Original Sin and...

[_subgenius]

Subby, a couple of things.

Firstly, you seem to portray my "ground moving" as a bad thing. I don't see it that way. As I said, I'm finding this subject thought provoking which in turns leads me to dvelop my thinking. "Original Sin" and it's principles and moral implications is not something that enters every day conversation or thought. So if you see my thinking and opinions evolving, that's a good thing and a compliment to the nature of the discussion we are having. Wouldn't it be pretty damning on the individual if, when discussing, exploring, debating, learning through others etc they didn't evolve their opinion? That would make them entrenched and stubborn, surely?

true...but what about when one's position is devolving...is that just a question of patience?

(note: I am not prepared to change my views on chocolate, cake or biscuits)

i am not a sadist!

Secondly, to say I have no cohesive moral compass is nonsense. You don't know me, you have a few words from me in a discussion about principles and morals etc. how I operate in "real life" has to involve a moral compass for me to be a normally functioning adult in an evolved society (which I am!). I don't normally think of my daily process as being driven by a survival instinct. It's only when one has and adult discussion like this that the brain spends the time exploring.

Not really, an amoral person can function quite well without any moral compass. One could merely be obedient to the law of the land and get by just fine, without any regard for morality.
Obeying the speed limit does not require morality....blind obedience as it were.

In the first day of its life a baby has no cultural or social influences, but it knows instinctively what it needs to do to survive. Does the baby have a view on right/wrong, good/bad? No. If that baby was born to a French speaking mother who immediately gave it for adoption to a German speaking family, what language would the baby grow up to speak?

as long as we agree that the desire to speak is there, it does not matter....this desire to speak is tantamount to morality in my argument....the language is a matter of "degree".

So some things are hard wired and some things are learnt, influenced.

What do we know is specifically hard wired into the human species? Survival. That, by definition, makes it an instinct.
However, that definition is something we have determined. The bigger question is if God agrees with us!

read the bottom of this post...the excerpt from Darwin's thought on this subject....tell me what you think of his "opinion" ?
viewtopic.php?p=706530#p706530

the bigger question is actually if we agree with God!

[_Bazooka]

1. The speeding question
Actually I think there is a morality involved in compliance to the speed limit. One can choose to obey it or one can choose to ignore it. We know the limit exists, we know the reason it exists, we know the potential downsides of breaching it. But we have the ability to make a choice. That choice involves morals.

2. The "amorality" question
If you believe morals are universal and intrinsic to human kind then you cannot believe amorality in humans exists. It's an either/or situation.

3. The speech question
It seems human kind (and other living creatures etc) have an intrinsic ability to communicate meaning by various methods, not just speech. For example, in the UK, sticking two fingers up at another individual communicates a clear message without speech (incidentally, the origins of this display of fingers dates back to when the British and French were at war. When the French captured the British archers they used to chop off their "archery fingers" so that they wouldn't be able to fire arrows properly in the future. The two-fingered salute became a sign made by the British archers to show the French that they still had their "archery" fingers).
So it is communication, rather than speech, that is an intrinsic ability. And communication between like-specie individuals can easily be identified as intrinsic to survival - mating displays (survival of the species) for example.

4. The God question
We will not know if we agree with God until we meet Him. You don't have faith in God, you have faith in what other humans have told you about God. But that topic is a debate for a whole other thread.

[_subgenius]

1. The speeding question
Actually I think there is a morality involved in compliance to the speed limit. One can choose to obey it or one can choose to ignore it. We know the limit exists, we know the reason it exists, we know the potential downsides of breaching it. But we have the ability to make a choice. That choice involves morals.

are you stating that obedience or disobedience towards a law (or ambivalence) requires one to consider the law as being good or bad?
The rationale for obeying the speed law is not the same as the moral...for example, i may obey the speed law because i choose to minimize the possibility of damage to myself or my property(vehicle)....this is a position of preference, not morality....i prefer chocolate over vanilla, not because of moral good but because of personal preference....personal pleasure.
A moral perspective would be to recognize that obedience to the speed law is a responsibility to myself, my family, and the community because of consideration...because i know that disobedience will cause harm...a knowledge not based on faith, but on an intrinsic understanding.

