PaulS

Try being a lazy lion and not participating in the pack hunt and see how far that gets you (documentaries often report lions in a pack that don't pull their weight or are bad mothers etc) Are the other lions being judgemental or do we just call it animal instincts that causes them to exclude the one who doesn't fit their societal norms?

What can be more selfish than a new lion king killing any cubs that have blood to the old king, purely to protect his self interest as the new leader of the pack? I'm not convinced this 'animal instinct' is any different to mans' instincts which you might call sin. We may have a higher degree of intelligence which offers us more choices, but maybe that's where we start seeing consciousness as somehow affecting 'sin' rather than it simply being regarded as animal instincts. After all, we are simply animals too. I'm not convinced you can replace animal instincts with sin simply due to consciousness and higher levels of intelligence. Certainly both of those can impact on our instincts, but they remain base instincts and not 'sin' I think.

Well my own experience for one, even though I'm Australian. My religious views changed because I questioned what I had been taught and found it wanting. It had nothing to do with political parties driving me a certain way. I think also if you look at the likes of Donald Trump - it's not his religious views that are driving people to support him but rather his support has been built because he has tapped into what those people want to hear. The 'forgotten people' who have felt disenfranchised by the 'establishment', now find a supporter for their religious views in him, not the other way around. No doubt media drive 'talking points' as you suggest, but I think that is distinctly different from driving beliefs. Those beliefs already existed it's just that the voices on social media start getting louder simply because the topic was raised in mainstream media. For instance, I don't support slavery but don't really post anything about it because it's largely irrelevant in my day-to-day. But if the media started reporting on a slavery issue I'd probably be a little more vocal socially about it because it'd be a current topic of discussion. I agree with your first sentence but not sure about your next. Can you give any examples of where you think the media has led religious belief that may assist?

That makes a little more sense than 'politically correct', but I think you're probably underselling your countrymen if you think the majority of them are so shallow as to change their religious beliefs because it fits in with family and friends (except you of course). No doubt social acceptance plays a part in religion - I mean I doubt anybody joins or stays with a religion without feeling 'accepted' to some degree into that community! Yet I see this as a far cry from politics driving their religious beliefs. No doubt for all of us, the way we see the world both is affected by and affects our religious views. Perhaps more hand in hand than one or the other being the primary cause.

So unlike Americans in general, you didn't think politically correct first and then choose a 'religion' which supports your bias?

Then no real argument from me other than I would say this 'sin' is subjective depending on the circumstances, but also that it does exist in animals. Take your lions for example - they commit acts of betrayal, they carry out infanticide to protect their bloodlines, they murder their competition for resources, etc. Maybe we call it animal instincts instead of sin, but perhaps our 'sin' is just our animal instincts still being worked through as we develop as a species. Also, I think many animals also realise they need others to enable them to be and to do - try surviving as a lion without the pack to assist in hunting. It might be on a lower level than our 'needs' at this point in our societal development, but once upon a time we had similar needs when we were a troupe of monkeys. So again, I see where we are at now as simply a continuation of our species' development. Of course focus on working towards being a more peaceful species is beneficial. I think we are truly human the way that we currently are - the good bits and the bad bits, it's just that at our current level of intelligence and development, many can see the benefits of continuing toward a better version of human. Sometimes religion can add to that and sometimes it can detract.

Agreed. Can't agree with you there, but if how you act and what you do contributes to the human race continuing to develop into a more peaceful species, then no issue with me.

So would you say that you have chosen your religion because it supports your bias and level of political correctness?

I don't think it's that black and white but I do agree that the philosophies of the two major parties in the US do tend to have people of a certain mindset align with them (hence why liberal/progressive Christians may be more aligned to Democrats and conservative Christians more aligned with Republicans - but I'm sure that's not a rule). However I think, particularly in the Republican party's circumstances, that the parties play up to the religious fears and expectations of a certain mindset to garner their support/vote . Personally, I think what we call progressive Christians have made their move away from traditional Christianity because they find it lacking in today's world. That and they find new biblical scholarship challenging long held beliefs. Of course that doesn't hold true for all types of Christians, but I think PC's have moved away from traditional religion because of these modern developments. I think this then feeds into their support for the various political positions. I'm certain it's not always as clear cut as that, but I think that is a major influence.

Thanks for the in-depth response, Thormas. I think what you're saying is that you attribute the development of sin and the need for salvation as something that came about at a certain point in our evolution when home sapiens first gained a certain level of self consciousness. Prior to this level of self consciousness there was no sin, and the reason you're referring to salvation as being remedy for sin is that it is a way of better living one's life. Am I understanding you correctly?

No, because I'm not interested in debating the science of evolution. There's enough information out there to explain it. If it doesn't work for you then so be it. I was only asking you to clarify earlier because I'd thought you wrote in another thread that you understood evolution and agreed. Your posts in this thread confused me. But now I know where you stand, I'll leave it at that thanks. But I am still interested in discussing with others in this thread who believe in sin, salvation etc AND who do accept the science of evolution.

No,but I don't see 'salvation'or 'redemption' as something homo sapiens require either. That is what I am digging around about in this thread. No, I definitely agree with this. I think life on earth started as bacterium and evolved from there. I think you're missing my point - I'm not asking if those other things in our current world need saving etc, but am asking that if one considers man needs saving from sin, then how does this fit with the time when man wasn't man, but was a neanderthal, or an ape, or even way back when we were bacteria. Do you, or people who think we need this salvation consider why and when this 'need' came into being? I guess what I'm trying to understand is how can this need to be saved not look like a man-made concept that neatly fits with our human existence but doesn't fall into a hole when one thinks of our existence before becoming homo sapiens. To me it's looking like all this language about Jesus as 'saviour' and the need to be 'saved' looks like a human construct. If however people look at it more as an 'improving' of our species and cultures away from ignorance and violence then I'm good with that. I just don't necessarily see the need for it to be isolated to Jesus as an influence in working toward that. Do I make any sense?

