Adam & Logic, Third Edition, Original Relationship between Humanity and Divinity

[grannymh]

Richard Rohr, in his July 8 meditation may have been exaggerating simply to make his point that God’s creation was, and is, good.

“Fly in the ointment” (in reference to original sin) seems very dismissive, indeed.

I share with you, granny, the sense that Rohr’s meditation minimizes the significance of original sin too much. One can magnify the original good of creation without minimizing the original sin.

My apology to readers for quotes here and there from a disturbing article – in my humble opinion.

In fairness to readers, the above has the link July 8 meditation to the public article which made a simple fly famous.

The original good of creation includes Genesis 3:15 and John 3: 16-17. It includes CCC 356. It includes the opportunity of the Beatific Vision in Genesis 1: 27. It includes the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist; chapter six, Gospel of John. It includes Jesus Christ, hanging bloody on His cross so that all humanity has the opportunity of “being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal Mystery.” (CCC 1260)

 

[simpleas]

I see what some people made of it.

Thanks.

Maybe sharing information about authors who seem to be trying to alter the Church teachings can be discussed in this thread…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=13158161#post13158161

 

[OneSheep]

For what it’s worth :

I didn’t read the “fly in the ointment” as dismissing original sin. I read it as pointing out that at times some were more focused on sin rather than the good in creation. Some people may start from that point in their mind (original sin) some may start from the creator blessing the humans. It’s both/and.

Hi Simpleas!

I do love the “both/and” approach, which I learned from Fr. Rohr.

I look at it this way (today): How do I feel about humanity today? Do I see humanity as good, loving, and beautiful, or do I see us as a scourge, a problem, a mess? I think most people would have us as something between the two extremes, and somewhere the idea of “original sin” will be influenced by the underlying feeling and tip the scales one way or the other in terms of beliefs concerning orginal sin.

Whatever the case may be, forcing people to believe in original sin is counterproductive. If a person sees humanity as beautiful, and believes that God forgives “before always”, then any person or institution trying to talk them out of that will not be followed, but only tolerated.

I am currently reading a wonderful book, The Faith Club: A Muslim, a Christian, and a Jew- Three Women search for understanding. The Christian, Suzanne, is Catholic, and has a very strong faith.

Suzanne addresses original sin in this context: She has her young daughter go to a non-denominational Bible class, and she brought home a construction paper booklet she had made there; the book was meant to represent the Christian view of creation and salvation.

The first page was green, her daughter had glued a picture she had drawn of Adam and Eve.

"The second page was red, and there was the tree of life with its apple. The third page was entirely black. There was no picture.

‘What is this black page?’ I asked Anne.

‘It is sin,’ she answered.

‘Whose sin?’ I asked.

‘The sin we’re born with.’

‘You mean original sin?’ My eyes widened.

‘Yes,’ she nodded. My thoughts immediately went back to a picture from a childhood catechism book I had. The picture, which I had found so troubling, showed a child with a black blotch on his soul representing original sin.

‘Tear that page out,’ I told Anne.

‘Why?’ she asked.

“Because I don’t believe original sin exists. I believe that we start out marked by the love of God, not the sin of Adam. If Adam needed to be forgiven, God forgave him long ago.”

Anne thought for a few seconds. ‘Yeah, I think you’re right,’ she said as she ripped the black page out of her booklet and threw it in the garbage."

We read these words without judging Suzanne’s motives, faith, or judgement of orthodoxy. She looks at God and humanity with a different set of premises than others. There is room for a variety of approaches in our great Church, in our great world.

BTW: I highly recommend the book, Simpleas.

 

[grannymh]

Regarding post 278

I am not Simpleas. So I hope it is o.k. for me to reply to the question: “How do I feel about humanity today?”

Today, I enjoy the romantic side of humanity because this is our wedding anniversary.

I do apologize to the poster of 278 for only skimming the post. Can anyone blame me when I am feeling as young as I was many, many moons ago?

I did spot some weird approaches to the Catholic doctrines on Original Sin in post 278. Nothing really major considering the variety of beliefs in addition to our own Catholic religion. By now, most Catholics are aware of how some people mangle basic Catholic doctrines.

 

[simpleas]

Regarding post 278

I am not Simpleas. So I hope it is o.k. for me to reply to the question: “How do I feel about humanity today?”

Today, I enjoy the romantic side of humanity because this is our wedding anniversary.

