I genuinely do not think that the majority of people in the UK could give any detail in a discussion of "sin" never mind "original sin".
Good/bad is something people might engage with, but in my experience it gets confusing quite quickly. In general lived experience, I'd say the prevailing idea is of a fear of getting caught, and that most people would do stuff if they thought they could get away with it.
As with most branches of Christianity apart from the most fundamentalist, there are a range of views within Orthodoxy on this one. As there is in Roman Catholicism, various strands of Protestantism and I daresay among the Copts too.
It ain't going to satisfy you but Elder - now Saint - Sophrony had the balance of the scales tipped in favour of mercy in a fresco of the Last Judgement at the monastery he founded in Essex.
Aye, here we go again. I am most impressed by modern Orthodox who end up in Britain, just as I am by the Cappadocian Fathers who didn't. Liberalism, big mindedness are a minority pursuit everywhere, in all classes even, not just the privileged. They are especially on this site. But they are not throughout religion. Loud char and con evo petit bourgeois voices cow the putative silent majorities in to silence, in to feeling that they are the powerless minority in all of them. Perhaps that only happens in Anglicanism?
The vast majority of Christians who profess a belief in original sin don't understand what they think; often it's completely inconsistent and incomprehensible. I think that's partly because the modern understanding in various strands of Protestantism is quite different from the early church's understanding, especially as articulated by Augustine, but mostly I think it's because most people have a very poor grasp of theology. This isn't necessarily through any fault of their own as theology itself is taught quite poorly. An idea like original sin is grounded in late ancient metaphysical and ethical ideas, about 1600 years removed from where we are in our own story of metaphysics and ethics, so just bridging that gap is quite daunting. Then take a clergy person of some sort who for reason x doesn't explicate it fully /well / what have you and it's easy to see how many people would struggle with it.
And, of course, there are Christian traditions who don't subscribe to original sin although they often subscribe to some other radical fault in human nature.
And, of course, there are Christian traditions who don't subscribe to original sin although they often subscribe to some other radical fault in human nature.
I'm one who increasingly rejects Augustine's Original Sin in favour of Irenaeus (& Hick) and the idea that this world is a vale of soul making. All individuals have the chance to develop and grow through a soul-making process into becoming "children of God". We all have the freedom to choose good or evil - to grow towards God becoming the image of Christ or to move away from the one who gives us true life.
To be honest, I have always thought that Augustine's doctrine of Original Sin is dependent on there being a literal Adam and Eve. Once you leave that behind, the doctrine has huge hole punched in it.
The vast majority ... who profess ... belief ... don't understand what they think; ... it's completely inconsistent and incomprehensible. ... This isn't ... through any fault of their own.
Theology has a very poor grasp of people. But not in controlling them.
Best read in your local hospital’s maternity ward, I should think.
The point us, though, not all Christians have the concept of Original Sin in the way you've characterised it.
The Orthodox don't. Judaism doesn't either it would seem.
Well, of course not, but they both/all can't be right, then, can they. To me it's a wicked concept no matter how you slice/parse it. To hell with it (another wicked concept!).
And, of course, there are Christian traditions who don't subscribe to original sin although they often subscribe to some other radical fault in human nature.
I'm one who increasingly rejects Augustine's Original Sin in favour of Irenaeus (& Hick) and the idea that this world is a vale of soul making. All individuals have the chance to develop and grow through a soul-making process into becoming "children of God". We all have the freedom to choose good or evil - to grow towards God becoming the image of Christ or to move away from the one who gives us true life.
To be honest, I have always thought that Augustine's doctrine of Original Sin is dependent on there being a literal Adam and Eve. Once you leave that behind, the doctrine has huge hole punched in it.
I’ve seen that idea and think it’s interesting. I don’t really know of it via Irenaeus, though. It’s certainly consonant with Origen's views, broadly. And for sure there’s a whole parallel tradition in the early church that didn’t go the route of original sin.
Some of Augustine's language implies that, I agree, but I don't think the idea itself does. Scholarly accounts that I can think of off the top of my head don't argue as much, at least, but I certainly don't know all of the views.
