/lit/ - Literature

>>23303559
Looking at it with a historical lens, the texts were written in a time when the sins of the father passed down equally to his descendants. It was law, for a long time actually. After philosophy the concept is mostly regarded as logically unsound.
In a more dogmatic lens, original sin is simply nonsense voodoo magic: being "born with sin".
A hurdle that proseltysers otherwise need to get you over first before getting you through the rest of the doctrine.

>>23274355
The greatest trick the jew ever pulled as to convince the world to worship a strange god from a strange land that shares no history nor ancestry.

obligatory

>He did it out of his own free will
This is lazy storytelling

Just remove the need for God to be good and the problem is solved

>>19114891
CHRISTKEKDOM: «MY 3=1 SKYDADDY TELLS ME WHAT IS GOOD».

>has no knowledge of right and wrong
>>i-it was free will!!!!
>apparently there are things not within god's control
>omnipotent btw
>omniscient btw
>>so god chose to let them eat from the tree?
>>so god intentionally let man fall from heaven? or did he not know that they would
>etc.

Christianity should have come up with a better mythology, because it's otherwise pretty OK. Job, Genesis, Ecclesiastes, etc. are pretty awful books.

>>19033435

>>18766163
Dunking on christianity is Western tradition.

>>18760852
>First
I truly believe we are in the weeds here, but you can press me on it if you like and I will continue to defend my assertion that, regardless of which denomination define x as y, Christianity entails a belief that innocent beings will suffer (and possibly be consigned to damnation or purgatory etc) without knowledge of the God who is consigning them. I also stand by the point that, even if ALL souls went straight to Heaven, God is still answerable for His crimes here on Earth. At least He is in the human mind, which is the only tool we have on hand.

>suffering doesnt matter on its own... because it is not permanent, except maybe in the afterlife
This speaks to the same point I made above. If we are being tested, and some of us fail in our ignorance/weakness and are damned, this is unacceptable, God is cruel. If it is not a test (because we all pass), if it is merely an ORDEAL, then it is both a flagrantly arbitrary/unequal one and it is still unacceptable, because a being with the power to grant me eternal bliss does not therefore have the right to also torture me, not for ANY length of time, and certainly He has no right to torture babies. Believe me I am getting sick of typing phrases like 'torture babies' but it is the absolute crux of the matter and must be stuck to at all times lest we lose our moral sanity in abstractions and non/post-human possibilities.

>unremembered suffering doesn't matter
If God did not exist it would not be okay to torture innocents. And yet it would be a logical certainty that any suffering you inflicted in such a case would eventually cease to be remembered. Suffering matters because of Justice. Justice matters because of human dignity. Human dignity matters because of human sympathy and self-consistency, which is part of self mastery which is part of goal seeking - which is living. And indeed, Justice could be rooted in many other ways, such as how Plato did it in Republic. Memory is not the deciding factor, that is callous.

>>18598286
Is that...an argument to absurdum...from a christian (read: an absurdity)...HA

>>18266079
This is the fall of man.

>>18194549
a friendly reminder that you are resorting to religion as a cope

>>18188625
Yeah, sure...

>>18127118
Interesting argument, but the thing we haven't done in this thread yet is define evil, once you do that, everything becomes clear. It seems to me the best definition would be something like:

>Evil is a mindstate/qualia present when grossly harmful actions are attempted against an innocent victim in full and approving knowledge of both the harm and the victim's innocence.

There are plenty of semantic ways to query a draft definition like that but its pretty cleat that any workable definition of evil is going to revolve around intention. Yes this is begging the question but I have to stand by it anyway.

In historical cases where ppl thought they were doing the right thing but we now think/know they weren't, then you can either bite the bullet of subjectivity or say take the view that some actions are evil by definition. But then all actions could conceivably have justification in the right circumstances so it's difficult to defend the action-specific definition of evil. Words like 'wrath' and 'malice' etc connote evil and they are really talking about states of mind.

Science doesn't need to be defined by intention etc, but rather by the scientific method. The method can be applied improperly, and this misapplication could conceivably go unnoticed. But the fact is that science is an inferiential discipline in the first place, meaning that 'mistakes' of science are usually just best-guess assumptions that we work with heuristically in the absence of better evidence. In the second place, the inferiential nature of science means that it is only ever 'less wrong' not actually correct at any given point. The marker at which 'less wrong' meets up with pseudoscience is subject to the Sorites Paradox. The analogy of all this to Evil doesn't work, because, as stated, the standard usage of Evil revolves around it being a state of mind. Experiences are real and specific events that happen in the universe. This ironically makes them easier to define than inferiential disciplines like Science. Although not necessarily easier to detect.

>>18064310
Your christian god sustains the world just as a shepherd maintains his flock - so that he may later feed on it. He is quite predatorial in that respect.

>>18058766
This, basically.

>>17969426
Literal puppet show

>>17916863
Whatever you say...