Do you believe in original sin?

[More Than A Feeling]

"Original sin is the doctrine, shared in one form or another by most Christian churches, that the sin of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden (called "the Fall"), changed or damaged human nature, such that all human beings since then are innately predisposed to sin, and are powerless to overcome this predisposition without divine intervention."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin

Just curious to see what everyone here thinks of this. For the record, I am undecided on whether I believe this or not. Frankly, I feel no pressure to make a decision, either. Depends on what day it is.:-)

[displacedtexan]

1. No. (eom)

[MercutioATC]

2. I don't believe in the concept of "sin" at all.

Than again, I'm an athiest, so take that for what it's worth.

[imenja]

3. meaning anything goes?

Or rather your notion of morality is not religiously based?

I don't believe in original sin but I absolutely believe in sin.

[Orrex]

16. I can't speak for MercutioATC , but...

To sin is to commit an offense against the god in which one believes. If one does not believe in a god, then it is by definition impossible to sin.

One may commit acts contrary to one's moral code, but that's an entirely different sort of transgression (if such it be).

[MercutioATC]

22. I don't believe morality is that defined.

"Sin" is too simple an idea to deal with the issue, IMHO.

[arwalden]

33. Exactly... "sin" is simplistic.

[saltpoint]

44. Interestingly, sin, original or otherwise, is not an absolute, is it?

In Dickens' OLIVER TWIST, Nancy is a woman of the night sidewalks. Such women often must "sin" to have food for their children.

Care of children is a higher ethical act. Should those children go hungry or malnourished in a woman's effort to avoid sexual "sin"?

I just don't buy that at all.

Absolutes are obsolete.

[saltpoint]

62. Sin, if it exists at all, is never absolute. It is always relative.

That's why laws differ, societal values differ, and philosophies differ.

Mercutio's response was startlingly refreshing, IMO. Reducing it to "so anything goes" does it poor justice.

[orpupilofnature57]

4. Yes, but it's not as simple as having sex, it's about our nature to disobey

It's about the fact that the nicest most honest of us would not be able to handle "Omnipotence", and our ego's would not allow us to .admit it.A sin simply is an action meant to harm ,deceive, or corrupt.

[ThoughtCriminal]

5. No - in part

Even if we are predisposed to sin, I don't buy that we are powerless to overcome the predisposition with "Divine Intervention".

I also view "The Fall", as a metaphor for humans developing independent minds with free will. Maybe God wanted us to do that - but there's a price - it means you have to live in a universe with a considerable number of jerks.

[Spinzonner]

6. Well, if you believe in fairy tales like Adam and Eve

and the Garden of Eden, then its not that great a leap to believe in allegory-inspired concepts like Original Sin.

How about just accepting that certain bred-in (and hence biologically original) behaviors and their derivatives can have negative consequences in certain contexts.

[orpupilofnature57]

10. Hence, you've used "Biologically original" allegorically !

[Spinzonner]

15. Seemed explanatory, not allegorical to me

and it was semantic, not sinful

[dbonds]

7. No. this concept is dependent on your model of cosmology.

I think of the 'fall' story as more allegorical than the Original Sin concept. I see it as before we were all spiritual, but humans developed intellect and the egotism of intellect keeps us from returning to the spirituality. We can't get back to that with the intellect intact.

Also, for the fall to apply in the Original Sin context, that god would be a cruel god. Punishing all descendent's for what one person did. It also implies that we are evil by nature and need to seek a god to overcome that. I don't believe in that dualism of good and evil.

I agree everything is duelist, but my model is based around a complex concept of creating vs destroying, taking vs giving, male vs female, compassion vs severity (where all those define 1 type of dualism). I think good and evil are very relative concepts since we do live in a predatory world - the ultimate paradox you have to kill to live (whether animal or plant). Good and evil do not define a good dualism to build a cosmology around - which is a major fault to me in the christian cosmology.

Edit for leaving out a word.

[orpupilofnature57]

13. I agree that the intellect is our bank of knowledge, and not experience

[patrice]

8. There are no human absolutes.

We only process a fraction of what is actually going on, phenomenologically speaking.

i.e. Yes.

[Igel]

9. Nope.

I don't see a point in it.

