|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Importance of Original Sin | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3486 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:You sound like Jesus came from outer space. Basically, Jesus taught that people should repent and start behaving. Once one has repented and continues to behave, one is safe from God's wrath that was to come. Repentance was always an option. Paul makes very long arguments. One needs to read the whole thing to get a feel for what he's trying to argue and then check to make sure his argument is sound. Paul used Adam as an example of disobedience contrasted with Christ's obedience. It 's not uncommon for people to use fictional characters to make a point. It wasn't that Adam was a real person, it was what he represented: Disobedience.
Secular Example: Gordon Gekko is a fictional character and the main character and antagonist of the 1987 film Wall Street by director Oliver Stone. Gekko was portrayed by actor-producer Michael Douglas, in a performance that won him an Oscar for Best Actor. ... Gekko has become a symbol in popular culture for unrestrained greed (with the signature line, "Greed, for lack of a better word, is good"), often in fields outside corporate finance. ... On October 8, 2008, the character was referenced in a speech by the Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in his speech "The Children of Gordon Gekko" concerning the Financial crisis of 2007-2010. Rudd stated It is perhaps time now to admit that we did not learn the full lessons of the greed-is-good ideology. And today we are still cleaning up the mess of the 21st-century children of Gordon Gekko.[8] On July 28, 2009, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone cited Gekko's greed is good slogan in a speech to the Italian senate, saying that the free market had been replaced by a greed market, and also blamed such a mentality for the 2007-2008 financial crisis.[9] Do Jews Believe In Sin? Jews believe that individuals are responsible for their own actions and that "sinning" occurs when someone does something wrong. Paul was a Jew. If you read enough of his writings, you will understand that he also felt people were responsible for their own actions. Why is Adam associated with disobedience when Eve was the first to bite? We have to remember that the word adam also means mankind. Both Jesus and Paul wanted people to behave at least civilly and ethically towards each other. As I said, the creation story is not essential to Judaism and it really isn't essential to Christianity unless one believes in the later doctrine of Original Sin. Accepting the creation stories as myths does not negate the teachings of Jesus. We've seen cases on this board where doctrines didn't hold up to what was actually written in the Bible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3486 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:It brought forth the need to baptize babies. IMO, the implication is that we cannot control ourselves without the help of Jesus. Unfortunately that is contrary to what God told Cain and what is presented in the OT. We do forget that religions are not immune to outside influence. The Original Sin Doctrine was influenced by Platonism according to this article: The Original View of Original Sin But Augustine did not devise the concept of original sin. It was his use of specific New Testament scriptures to justify the doctrine that was new. The concept itself had been shaped from the late second century onward by certain church fathers, including Irenaeus, Origen and Tertullian. Irenaeus did not use the Scriptures at all for his definition; Origen reinterpreted the Genesis account of Adam and Eve in terms of a Platonic allegory and saw sin deriving solely from free will; and Tertullian’s version was borrowed from Stoic philosophy. So it seems the idea came first and the use of Paul as support came considerably later.
Augustine’s outlook on sex was distorted by ideas from the world outside the Bible. Because so much philosophy was based on dualism, in which the physical was categorized as evil but the spiritual as good, some philosophers idealized the celibate state. Sexual relations were physical and therefore evil. Apparently once the idea that sexual relations even in marriage were bad (not a Jewish concept). Their philosophy created a little bit of a problem when it came to Jesus, so they had to create another story to keep Jesus "clean". Immaculate Conception Augustine’s association with Neoplatonic philosophers led him to introduce their outlook within the church. This had its effect in the development of doctrine. For example, Jesus was considered immaculately conceivedwithout sin in that His Father was God. But because His mother, Mary, had a human father, she suffered the effect of original sin. In order to present Jesus Christ as a perfect offspring without any inherited sin from either parent, the church had to find a way to label Mary as sinless. They did this by devising the doctrine of her immaculate conception, though this inevitably leads to further questions. Then we get to the need for baptizing babies.
