Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jbernier · 08-02-2004, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Opera Nut

Social control is infringing, and not nice, and can be extremely bad, but it could be logical to perpetuate the organization doing the controlling, since it helps to perpetuate the organization.

Been thinking about this run-on sentence. What do you mean by "social control"? Do you mean one group (say the clergy) somehow controlling the other? Is such control an intentional or unintentional activity by the controlling group - in other words is the controlling group conscious of the fact that they are engaging in social group? Why does the controlled group accept the control by the controlling group? Etc.?

Really what we are talking about here is ideology and hegemony. I think that ideology and hegemony are more complicated phenomena then an idea of "social control" allows. In particular I am troubled by the fact that it seems to turn the subordinate or controlled group into passive automatons without any sort of agency (after all, they are controlled are they not?). This is a very common problem with many quasi-Marxist social theories: Little room for the agency of the subordinate group. Even the division into controlled and controlling groups (which is implied in the statement "social control") is problematic; for instance, in a "social control" model some of the children who are "controlled" by "God is always watching you" grow up to become the clergy and Sunday school teachers who control others by saying "God is always watching you." Either way I think that "social control" is a very superficial reading of social phenomena.

converted · 08-02-2004, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Opera Nut

Converted, you have misread what I wrote.
Please read carefully. I'm not going to take the time to quote myself. You can read it. I've said all of this stuff further up in the thread.

I'm not perfect. Nobody I know is perfect.

I make mistakes. So do you. So does everyone else.

Original sin is wrong, because the church is blaming me for Adam and Eve's expulsion from the garden of eden.

Just because I am human, and I'm breathing, I am ONLY responsible for the wrongs I commit personally.

I am NOT responsible for some arbitrary "sin" that is part of a doctrine based on an event which is an unprovable story.

Did you read what I said about "UNEARNED guilt and sin"??? The key word here is "UNEARNED".

Apparently not.

Read that phrase again please: UNEARNED GUILT AND SHAME

I refuse to feel guilty for something I did not do. You should not either. None of us are responsible for what Adam and Eve did, even if they really did exist, which I doubt.

Let me try another analogy, since the shampoo example didn't work:

Would you like it if the cops hauled you into court, when you had not broken any laws, that you were aware of, and the judge said "Oh, by the way, we're gonna indict you, try you and convict you for stealing a car."

YOU: But I didn't do anything.

JUDGE: But you're human and all humans have stolen a car at sometime in their life. Even children.

YOU: But that can't be true.

JUDGE: Yes, it is, it's in our statute book right here.

YOU: BUt I didn't do it.

JUDGE: Yes, even if you did not do it, you're still guilty, because Adam and Eve stole a car, and the laws in our jurisdiction recognize that.

YOU: Who?

JUDGE: Adam and Eve. It's in our statute books. It's in our Constitution. They stole a car and everybody in our society is presumed to have stolen a car. Just because they did. And everyone in our society must serve a jail sentence for that. Auto theft in this jurisdiction is 2 to 20 years.

YOU: But, but, but.....

JUDGE: Guilty!!! Court adjourned!
================
:banghead:

I don't get it. You basically confirmed that (a) nobody is perfect, but (b) you don't believe in original sin. Isn;t that an obvious contradiction?.

In my opinion, the concept of original sin applies to all people:

1) We are born with free will. We can choose right or wrong

2) Nobody is perfect. We all choose to do the wrong thing at time. We are all sinful.

3) Original sin does not mean that we are paying for all of the sins of my ansestors all the way back to Adam and Eve. We make enough screwed up mistakes on our own that it does not matter what Adam & Eve or your grandparents did.

"Original sin" simply means nobody is perfect. God gave us free will and God did not make us perfect robots that do everything right.

Kosh · 08-02-2004, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by converted

I don't get it. You basically confirmed that (a) nobody is perfect, but (b) you don't believe in original sin. Isn;t that an obvious contradiction?.

In my opinion, the concept of original sin applies to all people:

1) We are born with free will. We can choose right or wrong

2) Nobody is perfect. We all choose to do the wrong thing at time. We are all sinful.

3) Original sin does not mean that we are paying for all of the sins of my ansestors all the way back to Adam and Eve. We make enough screwed up mistakes on our own that it does not matter what Adam & Eve or your grandparents did.

"Original sin" simply means nobody is perfect. God gave us free will and God did not make us perfect robots that do everything right.

"Imperfection" (making mistakes) and "Sin" are not the same thing. If your religion thinks so, that's another reason for us not to follow the mythology of Ignorant Bronze Aged Goat Herders (tm) !

Sven · 08-03-2004, 02:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by converted

3) Original sin does not mean that we are paying for all of the sins of my ansestors all the way back to Adam and Eve. We make enough screwed up mistakes on our own that it does not matter what Adam & Eve or your grandparents did.
"Original sin" simply means nobody is perfect. God gave us free will and God did not make us perfect robots that do everything right.

Many/most othere Christians and even the bible disagree with you on this point. See, for example, Romans 5:
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--
[...]
19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners [...]

Gregg · 08-03-2004, 06:45 AM

Converted, I've read "Christianity Today" and "Loving God" by Chuck Colson, and other orthodox Christian literature. Colson puts the orthodox Christian position plainly: "We are not sinners because we sin; we sin because we are sinners." In other words, we would be sinners even if we somehow avoided actually sinning. The reason given for this is that the sinful actions of the first humans (although how their actions could be sinful is a mystery, since they lacked knowledge of good and evil and thus lacked the ability to know they were doing wrong) corrupted the human soul, and all their descendants have inherited this corruption.