I do apologize to the poster of 278 for only skimming the post. Can anyone blame me when I am feeling as young as I was many, many moons ago?

I did spot some weird approaches to the Catholic doctrines on Original Sin in post 278. Nothing really major considering the variety of beliefs in addition to our own Catholic religion. By now, most Catholics are aware of how some people mangle basic Catholic doctrines.

Happy Wedding Anniversary!



Blessings to you both on your happy day.

 

[grannymh]

Happy Wedding Anniversary!



Blessings to you both on your happy day.

Thank you.
We chose a restaurant which brought back memories… and which reminded us that our future will continue to be filled with good memories.

 

[simpleas]

Hi Simpleas!

I do love the “both/and” approach, which I learned from Fr. Rohr.

I look at it this way (today): How do I feel about humanity today? Do I see humanity as good, loving, and beautiful, or do I see us as a scourge, a problem, a mess? I think most people would have us as something between the two extremes, and somewhere the idea of “original sin” will be influenced by the underlying feeling and tip the scales one way or the other in terms of beliefs concerning orginal sin.

Whatever the case may be, forcing people to believe in original sin is counterproductive. If a person sees humanity as beautiful, and believes that God forgives “before always”, then any person or institution trying to talk them out of that will not be followed, but only tolerated.

I am currently reading a wonderful book, The Faith Club: A Muslim, a Christian, and a Jew- Three Women search for understanding. The Christian, Suzanne, is Catholic, and has a very strong faith.

Suzanne addresses original sin in this context: She has her young daughter go to a non-denominational Bible class, and she brought home a construction paper booklet she had made there; the book was meant to represent the Christian view of creation and salvation.

The first page was green, her daughter had glued a picture she had drawn of Adam and Eve.

"The second page was red, and there was the tree of life with its apple. The third page was entirely black. There was no picture.

‘What is this black page?’ I asked Anne.

‘It is sin,’ she answered.

‘Whose sin?’ I asked.

‘The sin we’re born with.’

‘You mean original sin?’ My eyes widened.

‘Yes,’ she nodded. My thoughts immediately went back to a picture from a childhood catechism book I had. The picture, which I had found so troubling, showed a child with a black blotch on his soul representing original sin.

‘Tear that page out,’ I told Anne.

‘Why?’ she asked.

“Because I don’t believe original sin exists. I believe that we start out marked by the love of God, not the sin of Adam. If Adam needed to be forgiven, God forgave him long ago.”

Anne thought for a few seconds. ‘Yeah, I think you’re right,’ she said as she ripped the black page out of her booklet and threw it in the garbage."

We read these words without judging Suzanne’s motives, faith, or judgement of orthodoxy. She looks at God and humanity with a different set of premises than others. There is room for a variety of approaches in our great Church, in our great world.

BTW: I highly recommend the book, Simpleas.

Hi Onesheep

sounds like an interesting read. Yes God may have forgiven Adam and Eve along time ago, but having the story of two adults made complete, yet not perfect is our understanding on why humans do the things they do. Many people will refer to original sin as a source of humans fallen nature. If it didn’t exist then we don’t fall short, we don’t miss the mark because there was no original human nature in union with the divine that failed.

 

[OneSheep]

Hi Onesheep

sounds like an interesting read. Yes God may have forgiven Adam and Eve along time ago, but having the story of two adults made complete, yet not perfect is our understanding on why humans do the things they do. Many people will refer to original sin as a source of humans fallen nature. If it didn’t exist then we don’t fall short, we don’t miss the mark because there was no original human nature in union with the divine that failed.

Yes, this is what I am saying, with a different set of words. My sense is that Suzanne does not see humanity as “fallen” or “falling short” of some divine expectation, the children of a disappointed God, some form of negative image, a failure to be blamed on man, etc.

A person who leans toward the sense of humanity as “fallen”, “failed” and “falls short” will be more inclined to believe that humanity is “smudged” or stained in some way, having a somewhat more negative value. For Christians who sense this “smudge” (and arguably most or all of us feel this way for parts of our lives) the belief that humans are born with original sin messing us up in some way offers an explanation for the negative view.

Indeed, to add to the effect, a person who offers the suggestion that man has not “fallen” or does not have the negative attributes is seen from the negative view as an example of the negative! Surely, the understandable reaction from the negative view is that a positive view of humanity is in itself negative.

