• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

"Original Sin"....Just Another term for our animal nature?

Magna

Magna

Well-Known Member
V.I.P Member
"Original Sin": The theological belief that humans are born with sin; a sinner from the very first breath at birth. A notion that scientist Sir Richard Dawkins describes as "appalling".

I thought about this today and concluded that the concept of "Original Sin" is nothing more than a euphemism for the undisputable fact that we're animals. We humans are primates; more specifically, humans are animals of the family of Great Apes. Other animals in the Great Ape family include: chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and orangutans.

It seems that through time, many humans have been either uncomfortable or unwilling to accept that humans are primates and are animals because that fact isn't accepted in Christianity. As such, it seems to be that "Original Sin" (ie we're all born with sin/flaw/evil, etc) is an attempted theological explanation of our animal nature and really nothing more.
 
Magna said:
I thought about this today and concluded that the concept of "Original Sin" is nothing more than a euphemism for the undisputable fact that we're animals.
Click to expand...
According to the Bible, "animal nature" is a euphemism for Original Sin (even if we have a primate body plan).
 
Sounds like a spin on the struggle of modernists versus fundamentalists.

Better known as the "Scopes Monkey Trial" (1925)
 
No, original sin was very human, not animal. God gave Adam and Eve free will, and original sin was when they chose wrong. The specific sin in question was to eat from the tree of knowledge. I'm not sure what exactly that means, because it's hard to imagine existing without knowing anything. It could be that it was just knowledge of sin, and once you know you can do it, it becomes possible, and that possibility is the root of all of the errors. If you're ignorant of sin, then there's nothing to repent for, and it's possible that God just prevents you from doing it, and you're completely oblivious, since it's nothing you were aware of. When you know what it is, and you choose it anyway, that's you being your own God, and it's sin.

Studying "normal" human behavior has been an utter nightmare. The tree of knowledge can't be uneaten, but what a horror show this has been; the amount of lying and self-delusion. If you were weak, you would succumb to all manner of depravity knowing how they behave. I'll take a so-called pervasive developmental disorder if that's what it prevented me from developing into. I'd rather be like a child forever; I'm perfectly fine with it.
 
One person's ignorance, naivety, and immaturity is God's innocence, and guess which one I'd rather be? You're told to be child-like and not puffed-up. I don't need to be grown-up if the person defining grown-up is grown up all deformed and insane, and they are. The Bible makes it clear.
 
Slime_Punk said:
I've always thought this to be the case, although I get this feeling that animals are spared since they're typically acting upon impulse. We obviously have higher constructs like morality and things like that (especially as we age), but I think everyone can attest to the idea that even kids don't take too long to learn how to lie, attempt to deceive their parents and all sorts of things -- nobody has to teach them how to be evil, they just start doing it automatically.

Perhaps we corrupted the animal kingdom as well? I could get behind that theory
Click to expand...

Animals are spared because they know almost nothing. Far as I can tell, the entrance to heaven is where you can't remember how to mess up, and instead of saying "Look, God, I got a lot of processes that have to do what they do so that I can form an independent opinion", you lose. But if you're fine suddenly not being able to remember things like how to lie or fight, then you're on your way in.

I look at it this way. Some people would say "No! No way am I going to accept being autistic. I'm going to compensate my way out of it, I'm going to study how other people behave, and then pull off 'normalcy' anyway". That's you making yourself in defiance of God. If you see the bright side of how you were made, and you demand to view your nature as a blessing instead of a disease because you know your journey is directed, then you're on the right track. And, then later, when you begin forgetting the tree of knowledge, do you have Alzheimers, or are you still doing just fine? Well, stay close to God, and you don't have to worry about having a mental disorder. You can be blessed with the opposite of disorders.
 
Actually, one of the things that strengthens my faith is how selective my situation is. Am I dumb? I don't feel dumb. In fact, autism is well known as the domain of savants, who are considered hopeless at some stuff, and bizarrely talented at others. I'm not dumb. I'm dumb at absorbing evil from groupthinkers and crowd-pleasers, who were featured as the crucifying villains of the New Testament. I'm fine the way I am. It's the world that's broken.
 
The charge of sin is a very potent agent of social control, but there is a lot more to this question. As I understand it, the real original sin associated with birth is the desire of the soul to incarnate, and feel the intensity of being enmeshed with a homo sapiens consciousness. To the Angels, we are slumming, but addicted to returning for more, until a rare indifference finally sets in. (AKA Realization of the Soul)
However, once we are incarnate, and bouncing off all the other humans, there are varying attitudes towards our animal natures. Some just revel in them, and expect others to follow suit. Others are more like weekend social drinkers. People trying to make spiritual progress and give up desire try to minimize bodily distractions. Sometimes this is successful, and sometimes it leads to frustration, and trying to control public morals instead, or living a double life.
We also "live" in our neocortex, since it is the place with the language we think in, but underneath, the amygdala is still pumping out hormones that can override everything else, and the cortex is sorting the signals according to ancient rules that we don't have written down much. In some countries, if you discover an unfaithful spouse, you can kill either or both parties as a "crime of passion" if you do it immediately, only being charged with murder if you take any significant time in which to think. In other countries, there is no such defense. However, it is very clear that humans are a rationalizing, rather than a rational species. Decisions are almost all made in the subconscious, and then justified in the conscious model we maintain of the world. Just try changing someone's mind with proven facts and airtight logic.
 
