Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on September 08, 2021, 05:25:41 PM
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism
Are these atheists who did the right thing i.e. just shut the fuck up? or are they atheists at all?
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism
Are these atheists who did the right thing i.e. just shut the fuck up? or are they atheists at all?
Why do you want atheists to shut up?
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism
Are these atheists who did the right thing i.e. just shut the fuck up? or are they atheists at all?
Atheism is about belief
Agnosticism is about knowledge
Apatheism is about importance
They are entirely separate things - you can be a combination of any three I guess, although frankly apatheism isn't really a well utilised, nor a particularly useful notion in my opinion. And note this is about the existence of god, not the impact or otherwise of religion, which is an entirely different matter.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism
Are these atheists who did the right thing i.e. just shut the fuck up? or are they atheists at all?
Religionists never shut the fuck up. Why should atheists?
-
Why do you want atheists to shut up?
Given that atheism is merely the lack of belief in God's there should be nothing more to say. That makes it therefore the right thing. That's logical is it not?
-
Given that atheism is merely the lack of belief in God's there should be nothing more to say.
Given that religion is personal, there shouldn't be any need to write it into laws that restrict other people.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/07/un-experts-condemn-texas-anti-abortion-law (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/07/un-experts-condemn-texas-anti-abortion-law)
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/07/un-experts-condemn-texas-anti-abortion-law (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/07/un-experts-condemn-texas-anti-abortion-law)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-asia-58219963 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-asia-58219963)
https://www.churchofengland.org/news-and-media/news-and-statements/faith-leaders-join-oppose-assisted-dying-bill (https://www.churchofengland.org/news-and-media/news-and-statements/faith-leaders-join-oppose-assisted-dying-bill)
That's why atheists aren't quiet on religion; because religion isn't quiet about them, or anyone else.
O.
-
Given that religion is personal, there shouldn't be any need to write it into laws that restrict other people.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/07/un-experts-condemn-texas-anti-abortion-law (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/07/un-experts-condemn-texas-anti-abortion-law)
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/07/un-experts-condemn-texas-anti-abortion-law (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/07/un-experts-condemn-texas-anti-abortion-law)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-asia-58219963 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-asia-58219963)
https://www.churchofengland.org/news-and-media/news-and-statements/faith-leaders-join-oppose-assisted-dying-bill (https://www.churchofengland.org/news-and-media/news-and-statements/faith-leaders-join-oppose-assisted-dying-bill)
That's why atheists aren't quiet on religion; because religion isn't quiet about them, or anyone else.
O.
I always thought that when things got heated cowardly atheists would always slip back into Atheism is merely mode. Of course there is a bit more to it than that.
There are the atheist contracts with various philosophies on the nature of the universe and the nature of morality. There is a need for atheists to start talking a bit more openly and less evasively. But then you guys have let the belligerent othering and outing of atheists who weren't considered mighty and gung ho enough by the likes of Hitchins,Dawkins,Harris and Krauss dominate your public profession.
-
I always thought that when things got heated cowardly atheists would always slip back into Atheism is merely mode. Of course there is a bit more to it than that.
Even less of a reason to expect that they should remain quiet in the public sphere, then.
There are the atheist contracts with various philosophies on the nature of the universe and the nature of morality.
People come to their atheism from a range of places and motivations, yes.
There is a need for atheists to start talking a bit more openly and less evasively.
A minute ago there was no need for atheists to be talking at all, but hey ho. I don't see that atheists are being evasive, they're just not letting theism dominate the conversations - they're looking for secular rationales, not rationales founded on (to them, at the very least) the flawed premise of gods wants.
But then you guys have let the belligerent othering and outing of atheists who weren't considered mighty and gung ho enough by the likes of Hitchins,Dawkins,Harris and Krauss dominate your public profession.
You think? Given the apparent differences between them - and Daniel Dennet, of course, who is typically included in the list of prominent atheists, and PZ Meyers who also had a vocal following, I'd say there's a range of voices speaking out. None of which, of course, precludes anyone else from venturing forth with their opinion for themselves, regardless of how widely that's broadcast.
O.
-
There is a need for atheists to start talking a bit more openly and less evasively.
When are you going to start talking less evasively?
-
When are you going to start talking less evasively?
I do I’ve told everybody everything I know that they have the right to know what it is they have asked for.
-
I do I’ve told everybody everything I know that they have the right to know what it is they have asked for.
You haven't answered the question I posed at #3 yet.
-
You haven't answered the question I posed at #3 yet.
Yes I have. If atheism is merely a position about God then it has nothing to say further and the right thing is not to bring in anything else under the banner of atheism. If you think atheism is more say what you will.
-
Yes I have. If atheism is merely a position about God then it has nothing to say further and the right thing is not to bring in anything else under the banner of atheism. If you think atheism is more say what you will.
More evasion.
You're more evasive than Trump filling in a tax return.
-
More evasion.
You're more evasive than Trump filling in a tax return.
Where’s the evasion, if atheism is just a what can it say about b and c?
-
Yes I have. If atheism is merely a position about God then it has nothing to say further and the right thing is not to bring in anything else under the banner of atheism. If you think atheism is more say what you will.
You are, as usual, missing the point: atheists might have nothing to say about 'God' but they are perfectly free to comment about how 'God' enthusiasts promote their cause in the public arena.
Moreover, their views on this latter aspect are clearly mutually exclusive from their atheism - since their concern here is what religious people get up to.
-
Where’s the evasion, if atheism is just a what can it say about b and c?
That religionists shouldn't be pushing b and c on the rest of us? That religionists should get unfair tax breaks on b and c, just because they take a particular stance on a. That the national broadcasters shouldn't be compelled to preserve time for the insignificant proportion of adherents to a in the populace. That b and c should be equally available to everyone, regardless of what a-botherers are taught in their tax-exempt cult hideouts...
O.
-
That religionists shouldn't be pushing b and c on the rest of us? That religionists should get unfair tax breaks on b and c, just because they take a particular stance on a. That the national broadcasters shouldn't be compelled to preserve time for the insignificant proportion of adherents to a in the populace. That b and c should be equally available to everyone, regardless of what a-botherers are taught in their tax-exempt cult hideouts...
O.
I think people find the implication of the gospel ego troubling and uncomfortable.
-
I think people find the implication of the gospel ego troubling and uncomfortable.
What does "gospel ego" mean - or is it a typo?
-
What does "gospel ego" mean - or is it a typo?
Typo.
-
Typo.
OK - so what did you intend to say?
-
I think people find the implication of the gospel, ego troubling and uncomfortable.
-
I think people find the implication of the gospel, ego troubling and uncomfortable.
Which people are you referring to - just some, or do you mean everyone?
For this non-Christian these gospels have no personal 'implications' whatsoever, and I've no idea what 'implications' you are envisaging they might have for an atheist, and they have no relevance whatsoever to any aspects of my lifestyle, or that of my family: you see, Vlad, for some of us, your precious Christianity really doesn't matter a jot.
That these gospels have personal 'implications' for some people, such as yourself, doesn't imply that they have any 'implications' for those who aren't Christians.
-
I think people find the implication of the gospel ego troubling and uncomfortable.
I'm sure some of them do. I'm pretty sure most atheists, however, find the fact that people believe the implications of the gospel have merit, and try to legislate other peoples lives on those implications, to be more of an issue, and it was those people we were talking about.
I'd imagine most atheists are troubled by the implications of the gospel itself to pretty much the same extent they are troubled by the implications of Ragnarok.
O.
-
Which people are you referring to - just some, or do you mean everyone?
For this non-Christian these gospels have no personal 'implications' whatsoever, and I've no idea what 'implications' you are envisaging they might have for an atheist, and they have no relevance whatsoever to any aspects of my lifestyle, or that of my family: you see, Vlad, for some of us, your precious Christianity really doesn't matter a jot.
That these gospels have personal 'implications' for some people, such as yourself, doesn't imply that they have any 'implications' for those who aren't Christians.
I agree.
Vlad you need to think of this from the perspective of someone who doesn't believe that god exists. From that perspective all the stuff in the gospels about Jesus being the son of god, redemption, everlasting life at god's side etc etc is no more plausible nor relevant as the wrath of Thor or any other deity claim. So when you strip that out what are you left with. Well firstly a fairly 'vanilla' ethical 'love your neighbour narrative - so very humanist and so 'fine, what's the issue'.
What is also left, which probably exercises atheists most, is the impact that the gospels have on christians and how that also impacts on others. Now some of that impact is very beneficial - helping others etc, but there again this is no different to humanism in terms of actions and impact, despite a different motivation. But some is clearly negative - broad intolerance towards many groups justified on biblical grounds - most notably against homosexual people but also a systematic lack of equality for women and in some denominations the use of the bible to justify racist attitudes. Then there is the expectation of special privileges for christianity embedded within our system.
So no, as I do not believe in god the god-type gospel claims don't bother me. The negative impact of christianity, justified by biblical claims and demands to be treated more favourably than other groups and individuals does bother me.
-
Which people are you referring to - just some, or do you mean everyone?
Most people Gordon and the avoidance modes used by most people are varied. Some never approach religion by choice. These are the true freedom from religionists, some choose a cacophany of anti God propoganda, some try forms of religion which demand no real commitment.
That these gospels have personal 'implications' for some people, such as yourself, doesn't imply that they have any 'implications' for those who aren't Christians.
You feel a great deal of offence obviously a feeling you have not explored, I would imagine beyond those who you feel are offending you.
It seems you are clinging onto the idea that nobody becomes a christian, they have always been christian. That is delusiory but protects someone who wants to be the perennial atheist (ego protection). After all there were once no christians and that turned into millions.
-
I'm sure some of them do. I'm pretty sure most atheists, however, find the fact that people believe the implications of the gospel have merit, and try to legislate other peoples lives on those implications, to be more of an issue, and it was those people we were talking about.
So am I to take it you have nothing against christianity per se, but just like blaming all christians for anything you don't like?I'd imagine most atheists are troubled by the implications of the gospel itself to pretty much the same extent they are troubled by the implications of Ragnarok.
Sounds bollocks to me, Viking salvation seems to be dependent on doing ''man things like fighting, drinking and wenching'' so I would imagine that's ripe for a comeback....just look at the beards and tattoos (Doesn't look to good for New Atheism does it). That observation aside, I don't think there is much self analysis because it's a blamers field.
Any body who doesn't seem to think that myths contain a moral for them isn't prone to thinking much in my book.
To paraphrase the old hymn ''Take it to the lord in prayer''
Have we trials and temptations
Is there trouble anywhere
We should never be discouraged
When we blame some other C***
The other diversions from self analysis is of course include infantilisation and the modern adult interest in toys for boys and acquisitive materialism
[/quote]
-
It seems you are clinging onto the idea that nobody becomes a christian, they have always been christian. That is delusiory but protects someone who wants to be the perennial atheist (ego protection).
But certainly in the UK a tiny number of people become christians as adults who were not brought up as christians in childhood. The notion of all these children brought up in atheist, agnostic, non-religious, muslim, jewish etc etc households suddenly becoming christians as adults is fantasy - it hardly ever happens.
So it is you with the ego problem - desperate to demonstrate that the christian message is so strong that people who weren't brought up as christians flock to it when they find out about it as adults. The reverse is true - the christian message is so weak that virtually no-one who has not had that message pumped into them at birth become christian as adults, and even for those who have been brought up christian about 50% reject it as adults and become non religious.
-
Most people Gordon and the avoidance modes used by most people are varied. Some never approach religion by choice. These are the true freedom from religionists, some choose a cacophany of anti God propoganda, some try forms of religion which demand no real commitment.
I come from a family background of no religious involvement: I wasn't christened, which would be rare for a child born in 1952, and none of my children or grandchildren are either, and religion doesn't feature much in education any more. I'm no more inclined towards religion than I am, say, inclined towards, say, ballroom dancing and seem to be able to function quite well without either.
You feel a great deal of offence obviously a feeling you have not explored, I would imagine beyond those who you feel are offending you.
I'm not in the least offended: I'm simply disinterested in acquiring religion on a personal basis.
It seems you are clinging onto the idea that nobody becomes a christian, they have always been christian. That is delusiory but protects someone who wants to be the perennial atheist (ego protection). After all there were once no christians and that turned into millions.
No I don't: I get than some people are cultural Christians and I get that some people acquire Christianity as a lifestyle choice - nice to see an ad pop get an outing.
-
I agree.
Vlad you need to think of this from the perspective of someone who doesn't believe that god exists.
Been there and done that. Since you are still there then I have to wonder why you have not only apparently not dipped your toes in the water but have constructed a veritable Hadrians wall round your position From that perspective all the stuff in the gospels about Jesus being the son of god redemption, everlasting life at god's side etc etc is no more plausible nor relevant as the wrath of Thor
I have to admit that the bible seemed dusty, archaic and impeneratable and unapproachable and then miraculously it became illuminated to me yeah, in its King James version. I give credit to God for that rather than any skill or scholarship from me (and frankly giving God credit might put off an ego of intellect) although there also is an element that sadly you have not recieved a rounded education to enable you to respect past human achievement. Either that or you reject, presumably on material grounds any education you regard as superfluous or any other deity claim. So when you strip that out what are you left with. Well firstly a fairly 'vanilla' ethical 'love your neighbour narrative - so very humanist and so 'fine, what's the issue'.
Great topic for a new thread.
What is also left, which probably exercises atheists most, is the impact that the gospels have on christians and how that also impacts on others. Now some of that impact is very beneficial - helping others etc, but there again this is no different to humanism in terms of actions and impact, despite a different motivation. But some is clearly negative - broad intolerance towards many groups justified on biblical grounds - most notably against homosexual people but also a systematic lack of equality for women and in some denominations the use of the bible to justify racist attitudes. Then there is the expectation of special privileges for christianity embedded within our system.
Many people view history differently and end up not blaming religion for the bad things in life. They campaign on issue rather than genetic fallacy. Sadly Humanism is largely derived from Christianity despite your revisionist history. Look at the tagline Prof, It's possible to be moral without religion....well the God bits anyway.