Other babies were not so fortunate. Some eight centuries later the Catholic theologian Anselm extended the implications of Augustine’s concept of original sin and claimed that babies who died, did so as sinners; as sinners, they had no access to eternal life but were condemned to eternal damnation. Of course the babies that are baptized don't necessarily refrain from sinning. None of it changes the fact that humans have good inclinations and bad inclinations. We can go either way and we can change back and forth. We are still responsible for our actions. They just made the issue more complicated. I think it's a guy thing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3486 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Humor, sorry. Catholics. I don't know how serious they take it. quote:Which means we don't have any control over getting rid of it either. Dualism-The physical is bad and the spiritual is good.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3486 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
I didn't find the other thread when I searched either. I thought I remembered one. It was mostly played out anyway.
quote:IMO, it is questions like that that caused people to come up with stories to answer the question. There really isn't an answer to that question and you should know that. I'm not sure why you keep asking questions like that. If you've attempted to read any story in the OT where God displays temperament, you'll see he has the same emotions we do. He has both inclinations, just as we do. God does not have sin. Sin is an action, not something to have. The Jews break sin up into three types. Sins against God, sins against mankind, and sins against oneself.
quote:It is amazing how well you mush totally incorrect ideas together for one big mess and then expect an answer. If you really want to understand, really read the book. quote:Exactly! Jesus Was Not A Sacrifice To Forgive Sins That's basically what God told the Israelites in the OT. Ezekiel 18:21-24
21But if the wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed and observes all My statutes and practices justice and righteousness, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 22All his transgressions which he has committed will not be remembered against him; because of his righteousness which he has practiced, he will live. 23Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord GOD, rather than that he should turn from his ways and live? 24But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity and does according to all the abominations that a wicked man does, will he live? All his righteous deeds which he has done will not be remembered for his treachery which he has committed and his sin which he has committed; for them he will die. Jesus was a Jew who taught the lost among his people how to get back on track. Some people need help correcting destructive behavior, whether through counseling, religion, or meds.
quote:Nope. Again, do some research if you really are interested. Jesus was concerned with his own people, not everyone else on the planet. Not The Planet Sin is not a thing to be washed away. You just stop doing wrong behavior.
quote:They don't. We ask for forgiveness from the person we wrong or suffer the consequences if we break the laws of the land. It's really the same for Christians, they just feel they have an added afterlife to prepare for. IMO, the doctrine of original sin was an unnecessary addition. That's what happens when people over think a simple story.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3486 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:The Jews break sin into three categories. Sins against God, sins against another person, and sins against oneself. The fact that people will "miss the mark" at least once in their life is not in question. Once a society has rules they are going to be trespassed at some point and people suffer the consequences. I disagree that Paul is saying that "all" mankind is under condemnation because we misbehave to varying degrees. He can only refer to the inhabited part he knows. Odds are it is an exaggeration anyway. The creation story is not the foundation of his argument. His argument would be the same whether he mentioned Adam later or not. Paul pulled various lines from hymns that suited his purpose. We can take line from the same hymns and support that there are righteous people and the songs are speaking of the wicked and not all of mankind.
Fools say in their hearts, "There is no God." They deal corruptly, their deeds are vile, not one does what is right. Don't they ever learn, all those evildoers, who eat up my people as if eating bread and never call on Adonai? There they are, utterly terrified; for God is with those who are righteous. For you, Adonai, bless the righteous; you surround them with favor like a shield. The righteous will surely give thanks to your name; the upright will live in your presence. etc. There are people who are considered righteous. Paul pointed out at the beginning of Chaper 3:
So are we Jews better off? Not entirely; for I have already made the charge that all people, Jews and Gentiles alike, are controlled by sin. We know that sin is not a thing that can actually control. In my opinion he is being rather dramatic to make the point that if Jews who have the Torah to follow are facing judgement, then those without the Torah are no better off. IOW, that is his way of getting the Gentiles on board. The creation story has no bearing on any of this. When people ask questions like: "Why do people misbehave, why do people hurt others, or why do elephants have long noses, etc...."; people come up with stories to answer those questions. From a Biblical standpoint, the doctrine of Original Sin isn't necessary. Good way to lay a guilt trip on people, but not really necessary for belief.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3486 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Whether the concept of original sin was a good idea or not isn't the topic. That's why you haven't gotten an answer. It is more about the importance of the A&E story as the basis for Christianity's need for salvation. From Message 1.