[jody]

11. No, moreover if I were God, I would not have made humans with so

many weaknesses.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

12. No

because my concept is that we are all a part of God, Who is the Only Being. What we consider "sin" is just another concept (or set of concepts). Here's an example: many people would say it is a sin to lie, especially to police. But was it a sin in 1939 for the Catholic priest to lie when the Gestapo came to his door and wanted to know if he was hiding Jews in his church? So much that people consider "sin" depends on circumstances!

To get out of the mind trap of sin, we must endeavor not to judge, and to forgive others and especially ourselves for misperceptions.

[orpupilofnature57]

14. Cal lit what you want ,but forgiveness is a conscience judgment..

And i believe lying to the gestapo in 1939,was the right thing to do,contradictory as the human intellect deems it.

[American in Asia]

17. Mixed feelings, I guess

I believe that humans are born with the propensity for both good and evil. What they do with that - how good or how evil - is shaped by their character, and I think character is developed, not innate.

[gate of the sun]

18. it's kind of a crazy hansel and gretel notion to me

what kind of crazy god creates a situation where nothing can happen unless your prototypes ummmmmm break the rules? then of course the rest of humanity will pay the price of this ummmmm mistake? I think it's pretty unlikely.

[saltpoint]

49. It's interesting that you invoke Hansel and Gretel, gate of the sun.

They were taken to the wilderness by their ethically feeble father at the behest of their selfish step-mother.

The idea was to abandon them there. Exile is a big theme in both tales.

In Genesis, Adam and Eve are booted out of the wilderness for eating of the Tree of Knowledge.

The Snake is supposed to be the sly tempter in one tale; the witch is a cannibalistic ogre in the other.

Gretel is the one who saves the day by outsmarting the witch and slamming her into the oven. Between the two siblings, she was the Decider.

I'm not sure I remember what Hansel and Gretel do next. I think the incentive to return to home and hearth is minimal at this point. And it's too early in history for the talk show circuit or a book deal.

As for Adam and Eve, I still don't find any evidence of wrong doing. Actually or symbolically, they seem blameless to me. Acquitted on all charges.

So I'm with you. "Unlikely."

[PATRICK]

19. Paul's run on sentence mistranslated

by St. Jerome in the Latin Vulgate plus Augustine not knowing Greek with his own Manichean residuals = the "essential" definition of original sin. This is one of the most damaging things Biblical studies can do to long held formulations.

Paul was trying to make a comment that he probably wanted to erase from the expensive vellum. From(Since) Adam all men have sinned. Not "In" Adam, a very profound philosophical point for the average Pauline reader at the time. It is a basic observation of human history, a constant chosen trap needing grace to escape but not a mark or flaw that can be erased from the infant like a birthmark or birth defect. Now, the conclusions of both the flawed translation and Pauline grace can be the same, but the nuances and extrapolations, are they really necessary in light of Jesus's simpler theme of being born again WHETHER YOU ARE A JUST PERSON OR PROSTITUTE, THIEF or TAX COLLECTOR(traitor).

I don't think Paul wanted to concentrate on the obvious mess of human existence but on faith hope and love. Certainly the sin in the garden was typical and symbolic, not the awesome fall that took away all free will from every subsequent human. Lucky, since the story is myth not history. Such extreme dwelling on the single act threatens to remove all human will and responsibility and even leads to a feeling of innocent revolt. It simply is a flawed perspective due to minds darkened by....oh, oh, sorry. It would be less reliant on mythical history to note people are innately incapable of being god and the thrust toward things beyond them without the intervention of, say, God,
creates a lot of problems. Has been creating a lot of problems.

Why blame a myth man when billions of examples are available daily? Adam is a non-existent historical personage for such a simple scapegoat. Such is the bloated nothingness of evil anyway. It is mainly relevant in the shadow of the real historicity of Jesus, and shadow it(Adam) is. If this seems I am dancing, Erasmus-like, around the doctrine as stated I certainly am.

You are going to get me ex-communicated yet.

[More Than A Feeling]

20. Your post made me smile

Not because I want you ex-communicated (Heaven forbid, as they say), but because there was a lot in it, and I like your writing style.

