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

[The Pandector]

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


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

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

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

 

[Magna]

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

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

 

[The Pandector]

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

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

 

[Au Naturel]

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


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

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

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

 

[Seladon]

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

Fair enough haha

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

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

 

[Seladon]

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

Speaking neutrally, this all sounds rather Arnoldian to me.

 

[Au Naturel]

Fair enough haha

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

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

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

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

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

 

[The Pandector]

Speaking neutrally, this all sounds rather Arnoldian to me.

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

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

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

 

[Au Naturel]

Speaking neutrally, this all sounds rather Arnoldian to me.

Brought up a different version of Arnold to mind:

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

 

[Seladon]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[The Pandector]

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

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

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

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

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

Your thoughtful replies help me measure the distance between us.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Crossbreed]

I’ll offer a definition for this use of ‘sin’: original sin results in man’s propensity to commit sinful acts. Man’s innate tendency towards sinful behaviors is the manifestation of original sin.

Popularly restated:
We are not sinners because we sin.
We sin because we are sinners...
(It is the latter that Jesus offers a remedy for!

)

 

[Hypnalis]

Now we're back to the question in the thread title and the OP.

This kind of circular reasoning has the interesting effect of not requiring any underlying belief system, nor (in this specific case) to any morality to determine whether something is sinful or not.

There's a big difference between being born inherently sinful, and being born with an inherited debt due to some ancestor's sin.

The first is a design error: it contradicts "omni-benevolence".

The second lays the blame on an ancestor's voluntary action It's very convenient in some ways, but it has bad optics: you're motivated by blackmail (presumably sinful) into participating in a game whose rules you cannot assent to.

 

[Crossbreed]

Autism & giftedness are hereditary.
Why can't the inclination to sin be hereditary?

 

[Hypnalis]

Sin is subjective, so your question doesn't make sense. It's also unrelated to my earlier post.
But it's interesting all the same.

I'll try to answer what you thought you were asking, in terms of the thread title.
The TLDR version is that sin can be hereditary.

The full version:

Lets say that being "too selfish" is "bad", because it has a negative effect on you and on your immediate social group, including your children. e.g. a male lion eats all the food, and over time his cubs are weakened by this.

So we could say that's "bad" (as a proxy for "sin"), and everyone would be better off if there was a protocol ("morality") that discouraged it.

So my scenario provides for bad behavior by following your animal nature. And a possible social solution: a system that inclines people to give up a little to benefit others. Like tax, but without active (threat-based) coercion

So of course a tendency to sin can be natural/hereditary.

But now we find ourselves in a different discussion: defining morality, and agreeing on how to enforce it.
We absolutely need a way to agree on definitions of good vs bad behavior. And it needs to be "fair" in a way the community as a whole can live with.

For most of us here, our historical cultures have covered part of this with formal civil laws, some of it via religions or similar belief-centric organizations, and some by informal cultural norms.

This is complicated. We often see "boundary disputes" between these different forms of control. Similarly gaps in the system are immediately occupied by people with strong opinions and loud voices.
And external factors can influence core aspects of the legal, "religious", and social control systems.

You may have noticed me enjoying boundary discussions caused by the effect of science on religion. They happen because science changes much faster than religions can, so there's always some drama while the slower-adapting part catches up. i.e. there's a time element: cultures must adapt, but not too quickly.

E pur si muove
(Yes I know it's apocryphal)

BTW: IRL my "greedy lion" scenario is discouraged by evolutionary pressure - lions lack the ability to work up a system of morals. But it's the 21st century, putting a scenario into human terms would probably have taken us into the culture war

 

[Crossbreed]

Sin is subjective,...

Not since it required

• the Incarnation,
• His Death,
• Burial &
• Resurrection

to even offer a Solution (that might still be rejected).

 

[Seladon]

E pur si muove
(Yes I know it's apocryphal)

*said like Carolee Carmello* galiLEEEEEE galilEoh


Off-topic slightly--back when I was at school, I had this radical English teacher who for whatever crazy reason got me reading Apocryphal texts from the Bible.

