Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The term original sin is somewhat unfortunate as it often leads to the misunderstanding you exhibit here. The claim is not that of a collective culpability but that the knock-on effects of the first sin to enter into this world irrevocably altered humanity's place in the created order. Not only are we now subject to decay and death, we're also burdened with the tendency towards sin. As God is uncompromisingly holy it also meant that we, without some kind of redemptive mechanism, were unable bridge that gap. Christ is that redemptive mechanism. Anything else, is futile.
Catholicism and Orthodoxy explicitly teach that we still retain our goodness as God creates nothing evil. It's cloudy, not broken.
I would rather argue that the phrase is in and of itself meaningless. It's meaningful only when one is well versed in solid Christian teaching. I look at the Crucifixion and I see a perfect act of love. If you find that immoral then we're never going to see eye to eye on much at all.
Jesus' purpose was to save humanity. in order to save humanity, he had to become a perfect human himself. this means, he had to take upon him all the sins of people, and he had to suffer death (like an ordinary human does). his birth and death were necessary. he didn't die out of a whim. he died, went to the underworld, defeated Death, and came back to life.
he had the purpose to save humanity and reconcile us with god. is that scapegoating?
you are correct. it is scapegoating, now that I have a second thought. oh well
Yes. Jesus accepted death and by his resurrection conquered it thereby opening the gates of heaven to humanity.
You don't need to be a scholar, you just need to understand things in context. If there's one concept in Christian thought that can be proved it's the reality of sin. You may not want to call it that but the reality is that everyone has that pigheaded, weak, selfish and sometimes malicious side to them. Unless as per my signature you really want to deny the cat.
Assuming nihilism or More than anyone else selfishness on materialists is no less inappropriate than surmising Christian morals as 'treat this life as a weigh station for the next life, feign altruism for the sake of avoiding death, spread a message based on fear of mortality and the belief that without a security camera in the sky you would be a raving lunatic with no virtues or meta-ethics.' It's an innately insulting argument, and not actually representative.
Like, you know...heaven belief. Where the majority of people are killed (sorry, 'they bring it on themselves') and a select few who have their being fundamentally altered do so after entirely devoting themselves to a position of tyranny. (But it's wholly good, we promise.)
The only rational basis for any kind of moral reasoning in the godless husk universe that materialists accept is self-interest. It may well indeed please you to be a good person and it may very well be socially advantageous as no one likes jerks. But in the end of the day there's no more value to your life than that of an amoeba's. (No matter how much you may personally value it). There's certainly no justice. Stalin and Hitler never really answered for the collective millions they murdered. (Hitler suffered a second of pain before going to the oblivion that awaits everyone anyway). You offer nothing but moral subjectivism because assuming materialism that's all there can ultimately be. It's nihilism whether you call it that or not.
It's not necessary, just baseless beyond self-interest. And when it's in your self-interest to play hard and loose with those things there's certainly no answering for it. (Assuming you don't get caught). And yes of course, Christians can play loose with morality as well. But when I do something bad I believe I will reap that bad for eternity. This life (fellow traveler) determines the disposition you will carry, consciously, forever. There's nothing more serious and more meaningful than this life, because it's our one chance to decide what side of the cosmic moral order we align ourselves with. With materialism, your only hope is in the best this world can offer, which is always subject to impermanence and dissatisfaction.
They're also technologically advanced and rich. It's easy to reject hope beyond this world when you are relatively comfortable in this world. Basically, I don't buy that the adverage Swede is a beacon of virtue.
I'm not even seeing a coherent point here. The last century is a testament to the horror brought by those who sought to replace God with the state. Everyone worships something; be it God, sex, money, race or the idea of an all-encompassing, ideological and re-distributive state. I personally, choose God. And the hope of something better beyond this short, fragile life.
This is a non-starter, as the implication isn't true for either side. I have no more reason to accept this is true than 'the only reason people become Christian is out of self-interest.' The desire for immortality or to avoid perceived punishment or to feel more cosmically meaningful. It's a false dilemma.
Even if I believed the Abrahamic God existed I wouldn' be a Christian for the same reason I'm not a Stalinist or Maoist: I'm not a totalitarian.