I find the notion of original sin utterly morally repugnant. That's just my opinion, though.

Original sin, is best described as the fact that we will all do things that are wrong if given the chance to.

While we may not agree on religion, I'm sure we all agree that no one is perfectly good and none of us have never done anything wrong.

(May 17, 2017 at 7:53 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Original sin, is best described as the fact that we will all do things that are wrong if given the chance to.

While we may not agree on religion, I'm sure we all agree that no one is perfectly good and none of us have never done anything wrong.

I was Catholic, I know the doctrine.

That being said it isn't the Catholic thinking I find repulsive, but in particular the evangelical one.  That babies cry because they are full of sin, that a 2 year old saying "no" to his mom or dad is a sin (even if not held responsible), thinking that a 2 year old is willfully sinning is both ludicrous and sick, imvho.

So my comment was at Steve, not at you CL.

Quote:388 With the progress of Revelation, the reality of sin is also illuminated. Although to some extent the People of God in the Old Testament had tried to understand the pathos of the human condition in the light of the history of the fall narrated in Genesis, they could not grasp this story's ultimate meaning, which is revealed only in the light of the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.261 We must know Christ as the source of grace in order to know Adam as the source of sin. The Spirit-Paraclete, sent by the risen Christ, came to "convict the world concerning sin",262 by revealing him who is its Redeemer.

389 The doctrine of original sin is, so to speak, the "reverse side" of the Good News that Jesus is the Savior of all men, that all need salvation and that salvation is offered to all through Christ. The Church, which has the mind of Christ,263 knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/ar...s2c1p7.htm
Stop tampering with the revelation?

(May 17, 2017 at 7:39 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote: People do have free will.

There was a radio ad only this morning for a local law firm offering free wills.

Then there's Free Willy, which I originally thought was a porn movie...

Excellent reference to porn, only a confession that it was a mission dear to your heart would have pleased me more.

(May 17, 2017 at 7:53 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Original sin, is best described as the fact that we will all do things that are wrong if given the chance to.

While we may not agree on religion, I'm sure we all agree that no one is perfectly good and none of us have never done anything wrong.

Uh-hem!

(May 17, 2017 at 4:28 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I don't think computers have free will lol. They are machines, designed to respond in certain ways you certain commands. They don't have the ability to understand consequences and right from wrong.

Do you mean to suggest that an elevator which over and over again delivers me to the floor I request is not intelligent?  How high is your standard, dear woman?


But I agree with you of course.

---

(May 17, 2017 at 5:22 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(May 17, 2017 at 4:46 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Well, it would seem that in order for that to work, the world would have to be intelligible and at least partially conceivable.

You're chasing your own tail, Chad.  I never said that the world was completely unintelligible.  All that means is that there is some order to the world.  It doesn't mean, for instance, that all our perceptions, from sensus divinatatis to the moral sense pick out features from the world.  That would be an absurdly hasty generalization.  Nor does it mean that reason reflects that order like a mirror.

---

(May 17, 2017 at 5:19 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: People on the forum I posted are describing free will as the ability to make moral choices. I think that's the best and simplest way to put it. Of course, in order to do that we need to have a certain level of sentience, intelligence, and rational thought. Not sure if animals or any future machine have enough of all those things to attain the ability to make moral choices.

That reflects a doctrinal choice, that free will has to do with God's grace and our responsibility or lack thereof for said gift.  As Whateverist intimated, tradition is the illusion of permanence; the fact that somebody before us has thought it through does not grant it any more gravitas.  

Are you implying that the monkey isn't acting on a moral impulse?  On what grounds?

The monkey pretty much expresses moral indignation the same way I (and, I suspect, Chad) would.  That is one moral monkey.  Notice that he doesn't spank his monkey at any time during the video.

---

(May 17, 2017 at 7:07 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(May 17, 2017 at 5:56 pm)Aroura Wrote: I am frankly nauseated by this doctrine.  As if a child learning how to behave (through often misbehaving) is sin.  

I sincerely hope you do not taint any little minds with this sick perversion that will instill in them an unnecessary self hate for the rest of their lives.  Ick.

Two-years-olds are absolutely willfully disobedient and do things to others that are intentionally wrong. You are confusing the child sinning with being held to account for those sins. I, and most Christians, do not hold a child morally responsible for their actions.

What purpose does the word "sin" add to a discussion of a child's behavior?  From a secular point of view, I would say a child is born acting from unchecked impulse without taking into consideration the rights and desires of others.  (It might be useful to add that a child's brain is not capable of doing so at birth or for some time after.)  Child rearing works with the increasing capacity of the child's developing brain, leastwise it should.

Once the capacity to take others into account appears, there is still the matter of tapping into the natural capacity for prosocial behavior.  It's there, but it must be taught; just as with language, if there is not teaching and socializing to accompany that capacity, neither language nor moral behavior will just arise on its own.  Parents have a vital responsibility to perform.

How does talk of sin add anything to this discussion?

---

(May 17, 2017 at 11:36 am)Whateverist Wrote:

(May 17, 2017 at 11:31 am)mh.brewer Wrote: I'm sorry, what?

I think it means you lack pity for God because of the straw man this Galen fellow keeps bringing up.  

