The Bible Beyond Literalism: Critique, Tradition, and Renewal - Part 2

The Bible Beyond Literalism:

Critique, Tradition, and Renewal

Part 2

The Modern-Era Non-Christian Perspective

by R.E. Slater & ChatGPT

RES

Let's discuss why the Old Testament Hebrew Bible may be considered primitive, regressive, and unbelievable from an unbelieving, non-Christian perspective.

ChatGPT

From a non-Christian perspective—particularly one that is secular, historical-critical, or informed by modern ethical sensibilities—the Old Testament (or Hebrew Bible) may be considered primitive, regressive, and unbelievable for several key reasons:

---

1. Primitive Cosmology and Worldview

• Flat Earth and Dome Sky: The Genesis cosmology reflects an ancient Near Eastern view of a flat earth with a firmament separating the waters above and below. This is consistent with Babylonian and Egyptian cosmologies—not scientific reality.

• Creation in Six Days: A literal six-day creation with the sun created on the fourth day strains credibility when viewed through modern astrophysics, biology, and evolutionary science.

• Talking Animals and Magical Events: Serpents talk (Genesis 3), donkeys speak (Numbers 22), and sticks turn into snakes (Exodus 7). From a modern rationalist or scientific lens, these read as folklore or mythology, not history.

---

2. Regressive Moral Frameworks

• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing: God's commands to destroy entire populations (e.g., Amalekites, Canaanites) in books like Joshua and 1 Samuel are seen as morally indefensible.

• Patriarchal Systems: Women are treated as property (Exodus 20:17), prizes of war (Numbers 31), or bargaining chips (Judges 19), reflecting the deep patriarchy of ancient tribal societies.

• Slavery and Human Ownership: Slavery is accepted and regulated (Exodus 21, Leviticus 25), rather than condemned, which conflicts with modern human rights ideals.

• Capital Punishment for Minor Offenses: Harsh penalties like stoning for working on the Sabbath or being a rebellious child (Exodus 31:15, Deuteronomy 21:18-21) appear extreme or absurd today.

---

3. Mythic, Unbelievable Narratives

• Longevity Claims: Figures like Methuselah living over 900 years (Genesis 5), defies biological reality.

• Global Flood: A literal worldwide flood wiping out all life except Noah’s family and the ark’s animals contradicts geological, archaeological, and historical records.

• Miracles without Evidence: The parting of the Red Sea, plagues of Egypt, manna from heaven, and other miracles lack corroborating physical or historical evidence.

---

4. Anthropomorphic and Violent Depictions of God

• Jealous, Vengeful Deity: God is often depicted as jealous (Exodus 34:14), wrathful, and even petty (e.g., killing Uzzah for touching the Ark—2 Samuel 6:6-7).

• Arbitrary Tests of Loyalty: Stories like Abraham being commanded to kill Isaac (Genesis 22) may be seen as morally problematic rather than spiritually profound.

---

5. Contradictions and Internal Inconsistencies

• Multiple Creation Accounts: Genesis 1 and 2 present different orders of creation.

• Inconsistent Laws: Laws on sacrifice, cleanliness, and punishment vary between Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy.

• Historical Errors: Archaeology does not support some major biblical events (e.g., the Exodus, the conquest of Canaan) as described in the narrative.

---

6. Lack of Universality

• Ethnic Exclusivism: Many of the promises and laws focus solely on Israel, portraying other nations as cursed or lesser.

• No Ethical Framework for Outsiders: Ethical considerations often apply only within the community of Israel; outsiders are sometimes treated harshly or dismissed.

---

7. Use in Justifying Oppression

• Historical Misuse: Biblical texts have been used to justify slavery, colonialism, the subjugation of women, and persecution of LGBTQ+ individuals, casting suspicion on the texts themselves.

---

Summary Table

Category	Why Considered Primitive/Regressive
Cosmology	Flat Earth, mythic sky dome
Morality	Genocide, patriarchy, slavery
Miracles & Narratives	Talking animals, long lifespans
Depiction of God	Jealous, violent, petty
Ethical Application	Tribal exclusivism
Historicity	Contradicted by archaeology
Legacy	Justified historical oppression

Closing Note

From a non-Christian standpoint, especially one influenced by Enlightenment rationalism, secular ethics, or postmodern critique, the Old Testament often appears to reflect the fears, prejudices, and limitations of an ancient tribal culture rather than that of divine revelation. However, other exegetes—such as process theologians or historical critics—may still find evolving moral insights and existential themes within the Bible's recital of the layered, human journey.

