No true apatheist

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

.
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

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Bramble]

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.

[Udayana]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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. 

[jeremyp]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.