(May 17, 2017 at 7:36 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote:

(May 17, 2017 at 11:36 am)Whateverist Wrote: I think it means you lack pity for God because of the straw man this Galen fellow keeps bringing up.  

Huh? Galen's argument that I quoted is against free will; not against God.

Just a play on words from what you had said, which didn't print in the quote. Of no consequence. Sorry.

---

(May 17, 2017 at 7:53 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Original sin, is best described as the fact that we will all do things that are wrong if given the chance to.

While we may not agree on religion, I'm sure we all agree that no one is perfectly good and none of us have never done anything wrong.

(My bolded) unless we decide for reasons -which need not have anything to do with any religious tradition- not to do things which are inconsiderate of others.  I know it is hard for the self righteous to imagine such a thing, but it has been known to happen.

(May 15, 2017 at 6:22 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: [...]That our moral sense is not anchored by objective moral values does not mean that our moral inclinations are without foundation.  Our feelings give us feedback on the world just as surely as our eyes and ears do.  A person who does not feel pain will likely die.  The body has a wisdom the reasoning mind lacks.  Johnathan Haidt postulates that our moral reasoning has five dimensions, or bases.  1) harm, 2) fairness, 3) authority, 4) loyalty/ingroup allegiance, and 5) purity or sacredness.   These five bases all matter objectively in the working out of functioning of a social group or species.  To suggest that morals being relative means they are just arbitrary is to ignore their foundation in our functioning as a society.  Those who care not for harming others will be detrimental to the functioning of the social group.  Those who disregard fairness, likewise.  Morality is a brain shortcut for caring for these values, which ultimately is caring about the well being of the group.  An individual on their own can decide not to care about the well being of the group, but that choice is not without consequences for our own [as well].  We are evolved to care about our overall well-being as a group, and these 5 bases are merely the mechanism by which we implement that bias.  We are biased to be pro-survival, and likewise we are biased in favor of actions that preserve these properties.  Acting otherwise is an attack upon the group, and such attacks are not ignored by the group.  If you were the caretaker of a group, would you tolerate harm, unfairness, disobedience, disloyalty and defamation?  Do you really need anything more than the combined interest of the group to justify your actions?  Humans are a social species.  Our moral emotions are an artifact of that.  That doesn't mean they're arbitrary or meaningless.
[...]

(My added bold text, teal text[and square brackets and text within square brackets]).

To me... my added emphasis above is something I would certainly in a sense call objective morality. Objective epistemically in the sense of non-arbitrary is the sense of objective morality I believe in. I don't believe in any ontological objective moral values that exist "out there" apart from our motives, whatever that would even mean, I just recognize the non-arbitrary, and in a sense, objective values you describe above. It being relative and non-absolute does not entail it being non-objective. Science is relative and non-absolute and yet it is objective epistemically because it is non-arbitrary. I believe that all the arguments made against the kind of objective non-arbitary morality you describe as being not 'truly' objective because it's not absolute... can also be made against any theory of science that doesn't start with premises that are so sound as to be tautologies (thereby also being a matter of logic and mathematics rather than 'merely' empirical science).[/color]

For me the key points are:

1. Not without foundation.
2. Matter objectively.
3. Suggest relative means arbitrary? Ignore foundation.
4. Will Detrimental? Disregard likewise.
5. Morality? Brain, caring, values. Ultimately about well being.
6. Decide, but, not without consequences for our own as well.
.
..
...
....
.....
......that said maybe I should lay off the psychedelic Electro-Soma that makes me high? Or nah?

What is beauty?

Not what is "beauty" but what is... beauty?

(May 17, 2017 at 8:01 pm)Aroura Wrote:

(May 17, 2017 at 7:53 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Original sin, is best described as the fact that we will all do things that are wrong if given the chance to.

While we may not agree on religion, I'm sure we all agree that no one is perfectly good and none of us have never done anything wrong.

I was Catholic, I know the doctrine.

That being said it isn't the Catholic thinking I find repulsive, but in particular the evangelical one.  That babies cry because they are full of sin, that a 2 year old saying "no" to his mom or dad is a sin (even if not held responsible), thinking that a 2 year old is willfully sinning is both ludicrous and sick, imvho.

So my comment was at Steve, not at you CL.

Where in the world did you get babies cry because of sin?!? Then you take the most innocuous scenario possible (saying "no") and claim that it is ludicrous. How about when the child hits another unprovoked? Does not share? Throws temper tantrums when they don't get what they want? Breaks/takes something intentionally and then runs (after being told 'no')? Are you seriously claiming a child is a clean/innocent slate and we can't view these actions as selfish, insolent, destructive, and/or hurtful until...when? What is the point when we can call a spade a spade? To me, these are objectively wrong motives no matter what the age of the child is or how well they understand their motives. Again, I don't think they are morally responsible, so it seems your objection comes from me calling a spade a spade rather than some conclusion I am drawing from it. 

BTW, I have had 5 two-year-olds myself as well as being the oldest of 7 siblings and having 13 nieces/nephews over 2. I am well acquainted with the age.

Indeed Whateverist

almost none of our reasoning capacity comes to us from birth infants are irrational, illogical, impulsive, Insensitive , creatures most if none of this innate to us we have to learn it .