Being of Pagan nature myself, it was a little hard for me to take the vilifying of dragons & giants & pr0stitutes (all are more benevolent or sacred in my pantheon), plus the apocalyptic and doomy end the non-Christian characters often got was off-putting. Like did Jannes & Jambres really deserve all that? Just for loving their mom and having some unhinged dreams and dabbling in a little magick? Come on now, they're just madlads. And arguably Joseph (of the Dreamcoat) did kind of the same thing...


However, I did and still do think that Judith was incredible. She took charge when an entire army couldn't sack up and get it done. Gonna m urder a warl0rd with Being Sexy nbd! The fact she never married is admirable in my eyes, too. The whole story reads like an exciting novel, in a way it is. It's interesting that her character isn't adapted or mined more in modern fiction, she's ideal.

And Nehemiah was an absolute legend for cancelling debts & mortgages, and defrocking corrupt judges, counsellors & aristocrats--we need some of that energy in today's courts & parliaments! Though iirc he didn't bother to liberate the s laves rebuilding the walls of Judah...so there's that.


Hopefully none of these thoughts are too horribly blasphemous, apologies if anyone takes offense. I just think it's curious to read and think about from an objective standpoint.

 

[Au Naturel]

IRL my "greedy lion" scenario is discouraged by evolutionary pressure - lions lack the ability to work up a system of morals.

I think you have it backward. Evolutionary pressures produced the "morals" lions live by. Humans have more variability than lions because learning and predicting are a much larger part of our repertoire.

Humans in primitive cultures created moral codes based on a combination of instinctive impulses and learned behavior. Tribes are extended families. Those tribes with more effective rules grew to dominate less effective ones. Religion formalizes those codes to make them uniform across larger populations. Power dynamics force religions to be aggressive and expansionist, or they lose out to other, more determined religions

You have many different religions in different regions with similar codes because the underlying instinctive impulses are the same, and the same general rules can be applied to any organization. However, they differ in many respects because they evolved in different environments, and no two people's instinctive impulses are exactly the same. Nomads would develop one kind of moral code and fixed agriculturists quite another.

 

[Hypnalis]

@Au Naturel

I left evolution out of the human-centric part of that post deliberately, as I said at the end.

Mentioning any science whose name starts with the word "Evolutionary" risks igniting a "Culture War" skirmish these days, and at best the discussions are boring, So I side-step them.

I think we have the same view of the development of religions though. In the past I used "evolution" to describe the process of moving towards ever powerful supernatural figures at the cost of losing their "human archetype" characteristics. But believers of all stripes find that approach even more uncomfortable than the aggressive "New Atheist" approach, so I rarely use it.

FWIW that's because I view religions as a natural side-effect of how human brains work, and things that are natural, evolved, and irrational don't upset me at all. I can simultaneously that all religions are both "right" and "wrong" - my only application to the skill of "double-thinking" that underpins modern politics

Similarly, I think it's natural that moral codes and laws develop to fit the context. So low-tech farmers and nomad hunters will settle on different codes. And more integrated "city-dwelling" societies will need a different set.

IMO what's interesting is that religions change either relatively slowly, or abruptly (by conquest). So the full set of control systems for an integrated society generally won't be "synchronized".

And now, in the 21st century, we've "lost the plot" entirely /lol. Society is becoming more and more intolerant in the name of tolerance. But is in denial of the fact that the whole point of rules for living together is to balance all the different interests and needs /lol.
It's starting to feel like the setup for an antediluvian declining/decaying civilization" High Fantasy novel /lol.

"Uncompromising political discourse", a hallmark of our times, is an oxymoron.

 

[Hypnalis]

Not since it required

• the Incarnation,
• His Death,
• Burial &
• Resurrection

to even offer a Solution (that might still be rejected).

Among other things, this implies that sin didn't exist before christian times, which in turn means that original sin cannot exist.

Since sin has to be pre-christian, it requires either:
* An objective definition, or
* Some very tricky logic to accommodate the fact that, on the surface at least, it seems that not only are non-christians destined for a long time in an uncomfortable place, but when they get there they'll find everyone who was born before the time you're referring to.

Frankly this is a topic that best left untouched. Things like "sin" and "the problem of evil" can't be resolved. It's better to ignore them, and just accept that not everyone accepts all the canonical beliefs of christianity.

Christianity has much bigger problems that it should be urgently addressing.