Best read in your local hospital’s maternity ward, I should think.
The point us, though, not all Christians have the concept of Original Sin in the way you've characterised it.
The Orthodox don't. Judaism doesn't either it would seem.
Well, of course not, but they both/all can't be right, then, can they. To me it's a wicked concept no matter how you slice/parse it. To hell with it (another wicked concept!).
It's certainly been abused, but then again so has every concept. I don't think it's any more inherently bad or good than, say, the twin natures of Christ or a standard account of the Trinity. It's mostly a technical idea that developed to account for sin, the incarnation, and the atonement, at least in the early church. The importance it took on in later theological developments seems to me to have added stuff to that initial equation, such as God's absolute knowledge via Calvin and whatnot.
I think many of us attribute to original sin standard-issue human evils - selfishness and pride, for example. We know they're wrong, and we know they are deeply embedded.
Depends on who you talk to. Among Lutherans, the point of “original sin” is simply that it is the origin of the sin “infection” that has plagued the human race from the start, causing eruptions of actual sin in all of us, all our lives. It’s a waste of time arguing about whether there’s any guilt for that first sin, because the ongoing infection pretty much guarantees that we all have scads of our own personal actual sins piled on top of it, and at this point, what’s one more?
My personal feeling is that God (not being a bean counter) doesn’t bother with questions like “Do I hold individuals responsible for original sin or not? Because really, why bother? By coming into this world as Christ and giving himself to cleanse and remake us, God has put himself in a position to say “oh, it’ll all come out in the wash,” and nobody needs to worry their heads over it anymore. Which is a relief to me at least.
Original Sin is the bedrock reason given for why we allegedly need a Savior.
I mean, kinda. In classical Anglican theology it’s certainly there but it’s quite sublimated at this point. The catechism of TEC doesn’t mention it. There are strands of Christian thought that make a big deal of it but there are plenty of others that are relatively unfazed.
Depends on who you talk to. Among Lutherans, the point of “original sin” is simply that it is the origin of the sin “infection” that has plagued the human race from the start, causing eruptions of actual sin in all of us, all our lives. It’s a waste of time arguing about whether there’s any guilt for that first sin, because the ongoing infection pretty much guarantees that we all have scads of our own personal actual sins piled on top of it, and at this point, what’s one more?
My personal feeling is that God (not being a bean counter) doesn’t bother with questions like “Do I hold individuals responsible for original sin or not? Because really, why bother? By coming into this world as Christ and giving himself to cleanse and remake us, God has put himself in a position to say “oh, it’ll all come out in the wash,” and nobody needs to worry their heads over it anymore. Which is a relief to me at least.
I agree with this. Augustine can vacillate on whether or not he thought individuals were personally responsible for original sin and (I change my mind on how to read Augustine about this often) today I think Augustine was more inclined to believe that individuals were personally implicated. I don’t agree with this. We’re all implicated in sin because we’re all infected with it and we all pass it on to others, but I don’t think we’re all personally responsible for original sin.
We’re all implicated in sin because we’re all infected with it and we all pass it on to others, but I don’t think we’re all personally responsible for original sin.
Well, this is the rub. I, for one, refuse to accept the premise of your position. Your sin may well be between you and your god, but please have the humility to draw the line there.
We’re all implicated in sin because we’re all infected with it and we all pass it on to others, but I don’t think we’re all personally responsible for original sin.
Well, this is the rub. I, for one, refuse to accept the premise of your position. Your sin may well be between you and your god, but please have the humility to draw the line there.
As WH Auden put it:
"I and the public know
What all schoolchildren learn,
Those to whom evil is done
Do evil in return."
We’re all implicated in sin because we’re all infected with it and we all pass it on to others, but I don’t think we’re all personally responsible for original sin.
Well, this is the rub. I, for one, refuse to accept the premise of your position. Your sin may well be between you and your god, but please have the humility to draw the line there.