---

ChatGPT

Would you like a follow-up exploring how Process Theology reinterprets these criticisms into a dynamic, evolving view of Scripture?

RES

In a moment. What else may be said along these lines?

ChatGPT

Certainly. Building further on the critique of the Old Testament from a non-Christian perspective, we can expand the analysis into literary, psychological, anthropological, and philosophical dimensions. Each offers a distinctive critique of the Hebrew Bible as primitive, regressive, or unbelievable—not to dismiss its value entirely, but to understand why modern readers outside the faith may view it skeptically.

---

1. Literary and Narrative Critique

• Unreliable Narrators: Many biblical narratives are written from the viewpoint of tribal victors (e.g., the Israelites), leading to biased portrayals of others (Canaanites, Egyptians, Philistines, etc.).

• Lack of Coherent Plot or Genre: The texts interweave legal codes, myths, diverse genealogies, poetries, histories, and prophecies with abrupt shifts, repetition, and contradictions—challenging modern investigations seeking logical structure or authorial consistency.

• Childlike Supernaturalism: Events often resemble fairy tales or folkloric myths (e.g., fiery chariots, talking animals, magical plagues) rather than mature religious reflection.

---

2. Psychological and Developmental Critique

• Archaic Conscience: The Old Testament's moral logic often reflects a “might makes right” mentality, or a "punishment-reward" dynamic characteristic of early human developmental stages.

• Projection of Human Traits onto God: God is portrayed with deeply human emotions—anger, jealousy, favoritism—which some critics interpret as primitive psychological projections of ancient tribal leaders rather than of a transcendent deity.

• Fear-Based Religion: Many laws and narratives operate through coercion, fear, and threat of punishment, rather than trust, love, or internal ethical development.

---

3. Anthropological Critique

• Totemic and Tribal Religion: Yahweh begins as a national tribal deity—jealous, particular, and localized—akin to other gods in the ancient Near East (Marduk, Baal, etc.). From this perspective, monotheism emerges gradually, not suddenly.

• Sacrifice and Scapegoating: Animal sacrifice, blood rituals, and scapegoat mechanisms (e.g., Leviticus 16) reflect early human attempts to control chaos and divine wrath through symbolic violence—ancient practices anthropologists identify as primitive religious appeasement or control systems.

• Purity Codes: Laws around menstruation, leprosy, mold, and dietary restrictions are more reflective of ancient taboo logic than enduring moral principles.

---

4. Philosophical and Ethical Critique

• Lack of Universality and Equality: There is little to no concept of universal human rights, equality before the law, or moral reciprocity toward enemies. Justice is often nationalistic, ethnocentric, or transactional.

• Instrumental Ethics: Right behavior is tied to reward (blessing) and wrong to punishment (curse), rather than grounded in intrinsic dignity, conscience, or principle.

• Anti-Philosophical Ethos: Unlike Greek thought (e.g., Socrates, Plato), the Old Testament seldom wrestles with abstract ethical dilemmas or metaphysical coherence. Wisdom literature is the exception (e.g., Job, Ecclesiastes), but even these often return to submission rather than critical freedom.

---

5. Historical and Archaeological Critique

• Lack of External Corroboration: Events like the Exodus of Israel out of Egypt, wandering in the wilderness, or the conquest of Canaan, have yet to be substantiated by archaeological or external written evidence from neighboring empires.

• Retrojected History: Stories of the patriarchs, kings, and battles often appear written or edited centuries after the supposed events, projecting later ideologies onto an imagined past (Deuteronomistic history).

---

6. Gender and Sexuality Critique

• Instrumental Role of Women: Women are rarely protagonists or moral agents in their own right; they are often vessels for inheritance, honor, or male shame (e.g., Tamar, Bathsheba, Dinah).

• Sexual Control and Punishment: Female sexuality is tightly controlled, often punished violently, and used as a measure of male honor.

