|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Status of Original Sin
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
What is the current status of the doctrine of Original Sin? Does it have any traction?
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Does sin have traction?
Attraction, maybe.
In any case, the view will depend on your specific theology, not necessarily on the popular vote.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
In at least two hundred thousand years of sapience, literally none.
[ 01. October 2014, 06:00: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
As in we are (irredeemable) sinners and any redemption is not in our hands at all? It's probably one of the most pernicious and destructive myths to come out of any religious tradition. So - yes it still has traction, but for all the wrong reasons.
As in humankind lost contact with God because we decided to "taste" what was not divine, just because it was there? Possibly/probably correct.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
My sense is that original sin has been eclipsed by unoriginal sin...
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Kwesi: What is the current status of the doctrine of Original Sin?
I don't believe in it.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
As long as there is ignorance there will be Original Sin.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
In at least two hundred thousand years of sapience, literally none.
That's rather optimistic of you, Martin. Is reading mythology literally the act of a sapient being?
We're not there yet, but as we advance inexorably we shall attain - well, whatever it is in that pot at the end of the rainbow. Full understanding I expect.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Shipmates, thanks for your various replies. I guess they largely reflect my own scepticism about the doctrine. What I'm trying to get at, however, is whether in the light of biological evolution it has been explicitly rejected by most theologians, or allowed to wither on the vine through neglect, or whether it has survived as if Darwin had never existed. If it has been rejected then how does modern theology understand the origin of sin and the human condition/ human nature in relation to salvation and the work of Christ.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
I think the idea of original sin still has traction. It's a pretty good explanation of why perfection is not possible. I quite like Ben Meyer's social implications of original sin.
I like the idea that politics is not about creating utopia (not possible) but retraining and limiting our baser natures.
I think the mechanics of evolution fit well with the idea that creation is good but flawed.
But I don't know how it fits with a state of original peace and fellowship with God. Tried to ask a similar question in Dead Horses here.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
A great deal depends on how you unpack the term. If you mean I, at birth, am hell-worthy because of the sins of some imaginary ancestor 9000 years ago, I should hope nobody in their right mind believes it, but alas millions do. If you mean that our race is messed up and not in the condition God wanted us to be in when She made us, then yes, I believe it. But if you go into questions of Anselmian automaton salvation, then I check out again.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If you mean that our race is messed up and not in the condition God wanted us to be in when She made us, then yes, I believe it.
Nicely said. Agreed.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
How can we possibly be in any other state than God intended? Did evolution go wrong?
And HRB, what, I'm optimistic because despite a couple of hundred kiloyears, this very late meme in that has over two billion people by the throat?
What I meant was that in the context of those kiloyears of human development, there can be no Original Sin except as metaphor. ALL myth is metaphor. Is stuff we make up. All metaphor is ... metaphor. Sin. Salvation. Forgiveness. Carriers of meaning. OUR meaning.
As to the end of the rainbow arc of the moral universe, it's here. It always has been. Since Job. In unknowing. In being ethical despite utter ignorance.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
How can we possibly be in any other state than God intended? Did evolution go wrong?
...
It's called Free Will, Martin. Unfortunately, the consequences of exercising it incorrectly DO pass down through generations. So although we're not responsible for the actions of our ancestors, we certainly are affected by them - in our cultural lack of embodiment, myths about illness and sin, huge gaps in how we tell our children how to live.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
We're not there yet, but as we advance inexorably we shall attain - well, whatever it is in that pot at the end of the rainbow. Full understanding I expect.
Maybe enough understanding to realise the end of the rainbow is always a bit further away.
There is a small South American lizard where the male performs a mating dance on seeing the female. Researchers have found that a model with appropriate markings also triggers the reaction, as does a photograph ... even when enlarged to the size of a small car.
We can reach the nearest water hole so we assume we will one day reach the rainbow's end. Evolution gives us the ability to do something but not the wisdom to see we can't do everything.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lord Jestocost
Shipmate
# 12909
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
How can we possibly be in any other state than God intended? Did evolution go wrong?
...
It's called Free Will, Martin.
Free will, and the Fall, which made everything go wrong. A potent mix.
Posts: 761 | From: The Instrumentality of Man | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
I think the evolution thingy is a bit of a red herring - there is an animal body that we live in, and it needs to be looked after properly, otherwise it gets a bit antsy and takes over - like a powerful horse with a novice rider. That causes complications - if the animal body has taken over (with its evolutionary imperatives), then free will is no longer that easy in many areas of life, because we react rather than respond, and the frontal lobes have been given the day off with a large neurotransmitter cocktail designed to create a comfortably numbing effect. A lot of people run mainly on animal brain rather than frontal lobes. Or on Lizard brain - its interests are sex, food and territory. Not that there's anything wrong with any of these three, but if they dominate all our actions, then the inner lizard is in charge, not the inner (potential) human.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Shipmates, thanks for your various replies. I guess they largely reflect my own scepticism about the doctrine. What I'm trying to get at, however, is whether in the light of biological evolution it has been explicitly rejected by most theologians, or allowed to wither on the vine through neglect, or whether it has survived as if Darwin had never existed. If it has been rejected then how does modern theology understand the origin of sin and the human condition/ human nature in relation to salvation and the work of Christ.
