Lasto beth Lammen - Is your religion nuts?

[WampusCat]

* like a typical cat, I am basking in the basket, in a golden ray of sunlight *

[Primula Baggins]

It means so much to me to be among you all.

[Frelga]

Oh, pfft, call this a religious discussion. Everyone's so reasonable about everything.

It's a privilege to bask among you.

[nerdanel]

I appreciate that. I think that is the key to having discussions like this... earlier in the thread someone said their faith "did not burden its followers with blah blah blah", which I almost had to say something about. Words like "burden" are judgemental, IMHO, and that is where these discussions start to veer off into "mine's better than yours".

That was me, and it was in a different thread in TE. If I say something that you find problematic, I would prefer that you raise it at the time so that we can discuss it (rather than after the fact, with italics that do not appear in the original, and "blah blah blahs" added in - both things that themselves imply some degree of judgment). I'll be happy to explain or clarify further, as long as I am around (I have been gone frequently from the boards recently due to travel).

Anyway, what I specifically said was: "Judaism neither burdens its members with Original Sin nor overly focuses their attention on a hypothetical existence after death." You are correct that the word "burden" implies a degree of negative judgment on my part, and I stand by that judgment. From the time I was a young child and was subject to attempts to indoctrinate me with the view that Original Sin was true, I have strongly rejected the view that innocent human infants are born burdened in any way by sin and guilt beause of the actions of fabled ancestors in a garden. I believe that to associate any newborn human being with (supposed) wrongdoing committed by previous generations is morally problematic and constitutes an unjustifed "burden" on that newly created person. My belief, as firmly held as any religious view, is that people are individuals, responsible only for their own actions and choices during their natural lives, and not tarnished in any way or endowed with negative "tendencies" towards sin due to the conduct of generations prior to their birth. Further, the story of Adam's and Eve's "sin" itself is one that I feel is deeply harmful, even aside from the matter of the supposed visiting of that "sin" on future innocent generations. I forcefully repudiate the concept of a god who creates human beings with reason, curiosity, a desire to explore and to learn about the world which they inhabit; subjects them without explanation to facially inexplicable rules about not consuming fruit from a tree; and then punishes them for "disobeying" and acting on their natural curiosity and desire to explore the world. The theme that originates with that story - of the virtue of obeying rules said to be divinely-ordained but that are not rationally justified - has been used by Western religion over the millennia to inflict a great deal of harm. An obvious example of this that will always be close to my heart concerns sexuality. As you can see, "burden" was a polite euphemism for my true feelings on the matter. (As I type this, I hear in my head the words of an old Sunday School teacher, and I feel a surge of anger at having been taught this in the first place: "All that Adam and Eve had to do was obey that one simple rule, and they didn't love God enough to do that. Do we love God that much, boys and girls?" Class (singsong): "Yeeeeesssss.")

Doubtless this view will seem "insufficiently respectful of people's beliefs." But in my view, the fact that a belief is characterized as "religious" should not immunize it from discussion, criticism, or even condemnation if it is problematic. Beliefs - religious or otherwise - are not people, to be protected from personal attack; they must stand or fall on their own rational merit. To draw a loose analogy, if a member here endorsed collective moral responsibility across generations for (say) the racist or anti-Semitic or homophobic or misogynist actions of people's ancestors, that view would be subject to full scrutiny and criticism by people who disagree with it, myself included. So too, in my passionately-felt opinion, religious beliefs are entitled to the respect that they rationally earn, no more and no less.

Please note that these thoughts have nothing to do with "mine is better than yours," since Judaism is quite literally not my faith. I was not born into that religion and have not converted. I am an outsider to that religion who feels a powerful affection for it. That is all. However, as you (Anthy) point out, we all clearly feel that our distinctive beliefs are better than others, else we would believe as the others do. My preference is for a discussion where people can state openly why they have concluded that some beliefs are right for them and others are problematic or downright wrong, rather than to withhold that information for fear of offending others. And I certainly welcome that sort of dismantling of my own views. I won't be offended in the least if I am told that my views are problematic or untenable for other people.

[Túrin Turambar]

Doubtless this view will seem "insufficiently respectful of people's beliefs." But in my view, the fact that a belief is characterized as "religious" should not immunize it from discussion, criticism, or even condemnation if it is problematic.

