Something I read in "The Dawn of Everything" book I mentioned in a previous post, reminded me that a few times in my writing past I had a tickle of an idea concerning original sin. I say tickling, because I can recall thinking about it, perhaps while driving, or in the shower, but hadn't pursued composing a post about it.
But, as I said, something about reading a perspective of history that attempts to explode all the interpretations that have been so thoroughly interwoven within our shared beliefs about humanity, has prodded me to embark on this post.
If you google "original sin", you will see many variations of the same theme.
Webster defines it by referring to it from a Christian perspective:
The meaning of original sin is the state of sin that according to Christian theology characterizes all human being as a result of Adam's fall.
This is basically what I was taught in the 8 years I spent in Catholic elementary school. Of course, there is the part about how Eve ate from the apple first after being tempted by Satan, then tempted Adam to do the same. I always considered that the ultimate blame-someone-else excuse for poor behavior, but, over time, have associated that part of the story with the misogyny that is embedded in Catholic teachings.
But I digress.
Researching the concept of original sin, is not an easy, or straightforward endeavor. Some assign its creation to St. Augustine of Hippo, who was born about 350 years after Christ, after Augustine's conversion to Christianity. Some disagree with the idea that original sin is solely associated with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, but just reflects man's tendency to do wrong. Others reject the concept of original sin, preferring to acknowledge that we are born imperfect, with a tendency to sin, but that we did not inherit the sin committed by Adam.
Then of course, there are other non-Christian religions that do not believe in the concept at all.
It is hard for me to imagine not having learned and been indoctrinated by the belief that man is sinful, and so needs saving from his indiscretions, and that Jesus was born to die for our sins so we can have the chance to live in heaven with God. The whole idea is almost like breathing itself, it is so much a part of what I was taught.
I recently had a conversation with a work colleague who was adamant in her belief that she was saved due to her belief in the redemption of Christ. She was openly aghast at my having turned away from the idea that Jesus was the Son of God. She quoted the bible as proof that her beliefs were right, which, of course, didn't prove anything to me since she was also convinced by her faith that none of the other great spiritually advanced beings from history provided that door to heaven that she believed was hers through the sacrifice of Jesus.
Of course, I respect her beliefs, am glad that she believes she is saved. I mentioned the short group of essays that I combined in An Atheist for Christ, but she just made a face and didn't really want to pursue that topic. Here is a link to the post containing information about that effort if you are interested.
After thinking about Augustine, and original sin, I wonder if perhaps, Augustine felt that he needed to create a narrative whereby people would be compelled to believe in the words and actions of Jesus of Nazareth. Perhaps he thought that just teaching that we should emulate Christ might not sway people to be kind to others, but by tying Christ's sacrifice to the concept that humanity needs a way to earn eternal life due to our fall from grace, our original sin, Augustine felt more secure that Christ's teachings would be followed.
Maybe Augustine was just being realistic, or perhaps honest in his evaluation that men needed the stick as much as the carrot. He may have concluded, perhaps rightly so, that without the threat of eternal damnation, humanity wouldn't be motivated enough just to follow the lessons from the Sermon on the Mount. So he linked Christ's death on the cross to our imperfect nature, thereby giving us all the chance to spend eternity with God. It's a nice, tight circle. Man is born pure, becomes stained, God sends his son to provide redemption, man is "saved". And all we have to do is have faith in the story.
But what if we sever that link by eliminating the need for redemption? Does that change the need for us to listen to those who are more spiritually advanced? Does that change the importance of the message of Jesus, to love one another? Can someone live their life following the lessons of Christ, without believing he was the Son of God? Again, that is the thinking behind my compilation An Atheist for Christ.
If we assume that literally millions, if not billions of people have been born, are alive, will be born sometime in the future, and have never, or will never be instructed about the life of Christ, yet will have been, or will be taught lessons very similar to those taught by Christ, are we to also assume that those who spend their lives in words and actions that resemble Christ's, while never having recognized that He died for their sins, will be denied entrance to heaven?
Or perhaps it is all relative, those who live spiritual lives will go wherever it is they believe reflects the reward they have earned, whether it is heaven, nirvana, or just a place with a warm bed, an interesting book, and a nice soft light to read by.
I have always struggled with the possessive nature of organized religions, the belief that their dogma and structure is the one and only way to a return to God's grace. It seems steeped in arrogance. As if the Creator would spend eternity thinking about creation, providing us with an incredibly diverse range of plants and animals, enabling us to think and feel and imagine, and then would tie it all together with a restriction that there is only one way to feel Her presence.
And then there is the phrase religious war, as ridiculous a concept ever created, yet the driving force behind so much pain, suffering, and death in our history, not the least of which is the ongoing violence between Israel and Hamas.
It all sounds like control, not love. Original sin, the need for salvation, the quest for the one true path. Control, not by the Creator, but by men over other men. After all, what stronger foundation for controlling the thoughts and actions of humanity is there than to link it to a divine origin?
If, at the end of the day, the only reason for one's compassion towards others, or the only justification for following a specific ideology, is to avoid eternal damnation, perhaps the true intent is being missed. Perhaps the message of all the advanced spiritual beings that have spent time on earth is being lost in a morass of rules created less to help achieve happiness, eternal or otherwise, and more to advance the ability of people who seek power and control over the masses.
We all have vices, faults, weaknesses which result in actions that hurt others. I would be fine with the concept of original sin were it to be a concept that helped us acknowledge our imperfections. Perhaps even to point out that despite our flaws, we are still capable of wondrous acts of kindness and compassion.
But when the concept focuses on our need for salvation, followed by a need to believe in a specific set of doctrines and dogma to attain that salvation, followed by the declaration that anyone who does not follow that specific set of beliefs is not saved, cannot expect eternal happiness, I turn away.
Again, it all seems more like men controlling other men, and it makes me seriously wonder if Augustine (or whomever created the concept of original sin) was wrong to link the teachings and sacrifice of Jesus to our need for salvation.
I have discussed religion in a number of past posts. Here are links to three of them.
No comments:
Post a Comment