In addition, now that I have pointed that out, it is also understandable that the person with a positive view looks at the negative view as an example of the positive! Surely, the positive position asserts, there is some good in having a negative view, it must serve some purpose and be part of our good, God-given nature to be inclined negatively for parts of our lives. Indeed, such negativity guides our behavior toward the good.

So, does it come down to a matter of simple choice? Choose the negative or choose the positive? It is not so simple, I think, Simpleas. Not simple as… No, for me the negativity fell away as an effect of my own living the Gospel, specifically the call to forgive our enemies. Where is our enemy, ultimately? the enemy is within. Our enemies are our own compulsions to want, our own fears, our own resentments. Once all of these are understood and forgiven, the negativity falls away. If negativity itself is resented and rejected outright without dealing with the inner “shadow” work, then it is still negativity in the forefront. Believing that negativity is bad is still negative! Do you see what I mean?

All sin can be understood in light of the fact that we lack awareness and are subject to blindness. To address your mention of perfection, it is understandable to opine that our awareness lack is an “imperfection”. If we resent the lack, it is an imperfection that is seen as a negative. If we reconcile and learn to accept (yet continue to deal with) our lack of awareness, then the negativity falls away. Lack of awareness is part of our human condition, it just is. Why are we born unaware and remain largely in the same condition? I don’t know, but I’m okay with it. There is much more to life than “knowing”, as Fr. Rohr’s recent meditations emphasize.

thanks for the response.

And Granny, Happy Anniversary! (a little late, sorry)

 

[grannymh]

And Granny, Happy Anniversary! (a little late, sorry)

Thank you. This was a special anniversary, not so much in number of years, but rather that we recognize what is ahead for two older than dirt people. There can be a lot of joy just being alive with each other.

 

[grannymh]

Here is a really fascinating approach to Original Sin.

Because this thread is about Adam, I decided to put “Adam” in place of “we.” Truthfully, I am a tad insulted by the idea that I lack awareness because I am human. However, I am only a granny and perhaps I really do not understand the idea that I am subject to blindness. Obviously, I do not know everything there is to know. But I am not intellectually totally subject to blindness of truth. That is because I believe that Genesis 1: 26-27 is a mountain of difference from Genesis 1: 24-25.

Here goes my morning creativity.

Each and every sin, big and little, (substituted for the word all) can be understood in light of the fact that Adam (substituted for we–truthfully I object to being lumped into a generic we) lacks awareness and is subject to blindness. Apparently, the push is to downgrade the attributes of our rational spiritual soul. Lack of awareness is part of Adam’s (substituted for our human condition) reality (substituted for it just is).

Actually, I kind of like the next substitution. That way I can bash my first human ancestor. Here is a fascinating question. Why is Adam (substituted for we) born unaware and remains largely in the same condition? Oops!
I forgot that Adam’s wounded human nature is transmitted to us by old-fashioned sex, male and female. Not really sure I should bash Adam because I do like and appreciate Genesis 3:15. That verse is often called Protoevangelium, “first gospel” which is the first announcement of the Messiah and Redeemer. In addition, John 3: 16-17 is one of my favorite divine revelations.

One thing for sure. I do know that I am not okay with the implications of "Why are we born unaware and remain largely in the same condition? "

 

[OneSheep]

One thing for sure. I do know that I am not okay with the implications of "Why are we born unaware and remain largely in the same condition? "

Hi Granny

You are concerned about implications. Chances are, the implications are not intended, but what are the implications you are concerned about?

I think I have mentioned this before, but there was a time, some decades ago, where I came upon such a volume of truth within that I was completely awestruck. I knew that I had only touched the very surface. I am not a “sheep” by accident, I am quite familiar with sheep, as I used to raise them.

There are several attributes about sheep that we humans can relate to. 1. They like to be together, they are very attuned to what the rest of the flock is doing and depend on their companionship. 2. They have a beautiful innocence. 3. They are incredibly stupid. That is what I learned: that I know very, very little. I am a sheep, I know almost nothing in comparison to what is knowable. Wait a minute, how do I know this? How do I know how much I don’t know? It just has to do with encounter that is extremely humbling, I don’t know how much we don’t know. It is just a sense, a position based on an encounter.

