- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
DarkJedi wrote:
I will say that as a former Catholic I wholeheartedly disagree with the idea of original sin…
For the record, I disagree with “Original Sin” as an objective truth. I don’t literally believe in Adam and Eve, or a time when lions were herbivores. But I do also wholeheartedly disagree with the 2nd article of faith. We are often “punished” for the sins of others, are we not? Augustine of Hippo, the Bishop who came up with the idea of “Original Sin”, lived at a time in when the Roman Empire was heavily built on the ideas of meritocracy, where the best could reach the top, and of a just social order. It was very similar to American ideology, where those who become “rich” or “successful” are very deserving, due to their hard work, cleverness, and virtue. We believe those who are caught breaking our fair laws are punished accordingly, and the innocent are freed. But Augustine felt this “social justice” was a damning error. He declared it an “amazing folly” to believe we could “be happy here on earth and to achieve bliss by [our] own efforts.”
Augustine of Hippo wrote:“True justice has no existence save in that republic whose founder and ruler is Christ.”
What I like about “Original Sin” (again, as a concept and not a truth), is the charitable outlook it has on the human condition. I also agree with you that animals are not inherently evil; but they also have a sharp morality that is vastly different than what humans consider “good”. Patricide, fratricide, infanticide, cannibalism, incest, rape are all very prevalent and not to mention advantageous, for most of the animal kingdom. Biological evolution has lead all creatures, including humans, to develop traits which explicitly go against the very fundamentals of human ethics. We are all absolutely bent from the very start. The deck has been stacked against us. The Christian hope is, that maybe in the next life, through the grace of God, we can be redeemed from our hopeless condition and all will be made right. In the meantime, I think we’d do well to look at ourselves through the eyes of “Original Sin”. It’s not a choice to be a fallen human in a fallen world. We are all sinners.
Romans 3:10-12 wrote:There is none righteous, no, not one. There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
dande48 wrote:
One of the doctrines I like from other Christian faiths is the concept of original sin. We are all inheriters of “Adam’s Sin”. In other words, there aren’t just a couple crooked among us here or there; We are all pretty messed up from the very beginning. We didn’t choose to be the wretched, selfish, sinful people that we are; we were born this way. Not to mention, this crazy world often makes it worse. It’s the human condition.While I’m all for attempting to better ourselves and take personal responsibility, I think we’d all do good to cut everyone a little extra slack (including ourselves).
I agree with the core concept, but to me that has connotations of additional stigma that is not necessary.
I think that being human means that we inherited all the limitations mentioned above, but I view them as “developmental limitations associated with being human” instead as “original sin”. To me, the concept of sin is that there is a right/wrong paradigm where the person who “knows better” should have and could have “done better”. My concept of developmental limitations is more clearly illustrated by my 20 month old. Because she is 20 months, there are things she can do with her body (she can slap things now). It is normal for her to experiment with the sensation of slapping things so that she learns how to control the force of the impact of her hand, improve her coordination, and learn how to move the hand and arm through space. These are valid lessons for her – she is not “sinning”. I can also expect her to try to slap me, and I can expect to redirect her and instruct her in better ways (or things if necessary) to slap. Even if she errs in judgement and slaps me, the “sin” rests in where she is developmentally, and is a learning opportunity rather then a statement of her sinning.
I think that the start of the concept of “original sin” started as a rough explanation as to why God was innately perfect and we are not. It has only been in the last 150 years (ish) that we started observing that children (and people) have developmental stages.
Yeah, I’m still not there Dande. I agree that humans differ from animals, but the pitbull example is still valid. The meanest pitbulls were raised/taught to be that way and/or put in situations where they had to do what they had to do to survive – quite literally. I have also known some pitbulls who are the greatest and kindest of dogs (my mother adopted one such dog from a shelter). We do all have different circumstances. The child raised in a privileged home is much less likely to commit crimes than the homeless child – and sometimes that is simply because, like the mean pitbull, that child is doing what he or she must do to survive. Much does depend on our circumstances, and the families (or lack thereof) we end up with. Psychologists have shown that our moral/ethical compasses are set in very early childhood (pretty much before age 2). We are indeed all sinners, if sin is something that can really be believed in. I don’t believe in degrees of sin or that some sins are more grievous than others and I also don’t believe in the literal Garden of Eden or Adam and Eve. I even question fallen man and yes, that does also mean I question the need for a savior – yet I do believe in the Savior if for no other reason than because He brings hope. Related but closer to topic, I believe any consequences (positive or negative, intended or unintended) of our choices are purely natural.
The pitbulls are a very sad example, and I fully agree that the environment we are raised in has as much if not more of an effect on who we become, than the natures we were born with. I don’t think it matters whether “Original Sin” or “Free Agency”. I think, like with most religious principles, it matters how useful it is, and that varies from person to person. Take the high and mighty Bishop for example. He feels he earned his calling through his righteousness. When people come to him with sins to be resolved, he looks down on them and says, “Just don’t ______ anymore. Choose the right!”. And the sinner feels condemned, not only for being a “sinner”, but because they chose to sin and it’s all their fault. In this case, believing in Free Agency can be detrimental to everyone involved.
