|
Now this thread has had thousands of posts. Insight and enlightenment. Tolerance and intolerance. Frayed nerves and flame wars.
But it looks like somehow my explanation of militant onanism (it's a growing movement) finally slew it. No one man should have that kind of power!
BEHOLD! I AM THE JADE THY DOG!
Bad dog, bad. No treats for you
Bad dog, bad. No treats for youNow this thread has had thousands of posts. Insight and enlightenment. Tolerance and intolerance. Frayed nerves and flame wars.
But it looks like somehow my explanation of militant onanism (it's a growing movement) finally slew it. No one man should have that kind of power!
BEHOLD! I AM THE JADE THY DOG!
Aroooooooooowhimperooooooooo!
|
|
Aroooooooooowhimperooooooooo!Bad dog, bad. No treats for youNow this thread has had thousands of posts. Insight and enlightenment. Tolerance and intolerance. Frayed nerves and flame wars.
But it looks like somehow my explanation of militant onanism (it's a growing movement) finally slew it. No one man should have that kind of power!
BEHOLD! I AM THE JADE THY DOG!
Oh, all right, but just one. Understand. No need to pull the kicked puppy look. *Gives Jade a doggy treat*
But it looks like somehow my explanation of militant onanism (it's a growing movement) finally slew it. No one man should have that kind of power!
Truly, Onan has frustrated this thread's purpose. Will the militant onanists never stop blowing things up?
A Review of Sam Harris's Latest, on morality.
Harris has struck me as a bit of a sloppy thinker in the past. He hasn't been necessarily wrong, but he can be rather poor at expressing himself and End of Faith actually begins with a fairly glaring error of reasoning.
But now, this only begs the question in favor of “well-being” again. So again we ask: Why “must” we define moral goodness in terms of the well-being of conscious creatures? What is the positive argument for this?
Despite Harris’ whirlwind tour of popular highlights from the last 50 years of moral psychology and moral philosophy, I could not find much positive argument for Harris’ position.
In fact, I could not even get clear on what his position was. It appears he thinks something is “morally good” if it helps to maximize the well-being of conscious creatures. But why doesn’t the well-being of non-conscious creatures matter? What is well-being, and why should it be maximized instead of preference satisfaction or desire fulfillment or happiness or pleasure? In fact, why should well-being be maximized at all? Harris denies that anything has intrinsic value, which means well-being has no intrinsic value. So why should we maximize well-being? Is it because well-being is what we care about? If so, what about the other things we care about besides well-being? Or does Harris define well-being so that it, by definition, encompasses everything we care about? What are the primary objects of moral evaluation? Acts? Rules? Desires? Institutions? Are one of these central, such that the others derive their valence from it? If not, what if they come into conflict?
I actually agree with Harris, so far as it goes, that equating moral goodness with the well-being of conscious creatures makes a hell of a lot of sense. (I mean, what else would you use?) It's how I would prefer it be done, and it certainly does reduce (or as I'd prefer to describe it, elevate) morality to simple empirical questions. I think this is a really good assumption on my part, and one which most people will agree with on at least a basic level, but it's just not so that this is the only way that moral goodness can be defined. I think it loses all meaning defined otherwise, but that's a relatively weak position that again comes down to my preference. It's an assumption that tends to lead to more peaceful coexistence and all the things I like, but I would not expect a person who does not like those things to agree that it's an appealing assumption at all.
Given Harris's premise, he sounds fine. But if one had not agreed with him to begin with, it doesn't seem like there's a lot here to convince one to do so.
No flip-floppers here! At least some of the Church's fans feel it's time to stand up and assert that they were right and Galileo was wrong all along...
Galileo Was Wrong is a detailed and comprehensive treatment of the scientific evidence supporting Geocentrism, the academic belief that the Earth is immobile in the center of the universe. Garnering scientific information from physics, astrophysics, astronomy and other sciences, Galileo Was Wrong shows that the debate between Galileo and the Catholic Church was much more than a difference of opinion about the interpretation of Scripture. Scientific evidence available to us within the last 100 years that was not available during Galileo's confrontation shows that the Church's position on the immobility of the Earth is not only scientifically supportable, but it is the most stable model of the universe and the one which best answers all the evidence we see in the cosmos.