So, the intended implications are that awareness develops. Empathy and conscience develop with awareness, so our moral behavior also develops with awareness. You, Granny, refrain from doing the evil that others may do because you have a greater awareness. You may say, “it is because of discipline”, and that is true, but discipline depends on, and is guided by, awareness. We learn what hurts people, we learn what is right and what is wrong. The cute little 5-year-olds in my wife’s classroom are developing this awareness. They aren’t born knowing what hurts others, so they learn by doing, and the conscience develops as they suffer others’ misdeeds and others suffer from their own misdeeds.

Yay! I have Windows 10 now instead of Windows 8. So far, so good. It was very nice to lose the annoying sidebar that came in all the time. (This was my first try.)

BTW: I got into a conversation today on the same topic with a nice Jehovah’s Witness person who interrupted my yard work. She was firmly in the “we are fallen” camp, but could not understand how the two approaches can both be correct. I was talking both/and and she was talking either/or. She had to attend to other business, eventually.

Concerns?

 

[grannymh]

Here goes my morning creativity.

Each and every sin, big and little, (substituted for the word all) can be understood in light of the fact that Adam (substituted for we–truthfully I object to being lumped into a generic we) lacks awareness and is subject to blindness. Apparently, the push is to downgrade the attributes of our rational spiritual soul. Lack of awareness is part of Adam’s (substituted for our human condition) reality (substituted for it just is).

Actually, I kind of like the next substitution. That way I can bash my first human ancestor. Here is a fascinating question. Why is Adam (substituted for we) born unaware and remains largely in the same condition? Oops!
I forgot that Adam’s wounded human nature is transmitted to us by old-fashioned sex, male and female. Not really sure I should bash Adam because I do like and appreciate Genesis 3:15. That verse is often called Protoevangelium, “first gospel” which is the first announcement of the Messiah and Redeemer. In addition, John 3: 16-17 is one of my favorite divine revelations.

One thing for sure. I do know that I am not okay with the implications of "Why are we born unaware and remain largely in the same condition? "

This morning is definitely too early a morning for creativity.

There is an interesting question which people can respond to in numerous ways. “Why are we born unaware and remain largely in the same condition?” Those public popular writers and speakers who object to a literal Adam and thus easily consider Original Sin as a mere fly in the grand and marvelous wonders of creation may look at the implications of that question in additional ways from what the first three chapters of Genesis tell us. Listening to the science of human nature development, some, not all, people will look at human nature in terms of awareness development and cultural development of moral behavior and so on. Personally, I am not greatly concerned about that because the human being is constantly developing from the moment of conception. If we are not developing awareness, we are probably six feet under.

Because I see a grand and marvelous wonderful difference between Genesis 1: 25 and Genesis 1: 26, I am concerned about additional implications of the question – “Why are we born unaware and remain largely in the same condition?” The implications of being “born unaware” bounce right into the middle of Genesis 1. 26 -27 and other verses in the first three chapters of Genesis. Apparently, Adam was already aware of some basic biology in Genesis 2: 20. There is no indication of awareness developing in the Genesis 2: 7 reference to the complete human nature, spirit and matter. (CCC 365)

As mentioned above, awareness development is a normal process in completed human nature. Nonetheless, this important question remains. Is the human rational spiritual soul immediately present in Adam and in ourselves at our conception?

My creativity wants to go back to bed.

This conversation about the question – “Why are we born unaware and remain largely in the same condition?” certainly can continue. Perhaps this sentence in post 285 needs further attention. “Apparently, the push is to downgrade the attributes of our rational spiritual soul.”

Adam appeared with a human rational spiritual soul necessary for the original relationship between humanity and Divinity.

 

[OneSheep]

This morning is definitely too early a morning for creativity.

There is an interesting question which people can respond to in numerous ways. “Why are we born unaware and remain largely in the same condition?” Those public popular writers and speakers who object to a literal Adam and thus easily consider Original Sin as a mere fly in the grand and marvelous wonders of creation may look at the implications of that question in additional ways from what the first three chapters of Genesis tell us. Listening to the science of human nature development, some, not all, people will look at human nature in terms of awareness development and cultural development of moral behavior and so on. Personally, I am not greatly concerned about that because the human being is constantly developing from the moment of conception. If we are not developing awareness, we are probably six feet under.

Because I see a grand and marvelous wonderful difference between Genesis 1: 25 and Genesis 1: 26, I am concerned about additional implications of the question – “Why are we born unaware and remain largely in the same condition?” The implications of being “born unaware” bounce right into the middle of Genesis 1. 26 -27 and other verses in the first three chapters of Genesis. Apparently, Adam was already aware of some basic biology in Genesis 2: 20. There is no indication of awareness developing in the Genesis 2: 7 reference to the complete human nature, spirit and matter. (CCC 365)

As mentioned above, awareness development is a normal process in completed human nature. Nonetheless, this important question remains. Is the human rational spiritual soul immediately present in Adam and in ourselves at our conception?

