fully completely?

You who truly and earnestly repent of your sins, who live in love and peace with your neighbours, and who intend to lead a new life, following the commandments of God and walking in his holy ways, draw near with faith, and take this holy sacrament for your comfort; and humbly bowing, make your honest confession to Almighty God.

(Invitation to the Free Methodist Communion Liturgy)

***

so my friend and i came to a surprise disagreement over the little piece of holy poetry cited above:

I ask myself how can we say we have an open communion when our liturgy narrows who’s invited? Our current liturgy is personally troublesome in that the invitation, in my opinion, excludes honest, seeking people – honest in that they confess they are truly seeking God but cannot in good conscience say they yet have “truly and earnestly” repented of their sins and/or are reconciled and at peace with their neighbours, much less intend to lead a new life, following the commandments of God and walking in his holy ways.

Sometimes I wonder if I, by this invitation, am even invited to the Lord’s Table.

concerning the invitation, i believe that the qualifying 'truly and earnestly' is valuable. gotta say that right off the top. the way we frame in faith experiences does make a difference to the one who is engaging, and attaching strong language like 'truly and earnestly' places the onus on the one who is interested in pressing into something deeply personal, to do so with an appropriate degree of intention and ownership. i've learned, after all, that people don't value things that come too easily, and so the problem poses itself: how do you invite everyone to participate at their level in a spiritually meaningful practice without cheapening, bastardizing or even desecrating the practice for others?

oh, tradition is a messy thing, but i didn't expect a kind of spanish inquisition...

(JARRING CHORD - The door flies open and Cardinal Ximinez of Spain enters, flanked by two junior cardinals. Cardinal Biggles has goggles pushed over his forehead. Cardinal Fang is just Cardinal Fang)

Ximinez: NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is suprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again. (Exit and exeunt)

Man: I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition.

(JARRING CHORD - The cardinals burst in)

Ximinez: NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Amongst our weaponry are such diverse elements as: fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope, and nice red uniforms - Oh damn! (To Cardinal Biggles) I can't say it - you'll have to say it.

Biggles: What?

Ximinez: You'll have to say the bit about 'Our chief weapons are ...'

Biggles: (rather horrified) I couldn't do that...

(Ximinez bundles the cardinals outside again)

Man: I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition.

(JARRING CHORD - The cardinals enter)

Biggles: Er.... Nobody...um....

Ximinez: Expects...

Biggles: Expects... Nobody expects the...um...the Spanish...um...

Ximinez: Inquisition.

Biggles: I know, I know! Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition. In fact, those who do expect -

Ximinez: Our chief weapons are...

Biggles: Our chief weapons are...um...er...

Ximinez: Surprise...

Biggles: Surprise and --

Ximinez: Okay, stop. Stop. Stop there - stop there. Stop. Phew! Ah! ...our chief weapons are surprise...blah blah blah. Cardinal, read the charges.

Fang: You are hereby charged that you did on diverse dates commit heresy against the Holy Church...

(courtesy of the silly people at pythonet )

the messiness of tradition is only one possible explanation for the fact that more people aren't interested in receiving communion bread and wine- symbols of the redeeming sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ- in a local church, whether that church practices 'open communion' (as we do) or not. the fact that so many purpogators of this particular grace-based faith are exceptionally graceless themselves most of the time definitely weighs in.

the basic tenet in a grace-based faith, is that relationship with the Divine is 'free'

but the question of tradition and religiosity seems to circle back here: who decides whether something is too free or not free enough? is one's theology too open or too closed to describe the God of the universe? how about the practices used by this one to approach this God? are these practices and perameters transferrable, or are they strictly as individualistic as the relationship that this God seeks to engage in with these humble created personal beings?

see, it gets a little slippery, in my view, with the holy pendulum swinging back and forth causing this great gospel thing that is supposedly free and available to all to have all these hidden costs showing up which are impossible to calculate because everyone you talk to draws up the 'salvation bill' differently. what began as a movement of freedom and hope for the lost and emotionally, socially and spiritually disconnected becomes something decidely less free, less hopeful.

