Do you ever find a train of thought results in a “WTF moment”? This one just stopped my locomotive dead in its tracks – and made “love is always the answer, now what’s your question” absolutely true.
…
If we believe in original sin defining man as a sinner, we have to believe in the absence of free will. If original sin defines me as a sinner to be saved I have to believe in an obligation to sin. If I believe I have no free will in this then no matter how much I love and love and love I will sin and sin and sin.
So I will never achieve unconditional love. Because unconditional love is defined by free will in everything and always. So I must believe that God is unconditional love and I never will be (until I meet my Maker).
But …
God is unconditional love because He cannot sin. Why would He wish His creations to be unable to love other than “conditionally”? Because the greatest command is to love unconditionally. And if the “condition of” original sin is removed (as an obligation of consequence for (wo)man today and tomorrow) unconditional love is possible.
Or to put it another way …
Every “Follower” must achieve unconditional love or else they are not a Follower they are a Critic.
(which sounds a lot like “cleric” for some reason).
And suffering sin is not an obligation of love – suffering sin is the conditional love as a consequence of choice of a Critic.
And that is not being a Follower at all.
…
One of my unresolved discomforts with the “tradition of Christianity” has always been “Original Sin” and “The Fall”.
An unfairness that is not of love. A consequence I must suffer and correct (even though being saved does not “correct” my “sinning”).
The God Soft Hands Jesus I have come to know does not operate that way. The GSHJ who lives within has no need of that. Because need is condition and condition is not unconditional and GSHJ in unconditional in loving me.
So just why would GSHJ engineer anything that prevents me from unconditional love here and now in my own lifetime? Is that not a “suppression” or “glass ceiling” on my loving? And what purpose might that serve to a God of unconditional love?
Or might that serve (wo)man rather than God?
Might that be a religious “get-out-of-jail-free” card at play (again)?
Because the more I come to know GSHJ – the less reason I find to limit love – other than as taught in the tradition and institution of church and religion.
And that raises another discomfort.
.
Just me being curious 
Never thought of it like this … and there goes free will out the window
And you will be pleased to know there was no Adam and Eve … so say s the HGP therefore, original sin is just yet another man made piece of nonsense.
So … no sin and no free will.
LikeLike
Surely it is one or the other?
LikeLike
Ah, yes … sorry. I misread.
I will wear my dunce’s cap around the house until lunch. time.
”Dammit, pay attention Ark. You’re making us look bad … again.”
”Sorry.”
”And stop talking to yourself!”
😉
Hmm. Then it poses an interesting theological conundrum, does it not?
As I do not believe in either, that would put me out of the loop, then, I guess?
However, on the face it, reading it like this
it now comes across in a similar vein as CS Lewis’s Gotcha argument of Lord, Liar or Lunatic , and we all know how silly that was, of course.
So … I give up … I was never that good at riddles. What’s the answer?
🙂
LikeLike
🙂
No riddle intended.
Original sin and the genetic coding of such (as some say) has never convinced me. It takes away free will and, in so doing, removes the capacity to love unconditionally (which requires free will). So if I have no choice but to “sin” – then my “love” will always reach a point of sinful “condition”.
All this at the same time as the “Christian” God (of one way unconditional love) is the role model of Christians. And the “one way” never made any sense to me either. That – to me – is a riddle.
Doing away with original sin removes the barrier to unconditional love from/of here and now. Which makes much more sense to me – and also puts Christians in a place of being able to love unconditionally. Indeed – I think – to not believe one can love unconditionally here and now is a religious cop-out.
BTW loving unconditionally means I moderate your aggressive comments because “unconditional” works both ways.
Which brings me right back to a discomfort with any “belief” manipulating unconditional (and making it to/for them – but not from/of them). Because that is conditional.
LikeLike
Almost wandering into the philosophical realm here,Paul, and I’m no good at
that.
But some believers consider that, if there was no Original Sin then there was no need for Jesus to have been crucified?
How would you respond to this?
LikeLike
Depends what day of the week it is. Brought up with that as an absolute it is hard to shift completely.
In a religious-literary-imagery (of that time and place) context it makes sense: the entire history and culture was of sin and sacrifice – so it sits right. But today when blood-letting is considered a no-no … when original sin is questioned … when sacrifice is figurative rather than literal … ? It changes the context and makes far less sense of literal “sacrifice and atonement”. But as figurative imagery – it remains powerful imagery?
and if the next question is about “resurrection” – have a read of today’s post before asking 🙂
LikeLike
I read the post. … I feel thoroughly dopey today. I am a Neanderthal at times, I fear, and your prose goes over my head.
What’s the relevance to the Resurrection?
LikeLiked by 1 person
All the best with feeling dopey! My mistake –
I will stop making assumptions.
LikeLike
Now you have me completely befuddled.
What has your post got to do with the resurrection, Paul?
LikeLike
I assumed – incorrectly – your would follow-up the question about Jesus/cross/sacrifice with one on resurrection. My apologies for assuming – Paul
LikeLike
Ah … well, it would be a logical next step I suppose but I still don’t see the connection with your post, sorry. Scratches head … Shrug
Maybe it’s me?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Probably me – and you are kind. Thank you 🙂
LikeLike