"CAI is a Catholic lay apostolate dedicated to the teachings of Jesus Christ preserved by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. It stands on the forefront of Catholic Apologetics, explaining Catholicism to fellow Catholics and defending it against her opponents. With the help and intercession of our new patron saint, St. Robert Bellarmine, and in communion with the other great Apologists of our Faith, we have every hope of winning souls for Jesus Christ."
I was thinking about registering, but I'll probably wait and catch the "rabbits have cuds" conference instead.
I saw this Geocentrism conference discussed elsewhere. I wish they made their main arguments easily accessable on the internet so I could figure out what they're actually getting at.
I was thinking about registering, but I'll probably wait and catch the "rabbits have cuds" conference instead.
I take it you're not in agreement with the apologist understanding of "alah gerah"?
I take it you're not in agreement with the apologist understanding of "alah gerah"?
If you read my article (When Critics Ask (page 89-90) under the entry on Leviticus 11:5-6 gives the explanation in more detail), then you know I don't believe the rabbit chews the cud in the modern technical sense. It simply makes a chewing motion that from an observational point of view can be associated with other animals that do chew the cud in the technical sense.
I'm always amused that genesis-science.blogspot.com and Answers in Creation spend most of their time refuting Answers in Genesis -- every time Hamm or one of his ilk opens his mouth, all other Christians with a passing interest in physical reality do a facepalm. For a while under John Paul II it seemed like the RC Church was moving towards becoming a Christian bastion of science acceptance... but, sadly, under Benedict XVI it seems to be running (not walking) in the opposite direction.
I'm always amused that genesis-science.blogspot.com and Answers in Creation spend most of their time refuting Answers in Genesis -- every time Hamm or one of his ilk opens his mouth, all other Christians with a passing interest in physical reality do a facepalm. For a while under John Paul II it seemed like the RC Church was moving towards becoming a Christian bastion of science acceptance... but, sadly, under Benedict XVI it seems to be running (not walking) in the opposite direction.
Bennie is just continuing JP2's policies. JP2 happened to be a telegenic sort, for a high cleric anyway, so the always obsequious media could never find enough adoring things to say about him. Benedict did JP2's dirty work for years and was practically the designated successor. Karl certainly stacked the college of cardinals as thoroughly as he could to ensure that even if it wasn't Ratzinger, the program would continue.
Aside empty media events like his non-apology apologies that did very well at ignoring the actual aggrieved parties, the Catholic Church's openness and moderation peaked in the Sixties.
I just came across this. http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/298930
I couldn't believe my eyes.
...Sheikh Maulana Abu Sayeed, president of the Islamic Sharia Council in Britain, said that men who rape their wives should not be prosecuted because ‘sex is part of marriage’. And he claimed that many married women who alleged rape were lying.
...
He said it was ‘not Islamic’ to classify non-consensual marital sex as rape and prosecute offenders, adding that ‘to make it exactly as the Western culture demands is as if we are compromising Islamic religion with secular non-Islamic values’...
It is "not Islamic" to classify non-consensual marital sex as rape and prosecute offenders... "to make it exactly as the Western culture demands is as if we are compromising Islamic religion with secular non-Islamic values."
People tell me that it's "racist" and "Islamophobic" to question whether Islam in general, and Sharia law in particular, are at all compatible with Western values.
When Western Muslim clerics not only ask the same thing, but answer it with a resounding "no," is it still "racist Islamophobia" for the rest of us to listen to what they have to say?
That's not to say that Western Muslims in general cannot embrace Western values. Many do. But in order to do so without an extreme conflict of interest, their personal view of Islam needs to be so diffuse that it starts to get pretty questionable whether they can technically be considered Muslims at that point.
People tell me that it's "racist" and "Islamophobic" to question whether Islam in general, and Sharia law in particular, are at all compatible with Western values.
That's a fair question, though I'm fairly skeptical and wary of the phrase "Western values". I would prefer something more specific than an exceptionally ambiguous cardinal direction. :)
Spousal rape, incidentally, was quite legal in most of the Western world (there's that direction again) until the past few decades. So I could believe my eyes, but my eyes are really cynical.
