Jay's take on original sin

[Jay313 (Jay Johnson)]

@mitchellmckain

And I think these only become troubling in a legalistic system as well as one that thinks of heaven and hell as reward and punishment.

I understand you have your own version of ethics and Christian belief, but I’m addressing traditional Christian belief.

@mitchellmckain

I certainly don’t believe that people are innocent if they simply don’t know that what they are doing is wrong.

That’s because you’re not familiar with the justice system. With juveniles, people of limited mental capacity, and the mentally ill, the first question is always whether they understood that their actions were wrong, and the second question is whether they understood the consequences of their actions. In cases where the perpetrator has intellectual disability or mental illness, the standard applies even to adults.

@mitchellmckain

@Jay313

The reason for the hair-splitting is because people imagine Adam and Eve’s “innocence” as a state of sinless perfection, which clearly has never existed in the world.

So contrary to what you said in your OP, you are claiming that children are born with sin. Because if they are not born with sin then they are sinless at that point.

There’s a difference between “sinless perfection” and ignorance of sin. A day-old infant has not committed sin. Neither has a 6-yr-old. Nevertheless, they are not “perfect,” and the older child may do all sorts of things that would be recognized as sinful if they were adolescents or adults. That’s the point. I’m perfectly willing to concede that my original statement (“Children are not innocent, they are ignorant”) was technically incorrect. But the overall point still stands: their innocence is a form of ignorance, not perfection. I’ll be more careful how I word it next time, so we don’t have to keep doing this silly dance.

@mitchellmckain

But that doesn’t mean I think there were no such individuals and nothing special about about them – such as being raised by God Himself as their parent… kind of like… Jesus.

Yeah, we’ve been over that before. Jesus was raised by Mary and Joseph, not God. Other than that, start a new thread if you want to discuss it again.

@mitchellmckain

Not holding children accountable for their actions is the surest way of teaching them not to learn from their mistakes.

I didn’t dispute that. It’s obvious and beside the point.

@mitchellmckain

It is simply that children generally have the nature and character required for heaven, because they are in the process of learning rather than locked into a set of ingrained habits.

I don’t see anything about ingrained habits in the text, either. It’s not their nature and character that Jesus highlights, but their childlike trust is a model of the kind of faith the Father approves. Until about the age of 8, children place complete trust in their teachers/parents. If, for example, a child doubted the teacher’s word that the symbol “2” meant “two,” that child would never learn math. The child’s absolute trust in the teacher’s truthfulness is the kind of childlike faith that Jesus commends.

@mitchellmckain

I do not think it is matter of some legalistic loophole where children are not held accountable but simply a matter of whether or not people have lost a childlike faith in life and goodness. … It is not a question of how old someone is but whether they are willing to learn and change.

The childlike faith that Jesus encourages to emulate is not a generic faith in life and goodness. It’s a childlike trust in him and the Father. I understand that you deny an “age of accountability,” but this observation is universal to human cultures around the globe. You’re arguing against thousands of years of human experience. I can point you to a bunch of articles on moral psychology, but you don’t seem willing to learn and change any of your cherished opinions. (sarcasm font)

@mitchellmckain

So if a person never learns right from wrong, and never develops a conscience, then they are not accountable? (didn’t you say they don’t start with any innate knowledge of right and wrong?) Anyway, we don’t accept ignorance as an excuse because learning what is acceptable is one of our own responsibilities.

Right. Some people don’t have the mental capacity to reach moral maturity. Those with intellectual disabilities, for instance. I don’t believe God holds them accountable. Others are free to disagree. Sociopaths are in a different class. They have the mental capacity to know right from wrong. They just don’t care who they hurt because they lack empathy.

Learning what is acceptable is what normal people do. Ignorance is an excuse for children because they aren’t born knowing right from wrong; it must be learned. There are various stages along the way, and they are tied to the child’s brain and language development. Until a certain level of knowledge is attained, neither human societies nor God (who is more just than any human judge) would hold them accountable.

@mitchellmckain

@Jay313

Children aren’t held to the same standards as adolescents or adults.

Irrelevant. Doesn’t change in the slightest the simple fact that not holding children accountable is the surest way of teaching them not to learn from their mistakes.

No, it’s entirely relevant. Children must be taught and their mistakes corrected (accountability) at a level appropriate to their age and mental development. Knowledge must be built upon and requires repeated exposure and practice. This includes reading, math, and morality.

@mitchellmckain

@Jay313

Sociopaths do not become that way because of habit

Let’s hear more about this understanding of how people become sociopaths which you are claiming to have.

