage global warming), that may no longer be the case.

The Radiant Darkness and Secret Silence of which Dionysius the Areopagite spoke are two qualities to be found in abundance in the caves of Qumran and Nag Hammadi, not to mention the Ajanta Caves of Maharashtra, India, the Barabar Caves of Bihar, or the Sky Caves of Nepal. Great contemplative ascetics of ancient times were invariably attracted to cave dwelling. The Radiant Darkness and Holy silence to be found within caves no doubt helped facilitate the transformation they were seeking.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Is it sinful for a man to become aroused by an attractive woman?

No, why would it be?

Why should responding to testosterone in a natural way be considered sinful? Even Jimmy Carter admitted to it. Of course, the response to desire could be sinful, but I can’t regard desire itself as sinful.

Well then .. adultery is sinful, as marriage has been made obligatory.
If the institution of family breaks down, so does society.

 

[Thomas]

Reflecting on the fate of St. Maximus the Confessor, there were a lot of debates in ancient times about the two natures of Christ and how that should be understood ... and when you mix religion with politics, violence is a likely result…

Quite. Here the politicians were trying to determine doctrine based on pragmatic rather than theological grounds. The security of the state was under threat from outside forces, and internal dissent wasn't helping ...

Please elaborate. What is sin, and how is it the cause of death?

For simplicity's sake I'll use the Biblical text, from the standpoint of the Perennial Philosophy and metaphysics it's essentially the same, simply that the Biblical account is the same data put into an anthropomorphic and dramatic presentation.

Adam and Eve – our Primordial Parents – chose to follow their own wills in defiance of God's clear instruction. The danger, they were told, was death, and yet ...

Prior to the Fall, they lived in a state of grace, they had 'the mind of Christ' (1 Corinthians 2:16) and walked and talked with God. One can say they were conscious of both the Transcendent contingent, and saw the latter through the eyes of the former.

The serpent says "No, you shall not die the death (Genesis 3:4) – clearly a lie. "For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil" (v5)

This segment of Genesis is metaphysically dense, and I'll offer an unpacking on a separate thread. Simply put, 'death' after the Fall takes on a whole new meaning.

As I understand the concept, sin results from a moral failure on the part of the sinner. Is it sinful for a man to become aroused by an attractive woman?

No.

Of course, the response to desire could be sinful, but I can’t regard desire itself as sinful.

It isn't.

Yet both Jesus and Buddha council against lustfulness.

In the sense of giving way to desire.

Death is the inevitable consequence of physical embodiment. It happens to every plant and animal that was ever born. Sin has nothing to do with it, as far as I can see.

Unless, of course, the relationship of the physical to the spiritual is radically changed, re-inverted as it were, in which case the physical becomes the means by which the spiritual makes itself present and known in the world. The 'world' itself would be changed ...

An enlightened being may spiritually transcend the physical limitations of embodiment, but still shuffles off the mortal coil in due time, as did Buddha himself, entering nirvana or becoming one with Brahman or Christ, depending on the tradition one follows.

But that is a change of state, ratheer then death, which is a total cessation ...

The Radiant Darkness and Secret Silence of which Dionysius the Areopagite spoke are two qualities to be found in abundance in the caves of ...

In an analagous sense, yes, but not in an experiential one – if that were the case then sensory deprivation would result in enlightenment or Transcendence, which is not the case. (The attraction is the embodiment of the apophatic tendency.)

 

[Autogenes]

On this day in America, we honor the life and sacrifice of Doctor Martin Luther King, a true Christian martyr and American hero. His dream remains alive in the hearts of millions, and shall not die.

Thomas:

Adam and Eve – our Primordial Parents – chose to follow their own wills in defiance of God's clear instruction. The danger, they were told, was death, and yet ...