That's a fair question, though I'm fairly skeptical and wary of the phrase "Western values".
I would have used "the philosophical values of the Enlightenment," but since the pious citizens of Texas banned Thomas Jefferson from their textbooks, I didn't want to be accused of conflating American neoconservatism with Islam.
That's a fair question, though I'm fairly skeptical and wary of the phrase "Western values".I would have used "the philosophical values of the Enlightenment," but since the pious citizens of Texas banned Thomas Jefferson from their textbooks, I didn't want to be accused of conflating American neoconservatism with Islam.
I was just thinking what would be a better term after I posted. Maybe post-Enlightenment (so we're not stuck with all the things they were still blind to like women being property), modernist, humanistic, pluralistic values? It's clunky as hell, though.
Pluralism could be a bit problematic too for paradox of tolerance reasons, I suppose. The same for multiculturalism. I'm all for multiculturalism when it means harmless things like reading a diversity of authors in English class or learning about different cultural practices from one's own, and just not being a bigoted ass about anyone who isn't perfectly identical to oneself or one's imagined grandfather from the Good Old Days, but not for it at all when it means different laws for different religions and the like.
Maybe post-Enlightenment (so we're not stuck with all the things they were still blind to like women being property), modernist, humanistic, pluralistic values? It's clunky as hell, though.
It also has the problem that, where I live, "humanism" is a synonym for "satanism" and "progressive."
Maybe post-Enlightenment (so we're not stuck with all the things they were still blind to like women being property), modernist, humanistic, pluralistic values? It's clunky as hell, though.It also has the problem that, where I live, "humanism" is a synonym for "satanism" and "progressive."
Hehe "Progressive satanism"
Hehe "Progressive satanism"
"Boy, that there is one of them goldang tautology things."
|
|
Maybe post-Enlightenment (so we're not stuck with all the things they were still blind to like women being property), modernist, humanistic, pluralistic values? It's clunky as hell, though.It also has the problem that, where I live, "humanism" is a synonym for "satanism" and "progressive."
No offense, but your office isn't Texas. It's really getting annoying.
Maybe post-Enlightenment (so we're not stuck with all the things they were still blind to like women being property), modernist, humanistic, pluralistic values? It's clunky as hell, though.It also has the problem that, where I live, "humanism" is a synonym for "satanism" and "progressive."
Sounds like my college. The teachers there were always on about how the official ideology of the public schools was "humanism" and to a one they said it just like the Church Lady used to say Satan. They meant it too.
Sufficiently advanced fundamentalism really is indistinguishable from parody of fundamentalism.
|
|
Original sin came up in another thread (that was locked) so I figured this is a good a place as any to discuss it.
My question is this:
If you subscribe to genesis as a true story (which, if you believe in original sin, there's a good chance you do), can what Adam and Eve did really be considered a sin? They did not have knowledge of what was good and evil until they ate the forbidden fruit. If they did not have knowledge, then they couldn't have known that what they were doing was wrong. Even if they were specifically forbidden from eating said fruit they wouldn't have known to follow the orders because, again, they don't know that following an order is right and disobeying it is wrong. It seems to be a catch-22 or that they were set up to fail.
Thoughts?
If you subscribe to genesis as a true story (which, if you believe in original sin, there's a good chance you do), can what Adam and Eve did really be considered a sin? They did not have knowledge of what was good and evil until they ate the forbidden fruit. If they did not have knowledge, then they couldn't have known that what they were doing was wrong. Even if they were specifically forbidden from eating said fruit they wouldn't have known to follow the orders because, again, they don't know that following an order is right and disobeying it is wrong. It seems to be a catch-22 or that they were set up to fail.Thoughts?
That's more or less my take on it. The only person I think did any serious wrong in the story is good old Yahweh when he first forbade knowledge and then punished its being sought.
