An Original-Sin conundrum

[greylorn]

No. The concept was not *related explicitly *until Augustine.

The nature of sin is such that, for someone in the clutches of it, it is impossible even to recognize it for what it is. The fornicator always thinks the lusts to which he is captive are pure, an expression of Godliness; and heretics always rationalize their heresy by saying that their conscience demands nothing less. Hence, people simply did not know the spiritual cancer that had overtaken their race until the spiritual surgeon came to cut it out of them.

If you begin by assuming that everything in this religion is made up then you have begun by begging the question – an act of bad faith. Which I guess doesn’t surprise me since you list your religion as “physics,” a materialist field of inquiry for a materialist conception of the universe and the nature of man.

What is a dogmatist like you doing on a philosophy thread? Philosophy requires thought.

The unrepentant refuse to be saved.

 

[sw85]

What is a dogmatist like you doing on a philosophy thread? Philosophy requires thought.

Your questions have either already been answered by philosophers (in the case of the problem of evil) or are, quite frankly, really stupid (in the case of the “problem” you identify in the OP). You have no business accusing me of a lack of thoughtfulness.

So once again, I’ll simply reassert the answer: full awareness of sin more or less always follows one’s liberation from it.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Your questions have either already been answered by philosophers (in the case of the problem of evil) or are, quite frankly, really stupid (in the case of the “problem” you identify in the OP). You have no business accusing me of a lack of thoughtfulness.

So once again, I’ll simply reassert the answer: full awareness of sin more or less always follows one’s liberation from it.

The problem with this Philosophy sub forum is the caveat that it has a Catholic emphasis, and that changes the entire ball game. So, your reply is considered inside of that safehaven as an answer that screams dogmatism. Dogmatism removes the concept of thinking it out. It does it for you.

You have a sense of victory in the tone of your reply, but all it screams to those who love Philosophy is ----

That it is just the boilerplate reply.

 

[sw85]

The problem with this Philosophy sub forum is the caveat that it has a Catholic emphasis, and that changes the entire ball game. So, your reply is considered inside of that safehaven as an answer that screams dogmatism. Dogmatism removes the concept of thinking it out. It does it for you.

You have a sense of victory in the tone of your reply, but all it screams to those who love Philosophy is ----

That it is just the boilerplate reply.

Well, he’s asking a specifically religious question: why did Jesus come?

The answer is he came here to remove the stain of original sin. He says that’s not possible because we weren’t aware of original sin until later. I’m saying that’s begging the question. It only follows that original sin was not the reason Jesus came if you assume that original sin was made up by man; but if you assume that then *obviously *that’s not the reason Jesus came.

In response to this, he accuses me of not thinking. I’m simply pointing out that the questions he’s asking have already been asked by others and answered satisfactorily (since it’s an explicitly religious question I don’t see how they can be answered in a non-religious way), he hardly has any basis to accuse me of thoughtlessness.

 

[grannymh]

Well, he’s asking a specifically religious question: why did Jesus come?

The answer to the question “Why did Jesus come?” is obvious. Jesus came to reconcile humanity with God our Creator.

Blessings,
granny

John 3:16 & 17

 

[greylorn]

The answer to the question “Why did Jesus come?” is obvious. Jesus came to reconcile humanity with God our Creator.

Blessings,
granny

John 3:16 & 17

I don’t think that He did a good enough job of that to justify it as being His core purpose.

My personal view is that He came to teach some basic components of reality which the Jews had lost sight of— if they ever knew it. Among these, he tried to disabuse mankind of its absurd opinions about “fairness,” (e.g: Parables of the Talents, Workers in the Vineyard.) We still failed to get it. Just about every Christian I encounter thinks that God is going to right our wrongs and make everything perfect. One major thrust of J.C.'s teachings seems to me to be, “Get with the program and look after your own business.”

I also think that he came to raise human consciousness, to get us thinking about the continuity of consciousness after death.

He tried to teach us the power of mind by using his to heal through touch. Most of those today who picked up on this message are non-Christians. Wonderful healing technologies exist which any idiot can learn, and at which children can be particularly effective. (e.g: Biotouch, which I’ve personally used to stop two heart attacks and terminate anaphylactic shock.)

I see Christ’s own brief resurrection as a message that opens the possibility that the human soul will inhabit as many bodies as necessary, in various sizes, colors, and sexes, as needed for it to reach heaven-worthiness.