like when we discovered that, although napster was back online as a digital music service, the utopic 'what's mine is yours' P2P shine had been replaced with butt-covering licensing fees and such. (yeah, that was a tangent)

well, whether it's digital music or God that we are seeking to access, it appears as though it is up to us to sort it all out in order to attain that to which we are driven. God himself seems to be okay with open-sourcing his gospel and the life-changing truth that is at its centre. in fact, that seems to be how he's preferred to operate for a very long time. God has left a fair bit of room in the bible for maneuvering.

i mean, questions similar to those above of my friend concerning open communion could be posed regarding the claim that God has unconditional love, yet only those who 'believeth in him will not perish but have everlasting life...' (john3.16)

i must confess that this conditional grace doesn't go down easy for me most days, as i work hard to discern between the questions that i wrestle with in my own understanding of how this all comes together and the words i am to speak to a crowd.

see, i've heard people speak of 'cheap grace' and how it is incorrect to consider that God may just say on that day of days:

"you know, you were lied to by the prince of the air your whole life about who you are and who i am and i agreed to abide by your will, as ill-informed as it was... but i'm God and this is my day now- the day of the Lord- and i, the Lord say to one and all 'behold now, the kingdom. enter into my rest.' ''

i'm not so sure. it sounds like that kind of grace, although perhaps 'cheap' for the recipient of it, is pretty damn expensive for God. this would make it grace- unmerited favour- for real. yet i mustn't preach those thoughts lest i be branded a heretic or at least a bleeding-hearts liberal. in my heart of hearts, the question is perpetually posed for consideration.

we have liturgies that have been prayerfully drawn up to give us a structure for our worship, and i believe that their orthodoxy protects us all if these more liberal versions of God's grace, although they may feel right to me, are a little off. by including these thoughts in the invitation, those who have been entrusted with leadership are equipping people for meaningful decision-making with righteous intention: we say everyone is invited and we include, in the invitation, words of preparation. (1 corinthians 11.27-29).

as to the degree to which a person understands (or misunderstands) those words of invitation, it's probably between that person and God. God knows what any of us really mean and how fully completely given to him our hearts are, yet he invites us to step forward in faith and assures us that these steps are not in vain...

yep, more grace, courtesy of God.

lift

torchie sent me an email recently
I’m sitting here, enjoying some good conversation with my youngest son, some internet reading on incarnation, and a glass of Captain Morgan. I had a good day at work and I know that God and my wife still love me.

How can life get any better?

So, I began thinking, “Would we be celebrating Christmas, or, would Jesus have come even if me and humankind would not have sinned?”

Don’t feel obligated to respond, or, if you do to respond at great length, but whattaya’ think?

***

i suppose we're safe in that this has a built-in shock absorber in there:
the question is simply 'whattaya think?'

think? whew- pressure's off.

so many things seem to be separated in the curse of genesis 3. it causes me to wonder whether the word 'curse' simply means separation when used in scripture.

it reads in genesis 3.14-19 as the antithesis of blessing.

here's the thing, though.
there is something sanctificatory about both:
with either blessing or curse, something or someone is set apart.

i would even argue that a case could be made (and has been by a few speakers and writers under whose teaching i've sat) that this setting apart- whether circumstantially delightful or tragic- is in accordance with God's greater purposes for his universal creation; part of God's exaltation of it.

3.14: the serpent is separate from all livestock and animals of the wild. 'above all' it reads. typically when we use a phrase like 'above all', we are not talking about something or someone that we see as the lowest of the low. perhaps this a simple reinforcement of the idea that our perspective is pretty limited and pretty linear.

3.15: there is higher level separation (enmity) between the woman/ the offspring of the woman and the crafty antagonist. the context is set for the messianic promise to be announced for the first time.

