"Original Sin"....Just Another term for our animal nature?

[The Pandector]

'Original Sin'....an awesome Jim Steinman musical number. (Always the Steve Barton version, he crushed it).


Pagans, polytheists & animists such as myself don't acknowledge, live by or believe in any sort of sins at all. There's decency, hospitality, honouring self & the other, and general respectful sustainable conduct to follow, and that's all we need. You're a warrior and I'm a warrior, let's bow to one another.

Sometimes I dream about travelling back to the world before the Abrahamic strangehold of sin and shame-based culture, just to see how different it was. Many pagans have unfortunately been born and raised in suffocating Abrahamic environments or majority cultures, which still have a grip (albeit faltering) on the current world we know.

Possibly the most/only useful thing I got from Comparative Religions was this gem about sin. Sin isn’t so much about doing the evil thing as it is about missing the mark when aiming at the virtuous thing. Which makes original sin that thing which makes us apt to fail at your laudable goals.

 

[Magna]

Sin isn’t so much about doing the evil thing as it is about missing the mark when aiming at the virtuous thing.

So sin is what happens when a person tries to do the right thing, tries to be virtuous but falls short?

 

[The Pandector]

So sin is what happens when a person tries to do the right thing, tries to be virtuous but falls short?

It can be, yes. Did I define it as that? No. I mentioned a view from a secular college course because it answered to a post from a nonbeliever. That poster’s claim was to be seeking virtuous behavior; my understanding is that, all effort aside, humans are simply unable to lead sinless lives. That doesn’t preclude virtuous activity, but speaks on balance.

 

[Au Naturel]

'Original Sin'....an awesome Jim Steinman musical number. (Always the Steve Barton version, he crushed it).


Pagans, polytheists & animists such as myself don't acknowledge, live by or believe in any sort of sins at all. There's decency, hospitality, honouring self & the other, and general respectful sustainable conduct to follow, and that's all we need. You're a warrior and I'm a warrior, let's bow to one another.

Sometimes I dream about travelling back to the world before the Abrahamic strangehold of sin and shame-based culture, just to see how different it was. Many pagans have unfortunately been born and raised in suffocating Abrahamic environments or majority cultures, which still have a grip (albeit faltering) on the current world we know.

They had their own problems. I would probably have been sacrificed in a wicker man.

 

[Seladon]

They had their own problems. I would probably have been sacrificed in a wicker man.

Fair enough haha

Witches & pagans were burned and persecuted en masse by Xtians. Today, as we type, soi-disant 'heretics' of other Abrahamic religions in non-Western hemispheres are sometimes arrested, stoned or t0rtured. Snakes and roundabouts.

It's a roll of the die whether you end up as the oppressor or the oppressed in your particular lifetime. Guess you got lucky.

 

[Seladon]

It can be, yes. Did I define it as that? No. I mentioned a view from a secular college course because it answered to a post from a nonbeliever. That poster’s claim was to be seeking virtuous behavior; my understanding is that, all effort aside, humans are simply unable to lead sinless lives. That doesn’t preclude virtuous activity, but speaks on balance.

Speaking neutrally, this all sounds rather Arnoldian to me.

 

[Au Naturel]

Fair enough haha

Witches & pagans were burned and persecuted en masse by Xtians. Today, as we type, soi-disant 'heretics' of other Abrahamic religions in non-Western hemispheres are sometimes arrested, stoned or t0rtured. Snakes and roundabouts.

It's a roll of the die whether you end up as the oppressor or the oppressed in your particular lifetime. Guess you got lucky.

I fit in quite well with modern pagans & wiccans. I once had a girlfriend who was a practicing witch, and the Sabbats were... interesting. But it is no easier to believe in paganism than any other religion. I think most modern pagans would be considered cultural pagans. They really don't believe in Rhiannon or Cernunnos but the rituals give them comfort and a moral anchor of sorts. Do as you will as long as you hurt no one.

I can also fit in with Christians, particularly fundamentalist Protestants. It's where I grew up. But I'm just taking on protective coloration. I know I don't belong there and would not be welcome if they knew my beliefs.

Of the two, the Christian community was the threat to my well-being. They'd actively go after you if they thought you were nonconforming. They are why closets exist.

 

[The Pandector]

Speaking neutrally, this all sounds rather Arnoldian to me.

What is it you’d like me to make more clear?

Are you troubled with the part about the human capacity to do virtuous acts even in the midst of their sin?

I don’t know if anyone has argued that original sin precludes virtue. Wouldn’t that be something.

 

[Au Naturel]

Speaking neutrally, this all sounds rather Arnoldian to me.

Brought up a different version of Arnold to mind:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115200/

 

[Seladon]

What is it you’d like me to make more clear?

Are you troubled with the part about the human capacity to do virtuous acts even in the midst of their sin?

I don’t know if anyone has argued that original sin precludes virtue. Wouldn’t that be something.

Nothing, really, genuine thanks for your offer to elucidate, though. I'm not arguing or coming at you crosswise ftr, tbh much of what you're saying is simply going over my head. Either I'm not smart enough, not rested enough or not Xtian fundie enough. Or both.