Prior to the Fall, they lived in a state of grace, they had 'the mind of Christ' (1 Corinthians 2:16) and walked and talked with God. One can say they were conscious of both the Transcendent contingent, and saw the latter through the eyes of the former.
----------------------------------------------------

This suggests men and women were enlightened beings before the fall, with a mind of Christ. So how could the serpent tempt them? What could he offer, if they already had the mind of Christ and walked with God?

…when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (Genesis 3:5)

According to 1 Corinthians 2:16 they were already living as gods before the fall, though unaware of good and evil, which seems contrary to the nature of divine beings. Can there be good and evil without an awareness of the same? I don’t see the knowledge of good and evil as sinful. It’s the root of moral action. But knowing good and choosing evil is a pretty fair definition of sin. Animals living by instinct are without sin when they prey on other beasts for their daily bread, having no concept of good and evil, yet are no closer to God.

Genesis3:6 - When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.

It seems Eve’s chief motivation, other than a good meal, was for wisdom. It’s easy to see why Gnostics inverted this story for their own purposes.

Genesis 3:2-7:

2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden,

3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’ ”

4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman.

5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.

7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

A number of difficulties arise when attempting to allegorize this myth. If early humans had the mind of Christ, which I equate to the awakened mind of Buddha, was there an event in our remote past, when our collective common ancestors committed an offence against God, which later became mythologized in the story of Eve and the serpent in the garden? What could this offence have been? Recognizing good and evil? For this "sin" all humanity was stripped of a primordial Christ consciousness and separated from God? Surely the mind of Christ understands good and evil without having to eat an apple.

Thomas:

Prior to the Fall, they lived in a state of grace, they had 'the mind of Christ' (1 Corinthians 2:16)

I see no reason to believe that prior to the recognition of good and evil humans lived in oneness with God. Would this state of consciousness have been unique to early homo sapiens, or did the Neanderthals share the mind of Christ? Where they complicit in the original sin?

Stone-tipped weapons have been found dating to 500,000 years ago, beck when homo sapiens and Neanderthals shared a common ancestor. I see no reason to believe yet earlier people were peaceful and Christ-like. They may not have understood good and evil, but they understood how to kill each other. Should we imagine people in the garden engaging in warfare before the original sin? Would beings with the mind of Christ be building stone-tipped projectiles and attacking each other? If there was ever a tribe of enlightened humans living in the stone age before the fall, the archeological evidence has yet to be found.

I summary, I don’t understand or accept the notion of original sin, although I recognize it as a cornerstone of orthodox Christian theology.

Let us all strive for the mind and heart of Christ, beyond sin and death, with Wisdom and full knowledge of good and evil.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Should we imagine people in the garden engaging in warfare before the original sin?

No.
I don't think we should imagine that "early man" were actually what we consider to be man.
They might be anatomically similar .. but so are chimpanzees.

 

[Thomas]

This suggests men and women were enlightened beings before the fall, with a mind of Christ. So how could the serpent tempt them? What could he offer, if they already had the mind of Christ and walked with God?

Well the Primordial Pair are human in the sense they are not God, and even Jesus, who is the 'God-man', was open to temptation (Mark 1:13, Matthew 4:3, Luke 4:2). They were not infallible ...

... they were already living as gods before the fall ...

I'd rather say living in a state of grace, not 'as gods'.

I don’t see the knowledge of good and evil as sinful.

It's not the knowledge itself that's sinful. The sin was in going against the Divine fiat. The result is duality. Prior to the act, they lived in a state of Oneness, of Unity, but not equality. By their action, they gave up that Unity and actualised Otherness.

It seems Eve’s chief motivation, other than a good meal, was for wisdom.

The motivation was seeking equality with God.

in the end proved unwise It’s easy to see why Gnostics inverted this story for their own purposes.

I think such gnostics had a flawed sense of 'knowledge' – knowledge doesn't open doors or remove veils, being does ...

For this "sin" all humanity was stripped of a primordial Christ consciousness and separated from God?

I think the Primoridal Couple are prior to 'all humanity'.

I see no reason to believe that prior to the recognition of good and evil humans lived in oneness with God.