3.16: there is greater understanding of this human experience, for we have this whole paradox and sexual conflict that seems to open up for the woman: desire for the man and yet 'increased pain' in childbirth. whatever the case, this life experience just went from black and white to colour for the woman.

3.17-19: for the man, there is work and toil and sweat and ultimately death. however, these things have become the essence of our cultural identity. whether it is in our fallenness or simply as the result of a life steeped in it as we continue to strive here, just east of eden, most conversations with strangers move into the realm of chosen occupation relatively early on. i know that i typically remember this about a person quite easily, but his or her name takes a bit more work. there is something functional here that fits into our understanding of the way things work quite naturally, affording us a relatively uncomplicated, safe causeway to further relationship.

(interesting- i believe in some recent comments on an earlier blogpost here we delved briefly into the whole trouble with equating 'being' with 'doing', yet it seems to be ingrained as part of our perspective.)

one writer observes that
'Meeting the needs of a self in a world of other selves is an anxious enterprise. Even short of death, there is much to be anxious about in life.'
(robert gerzon, in his book Finding Serenity in the Age of Anxiety )

gerzon contends that humankind chose natural anxiety over existential anxiety (he calls it 'sacred anxiety' in his book) because reporting solely to God was a burden too great for mortals to bear. in any event, life seems to take on new meaning and significance now that there is something precious to be lost. it is no longer a given and so an exaltation of sorts- a lifting up 'above all' similar to 3.14- takes place.

so if curse means separation and separation means curse, then is God somehow cursed by the changes that go down in the garden? have we, in our disobedience, cursed God as well as ourselves?

well, there does seem to be a separation of the personalities of God that takes place here- is required as a result of all of this action in the garden. it appears that free will and technicolour living will require even God to undergo a radical change in how the trinity interacts within itself as well as within the world created. somehow the son needs to be torn from that place of perfect relational balance and compliment in order to address the great challenges imposed by God's decision to abide by the free will of everyday people who have no clue who they are or what they're doing most of the time. happens again when the Holy Spirit is given at pentecost. it appears that somehow the triune God is affected by the gift of free will as described in genesis 3.

so would Jesus have had to come?
no. not in my view.

i can't see any need for God the son to have been separated from God the father and God the spirit apart from the need that is ushered in as a direct result of humankind's swiping of the freewill card for the first time.

the question that eats away at me is
would we even be able to notice?
living in the cozy, pre-fall balance, would we value the stasis-
in God or in ourselves?

what if our ultimate failure as the God's very-goods in a world of goods was simply a rite of passage into the coloured and contrasted existence that God actually desired for us? what if this fall of man was actually a lifting up by God to a deeper experience of life and relationship, with each other as well as with God? what might this suggest about God's love for his crowned of creation?

as messy as all of this is most days, i think i love God more when i think of God's activation and honouring of my free will like this- especially considering the cost to God.

should i stay or should i go

this one got going on 'northVUs' and it seemed like there might be more to say so i transplanted it here...

"How bout those who reject Jesus, or the church, or faith? It seems to me that as soon as you define the role of something, specifically an institution, then you are necessarily excluding." (hineini)

i agree that those who reject the centre of a faith community- in this case Jesus- will find themselves outside of that faith community... but that is what rejection means, isn't it? the turning from rather than towards something or someone?

does this mean that these individuals fall outside of the love of that community or the love of the God of that community? no, it shouldn't imply this at all. as a matter of fact, it is pretty scriptural that the love of God and his faith community, the Church, is offered inclusively with no expiry date and no umpire keeping track of strikes. if Jesus would implore peter and the boys to forgive seventy-times-seven then i think it would be rather inconsistent for God the Father to say

"well, yeah, that's a rule i made for you. however, with me it's down to your basic three strikes and you're out."

