No Adam = no Original Sin - right? (moral, genesis, moral)

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

Except when they don't . . . "The body of people" who author doctrines, is itself a doctrine that can be varied in its understanding.

No, it isn't. Ask one sometime. Everyone who disagrees is not part of that body of people.

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by sojourner

How so? Doctrine is not subject to interpretation. it is what it is.

LOL. That's lovely, dear.

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

LOL. That's lovely, dear.

I don't make the rules, Pumpkin. Perhaps your mirth should be directed at those who maintain the doctrine...

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by sojourner

I don't make the rules, Pumpkin. Perhaps your mirth should be directed at those who maintain the doctrine...

It is . . . there are millions of them . . . including you.

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

It is . . . there are millions of them . . . including you.

I don't hold to the doctrine of original sin. Therefore, I'm not part of that particular group of people. I'm merely saying that we don't get to come along and redefine something to please ourselves, and pretend that it's "the real deal." The doctrine, itself, as put into place, is immutable. Other doctrines may spring from it -- even similar ones -- but they would be ... different doctrines.

My idea of "original sin" is different from the doctrine that bears that name. I understand the doctrine, and I happen to disagree with it. I do hold to an understanding of an originality of sin -- but not original sin.

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by sojourner

I don't hold to the doctrine of original sin. Therefore, I'm not part of that particular group of people.

It's the same process with the creation of any doctrine.

Originally Posted by sojourner

I'm merely saying that we don't get to come along and redefine something to please ourselves, and pretend that it's "the real deal."

Except that's what people do . . . and they construct elaborate mythologies about why there's a magical "authority" that makes their preferred and pleasing version "true". Dogmas and doctrines are monuments to human egos. Nothing more, nothing less.

[sojourner]

Except that's what people do . . . and they construct elaborate mythologies about why there's a magical "authority" that makes their preferred and pleasing version "true". Dogmas and doctrines are monuments to human egos. Nothing more, nothing less.

I re-read my statement, and it needs some tweaking. of course everyone thinks their "version" is the "real deal." What I meant by "real deal" was not "the real truth," but "the original doctrine." Only the original doctrine is the original doctrine. One may either agree with it, or disagree with it, but doctrine is doctrine.

As a matter of fact, I disagree with you. Doctrine arises out of common understanding, and is useful, inasmuch as it helps to define a community. Not ego, but identity.

[crystalonyx]

One of religion's main problems is the hangups it has related to its obsession with sin.