Thank you, and thanks to all of you who have offered responses! I love hearing other peoples sincere thoughts on faith and the ideas involved in it, whether they have one or not.

[Zorbuddha]

29. I've tried to be original in my sinning

but admit to failing miserably.

The Fall is mysterious in its import, let alone Original Sin.

We have divorced ourselves from nature, ergo God. Every small way in which we continue in that divorce is sin. Original, or otherwise.

[OneBlueSky]

21. no . . . I prefer theologian Matthew Fox's notion of Original Blessing . .

"There is no question whatsoever in my mind that among those who call themselves Christians, whether practicing or not, ninety-nine percent know about original sin; and barely one percent have ever in their lives heard about original blessing. This is the great price we have paid in the West for following the one-sided 'fall/redemption' theology. There is a genuine scandal involved in this dangerous distortion of life and of biblical data. The scandal is one of ignoring -- and then despising -- creation and those who love creation, such as Native American peoples or matriarchal religions.

(snip)

"Fall/redemption theology has ignored the blessing that creation is because of its anthropomorphic preoccupation with sin! The result has been, among other things, the loss of pleasure from spirituality, and with this loss the increase of pain, of injustice, of sado-masochism, and of distrust. Nineteen billion years before there was any sin on earth, there was blessing.

(snip)

"We enter a broken and torn and sinful world -- that is for sure. But we do not enter as blotches on existence, as sinful creatures; we burst into the world as 'original blessings.' And anyone who has joyfully brought children into the world knows this.

(snip)

"Creation need savoring more than it needs inventory-taking. . . If we savored more, we would buy less. We would be less compulsive, less unsatisfied. We would also work less and play more, and thus open up work opportunities to the many unemployed and underemployed in our culture. If we savored more we would communicate more deeply, relate more fully, compete less regularly, and celebrate more authentically. We would be relating more deeply to ourselves, to creation in all its blessedness, to history past and future, to the Now and to God. We would be more in touch with our moral outrage because our love of life would increase so dramatically that we would become less and less tolerant of death forces.

(snip)

"I believe that one price the West has paid for ignoring blessing theology is that Christianity has very few tactics for social change. This is because we have not contemplated with pleasure, have not entered fully into it, have not savored deeply enough. When we do, we will learn what simple living means. and we will resist strongly the efforts of secular or religious hucksters to define for us what our greatest pleasures are. We will make connections again -- i.e. be healed and therefore saved -- to creation itself and to our proper but not arrogantly superior place in it."

from Original Blessing by Matthew Fox (1983)

[saltpoint]

45. Beautiful excerpts from a wonderful book by a great man.

Thank you for posting Matt Fox on DU.

He is one of the spiritul titans of this age. Underappreciated now but just the sort of person who may be reclaimed by a later age.

A dramatic mind.

[TreasonousBastard]

58. I can see why...

the Catholic Church threw him out.

What he is proposing in his Creation Spirituality is very similar to Quaker theology. We consider the Light ("that of God within us") far more important than any dualism between good and evil, sin and grace, or other such fascinating, but esoteric, unprovable, and impractical, beliefs.

Looking into ourselves, we find the Light growing and achieve a unity with God, the universe, and whatever else. While we are fully aware of sinful and evil behavior, the behavior is to be dealt with, not the sin or evil behind it.

[Tux]

23. No

Adam and Eve are myths. The fact we are inherently neutral is more realistic. Original sin is only used to control people for their own "good".

[Nikia]

24. I think that Adam and Eve are allegorical

I do believe in God and God's interest in humanity. I think that Adma and Eve were, or represent, the first people to reach a certain level of humanity in spirituality and intellect, whether that was naturual evolution or specially bestowed. The fall represents humanity becoming knowledgable of the consequences of their actions. At some point, we made the transition from being amoral animals to gaining the knowledge that our actions often have consequences beyond the immediately future and also to others and that we need to act with this in mind. In this, we devloped morality. It is not that we didn't "sin" before the fall. We just weren't aware of it.

[Zorbuddha]

30. We passed through an evolutionary threshold

and have been looking back ever since.

