I don't claim to defend Doggg's positions.

I don't claim to prove to you that the theology of original sin is true. The integration of theology into a worldview does not work in isolated pieces that can be individually verified.

When it comes to the intersection of worldview and theology, there's a lot more to do with coherence than "proving true." That's actually true for huge swaths of life, but most people don't take the time to recognize it. We come to an understanding of who our friends are by creating a picture in our minds that is coherent with the behaviors we observe. That picture helps us to navigate conversations and interactions with that person, but we don't really go around "proving" our picture is correct.

Edit: At this point, it's probably important for you to clarify exactly what you think "original sin" is.

Im not asking you to prove it to me. Im asking you what is it that makes you think its true?

I agree with you , BUT, when asked to prove that our picture is correct, we can generally come up with something to show how we came to the understanding of who our friends are,whether this "something" is actually true or not


Im sure my understanding will give you lots of leeway to take the discussion in other directions

As I understand it, it is about Adam and Eve having caused the fall of man, by disobeying god. Whether correct or not, most christians seem to view it to mean that man is automatically guilty, has an in built sinful nature, etc.

Perhaps its might also be important for you to clarify what you think "original sin" is?

Because it explains the tendency of humans to engage in destructive behaviors and creates an impetus for a solution.

You've wound at least two different pictures of original sin into one, which is perhaps part of the problem.

For example,

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

---

My view of original sin is closer to the latter. It's tied to the fact that we are all born into a broken condition. And that's part of why I wanted to have you clarify what you were thinking about, as I don't intend to try to prove to you that there existed a human Adam and Eve, and that Adam was the one who committed the first sin.

If you accept the general depravity of man, then it leaves an open question as to where that depravity comes from. Why is it is that humans are as they are. Is it learned or inherent? I would say that it's more likely that it's inherent, given that the problem seems to exist universally among humans.

What is there for me to "prove" about that?

You still never really clarified why there cannot be an absolute morality which God is simply following, or why can't those laws be based on God's own character.

If the laws are based on God's character, then they would be limited to what his character constitutes. To say that the law come from God's character BUT God can still make up any laws outside of that, is not consistent. Again, if the laws come from God's character, then he cannot decide that we get to heaven by wearing an article of clothing, because his character has deemed that unjust.

If you find the essay, please pass it along and I'll read it. Otherwise, can you summarize what he offers as proof?

I don't know if you're a guy, but as a middle-aged man, I'm requesting that we resist shortening Euthyphro Dilemma to ED.

Yeah. But choosing between good or evil in necessary for sin. Im not sure an infant can do that.

Okay. How does that relate to something I've said?

Edit: Also, please define "sin" (at least in loose terms) as that has many interpretations and I need to know which one you're using when you're approaching this issue.

Haha, not a dilemma you want to have. I realized it after the fact, but I thought it might fly under the radar.

I don't want to call myself a middle aged guy, technically I have a couple of more years to meet the half way mark.

So you are trying to get from depravity ( or at least , destructive behaviours) to original sin? Here you seem to be saying , because of depravity, I believe in original sin, or have I misunderstood?

Aliens beaming brain altering waves from behind saturns 3rd moon also explains the tendency of humans to engage in destructive behaviours.

What are you doing here that is different from dog pointing to depravity in humans and going "look, theres proof of original sin".

( for proof, substitute "explanation" if you like)






Again, you seem to be saying "original sin is my explanation of depravity".Is it that you are not offering an explanation of why we are depraved ( adam and eve, or some other thing), but just concluding "we are all broken from the start"?

In that case, I dont see why you would use such a loaded, biblical term as "original sin" at all.

If it is necessary to have willful intent to do good and evil then there needs to be third option. Something like.


3) I see no good or evil in infants since they cant make willful choices.



To willfully go against Gods view of good. Less your a Calvinists with no freewill necessary for sin.

I'm saying that the pieces are coherent.

Such a statement would also be coherent in the sense of the word that I'm using.

Again, my concept of original sin is that humans are born with an inherent tendency towards evil. At this level, it's simply an observational fact. That such an observation is consistent with the theology of original sin is an extra bit, but does not stand as a "proof" of anything.

If I have a friend who is afraid of spiders, I simply need to note that I observe that he is afraid of spiders. I don't need to provide an explanation or a rationale as to why he is. It's simply an observation.

For the purposes of crossing between your worldview and mine, yes.

I use the loaded Biblical term because the rest of my worldview is loaded into that type of framework. You don't have to use the term if you don't want to.