I think a lot turns on what exactly is meant by sin. Does it mean a wrongful act, a specific transgression against God or against another person? Or is it a description of the reality that no person is perfect and makes “bad” choices from time to time? I think both meanings, as well as a variety of other meanings on the spectrum in between, can be found in Jewish and Christian tradition and understanding. And I suspect that when @Thomas Rowans says that we’re all “infected” with sin, he’s using it in the sense of the reality that no person is perfect.
I've seen some Orthodox online asserting that there must have been a literal Adam as otherwise Christ couldn't be a Second Adam as it were.
I'm not quite sure I follow the logic of that. The Orthodox equivalent of Protestant fundamentalism?
The Orthodox believe in 'Ancestral Sin' but that's probably something for another thread.
What's the thickness of paper between that and original sin?
Probably something for another thread.
The key difference is that in Orthodox thinking we inherent the consequences of Adam and Eve's sin - death - but we don't inherit the guilt of it.
That may sound cigarette paper thin to you but it makes a heck of a difference.
But with no literal Adam and Eve, and death baked into life since if began three billion years ago - what then?
I'm intending to start another thread on this one but haven't had time. I don't dispute that death is 'baked into life three billion years ago.'
We are talking theologically not about the science of evolution. It's a great question and one I don't want to dismiss with my usual both/and platitude. 😉
@Nick Tamen - on Orthodoxy and the need for a Saviour ... I forget which of the Fathers said that Christ may have become Incarnate even if humanity had not 'fallen'.
Of course Orthodox Christians believe we need a Saviour and that Christ saves us from our sins. It just works in a different kind of way to how its often articulated in the Reformed and small r reformed traditions.
@Lamb Chopped - as you know, I'm not at all familiar with the Lutheran tradition other than bits I picked up from history at school and things I've picked up here.
At first glance, what you've described doesn't look too far from the Orthodox view point if I understand it correctly. Other Orthodox Shipmates can correct me if I'm wrong.
We’re all implicated in sin because we’re all infected with it and we all pass it on to others, but I don’t think we’re all personally responsible for original sin.
Well, this is the rub. I, for one, refuse to accept the premise of your position. Your sin may well be between you and your god, but please have the humility to draw the line there.
As WH Auden put it:
"I and the public know
What all schoolchildren learn,
Those to whom evil is done
Do evil in return."
"September 1, 1939" says many things, and the full stanza is:
Accurate scholarship can
Unearth the whole offence
From Luther until now
That has driven a culture mad,
Find what occurred at Linz,
What huge imago made
A psychopathic god:
I and the public know
What all schoolchildren learn,
Those to whom evil is done
Do evil in return.
It seems to me that your shorter snippet of this poem speaks to the "pass it onto others" part of your previous comment, but doesn't address how "we're all infected" part. Then there's the issue of whether "evil" is necessarily "sin."
Of course Orthodox Christians believe we need a Saviour and that Christ saves us from our sins. It just works in a different kind of way to how it’s often articulated in the Reformed and small r reformed traditions.
Sure, and that was my point—that Orthodoxy believes in the need of a Savior despite not believing in what was described as “the bedrock reason given for why we allegedly need a Savior.”
Of course Orthodox Christians believe we need a Saviour and that Christ saves us from our sins. It just works in a different kind of way to how it’s often articulated in the Reformed and small r reformed traditions.
Sure, and that was my point—that Orthodoxy believes in the need of a Savior despite not believing in what was described as “the bedrock reason given for why we allegedly need a Savior.”
We’re all implicated in sin because we’re all infected with it and we all pass it on to others, but I don’t think we’re all personally responsible for original sin.
Well, this is the rub. I, for one, refuse to accept the premise of your position. Your sin may well be between you and your god, but please have the humility to draw the line there.
As WH Auden put it:
"I and the public know
What all schoolchildren learn,
Those to whom evil is done
Do evil in return."
"September 1, 1939" says many things, and the full stanza is:
Accurate scholarship can
Unearth the whole offence
From Luther until now
That has driven a culture mad,
Find what occurred at Linz,
What huge imago made
A psychopathic god:
I and the public know
What all schoolchildren learn,
Those to whom evil is done
Do evil in return.