Well put.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

37. Makes sense to me--

the Adam and Eve story as an allegory of how human beings evolved from merely following their instincts and momentary impulses to understanding how their actions affected others.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

25. I don't believe in a literal Adam and Eve, and I believe that

the doctrine of original sin is simply the theological way of saying, "Nobody's perfect."

[Broca]

26. Sin is a religious concept.

Right and wrong, good and bad, etc. are concepts that can exist independently of the concept of sin. As a product of a catholic grade school I naturally associate the concept of sin with guilt. Metaphorically sin is a handy literary concept.

Original sin is often seen as a metaphor for condition of human nature. It it good, neutral, evil, etc.? Can you do anything about it once you are born with it?

I learned this in catholic grade school: Be safe, never do anything from which you might derive joy or pleasure and perhaps you can overcome "original sin".

[More Than A Feeling]

27. Welcome to DU!

Kick back, relax, stay awhile!:D:hi:

[catbert836]

28. No, not really.

It's impossible to have free will without "sin" and "evil". If there's a god, he should have known that. Also, i'm sure cosmic imbalance has something to do with it.

[James T. Kirk]

31. Yup.

As humans, we tend toward sin, which is why we must always be mindful of how we offend God and offend each other.

[musical_soul]

32. No.

Don't believe in everybody being born good either.

[thinkingwoman]

34. Nope. No original. No sin

Sin is a word/concept used to oppress anyone who believes differently or not at all.

[More Than A Feeling]

38. Perhaps those who use it so should think of their own sins first, eh?

It does seem that way, especially in the hands of certain influential religious leaders.

On the other hand, if original sin is true, then it applies to everyone, and those with power more than anyone. After all, with more power comes more temptation to abuse it, and more effect on those under the powerful.

I guess what I am trying to say is that the idea can be an empowering challenge to authority, not just a tool of oppression.

[thinkingwoman]

40. It would be nice

if people in power thought of their own "sins" first, but they don't.

[crikkett]

35. Garden of Eden is a Mesopotamian creation myth btw

... I grew up with the quiet suspicion that Eve was cast in her role to allow men to subjugate women, and that this 'original sin' philosophy was invented by preists as a guilt-trip to keep power.

I'm so happy to be alive today, when I can walk around assuming I'm equal to a man and be in the right, and openly question Christian Doctrine without fearing for my life.

[More Than A Feeling]

39. Yes, it certainly is a Mesopotamian creation myth.

and?

[crikkett]

41. and... I think it's false. So no original sin.

I think the version in Genesis was twisted by Israelites for the purpose of maintaining a certain social order.

And I'm glad that's no longer the case.

(edited for grammar.)

[cosmik debris]

36. I don't understand the concept of sin,

much less originality.

Some say sin is objective, and unchanging. i.e. murder is always wrong.

Others say sin is conditional, situational, and subjective. i.e. it is ok to murder Hitler.

I assume from your question that you are using the first condition, in which God makes the rules, Eve breaks them and God calls that sin. So the answer to your question depends on whether you believe God. Not whether you believe IN God, but whether you believe that God made it a sin to break his rules. i.e. God defines sin.

On the other hand if Eve did not understand that she was damning all mankind to endless suffering, if she did not fully understand God's rule. If she could justify in her mind that it was ok to eat the apple (Hitler killed 7 million people in the ovens so it is ok to murder him) i.e. man interprets God's rules to decide what sin is.

So you tell me, is sin absolute or situational?

[Darranar]

42. No. Humans have always had free will. We are "predisposed"...

towards a number of sorts of behavior, some which can be manifested "sinfully," others "righteously."

[saltpoint]

43. No. I consider it a control mechanism.

[sutz12]

46. No, we evolved out of that in the Reformation.

:)

[saltpoint]

48. Some of us did. Not so sure about Jim Dobson. I think he's still

living back in Inquisition Days.

"Ah, how I love the smell of witches burning in the morning!"

[TallahasseeGrannie]

47. I don't think there are any original sins

they've all been done at least once.




But yeah, I think humans have a nature that leads them into trouble. We are territorial, greedy, selfish, disloyal and inclined to put our privates where they hadn't oughta be.

[sutz12]

50. Have you been watching Eddie Izzard?

:rofl: That was one of his jokes.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

51. No! Elaborate, please

I don't know who is is. But it is a VERY old joke!

