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!
doesn't the idea of original sin kind of leave you incapable of ever being good enough for anything? like an untouchable, pariah?
doesn't the idea of original sin kind of leave you incapable of ever being good enough for anything? like an untouchable, pariah?
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?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 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?
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)doesn't the idea of original sin kind of leave you incapable of ever being good enough for anything? like an untouchable, pariah?
It depends:doesn't the idea of original sin kind of leave you incapable of ever being good enough for anything? like an untouchable, pariah?
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.Jews don't believe it nor do Muslims.. Christians made it doctrine in 300 AD.
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.
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.I think the Exodus is an epic myth.
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.
You're conflating knowledge in general with a specific kind of knowlege, and obedience isn't necessarily bestial.The Serpent in the Garden makes man ashamed of his bestial ignorance and obedience; he emancipates him, stamps upon his brow the seal of liberty and humanity, in urging him to disobey and eat of the fruit of knowledge.
doesn't the idea of original sin kind of leave you incapable of ever being good enough for anything? like an untouchable, pariah?
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.Is Originial sin even just?
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.
Arguably Christians are defined by following Paul's gospel, since Paul was preaching an Antioch when they got their name there.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.
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 don't know of any source other than Paul that supports the doctrine.
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?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.
View attachment 36912
Hi Terry,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.
View attachment 36912