Okay, thanks for clarifying.

So how do you see this applying to the earlier species that led to homo sapiens Thormas? Did amoebas and neanderthals require 'salvation'? Did they need god's 'grace' to become better amoebas or neanderthals, or is this only something that has developed with homo sapiens?

So you believe the human species simply appeared or was created in its current form?

Absolutely. Meaning comes in all sorts of shapes and forms and definitely a number of writers of the various books, letters and writings that now comprises of 'The Bible' have made contributions that have held meaning for many. So do you think this 'evil' of the world existed when we were just apes or is it a more modern development? Should the amoebas and lower life forms proceeding homosapiens also have been open to living a life as a disciple of Jesus Christ during their time or was sin and redemption not an issue back then?

As a former believer in salvation, I came to question the whole 'salvation' story when, amongst other things, I learnt and better understood evolution. To me, and perhaps this is why some Christians very strongly deny evolution, is that the science of evolution punches a great big hole in the whole redemption story, IMO. I was raised being taught that mankind inherited the burden of sin simply for being born. Why? Because Adam and Eve sinned against God which in turn cursed all mankind. Now I realise some may see Adam and Eve as myth/metaphor however the point still remained that humans were born lacking and required redemption. But why only humans, and why only when we were humans? Where was the need for redemption when we were Neanderthals, apes, or amoebas?

Just trying to understand what you're saying - are you saying that you don't accept the science of evolution but that humans were spiritually created as they exist today, or are you saying something else? Do you accept that humans evolved from lower life forms such as amoebas, billions of years ago, or do you have some other take on how humans came to be on this planet?

Do you think sin occurred in everyone when we were apes instead of humans? What about when we were neanderthals? Or do you think sin only occurs in 'modern' man? How about animals? Do they have sin and if so, how do you relate to humans who are basically just animals but once upon a time were a much simpler version of such. Was sin a natural occurrence in everyone when life was only just being formed on this planet?

Hi FireDragon76, Wikipedia sums PC up for me better than I can phrase it: "Progressive Christianity is characterised by a willingness to question tradition, acceptance of human diversity, a strong emphasis on social justice and care for the poor and the oppressed, and environmental stewardship of the earth. Progressive Christians have a deep belief in the centrality of the instruction to "love one another" (John 15:17) within the teachings of Jesus Christ.[2] This leads to a focus on promoting values such as compassion, justice, mercy, and tolerance, often through political activism. Though prominent, the movement is by no means the only significant movement of progressive thought among Christians. Progressive Christianity draws on the insights of multiple theological streams including evangelicalism, liberalism, neo-orthodoxy, pragmatism, postmodernism, Progressive Reconstructionism, and liberation theology.[3] Though the terms Progressive Christianity and Liberal Christianity are often used synonymously, the two movements are distinct, despite much overlap." It's a 'movement' only in so much as a large number of people have found traditional Christianity and interpretation of scripture as lacking, and so they seek to find a truth that makes more sense for them. There is no specific structure that I am aware of, but rather there are congregations and individuals that may assume the label based on teachings and scholarship that themselves are regarded as 'progressive'. Personally, I get less hung up on the label and am more interested in the things I have learnt through the various progressive christian scholars and authors I have read (Borg, Erhmann, Spong etc) and even from many others here. Cheers Paul

I think I see where you're coming from Joseph. But why do you think this is not a natural occurrence for everyone. Why do you think people have to 'develop' this 'ability'? It seems to me that if this was 'real' that it should be a natural state of things. So I question whether your point is a reality (which I"m sure it is for you) or is it a way of thinking you have developed yourself and now fits for you personally as reality. Please, I ask this with respect as trying to understand and do not mean to insult if it at all seems that way.

Completely cool Mark D and welcome to the forum. As Joseph mentions, anybody who wishes to participate here in a respectful approach towards all others, is welcome. My only hangup with the concept is when it is considered the sole truth to the world and people indoctrinate their children and put fear into their hearts. But secular people can be guilty of similar behaviours in other ways too, so I guess I can't say it's only a religious problem. A terrific ideal and one which I think can only help make the world a better place for future generations. Again, welcome and I hope you enjoy participating here. Cheers Paul

Welcome Sarabeth, I hope you enjoy the Forum and participating here. I'm afraid I'm not much help for you with a Church as I'm over here in Australia, but I have found the Forum an excellent place (particularly the archives) for lots of discussion and information which is rarely shared within most conservative circles. Cheers Paul

A nice analogy. I have that concern, but what do you do when your friend can't see the woods for the trees! I find it staggering that anybody can support this man's rudeness, his complete lack of compassion, his ignorance, his racism, his bullying, and his total disregard for everybody else in the world.

I'm not really interested in debating Trump, Rom. As a foreigner, I think he lacks any finesse whatsoever about how to get along with neighbours and allies and has a very narrow-minded agenda at heart. If "let's make America great again" means to the detriment of every other country, then Trump and his followers can have that kind of America. Personally, I think it is the beginning of the end of the United States as a world power. It sends chills up my spine that people can even consider this guy's behaviour as acceptable.