I thought that it was easily understood that what I wrote were not your words, but was based on your words.
Notice that the plural pronouns are removed, and I do not think it (the text I revised without the plural pronouns) should be attributed to you.
“You have to admit that it has a clever effect on the meaning of the text.”
I have to admit no such thing. You are so eager to fold whatever I have to say into your dismissive narrative that you aren’t even trying to understand what I’ve said. Communication isn’t simple unless one’s understanding is simplistic. Accordingly, this will probably be my last response to you in this thread and I’ll have a hard time forgetting this tendency of yours elsewhere if we should both post in other threads.
That may be how it appears to you, and ironically that same intention you see in me, I’m beginning to suspect, is driving you to not consider what is really possible.
If only there were a judge who could examine the hidden space of the heart.
Oh there is, though naturally I understand what that is differently since I’m not Christian. But like Christians I separate the sin from the sinner. I don’t think there is anything about either one one of us that should prevent us from doing better. I was just copping to my own anticipated shortfall of charity toward you given what I perceived as your uncharitable reading of my writing. But look here I am responding to you, something I could not anticipate from atop my high horse. Maybe there is hope.
While there remains hope for the sinner to not be consumed by sin in this life, it does stretch the imagination for how unreal people can appear because of their entanglement in sin.
How do you understand a judge who examines the heart outside of the theistic tradition?
What different people say blends together for me in a forum like this, but I’m pretty sure God belief is intrinsically tied to a person’s pysche, soul, or spirit in your view.
The same way I make sense of a conscience or a soul. Neither concept is original to Christianity.
But your view is (apparently) distinct from theistic traditions. I think the question I have, is how does the judge stand apart from ‘us’ in your view?
Did you mean to say this? It’s ok if you didn’t. It’s just that I’m not sure how seriously I should take your comments if you’re not going to follow through.
Thanks for this reply, Mark. This morning I took some real time with it and your “Soapbox Post”. As always, thanks for your willingness to switch codes and shift between categories.
Absolutely. We know how to tinker with our own outcomes. Is it possible to really know ourselves is a question I ask a lot.
This is interesting, and I will have to think more about it. While I’m not convinced I’ll see this as connected to estrangement that results from sin, your description of self-estrangement certainly could have a lot to do with the basic challenges of being human.
And related to this:
Again, I think you have some powerful ideas here, but I need to think more about this. I wonder, do you think that societies that live “closer to the land” are more likely to find peace this way? I suppose I also need to ask you to explain what you mean by “peace” as well. But you certainly aren’t obliged to.
And going back a bit:
And we need to respect that price and the giants in humility. Rather than feeling like we have achieved that perspective all on our own.
Regarding theology, it is a map, as I understand your use of the term. In spite of our constant tendencies, the point of maps is not to “move into them” [can’t figure out how to link to the spot in #217 where you used this phrase]. If Christians merely reside there, we have completely missed the point. We are supposed to “serve what is greater” as you said, not try to manage it all.
Anyway, thanks a lot, Mark for all you put into your posts.
One of my go-to bits of poetry.
ETA: But at the moment I’m an infant avoiding writing that pesky grant application.
I wanted to know from the start how imperfection entered perfection? Knowing this was key for me.
Steve, what did you make of it all?
My short version is the separation of knowledge allows us to misconceive. Lucifer was first in the story. Naivete is also a precious gift that keeps eternity fresh as there is always something new to discover and experience. yea
But naivete is also considered innocent. It is a foundation for deceit to manifest but our naivete does not seem to be the cause of deceit. Error with good intent does not deserve punishment.
Naivete describes our mind, while our spirit describes our intent for it. Not the reason or words, but the attitude or emotion we see compelling it. We may misconceive, but what is the focus of our spirit fostering our misconception? Selfish or caring? In the book, judgment is of the spirit, even when the word or deed was right. Like our kids cleaning their room out of spite isn’t desired or reassuring. Nor does innocent error require judgment (punishment). Naivete is a learning curve. A blessing of newness as well as frustration.
Ro 8:20 -21 is the only verse I’ve found that describes why.
But surely, if you are going to accept the story we lost our naivety with the apple?
The whole point of the story is that we can no longer shelter under naivety. We have the knowledge. Ignorance is no longer an excuse, if it ever was.
I am not saying that we have all knowledge, of course not, but we can discern what is right or wrong, in the broadest senses. That was both the gift of Adam and the poison, because with knowledge comes responsibility. He could no longer blame Eve, or the Serpent… He now knew. (he was naked)
You realise that I do not take the story literally so these comments have limited value, at least to people who view the story as I do. The whole idea of Adam stealing our intelligence is repugnant to me. Knowledge is a gift from God, rather than something He might withhold from us.
Richard
The fact remains, we are all born naive and prone to error.
The part I wish to highlight is separating error and intent. They are not the same and cause confusion when interchanged. To error in naivete is considered innocent. A correction with a smile. To purposely do what’s right or wrong with ill intent is not innocent. Not the error, but the intent decides judgment.
This seems foundational to any judgment. And may be the way Ro 8:20-21 is worded as [frustration, futility…] I’m interpreting as from our naivete was not by our doing. He separated knowledge for His purpose described in the verse (leads to Gal 5:22-23, freedom).
Trouble is, we are not supposed to indulge in judgements, not of this or any other nature.
Obviously we are born innocent, and there are some who never reach the adult stage of cognition.
I am a little concerned at your use of both Romans 8 and Gal 5. You seem to be influenced by (or similar to) @mitchellmckain who has distinct views on the Spiritual body as separate from our physical earthly one
As I see it, God created us for this world and not just as a way to the next, which would include (exclude) any notion of a higher spiritual plane. We can get bogged down in Pauline theology. There has to be a practical side to any doctrine or theology and I am having trouble finding it here.
Richard
Yeah let’s not get bogged down with what Paul says in the Bible. LOL 
Show me how this can help Christians on a day-to-day basis and maybe you have a point. I preach practical theology that the congregation can use. All this spiritual body stuff has little value in that respect.
Richard
Christy, just to be accurate, my reading of the list would put you at #3, wherein God interceded during our evolution. Number 4 requires no further/continued intervention. At least that is my reading, awaiting clarification from MarkD
I don’t think God deciding to relate to us necessarily affected mutations or migration patterns or consumption of big game or any of the other variables that are posited as influential on the human evolutionary timeline. I think image bearing is a vocation God chose us for because he decided to relate to us as children, not a capacity humans evolved or God specially created in humans, and not a spiritual essence that was imparted by God at some point in time. So I don’t think 3 really fits. Intervening in human history and intervening in human biological evolution are not the same in my mind.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.