however, some of hineini's comment seems to reflect this understanding or characterization of God. in my view, that god is a construct, created in the image of certain members of fallen humanity who would seek to somehow justify thoughts of condemnation of the people beside them... much like the parable Jesus told in luke 18.9-14 . the reality of who God is is not limited by our sloppy theology. the only thing that is limited by our sloppy theology is our ability to experience a deep relationship with this God person... oh, and the ability to invite others into relationship with God as well, for a relationship based on misconception is going to have some pretty arbitrary limits and some therefore pretty limited appeal.

but back to rejection... it is my belief that when individuals reject that which is being offered (and continues to be offered regardless of their decision to accept or reject it) then they have no place entertaining feelings of embitterment or alienation based on their own decision to reject. they've chosen exclusion of their own design.

remember, i am not talking about somehow barring the doors or shutting the lights out and pretending no one is home when an 'other' (in the biblical sense) comes by. i am simply acknowledging that the burden of one's own redemption lands right back where the burden of damnation began- free will.

matters of faith, free will and public education

an old friend of mine and i were discussing some observations that she had been making concerning cultural expressions of spirituality all over the world- most notably in her travels through israel, egypt, and russia- and the differences between cultural and personal faith...

as for the christian spirituality thing, it is sometimes hardest for people who have grown up in a household where one or two of the parents practice this faith because of the 'choice' element...

free will is such a huge and important part of our response to God as christians that sometimes it gets confusing. i mean, kid puts up with it until such time as the faith practiced is no longer legislated within the household (often, moving away from home is a catalyst but there are others: puberty, driver's license time, high school graduation. i recently read that the 'age of identity' is between twelve and fourteen years of age*- probably just about anything significant that happens any time after that can be a trigger)... ultimately, the faith of the parents is meaningful tradition, foundational in one's becoming who one is- just as everything in life has been. but eventually it has to be adopted as one's own or rejected as the faith of our fathers and nothing more than that. a choice is a choice.

once faith becomes one's own, it seems more organic and, in many ways, can be far easier to invest in. until then, it is simply wearing someone else's spiritual hand-me-downs. no matter how well-kept and 'like new' they are, they are still used garments of praise.

i think that this whole process of adoption is, for many, a bit like their experience with education. high school is mildly socially and intellectually interesting (we are engaged, but as to whether this is positive or negative, that's a whole nother blog) and so on for most of us, but upon graduation everything seems to change: people who didn't do a thing all through high school start working hard for their grades at university or tech school, while some who worked their butts off through high school don't even bother applying anywhere.

like the journey of faith, this all has something to do with ownership, in that while we are forced to attend to it, we simply deal with the force in the way that makes sense to us or is the least unpleasant... but once we are no longer forced into the discipline of learning, it finally becomes about the schooling-or at least about the goals which can be realized through it- not just about the external forces inflicting the schooling upon the young and impressionable (this last cliche phrase was in here because this old friend is a former student of mine, an adult now living in japan... had to make a noticeably self-deprecating remark there- it's the canadian way!)

some choose to make a discipline their own while others walk away from it to explore a different future. as with faith, the outcomes have more to do with free will than with anything tidy like the old nature versus nurture thing.
***

that i have been afforded the freedom to, as a teacher of young people, enter into dialogue that deals explicitely with issues deeper than those covered in our secular-humanist curriculum, rather than implicitely is a gift from God for which i am grateful. it has always been my view that the whole battery of curricula is simply a life-support system for mentoring relationships... the curriculum gets the funding but the relationship bears the fruit.

starting point?

a friend of mine who used to play in our band is a new-age pantheist. i don't think he'd mind being categorized, as in his view we are all God and simply struggling through varying stages of self-realization and memory. it shouldn't matter to a real part of god if other parts of god have the wrong picture of what it is... it is not the worship of the other parts of itself that a god desires.

