9 ms·

> I had been taught I could simply confess whatever and it would be forgiven I still remember the day at Sunday school when we had to confess. I was a good kid

> I had been taught I could simply confess whatever and it would be forgiven I still remember the day at Sunday school when we had to confess. I was a good kid. I had absolutely no idea what to confess. I consulted my Mom who told me to "make something up". And thus my first sin, that I can remember, was lying to the priest.

curiousllama 5y ago
This is the most catholic story I can imagine.
- josefrichter 5y ago
- peakaboo 5y ago
  You have an innocent mind. :)
poulsbohemian 5y ago
In hindsight, it was definitely the concept of original sin that got my young mind spinning, not understanding how for example a newborn baby could be innately sinful. All downhill after that.
- gunapologist99 5y ago
  It's interesting to note that many (or perhaps most, depending on how you count) Protestant denominations in the U.S. do not believe in "original sin" (which is a surprisingly nuanced belief system anyway.) For example, the Southern Baptist Convention, which the largest Protestant denomination in America, do not believe in original sin, and do not practice infant baptism (or sprinkling).
- Barrin92 5y ago
  >concept of original sin Personally as an atheist-ish / lapsed Catholic, original sin is just about the only thing I've never actually doubted, Chesterton put it very well: “Modern masters of science are much impressed with the need of beginning all inquiry with a fact. The ancient masters of religion were quite equally impressed with that necessity. They began with the fact of sin – a fact as practical as potatoes. Whether or no man could be washed in miraculous waters, there was no doubt at any rate that he wanted washing. But certain religious leaders in London, not mere materialists, have begun in our day not to deny the highly disputable water, but to deny the indisputable dirt. Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved. Some followers of the Reverend R. J. Campbell, in their almost too fastidious spirituality, admit divine sinlessness, which they cannot see even in their dreams. But they essentially deny human sin, which they can see in the street. The strongest saints and the strongest sceptics alike took positive evil as the starting-point of their argument. If it be true (as it certainly is) that a man can feel exquisite happiness in skinning a cat, then the religious philospher can only draw one of two deductions. He must either deny the existence of God, as all atheists do; or must deny the present union between God and man, as all Christians do. The new theologians seem to think it a highly rationalistic solution to deny the cat.”
  - thevardanian 5y ago
    -
    - poulsbohemian 5y ago
      This is at least a philosophically interesting perspective worthy of contemplation and conversation.
      - sam0x17 5y ago
        Pure negation.
        poulsbohemian 5y ago
        The parent changed what they originally wrote, not sure why.
  - lisper 5y ago
    > the fact of sin Yeah, there's your problem right there. At the risk of stating what should be painfully obvious to any sane person, there is no "fact of sin", and you certainly can't use the claim of a "fact of sin" as a justification for the idea of original sin. It's a completely circular argument. Garbage in, garbage out.
    - skinkestek 5y ago
      > there is no "fact of sin", and you certainly can't use the claim of a "fact of sin" as a justification for the idea of original sin. So, what do you call me the thing that drives otherwise reasonable humans to hate each other?
