If there is such a thing as ORIGINAL SIN what does that do to "morality"?

by Terry 47 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Terry

  "It is the concept of original sin that negates morality.

  If man is guilty by nature, he has no choice about it.

  If he has no choice, the issue does not belong in the field of morality.

  Morality pertains only to the sphere of man's free will -- only to those actions which are open to his choice.

  To consider man guilty by nature is a contradiction in terms."

  Augustine had the mistaken view that many metaphysicians had at that time: all humans were "nested" inside of Adam like those Russian dolls that fit inside each other. (I'm not kidding!)

  Therefore, when Adam sinned all those "nested" humans (the entire human race to come) no pun intended--sinned automatically!

  
• 

  Seraphim23

  I think you are correct about original sin. Of course there is also the biblical idea that `through one man sin entered the world`. Sin really means breaking the law which is a clue as to what Paul is talking about. There is a more philosophical (Greek) question about human nature and good and evil that Christianity tangled up with the Jewish (legal) viewpoint. This is why Christianity and to some extent Judaism mixes up similar yet different questions which causes a lot of confusion; sin and evil being one of them. They are two questions with different paradigm frameworks that clash because of this. Christianity is a mix of both paradigms on many issues. Much work needs to be done to clarify and straighten out legal right and wrong questions with philosophical questions about good and evil, human nature and the nature of the universe in terms of if it has a purpose. Deep stuff! Gnosticism was an attempt at this but was rejected by the disciples of Jesus for interesting reasons but that’s a rabbit for another time.
• 

  yadda yadda 2

  I take your point, but I disagree with your following statement: "If he has no choice, the issue does not belong in the field of morality."

  Something is still morally right or wrong regardless of whether the perpetrator feels he had a choice or not. In other words, morality exists independently of subjectivity.

  Many nazi war criminals tried to beg off moral responsibility by claiming they had no choice, that they were simply "following orders." This defense was rejected at the Nuremburg trials. They were judged guilty because they did not listen to their conscience.

  Conscience is a universal law underpinning the concept of 'crimes against humanity'. Individual morality is read subject to universal conscionableness.

  Why does God apparently not recognise this concept of crimes against humanity, instead permitting every conceivable evil and form of suffering to go unchecked?
• 

  quinn777

  you cannot go outside a line if no line is drawn, you can only go outside it when it is drawn, the line has been drawn and the boundry has been set the line is Jehovahs law, it is up to each human to follow this and colour inside the line as best he can to his own ability, and nothing will go unchecked in relation to all things this is true.
• 

  Terry

  yadda yadda 2 opines:

  Something is still morally right or wrong regardless of whether the perpetrator feels he had a choice or not. In other words, morality exists independently of subjectivity.

  Many nazi war criminals tried to beg off moral responsibility by claiming they had no choice, that they were simply "following orders." This defense was rejected at the Nuremburg trials. They were judged guilty because they did not listen to their conscience.

  Conscience is a universal law underpinning the concept of 'crimes against humanity'. Individual morality is read subject to universal conscionableness.

  ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

  I find your statement that MORALITY "exists" independantly of subjectivity somewhat ......well, for lack of a better word: shocking!

  MORALITY is a social opinion of right and wrong. Nothing could be more subjective than opinion or consensus!

  In the middle ages the church would castrate young boys with beautiful voices so that the purity of their singing would bring praise to God.

  That was an "opinion" and very subjective!

  Among Jews in Israel, stoning your child to death for cursing their parents was MORAL and commanded. Is that still true today? No.

  Under Sharia law a father can put his daughter to death or cut of a woman's nose if she has sex outside of marriage. It is MORAL.

  Get my point? MORALITY is social consensus. Travel to other societies and try bringing your own "morality" and see what happens!

  Now, your other statement is amazing! "Conscience is universal law."

  What? Really?

  Why drag the "universe" into it? How about we come down to earth first?

  There are humans born without conscience and psychologists and law enforcement call them Sociopaths and Psychopaths. Nothing universal about them!

  What YOU HOLD TO BE RIGHT OR WRONG inside your mind is highly subjective.