so he was talking to me one time about zen moments where one is simultaneously enlightened and confused, and it put me in mind of the richard bach novel illusions. the book relates the adventures of a reluctant messiah. in the story, the main character (richard) is a travelling barnstormer who meets another (albeit suspiciously perfect) barnstormer named don. don never has to change his oil or polish his engine- he's got it all together. richard decides to disciple under don, a new guru.

as will happen within a fallen world of action, reaction and causality, richard's plane needs some repairs one day, and the two find themselves in a hardware store for parts. richard is moving down an aisle when he hears the most beautiful soulspoken music of his life coming from another part of the store. he follows the sonic fragrance to its source, finding don playing a toy guitar in a makeshift toy aisle (how many really good toys are there going to be in a hardware store?).

'i didn't know you could play guitar...'
'what kind of messiah would i be if i couldn't do something simple like play guitar? the only difference between you and me is that my belief in my ability to play guitar is greater than your belief in yours. some people have to practice for ten years before they actually believe that they can play...' (okay, really sloppy paraphrase, but that's the gist of it)

and so on. well, if godhood and guitar prowess are related in any way, then i think that the realization of my friend's own personal godhood is still a long way off. he recently moved to korea and doesn't have to practice as hard or even change his strings. he sends us photographs from time to time, but never song ideas.
***

my friend kinkazzo spoke recently in an email of his restlessness and a desire to unite with the universal mind. he outlined a story of how he had once launched an online cosmic consciousness group that caught on and grew so quickly that they were even to the point of discussing the prospect of holding a convention. yet amidst all of this excitement, and the realization of a lifelong dream, my friend found himself in a funk and told the whole lot of them to piss off so he could shrink back once again into relative obscurity.

i think that it must be really hard to be a god.

it's frustrating to author something that ultimately means nothing. chasing after the wind or whatever. certainly in kinkatso's case, the experience is heavily reminiscent in its conclusions of the teacher in ecclesiastes: it still speaks of an unfulfilled desire to be a necessary part of something bigger than big, realer than real, and above all, satisfying. although he had created something 'ex nehilo', it was not from love but from restlessness that the new incarnation arose. the thrill was all in the chase.

I had something going there, just as I always wanted. But I couldn't follow through, I lost my appetite: that's the way I am. I lose interest quickly, and my dynamism disappears... This is surely due to my disquieting mind, my irregular personality and my pressive character. Right.
But why?
What am I looking for?
Why couldn't I keep it going and create a REAL movement? It would have been sooooo good: just the way I liked -- people talking in-depth; people looking at important issues; people being spiritual and superconscious.
Damn it: I really wanted to CREATE A STAR!
A "conveyor" for my Fire.
A channelling for my Inspiration, my Creativeness -- (all capitalised!)
Egocentric? Sure, but what a goal!
And I ruined everything with my instability...

you can't create something real from something unstable. you can't create something that is perfect, balanced and needing nothing to survive from a personal need to create something that is blah blah blah. it's strength is tied inextricably to its author but realized in the quality of the materials used. it's like trying to create free energy with a mechano set and a bunsen burner... some things cannot be created, only discovered.

a laugh for the man in the eyes of the world trying to make things work
tried to create a new jerusalem and ended up with new york...
(bruce cockburn)

look at humankind. our greatest strengths seem to reflect that perfect ideal personified that we have named God. (i love how God dodged that one from the beginning, knowing that if we were to be given a specific name to address him as, we would just use it wrongly anyway... so he let us identify him in the most meaningful way we could) our greatest weaknesses, by choice, seem to be in direct contrast to those strengths.

however, i just can't subscribe to nietzsche's 'beyond good and evil' thing- that subscribing to a morality which jives with universal law on things like 'goodness' and 'justice' is somehow subjecting oneself to being repressed; and that God's choice to permit free will is evidence of his weakness as a deity: a flaw indicative of the fallacy of God- i choose to push against that one. free will is our greatest gift- superceding even Jesus in God's grace. i mean, Jesus was the remedy for the bad stewardship of our free will which resulted in a severed relationship between love personified and goodness actualized: between the creator of all things and his crowned of creation. the ability to choose came first.