• Homophobia and Othering: Texts like Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 reflect what are now widely considered regressive attitudes toward same-sex relationships, often fueling contemporary discrimination.

---

7. Theological Critique (from Outside Faith)

• Moral Monster Argument (e.g., Richard Dawkins): Some critics argue that the God of the Old Testament behaves in ways unworthy of worship—jealous, vindictive, and authoritarian—more akin to a Bronze Age warlord than a loving creator.

• Divine Hiddenness: Despite many miracles in the text, the contemporary world shows no such divine intervention. Critics ask why this divine activity seems to have stopped, suggesting the biblical narrative is myth rather than fact. [cf: Everyday Miracles: How They Work, PART 4 re "Whiteheadian Metaphysics & Acausal Synchronicity"]

• Theodicy and Suffering: The suffering of innocents (Job, infants in Egypt, etc.) with no clear moral resolution challenges the goodness or justice of the Old Testament deity.

---

Summary Chart: Additional Layers of Critique

Dimension	Critique
Literary	Fragmented, mythic, biased storytelling
Psychological	Fear-based, projection of human traits onto God
Anthropological	Totemic sacrifice, taboo laws, tribal religion
Philosophical/Ethical	Lacks universality, driven by reward/punishment logic
Historical	Uncorroborated events, mythologized past
Gender/Sexuality	Patriarchal, objectifying, and heteronormative
Theological (External)	Unjust deity, divine absence, unresolved suffering

The Bible Beyond Literalism: Critique, Tradition, and Renewal

• Part 1 - Introduction
• Part 2 - The Modern-Era Non-Christian Perspective
• Part 3 - The Modern-Era Jewish Perspective
• Part 4 - The Modern-Era Christian Perspective
• Part 5 - The Modern-Era Process Perspective

The Bible Beyond Literalism: Critique, Tradition, and Renewal - Part 1

The Bible Beyond Literalism:

Critique, Tradition, and Renewal

Part 1

Introduction

by R.E. Slater & ChatGPT

I'd like to consider four perspectives when coming to the bible:

• the unbelieving, non-Christian view
• the modern-era Jewish view
• the modern-era Christian view, and
• the modern-era Process view.

Simplistically, I like to frame these perspectives in a deconstructive-reconstructive fashion as respecting the inherited text of Scripture as a living tradition within every era that it has been affected by it.... And by "affected" I mean how different cultures, eras, and societies have appropriated or misappropriated the bible during its generations.

Let's begin with a review of several illustrations. Pay attention to how each illustration says something about the subject of reading, interpreting, and applying the Scriptures:

Now I have entitled these series of posts as “The Bible Beyond Literalism: Critique, Tradition, and Renewal.” However, I could have chosen several other titles such as the following:

• “Scripture in Process”

• “Voices in the Fire: Rethinking the Old Testament”

• “Unfolding Revelation: Four Windows into the Bible's Sacred Text”

• “The Evolving Word: From Hearts of Stone to the Living Word & Spirit”

• “The Living Scroll: Wrestling, Listening, Becoming”

• “Evolving Texts & Evolving Faiths: Comparative Views to the Hebrew Bible”

• “Hermeneutics in Motion: Process Readings of Sacred Texts”

• “Reimagining Revelation: From Ancient Law to Living Love”

• “The Problem of the Old Testament in Modern Thought”

• “Becoming Living Words: A Metamodern Reappraisal of Sacred Texts”

• “A Living Scroll Still in Production: Revelation, Process, and the Voice of the Other”

• “Scripture as Symphony: Dissonance, Dialogue, and the Divine Lure”

• “From Command to Companionship: Rewriting the Text Through Time”

From these many titles one may see that there are just as many approaches to reading, interpreting, and applying the Bible as there shown in the illustrations given at the start of this post.

Biblical Studies, Forms & Traditions

Now, in comparison, here are the classic church's several (traditional) approaches as applied to the Scriptures over the centuries:

• Literal – Plain, historical meaning.

• Allegorical – Hidden spiritual meaning (e.g., Christological).

• Moral (Tropological = Figurative Use) – Ethical instruction for behavior.

• Anagogical – Mystical/future-oriented (heaven, eschatology).

• Typological – OT events as prefiguring NT realities.