It seems to me that your shorter snippet of this poem speaks to the "pass it onto others" part of your previous comment, but doesn't address how "we're all infected" part. Then there's the issue of whether "evil" is necessarily "sin."
Well you already don't accept the basic bits of the Christian faith so trying to convince you of the complicated bits isn't really useful for either of us, is it? I don't mean this disrespectfully, just that typing out a whole long response that will result in a "rubbish!" isn't a particularly good use of my, or your!, time.
Of course Orthodox Christians believe we need a Saviour and that Christ saves us from our sins. It just works in a different kind of way to how it’s often articulated in the Reformed and small r reformed traditions.
Sure, and that was my point—that Orthodoxy believes in the need of a Savior despite not believing in what was described as “the bedrock reason given for why we allegedly need a Savior.”
I also don't really know if it would be called the "bedrock reason" for why we need a savior anyways. Luther and Calvin had a much more robust account for original sin than, say, classical Anglican thinkers like Hooker, Cranmer, and (why not) John Donne.
I think original sin is interesting especially as it relates to Universalism; making Universalism fall out of Classical Augustinian Original Sin theology is quite tricky. Oliver Crisp and some others have tried but I've not looked into that so can't pass judgment on their efforts.
I just find it odd that the vast majority of the human race agrees we DO need a savior, though they disagree on from what, or what kind of a savior this ought to be. I mean, there are those who want political solutions, or economic ones, or psychological ones, or what have you. But hardly anybody says that things are the way they ought to be right now, even those who completely rule out any supernaturalism. The gut feeling that something is wrong goes very deep.
I just find it odd that the vast majority of the human race agrees we DO need a savior, though they disagree on from what, or what kind of a savior this ought to be. I mean, there are those who want political solutions, or economic ones, or psychological ones, or what have you. But hardly anybody says that things are the way they ought to be right now, even those who completely rule out any supernaturalism. The gut feeling that something is wrong goes very deep.
It's only natural. Gut is the word. Not odd in the slightest. Apart from subjectively; that's how it feels, which is all part of the same completely hard wired psychology. Things are exactly the way they - naturally - ought to be right, and every, now. We all crave meaning, certainty and make it up. I do in all my displacement activity. What's odd about that? It would be odd if we didn't. As reality does not comport with our entirely natural, carnal (including the 'spiritual') desires.
There is no warrant for our projected saviour complex and all the nonsense, i.e. theology, we make up in Ptolemaic orbitals around it, always dependent on ancient pious fraud and fantasy. Religions are the oldest largest human intangible artefacts. Built on superstition. Patternicity. Agenticity. New ones don't last. Our neurons believe. That is not a God shaped hole.
The vast majority's milage will differ. Naturally. With reality.
Meanwhile all the supernatural has to do is stop playing peek-a-boo out of sight.
Putting my big dunce hat on here ..... but doesn't any idea of redemption from original sin require the existance of a "fall" a thing for which there is no evidence at all? And if redemption is an actual thing should we not expect to see concrete evidence in subsequent human behaviour as a result?
I imagine if the Fey exist, then God made and loves them too, and I think we shall see them in the—
Oh, not literal Fey. (Emily Litella voice) Never mind.
I love the etymology, and there's nothing like a good, dark European folklore story. Loved Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell. The TV adaption wasn't bad, the book is an excellent slow burn to detonation from a wondrous start. Haunts me to this day. As for M R James!!! Hans Christian Andersen could be surprisingly nasty.
I don't think Muslims feel like they need a saviour. From what I've understood from conversation with different Muslims, they believe that the deity is all-powerful and that all an individual can do is be obedient. If one is fortunate, it will be enough for whatever is next.
Also I'm doubting that those who believe in reincarnation would use the term saviour. I'm not sure what it might mean in that context.
Putting my big dunce hat on here ..... but doesn't any idea of redemption from original sin require the existance of a "fall" a thing for which there is no evidence at all? And if redemption is an actual thing should we not expect to see concrete evidence in subsequent human behaviour as a result?
