Printable View
If you accept the premise below (which I don't) do you believe in original sin?
Premise - even if you are vaccinated you must wear a mask around other people or you are selfish and don't care if they die
In the absence of mask mandates I have noticed most people in public, whether indoors or out, do not wear a mask. Does this mean most people are selfish and sinful? If you believe this, do you find it evidence of original sin?
I forget the name of the medieval rabbi who warned against trying to make God carry the burden of your obsessions.
More like the devil than God.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
It's purely social pressure.
If you go out in public and feel like most of the people around you are wearing a mask, you'll probably wear one too, unless you specifically want to make a political point by not wearing one. If almost everyone you see is not wearing a mask, you probably won't wear one either, even if you think you should.
In public or in private, if you say to yourself, "Most people like me do/don't wear a mask" you'll probably conform to what you think other "people like you" are doing, unless you have very strong convictions to the contrary.
Original Sin: IMO "original sin" is real but misunderstood. We all commit the "original sin" the very first time we look at our loving parent, knowing they provide us with everything we need and we're totally dependent on them, and we defiantly say "NO!" anyway.
We all do it. We all know it's a normal and necessary part of growing up. And most of us realize at some point that saying "no" when we ought to say "yes", or viceversa, is an unfortunate part of our ambiguous decision-making process because there are a lot of decisions where you can't make everybody, including yourself, happy.
FWIW I believe all sin can be forgiven, and that's good, but to be fully effective forgiveness has to be accepted by the person who sinned (acceptance of responsibility). No one has ever been able to "take away your sin" by apologizing on your behalf, even if they willingly accept responsibility for what you did and allow themself to be punished for it. You personally have to regret what you did and accept responsibility for it, even if you never tell anyone that you know what you did was wrong. Example: A crewmember makes a careless mistake that causes damage. His supervisor accepts responsibility and is punished because the supervisor is responsible for making sure the crewmembers aren't going to make mistakes. The crewmember sinned, but was not punished for it. To be forgiven, the crewmember has to recognize his own guilt, even if he never admits to anyone else that he caused the damage.
BTW: I was told in Sunday School that the word most commonly translated simply as "sin" is the Hebrew word "hata", which literally means "to go astray." Just as Jewish law, halakha, provides the proper "way" (or path) to live, sin involves straying from that path. Likewise, if you get lost in the woods or if you shoot an arrow at a target and miss, you have sinned. So the real question is: Did you sin on purpose? And are we as human beings even capable of never sinning on purpose?
I agree that masking is not a moral issue and failing to wear one is not a sin.
I don't think opposition (saying no) is a sin in and of itself, because you could be opposing something bad, but was always taught as a child that selfishness is the original sin that is part of human nature.
I guess you are not a Christian GeorgeParker because you think that Jesus cannot take die for your sins and take them away?
The whole concept of sin in a pandemic ... makes little sense. There are behaviors that are more likely to spread or not spread the pandemic. The problem is sin is an absolutist framing, but it's a virus, it's not about absolutes but reducing risks.
Few behaviors that might in theory spread a pandemic are behaviors people will entirely abstain from after the vaccine (socializing is the big one) even though there is a risk of even the vaccinated spreading (but has to be less than the risk of the unvaccinated spreading, infectious for less long etc., I know, I know we don't have ALL the data).
Now one can also say public policy handled the pandemic badly. That many in power made the wrong choice. And I definitely think they should have avoided hospitals becoming overwhelmed etc..
For what it's worth postscript:
One of my many sins that I deeply regret is the fact that once when I was a very small child I accidentally broke something and another child was blamed for it. There were good logical reasons for that other child being automatically blamed and they were only given a brief scolding, because it was a very minor offense. But I've always felt guilty because I didn't speak up when I heard a that other child being scolded for something they didn't do.
I don't beat myself up about it. (I've made much bigger mistakes in my life than that little act of childish cowardice.) But I do remember feeling totally awful about it for several weeks after it happened.
I don't believe in the concept of sin.
Born and bred, baptized as a baby, church and Sunday school every week as a child, confirmation classes at the proper age, reaffirmed my confirmation vows by being rebaptized in my 40s, sang in the choir as an adult, and in my twenties I was a crucifer (literally "cross-bearer", the person who carries a processional cross in front of the choir as they come down the asile.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Yppej
Jesus didn't "take away our sins". He offered himself as a sacrifice and allowed himself to be punished in our place, just as the supervisor I mentioned took upon himself the guilt of what his crewmember had actually done.