• Canonical (Sola Scriptura = "by Scripture Alone") – Interpreting Scripture by Scripture alone as a unified whole.

• Doctrinal (Dogmatics) – Framed by established theology or creeds.

• Mystical – Focused on interior, contemplative meaning.

Or, we could sort out the bible in our reading, interpretation, and application by applying the following major approaches below. But please be aware that these are some, but not all examples. There are many more categories which may be added.

Too, each major category may be intertwined with the another by intermixing various subjects and categories.

Further each major category may utilize one or all the tools within its own space. As example, a carpenter may uses a saw, a screwdriver, a drill, a nail, a ruler, etc, all on the same job. Similarly, so do researches, linguists, phonologists, morphologists, theologians, philosophers,  psychologists, sociologists, and so on.

🕯️ Historical Approach

• Historical-Critical – Analyzes context, sources, authorship, and redaction.

• Grammatical-Historical – Focuses on original language and cultural setting.

• Form Criticism – Studies literary forms (e.g., parables, hymns).

• Source Criticism – Identifies textual sources (e.g., JEDP in the Pentateuch).

• Redaction Criticism – Explores how editors shaped the text.

• Archaeological - Digging up ancient tells (mounds et al) to unearth accumulated debris from earlier civilizations determining significance, history, culture, and development.

🧠 Philosophical & Theological Approach

• Existential – Focuses on personal, inward meaning (e.g., Bultmann).

• Liberationist – Reads through the lens of the oppressed and marginalized.

• Feminist/Womanist – Challenges patriarchal structures in the text and interpretation.

• Queer Hermeneutics – Explores gender/sexuality and inclusion in the text.

• Narrative Theology – Seeks to discover the Divine lure, calling, will, or reasoning within the Bible by examining it's narratives / stories rather than by Western civilization's religious urge to rather create formularic propositions or statements seeking the same.

• Canonical Criticism / Deconstruction / Reconstruction / Harmony – Focuses on the final form of the canon as meaningful.

• Theological Interpretation of Scripture with Ecclesiastical Tradition) – Integrates Scripture with ecclesial tradition, doctrine, worship, and lifestyle preferences.

🌿 Contemporary & Constructive Approach

• Postcolonial – Interrogates imperial, colonial, and nationalist readings.

• Ecological (Eco-theology) – Reads the Bible in relation to creation and sustainability.

• Intertextual – Explores how texts echo or dialogue with each other.

• Reception History – Studies how texts have been understood over time.

• Process Hermeneutics – Views Scripture as dynamic, relational, and co-evolving with human consciousness.

Conclusion

As you can see, simply declaring that "We, and our group of bible seekers, know God's Will and what God wants for humankind" becomes problematic for many other individuals and groups. Why? Because as has been shown, we each think of God and the Bible quite differently from one another.

This becomes further complicated when a majority of like-minded Christians get together to overtake a society of blended races, cultures, religions, and perspectives to declare they alone know what God wants based upon the bible - as they have interpreted it for themselves - meaning, how they alone prefer to think about God and God's Will here on this earth.

Such statements are very situational and can create a plethora of individual, familial, local, and societal problems within communities. More alarming, such as with the case of Maga-Christians, when the Church-and-State Imperially align with one another, you can most always find outcomes of bias and discrimination, caustic fears and lies, distorted folkloric beliefs, deep hatred, cruelty, oppression, and even death.

Let me say this in another way when imploring Christians to be less rigorous in their dogmatic beliefs and more open-minded about an infinitely complex and loving God which/who may not be the kind of God one might think of God as being:

"Christianity operates best when it is open, questioning, and inviting exploration. It is at its worse when insular, incoherent, and resistant to inquiry.

When Christians shut their ears, turn off their minds, and fight for supremacy then the Christian faith is weakened by it's defensive apologetical attitudes.

But when Christians seek better explanations than popular sentiment can provide, then we will find a more vibrant faith more willing to expose itself in order that it may evolve to a society's needs.

In sum, the Christian faith is paradoxically healthier when led out by uncertainty and doubt."

- re slater

In Part 2, I'll cover the modern-era non-Christian perspectives; in Part 3, the modern-era Jewish perspective; in Part 4, the modern-era Christian perspective; and, lastly, in Part 5, the modern-era Process perspective. I will try to be brief throughout each posting thereby allowing the reader to form further opinions as respecting their own given situtation(s).

