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

[Magna]

"The whole universe is watching everything you and other humans do with intent to judge you in the end and you have a mission to prostrate yourself before the cosmos."

^ That's Christianity.

"The Whole Universe" God is omnipotent and omnipresent, no?

"Judgement" A tenet of Christianity is The Judgement

"Mission to prostrate yourself before the cosmos". Didn't @Crossbreed make reference to Dylan's song: "Gotta Serve Somebody" to illustrate the Christian fundamental?

 

[Crossbreed]

Didn't @Crossbreed make reference to Dylan's song: "Gotta Serve Somebody" to illustrate the Christian fundamental?

Don't forget Barry McGuire's* commentary on being brainwashed...

*Known for "Eve of Destruction," (1965)

 

[The Pandector]

^ That's Christianity.

"The Whole Universe" God is omnipotent and omnipresent, no?

"Judgement" A tenet of Christianity is The Judgement

"Mission to prostrate yourself before the cosmos". Didn't @Crossbreed make reference to Dylan's song: "Gotta Serve Somebody" to illustrate the Christian fundamental?

Really strong scents of animism, friend, with more than a pinch of sophistry. This same fallacy infects your third point: Christian’s are actually instructed not to worship the creature but rather the creator, so the idea of prostrating yourself before the cosmos is not of Christian origin.

Sandwiched in between the animism complaints is the comment that judgment is a tenet of Christianity. What of it? That doesn’t support the rest of the claptrap.

The universe is God’s creation, which creation does not revolve around me, stare at me or one day judge me. Who told you Christian’s believe this nonsense? They also heard about communion, and circulated reports that Christians were eating human flesh; this evolved into reports that Christians were ritually eating their children. Shall we deal with those reports, or do you have more bogus claims about Christian belief and church practices?

If it’s as loose as this last one, I’ll just assume you’re having fun with me.

 

[Magna]

Really strong scents of animism, friend, with more than a pinch of sophistry. This same fallacy infects your third point: Christian’s are actually instructed not to worship the creature but rather the creator, so the idea of prostrating yourself before the cosmos is not of Christian origin.

Sandwiched in between the animism complaints is the comment that judgment is a tenet of Christianity. What of it? That doesn’t support the rest of the claptrap.

The universe is God’s creation, which creation does not revolve around me, stare at me or one day judge me. Who told you Christian’s believe this nonsense? They also heard about communion, and circulated reports that Christians were eating human flesh; this evolved into reports that Christians were ritually eating their children. Shall we deal with those reports, or do you have more bogus claims about Christian belief and church practices?

If it’s as loose as this last one, I’ll just assume you’re having fun with me.

Think of "the whole universe" and "the cosmos" as euphemisms for God and reread. I didn't mean Christians worship the "creations" rather than the "creator" and I doubt @Knower of nothing did either?

 

[lovely_darlingprettybaby]

"Original Sin": The theological belief that humans are born with sin; a sinner from the very first breath at birth. A notion that scientist Sir Richard Dawkins describes as "appalling".

I thought about this today and concluded that the concept of "Original Sin" is nothing more than a euphemism for the undisputable fact that we're animals. We humans are primates; more specifically, humans are animals of the family of Great Apes. Other animals in the Great Ape family include: chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and orangutans.

It seems that through time, many humans have been either uncomfortable or unwilling to accept that humans are primates and are animals because that fact isn't accepted in Christianity. As such, it seems to be that "Original Sin" (ie we're all born with sin/flaw/evil, etc) is an attempted theological explanation of our animal nature and really nothing more.

We are not animals, we are humans and humans and not perfect and make mistakes.
I could never see myself as an animal but also know animals are beautiful and done animals make better company than humans
You can be anything you want.
The God I believe in would see you as beautiful, worthy and lovable anyway regardless of mistakes, imperfections and regrets.
You are worthy because you are God's creation and God made you because God loves you and you are made in God's image.
And God does not make unworthy things, while never as perfect as God which would be impossible you still God's beautiful creation and 'worth more than many sparrows.'