This is something I strongly believe as well. Merely being based in religious faith should not render an idea immune from intellectual rigour. One of my favourite quotes from all time is Voltaire's 'if you can make people believe absurdities then you can make them commit atrocities', IOW, these things matter.

[JewelSong]

That was a *darn* good post, nerdanel.

It speaks very much to my own feelings and is why I believe that the "second" creation story (the one with Eve being created "out of" Adam and the snake and the tree) was added later, as an explanation - a way to subjugate women and as a kind of morality tale about what happens if you disobey God (or the priests.)

Unless God created us as mindless playthings, we were meant to question and explore the universe and everything in it. Starting with that fabled garden. It was inevitable that the Garden would become too small for us and we'd move out into the wider world. (I am speaking metaphorically here, of course.)

[Maria]

(As I type this, I hear in my head the words of an old Sunday School teacher, and I feel a surge of anger at having been taught this in the first place: "All that Adam and Eve had to do was obey that one simple rule, and they didn't love God enough to do that. Do we love God that much, boys and girls?" Class (singsong): "Yeeeeesssss.")

People do this to their children??? *shudder*

I'm going to thank my parents again for not exposing me to religion as a child. It may have led to lots of confusion and alienation on my part-- but it also saved me from a lot of indoctrination. I don't have to fight early beliefs when looking at a religion's claim at how something happened. Thinking outside the box is easier when you didn't really have a box in the first place.

[Lalaith]

And, yet,... and, yet, as much as all of that sounds good and nice and wonderful, I think that life shows us otherwise. Original sin aside, for the moment, sin itself exists. Evil exists as a result of it. And I don't have to throw Hitler out there except as an extreme example. I will throw myself out there. I have sinned. My sin has caused evil.

Certainly, I've never murdered anyone or physically committed adultery, but I have lied. I have mentally committed adultery. I have acted selfishly. I have acted out of insecurity and fear and selfishness and pride and hurt others in the process.

I could go on and on. But I guess if you don't have the same moral code then you may not think these things are wrong. ??

When my girls were babies, this selfishness and sin were evident even then. What parent hasn't warned her baby (yes, baby) not to touch something and seen the decision being weighed in her eyes? Maybe at first it's an innocent thing, but it doesn't take long for them to choose to do things to defy you. They smile when they do it!

Well, I have to go hike now, but I'll be thinking of this while I'm out there. I don't have this idea fully fleshed out (obviously), but it's a start.

[anthriel]

Sorry guys.

[JewelSong]

Maybe it would be good, for the sake of discussion, to define the concept of "sin." Merriam-Webster has this:

Definition of SIN

1
a : an offense against religious or moral law
b : an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible <it's a sin to waste food>
c : an often serious shortcoming : fault

2
a : transgression of the law of God
b : a vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God

Origin of SIN
Middle English sinne, from Old English synn; akin to Old High German sunta sin and probably to Latin sont-, sons guilty, est is — more at is
First Known Use: before 12th century

So, is a fault the same as a sin? Is defying your parents (ie: "Don't touch!") a sin? And if it is an act that is sinful, how can a newborn baby be automatically a "sinner" since he/she has not yet committed any acts?

Evil exists. But is "evil" synonymous with "sin?" Is wasting food a sin in the same way murder is a sin? If I am rude to someone, is that a sin?

For consideration!

[JewelSong]

.
I had written a lot more in this post, but have edited out all of those thoughts.

Too bad (IMHO!) I do not think it is possible to have a discussion like this without ruffling a few feathers and I (for one) appreciate ALL the thoughts - ruffly or not. I like to think that we have all grown comfortable enough with each other to speak frankly and not take it personally. We all have our own individual posting styles and by now, we should be used to them!

I'm done in this thread for a while.

Again, I think that is regrettable.

[vison]

When my girls were babies, this selfishness and sin were evident even then. What parent hasn't warned her baby (yes, baby) not to touch something and seen the decision being weighed in her eyes? Maybe at first it's an innocent thing, but it doesn't take long for them to choose to do things to defy you. They smile when they do it!

I am so gobsmacked by this, Lalaith, that I hardly know what to say. And yet I feel very strongly that I must respond.

This is an idea of "sin"? A child exploring the world decides to try something Mummy says "no" about? Is this parallel to god telling Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit?

You've sinned? Of course you have. But does that mean you were born full of sin? That you were damned before you got a chance to misbehave?

I have never believed that obedience was next to godliness.