I don't know whether or not modern theology agrees with my own view, which is that the very idea that we need salvation at birth is nonsense, and that we must inevitably learn what it feels like both to do something wrong and to do something right, to verify the truth in our hearts.
From there, we pursue our own pathways with God, even though we might try to excuse ourselves by laying the blame elsewhere.
God walks with us and provides for us, even though the world we live in is rough, and even though we often think he isn't, or doesn't need to be there. He even gave us Christ as an example and teacher.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Felafool
Shipmate
# 270
|
Posted
I have a couple of problems with the doctrine of OS
I'm not convinced the Bible does in fact teach it...it leans more towards a doctrine of Original Goodness.
This puts me in a possibly heretical position with a large number of Christian groups because many 'statements of faith' or 'creeds' or the like seem to insist that I believe in the doctrine of Original Sin.
If they really believe in the doctrine, then surely more of them would baptise babies (as Augustine seems to argue).
At the end of the day, the doctrine (any doctrine?) is an attempt by a community to crystallise the correct understanding of religious holy text, so that by doing so one might live according to that understanding and identify/exclude those who do or do not do so.
What doctrine would Jesus believe?
--------------------
I don't care if the glass is half full or half empty - I ordered a cheeseburger.
Posts: 265 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I haven't the faintest idea what free will is. Does God have it? When and how did we evolve it? Did we have it before we were sentient, like dinosaurs grew feathers before they flew?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I've for many years thought that Original Sin is one of the few doctrines that are self evident. One doesn't have to be a theist, yet alone a Christian to recognise that unless there are no such things as morality, ethics or a concept of the good life, it's obviously true.
It's also a better explanation of the human predicament than any of the others I've encountered. In its more fully developed form, the alternatives are either hopelessly naive or hopelessly bleak.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
The concept is too human-centred, too anthropocentric. The original sin is a concept that, like the earth-centred universe, doesn't work very well any more to explain the natural order.
For example: it is the very biology that forms us and all living creatures that is imperfect in its evolution and adaptation. How else would it be that we metabolise on the way to creating our own vitamin C with 3 enzymes but fail to complete it with the 4th? when most other animals do* or that our hearing bones in our inner ear is derived from a gill arch?
*if my memory of biology serves me rightly
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
The concept is too human-centred, too anthropocentric. The original sin is a concept that, like the earth-centred universe, doesn't work very well any more to explain the natural order.
For example: it is the very biology that forms us and all living creatures that is imperfect in its evolution and adaptation. How else would it be that we metabolise on the way to creating our own vitamin C with 3 enzymes but fail to complete it with the 4th? when most other animals do* or that our hearing bones in our inner ear is derived from a gill arch?
*if my memory of biology serves me rightly
That's interesting, since evolution works with what is to hand. That is, it does not start with a blank sheet of paper, and produce a perfect design. It builds on what has already developed, (as you say, with bones in the ear derived from gills), and this is not ideal. Hence we get all the problems in the human body, from dodgy hips, small pelvises, to male impotence.
I suppose humans have realized that nature is not ideal, and have moralized upon this. This is remarkably ingenious, but perhaps, as you say, narcissistic.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Felafool quote:
“What doctrine would Jesus believe?”
Or, rather, “What DID Jesus believe about the sin of Adam?” What intrigues me is that Adam disappears from scripture between the early chapters of Genesis and Paul’s letter to the Romans. This suggests to me that “original sin” and “the fall” did not figure significantly (if at all) in Jewish theology, and its absence from Jesus’ teaching in the gospels would seem to confirm that.
Raptor Eye quote:
“I don't know whether or not modern theology agrees with my own view, which is that the very idea that we need salvation at birth is nonsense, and that we must inevitably learn what it feels like both to do something wrong and to do something right, to verify the truth in our hearts.”
Although I sympathise with what you’re driving at I don’t agree that “the very idea that we need salvation at birth is nonsense” because I believe that a fundamental selfishness, which Christians understand as sinfulness, is hard-wired into human nature, and that selfishness, allied to consciousness and intelligence, is destructive. In other words “the selfish gene”, which in evolutionary terms, has been essential to the emergence of human beings (and other forms of life), in humans is a serious threat to the specie’s survival. Perhaps that is why the concept of or belief in God, allied to notions of salvation, rebirth, sanctification and so on might be regarded as necessary in terms of the biological/ evolutionary survival of humanity.