 

[lovely_darlingprettybaby]

For me I get sick of thinking about God and what God likes or not.
I am me and if God does not like me well that is all i can be.
So i just live my life and be proud of myself each day for the things I have overcome.
I am a beautiful woman and a God who truly loves it would see it and bless me and I an proud to be it no matter what anyone says and could never at least not be polite and respectful to others.

 

[The Pandector]

Think of "the whole universe" and "the cosmos" as euphemisms for God and reread. I didn't mean Christians worship the "creations" rather than the "creator" and I doubt @Knower of nothing did either?

No thanks. I don’t care to think of those terms as being anything like euphemisms for God, because they are not. Those terms refer to what has been created, not to the creator. Maybe next we can have fun pretending that up means down?

If you didn’t mean to say that Christians worship the creation, you shouldn’t have said as much. I can see how to change around your statements to make a coherent point, but that’s not my job. It seems to me that, if you’re going to tell someone that their relationship with God is nothing more than delusional self-service, you ought to use words properly. ‘Especially’ after we witnessed the attempted enforcement of a specialized meaning for all usage of the word ‘fact’.

It’s just not possible to have a reasoned discussion without a mutual understanding of the language involved. The fanciful language of the post in question made wild assertions about Christian belief as well as Christian character. I suggest such assertions be made plainly, where no decoding key is required. To carry on this particular discussion, both sides need a clear understanding of the difference between the creator and his creation, and that understanding needs to be demonstrated through their use of the language.

 

[Magna]

We are not animals, we are humans and humans and not perfect and make mistakes.
I could never see myself as an animal but also know animals are beautiful and done animals make better company than humans

We are animals. We're in the Kingdom, Animalia, the Class, Mammalia (mammals) and the Order, Primates. Humans are in the "super family" of Great Apes along with Gorillas, Chimpanzees, Orangutans and Bonobos.

 

[The Pandector]

We are animals. We're in the Kingdom, Animalia, the Class, Mammalia (mammals) and the Order, Primates. Humans are in the "super family" of Great Apes along with Gorillas, Chimpanzees, Orangutans and Bonobos.

And yet, terminology aside, I was able to discern that a layman was drawing a distinction between humans and brute beasts, an obvious distinction which exists to the chagrin of some. Somehow, we’re able to make language stand in the way of communication. Surely, this brings us back to mankind’s inherent/original sin.

 

[Au Naturel]

But what led you to not be Christian and me to be Christian? It sounds like you were raised Christian. I was not. Backwards?

Religion, in general, is incompatible with how my brain works. I think I was ten when I realized it. Faith is not a part of me. Any more than the ability to do small talk or understand the minutia of social interaction. So I masked, both in the autistic sense and the religious sense, until I did not need to anymore.

Martin Luthor said, "Here I stand. I can do no other." at the Diet of Worms. (Oh! The picture that brought up in my head when I was a kid!) He realized he had no choice. He was constitutionally incapable of choosing differently.

I am inclined to think that Sapolsky is right. I need to see a mechanism for free will, or I doubt it.

How Can Determinists Believe in Free Will?

Some people think that we can’t be held responsible for what we do, given that our actions are the inevitable consequence of the laws of nature. They’re only half right.

www.newyorker.com

 

[Masked Man]

Sorry I have not read the entire thread so someone may have said this already but I feel like the idea of religion and Original Sin is very much like a marketing gimmick, where the salesperson "creates" the problem so they can sell you the cure. And inevitably the thing the salesperson has sold you is commonly referred to as snake oil.

In other words, it's a scam.

 

[Au Naturel]

Your comment confuses me. Are you saying that, because the Jews rejected Jesus as the messiah, that means they reject the need for a messiah in general?

You can be a total atheist and be a Jew. Under (most) Jewish teaching, you cannot command faith, though faith is a good thing. You also cannot command love. You can command obedience. Obey the laws of Moses, and nothing else matters. That's a Jew who does not believe in a future Messiah.

The orthodox might disagree with this.