If no one ever stepped outside the lines, we'd still be living in the trees. (Even though that doesn't really apply here.)

nerdanel, that was what I would have liked to post. And, like Maria, I am profoundly grateful that I never had those experiences.

It seems to me that religion, in this day and age, ought to be at least a comfort to believers. I think it often only fills them with a sense of guilt and unworthiness.[/b]

[yovargas]

I missed the earlier basking.
I will bask now.








Lali - just a short response to that last post - it would be very different if the doctrine was that we are sinful by nature. That's one thing and we can certainly discuss that. But that isn't really the doctrine. The classic Christian teaching is that we are automatically guilty quite literally for being born, that somehow sin is somehow some hereditary thing that you have inside you, and that even for a being that has literally never acted , sin is still some thing that must be cleansed away. It is probably Christian teaching that I dislike the most.

[JewelSong]

You know, I grew up in a religious family. My father was a deeply spiritual man, who was very much involved in church life - a life-long Presbyterian from the time he was 11 years old until the day he died. He was also an amateur theologian and had literally hundreds of books about the Bible, theology and related topics. (When he died, I gave most of them to the little church in Boston that had nurtured and sustained him the last few years of his life.)

I *never* heard this doctrine about "original sin." I was *never* taught anything like that in Sunday School. The first time I heard it, I think I was in high school. I thought it sounded nuts, to be frank. And mean-spirited. And since I would never worship a God that was mean-spirited, I rejected the concept out of hand.

I am very grateful for my religious upbringing and experiences. But the Divine presence I grew up knowing and being taught about was/is an all-encompassing, infinite, incomprehensible entity who is far larger than any one doctrine or set of beliefs can even begin to comprehend. We can only see little bitty glimpses, from time to time...and even then, we usually get it wrong. Therefore, we must be open and loving to all. Because God is Love and Love is all.

Anyway, that's how *I* was brought up.

[Primula Baggins]

<Christian doctrine mode>

I was taught that sin is simply defined as separation from God: not knowing God. Being "born in sin" doesn't mean we're awful, evil little babies—it means we don't know God (because we don't know anything). If we're being brought up as Christians, then as we learn and grow, we can make different choices, some of which bring us closer to God (loving other people, working to help others, learning more about God) and some of which take us farther away (pursuing things we value more than God, hurting people because we can or because it serves our needs).

We aren't scum, with or without God. We're human beings, inescapably imperfect but also full of potential if we use our gifts well. Christians believe that God wants us to be the best people we can be, not in order to "deserve" God's love or escape God's wrath, but because God already does love us as a mother loves her child. Christians believe that if we respond to that love with love, we will probably have happier lives than we would otherwise, and the world around us might be a little bit better than it would otherwise.

I am talking about Christianity here, what the believers I know believe and teach. I'm not prescribing anything for anyone.

</Christian doctrine mode>

[Frelga]

I find myself in a strange position of disagreeing with anthy (while still adoring her to pieces, of course).

Yes, I tend to avoid posting about the ways I find my religion superior, as opposed to simply personally fulfilling. I do it because people tend to get upset when the topic is raised. Yet Christian posters don't think twice about making such posts. It seems to come naturally to talk about Jesus being the sole route to avoiding eternal damnation, and more than once people posted how glad they were to be free of all the rules in what they call Old Testament, and how "their" God was more loving than the God of the Hebrew Bible.

Let me make it clear - IT DOESN'T BOTHER ME. I don't ask anyone to post any differently!. I just see those statements as equivalent to a non-Christian poster saying they are glad to be free of what they see as a burden in the Christian religion. If one is acceptable (as I assert it is) then so should be the other.

One benefit of being part of a religious minority is getting your faith challenged on a daily basis. And I do think it's a benefit. It forces me to be very clear on why I believe as I do, and to meet the difficult aspects of my religion head-on. It's too easy, when surrounded by a community of like-minded people, to forget that there are other ways of seeing the world.

[Maria]

I don't understand the concept of sin as a thing. Or even *evil* as a thing. I think everyone is as sinful or as evil as they make themselves. A new born baby ought to be completely neutral, not having *done* anything yet. Unless you believe in karma, of course. Which I do once in a while. My belief level fluctuates-- and all my beliefs are pretty low right now. That's a direct result of my belief system in healthy eating taking such a blow over the past year.