What you're saying is all very interesting from an theosophic standpoint, however, and I enjoy listening to academic types holding forth.

From what I can glean of your last few comments, you're suggesting that someone with my beliefs can't differentiate 'sin' (whatever that means to you, it means nothing to me) from vice or iniquity. Which I personally can and do. And honestly, ime even 'vices' aren't always bad, it's contextual as to whether they're a moral negative, and to whom or to what extent. I.e. in some places, eating meat on a sunday is a vice. Really, all I push back on is dogma that enforces virtues and shame on citizens, it's a bugbear for me.

Matthew Arnold I think felt similarly, and maintained--and I may be misinterpreting this, I'm no scholar or theologian--that we must remain vigilant to our virtues such as they are, and it is our duty human-to-human uphold or enact them as much as possible, while acknowledging that vice is inescapably mortal and inevitable. So fairly in line with what you've expressed.

Apologies if I've got that completely wrong again, I mean no offense or provocation by it. Religion & ethics was never my strong subject (I do better with theatre & arts). As much as I love a good debate and I like to learn, this type of hair-splitting isn't germane to the branch of spirituality and animism I follow, so I may be undereducated on the matter. I can hear the Gods chuckling at me for even typing all this.

 

[The Pandector]

Nothing, really, genuine thanks for your offer to elucidate, though. I'm not arguing or coming at you crosswise ftr, tbh much of what you're saying is simply going over my head. Either I'm not smart enough, not rested enough or not Xtian fundie enough. Or both.

What you're saying is all very interesting from an theosophic standpoint, however, and I enjoy listening to academic types holding forth.

From what I can glean of your last few comments, you're suggesting that someone with my beliefs can't differentiate 'sin' (whatever that means to you, it means nothing to me) from vice or iniquity. Which I personally can and do. And honestly, ime even 'vices' aren't always bad, it's contextual as to whether they're a moral negative, and to whom or to what extent. I.e. in some places, eating meat on a sunday is a vice. Really, all I push back on is dogma that enforces virtues and shame on citizens, it's a bugbear for me.

Matthew Arnold I think felt similarly, and maintained--and I may be misinterpreting this, I'm no scholar or theologian--that we must remain vigilant to our virtues such as they are, and it is our duty human-to-human uphold or enact them as much as possible, while acknowledging that vice is inescapably mortal and inevitable. So fairly in line with what you've expressed.

Apologies if I've got that completely wrong again, I mean no offense or provocation by it. Religion & ethics was never my strong subject (I do better with theatre & arts). As much as I love a good debate and I like to learn, this type of hair-splitting isn't germane to the branch of spirituality and animism I follow, so I may be undereducated on the matter. I can hear the Gods chuckling at me for even typing all this.

Your thoughtful replies help me measure the distance between us.

I suspect one issue is how we normally operate with two meanings for ‘sin’. As a verb, it means to commit a disapproved act. In this sense, we can speak of this as ‘sinning’ and multiple occurrences as the noun ‘sins’. Maybe this is the meaning you use when discerning the difference between sin and vice or iniquity.

The other meaning in play is what I think this thread is about. I may regret this, but I’ll offer a definition for this use of ‘sin’: original sin results in man’s propensity to commit sinful acts. Man’s innate tendency towards sinful behaviors is the manifestation of original sin.

The point I was attempting to make in using the secular class example is that people often have an emotionally negative response when their behavior is perceived as ‘evil’, and this stands in the way of further understanding. That prof found it useful to switch from that perspective and address sin as simply ‘missing the mark’; I observed in class that this helped the conversation move forward. While sin is, by definition, evil, it can be temporarily useful to avoid that label and conceive of sin as simply failing to hit the mark aimed at.

As to whether vices are always ‘bad’, we have another chasm to cross. I have found (so, subjectively) that Christians in general have a hard time understanding ‘the freedom that is in Christ’.

Two of Christianity’s most creative characters sat about smoking tobacco, sucking suds, and gave birth to a new genre of Christian fiction that continues to capture Christians’ imaginations in a positive way. How can we excuse these intelligent individuals for their disgusting vices of nicotine and alcohol?

Other side of that same coin… I refuse to allow the body of Christ to be saddled with the Crusades. The Crusades were prosecuted by politicians for political purposes; it matters not that they used the banner of Christ to galvanize their followers, the Crusades were Not a Christian pursuit. Don’t get me started about the ‘pope’.

What I am saying is that your understanding of sin and Christianity in general has been laid down by people with a questionable understanding of Biblical Christianity. Same as if I were to start quoting Charles Manson as the accepted expert on communal living. Always best to go back to the source documents and take everything else with a tablespoon of salt.

FTR, I don’t consider myself an ‘academic type’. To the contrary, I try to inform Christians that one needn’t be of a particularly intellectual bent to understand the faith, and we do ourselves no favors by turning over our protection to the academic class. We absolutely need Paul and his Romans, but Jesus said he’d build his church on the likes of Peter.