Original Sin

[Trackdayguy]

so....baptism removes original sin......
and Jesus submitted to the practice under the hand of John the Baptist

and when questioned by John.......Jesus replied....
Let this be so.

what do you think Jesus was doing?

I have no idea because I dont read the Bible literally, I seek to find out what God is saying to me within the story. As Iv'e previously said I dont consider the Bible any more holy than my car hand book, there is truth and revelation to be found reading the small print on a coffee cup

 

[Trackdayguy]

Why do you think people are dying?

OLD, SICK, ACCIDENT......

 

[exchemist]

Why do you think people are dying?

This is a question for science, surely? All organisms die, do they not? How could it be otherwise?

 

[Thief]

I have no idea because I dont read the Bible literally, I seek to find out what God is saying to me within the story. As Iv'e previously said I dont consider the Bible any more holy than my car hand book, there is truth and revelation to be found reading the small print on a coffee cup

well said......but....

that original sin is a pivot point in some religions
and baptism is thought to be the remedy

so the question remains......what was Jesus doing?
as he submitted to the practice of baptism

(I read that He did not baptize......His disciples did)

why allow a practice unto Himself?.....but not do so in return unto others

 

[metis]

Yes I think you and I see it in a very similar way, by the look of it. Perhaps because both of us appear to have some kind of liberal Catholic background.

I actually didn't come from that background as I grew up in a fundamentalist Protestant church, which I eventually left in my mid-20's. My first exposure to a church teaching that the basic ToE is acceptable is when I ran across a Catholic priest near the end of my junior year in high school, whereas I asked him if one could accept evolution in his faith, and he said one could as long as one still believed God caused it all. I didn't know what to believe then as his response left me even more confused.

During my sophomore year in my undergrad days, I ran across a beautiful Italian Catholic woman, fell in live with her as she was and is one who literally changed my life, got dropped by her, got together two years later but I was also in love with another beautiful Italian Catholic woman, and then "Mother Nature" kicked in, so I got married to the latter. I went on to get a graduate degree in anthropology and ended up teaching it for 30 years.

There-- my whole life history.

 

[Thief]

OLD, SICK, ACCIDENT......

agreed
I have resigned myself to a premature and terminal event......or
some disease will kick my *** til I can't stand it anymore

 

[Trackdayguy]

well said......but....

that original sin is a pivot point in some religions
and baptism is thought to be the remedy

so the question remains......what was Jesus doing?
as he submitted to the practice of baptism

(I read that He did not baptize......His disciples did)

why allow a practice unto Himself?.....but not do so in return unto others

For me his dealing with JB was about the death of the old way of thinking

 

[exchemist]

I actually didn't come from that background as I grew up in a fundamentalist Protestant church, which I eventually left in my mid-20's. My first exposure to a church teaching that the basic ToE is acceptable is when I ran across a Catholic priest near the end of my junior year in high school, whereas I asked him if one could accept evolution in his faith, and he said one could as long as one still believed God caused it all. I didn't know what to believe then as his response left me even more confused.

During my sophomore year in my undergrad days, I ran across a beautiful Italian Catholic woman, fell in live with her as she was and is one who literally changed my life, got dropped by her, got together two years later but I was also in love with another beautiful Italian Catholic woman, and then "Mother Nature" kicked in, so I got married to the latter. I went on to get a graduate degree in anthropology and ended up teaching it for 30 years.

There-- my whole life history.

Whereas I was brought up by a mother who was Anglican and a father who had been Methodist but converted to Catholicism after studying medieval history at university. Much later I married a beautiful Catholic French woman (now deceased) and when we had a son we thought we'd prefer to bring him up Catholic than without any faith. So my son indirectly brought me back to the church....

Perhaps we also agree on something else: the Latins have the best hips!

 

[Trackdayguy]

Whereas I was brought up by a mother who was Anglican and a father who had been Methodist but converted to Catholicism after studying medieval history at university. Much later I married a beautiful Catholic French woman (now deceased) and when we had a son we thought we'd prefer to bring him up Catholic than without any faith. So my son indirectly brought me back to the church....

Perhaps we also agree on something else: the Latins have the best hips!

And various other tasty parts as well......

 

[exchemist]

And various other tasty parts as well......

Now, now, "Easy Grandma", as my son would say.....

 

[BilliardsBall]

One of the biggest guilt trips ever inflicted on man, and a sacred cow that needs to be sent to the slaughter house.

OVER 100 BIBLE TEXTS THAT SHOW THE DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL SIN IS UNBIBLICAL AND FALSE

Author: Jesus didn't believe in 'original sin' and neither should we - Religion News Service

I agree. "Original Sin" comes from Augustine's misunderstanding regarding Romans 5. The Bible is clear that suffering and blessing come, in part, with OUR sin and righteousness and not our parents'.

 

[metis]

Perhaps we also agree on something else: the Latins have the best hips!