And of course I have my own opinions about that, as well. You’ll be pleased to know, Granny, dear friend of sorts, that I finished the rough draft of my book’s final chapter.

 

[StrawberryJam]

What was Christ’s real purpose in showing up on planet earth?

It cannot be to absolve mankind of “original sin.” because that concept was not invented until centuries after Christ’s death, by Augustine.

The Jews to whom Christ preached had no concept of original sin. In fact, the Genesis tale which laid its foundation only became part of Jewish lore after it was introduced by two separate scribes returning from the Babylonian captivity, where they picked up separate versions of the Genesis tale from the Babylonians, who’d gotten them from some Greeks. The Captivity ended only a few centuries B.C.

It makes little sense, to me anyway, that Christ’s purpose was to absolve mankind of a pseudo-sin which no human had never heard of. By my reading, the three useful N.T. books make no mention of original sin. What was Christ’s purpose, really?

I think it was when I saw David Attenborough asked in an interview why he never gave God praise for all the creation on Earth that I asked myself that question.

 

[greylorn]

I think it was when I saw David Attenborough asked in an interview why he never gave God praise for all the creation on Earth that I asked myself that question.

I’m curious about whatever answers you may have devised.

Since you are an agnostic, I’ll assume that you found no answers that satisfied your standards. Given your post count, I’ll guess that you might still be looking. Even a few interesting speculations might scatter the flies on this thread and attract some butterflies.

That might take this thread off-course, but I’m okay with that since it does not appear to be going anywhere from the OP.

 

[StrawberryJam]

I’m curious about whatever answers you may have devised.

Since you are an agnostic, I’ll assume that you found no answers that satisfied your standards. Given your post count, I’ll guess that you might still be looking. Even a few interesting speculations might scatter the flies on this thread and attract some butterflies.

That might take this thread off-course, but I’m okay with that since it does not appear to be going anywhere from the OP.

I took away from what Attenborourgh said to hit on your topic of original sin. He mentioned that he saw a child in Africa with a worm boring a hole in the eye of a child. He presumed this worm was created by God, and the child was.

He simply could not reconcile a God to be loving and kind to create this way. He was aware of this Original Sin theology. And he thought it absurd that the child was having this problem due to 2 persons who made God upset because they failed his test.

 

[JRKH]

Pardon me for jumping in so late… but here is my 2 cents.

What was Christ’s real purpose in showing up on planet earth?

Christ came to announce the coming of the Kingdom, and to restore that which was lost, namely our relationship with the Father. He came to establish the new covenant and salvation through repentance, faith and baptism .

It cannot be to absolve mankind of “original sin.” because that concept was not invented until centuries after Christ’s death, by Augustine.

The Jews to whom Christ preached had no concept of original sin. In fact, the Genesis tale which laid its foundation only became part of Jewish lore after it was introduced by two separate scribes returning from the Babylonian captivity, where they picked up separate versions of the Genesis tale from the Babylonians, who’d gotten them from some Greeks. The Captivity ended only a few centuries B.C.

It makes little sense, to me anyway, that Christ’s purpose was to absolve mankind of a pseudo-sin which no human had never heard of. By my reading, the three useful N.T. books make no mention of original sin. What was Christ’s purpose, really?

As to the rest of this, it really makes little difference to the Christian understanding of sin, or our walk with Christ, how the various concepts developed or when this or that name was given to something.
The new covenant is built upon the two great commandments of Love. So - in the final analysis, we are to turn from evil and embrace Love - God’s Holy and unselfish Love.
The rest is just details.

Peace
James

 

[StrawberryJam]

The whole of science, and one is tempted to think the whole of the life of any thinking man, is trying to come to terms with the relationship between yourself and the natural world. Why are you here, and how do you fit in, and what’s it all about.
David Attenborough

 

[Curious_Seed]

What was Christ’s real purpose in showing up on planet earth?

It cannot be to absolve mankind of “original sin.” because that concept was not invented until centuries after Christ’s death, by Augustine.

The Jews to whom Christ preached had no concept of original sin. In fact, the Genesis tale which laid its foundation only became part of Jewish lore after it was introduced by two separate scribes returning from the Babylonian captivity, where they picked up separate versions of the Genesis tale from the Babylonians, who’d gotten them from some Greeks. The Captivity ended only a few centuries B.C.

It makes little sense, to me anyway, that Christ’s purpose was to absolve mankind of a pseudo-sin which no human had never heard of. By my reading, the three useful N.T. books make no mention of original sin. What was Christ’s purpose, really?

