•  It makes sin a misfortune and a calamity rather than a crime.
  
•  It makes the sinner deserve pity and compassion rather than blame for his sins.
  
•  It excuses the sinner.
  
•  It makes God responsible for sin.
  
•  It dishonors God. It makes him arbitrary, cruel, and unjust.
  
•   It begets complacency and a low standard of religion among Christians.
  
•  It is a stumbling-block to the unsaved.
  
•  It makes Jesus a sinner or it must deny his humanity.
  
•  It contradicts the Bible.
  
•  It adds to and takes from the Bible. God warns against this in Deut. 4:2 and Rev. 22:18, 19.
  
•  It begets false doctrines and false interpretations of the Scriptures.
  
•  It is ridiculous, absurd, and unreasonable. It contradicts the necessary and irresistible affirmations of every man's consciousness   and reason, which is something that no true doctrine of the Word of God could do.
  

Original sin, sometimes called ancestral sin is, according to a doctrine proposed in Christian theology, humanity’s state of sin resulting from the Fall of Man.[2] This condition has been characterized in many ways, ranging from something as insignificant as a slight deficiency, or a tendency toward sin yet without collective guilt, referred to as a sin nature, to something as drastic as total depravity or automatic guilt by all humans through collective guilt.

Those who uphold this doctrine look to the teaching of Paul the Apostle in Romans 5:12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15:22 for its scriptural base,[2] and see it as perhaps implied in an Old Testament passage Psalm 51:5.

Some Christians do not accept the doctrine indicated by the terms original sin or ancestral sin, which are not found in the Bible. The same applies to terms such as Trinity used to express other Christian doctrines. The doctrine is not found in other religions, such as Judaism, Hinduism and Islam.

In the theology of the Catholic Church, original sin is regarded as the general condition of sinfulness, that is (the absence of holiness and perfect charity) into which humans are born, distinct from the actual sins that a person commits. This teaching explicitly states that Adam’s original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. In other words, human beings do not bear any original guilt from Adam and Eve’s particular sin. The prevailing view, also held in Eastern Orthodoxy, is that human beings bear no guilt for the sin of Adam and Eve.

Although Orthodoxy prefers using the term ancestral sin, which indicates that original sin is hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve’s. As life passes from them to all of their descendants, so does original sin In this quotation, original sin is used not of the personal sin of Adam, which is his alone and is not transmitted, but in reference to the distortion of the nature of man, which is inherited.

An important exposition of the belief of Eastern Christians identifies original sin as physical and spiritual death, the spiritual death being the loss of the grace of God, which quickened (the soul) with the higher and spiritual life. Others see original sin also as the cause of actual sins: a bad tree bears bad fruit (Matthew 7:17, NIV), although, in this view, original and actual sin may be difficult to distinguish.

1. The whole human race sinned in Adam when he sinned. Adam’s will was the will of the race, so that all men sinned in Adam and rebelled with him when he sinned.

2. When Adam sinned, human nature was corrupted, so that now all men are born with a sinful nature.

3. This sinful nature is the fountain and direct cause of all of man’s sins. Man sins by nature and cannot help but sin.

4. Because of Adam’s transgression, all men are guilty, under the just wrath and curse of God, and are liable to the pains of hell forever.

5. Even newborn babies open their eyes in this world under the wrath and curse of God. They are guilty and condemned from the moment of their birth.

Original sin is known in two senses:  the Fall of Adam as the “original” sin and the hereditary fallen nature and moral corruption that is passed down from Adam to his descendants.  It is called “original” in that Adam, the first man, is the one who sinned and thus caused sin to enter the world.  Even though Eve is the one who sinned first, because Adam is the Federal Head (representative of mankind), his fall included or represented all of humanity.  Therefore, some hold that original sin includes the falling of all humanity.  Some see original sin as Adam’s fallen nature being passed to his descendants.  “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned,” (Rom. 5:12).