      - sam0x17 5y ago
        Genetics, cultural values, chemicals, hormones, electrical impulses, all conspiring to create the illusion of objective morality
- drekipus 5y ago
  > for example a newborn baby could be innately sinful This could be likened to "all people are assholes" or "think of how dumb the average person is and realise that half of them are dumber than that" They are both "sins" (dumb,assholes) from being born (average-joe, all of them, etc)
- sangnoir 5y ago
  > In hindsight, it was definitely the concept of original sin that got my young mind spinning, not understanding how for example a newborn baby could be innately sinful. I have no qualms believing that. Watching a young child empirically discover the theory of mind, and then progress to deceit without being taught is almost miraculous. Humans are inherently selfish and short-sighted, a huge part of parenting is spent on tempering these instincts.
bfuller 5y ago
I was raised in a fully evangelical tongue speaking, bible thumping, political shilling for george bush church, and I distinctly remember in bible school being made to accepet jesus into my heart as my savior over and over. When I told the teachers I had already accepted him, they would make me do it again. Even at that young age (probably 6-8 years old) I was thinking logically, if accepting jesus as my savior gets me into heaven, why would I have to do it multiple times? I'm a mystic now.
- psyc 5y ago
  Fortunately it’s an idempotent operation. I think.
  - rtchau 5y ago
    Don’t think too hard… there’s a rate limit. Unlike accepting your lord and saviour, which is unmetered! \o/
Trex_Egg 5y ago
What a paradox.
geoduck14 5y ago
I'd like to make a suggestion. If you aren't sure if you have anything to confess, then pray. Ask God to reveal any sin to you so you can confess it, pause for a little bit and listen for God. You can also take this time to thank God for things in your life.
- redwood 5y ago
  I hope you don't find this too intensitive but if you hear a voice in your head coming from an external individual, you may want to seek help
  - geoduck14 5y ago
    >I hope you don't find this too intensitive but if you hear a voice in your head coming from an external individual, you may want to seek help I genuinely appreciate how HN is a place where strangers can make helpful statements like this. I feel safe enough to take this feedback and not be offended. That being said, you being up an important point that I should have covered for the benefit of other strangers that saw my comment: I have NEVER heard the audible voice of God. Never. Not once. I have talked to other religious people that I trust - THEY have never heard the audible voice of God. When I use the phrase "hear God" or "listen to God", I'm referring to a feeling. It is hard to describe without knowing people personally, but I'll try. In one situation, I was praying for God to teach me before I read the Bible. My thoughts were consumed with a specific friend and a series of interactions I had with him (I was rude a couple of times). I decided to find him and apologize for being rude. He accepted and we went our separate ways. I don't know for certain if God wanted me to apologize to him, but I'm mostly certain I was supposed to reach out to him.
    - redwood 5y ago
      Okay thanks for clarifying. Many of us refer to what you're describing as our conscience
- mbfg 5y ago
  How did you differentiate a god talking to you, and you talking to you? What evidence to you have for that? How can others collaborate your story?