but as long as we choose to be gods we will be frustrated.
we create, but it's never out of the raw material of love alone.

do you think that all creation came from nothing but the word of the intelligent designer in need of an outlet one day? although the creation story begins with the spirit of God hovering over the face of the deep, as it were, how figuratively or literally are we to take this? i love the idea that everything good (including time) was concentrated to a specific location having no dimensions and a specific moment having no duration- a starting point only- and that the voice of God is what the ancients a thousand years from now, schooled in antiquities and curios, will call 'the big bang.'

over the next few days, kinkazzo and i continued the dialogue further. originally i was going to just copy and paste the whole thing in the comment box of this blog, but then i thought 'gee, maybe that's rude...' so instead i've just linked his blog on the side.

(tangentary questions: in this information-processing epoch, to what degree is any dialogue between two consenting adults a private matter? especially among bloggers where so much intellectual property is released into the public domain? i don't know the answers to these questions, except that i believe the more we can interact with each other's ideas, either directly or indirectly, the more opportunity we have to grow as people. i still struggle with what that means pertaining to 'obscenity,' censorship, and ideas that contribute to the moral and spiritual unravelling of our planet, however. my parenthetical point is that, like effects without cause or yang without ying, i can't seem to isolate and articulate ideas from the dialogue without at least partially citing the ideas in italics which led to them... hope that's cool, k-man!)

anyway, he cited eregina:

God is eternally partially self-ignorant. If he knew all of himself, he could define himself. If he could define himself, he would be finite.

but is the lack of definition an inability or a refusal?

i mean, i recognize the logic that binds the infinity of God to the unknown and incalculable, but what if God exists beyond logic as he exists beyond time and beyond evil? what if that which God does further affirms his capacity to be all things and do all things, whereas what he does not do just continues to be that which he has simply not done, neither defining nor deifying him?

"I AM who I AM"- nothing logically comparable- no appropriate simile or metaphor when it comes to his power or his holiness. then the questions return to that old human stomping ground: what does God do? what has he done? what is he responsible for? or, my personal favourite: what is he NOT responsible for?

But all he knows of himself is what he has created. What is created is his knowledge or represents the expressed, revealed and therefore finite aspects of his actions and his knowledge

what is potential is his mystery: mysterious in him and to him. i don't think that God is a mystery to himself. it is like that guitar story- until don had played guitar, all that richard could possibly say was that don had never played guitar- no, not even that... all he could say was that, to his knowledge, don had never played guitar. were don to share, would it be necessary for him to qualify his ability by saying 'yes, of course i knew how to play before playing' of might it be enough for the playing of guitar to be within the realm of don's capability, but not, as yet, something that he had done? does 'if can do' logically imply 'then has done' or are there in fact things that God can do that he hasn't done and, seated outside of time, will never do? there must be. i mean, there are things that i am capable of doing that i've never done- how much moreso God?

i agree that our causative, hierarchical thinking is problematic at best, mainly due to its subjectivity. through this lens we quantify, qualify and classify, attempting to catch a glimpse of some meaning. that's probably the problem. we attempt to examine and explain the rest of the world (let's not even bother with theology, let's just scientifically and experiencially comment on our existence alone, like descartes) from this tiny and subjective point of context rather than to seek to comment on this piece of turf upon which stand against the backdrop of everything around us.

