Original Sin Myth Dismissed?...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-01-2015, 04:41 PM
RE: Original Sin Myth Dismissed?...
thanks, it makes a lot of sense now. basically it comes down to there being no eve or adam so no chance of the original sin even happening. i don't know why i had such a problem understanding that but, yeah...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2015, 05:07 PM
RE: Original Sin Myth Dismissed?...
(07-01-2015 04:31 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  Catholics have some bullshit about the first souls. It's enough to make your head spin and your stomach queasy.
Let's say that the first human souls were given to Ugg and Org. "Adam" and "Eve", and their children also have human souls, does this mean that souls are hereditary? Are souls spilt in half during meiosis and recombined during fertilisation?

What about Adam and Eve's kids? did they reproduce in-family or did they reproduce with the other humans (without human souls) that were around at the time? Did their half breed children have human souls or only half human half non human souls? How can a soul be tested to know it's composition?
When Human and Chimpanzee or Human and Neanderthal interbred, what impact did that have on the human soul?
Does Catholisism have an answer for any of these questions? Or do they not get bogged down with details?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2015, 05:10 PM
RE: Original Sin Myth Dismissed?...
(07-01-2015 04:41 PM)chibigiraffe Wrote:  thanks, it makes a lot of sense now. basically it comes down to there being no eve or adam so no chance of the original sin even happening. i don't know why i had such a problem understanding that but, yeah...
Probelm understanding?..., probably caused by enduring years of conditioning, brain washing and child abuse (forcing god stories into the mind of a young naive child).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2015, 11:26 PM
RE: Original Sin Myth Dismissed?...
(07-01-2015 05:07 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Does Catholisism have an answer for any of these questions?
Here is the Catechism of the Catholic Church's reconciliation with science and evolution:

"Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution."


I love the last line. But the spin here is, the soul is eternal and immediately created by god. Really? So at what point is this soul inserted? If we are cousins of apes and chimps, which we are, and we evolved through stages such as Dryopithecus, Ramapithecus, Australopithecus, Homo Erectus, Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis and Homo Sapiens Sapiens, at which point did we start getting souls? Were they inserted even when we were Neanderthals? We weren't "humans" yet.

But this ancestral sin is such bollocks, as is the need for Jesus' death. To condemn humans before they are born, or as Christopher Hitchens used to say, "We are born sick and commanded to be well," is akin to failing a student before teaching them a subject, or failing said student because their grandfather got an F in the class decades before them.

This is a sick religion, and Original Sin is only the tip of the iceberg.

Check out my now-defunct atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WillHopp's post
08-01-2015, 09:47 AM
RE: Original Sin Myth Dismissed?...
The idea of original sin is the result of a completely false view of Human nature and it is so ridiculous that even as a seven year old I knew it. It keeps getting taught to little innocent philosophically disarmed children because it is the greatest method ever invented by man to control people. There is no way to rule innocent men but teach them that they are guilty from birth and you can get them to fork over 10 percent of their income and come to your church every week. That's quite a racket.

We know from the genetic evidence alone that there was never any Adam and Eve 6,000 years ago who started a whole inbred population of Humans, although if you were to judge by some of them you could be justified in coming to that conclusion.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like true scotsman's post
08-01-2015, 12:35 PM
RE: Original Sin Myth Dismissed?...
(07-01-2015 11:26 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.
What is atheistic evolution? I don't think the theory of Evolution has a definition of atheistic evolution.
Which parts of the scientific theory of evolution are the Catholic church telling their sheep to reject?

But regarding this special creation of the soul, they aren't exploring that aspect.
Were Adam and Eve born or where they created from dust and rib? Were they born with this special human soul or did god upgrade them once they developed a belief in moral agency? Did the god only create special souls for other humans with this belief? Did all humans get the special soul or only the decendants of Adam and Eve?
What about the moral nihilists who reject the beliefs of moral agency, do we have the special soul or just an ordinary soul like the other animals?
If the god only specially creates human souls for decendants of Adam and Eve then why is decendancy a requirement? What about all the humans that aren't decendants of Adam and Eve?

So many questions, so little answers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2015, 01:41 PM
RE: Original Sin Myth Dismissed?...
(08-01-2015 12:35 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(07-01-2015 11:26 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.
What is atheistic evolution? I don't think the theory of Evolution has a definition of atheistic evolution.
Which parts of the scientific theory of evolution are the Catholic church telling their sheep to reject?

But regarding this special creation of the soul, they aren't exploring that aspect.
Were Adam and Eve born or where they created from dust and rib? Were they born with this special human soul or did god upgrade them once they developed a belief in moral agency? Did the god only create special souls for other humans with this belief? Did all humans get the special soul or only the decendants of Adam and Eve?
What about the moral nihilists who reject the beliefs of moral agency, do we have the special soul or just an ordinary soul like the other animals?
If the god only specially creates human souls for decendants of Adam and Eve then why is decendancy a requirement? What about all the humans that aren't decendants of Adam and Eve?

So many questions, so little answers.
Yep, and I'm not going to defend it.

Check out my now-defunct atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-01-2015, 01:35 PM
RE: Original Sin Myth Dismissed?...
As it has been mentionned many time on these pages, the entire concept of Sin is scetchy at best and when it comes to Original Sin it gets even worst. The only way for it to make sense in a philosophical debate would be to openly reject the entire idea of biblical litteralism. There never was a garden of Eden, no Adam the first men or Eve the first (sometime second) women. There is no need of god, devil, talking snake, Tree of Knowledge or Forbidden fruit. Let's just analyse this biblical story like it should be taken: a mythological allegory. It's the story of two ambitious persons who wanted to know everything and ruin their lives and those who succeded them because of their ubris for power and knowledge. It's a moral story that teaches that pride is the downfall of humanity and all the evil of the world start when one of us thinks he deserve more then what he has even if he objectively have all he needs (like it was the case for the character of Adam who had food, plesant company, immortality and a superb musculature). It's also a clever way to judge evil anything that challenge social order and tradition. Religion are in my opinion nothing more than a set of customs, traditions, secular laws, history rapped in fairy tales and myths to make them more compelling given sacred status to prevent them from beeing changed or modified and explain the world around them. It's a primitive tool of social control and a very powerful one at that for it base itself in our collective fears, hopes and dreams. It can be use for good, but more and more for evil purpose as better tools of social control were developped by civilisations.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-01-2015, 03:54 PM
RE: Original Sin Myth Dismissed?...
(08-01-2015 12:35 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(07-01-2015 11:26 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.
What is atheistic evolution? I don't think the theory of Evolution has a definition of atheistic evolution.
Which parts of the scientific theory of evolution are the Catholic church telling their sheep to reject?

They look like they're defining "atheistic evolution" as evolution that would not require god. They seem to be fine with evolution so long as their souls are granted by god. No problem. I'm OK with their imaginary bits not being evolved.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-01-2015, 04:15 PM
RE: Original Sin Myth Dismissed?...
(09-01-2015 03:54 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  
(08-01-2015 12:35 PM)Stevil Wrote:  What is atheistic evolution? I don't think the theory of Evolution has a definition of atheistic evolution.
Which parts of the scientific theory of evolution are the Catholic church telling their sheep to reject?

They look like they're defining "atheistic evolution" as evolution that would not require god. They seem to be fine with evolution so long as their souls are granted by god. No problem. I'm OK with their imaginary bits not being evolved.
Yes, "souls" aren't part of the evolutionary narrative.

So souls are irrelevant to evolution. So the concept of atheistic evolution is redundant.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: