Original Sin

[djseng]

It's been awhile but I've heard Stefan discuss why original sin is, in my own words, bad or evil in itself. In an email thread I would like to break this down/provide some solid reasons.

 

What I can rattle off from the top of my head doesn't really feel coherent to me when I write it down. Perhaps, it's just that this idea is preposterous or illogical to me, or maybe it's just that my argumentation muscles are more or less atrophied?

 

Perhaps some sentence completion:

 

Original sin is _____ because _____

   evil, ???;

   a means to control the masses, give a priest some money and they can "absolve you" or your "sin" ... a way of collecting money from believers;

   manipulative, telling someone that they are intrinsically evil fills them with shame;

   deterministic, you're bad because you were built to be bad?;

   

 

10 minutes on sentence completion hasn't gotten me far.

   

[dsayers]

Without context, you're just referring to lying, which isn't immoral.

 

Within the context of the parent-child relationship, the concept of original sin is the initiation of the use of force. As it is a violation of the implicit contract between that parent and child. Every parent voluntarily creates the positive obligation to nurture and protect the child until such a time as they are able to do so without their parents. Here, the concept of original sin fundamentally alters the child's ability to process reality and therefore their future ability to nurture and protect themselves.

[BD91]

Original sin is how I make you feel fundamentally flawed, and doubtful of your own ambitions. motivations, and actions because otherwise I can't maximize my personal benefit from your existence.

[Mister Mister]

Dsayers and BD pretty much got the main points I think.  Sin as a concept in and of itself is not exactly "immoral", it is how it's applied that is important.  It is typically taught to children as some sort of absolute truth, which says why they are bad no matter what they do.  It is an attempt to inflict guilt, as a way to control their behavior with verbal emotional manipulation.  Religion tends to associate "sin" with urges and desires which are completely natural and universal: self-interest, impulsiveness, sexual desire, and so on.  This guarantees that everyone will fall under the category "sinner" and thus believe they require the church's "services" to cure them of this imaginary disease.  It also bears mentioning that this idea also has secular versions, which are in many ways worse: radical environmentalism, gender and race privilege, 1st world/capitalism privilege, and so on.  Human guilt is a very profitable resource from an amoral perspective.

 

  I also wanted to add that to me, obviously Original Sin as a concept is not true - The idea that human nature can be "good" or "bad", doesn't fundamentally make any sense.  Something can only be morally good or bad insofar that they have understanding and choice.  Would we say an octopus or a mosquito or a great white shark is "good" or "bad" by nature?!?!  Such a claim would be nonsense.  An animal's nature is in a sense deterministic, it is the .  A human being's nature is to have two hands, two feet, an inquisitive mind, to desire survival and reproductive success, and all that comes with those things.  We have choice over our thoughts and actions, but not our basic desires, any more than we have choice over our anatomy.  Morality is a function of choice, not of nature.  I'm still working on this concept so I hope that makes some sense.

 

A lot of people criticize libertarians for having an idealistic view of human nature, which is nonsense.  Libertarians have the most realistic view of human nature: that human beings are capable of both good and evil.  This podcast on the Tom Woods show delved into this and I would recommend it.
http://tomwoods.com/podcast/ep-544-where-do-liberal-and-conservative-skepticism-of-liberty-come-from/

[rosencrantz]

Original sin is a doctrine of the Catholic and subsequent Protestant sects that claims that since because Adam has sinned we all are born sinners. It was developed by Augustine to fight Manicheism and to explain why so few people are Christians. The gnostics said that we live in an evil world and that we have to purify ourselves. Augustine opposed that and said that only the Catholic church can redeem those who are born from hell. Jews and the Orthodox churches on the other hand don't know original sin. They say that Adam has sinned and subsequently everybody since then has sinned.

The main difference between Conservative and Leftist ideologies is connected to original sin or corruptibility. Leftists say that man is born good, but society / class structure makes him bad. When you change those, all men and women will be perfect persons. However, if you don't adapt to the Leftist ideology you are a bad person and you have to be purged because there is no more excuse for you to be evil. Conservative thinkers on the other hand claim that man is born corrupted or with the tendency to be corrupted. Hence you need a state / family unit to guide you.

[MahtiSonni]

Well well, there was a topic for this after all.

@barn invaded another thread to talk about this, so I came here, where such discussion is actually on topic.  I consider it bad form to hijack someone's topic - and doubly so when that someone is asking for help - and so comment here.

So his questions are

Quote

Is there such a thing for humans as 'original sin'? (Can it be a true statement in any way? Do you support the idea?)

The reason why I asked/asking:

(apart from me thinking that it's... not possible, to put it gently... ie. no existence of God/s)

Sexual orientation is not something one gets to choose or can develop willingly. Nor the starting life-circumstances, childhood for that matter. These are truly important things to keep in sight, as they otherwise will be unfairly burdensome to a person who had no choice, was hard-done while being defenseless.

First, there is such a thing as original sin.  It means the first sin (by man), which is the one that resulted in death entering the world, Satan ruling it, and fundamentally changed what was before - which is a mystery to us - to what we have now.  Like any other sin, other people than those who play a hand in committing them have responsibility for them, but like with any other sin as well, the results are something everyone affected has to deal with.  In other words I subscribe to what the Orthodox church teaches on the subject.

Second, I agree that people do not choose same sex attraction any more than they choose whether they like chocolate.  Most people unfortunate enough to suffer from it have been inflicted with it by molestation or some other abuse at an age they've still been developing, and that has severely altered their incipient sexuality.  This is one of the reasons I draw a line between the attraction and the identity.

Edited September 26, 2018 by MahtiSonni
My quote tags suck. I don't know why.

[barn]

Funny thing is, I have never posted on this thread until you used my moniker here.

c'mon maaan! That's not very virtuous in my estimation. (looks like the opposite of being respectful)

It looks as if you're trying to 'drum up something' , instead of answering a question I had asked you directly. (link)

Mind you, it's ok if you decide not to answer. Free choice 'n all.

1 hour ago, MahtiSonni said:

@barn invaded another thread to talk about this,

Why wouldn't you want to respond to my ask directly?

Also, please consider this before responding: You stating (or anyone else) doesn't mean it has truth value, same would go for me.

It's ok though to not want to treat others with respect (your choice too, seemingly here) when they did so in the first place.

[MahtiSonni]

21 minutes ago, barn said:

It looks as if you're trying to 'drum up something' , instead of answering a question I had asked you directly.

I'm confused now.  Were you looking for an answer to a question that wasn't "Is there such a thing for humans as 'original sin'?"  If so, I missed it.

Quote

Why wouldn't you want to respond to my ask directly?

As I am baffled by the reaction I ask you to restate the question I have not answered to.  Answering a question in a straightforward fashion was my intent.

I won't continue this discussion in the other guy's topic, especially when that topic is about a person asking for help.  It is obnoxious.  It is not only implicitly saying that his problem is of no importance but also you'd rather take his thread and go with it to talk about what you want to talk about instead of starting your own and let him have his.  If someone did that to me, I'd get really offended.  Not everything revolves around you.

[barn]

38 minutes ago, MahtiSonni said:

As I am baffled by the reaction I ask you to restate the question I have not answered to.  

Hahaha... of course you are...

Maybe you forgot the thread you're posting simultaneously in (highly doubt it) ... this looks like intentionally lying to me from your part. Crooked stuff, please don't do it as it isn't necessary, sheds an even worse light on your content, makes it increasingly difficult for me to take them seriously (kinda past that, almost).

Is it true that you have been posting simultaneously in another thread also, this one?

As a reference, I can certainly help with that

47 minutes ago, barn said:

It looks as if you're trying to 'drum up something' , instead of answering a question I had asked you directly. (link)

 

[MahtiSonni]

I answered his question in the messed up quote I first wrote on this topic.  Now it appears that isn't the question this drama queen meant and I'm supposed to read his mind.

I think I'm done with this one.  Not wondering about his reputation anymore.

[barn]

3 minutes ago, MahtiSonni said:

I answered his question in the messed up quote I first wrote on this topic.  Now it appears that isn't the question this drama queen meant and I'm supposed to read his mind.

I think I'm done with this one.  Not wondering about his reputation anymore.

Um... It looks like to me, emotions are taking over your better judgement.

(as in: name calling, again not speaking directly - starting to see a pattern, right? , plus other things that look like to me' lashing out' rather than composure)

If that's what you think is preferable to you...