Specific and personal rejection of God writ large.
So no, as I do not believe in god the god-type gospel claims don't bother me.
Maybe because as seems the case you have lacked or rejected a comprehensive education.
-
But certainly in the UK a tiny number of people become christians as adults who were not brought up as christians in childhood. The notion of all these children brought up in atheist, agnostic, non-religious, muslim, jewish etc etc households suddenly becoming christians as adults is fantasy - it hardly ever happens.
The UK, the UK? That's the increasingly secular society where most people voted for Brexit and then voted Conservative isn't it? Christianity has always been the narrow road Prof but maybe not as narrow as you think. In my biology a level class of 12 half of us are now Christian up from about 2 already professing making most of our little group converts.
So it is you with the ego problem - desperate to demonstrate that the christian message is so strong that people who weren't brought up as christians flock to it when they find out about it as adults. The reverse is true - the christian message is so weak that virtually no-one who has not had that message pumped into them at birth become christian as adults, and even for those who have been brought up christian about 50% reject it as adults and become non religious.
Weak? or so ego disturbing it is best forgotten? The Christian message has been strong enough for you to spend much of your time opposing it.
-
The UK, the UK? That's the increasingly secular society where most people voted for Brexit and then voted Conservative isn't it?
That would be in England, Vlad, so don't blame us Scots for both of those catastrophies. Even so, how does voting Tory/Brexit equate to secularism?
-
The Christian message has been strong enough for you to spend much of your time opposing it.
It's not the 'message' of Christianity that troubles me, Vlad, since I regard this 'message' as incoherent nonsense - what bothers me is the activities, and the desire to influence society at large, of some of those who proselytise this 'message'.
-
The UK, the UK? That's the increasingly secular society where most people voted for Brexit and then voted Conservative isn't it? Christianity has always been the narrow road Prof but maybe not as narrow as you think.
But the UK is actually identical in terms of trends with other countries that have the following features (that I think we'd probably accept as being desirable):
1. Broad freedom of religion so that whether or not someone is religious, nor which religion they follow is respected as equally valid choices.
2. A education and cultural system that is sufficiently broad and balanced that most children grow up with an awareness and understanding that religion exists and a choice that they could follow if they choose, and also that being non religious/atheist exists and a choice that they could follow if they choose (see above).
3. An acceptance that if someone chooses to change religion or to move from being non religious to religious or vice versa that is a personal choice and should be respected.
Sure there are countries that don't show the same trend as the UK, but they tend to be ones that do not support the openness of freedom of religion (including freedom to be non religious) and education/awareness to be able to make a choice.
-
The Christian message has been strong enough for you to spend much of your time opposing it.
I've explained my position on the christian message above, namely:
1. The 'god' bits are irrelevant to me as I don't believe god exists
2. Many of the non god ethical bits are basically humanism motivated in a different manner, so basically if people are acting in a broadly humanist manner I'm franky pretty relaxed as to whether that is due to adherence to the humanist 'golden rule' or Jesus' help thy neighbour. However in many cases they aren't adopted in practice - see 3 and 4.
3. The christian message has been adopted to support ethical stances which I strongly oppose - most notably attitudes towards gay people, women and ethnic minorities and, of course, adherents of other religious and non religious/atheist people.
4. As a broader point to 3, the underlying biblical (and christian) message of collected inherited guilt has been one of the most caustic and destructive propositions throughout history. I am not to blame for what people like me did generations ago, but the whole biblical/christian notion of being born sinful and in need of redemption (underpinned all the way from the first book in the bible) embeds this notion.
-
I've explained my position on the christian message above, namely:
1. The 'god' bits are irrelevant to me as I don't believe god exists
2. Many of the non god ethical bits are basically humanism motivated in a different manner, so basically if people are acting in a broadly humanist manner I'm franky pretty relaxed as to whether that is due to adherence to the humanist 'golden rule' or Jesus' help thy neighbour. However in many cases they aren't adopted in practice - see 3 and 4.
3. The christian message has been adopted to support ethical stances which I strongly oppose - most notably attitudes towards gay people, women and ethnic minorities and, of course, adherents of other religious and non religious/atheist people.
4. As a broader point to 3, the underlying biblical (and christian) message of collected inherited guilt has been one of the most caustic and destructive propositions throughout history. I am not to blame for what people like me did generations ago, but the whole biblical/christian notion of being born sinful and in need of redemption (underpinned all the way from the first book in the bible) embeds this notion.
Yes but as i've pointed out there is a right, sweet smelling way of campaigning against things one doesn't like, the campaigning on issues and campaigning motivated by the genetic fallacy. I believe by campaigning on this forum you have chosen the latter path and have used it as a diversion from the philosophical and theological issues involved, the potential for personal relationship with God indeed the need for one given one's own rather inherited capability to sin. Also by saying ''others aren't bothered, why should I be?'' doesn't seem much of an argument Davey.
-
That would be in England, Vlad, so don't blame us Scots for both of those catastrophies. Even so, how does voting Tory/Brexit equate to secularism?
Trouble is, if you think about it a vote for SNP rather than labour has meant the return of the tories across the UK.
-
Yes but as i've pointed out there is a right, sweet smelling way of campaigning against things one doesn't like, the campaigning on issues and campaigning motivated by the genetic fallacy. I believe by campaigning on this forum you have chosen the latter path and have used it as a diversion from the philosophical and theological issues involved, the potential for personal relationship with God.
Blimey Vlad - you are an uber snowflake if you think that posting on a forum represents some dark corner of extreme response to things I oppose. Perhaps you'd prefer it if I:
1. Actively refused to provide my services to christians
2. Demanded that the law protected me if I did 1, above
3. Engaged in highly damaging 'conversion' therapy if children looked as if they might become christian
4. Demand that my children should only marry non religious people (or even specifically atheists)
5. Demand that when someone marries an atheist that they must bring up any children as atheists
6. Demand to be exempt from a range of taxes for organisations if they are non religious (but not applied to religious organisations)
7. Expect the state to pay for schools that actively promote atheism and that discriminate on the basis of faith in their admissions
etc, etc
And on a broader sense my 'campaigning' as you like to call it is motivated by my beliefs and principles - namely those of fairness and equality and, of course, of freedom of religion and freedom from religion. Sack me if you don't like that, but my principles are no less valid or worthy than yours just because they aren't justified on the basis of a man-made god.
-
Also by saying ''others aren't bothered, why should I be?'' doesn't seem much of an argument Davey.
Eh - where do you get that one from.
-
Trouble is, if you think about it a vote for SNP rather than labour has meant the return of the tories across the UK.
Don't be silly - the Tories and Brexit are diseases that primarily infect a proportion of the electorate in England that proved sufficient to see the Tories in government and Brexit happen.
Labour don't really count any more as regards Scottish MPs - there is only one of them.
Anyway, you didn't explain why you associated voting Tory with secularism.
-
Eh - where do you get that one from.
Your continual appeal to social statistics.
-
Your continual appeal to social statistics.
Oh you mean data, in other words evidence, factual information etc. Sure much better to base your arguments on 'I once know a guy, who said his brother knew a man who was once an atheist and is now the Archbishop of Dover'.
When discussing prevalence and transmission of religion amongst a population if your arguments aren't backed up by data and research then they are ... let's face it Vlad ... wrong.
-
Your continual appeal to social statistics.
I still don't understand, where does anything I've said (including using factual data) translate to ''others aren't bothered, why should I be?''
-
Blimey Vlad - you are an uber snowflake if you think that posting on a forum represents some dark corner of extreme response to things I oppose. Perhaps you'd prefer it if I:
1. Actively refused to provide my services to christians
2. Demanded that the law protected me if I did 1, above
3. Engaged in highly damaging 'conversion' therapy if children looked as if they might become christian
4. Demand that my children should only marry non religious people (or even specifically atheists)
5. Demand that when someone marries an atheist that they must bring up any children as atheists
6. Demand to be exempt from a range of taxes for organisations if they are non religious (but not applied to religious organisations)
7. Expect the state to pay for schools that actively promote atheism and that discriminate on the basis of faith in their admissions
etc, etc
And on a broader sense my 'campaigning' as you like to call it is motivated by my beliefs and principles - namely those of fairness and equality and, of course, of freedom of religion and freedom from religion. Sack me if you don't like that, but my principles are no less valid or worthy than yours just because they aren't justified on the basis of a man-made god.
You seem to have acquired amnesia over why you oppose the christian message.
Guilt tripping
Treatment of Gays etc. These are issues which may or may not be worth campaigning against. For you though they are the christian message rather than what they patently are. A list of things you don't like. You follow your spiritual father when he put out his seminal work Religion, The root of all evil?
Your Gospel is therefore not the gospel for somehow it leaves you innocent at heart and religious people the sinners. There is no avoiding your position here.
The Gospel is all have sinned, all need salvation or repair and all can have it.
-
I still don't understand, where does anything I've said (including using factual data) translate to ''others aren't bothered, why should I be?''
We know we can use data but why use data, more than once, to show a minority convert to Christianity.
My use of data is to show yes conversions can decline but yes they can go up too.
-
The Gospel is all have sinned, all need salvation or repair and all can have it.
And I've heard that that Mary had a little lamb, but I'm not convinced there are good reasons to believe the story!
-
And I've heard that that Mary had a little lamb, but I'm not convinced there are good reasons to believe the story!
Which bit do you find unbelieveable?
-
So am I to take it you have nothing against christianity per se, but just like blaming all christians for anything you don't like?
As I've explained to you before, Christianity is just the sum of the actions of Christians - not that I was limiting my concern to purely Christians, you're all of an ilk. I do have something against even the relatively moderate and inoffensive Church of England style Anglicanism, inasmuch as it seeks to validate religious belief, and therefore implicitly provides a bulwark against the more egregious expressions of god-bothering.
Sounds bollocks to me, Viking salvation seems to be dependent on doing ''man things like fighting, drinking and wenching'' so I would imagine that's ripe for a comeback....just look at the beards and tattoos (Doesn't look to good for New Atheism does it).
Are you showing that 1st iteration prejudice against haircuts, or are you suggesting that because there's a particular fashion in vogue now for facial hair that somehow atheism is therefore not viable, because that's a stretch even for you.
That observation aside, I don't think there is much self analysis because it's a blamers field.
And it's a rich, rich harvest. There probably isn't a great deal of self-analysis - just as you don't consider the implications of Ragnarok, so I suspect few if any of us are spending much time concerned about your gospels.
Any body who doesn't seem to think that myths contain a moral for them isn't prone to thinking much in my book.
There's nothing wrong with looking for the morals in myth; the problem comes when people who don't seem to realise it's a myth think that the allegories should be written literally into the law.
The other diversions from self analysis is of course include infantilisation and the modern adult interest in toys for boys and acquisitive materialism.
Let's get back to sack-cloth and ashes! Apart from infant mortality, lack of education and malnutrition it never did us any harm, right...
O.
-
We know we can use data but why use data, more than once, to show a minority convert to Christianity.
Firstly because more data provides greater credence to an argument. But also to rebut your obsession with the 'conversion' 'exceptions' (people brought up non religious becoming christian) rather than 'the rule' (people brought up christian becoming non religious). For every one of the former there are more than ten of the latter (12 for anglicans). And your only argument for the latter (the norm) is your no true Scotsman view that they weren't really christians.
My use of data is to show yes conversions can decline but yes they can go up too.
What data, you've never used any data - your arguments seem to stem from a bloke you once knew (but not enough to know anything about his upbringing) who was an atheist when you met him and is now a catholic. That's not data, that is anecdote of the weakest kind.
-
The UK, the UK? That's the increasingly secular society where most people voted for Brexit and then voted Conservative isn't it?
Only about a quarter of the people voted for Brexit and I wouldn't be at all surprised if voting Conservative and being a Christian is correlated, what with the demographics of both groups.
-
You seem to have acquired amnesia over why you oppose the christian message.
Don't think so Vlad.
Guilt tripping
Treatment of Gays etc. These are issues which may or may not be worth campaigning against. For you though they are the christian message rather than what they patently are. A list of things you don't like. You follow your spiritual father when he put out his seminal work Religion, The root of all evil?
Yup that is one reason. As from my perspective (note I need no 'spiritual father' for this) I see a number of religions, not just christianity, at the forefront of key opposition to equality and fundamental human rights that I strongly believe in. And it isn't just rights for gay people, women etc, religions have a terribly poor record in affording equal rights to people of other religions (let alone non religious people and atheists).
The Gospel is all have sinned, all need salvation or repair and all can have it.
Indeed and from there leads the concept of collective inherited sin - you have sinned because one of your forebears sinned - and that is one of the most, arguably the most, corrosive notions ever derived by man. It allows development of the view that someone is guilty not for what they have done but for who they are.
-
Only about a quarter of the people voted for Brexit and I wouldn't be at all surprised if voting Conservative and being a Christian is correlated, what with the demographics of both groups.
Oh it is, and most strongly with anglicans who were at the forefront of the brexit vote.
-
Which bit do you find unbelieveable?
All the anecdotal stuff of uncertain provenance - I'll concede that some of the place names (such as Jerusalem) are real places, but beyond that I think the risks of mistake, lies, propaganda, bias, exaggeration and outrageous miracle claims are such than that the the contents are largely indistinguishable from fiction.
-
You follow your spiritual father when he put out his seminal work Religion, The root of all evil?
Have you drifted into the he who shall not be named territory Vlad.
Well I can be absolutely certain that I have read no more of Dawkins' books than you - why, because I've never read any, including 'The root of all evil'. And I would hope that I've read rather fewer than you as you seem to be obsessed with Dawkins and bang on about him endlessly. I trust that is from a position of knowledge of his views, which you would only get by reading his works.
-
All the anecdotal stuff of uncertain provenance - I'll concede that some of the place names (such as Jerusalem) are real places, but beyond that I think the risks of mistake, lies, propaganda, bias, exaggeration and outrageous miracle claims are such than that the the contents are largely indistinguishable from fiction.