🌿Peace,

R.E. Slater

June 1, 2025

The Bible Beyond Literalism: Critique, Tradition, and Renewal

• Part 1 - Introduction
• Part 2 - The Modern-Era Non-Christian Perspective
• Part 3 - The Modern-Era Jewish Perspective
• Part 4 - The Modern-Era Christian Perspective
• Part 5 - The Modern-Era Process Perspective

God, Sin and Process Theology

God, Sin and Process Theology

by R.E. Slater

INTRODUCTION

According to the Oxford Dictionary "sin" is an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law: "Such and such is a sin in the eyes of God."

Per Wikipedia, "In religious context, sin is a transgression against divine law or a law of the deities. Each culture has its own interpretation of what it means to commit a sin. While sins are generally considered actions, any thought, word, or act considered immoral, selfish, shameful, harmful, or alienating might be termed "sinful.""

SIN IN A CHRISTIAN CONTEXT

In the Christian vocabulary the subject of sin falls under the concept of hamartiology. Hamartiology is the branch of theology that studies sin. It explores the nature, origin, consequences, and resolution of sin, primarily within a Christian framework. The word "hamartiology" comes from the Greek word "hamartia," which means "missing the mark" or "error".

• Definition of Sin - Hamartiology examines what constitutes sin, often defining it as a willful transgression of God's law or a failure to meet God's standard of righteousness.

• Origin of Sin - It investigates the origins of sin, often citing the Fall of Man in the Garden of Eden as the point where sin entered the human race.

• Consequences of Sin - Hamartiology explores the effects of sin, including alienation from God, the consequences of sin on individuals, and the potential for eternal judgment.

• Resolution of Sin - Examination of how sin can be forgiven and addressed through salvation / atonement via confession and repentance - particularly within the context of Christian atonement through Jesus' sacrificial death.

• Key Concepts - Hamartiology also delves into related concepts like original sin, total depravity, and salvation - exploring their implications for human nature and relationship with God.

SIN IN A NON-RELIGIOUS CONTEXT

Naturally one might ask whether it is possible to consider whether "sin" exists outside of a religious context? While the term "sin" is primarily a religious concept, it can be re-evaluated in a philosophical or ethical sense. This involves looking at actions and behaviors that violate a moral code or cause harm, even without religious beliefs.

• Philosophical Sin - According to Wikipedia, philosophical sin refers to morally bad acts that violate a natural order of reason, rather than divine law. This concept is used by societies whose aim is to create a moral, ethical ,and legal system independent of religious beliefs.

• Secular Sin - Some suggest that "secular sin" could be an insensitive or malevolent transgression that causes harm to another soul. This could include actions that violate a person's own standards of behavior, causing them regret and a loss of self-dignity.

• Moral Frameworks - Even without religion, individuals and societies can establish moral frameworks based on principles like empathy, fairness, just-ness, and the avoidance of harm. Actions that violate these principles could be considered "wrong" or "sinful" within that moral framework.

• Consequences - Whether or not actions are considered "sinful" in a religious sense, they often have personal / societal consequences. For example, causing harm to others or violating societal norms can lead to negative outcomes, regardless of religious beliefs.

WHY IS THERE SIN?

Instead of using the term sin perhaps we ask the question "Why is there harm, alienation, or disharmony?” This would imply action words like: Breakdown, disruption, disharmony, misalignment, estrangement, violence, or even destructive agency.

Such terms may explore why things go wrong—internally, relationally, socially, ecologically—without invoking the theological baggage of “sin” as divine offense or moral stain.

HOW MIGHT CHATGPT ANSWER THE QUESTION, "WHY IS THERE SIN?"

I. Reframing Sin: A Process-Based, Non-Theological Definition

Let’s begin by loosely defining “sin” as any action, structure, or pattern that inhibits the flourishing of relational life—whether among people, species, societies, or ecosystems.

In a non-theistic, non-Christian, or even post-metaphysical frame, this becomes:

“Sin” is that which undermines creative advance, wholeness, or harmony in relational becoming.

