...spoiled with Christianity

This thread is about Christian understanding of human nature and how it influenced our modern understanding thereof.
What is the essence of all those so-called Abrahamic religions? They all teach that human nature is intrinsically bad. According to those religions we have man which is naturally sinful, prone to lusts and so forth. Therefore God, the Supreme Being, makes him obey to his law (which he apparently made up himself) and in case he doesn't, he shall be deprived of possessions or of life etc. Thus morality appears to be something imposed violently on human. Were there no God, were there no violence, there would not be morality, which is perfectly expressed in the words from Dostoyevsky's novel: "If there is no God, everything is permitted". This is the essence of all those Judaist sects: morality in them is dependent on existence of violence, and without it human is inevitably supposed to do "iniquity".
But the years were passing and step by step the idea of God started dropping. Actually I think he died at the beginning of the Renaissance and now this is not a secret to anyone who lives in the Western society. So God is dead, but what remained? The idea of sinful nature of a human being. Moreover it's flowering. Christianity has for so many years taught us that we are bad that we eventually believed it. Ridiculous as it may sound, but it succeeded in it much better than in establishing the idea of God.
Now, our natural state as described by evolutionists, phychologists and those of their ilk is a state of eternal struggle for pleasures: for food, sex, possessions etc. And a normal person is an animal. And happiness is to satisfy one's animal necessities. This is what we were taught by Chsitianity.
It is also interesting to notice that those psychological and evolutional theories appeared in the West, in Christian west. In India and ancient Greece we have absolutely another understanding of human life. They have never known a law-giver, someone who compels us to become moral. For them morality has always coincided with the way that leads to happiness. Thus, to be happy is impossible without being virtuous. To none of them has never fall the idea that happy life is the life of lusts. What is the teaching of Socrates, Epicurus, Seneca, Buddha, Lao-tzu? To be obedient to the law? By no means. It is the teaching how to become happy. Perhaps the mad idea that animal life, the life when everything is considered to be only means for attainment of pleasure, the life deprived of beauty which is possible only when the self is forgotten -- such an idea might come only in the heads spoiled with Judeo-Christian world-view.

They all teach that human nature is intrinsically bad.

I agree with most you say, Fido, but is that the whole truth? What about Jesus as the Reversal of the Law? Christianity has a subversive core. What of forgiveness of sin? Isn't Christianity also about the opposite of guilt? Yes, I see that Applied Christianity has been the opposite of Radical Christianity. I also think that the New Testament is a conjuring book. Symbols and stories can empower as well as enslave. If Jesus (character or real man) told folks that "the kingdom of God is within you," isn't this revolutionary? Isn't Protestantism an individualistic religion, at least in its radical core? Christian art, Western music? Doesn't this point at unworldly beauty, transcendence of the animal? I think original sin is an accusation against our untrained animal nature, which must be inspired and transformed by living culture, art and thought that matters, that encourages honor, ecstasy, love rather than greed, fear, shame.

I don't know what Bible you are reading, but I read that Jesus came to fulfill the law; and he said to do as the priest say, not as they do... What he seemed to be rejecting was a formal relationship with God, one where a man went through the motions, the form of the law in expectation of God's blessing...He seemed to be pushing a psychological relationship, one of love, with the understanding that desires do not lead to sin, but are sin...

Good point. But certain lines have stand alone value. Also Blake and others have interpreted Christ well. Since it's just narrative for me in the first place, I don't mind making a salad of narrative and interpretation. You know how it goes. Hermeneutics. You can pull all sorts of rabbits out of that hat.

I see what you mean. kind of marx/hegel screw the afterlife & live as free mortal historical being

The philosophers you mentioned believed happiness came from expressing the virtues (as you already mentioned) and so do the Abrahamic religions.

I think there is a common point to all the Abrahmic religions if you follow their philosophy, and it is that the good should rule the brutes...

I agree with most you say, Fido, but is that the whole truth? What about Jesus as the Reversal of the Law? Christianity has a subversive core. What of forgiveness of sin? Isn't Christianity also about the opposite of guilt? Yes, I see that Applied Christianity has been the opposite of Radical Christianity. I also think that the New Testament is a conjuring book. Symbols and stories can empower as well as enslave. If Jesus (character or real man) told folks that "the kingdom of God is within you," isn't this revolutionary? Isn't Protestantism an individualistic religion, at least in its radical core? Christian art, Western music? Doesn't this point at unworldly beauty, transcendence of the animal? I think original sin is an accusation against our untrained animal nature, which must be inspired and transformed by living culture, art and thought that matters, that encourages honor, ecstasy, love rather than greed, fear, shame.

Got any references for this claim? Or is this 'gospel according to Eudaimon'?

This is much different from criminal law of old testament. But this has never been a part of Christianity as socio-historical phenomenon. Moreover this part seems to be forgotten in the first generation of Jesus' disciples (if we may speak of him as of a real man). Perhaps, it is only when we turned again to ancient Greek philosophy and to eastern philosophy that we started understanding that Christ's teachings were perhaps not the thing we were taught.

What is the essence of all those so-called Abrahamic religions? They all teach that human nature is intrinsically bad. According to those religions we have man which is naturally sinful, prone to lusts and so forth. Therefore God, the Supreme Being, makes him obey to his law (which he apparently made up himself) and in case he doesn't, he shall be deprived of possessions or of life etc.

In the west the problem is sin and the solution is salvation. The concept of sin varies among the three Abrahamic religions. Only Christianity carries the notion of “original sin” inherited from Adam, passed down from generation to generation and only rectified by the sacrificial death (crucifixion of Jesus) on the cross. Neither Judaism nor Islam has this notion of original, inherent, inherited sin. Judaism and Islam also reject substitutionary, vicarious or sacrificial atonement. In both Islam and Judaism man has a dual nature, an evil inclination and a good inclination and morality is a free choice between Islam “surrender” to gods will or to follow the law given by god to Moses Judaism. In any event in its most basic nature “sin” is alienation or separation from god and failure to follow the divine as opposed to the individual will. Many modern legal concepts and many of the concepts of human rights and human dignity derive from Judeo Christian Islamic concepts of man “created in the image” and following divine will about distributive justice and compassion as the basis of ethics.

There are two images of the divine in the West: God as loving compassionate father and god as vengeful ruler, judge and law giver. In many ways they are in conflict and which image dominates in your religious thinking affects your notion of divine justice and what following or serving “god’s will” is or means.
I think actually the notion of “original sin” and substitutionary or vicarious sacrificial atonement and incarnation (Jesus as god in the flesh) is losing ground. I also think the notion of God as law giver, judge, ruler, warrior god, and heaven and hell is losing ground.

In the west the problem is “sin” in the East the problem is “suffering”. In the West the solution is salvation through obedience, through grace, through healing of the separation or alienation of man from god and nature. In the east the solution is “enlightenment”, lifting of the veil of ignorance and illusion which separates man from the true nature of reality.

West-Sin-alienation or separation from god-salvation, grace.
East-Suffering-ignorance, illusion about reality-enlightenment, nirvana
Problem-Cause-Solution in both cases.

Personally I think both the East and the West have many common features as would be appropriate since the existential problem of a self aware self reflective creature such as man finding his relationship and his place in the larger world or universe is similar.


I also think the solution offered in the east and the west and the methods and means of obtaining them is not as different as you portray. The unexamined life is not worth living is a Western notion. The difference between Western comptemplative prayer, vows of silence, obedience and chastity and the east meditative detachment from individual worldly concerns is it seems to me two methods of achieving roughly the same goal (deeper insight into the spiritual aspects of existence and the true underlying nature of reality). Mystics East and West have much in common.