Original sin is not a physical corruption, but a moral and spiritual corruption.  It could be compared to the Reformed Doctrine of Total Depravity which states that sin has touched all parts of what a person is:  heart, mind, soul, will, thoughts, desires, etc.

There has been much debate over the nature of the sin of Adam and how it affected mankind.  Pelagius taught that Adam’s sin influenced the human race only as a bad example and that all people are born in the same state as Adam was before his fall.  Augustine taught that men inherit natural corruption from Adam. At the return of Christ and the resurrection of all Christians, the sin nature will be eradicated.?

Personally I do not accept the doctrine of original sin apart from the fact that it is not biblical, ergo in Genesis it is never mentioned by God that we were to be cursed with OS nor was it mentioned the Adam was federal head of humanity. These doctrines were developed by Augustine and others.

My questions on this subject are many:

• Original sin suggests that God’s creation is corrupt from inception, by God’s will
• If Christ came to set  captives free all the doctrine of Original sin does is enslave us
• Original sin is the best excuse ever for being sinful “oh I can’t help it i am stained with sin from birth”
• Original sin allows people to avoid taking responsibility for their actions
• Original sin denies free will
• It is purely and simply not biblical

I will be examining the so called biblical proof texts, the doctrine and how it affects humanity. Please stay tuned and feel free to comment or argue.

There is also a downside to that interaction, many people take game playing far too seriously and equate problems they have in the game with real life. Also because of the essential anonymity of game playing, people are free to present themselves in any manner they choose. Two things I have noticed that are predominant amongst players is an unwillingness to take responsibility for mistakes and to blame shift.

I find playing an online game in some ways mirrors the world we live in and is a microcosmic experience of life, in that greed, lust desire etc seem to take precedence over truth, justice and mercy.

i am constantly amazed at the amount of times players manipulate the truth of an event or action to gain sympathy, or to be seen as a victim, or to validate bad behaviour.  I mean i am no saint myself i am fairly offensive and coarse and have little time for the would be victims much less their sycophants. I suppose the reason i am writing this is to explore my feeling of what i experience.

Perspective is a major influencing factor of what we do and how we respond to things. If one has a victimology of themselves they tend to be the victim to gain feelings of validation and worthiness, others express control and domination as forms of validation. Whilst others seek to ingratiate themselves with those who they perceive of holding power by , by manipulation and deception.

One thing that has become apparent in playing wow is that it encourages people to be greedy and deceptive. It is seemingly expected behaviour to take whatever is dished up to you by those who have positions of authority within a guild structure and to roll over and play dead. Having an opinion or idea that doesnt line up with others is frowned upon and treated harshly.

Although I enjoy gaming I am often saddened by people expressing the above traits and others that are essentially demeaning of those around them, I have to ask how often these same people express that behaviour in their real lives with those around them.

Recently some friends of mine were part of a guild that we enjoyed being part of, until some comments we made where taken out of context and reported to others. Anyone who knows me knows i have no problem saying something to someones face no matter what it is nor do i swim with popular opinion merely because it is popular. But, I digress, ultimately the out of context reporting caused some divisions amongst the guild. Both parties seemingly settled their differences, but then other problems appeared related to greed and control that resulted in several of us leaving said guild and starting our own, where we are free to play without being forced to conform to others demands.

The laughable thing is that should have been the end of the matter but it wasn’t. Wow has a game play that allows groups of up to 25 people to play together to achieve a goal. This can be a structured guild event or a put together group of random players to achieve said goal. Myself and a couple of friends were part of the latter when one of our former guildmates joined the group, we did not want to play in a group with that person so left. Consequently that player was ejected from the group, but we didnt return we made our choice and stuck with it.

Where am i going with this you ask, well i am going to try and demonstrate some of the stupidity that occurs and the subsequent manipulation of events.  The said person then reported back to his guild that we had him removed from the group, I am not sure how that works seeing we left first. Anyway that then caused more problems with our former guildmaster then having a tantrum and declaring war on us. Why? I imagine it is because we chose to exercise freedom of choice over who we play with, and that we were no longer under his or his guilds control. This then led to a whole series of exchanges back and forth that sunk fairly low by all the parties concerned including myself i am sorry to say.