This almost isn’t worth a response. How many sociopaths have you known, big guy? I’ve known plenty. They were my students. Would you like to hear about the girl who shot her mother in the head because she was told she couldn’t go to a party? Or the boy who killed an ice cream vendor in the park because he wanted a popsicle and didn’t have any money? They didn’t do these things because they’d formed “bad habits.” The state wanted to try both of them as adults, and the psychiatric evaluations went on for months. I read the files. I’ll spare you the details because I can’t legally disclose them, but neither was certified to stand trial in adult court because they lacked the maturity to fully grasp the consequences of their actions.

If you want to understand Antisocial Personality Disorder, it’s easy to Google. Here’s a good start from the Mayo Clinic:

The exact cause of antisocial personality disorder isn’t known, but:

• Genes may make you vulnerable to developing antisocial personality disorder — and life situations may trigger its development
• Changes in the way the brain functions may have resulted during brain development

Antisocial personality disorder - Symptoms and causes

Like narcissists, sociopaths lack empathy, and treatments are ineffectual – medications don’t help, and therapy has extremely limited success.

Should I go on?

@mitchellmckain

@Jay313

The Fall was the result of three interrelated processes – one biological (brain evolution) and two cultural (language and morality, both of which rely on empathy and shared knowledge).

So the original sin is that of having a brain, language, and morality…

…interesting… (sarcasm font)

No, the “original sin” was choosing evil despite what the conscience said. Having the moral discernment to understand the difference between good and evil requires a certain level of brain and language development, which is why animals can’t commit sin.

Edit: I deleted my comments on “anachronism” because I saw afterward that I’d misunderstood what Mitchell said. Sorry.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Klax

I beg to differ Christy. A large minority of the seven billion of us is increasingly rational, to the biological limitations of our ‘rhetorical’ (logos, ethos, pathos = rhetoric, an analogy for our minds themselves) minds and their morality. Including a large minority of Christians like me.

@Klax

@Christy’s reaction is very similar to my own regarding how you attempt to discuss some Christian metaphysics.

She has no interest in converting your views. I have no interest in converting your views. But I can be a little more plain-spoken as to why: I don’t think your views are particularly coherent… and so I don’t find them much of a bother in the scheme of things.

You seem quite happy to write cryptically or vaguely … and you are quick to dismiss the sincerity of others.

So… knock down someone else’s door.

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

@Jay313

I understand you have your own version of ethics and Christian belief, but I’m addressing traditional Christian belief.

You are not the definition of Christian belief. You are at most simply a point on a wide multi-dimensional spectrum.

@Jay313

That’s because you’re not familiar with the justice system.

You are joking right? How do you even say things that – like you could possibly know what I am familiar with? Is it because you are not familiar with the difference between the justice system and ethical reality? Do you actually think someone is innocent or guilty just because a justice system says so?

@Jay313

There’s a difference between “sinless perfection” and ignorance of sin. A day-old infant has not committed sin. Neither has a 6-yr-old. Nevertheless, they are not “perfect,”

The only perfection for human beings which I believe even exists is that of being without sin and I believe a newborn infant is without sin. so yeah, completely perfect in the sense that Jesus said, “you must be perfect.” So I deny there is any such difference. Life is growth and life is eternal so in that sense there is no state of perfection for finite beings. I certainly do not believe that we become gods as the some of the Mormons believe.

@Jay313

childlike trust is a model of the kind of faith

if this isn’t behavior then it is nothing at all

@Jay313

Until about the age of 8, children place complete trust in their teachers/parents.

Some do – maybe even most. Some don’t. Maybe you simply want to call any that don’t fit into your theories abnormal. I do not.

@Jay313

If, for example, a child doubted the teacher’s word that the symbol “2” meant “two,” that child would never learn math.

Even adults of 70 can take classes and essentially do the same thing (suspending disbelief when it suits). There is nothing uniquely child-like about that. And it is not an example of absolute trust in a teacher. I certainly never experienced any such thing. How could I when it was perfectly obvious that so many of them in front of me were full of complete nonsense.

@Jay313

The childlike faith that Jesus encourages to emulate is not a generic faith in life and goodness. It’s a childlike trust in him and the Father.

The childlike faith that Jesus encourages us to emulate is not some lame faith in teachers or preachers but a faith in life and goodness both of which God is the author.

@Jay313

it must be learned

Children must be taught and their mistakes corrected (accountability) at a level appropriate to their age and mental development.

We are born both ignorant AND powerless. In the beginning our selfishness is both natural and good for the limit of our responsibility matches the limits of our power which is only to call attention to our needs so we have the time to learn more. What is acceptable must be learned before we gain the power to hurt other people. And though we can afford to cut people some slack on this account (giving them the time to learn from their mistakes), we must hold them increasingly accountable or there will be no reason for them to learn otherwise.