This allows sin to be understood not as cosmic rebellion, but as:

• A consequence of fragmentation or fear

• A failure of relatedness

• A misdirection of potential or misuse of freedom

---

II. Why Is There 'Sin' (or Disharmony)?

Let’s consider four broad, non-religious lenses:

---

1. Evolutionary & Biological Explanation

• Disharmony arises because competition, error, and aggression are part of evolutionary processes.

• Organisms—including humans—have drives for survival that can conflict with communal well-being.

• These behaviors aren’t “evil”; they’re maladaptive or contextually unfit in a social world.

➡️ Disharmony is an emergent consequence of life navigating complexity and survival.

---

2. Psychological & Developmental Explanation

• People act destructively due to:

  • Unmet needs (attachment, safety, recognition)

  • Trauma or wounding

  • Cognitive biases and emotional dysregulation

• “Sin” is not metaphysical evil but the expression of internal fragmentation, fear, or unresolved pain.

➡️ Destructive behavior is symptomatic of disconnection—from self, others, or the world.

---

3. Sociological & Structural Explanation

• Oppression, exploitation, and systemic harm are institutionalized forms of sin.

• These patterns persist due to power imbalances, historical trauma, or economic systems prioritizing profit over dignity.

➡️ Disharmony is often structurally embedded, not merely personal.

---

4. Process-Philosophical Explanation

• In Alfred North Whitehead’s process philosophy, reality is always becoming—it is a web of interrelated actual occasions, constantly prehending one another.

• Evil or “sin” in this frame is:

  • The rejection of creative transformation (the lure of possibility)

  • The inhibition of novelty

  • The objectification of others (reducing them to fixed, controllable roles)

➡️ “Sin” arises when entities (individuals, societies) resist relational openness and fall into destructive patterns of self-isolation or dominance.

---

III. Key Summary Table

Term/Concept	Traditional View of Sin	Reframed, Non-Religious Equivalent
Sin	Offense against God	Breakdown in relational harmony
Evil	Rebellion against divine law	Misuse of freedom, alienation
Repentance	Confession of moral failure	Reorientation toward wholeness
Salvation	Deliverance from damnation	Restoration of connection and flow
Grace	Unmerited divine favor	Relational gift, forgiveness, openness

---

IV. So, Why Is There 'Sin'? (Without Sin)

We might say:

There is “sin” because creation is unfinished. Life is emergent, contingent, and full of tension. The freedom that allows love also allows harm. Missteps, alienation, and destruction are not signs of damnation—but of the struggle toward PROCESSUAL BECOMING.

In this sense, “sin” becomes a diagnosis of distortion, not a divine verdict. Processual terms, "sin" is the evolutionary response of living systems adjusting to the cosmos, to external environments, to one another, and - if sentient - to self awareness (sic, acts of consciousness).

A PROCESSUAL APPROACH

The image above is fairly typical of broad approaches to sin. Let's reframe these approaches using Process Philosophy. Let's begin by taking the traditional salvation spectrum from the image (Calvinists → Atheists) and reframe each view through the non-religious, process-informed lens we posited earlier, focusing on:

• Human becoming

• Relational harmony

• Ethical responsibility

• Creative transformation (instead of divine judgment)

We'll translate each viewpoint not in terms of sin and salvation, but in terms of how they address harm, alienation, and restoration in the human experience.

---

🌈 Reframing the “Spectrums of Salvation” through a Process-Based, Non-Theistic Lens

Original Label	Original Focus	Process Reframe
Calvinists	Predestined salvation/damnation	Life’s outcomes are pre-scripted; this leaves little room for novelty and reflects a static metaphysic where creativity is stifled by total (divine) determinism. Alienation is built-into one's view of God and life, and reconciliation is selective.
Arminianists	Choice-based salvation; time-limited decision	Emphasis on personal agency, but within a rigid dualism of right/wrong. Harm is understood as failure to choose correctly. Processual reframing: moral agency exists while becoming is ongoing and never final. Growth isn’t locked in by death.
Cafeteria Believers	Good people make it; vague criteria	Offers a relational ethic but is often morally thin. In process terms, this view intuitively values harmony and kindness but needs grounding in a broader metaphysical vision of interconnectedness.
Mormons	Tiered outcomes based on behavior + belief	Reflects a graded ontology of becoming, but still hierarchical. In process terms, this could evolve into a view where all beings are on a path of unfolding with  ontological hierarchy giving way to mutuality and co-flourishing.
Buddhists & Hindus	All reach liberation, but over lifetimes	This is the closest alignment to process thought: samsara is the rhythm of becoming; karma mirrors relational consequences. Salvation = awakening into harmony. Process embraces this as a cosmology of transformational continuity.
Atheists	No afterlife; meaning through memory or legacy	Rejects metaphysical constructs of salvation, yet emphasizes immanent ethics and contribution to shared becoming. Process agrees: what matters is the quality of becoming and the ripples we leave in relational space.