[sutz12]

53. Eddie Izzard is an English comic...dresses in drag

He did an HBO hour long special, last year I think. Funny as hell.

He did a bit about 'original sin' where the priest taking confession said, "Heard that! Do three Hail Mary's and come back when you have an original sin."

If you get a chance to see him, do. It's several years old, but still pretty topical and a real riot. Their might be a DVD available, I don't know. I'd buy it if I could.

He goes on about homosexuality and the various types of transvestites, and defines his particular brand of TV in hilarious detail. He even proposed having a battalion of TV troops in the army, which would have the advantage of surprise.

He does a bit about European Empires, which they advanced with the clever use of flags. He lampoons them sticking a flag in the ground, then looking over his shoulder at imaginary natives and says, "Who the hell are those guys?" When the natives protest, he asks, "Do you have a flag?" and they say no, he uses that to confirm the conquest.

My favorite kind of comic, totally irreverant about everybody's sacred cows.

[SPKrazy]

52. I Think It Is Metaphor For Free Will

I don't think it was meant to be taken literally even by it's authors

[bloom]

55. Free will is an alternate interpretation of the Adam and Eve myth.

The one abandoned by Augustine. Original Sin is based on Augustine's interpretation - "Augustine emphasizes humanity's enslavement to sin". See my post elaborating on that below.

It sounds like Augustine was obsessed about having "evil impulses" that he could not control. His way around it - was to blame "Adam" - and "Eve", essentially. That may be super- simplified - but that's what I got out of it.

[bloom]

54. No - and this is what Elaine Pagels had to say about it...

For people who are interested in this - as something that effects our society still (this belief in Original Sin) - see Adam, Eve, and the Serpent.

From the last Chapter - The Nature of Nature

....That we suffer and die does not mean that we participate in guilt—neither Adam's guilt nor our own, That we suffer and die shows only that we are, by nature (and indeed Julian would add, by divine intent), mortal beings simply one living species among others. Arguing against the penal interpretation of death, Julian says, "If you say it is a matter of will, it does not belong to nature; if it is a matter of nature, it has nothing to do with guilt.

Like Copernicus's revolution, Julian's threatens to dislodge humanity, psychologically and spiritually, from the center of the universe, reducing it to one natural species among others. He rejects Augustine's primary assumption that Adam's sin transformed nature. To claim that a single human will ever possessed such power reflects a presumption of supernatural human importance. When Augustine claims that a single act of Adam's will "changed the structure of the universe itself", he denies that we confront in our mortality a natural order beyond human power. For Augustine insists that we became susceptible to death solely through an act of will: "Death comes to us by will, not by necessity."

Why did Catholic Christianity adopt Augustine's paradoxical—some would say preposterous—views? Some historians suggest that such beliefs validate the church's authority, for if the human condition is a disease, Catholic Christianity, acting as the Good Physician, offers the spiritual medication and the discipline that alone can cure it. No doubt Augustine's views did serve the interests of the emerging imperial church and the Christian state...

For what Augustine says, in simplest terms is this: humans beings cannot be trusted to govern themselves, because our very nature—indeed, all of nature—has become corrupt as the result of Adam's sin. In the late fourth and fifth century, Christianity was no longer a suspect and persecuted movement; now it was the religion of emperors obligated to govern a vast and diffuse population. Under these circumstances, as we have seen, Augustine's theory of human depravity—and correspondingly, the political means to control it—replaced the previous ideology of human freedom.

(my bold - the rest of the punctuation as written).

When you read what Pagels said about Augustine - how his promotion of Original Sin corresponded with his rise to power within the church, how it was based on his own inability to control his own self, how he had to misinterpret words in the Bible and mis-characterize Bible passages to get there - besides the fact that it just flat out doesn't make sense - it's just amazing that the church has held onto this concept as long as they have. And that there were reasonable people who argued long and hard against it - who were then branded as heretics.

The other thing about it - other interpretations of the Adam and Eve myth do not require that Adam and Eve be real people. But this one does.

At the time - there was an understanding that this interpretation was about a joining of Church and State Power. That is one reason that it is relevant today - it's these same kinds of ideas - that people NEED to be controlled by the Church and the State. It sounds like Augustine was the first Christian leader to use force on Christians, "many Christians as well as pagans, he noted regretfully respond only to fear."