If you take the position that "willful intent" is necessary, then you also severely limit the terms "good" and "evil." And there are consequences to this. Most forms of negligence would not be classified as evil, for example. It would also limit your usage of "evil" as it pertains to diseases and natural disasters.

It also means that a common courtesy done out of reflex like holding a door open is not a good act because you didn't willfully engage in the behavior, but you habitually engaged in it.

This can lead to the question of habitual evils (people who impulsively lie, or those who act out in anger without thinking), that you must also deal with.

I'm not saying you can't do that or that people don't do that (especially those who have a belief in something like an age of accountability), but it's not a necessary assumption to have, and you take on a number of other consequences when you do that.

Okay. Just remember that you've restricted your concepts of good, evil, and sin to being things subject to the condition that those actions are willful.

What do you consider the general depravity of man?

People are generally inclined towards evil* behaviors; people have a depraved nature. (If you start adding extra conditions about the term evil, then I would replace that with "destructive" or some similar word.)

Yeah I'm good with taking evil at face. I don't think I agree but then we probably have different acts we consider destructive. I do think if our inclinations were inherently destructive we'd have struggled to have the various civilisations we've seen through history. I suspect that co-operation and competition have determined our history in various measures but given the rate we've moved I suspect co-operation has the lead.

Yeah, I'm not tied to destructive as an alternative to evil. It can be other words like harmful or detrimental or whatever.

But the framework of cooperation and competition isn't going to be very good for the conversation in its current form. People can cooperate to do evil and people can compete in goodness to cause more good to come about.

Yeah that's fair co-operate and compete doesn't work.

I'll frame it differently, I think we have a tendency towards moral progress, I think we have better moral intuitions than you give us credit for. We may write morally repugnant people into history but I don't think that's a result of our inherent depravity but a breakdown of our those intuitions.

We have loads of evidence for evil present and past, micro and macro but we call it out as evil and we have too many people not actively depraved for depravity to be inherent.

I'll add that I think we also have competing tendencies and it's when these competing tendencies are in the ascendent that often the greatest evil is done.

I frame this issue differently than Christians do. Instead of good/evil or God/Devil, I think of it as Self/ego. But I see things closer to how Aaron does. When deciding the severity of it, many people tend to focus too much on behaviors, but behavior is just a symptom. As you become more aware and focus more on thoughts and feelings, you realize how big the problem is.

I don't see it as a dichotomy between good and evil. I think we have a variety of goals which often have moral implications and we often have a higher tolerance for evil than we should.

Can you unpack that a bit? There existing lots of "not actively depraved" people (whatever you mean by that -- are there passively depraved people?) doesn't seem to speak to the question of whether depravity is inherent.

I think if you contend that depravity is inherent you have to explain how so many people aren't engaged in depraved activities.

People are engaged in depraved activities all the time. People are generally selfish, prone to lying, prone to anger, prone to taking advantage of others, prone to gossip... When people find out that there's something they shouldn't be doing, there's often an impulse to go do that thing anyway (whether or not they do it depends on the types of systems that are in place to enforce behaviors).

Edit: Think "Lord of the Flies." If you remove the systems that enforce "good" behaviors, you don't get "good" behaviors.

But we build systems to enforce good behaviours.

I suspect I have a different conception of depraved, I accept we're flawed, I think we're subject to competing goals and we often fall short of moral standards but rather than considering evil inherent that we have potentiality for it just as we have potentiality for good.

I also think that while our goals may be evil it's often not that evil is the goal. I suspect that our goals have the potential to be good in both senses. As a property of a goal and a goal.

Because if there was, then your Bible would say so. It doesn't. It starts out in Genesis 3 with the first immoral thing being disobeying God and gives a list of things that God likes and doesn't like.

I'm not particularly interested in inventing any new gods for the purpose of arguing about a specific one.

That is a limitation on the moral laws, not on God's character.

The laws I make up are not subject to such constraints, and I am not even omnipotent. Putting ketchup upon a hotdog is an abomination unto me.

He did decide just such things. See, for instance, Deuteronomy 22:5. It is a sin to wear women's clothes if you are a man, or men's clothes if you are a woman. God doesn't hate ****, as a somewhat unpopular church claims. He does definitely hate transvestites though.

It is also a mistake to separate his "character" from "him." "Character" means description and nothing more, so all you've really claimed is that God is who God is and that if your description is accurate that it is an accurate description.

Or a much shorter argument that sums up all of the above: Description does not imply proscription.