How about the part which says all have done wrong. How are you with that?
-
Have you drifted into the he who shall not be named territory Vlad.
Well I can be absolutely certain that I have read no more of Dawkins' books than you - why, because I've never read any, including 'The root of all evil'. And I would hope that I've read rather fewer than you as you seem to be obsessed with Dawkins and bang on about him endlessly. I trust that is from a position of knowledge of his views, which you would only get by reading his works.
Why have you never read any? I have.
-
Why have you never read any? I have.
Why should I have done Vlad? There are loads of authors whose works I haven't read. You do realise that it is perfectly possible to be an atheist and not to spend my time poring over the works of Dawkins, Hitchens, Grayling et al.
But this rather negates your notion that he is somehow my spiritual father - hard to be that seeing as you are more versed in his works than I am.
However I am glad to hear that you have at least read his works given that you are bizarrely totally obsessed by him.
-
How about the part which says all have done wrong. How are you with that?
I suspect everyone makes mistakes: my own experience is sufficient to confirm that without reference to religious superstitions dating from antiquity.
-
I suspect everyone makes mistakes: my own experience is sufficient to confirm that without reference to religious superstitions dating from antiquity.
True - but my problem with christianity is it assumes that before the fact, assuming that babies are born sinful (due to the sins of their predecessors back to genesis). That is what I have an issue with.
In my mind a new born baby has done nothing wrong, they aren't guilty, they are not sinful (not that I would use that term). To presume they are is wrong in my opinion, albeit they may very likely do something wrong, or indeed many things wrong later in life. And to ascribe a newborn as sinful on the basis of actions of others, presumable forefathers, is grotesque in its moral 'wrongness' in my view and leads to the horrors perpetrated on the basis of collective inherited guilt over the past millennia.
-
True - but my problem with christianity is it assumes that before the fact, assuming that babies are born sinful (due to the sins of their predecessors back to genesis). That is what I have an issue with.
In my mind a new born baby has done nothing wrong, they aren't guilty, they are not sinful (not that I would use that term). To presume they are is wrong in my opinion, albeit they may very likely do something wrong, or indeed many things wrong later in life. And to ascribe a newborn as sinful on the basis of actions of others, presumable forefathers, is grotesque in its moral 'wrongness' in my view and leads to the horrors perpetrated on the basis of collective inherited guilt over the past millennia.
I wonder if Vlad is peddling the 'original sin' nonsense: that we all need 'salvation' and, hey presto, here is a 'saviour' who 'died for our sins' (there was recently a poster on a church near here that asserted exactly that).
It's that type of nonsense that makes Christianity so utterly ridiculous, but perhaps Vlad could explain what he means by "done wrong" just in case he isn't going down the silly 'sin/need for salvation/saviour route.
-
I wonder if Vlad is peddling the 'original sin' nonsense: that we all need 'salvation' and, hey presto, here is a 'saviour' who 'died for our sins' (there was recently a poster on a church near here that asserted exactly that).
It's that type of nonsense that makes Christianity so utterly ridiculous, but perhaps Vlad could explain what he means by "done wrong" just in case he isn't going down the silly 'sin/need for salvation/saviour route.
Actually ridiculous isn't the word that I would use for the notion that someone is sinful or guilty, not on the basis of anything they have done, but due to some perceived wrongdoing (however heinous) by some related person from an earlier generation.
No, the word isn't ridiculous, the word I'd use is dangerous. I might also suggest grotesquely unethical, but that's two words.
-
I suspect everyone makes mistakes: my own experience is sufficient to confirm that without reference to religious superstitions dating from antiquity.
I’m not talking about mistakes Gordon....I’m talking about deliberate self motivated wrong doing.
Are you now trying to pass this kind of thing as mistake, rather than something to be confessed? Then you already reacting to this part of the message and a plea of non affectation looks less sound.
-
I wonder if Vlad is peddling the 'original sin' nonsense: that we all need 'salvation' and, hey presto, here is a 'saviour' who 'died for our sins' (there was recently a poster on a church near here that asserted exactly that).
It's that type of nonsense that makes Christianity so utterly ridiculous, but perhaps Vlad could explain what he means by "done wrong" just in case he isn't going down the silly 'sin/need for salvation/saviour route.
Forget about any notion of original sin I may have. In fact original sin features more as a defence of wrong doing amongst atheists and agnostics. We all know the claim “I’m only human”. So original sin is hereditary after all and releases the believer in “I’m only human” from any responsibility and more importantly any acknowledging for the spoiling of character wrong doing brings.
Now that’s dangerous.
-
Actually ridiculous isn't the word that I would use for the notion that someone is sinful or guilty, not on the basis of anything they have done, but due to some perceived wrongdoing (however heinous) by some related person from an earlier generation.
No, the word isn't ridiculous, the word I'd use is dangerous. I might also suggest grotesquely unethical, but that's two words.
Humbug.Any claim that I do wrong because “I’m only human” by dint of that believes that sin is hereditary and need not be confessed especially not to oneself.
-
Forget about any notion of original sin I may have. In fact original sin features more as a defence of wrong doing amongst atheists and agnostics. We all know the claim “I’m only human”. So original sin is hereditary after all and releases the believer in “I’m only human” from any responsibility and more importantly any acknowledging for the spoiling of character wrong doing brings.
So far as I'm aware humans aren't born with any 'sins': so 'original sin' is a seriously silly notion.
-
Forget about any notion of original sin I may have. In fact original sin features more as a defence of wrong doing amongst atheists and agnostics. We all know the claim “I’m only human”. So original sin is hereditary after all and releases the believer in “I’m only human” from any responsibility and more importantly any acknowledging for the spoiling of character wrong doing brings.
Now that’s dangerous.
What a complete misrepresentation of the point I was making. I'm only human is just a turn of phrase and doesn't absolve an individual from responsibility.
Who on earth said that a person shouldn't be held responsible for their actions - certainly not me. What I am saying is that the notion of holding one person responsible (guilty or sinful) for the actions of a long dead ancestor is dangerous and grotesquely unethical. But that is the inherent underpinning of christianity and the notion of collective inherited guilt, played out across the centuries, has filled our graveyard and unmarked mass graves throughout history. you are guilty and I am justified in persecuting you because your great, great grandfather persecuted my great, great grandfather - and where does that notion arise - well it is embedded in the first chapter of the bible.
-
Oh it is, and most strongly with anglicans who were at the forefront of the brexit vote.
Ha ha ha.
-
Ha ha ha.
Is that because you don't believe me or because you think it is funny Vlad.
And I know you like my use of data - so here goes.
Anglicans - 60% Leave; 40% Remain
No religion - 43% Leave; 57% Remain
Now I don't know what denomination you are Vlad, but while some other christian denominations were better than the Anglicans not one approached the level of remain support that people with no religion provided. Indeed the only group more remain than people with no religion were muslims.
-
So far as I'm aware humans aren't born with any 'sins': so 'original sin' is a seriously silly notion.
I dunno but I did request you forget about it since I think you need to be concerned at your own deliberate sin. Original sin not universally held and only really formulated and promoted by Augustine. Scripturally Christ reverses any thing Adam ever did which leaves us with our own sin.
What seems certain is that the idea of original sin surfaces in the excuse ''I'm only human'' which is really inherited sin warmed over for non religious consumption.
-
Is that because you don't believe me or because you think it is funny Vlad.
And I know you like my use of data - so here goes.
Anglicans - 60% Leave; 40% Remain
No religion - 43% Leave; 57% Remain
Now I don't know what denomination you are Vlad, but while some other christian denominations were better than the Anglicans not one approached the level of remain support that people with no religion provided. Indeed the only group more remain than people with no religion were muslims.
Never heard of Brexit as a conspiracy by the Church of England before. Ho ho ho.
-
You follow your spiritual father when he put out his seminal work Religion, The root of all evil?
You are aware, of course, that the choice of title for that programme was not only not Professor Dawkins', but that he actively sought to have it changed?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Root_of_All_Evil%3F (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Root_of_All_Evil%3F)
Your Gospel is therefore not the gospel for somehow it leaves you innocent at heart and religious people the sinners.
We don't have a gospel, we don't have a tract that must be acknowledged. We have arguments by people which can be accepted or rejected, as you choose.
The Gospel is all have sinned, all need salvation or repair and all can have it.
The gospel makes up a crime, sin, so that the authority can have power over its identification and absolution - it's a con.
O.
-
You are aware, of course, that the choice of title for that programme was not only not Professor Dawkins', but that he actively sought to have it changed?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Root_of_All_Evil%3F (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Root_of_All_Evil%3F)
Changing the name could not have been critical to his overall intent. Poor defence.
We don't have a gospel,
But you have nothing which prevents you from straw manning the Gospel we don't have a tract that must be acknowledged
What does that mean. In this day and age the bible doesn't have to be followed by anyone. So what do you mean? We have arguments by people which can be accepted or rejected, as you choose.
Give an example.
The gospel makes up a crime, sin, so that the authority can have power over its identification and absolution - it's a con.
O.
Only God can forgive sin. But more importantly how can a con be a bad thing, if there is no crime. So far you have a con is wrong, is a crime and therefore a sin, sin is apparently made up and so a con cannot be a crime and yet you are the authority which wants power over it's identification and condemnation. Things only have power as long as you let 'em.
What we say is that wrong doing is what exerts it's authority.
-
Never heard of Brexit as a conspiracy by the Church of England before. Ho ho ho.
Well perhaps you haven't been listening, or perhaps didn't want to hear. The data I provided was from late 2016 from the main analysis of the vote and from then on it was well known that christians (and particularly anglicans) were much more likely to vote for brexit than non religious people.
-
Only God can forgive sin. But more importantly how can a con be a bad thing, if there is no crime. So far you have a con is wrong, is a crime and therefore a sin, sin is apparently made up and so a con cannot be a crime and yet you are the authority which wants power over it's identification and condemnation. Things only have power as long as you let 'em.
But your bible has, as a central concept, the notion that individual people are sinful and guilty regardless of whether they have done anything wrong themselves. And the reason being that some distant forefather did something wrong and they have somehow 'inherited' that sin and guilt. And once you embed that concept in a culture (as christianity has done) it is a short step to justifying persecution against individuals who have done nothing wrong on the basis that you are aggrieved at something a dim and distant relative of theirs might have done. And the consequences of that concept are terrifying as groups including black people, jewish people and many others have found out over the centuries.
Once you ascribe sin or guilt to someone regardless of anything they have done it is easy to justify punishment or persecution of that person regardless of the fact that they have done nothing wrong. And so it has been in christian culture for centuries.
-
So far as I'm aware humans aren't born with any 'sins': so 'original sin' is a seriously silly notion.
"Verily, I am saying to you, If you should not be turning and becoming as little children, you may by no means be entering into the kingdom of the heavens." Matt 18/3
-
"Verily, I am saying to you, If you should not be turning and becoming as little children, you may by no means be entering into the kingdom of the heavens." Matt 18/3
And what it is that trying to prove? Quoting something from the bible doesn't make it true.
-
"Verily, I am saying to you, If you should not be turning and becoming as little children, you may by no means be entering into the kingdom of the heavens." Matt 18/3
I think that pretty much sums up what we've see from Vlad's efforts here: adopt a simplistic and childish outlook and Christianity will seem acceptable - but don't dare apply more mature thinking.
Since it seems this slice of 'scripture' includes an encouragement towards dumbing-down maybe it is no great surprise that some of what we see from those proselytising Christianity comes across as infantile.
-
I think that pretty much sums up what we've see from Vlad's efforts here: adopt a simplistic and childish outlook and Christianity will seem acceptable - but don't dare apply more mature thinking.
Since it seems this slice of 'scripture' includes an encouragement towards dumbing-down maybe it is no great surprise that some of what we see from those proselytising Christianity comes across as infantile.
just to put a bit of context to this:
Bible > 1 Corinthians > Chapter 14 > Verse 20
1 Corinthians 14:20
(New International Version)
Brothers and sisters, stop thinking like children. In regard to evil be infants, but in your thinking be adults.
-
And what it is that trying to prove? Quoting something from the bible doesn't make it true.
But it does alleviate straw manning and tempers cherry picking.
-
just to put a bit of context to this:
Bible > 1 Corinthians > Chapter 14 > Verse 20
1 Corinthians 14:20
(New International Version)
Brothers and sisters, stop thinking like children. In regard to evil be infants, but in your thinking be adults.
Thank you for pointing out that some examples of 'scripture' are contradictory - Matthew 18/3 advises 'be childlike' and Corinthians 14/20 advises 'don't be childlike' - can't see that highlighting this contradiction helps your cause much.
-
Thank you for pointing out that some examples of 'scripture' are contradictory - Matthew 18/3 advises 'be childlike' and Corinthians 14/20 advises 'don't be childlike' - can't see that highlighting this contradiction helps your cause much.
Not contradictory. 'Be as a little child' in respect of the Kingdom is really the same injunction as 'Be infants in regard to evil.' Matthew does not say anything about being immature in thinking and Paul makes thinking in a mature way an explicit must. You are reading 'in' a contradiction that isn't there.
-
Not contradictory. 'Be as a little child' in respect of the Kingdom is really the same injunction as 'Be infants in regard to evil.' Matthew does not say anything about being immature in thinking and Paul makes thinking in a mature way an explicit must. You are reading 'in' a contradiction that isn't there.
Really!
I'd have thought that encouraging adults to adopt an infantile approach to 'evil' (whatever that means) would in itself be infantile advice.
Of course, not all of us set much store by what the NT says anyway - but the two quotes of 'scripture' posted this morning do read as being contradictory no matter how much you try to go down the apologetics route.
-
Really!
I'd have thought that encouraging adults to adopt an infantile approach to 'evil' (whatever that means) would in itself be infantile advice.
Of course, not all of us set much store by what the NT says anyway - but the two quotes of 'scripture' posted this morning do read as being contradictory no matter how much you try to go down the apologetics route.
Infant is not infantile. Just like child -like is not childish. I think Paul is alluding to innocence rather than participation in evil and calling it ''adult''.
