All the concept of the 'original sin' intended in his philosophical means is actually one of the most solid assets of the Christian Church.
This is getting far away from the point of the original post. If a given Pagan doesn't subscribe to a given purpose, then it is only
solid for those who do so subscribe. That is much of the issue that the OP referred to. I don't recall a claim that no Christian ever accomplished anything
Obviously, there is much more to it than simply eating an apple given by a serpent and subsequent 'disdain for nudity'...
Sure, there is more... But then, I think there may also be something to the point that policing of the body and sex were a very big deal for Biblical religions. They have been a big deal for many religions. One might say some Pagans, certain indigenous faiths, what have you police it aggressively in other
ways... (Are those sweat lodges required
to achieve some rank? Who is most encouraged to go there? Etc.)
If you recall, this apparently started as a response to someone preaching at someone else's door. Whether it's various notions of the "proper" body and sexual relations, or different types of model for how one should be attached to deity (whether through restriction, or celebration of various ambitions and risks)... The OP point remains that when Biblical faiths choose to press their own terms upon others, well then that is all
they are doing. They're assuming a choir will be out there for them. When they find the cultural (or educational) ground isn't the same with some people and their myths don't sell, they can
get upset or surprised. I do find that rather amusing. To me, it's especially amusing (if in a dry, sometimes sad way) because I find rigid, "come with us or it's Hell" interpretations of the Bible a quite insulting and unbelievable choice of door-to-door product.
This doesn't mean that followers of the Biblical side can't find scriptures or organizations that may help them
along. Suggesting that the website must mean that
is merely an easy defensive reaction. In that regard, some
of the Christians are too quick, when someone describes a different channel for spirituality, to represent it as merely a distortion and parody of the "big" Biblical faiths. In a historical sense, some of these claims are unknowingly inspired by the institutional reactions of the Christian Churches since at least the Middle Ages. The claims made about the Catherites having a Black Sabbath are similar to some Christian claims that Pagans must have awful bestiality and animal sacrifices today. The claims that gay marriage "must" somehow publicly "devalue" heterosexual marriage may also bear a presumption of intended mockery (and a presumption that defense is "required" against the same). That is, although there's also the simple fear of losing some followers and coin -- as there has been for centuries.
Some people have fussed more about the tone and reactive orientation of the website. Pointing out the bluster doesn't really address the logic of the arguments. Nor does saying oh, but this is just a negative reaction to Christianity. The women's sufferage movement was a negative reaction too -- to male chauvinism. It also pursued very positive outcomes for women as a group -- and arguably on many important social issues to come.
There's little purchase for the evangelists to claim their interpretation is universally
better than that of the Pagans. It may make them feel big or dutiful to draw everyone else's attention to theirs
and to make a public show of demanding others' subscription/approval through constant advertising (sometimes terribly aggressively)... However, some of us are a little prickly about that -- if we were not generations ago -- after the long history of religious-backed colonialism/imperialism/racism etc. and more general pressure and discrimination by choice of faith at home. We don't respond so well to hearing it shouted on the street and knocked at our doors so often. And then the variously Biblically-inspired can't handle that others don't take them "seriously enough." I have to roll my eyes when this stance gets labeled as so "very controversial."