And even then punishing all their descendants for all eternity is pretty screwed up stuff. I mean you don't execute the murder's toddler because he killed a guy, even if you're a fan of the death penalty.
|
|
If you subscribe to genesis as a true story (which, if you believe in original sin, there's a good chance you do), can what Adam and Eve did really be considered a sin? They did not have knowledge of what was good and evil until they ate the forbidden fruit. If they did not have knowledge, then they couldn't have known that what they were doing was wrong. Even if they were specifically forbidden from eating said fruit they wouldn't have known to follow the orders because, again, they don't know that following an order is right and disobeying it is wrong. It seems to be a catch-22 or that they were set up to fail.Thoughts?
That's more or less my take on it. The only person I think did any serious wrong in the story is good old Yahweh when he first forbade knowledge and then punished its being sought.
And even then punishing all their descendants for all eternity is pretty screwed up stuff. I mean you don't execute the murder's toddler because he killed a guy, even if you're a fan of the death penalty.
I think that theological satanists have an interesting take on this. They essentially worship satan b/c he was the one who gave them the gift of knowledge. And in reality, what better gift can you give? Without that knowledge, humans would have lived a life of meaningless and unknowning servitude...essentially slaves. If I were to have a believing streak, I could see myself more strongly identifying with that take rather than the traditional "satan is evil" shtick.
No offense, but your office isn't Texas. It's really getting annoying.
My office is in Texas. The thing is, "where I live" to me is my neighborhood and my office, not the entire state (just like to you, "Texas" seems to mean "the more liberal parts of Houston.")
Darling examples:
Mr. Paladino, during a meeting with a small Orthodox congregation that was arranged by Rabbi Levin, said Sunday that children should not be “brainwashed” into thinking that homosexuality was acceptable...On Tuesday, after broad condemnation, Mr. Paladino apologized for his “poorly chosen words” and said he would “fight for all gay New Yorkers’ rights” if elected.
...
“I was in the middle of eating a kosher pastrami sandwich,” Rabbi Levin said. "While I was eating it, they come running and they say, ‘Paladino became gay!’ I said, ‘What?’ And then they showed me the statement. I almost choked on the kosher salami.”
I was in the middle of eating a kosher pastrami sandwich
Just a thought, but if an Orthodox Rabbi tells me he's eating a pastrami sandwich, I'm going to sort of take it as a given that it's kosher -- I mean, I'm not going to question him on it. But if he feels the need to specifically spell it out anyway, something seems a bit off, almost as if (a) sometimes he eats non-Kosher stuff and doesn't want us to find out, or (b) he's got some sort of chip on his shoulder about being Jewish. Dunno.
“I was in the middle of eating a kosher pastrami sandwich,” Rabbi Levin said.Just a thought, but if an Orthodox Rabbi tells me he's eating a pastrami sandwich, I'm going to sort of take it as a given that it's kosher -- I mean, I'm not going to question him on it. But if he feels the need to specifically spell it out anyway, something seems a bit off, almost as if (a) sometimes he eats non-Kosher stuff and doesn't want us to find out, or (b) he's got some sort of chip on his shoulder about being Jewish. Dunno.
Definitely "B" and probably "A" as well.
|
I was in the middle of eating a kosher pastrami sandwichJust a thought, but if an Orthodox Rabbi tells me he's eating a pastrami sandwich, I'm going to sort of take it as a given that it's kosher -- I mean, I'm not going to question him on it. But if he feels the need to specifically spell it out anyway, something seems a bit off, almost as if (a) sometimes he eats non-Kosher stuff and doesn't want us to find out, or (b) he's got some sort of chip on his shoulder about being Jewish. Dunno.
I don't know. I think that after being in the middle of a political news mess, I'd want to make sure I clarified just about anything and everything I said for fear of being further misquoted or misrepresented.
|
|
I don't know. I think that after being in the middle of a political news mess, I'd want to make sure I clarified just about anything and everything I said for fear of being further misquoted or misrepresented.
I totally agree.
It's f%+~ed up though that he wants to make sure that people know he wasn't eating food that hadn't been waved at by a rabbi. God forbid someone thought he was eating pork. At least he made it very clear that gays are an abomination to God. Hopefully no one misquotes him to make it sound like he doesn't care what happens in the privacy of other people's bedrooms.
Seriously, I'm kind of rambling here, but why doesn't non-kosher food receive the same hatred that non-heterosexual people do? It's more than just a religious thing - religion is used to prop it up, certainly, but it really comes down hatred, bigotry, and being a pisspoor excuse for a human being.