curiousllama 5y ago

This is the most catholic story I can imagine.

josefrichter 5y ago
peakaboo 5y ago
You have an innocent mind. :)

poulsbohemian 5y ago

In hindsight, it was definitely the concept of original sin that got my young mind spinning, not understanding how for example a newborn baby could be innately sinful. All downhill after that.

gunapologist99 5y ago
It's interesting to note that many (or perhaps most, depending on how you count) Protestant denominations in the U.S. do not believe in "original sin" (which is a surprisingly nuanced belief system anyway.) For example, the Southern Baptist Convention, which the largest Protestant denomination in America, do not believe in original sin, and do not practice infant baptism (or sprinkling).
Barrin92 5y ago
>concept of original sin Personally as an atheist-ish / lapsed Catholic, original sin is just about the only thing I've never actually doubted, Chesterton put it very well: “Modern masters of science are much impressed with the need of beginning all inquiry with a fact. The ancient masters of religion were quite equally impressed with that necessity. They began with the fact of sin – a fact as practical as potatoes. Whether or no man could be washed in miraculous waters, there was no doubt at any rate that he wanted washing. But certain religious leaders in London, not mere materialists, have begun in our day not to deny the highly disputable water, but to deny the indisputable dirt. Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved. Some followers of the Reverend R. J. Campbell, in their almost too fastidious spirituality, admit divine sinlessness, which they cannot see even in their dreams. But they essentially deny human sin, which they can see in the street. The strongest saints and the strongest sceptics alike took positive evil as the starting-point of their argument. If it be true (as it certainly is) that a man can feel exquisite happiness in skinning a cat, then the religious philospher can only draw one of two deductions. He must either deny the existence of God, as all atheists do; or must deny the present union between God and man, as all Christians do. The new theologians seem to think it a highly rationalistic solution to deny the cat.”
- thevardanian 5y ago
  -
  - poulsbohemian 5y ago
    This is at least a philosophically interesting perspective worthy of contemplation and conversation.
    - sam0x17 5y ago
      Pure negation.
      - poulsbohemian 5y ago
        The parent changed what they originally wrote, not sure why.
- lisper 5y ago
  > the fact of sin Yeah, there's your problem right there. At the risk of stating what should be painfully obvious to any sane person, there is no "fact of sin", and you certainly can't use the claim of a "fact of sin" as a justification for the idea of original sin. It's a completely circular argument. Garbage in, garbage out.
  - skinkestek 5y ago
    > there is no "fact of sin", and you certainly can't use the claim of a "fact of sin" as a justification for the idea of original sin. So, what do you call me the thing that drives otherwise reasonable humans to hate each other?
    - sam0x17 5y ago
      Genetics, cultural values, chemicals, hormones, electrical impulses, all conspiring to create the illusion of objective morality
drekipus 5y ago
> for example a newborn baby could be innately sinful This could be likened to "all people are assholes" or "think of how dumb the average person is and realise that half of them are dumber than that" They are both "sins" (dumb,assholes) from being born (average-joe, all of them, etc)
sangnoir 5y ago
> In hindsight, it was definitely the concept of original sin that got my young mind spinning, not understanding how for example a newborn baby could be innately sinful. I have no qualms believing that. Watching a young child empirically discover the theory of mind, and then progress to deceit without being taught is almost miraculous. Humans are inherently selfish and short-sighted, a huge part of parenting is spent on tempering these instincts.

bfuller 5y ago

I was raised in a fully evangelical tongue speaking, bible thumping, political shilling for george bush church, and I distinctly remember in bible school being made to accepet jesus into my heart as my savior over and over. When I told the teachers I had already accepted him, they would make me do it again. Even at that young age (probably 6-8 years old) I was thinking logically, if accepting jesus as my savior gets me into heaven, why would I have to do it multiple times? I'm a mystic now.

psyc 5y ago
Fortunately it’s an idempotent operation. I think.
- rtchau 5y ago
  Don’t think too hard… there’s a rate limit. Unlike accepting your lord and saviour, which is unmetered! \o/

Trex_Egg 5y ago

What a paradox.

geoduck14 5y ago

I'd like to make a suggestion. If you aren't sure if you have anything to confess, then pray. Ask God to reveal any sin to you so you can confess it, pause for a little bit and listen for God. You can also take this time to thank God for things in your life.

redwood 5y ago
I hope you don't find this too intensitive but if you hear a voice in your head coming from an external individual, you may want to seek help
- geoduck14 5y ago
  >I hope you don't find this too intensitive but if you hear a voice in your head coming from an external individual, you may want to seek help I genuinely appreciate how HN is a place where strangers can make helpful statements like this. I feel safe enough to take this feedback and not be offended. That being said, you being up an important point that I should have covered for the benefit of other strangers that saw my comment: I have NEVER heard the audible voice of God. Never. Not once. I have talked to other religious people that I trust - THEY have never heard the audible voice of God. When I use the phrase "hear God" or "listen to God", I'm referring to a feeling. It is hard to describe without knowing people personally, but I'll try. In one situation, I was praying for God to teach me before I read the Bible. My thoughts were consumed with a specific friend and a series of interactions I had with him (I was rude a couple of times). I decided to find him and apologize for being rude. He accepted and we went our separate ways. I don't know for certain if God wanted me to apologize to him, but I'm mostly certain I was supposed to reach out to him.
  - redwood 5y ago
    Okay thanks for clarifying. Many of us refer to what you're describing as our conscience
mbfg 5y ago
How did you differentiate a god talking to you, and you talking to you? What evidence to you have for that? How can others collaborate your story?