2. The "amorality" question
If you believe morals are universal and intrinsic to human kind then you cannot believe amorality in humans exists. It's an either/or situation.

i never said i believed in amorality, i have simply stated that it is a necessary position that an honest atheist must take. In the case of universal/intrinsic an amoral person could simply choose to disregard that particular aspect of their life.
Obviously a suicidal person can "choose otherwise" with regards to your proposed "instinct" of survival.
Someone behaving "bad" does not negate the idea that they "know" what they are doing is bad.

3. The speech question
It seems human kind (and other living creatures etc) have an intrinsic ability to communicate meaning by various methods, not just speech. For example, in the UK, sticking two fingers up at another individual communicates a clear message without speech (incidentally, the origins of this display of fingers dates back to when the British and French were at war. When the French captured the British archers they used to chop off their "archery fingers" so that they wouldn't be able to fire arrows properly in the future. The two-fingered salute became a sign made by the British archers to show the French that they still had their "archery" fingers).
So it is communication, rather than speech, that is an intrinsic ability. And communication between like-specie individuals can easily be identified as intrinsic to survival - mating displays (survival of the species) for example.

i agree...and it because of the existence of intrinsic behaviors and intrinsic feelings, all of which transcend humanity, that morality is able to be intrinsic and transcendent.
If there were no transcendent qualities of human behavior and feeling then i would have conceded this argument long ago...but the facts refuse such a concession.

4. The God question
We will not know if we agree with God until we meet Him. You don't have faith in God, you have faith in what other humans have told you about God. But that topic is a debate for a whole other thread.

Agree. Lectures on Faith address this issue quite well.

by the way...thoughts on the Darwin reference?

[_Bazooka]

I'm thinking about that Darwin quote. Particularly the phrase "inherited habit". That sounds like he was suggesting that the things the human species learnt through experience were capable of being transferred down the generations into a trait or instinct that becomes hard wired from birth rather than learnt through experience.
I don't know if that is what he was actually suggesting, but that is what it sounds like to me.

---------------------------------------------------------

I think if we suspend discussion on the difference between what is a "moral" and what is an "instinct", and instead refer to them both as "behavioural traits". Then I think we are in broad agreement in some aspects of this discussion:

1. Some behavioural traits are hard wired into humans from birth - and are therefore 'universal' and 'intrinsic'.
2. Some behavioural traits are learnt through time and experience and example.

If we accept that "Original Sin" is a term referring to the fact that humans are born with a susceptibility to harm and death, then those behavioural traits that are hard wired into us all seem geared towards mitigating and managing the risk of harm and putting off death for as long as possible.

[_subgenius]

I'm thinking about that Darwin quote. Particularly the phrase "inherited habit". That sounds like he was suggesting that the things the human species learnt through experience were capable of being transferred down the generations into a trait or instinct that becomes hard wired from birth rather than learnt through experience.
I don't know if that is what he was actually suggesting, but that is what it sounds like to me.

i do enjoy his eloquence on the matter...some is agreeable some maybe not as much...but an intelligent and well stated perspective nonetheless.
I think it is important to recognize "... through natural selection, aided by inherited habit" in that context...how he positions adherence to a moral system as successful in the effort to survive....and that this system has been collected from seemingly intrinsic and selected behaviors.

---------------------------------------------------------

I think if we suspend discussion on the difference between what is a "moral" and what is an "instinct", and instead refer to them both as "behavioural traits". Then I think we are in broad agreement in some aspects of this discussion:

1. Some behavioural traits are hard wired into humans from birth - and are therefore 'universal' and 'intrinsic'.
2. Some behavioural traits are learnt through time and experience and example.

this seems reasonable

If we accept that "Original Sin" is a term referring to the fact that humans are born with a susceptibility to harm and death, then those behavioural traits that are hard wired into us all seem geared towards mitigating and managing the risk of harm and putting off death for as long as possible.

this also seems reasonable.


so....that being said.....through the prism of Christianity, how does the Atonement resolve the Original Sin? If the mortality resulting from the Original sin of Adam was "automatic" for all that followed, why, in the wake of the Atonement, do we still die?