Anyway, I think you have "imperfection" confused with "sin." My understanding of the orthodox Christian position is that our imperfections are symptoms of our fundamental soul-corruption, and are not the sin itself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by converted

I don't get it. You basically confirmed that (a) nobody is perfect, but (b) you don't believe in original sin. Isn;t that an obvious contradiction?.

In my opinion, the concept of original sin applies to all people:

1) We are born with free will. We can choose right or wrong

2) Nobody is perfect. We all choose to do the wrong thing at time. We are all sinful.

3) Original sin does not mean that we are paying for all of the sins of my ansestors all the way back to Adam and Eve. We make enough screwed up mistakes on our own that it does not matter what Adam & Eve or your grandparents did.

"Original sin" simply means nobody is perfect. God gave us free will and God did not make us perfect robots that do everything right.

jbernier · 08-03-2004, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by converted

I don't get it. You basically confirmed that (a) nobody is perfect, but (b) you don't believe in original sin. Isn;t that an obvious contradiction?.

In my opinion, the concept of original sin applies to all people:

1) We are born with free will. We can choose right or wrong

2) Nobody is perfect. We all choose to do the wrong thing at time. We are all sinful.

No, imperfection and original sin are not the same thing. Original sin assumes human imperfection and offers an explanation for why it occurs; it is an answer to the problem posed by human imperfection, but not the problem itself.

converted · 08-03-2004, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbernier

No, imperfection and original sin are not the same thing. Original sin assumes human imperfection and offers an explanation for why it occurs; it is an answer to the problem posed by human imperfection, but not the problem itself.

I believe that can slice and dice the original sin topic a 1000 ways. In the end, what I said still is correct from my perspective:

God created us. God gave us free will to choose good versus evil (right from wrong). There is good and evil in the universe. We sometimes choose evil versus good no matter how hard we try to be good. Only one person in history (according to Christian beliefs) always chose good -> Jesus Christ. Original sin is tied to Adam and Eve in the Bible; however, all people (except Jesus) exhibit the same behavior to choose evil over good at times in their lives. We are all labeled sinners because we all sin => hence original sin. It is possible and desirable to become more and more "Christ-like" over a life-time and reduce our sin, but I don't believe any person can live a perfect sin-free life.

The grace of God and Jesus Christ leads to our redemption regardless of the number of sins on our lives ledger when we die. Whether you list is 1 page long or 5,000 pages long is not of concern. We are all equivalent in God's eyes and God forgives us through our faith in Jesus. We are raised in a world that believes there should be winners and losers. God has a simple rule - anyone who has faith in Jesus wins. That does not make sense to non-Christians. The concept of original sin is not really even very important when compared with gauranteed redemption through faith in Jesus Christ. That makes quantity of sin to be a moot point. Life on earth would likely be easier for us if we choose to sin less, but the important part is faith in Jesus. A growing faith in Jesus will likely lead a person to reducing sin, but the converse is not required (i.e. you don't have to eliminate all of your sin to be saved by the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ...).

People that focus on Sin and Guilt in teh Bible are focusing on the wrong message. The real message is love, forgiveness, redemption, and faith.

Sven · 08-04-2004, 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by converted

I believe that can slice and dice the original sin topic a 1000 ways. In the end, what I said still is correct from my perspective:

It's easy to ignore what the bible says and what other people in this thread, even theists, explained.

Opera Nut · 08-04-2004, 02:10 AM

Converted has come up with a slightly different flavor of the "No True Christian" fallacy.
i.e., "People focusing on sin and guilt in the bible are focusing on the wrong message". Well, it's in there, and some preachers focus on it. How convenient, to say that all those preachers who tell us what worthless pieces of crap we are on Sunday are "not true Christians". The same cop out as before.

These alleged "true Christians"(TM) certainly do a lot of apologizing for those "fake Christians"(TM).

I ain't impressed with EITHER group.

jdlongmire · 08-04-2004, 04:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbernier

No, imperfection and original sin are not the same thing. Original sin assumes human imperfection and offers an explanation for why it occurs; it is an answer to the problem posed by human imperfection, but not the problem itself.

Respectfully disagree...I think this may be a chicken and egg proposition. It reads as though you are positing that Man was imperfect, Pre-Fall. Original sin is missing the mark. Pre-fall humanity and all Creation had all the qualities of perfection. Including the potential to remain so through Man's obedience. Potential to sin does not make a sinner. The results of Original Sin were imperfection/atrophy infusing all Creation. Only Man will be redeemed, the rest will be destroyed and recreated.

converted, I agree that too much emphasis is placed on sin and guilt and not enough on love, redemption and faith, but I believe it is attributable to the life experiences of many of the participants here and their inability to reconcile the fact that they may have been wrong about the true tenents of a Christocentric worldview. (Thanks, jbernier for the cool term!)

...this might even be an appropriate split of this thread...Is a Christocentric Worldview compatible with Atheism?

08-04-2004, 02:10 AM	#579
Opera Nut Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Houston TX Posts: 1,671	Logical fallacy---Ka-POW!! Converted has come up with a slightly different flavor of the "No True Christian" fallacy. i.e., "People focusing on sin and guilt in the bible are focusing on the wrong message". Well, it's in there, and some preachers focus on it. How convenient, to say that all those preachers who tell us what worthless pieces of crap we are on Sunday are "not true Christians". The same cop out as before. These alleged "true Christians"(TM) certainly do a lot of apologizing for those "fake Christians"(TM). I ain't impressed with EITHER group.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.