A rejection of Original Sin and Atonement Theology

[TLK Valentine]

I don't see that as an insurmountable obstacle, given that there are many Christians, even "western" ones, that don't understand Genesis literally.

Also, some Christians have a different understanding of time, and don't necessarily think of creation as something that is an artifact of the past. Premodern peoples often had different conceptualizations of time: the creation story represents a time beyond time, like the Australian Aboriginal "Dreamtime", that is inaccessible to normal consciousness and can only be articulated through symbols.

And yet, even if the Creation story happened in a time beyond time, the existence of the product of Creation (i.e., the Creation itself) transcended that time beyond time to exist and continue to exist in this current time as postmodern people understand it. This necessarily means that the effects of time beyond time is not so much "beyond" our time as it is before it.

 

[Ed1wolf]

By His personhood, do you mean the "personhood" of Jesus Christ, who was physical?

No, for the eternity before Christ got a body, God was a personal being. Personhood is nonphysical.

 

[Eloy Craft]

Every rational being is a person.

 

[Tinker Grey]

No, for the eternity before Christ got a body, God was a personal being. Personhood is nonphysical.

Personhood is a concept. It isn't a thing at all.

 

[TLK Valentine]

No, for the eternity before Christ got a body, God was a personal being. Personhood is nonphysical.

So what is it?

 

[FireDragon76]

And yet, even if the Creation story happened in a time beyond time, the existence of the product of Creation (i.e., the Creation itself) transcended that time beyond time to exist and continue to exist in this current time as postmodern people understand it. This necessarily means that the effects of time beyond time is not so much "beyond" our time as it is before it.

Let's put it this way, several years ago I sat through a reading of Genesis I and I found it powerful and inspiring. Do I believe in Creationism? No, not at all. But, with a religious mindset, it is possible to entertain two different perspectives on the world at once. It's just not something most people in the western world find easy to do.

 

[FireDragon76]

Personhood is a concept. It isn't a thing at all.

Well, concepts are nonphysical as well.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Let's put it this way, several years ago I sat through a reading of Genesis I and I found it powerful and inspiring. Do I believe in Creationism? No, not at all.

Sounds like you just described non-literalism -- no argument here; I find much of the Bible to be quite powerful and inspiring, in spite of not believing it happened as described.

But, with a religious mindset, it is possible to entertain two different perspectives on the world at once. It's just not something most people in the western world find easy to do.

Or willing, since it sounds like you just described "doublethink."

 

[FireDragon76]

Or willing, since it sounds like you just described "doublethink."

That's an overly perjorative viewpoint, esp. considering there are plenty of philosophies that engage in dialectical methods rather than analytical ones.

 

[TLK Valentine]

That's an overly perjorative viewpoint, esp. considering there are plenty of philosophies that engage in dialectical methods rather than analytical ones.

You're correct; I mistook "entertain" for "embrace."

 

[FireDragon76]

You're correct; I mistook "entertain" for "embrace."

What I'm saying is that within a sacred space, people can have sacred stories that don't necessarily interfere with the day-to-day living of their lives or imply that they are rubes or idiots who reject science. The stories serve as a way to contextualize their own experiences within a religious community.

Have you ever seen the Star Trek: the Next Generation episode Darmok?

 

[TLK Valentine]

What I'm saying is that within a sacred space, people can have sacred stories that don't necessarily interfere with the day-to-day living of their lives or imply that they are rubes or idiots who reject science. The stories serve as a way to contextualize their own experiences within a religious community.

Have you ever seen the Star Trek: the Next Generation episode Darmok?

Of course; I'm a geek.

It's a great metaphor for the limitations of language.

 

[FireDragon76]

Of course; I'm a geek.

It's a great metaphor for the limitations of language.

It's also an example of how a society could use language as a kind of metacommunication strategy. I would argue that is how some religious non-fundamentalists use religion, not in terms of the literal usage of the language or narrative, but the imagery evoked to convey a general impression.

Of course, some religions, such as Mahayana Buddhism, are much more explicit that this is exactly how religious language is being used. Religious language can function as a sacramental system within a quasi-platonic understanding of reality.

 

[Ed1wolf]

ed: No, we dont that is why we need God to help us understand it more fully and He has done so in His word. I do want to admit that my view is a minority view regarding angels not being fully personal. Most Biblical scholars believe they are personal beings so I could be wrong.

tv: We don't understand love, so we read the Bible.
The angels don't understand love; they're stuck.

No, we did understand love until the Fall then our understanding became distorted because of sin. Maybe angels do understand love.

ed: Not sure exactly what you are referring to though I may have a hunch.
tv: The rebellion, of course.

What rebellion?

ed: What imperfection? The creation was created perfect, for its purpose. That doesn't mean it is imperfect.

tv: You're talking in circles. What was Creation's purpose, again?

One of the primary purposes is to destroy evil forever.

ed: It was not really a problem, it had to occur, it was part of the plan.

tv: "Plan"makes it problematic -- there was no "fall"; we were pushed.

No, Adam and Eve acted of their own free will.

ed: See above, I could be wrong maybe they can love. But there is some evidence that after Satan rebelled God may have taken away their free will.

tv: Now that's beyond problematic and straight into theologically nonsensical. If God took away their free will as a result of their rebellion, that implies that granting them free will in the first place was a mistake.

No, not if it was part of His plan for the destruction of evil forever. Though this is just a theory of mine, most scholars disagree.

tv: Which means that not only is God capable of making mistakes (which flushes His infallibility right down the drain), but that he made the same mistake by granting free will to his next creation -- humanity.

So rather than accept a fallible God who's also a slow learner, we might have to re-examine that "evidence."

No, see above.