Religion
Related: About this forumThere is a crack... in everything. That's how the light gets in.
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack, a crack in everything
Thats how the light gets in.
Leonard Cohen.
And that crack, that human imperfection, has been expressed in the Bible as original sin.
There is no perfection in humanity, but there is hope, and there is struggle. Thus the metaphor of the crack in everything.
But there is also hope, the hope that the light will enter into the imperfect vessel.
NeoGreen
(4,033 posts)...bad idea and bronze-age false-construct endlessly proffered by christian theology.
It should be dismissed out of hand, forgotton and replaced by Nis: an act one performs merely for the benefit of another.
I am not a christian, therefore by definition I am without "sin".
Anyone who claims otherwise is merely trying to foist a failed christian dogma onto me. And I wouldn't take it kindly.
If you are with "sin", kindly keep it to yourself, please.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)Or flawed. If you are perfect, forgive me for assuming otherwise.
NeoGreen
(4,033 posts)...keep your bronze age christian concepts to yourself. Do not attempt to apply those failed bad ideas onto me, it is very rude.
Major Nikon
(36,900 posts)As such it lends itself to corruption and apologizing for bad behavior. It's a word used by controllers who pretend their system of ethics is divine so dissent may be deemed heretical. It's kinda like devising your own commandments to preserve self-righteousness. I suppose it might make sense to those who demand invisible sky daddies who deal reward and punishment for breaking such arbitrary rules, but to those who aren't so weak minded it's nothing more than gibberish.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)And lacks any real evidentiary basis.
But I understand that you have your own definition of what words and concepts mean.
Major Nikon
(36,900 posts)Bullshit has been called.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)It is up to you to provide evidence.
And that is how it works.
Stick with the gifs.
Major Nikon
(36,900 posts)Request for cite response -- <crickets>
I wish I could say I'm surprised you'd pivot when bullshit has been called, but the hope for a substantive reply from you is long gone. All that's really left is laughing at the faceplants.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)And that is where the claim arises.
Major Nikon
(36,900 posts)Obviously you won't because you can't, which means it's safe to assume you are producing nothing better than gibberish.
MineralMan
(147,572 posts)We'll wait here. Simple citations will do. We all have access to the sources.
edhopper
(34,783 posts)about what that original sin is.
And it's not about our "imperfection".
It's a load of horsecrap laid on people to keep them in line.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)But you are entitled to your interpretation.
edhopper
(34,783 posts)is a Christian concept.
It's not my interpretation. It's that of 2 billion Christians.
If you think the bible is some sacred text from God, that is.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)It is a universal concept because it is correct.
edhopper
(34,783 posts)another sad attempt by you to dilute a religious concept so much that it becomes meaningless.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)Noted.
edhopper
(34,783 posts)I disagree with your premise.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)Proceed.
edhopper
(34,783 posts)with your premise of what the Bible means by original sin.
Voltaire2
(14,701 posts)In the g world.
Major Nikon
(36,900 posts)Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Or do you, random anecdotal internet individual, interpret it to mean imperfection?
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)Could your own imperfection mean that you fail to recognize the correctness of my statement?
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)I'm suggesting your interpretation is your own, is not generalizable, and is therefore not useful when discussing the broader implications of the concept.
Thank you. Drive through.
qazplm135
(7,493 posts)that original sin is literally the moment when Eve (and Adam) defies God and eats of the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
It's literally defiance of God, specific defiance, with a specific act.
"Original sin, also called ancestral sin,[1] is a Christian belief of the state of sin in which humanity exists since the fall of man, stemming from Adam and Eve's rebellion in Eden, namely the sin of disobedience in consuming the forbidden fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEODCC2005Original_sin_2-0
It's...literally...the "original" "sin." As in the first sin. Mankind shares that sin in a weird inheritance that renders a newborn infant as having the "stain" of the sin of Adam and Eve.
Augustine described it as "inherited guilt."
Martin Luther says similar things. Mary was a special case without sin so she could birth Jesus.
There are competing theories within Christianity, so at best one can say your argument that it's "imperfection" is picking one of those theories and applying it to the whole.
msongs
(70,170 posts)Voltaire2
(14,701 posts)corrects the imperfection.
So no big deal.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)But expected.
MineralMan
(147,572 posts)We'll wait here.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)Rather than wait, read the thread.
Voltaire2
(14,701 posts)405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/405.htm
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)Baptism does not eliminate the imperfection. Thus the warning that persistent imperfection requires a spiritual battle.
Voltaire2
(14,701 posts)Right there in plain English.
