Original sin

[dragonrider]

I guess if you take the negative sense of the word "sin", this poses the perhaps more interesting question of wether anything can be fundamentally wrong with the universe to begin with.
Either way, it can definately feel that way at times.

Or can anything ever be unnatural?

We often say that something "goes against nature". For instance when we speak of sexual violence, or violence against childeren. But unfortunately, our close relatives, chimps and bonobo's are known to sometimes do those kind of things as well.

But on the other hand, what else would you call such acts?

 

[Voidmatrix]

I guess if you take the negative sense of the word "sin", this poses the perhaps more interesting question of wether anything can be fundamentally wrong with the universe to begin with.
Either way, it can definately feel that way at times.

Or can anything ever be unnatural?

We often say that something "goes against nature". For instance when we speak of sexual violence, or violence against childeren. But unfortunately, our close relatives, chimps and bonobo's are known to sometimes do those kind of things as well.

But on the other hand, what else would you call such acts?

We could probably keep things in the intersubjective sphere they likely actually reside in and say that the are unfavorable or unpreferred to us.

I kind of have an issue with the naturalist arguments. They miss their own biases. I've done this several times; ask someone if a beaver's damn or a birds nest is nature. Most people say yes, and will sometimes say that these animals use things from nature to build such structures. Well, so do humans, so if those structures are natural or part of nature then so is the automobile. We [humans] don't create "unnatural things" from nothing, we use what the planet has provided for us, and that goes for what we create that is both organic and inorganic. The problem is how we as creatures try so hard to separate ourselves from other animals purely because of the appearance of our sentience, as if that magically removes us from nature. Now if someone wants to be specific and say things to the effect of "not human made" or "not altered by human acts" (which are few things at this point; we have our hands on as much as we can), then that's different, because yes, we do and create many things that screw us over, but that too may be part of our nature.

Also, nature tends to sort itself out and I think that it shows our hubris when we say something is unnatural or goes against nature. As if we wee little beings have the actual capacity to dictate and control the nature that we are also a part of.

To the topic, if God exists, and God is the purveying creator, then God created sin.

One love

 

[samatha]

If we discount disobedience as a sin in Abrahamic texts then eating from the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil would be the original sin.

We can go a little further than that.

What ability does a naive being unlock by attaining knowledge of good and evil? That would be judgment. The ability to separate and label what is good and what is bad. In that sense, our first sin came at the expense of living in dualism thus making us mortals.

Following this train of thought it would make sense why all Abrahamic religions tell you that only God can judge and almost all Eastern religions guide you to nondual living / out of the lower chakras of survival ( analytical mind )

 

[dragonrider]

I guess if you take the negative sense of the word "sin", this poses the perhaps more interesting question of wether anything can be fundamentally wrong with the universe to begin with.
Either way, it can definately feel that way at times.

Or can anything ever be unnatural?

We often say that something "goes against nature". For instance when we speak of sexual violence, or violence against childeren. But unfortunately, our close relatives, chimps and bonobo's are known to sometimes do those kind of things as well.

But on the other hand, what else would you call such acts?

We could probably keep things in the intersubjective sphere they likely actually reside in and say that the are unfavorable or unpreferred to us.

I kind of have an issue with the naturalist arguments. They miss their own biases. I've done this several times; ask someone if a beaver's damn or a birds nest is nature. Most people say yes, and will sometimes say that these animals use things from nature to build such structures. Well, so do humans, so if those structures are natural or part of nature then so is the automobile. We [humans] don't create "unnatural things" from nothing, we use what the planet has provided for us, and that goes for what we create that is both organic and inorganic. The problem is how we as creatures try so hard to separate ourselves from other animals purely because of the appearance of our sentience, as if that magically removes us from nature. Now if someone wants to be specific and say things to the effect of "not human made" or "not altered by human acts" (which are few things at this point; we have our hands on as much as we can), then that's different, because yes, we do and create many things that screw us over, but that too may be part of our nature.

Also, nature tends to sort itself out and I think that it shows our hubris when we say something is unnatural or goes against nature. As if we wee little beings have the actual capacity to dictate and control the nature that we are also a part of.

To the topic, if God exists, and God is the purveying creator, then God created sin.

One love

Yeah, it's a bit strange to separate ourselves from nature like that. At what exact point does the use of a material or a tool become unnatural? Is it when processing the material requires fire? Then we've been living unnaturally for millions of years, as where many other homonoids that went extinct. Or if producing a tool requires other tools? Then the same is true.

 

[dragonrider]

If we discount disobedience as a sin in Abrahamic texts then eating from the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil would be the original sin.

We can go a little further than that.

What ability does a naive being unlock by attaining knowledge of good and evil? That would be judgment. The ability to separate and label what is good and what is bad. In that sense, our first sin came at the expense of living in dualism thus making us mortals.