---

🔄 Key Translation Shift: From “Salvation” to “Creative Transformation”

Instead of asking:

“Who gets saved and how?”

We might rather ask:

“How do beings—human or otherwise—heal, grow, and co-create / co-evolve in an ever evolving complex cosmos?”

This makes the core concern not judgment, but:

• Coherence vs. fragmentation

• Freedom vs. rigidity

• Participation vs. alienation

• Creative advance vs. stuck repetition

---

🌀 Process Theology’s Alternative: A Spectrum of Becoming

We could propose a Process Spectrum of Relational Healing as such:

• Static Rigidity <----------> Open Relational Flow

• Pre-determined fates (e.g., Calvinism)  <----> Co-creative unfolding (e.g., Buddhist/Process/Relational ethics)

• Moralistic binary judgment <----> Compassionate, context-aware responsiveness

• Disembodied Heaven/Hell <---->Embodied transformation in every moment

God then is removed from the human view of divine Judge to the more holistic view of divine initiator and conflator of Healer, Helper, Co-Evolver, Redeemer, et al to One who lures all creation toward deeper relational harmony; who suffers with the world in its brokenness; and who persistently offers new possibilities for transformation, renewal, and creative advance in every moment of becoming."

The Processual God of Salvation

God is no longer Judge -
    upon a throne of absolutes.

But Is the Deep Relational Lure -

    within all things.

God is -

    the Whisper of healing,
    the Breath of becoming,
    the Companion of all creatures in their wandering.

God is the Healer of ruptures -

    not by force,
    but by God's nurturing presence;

God is the Helper of woes -

    not by forced intervention
    but by redemptive invitation.

God is a Co-Evolver -

    One who suffers the world's sorrow,

    yet sings new harmonies into each broken note.

God is not the ender of stories -
    but the Initiator who widens processual horizons.

God is not the punisher of sin -
    but the Wooer towards processual renewal.

God is...

    the One who never ceases to offer -

    a more beautiful next in an infinitely

    evolving complex series of "nexts".

R.E. Slater & ChatGPT
May 30, 2025

@copyright R.E. Slater Publications
all rights reserved

SUMMATION

In summary, contrary to classical theology Process theology shifts the view of God from divine Judge to divine Saviour by emphasizing the following elements of renewal:

• God's divine companionship as versus the classic church view of condemnation.

• God heals relational brokenness through persuasive love as versus being viewed as the divine Punisher.

• God's divine redemption is not a legal pardon but an ongoing co-creative process moving towards atoning wholeness.

• God's continually lures towards redemptive restoration.

• God continually provides opportunities for relational harmony, wholeness, and sanity amid both humanity’s and the cosmos' deep unrest and fragmentation.

CONCLUSION

As we have seen, Process Theology, atonement is not a single event, but the divine rhythm of at-one-ment - wherein God works relentless towards weaving broken relational threads into new patterns of beauty.

Rather than demanding self-imposed guilt, punishment, or flagellation, the processual God of loving restoration absorbs the pain of the world to transforms it - not by decree, but by invitation.

The tragedy of harm and suffering is very real, but never final. In God, the processual future always holds another possibility because God is a continuing presence in the life of his creation.

May every reader's path be full of widening horizons, compassionate presence, and the ongoing rhythm of creative becoming. Thank you for walking through these processual steps with me together. May peace be yours in every unfolding moment however difficult your trial.

R.E. Slater

May 30, 2025

These things I have spoken to you, so that in Me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world.” - John 16.33 (NASB)