Ah, the myth of man’s forward March and the confusion of can and should.
You don't think the modern world is morally better than, say, the era of the Roman occupation of Israel?
I’m not sure we can have confidence in your view given climate denial, climate emerita, nuclear capability etc.
An increasingly small minority of people deny science, therefore we should all cleave to bronze-age superstition instead?
Only Christ can save us from any sin.
Only Christ is threatening us because of sin, though, so...
It’s certainly not Christianity that you are judged solely on original sin.
Well it sure as hell isn't anyone else's theology.
Apart from the question of whether there’s the fallacy of modernity her can a morality that is constantly shifting it’s definition of right and wrong, good or bad, ought or ought not be rightly called a morality?
If it can't, what's your take on the rewrite of morally acceptable behaviour between the Old and New Testaments? Morality has always been subjective; even in Christianity, it's subject to God's whim, there's no rationale behind it. At least in human endeavours there are attempts to ground morality, assessments of value and intent.
That’s not solely Calvinist since where do we star and finish?
It may not be solely Calvinist, but I have better things to do than exhaustively track the idiosyncrasies of each cult of each sect of each branch of a mythology.
The implication is that the fall has done all humanity harm but how that is transmitted, I don’t think is clear.
The mechanism isn't relevant - the problem is the notion that responsibility for it is passed on at all. Vicarious moral liability is an abhorrent concept to start with.
Certainly we inherit the moral environment.
An environment where the rules aren't based on morality at all, but compliance with divine edict.
We inhabit a consequential universe I’m afraid many, many consequences don’t manifest themselves according to how we feel about stuff.
Yep. And then we discuss the implications of that and come up with principles which are collectively agreed to a greater or lesser degree, and specific implementations of those principles. Welcome to morality, you've just graduated out of
religion playschool where the rules are laid out for you because you're too young to think for yourself.
Try doing what you like and I think judgment in the form of consequence is not far behind
Instead I should try doing what someone says God arbitrarily decided I should do, even to the detriment of friends and family?
You keep loading it on to Adam and Eve.
No,
I don't. Christians keep loading it onto Adam and Eve, I'm just pointing out how mind-numbingly stupid that is.
What about the consequences of your own actions
I deal with them every day, it's called living. What doesn't wash is the idea that there's an eternal punishment after I've finished living because I got the wrong haircut.
I prescribe a read of Romans chapter 5 with attention to verse 12 on contrasting Adam with Jesus.
Lots of stuff about Jesus 'dying', which is contradicted a few pages later when it turns out 'surprise' not dead after all. And as for me putting it all on Adam... "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin" Romans 5, seeing as it seems to mean something to you.
"To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law." - so it's not about the morals, it's about the law. It's about compliance, obedience - there is no discussion of whether the laws are just, or right, or have any sort of moral acceptability, there are just rules to be obeyed.
"Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people." Collective punishment isn't justified with children. Collective punishment with adults is a tool of oppression. Eternal collective punishment for temporal acts is an immorality of infinite proportions.
Read it. Don't see that it changes anything.
O.
