a continuing dialogue

when i am alone, i am not an individual.

so, it goes something like this: individualization only occurs in the context of community, of interaction and inter-relation. nothing exists independently of anything else (support for triune theology), therefore, if i existed apart (which i cannot, but hypothetically...) i could not be. i could not interact, relate or do any other function or make any choice. what would my consciousness even look like?



okay. back to the dialogue that some of us have been having. i will face katrina’s note first, and hopefully within that address nolan’s comment as well.

why choose? if human nature is choice, we have no choice but to choose - paradoxical, i know. but doesn’t it make sense? we do not choose to come into existence, but after that moment we are in it, caught in its grip, forced to play by its rule - choose or cease to be.

disclaimer: heresy forthcoming as defined by western christianity.

i will admit that there are passages in scripture that seem to indicate an original sin doctrine, but this idea did not even pervade christianity at all until after saint augustine’s defense and avid support of it. look at the chapter katrina cited (romans eight). over and over again paul says, “live according to the sinful nature,” but marked by prepositions, “if”, and distinctions of “those” and “who.” one of the problems of the doctrine of original sin is: how is sin passed on? is it in the physically passed on? if so, what gene is it on? can we map it, maybe even turn it off? how is original sin passed on? again, if we have no choice but to sin, i will cite romans one as my defense again. there would be an excuse - kind of defeats grace and mercy, if we cannot but help to sin. and there is psalms eight, which calls man a little less than GOD (perhaps because we cannot love each other and GOD enough not to choose not to sin). but once we make that individual, socially/culturally habituated choice; well, we get what we see - a world in chaos.

there are other ancient scholars and early church leaders who were not supporters of the doctrine of original sin. most of them have been villianized. is history written by the winners? or at least strongly influenced? theology is a human discipline, and we are err.

no perfect man exists. could one exist? yes, i guess in theory, according to what i am saying, one could exist, but it is very, very, very unlikely. though, my understanding of eschatology supports this. i do not believe in the dichotomy of the ages - that we are trying to escape this earth and get someplace else, but i believe that GOD wants us to transform earth so that GOD and GOD’s love can fill our hearts and lives; that death and sin themselves may be defeated, forever. and i think that is what it comes down to - love ruling. forgiveness and reconciliation instead of revenge and fear. hope and peace instead of violence and hatred. love instead of human impotence.

jesus said all the law was contained in loving GOD and loving our neighbors. if the law is suppose to show us what is sin, well, didn’t he just do that? not loving GOD and not loving our neighbors is what sin is. why is this beyond good and evil? why is this different from morality? i should have been clearer. its beyond our ideas of good and evil, and our idea of morality. we are finite and GOD is infinite, and if GOD is good, then isn’t good infinite? isn’t it the same with love? how can we ever know then the furtherest bounds of goodness, of love, of GOD? what kind of love do we need? perhaps it is one that we can never fully grasp. first corinthians does a good job laying it out, and interestingly enough, in the greek, all the descriptions are verbs. love is being patient. love is being kind. what does those things look like?

i think every situation is different. just like how honoring our parents changes in time and in cultures - we do not honor our parents today like we did when we were five; nor would a chinese children honor their parents like americans would honor theirs. and even among american families there are differences! but the principle remains the same. so it must be with love. and whenever we love, we touch the infinite. which love wins? this, i really do not know. but this is why it is different than our idea of morality. it is not a system. it is an active, get-our-hands-dirty kind of thing. it’s being in the trenches. perhaps that’s why we should not judge.

back to my first thought. if individuals do not exist outside of a community, their choices and actions also must be void outside of a community. we may not have a choice where we end up, in what community. but we do have a choice, and therefore a responsibility (this ethic needs to be developed, but right now, my intuition tells me it’s there), to choose what we want the community to become. the choice might be considered ‘bad’ by the community. but if it furthers loving GOD and loving people, who is to judge?