Evensong quote:
“I think the idea of original sin still has traction......I like the idea that politics is not about creating utopia (not possible) but retraining and limiting our baser natures.”
I agree. The doctrine of original sin has merit in that it advances a realistic view of human nature, which encourages a sceptical view of our intentions and actions however virtuous we believe them to be. On the other hand “the fall” would seem to place blame on humanity for a condition it has inherited from the first amoeba, and to condemn us for being human. Perhaps what I’m feeling for is a notion of original sin that relates to biological development (the selfish gene) but is detached from an original state of grace and the fall......but we seem so attached to the notion of “our fallen nature don’t we?
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
if the animal body has taken over
like this
quote:
Not that there's anything wrong with any of these three, but if they dominate all our actions, then the inner lizard is in charge, not the inner (potential) human.
I think I'd prefer the inner animal if I had the option. Freewill doesn't seem to allow that (so much for the 'free' bit).
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Felafool quote:
“What doctrine would Jesus believe?”
Or, rather, “What DID Jesus believe about the sin of Adam?” What intrigues me is that Adam disappears from scripture between the early chapters of Genesis and Paul’s letter to the Romans. This suggests to me that “original sin” and “the fall” did not figure significantly (if at all) in Jewish theology, and its absence from Jesus’ teaching in the gospels would seem to confirm that.
AIUI, “original sin” and “the fall” do not figure at all in Jewish theology and never have done. They also do not feature in Orthodox theology, being invented by Augustine of Hippo. I believe that they are still official Roman Catholic doctrine (or whatever the term is) but I could be wrong.
I cannot remember ever having been told that I should believe in them as an Anglican but confirmation classes were a long time ago...
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
AIUI, “original sin” and “the fall” do not figure at all in Jewish theology and never have done. They also do not feature in Orthodox theology,
So what is the Orthodox alternative?
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
On the other hand “the fall” would seem to place blame on humanity for a condition it has inherited from the first amoeba, and to condemn us for being human.
No not the first amoeba, the first human.
As for condemning us for being human: I don't think that's the case. God made us human after all.
Condemning us for being "fallen" humans: yes. But technically the Christian tradition says that's not great but there is hope of reconciliation in Christ "in whom there is no condemnation" (Pauline language again yes, but he's the dude that brought up original sin in the first place- not Jesus)
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Perhaps what I’m feeling for is a notion of original sin that relates to biological development (the selfish gene) but is detached from an original state of grace and the fall..
You want a biological explanation for selfishness that is detached from the notion of a state of original grace and the fall? Isn't that a contradiction? If there was no "fall", why is selfishness a problem?
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
AIUI, “original sin” and “the fall” do not figure at all in Jewish theology and never have done. They also do not feature in Orthodox theology,
So what is the Orthodox alternative?
Can't remember the Orthodox alternative, but in the Jewish Christian scriptures ( the OT) "the fall" is there IMO. It is the hardness of heart that makes people refuse God and be unwilling to repent. It's what the prophets were always banging on about.
The Pauline response is a "once for all" reconciliation in Christ, the OT response is more a cyclical fall and be redeemed by God thing. Which in practise is also the Christian theology. In theory tho something happened with Christ that changed the basic structure of that fall and be redeemed idea. Hard to pin down exactly how that works tho: atonement.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Felafool
Shipmate
# 270
|
Posted
From my conversations with orthodox Jews, my understanding is that Noah and the Flood are far more significant in terms of any idea of 'fall, rather than Adam and Eve in the garden. Up to the flood episode, there are people recorded who please God and those who don't, but no sense of 'original sin'. Noah is described as 'righteous' and salvagable whilst the rest of humanity is doomed.
My biggest objection to the doctrine of OS is bound up in Christology. AFAISI If humanity is tainted by original sin, then Jesus would be also. If Jesus is an exception to original sin, then the incarnation is incomplete - he would not be the same as us.
--------------------
I don't care if the glass is half full or half empty - I ordered a cheeseburger.
Posts: 265 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
quote:
Enoch: I've for many years thought that Original Sin is one of the few doctrines that are self evident.
Evensong: You want a biological explanation for selfishness that is detached from the notion of a state of original grace and the fall? Isn't that a contradiction? If there was no "fall", why is selfishness a problem?
Felafool: My biggest objection to the doctrine of OS is bound up in Christology. AFAISI If humanity is tainted by original sin, then Jesus would be also. If Jesus is an exception to original sin, then the incarnation is incomplete - he would not be the same as us.
