Think I got it

For a good portion of my college career, I was drawn to and read a good amount of existential philosophy, all the while understanding very little of it in a meaningful way. But there was some element that kept drawing me and I think I have captured that. This is exciting for me because the substance of this thought isn't very complicated and has been on the "tip of my tongue" for quite some time. I think I've only now been able to articulate this solely because of the growing separation between me and the matter being intensely involved, time for the smoke to clear so to speak. What I loved was the suggestion that there are a great deal of bodies walking around and acting per value sets that are completely detached from and never corroborated by their own experience. And the suggestion might even go on to say that these aren't even humans, but just acting beings, never making an actual choice. In an unrelated topic (for now), I once took a class that discussed the nature of salvation and who all would be able to partake in this. As we surveyed several theories, there was one that involved an explanation of those are who not saved as not actually people, but automatons. So as the Cartesian saying goes "I think, therefore I am", this conversation could be adapted "I choose, therefore I am."

Atonement

I've always had a hard time with the how's and why's of the crucifixion. It seems pretty much to have zero ontological plausibility or necessity. But then on strictly epistemelogical terms it also seems overboard. So what I'm trying to currently eisegete into my theological framework is an atonement theory that is based primarily on Christ's solidarity with humans. I have always given equal importance to the death and resurrection of Christ, and recognizing them as important absolved even from one another. But now that I recognize this about myself, it seems kind of silly to think the death of Christ would mean much without the resurrection and likewise. That's simple in itself, but years of bad fundamentalist folk religion can take time to sort out and unpack, especially when the boxes are unlabeled. So, what I'm thinking lately, is that the purpose of Christ dieing is because we are dead. And if we are ever going to be alive, then Christ has to get us there, but, like I mentioned before, we are dead. So Christ has to become dead to become alive to give us a shot at being alive. Well, I am still faced with some of the ontological problems I had before, but at least there isnt any transference of some kind of "guilt" consituted matter to deal with. And the strength I enjoy is that 1) this theory is constituted primarily around us being made one with God, which lies at the heart of atonement. And I like this too becuase it is not a unilateral effort towards such. And 2) consequently this also realizes human decisions.