8 ms·

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

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.

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.