  Take 100 people from 100 different nations, tribes, villages and question them about what the "think" is good or bad and you'll quickly discover

  social norms create moral opinions.

  I'm not meaning to lecture you. I just want you to think about backing away from grandiose statements of the absolute.

  For about the first 20 years after I left the Kingdom Hall for the last time--I TOO spoke the same way. It was the result of being in a cult

  which engenders ABSOLUTE thinking in black and white terms.

  Relax.

  It is not necessary and it is hardly ever correct.
• 

  Terry

  We need to ask ourselves what the word NATURE means before we attempt to understand human nature and its limits.

  NATURE consists of whatever lives and has identity.

  Identity

  To exist is to be something, as distinguished from the nothing of non-existence, it is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes.

  example: A leaf cannot be a stone at the same time, it cannot be all red and all green at the same time, it cannot freeze and burn at the same time.

  Your identity and any existing thing's identity is a LIMIT of sorts. Human nature differs as to animal nature as to the nature of plants and minerals.

  OUR NATURE determines what we cannot do even if we desire to to it.

  I can desire to become invisible, flap my wings and fly and see through solid steel. My human nature limits my wishes and desires. Humanity has the intelligence to invent and build their way around the limits of their nature in a way no other living creature can do---because other living things are limited by THEIR NATURE.

  SO WHAT???

  So, the religous doctrine of ORIGINAL SIN places a moral stain on human nature which takes man BEYOND MORAL SENSE rendering man incapable of

  moral decision untainted by that sin.

  That is why the Quote says what it says.
• 

  myelaine

  dear Terry...

  the fact that A&E had the choice between eating from all the trees and one tree shows that their original sin wasn't one of morality but obedience.

  Jesus was without sin because He always (even preincarnate) did the will of His Father...He was obedient.

  The Lord possessed me at the beginning of His way,
  Before His works of old.
  I have been established from everlasting,
  From the beginning, before there was ever an earth.
  When there were no depths I was brought forth,
  When there were no fountains abounding with water.
  Before the mountains were settled,
  Before the hills, I was brought forth;
  While as yet He had not made the earth or the fields,
  Or the primal dust of the world.
  When He prepared the heavens, I was there,
  When He drew a circle on the face of the deep,
  When He established the clouds above,
  When He strengthened the fountains of the deep,
  When He assigned to the sea its limit,
  So that the waters would not transgress His command,
  When He marked out the foundations of the earth,
  Then I was beside Him as a master craftsman;
  And I was daily His delight,
  Rejoicing always before Him,
  Rejoicing in His inhabited world,
  And my delight was with the sons of men.

  “Now therefore, listen to me, my children,
  For blessed are those who keep my ways.
  Hear instruction and be wise,
  And do not disdain it.
  Blessed is the man who listens to me,
  Watching daily at my gates,
  Waiting at the posts of my doors.
  For whoever finds me finds life,
  And obtains favor from the Lord ;
  But he who sins against me wrongs his own soul;
  All those who hate me love death.” (proverbs 8:22-36)

  love michelle
• 

  Terry

  If Man (Adam) had been created with a moral nature it would logically follow his choices would follow his nature.

  To say that a human can exercise other than its own nature is to make a square into a circle.

  If Adam was DISobedient he was following his Nature.

  Who gave man human nature? God, evolution, Himself?

  How can we explain any action or decision as contrary to nature and yet possible?
• 

  myelaine

  Adam did follow his nature up until he chose to be disobedient(he didn't have a sense of "moral choice" until he ate from the tree of knowledge of GOOD and EVIL). he became a victim of someone who knew about "moral" choice, satan.

  xo
• 

  myelaine

  in this way moral codes can be seen as societal, taught by parents, the group etc...apart from obedience to God.

  but...in conjunction with these codes...some parents teach the need for obedience to God.

  societal moral codes and obedience to God are not the same...romans 2:23,27

  that is why moral codes will not bring about "unity" of the people...but obedience to God will bring about "unity" of the Spirit in the people of God (romans 2:28-29).

  love michelle