[_Bazooka]

so....that being said.....through the prism of Christianity, how does the Atonement resolve the Original Sin? If the mortality resulting from the Original sin of Adam was "automatic" for all that followed, why, in the wake of the Atonement, do we still die?

I think you are expecting the Atonement to resolve the automatic mortality of this life. When looked at through a Christian prism, what I see is that the Atonement resolves the "Original Sin" in that it enables (how? no idea) individuals to have a form of mortality after death. So, without the Atonement we die and stay dead. With the Atonement we die but subsequently live on in a different condition. I guess that's how I would attempt to explain it if I were trying to do so from a Christian belief point of view. Disclaimer: That's purely my initial opinion, based on no reference material or study and it may be subject to change!

I hadn't actually thought about that answer in advance of just writing down what came into my head upon reading your question.
Now that I've read it back to myself, I'm actually quite pleased with it. So much so I may indulge in an afternoon biscuit!

[_subgenius]

so....that being said.....through the prism of Christianity, how does the Atonement resolve the Original Sin? If the mortality resulting from the Original sin of Adam was "automatic" for all that followed, why, in the wake of the Atonement, do we still die?

I think you are expecting the Atonement to resolve the automatic mortality of this life. When looked at through a Christian prism, what I see is that the Atonement resolves the "Original Sin" in that it enables (how? no idea) individuals to have a form of mortality after death. So, without the Atonement we die and stay dead. With the Atonement we die but subsequently live on in a different condition. I guess that's how I would attempt to explain it if I were trying to do so from a Christian belief point of view. Disclaimer: That's purely my initial opinion, based on no reference material or study and it may be subject to change!

I hadn't actually thought about that answer in advance of just writing down what came into my head upon reading your question.
Now that I've read it back to myself, I'm actually quite pleased with it. So much so I may indulge in an afternoon biscuit!

I may not be quite so biscuit satisfied.
The "automatic" is because of the original sin....the original sin had no reference to the afterlife....in fact it is responsible for the afterlife being possible.
I guess i am just not resolved yet as to why we would still be suffering a punishment which had been atoned for.

[_Bazooka]

The "automatic" is because of the original sin....the original sin had no reference to the afterlife....in fact it is responsible for the afterlife being possible.
I guess i am just not resolved yet as to why we would still be suffering a punishment which had been atoned for.

Would it be easier to resolve if the story of the atonement was just that, a story?

There are three stages to the Atonement (as I see it)

1. The mental anguish of Gethsemane - this is the bit Mormonism sees as the important bit.
2. The physical anguish of Crucifixtion - this is the bit Christianity sees as the important bit.
3. The return to life - this seems to be the actual important bit.

In that we don't suffer a punishment of death, because we live on in a better condition after it happens.

[_subgenius]

The "automatic" is because of the original sin....the original sin had no reference to the afterlife....in fact it is responsible for the afterlife being possible.
I guess i am just not resolved yet as to why we would still be suffering a punishment which had been atoned for.

Would it be easier to resolve if the story of the atonement was just that, a story?

There are three stages to the Atonement (as I see it)

1. The mental anguish of Gethsemane - this is the bit Mormonism sees as the important bit.
2. The physical anguish of Crucifixtion - this is the bit Christianity sees as the important bit.
3. The return to life - this seems to be the actual important bit.

In that we don't suffer a punishment of death, because we live on in a better condition after it happens.

it is easier to resolve when one consider the Mormon doctrine for Original Sin as opposed to the Catholic doctrine for the same.

Because of the Fall of Adam and Eve, all people live in a fallen condition, separated from God and subject to physical death. However, we are not condemned by what many call the "original sin." In other words, we are not accountable for Adam's transgression in the Garden of Eden. The Prophet Joseph Smith said, "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression" (Articles of Faith 1:2).
http://www.LDS.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?l ... 82620aRCRD

I believe the Atonement contradicts the Catholic Doctrine.

[_Bazooka]

I believe the Atonement contradicts the Catholic Doctrine.

What is the Catholic doctrine?