In Reply to: Re: Serious Defect in Jesus' Moral Character posted by Billy Boy on June 15, 2007 at 15:51:43:
I'm not saying a person can make up their own Jesus to suit their beliefs. Isn't that exactly what Berg did and Zerby does to this day? Berg's Jesus is a libertine and Zerby's Jesus is a narcissist.
But you are correct in that I have a "curious" point of view regarding Christian theology. For example, I agree with you that the Adam and Eve story is a myth. However, I do not agree that this particular literary form (myth) means that the story is untrue or false, only that it is not intended to be interpreted as an historical explanation for the human condition or a scientific account of creation. People tell myths in order to talk about spiritual truths and deep psychological insights. Myths are a way to embody our intuitive vision into a higher realm of existence than what appears on the surface of things. Myths are stories about the human psyche and the mystery of our existence as god-like creatures who can anticipate our own non-existence and ask why there is death.
To me, the doctrine of original sin is a way of talking about the fact that I will suffer and die, as will every other living creature on the planet. I don't know why the Holy Being brought temporal creatures such as myself into existence only to live a moment on this beautiful planet and then perish. But because of the Jesus myth, I have hope that this is not all there is to the story.
The doctrine of original sin is also about the dread of separation from the Ground of Being. It is a fact that we face death entirely alone. It is a less obvious fact that we exist in a state of dread and that much, if not all, that what we do in this world is aimed at denying our basic state of existential anxiety. The 19th century philosopher Soren Kierkegaard wrote extensively on the subject of original sin and existential angst in an extremely important treatise called "Sickness unto Death." I have been strongly influenced by the existentialist theology that developed as a consequence of Kierkegaard's ideas.
I am different from some of the other Christians who post in that I accept evolutionary theory and Biblical source criticism. You might say I'm a post-modern Christian. Some people will tell you that I'm not a Christian at all, because I don't adhere to fundamentalist beliefs. Other people will argue that existentialist theology is bankrupt. Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I no longer feel personally threatened by people whose world view excludes me from the communion of saints. http://www.presenttruthmag.com/archive/XXV/25-3.htm
I don't generally use the epistles of St. Paul to explain my faith to nonbelievers, but I don't deny the truths of Pauline theology just because they may seem irrelevant or illogical in a post-modern culture. I'm just more partial the explanations of contemporary theologians like Karl Barth & Hans Kung. As far as my approach to Christian morality goes, you might be interested in reading the wiki entry on Hans Kung's "Towards a Global Ethic: An Initial Declaration."