No true apatheist

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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]

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

I never said they ignored or rejected Augustine... Just some of Augustine.

As did other denominations - so what.