 

[Jonn]

5 Old Testament Reasons Why “Original Sin” Doesn’t Work

The idea of "original sin" makes many people uncomfortable: "Why am I responsible for what Adam did in the garden?" By the way, is that even in the Bible?

thebiblefornormalpeople.com

That seems rather alarming if true, and thus raises the question: does the Bible actually say this?: Where in Genesis or in the Old Testament as a whole is Adam’s disobedience in the Garden of Eden described as the cause of universal human sinfulness and guilt?

There is no denying the religious concept of all humanity having original sin at one point, regardless of the Old Testament.

 

[Knower of nothing]

No thanks. I don’t care to think of those terms as being anything like euphemisms for God, because they are not. Those terms refer to what has been created, not to the creator. Maybe next we can have fun pretending that up means down?

If you didn’t mean to say that Christians worship the creation, you shouldn’t have said as much. I can see how to change around your statements to make a coherent point, but that’s not my job. It seems to me that, if you’re going to tell someone that their relationship with God is nothing more than delusional self-service, you ought to use words properly. ‘Especially’ after we witnessed the attempted enforcement of a specialized meaning for all usage of the word ‘fact’.

It’s just not possible to have a reasoned discussion without a mutual understanding of the language involved. The fanciful language of the post in question made wild assertions about Christian belief as well as Christian character. I suggest such assertions be made plainly, where no decoding key is required. To carry on this particular discussion, both sides need a clear understanding of the difference between the creator and his creation, and that understanding needs to be demonstrated through their use of the language.

You can see them as euphemisms due to the translating from thought constructs to real behavior that I do when discussing. I don't believe you worship creation and that is also not what I said. I believe you think the cosmos observes you and you feel you need to submit to it. This seems accurate to your behavior. Delusional self-service is a harsh way to look at the relationship one has with ones own convictions, but if that's how you'd phrase it you do have such a relationship. It's just that for you this relationship is contextualized as something beyond that, then interwoven with a cosmological understanding that supports the "beyond"ness of it. These extra steps are dressing for the core of your faith in yourself, intellectually understood as "attachment".
I try to cut away semantics that are self-supporting/recursive. The God idea is such a case. I instead relate aspects of how this understanding manifests in reality to real behaviors and their appearances as one may exhibit them. Like how prayer can range from introspection to spiraling but it is never actually prayer as that is not what is occurring, only the language used to describe it says as such. Beyond our two dimensional contextualizing words and perspectives is a three dimensional silent truth and that is what I try look at. Not attain, but at least look in the right direction. The clues for human expression are in human behavior.

The world is silent if you listen. The world is loud if you listen to yourself.
This is what it means to interpret, as is fundamentally necessary for the construction of perspective, let alone a perspective as valued as faith. There is no venom here. You look down on people that believe in themselves, not me.

 

[The Pandector]

You can see them as euphemisms due to the translating from thought constructs to real behavior that I do when discussing. I don't believe you worship creation and that is also not what I said. I believe you think the cosmos observes you and you feel you need to submit to it. This seems accurate to your behavior. Delusional self-service is a harsh way to look at the relationship one has with ones own convictions, but if that's how you'd phrase it you do have such a relationship. It's just that for you this relationship is contextualized as something beyond that, then interwoven with a cosmological understanding that supports the "beyond"ness of it. These extra steps are dressing for the core of your faith in yourself, intellectually understood as "attachment".
I try to cut away semantics that are self-supporting/recursive. The God idea is such a case. I instead relate aspects of how this understanding manifests in reality to real behaviors and their appearances as one may exhibit them. Like how prayer can range from introspection to spiraling but it is never actually prayer as that is not what is occurring, only the language used to describe it says as such. Beyond our two dimensional contextualizing words and perspectives is a three dimensional silent truth and that is what I try look at. Not attain, but at least look in the right direction. The clues for human expression are in human behavior.

The world is silent if you listen. The world is loud if you listen to yourself.
This is what it means to interpret, as is fundamentally necessary for the construction of perspective, let alone a perspective as valued as faith. There is no venom here. You look down on people that believe in themselves, not me.

You are welcome to your view of the cosmos and of human psychology. I don’t share them.

