-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Original Sin
- Thread starter Fool
- Start date
sooda
Veteran Member
Original sin is contradicted a half dozen times in scripture. Sometimes it says God will punish unto the 6thgeneration and then turn right around and say that sons are not responsible for the sins of their fathers.,, Then, round about and back again.
IMO its weak doctrine.
Yes.
yes but it can't even be original because adam nor eve were born with it. it supposedly occurred as a result of choosing this vs that, correct?
sooda
Veteran Member
Jews don't believe it nor do Muslims.. Christians made it doctrine in 300 AD.
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
Even by being alive we do wrong doing because we think speak and act out of ego, and this lead to what you call sin. So yes only when we stop doing wrong action, speech and thinking will we be able to be relieved of the "sin" or Karma. But you can gradually become a lesser sinner by doing the right things, speaking the truth, and not think evil thoughts or wicked thoughts (in my understanding)
Terry Sampson
Well-Known Member
It depends:
- Do you believe that a person's actions can be moral and right or immoral and wrong?
- Do you believe that a person can be an atheist and moral or believe in one God and immoral?
- Do you believe in the Jewish concepts of merit and sin?
- Do you acknowledge the LORD's Curse and Blessing given to and written by Jeremiah, Chapter 17?
- 5 This is what the Lord says:
“Cursed is the one who trusts in man,
who draws strength from mere flesh
and whose heart turns away from the Lord.
6 That person will be like a bush in the wastelands;
they will not see prosperity when it comes.
They will dwell in the parched places of the desert,
in a salt land where no one lives.
7 “But blessed is the one who trusts in the Lord,
whose confidence is in him.
8 They will be like a tree planted by the water
that sends out its roots by the stream.
It does not fear when heat comes;
its leaves are always green.
It has no worries in a year of drought
and never fails to bear fruit.”
- 5 This is what the Lord says:
- Do you believe that the merit of a righteous person and the sin of an unrighteous person can be imputed to others?
- Do you believe that the conceptual construct of Original Sin can exist and be meaningful if it is not called t"Original Sin"?
- Do you believe that the world and the behavior of human beings in the world is absolutely perfect and innocent?
- Etc.
Last edited:
Terry Sampson
Well-Known Member
Jews can afford not to believe it: They don't inherit it by virtue of "having stood at Sinai". Muslims are clueless. And the 300 AD date is just the date that the doctrine was discussed with serious attention by Augustine. The doctrine existed long before then. IMO, it is one of the primary, if not the only, raisons d'être for the Galilean Jesus' voluntary behavior which led to his crucifixion.
sooda
Veteran Member
I think the Exodus is an epic myth.
Terry Sampson
Well-Known Member
Although I am far from holding to a strictly literal interpretation of everything in the Bible, I think there are some things in it regarding which you and I have irreconcilable differences.
Last edited:
sooda
Veteran Member
I know.. Its just utterly implausible that 3 million people and their herds took 40 years to cross the Sinai which had little water and pasture.. and that by the time David settled in Jerusalem his kingdom was 10 acres and a thousand people.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
You're conflating knowledge in general with a specific kind of knowlege, and obedience isn't necessarily bestial.
TheBannerofHomuraAkemi
Active Member
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
It doesn't work with the common law presumption of innocence. I don't know of any source other than Paul that supports the doctrine.
TheBannerofHomuraAkemi
Active Member
I agree, but I haven't had much experience with Christians who don't put a lot of their doctrine on Paul's own writing or his suppose writing.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
Arguably Christians are defined by following Paul's gospel, since Paul was preaching an Antioch when they got their name there.
Terry Sampson
Well-Known Member
Technically, the current "official" name of the doctrine is "The Doctrine of Original Sin". If, and only if, you can dislodge an automatic association of the doctrine's substance and the current official name of the doctrine fom your mind, then read Posts #1 and #72 of To Hebrew experts: did Eve sleep with the Serpent?, you may be able to see that the root of the doctrine has pre-Christian origins in Judaic oral tradition. The doctrine, IMO, made its way into Christianity via the earliest Jewish Christians. [See my graphic below.] After the Roman sacking of Jerusalem in 70 AD, when Christians failed to stand with traditional Jews in defense of the city, Jewish converts to Christianity diminished and Gentile converts continued to increase significantly.
I have found that very little effort is actually needed to recognize the connection between (a) the doctrine's origin in Judaic oral tradition (without it's current official name), (b) the Jewish Saul of Tarsus' familiarity with some form of the substance of the doctrine, (c) Saul's conversion and the Apostle Paul's teachings regarding the substance of the doctrine, (d) the early Gentile Christian repetition of the substance of the doctrine, leading ultimately to (e) Augustine's formal discussion of the doctrine and its incorporation into Christianity as "the Doctrine of Original Sin."
The reason that Jews today do not believe in the doctrine is because, as the sources that I cite in Post #72 referenced above, make it abundantly clear--at least to me--that the taint of the sin was removed, once and for all, from descendants of those Jews "who stood at Sinai" by virtue of their ancestors who actually "stood at Sinai" and from subsequent converts to Judaism by virtue of their guardian angels who also "stood at Sinai". Gentiles, on the other hand, continue to inherit and pass on the sin.
Last edited:
paul wasn't very bright but then of course he was blinded by the light. it all so steeped in allegory, you practically have to dive deep inside the leviathan's maw to find it. have you ever played with a serpent?
john 4:21
the jews inherited it from melchizedek and the egyptian influence. that is why the prophets built a separate dwelling in the mountains, case in point mt. carmel. wouldn't want the mundane mixed with the profane. thats why they were called nazarites, from nazarene.
carmel = the garden
its all in you head but some are zombies
john 4:21
john 4:21
Last edited:
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
Hi Terry,
I'm reminded of the Islamic Hadith, which has undergone an extensive audit which discarded sayings that were inconsistent with the Quran. Naturally this is an error prone process and you can get problems like the paedophile prophet story, which is refuted by Muhammad's biographical timeline. There are related issues with the Talmud regarding paedophilia.
In both the Quran and the gospels the Devil is associated with humility issues regarding mankind. In the Quran Iblis refuses to submit to Adam, and in the gospel of Matthew the devil leaves the scene after the Messiah refuses to worship him.
In the political arena something that stands out for me is the argument pattern which seeks to project illusory ownership over that which it cannot control, like nihilistic evangelism. The story of the impregnation of Eve fits this pattern, but on the other hand the Biblical accounts of aberrant sexuality can be described by oblique language eg the curse of Canaan.