I've mentioned this a couple of times. It probably deserves its own thread.
Well you already don't accept the basic bits of the Christian faith so trying to convince you of the complicated bits isn't really useful for either of us, is it? I don't mean this disrespectfully, just that typing out a whole long response that will result in a "rubbish!" isn't a particularly good use of my, or your!, time.
Well, like many others, I used to. The scales have fallen from my eyes, it would seem. It started simply enough -- ignore the supernatural -- and from there it isn't a very big step to freedom.
To your Auden I'll submit Rogers and Hammerstein from "South Pacific:"
You’ve got to be taught to hate and fear,
You’ve got to be taught from year to year,
It’s got to be drummed in your dear little ear—
You’ve got to be carefully taught [snip...]
Potential copyright violation redacted. Full lyrics available here
-la vie en rouge, Purgatory host
Well you already don't accept the basic bits of the Christian faith so trying to convince you of the complicated bits isn't really useful for either of us, is it? I don't mean this disrespectfully, just that typing out a whole long response that will result in a "rubbish!" isn't a particularly good use of my, or your!, time.
Well, like many others, I used to. The scales have fallen from my eyes, it would seem. It started simply enough -- ignore the supernatural -- and from there it isn't a very big step to freedom.
To your Auden I'll submit Rogers and Hammerstein from "South Pacific:"
You’ve got to be taught to hate and fear,
You’ve got to be taught from year to year,
It’s got to be drummed in your dear little ear—
You’ve got to be carefully taught!
Thanks brother. I knew that freedom. I'll take Christ's.
Potential copyright violation redacted - la vie en rouge, Purgatory host
There are several of us unnatural bedfellows here. We're too damn quirky to get on. In fact many believers here are far more likable than us. But my enemy's enemy is my friend. Although I switch camps based on commonalities with believers. And will defend them accordingly.
I completely understand how liberating it might feel to slough off a belief system one no longer believes in.
But the use of the Rodgers and Hammerstein lyrics sounds to me as if @The_Riv is accusing all the theists here of group-think and racism. In which case it isn't The_Riv who is under attack but everyone who holds a position he doesn't agree with.
I completely understand how liberating it might feel to slough off a belief system one no longer believes in.
But the use of the Rodgers and Hammerstein lyrics sounds to me as if @The_Riv is accusing all the theists here of group-think and racism. In which case it isn't The_Riv who is under attack but everyone who holds a position he doesn't agree with.
Working hard to be offended, I see. I quoted the entire R&H lyric because if possible, I think it's best to post whole texts. We didn't get that with the Auden. The point of the R&H was to demonstrate the opinion that as far as children are concerned, what/how they're taught is far more substantial a rationale for why wrongdoing persists than original sin, however you parse it.
And I'm not on my own, @Gamma Gamaliel. Lieutenant Cable was, and the song was his commentary about having been raised to be bigoted, and how that ultimately left him alone (ultimately unable to marry the woman he thought he might).
And yes -- anyone who claims to be a Christian subscribes to at least some level of group-think re: Jesus of Nazareth -- wouldn't be Christian otherwise.
Thanks brother. I knew that freedom. I'll take Christ's.
Sure-sure. I'm just doing the opposite. Doesn't mean I'm comfortable. It's a wrenching shift. And I'm still intrigued by religion, and even appreciate some aspects of it. But on the whole, no -- I'm beyond Christianity's reach, now.
There are several of us unnatural bedfellows here. We're too damn quirky to get on. In fact many believers here are far more likable than us. But my enemy's enemy is my friend. Although I switch camps based on commonalities with believers. And will defend them accordingly.
But here they are attacking a brave man.
LOL. Well, I've never felt brave about any of this. Frustrated? Yes. Thanks all the same, @Martin54.
The point of the R&H was to demonstrate the opinion that as far as children are concerned, what/how they're taught is far more substantial a rationale for why wrongdoing persists than original sin, however you parse it.
Unless what children are taught—intentionally taught or simply learn from parents, siblings and others around them—and the thing labeled original sin are inextricably connected.