My creativity wants to go back to bed.

This conversation about the question – “Why are we born unaware and remain largely in the same condition?” certainly can continue. Perhaps this sentence in post 285 needs further attention. “Apparently, the push is to downgrade the attributes of our rational spiritual soul.”

Adam appeared with a human rational spiritual soul necessary for the original relationship between humanity and Divinity.

Hope you had a good rest dear.

Yes we are born with rational, spiritual souls. Those souls lack in awareness, but are still rational. Rationality is the hardware and software. Awareness is the content.

That said, sometimes people behave very irrationally. This is because blindness happens, and we can indeed be blind to reason. Blindness has its purpose, but it is helpful to be aware that it happens. Oh, there is that “A” word again…

Have you ever read the book, Awareness by Jesuit Anthony De Mello?

Sooooo… your concerns?

 

[grannymh]

Hope you had a good rest dear.

Yes we are born with rational, spiritual souls. Those souls lack in awareness, but are still rational. Rationality is the hardware and software. Awareness is the content.

That said, sometimes people behave very irrationally. This is because blindness happens, and we can indeed be blind to reason. Blindness has its purpose, but it is helpful to be aware that it happens. Oh, there is that “A” word again…

Have you ever read the book, Awareness by Jesuit Anthony De Mello?

Sooooo… your concerns?

No concerns. You are freely making your own choices, what you will believe and not believe.

I am happy with Catholicism. I will pray for you and for public dissidents wherever they may be…that all will return to the truths of the Catholic Church.

 

[OneSheep]

No concerns. You are freely making your own choices, what you will believe and not believe.

I am happy with Catholicism. I will pray for you and for public dissidents wherever they may be…that all will return to the truths of the Catholic Church.

Hi Granny,

I, too, am happy with Catholicism. We are one in the Spirit Granny!

I noticed that I accidentally hit an “angry” face on my last post. He does look like a dissident! Oops!

Dissident: noun: dissident; plural noun: dissidents

1.a person who opposes official policy, especially that of an authoritarian state.

Thanks for your prayers. By the above definition, I am not a dissident. God our Father is the ultimate authority, and I remain very obedient to Him, as do most Catholics I know (with varying degrees on what it means to be obedient, of course.)

There is more power in your voice, Granny, when I am hearing your lack of fear, “No Concerns.” This is a voice that fears not for the salvation of others, for the Father is infinitely merciful, and humans ultimately make the right choices when they fully understand.

God Bless your day.

 

[grannymh]

Hi Granny,

I, too, am happy with Catholicism. We are one in the Spirit Granny!

I noticed that I accidentally hit an “angry” face on my last post. He does look like a dissident! Oops!

Dissident: noun: dissident; plural noun: dissidents

1.a person who opposes official policy, especially that of an authoritarian state.

Thanks for your prayers. By the above definition, I am not a dissident. God our Father is the ultimate authority, and I remain very obedient to Him, as do most Catholics I know (with varying degrees on what it means to be obedient, of course.)

There is more power in your voice, Granny, when I am hearing your lack of fear, “No Concerns.” This is a voice that fears not for the salvation of others, for the Father is infinitely merciful, and humans ultimately make the right choices when they fully understand.

God Bless your day.

Is there anything that you wish to contribute to this thread about the original relationship between humanity and Divinity?

Blessings.

 

[simpleas]

This morning is definitely too early a morning for creativity.

There is an interesting question which people can respond to in numerous ways. “Why are we born unaware and remain largely in the same condition?” Those public popular writers and speakers who object to a literal Adam and thus easily consider Original Sin as a mere fly in the grand and marvelous wonders of creation may look at the implications of that question in additional ways from what the first three chapters of Genesis tell us. Listening to the science of human nature development, some, not all, people will look at human nature in terms of awareness development and cultural development of moral behavior and so on. Personally, I am not greatly concerned about that because the human being is constantly developing from the moment of conception. If we are not developing awareness, we are probably six feet under.