Sound familiar?

[TreasonousBastard]

56. I've always looked at the Garden myth...

as setting up the relationship between man and God. It can also be used by humanists to set up a relationship betwen man and the universe, if one wants to. As any Jewish scholar will tell you, the Bible is to be read as a continuum, and each story is incomplete without the rest.

The use of "sin" is an unfortunate concept that the Catholic church insisted on using years ago and most Protestant sects have continued it. Luther was big on it, and Calvin had his own take on it all. Anabaptists and some of the other more gnostic or mystical sects try to avoid the concept tp some degree or other.

The Garden myth really talks about humans having free will. If there is such a thing as "sin," it is part and parcel of free will, since we, alone among all creatures, have ability to obey or disobey God's will. "Original sin" is simply the ability to go our own way.

It only gets complicated when theologians start talking about just how important this is, and what to do about it. Then there's the insistence of some putting Satan into it, causing the great debate over whether "evil" is extrinsic or intrinsic.

Me, I find a lot of the discussion intersting, but ultimately meaningless. the discussion is somewhat important in order to understand one's own faith, but far too many people involved refuse to admit that there are no "right" answers.

[Crunchy Frog]

57. Not as a religious doctrine

but I do sort of believe in it as a symbolic metaphor.

[SPKrazy]

59. I Think It Is Just A Story

to show that as spirit we are perfect, but in our flesh existence we are imperfect, therefore we cannot help but to sin

[Duppers]

60. NO. nt

nt

[saltpoint]

61. Nope.

"In the prison of his days
Teach the free man how to praise."

(--Auden's elegy for W. B. Yeats)

I don't hear much praise in the concept of "original sin." I hear trumped-up grounds for condemnation.

[Vidar]

63. No & I have problems with the concept of sin in general.

[bloom]

64. I've been thinking about this

And while I've known this for awhile - that I never agreed with the concept of Original Sin - I didn't realize how the Original Sin concept is THE Original Sin if there ever was one.

It's from reading Pagels book. See above:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x23435#79902


I guess before Augustine's Original Sin concept - the church had voted that Jesus was God - but Without the concept of Original Sin - there is NOT nearly as strong of a case to think of Jesus as divine - the one we needed to save us from ourselves. Without the Original Sin concept - we are more just like "people who like hot rolls" - nobody's perfect - but we are not inherently evil.

What a great way to get everyone to be dependant on the church, though. And the worse you feel about yourself - the more you would need it.

You can see where Quakers were among those that the Puritans were hanging - for their different message. It's pretty radical in comparison - that there is the light - some light - in everyone. Which seems to me to be saying that you look for the goodness in people - instead of the "evil". They also have no need for Baptism - the whole "cleansing of sin" ritual. There is no need for ordained church people to help save people from themselves.

I never understood the concept of people being "saved" - and it's because Original Sin never made sense to me. Saved from what? was what I thought. When you realize that Augustine was full of hooey - and that his arguments never did make any sense (though he was great at rhetoric - at convincing people - and the Church liked the power Original Sin gave them) - then you'll be saved. From nonsense.


People complain about Paul - and yeah - he was a misogynist nuisance as well - but Augustine takes the cake. And it's interesting that the Greek Orthodox think of Augustine differently than the Roman based churches (he's not a saint to them)- >

"Another view is expressed by Christos Yannaras, who descibed Augustine as "the fount of every distortion and alteration in the Church's truth in the West" (The Freedom of Morality, p. 151n.)."

http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Augustine_of_Hippo

[Zebedeo]

65. Yes

Mankind inherited a sinful nature from Adam and Eve. We cannot blame A&E though, as if it is all their fault and if not for their rebellion, we would be good, obedient servants of God. Each of us rebels against God on a daily basis. It comes from the fact that God created each of us with free will and the ability to rebel.

Animals were created without this feature, and therefore they are incapable of sinning against God. This, it seems to me, is the fundamental spiritual difference between human beings and animals.

