There is a crack... in everything. That's how the light gets in.

[guillaumeb]

Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack, a crack in everything
That’s how the light gets in.

Leonard Cohen.

And that crack, that human imperfection, has been expressed in the Bible as original sin.

There is no perfection in humanity, but there is hope, and there is struggle. Thus the metaphor of the crack in everything.



But there is also hope, the hope that the light will enter into the imperfect vessel.

[NeoGreen]

1. "sin" is a...

...bad idea and bronze-age false-construct endlessly proffered by christian theology.

It should be dismissed out of hand, forgotton and replaced by Nis: an act one performs merely for the benefit of another.

I am not a christian, therefore by definition I am without "sin".

Anyone who claims otherwise is merely trying to foist a failed christian dogma onto me. And I wouldn't take it kindly.

If you are with "sin", kindly keep it to yourself, please.

[guillaumeb]

3. Sin is one way of saying "imperfect".

Or flawed. If you are perfect, forgive me for assuming otherwise.

[NeoGreen]

15. Kindly...

...keep your bronze age christian concepts to yourself. Do not attempt to apply those failed bad ideas onto me, it is very rude.

[Major Nikon]

19. It's a way of saying homosexuality is bad while child rape is not

As such it lends itself to corruption and apologizing for bad behavior. It's a word used by controllers who pretend their system of ethics is divine so dissent may be deemed heretical. It's kinda like devising your own commandments to preserve self-righteousness. I suppose it might make sense to those who demand invisible sky daddies who deal reward and punishment for breaking such arbitrary rules, but to those who aren't so weak minded it's nothing more than gibberish.

[guillaumeb]

21. The problem with your "analysis" is that it is contradicted by Jesus' own words.

And lacks any real evidentiary basis.

But I understand that you have your own definition of what words and concepts mean.

[Major Nikon]

23. Speaking of "any real evidentiary basis" do you have a cite?

Bullshit has been called.

[guillaumeb]

24. You made specific claims.

It is up to you to provide evidence.

And that is how it works.

Stick with the gifs.

[Major Nikon]

26. "The problem with your "analysis" is that it is contradicted by Jesus' own words."

Request for cite response -- <crickets>

I wish I could say I'm surprised you'd pivot when bullshit has been called, but the hope for a substantive reply from you is long gone. All that's really left is laughing at the faceplants.

[guillaumeb]

37. Carefully read #19.

And that is where the claim arises.

[Major Nikon]

39. Carefully read where I asked for a cite for your assertion you failed to produce.

Obviously you won't because you can't, which means it's safe to assume you are producing nothing better than gibberish.

[MineralMan]

32. Do, please, show us those words, Guy.

We'll wait here. Simple citations will do. We all have access to the sources.

[edhopper]

2. Tyhe Bible is pretty specific

about what that original sin is.

And it's not about our "imperfection".

It's a load of horsecrap laid on people to keep them in line.

[guillaumeb]

4. No, your reading is specific.

But you are entitled to your interpretation.

[edhopper]

5. Oringinal sin

is a Christian concept.

It's not my interpretation. It's that of 2 billion Christians.

If you think the bible is some sacred text from God, that is.

[guillaumeb]

6. Original sin is imperfection.

It is a universal concept because it is correct.

[edhopper]

7. Hardly

another sad attempt by you to dilute a religious concept so much that it becomes meaningless.

[guillaumeb]

8. And your response is your attempt to derail the post.

Noted.

[edhopper]

9. All my response are about your post

I disagree with your premise.

[guillaumeb]

10. Do you argue for perfection?

Proceed.

[edhopper]

11. I disagree

with your premise of what the Bible means by original sin.

[Voltaire2]

13. Disagreement is diversion

In the g world.

[Major Nikon]

29. You just don't understand

[Act_of_Reparation]

46. Does it mean imperfection?

Or do you, random anecdotal internet individual, interpret it to mean imperfection?

[guillaumeb]

47. Are you suggesting that my imperfection influences my interpretation?

Could your own imperfection mean that you fail to recognize the correctness of my statement?

[Act_of_Reparation]

49. No. I'm not.

I'm suggesting your interpretation is your own, is not generalizable, and is therefore not useful when discussing the broader implications of the concept.

Thank you. Drive through.

[qazplm135]

50. it's pretty literally laid out in the bible

that original sin is literally the moment when Eve (and Adam) defies God and eats of the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

It's literally defiance of God, specific defiance, with a specific act.

"Original sin, also called ancestral sin,[1] is a Christian belief of the state of sin in which humanity exists since the fall of man, stemming from Adam and Eve's rebellion in Eden, namely the sin of disobedience in consuming the forbidden fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEODCC2005Original_sin_2-0

It's...literally...the "original" "sin." As in the first sin. Mankind shares that sin in a weird inheritance that renders a newborn infant as having the "stain" of the sin of Adam and Eve.

Augustine described it as "inherited guilt."

Martin Luther says similar things. Mary was a special case without sin so she could birth Jesus.

There are competing theories within Christianity, so at best one can say your argument that it's "imperfection" is picking one of those theories and applying it to the whole.

[msongs]

12. the crack in the oppression and misery created by religion lets in the light nt

[Voltaire2]

14. But a splash of water and mumbo jumbo

corrects the imperfection.

So no big deal.

[guillaumeb]

16. Simplistic, and untrue.

But expected.

[MineralMan]

33. Please demonstrate the validity of your claims.

We'll wait here.

[guillaumeb]

38. The claim was actually in #14.

Rather than wait, read the thread.

[Voltaire2]

40. CCC 405.

405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/405.htm

[guillaumeb]

41. From your own citation:

Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

Baptism does not eliminate the imperfection. Thus the warning that persistent imperfection requires a spiritual battle.

