St. Augustine's model of original sin

By -
The doctrine of original sin is obviously one of the more difficult aspects of Christianity for many people: how could it possibly be just to punish someone born today for a sin committed thousands of years ago?

Augustine's attempt to explain this is interesting, if I grasp it correctly. (Of course, it may be interesting even if I don't grasp it correctly, but then it would be interesting in a different way.)

If I have him right, Augustine views original sin as essentially "cracking the mold" from which human beings are created. Once this mold has this crack in it, naturally every human being produced by using the mold will contain the same crack.

Of course, this leaves open the question of why God doesn't simply patch up the crack. Nevertheless, this is a bold attempt on Augustine's part to address the question of justice here. And perhaps as I get deeper into his ideas, I will find that he does indeed address my question.

Comments

  1. gcallah12:33 AM

    MathMan, comments that stupid do not get published here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Keshav Srinivasan1:59 PM

      Would you publish that comment if I hadn't put that question at the end, or was the entirety of my comment not good enough?

      Delete
  2. Scott6:07 AM

    Didn't God 'patch up the crack,' at least in the respect that really matters? (i. E. In the eternal sense, through Jesus.)

    (And I also find that I also very often take people wrongly, and that the wrong way frequently makes for vastly more interesting thoughts. I am kind of thankful for it. Sometimes. )

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah10:02 AM

      Yes, I agree Scott. But I am trying to see this from the critic's point of view, and the critic will ask: "Why wait all that time? Just fix it immediately!"

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more