Wait, doesn’t that propose some kind of theology of “original evil”? like, there was no need for karma, or reincarnation, until someone, a long time ago, was the original jackass? So, what was the original evil, who was that bastard, and why did he do it?
Don’t anybody pick her in next year’s death pool.
Because they started their karmic cycle as a demon, or because Shiva made them do it, or something like that. The Hindu/Buddhist tradition that the “karma” belief comes from is unabashedly polytheistic and supernatural, again despite what its hippie American followers have decided on its behalf.
Eh, I dunno. Granted it’s not a decision made by “me”, but original sin would seem to incorporate a similar level of having to pay the bills for the choices of others, and being judged by others for that. Plus there’s those philosophies where those who are saved are apriori selected.
On what do you base your certainty, as highlighted, given that you have misstated the facts regarding the philosophy, (which strongly suggests you not in possession of said facts to begin with, rather than that you deliberately misstated them)?
What is all this talk of judgment? Who is doing all this judging?
My certainty is based on my experience with human nature.
So Adam fucked you over 6000 years before you were born, then Jesus makes it all good on the cross 4000 years later. You have to admit you’d have eaten the apple too if you’d been there yourself; and that was a nice gesture by Christ, albeit kinda weird.
It’s like getting a bank statement saying your account has a million dollar negative balance, then a letter saying They’ve corrected the error. And you don’t even have an account there.
I thought I would have to give a Snopes linke, but it seems I have a better one…
How does your personal experience of human nature lead to certainty about how a philosophy and belief system you don’t understand will affect the point of view of those who embrace it?
I don’t “have to admit” any such thing; nor, if I would have, should I be punished for something that I would have done if I was in a particular situation but didn’t because I wasn’t. And it wouldn’t be Adam that fucked me over anyway, it would be God - it’s not Adam’s rules.
At which point, I imagine, I would tend to think that I was being scammed in some way.
Going back to Sarahfeena’s posts, I think there’s a fairly reasonable line to be made that original sin is very much a compatriot in arms of the kind of divested responsibility for decisions (and the judgement of others in this life for that) that she’s finding so offensive. If it’s wrong and foolish to hold people to the idea that they are responsible and held to account for the wrongs committed by themselves in past lives, it’s also wrong and foolish to hold people to the idea that they are responsible and held to account for the wrongs committed by an entirely separate person. Regardless of whether that account is considered “settled” - it does not suggest wisdom on the part of the authority, and it’s an authority in theory that can’t be escaped.
I have to ask, what place is this?
So all suffering in the world is explained by some demons trying to redeem themselves by living lives as humans, and needing to suffer, so they suffer at the hands of others, and then those others need to atone, and the beat goes on?
BTW, it’s a good thing that MacLaine’s costar, and apparently one-time friend, Audrey Hepburn, isn’t around to hear this nonsense. Hepburn survived the Dutch hongerwinter, when the Nazis prevented much of the country from getting food one winter, and not much grows there when it’s cold. It apparently haunted Hepburn for the rest of her life, and also brought her to a certain solidarity with the mostly Jewish victims of the Nazis. I wonder what sin MacLaine imagines she committed in a previous life to deserve that experience?
It’s what the Catholic Church (which is indeed corrupt, but that’s not to say is run by idiots: far from it) calls an allegory. There were myths to explain things before we had facts, and eventually the church accepts the theory of evolution, and the earth’s rotation around the sun; for example. The church is correct in that we, in our natural state, are selfish, stupid and crazy. They feel the way out it is “Do exactly as We say,” while “try to figure it out for yourself without doing any harm” may be the method you and I would find agreement on.
But the allegory of the apple still holds. Humans aren’t born with “original (Adam’s) sin,” but we are born with a legacy of all the fucked-up shit that the human condition provides us. Instead of God damning us to Hell for eating apples, we have signs that say “DANGER HIGH VOLTAGE.” And people still pee on electric fences for the Hell of it. And then sue the electric company.
And I thought he was talking about Scientology.
It’s a valid point. The difference I’m seeing is that original sin applies to all people, and because we have free will, theoretically it’s possible for individuals to “fix” it in this life. That’s very different from a philosophy that says that something that we did or chose in a past life determines what happens to us in this life. It’s an easy explanation, but it also allows for victim-blaming…heck, it’s purpose is actually victim-blaming…and it’s not something that can be remedied in this life.
I tend to think of the Adam/Eve Allegory is a “coming of age” type of story in a way.
We can laud the innocence of youth, but find the idea of never growing up as creepy.
At one point (as a person or as a species) we were not sentient - “did not know death” because we could not have thought that far ahead. But reaching the age of reason is a mixed bag, lotsa bad stuff comes with the good.
As far a the inheritance thing, (most) folks don’t go around saying “Grandpa left me a bunch of money. That’s not fair!!! People should not inherit stuff from their ancestors!!!”
But if we had to pay for grandpa’s bills, well, that’s totally different altogether.
<together> That’s totally differerent </together>
I was astonished to learn, in this thread, that there are people who say you should be mean or cruel to the lowly, for this is part of their punishment for their actions in a past life.
I’d always thought the principle was to be kind and generous to the lowly, in order to build up merit for yourself in the next life.
Being cruel to anyone, for any reason, accrues bad karma. It’s self-destructive to be cruel even to the lowliest beggar or pariah; it increases the chances (if karma is true – I personally don’t believe in it) of coming back as a beggar or pariah yourself.
Any theological principle is susceptible to mistaken interpretation. (“Prosperity Theology” in Christianity is an example, as in the GD thread on the subject.) I’m pretty sure the Buddha did not intend us to be mean to beggars.
Thank you. It is such a perverse conclusion to jump to that people are looking to their spiritual beliefs for reasons to be insensitive assholes.
Damn, being a stupid bigot seems like a solid financial choice.