My question is why do people feel the need to manipulate others to validate their victimology. Is it really necessary to seek dominion and control over others we interact with?

I am still pondering these questions and have no answers, i will continue to play wow and grant my guildmates the latitude and respect to play as they wish with little restriction or control, and i will continue to hope that G-d can reach all humanity and alleviate these microcosmic issues in our real lives.

Theologians in academia tend to ask questions that are unrelated to life and day to day existence, instead the trend is to posit questions that are often incomprehensible to average christians. Theology should be defined by the sort of questions that an average christian asks, theology should not just be about where we have been but where we are going. The fear of the future and uncertainty must be dispensed with, as must the traditional theologies that are both incomprehensibile and unrelated to the world we live in.

Augustinian and Thomistic ideals and philosophies often do not apply to todays society nor comprehend the times we live in and are moving towards. Other academic fields have moved with the times such as medicine, science, and many of the humanities. How can we then justify holding onto outmoded theologies that are neither biblical nor rational?

If i may offer some suggestions

1. Theology is not just something we read it is something we live and participate in keeping it vital and responsive to the world we live in.
2. Academic theology needs to be revamped, rather than offering only narrow views of theology a Montessori approach perhaps should be looked at, with the relevant questions and discussion being brought to the table for group discussion and edification, in this way a broader theological view may be attained.
3. Pastors need to step off the pedestal and be honest and say they don’t have all the answers, and ask their congregations to look into stuff themselves and then share what they discover with their churches. Pastors, Priests, Reverends by whatever title we use need to step back a bit and let our churches experience the joys and fruits of discovery.
4. We must value our people in congregations and empower and disciple them, they are not “our” people they are G-ds.
5. Karl Barth once said we should read the bible in one hand and a newspaper in the other. Barth was and is right we need to be in the world, participating and responding. Distancing ourselves from the world is a mistake and denies the relational aspect of our faith.

These are basically suggestions they are neither absolute in that they are right or correct, they are merely some ideas on how we can make faith accessible to those in the church so then they can share that faith with those outside the church. I welcome any comments on the above.

My understanding was that no one had really done a theology of relationship and that apart from personal gratification it may be a good PhD topic. Essentially i was mistaken, there are volumes of information regarding relational theology- otherwise known as process theology.

I thought i knew what process theology was, i did to a degree but a very small degree. Whilst searching for any references to relational theology on google i came across an article saying process theologians wanted to be called relational theologians. At first I was aghast but then something tickled the back of my brain and I thought I had better have another look at process. Damn, I am glad I did.

I found a lot of christian theology unrealistic, incomprehensible and just plain ridiculous. The idea that G-d is remote immutable and impassable pretty well defies both reason and the bible, yet is accepted theology. The influence of the greco-augustinian philosophy upon christianity, has essentially made G-d remote and unreachable.

Process theology based on Alfred North Whiteheads Process Philosophy, radically redefines G-d as I believe both common sense and the bible describe him.

Essentially this is summarized into 8 points of process theology the following is copied from Processand faith.org by Jay McDaniel:

1. Everything is in process; reality is flowing; nothing ever stays the same.
2. All things are interconnected; no human is an island; things are present in one another even as they have their autonomy.
3. The whole of nature has value; all live beings deserve respect; human beings are not the sole repository of value.
4. Human beings find happiness in sharing experiences with others; there are no isolated egos; all selves are selves-in-relation; humans become whole through reciprocity.
5. The essence of the universe is a continuous creativity of which all things are expressions; there is creativity in plants and animals, hills and rivers, trees and stars.
6. All beings seek harmony as their guiding ideal; harmony includes differences; the whole of the universe is a harmony of harmonies.
7. Thinking and emotion cannot be sharply separated; mind and body are not two; even thinking is a form of feeling; aesthetic wisdom and rational inquiry are complementary.
8. Every moment of human experience begins, not with projecting things onto the world or even acting in the world, but with feeling the presence of the world and being affected by it.