Oh yah!!!

And, btw, I enjoy going to mass weekly with my wife and have been quite active in her church, so I actually feel quite comfortable there.

 

[Katzpur]

I'll be interested to see how other Christians respond to this, it's intriguing.

I'm hoping with an open mind. I for one believed this for many years.

Well, I'm a Christian (despite what some people might tell you), and one of the core doctrines of my religion is that the doctrine of original sin is false. For starters, Adam didn't "sin" by eating the forbidden fruit. He didn't even know the difference between good and evil until after he ate the fruit, and it's impossible to sin without that basic knowledge. To sin is to willfully and intentionally disobey a religious law or moral principle. Adam sinned later on, I'm sure, as he was human and all humans sin. But as for "original sin" and its consequences, mainstream Christianity has that all wrong.

Furthermore, and I think this is what the OP was actually about, we human beings are not born guilty of anything. Yes, we will sin because the natural man does. We will be punished for our own sins and not for Adam's transgression. What kind of a loving Father would hold every single one of His children responsible for something one of their ancestors did? In my opinion, to say that God would do such a thing and then to call him "just," is utter nonsense.

 

[exchemist]

Well, I'm a Christian (despite what some people might tell you), and one of the core doctrines of my religion is that the doctrine of original sin is false. For starters, Adam didn't "sin" by eating the forbidden fruit. He didn't even know the difference between good and evil until after he ate the fruit, and it's impossible to sin without that basic knowledge. To sin is to willfully and intentionally disobey a religious law or moral principle. Adam sinned later on, I'm sure, as he was human and all humans sin. But as for "original sin" and its consequences, mainstream Christianity has that all wrong.

Furthermore, and I think this is what the OP was actually about, we human beings are not born guilty of anything. Yes, we will sin because the natural man does. We will be punished for our own sins and not for Adam's transgression. What kind of a loving Father would hold every single one of His children responsible for something one of their ancestors did? In my opinion, to say that God would do such a thing and then to call him "just," is utter nonsense.

Excellent point about not being able to sin until after eating the fruit!

I was thinking earlier today about that. I think it is another argument in favour of the interpretation of Original Sin that I was advancing in this thread and that I was taught as a child by my Catholic parish priest: that it signifies the predisposition of Man to do wrong, when he has the moral awareness to tell right from wrong.

 

[Katzpur]

In the story, mankind's original sin is not "disobeying God" by eating an apple. It's presuming unto himself a knowledge of good and evil that he does not and cannot really possess, so that he can then see and stand in judgment of all that is, including himself and each other, as though he were God's equal. The sin that begins all sins wasn't disobedience, it was hubris. And it's a sin we are still all committing.

I disagree. It is impossible for anyone to make an informed choice without a knowledge of good and evil. God doesn't want us to go through life clueless. How can a person actually choose to do good if there is no alternative? And if a person is doing good when there is no other option, what does that really say about the person and his desire to please God. Jesus told His disciples to "be... perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect." How can we ever hope to become better human beings over time if we didn't have to choose our actions, having a knowledge of the difference between good and evil?

 

[Katzpur]

I think it is another argument in favour of the interpretation of Original Sin that I was advancing in this thread and that I was taught as a child by my Catholic parish priest: that it signifies the predisposition of Man to do wrong, when he has the moral awareness to tell right from wrong.

Yes, exactly. Perfectly stated.

 

[PureX]

I disagree. It is impossible for anyone to make an informed choice without a knowledge of good and evil.

Yes, and welcome to the human condition. All we can do is make our best guess, follow through, and hope/trust that it's enough. This has always been a fundamental truth of Judaism, and especially of Christianity, in which we are promised that it will be enough.

But this is a lesson that few religionists, and particularly Christian religionists understand. As they have been taught, and so believe, that it's all about "obedience". That their big (original) sin is disobedience: disobeying God's laws (really the church's laws) regarding good and evil. When in fact, according to the story, our original sin was hubris. It was mankind presuming unto himself a knowledge that he was never given, and does not actually possess. A knowledge that only God could possess. That is the knowledge of good and evil. And since we do not possess this knowledge, we presumed that whatever is good for us, is "good", and whatever is not good for us is "evil". We allowed our own self-centeredness to become our false 'divine wisdom'. And then we began to judge and condemn all the world, ourselves, and each other, accordingly. And we set out to "correct" all God's creation according to OUR presumptions of righteousness. And thus we have been enslaved to this task, and at enmity with the world around us, ever since.

God doesn't want us to go through life clueless.

That's exactly what God intended, originally, and that's exactly what we were. Clueless. At least that is what we were until Christ appears. And then through Christ, we received the awareness of God's spirit within us, to heal us, and guide us, and save us from ourselves. And to restore our proper relationship to Creation (Eden).

But so far we are still wallowing in the hubris of our original sin. The sin of presuming ourselves to be God's equals, and of possessing the knowledge of good and evil from which we then judge and condemn ourselves, each other, and all Creation.