I agree with you, Enoch, that any objective consideration of human behaviour, both on the individual and societal level, is likely to come to the conclusion that the species has an endemic propensity towards selfish and what Christians would call sinful behaviour. It is not, however, self-evident that there was a time when human beings behaved differently.
The reason why I look for a biological foundation for human behaviour, Evensong , is that humans are the product of an evolutionary process, so that the endemic foundations of what we identify as sinfulness are likely to have been there from the beginning of life. Natural selection suggests that all species are genetically single-mindedly (if one can use such a term) wired to seek their survival above all other considerations. Nature “red in tooth and claw” is the living soup of killing and being killed, which God declared ”good” and from which our species emerged. There was never a time when the lion and lamb lay down together: it was not in the nature of creation, nor was this creation fallen from a different state in which it neither groaned nor travailed.
While insentient Nature, as described, might attest that innocence is bliss, the emergence of a creature possessing self-awareness, knowledge (especially of good and evil), and the capacity to choose between various courses of action, presents difficulties hitherto absent. Selfishness becomes a problem because it can cease to perform the function of advancing the survival of the species but threaten it with destruction from the invention, development, deployment and use of nuclear weapons to the destruction of the biosphere in its greed to amass more stuff. In other words selfishness becomes dysfunctional: it is a good that becomes sinful. The origins of sin, therefore, lie in the first amoeba, or whatever.
It might, however, be important, Felafool , for me to distinguish between a propensity or bias towards sinful behaviour from it being inevitably realised in every human being. Do we have to believe that if Jesus was truly human then he must have been subject to the negative consequences of that inheritance? Or is it possible that he was so filled with the life of God that he was able to overcome the bias of his species to sin, so that no longer will it be said “the fathers have eaten sour grapes and their children’s teeth are set on edge”? If Jesus is like us then is it possible that we might be like him?
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
Not sure about that
An amoeba, although it can make decsions o fthej kind "this way or that way?" doers not have free will in the way that humans have free will. Just like the rest of nature, it goes abot its business and is ocntent to be what it is - an amoeba or whatever - an elephant. otoh, humans want to be more. And the reactive animal aspect of humans is part of the human condition. We have the capacity to be human or animal and to choose whoich of these we manifest. This is useful - our animal physiology, body, sensory system is very powerful, but like a horse it needs to be sometimes given its head when appropriate so that its power can be used, and sometimes the rider has to give directions so that he goes where he wills. This is a delicate interaction. Our society does not give proper instructions to the conscious mind as a rider, and so the animal often acts up and free will is no longer available. This is a consequence of the loss of connection to God - that often we can no longer exercise the free will that we were given. And some people are afflicted by this more than others. Saying an amoeba is sinful is very peculiar indeed.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
itsarumdo, I’m not arguing that an amoeba or any non-human member of the animal kingdom is “sinful” or “selfish” or is consciously and morally motivated. What I am suggesting is that the evolutionary process of natural selection requires that living orgamisms have a powerful overwhelming instinct, impulse, or whatever, to survive. My suggestion is that impulse has been inherited by human beings from their antecedents. In the case of humans, however, consciousness makes that impulse, which has been beneficial to the survival of a particular species, potentially destructive on both an individual and societal level, producing actions that we deem to be “dysfunctional” “bad” or “sinful”. While I agree that we have the capacity to choose between doing right or wrong, I think we should not over-estimate the degree of freedom within which we make those choices, as St Paul recognises he often failed to do the good he willed.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
itsarumdo, I’m not arguing that an amoeba or any non-human member of the animal kingdom is “sinful” or “selfish” or is consciously and morally motivated. What I am suggesting is that the evolutionary process of natural selection requires that living orgamisms have a powerful overwhelming instinct, impulse, or whatever, to survive. My suggestion is that impulse has been inherited by human beings from their antecedents. In the case of humans, however, consciousness makes that impulse, which has been beneficial to the survival of a particular species, potentially destructive on both an individual and societal level, producing actions that we deem to be “dysfunctional” “bad” or “sinful”. While I agree that we have the capacity to choose between doing right or wrong, I think we should not over-estimate the degree of freedom within which we make those choices, as St Paul recognises he often failed to do the good he willed.
I think the lack of ability to be master of the animal is a complex thing, Kwesi. But a large portion of it is due to the instructions we have (or lack of them) from our society regarding the proper relationship between mind and body. Yes - the animal bnody will always want to survive. But it is due to our poor communication with it and our inherited lack of undertstanding of how to communicate - that has led to its survival agenda spilling out into everyday life. Failing to do the good we will - is another thing entirely - it is about the positive translation of will into action, and imo is more to do with our lot standing between good and evil and the fact that evil is very tricksy. Hmm - a lot of layers. If the human race received school reports, they would generally read "could do better".
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