[Voltaire2]

43. It erases original sin.

Right there in plain English.

Carry on.

[guillaumeb]

44. Reread the citation.

Explain the ending. Or continue with your own misunderstanding, as you wish.

[Voltaire2]

48. This was what you said in your op:

“that human imperfection, has been expressed in the Bible as original sin. ”

As I noted original sin is erased by a splash of water and some mumbo jumbo. If “human imperfection” remains, the obvious conclusion is that your assertion that original sin is “human imperfection” is inaccurate.

[qazplm135]

51. FFS

that definition LITERALLY distinguishes between original sin which it says baptism ERASES, and "imperfection" as you call it that remains in men to do evil.

[Voltaire2]

54. Par for the course.

[MineralMan]

17. Original sin is a purely Christian concept.

You believe it to be true, but that does not make it so. Imperfection is not sin. It is simply variation from the model. It is also the key to evolution. If lifeforms were perfect, they would not change over time.

It is really impossible to define what perfection is, though. So, given universal variation, perfection cannot actually exist. It has never been observed. Imperfections are simply unique features of individual replications of the model. What is the model? it is the class being examined. It is an ideal that cannot be reached, and that never is reached.

Imperfection is not sin. It is simply imperfection in something that exists. The model does not exist as a real object.

[guillaumeb]

18. Original sin is a metaphor for imperfection.

The Bible frequently uses metaphor. But if you are a literalist, and your arguments make it clear that you are, I understand your refusal to consider any non-literal meanings.

So you do have some commonality with one part of the faith community.

[MineralMan]

20. Punt.

Your cave is poorly illuminated. Your shadows are diffuse.

[guillaumeb]

22. You see only the reflection cast by the real.

Platon.

[MineralMan]

25. Tu Quoque.

And it's shadows, not reflections.

Punt away.

[marylandblue]

27. Original sin has an implication of guilt that imperfection does not

It's the thing that made Christ's sacrafice necessary, because he was perfect and had no guilt. If the Church Fathers meant mere imperfection, they would have stayed with the Jewish concept of sin, which is closer to either "making a mistake," or "becoming impure." But if they had done that, there would have been no need for Christ, so they actually had to reject your interpretation in order to create Christianity.

[MineralMan]

28. Well, like all things, Guy's argument is imperfect.

It's surface is crazed by a network of fine cracks. Still, however, no light penetrates the underlying body of opaque clay.

[guillaumeb]

42. And thus you reveal your true feelings about yourself and others.

Giraudoux would understand.

[MineralMan]

45. Punt again.

[Major Nikon]

34. Biblical literalists are those who believe in biblical inerrancy

Anyone north of a room temperature IQ who has read a few of MM's posts would not call him a biblical literalist, but believe it or not those people do exist and reject such metaphorical interpretations. I find this approach more honest than one who claims the bible is simultaneously metaphorical and literal when it's convenient without ever having to define how one decides which is which. YMMV.

[qazplm135]

52. you know when something is said literally

and then interpreted literally by a large chunk of the folks who might know it best (Catholic church, various Christian theologians throughout history)...

I don't know, it might be meant to be taken literally.

[Major Nikon]

30. The same concept exists pretty much verbatim with all Abrahamic religions

It's used quite frequently to demonstrate how women are more easily corruptible and should be held subservient to keep them from corrupting men. In other words, it's just another fairy tale used to promote an agenda by pretending it has divine meaning.

[MineralMan]

31. As you say, religion has its uses.

Men recognized those uses early on, and have been exploiting them ever since.

Attributing such ideas to a deity works a treat, it seems. I mean, who can argue with a god, after all?

[Major Nikon]

35. By extension, who can argue with someone who pretends to speak for god?

So yeah, that's the whole point. It does offer some entertainment value when those who pretend to speak for god pretend their sky daddy isn't a misogynist, a homophobe, and an asshole despite the evidence which may be found in the exact same reference they provide. You just have to say it's metaphorical and those who read the same words just don't understand.

[MineralMan]

36. Oh, arguing with human beings is easy. Entertaining, too.

In keeping with the theme of the thread, it usually cracks me up.

However, it appears that our fellow DUer has punted now, thus turning over the ball to the opposing team. Three and out.

[SWBTATTReg]

53. Thanks for posting poem. Interesting. But to be honest, my feelings are that everyone is made...

perfect in their own way, all of us (I am, you are, everyone is). There are no imperfect human beings, after all, how can god mess up? Who truly knows the purpose of creation and nature overall? All of us in our own different way is exactly how we were supposed to be made, and thus, perfect.

This is what I believe. Everyone is perfect, and it is a wonderful feeling to have, vs. all of the other 'you are full of sin, etc.'.

[guillaumeb]

55. An interesting viewpoint.

Thank you.

[MineralMan]

56. Nonsense.

A cracked bell does nor ring. A cracked cup leaks. A cracked record no longer plays. A cracked tooth is exquisitely painful. Not everything has a crack, and most things with cracks are less useful.

Your quote is poetic, but wrong. Nicely written words are not necessarily true.

Every statement must be examined for sense.

[guillaumeb]

57. You apparently missed the point.

And because you did, you assume that there is no point.

[MineralMan]

58. What point do you think I missed?

Do tell.

[guillaumeb]

59. What I initially wrote.

Which was:

And that crack, that human imperfection, has been expressed in the Bible as original sin.

There is no perfection in humanity, but there is hope, and there is struggle. Thus the metaphor of the crack in everything.


But there is also hope, the hope that the light will enter into the imperfect vessel.

[MineralMan]

60. I addressed that upthread.

The metaphor is a weak one.

[guillaumeb]

61. We disagree. eom

[MineralMan]

62. We almost always do.

[guillaumeb]

63. We agree. eom