The book of Enoch

It seems the animal kingdom displays much of the same behaviors that humans display. So it is logical to think we derived much of our behaviors from our common ancestral links. Birds, reptiles, amphibians etc.. even single celled organisms we all share a history with. But do we share a history with angels?

For instance, to think that neanderthal were somehow the offspring of angels breaks the historical purity of evolution..

I am not saying angelic humans do not exist. But I attribute their goodness to the same evolutionary path. We can sum up the book of Enoch as another biblical explanation of human behavior gone awry.

These angels would have to actually represent links in the tree of our DNA. Other than earthbound creatures there are no such deviations from our genetic code. All of our ancestors were similar human beings and we as collective race share the exact same genetic history back millions of years. All of our ancestors are represented in the code. The mutation that made male and female happened long before we were probably even mammals.

Now if the book of Enoch is talking spiritual figurative and they are not meaning actually children of angels but thoughts and ideas born of angels. These thoughts can be like offspring and can live in the minds of people who become the ideas and thoughts themselves.

I was just thinking that Enoch and his claims of angelic bloodlines conflicts with DNA analysis. All of the markers and mutations represent human (sons of man) parents. Also there are these very same behaviors we can observe in the animal kingdom. Animals adorn themselves in colorful arrays of plumage and parade around in them. Animals can hoard and collect things up. They have evolved pouches and pockets with which to pilfer shiny things. They kill for their sustenance. There is really no evil sanctioned only by the human kingdom. So what exactly could this evil be that humans obtained from angels that animals do not also in one shape or form have?

It seems the bible tries to separate us from our connection to this earth by telling us we are more holy than animals and then also by telling us we are more evil than animals. When the truth is we simply share an evolutionary tree with all living species.

Do we also share this tree with angels? It certainly does not seem glaringly evident. Although many angelic humans certainly can make one think yet it is more likely simply the perfection of evolution and life's resilient and vibrant quality and diversity within itself.

I disagree with the philosophy tag on this thread.

Human wisdom also encompasses divine speculation.

I sense that my opinions would not be welcome, as I hold the view that speculations about metaphorical deities and their celestial servants in such a context as this does not constitute wisdom.
Please forgive my intrusion.

god does not negate wisdom.

god is a suchhole

Evil is a moral form, a meaning without being whose purpose is to define a certain social situation shared by living people.

If all this god stuff is simply made up human logic then there is no "evil" only bad behavior.

well yes. Evil is as evil does! We do not want to take responsibility so we externalize our desires. If people quit wishing evil then evil would leave us.

Yes. And both "evil" and "bad" are subjective judgments. Perspectives. One single act can be perceived as good by one person and evil by another.
This is why the only useful distinction between good and evil lies in the intention of the act, but then, I truly believe that there are no human beings who would act out of "evil" intention, which makes good/evil a useless distinction. Regardless of the quality of the act, the motivation for it is always rooted in the intention to do something good, as perceived by the one committing the act.

I think it was Plato who said "No man errs willingly." The intention is always good. Hitler thought it was a good deed to kill all the Jews he could. The 9/11 terrorists are heroes and martyrs in a lage portion of the Muslim community.

Plato was at least willing to examine the good as an objective idea, though we only know of good as part of subjective reality... Good is a moral form, and not a physical form... Good is not being with meaning, but a meaning without a specific being, a spiritual quality rather than a physical qualtity... I cannot argue with Hitler's desire to kill the Jews or any other people because given the concept of nationalism which they accepted, all such behavior was justified... I can say that the enslavement and torture of so many people seems from the perspective of a human being to be the greater crime since we all have so little of life, and though we all die it is a terrible thing to wish ones life away under the spur and whip of another when we shall have no other life but the one we now have... But then, people can use laws and economies to make others miserable too, and make them wish away their lives or dream always of a life so little troubled... Goodness is a form of relationship that requires all the virtues, and none more than honor, and justice... And the virtues are moral forms, like good, that cannot be defined and can only be seen in operation... If we think to have good while others know evil; or if we take our good out of the mouths of babes who must grow up and old without goodness, then we are making devils out of human beings whose sole philosophy will be the justification of horrors...

Good is no moral form, as I understand it. It is an arbitrary, subjective judgment made on the background of personal preferences.
I am having trouble seeing the worth of moral forms. From what I understand they are categories that seem as arbitrary as subjective judgments. Perhaps you could explain them a little further?

if there is no physical object corresponding to the form or idea of good the the idea we have of good is beyond definition, and inevitably subjective. This is true of all moral and ethical ideas which we refer to in the measure of human relationships, and use in the construction of social forms like law and goverment.

Can moral forms become irrelevant? Can new moral forms come into "existence"?

It is not moral forms which become irrelevent, but just as with social forms, the ideas behind them can be plundered of their meaning.

Let me see... god is a moral form, ye?
Today, in the field of understanding reality, in physics, god is mostly irrelevant.
Is this because the ideas behind god have been plundered of their meaning, or is it because the very concept is useless in explaining anything?

Also, if an infinite absolute needs ideas behind them, how are they infinite and absolute if these ideas can alter?

Nothing is only altered by everything.

That's a pretty ambiguous statement. I am not sure what I read in it is what you wrote.