D'you not see that in the Genesis story, or you see it in the story, but don't agree?

Would this state of consciousness have been unique to early homo sapiens?

There is some who read the text to imply this speaks of a pre-conditional state – If we're going to discuss early hominids, then someone will ask where geographically was Eden ... I don't think the text is to be read as 'history' in that sense.

I short, I don’t understand or accept the notion of original sin, although I recognize it as a cornerstone of orthodox Christian theology.

OK.

 

[Autogenes]

Thomas said:
I think the Primordial Couple are prior to 'all humanity'.
Autogenes said:
It seems Eve’s chief motivation, other than a good meal, was for wisdom.
Thomas said:
The motivation was seeking equality with God…
Prior to the act, they lived in a state of Oneness, of Unity, but not equality. By their action, they gave up that Unity and actualized Otherness.

Prior to what act? We’re obviously not talking about eating an apple, so what was “the act” they committed. By what means did they attempt to become equal to God? If Adam and Eve, our Primordial Parents, are not to be understood as an historical human couple from whom we’re all descended, how should they be regarded? As spiritual beings dwelling in a spiritual realm before the evolution of our species? In what sense were they our Primordial Parents, and why did their action cause separation from God for us. Will you agree there was no time on Earth before “the fall” when flesh and blood humans lived in peace and oneness with God?

How can there be inequality within a state of oneness? How can you be one with God without sharing in His divinity? If the light within us is not divine, that’s a duality, as I see it.
When a Buddhist follows the eight-fold path to enlightenment, he or she becomes a Buddha, equal to Shakyamuni. Are the buddhas one or many? All are emanations from the Dharmakaya, and there is no difference between them, nor deity above them.
In the Gnostic tradition, the sparks of light within each of us are divine and become one with God when Gnosis is attained and the ignorance banished. Jesus was a man equal to God. I believe He invites us to be so too.

Many questions arise for Christian theology once human evolution is acknowledged, which I believe is why so many Christians refuse to accept evolution.

Autogenes said:
I see no reason to believe that prior to the recognition of good and evil humans lived in oneness with God.

Thomas said:
D'you not see that in the Genesis story, or you see it in the story, but don't agree?

I see it in the story, but don't agree. Rather than sin being the cause of separation from God, I suggest desire is the culprit, which comes from embodiment and leads to rebirth. An embodied being experiences the world through the senses, which convince the mind to identify with the body and not the true Self, which is divine and uncreated. Hence oneness with God is lost. Embodiment leads to separateness from God, and desire leads to embodiment, at least in Buddhism. Granted, it’s possible for an embodied being to attain oneness with God, or become a Buddha, but most people don’t.

Matthew5:28:
But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Perhaps Jesus is counseling not against sin or but desire. This is a teaching especially for ascetic, celibate contemplatives seeking oneness with God through Gnosis, who must seriously face and overcome temptation (desire) to transcend rebirth. For an ascetic contemplative, it might be considered “sinful” to allow desire a place in the mind for erotic thoughts to emerge but is perhaps more a sign of weak resolve, or lack of willpower. Desire can be very powerful, even invading our dreams. Who amongst us can resist? It’s not about sin until adultery is committed in real time.

 

[Thomas]

Prior to what act? We’re obviously not talking about eating an apple, so what was “the act” they committed.

That is a long and complex question that requires, first pf all, a long and complex discussion of biblical anthropology and the relationship of created nature to its creator.

If Adam and Eve, our Primordial Parents, are not to be understood as an historical human couple from whom we’re all descended, how should they be regarded? As spiritual beings dwelling in a spiritual realm before the evolution of our species? In what sense were they our Primordial Parents, and why did their action cause separation from God for us. Will you agree there was no time on Earth before “the fall” when flesh and blood humans lived in peace and oneness with God?