The point of the R&H was to demonstrate the opinion that as far as children are concerned, what/how they're taught is far more substantial a rationale for why wrongdoing persists than original sin, however you parse it.
Unless what children are taught—intentionally taught or simply learn from parents, siblings and others around them—and the thing labeled original sin are inextricably connected.
The point of the R&H was to demonstrate the opinion that as far as children are concerned, what/how they're taught is far more substantial a rationale for why wrongdoing persists than original sin, however you parse it.
Unless what children are taught—intentionally taught or simply learn from parents, siblings and others around them—and the thing labeled original sin are inextricably connected.
Right but original sin has already been disregarded as a ludicrous concept, completely devoid of merit. Arguments or evidence to the contrary can't even dent that wall of impermeable logic. Foiled by the atheists again!
The point of the R&H was to demonstrate the opinion that as far as children are concerned, what/how they're taught is far more substantial a rationale for why wrongdoing persists than original sin, however you parse it.
Unless what children are taught—intentionally taught or simply learn from parents, siblings and others around them—and the thing labeled original sin are inextricably connected.
Right but original sin has already been disregarded as a ludicrous concept, completely devoid of merit. Arguments or evidence to the contrary can't even dent that wall of impermeable logic. Foiled by the atheists again!
No, just foiled by impermeable logic. Atheism isn't required. Original-ancestral sin plus sinning on our own recognizance is a great binding i.e. religion story. It distracts us yet from impermeable logic. That demonstrates nothing but nature. Once distracted we can then do theology, build vast edifices of it, on our egos, till kingdom come, and avoid all the real issues.
Comments
Good/bad is something people might engage with, but in my experience it gets confusing quite quickly. In general lived experience, I'd say the prevailing idea is of a fear of getting caught, and that most people would do stuff if they thought they could get away with it.
Aye, here we go again. I am most impressed by modern Orthodox who end up in Britain, just as I am by the Cappadocian Fathers who didn't. Liberalism, big mindedness are a minority pursuit everywhere, in all classes even, not just the privileged. They are especially on this site. But they are not throughout religion. Loud char and con evo petit bourgeois voices cow the putative silent majorities in to silence, in to feeling that they are the powerless minority in all of them. Perhaps that only happens in Anglicanism?
And, of course, there are Christian traditions who don't subscribe to original sin although they often subscribe to some other radical fault in human nature.
I'm one who increasingly rejects Augustine's Original Sin in favour of Irenaeus (& Hick) and the idea that this world is a vale of soul making. All individuals have the chance to develop and grow through a soul-making process into becoming "children of God". We all have the freedom to choose good or evil - to grow towards God becoming the image of Christ or to move away from the one who gives us true life.
To be honest, I have always thought that Augustine's doctrine of Original Sin is dependent on there being a literal Adam and Eve. Once you leave that behind, the doctrine has huge hole punched in it.
Theology has a very poor grasp of people. But not in controlling them.
I'm not quite sure I follow the logic of that. The Orthodox equivalent of Protestant fundamentalism?
The Orthodox believe in 'Ancestral Sin' but that's probably something for another thread.
What's the thickness of paper between that and original sin?
Well, of course not, but they both/all can't be right, then, can they. To me it's a wicked concept no matter how you slice/parse it. To hell with it (another wicked concept!).
I’ve seen that idea and think it’s interesting. I don’t really know of it via Irenaeus, though. It’s certainly consonant with Origen's views, broadly. And for sure there’s a whole parallel tradition in the early church that didn’t go the route of original sin.
Some of Augustine's language implies that, I agree, but I don't think the idea itself does. Scholarly accounts that I can think of off the top of my head don't argue as much, at least, but I certainly don't know all of the views.
It's certainly been abused, but then again so has every concept. I don't think it's any more inherently bad or good than, say, the twin natures of Christ or a standard account of the Trinity. It's mostly a technical idea that developed to account for sin, the incarnation, and the atonement, at least in the early church. The importance it took on in later theological developments seems to me to have added stuff to that initial equation, such as God's absolute knowledge via Calvin and whatnot.