[/rant]. Sorry, a bit fed up with intolerance today.
|
|
Original sin came up in another thread (that was locked) so I figured this is a good a place as any to discuss it.
My question is this:
If you subscribe to genesis as a true story (which, if you believe in original sin, there's a good chance you do), can what Adam and Eve did really be considered a sin? They did not have knowledge of what was good and evil until they ate the forbidden fruit. If they did not have knowledge, then they couldn't have known that what they were doing was wrong. Even if they were specifically forbidden from eating said fruit they wouldn't have known to follow the orders because, again, they don't know that following an order is right and disobeying it is wrong. It seems to be a catch-22 or that they were set up to fail.
Thoughts?
Lots of thoughts. Few that follow the logic that you present.
I'm also not sure how much I want to get into this. "Original Sin" seems to be more of a Catholic practice/teaching and not really something we obsess over.
The idea of "Original Sin" doesn't really come Genesis. It comes from a couple (really only two that I can find) of passages in the New Testament. One is found in Romans 5 and the other is found in 1 Cor. 15. Both passages have MUCH more to do with "Salvation through Christ" than "Original Sin". (Romans 5 I found especially interesting.)
Looking up the idea in Wikipedia, it feels much more like "Original Sin" was a (non-deliberate?) political move -- especially considering how much was written about the importance of infant baptisms. And the general feel that the Catholic Church seems to put on this concept, doesn't seem to jive with me Biblically. I don't really see this fear idea pushed in the Bible -- but more along the lines of "you already know that you are going to die -- everyone does -- but we have good news for you..." And all I see them (the original writers) doing is using a story that everyone knows to explain their point.
|
|
[/rant]. Sorry, a bit fed up with intolerance today.
I understand the rant -- especially this week (for some reason). I really have no idea what happened with that story. There seems to be a whole lot that has been left out. I don't know who that potential governor is but I can't see this as doing anything but hurting his campaign. Did he not know what he was reading? The article implied that he reviewed it with people. And they didn't see anything wrong with it? Then -- did he then lie to the rabbi? Either he is now lying to the general people and he doesn't agree with gay rights or he was lying to the Jews to try to get their votes. Either way, he seems to be lying just for votes rather than letting people vote for someone who actually supports their values.
The whole exchange feels far more political than religious to me.
[/rant]. Sorry, a bit fed up with intolerance today.I understand the rant -- especially this week (for some reason). I really have no idea what happened with that story. There seems to be a whole lot that has been left out. I don't know who that potential governor is but I can't see this as doing anything but hurting his campaign. Did he not know what he was reading? The article implied that he reviewed it with people. And they didn't see anything wrong with it? Then -- did he then lie to the rabbi? Either he is now lying to the general people and he doesn't agree with gay rights or he was lying to the Jews to try to get their votes. Either way, he seems to be lying just for votes rather than letting people vote for someone who actually supports their values.
The whole exchange feels far more political than religious to me.
I got the impression that the politician flip flopped to the more popular position. It appears he abandoned the agreed upon position that he had told the religious supporter/partner he would support. In other words he shouldn't get the job because he has no spine and the people wouldn't be able to trust him to remain consistent.
The rabbi on the other hand just seems to be an a%$*$$%.
|
|
No offense, but your office isn't Texas. It's really getting annoying.My office is in Texas. The thing is, "where I live" to me is my neighborhood and my office, not the entire state (just like to you, "Texas" seems to mean "the more liberal parts of Houston.")
Nah, Texas means Texas.
Most people here aren't religious fanatics. They just really hate NE and West Coast liberalism. Mostly on economic issues. I've been all over this state in the 24 years I've been here, and most people couldn't give two hoots about what anyone does, as long as they don't do it on their property. In which case they're liable to shoot you.
|
|
No offense, but your office isn't Texas. It's really getting annoying.My office is in Texas. The thing is, "where I live" to me is my neighborhood and my office, not the entire state (just like to you, "Texas" seems to mean "the more liberal parts of Houston.")Nah, Texas means Texas.
