Original sin?

[miss fortune]

Your rationale is feeler rationale based on value judgements of the facts, thus you reject them as such because they're not pleasant to hear? (I thought we were talking about the scripture-based interpretation of original sin from the Bible.)

my response is based on feeling because religion is not a logical thing people rarely find religion through careful deduction, they feel it... why should my response to such an article be any different? we all use thinking functions/we all use feeling functions- otherwise we are not complete human beings

I was not aware that the thread had any rules on what aspect we were to approach the question from either... looking at things from a social psych perspective comes naturally to me, so why should my response not be from that viewpoint as well?

interesting that you're attempting to discredit me for what perspective I choose for my response... I view religion or lack thereof to be a personal thing

 

[Totenkindly]

The gender stuff would have been prior to Jesus being crucified and primarily in the Old Testament. If you felt condemnation, then they were probably confusedly teaching you Old Testament Law. Many churches simply do not understand the Bible and that's why it's so important for Christians to read the Bible for themselves, and pray for understanding.

When you are saved, your name is written in the Lamb's Book of Life. There are no more records of all of your failures. When Jesus was on the cross he cried out "it is finished!" His blood incinerated all records of sin in your life: past, present, and future.

The final clause of the new covenant is revealed in Hebrews 8:12 "I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more." And just for clarification, that is NOT a license to sin. God showed me through the scriptures how the Law proved that man will consistently fail when under it, and end up feeling like hypocrites. The scriptures consistently support that the secret to godliness is knowing that you are completely forgiven. Grace will destroy the power of sin in your life.

Do you remember the woman who took an alabaster flask of oil and anointed the feet of Jesus? Jesus said to Simon, "I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has washed my feet with her tears and wiped them with the hair of her head. Therefore I say to you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much. But to whom little is forgiven, the same loves little," (Luke 7:44-47).

The more one realizes that they have been forgiven of all of their sins, the more one will love Jesus. Forgiveness does not lead to a lifestyle of sin. It leads to a life of glorifying God.

You're not really hearing what I'm saying, because your answer is about something else entirely.
There is nothing you need to be explaining to me -- I'm just telling you, "This is what is actually happening in the church."

 

[Poki]

my response is based on feeling because religion is not a logical thing people rarely find religion through careful deduction, they feel it... why should my response to such an article be any different? we all use thinking functions/we all use feeling functions- otherwise we are not complete human beings

I was not aware that the thread had any rules on what aspect we were to approach the question from either... looking at things from a social psych perspective comes naturally to me, so why should my response not be from that viewpoint as well?

interesting that you're attempting to discredit me for what perspective I choose for my response... I view religion or lack thereof to be a personal thing

Im right there with you, the whole concept of people helping people, a group of nice people, etc. are good, but when it comes to all the emotional feelings/strong "religous" thinking I am completely lost. I cant do praise and worship, it doesnt feel right.

 

[miss fortune]

Im right there with you, the whole concept of people helping people, a group of nice people, etc. are good, but when it comes to all the emotional feelings/strong "religous" thinking I am completely lost. I cant do praise and worship, it doesnt feel right.

exactly!

there's a difference between good and belief... doing good makes sense, it's what makes society work and it feels RIGHT in a way... belief just doesn't click the same way somehow... it makes me feel awkwardly empty in a way like being the only person on the stage at a musical who doesn't know the lyrics or the steps...

 

[Mole]

If we were taught comparative religion at school, we could discuss the Torah, the Koran, the Bible, the Vedas and the Analects of Confucius, with some authority. As it stands, we are like salesmen trying to sell a Volkswagon without knowing anything about all the other makes of car.

The problem is that for each of us, "My God is a jealous God", and so won't countenance us learning about any other Gods.

And this problem is generalised to our culture. And most of us know next to nothing about other cultures, their manners and mores and language.

And not knowing other cultures, we are blind to other cultures.

And this blindness is a real problem in the global village, where we come across each other every day.