Probably something for another thread.
The key difference is that in Orthodox thinking we inherent the consequences of Adam and Eve's sin - death - but we don't inherit the guilt of it.
That may sound cigarette paper thin to you but it makes a heck of a difference.
But with no literal Adam and Eve, and death baked into life since if began three billion years ago - what then?
This looks like another 'mystery'.
We're cursed to sin because of Adam in Eden, until we're baptized, and then we sin on our own recognisance.
How is Adam a metaphor for what @KarlLB said?
Why is Love concerned with this fey story?
My personal feeling is that God (not being a bean counter) doesn’t bother with questions like “Do I hold individuals responsible for original sin or not? Because really, why bother? By coming into this world as Christ and giving himself to cleanse and remake us, God has put himself in a position to say “oh, it’ll all come out in the wash,” and nobody needs to worry their heads over it anymore. Which is a relief to me at least.
But I need one for mine?
Original sin or/and mine?
It seems the only way to know that God exists, is to believe I that need a saviour for sin(s) of some kind.
I mean, kinda. In classical Anglican theology it’s certainly there but it’s quite sublimated at this point. The catechism of TEC doesn’t mention it. There are strands of Christian thought that make a big deal of it but there are plenty of others that are relatively unfazed.
I agree with this. Augustine can vacillate on whether or not he thought individuals were personally responsible for original sin and (I change my mind on how to read Augustine about this often) today I think Augustine was more inclined to believe that individuals were personally implicated. I don’t agree with this. We’re all implicated in sin because we’re all infected with it and we all pass it on to others, but I don’t think we’re all personally responsible for original sin.
Well, this is the rub. I, for one, refuse to accept the premise of your position. Your sin may well be between you and your god, but please have the humility to draw the line there.
As WH Auden put it:
"I and the public know
What all schoolchildren learn,
Those to whom evil is done
Do evil in return."
Indeed not. But it may be something learned at a very early age, as an aspect of being human.
I'm intending to start another thread on this one but haven't had time. I don't dispute that death is 'baked into life three billion years ago.'
We are talking theologically not about the science of evolution. It's a great question and one I don't want to dismiss with my usual both/and platitude. 😉
@Nick Tamen - on Orthodoxy and the need for a Saviour ... I forget which of the Fathers said that Christ may have become Incarnate even if humanity had not 'fallen'.
Of course Orthodox Christians believe we need a Saviour and that Christ saves us from our sins. It just works in a different kind of way to how its often articulated in the Reformed and small r reformed traditions.
@Lamb Chopped - as you know, I'm not at all familiar with the Lutheran tradition other than bits I picked up from history at school and things I've picked up here.
At first glance, what you've described doesn't look too far from the Orthodox view point if I understand it correctly. Other Orthodox Shipmates can correct me if I'm wrong.
"September 1, 1939" says many things, and the full stanza is:
Accurate scholarship can
Unearth the whole offence
From Luther until now
That has driven a culture mad,
Find what occurred at Linz,
What huge imago made
A psychopathic god:
I and the public know
What all schoolchildren learn,
Those to whom evil is done
Do evil in return.
It seems to me that your shorter snippet of this poem speaks to the "pass it onto others" part of your previous comment, but doesn't address how "we're all infected" part. Then there's the issue of whether "evil" is necessarily "sin."
Agreed.
Well you already don't accept the basic bits of the Christian faith so trying to convince you of the complicated bits isn't really useful for either of us, is it? I don't mean this disrespectfully, just that typing out a whole long response that will result in a "rubbish!" isn't a particularly good use of my, or your!, time.
I also don't really know if it would be called the "bedrock reason" for why we need a savior anyways. Luther and Calvin had a much more robust account for original sin than, say, classical Anglican thinkers like Hooker, Cranmer, and (why not) John Donne.
I think original sin is interesting especially as it relates to Universalism; making Universalism fall out of Classical Augustinian Original Sin theology is quite tricky. Oliver Crisp and some others have tried but I've not looked into that so can't pass judgment on their efforts.