@Jay313

The exact cause of antisocial personality disorder isn’t known

Yep that was the results when I looked into the matter earlier, which is no basis whatsoever for your claim that the formation of habits plays no role in this. Thus I continue to assert otherwise even as your own study of child development begins to catch up with my own.

@Jay313

Like narcissists, sociopaths lack empathy, and treatments are ineffectual – medications don’t help, and therapy has extremely limited success.

Should I go on?

No. You have made your lack of any knowledge of what causes this quite clear. As I suspected.

@Jay313

No, the “original sin” was choosing evil despite what the conscience said.

Really? Who is it you think chose evil? How? And what is this conscience you talk about? Are you suggesting that we don’t need knowledge of right and wrong because we already have this conscience you talk about?

The story in the Bible is that evil begins with two individuals Adam and Eve and it was not a choice to do evil but a choice to be more like God their Father. It was a mistake to be sure as God warned them it would be. But then they chose to blame things on others which made it difficult to learn from their mistake. This is a bad habit to be sure – self-destructive even.

@Jay313

Having the moral discernment to understand the difference between good and evil requires a certain level of brain and language development, which is why animals can’t commit sin.

That is a mythology I do not buy into any more than the biologists are. Just because animals don’t have the ability to encode information in language doesn’t mean animals don’t have any discernment between good and evil. Frankly all I see that this really amounts to is that people can pontificate endlessly on good and evil while hypocritically acting contrary to their own words.

[Jay313 (Jay Johnson)]

@mitchellmckain

You are not the definition of Christian belief. You are at most simply a point on a wide multi-dimensional spectrum.

I agree. But some points on the spectrum fall outside what may be termed “traditional.”

@mitchellmckain

You are joking right? How do you even say things that – like you could possibly know what I am familiar with? Is it because you are not familiar with the difference between the justice system and ethical reality?

Then tell me I’m wrong. Do you have experience in the justice system? The justice system in every culture reflects human notions of morality. All are flawed and “relative,” just like individual conscience.

@mitchellmckain

So I deny there is any such difference.

Then we disagree.

@mitchellmckain

Life is growth and life is eternal so in that sense there is no state of perfection for finite beings. I certainly do not believe that we become gods as the some of the Mormons believe.

Then we agree.

@mitchellmckain

Maybe you simply want to call any that don’t fit into your theories abnormal. I do not.

Nice try, but your theory of “habit” doesn’t fit the abnormalities that I’ve run across. Abnormal psychology and development reveal a great deal about “normal” psychology and development. I’m the one who’s taking actual experience and scientific research into account.

@mitchellmckain

Even adults of 70 can take classes and essentially do the same thing (suspending disbelief when it suits).

Your key notion is “when it suits.”

@mitchellmckain

There is nothing uniquely child-like about that. And it is not an example of absolute trust in a teacher. I certainly never experienced any such thing.

More than once, you’ve held yourself out as an example of advanced development. The fact that you don’t remember is reflective of something called “childhood amnesia.” I’m sure you were precocious. But some of the stuff I’ve seen you claim is akin to saying you remember your first birthday party.

@mitchellmckain

The childlike faith that Jesus encourages us to emulate is not some lame faith in teachers or preachers

Jesus is the only teacher I’m talking about. He’s called “rabbi,” or teacher, throughout the gospels.

@mitchellmckain

What is acceptable must be learned before we gain the power to hurt other people.

At what age?

@mitchellmckain

whatsoever for your claim that the formation of habits plays no role in this.

Genes and brain development are not caused by habit formation. Give it up.

@mitchellmckain

No. You have made your lack of any knowledge of what causes this quite clear. As I suspected.

As I suspected, the only thing you know is what you Googled. Give it up.

@mitchellmckain

Who is it you think chose evil? How?

Human beings. The same way that you and I did in our youth. It’s not mysterious.

@mitchellmckain

Just because animals don’t have the ability to encode information in language doesn’t mean animals don’t have any discernment between good and evil. Frankly all I see that this really amounts to is that people can pontificate endlessly on good and evil while hypocritically acting contrary to their own words.

Animals are amoral. Even Frans de Waal (see way above) says as much. Do I pontificate? Sure. Am I a hypocrite? Sure. Anything else, or do you just enjoy the sound of your own voice?

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

@Jay313

Your key notion is “when it suits.”

Discernment and skepticism is something that varies widely in all ages.