-
Infant is not infantile. Just like child -like is not childish. I think Paul is alluding to innocence rather than participation in evil and calling it ''adult''.
Of course, Vlad - one of the problems I see with those who take 'scripture' too seriously is a tendency to rationalise it as Humpty Dumpty might - so that is means whatever you prefer it mean, which seems to me a core aspect of 'theology'.
Hence, for me anyway, taking into account the risks I've often mentioned, the NT is meaningless anyway.
-
Of course, Vlad - one of the problems I see with those who take 'scripture' too seriously is a tendency to rationalise it as Humpty Dumpty might - so that is means whatever you prefer it mean, which seems to me a core aspect of 'theology'.
Hence, for me anyway, taking into account the risks I've often mentioned, the NT is meaningless anyway.
But Gordon you are carrying on as though a dillitante approach to the interpretation of things you don't like is somehow mature. You've just had it demonstrated that you did not understand the context of Be like little children and were completely ignorant of ''In understanding or in thinking be mature'' in Corinthians.
Why should we then take it that you are in a position to dispense advice on scripture?
-
But Gordon you are carrying on as though a dillitante approach to the interpretation of things you don't like is somehow mature. You've just had it demonstrated that you did not understand the context of Be like little children and were completely ignorant of ''In understanding or in thinking be mature'' in Corinthians.
Why should we then take it that you are in a position to dispense advice on scripture?
I can certainly point out where bits of it seem to be contradictory - but then, as I said, I don't much care what it says anyway since I don't regard it as anything other than a collection of risk-laden ancient anecdotes of uncertain provenance that contain bits of unbelievable fantasy.
So, if you've decided on going down the 'Courtier's Reply' route - I wouldn't bother.
-
I can certainly point out where bits of it seem to be contradictory - but then, as I said, I don't much care what it says anyway since I don't regard it as anything other than a collection of risk-laden ancient anecdotes of uncertain provenance that contain bits of unbelievable fantasy.
So, if you've decided on going down the 'Courtier's Reply' route - I wouldn't bother.
The courtier's reply has to establish that the king is naked. For you to claim a Courtiers reply you have to demonstrate there is no God. Either the courtiers reply is another mislabelling or it proceeds itself from a fallacy
And I see you've gone down the fallacy of modernity route.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_novelty
-
The courtier's reply has to establish that the king is naked. For you to claim a Courtiers reply you have to demonstrate there is no God.
All I need do is point out is that you are implying that because I don't immerse myself in the content of the NT then I'm unable to offer criticism of it, such as earlier when I noted that two items of 'scripture' quoted in this thread were contradictory.
Either the courtiers reply is another mislabelling or it proceeds itself from a fallacy
Since you've said that by accusing you of deploying a Courtier's Reply I need to "demonstrate there is no God" I think it is safe to say that you don't understand the Courier's Reply.
And I see you've gone down the fallacy of modernity route.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_novelty
Then you need to visit Specsavers urgently.
-
All I need do is point out is that you are implying that because I don't immerse myself in the content of the NT then I'm unable to offer criticism of it,
No you can offer criticism of it but our necessity to take what you say seriously is undermined by your limited expertise as demonstrated by your demonstrable error in interpretation. I believe this situation is called the Dunning Kruger effect where you are willing to put up your own expertise against someone with the skills.
Since you've said that by accusing you of deploying a Courtier's Reply I need to "demonstrate there is no God"
Well the term courtiers reply is drawn from a piece of fiction so you should, if you are to be consistent, rejected particularly since it is an old story. However since you want this story then we know that the King is naked. You just act as if there is no God, and we know the tailors are crooked. You just suspect religious experts of crookedness.
So the term courtiers reply is either a mislabel or you are saying you know God doesn't exist. I think Dunning Kruger actually did for Courtiers reply.
-
No you can offer criticism of it but our necessity to take what you say seriously is undermined by your limited expertise as demonstrated by your demonstrable error in interpretation. I believe this situation is called the Dunning Kruger effect where you are willing to put up your own expertise against someone with the skills. Well the term courtiers reply is drawn from a piece of fiction so you should, if you are to be consistent, rejected particularly since it is an old story. However since you want this story then we know that the King is naked. You just act as if there is no God, and we know the tailors are crooked. You just suspect religious experts of crookedness.
So the term courtiers reply is either a mislabel or you are saying you know God doesn't exist. I think Dunning Kruger actually did for Courtiers reply.
Not even wrong.
P.S. I sorted the quotes in your previous post.
-
And what it is that trying to prove? Quoting something from the bible doesn't make it true.
It wasn't trying to prove anything. It was a saying attributed to Jesus which seemed to support Gordon's view about humans not being born with sin. It seems to suggest that small children were more 'pure of heart' and less motivated by the self centredness of adults and adolescents. It is a theme which appears in the words of others from other backgrounds.
Upanishads Let a Brahmin reject erudition and live as a child
Black Elk (Holy Man of Oglala Sioux) Grown men may learn from very little children, for the hearts of little children are pure, and, therefore, the Great Spirit may show to them many things which older people miss.
Sri Ramakrishna [19th C Hindu saint] So long as one does not become simple like a child one does not get divine illumination.
Takuan (16th Century Zen Abbot) Zen is to have the heart and soul of a little child.
-
But it does alleviate straw manning and tempers cherry picking.
But surely picking a single quote from a huge tone like the bible (or even jus the gospels) which are regularly self contradictory is the very epitope of cherry picking is it not.
-
It wasn't trying to prove anything. It was a saying attributed to Jesus which seemed to support Gordon's view about humans not being born with sin.
But if that is the case it demonstrates the very essence of the self contradiction within christianity - a religion which is fundamentally based on a notion that all humans are with sin from birth (due to the fall, as described in genesis) and are therefore in need of salvation and redemption that can only be achieved through Jesus. If humans are born without sin then the whole purpose of christianity falls apart as only some (those who become sinful) would need salvation and redemption.
-
But if that is the case it demonstrates the very essence of the self contradiction within christianity - a religion which is fundamentally based on a notion that all humans are with sin from birth (due to the fall, as described in genesis) and are therefore in need of salvation and redemption that can only be achieved through Jesus. If humans are born without sin then the whole purpose of christianity falls apart as only some (those who become sinful) would need salvation and redemption.
How are you defining sin here? Are you not aware that the church did without the ruthless theology of Augustine for several centuries and that fact alone torpedoes your thesis of the centrality of original sin. Were you not aware of ''through Adam but through christ'' theology namely the several references to Christ's overturning of the effects of Adam. I'll admit that leaves us with the dismissal of Adult and deliberate sin as ''i'm only human''. That's an original sin theory turned on it's head and used as an excuse.
At the end of the day only you and God know your real spiritual and moral standing so you need to divest yourself of being a member of a society that doesn't care for religion and even being of a chosen people or your 'nation having a manifest destiny'....It's just you and God at the end of the day.
-
I dunno but I did request you forget about it since I think you need to be concerned at your own deliberate sin. Original sin not universally held and only really formulated and promoted by Augustine. Scripturally Christ reverses any thing Adam ever did which leaves us with our own sin.
What seems certain is that the idea of original sin surfaces in the excuse ''I'm only human'' which is really inherited sin warmed over for non religious consumption.
I've always understood that "I'm only human" is a colloquialism meaning "I'm fallible". Is it really your contention that "original sin" is a term that means "humans are fallible"? Because, if so, why does God prescribe such extreme punishment for a propensity to make mistakes? Bear in mind, that it was God made us fallible, according to Christians.
-
But your bible has, as a central concept, the notion that individual people are sinful and guilty regardless of whether they have done anything wrong themselves.
You might be surprised, but this is not strictly speaking true. Original sin was a concept invented by Christians after all the canonical texts were written.
-
The courtier's reply has to establish that the king is naked.
Nope. The emperor is naked. The courtier's reply is to claim you can't say the emperor is naked unless you are an expert in tailoring.
-
Nope. The emperor is naked. The courtier's reply is to claim you can't say the emperor is naked unless you are an expert in tailoring.
The emperor is naked, we know that from the person telling the story. We know how the king ended up naked and we know that the tailors were wronguns.
So Myers interpretation is that there is no god and therefore no work has been done to explain claims of God, Oh and religious people are wronguns.
.
Apparently Myers fell out of love with Dawkins soon after.
And then atheists started to appeal to ''Dunning Kruger'' and ''pigeon chess'' which actually find the opposite of the Courtiers reply argument.
-
I've always understood that "I'm only human" is a colloquialism meaning "I'm fallible". Is it really your contention that "original sin" is a term that means "humans are fallible"? Because, if so, why does God prescribe such extreme punishment for a propensity to make mistakes? Bear in mind, that it was God made us fallible, according to Christians.
Well continual wrong doing without repentance and no end of site in the commission of sin by Johnson and inveterate Tory voters can hardly be called a mistake and yet as we say here we are, after years of the ''Good bloke'' hypothesis, a genuine and unmistakeable evil bastard whose actions have cost thousands of lives and the populace backed him until it seems he threatened their pockets.
These are deliberate acts Jeremy.
On the other hand you seem to favour an original sin theory. If everyone really is a good bloke what is the limit and nature of their fallibility?
-
But if that is the case it demonstrates the very essence of the self contradiction within christianity - a religion which is fundamentally based on a notion that all humans are with sin from birth (due to the fall, as described in genesis) and are therefore in need of salvation and redemption that can only be achieved through Jesus. If humans are born without sin then the whole purpose of christianity falls apart as only some (those who become sinful) would need salvation and redemption.
That seems to be the problem with organised religions. A power base is set up which decides on interpretation of scripture and what scripture is admissible and either opponents are imprisoned or executed or there are schisms like that between Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy, Catholics and Protestants. It is not much different in Islam. Jesus wasn't a Christian, he was a Jew who criticised the Jewish authorities and paid the penalty for deviation.
As regards 'sin', the Greek word in the New Testament is, I believe, 'hamartia' which I think translates as 'missing the mark'. I suspect that the 'mark' is 'Heaven' an inner state of joy or bliss and that a small child (at least in those days) represented that state before egotistical training kicks in presenting ample opportunities to 'miss the mark' or sin. Jesus perhaps tried to teach a way to stay attuned to that inner state through metanoia (beyond mind) which is unfortunately translated as 'repent'.
Where is the sin? ..... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEeizaWjdXw
-
Well continual wrong doing without repentance and no end of site in the commission of sin by Johnson and inveterate Tory voters can hardly be called a mistake
Are you now claiming that only Tory ministers are sinners?
I think you should take a few days off and think about things very hard to try to get your story straight.
These are deliberate acts Jeremy.
Earlier you equated sinning with being fallible. Mistakes are not deliberate acts.
-
How are you defining sin here?
It isn't how I define it that matters (actually it isn't a term I, nor most atheists, tend to use). The issue is how christian denominations define it.
Are you not aware that the church did without the ruthless theology of Augustine for several centuries and that fact alone torpedoes your thesis of the centrality of original sin.
No it doesn't and your point is irrelevant. In the earliest centuries post-1stC the notion of christian doctrine was in flux and, indeed we have very little information as to what doctrinal elements were, and were not, to the fore. The key point is that once some level of orthodoxy of christian doctrine was established in the late 4thC the notion of original sin, as I have described it, became embedded. And of course this wasn't some kind of Jonny come lately idea, bit one that links to the earliest of Jewish theology from the Garden of Eden myth.
Were you not aware of ''through Adam but through christ'' theology namely the several references to Christ's overturning of the effects of Adam. I'll admit that leaves us with the dismissal of Adult and deliberate sin as ''i'm only human''. That's an original sin theory turned on it's head and used as an excuse.
Sure, of course, no one is arguing that the central concept of christianity is that through Jesus you can be redeemed and saved from the sin established by the fall of Adam in the Garden of Eden - that's the whole point. But the key element here is that sin is 'inherited' and that a person is born in sin regardless of whether or not that person has done anything wrong, which, in the case of new born babies, they won't have done. Yet in the eyes of christian doctrine those new born babies are already in sin.
-
It isn't how I define it that matters (actually it isn't a term I, nor most atheists, tend to use). The issue is how christian denominations define it.
First of all your definition determines whether you are straw manning. Secondly, Sin is deliberate offence against another, That is clear for instance in the anglican confession before God ''We have sinned against you and against our fellow man'', a confession that doesn't mention original sin. Atheists I have known reject the word sin because they believe there is no god to sin against but sin is not just against God but against anybody. Atheists here are straw manning.
No it doesn't and your point is irrelevant. In the earliest centuries post-1stC the notion of christian doctrine was in flux and, indeed we have very little information as to what doctrinal elements were, and were not, to the fore. The key point is that once some level of orthodoxy of christian doctrine was established in the late 4thC the notion of original sin, as I have described it, became embedded.
But not, I think in the eastern church in the theologies of Chrysosthom, Nyssa, Nazianzus etc.
Sure, of course, no one is arguing that the central concept of christianity is that through Jesus you can be redeemed and saved from the sin established by the fall of Adam in the Garden of Eden - that's the whole point.[/quote] That says nothing, I think you'll admit, though about the sin committed by each individual. But the key element here is that sin is 'inherited' and that a person is born in sin regardless of whether or not that person has done anything wrong, which, in the case of new born babies, they won't have done. Yet in the eyes of christian doctrine those new born babies are already in sin.
The Key element is that all have fallen short though, through commission, through omission through deliberate fault (ref Anglican confession). Why is the original sin of Adam not mentioned here? Because Christ has overturned that as Paul mentions in the Epistle. The sins that we ''Die in'' according to John's Gospel are ours.
-
Are you now claiming that only Tory ministers are sinners?
No, all are sinners...but they are a public example of sin deliberately committed, the corruption of sin leading to more commission and no public display of repentance.
-
Changing the name could not have been critical to his overall intent. Poor defence.
Again, it doesn't need defending, it stands on its own merits, and holds up well.