I imagine if the Fey exist, then God made and loves them too, and I think we shall see them in the—
Oh, not literal Fey. (Emily Litella voice) Never mind.
It's only natural. Gut is the word. Not odd in the slightest. Apart from subjectively; that's how it feels, which is all part of the same completely hard wired psychology. Things are exactly the way they - naturally - ought to be right, and every, now. We all crave meaning, certainty and make it up. I do in all my displacement activity. What's odd about that? It would be odd if we didn't. As reality does not comport with our entirely natural, carnal (including the 'spiritual') desires.
There is no warrant for our projected saviour complex and all the nonsense, i.e. theology, we make up in Ptolemaic orbitals around it, always dependent on ancient pious fraud and fantasy. Religions are the oldest largest human intangible artefacts. Built on superstition. Patternicity. Agenticity. New ones don't last. Our neurons believe. That is not a God shaped hole.
The vast majority's milage will differ. Naturally. With reality.
Meanwhile all the supernatural has to do is stop playing peek-a-boo out of sight.
I love the etymology, and there's nothing like a good, dark European folklore story. Loved Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell. The TV adaption wasn't bad, the book is an excellent slow burn to detonation from a wondrous start. Haunts me to this day. As for M R James!!! Hans Christian Andersen could be surprisingly nasty.
Also I'm doubting that those who believe in reincarnation would use the term saviour. I'm not sure what it might mean in that context.
I've mentioned this a couple of times. It probably deserves its own thread.
Which it's about to get.
Well, like many others, I used to. The scales have fallen from my eyes, it would seem. It started simply enough -- ignore the supernatural -- and from there it isn't a very big step to freedom.
To your Auden I'll submit Rogers and Hammerstein from "South Pacific:"
You’ve got to be taught to hate and fear,
You’ve got to be taught from year to year,
It’s got to be drummed in your dear little ear—
You’ve got to be carefully taught [snip...]
Potential copyright violation redacted. Full lyrics available here
-la vie en rouge, Purgatory host
Thanks brother. I knew that freedom. I'll take Christ's.
Potential copyright violation redacted - la vie en rouge, Purgatory host
There are several of us unnatural bedfellows here. We're too damn quirky to get on. In fact many believers here are far more likable than us. But my enemy's enemy is my friend. Although I switch camps based on commonalities with believers. And will defend them accordingly.
But here they are attacking a brave man.
I completely understand how liberating it might feel to slough off a belief system one no longer believes in.
But the use of the Rodgers and Hammerstein lyrics sounds to me as if @The_Riv is accusing all the theists here of group-think and racism. In which case it isn't The_Riv who is under attack but everyone who holds a position he doesn't agree with.
And I'm not on my own, @Gamma Gamaliel. Lieutenant Cable was, and the song was his commentary about having been raised to be bigoted, and how that ultimately left him alone (ultimately unable to marry the woman he thought he might).
And yes -- anyone who claims to be a Christian subscribes to at least some level of group-think re: Jesus of Nazareth -- wouldn't be Christian otherwise.
Sure-sure. I'm just doing the opposite. Doesn't mean I'm comfortable. It's a wrenching shift. And I'm still intrigued by religion, and even appreciate some aspects of it. But on the whole, no -- I'm beyond Christianity's reach, now.
LOL. Well, I've never felt brave about any of this. Frustrated? Yes. Thanks all the same, @Martin54.
That thing is hard wired for experience morality.
Right but original sin has already been disregarded as a ludicrous concept, completely devoid of merit. Arguments or evidence to the contrary can't even dent that wall of impermeable logic. Foiled by the atheists again!
We're just hardwired for serving our genes in decreasing orders of kinship. And we are very naughty but very street clever monkeys.
No, just foiled by impermeable logic. Atheism isn't required. Original-ancestral sin plus sinning on our own recognizance is a great binding i.e. religion story. It distracts us yet from impermeable logic. That demonstrates nothing but nature. Once distracted we can then do theology, build vast edifices of it, on our egos, till kingdom come, and avoid all the real issues.