Theologically, Jesus "took upon himself responsibility for the sins of all humans", but only we can "take away our sins" by asking for and accepting forgiveness. For me to explain it any more clearly would require a lengthy discussion of biblical texts and various books written by C.S. Lewis (specifically C.S. Lewis because he did such a good job of expressing difficult theological concepts in plain, highschool-level english.)
OTOH I'm eclectic enough to believe that God speaks to all people in whatever way they understand him. Whatever we may or may not believe about Jesus, everyone who seeks approval, forgiveness, or consolation from a higher spiritual power is just as much a child of God as any Christian saint, because "we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" https://connectusfund.org/romans-3-2...e-glory-of-god
Behold, my son was lost is now found. He was dead and is now alive again. (very loose paraphrase of Luke 15:11-32)
Define "original sin".
I don't believe in the concept of there being people who don't believe in the concept of sin, soQuote:
Originally Posted by rosarugosa
<Gary Cooper Mode> If you're gonna say that, ya oughta explain your reasons.
Original sin = congenital sin, sin that is an inherent part of human nature
The unavoidable fact that at some point every child defiantly says "no" to even the most loving parent, just because the child wants to assert their own separate personhood.Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
Only a very foolish child would refuse to eat a bowl of their favorite ice cream, but if a child is mad enough about something you did, they will sit there and watch the ice cream melt instead of eating it, just because you gave it to them and they're mad at you. That is the nature of "original sin" -- intentional separation (hopefully temporary) from someone we ought to love the most.
I was raised Lutheran with church, Sunday school, etc. For those of us that no longer believe in god there’s no original sin. I think it’s likely Jesus existed and was a prophet and teacher in his time. Religion is a great way to control the masses. As societies become more educated people are less religious. Actually life is easier for believers because you can say it was god’s plan when horrible things happen. Kill someone and be forgiven after you confess to your priest. I forgot who said that religion was the opium of the masses.
Think about all the wars and people killed because of religion that have always occurred and still do. My second husband believed until he went to Vietnam. He told me once I went to college and applied critical thinking skills I wouldn’t believe and he was right. I went to a Lutheran college and almost had a minor in religion. Actually if I still believed life would be easier as I would leave things in god’s hands. My apologies to those that are religious and I don’t mean to offend anyone.
GeorgeParker: My statement was in the context of sin as a religious concept. I think people do good things and bad things.
The things I've said about "original sin" in this thread were all related to the religious concept and it's basis in the real world. IOW metaphors for the relationship between God and humans, theories about Old Testament stories being based on the real life experiences all parents have, and what the original meaning of "sin" was at the time the Bible was written. Specifically:Quote:
Originally Posted by rosarugosa
I was told in Sunday School that the word most commonly translated simply as "sin" is the Hebrew word "hata", which literally means "to go astray." Just as Jewish law, halakha, provides the proper "way" (or path) to live, sin involves straying from that path. Likewise, if you get lost in the woods or if you shoot an arrow at a target and miss, you have sinned.
So if you acknowledge that people do both good things and bad things but you don't believe sin (as defined by the church) exists, you and I simply have different definitions of "sin". What I've said about sin is a fairly pragmatic secular viewpoint, but you're welcome to believe that my definition is wrong.
If you want to talk about the Genesis myth, we would probably agree that most of Genesis is either a myth or a folktale version of ancient history. And we would probably agree that certain things some religious denominations call "sin" aren't evil. But if you don't believe in the religious concept "evil" (which is really just intentional sin) you and I will have to say we have irreconcilable differences of opinion and let it go at that.
IMHO "sin" is any thought, word or deed that keeps us separated from God/The Source/Pure Love. "Original sin" is our innate separation from God/The Source/Pure Love. And I would add that IMHO it's also our separation from our natural, more primitive selves--the selves we were before we got evicted from the Garden of Eden.
I like this interpretation because it means we're not "bad"--we're just astray.
I love this, Catherine. And add to that that Augustine's interpretation of sin was that we were still reaching for God, just that we were disoriented and reaching in the wrong direction.Quote:
Originally Posted by catherine
Yes!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tybee
Exactly. The word "sin" was understood in biblical times as meaning "astray" and a sinner was one who had gone astray. Sinning isn't evil, it's just what we do because compared to God none of us are mature enough to live our lives the way he intended us to. Everything was fine in the (metaphorical) Garden Of Eden until Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit (the knowledge of good and evil) and became ashamed of things that had always been perfectly natural before. IOW rule making is the beginning of civilization and the end of innocence.Quote:
Originally Posted by catherine
I read a book once that asked a lot of questions as a way to help you understand you inner feelings and your personality.