Wait a minute, now!

You ask the question, but your following text does not address it.

There is nothing in your text about real/not real or even anything concerning purpose.

So, with the aspect of purpose aside, what are you asking?

You are asking did Christ come to absolve original sin.

You answer your question by : no.

Ok, very interesting.

You specify that the concept of original sin was invented, by Augustine.

Augustine labelled the concept, very different than “inventing” it, no?

You state some history . . . very good, per se, but blinding for your argument.

Not because you may be wrong, but introduction of history needs heavily agreed upon acknowledgment, not only of the events, but the significance of the events.

This leaves the discussion to what makes “sense” to you.

You then ask not about original sin, but Christ’s purpose “really.”

John 10:10 is Christ’s “purpose.” – really.

 

[buffalo]

I’m confused. The Catholic Catechism explains that the old testament is a book of tales mostly used for teaching principal. I’m positive I read that.
.

Incorrect.

 

[grannymh]

I don’t think that He did a good enough job of that to justify it as being His core purpose.

And I think the opposite. However, I try to stay away from the either-or perspective.
I am content to be mostly both-and" Jesus both accomplished His mission and* along the way did some great teaching,* both* words and actions. His meeting with the woman at the well is one of my favorites.

My personal view is that He came to teach some basic components of reality which the Jews had lost sight of— if they ever knew it.

Of course.

Among these, he tried to disabuse mankind of its absurd opinions about “fairness,” (e.g: Parables of the Talents, Workers in the Vineyard.) We still failed to get it.

My Dad got it. He liked to play board games with my competitive kids. After one of the games, filled with blood and guts, Dad took out a silver dollar to present to someone. The game’s winner had a big smile on his face. My Dad also smiled as he gave the silver dollar to the loser.

Just about every Christian I encounter thinks that God is going to right our wrongs and make everything perfect. One major thrust of J.C.'s teachings seems to me to be, “Get with the program and look after your own business.”

Good grief. Maybe you need to change neighborhoods to find some better Christians.

I also think that he came to raise human consciousness, to get us thinking about the continuity of consciousness after death.

I can agree with that. However, I would use the term soul for “continuity of consciousness”.

He tried to teach us the power of mind by using his to heal through touch. Most of those today who picked up on this message are non-Christians. Wonderful healing technologies exist which any idiot can learn, and at which children can be particularly effective. (e.g: Biotouch, which I’ve personally used to stop two heart attacks and terminate anaphylactic shock.)

Not exactly. Christ healed with the power of being God. But you are right that Christ was teaching us the importance of touch as healing.

I see Christ’s own brief resurrection as a message that opens the possibility that the human soul will inhabit as many bodies as necessary, in various sizes, colors, and sexes, as needed for it to reach heaven-worthiness.

And of course I have my own opinions about that, as well. You’ll be pleased to know, Granny, dear friend of sorts, that I finished the rough draft of my book’s final chapter.

Congratulations. I’m glad to hear that. Thank you.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[greylorn]

I took away from what Attenborourgh said to hit on your topic of original sin. He mentioned that he saw a child in Africa with a worm boring a hole in the eye of a child. He presumed this worm was created by God, and the child was.

He simply could not reconcile a God to be loving and kind to create this way. He was aware of this Original Sin theology. And he thought it absurd that the child was having this problem due to 2 persons who made God upset because they failed his test.

My favorite approach to creation deals with this in two ways. 1.) God did not create the soul— he stuck it into bodies to wake it up.

2.) Suffering is deliberate preparation for the real universe, like Army Ranger training is preparation for the real battlefield. Most of us flunk basic boot camp.

The “loving” is tough love, not coddling. Not at all like fattening a kid’s body on junk food and erasing his mind with TV sitcoms and cartoons, preparing him to live off the welfare state.

I anticipate a universe in which for the few who get to participate post-death, survival is always an issue. But that’s another conversation.

 

[greylorn]

The whole of science, and one is tempted to think the whole of the life of any thinking man, is trying to come to terms with the relationship between yourself and the natural world. Why are you here, and how do you fit in, and what’s it all about.
David Attenborough

I agree absolutely. That’s been my purpose for 50 years. I shall have to read Attenborough.

 

[greylorn]

Wait a minute, now!

You ask the question, but your following text does not address it.

There is nothing in your text about real/not real or even anything concerning purpose.

So, with the aspect of purpose aside, what are you asking?

You are asking did Christ come to absolve original sin.

You answer your question by : no.

Ok, very interesting.