[nemo137]

66. Yes. Although with qualifications

First, I've never subscribed to the traditional connection with sex and femininity. Second, I'm not sure weather my tendency towards misanthropy comes from belief in original sin, or the other way around. To me, it seems that something in us is wrong from birth; maybe it's our willingness to do selfish things, or our tendency to take the easy way out.

[Bolo Boffin]

67. I believe in original sin, but being an atheist, I call it entrophy.

Over time, things go to hell.

All of humanity's achievements - our cities, our monuments, our homes, our workplaces - have been built by our control of the forces of erosion. We quarry the stone, fell the trees, manufacture the plastics, plunder the oil - we bask in the ongoing heat death of our sun.

Original sin is a way of expressing this destiny and the emotions thus aroused as our fault, the better for theologians to distract us while they reach into our pockets (most with the most innocent of motives - they too believe it).

[bloom]

74. On entropy / flow - Csikszentmihalyi

"Entropy is the normal state of consciousness - a condition that is neither useful nor enjoyable."

Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience, 1990

Although entropy is a technical term used in physics, Csikszentmihalyi borrows the word to describe a similar process that occurs in consciousness. He calls this psychic entropy.

Psychic entropy is characterized by disorder in consciousness. Some examples are: bad moods, passive feelings of incompetence, lack of motivation, and the inability to focus attention. Psychic entropy is a downward spiral that feels bad.

Some activities, such as watching TV, should be limited because they produce psychic entropy. It is not without reason that the term “couch potato” entered our vocabulary to designate someone who vegetates in front of a television set.

Left unchecked, entropy can take over consciousness. When the mind makes the shift to entropy, it can continue to idle, in neutral, unless interrupted by the counter force of flow. Flow activities move the mind in the opposite direction. When, instead of running down, order increases in a system, negentropy is busy at work. And so, in contrast to psychic entropy, flow is psychic negentropy. One is the direction of death and decay; the other, the direction of creation and growth.

http://www.hyattcarter.com/the_way_of_flow.htm

Also - on flow:

As Csikszentmihalyi sees it, there are components of an experience of flow that can be specifically enumerated; he presents eight:

• Clear goals (expectations and rules are discernable).

• Concentrating and focusing, a high degree of concentration on a limited field of attention (a person engaged in the activity will have the opportunity to focus and to delve deeply into it).

• A loss of the feeling of self-consciousness, the merging of action and awareness.

• Distorted sense of time - our subjective experience of time is altered.

• Direct and immediate feedback (successes and failures in the course of the activity are apparent, so that behavior can be adjusted as needed).

• Balance between ability level and challenge (the activity is neither too easy nor too difficult).

• A sense of personal control over the situation or activity.

• The activity is intrinsically rewarding, so there is an effortlessness of action.


Not all of these components are needed for flow to be experienced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)

[kiahzero]

68. I see the notion of "original sin" as profoundly immoral

It's yet another contradiction in some common Christian theologies: You have an all-knowing all-caring Deity who somehow feels it necessary to punish all of humanity for the actions of their ancestors, unless they repent for what Adam and Eve did. In my mind, it's just as ridiculous as the notion of a caring, loving God meteing out infinite punishments for finite crimes. I choose to leave the notion of atoning for the sins of one's father with other antiquated ideas that have no place in our society.

[The Straight Story]

69. Yes. It is equal to genetics in a rough manner (nt)

[Evoman]

70. Lol

No it isn't. Its not equal to genetics in any manner. Keep the legitimate science away from this non-sense.

[NMMNG]

71. That makes no sense whatsoever

:shrug:

[The Straight Story]

72. The idea here being

That some things are inherent in us, whether it be evolution (survival of the fittest) or something else. Original sin is a metaphor in some ways. We are flawed in a moral sense (perhaps a greedy gene) and that has been evident since time began (wars, killings, nothing has changed).

[NMMNG]

73. They still have nothing to do with one another

If people have a genetic flaw that causes them to be immoral then their immorality is beyond their control. Therefore it is quite useless to blame them for their immorality or expect them to change. Some defense attorneys are trying this tactic in courts and it is treading on very dangerous grounds because if we blame peoples' genes or brains for their immoral/criminal behavior (not including mental illness for which a person can be hospitalized rather than imprisoned), what then of personal responsibility?