How can a person actually choose to do good if there is no alternative?

He has to trust in the spirit of God's love, forgiveness, kindness and generosity within himself, to guide him. And trust that it will do so, and that it will be enough. This was Jesus' message and promise to us; that the spirit is there, and that it will be enough.

And if a person is doing good when there is no other option, what does that really say about the person and his desire to please God.

"Pleasing God" has nothing to do with it. Being what we were created to be, or denying what we were created to be, is our choice. And will be either our salvation or our destruction.

Jesus told His disciples to "be... perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect." How can we ever hope to become better human beings over time if we didn't have to choose our actions, having a knowledge of the difference between good and evil?

We can never be "perfect" by our own intent. We don't even know what that is. We can only be "perfected" through our faith in the spirit of God, within us.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Not if you understood it. But sadly, you have been misled by countless "believers" that likewise do not understand it and so continue to preach misinformation about it.

In the story, mankind's original sin is not "disobeying God" by eating an apple. It's presuming unto himself a knowledge of good and evil that he does not and cannot really possess, so that he can then see and stand in judgment of all that is, including himself and each other, as though he were God's equal. The sin that begins all sins wasn't disobedience, it was hubris. And it's a sin we are still all committing.

The red bit above - I don't see this as being possible to state at all. We decide what is "good" for us and what is "bad" (evil). The same way a house-fly decides what is "good" for it versus "bad." A house-fly loves feces - we humans do not. If there is objective "good" then why don't we love feces? Why doesn't the fly despise it and recognize it as filth? And this is only an extremely obvious example to get the ball rolling... much more nuanced differences in perspective exist. For example someone who enjoys being tickled, versus one who absolutely abhors it. I, for one, can't stand physical massage. I know others enjoy it, so I wouldn't go so far as to call it "evil" - though forcing me to partake of a massage would be "evil", whereas someone else might be happy at the thought. We decide "good" versus "bad" ALL THE TIME, about any number of things.

Here's an easy one - try and refute this statement: without human ideas of good and evil, those things, as pertain to humans, don't really exist. You can't refute that statement. And that is where you are putting God - as the arbiter of what is "good" or "evil" for humans. The fact that without us, "good" and "evil" (again, pertaining to humans - which I already demonstrated is only a sub-class of "good" and "evil" with my house-fly example) do not exist means that it requires our very existence in order for those concepts to mean anything. I contend that God has as much to do with it as the house-fly.

 

[PureX]

The red bit above - I don't see this as being possible to state at all. We decide what is "good" for us and what is "bad" (evil). The same way a house-fly decides what is "good" for it versus "bad." A house-fly loves feces - we humans do not. If there is objective "good" then why don't we love feces? Why doesn't the fly despise it and recognize it as filth? And this is only an extremely obvious example to get the ball rolling... much more nuanced differences in perspective exist. For example someone who enjoys being tickled, versus one who absolutely abhors it. I, for one, can't stand physical massage. I know others enjoy it, so I wouldn't go so far as to call it "evil" - though forcing me to partake of a massage would be "evil", whereas someone else might be happy at the thought. We decide "good" versus "bad" ALL THE TIME, about any number of things.

Here's an easy one - try and refute this statement: without human ideas of good and evil, those things, as pertain to humans, don't really exist. You can't refute that statement. And that is where you are putting God - as the arbiter of what is "good" or "evil" for humans. The fact that without us, "good" and "evil" (again, pertaining to humans - which I already demonstrated is only a sub-class of "good" and "evil" with my house-fly example) do not exist means that it requires our very existence in order for those concepts to mean anything. I contend that God has as much to do with it as the house-fly.

I was referring to the ideal being presented by the biblical story of the first humans in Eden, and of their "original sin". Your argument actually reinforces my contention that we humans do not possess any divine knowledge of good and evil. All we possess is a self-centered presumption that what is good for us, is "good", and what is bad for us is "evil". And that because we presume this selfishness to be some sort of divine wisdom, and that it gives us the right to pass judgment on all we encounter as if we were gods, ourselves, we find ourselves at enmity with everything and everyone. Just as the mythical story implies.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I was referring to the ideal being presented by the biblical story of the first humans in Eden, and of their "original sin". Your argument actually reinforces my contention that we humans do not possess any divine knowledge of good and evil. All we possess is a self-centered presumption that what is good for us, is "good", and what is bad for us is "evil". And that because we presume this selfishness to be some sort of divine wisdom, and that it gives us the right to pass judgment on all we encounter as if we were gods, ourselves, we find ourselves at enmity with everything and everyone. Just as the mythical story implies.

I don't believe it reinforces your point at all. If anything, it strengthens the idea that we humans are the ONLY resource from which to draw conclusions on human morality. Not that we have it "all figured out," obviously... but we're damn sure the only ones who are even going to try.