You specify that the concept of original sin was invented, by Augustine.

Augustine labelled the concept, very different than “inventing” it, no?

You state some history . . . very good, per se, but blinding for your argument.

Not because you may be wrong, but introduction of history needs heavily agreed upon acknowledgment, not only of the events, but the significance of the events.

This leaves the discussion to what makes “sense” to you.

You then ask not about original sin, but Christ’s purpose “really.”

John 10:10 is Christ’s “purpose.” – really.

I like that much better than the absolution of original sin, and I’m not a fan of John, who is a tad mystical for my taste.

Of course I read the entire Chapter so as to evaluate 10:10 in context. It seems to me that :10 requires interpretation. Christ was not referring to biological life, was he? We’ve finally managed to make it more abundant and last longer, but these are the effects of free-enterprise capitalism putting science to work, after Galileo wrested it from the clutches of Christ’s Church.

If he was referring to post-death life, I thought that the Church taught that the soul is eternal? How could Christ make it last longer than that? Abundance is another issue. The religious dogmas on the matter of post-death survival divide into hell, in which our abundance is torture— and heaven, with infinite abundance and happiness, nothing wanting. That would seem to make 10:10 an irrelevant comment.

I have a personal issue. I do not like being regarded as a sheep. Doesn’t mean I’m not the equivalent of one, as most people seem to be. I find it a demeaning perspective. .

 

[StrawberryJam]

My favorite approach to creation deals with this in two ways. 1.) God did not create the soul— he stuck it into bodies to wake it up.

2.) Suffering is deliberate preparation for the real universe, like Army Ranger training is preparation for the real battlefield. Most of us flunk basic boot camp.

The “loving” is tough love, not coddling. Not at all like fattening a kid’s body on junk food and erasing his mind with TV sitcoms and cartoons, preparing him to live off the welfare state.

I anticipate a universe in which for the few who get to participate post-death, survival is always an issue. But that’s another conversation.

A conversation I would look forward to.

Your first approach is perfectly sound to me.
Your second one makes me think about this God a bit more than I have.
Thank you for opening that door that I did not see open.

 

[greylorn]

His meeting with the woman at the well is one of my favorites.

If you provide chapter & verse numbers, I’ll check it out.

My Dad got it. He liked to play board games with my competitive kids. After one of the games, filled with blood and guts, Dad took out a silver dollar to present to someone. The game’s winner had a big smile on his face. My Dad also smiled as he gave the silver dollar to the loser.

Actually, your Dad got it exactly backward. Don’t take this personally please, but he seems to be/have been a socialist.

Human experience shows that you get more of what you reward or subsidize. Your Dad was rewarding incompetence. That was not Christ’s customary style.

If you read Matthew 25:14 onward, you will discover what Christ would have done with the silver dollar. Most Christians, however, ignore Christ’s teachings, preferring to think like you and your Dad.

Good grief. Maybe you need to change neighborhoods to find some better Christians.

I live in a tiny neighborhood, where I can be away from Christians. There is a town full of them down the road, lots of Baptists, From experience, I conclude that all Christians, likewise believers in other sects, are all the same. They profess different dogmas but behave similarly. Their lives seem wrapped around a core of righteousness, and their word is generally suspect. I have learned that the word or handshake of an atheist is far more certain to be fulfilled than a signed contract from a Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Mormon, or other religious person.

I wish it were otherwise. The kind of dogma that I get in response to philosophical questions on CAF is dismaying, but I’m getting used to it. The style of presentation is often angry and thoughtless, just simple references to religious opinions.

Of course there are exceptions. I know a few wonderful Catholics and was briefly mentored by one— an honor. I’ve encountered several thoughtful individuals here on CAF.

I can agree with that. However, I would use the term soul for “continuity of consciousness”.

Thank you. I neglected that important point.

Not exactly. Christ healed with the power of being God. But you are right that Christ was teaching us the importance of touch as healing.

Whenever I do healing work I invoke a silent request for assistance to whoever is in charge of such things, if there is time. I will not presume to imagine that it reaches the very entity Who created the universe, but it seems to work. It also works wonderfully in emergencies, when I forget to pray first.

 

[greylorn]

A conversation I would look forward to.

Your first approach is perfectly sound to me.
Your second one makes me think about this God a bit more than I have.
Thank you for opening that door that I did not see open.

Me too.

And, you are welcome! Alternative perspectives are my specialty. Not a lot of people would be willing to peek past the jamb of door #2.