Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Gamera · 02-15-2007, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

Aha, gaining the world and losing your soul, that kind of thing. OK, that was part of Jesus teachings. It just seems to me that the word "Saviour" has a more universal meaning. I'm not the only one who thinks that what we need saving from is from the results of the Fall of Man, am I?

The reason I think of it that way (although I doubt if many share this view

) is that I see the apple-snake bit in Genesis 2 as a screw-up of Jewish mythology. Usually in origin myths the creation of man and the concomitant discovery of procreation is seen as something positive, while in Gen 2 it is portrayed as negative. This means that hence forth life is an eternal guilt trip, a view that persists to the present day (sorry

). Combine this with the fact that the Jews had managed to turn their god into a useless piece of total transcendence, and you can see that saving from that situation is a pressing necessity. So, we reinstate him back on earth as a walking-talking human who then makes the supreme sacrifice and thus erases the apple-snake bit, and voila, all of a sudden life is peachy.

Gerard Stafleu

Paul says that Jesus doesn't save but rather the gospel does. Jesus's sacrifice is submitting himself to his role in the narrative. From Paul's radical perspective if Jesus was "sacrificed" and nobody knew about it, it would have no effect. It isn't some apotheosis of the Judaic sacrificial system (though some of the authors of the epistles suggest that). Rather, it is a radical thesis -- the gospel, this narrative about the depth of God's love for us -- saves if we accept it.

Hence:

Romans 1:16 - For I am not ashamed of the gospel: it is the power of God for salvation to every one who has faith

Gamera · 02-15-2007, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gundulf

What does Jesus save us from?

God, of course.

(Romans 5: "much more shall we be saved by [Jesus] from the wrath of God...")

God's wrath is a way of saying that he gave us free will, and hence we can choose to be whoever we wish, including loveless, selfish, alienated persons.

But that's not what God wants. He wants us to use our free will to choose to be loving whole persons. Hence:

Matthew 18:14 - So it is not the will of my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish

angela2 · 02-15-2007, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

In another thread somebody mentioned Dale Allison, who is a Christian believer and nonetheless holds that "We have become very sophisticated in our understanding of Genesis as mythology." This reminded me of something I have been wondering about from some time: from what exactly is Jesus supposed to "save" us?

I always thought that it was from the consequences of the Fall of Man (that whole snake and apple business) in Genesis 3. But if that is mythology, then what is there left to be saved from? In other words, if we don't take the Fall of Man literally, why do we need the passion?

I suppose you could see Gen 3 as a metaphor for something, but if so: for what? And if Gen 3 is a metaphor, then why would the passion not be a metaphor as well?

I did a quick search for "save" in the NT, but that didn't really help. A few mentions of "save from our sins" and "save the world," but otherwise it is not all that clear what Jesus is saving us from. Maybe the save-idea is a later (post NT) development?

Gerard Stafleu

Christian theology teaches that Jesus saves us from sin, death and evil.

The Fall doesn't have to be literal, but the reality of sin, death and evil in humanity do. The story of the Fall is a poetic account for how, if God created humanity good, we find ourselves in this sorry state.

Some people claim that the way humans are is the way humans are. They claim that humans were never absent the trio from which Christians say Jesus saves us and never will be.

gstafleu · 02-15-2007, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

I would say that it is explicit in the gospel, but ignored by institutional Christianity. Hence:

John 15:17 - This I command you, to love one another.

Romans 13:8 - Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.

1 Peter 1:22 - Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere love of the brethren, love one another earnestly from the heart.

1 John 3:11 - For this is the message which you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another,

1 John 3:23 - And this is his commandment, that we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us.

I agree, that message is certainly present in the NT. But so are others, as Jake pointed out. Trying to get away from the negative side, as I think you advocate, is no doubt a very positive thing. If people can come to love one another through the idea of God that is all to the good. As a general remark, though, I would suggest this should also be doable without a God.

BTW, I notice that none of your quotes are Jesus speaking?

Gerard Stafleu

gstafleu · 02-15-2007, 07:32 PM

Hi Angela,

Quote:

Originally Posted by angela2

Christian theology teaches that Jesus saves us from sin, death and evil.

I'm sure that you're not surprised if I, as a non-religious person, translate that as "the bad side of human nature" (except for the death bit, of course, but two out of three ain't bad). Now if people can use the idea of Jesus to get away from their bad side: bravo, I'm all for that. However, as Jake pointed out, the Bible contains its own bit of bad side, being written by humans after all. So I just hope that those who go by the bible will use the positive bits like the ones Gamera quoted and ignore the kind of thing that Jake mentioned.

Quote:

The Fall doesn't have to be literal, but the reality of sin, death and evil in humanity do. The story of the Fall is a poetic account for how, if God created humanity good, we find ourselves in this sorry state.

The problem with the Fall story is that it does not just point out that human nature has a bad side. Rather (or perhaps in addition to doing so) it turns something that should be seen as a positive celebration of life: the affirmation of life via reproduction, into something negative (I'm not sure if it is intuitively clear to you that this is the case

; if not I can explain some more as to why I see it that way). AFAIK that is something you don't often see outside the Abrahamic religions. I see that bit of the creation myth as very negative. What is more, I rather think that most people, deep down, also see it that way, and that is therefore something that Jesus is meant to save us from.

Quote:

Some people claim that the way humans are is the way humans are.

Er, yes, I suspect this may be true

.

Quote:

They claim that humans were never absent the trio from which Christians say Jesus saves us and never will be.

The inclination to the bad side will always be there, our job is to "resist the dark side of the force" as the Star Wars myth puts it. If religion helps with that, great. Unfortunately religion can have its dark side too...

Gerard Stafleu

Chili · 02-15-2007, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

According to 1 Timothy 2:15, women are saved by having children. But only if they
persevere in the faith with charity, holiness and modesty, meaning to keep their mouths shut. Because woman caused the Fall in the first place by carrying on with talking snakes. I find this entirely sexist and repugnant, and Christians should be ashamed of promulgating such views.

Here is the entire passage.

A woman better listen to the instruction in silence, in entire submissiveness. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; For it was not Adam who was allured, it is the woman who, allured, made herself guilty of transgression. She nevertheless will be saved while becoming a mother, if she perseveres with modesty in the faith, charity, and holiness. 1 Timothy 2:11-15

Jake Jones IV

Pretty smart, I'd say.

The reality is that man was formed after the created image of God and woman was taken from man and therefore without a created image of her own. That follows, I would say, but since woman was taken from man before the fall, woman will be the template of God whereafter man was created.

This makes the perfect image of woman equal to the image of God (as in "mirror mirror on the wall"), and therefore is the heart of Christ equal to the heart of woman and thus without the need of salvation. I think that we have an icon that show this.

Bob K · 02-17-2007, 01:41 AM

What is the theology of Jdsm/Xnity combined as the OT + NT?

http://www.bobkwebsite.com/christiantheology.html

Gundulf · 02-17-2007, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

God's wrath is a way of saying that he gave us free will, and hence we can choose to be whoever we wish, including loveless, selfish, alienated persons.

But that's not what God wants. He wants us to use our free will to choose to be loving whole persons. Hence:

Matthew 18:14 - So it is not the will of my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish

Free will, free will. What is the deal with free will? Why does free will require the ability for us to choose to be loveless, selfish, alienated persons? Couldn't God have given us free will but kept us from having the ability to be evil? 2 points:

1. Angels in the Bible seem to be sinless; and are not loveless, selfish, alienated. Are angels without free will?

2. The Bible seems to teach that in heaven, all people there will be sinless, not loveless, selfish, and alienated - and will in fact be unable to be anything different. Do people lose their free will in heaven?

John Kesler · 02-17-2007, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gundulf

1. Angels in the Bible seem to be sinless; and are not loveless, selfish, alienated. Are angels without free will?

Some angels, both in the Bible and in pseudopigraphal literature, were not sinless:

Genesis 6:1-4; 2 Peter 2:4; Jude 6-7; 1 Enoch 6:2, 19:1, 21:10; Jubilees 5:1 ff.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gundulf

...Do people lose their free will in heaven?

Good point.

Chili · 02-17-2007, 06:30 PM

We seem to know a lot about angels and find it easy to believe in them . . . but how can angels be either sinless or sinful without a mind of their own?

In heaven we gain free will and until then do we only think that we have free will.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-17-2007, 01:41 AM	#37
Bob K Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: New Durham, NH USA Posts: 5,933	What is the theology of Jdsm/Xnity combined as the OT + NT? http://www.bobkwebsite.com/christiantheology.html

02-17-2007, 06:30 PM	#40
Chili Banned Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Alberta Posts: 11,885	We seem to know a lot about angels and find it easy to believe in them . . . but how can angels be either sinless or sinful without a mind of their own? In heaven we gain free will and until then do we only think that we have free will.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.