morality is subjective and people don't have free will

[Ravenshire]

Merriam-Webster disagrees. So does allboutgod.com.

And, I have to agree with Aurora. Original sin is among the most repugnant and morally bankrupt ideas religion has foisted upon humanity.

Both say the same basic thing - an act that is immoral. Only difference is God/religion is in the picture.

As for original sin, is the acknowledgement that we're all bound to do something wrong at some point in our life really that bad? You just said you agreed with it. You just don't agree with calling it original sin.

Actually, they don't. They say that a sin is "...doing what is wrong or not doing what is right according to God's rules" (emphasis is mine, from the allaboutgod.com site).

Original sin, according to aboutcatholics.com: "Original Sin is the sin inherited by all humankind from Adam in his disobedience of God’s command not to eat from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge" (emphasis is mine). That's a far cry from "acknowledgement that we're all bound to do something wrong at some point in our life." The very idea that anyone can inherit a wrongdoing of any kind is repugnant and morally bankrupt. No reasonable law will ever require me to serve time for a murder committed by my grandfather, but some guy in a funny hat can claim I inherited the wrongdoing of a guy who allegedly lived thousands of years ago.

[Angrboda]

“One does not have to teach antisocial behavior to toddlers,” writes right-wing family psychologist John Rosemond in a 2006 column, syndicated in 225 newspapers. “They are by nature violent, deceitful, destructive, rebellious, and prone to sociopathic rages if they do not get their way.”

I wrote to Rosemond in an email and asked him to elaborate. “In my estimation,” he replied, “toddlerhood is a pathological condition that demands ‘cure,’ accomplished through a combination of powerful love and powerful discipline.…The toddler mindset and the sociopathic mind-set are one and the same: ‘What I want, I deserve to have; the ends justify the means; and no one has a right to stand in my way.’ This is a reflection of human nature.”

“Little Bundles of Sin”: Evangelical Child Rearing

[Whateverist]

Didn't mean to imply you did.  Just some unintended ambiguity.

Sorry

No, no. My bad.

[Amarok]

Indeed

One  is arguing the humans are inherently evil because god was incompetent and left the screw humanity button laying around

The other is merely pointing out humans don't always morally reason right and not implying humans are inherently evil

[Catholic_Lady]

Both say the same basic thing - an act that is immoral. Only difference is God/religion is in the picture.

As for original sin, is the acknowledgement that we're all bound to do something wrong at some point in our life really that bad? You just said you agreed with it. You just don't agree with calling it original sin.

Actually, they don't. They say that a sin is "...doing what is wrong or not doing what is right according to God's rules" (emphasis is mine, from the allaboutgod.com site).

Original sin, according to aboutcatholics.com: "Original Sin is the sin inherited by all humankind from Adam in his disobedience of God’s command not to eat from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge" (emphasis is mine). That's a far cry from "acknowledgement that we're all bound to do something wrong at some point in our life." The very idea that anyone can inherit a wrongdoing of any kind is repugnant and morally bankrupt. No reasonable law will ever require me to serve time for a murder committed by my grandfather, but some guy in a funny hat can claim I inherited the wrongdoing of a guy who allegedly lived thousands of years ago.

The story of genesis is viewed as symbolic. The sin of Adam and Eve symbolizes the human condition. One that you and I both agree with - that none of us are perfectly good and that the potential to do wrong exists in all of us.

As for the definition of sin, it seems you're being disagreeable and obtuse on purpose. Nothing you're posting is contradicting anything I said in several different ways now - that sin is the religious term for wrong.

[Whateverist]

Actually, they don't. They say that a sin is "...doing what is wrong or not doing what is right according to God's rules" (emphasis is mine, from the allaboutgod.com site).

Original sin, according to aboutcatholics.com: "Original Sin is the sin inherited by all humankind from Adam in his disobedience of God’s command not to eat from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge" (emphasis is mine). That's a far cry from "acknowledgement that we're all bound to do something wrong at some point in our life." The very idea that anyone can inherit a wrongdoing of any kind is repugnant and morally bankrupt. No reasonable law will ever require me to serve time for a murder committed by my grandfather, but some guy in a funny hat can claim I inherited the wrongdoing of a guy who allegedly lived thousands of years ago.

The story of genesis is viewed as symbolic. 

Pro tip:  It should all be regarded symbolically.  Just saying ..

[Amarok]

Symbolic riiiight.....

And nope what were saying stands in vast ontological contrast to what your saying

[The Grand Nudger]

Yet more heresy.....

Sin is not the religious term for "doing something wrong"...and the story of genesis is most definitely -not- viewed as symbolic........

1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law."121
1850 Sin is an offense against God: "Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight."122 Sin sets itself against God's love for us and turns our hearts away from it. Like the first sin, it is disobedience, a revolt against God through the will to become "like gods,"123 knowing and determining good and evil. Sin is thus "love of oneself even to contempt of God."124 In this proud self- exaltation, sin is diametrically opposed to the obedience of Jesus, which achieves our salvation.125
1851 It is precisely in the Passion, when the mercy of Christ is about to vanquish it, that sin most clearly manifests its violence and its many forms: unbelief, murderous hatred, shunning and mockery by the leaders and the people, Pilate's cowardice and the cruelty of the soldiers, Judas' betrayal - so bitter to Jesus, Peter's denial and the disciples' flight. However, at the very hour of darkness, the hour of the prince of this world,126 the sacrifice of Christ secretly becomes the source from which the forgiveness of our sins will pour forth inexhaustibly.

390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.264 Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.265

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/ar...s2c1p7.htm

[SteveII]

No, we don't agree. Because I don't agree they are willful sinners, or that what they are doing it is objectively wrong.  Yes, children's behavior needs correcting.  But it is decidedly harmful to teach them, in addition to normal correction, that the reason they are like this is that they are born tainted sinners.  That addition make all the difference.

I do appreciate you trying to make peace, CL, but teaching children they are born evil and the only thing that can erase that evil is belief in Jesus, (NOT their own behavior or other choices), is vile to me.

I've sadly had dealings with groups such as The Good New Club.

Who is teaching a two year old that they a born tainted sinners? You are blowing this way out of proportion!

Now you are pivoting to the term "evil" to make your objection appear stronger. Evil is a moral term and we have already established that a young child is not morally responsible. The point has always been that we are born knowing how to be selfish, intolerant, harmful, etc. and need to be taught these things are wrong.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Well, it would seem that in order for that to work, the world would have to be intelligible and at least partially conceivable.
I never said that the world was completely unintelligible.  All that means is that there is some order to the world.

It seems to me that if the world is even partially unintelligible then that small amount undermines the intelligibility of the whole. When you qualify the world's intelligibility that allows you to let in any absurdity through the back-door to dismiss otherwise reasonable conclusions about the nature of reality.

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.

I did not mean to suggest that people perceive the world without error. We know from common experience that they do. At the same time, the evidence of the senses seems to be self-correcting with further observations and analysis. Also I think questioning an essential and necessary correspondence between reason an intelligible world order raises serious problems with respect to humanities ability to attain knowledge. Personally, I think it undermines the whole enterprise. If you don't stand for something, you cannot stand for anything.