One of those questions was, "At what age did you stop walking from your bedroom to the bathtub naked?"
That question is a pretty good gauge of when you lost your natural innocence.
Or if it seems more appropriate for you, you could ask, "If you sometimes spent the night at a friend's house and both of you always walked from bedroom to bathtub naked, at what age did you stop doing it? Do you remember why?"
BTW those are rhetorical questions intended for self-examination purposes only!
ETA: And just so no one will misunderstand, I was referencing what catherine said about sin being separation from our natural state:
Quote:
Originally Posted by catherine
I don't think opposition is a sin either. In many cases it is a virtue. When I said:Quote:
Originally Posted by Yppej
We all commit the "original sin" the very first time we look at our loving parent, knowing they provide us with everything we need and we're totally dependent on them, and we defiantly say "NO!" anyway.I was talking about the first time a child rejects what a parent wants to give them just because they can. That isn't logical opposition, it's just a toddler saying "I'm my own person and I want to find out how much power I have."
Yes, I agree with this.Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeParker
And just last night I was listening to my favorite podcast. The topic was Thomas Merton, and the speaker on the podcast, James Finley, referenced this passage in one of Merton's journal entries:
"Brilliant and gorgeous day. Bright sun. Breeze making all the leaves and high brown grasses shine, singing of the wind and the cedars. Exultant day in which even a puddle in the pig lot shines like precious silver. Finally, I’m coming to the conclusion that my highest ambition is to be what I already am, that I will never fulfill my obligation to surpass myself unless I first accept myself. And if I accept myself fully in the right way, I will already have surpassed myself. Whereas the unaccepted self that stands in my way and will continue to do so as long as it is not accepted, when it has been accepted, it will be my own stepping stone to what is above me because this is the way man has been made by God. Original sin was the effort to surpass oneself by being like God, that is unlike oneself, but in our godliness, we are at home."
I LOVE this whole passage. [bolding mine]. "my highest ambition is to be what I already am, that I will never fulfill my obligation to surpass myself unless I first accept myself....in our godliness, we are at home." With the small "g" I believe Merton is not speaking of any God that religion has claimed as its own, but as the "perfect" state within us that is authentic and pure.
Alan Watts riffed on the same point by asking "Who is the good you that wants to improve the bad you if it isn't you? And if the good you is also the bad you, isn't the bad you already good enough to become a good you if it actually wanted to? And if the bad you is also the good you, either the good you is to dumb to improve the bad you or the good you is actually not as good as it thinks it is." (paraphrased from various lectures on this subject)Quote:
Originally Posted by catherine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqqE1BLvISI
And of course Lewis Carrol said that Alice wanted to be a good little girl and "She gave herself very good advice, but she very seldom followed it." https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:...erland.djvu/31
This just sounds like a normal part of human development. I don't see anything wrong or "sinful" about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeParker
That's the point. There isn't anything "wrong" or "sinful" about it in the religious sense of being evil. It's natural and inevitable. But it's "sinful" in the biblical sense of the child (us) going astray by intentionally defying and separating ourselves from our loving parent (God). That's what Adam and Eve did by eating the only thing in the garden that was forbidden, and every human child does it, much to the dismay of their parent. That's why it's the original sin and the sin no human can avoid committing. We "go astray" by intentionally separating ourselves from God, just as we intentionally separate ourselves from our parents when we're toddlers. It's a necessary part of our nature, and we can't avoid it.Quote:
Originally Posted by rosarugosa
But have you ever thought about the second sin? It's blaming someone else or something else when we go astray. As soon as God realizes Adam and Eve broke the rule by eating the forbidden fruit, Eve says the serpent tricked her into eating it. And Adam not only blames Eve, he also blames God by saying to God "This woman that you gave me..." tricked him into eating it.
But why was the forbidden tree there in the first place? If God made a perfect paradise for Adam and Eve to live in, he must have had a reason for putting that tree in the middle of it. Did he do it to test whether Adam and Eve would resist the temptation, and therefore be worthy of greater things? Or did he do it because he knew they would need to eat the forbidden fruit later, when they were mature enough to use the knowledge it gave them wisely? Or did God put the tree there because Lucifer told God his perfect little children would defy him if they were tempted in the smallest way?
It's all a myth, a metaphor, an analogy intended to explain a spiritual phenomenon in earthly terms by comparing it to our familiar parent-child relationship. Or if you prefer, it was an attempt to make religion more believable by saying our relationship to God is just like every toddler's relationship to it's parents.