But you have nothing which prevents you from straw manning the Gospel
Which interpretation of the Gospel have I given which isn't actually held by someone, somewhere?
What does that mean.
Exactly what it says - we don't have some overarcing text that defines any sort of unified belief system to which we must adhere.
In this day and age the bible doesn't have to be followed by anyone.
And yet elements of it, and other holy books, are written into law - and held as cultural expectations - all over the world without any rational justification.
So what do you mean?Give an example.
This board is full of them. You keep referring to Professor Dawkins as though that's an argument, rather that actually addressing any of the points that he, and others, make.
Only God can forgive sin.
Assert that the imaginary figure can forgive the imaginary stain... what was it about turtles all the way down?
But more importantly how can a con be a bad thing, if there is no crime.
No crime? Moral or legislative? Misogyny, homophobia, institutional cover-ups of abuse...
So far you have a con is wrong, is a crime and therefore a sin, sin is apparently made up and so a con cannot be a crime and yet you are the authority which wants power over it's identification and condemnation.
No, so far we have a con - a con without any significant ill-effect is practical joke, but this is a bit more than whoppee cushion. Whether a crime is a sin or not is a meaningless contention - sin isn't a thing. Whether something is a crime is only partially linked to whether any given community thinks the con is morally wrong or not.
Things only have power as long as you let 'em.
No, things have power so long as other people are electing the officials that will enforce those things, or people are selling guns to those who will enforce those things.
What we say is that wrong doing is what exerts it's authority.
What?
O.
-
Again, it doesn't need defending, it stands on its own merits, and holds up well.
Saying something doesn't need defending because an Ad Hom here and there will clinch it isn't very good. In fact that's a little bit courtiers reply isn't it.
So aside from that what are it's merits?
-
The Key element is that all have fallen short though, through commission, through omission through deliberate fault (ref Anglican confession). Why is the original sin of Adam not mentioned here?
Except, of course, it is.
Article IX "Of Original or Birth-sin" from the 39 articles of religion of Anglicanism:
'it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that naturally is ingendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God's wrath and damnation.'
That's pretty clear - linked to Adam, inherited, appears at birth regardless of whether that person has done anything wrong (which a new born baby won't have done) and punishable by wrath and damnation.
-
Except, of course, it is.
Article IX "Of Original or Birth-sin" from the 39 articles of religion of Anglicanism:
'it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that naturally is ingendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God's wrath and damnation.'
That's pretty clear - linked to Adam, inherited, appears at birth regardless of whether that person has done anything wrong (which a new born baby won't have done) and punishable by wrath and damnation.
And clearer still in catholicism - from the catechism of the catholic church:
'By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all humans.
Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called "original sin".'
-
And clearer still in catholicism - from the catechism of the catholic church:
'By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all humans.
Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called "original sin".'
You are clearly ignoring the scriptures here.
"For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive" (1 Corinthians 15:21-22). The process by which the death which is the wages of sin is transmitted is not elaborated on but the results of Adam is, here, overturned by Christ.
Paul also addresses this issue in Romans 5. Verses 14-15 "Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many."
https://orthodoxwiki.org/Original_sin
-
You are clearly ignoring the scriptures here.
"For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive" (1 Corinthians 15:21-22). The process by which the death which is the wages of sin is transmitted is not elaborated on but the results of Adam is, here, overturned by Christ.
Paul also addresses this issue in Romans 5. Verses 14-15 "Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many."
https://orthodoxwiki.org/Original_sin
You are just digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole, as everything you provide further supports what I said previously, namely:
But your bible has, as a central concept, the notion that individual people are sinful and guilty regardless of whether they have done anything wrong themselves. And the reason being that some distant forefather did something wrong and they have somehow 'inherited' that sin and guilt.
... christianity - a religion which is fundamentally based on a notion that all humans are with sin from birth (due to the fall, as described in genesis) and are therefore in need of salvation and redemption that can only be achieved through Jesus.
Sure, of course, no one is arguing that the central concept of christianity is that through Jesus you can be redeemed and saved from the sin established by the fall of Adam in the Garden of Eden - that's the whole point. But the key element here is that sin is 'inherited' and that a person is born in sin regardless of whether or not that person has done anything wrong, which, in the case of new born babies, they won't have done. Yet in the eyes of christian doctrine those new born babies are already in sin.
So we aren't really arguing over what christian doctrine considers original sin to be. My point is that the notion of collective inherited guilt - that regardless of whether a person has done anything wrong themselves that they are sinful due to the sins of a many generation ancestor is, in my opinion, morally repugnant. Even more so if this sin (which is nothing to do with anything that individual has done) is punishable. The notion that christianity suggests a 'get out of jail free' option is irrelevant - if you've done nothing wrong why should you be guilty by association and potentially subjected to punishment.
And also as I've mentioned before, once you embed the notion that someone is guilty and punishable not for anything they have done but for wrongdoing of an ancestor it becomes very easy to justify punishing and persecuting individuals and groups of people who haven't done anything wrong toward you but because you perceive that their great, great... grandfather transgressed against your great, great... grandfather. And we know where that attitude leads.
-
Saying something doesn't need defending because an Ad Hom here and there will clinch it isn't very good. In fact that's a little bit courtiers reply isn't it.
Not really. It's refuting the logical fallacy that you've somehow made a point in refutation of the arguments by noting that they're made by Professor Dawkins.
So aside from that what are it's merits?
The most obvious one at the moment would seem to be that you don't have a refutation to any of the arguments therein, and are instead resorting to ad hominem attacks.
O.
-
You are just digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole, as everything you provide further supports what I said previously, namely:
That the eastern church thought sin can only be freely committed and therefore the guilt is only on him and her that commits shows that you haven't read everything I provided.
But your bible has, as a central concept, the notion that individual people are sinful and guilty regardless of whether they have done anything wrong themselves.
Firstly that only gained ground with Augustine and never in the Eastern ChurchAnd the reason being that some distant forefather did something wrong and they have somehow 'inherited' that sin and guilt.[/i]
You have omitted consequences of the fall, a feature of theology for the eastern church. Of course, the first humans set the tone for the rest of us, but to deprive us of a relationship with God or the possibility of such is not, thanks to Christ, is not possible
... christianity - a religion which is fundamentally based on a notion that all humans are with sin from birth (due to the fall, as described in genesis) and are therefore in need of salvation and redemption that can only be achieved through Jesus.
Since salvation is in Christ and Christ is in the father.
Sure, of course, no one is arguing that the central concept of christianity is that through Jesus you can be redeemed and saved from the sin established by the fall of Adam in the Garden of Eden - that's the whole point. But the key element here is that sin is 'inherited' and that a person is born in sin regardless of whether or not that person has done anything wrong, which, in the case of new born babies, they won't have done. Yet in the eyes of christian doctrine those new born babies are already in sin.
Again you are ignoring the orthodox church doctrine on this which states They are in sin because they are born into the consequences of the original sin they do not hold guilt for that sin but guilt for there own sin (see Romans 5)
So we aren't really arguing over what christian doctrine considers original sin to be. My point is that the notion of collective inherited guilt - that regardless of whether a person has done anything wrong themselves that they are sinful due to the sins of a many generation ancestor is, in my opinion, morally repugnant.
And so does the Eastern church and myself and the schoolmen of medievel christianity Even more so if this sin (which is nothing to do with anything that individual has done) is punishable. The notion that christianity suggests a 'get out of jail free' option is irrelevant - if you've done nothing wrong why should you be guilty by association and potentially subjected to punishment.
You shouldn't...... and that goes back to the early eastern church fathers. You need to concentrate on your own sins and your own relation with God since Christ has overturned Adam's work and the way back to God is now open
And also as I've mentioned before, once you embed the notion that someone is guilty and punishable not for anything they have done but for wrongdoing of an ancestor it becomes very easy to justify punishing and persecuting individuals and groups of people who haven't done anything wrong toward you but because you perceive that their great, great... grandfather transgressed against your great, great... grandfather. And we know where that attitude leads.
The last paragraph completely ignores the biblical injunction to turn the other cheek, love your neighbour, forgiveness and that all have fallen short not just Adam or the first humans. All have turned away at one time or another.
-
That the eastern church thought sin can only be freely committed and therefore the guilt is only on him and her that commits shows that you haven't read everything I provided. Firstly that only gained ground with Augustine and never in the Eastern Church
You have omitted consequences of the fall, a feature of theology for the eastern church. Of course, the first humans set the tone for the rest of us, but to deprive us of a relationship with God or the possibility of such is not, thanks to Christ, is not possible Since salvation is in Christ and Christ is in the father.
Again you are ignoring the orthodox church doctrine on this which states They are in sin because they are born into the consequences of the original sin they do not hold guilt for that sin but guilt for there own sin (see Romans 5)
And so does the Eastern church and myself and the schoolmen of medievel christianity
You shouldn't...... and that goes back to the early eastern church fathers. You need to concentrate on your own sins and your own relation with God since Christ has overturned Adam's work and the way back to God is now open
You do seem rather obsessed with the Eastern church - why might that be? Perhaps because you know that what I have said aligns with the doctrinal position of virtually all christian denominations. So you focus on the anomaly.
But actually I don't think your implication that the eastern church does not consider original sin to be inherited - this from wiki on the topic:
Eastern Christianity accepts the doctrine of ancestral sin: "Original sin is hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve's. As life passes from them to all of their descendants, so does original sin." "As from an infected source there naturally flows an infected stream, so from a father infected with sin, and consequently mortal, there naturally proceeds a posterity infected like him with sin, and like him mortal."
Sounds pretty much like a another description of collected inherited guilt to me.
-
You do seem rather obsessed with the Eastern church - why might that be? Perhaps because you know that what I have said aligns with the doctrinal position of virtually all christian denominations. So you focus on the anomaly.
No, I recognise their existence and you don't. That is not obsession but what it does mean is that some of the later formulations of the Western church do not represent the eastern church, the whole of the early church. That's too big, seminal and basic for an anomaly in any case.
But actually I don't think your implication that the eastern church does not consider original sin to be inherited - this from wiki on the topic:
Eastern Christianity accepts the doctrine of ancestral sin: "Original sin is hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve's. As life passes from them to all of their descendants, so does original sin." "As from an infected source there naturally flows an infected stream, so from a father infected with sin, and consequently mortal, there naturally proceeds a posterity infected like him with sin, and like him mortal."
From the wiki on original sin:
''Theologians have characterized this condition in many ways, seeing it as ranging from something as insignificant as a slight deficiency, or a tendency toward sin yet without collective guilt, referred to as a "sin nature", to total depravity or automatic guilt of all humans through collective guilt''
There is nothing which specifically points to this church or indeed any church specifying Darwinian inheritance in fact these things were formulated prior to Darwin here rather than an obvious legacy of our forebears namely the social, spiritual and environmental factors left to us.
Sounds pretty much like a another description of collected inherited guilt to me.
No. orthodoxy, historically, as I have said do not believe in inherited guilt for Adam's sin. You seem to want to ignore this.
-
No, I recognise their existence and you don't. That is not obsession but what it does mean is that some of the later formulations of the Western church do not represent the eastern church, the whole of the early church. That's too big, seminal and basic for an anomaly in any case.
I am well aware of their existence, but not so obsessed with them that I use the words 'eastern/orthodox' six times in a short post.
So I assume you are a member of the eastern orthodox church then Vlad? If not then I presume you to be a member of one of the other churches that you suggest have a different view on inherited sin and would therefore think the eastern orthodox church to be wrong.
But realistically you are in 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin' territory here Vlad. My point is that the notion that because of the what Adam & Eve did (well didn't actually as they are mythical characters) we all inherit a negative and punishable trait (call it sin, death, separation from god, guilt, disease or whatever you like) irrespective of anything we have individually done is morally repugnant in my view. And that basic concept exists in the eastern church as well as other denominations.
-
There is nothing which specifically points to this church or indeed any church specifying Darwinian inheritance in fact these things were formulated prior to Darwin here rather than an obvious legacy of our forebears namely the social, spiritual and environmental factors left to us.
From the same page - in fact the first line just before your quote:
'Original sin is the Christian doctrine that humans inherit a tainted nature and a proclivity to sin through the fact of birth'
Yes it is standard christian doctrine (even in the eastern church) that at birth we inherit a tainted nature due to what happened to Adam & Eve regardless of anything we might have done as individuals. To suggest otherwise is trying to argue that black is white. And although there are some differences in its interpretation between varying denominations this basis principle is pretty well universal in christianity.
-
You do seem rather obsessed with the Eastern church - why might that be? Perhaps because you know that what I have said aligns with the doctrinal position of virtually all christian denominations. So you focus on the anomaly.
No, I recognise their existence and you don't. That is not obsession but what it does mean is that some of the later formulations of the Western church do not represent the eastern church, the whole of the early church. That's too big, seminal and basic for an anomaly in any case.
But actually I don't think your implication that the eastern church does not consider original sin to be inherited - this from wiki on the topic:
Eastern Christianity accepts the doctrine of ancestral sin: "Original sin is hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve's. As life passes from them to all of their descendants, so does original sin." "As from an infected source there naturally flows an infected stream, so from a father infected with sin, and consequently mortal, there naturally proceeds a posterity infected like him with sin, and like him mortal."
From the wiki on original sin:
''Theologians have characterized this condition in many ways, seeing it as ranging from something as insignificant as a slight deficiency, or a tendency toward sin yet without collective guilt, referred to as a "sin nature", to total depravity or automatic guilt of all humans through collective guilt''
There is nothing which specifically points to this church or indeed any church specifying Darwinian inheritance in fact these things were formulated prior to Darwin here rather than an obvious legacy of our forebears namely the social, spiritual and environmental factors left to us.
Sounds pretty much like a another description of collected inherited guilt to me.
No. orthodoxy, historically, as I have said do not believe in inherited guilt for Adam's sin. You seem to want to ignore this.
-
You do seem rather obsessed with the Eastern church - why might that be? Perhaps because you know that what I have said aligns with the doctrinal position of virtually all christian denominations. So you focus on the anomaly.