@Jay313

More than once, you’ve held yourself out as an example of advanced development

Wrong. Just because some people are better at some things than others doesn’t make them an example of “advanced development.” If I excelled at anything is was doing things my own way and certainly not putting up with manipulative controlling teachers. Social skills in my case is another matter entirely. Doing well at something typically means not doing so well at other things. So there was certainly no universal advanced development. My youngest taught himself to read at 2 years of age. That is certainly not true in my case. I learned in first grade like most do. My point has always been only that children are not all the same. And for me in particular, the idea that children are all these trusting blank slates is absurd to the point of hilarity.

@Jay313

At what age?

And I keep telling you it is not about age. It is mostly about learning what we need when we have to.

@Jay313

Genes and brain development are not caused by habit formation. Give it up.

Genes are a product of a much longer learning process and all they really do is convey information. They are are not as controlling as many make them out to be. Brain development is not some automatic purely internal process, but only happens through interaction with the environment.

@Jay313

Human beings. The same way that you and I did in our youth. It’s not mysterious.

I think you can only rightly speak for yourself and your own choices.

@Jay313

Animals are amoral.

Such has been the traditional (religious) dogma for a long time but it does not agree with scientific observation.

@Jay313

Frans de Waal

What I read of his work doesn’t agree with what you claim.

@Jay313

Do I pontificate? Sure. Am I a hypocrite? Sure.

The point was that without language these are things at least which animals do not do. But that does not make them devoid of morality. Not hardly.

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

@gbrooks9

@Klax

@Christy’s reaction is very similar to my own regarding how you attempt to discuss some Christian metaphysics.

She has no interest in converting your views. I have no interest in converting your views. But I can be a little more plain-spoken as to why: I don’t think your views are particularly coherent… and so I don’t find them much of a bother in the scheme of things.

You seem quite happy to write cryptically or vaguely … and you are quick to dismiss the sincerity of others.

So… knock down someone else’s door.

The door is open here George. Fundamentalist Christianity’s ‘coherence’ is predicated on as literal an exegesis as possible, the ‘plain meaning of scripture’. I’m more than happy for my views to be converted, but there’s no going back to that limited historical-grammatical hermeneutic. Christy has no problem with my coherence. Or she’s too polite. She engages as if she understands me perfectly. And I never dismiss the sincerity of others, as that would be the greatest sin against the golden rule.

You’re out of your comfort zone with my lateral, challenging style. You’ll get used to it.

And what is Christian metaphysics? Coherently? I mean I know exactly what you mean, but what do you think you mean?

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Klax

You’re out of your comfort zone with my lateral, challenging style. You’ll get used to it.

And what is Christian metaphysics? Coherently? I mean I know exactly what you mean, but what do you think you mean?

@Klax

@Klax

You’re out of your comfort zone with my lateral, challenging style. You’ll get used to it.

Response to your first statement: I doubt it.

@Klax

And what is Christian metaphysics? Coherently? I mean I know exactly what you mean, but what do you think you mean?

My answer: Anything NON-physical is meta-physical:

[1] Purgatory? This is a metaphysical concept or reality.

[2] Afterlife? Also metaphysical.

[3] Alleged Super-natural events? ALSO metaphysical … not physical.

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

@gbrooks9

@Klax

@Klax

You’re out of your comfort zone with my lateral, challenging style. You’ll get used to it.

Response to your first statement: I doubt it.

@Klax

And what is Christian metaphysics? Coherently? I mean I know exactly what you mean, but what do you think you mean?

My answer: Anything NON-physical is meta-physical:

[1] Purgatory? This is a metaphysical concept or reality.

[2] Afterlife? Also metaphysical.

[3] Alleged Super-natural events? ALSO metaphysical … not physical.

OK George, thanks.

Yeah “transcending physical matter or the laws of nature” covers 1-3.

None of which are distinctively Christian by any means. So what is?

[cosmicscotus]

There are various approaches to the Adam and Eve story in the light of evolution, that do not require a literal but symbolic interpretation. in fact some of the early church fathers saw them as allogories of ourselves and he we react when faced with things God had revealed and our desire to do something for our pleasure instead. The Original Sin of disobedience to the divine prohibition happens all the time in individuals and society.

The story though is for us seen more fully in the Grace of Christ who comes to Justify us in responce to faith in Him and give the inward power of the Spirit wherebye we can learn to resist the selfish tendencies to depart from the divine intentions for our lives. God’s justice is seen in God’s grace that so completely undeserved and wants our resscue and return to divine glory.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Klax

None of which are distinctively Christian by any means. So what is?

@Klax

So you missed the posts by me where I state that I’m a Unitarian? Unitarians are frequently considered by Trinitarians to be outside the conventional scope of Christians.

