User Tag List

First 56789 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 90

Thread: original sin

  1. #61
    Senior Member cafe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Socionics
    INFj None
    Posts
    9,827

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by greenfairy View Post
    Yeah. I never had to read PL, but we read part of Dante's Inferno, which I thought was one of the most ridiculous things I'd ever read. He must have been an unhappy person.
    You'd almost have to be to want to spend that much time thinking about people being eternally tormented.
    “There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.”
    ~ John Rogers

  2. #62
    Society
    Guest

    Default

    i find the evolution of this interesting: while the idea comes from jewish mythology, christianity seemed to have taken it to a whole new level, a focus point for collective guilt, and yet in jewdaism guilt is almost everywhere but there, with stuff like we are all repeanting for the birth pain of our mothers and all that sort of jargon, and still so little of it has anything to do with the original sin, to the point that if you'd say the term "original sin" it would largely be recognized by most as a christian concept.

    i might add to the fire the popularized kabala interpretation: the fruit of knowledge is viewed as the fruit of sexuality, "to know" in the biblical sense, and depending on school of thought, the snake is viewed as either adam's alienated sexuality ("it wasn't me, it was my..." <- tell me if you heard this before) or god's sexuality. like i said, its there, its just not really made a big deal of.

  3. #63
    philosopher wood nymph greenfairy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    MBTI
    iNfj
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mane View Post
    i find the evolution of this interesting: while the idea comes from jewish mythology, christianity seemed to have taken it to a whole new level, a focus point for collective guilt, and yet in jewdaism guilt is almost everywhere but there, with stuff like we are all repeanting for the birth pain of our mothers and all that sort of jargon, and still so little of it has anything to do with the original sin, to the point that if you'd say the term "original sin" it would largely be recognized by most as a christian concept.

    i might add to the fire the popularized kabala interpretation: the fruit of knowledge is viewed as the fruit of sexuality, "to know" in the biblical sense, and depending on school of thought, the snake is viewed as either adam's alienated sexuality ("it wasn't me, it was my..." <- tell me if you heard this before) or god's sexuality. like i said, its there, its just not really made a big deal of.
    Yeah, the rabbi in the talk said some things kind of like this. It sounds pagan to me. Which is weird because the Old Testament is so opposite in a lot of ways.

  4. #64
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Few (no?) original sin stories make any sense.

    Why would sex be the original sin, if its mechanism is by God's design? That would make God the author of sin.

    The fruit also makes no sense. God did not need it and Adam and Eve were not supposed to have it so there was zero point in having it exist there.

    Disobedience relating to the fruit also makes no sense for the same reason above. If God didn't want the tree messed with then he should not have put it there.

  5. #65
    philosopher wood nymph greenfairy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    MBTI
    iNfj
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    Few (no?) original sin stories make any sense.

    Why would sex be the original sin, if its mechanism is by God's design? That would make God the author of sin.

    The fruit also makes no sense. God did not need it and Adam and Eve were not supposed to have it so there was zero point in having it exist there.

    Disobedience relating to the fruit also makes no sense for the same reason above. If God didn't want the tree messed with then he should not have put it there.
    Yeah, it's kind of setting people up for failure.

  6. #66
    AKA Nunki Polaris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    451 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INFp Ni
    Posts
    1,373

    Default

    ^ Most Christians would say that the reason God put the Fruit there was to give humans a clear option to disobey him, so that their obedience would be a result of their free choice rather than their ignorance of the possibility of sinning. The main point of the story, in most Christians' minds, is to explain why there is sin in the world (the possibility of sinning is a consequence of our possessing free will) and how it is that God, in spite of knowing what would happen when he created this world, escapes responsibility for sin (he escapes responsibility for sin, Christians argue, because he never forced Adam and Eve to eat the Fruit. In my opinion, that's a flawed argument; it's something like saying that a parent who leaves out a gun that is subsequently found and fired by their child bears none of the responsibility for their child's actions. It's even worse, since God, unlike a human parent, was omniscient, and knew exactly what the outcome of providing the Fruit would be).

    It all seems like an unnecessary bother when the possibility of eternal life in heaven demonstrates that there are possible worlds in which people can have free will and at the same time never be at risk of sinning. Unless, of course, people in heaven lose their free wills, in which case, one would have to wonder why God ever bothered giving people freedom in the first place, since freedom would clearly be unnecessary for a state of perfection.
    [ Ni > Ti > Fe > Fi > Ne > Te > Si > Se ][ 4w5 sp/sx ][ RLOAI ][ IEI-Ni ]

  7. #67
    Senior Member Pseudo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    2,051

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Polaris View Post
    ^ Most Christians would say that the reason God put the Fruit there was to give humans a clear option to disobey him, so that their obedience would be a result of their free choice rather than their ignorance of the possibility of sinning. The main point of the story, in most Christians' minds, is to explain why there is sin in the world (the possibility of sinning is a consequence of our possessing free will) and how it is that God, in spite of knowing what would happen when he created this world, escapes responsibility for sin (he escapes responsibility for sin, Christians argue, because he never forced Adam and Eve to eat the Fruit. In my opinion, that's a flawed argument; it's something like saying that a parent who leaves out a gun that is subsequently found and fired by their child bears none of the responsibility for their child's actions. It's even worse, since God, unlike a human parent, was omniscient, and knew exactly what the outcome of providing the Fruit would be).