No, I recognise their existence and you don't. That is not obsession but what it does mean is that some of the later formulations of the Western church do not represent the eastern church, the whole of the early church. That's too big, seminal and basic for an anomaly in any case.
But actually I don't think your implication that the eastern church does not consider original sin to be inherited - this from wiki on the topic:
Eastern Christianity accepts the doctrine of ancestral sin: "Original sin is hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve's. As life passes from them to all of their descendants, so does original sin." "As from an infected source there naturally flows an infected stream, so from a father infected with sin, and consequently mortal, there naturally proceeds a posterity infected like him with sin, and like him mortal."
From the wiki on original sin:
''Theologians have characterized this condition in many ways, seeing it as ranging from something as insignificant as a slight deficiency, or a tendency toward sin yet without collective guilt, referred to as a "sin nature", to total depravity or automatic guilt of all humans through collective guilt''
There is nothing which specifically points to this church or indeed any church specifying Darwinian inheritance in fact these things were formulated prior to Darwin here rather than an obvious legacy of our forebears namely the social, spiritual and environmental factors left to us.
Sounds pretty much like a another description of collected inherited guilt to me.
No. orthodoxy, historically, as I have said do not believe in inherited guilt for Adam's sin. You seem to want to ignore this.
-
No, I recognise their existence and you don't. That is not obsession but what it does mean is that some of the later formulations of the Western church do not represent the eastern church, the whole of the early church. That's too big, seminal and basic for an anomaly in any case.From the wiki on original sin:
''Theologians have characterized this condition in many ways, seeing it as ranging from something as insignificant as a slight deficiency, or a tendency toward sin yet without collective guilt, referred to as a "sin nature", to total depravity or automatic guilt of all humans through collective guilt''
There is nothing which specifically points to this church or indeed any church specifying Darwinian inheritance in fact these things were formulated prior to Darwin here rather than an obvious legacy of our forebears namely the social, spiritual and environmental factors left to us. No. orthodoxy, historically, as I have said do not believe in inherited guilt for Adam's sin. You seem to want to ignore this.
Why have you posted the same thing twice Vlad.
Can you answer my earlier question please - are you a member of the eastern orthodox church? If not which denomination are you a member of?
-
From the same page - in fact the first line just before your quote:
'Original sin is the Christian doctrine that humans inherit a tainted nature and a proclivity to sin through the fact of birth'
Yes it is standard christian doctrine (even in the eastern church) that at birth we inherit a tainted nature due to what happened to Adam & Eve regardless of anything we might have done as individuals. To suggest otherwise is trying to argue that black is white. And although there are some differences in its interpretation between varying denominations this basis principle is pretty well universal in christianity.
Normally the only thing we inherit at birth is environment and heritage. Haven't we inherited genetically on conception?
The trouble is here with the meaning of the word inherited and how that happened. That is why I mentioned a spiritual inheritance could be one meaning. Blow me down if memetics might get us someway to this...but maybe nowhere
-
Normally the only thing we inherit at birth is environment and heritage. Haven't we inherited genetically on conception?
The trouble is here with the meaning of the word inherited and how that happened. That is why I mentioned a spiritual inheritance could be one meaning. Blow me down if memetics might get us someway to this...but maybe nowhere
Can you answer my earlier question please - are you a member of the eastern orthodox church? If not which denomination are you a member of?
And while we are waiting perhaps you'd like to read something from a leading member of the eastern orthodox church Archbishop Sotirios Athanassoulas on the eastern church's view on original sin. I guess you will accept that an eastern orthodox archbishop is probably more qualified to speak on the position of the eastern orthodox church than either you nor I.
http://biserica.org/Publicatii/Catechism/catorsin.htm
-
Why have you posted the same thing twice Vlad.
Can you answer my earlier question please - are you a member of the eastern orthodox church? If not which denomination are you a member of?
Not a member of the Eastern Orthodox, I was confirmed into the Church of England and simultaneously received into membership of the Methodist church. I merely agree that there is no inherited guilt but do not rule out a spiritual inheritance which Christ has overturned in any case and now we are free to open a relationship with God or reject. Wanting some kind of Godless salvation is also meaningless IMV.
-
Not a member of the Eastern Orthodox, I was confirmed into the Church of England and simultaneously received into membership of the Methodist church.
Both of which doctrinally accept the notion of inherited guilt.
I merely agree that there is no inherited guilt ...
Agree with whom - certainly not Archbishop Sotirios Athanassoulas of the eastern orthodox church who seems pretty clear that one of the elements of original sin is guilt and that it is inherited:
'That is original sin. And its consequences? A.) Spiritual death. That is, the separation of man from God, the source of all goodness. B.) Bodily death. That is, the separation of the body from the soul, the return of the body to the earth. C.) The shattering and distortion of the "image." That is, darkness of mind, depravity and corruption of the heart, loss of independence, loss of free will, and tendency towards evil. Since then "the imagination of man's heart is evil "(Genesis 8:21). Man constantly thinks of evil. D.) Guilt. That is, a bad conscience, the shame that made him want to hide from God. E.) Worst of all, original sin is hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve's. As life passes from them to all of their descendants, so does original sin.'[/i]
-
Can you answer my earlier question please - are you a member of the eastern orthodox church? If not which denomination are you a member of?
And while we are waiting perhaps you'd like to read something from a leading member of the eastern orthodox church Archbishop Sotirios Athanassoulas on the eastern church's view on original sin. I guess you will accept that an eastern orthodox archbishop is probably more qualified to speak on the position of the eastern orthodox church than either you nor I.
http://biserica.org/Publicatii/Catechism/catorsin.htm
An alternative Orthodox view of the belief of St John Chrysostom.
-
Both of which doctrinally accept the notion of inherited guilt.
Agree with whom - certainly not Archbishop Sotirios Athanassoulas of the eastern orthodox church who seems pretty clear that one of the elements of original sin is guilt and that it is inherited:
'That is original sin. And its consequences? A.) Spiritual death. That is, the separation of man from God, the source of all goodness. B.) Bodily death. That is, the separation of the body from the soul, the return of the body to the earth. C.) The shattering and distortion of the "image." That is, darkness of mind, depravity and corruption of the heart, loss of independence, loss of free will, and tendency towards evil. Since then "the imagination of man's heart is evil "(Genesis 8:21). Man constantly thinks of evil. D.) Guilt. That is, a bad conscience, the shame that made him want to hide from God. E.) Worst of all, original sin is hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve's. As life passes from them to all of their descendants, so does original sin.'[/i]
But the archbishop sees these as consequences of the fall rather than punishments for the guilt of. These consequences are spiritual. But as I have said these are overturned by Christ. I question here whether the Archbishop is using the word guilt in the sense of of forensic guilt indeed he uses to mean what I would call Goddodging. Again, I am not arguing that we haven't inherited the consequences, just the punishment for or forensic guilt of. How we inherit is a different matter and I don't rule out a spiritual inheritance. I think he certainly sounds a bit Augustinian with his loss of free will.
-
But the archbishop sees these as consequences of the fall rather than punishments for the guilt of.
When in a hole, stop digging. The Archbishop sees guilt as one of the inherited elements of original sin. That is clear.
What he is saying is that there are certain characteristics (negative ones) that we inherit not because of anything we have done but because of what Adam & Eve did (or rather didn't do, as that story is a myth).
And he is also pretty clear that we are all responsible for those inherited sins and have to pay for them - directly following on from my previous quote of his about the heritability of original sin, including the element of guilt:
'We all of us participate in original sin because we are all descended from the same forefather, Adam. This creates a problem for many people. They ask, Why should we be responsible for the actions of Adam and Eve? Why should we have to pay for the sins of our parents? they say. Unfortunately, this is so, because the consequence of original sin is the distortion of the nature of man.'
-
When in a hole, stop digging. The Archbishop sees guilt as one of the inherited elements of original sin. That is clear.But he describes it as shame rather than forensic guilt
What he is saying is that there are certain characteristics (negative ones) that we inherit not because of anything we have done but because of what Adam & Eve did (or rather didn't do, as that story is a myth).
Yes it is mythic. But we do need the first humans or even human whether you are a fundamentalist or Biologist that is the first human or humans capable of sinning through his own free will. We do know that humans can take decisions with a moral dimension that have fantastic consequences for our environment and I would even say affect our genetic inheritance. This puts us back that we are all Adams and take the same path that he took except for Christ.
Again all churches believe that Christ overturns Original sin which in a way it is no longer a valid excuse for not seeking God. All churches emphasise that all have fallen through their own deliberate fault. And the archbishop never mentions forensic guilt.
-
All churches emphasise that all have fallen through their own deliberate fault.
I have no issue with individuals being held to account for things they have done through their own deliberate fault. But all churches (or at least all I'm aware of) also emphasise guilt/sin that is not their own deliberate fault but due to 'original sin' and also indicate that people will be held to account for this too, even though it is not their own fault. And the Archbishop is no exception.
And the archbishop never mentions forensic guilt.
He clearly says that individuals will have to pay for something that is not their responsibility but that of their parents, so to speak:
'Why should we have to pay for the sins of our parents? they say. Unfortunately, this is so, because the consequence of original sin is the distortion of the nature of man.'
That is the part I find morally repugnant - effectively that someone should be held to account (pay for in the words of the Archbishop) for a perceived sin committed by someone many, many generations ago.
-
All churches emphasise that all have fallen through their own deliberate fault.
But they don't do they - any church that considers a new born baby to have 'fallen' cannot reasonably consider the reason to be their own deliberate fault. What on earth has that new born baby done that is at fault, let alone their own deliberate fault. By considering a new born baby to be 'at fault' in the same manner as a hardened criminal (which is the necessary conclusion from original sin) the church is completely failing to emphasise 'own deliberate fault' but focusing on the fault of others visited upon that individual regardless of any deliberate fault on the part of that person.
-
.
He clearly says that individuals will have to pay for something that is not their responsibility but that of their parents, so to speak:
'Why should we have to pay for the sins of our parents? they say. Unfortunately, this is so, because the consequence of original sin is the distortion of the nature of man.'
Again he says it is a consequence of the fall. Let me give an example. Amazonian tribes may pay for global warming by being flooded out and yet they have no part in the creation of Global warming. We have always had to pay for some things we were bequeathed.
That is the part I find morally repugnant - effectively that someone should be held to account (pay for in the words of the Archbishop) for a perceived sin committed by someone many, many generations ago.
Unfortunately that is a natural consequence of sin. Moral repugnance would be in order were one to be found forensically guilty of the fall which God would not do since it defies his nature and logic.
Regarding the archbishop's remarks, they did cause a minor stir in the Orthodox Church of America as referenced on their website in terms of whether it was opposed to orthodox teaching.
https://www.oca.org/questions/teaching/original-sin
-
But they don't do they - any church that considers a new born baby to have 'fallen' cannot reasonably consider the reason to be their own deliberate fault. St John Crysto What on earth has that new born baby done that is at fault, let alone their own deliberate fault. By considering a new born baby to be 'at fault' in the same manner as a hardened criminal (which is the necessary conclusion from original sin) the church is completely failing to emphasise 'own deliberate fault' but focusing on the fault of others visited upon that individual regardless of any deliberate fault on the part of that person.
Nobody has said new born babies have fallen through their own deliberate fault. What is the bloody matter with you?
If you say the focus of the church is on original sin then you are palpably inflating it's importance and the unity of purpose in interpreting it.
-
Again he says it is a consequence of the fall. Let me give an example. Amazonian tribes may pay for global warming by being flooded out and yet they have no part in the creation of Global warming. We have always had to pay for some things we were bequeathed.
But global warming and its causes are real things, they aren't religious dogma. The concept of original sin isn't like global warming at all - the notion that we all must pay for something not our fault is a made-up concept within christian religious dogma - and one I find morally repugnant and also deeply dangerous as it provides justification for persecution of individuals and groups on the basis of perceived wrongdoing of their forefathers.
-
Nobody has said new born babies have fallen through their own deliberate fault. What is the bloody matter with you?
But christian dogma on original sin suggests they have fallen just as much as a hardened criminal - hence there is no emphasis on 'own deliberate fault' as you claimed.
-
But christian dogma on original sin suggests they have fallen just as much as a hardened criminal - hence there is no emphasis on 'own deliberate fault' as you claimed.
Of course there is emphasis on one's own sins. It is scriptural. ''All have sinned'' ''all have fallen short''. Original sin is only finalised and formalised in it's augustinian form in I believe the fourth century and not universally. In the East the fathers state that the new born are not guilty and are held in God's hands.
The anglican order of service has a confessional for sins committed through our own deliberate fault.
Jesus himself warns those and about those who cause children to fall.
-
Of course there is emphasis on one's own sins. It is scriptural. ''All have sinned'' ''all have fallen short''.
But how can a new born baby have sinned, how can a new born baby have fallen short - the only way in which a new born baby can be considered to ''have sinned'' or ''have fallen short'' is if the emphasis is on someone else's sins, not the baby's.
-
Original sin is only finalised and formalised in it's augustinian form in I believe the fourth century and not universally.
Frankly pretty well all that we consider to be doctrinally christian comes from that point onward. Up until then there was so much fluidity and churn that we cannot reasonably say what christian belief was. Moreover we have so little information from those early days that we really have little idea of what they thought. And don't forget that most of what we know about the so-called church fathers is seen through the prism of the 4thC orthodoxy. Indeed what was considered to be scriptural in the new testament wasn't actually settled until mid 4thC.
-
But how can a new born baby have sinned, how can a new born babu have fallen short - the only way in which a new born baby can be considered to ''have sinned'' or ''have fallen short'' is if the emphasis is on someone else's sins, not the baby's.
Yes. But that is not universal doctrine and even where it is there is the belief that Christ has overturned it. The evidence being that the way to God is open through Christ. Have you read anything I have posted?
-
Frankly pretty well all that we consider to be doctrinally christian comes from that point onward. Up until then there was so much fluidity and churn that we cannot reasonably say what christian belief was.