[Evoman]

75. Sorry to correct you, but misunderstanding about evolution

are a pet peeve of mine. First of all,

" whether it be evolution (survival of the fittest)"

Evolution is not the same thing as survival of the fittest. I'm not sure you realize that (although I could be wrong), but I thought I would point out that out. Natural selection is what you are thinking of, not evolution. Second, there is no morality involved in the word "fittest". The level of fitness is determined by the environment...many people think the phrase "survival of the fittest" implies violence or selfishness, and that is really an incorrect assumption. In the case of our society, for example, many violent people are incarcerated. Being incarcerated makes it harder to reproduce (excluding conjugate visits, I guess lol). Therefore, violent aggression is not a trait of the fittest. At other times, and in other places, it may very well be.

"Original sin is a metaphor in some ways"

A metaphor for what? There couldn't be a worse metaphor than the one your presenting. If you want to argue that genetics is similar to original sin, then your in essence arguing that god caused original sin. Instead of it being a choice, it is something that he forced on us. Which doesn't seem like the argument you want to make, am I right?

"We are flawed in a moral sense (perhaps a greedy gene) and that has been evident since time began (wars, killings, nothing has changed)"

Lol, again you misunderstand. Wars and killing is not really conducive to spreading our genes. The most aggressive people, like the most meek people, are the least likely to reproduce. It could very well be that we are capable of aggression for evolutionary reasons (i.e. scarcity of resources leads to elevated aggression), but again, this has nothing to do with "sin". It is not a moral flaw. It just is what it is. Evolution is a completely amoral processes.

Look, you can make a case for original sin if you want, and you can believe what you want, but it kind of irritates me when people co-opt legitimate science and don't understand what they are arguing.

[Evoman]

76. Here was my play on Original Sin (for those that have already

read it, ignore this post (though I changed it a bit).

Hey everybody, another excerpt from my play

Evoman: *to his 12 year old cousin* Hi Chantel. I'm glad your housesitting for me while I'm away at a conference

Chantel: Sure thing, Evoman.

Evoman: Now, you can go everywhere in the house except that third closet in the hallway. YOU MUST NOT GO IN THERE.

Chantel: Um..okay.

Evoman: Here, I'll give you the keys to that closet. BUT YOU MUST NEVER GO IN THERE.

Chantel: Uh...sure.

Evoman. The key goes in upside down. And that closet is full of knowledge. YOU MUST NEVER GO IN THERE.

Chantel: sure sure

Evoman: Okay *leaves*

*knock on the door*

Snakeman: Hey, whats up chantel baby.

Chantel: Oh nothing snakeman. Just watching my cousins house.

Snakeman:Whats that key for.

Chantel: A closet. My uncle doesn't want us to go there.

Snakeman: Sure he does. Why would he give you the key if he didn't want you to go in there. He was probably just joking with you.

Chantel: You think? Okay. Lets go open the closet

Chantel opens closet* OH MY GOD. THIS CLOSET IS FULL OF TRANNY PORN. EWWWW.

EvomanL *comes in* Oh chantel...I forgot to tel....WHAT THE HELL!!!!

Chantel: GROSS

Evoman: YOU DISOBEYED ME. First, I'm going to throw you out in the streets. Then I'm going to stick a pain probe in your uterus so you'll feel agony when you get pregnant and have kids. Then I'm going to make sure all of your kids, if they survive birth, will starve and kill each other. They build a house, I'll knock it down. They have girlfriends, I will inject them with AIDS. SUFFER!!

Chantel: Really *sniff*....why..

Evoman: No, I'm just kidding. What, you think I'm god! HAHAHA

Chantel: HAHAHA

Snakeman: HAHAHAH *look at audience and winks*

END OF SCENE

[beam me up scottie]

77. That one has always been my favorite.

:applause:

[JerseygirlCT]

78. Nope, not really, except perhaps in the broadest most

allegorical way.

That is, I believe we are all imperfect, and apt to sin and do so often. That's part of the human condition, and the cost of free-will. When you are free to make choices, sometimes you make bad ones. That's how you learn, isn't it?

[SPKrazy]

79. That's My Take Basically As Well

it's about the cost of free will, not a punishment of humankind