Or: is Original Sin plausible?
(a 'Green Friday' special lol)
Based on my exposure to Christian thinking over the course of a few decades, it strikes me that very short shrift is given in Christian thought to the message and examples set by the iconic Greek trio of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. It compels me now to ask such questions as: Okay, that is a highly disappointing apparent performance by Christendom on the whole, but what about the strongest examples of Christian thought, especially ones deeply conversant with the Greeks and Aristotle (the pinnacle of Greek learning/thought) in particular. And so, my mind goes (of course?) to Aquinas. And so I have to envision (for now) what Aquinas might have said on the topic of Original Sin in light of these three sage examples, and it might also work to research whatever he actually did say on the connection between these two topics. (If he had said things about this connection, wouldn't we have heard a lot about it by now?)
I recently saw quoted a letter from Ben Franklin to a man who claimed to be able to self-rule just fine without traditional religious beliefs, and Franklin said that this may be fine for him (the correspondent) but a lot of people simply don't have the discipline; they're weak of will, perhaps incurably ignorant - fallen and corrupt if you will. Some Christian thinkers go further with their wording: "wretched and miserable." And Aristotle even seems to say as much about a lot of biological humans who just don't seem cut out even remotely for a philosophical life. They being oftentimes base and vicious, the best we might hope to do in such cases is to train them in nonphilosophical habits of thought that nonetheless encourage socially acceptable behaviors. The Framers of the United States Constitution said that because of human weaknesses it is best that powers be separated so that bad judgment and appetites be kept in check (especially where the levers of coercive force/power are concerned). Many present-day American Christians take this as part of the body of evidence of the nation's "Judeo-Christian provenance". (I ask as I've asked before: so how come it took only until after John Locke, who formulated the most complete theory of individual rights up to that point, for there to be an America-like nation "founded on Judeo-Christian principles"? Perhaps such Christians should make extra efforts to avoid the vice of epistemic hubris, heh heh.)
But isn't Original Sin supposed to be an unqualified and universal condition of man the species, of mankind, and not merely (say) the vast majority of men, and that all humans need Christ as redeemer? And isn't it supposed to be eminently plausible (from overwhelming evidence in the world) according to standard Christian doctrine that there are no exceptions to this? And so now, the obvious(?) question: How do Socrates, Plato and Aristotle fail to be exceptions?
I guess I'll leave it there for now.
[Addendum 12/12/2019: This isn't even to bring up Nietzsche's well-known antipathy to Christianity, particularly its human-weakness anthropology in contrast to his own heroic-possibilities, noble-soul one which he appears to share with Aristotle. To him, it didn't ring true that even people like him were unavoidably weak and corrupt (without Christ). But something is telling me that bringing up the examples of the ancient Greek trio is less triggering to Christians than bringing up Nietzsche. Nietzsche's aphorism about the noble soul comes, after all, in a book triggeringly titled Beyond Good and Evil. What does Nietzsche's new value system have to offer the weak and less-smart masses? Roughly, his modus ponens looks like Christianity's modus tollens: if man is weak and corrupt, then he needs Christ for redemption or salvation. And from what I can tell his anthropology divides humanity into the weak/dumb masses on the one hand and people such as him on the other, whereas Christianity doesn't make the division (except, I suppose, for the one human+divine person in history). Plato and Aristotle are less triggering in this regard (how much so?...), and there's the Aquinas connection that would be a bad idea for Christians to ignore....]