Most people here aren't religious fanatics. They just really hate NE and West Coast liberalism. Mostly on economic issues. I've been all over this state in the 24 years I've been here, and most people couldn't give two hoots about what anyone does, as long as they don't do it on their property. In which case they're liable to shoot you.
Went to school in East Texas. I learned a number of things. Pretty much every Texas household has a truck and a gun. It is expected that if you are driving slow and someone comes up speeding behind you that you (illegally) pull over to let the other car pass. Traffic lights are placed in such a way so that you have to stop a fair ways away from the intersection to see the lights change. And nearly ever Texan is right (in their own mind). And don't get me started on Homecoming...
Truthfully, some of the nicest people I know are/were from Texas. But then the converse was also true. (Probably like most places...)
Most people here aren't religious fanatics. They just really hate NE and West Coast liberalism.
Of the people I talk to, a decent proportion can't seem to separate the two. You know, "global warming and evolutionism are abandoning God which is a fascist thing that makes them obviously a hoax to hurt business and make the government take over" kind of stuff. Also, "Gay rights are a liberal conspiracy because God hates gays." Etc.
Part of the problem may be that if Person A bases his views on his interpretation of his religion, and People B, C, D, and Q base their views on political solidarity with Person A against Person Z, then it would be easy for B, C, D, and Q to come across as religious fanatics even if they aren't -- it's just that said religion is forcing their views indirectly, rather than directly.
Either way, I could see how you'd see them as simply "anti-liberal," and on the other hand I'd see them as "religious fanatics," and in a lot of cases we'd be talking about the same people.
Awww. I missed the "homosexuality is a sin" thread. That's a fun one.
Lots of thoughts. Few that follow the logic that you present.I'm also not sure how much I want to get into this. "Original Sin" seems to be more of a Catholic practice/teaching and not really something we obsess over.
I have to say that I got the opposite impression from Wikipedia. The Catholic and Orthodox Church downplay the idea to a significant extent while some Protestant Churches, especially those heavily influenced by Calvinist thought, emphasize this point.
Hence the impression I came away with was that, for Catholics, Original Sin is why we die and it opens up our potential for sin. While Lutheran's and Calvinists emphasize that we are evil by nature and our only hope of escaping this is through faith in Jesus Christ.
I'll go on to say that this jives, in general, with views of Human Nature and how those views vary between North America and Europe (on a general, not individual, level). So America is generally more conservative then Europe.
As a general rule a Liberal view of Human Nature is that people are generally good with a few bad apples while a Conservative view tends toward people are generally bad with some exceptions.
Note how you can draw a line from this view to whether or not an individual is in favour of giving a greater or lesser percentage of their money to the Government. If you believe that people are generally good with a few bad apples then you believe that the Government will generally spend your money well and examples of corruption are just the bad apples. On the other hand if you believe that people are generally bad with a few exceptions then giving your money to the Government just amounts to throwing it away - since the chances of finding any good people who will use it wisely and not be corrupted by the bad people around them is small.
Hence America's tendency toward small c conservatism (vis a vis the Europeans) is a product of the early settlers general adherence to the protestant faith, translated over the centuries to a general cultural trait.
|
|
I have to say that I got the opposite impression from Wikipedia. The Catholic and Orthodox Church downplay the idea to a significant extent while some Protestant Churches, Especially those heavily influenced by Calvinist thought, emphasize this point.
Lots of thoughts. Few that follow the logic that you present.I'm also not sure how much I want to get into this. "Original Sin" seems to be more of a Catholic practice/teaching and not really something we obsess over.
From my point of view --
I've been a Christian pretty much all my life. I've been to quite a variety of churches -- everything from Southern Baptist to Presbyterian (sp?) -- but only just visited a Catholic church. I've never heard a sermon on "Original Sin". I've never had it taught to me at church in any format. If any church I've attended had a stance on it (one way or the other) it was probably because they felt pressure to rather than feeling it was a part of doctrine.
But then most churches I've attended don't feel that baptism is what saves you and therefore don't necessarily feel that children must be baptised. And if they do baptize children, they see it differently than "as a means to keep them from hell".
Just throwing another thing about Original Sin and Belief.
Didn't the Celtic Church, of the British Isle sort/fame, NOT have/believe in Original Sin?