    It all seems like an unnecessary bother when the possibility of eternal life in heaven demonstrates that there are possible worlds in which people can have free will and at the same time never be at risk of sinning. Unless, of course, people in heaven lose their free wills, in which case, one would have to wonder why God ever bothered giving people freedom in the first place, since freedom would clearly be unnecessary for a state of perfection.

    I think the idea is that people entering heaven are unitied with god, "enlighted" if you will and so do not have the motivation to sin because there are fully satisfied in gods love. So the impossibility of sin in heaven is a result of lacking motive rather than lacking ability

  8. #68
    Senior Member Pseudo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    2,051

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Yes, I think that is the Catch-22.

    How could eating the fruit cause sin? They would have only picked the fruit if they were already sinful in nature. Hence, they weren't perfect to start with, and neither was paradise. Either they were perfect and wouldn't have fallen, or they were imperfect and already fallen; the whole bit with the fruit only clarifies it.

    To me, this is because the story wasn't meant to make sense in that literal kind of way. The gist is that people had everything but chose to turn from God and thus lost paradise; this also explained the current to the social order, where men because the head of women (so the order is God -> men -> women and so forth), and why there was toil involved in tending the earth, and why women suffered pain in childbirth... you definitely see the "occupational categories" there for male and female roles. And so on.

    You're just taking the way the culture already works, and trying to explain it in a way that makes sense by using this story. Kind of a montheistic way of explaining, "How the Leopard Got His Spots," so to speak.
    Is there a verse that says the the inclination to sim did not exist previous to the fruit. Could it be argued that the original sin unleashed sin by making it a reality but didn't create sinful inclinations. Why would god mak something with sinful inclinations? Tough question perhaps because anything perfect would be indistinguishable for himself and thereby prevent any kind of relation. Maybe because the physically aspect of man makes him vulnerable to different physical imperfect motivations. (I would think this is later solved by Christ living perfectly in a human body) ?

  9. #69
    philosopher wood nymph greenfairy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    MBTI
    iNfj
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pseudo View Post
    Is there a verse that says the the inclination to sim did not exist previous to the fruit. Could it be argued that the original sin unleashed sin by making it a reality but didn't create sinful inclinations. Why would god mak something with sinful inclinations? Tough question perhaps because anything perfect would be indistinguishable for himself and thereby prevent any kind of relation. Maybe because the physically aspect of man makes him vulnerable to different physical imperfect motivations. (I would think this is later solved by Christ living perfectly in a human body) ?
    So then this would relate again to detachment from desires, I suppose, and desires being the root of suffering, leading to unwise choices, leading to sin.

    Christ is certainly an example of a good person, but not exactly an example of how everyone should live in every way. If everyone gave away all their money, there would be no money because no one would have any use for it (though this wouldn't be bad thing). If everyone was celibate, there would be no more babies. If everyone was completely nonviolent, no one would defend themselves when attacked by animals, no one would hunt animals, and so people would be killed and starve. Plus, just restricting nonviolence to humans, it would only work if everyone followed the rules. Otherwise people would attack people and no one would defend them. If you always turned the other cheek and never defended yourself, you would likely keep getting bullied and might be in real danger. So in short, Christ showed an example of how a person could transcend a physical body, but not fully embrace it. Christ was relatively detached from his body. I don't think asceticism is the ideal. (And this of course is not a criticism exclusively aimed at Christianity. Many religions have asceticism, it's just that good ones in my book embrace the physical as much as the transcendent. Christianity has a history of rejecting it.)

    Why would God want a relationship with something less than itself though? Why not just different but equal, like a male aspect and a female aspect?

  10. #70
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by greenfairy View Post
    Christ was relatively detached from his body.
    Perhaps in the Gnostic gospels, where Christ is a phantom in human form. This is not so in the Synoptic Gospels, where the concept of Christ being fully human and fully divine is strongly emphasized, being the basis for the Christian concept of the Incarnation.

    I don't think asceticism is the ideal. (And this of course is not a criticism exclusively aimed at Christianity. Many religions have asceticism, it's just that good ones in my book embrace the physical as much as the transcendent. Christianity has a history of rejecting it.)
    Actually Christianity is far less otherworldly than many other religions, especially compared to Gnosticism or Neo-Platonism. Even the Puritans were far more worldly than the common caricature presumes (for example they embraced sexuality as a gift from God, and in connection with Calvinist teachings thought worldly success indicated Divine favor). GK Chesterton once noted that having a cross as a symbol indicates the connection between this world and the next(and it was on the cross from which Christ entered the other world).

    Why would God want a relationship with something less than itself though?
    Why does a parent want a relationship with his child? Remember, we are his children, his creation, made in his image.

Similar Threads

  1. Original sin?
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 150
    Last Post: 02-21-2017, 03:20 PM
  2. Seven Deadly Sin Quiz
    By Kiddo in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 04-05-2010, 02:53 PM
  3. Original Sin
    By Into It in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 07-01-2009, 08:37 PM
  4. Problems with Original Sin (Genesis)
    By Didums in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 11-18-2008, 04:56 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO