jeudi 6 décembre 2012

Le vrai péché originel




Le péché originel nous sommes supposés tous en porter la responsabilité selon l'Église Catholique.

Il y a à mon sens confusion d'interprétations au niveau historique quant à la genèse du dogme et surtout sa signification profonde.

S'agit-il de signifier que par la connaissance du bien et du mal l'homme s'est distingué définitivement de l'animalité? S'agit-il d'une condamnation de la femme tentatrice qui a incité Adam a désobéir à Dieu? Faut-il y comprendre une condamnation de la sexualité? (La matière vs. l'esprit)

C'est bien là une question de moralité dont il s'agit, le Bien et le Mal n'étant entrés en ce monde que par l'apparition de l'homme.

« C’est pourquoi, comme par un seul homme le pêché est entré dans le monde, et par le pêché la mort, et qu’ainsi la mort s’est étendue sur tous les hommes, parce que tous ont pêché… »

(— Romains,5 , 12)

Au fond, je suis bien plutôt porté à accepter cette explication du dogme.

Écartons la notion de premier homme, il n'y a eu de premier homme que métaphoriquement.

Cependant, si je rejette une quelconque responsabilité de tous ceux qui composent ou ont fait partie de l'Humanité du fait de la faute d'un premier homme imaginaire, je ne peux m'empêcher de penser que sont responsables d'un pêché irrémissible tous ceux qui, délibérément, acceptent et prennent la responsabilité de se reproduire.

C'est un consentement au mal, à la souffrance et à la mort qu'ils donnent ainsi et ainsi s'en font complices et même responsables.

On n'apprendra rien à personne en décrivant ce monde comme un infernal et interminable lieu de souffrances, de douleurs, de chagrins et de méchancetés sans limites. Il n'y a pas de moralité dans une nature peuplée uniquement d'animaux. Si l'on croit percevoir chez eux une trace de moralité, il ne s'agit pour l'essentiel que de projections anthropomorphiques.

Se reproduire, ce n'est pas seulement amener à l'Être un ou plusieurs individus, c'est aussi être à l'origine de la descendance dans les siècles à venir de ces individus qui se compteront rapidement en milliers. Tous destinés à la mort bien sûr, à la souffrance, au manque etc.

Et parmi toute cette descendance, tous victimes d'une façon ou d'une autre, combien de futurs assassins, meurtriers, salauds, dégénérés, crapules de toutes sortes?

La petite Colombienne qui illustre la photo n'est-elle pas d'abord la victime de ses propres parents plutôt que de la nature?

Ilan Halimi a-t-il été victime de ses tortionnaires ou d'abord de ses parents?

Youssouf Fofana est-il sorti du néant?

Vers quelque horizon que l'on tourne sa réflexion, le mal n'a d'autre origine que l'homme.

C'est bien cela à mes yeux le vrai pêché originel : se reproduire et donc dire oui à la vie (façon Nietzsche) quand bien même on est conscient de ce que l'on fait et des conséquences qui ne manqueront pas d'en découler i-né-vi-ta-ble-ment (circonstances aggravantes donc).

Mais que la faute des parents retombe sur la conscience des enfants, non, à moins que ceux-ci plus tard ne réitèrent ce crime.

Mais les enfants, eux, sont innocents.

30 commentaires:

Flocon a dit…

Puisqu'il est question de moralité, d'éthique, de responsabilité, voici un billet écrit il y a trois ans.

I concede, l'introduction est bancale..

Anijo a dit…

Mais les enfants, eux, sont innocents.

Alors, c'est à quel moment qu'on n'est plus innocent ?

Anijo a dit…

Eh ben, j'espère que tu ne m'en veux pas pour avoir poser une question.. ;)

Flocon a dit…

Alors, c'est à quel moment qu'on n'est plus innocent ?"

Quand on décide de se reproduire c'est-à-dire de perpétuer le mal.

C'est une question théologique autant que philosophique. C'est aussi une appréciation de simple bon sens d'ailleurs.

Theology is not my forte but it is likely that the reason why women are held by most religions as "second-class human beings" is that they are by nature would be mothers, that is essentially guilty of potentially recreating the world each time they give birth.

En donnant naissance à un nouvel être, la femme entre en concurrence avec Dieu, seul et unique créateur de l'Univers whose creation is eternal whereas we're mortal and our world too.

But again, theology isn't my thing.

There is a prayer by orthodox Jews about thanking God not to be born a woman.

And also here for example.

Now, talking of crackpots

Anijo a dit…

There is a prayer by orthodox Jews about thanking God not to be born a woman.


I just shared this with an interesting man who lives on the West Bank in Israel. I look forward to his response.

Ned Ludd a dit…

« C’est pourquoi, comme par un seul homme le pêché est entré dans le monde, et par le pêché la mort, et qu’ainsi la mort s’est étendue sur tous les hommes, parce que tous ont pêché… »
(— Romains,5 , 12)

Donc les animaux et les vegetaux étaient immortales jusqu'à le seul homme a pêché. On peut juger qu'ils le sont toujours parce que "la mort s'est étendue sur tous les hommes". Les autres êtres ne sont pas touché par le pêché.

Comme il insiste sur "un seul homme", Eve n'a pas pêché.

De quelle façon un seul pêché s'est etendu sur tous les homme? Un virus ou une bacterie?

Anijo a dit…

Well, the guy who lives on the West Bank didn't respond seriously. He just joked about it.

Anijo a dit…

And it seems that I ended up pissing off all of the people from Israel on this place where I shared your links Flocon.... oh well..

Flocon a dit…

Ned,

N'attends pas de moi une exégèse du Nouveau Testament though, you're much more knowledgable than me re religious issues.

----------
# 1 "Donc les animaux et les végétaux étaient immortales jusqu'à le seul homme a pêché".

Il est question de l'âme ici et l'âme n'est attribut que de l'homme pour les chrétiens. La mort dont il est question est celle de l'Esprit saint je suppose, Esprit saint qui se réincarne en chaque homme et qui meurt avec lui.

Les plantes et les animaux n'ont pas d'âme et ne sont pas concernés par l'Esprit Saint, et leur mort n'est que celle d'organismes au sens charnel.

----------
# 2 "Les autres êtres ne sont pas touché par le pêché.".

No, they're not. Think of l'agneau Pascal.

And also the donkey in Au hasard Balthazar.

----------
# 3 "Comme il insiste sur "un seul homme", Eve n'a pas pêché."

Tu sais bien que homme ici ne s'oppose pas à femme. It's not a male vs. female opposition case.

----------
# 4 "De quelle façon un seul pêché s'est etendu sur tous les homme? Un virus ou une bacterie?"

Head of the sin.

Flocon a dit…

Anijo,

Why am I not surprised with the welcome you got over there?

Also in the prayer I mentioned there is a line about thanking god for not being born a Gentile.

What would be the reactions in the American media if it were known that a fundamentalist Christian group had a prayer includind the lines

Thank God for not being born a woman and
Thank God for not being born a Jew?


The members of the Jewish sect in Palestine 2.500 years ago where no more than local Cletus Spuckler who were told by the brightest of them that they were unique in the world and that they were the chosen people among all others.

Of course these suckers believed that racist and supremacist insanity and they still celebrate their supposed uniqueness by chanting at every opportunity how happy they are not to be women (inferior beings) nor Gentiles (inferior race).

How ethical is a religion and its followers when it is based on the rejection of the rest of the world as well as the dogmatic affirmation of superiority over the rest of humanity?

Anijo a dit…

What would be the reactions in the American media if it were known that a fundamentalist Christian group had a prayer includind the lines

Thank God for not being born a woman and
Thank God for not being born a Jew?


Why that would be deemed anti-Semitic, of course.

How ethical is a religion and its followers when it is based on the rejection of the rest of the world as well as the dogmatic affirmation of superiority over the rest of humanity?

Aye..

Anijo a dit…

Alors, c'est à quel moment qu'on n'est plus innocent ?"

...

Quand on décide de se reproduire c'est-à-dire de perpétuer le mal.


huh????? So when humans decide to reproduce, they're perpetuating evil? I am soooo confused. o-Ô

Damn, people are ever so complex..

Flocon a dit…

Shortly before he died, Norman Mailer said that he eventually had come to the conclusion that Hitler (sorry for the Godwin point) was the personification of the devil or the embodiment of evil (I can't precisely remember).

Too bad Frau Hitler didn't have a headache when Herr Hitler was feeling like exchanging bodily fluids.

Had G.W Bush parents abstained, 100.000 to 200.000 Irakis would still be alive. Notwithstanding 6.000 American soldiers and countless injured, maimed, crippled etc.

Evil isn't just a Biblical figure.

How many of the dozens of thousand who die in car crashes every year in the world die because they've have the unfortunate chance to meet some reckless criminal drivers whose parents are responsible for the death their children have caused. And the same goes for the parents of the victims of course.

Remember the four plights Gautama Buddha meets when he leaves the palace.

Yes, giving life is perpetuating death (such is Nature in the end) but also decease, cruelty, poverty, human madness, sadism... all the attributes of Evil.

Pleased to meet you,
Hope you guess my name,
But what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game.

Flocon a dit…

"And it seems that I ended up pissing off all of the people from Israel on this place where I shared your links"

You bet! And if you insist you'll soon be labelled anti-Semitic, the ultimate and definitive answer to those who dare ask unpleasant questions.

Ned Ludd a dit…

If you ever follow some atheist sites you might come across comments about a theist nutcase named Ray Comfort. For your sanity, I don't recommend reading or watching him. It seems he now writes against atheists for a famous wingnut rag called WorldNewsDaily, known by masochist afficiandos as WorldNutDaily.

All this is a rather long introduction in reply to Flocon's and Anijo's exchange on the Jewish prayer. The first atheist Comfort chose to attack was Billy Joel, of all people. In an interview Joel tells why he is an atheist

Finally to the point of my post(you can't stand the suspense), he says, "Then my mother took my sister and me to an Evangelical church, the Church of Jesus Christ. I was baptised there at the age of twelve, and it was strictly hallelujah time. But one day the preacher is up in the pulpit unfolding a dollar bill saying, "This is the flag of the Jews." Whoa, fella! We left that flock."

Anijo a dit…

Billy Joel comes across as a beautiful man. I like this part:

Q: So you think people who believe in God are dimwitted?
A: No.
Q: Like, are they scared?
A: I don't know. They're different from me. That's all I know.

Anijo a dit…

And Flocon, so you believe in original sin, albeit, stated in a different manner? ... sigh..

Anijo a dit…

Dear Flocon, Ned, SemperFi, Jan, and Xtine:

Merry winter in this merry winter-land time of year.

Anonyme a dit…

>>winter-land time of year
http://tinyurl.com/bk9yu4z

-Jan
CDN

Flocon a dit…

Anijo,

" Flocon, so you believe in original sin, albeit, stated in a different manner?"

Err.. no Anijo, although the theme is the same, that of evil, but in one case it is a religious view (read transcendental) of evil and in the other case, (mine), an immanent view.

The original sin is a Xtian concept which basically states that every man (humanity) is guilty because of the desobedience to god which caused the Fall of men out of Paradise (transcendence) down to earth (immanence).

Note that when they were in paradise, Adam and Eve had no children of course. A realistic depiction of life since the couple (where do they come from? would ask Ned) never engaged in the doing the dirty game.

Well, as you can imagine, this is not my position and I certainly don't believe in the original sin even in a different manner [d'ailleurs si c'est différent ce n'est pas la même chose ;-)]

Didn't I write that children are innocent whereas to Christians they're not, children are guilty of the original sin...

Now, when I quote the letter to the Romans...

("C’est pourquoi, comme par un seul homme le pêché est entré dans le monde...»

...I substitute evil to sin and I agree with the idea that evil isn't a transcendental concept but a very down to earth (immanent) reality that exists only because of the existence of men.

Now, you're old enough to know that if it were for men only, there wouldn't be too many people on earth, in the sense that having children isn't the first idea males have in their mind when they engage in bodily fluids exchange with females.

Not that they have much ideas in their mind in these moments though...

Which leads us back to why women are deemed like perpetual culprits in many religions as mothers in the waiting and therefore responsible (as daughters of Eve) of the fall of humanity.

But once again, theology isn't exactly my forte and I may be wrong here.

Je ne crois pas du tout au péché originel (though the concept works in the frame of religious thought)
mais I'm convinced that voluntarily perpetuating life is criminal yes.

Anijo a dit…

Flocon,

I find the propagation of life to be beautiful, all the while realizing that i have never propagated life myself.

Anijo a dit…

Jan,

Such a lovely winter-land tune. Merci.

And again, for Flocon, Ned, Jan, SemperFi, ZapPow and Xtine:

Have yourselves a merry little xmas

Anijo a dit…

And Flocon, to say that, "voluntarily perpetuating life is criminal" is akin to adhering to the concept of original sin as not just female humans, but also male humans, have that innate need to perpetuate life, in one way or another.

Ned Ludd a dit…

“See, the problem is that God gives men a brain and a penis, and only enough blood to run one at a time.”

“Reality is just a crutch for people who can't cope with drugs.”

Robin Williams quotes

Merry Xmas, Happy Holidays, Seasons Greetings or whatever you like to one and all. Not exactly xmas songs but related:

Beneath the lights at home

Spring

Flocon a dit…

Anijo,

re the original sin, hasn't it ever occured to you that Ned is the very embodiment of sin on earth? And no transcendental at all at that!

------

Ned, I remember how sensitive you are re Deanna Durbin. Behind such and such tune or movie, image or souvenir lies a world of emotions that we wish to communicate (make it alive again) and yet totally inaccessible to others.

Ned Ludd a dit…

Fréhel singing about the inconsistency of men. Nothing transcendental. I had a hard time choosing between this and "Tel Qu'il est" or "C'est un mâle".

As for sin, believers in that have a few problems. When did sin appear? At the meeting of the sperm and the ovule? Then they complicate things with the soul. So which came first, the sin or the soul?

No one has ever found evidence for either, especially at the meeting of the sperm and the ovule. Then they add the idea of freewill. So did that come before, after, or in between the soul and the sin. Of course if we have already sinned, freewill doesn't serve much purpose.

We no longer give these attributes to other animals, so why should be be different. They are just some of fantasies.

Flocon a dit…

Ned,

Here's a cover of Où sont tous mes amants (with Fréhel at 2:30) that you may object to (or not after all...)

Ned Ludd a dit…

I know that one, but it is too fast for me to appreciate.

Flocon a dit…

Ned,

"about the inconsistency of men."

Err... not so fast...Excuse me Miss.

Inconsistency of men? Is this a woman speaking here?

cough... cough...

Anijo a dit…

Is this a woman speaking here?

cough... cough...


Mon cher Flocon,
Perhaps it is not the uniform, but comments such as this one that the ladies don't appreciate. ;)