Exaggeration Moreover we have so little information from those early days that we really have little idea of what they thought. Exaggeration And don't forget that most of what we know about the so-called church fathers is seen through the prism of the 4thC orthodoxy. Indeed what was considered to be scriptural in the new testament wasn't actually settled until mid 4thC.
I think we know that Augustine used a peculiar translation of Paul at the time and misunderstood St John Crysosthom and we know that subsequent synods and councils did not pass all of what Augustine was trying to get passed.
-
Yes. But that is not universal doctrine
Saying it isn't universal doctrine doesn't absolve you of the fact that it is the predominant doctrine across most christian denominations. I accept that the eastern church has a somewhat different take on original sin, but those differences are in the margins. But as far as I'm aware all other major christian denominations - e.g. RCC, anglican, methodist, baptist, seventh day adventists, JW etc etc
and even where it is there is the belief that Christ has overturned it.
Only conditionally on the basis that people follow Jesus. That doesn't change the basic notion that original sin doctrine is based on the notion that a person is with sin regardless of anything they have done, but due to the perceived transgression of others from generations ago that they have inherited. A repugnant concept.
The evidence being that the way to God is open through Christ.
Like I said - conditional. But in order to be 'saved' you first have to be defined doctrinally as being sinful regardless of whether or not you have done anything wrong.
Have you read anything I have posted?
Of course I have - and I am aware of the fundamental tenets of christian doctrine Vlad. The issue isn't whether I have read what you say - my issue is that I find the basic concept of collective inherited guilt (or sin, call it what you like) embedded in christian doctrine to be morally repugnant and dangerous.
-
I think we know that Augustine used a peculiar translation of Paul at the time and misunderstood St John Crysosthom and we know that subsequent synods and councils did not pass all of what Augustine was trying to get passed.
Well in terms of original sin Augustine's main critic was Pelagius who rejected the notion of original sin, did not consider that original sin taints human nature, taught that humans were free of the burden of original sin, because it would be unjust for any person to be blamed for another's actions. He considered that babies were born blameless. Yet the two denominations you mentioned being a member of, anglican and methodist, specifically reject Pelagius' view by name - 'Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk) ...'
Your guys really, really hated the notion that babies might be born blameless, and that it would be unjust to blame a person for another's actions - so much so they had to dismiss Pelagius' views by name in their doctrinal statement on original sin. Oh, and of course Pelagius was considered to be a heretic for having such appalling views that babies might be born blameless, and that it would be unjust to blame a person for another's actions.
-
Well in terms of original sin Augustine's main critic was Pelagius who rejected the notion of original sin, did not consider that original sin taints human nature, taught that humans were free of the burden of original sin, because it would be unjust for any person to be blamed for another's actions. He considered that babies were born blameless. Yet the two denominations you mentioned being a member of, anglican and methodist, specifically reject Pelagius' view by name - 'Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk) ...'
Pelagius view was not Orthodox in the respect that he believed that Adam's transgression had no further effect beyond Adam. Guilt is not transmitted, Sin was not transmitted, tendency to sin was not inherited, Adam's sin leaves no legacy or burden and therefore Pelagius is considered by all accounts as a heretic by the eastern church
for the last point. I think Pelagius was suspected of teaching implicit that Christ was unnecessary and that's what grated.
-
Saying it isn't universal doctrine doesn't absolve you of the fact that it is the predominant doctrine across most christian denominations.
Absolve me, so you are saying that I'm responsible for what you consider the sin of others, guilt by association is in your repertoire after all I accept that the eastern church has a somewhat different take on original sin, but those differences are in the margins.
I can't agree But as far as I'm aware all other major christian denominations - e.g. RCC, anglican, methodist, baptist, seventh day adventists, JW etc etc
Only conditionally on the basis that people follow Jesus. That doesn't change the basic notion that original sin doctrine is based on the notion that a person is with sin regardless of anything they have done, but due to the perceived transgression of others from generations ago that they have inherited. A repugnant concept.
Like I said - conditional. But in order to be 'saved' you first have to be defined doctrinally as being sinful regardless of whether or not you have done anything wrong.
Salvation is the restoration of a relationship. It is therefore nonsensical to want salvation but without the relationship. Or talk about being sinless on your own terms I have - and I am aware of the fundamental tenets of christian doctrine Vlad. The issue isn't whether I have read what you say - my issue is that I find the basic concept of collective inherited guilt (or sin, call it what you like) embedded in christian doctrine to be morally repugnant and dangerous.
I find the idea of inherited judicial guilt morally repugnant but the transmission of sin or the tendency to sin to be the fault of someone or something other than God and I think if you think carefully about it so do you, for in secular thinking, upbringing plays a big if not total part in explaining wrong doing. Of course, we are not just talking about the physical environment but the spiritual environment too.
-
Pelagius view was not Orthodox in the respect that he believed that Adam's transgression had no further effect beyond Adam. Guilt is not transmitted, Sin was not transmitted, tendency to sin was not inherited, Adam's sin leaves no legacy or burden
Sounds like a sensible chap.
and therefore Pelagius is considered by all accounts as a heretic by the eastern church
for the last point. I think Pelagius was suspected of teaching implicit that Christ was unnecessary and that's what grated.
Why am I not surprised: the Church rejects the ideas of the man who is obviously right because it gives them problems with other ideas.
-
Salvation is the restoration of a relationship.
That's odd. Other Christians tell me it is the gift of eternal life.Who is right? You or them?
I find the idea of inherited judicial guilt morally repugnant
So you don't agree with the doctrine of original sin?
but the transmission of sin or the tendency to sin to be the fault of someone or something other than God and I think if you think carefully about it so do you, for in secular thinking, upbringing plays a big if not total part in explaining wrong doing. Of course, we are not just talking about the physical environment but the spiritual environment too.
I think the problem we have here is that PD is using logic and rationality to examine Christian claims.
-
Pelagius view was not Orthodox in the respect that he believed that Adam's transgression had no further effect beyond Adam. Guilt is not transmitted, Sin was not transmitted, tendency to sin was not inherited, Adam's sin leaves no legacy or burden
Which seems to me to be a reasoned and ethical view. We should not be held to be guilty for the sins of our forefathers, we do not inherit their guilt - to suggest we are is morally repugnant. A view you appear to agree with when you said:
'I find the idea of inherited judicial guilt morally repugnant ...'
... and therefore Pelagius is considered by all accounts as a heretic by the eastern church
Which rather defeats your argument that the eastern church doesn't believe in original sin as transmission of sin and guilt and burden of sin. If the eastern church wasn't bought into the notion of original sin surely they'd be siding with Pelagius not condemning his as a heretic.
You are all over the place on this one Vlad.
-
I find the idea of inherited judicial guilt morally repugnant ..
Yet you side with a religion whose major denominations in the UK think just that:
RCC:
'By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all humans. Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called "original sin". As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin'
Anglican protestant:
'Original Sin standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagians do vainly talk); but it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that naturally is ingendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God's wrath and damnation.'
And even the eastern church you seem obsessed by:
'That is original sin. And its consequences? A.) Spiritual death. That is, the separation of man from God, the source of all goodness. B.) Bodily death. That is, the separation of the body from the soul, the return of the body to the earth. C.) The shattering and distortion of the "image." That is, darkness of mind, depravity and corruption of the heart, loss of independence, loss of free will, and tendency towards evil. Since then "the imagination of man's heart is evil "(Genesis 8:21). Man constantly thinks of evil. D.) Guilt. That is, a bad conscience, the shame that made him want to hide from God. E.) Worst of all, original sin is hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve's. As life passes from them to all of their descendants, so does original sin. We all of us participate in original sin because we are all descended from the same forefather, Adam. This creates a problem for many people. They ask, Why should we be responsible for the actions of Adam and Eve? Why should we have to pay for the sins of our parents? they say. Unfortunately, this is so, because the consequence of original sin is the distortion of the nature of man.'
And those three denominations represent the vast majority of christians worldwide.
If you think that the idea of inherited guilt is morally repugnant then I suggest you might be aligning yourself with the wrong religion and ethical system Vlad.
-
Just a few thoughts over morning coffee from someone with no particular connection to Christianity.
Do we not inherit guilt in much the same way that we inherit other human characteristics? We simply are the kind of creatures who do guilt. Here’s one definition of guilt I’ve picked off the web: ‘a self-conscious emotion that involves negative evaluations of the self, feelings of distress, and feelings of failure’.
Guilt arises in in dependence on having the kind of brain that generates self-consciousness and it’s sequelae. Biblically, the sin we are guilty of is that of eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This is also something that arises from self-consciousness. Feeling ourselves separate beings with interests we see things as good or bad for us. We imagine the world on our own terms - or to put it more bluntly, it’s all about us.
My guess is that this is more or less what the Genesis story is trying to convey, along with the idea that transferring our centre of moral gravity to something bigger than ourselves - God - might constitute a remedial act, helping us to get out of our own way. Thus we are ‘saved’ from at least some of the damage we inadvertently inflict on ourselves and others because we are this kind of creature, inheriting these kinds of psychological issues.
The alternative is to remain psychologically atomised in a world of other over which we have little control, a generally quite frightening, even hellish, experience. Other religions and philosophies attempt to deal with the collateral damage of self-consciousness via different stories but the basic idea is usually much the same, I think. Of course, people do often interpret such ancient myths in ways that simply add to our woes but that’s also something we inherit as humans, the tendency to fuck everything up.
-
Just a few thoughts over morning coffee from someone with no particular connection to Christianity.
...
Great post Bramble, I think you've nailed it - including that "it is all about us".
I must be a "true apatheist" as I find the existence of a "real" god or not makes no difference to anything. We all deal with a world we think is real but which is only a projection or reflection of aspects of ourselves.
-
Yet you side with a religion whose major denominations in the UK think just that:
RCC:
'By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all humans. Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called "original sin". As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin'
Anglican protestant:
'Original Sin standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagians do vainly talk); but it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that naturally is ingendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God's wrath and damnation.'
And even the eastern church you seem obsessed by:
'That is original sin. And its consequences? A.) Spiritual death. That is, the separation of man from God, the source of all goodness. B.) Bodily death. That is, the separation of the body from the soul, the return of the body to the earth. C.) The shattering and distortion of the "image." That is, darkness of mind, depravity and corruption of the heart, loss of independence, loss of free will, and tendency towards evil. Since then "the imagination of man's heart is evil "(Genesis 8:21). Man constantly thinks of evil. D.) Guilt. That is, a bad conscience, the shame that made him want to hide from God. E.) Worst of all, original sin is hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve's. As life passes from them to all of their descendants, so does original sin. We all of us participate in original sin because we are all descended from the same forefather, Adam. This creates a problem for many people. They ask, Why should we be responsible for the actions of Adam and Eve? Why should we have to pay for the sins of our parents? they say. Unfortunately, this is so, because the consequence of original sin is the distortion of the nature of man.'
And those three denominations represent the vast majority of christians worldwide.
If you think that the idea of inherited guilt is morally repugnant then I suggest you might be aligning yourself with the wrong religion and ethical system Vlad.
I side with those religions because a) Humanist UK won't have me and b)The National secular society would expel me shortly after joining. Anglicanism and Methodism i've found don't push original sin and I find much of RC practice I can't go along with. I suspect the adherence among anglican and methodists to a strict Augustinian understanding of original sin or the doctrine that infant baptism removes it a bit lower than you might think. I can't even recall a sermon on it, so not enough to work up even an ersatz discontent over.
Your quote for the Eastern Orthodox was made by the orthodox archbishop of Toronto and I informed you of the consternation that caused in orthodox circles...But no, you had to go for the outlier. Not once even but again.
-
Do we not inherit guilt in much the same way that we inherit other human characteristics?
No.
I think you are conflating guilt with the capacity to feel guilty.
We simply are the kind of creatures who do guilt. Here’s one definition of guilt I’ve picked off the web: ‘a self-conscious emotion that involves negative evaluations of the self, feelings of distress, and feelings of failure’.
Guilt arises in in dependence on having the kind of brain that generates self-consciousness and it’s sequelae. Biblically, the sin we are guilty of is that of eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This is also something that arises from self-consciousness. Feeling ourselves separate beings with interests we see things as good or bad for us. We imagine the world on our own terms - or to put it more bluntly, it’s all about us.
My guess is that this is more or less what the Genesis story is trying to convey, along with the idea that transferring our centre of moral gravity to something bigger than ourselves - God - might constitute a remedial act, helping us to get out of our own way. Thus we are ‘saved’ from at least some of the damage we inadvertently inflict on ourselves and others because we are this kind of creature, inheriting these kinds of psychological issues.
The alternative is to remain psychologically atomised in a world of other over which we have little control, a generally quite frightening, even hellish, experience. Other religions and philosophies attempt to deal with the collateral damage of self-consciousness via different stories but the basic idea is usually much the same, I think. Of course, people do often interpret such ancient myths in ways that simply add to our woes but that’s also something we inherit as humans, the tendency to fuck everything up.
Christianity exploits our capacity to feel guilt by convincing its adherents that they are guilty of a crime they didn't commit (or perhaps in some interpretations that because they are capable of feeling guilty then they are guilty) and claims that only Christianity has the solution to the problem. It's a classic advertising tactic: make up a problem; convince people they've got it; sell them the solution to the problem.
-
Your quote for the Eastern Orthodox was made by the orthodox archbishop of Toronto and I informed you of the consternation that caused in orthodox circles...
We aren't talking about a quote from some random member of the eastern orthodox church, but one of its leading Archbishops. And no, I don't think consternation is the correct term - I think at best is was controversial, but in reality merely caused some debate. Note that he made these comments some 30 years ago and has remained an Archbishop ever since - I don't think this would have happened if he was coming out with views that are diametrically opposed to the orthodox view in the eastern church. So the Archbishop's is simply one in the spectrum of mainstream views on original sin in the eastern church.
But no, you had to go for the outlier. Not once even but again.
Pot ... kettle - you accuse me of going for the outlier, while you have relentlessly focussed on the eastern church which is an outlier in terms of views on original sin in christianity. Yet, of course not such an outlier that their views aren't basically 'collective inherited guilt' as the Archbishop confirms.
