Science is our weapon, our god-killer. It’s the greatest tool humanity has ever invented.

PZM is, as usual for the type, a freaking moron.

Science and Religion have NOTHING to say about one another — they deal with different spheres of thought entirely.

Science deals with that which is provable, which can reasonably accurately be defined and measured by the senses. This is hardly the whole of human existence by any rational measure. The rest of it is the realm of Faith.

The notion that Science can supplant religion is even more retarded than creationism, which presumes that the trappings of science make religion into science.

But original sin? Yes. You can see the will of a human being exerted as early as 3 months old. Ye are gods from an early age.

Man must have free will, or he isn’t man, he’s an automaton.

Free will creates choice. Ergo, imperfection. It’s baked in the cake. I see no contradiction.

I didn’t mean to suggest you thought Jews believed in original sin. I just thought it was related, and an interesting point (and that many people aren’t aware of it).

neo-neocon Says:
March 12th, 2014 at 7:46 pm

DNW:

Jews do NOT believe in original sin.

I was not intending to assert or to imply that they did – even assuming that there is a widely accepted Jewish dogma on the matter.

In fact in the passage I quoted, something seemed somewhat amiss, as I noted, in that there could even be what looked like a substantive parallel. As I said regarding the formulation of Wiki entry you had linked to: “Now this is very strange, and I wonder if it could be right. ”

“See this for a short discussion, but if you Google the topic “Judaism and original sin” you’ll find tons of links to information.

Christianity has its roots in Judaism, but the two religions are very very different, and not just in a disagreement about Jesus.”

I’m perfectly willing to stipulate that Judaism as it is overwhelmingly practiced and understood, has no doctrine of original sin. What one is to make of that Wiki passage purportedly describing the Judaic view of a change taking place in human nature as a result of the eating of the forbidden fruit, is another matter.

“As for the Evil Impulse in Judaism, see this. It’s a complex concept, quite different from the usual idea of evil.”

My studies in Judaism were 30 years ago but I remember nothing in particular regarding any specific theory of evil in Pre-Rabbinic Judaism. What conceptualization there was seemed to me to be highly social, in orientation …

Purity on the other hand, seemed to be a somewhat formal ritualistic notion, not particularly directly connected to what seems in Christianity to be describable as a combination of Jesus’ sayings regarding purity as a spiritual congruence with the will of God, the Spirit, and some smaller measure of Aristotelian virtue ethics.

In Christianity, as I take it, purity is seen as a substantive, actual good.

But again, I do not insist and am just making off the cuff remarks.

regarding the first link provided in your comment above,

“the dominant view [in Judaism] by far was that man sins because he is not a perfect being, and not, as Christianity teaches, because he is inherently sinful.”

I’ve often wondered how, a perfect God can create an imperfection (mankind) as it would seem to me that perfection would only be able to create perfection (otherwise it would be imperfect).

On the other hand, if man was originally created perfect and, Judaism asserts that there is no such thing as original sin (inheritable sin)… what the explanation is for man’s imperfection since Adam and Eve? It appears to me to be an insurmountable contradiction in logic. Perhaps that’s why Augustine invented the theory of original sin.

Jews do NOT believe in original sin.

See this for a short discussion, but if you Google the topic “Judaism and original sin” you’ll find tons of links to information.

Christianity has its roots in Judaism, but the two religions are very very different, and not just in a disagreement about Jesus.

As for the Evil Impulse in Judaism, see this. It’s a complex concept, quite different from the usual idea of evil.

I would agree that the eating of the apple symbolizes the dawning of awareness (consciousness) of right and wrong but…and this is important, without the complementary ability to always discern rightly between the two. Thus, resulting in the road to hell being paved with good intentions…

IMO, Genesis is an Allegory (noun: a story, poem, or picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one.) And like any good allegory, it can be interpreted, strictly by the clues it contains. IMO, that has yet to be done, as I am unaware of any logically consistent explanation for the profound questions that Genesis implies but that are not directly answered.

Those profoundly important but unanswered questions give rise to much of the disbelief regarding whether there actually is a God, at least as the Judeo/Christian tradition presents him.

Rather than get into a long explanation here, for any curious I’ve posted my thoughts on my blog. I must however, warn the reader that while it is unapologetically Christian in its bias, it is decidedly non-dogmatic in its assertions. No offense is intended but no apology is made for a sincere attempt at a deeper understanding. Nor am I asserting this to be ‘the truth’, merely and of necessity, a hypothesis.

A possible and logically consistent explanation of the Genesis allegory

” neo-neocon Says:
March 12th, 2014 at 6:24 pm

DNW:

Note, also, that after eating of the tree, Adam and Eve realized for the first time that they were naked, and made themselves garments.

Animals are always naked. Only humans create clothing (they even create clothing for animals!). Even humans in tropical countries, who go about close to naked, usually wear some sort of small item of clothing or adornment to set themselves off as human. I believe this is an integral part of the Adam and Eve story, and a key to the whole animal vs. human thing.

And see this for the meaning of “good and evil”—it probably means “knowledge” (i.e. good and evil is an inclusive phrase rather than a primarily moral one, as in good vs. evil, although it includes that).”

Could be. Following your link I come to the heading “Judaism” and read:

” In Jewish tradition, the Tree of Knowledge and the eating of its fruit represents the beginning of the mixture of good and evil together. Before that time, the two were separate, and evil had only a nebulous existence in potentia. While free choice did exist before eating the fruit, evil existed as an entity separate from the human psyche, and it was not in human nature to desire it. Eating and internalizing the forbidden fruit changed this and thus was born the yeitzer hara, the Evil Inclination”

Now this is very strange, and I wonder if it could be right. Because as near as I can tell it is virtually the same notion, or a very parallel one [unless you want to argue what “human nature” meant in those circumstances] to that found in the old Baltimore Catholic Catechism # 3. Albeit coming at, or formulating the problem from a somewhat different and ontological effects angle, rather than one of moral action.

I find the term “in potentia” rather curious when presented as part of the conceptual vocabulary available to Jewish tradition in regard to this matter though, as it seems somewhat too Greek or even Christian to be a very early idea. But then I guess the Talmud is definitely post Hellenistic anyway.

In any event, the Catholic catechism phrased it in terms of a loss of the “sanctifying” grace, which had been their presumptively “normal operating state”.

Thus “original sin” is termed “original” in their offspring not as a repeat of some specific act, but in terms of the descendants’ origins.

Hence, in the question and answer format designed for “children in the upper grades of elementary schools”:

” What has happened to us on account of the sin of Adam?
On account of the sin of Adam, we, his descendants, come into the world deprived of sanctifying grace …

What is this sin called in us?
This sin in us is called original sin

Why is this sin called original sin?
This sin is called original because it comes down to us through our origin, or descent, from Adam”

Make of that recitation what you will, it is clearly an intellectually comprehensible idea and both a much less mysterious and even more naturalistic concept than many seem to imagine.