I am also curious how an anti-theist can even refer to “evil” without acknowledging an absolute Good. Did this come from one of Dawkins’ books or from an actual conversation? If a book which one? It would be interesting to see how he defines evil . . . .

2. From a Biblical standpoint, the question of right vs. wrong (or Holiness) is addressed first in terms of purity (hence the rules against intermarriage, crossbreeding animals, etc.) From a metaphysical standpoint humans are a “hybrid” and crossbreed of personality (a la God) and animality. Post Fall, without a mediator (the abiding presence of God) humanity is hopelessly locked in this metaphysical uncleaness. I believe the fact that we are “created” on day 6 along with the rest of the beasts of the land, or the fact that we are created at all, lends creedence to the notion of being “animal” in one sense or another. Yet, at the same time, we are God’s image. So, again, we are hyrbids

3. From the NT perspective (in the Roman world at least, and perhaps in the OT as well) there is something very akin to the honor/shame calculus in the Client-Broker-Patron relationship. Where the client’s job is to bring honor and glory to the Patron, and the Broker’s job is to find more clients for the Patron. In this economy whatever brings the Patron honor is “right” and what doesn’t is “wrong.”

All that to say, morality isn’t as cut and dry as Dawkins or most Christians like to think it is.

> The problem is one of semantics. (stay with me here: “semantics” is not a synonym for “hair-splitting” but the science of understanding the meaning of words in various contexts) Humans are animals in the pragmatic sense– as opposed to being mineral, vegetable, or viral. We do in fact belong in the “animal kingdom”. So I disagree with Steve’s offhand rejection of the animality of humans.

But I understand where Steve’s coming from: we are distinct from all other known life forms in that God tells us we are made in His image– He sees Himself reflected somehow, in a genuine way, when He looks at a human. All the rest of creation reflects its creator in other ways, but humans alone are “like God”. That’s why humans are so precious: because God is infinitely valuable, and we in His image are, in some sense, godlike.

> Right. And what is that? “Missing the mark”, failing to align with divine perfection. (that God would hold us to such a standard speaks volumes about how godlike we were created to be)

>
Steve, thank you for so powerfully illustrating exactly why Alex is suggesting “realign” is a better term than “repent”. The repentance you decry as useless is that moralistic “gosh-I-feel-bad” + formulaic “say the magic prayer and you’re set” idea of repentance that obscures the whole-life realignment which you so eloquently define as being REAL repentance.

The other penny of my two cents: talking about aligning, or realigning, ourselves with God begs the question– what are God’s passions and values? Where is God headed? It constantly puts the focus of discipleship back onto God, and off the disciple or the discipler. (or it could, anyway– I plan to use the term that way)

Being an animal is not a role. It is what we are in the natural order of things. What kind of animal we are is up to us in a way not possible to the other animals. We are the praying animal, the animal that worships, the animal that is open to the future and can shape it by the decisions she makes and actions she takes. This may be why some from among us treat the weak with hope. The professor you speak of chooses a darker view of reality. There may be some rationale for aborting a life that will be one of suffering. But, If we kill the mentally handicapped, then why not kill the physically impaired? Or those of us that are ugly? Or those of us that are too short? Or too tall?

Yes, I think realign is as serious a word (as “repent”) and a more accurate word as well. It is more accurate in the sense that repent feels more serious to some of us because of the meanings and experiences we attached to it. But (because of our experiences with the uses of the word “repent”) “repent” has particular moralistic and emotional nuances that can obscure the meaning.

Thanks for your input.

We are animals in one sense, yet this one box fits all idea is flawed. Just a person can be more than one role, we as a race can be in more than one role.

Do you think ‘realign’ is as serious of a word to use instead of repent? Repent is such a loading word, do you think realign is as loaded? I do like it, its much easier to use in conversation than repent. Repent is christian lingo anymore.

Yet it’s even more than the silent mystic appeal of The Persona. It is knitted into our DNA, woven into the hyperstrands of multidimensional space, it is the very texture and direction of the tide of time. As Paul said, “When outsiders who have never heard of God’s law follow it more or less by instinct, they confirm its truth by their obedience. They show that God’s law is not something alien, imposed on us from without, but woven into the very fabric of our creation.” (cf. Romans 2:14 or thereabouts)

This is why the non-sense of evil, and its implacable strength, apparently at a similar level of inherence in reality, is so confounding and disturbing to me.

It seems that a whole lot must go into this “realignment”, and that when such realignment happens, something fundamental changes in the fabric of the world in which we live. Something worth celebrating, even if we don’t grasp its entirety!

In general terms, human beings evolve both biologically and culturally. Cultural and biological evolution both pivot on cognition. Biology may give the necessary conditions for the emergence of human cognition but it does not give us sufficient ground for the emergence of morally oriented human culture.

It may be that Dawkins advocates a “realignment” because of the influence that the Judeo-Christian experience has had on all of the world, including anti-theistic westerners like Dawkins.

In terms of the mystic…it is the energy of the persona behind the Judeo-Christian experience that is influencing us all.

Thanks for the input.