If so many foods are bad for me that I grew up believing were the epitomy of healthy eating-- how can I trust anything I have up to now believed unquestioningly? If something so basic can be so very wrong, how can anything I've hitherto accepted as true without proof be trusted?

I think I'm me. And I'm not entirely certain about that.

My childhood faith in healthy whole organic foods is busted. I don't know what to believe about anything related to food-- except that there are still a few things I can eat that don't make me sick.

Is that what a crisis in religious faith is like? Long held beliefs crumble and the whole belief structure is called into question?

[Lalaith]

When my girls were babies, this selfishness and sin were evident even then. What parent hasn't warned her baby (yes, baby) not to touch something and seen the decision being weighed in her eyes? Maybe at first it's an innocent thing, but it doesn't take long for them to choose to do things to defy you. They smile when they do it!

I am so gobsmacked by this, Lalaith, that I hardly know what to say. And yet I feel very strongly that I must respond.

This is an idea of "sin"? A child exploring the world decides to try something Mummy says "no" about? Is this parallel to god telling Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit?

Well, I knew better than to post anything without fleshing it out fully. So let me clarify. As yovi pointed out, what I'm talking about here isn't original sin. (I did make that point in my post but not clearly.) I am talking about the fact that even a human as young as a baby begins to make decisions that are in defiance to others. I'm not talking about a baby exploring her surroundings or simply testing boundaries merely to see what will happen. I mean a baby (an older baby, closer to 12 months and up) who has already tested a boundary a few times and then knowingly chooses to do the thing she's not supposed to do. And they do know.

(And, of course, as a parent you don't respond by beating them senseless or anything. You remove the temptation or redirect them to another activity while telling them "no.")

I don't know how many parallels I'd draw between that and Adam, Eve, God, and the Garden of Eden.

As for the rest of it, I'm doing some interesting reading because I know what I have been taught regarding original sin, but there are different thoughts out there. (As I am finding more and more, I am no longer Baptist to my very core. I don't hold to many of the doctrines anymore.)

So, as a preliminary, I will say that original sin means the consequences we face as a result of Adam's sin, a sort of stain we are born with because we are human. It's a deprivation of Divine gifts. In fact, I'd say I tend to agree with the Catholic definition:

But according to Catholic theology man has not lost his natural faculties: by the sin of Adam he has been deprived only of the Divine gifts to which his nature had no strict right, the complete mastery of his passions, exemption from death, sanctifying grace, the vision of God in the next life. The Creator, whose gifts were not due to the human race, had the right to bestow them on such conditions as He wished and to make their conservation depend on the fidelity of the head of the family. A prince can confer a hereditary dignity on condition that the recipient remains loyal, and that, in case of his rebelling, this dignity shall be taken from him and, in consequence, from his descendants. It is not, however, intelligible that the prince, on account of a fault committed by a father, should order the hands and feet of all the descendants of the guilty man to be cut off immediately after their birth. This comparison represents the doctrine of Luther which we in no way defend. The doctrine of the Church supposes no sensible or afflictive punishment in the next world for children who die with nothing but original sin on their souls, but only the privation of the sight of God [Denz., n. 1526 (1389)].

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm


That means I may have a few things to work out doctrinally before I can discuss this further, guys. I have the old Baptist doctrine rattling around in my brain, affecting how I've viewed things. But I need to figure out where that all shakes out now. Or I can discuss it all here, but I'll have to give the warning that I may change my mind in mid-stream or need to redact an earlier statement.


Anthy,

[axordil]

It strikes me that Original Sin fits a societal model that is patriarchal, hierarchical, based on inheritable property and generally in opposition to the core values of Western democracies, those children of the Enlightenment. Even when I was Christian I rejected it as fundamentally unfair; then again, I'm an entitled American.

Theodicies (and Original Sin is central to one type) are not for the weak of heart. There's always something unpleasant about the enterprise, because they're all based on the observed fact that much of life is unpleasant, often to no apparent purpose. This fact cannot easily be rectified with the belief that God is both all-powerful and loving. If it were easy, philosophers and theologians would have figured out how to do it to everyone's satisfaction by now, whereas some of the very basic divisions within Christianity, in fact, arise from irreconcilable differences in theodicy. Free will is tied up with it, and grace, and other Big Time questions.

Just trying to set some expectations.

[yovargas]

You mean we won't be solving all the philosophical problems of the world here? Bummer.