Original Sin and...

[_Bazooka]

Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong). The philosophy of morality is ethics. A moral code is a system of morality (according to a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc.) and a moral is any one practice or teaching within a moral code. Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness." Immorality is the active opposition to morality (i.e. opposition to that which is good or right), while amorality is variously defined as an unawareness of, indifference toward, or disbelief in any set of moral standards or principles.[1][2][3][4] An example of a moral code is the Golden Rule which states that, "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself."

It does seem as though morality is interdependent with ones upbringing.
For instance, is the marriage of a 30 year old man and a 14 year old girl immoral?
In some cultures the answer would be 'yes' and in others 'no'.
So the marriage is both moral and immoral depending on ones personal set of moral codes and values which are developed over time.

Is killing someone moral or immoral? Depends on the circumstances, right?
But it also depends on who is sitting in judgement.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Going back to the OP, the reason Adam's sin wasn't atoned for is because Adam isn't a real person.

[_subgenius]

Not anymore so than yours is. Mine is consistent with the idea that each individual will decide what their morality is. It will be influenced by their culture upbringing and environment but it ultimately is up to the individual.

You still haven't offered up any evidence for you transcendent and universal morality & I've offered plenty of evidence that no such thing exists.

So, by your reasoning:

1. "Ultimately every individual decides upon their own morality, independent of the source." - viewtopic.php?p=705315#p705315

2. "the first human "moral" is survival" - viewtopic.php?p=705420#p705420

your conclusion that every human individual just-so-happens-to decide on the same first moral is merely coincidental.

your argument is thus far incoherent and not cohesive.
You claim to have "proven" something but all you have done is make claims...with statements like "Morality and civilization are a thin veneer on a race of aggressive naked apes. It is a symbiotic relationship..." - which is obviously not proof of anything - except it may be proof that you are intoxicated when posting.

[_subgenius]

Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong). The philosophy of morality is ethics. A moral code is a system of morality (according to a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc.) and a moral is any one practice or teaching within a moral code. Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness." Immorality is the active opposition to morality (i.e. opposition to that which is good or right), while amorality is variously defined as an unawareness of, indifference toward, or disbelief in any set of moral standards or principles.[1][2][3][4] An example of a moral code is the Golden Rule which states that, "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself."

It does seem as though morality is interdependent with ones upbringing.
For instance, is the marriage of a 30 year old man and a 14 year old girl immoral?
In some cultures the answer would be 'yes' and in others 'no'.
So the marriage is both moral and immoral depending on ones personal set of moral codes and values which are developed over time.

Is killing someone moral or immoral? Depends on the circumstances, right?
But it also depends on who is sitting in judgement.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for the definition, however you merely reinforce the point against Steelhead. What you are doing is supporting my position that morality is reliant on a cohesive system that is, for any individual, external to themselves. Steelhead seems insistent that morality is self-generated and the result of happenstance not circumstance. Note the posts that repeatedly claim that morality is "decided"....good behavior or bad behavior are not intrinsic values according to that position. I disagree. I believe that the evidence concludes otherwise. The first step towards that conclusion is recognizing that human beings share common behaviors and feeling - for example, laughter is recognizable across all cultures and languages; as is anger. Your definition above equates morality with "behavior and feelings".
This initial concept is simple and unavoidable...yet contrary to what Steelhead is proposing. Steelhead presumably wants to re-invent the wheel every time a bicycle is built.

Going back to the OP, the reason Adam's sin wasn't atoned for is because Adam isn't a real person.

him being a real person, or not, is irrelevant to the question, because the question already assumes the context. Your post is stale. In other words, how do the scriptures resolve the original sin and the atonement?
Your responsive post would have integrity if you simply just wrote "i don't know".

[_Bazooka]

laughter is recognizable across all cultures and languages; as is anger.

But is that because laughter and anger are inherent traits that we are born with?
Or is it just that every culture laughs and gets angry in the same way and we learn it as we grow up?

And, of course, what we have to accept is that what causes people to laugh in one culture, may not be seen as funny in another.

[_subgenius]

laughter is recognizable across all cultures and languages; as is anger.

But is that because laughter and anger are inherent traits that we are born with?
Or is it just that every culture laughs and gets angry in the same way and we learn it as we grow up?

the former seems more plausible...the latter seems more difficult to prove beyond an incredibly improbable coincidence.
Either way, it seems that the condition is, in fact, transcendent to human kind. And it is that transcendent quality which serves as a foundation for morality...and contradicts the poster's theory about "individual decision", "first moral", and other such incoherence.