Conversely, when I am discussing conventional Biblical views, I frequently write from a Trinitarian perspective… which I think most Christians would confess has miraculous (aka, the appearance of ‘magical’) interpretations !

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

@gbrooks9

@Klax

So you missed the posts by me where I state that I’m a Unitarian? Unitarians are frequently considered by Trinitarians to be outside the conventional scope of Christians.

Conversely, when I am discussing conventional Biblical views, I frequently write from a Trinitarian perspective… which I think most Christians would confess has miraculous (aka, the appearance of ‘magical’) interpretations !

No. What’s that got to do with anything?

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Klax

No. What’s that got to do with anything?

@klax,

Please ignore my postings.

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

@gbrooks9

@klax,

Please ignore my postings.

Please ignore my responses.

[Relates (Roger A. Sawtelle)]

@Christy

Sin is rebellion against God and his rightful rule. I didn’t make that up, it’s a basic Christian theological presupposition, a la Isaiah 53:6 and countless other passages. Like pretty much all the prophets.

@Christy, you are right and you are very wrong. Sin is rebellion against God. Adam and Eve betrayed the trust God put in them when they trusted the lies of the serpent who had done nothing for them and turned against God Who had done everything for them. That is how you ar4e right.

You are wrong because you really did not explain how we agree in rebellion. We are in rebellion because God’s rules are just and fair, which is the reason why the prophets were involved. When we abuse the poor and destroy the ecosystem, we are rebelling against the laws or rule of God, as well as other sins such as lying.

God wants what is best for everyone. The serpent said that that God wanted only what was be4st for God. Adam and Eve sinned in that they bought that lie and broke the relationship of trust with God. They ate the fruit, broke the rule, and then they understood that they were wrong, but instead of admitting their mistake, they blamed each other and God, so their relationship was nor healed or reestablished. It took Jesus to do this.

@Klax, I so not know what kind of bad theology you were teaching before, but I do know there is much bad theology out there. I do know that there is good theology too, and what you are teaching now is not right. You need to keep on looking, and not settle for something that is le4ss then the Truth, less then Jesus.

[Jay313 (Jay Johnson)]

@mitchellmckain

Wrong. Just because some people are better at some things than others doesn’t make them an example of “advanced development.”

I won’t go back and look it up. I suspect you told the story of your kid teaching himself to read at 2 and it got mixed up with you in my mind.

@mitchellmckain

If I excelled at anything is was doing things my own way and certainly not putting up with manipulative controlling teachers. Social skills in my case is another matter entirely.

Hmmm. For children of elementary and middle school age, your first sentence is also a social skill.

@mitchellmckain

My point has always been only that children are not all the same. And for me in particular, the idea that children are all these trusting blank slates is absurd to the point of hilarity.

My point has never been that all children are the same. I’m certified in special education. I understand both normal and abnormal childhood development. I can point you to textbooks or research papers, if you like. Taking your own experience as normative is never a good idea. Just because you did not fit the norm doesn’t negate the fact that a norm exists.

Pelagius thought children were born blank slates. I would never say that. You also misunderstand my point about trust. Young learners implicitly trust their teachers’ truthfulness. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t be able to learn. Societies even have devised clever means of testing when children outgrow that stage. It’s about the age when they stop believing in the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, etc. Again, I can point you to articles on teacher trust, if you want.

@mitchellmckain

@Jay313

Frans de Waal

What I read of his work doesn’t agree with what you claim.

I quoted this in post #45

@Jay313

Even Frans de Waal, who argues that primates have a form of morality, agrees that apes lack the “community concern” that drives us to “develop notions of right and wrong for everyone around,” not just ourselves and our immediate relations. This level of morality “requires greater levels of abstraction as well as the anticipation of what may happen if we let others get away with behavior that doesn’t even directly affect us. We have the capacity to imagine its impact on the greater good.” (The Bonobo and the Atheist, 234).

I’m going to let the rest of your comments pass without comment.

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

@Jay313

Even Frans de Waal, who argues that primates have a form of morality, agrees that apes lack the “community concern” that drives us to “develop notions of right and wrong for everyone around,” not just ourselves and our immediate relations. This level of morality “requires greater levels of abstraction as well as the anticipation of what may happen if we let others get away with behavior that doesn’t even directly affect us. We have the capacity to imagine its impact on the greater good.” (The Bonobo and the Atheist, 234).

Oh yes I quite agree with that. Language definitely makes a big difference. I would even say more life, more consciousness – more morality. As the abstraction capabilities of language increase the scope of our consciousness we can apply morality to far more things. Can any other species even imagine making it wrong to kill some species of bugs because their survival is endangered?