BUT, it might be a useful view for someone stuck in a bad situation (maybe an addiction, or in poverty), to recognize that with the right effort, they can overcome. Do you take responsibility for all the good in your life, and look down on others? Best believe in Fortune and Original Sin. Do you feel stuck in your current situation, unmotivated to keep up the struggle? Best believe in Free Agency. Both views can make you a better or worse person, depending on the situation.
Free agency, one of those phrases that inadequately describes what and all it encompasses. Personally I see it as the freedom to govern myself spiritually without the direct prodding of god. I know it’s simplified but that’s the best way for me to sum it up. There’s is no room for the argument that one gives up their agency when they are baptized.
I have separated some of the ‘choice and consequences’ arguments as there is so much in life people are dealt that had nothing to do with their choices. All of the arguments that liken it a real world situation seem to fall short for me, even the classic debt/debtor story.
nibbler wrote:
Further complicating matters, most of these issues occur along a spectrum and a good percentage of people are high enough on the spectrum for these things to impact their lives. It also creates a seed of doubt in me that wonders whether most people experience some issue or other but are much lower on the spectrum.
😀 I believe everyone has something they are working through. Those that seem to have it all together are very good at masking it.AmyJ wrote:
The interesting thought I have thought before. When we talk about the “boundaries that the Lord has set” – what if all these genetics and other things that govern our behavior are those boundaries that have been set, and it really is between God and the individual whether that person meets their challenges/overcomes those challenges in a Godly fashion even though we think “they got a free pass”?
I’ve had the theory for a while now that we came here and our bodies/minds reflect some of the things that our spirits need to overcome or work through in life. That I genetically have ADD, may match that spiritually I had trouble paying attention in premortal school
LDS_Scoutmaster wrote:
Free agency, one of those phrases that inadequately describes what and all it encompasses.Free agency is definitely one of those “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” things.
DarkJedi wrote:
LDS_Scoutmaster wrote:
Free agency, one of those phrases that inadequately describes what and all it encompasses.Free agency is definitely one of those “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” things.
I just chuckled too loudly in my cubicle
😂 LDS_Scoutmaster wrote:
I’ve had the theory for a while now that we came here and our bodies/minds reflect some of the things that our spirits need to overcome or work through in life. That I genetically have ADD, may match that spiritually I had trouble paying attention in premortal school
I see that. My husband has ADHD and a chronic condition that could lead to hearing loss and has other unpleasant side effects. It used to anger me and produce feelings that the deck was stacked against us – but now, I can see it as an opportunity for growth and maturity. My husband has chosen to focus on managing his diet (very low sodium and medication management) to control his symptoms responsibly (mostly), and has chosen to react towards us his family members with charity and respect as much possible while dealing with horrible symptoms and medication side effects. Our home is a better place because of his choices, and I honor him for that.
1) I love our 2nd Article of Faith, since I believe it says we are not punished for the weaknesses we inherit by birth – and I believe our agency is evaluated gently and mercifully based on a divine knowledge of how little we truly can control fully. 2) I believe agency is free for two reasons: we can’t afford the cost, and we naturally put a price tag on it that is WAY too high.
I recently came across a a graph and explaination of Determinism vs Indeterminism
[img=http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/images/Two-Stage-Taxonomy-25.gif][/img] Seems like the church has gone to use of the word “Agency” by itself…leaving off the free because it sounds too much like saved by grace…and of course…we like to stress the works and urgency to do works and not procrastinating the day of repentance and need to lengthen your stride and never slacken but always be engaged in a good cause…and so…you know…you can’t push for more mormony things if you tell people there is a free ride. DarkJedi wrote:
One of his expressed thoughts was that agency is not free because Jesus paid the price.I get that point. I agree with that.
Quote:But if I bought you an ice cream with no strings attached (no expectation of repayment partial or full, no other obligation), the ice cream is not free to me but is free to you.
ya…totally. I agree with you.
Quote:So that got me thinking. I know some here express their opposition to using dictionary definitions in talks and lessons, but the value in doing so is that we’re speaking the same language when we do so, or at least others can understand where we’re coming from if we define our words. I have never done so with free agency, assuming we’re all talking about the same thing – free agency where free is an adjective. Now I wonder if that’s correct because I had never considered it as an adverb.
I guess I like the idea that we don’t all conform to one dictionary as a source of expressing ideas and learning.
It depends on what we are talking about and what we are teaching.
THere is room to have both points made in our church. I think we are free to choose what helps us become closer to god…and the truth will reveal itself. If we are wrong…life will teach us to correct our thinking.
But someone said that Moses said: “Thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee” (Moses 3:17).
Sounds good to me.
dande48 wrote:
I’m wondering where each of you lie:
I like the 2 stage model;
Quote:Thoughts come to us freely. Actions go from us willfully.
First chance, then choice. First “free,” then “will.”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.