Kallessa wrote:
But you and He are one.
Yes, but we are also separate, that is, the essential aspect of me that makes me Kallessa, be that my soul, my personality, my essence or my spirit, (and is also that which makes us human) can exist both as the Divine, and as Kallessa. This to me is the great mystery–how I can be both one with the Divine, and yet still remain as an individual being. Perhaps the only sin is the failure to believe that this is possible–that disbelief keeps me from God because I want to hold onto myself. And because I can’t believe myself to be perfect–as I am meant to be–I do things which hurt others or myself, i.e. I sin, I increase my sense of a separateness between me and the Divine, which makes it harder for me to believe in my perfect nature, etc., etc., etc. All of this is within my control, my free will. I don’t really need to atone, other than by forgiving myself (and having those I hurt forgive me if they can); I need to believe. But I was using the language of the OP.
I’m not a theologian, or even a christian but I’ll take a stab at this.
The serpent was the knowledge of good and evil. In a word, consciousness. A thing none of us can escape, and is always whispering to us.
When man became self-aware, when he made the connection between his own actions and the hurt or comfort of others, and could then choose which of those he would rather do in any given situation, he created morality; the results of the moral choices he could then make are the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil.
In this light, the idea of a Christ figure carrying a message of love and mercy makes perfect sense to me. And it does not contradict the Genesis allegory. Instead it builds on it, and says that the choice to comfort each other gives us more peace than the choice to hurt.
How’s that?
Sorry. Not the results of the moral choices, but the choices – these are the fruit. Morality is the fruit. I think …
I don’t think it lines up metaphorically. The fruit is what gave Adam and Eve* the knowledge of good and evil, so I don’t see how it represents “choice.” (They could not make moral choices until after they ate the fruit) Maybe the fruit, itself, could symbolize self-awareness, but that still leaves us with the serpent as a corrupting figure.
Also, if awareness is the serpent, then God is to blame since humans had no choice about becoming aware.
Jesus was far from the only figure either to carry a message of “love and mercy,” or to die for said message. How did Jesus’ death do anything to atone for the corrupt nature of man (which God, himself, was responsible for)?
I’m not even sure corruption applies. I tend to think of it as a fall from innocence – innocence being grace, the inability to do right or wrong because there is no way to conceive of either. Self-awareness could be seen as what takes us out of this grace and gives us the knowledge of [the difference between] good and evil. As soon as we have that knowledge, we have morality – that is the fruit of the knowledge.
I guess corruption could be used to describe the change. Not in the sense of evil though. Simply in the sense of having been changed from within.
I can accept an allegory which sees the birth self-awareness as the birth of morality, but then, doesn’t that rule out original sin?
Humans are either born corrupt or they’re not. If they are, then it’s not their fault. If they are not born corrupt, then they can choose not to become corrupt. (hence, no need for a “saviour”)
Yes, I’m pretty that the line of thought I was following does rule out original sin.
As for a need for a Saviour, as I said earlier, I see his role as encouraging people to comfort each other instead of causing pain.
<grin>I’m sure none of this would stand up to a theologian’s scrutiny. It’s just the way I tend to misread the bible as literature.
I think your view works out fine, if I’m reading you correctly. Christ is sort of an arrow pointing to correct behaviour and choices, but the choices are still your own. (and I’m guessing you would allow that it may be possible to make those choices without Christ as well?)
I don’t see the contradiction. There is a difference between being corrupt and being corruptible. We have the potential to be corrupted, but whether we are corrupted is ultimately a matter of our own choosing.
If I left the impression that sin is passed from one person to another, then I did not make myself clear. I don’t think think sin is passed from person to person, genetically, although the consequences of sin may be.
I don’t think that “Adam” passed sin to his offspring. He passed on the knowledge of good and of evil, and therefore his offspring had parameters placed on their choices.
I don’t believe I said that we cannot live without sin, I said that I believe that only one person has ever done it. While I can understand that you may think this is a distinction without a difference, I think that it is a significant distinction.
Pardon my attempt at being glib. Like you, I don’t want to hijack this thread, so I will leave the evolution subject at this: Unlike some, whether macroevolution is fact or fiction does not affect my faith in God. I have never bought into macroevolution, however, because I don’t think the current state of evidence supports it. Perhaps in time, the record will become more complete, and if it does, I may change my mind.
BTW, thanks for the link. I have not had a lot of time to spend there, but what I have seen is interesting.
I disagree that Jesus said that loving one’s neighbor is the equivalent of loving the Lord in the complete sense that you seem to use it. Otherwise, He could have simply dispensed with the command to love the Lord altogether and simply said “love your neighbor.” Loving your neighbor is one way you show love for the Lord, but if that is all you do, then you have still not loved the Lord with all your heart. If you love your neighbor, but ignore God, how can you say that you loved God? Do we ignore those we love? The two commands, taken together, show love in action on a vertical plane, i.e. God-to-man, and a horizontal plane, man-to-man. It is not enough to have one without the other.
I don’t feel that way, quite the opposite. I understood your previous post to espouse the position that a just God must base salvation on works. If that is your position, then I think the questions I asked are reasonable questions to be answered. I am not saying that they cannot be answered, I am just suggesting they would necessarily have to be taken into account. I don’t see how you can have a works based salvation without first defining the standard to be applied. If God must base salvation on works, then you still have to come to grips with those situations that would appear unfair or unjust from a human perspective. To the extent there are situations that would appear unfair or unjust from a human perspective, it seems that works based salvation is not intellectually superior to salvation by grace.
You asked for a definition of sin, and I think this is a good working definition: “…to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin.” James 4:17 (NASB)
In this respect, I agree with your comments to Fatwater Fewl. Only with the knowledge of good and evil came the capacity to sin.
You are reading me correctly. And guessing correctly.
And to touch on something currently being discussed in other threads, the myth and metaphor inherent in Christianity, or any religion, give it the power to drive its principles deeper into a person than can be achieved by analysis and reason and, at the same time, place those principles in contrast with your own. So contemplating a religion’s mysteries, whether you are a believer or not, can lead to a greater understanding of one’s self. Understand that I am not advocating the abandonment of reason, but rather supplementing it with a healthy dose of intuition or non-linear thought.