Charles Hartshorne, John Cobb, Marjorie Suchocki have made major contributions to process thought along with many others. Over a series of posts under the theology & relationship tag/category, i will explore and explain process to the best of my ability. I have found to my delight that there is no conflict between process and my first love liberation theology, but rather a simpatico relationship between the two. Stay tuned……

With that in mind i will begin posting again, and dissecting some of these doctrines, and hopefuly offering alternatives that are biblical and rational. Stay tuned for more…….

What is the centrality of the the Christian faith.  Is it the cross? Is it the reign of G-d? From what I understand for most christians the the cross is the centrality of their faith, but what was the centrality of Jesus’ faith? What was the ultimate for Jesus?

For Jesus the cross was an act of obedience to his fathers will, it was not the centrality of his faith nor of his actions. The ultimate for Jesus was the Reign of G-d, more commonly understood as the kingdom of G-d.

The Church today both protestant and catholic, have let the act of submission to the fathers will by Jesus, replace the core of his mission which was the advent of the Reign. Too much a case of preaching the preacher, rather than preaching what the preacher preached.

Jesus while being G-d incarnate, is also the son of the father. I would like to examine what that looks like, his motivations and actions in being a son, and filling his fathers mandate.

To be continued after i finish an assignment lol

Is salvation actually the right term too use in regards to us be restored into relationship with God? I think not. Some of the stuff i have been reading lately has made me stop and think and caused me to rethink the standard definitions of some of the basic tenets of our faith. I realise that there is a  danger of falling into heresy here but I feel it is worthwhile pursuing and exploring.
The cambridge dictionary defines salvation as:

Definition
salvation noun
/sæl?ve?.??n/ n
• [S or U] (a way of) being saved from danger, loss or harm
After the diagnosis, getting to know Mary was his salvation.
a marriage beyond salvation
• [U] In the Christian religion, salvation of a person or their spirit is the state of being saved from evil and its effects by the death of Jesus Christ on a cross. The Gospel message is one of personal salvation.

In the Hebrew language the word for salvation is yasha, from which we have Joshua. Yasha (hoshia) has this meaning: “to be wide, or roomy – a broad and spacious place.” Yasha communicates the idea of freedom. It is “liberation from confinement, constriction, and limitation.” The word for salvation in the Greek language the word is sozo or soteria, whose the meaning is “cure, recovery, remedy.”

Biblically the use of saved or the inferrence of salvation was used in regards to deliverance from  physical or material problems there are very few examples ofthe terms  “salvation or being saved” in regards to a spiritual situation or in regard to personal sin.
Often in the old testament the hebrew word hoshia is used in regards to a salvific act, usually in English this is translated as deliverance, again in regards to a partuular physical or material situation. Deliverance in this context is the correct term to use, the example given in Exodus of the Jews being delivered from egypt is perhaps one of the best examples of God’s salvific intention. The Jews wished to be free to worship God, why could they have not done this in Egypt, why did it require a total exodus? The exodus was required not just for spiritual reasons but also for material and physical reasons.

The Jewish nation was in captivity to pharoah as slaves, they were oppressed and violated, and treated as little more than beasts of burden. Gods salvific act of deliverance for the Jews was a release from a physical and material bondage. If it was a case of the spiritual alone they could have worshipped God in Egypt, but this would have done nothing to release them from their physically oppressive state. It is clear that hoshia is being used here to illustrate Isreal’s liberation from another nation.

Throughout the old testament this example of liberation from oppression is continued, God is said to have saved his people from their enemies, from nations who are persecuting and oppressing them and on anindividual basis from those who seek to harm the people of Israel as is so clearly illustrated in the Psalms. Quite often the psalmist cries out that God has/will deliver him from those who seek to harm him. Hoshia is almost never used in regards to a release or deliverance from a sin or sinful state but always in regards to a manifestly material issue.
I cannot stres sthis point enough that in the OT the words used for salvation refer to salvation from real historical, political and material distress. These words point to the the deliverance or liberation of the needy, the disadvantaged, the poor and helpless from their oppressors.
There are only a few exceptions where hoshia or hassil is used in regards to spiritual issues those being Ez 36:29, Ez 37:23.