Carry on.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)Explain the ending. Or continue with your own misunderstanding, as you wish.
Voltaire2
(14,701 posts)that human imperfection, has been expressed in the Bible as original sin.
As I noted original sin is erased by a splash of water and some mumbo jumbo. If human imperfection remains, the obvious conclusion is that your assertion that original sin is human imperfection is inaccurate.
that definition LITERALLY distinguishes between original sin which it says baptism ERASES, and "imperfection" as you call it that remains in men to do evil.
Voltaire2
(14,701 posts)MineralMan
(147,572 posts)You believe it to be true, but that does not make it so. Imperfection is not sin. It is simply variation from the model. It is also the key to evolution. If lifeforms were perfect, they would not change over time.
It is really impossible to define what perfection is, though. So, given universal variation, perfection cannot actually exist. It has never been observed. Imperfections are simply unique features of individual replications of the model. What is the model? it is the class being examined. It is an ideal that cannot be reached, and that never is reached.
Imperfection is not sin. It is simply imperfection in something that exists. The model does not exist as a real object.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)The Bible frequently uses metaphor. But if you are a literalist, and your arguments make it clear that you are, I understand your refusal to consider any non-literal meanings.
So you do have some commonality with one part of the faith community.
MineralMan
(147,572 posts)Your cave is poorly illuminated. Your shadows are diffuse.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)Platon.
MineralMan
(147,572 posts)And it's shadows, not reflections.
Punt away.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)It's the thing that made Christ's sacrafice necessary, because he was perfect and had no guilt. If the Church Fathers meant mere imperfection, they would have stayed with the Jewish concept of sin, which is closer to either "making a mistake," or "becoming impure." But if they had done that, there would have been no need for Christ, so they actually had to reject your interpretation in order to create Christianity.
MineralMan
(147,572 posts)It's surface is crazed by a network of fine cracks. Still, however, no light penetrates the underlying body of opaque clay.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)Giraudoux would understand.
MineralMan
(147,572 posts)Major Nikon
(36,900 posts)Anyone north of a room temperature IQ who has read a few of MM's posts would not call him a biblical literalist, but believe it or not those people do exist and reject such metaphorical interpretations. I find this approach more honest than one who claims the bible is simultaneously metaphorical and literal when it's convenient without ever having to define how one decides which is which. YMMV.
qazplm135
(7,493 posts)and then interpreted literally by a large chunk of the folks who might know it best (Catholic church, various Christian theologians throughout history)...
I don't know, it might be meant to be taken literally.
Major Nikon
(36,900 posts)It's used quite frequently to demonstrate how women are more easily corruptible and should be held subservient to keep them from corrupting men. In other words, it's just another fairy tale used to promote an agenda by pretending it has divine meaning.
MineralMan
(147,572 posts)Men recognized those uses early on, and have been exploiting them ever since.
Attributing such ideas to a deity works a treat, it seems. I mean, who can argue with a god, after all?
Major Nikon
(36,900 posts)So yeah, that's the whole point. It does offer some entertainment value when those who pretend to speak for god pretend their sky daddy isn't a misogynist, a homophobe, and an asshole despite the evidence which may be found in the exact same reference they provide. You just have to say it's metaphorical and those who read the same words just don't understand.
MineralMan
(147,572 posts)In keeping with the theme of the thread, it usually cracks me up.
However, it appears that our fellow DUer has punted now, thus turning over the ball to the opposing team. Three and out.
SWBTATTReg
(24,085 posts)perfect in their own way, all of us (I am, you are, everyone is). There are no imperfect human beings, after all, how can god mess up? Who truly knows the purpose of creation and nature overall? All of us in our own different way is exactly how we were supposed to be made, and thus, perfect.
This is what I believe. Everyone is perfect, and it is a wonderful feeling to have, vs. all of the other 'you are full of sin, etc.'.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)Thank you.
MineralMan
(147,572 posts)A cracked bell does nor ring. A cracked cup leaks. A cracked record no longer plays. A cracked tooth is exquisitely painful. Not everything has a crack, and most things with cracks are less useful.
Your quote is poetic, but wrong. Nicely written words are not necessarily true.
Every statement must be examined for sense.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)And because you did, you assume that there is no point.
MineralMan
(147,572 posts)Do tell.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)Which was:
There is no perfection in humanity, but there is hope, and there is struggle. Thus the metaphor of the crack in everything.
But there is also hope, the hope that the light will enter into the imperfect vessel.
MineralMan
(147,572 posts)The metaphor is a weak one.