Following this train of thought it would make sense why all Abrahamic religions tell you that only God can judge and almost all Eastern religions guide you to nondual living / out of the lower chakras of survival ( analytical mind )

The abrahamic religions realy made a big deal of distinguishing themselves from paganism as well. There are many pagan practices that have been in some way or another incorporated into judaism, christianity and islam. So it is not all pagan practices that they objected to.

But of the statements in the bible and the thora that have been simplified into the ten commandmends (though there never where ten commandmends in the bible or the thora), the first and also the most of them are about abolishing pagan religious practices.

First god says to moses something like:"i am the god that rescued you guys from your egyptian oppressors". Then he says "i don't tolerate other gods next to me", then he says that he also doesn't tolerate depictions of him or other gods (so technically the ceiling of the sistine chapel in the vatican is a sin), then he says that using his name in vain is a sin, and then that not obeying the holy day is...and all the other things like murder only come after that.

 

[nen888]

If we discount disobedience as a sin in Abrahamic texts then eating from the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil would be the original sin.

We can go a little further than that.

What ability does a naive being unlock by attaining knowledge of good and evil? That would be judgment. The ability to separate and label what is good and what is bad. In that sense, our first sin came at the expense of living in dualism thus making us mortals.

Following this train of thought it would make sense why all Abrahamic religions tell you that only God can judge and almost all Eastern religions guide you to nondual living / out of the lower chakras of survival ( analytical mind )

The abrahamic religions realy made a big deal of distinguishing themselves from paganism as well. There are many pagan practices that have been in some way or another incorporated into judaism, christianity and islam. So it is not all pagan practices that they objected to.

But of the statements in the bible and the thora that have been simplified into the ten commandmends (though there never where ten commandmends in the bible or the thora), the first and also the most of them are about abolishing pagan religious practices.

First god says to moses something like:"i am the god that rescued you guys from your egyptian oppressors". Then he says "i don't tolerate other gods next to me", then he says that he also doesn't tolerate depictions of him or other gods (so technically the ceiling of the sistine chapel in the vatican is a sin), then he says that using his name in vain is a sin, and then that not obeying the holy day is...and all the other things like murder only come after that.

..this is why more than one person has suggested over the years that the 'god' that spoke to moses was a demon...same with the angel gabriel in a certain cave a while later..like the 'angel' in Last Temptation of Christ wasn't quite what it seemed..
This is essentially what the Gnostics meant by the Demiurge..
..and the Source is beyond this 'god'

(i appreciate the level of gnostic interest on the nexus, always enjoy that poem acacian)

As for 'non-dualism' (to condense a vast subject in the extreme) ..rather than saying good and bad are equivalent, or one, or not to judge, it is more saying that nothing is separate, nothing is apart...the complete universal understanding of that is of course beyond the scope of human mind by many orders of magnitude...hence a different route is suggested to alleviate internal suffering..which in turn alleviates ego driven aspects of mind that cause external suffering..

interesting discussion all, thanks

 

[BundleflowerPower]

interesting discussion all, thanks

ditto

 

[BundleflowerPower]

I don't know if I can see the connections in this assumptions, but, for amplified the debate, can you explain where is founded this 'Lunar divinity called Sin'?

The lunar divinity Sin is from ancient mesopatamia. Naram-Sin of Akkad - Wikipedia

 

[BundleflowerPower]

If one divides the age of Methusala as stated in the Bible by 12, one arrives at an age of 80.4 or so. A normal human human lifespan.

"Normal human lifespan" is a relative notion. Here, we can see that even in the present day, life expectancy is different depending on where you are in the world. Many of the factors that influence life expectancy relate to quality of life; clean food and water, sanitation, level and quality of Healthcare, etc.

Perhaps such is common knowledge in some circles

Why do you feel this is "knowledge?" You're asking a question about several ideas you've connected. That doesn't make it knowledge, especially given the difficulty in verifying, so more aligns with "belief," and it may very well be a common belief.

One love

Comparative religion must hae noticed the same names.

Perhaps I was a bit weird with "common knowledge."

And the way I see it, it seems more likely that one would live for 900 moons rather than 900 actual years.

 

[Voidmatrix]

Well, 900÷12 is 75. So 900 moons would be 75 years

One love

 

[[:]]

Original sin appears to be of Catholic origin, conceptually speaking, and originates in the 3rd century.
It is the concept that conception and birth, being of the flesh, cause our species to exist in a sinful state in need of salvation.
It is basically a ploy, by organized religion, to tell people that they are flawed and in need of what the church offers.

Its very similar to how abusive partners demean their victims as a way to control them and make them see the abuser as a guide to their salvation and betterment.

At least, this is my opinion based on the actual history and human psychology involved.

 

[rkba]

Religions typically hijack rituals of the people they want to control. My thinking is that the underlying reason for the 'original sin', that the church portrays, was something else that got hijacked.

I'm thinking the original sin is actually the programming that is forced upon the free spirit in order to control the corporal spirit and therefore the entire being.

Similar but more broad and applies to all the programmings of all cultures.

Therefore enjoy the Flux and Flux with joy!