-
Christianity exploits our capacity to feel guilt by convincing its adherents that they are guilty of a crime they didn't commit (or perhaps in some interpretations that because they are capable of feeling guilty then they are guilty) and claims that only Christianity has the solution to the problem. It's a classic advertising tactic: make up a problem; convince people they've got it; sell them the solution to the problem.
Indeed and also don't forget that christianity (pretty well all denominations) peddles the idea that an individual will be punished for these inherited sins/guilts that are not their fault, unless they buy into what christianity is selling. So from the various doctrines etc:
Anglican: Original sin ... 'deserveth God's wrath and damnation.'
RCC: 'One man has transmitted to the whole human race not only the death of the body, which is the punishment of sin ...'
Eastern church: 'They ask, Why should we be responsible for the actions of Adam and Eve? Why should we have to pay for the sins of our parents? they say. Unfortunately, this is so, because the consequence of original sin is the distortion of the nature of man.
-
That's odd. Other Christians tell me it is the gift of eternal life. Who is right? You or them?
Eternal life with God. Do I take it you want eternal life without God?
So you don't agree with the doctrine of original sin?
Yes, but not the doctrine of inherited guilt
I think the problem we have here is that PD is using logic and rationality to examine Christian claims.
I don't, He doesn't seem to know the difference between a consequence of and judicial punishment for,........ judicial guilt.
He doesn't realise that wrong doing caused by upbringing is effectively an original sin doctrine. Mind you not many people seem to.
or the difference between forensic or judicial guilt and guilty feelings brought on by Bad Conscience.
-
We aren't talking about a quote from some random member of the eastern orthodox church, but one of its leading Archbishops. And no, I don't think consternation is the correct term - I think at best is was controversial, but in reality merely caused some debate. Note that he made these comments some 30 years ago and has remained an Archbishop ever since - I don't think this would have happened if he was coming out with views that are diametrically opposed to the orthodox view in the eastern church. So the Archbishop's is simply one in the spectrum of mainstream views on original sin in the eastern church.
Pot ... kettle - you accuse me of going for the outlier, while you have relentlessly focussed on the eastern church which is an outlier in terms of views on original sin in christianity. Yet, of course not such an outlier that their views aren't basically 'collective inherited guilt' as the Archbishop confirms.
Collective inherited guilt? What is that? You can have collective guilt and you can have inherited guilt, apparently, in a way that changes the plain meaning of the word but Collective inherited guilt. I actually disagree that the archbishop is at variance since he talks of the results or consequences of original sin for mankind in this life rather than Judicial punishment. And the Orthodox Church of America it seems agrees with me.
-
Collective inherited guilt? What is that?
The concept that a group of people, by virtue of some shared characteristic inherit guilt and responsibility for something that their ancestors did or were claimed to have done, regardless of the fact that they, themselves have done nothing wrong. Original sin is one example, applying to all people (by the notion that all people are descended from Adam and Eve, not that that is true).
Another example (oh yes another classic christian one) is the so called Jewish Decide that holds that Jews will forever hold a collective responsibility for killing Jesus.
And another is the curse of Ham (again biblical) traditionally used to justify racism and persecution on the grounds of race.
-
or the difference between forensic or judicial guilt and guilty feelings brought on by Bad Conscience.
You do like to throw around these terms that you don't define as if they settle the argument in your favour.
So firstly if you are going to use 'forensic guilt' or 'judicial guilt' then you need to define them.
But if I was going to have a stab in the dark as to what 'judicial guilt' means then I guess I would suggest it means that someone sitting in judgement has decreed that another is guilty in some manner and that this decision comes with consequences, such as punishment, sanction etc.
If that is the case then it would seem that original sin certainly fits the bill for judicial guilt - in that another of the major tenets of christianity is that, as sinners, we will all be judged by god in due course due to our sins and we will only escape sanction (damnation, hell etc) if we have done what the judge (god) has told us we should do.
-
You do like to throw around these terms that you don't define as if they settle the argument in your favour.
So firstly if you are going to use 'forensic guilt' or 'judicial guilt' then you need to define them.
But if I was going to have a stab in the dark as to what 'judicial guilt' means then I guess I would suggest it means that someone sitting in judgement has decreed that another is guilty in some manner and that this decision comes with consequences, such as punishment, sanction etc.
If that is the case then it would seem that original sin certainly fits the bill for judicial guilt - in that another of the major tenets of christianity is that, as sinners, we will all be judged by god in due course due to our sins and we will only escape sanction (damnation, hell etc) if we have done what the judge (god) has told us we should do.
Of course someone who would have us believe that the orthodox church is strongly Augustinian on the matter of Original sin is going to equate consequence of with punishment of. The basic approach of the Orthodox church isn't that forensic. That is more a trait of the western church.
-
The concept that a group of people, by virtue of some shared characteristic inherit guilt and responsibility for something that their ancestors did or were claimed to have done, regardless of the fact that they, themselves have done nothing wrong. Original sin is one example, applying to all people (by the notion that all people are descended from Adam and Eve, not that that is true).
The secular view that misbehaviour is learned behaviour is itself an original sin theory because the original miscreant or miscreants must be in the dim and distant past. Another example (oh yes another classic christian one) is the so called Jewish Decide that holds that Jews will forever hold a collective responsibility for killing Jesus.
Not all christians though not that that matters to you with your own repertoire of collective christian guilt
[/quote]
-
Of course someone who would have us believe that the orthodox church is strongly Augustinian on the matter of Original sin is going to equate consequence of with punishment of. The basic approach of the Orthodox church isn't that forensic. That is more a trait of the western church.
This from the Wiki article about the split of eastern and western churches and their differences in doctrine on original sin:
'Original sin, free will and the Immaculate Conception
No Catholic or Orthodox writer before the mid-to-late twentieth century ever claimed that Catholics and Orthodox have different understandings of original sin. ... In fact, Augustine's teaching on original sin was solemnly affirmed by the ecumenical Council of Ephesus, and the ecumenical Second Council of Constantinople numbered Saint Augustine among the great doctors of the orthodox Church, alongside Athanasius of Alexandria, Hilary of Poitiers, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, St. Ambrose, Theophilus, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, and Pope Leo the Great. The late modern denial by some Orthodox writers of the supposedly "Western" teaching on original sin is regarded by some traditionalist Orthodox as a form of modernism.
Orthodox teaching on original sin
What the Eastern Orthodox Church accepts is that ancestral sin corrupted their existence (their bodies and environment) that each person is born into and thus we are born into a corrupted existence (by the ancestral sin of Adam and Eve) and that "original sin is hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve's. As life passes from them to all of their descendants, so does original sin. All of us participate in original sin because we are all descended from the same forefather, Adam." The teaching of the Eastern Orthodox Church is that, as a result of Adam's sin, "hereditary sin flowed to his posterity; so that everyone who is born after the flesh bears this burden, and experiences the fruits of it in this present world."
Similarly, what the Catholic Church holds is that the sin of Adam that we inherit, and for the remission of which even babies who have no personal sin are baptized, is called "sin" only in an analogical sense since it is not an act committed like the personal sin of Adam and Eve, but a fallen state-contracted by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice.
Cigarette paper between them.
-
The secular view that misbehaviour is learned behaviour is itself an original sin theory because the original miscreant or miscreants must be in the dim and distant past.
That is nonsense, not that I accept that this is some kind of secular creed.
Something that is learned behaviour is the opposite of inherited, isn't it. We inherit our eye colour from our genetic parents, and will do regardless of whether we are actually brought up by those people. Wherever you are brought up and by whom your inherited eye colour will be the same. We learn English if we happen to be brought up by English speaking parents - have the baby brought up in china by chinese parents and likely the baby will learn to speak mandarin. That isn't inherited at all as you can change it simply by moving the child to a different learning environment.
By contrast christians consider original sin to be hereditary, like eye colour, we inherit it regardless of anything we have personally done nor is there anything we can do to prevent us inheriting it.
-
That is nonsense, not that I accept that this is some kind of secular creed.
Something that is learned behaviour is the opposite of inherited, isn't it. We inherit our eye colour from our genetic parents, and will do regardless of whether we are actually brought up by those people. Wherever you are brought up and by whom your inherited eye colour will be the same. We learn English if we happen to be brought up by English speaking parents - have the baby brought up in china by chinese parents and likely the baby will learn to speak mandarin. That isn't inherited at all as you can change it simply by moving the child to a different learning environment.[/quote] Either we can go back to the first miscreant or it is something in us or each person discovers it independently or it's a combination of some or all of these.
Also you talk about language. Not a good analogy since wrong doing is world wide. There is no learning environment where a child can learn sinlessness.
By contrast christians consider original sin to be hereditary, like eye colour, we inherit it regardless of anything we have personally done nor is there anything we can do to prevent us inheriting it.
Theories and doctrines of original sin were formulated before Darwin. So it isn't clear how the ''evil inclination'' is spread and yet it turns up ubiquitously generation after generation. Memetics perhaps?
-
Either we can go back to the first miscreant or it is something in us or each person discovers it independently or it's a combination of some or all of these.
It is, of course, something we learn - we aren't born as miscreants. And of course we may learn from others that have also been up to no good, but that isn't the same as being born up to no good (regardless of who we are or where we are born etc, etc) which would be the situation if being up to no good were hereditary.
Also you talk about language. Not a good analogy since wrong doing is world wide.
So is language - all human cultures have languages as learned rather than hereditary behaviour - it is just that the language in different cultures is different. I suspect exactly the same is true for wrong-doing - different cultures perceive different types of action as wrong, but this is a learned not an inherited trait and is basically cultural as whether something is deemed right or wrong is societal not inherent.
There is no learning environment where a child can learn sinlessness.
But that already implies that a baby is sinful and has to learn sinlessness. I think the opposite is true, a baby isn't born bad, but may go on to engage in wrong doing as learned behaviour. However, even if it is likely that the child will do something wrong at some point it is morally bankrupt to assume they already have done something wrong before the fact. It is akin to the grossest form of criminal profiling and random stop and search - christianity regards everyone as having already sinned regardless of whether they have done anything wrong or indeed will ever do anything wrong.
-
This from the Wiki article about the split of eastern and western churches and their differences in doctrine on original sin:
'Original sin, free will and the Immaculate Conception
No Catholic or Orthodox writer before the mid-to-late twentieth century ever claimed that Catholics and Orthodox have different understandings of original sin. ... In fact, Augustine's teaching on original sin was solemnly affirmed by the ecumenical Council of Ephesus, and the ecumenical Second Council of Constantinople numbered Saint Augustine among the great doctors of the orthodox Church, alongside Athanasius of Alexandria, Hilary of Poitiers, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, St. Ambrose, Theophilus, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, and Pope Leo the Great. The late modern denial by some Orthodox writers of the supposedly "Western" teaching on original sin is regarded by some traditionalist Orthodox as a form of modernism.
Augustine was a great theologian, One handicap apparently, couldn't handle the greek language very well apparently, Not all of Augustine's theories made it into the early church. Like Total Depravity and Double predestination. I gave you a reference to how St John Chrysostom was at variance with Augustine and let's not forget Original sin was not a term until 4th century.(The modernist theory of it's time) And Ancestral sin as understood is at variance with Augustinian original sin.
Orthodox teaching on original sin
What the Eastern Orthodox Church accepts is that ancestral sin corrupted their existence (their bodies and environment) that each person is born into and thus we are born into a corrupted existence (by the ancestral sin of Adam and Eve)
Agreed.... we cannot argue that human existence is not previously corrupted and that "original sin is hereditary.
No mention of the hereditary process, just that it moves from generation down to generation(Like money, gold or land?) It did not remain only Adam and Eve's. As life passes from them to all of their descendants, so does original sin.
See note on ''previous corruption'' All of us participate in original sin because we are all descended from the same forefather, Adam." The teaching of the Eastern Orthodox Church is that, as a result of Adam's sin, "hereditary sin flowed to his posterity; so that everyone who is born after the flesh bears this burden, and experiences the fruits of it in this present world.
Key point ''Fruits of original sin in this present world'' Nothing about eternal punishment here.
-
Augustine was a great theologian, One handicap apparently, couldn't handle the greek language very well apparently, Not all of Augustine's theories made it into the early church.
But some of them did, and not just into the catholic church but also into the eastern church, including the concept of original sin. Your suggestion that the eastern church simply ignored or rejected Augustine on this is simply wrong.
-
It is, of course, something we learn - we aren't born as miscreants. And of course we may learn from others that have also been up to no good, but that isn't the same as being born up to no good (regardless of who we are or where we are born etc, etc) which would be the situation if being up to no good were hereditary.
So is language - all human cultures have languages as learned rather than hereditary behaviour - it is just that the language in different cultures is different. I suspect exactly the same is true for wrong-doing - different cultures perceive different types of action as wrong, but this is a learned not an inherited trait and is basically cultural as whether something is deemed right or wrong is societal not inherent.
But that already implies that a baby is sinful and has to learn sinlessness. I think the opposite is true, a baby isn't born bad, but may go on to engage in wrong doing as learned behaviour. However, even if it is likely that the child will do something wrong at some point it is morally bankrupt to assume they already have done something wrong before the fact. It is akin to the grossest form of criminal profiling and random stop and search - christianity regards everyone as having already sinned regardless of whether they have done anything wrong or indeed will ever do anything wrong.
The thing about learned behaviour is who did we learn it from?, and who did they learn it from? and who did they learn it from?
Unfortunately there is no scope for an infinite regression of miscreants so there must be an inventor of miscreancy. The one and only, the original sinner and that, Professor, is unavoidable.
-
But some of them did, and not just into the catholic church but also into the eastern church, including the concept of original sin. Your suggestion that the eastern church simply ignored or rejected Augustine on this is simply wrong.
I never said they ignored or rejected Augustine... Just some of Augustine.
-
I never said they ignored or rejected Augustine... Just some of Augustine.
As did other denominations - so what.