 

[entropie]

If we were taught comparative religion at school, we could discuss the Torah, the Koran, the Bible, the Vedas and the Analects of Confucius, with some authority. As it stands, we are like salesmen trying to sell a Volkswagon without knowing anything about all the other makes of car.

The problem is that for each of us, "My God is a jealous God", and so won't countenance us learning about any other Gods.

And this problem is generalised to our culture. And most of us know next to nothing about other cultures, their manners and mores and language.

And not knowing other cultures, we are blind to other cultures.

And this blindness is a real problem in the global village, where we come across each other every day.

Volkswagen. Even if you dont know shit about other cars you can still spell yours right

 

[Mole]

The Ruhr

Volkswagen. Even if you dont know shit about other cars you can still spell yours right

Ah, if only I lived in the Ruhr like you, Entropie, I would know how to spell the Peoples Waggon, the Volkswagen.

But here I am marooned at the other ends of the Earth, ocassionallyt watching a Volkswagen flash by me. I must admit my favourite Volkswagen is pale yellow. It stands out among the crowd just as I like to do.

I'd like you to think of me, Entropie, as a pale yellow Volkswagen, dodging the kangaroos as they cross the road, dreaming of my home in the Ruhr with Entropie.

 

[entropie]

Ah, if only I lived in the Ruhr like you, Entropie, I would know how to spell the Peoples Waggon, the Volkswagen.

But here I am marooned at the other ends of the Earth, ocassionallyt watching a Volkswagen flash by me. I must admit my favourite Volkswagen is pale yellow. It stands out among the crowd just as I like to do.

I'd like you to think of me, Entropie, as a pale yellow Volkswagen, dodging the kangaroos as they cross the road, dreaming of my home in the Ruhr with Entropie.

Well if you have said "Renault Kangoo" instead of Volkswagen your example would have still worked. I am just saying: you cant have a multi religion lesson cause then you wouldnt know what country to bomb

 

[A window to the soul]

my response is based on feeling because religion is not a logical thing people rarely find religion through careful deduction, they feel it... why should my response to such an article be any different? we all use thinking functions/we all use feeling functions- otherwise we are not complete human beings

I was not aware that the thread had any rules on what aspect we were to approach the question from either... looking at things from a social psych perspective comes naturally to me, so why should my response not be from that viewpoint as well?

interesting that you're attempting to discredit me for what perspective I choose for my response... I view religion or lack thereof to be a personal thing

No rules, no discredits. Just fascination with the paradox. I respect you.

 

[Coriolis]

My point is that over and over again atheists want to use Christian morality to condemn christianity withou having a meaningful basis in morality themselves. In a sense they step out of atheist worldview and into the Christian worldview, where goodness matters. They attack the Christian worldview saying it's bad and then step back into the atheist worldview where goodness and badness don't matter. They never actually defend atheism and a world where goodness doesn't matter.

The highlighted is essentially showing the internal inconsistency of Christianity, by measuring it against its own standards. One needn't have any personal morality to perform such a check, other than to remain as objective and accurate as possible. When the inconsistency is between teachings and behavior, this is usually considered hypocrisy: saying one thing, and doing another. You could also measure Christianity against the standards of another religion, or secular humanism, etc. but that is a different type of evaluation.

Atheism and agnosticism are not world views "where goodness and badness don't matter". They are simply world views whose definitions of good and bad differ from those of Christianity, and are not based on the will of some god whose existence they doubt.

 

[Salomé]

Ok, one last thing. I think it's ironic that through this whole exchange I've used the word term "logically inconsistent" and yet it's the atheist that's lobbing the morally charged word, "hypocrite".

If you're referring to me, I'm not an atheist. Also, you keep confusing what you believe with the truth. (Religious people have a habit of doing that.)
Morally-charged language is not reserved for religious fanatics, even if they do tend to wield it to most devastating effect.

The issue is this: you want to claim morality for the Christians, much like the crusaders wanted to claim Jerusalem. You can stick a flag in it as often as you like, it doesn't make it yours.
(I think Aristotle said that)

The highlighted is essentially showing the internal inconsistency of Christianity, by measuring it against its own standards.