Magna said:
"Original Sin": The theological belief that humans are born with sin; a sinner from the very first breath at birth. A notion that scientist Sir Richard Dawkins describes as "appalling".

I thought about this today and concluded that the concept of "Original Sin" is nothing more than a euphemism for the undisputable fact that we're animals. We humans are primates; more specifically, humans are animals of the family of Great Apes. Other animals in the Great Ape family include: chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and orangutans.

It seems that through time, many humans have been either uncomfortable or unwilling to accept that humans are primates and are animals because that fact isn't accepted in Christianity. As such, it seems to be that "Original Sin" (ie we're all born with sin/flaw/evil, etc) is an attempted theological explanation of our animal nature and really nothing more.
Click to expand...
Really I cannot never see myself as in animal though in fact sometimes animals are better than humans, more loving and less judgemental except the nasty animals.
I just like to see it as we are God's beautiful creations and obviously we are below God but we are human and obviously humans have flaws and struggles no matter who you are.
But God still loves us
In fact if you really saw yourself in the eyes of God you would see yourself in a beautiful and worthy and valuable way because that is the love of God the shame of the sin comes from the enemy.
'You are altogether beautiful my dear, there is no flaw in you. ' song of songs
Life is always challenging no matter what.
And that is when you need God sometimes every single second.
 
Animal nature the most stupidest thing I have ever heard.
I am human, live everyday as a human and do not care about sin or care 2 single pieces about it or a God in the sky who would pester me about it.
I just live, exist and be and do my best.
If a loving God does not support it...who cares because I support myself and do not have to validate it.
 
I'll take it a step further. Animals are incapable of sin. The awareness of good and evil creates the concept of sin and separates us from the animals. Before we ate that fruit, we were animals following our animal nature and without sin.

That is, if I actually believed Genesis. I don't.
 
The important thing is to understand that our innate desires, the instincts, drives and thoughts that pop into our heads are not necessarily Good. When someone says something is natural and therefore Good, you know which side of the spiritual divide they fall on.

Magna said:
theological explanation of our animal nature
Click to expand...

I think that is much of it, but not all. We have a "spiritual nature" too, whose desires are also not to be automatically trusted.
 
No individual can atone for the innate characteristics of homo sapiens. We are what we are. We cannot change our nature. (**)

We can (and should) seek to overcome certain parts of our nature. This is what ordinary sins and atonement are about. The struggle is real and continuous, but if we genuinely work towards "goodness", we have the right to second chances.

The alternative is dark: if our nature is inherently bad, then our continued existence is intrinsically sinful.

@Au Naturel's interpretation (post #15) makes a lot more sense, and IMO matches the intent of the story in Genesis.

Human intelligence separates us from animals. But if we use our intelligence, we necessarily lose our innocence.
it wasn't an apple after all: if was something that gave us the knowledge of good and bad - the ability to assign moral values to actions and outcomes.

Leaving the Garden of Eden is about losing the benefits of innocence. The upside was gaining domination over the world. But the downside of that was the moral obligation to take responsibility for our actions.

IMO it's quite a good start for a religious text.

Sadly it's been corrupted by later "tactical" reinterpretations intended to serve the monopoly on doctrine that was already in place a few hundred years into the common era.

(**) There's one obvious alternative view of what I said at the start of the post.
I'm neither for nor against that interpretation - I wouldn't argue against it here.
 
Last edited:
I can't help but think, sometimes, that Christianity through the ages have had the tiniest library ever. Just one book, read over and over, and handed out to everybody everywhere like some sort of big pamphlet, the words sometimes changed because people in power positions wanted to control the masses, sometimes interpreted in favour of whoever interpreted it, but always just one book. And a lot of books simply got burned or otherwise censored as much as possible by Christians, especially if these books criticized Christianity in any way. A good book about that is "The Dark Ages. The Christian Destruction of the Classical World" by Catherine Nixey.

I prefer the idea, and the reality we actually live in, of almost endless books in an almost infinite library. Not at all unlike endless beings in an infinite universe, all with our uniquely personal story to tell, sometimes with passion from the heart if a certain trust is established.

The invention of "original sin" is just one more tool to try to manipulate people into being slaves in their own lives. What a terrible idea.
 
Well, I am a believer in a Creator and one of the very first scriptures I learned by heart is Romans 5:12. Of course, one needs to believe that the bible is inspired of God, in order to go along with that scripture. For me, it is a powerful scripture to show why humans suffer so much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Top Bottom