THE HEBREW VIEW OF SALVATION

In scriptural thinking, salvation is not limited to the soulish area. This is because Elohiym sees a ‘person’ as one or echad (a unity). Salvation involves the spirit, soul or mind, and the body. All three are seen as the one person. As far as life goes, there is no separation of these three. Salvation is relationship centered, as YHVH is seen as Father and not a collective mind separated from humanity. YHVH is seen as being involved in all areas of life, and so doing the right things as a result of trusting is part of salvation. Salvation begins with trusting in His words which leads to right action. Salvation is not LEAVING this world but becoming actively involved in changing what is wrong and sustaining what is right. ‘Peace’ in Greek thinking is to escape the pressures of life. ‘Peace’ in Hebrew thought is to actively take part in the ‘completion’ of what is good and righteous. Peace and salvation involve being a whole human being. YHVH gives instructions to guide us in our growth to be a full person, spirit, soul, and body, and to save us, spirit, soul, and body from whatever would desire to destroy any of these three areas.

THE GREEK VIEW OF SALVATION

The whole idea of salvation to the Greek mind is wrapped up in the state or eternal status of the soul. As we have discussed before, in Greek dualistic thinking, only the soul or the domain of the nous or mind is ‘godly’, or can be godly. Salvation is right thinking and creedal in it’s nature. To ‘believe’ is to know the right things. This knowledge comes only from the gods. Many even believed that there would be ‘doorkeepers’ at the gates of the heavens and that secret codes would have to be declared before entrance. This could be where we get all the St. Peter jokes. Salvation, none the less, was confessional and directed at the soul.

The following is an early example from the gnostic document, The Gospel of Philip: The Lord revealed to me what the soul must say when ascending into heaven, and how she must answer each of the upper powers: I have come to know myself, and I have collected myself from everywhere, and I have not sown children to the Archon but have uprooted his roots and have collected the dispersed members, and I know thee who thou art: I am of those from above. And thus she is released. To be ‘saved’ in Greek thought is to be released from this evil world. Salvation is a matter of creeds and correct knowledge about the gods. In gnostic thought, the concept of ‘keys’ are mentioned quit liberally. Scriptural terms such as, ‘believe’, to ‘know’ or ‘knowledge’, ‘word’ or ‘words’, ‘keys’ and ‘gates’, ‘confess’ and ‘faith’, are all tied in with this esoteric knowledge given by the gods.

These terms were easily transferred to New Testament teaching. When Yahshua said “I am the door… I am the good shepherd… I am the light of the world… I am the way, the truth, and the life…”, these were understood to speak of the logos or the nous come down from heaven to distribute this knowledge or gnosis. He came to bring the ‘keys’ of salvation. Let me remind you that in Greek thought the logos was the collective mind or nous of the gods. In order for the soul to be destined for heaven one must ‘believe’ certain propositions about the logos. The early ‘church’ remained very ‘hebrew’ for the first two centuries and this is why there is no record of ‘creeds’ being established. The creeds come later when the church is dominated by gentiles and the ‘Jewish believers’ have been chased away by the Jews and the Christians.

Where does sin fit in?
A component  of salvation that it appears i am disregarding or overlooking is sin.  Salvation entails another act that of repentance and forgiveness. Because God liberates in a holistic manner that of physically emotionally and spiritually, sin is also dealt with.  To be liberated physically includes the spiritual aspect as well, the idea of salvation includes the idea of turning away from sin and seeking forgiveness, note however in the case of the Jews in the OT quite often God forgave them, not because they deserved it but because he is a God of Justice, this is evident from passages such as 1Sam;12:9-10.  God’s act of salvation demonstrated in this passage is an act of grace. This is further demonstrated in Dueteronomy 7:7-8, 9:6.