Because I see a grand and marvelous wonderful difference between Genesis 1: 25 and Genesis 1: 26, I am concerned about additional implications of the question – “Why are we born unaware and remain largely in the same condition?” The implications of being “born unaware” bounce right into the middle of Genesis 1. 26 -27 and other verses in the first three chapters of Genesis. Apparently, Adam was already aware of some basic biology in Genesis 2: 20. There is no indication of awareness developing in the Genesis 2: 7 reference to the complete human nature, spirit and matter. (CCC 365)

As mentioned above, awareness development is a normal process in completed human nature. Nonetheless, this important question remains. Is the human rational spiritual soul immediately present in Adam and in ourselves at our conception?

My creativity wants to go back to bed.

This conversation about the question – “Why are we born unaware and remain largely in the same condition?” certainly can continue. Perhaps this sentence in post 285 needs further attention. “Apparently, the push is to downgrade the attributes of our rational spiritual soul.”

Adam appeared with a human rational spiritual soul necessary for the original relationship between humanity and Divinity.

Thinking on the rational soul, Adam and Eve’s “test” wasn’t about being rational, it was about being obedient to the creator along with trusting his word over the fallen angel.

So they were created with a rational soul that remained so, they didn’t lose their rational minds. Yet losing grace seems to have affected our rational souls, some people are very rational, some are not. Grace from God helps us to be rational around one another I think.

I don’t think we remain largely in a condition of unawareness, especially in our times, we can choose to, by ignoring the needs of others.

 

[simpleas]

Is there anything that you wish to contribute to this thread about the original relationship between humanity and Divinity?

Blessings.

Yes OneSheep, forgive me if you have answered this before, but do you think there was an original relationship between humanity and Divinity, that due to the temptations of the fallen angel broken this original relationship? I think I’m right to say that you do not think that we are born separate from God, or born stained. I have difficulty with that also.

Maybe we are just created as we are. God might even be happy with that.

 

[grannymh]

Here is a very interesting sentence from* CCC* 387

“Only the light of divine Revelation clarifies the reality of sin and particularly of the sin committed at mankind’s origins.”

Here is another very interesting sentence from CCC 387

“Only in the knowledge of God’s plan for man can we grasp that sin is an abuse of the freedom that God gives to created persons so that they are capable of loving Him and loving one another.”

Unfortunately, popular public prophets, and some, not all, ordinary folk, prefer their personal approach to God’s perfect plan. Often they leave out God’s plan for Adam which, by the way, includes Adam’s responsibility for using his freedom properly.

 

[OneSheep]

Yes OneSheep, forgive me if you have answered this before, but do you think there was an original relationship between humanity and Divinity, that due to the temptations of the fallen angel broken this original relationship? I think I’m right to say that you do not think that we are born separate from God, or born stained. I have difficulty with that also.

Maybe we are just created as we are. God might even be happy with that.

Well, for much of my own journey, I saw a “brokenness”, something broken in the relationship, something broken about humanity, something “fallen” or “stained”, but I no longer see humanity this way. I see humanity in a process of creation, and the events of our history as part of the process.

This may give the impression of “before, I was wrong, now I am right.” This is not the case. I am truly dedicated to, and see the truth in, a “both/and” approach. I was not “wrong” before. I had a different awareness at the time.

And, actually, what I have been observing lately is that there may be very little difference in outlook for a person who delays the “fall”.

Let me explain. If a “liberal” Catholic sees that in the early years of Christianity the followers were in the Right, but afterwards the Catholic Church was steered in the wrong direction, then this too looks a lot like a “fall”. The “origin” shifts to early Christianity and the “fall” is the rise of Constantinople, the times of being driven to a stricter orthodoxy: the schism, the reformation or counter-reformation, some other form of “fall” where “originally” everything was much better and now we are in a depraved (or deprived) state. Now I will grant that there are changes to be made that would be an improvement, but I am still looking at a very positive anthropology. Humanity is beautiful; God got it right, of course, even though we learn very, very slowly.

History can be looked at as 2 steps forward and 1 step back, 3 forward and 10 back, etc., but the “net” is still forward! Humanity as a whole is clearly less tribal and more inclusive than we were 100 years ago, and much more inclusive than any time further back. We are becoming more of a family, that is the trend I see.

The book I mentioned a few posts back supports this observation. Yes, humans take a long time, generations, to become more aware. It is happening. I can’t really say whether current trends are in the positive direction or the backward direction, but as humans, when we make errors we learn.

Does that make sense? Do you view our history the same way as I do?