Hence their running afoul of the Roman Catholic church as said church spread through the lands of Europe during the Dark Ages?
No real idea of the veracity of such notions, was hoping some one more knowledgeable might help put me straight.
Sure thing. Celtic (or Insular) Christianity was in some ways variant from mainline European Roman Catholicism in the Early Middle Ages, but not radically so. The physical separation heightened differences a bit, but Medieval Catholicism was relatively diverse all over. But those guys believed in Original Sin.
I think you might be confusing them with Pelagius and his followers, who did not. Pelagius was, so far as we can tell, probably born on the Isles somewhere but gained notice in Rome. Augustine of Hippo connived to have him banished therefrom.
Also the Wikipedia article on Original Sin looks like a decent survey for those interested.
Ah yes! The Pelagist Heresies! I'd forgotten.
Thanks for the link and such. *bows*
No thanks needed. Knowledge is for sharing.
I have to say that I got the opposite impression from Wikipedia. The Catholic and Orthodox Church downplay the idea to a significant extent while some Protestant Churches, Especially those heavily influenced by Calvinist thought, emphasize this point.
From my point of view --I've been a Christian pretty much all my life. I've been to quite a variety of churches -- everything from Southern Baptist to Presbyterian (sp?) -- but only just visited a Catholic church. I've never heard a sermon on "Original Sin". I've never had it taught to me at church in any format. If any church I've attended had a stance on it (one way or the other) it was probably because they felt pressure to rather than feeling it was a part of doctrine.
But then most churches I've attended don't feel that baptism is what saves you and therefore don't necessarily feel that children must be baptised. And if they do baptize children, they see it differently than "as a means to keep them from hell".
Court Jester might contradict me but I suspect that its hardly a common topic of sermons in Catholic Mass either.
Original Sin really is part and parcel of the 'Ivory Tower' of Christian Religious denominations. A stance one way or another on Original Sin influences other doctrines that do have more bearing on how the leyfolk live their day to day lives.
For example the nature of sin and how it 'accumulates'. Most protestant denominations take a stance that humans are evil by nature and, in order to enter the Kingdom of God, one must strive against that. Many will fail in this striving but for those who persevere there is a great reward at the end. In the protestant world view sin accumulates piece by piece - you can't wash it away, you can try and minimize it or, at a later date, you may strive particularly hard to compensate for sins committed early on but the sins don't really go away.
For Catholics sin can be, more or less, forgiven. The slate can be wiped clean, it requires a priest and true repentance etc. but its possible.
Thus for Catholics finding a priest when your on your deathbed is very important, for protestants its pretty much a formality.
These different views go back to the different philosophical underpinnings of the different denominations and those underpinnings are developed from, among other things, the denominations view of Original Sin. Catholics generally view Original Sin, in any form that has passed down through Adam and Eve to be basically eliminated after baptism (leaving behind just human weakness and potential to sin) While Calvin and Martin Luther both felt that Original Sin continued on after Baptism hence Original Sin played an important role in explaining human nature and thus the doctrines of their emerging denominations.
|
|
OK, so maybe I muddied the waters of my intent by introducing original sin. What I was getting at is that if one believes the story of Adam and Eve, regardless of why they ate the forbidden fruit, they could not have known that doing so was bad UNTIL they ate it. Leaving original sin out of it, how could any being (deity or otherwise) justify punishing someone for something they had no clue was wrong?
Additionally, if you subscribe to the POV of an omnipotent, omniscient god, then god knew what the result was going to be before Eve took that bite. Why not give the knowledge so they would know good from evil and would know not to eat it. By denying them that information, they were guaranteed to fall and be cast out.
Also, what was god afraid of? Why were humans denied knowledge? If humans were meant to be special, then why make them no better than the average beast?
I sort of thought original sin is necessary, so that Jesus' sacrifice is needed to redeem all the rest of humanity, who are supposedly still tainted. Without original sin, you're stuck with the possibility of a person one day meeting God's standards (whatever they may be) without needing a scapegoat, and that destroys the whole religion -- it's imperative that everyone be born a sinner, so that the blood sacrifice remains the only way to salvation.