And, of course, what we have to accept is that what causes people to laugh in one culture, may not be seen as funny in another.

i agree..it is similar to agreeing that an intrinsic moral is "thou shalt not steal"...yet one culture may view the concept of property differently than another...but...the transgression "transcends" those cultural subtleties...i consider the cultural differences to be manifestations of the fundamental, intrinsic concept.
Another way to compare this concept is to compare it to a simple behavior like hunger/thirst...i believe that culture and environment influences the menu and our "tastes"...but the desire and need for food/water is transcendent...every culture gets "hungry/thirsty" and every culture has an intrinsic behavior that endorses eating/drinking as "good"...that this "good" value is objective and not linked to any cultural nuances about flavor or texture.
So, it is reasonable to consider morality as necessarily being system based upon these and other "transcendent" behavior and feelings...this forms a coherent system....a system based upon "individual decisions", "chance", and "circumstance" lacks coherence and can not be perpetuated...it can not be transcendent...and by my understanding of the definition(s) for morality, morals, moral system, etc - it can not be any of those....which is why many atheists will readily admit that they are amoral. (not to be confused with immoral).
Which, honestly, the poster alluded to with the position of "each individual decides for themselves". The concept of "good" and "bad" within the framework of morality is far different than the concept of "good for me" and "bad for me"...the poster originally admits to the latter but then falls into the previously mentioned incoherent trapping of his position by trying to evoke the former.
Ultimately, atheism pretty much excludes the honest atheist from discussing matters of morality - for they are absurd to his belief system.

[_SteelHead]

Thou shalt not steal and not kill are neither intrinsic nor universal.

Just as my survival example blurs the line between moral and instinct, your laughter example blurs the line.

Incoherent is an insistence in a transcendent morality you've yet to provide an example of.

[_Bazooka]

I'm not sure we can say laughter and anger are part of a moral code.
They seem to me to be emotions, neither right nor wrong. Perhaps that's why they are consistent across multiple cultures. Like sadness, grief, fear etc.
Morals seem to be a judgement about what is right and what is wrong - that's different to emotions.

[_subgenius]

I'm not sure we can say laughter and anger are part of a moral code.

i agree...but they are examples of human behavior and feelings that are transcendent with human kind. If feelings and behaviors are transcendent then a moral system founded on those feelings and behaviors would be transcendent as well.

They seem to me to be emotions, neither right nor wrong. Perhaps that's why they are consistent across multiple cultures. Like sadness, grief, fear etc.
Morals seem to be a judgement about what is right and what is wrong - that's different to emotions.

are you proposing that emotions do not have an intrinsic value of being good or being bad?
are you proposing that hunger/thirst is intrinsically ambiguous? that human beings are unsure whether being hungry/thirsty is good or being hungry/thirsty is bad until their culture trains them???
I disagree with that proposition. I propose that morality is developed from intrinsic notions of good and bad. That transcendence and objectivity is evident in how moral systems are identical in their most basic, simple, and fundamental structures.
Like i stated before, everyone eats food and drinks water...having a preference for beef over chicken is a cultural nuance of the fundamental moral of hunger.

I believe that your idea about morals being a judgment is near accurate, but it is more appropriate to consider that morals are the system by which judgment is made. This moral system is objective, transcendent as it is founded on the behaviors and emotions across human kind, across life. This is the objective quality to morality.

[_subgenius]

Thou shalt not steal and not kill are neither intrinsic nor universal.

says you.

Just as my survival example blurs the line between moral and instinct, your laughter example blurs the line.

your survival example contradicted your own premise, my laughter example merely simplifies the premise for you.

Incoherent is an insistence in a transcendent morality you've yet to provide an example of.

speaking of incoherent....huh?

[_Bazooka]

I propose that morality is developed from intrinsic notions of good and bad.

Is flying an airplane into a building good or bad?
I think you and I would say it was bad.
But not everybody would say it was bad.

Now which one is operating contrary to their intrinsic notion of what is good and bad, them or us?
Well, we would say "them" and they would say "us".

I guess that means notions of good and bad are not intrinsic.

Let's say you were brought up as the eldest son of a wealthy cotton farmer in Alabama in the 1700's.
Would you find slavery intrinsically good or intrinsically bad?
Well, I think your upbringing would determine wether or not you viewed slavery as a good or bad thing, not some genetically inbuilt sense of good or bad.

Do you think Adolf Hitler's intrinsic sense of good and bad was the same as yours?