God is caused by what it causes; is made necessary by what it necessitates; we cannot comprehend. I cannot comprehend, and I can't accept it.

i cannot comprehend but i am okay with accepting it. i find the whole fallacy of entitlement to be a bit of a red herring anyway- to conclude that we are entitled to answers that allign with our reason is a bit presumptuous, i think. if i as a man believe that i can somehow comprehend the mind of God without being God, then surely it must follow (although probably not very logically, as my brain doesn't work that way most days...) that i would be able to comprehend the mind of a woman without being one? i mean, there is probably much less difference between the thinking and purposes of a man and a woman than there is between a man and a relationally able, conscious creator of all good things both seen and unseen. yet what an incredible mystery my wife can be somedays...

dare we presume to be capable of drawing finite parameters around one who is, by virtue of basic doctrines like omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, perfection and holiness, absolute and without parameters apart from those which attempt to address his very nature? that might be a bit much for a creation to accomplish, using only created materials and means to measure and summarize the immeasurable. might that be like trying to use a ruler to measure the mass of a beam of light- the tool selected to do the job being not only insufficient, but in fact irrelevent? rather than a box to keep him in, perhaps our understanding of God would be better served by trying to sort out the things that are at the centre of who God is: the things that characterize that location having no dimensions, that instant having no duration. it is from there and then that love and life did begin.

so play the game of existence to the end of the beginning
(lennon/mccartney)

time to go practice...

thomas edison and original sin

icarus reflects upon the philosophical meanderings that are part of his higher education from time to time:
While sitting in my leftist infested American Foreign Policy class, my professor, also a jaded communist, keeps pronouncing that human nature is evil. He says it so much that the rest of the class has now begun the practice of finishing his sentence for him. "Things are bad because human nature is...class? 'Evil!' That's right, evil, very good."

so why is it that we always get this one wrong? i think it's because we need to place the blame for all manner of calamity resulting from the poor stewardship of our free will on somebody or something other than ourselves. it must be in our nature to be evil- this absolves us of both guilt and responsibility.

however, when i dig back into the creation story told in the first couple chapters of the first book of the bible, i find some wording that is troublesome if i am to subscribe to this doctrine of inherent evil. quite frankly, i can't get past it:

sorry for the lengthy quote that ensues. i just don't want to break up the context too much...
then God said, 'let us make man in our own image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over livestock, over all the earth and over all the creatures that move along the ground.

so God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

so God blessed them and said to them, 'be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves along the ground.'

then God said 'i give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. they will be yours for food.

and to all the beasts of the earth and the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground- everything that has the breath of life in it- i give every green plant for food.' and it was so.

and God saw all that he had made and it was very good.
(genesis 2.26-31)

okay, here's my little point- the main reason why i just can't buy the 'evil human nature' deal: the bible holds that God, upon looking at all he had made (which incidently culminated with the creation of beings capable of relationship with him) did not say that it was 'fine', or 'acceptable' or 'sufficient for the timebeing,' he said that it was 'very good'- that what he had just finished working on was, in his view, superior to everything he had already created so far and called simply 'good.' if we look at the bit where he envisions humankind for the first time, we see that people were planned to be and realized in the image or likeness of God. i guess this and the 'it is very good' remark tell us more about God than about man.

if evil were natural, then God would have looked at something inherently evil and, upon declaring it 'very good' would have been declaring himself inherently evil as well, as man is said to be in the image of God.

although a lot of people like to see God as a cosmic spoilsport (all the fun stuff is seen as illegal- whole nother blog there), or a cranky king (bringing down harsh retribution upon any who fall short of being perfect in thought or deed) or a vain and needy emotional and spiritual being (creating beings for the sole purpose of worshiping himself), all of these are better examples of man creating God in his own image, than the other way round.

no, i believe that what is natural has been replaced by that which is flawed and unnatural: a soul corruption that has spread through our species through both nature and nurture, along with that pesky thing called 'free will.'

so we went from 'very good' to 'worth dying for' with one bad decision.

either way, i can't swallow the idea that we are naturally evil... if we were we'd hardly be worth all the fuss. it would make more sense for God to act in the manner of thomas edison upon inventing yet another lightbulb that failed to work... just put humankind in a box, log it away as yet another way to NOT create a recipient of his greatest love and attention, and start all over again.