How remarkable then, that even with such benevolent scrutiny, it so often fails to measure up so spectacularly.

 

[Coriolis]

How remarkable then, that even with such benevolent scrutiny, it so often fails to measure up so spectacularly.

The benevolence of the scrutiny is irrelevant. Only its accuracy matters. Many self-proclaimed Christians do, indeed, fail to measure up to the example and teachings of Christ. They give those Christians who do a very bad name.

 

[Mole]

There is nothing original about sin.

 

[Salomé]

The benevolence of the scrutiny is irrelevant.

I was being facetious. (Not to you)

God, explanation is so dull.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Will you tell me why goodness matters from a materialist atheistic world view?

Will anyone?
Can anyone?

Goodness is a subjective experience. It only exists if there are sentients beings. In so far as it exists in the minds of sentient beings, it is effectively self-referential. I know happiness is happiness because I couldn't mistake it for anything else, it is like nothing else. Same goes for pleasure and so on. We experience these things as good. Since goodness is entirely a product of the imagination, good feelings are the only good that ever really exists. Why do you need more of a reason than that to keep it going? I literally can't imagine the alternative, God or no God. What is a life seeking to avoid good sentiments? Why would anyone do that? Does anyone do that? I honestly doubt it.

Now, if I assume that good at least exists in that sense, and I know the brain and all it's processes are a physical phenomenon, then I know there must be an analytical method by which I can figure what will create more or less happiness, take it away, etc... Not only for myself, but others. From here, a system of moral conduct can be built.

 

[Mole]

Vice Versa

Will you tell me why goodness matters from a materialist atheistic world view?

Will anyone?
Can anyone?

Sure, no worries Beafeater. Goodness is simply reciprocity. And being social animals we depend on reciprocity to survive.

So a good person reciprocates our goodess to them.

And reciprocity depends on our mirror neurons, sympathy and empathy.

So a good person is able to mirror our feelings and behaviour, sympathise and empathise with us, vice versa, turn and turn about.

 

[Mole]

Conditional goodness? When you're only good to those who are good to you... what good is that?

Interdependence, and survival? When a person will die eventually... what is the point in merely surviving?

This is a very hopeless view of life, don't you think?

What next! Soon you will be telling me to take no thought for tomorrow like the lilies of the field, and worse, soon you will be telling me to love my enemies.

And what is the point of surviving? Survival drives natural selection. And you and I are only here because of natural selection operating over thousands of millions of years.

We have made a mistake to look upwards to explain our existence, when looking downwards provides a richer explanation.

Natural selection unites us with the DNA of every living creature over the last four thousand million years and with all the life around us today.

Religion has told us that we are all one, and natural selection shows us how we are all one and precisely how we are related to one another.

So there is no need to worry how we relate to Göd, because we now know precisely how we relate to every living thing that has ever existed on Earth and to every living thing around us today.

 

[Litsnob]

There is no sin, let alone any original one. Sin is a religious concept, a way to control people's behaviour through threat of punishment. Original sin is a repulsive idea* with no basis in anything real but it seems to be foundational to the Christian religion.

Do people do bad things? Yes. Should societies construct systems for determining if someone did something bad and there should be a consequence? Yes. Do human beings have the ability to develop ethics without religion? Yes.

*Setting aside the credibility of the whole Adam and Eve story, there is no logical reason why a baby should be considered a sinner except for creating an excuse to set up religious practices and beliefs specific to Christianity. Based on this weakness from birth, Christians can be told that they need God/Jesus.

 

[Mole]

As society becomes more prosperous, and our child rearing improves, and we make more empathic and creative children, we will find that instead of original sin, we have an original blessing.

 

[Hawthorne]

I love that my first reaction to this thread was "who is summoning me" until i realized that's my alias on a different site

to answer the op too many years too late, the only source-able origin seems to be Abrahamic.