According to Genesis 1:26 – "Let us make man in our Image, as our likeness…", Adam designates the human species considered in its principle essence and nature, containing within itself the totality of human beings. Being made 'in the image', which can only designate the divine Word. This Adam is not an abstraction, nor is it an individual being placed in its own world. The essence is a 'universal' prior to any instance of it, any individuation, and this essence is real insofar as it is conceived by God and known by the angels. Saint Thomas echoes St Augustine: "things which are lower than the angels were created in such a way that they first come into existence in the knowledge of these spiritual creatures before coming into their own kind of being" (I, q55 a2).

The first Adam, Universal Man, is neither masculine nor feminine. One can say 'androgynous', not in the sense that it combines the two sexes, but in the sense that it refers to an undifferentiated state prior to sexual polarization.

So yes, before the emergence of the hominids as a species.

How can there be inequality within a state of oneness? How can you be one with God without sharing in His divinity? If the light within us is not divine, that’s a duality, as I see it.

The light within us is divine, but we are not the ontological source of the light. (cf John 1:4)

This Adam, the tradition holds, was created in a state of sanctifying grace. Undoubtedly Adam must 'merit' this grace, but not by a disposition which would precede its infusion. Rather, he receives it in accordance to the end that the creator has in mind for His creature. He 'walks with God' (cf Genesis 3:8) in so far as he is open to and submits to the divine injunction that he received regarding what he may and may not do.

It follows then that the paradisiacal state is not the terminal state to which God intended humanity (and which Christ achieves for fallen men). In other words, without sin, Adam would not have died “the death”, and so it is legitimate to speak of his immortality, but this does not mean that this state would never have known an end, in the sense of some order of assumptive resorption.

When a Buddhist follows the eight-fold path to enlightenment, he or she becomes a Buddha, equal to Shakyamuni. Are the buddhas one or many? All are emanations from the Dharmakaya, and there is no difference between them, nor deity above them.

OK.

In the Gnostic tradition, the sparks of light within each of us are divine and become one with God when Gnosis is attained and the ignorance banished.

Jesus was a man equal to God. I believe He invites us to be so too.[/quote]
Well the Gnostic traditions are, from a Christian viewpoint, problematic, as we see being as superior to knowledge, as knowledge infers the formal order, and in itself falls short of Divine transcendence.

Jesus was a man equal to God. I believe He invites us to be so too.

Again, there is a fundamental distinction. Jesus is not equal to God – which supposes bitheism – rather Jesus is God in essence, and Godman according to His incarnation – a hypostatic union of the divine and the human.

We are invited to participate in that union by adoption, we are not equal to it by nature.

Many questions arise for Christian theology once human evolution is acknowledged, which I believe is why so many Christians refuse to accept evolution.

Well I can't answer for all Christians, but in principle theology sees no incompatibility with evolution. Evolution does not invalidate the creation account of Genesis when both are seen in their proper place.

Autogenes said:
I see no reason to believe that prior to the recognition of good and evil humans lived in oneness with God.[/quote]
OK. Again, my understanding rests on the biblical account. The 'oneness' for me suggests a union, rather than a precise sameness.

Autogenes said:
I see it in the story, but don't agree.[/quote]
OK.

Autogenes said:
Rather than sin being the cause of separation from God, I suggest desire is the culprit, which comes from embodiment and leads to rebirth.[/quote]
I'd say wrong desire gave rise to sin? Not every desire is sinful.

Evert act is performed with an end in view ... some arew good, some not so, and some, we sense, are perverse ...

Autogenes said:
An embodied being experiences the world through the senses ... [/quote]
OK, but Genesis 1-3 is prior to embodiment in that regard.

Autogenes said:
Embodiment leads to separateness from God, and desire leads to embodiment, at least in Buddhism. Granted, it’s possible for an embodied being to attain oneness with God, or become a Buddha, but most people don’t.[/quote]
I'd say desire leads to separation from God, and a consequence of which is realised in a body-soul or sarx-soma duality which exist in tension and conflict rather than unity and peace ...