One thing I see with alarming regularity is where one person tells another person what they’re Really thinking. You may think you know what you’re thinking, but in fact, you don’t know what you’re thinking, but I know what you’re thinking. It reminds me too much of that thing the race-discussion people do; you may think that you’re not a racist, but I happen to know that you Really are. It is a bald assertion that the other person doesn’t know what they’re thinking as well as you do.

Yes, I repeated myself in hopes of that hitting you the way it hits me.

We probably have a different understanding of ‘worship’ as well. When you say that I personify the cosmos by believing that it is observing me and that I feel I must prostrate myself before it… and then say you never said I worship the cosmos… I am about as defenseless as if you told me you understand my thoughts better than I do.

Am I seeing a pattern here?

 

[The Pandector]

You can see them as euphemisms due to the translating from thought constructs to real behavior that I do when discussing. I don't believe you worship creation and that is also not what I said. I believe you think the cosmos observes you and you feel you need to submit to it. This seems accurate to your behavior. Delusional self-service is a harsh way to look at the relationship one has with ones own convictions, but if that's how you'd phrase it you do have such a relationship. It's just that for you this relationship is contextualized as something beyond that, then interwoven with a cosmological understanding that supports the "beyond"ness of it. These extra steps are dressing for the core of your faith in yourself, intellectually understood as "attachment".
I try to cut away semantics that are self-supporting/recursive. The God idea is such a case. I instead relate aspects of how this understanding manifests in reality to real behaviors and their appearances as one may exhibit them. Like how prayer can range from introspection to spiraling but it is never actually prayer as that is not what is occurring, only the language used to describe it says as such. Beyond our two dimensional contextualizing words and perspectives is a three dimensional silent truth and that is what I try look at. Not attain, but at least look in the right direction. The clues for human expression are in human behavior.

The world is silent if you listen. The world is loud if you listen to yourself.
This is what it means to interpret, as is fundamentally necessary for the construction of perspective, let alone a perspective as valued as faith. There is no venom here. You look down on people that believe in themselves, not me.

But, as always, I have focused on dichotomy rather than harmony. I won’t pretend to understand everything you said, but something sounds a familiar bell.

Just as theoretical mathematics has finally been able to confirm, there are dimensions in this creation other than our own. In my cosmology, those places are inhabited by creatures that were created to do so. To complicate matters, some of these creatures, by design, are able to communicate cross-dimensionally. IOW, angels, whether fallen or not, are able to influence our thoughts.

If a human is to have any success dealing with the spiritual realm, they must learn to distinguish between their own thoughts and those encouraged by demonic beings. This breakthrough could be described as breaking into the silence. While your understanding of prayer is abysmal, it is this quietude that we both reach after. The relationship between quietude and prayer is symbiotic; quietude enables prayer and prayer enriches quietude. I’m saying that prayer becomes more focused as we overcome the spiritual racket of our demonic adversaries and our own vain imaginings.

Also, you make an astute observation. While I reject the characterization of ‘looking down’, you’re onto something. When people depend solely on themselves, it is a proclamation that they have no need of God. In my cosmology, that person will either change their tune or suffer the consequences of terminal hubris.

As far as I can see, we both seek the clarity that comes of uncluttered thoughts. Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

 

[Au Naturel]

There is no denying the religious concept of all humanity having original sin at one point, regardless of the Old Testament.

Most Jews deny it and this stems directly from Torah.

Islam believes in a kind of original sin, but it is not inherited. Sin is an act and not a state of being.

Hindus don't believe in it either. They have instead the Law of Karma.

IIRC, Eastern Orthodox doesn't believe in original sin, either.

These people are all religious.

 

[Jonn]

Most Jews deny it and this stems directly from Torah.

Islam believes in a kind of original sin, but it is not inherited. Sin is an act and not a state of being.

Hindus don't believe in it either. They have instead the Law of Karma.

IIRC, Eastern Orthodox doesn't believe in original sin, either.

These people are all religious.

One word:

Spoiler

Context.

 

[Rachie]

In the book of Genesis, humans were made by a righteous God in God's image and given dominion over the animals.

Right now in my life I note the profound impact that Original sin has had on the world but in a nutshell it just means to me more so now that we will just all pass away from something sooner now rather than later. Death though is often sad as we all know.

 

[Seladon]

'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.