I promise this isn't an ambush

No doubt that there are many "wicked" people. Many of them Christian.

How is it reasonable to extrapolate from that to the doctrine of original sin?
I don't know. You'd have to ask someone who had done this.

How in heck does one secularise original sin without excluding the fundamentals?

One of those fundamentals is the Christian God's definition of "sin", which cannot be secularised.
I think pretty easily. Shorn of its religious overtones, the doctrine is true, insofar as it correctly identifies that human beings are inherently wicked and that, absent divine intervention, this is impossible to remedy.
 
I don't know. You'd have to ask someone who had done this.
Let's see what you wrote:
"It's odd to me that many non-religious people, of which I am one, are so hostile to the doctrine of original sin. It's plainly a true doctrine, once secularised. The truth of it would have seemed obvious to Paul even in the first century, but after the twentieth it takes a special kind of stupidity to deny that people are inherently wicked."

You assert that the doctrine of original sin is ""plainly a true doctrine", "the truth of it...obvious" and that "it takes a special kind of stupidity to deny that people are inherently wicked".

What kind of stupidity does it take to assert the above and not know to reasonably "extrapolate from that to the doctrine of original sin"?
 
Let's see what you wrote:
"It's odd to me that many non-religious people, of which I am one, are so hostile to the doctrine of original sin. It's plainly a true doctrine, once secularised. The truth of it would have seemed obvious to Paul even in the first century, but after the twentieth it takes a special kind of stupidity to deny that people are inherently wicked."

You assert that the doctrine of original sin is ""plainly a true doctrine", "the truth of it...obvious" and that "it takes a special kind of stupidity to deny that people are inherently wicked".

What kind of stupidity does it take to assert the above and not know to reasonably "extrapolate from that to the doctrine of original sin"?
To be clear, if you’ve read that and think that I’m extrapolating from the fact that “there are many "wicked" people. Many of them Christian… to the doctrine of original sin”, then you’ve misread me.
 
To be clear, if you’ve read that and think that I’m extrapolating from the fact that “there are many "wicked" people. Many of them Christian… to the doctrine of original sin”, then you’ve misread me.
Let's see.

You asserted that the doctrine of original sin is "plainly true, once secularized".
The only thing that you offered to back up the assertion is the following:
"The truth of it would have seemed obvious to Paul even in the first century, but after the twentieth it takes a special kind of stupidity to deny that people are inherently wicked."

People can only go by what you write.

If you believe that I have "misread" you, then by all means explain what you did mean.
Also explicitly show what I have "misread".

Thus far, all you've done is avoid actually addressing what I've written. Instead you keep tossing out vague assertions that I have it wrong.
 
How in heck does one secularise original sin without excluding the fundamentals?

One of those fundamentals is the Christian God's definition of "sin", which cannot be secularised.
I think pretty easily. Shorn of its religious overtones, the doctrine is true, insofar as it correctly identifies that human beings are inherently wicked and that, absent divine intervention, this is impossible to remedy.
@5wize nailed the meat of my objection better than I did.

You can't remove "original" from the secularized version of "original sin". Once you do that, the two are completely different things, rather than versions of the same thing.

In Christianity, the "original" signifies the first sins which are then blamed for the damnation/imperfection of Man. There is no secular version of this; human imperfection is simply a fact of our existence, and did not begin with any one man/woman. Moreover, the secular "sin" part cannot be analogized (even vaguely) to the Christian understanding of it, because a secular sin is one which offends or harms other people. The Christian sin, or course, offends the almighty creator, and any harm it's done to other people is irrelevant.

---

Honestly, I probably wouldn't have objected if your sentence hadn't included the word "original". As such, whether I'm objecting to something you really believe or merely a typo is debatable
 
If you believe that I have "misread" you, then by all means explain what you did mean.

Your claim is that in my earlier post I 'extrapolated' from the fact that “there are many "wicked" people. Many of them Christian… to the doctrine of original sin”.

But I've performed no such extrapolation (in other words, I've not inferred from the fact that there are many wicked people, including Christian people, to the truth of the doctrine of original sin), and neither did I endorse that doctrine per se. I could reproduce my original post to show this, but you've already done so yourself, so have what you need.

You can't remove "original" from the secularized version of "original sin". Once you do that, the two are completely different things, rather than versions of the same thing.
I think we can still have a secularised version of this doctrine without a secular equivalent of the story of Adam and Eve getting up to mischief in Eden.

If you disagree, and think that results in a 'completely different thing', that's fine: you can safely ignore that, and take me to be merely saying that human beings are inherently wicked and that, absent divine intervention, this is impossible to remedy.
 
The Christian sin, or course, offends the almighty creator, and any harm it's done to other people is irrelevant.

---
I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that any harm done to others is irrelevant, especially given that the founder of Christianity claims that all of the law which he insists must be followed can be summed up in love of God and one's neighbor.
 
Try here. Now please hand the keyboard over to one of your children. I too am sure they will fare better. You have completely devolved in this conversation.
The "conversation" doesn't have any value. Sorry no one stands with you. You'll get over it.
 
Your claim is that in my earlier post I 'extrapolated' from the fact that “there are many "wicked" people. Many of them Christian… to the doctrine of original sin”.

But I've performed no such extrapolation (in other words, I've not inferred from the fact that there are many wicked people, including Christian people, to the truth of the doctrine of original sin), and neither did I endorse that doctrine per se. I could reproduce my original post to show this, but you've already done so yourself, so have what you need.


I think we can still have a secularised version of this doctrine without a secular equivalent of the story of Adam and Eve getting up to mischief in Eden.

If you disagree, and think that results in a 'completely different thing', that's fine: you can safely ignore that, and take me to be merely saying that human beings are inherently wicked and that, absent divine intervention, this is impossible to remedy.
Let's see. Now you're asserting that that you did not "endorse that doctrine per se", even though you've written things such as "It's plainly a true doctrine". Plus even here you wrote " take me to be merely saying that human beings are inherently wicked and that, absent divine intervention, this is impossible to remedy".

You're really something.
 
Now you're asserting that that you did not "endorse that doctrine per se", even though you've written things such as "It's plainly a true doctrine".
"...once secularised". They're only two words, but they're important!
Plus even here you wrote " take me to be merely saying that human beings are inherently wicked and that, absent divine intervention, this is impossible to remedy".
Yes, indeed. What of it?
You're really something.
Thanks, man.
 
[...] take me to be merely saying that human beings are inherently wicked and that, absent divine intervention, this is impossible to remedy.
Sorry I'm late in responding.

I don't wish to get bogged down in semantics; I can understand why a Christian would feel this way. I wouldn't exactly call it a secular concept, but it's at least generalized to something less sectarian.

As a secularist, I'm not sure our wickedness is something which can be remedied, short of making us perfect - which isn't possible. That wickedness can only be mitigated, until such time as people stop choosing to be wicked
 
Back
Top