hooah212002 writes: If this story is not vital at all to the necessity of the jesus character, how does one explain it? Is there some other reason we are natural sinners in need of salvation? quote:It is a religious belief. This is the Bible Study Forum, on the religious side of the board. In this thread people have given evidence that the idea of original sin isn't based in the Bible. It was a later development. quote:The thread is more about whether Christianity falls apart without the A&E story or not. It isn't about proving whether the "fall" actually happened.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3486 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined:
|
quote:You aren't really saying anything different than I am. Humans are capable of breaking the rules of civilization. Getting into why is more of a psychological discussion, not Bible Study. The A&E story tells the audience that people will go against the laws of the land if it suits their purpose. It also tells us that people suffer consequences for breaking the laws of the land. The main point of this thread though is that the A&E story isn't necessary to the Jewish religion. The story can be removed and it won't damage the religion. It isn't the foundation of the religion. Jar also commented that it wasn't necessary even for some sects of the Christian religion. IMO, the Paul's arguments do not depend on the A&E story either. We can remove the part with Adam in it and it wouldn't change Paul's point concerning sin.
1 Corinthians 15 33Do not be deceived: Bad company corrupts good morals. 34Become sober-minded as you ought, and stop sinning; for some have no knowledge of God. I speak this to your shame. It may be in our nature to break the rules, but I don't see in the OT or the NT the idea that we don't have control over our "sinful" nature. Even in the story with Cain God said Cain didn't need to give into the "evil" nature. Paul's point also is that we are all responsible for our actions. Belief doesn't absolve responsibility. I showed in Message 25 that using Paul's writing as a proof text was done many many years after the fact. The idea of original sin wasn't developed by Paul or from Paul's writings. The Original Sin Doctrine was influenced by Platonism according to this article: The Original View of Original Sin But Augustine did not devise the concept of original sin. It was his use of specific New Testament scriptures to justify the doctrine that was new. The concept itself had been shaped from the late second century onward by certain church fathers, including Irenaeus, Origen and Tertullian. Irenaeus did not use the Scriptures at all for his definition; Origen reinterpreted the Genesis account of Adam and Eve in terms of a Platonic allegory and saw sin deriving solely from free will; and Tertullian’s version was borrowed from Stoic philosophy. Paul stressed that we are saved by faith alone, but this faith is inseparable from following God's rules on how we are to live. Right behavior is still necessary. Sin intentionally and one still suffers consequences. Removing the A&E story or realizing that it is a myth, doesn't change Paul's teachings or the teachings of Jesus. It really wouldn't have a negative impact on the Christian religion overall. How it impacts individuals may be a different issue. People tend to have varying depths of belief concerning various parts of a religion. It depends on what one's foundation is built upon. How crucial is the A&E story to the Christian Religion? That is the question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3486 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:We know the point of Paul's argument, but the creation story doesn't present mankind as constitutionally unholy. Paul could still make his argument by using the songs and prophets as he did. The creation story isn't vital to his argument. Even before Jesus there was Biblical criticism and Jews who understood that the creation stories were legends, not fact. Paul could have used any other disobedient person to contrast Christ. The concept wasn't passed down from Paul. The lack of a creation story doesn't negate the teachings of Jesus or Paul.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3486 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:David was praying for forgiveness. Exaggerating one's level of unworthiness is not uncommon. It isn't necessarily a statement of fact. Paul makes use of all these things whether they are fact or not. I still don't think it changes Paul's teachings. I realize it does make a difference for those who feel sin is part of the foundation. I don't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3486 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Unfortunately believing in God or Jesus doesn't change man's constitution. That humans are capable of good and bad behavior is common among many of the creation stories. It's just observation put into a story. Even pagans could appreciate the comparison. Paul using Adam is a creative way to say that it has always been in our nature to sin. Without the creation story, Paul could still make the same argument. Not having Adam wouldn't change his argument, just his example. I agree the story is critical to some Christian thinking. As I said before, it depends on one's foundation. If one's foundation is based on the creation story, it is critical. If it isn't, not so critical. I don't believe it was critical to Paul in that his belief would have been affected. Edited by purpledawn, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3486 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:You're adding to the story. You're adding the back story that suits you. It's easier to do that with fiction than with fact. I have no problem with that in a teaching setting, but that's not what this is. We always wonder why the scared girl always runs away from the crowd and to the empty room or basement because we know she will get killed. The reason is because that is the way the story is written. The storyteller made Adam's choice, not Adam. The story can be altered to suit the needs of the storyteller or audience, just like you're doing. The Redactor put the two stories together to suit his purpose. People have written stories that integrate the two stories together to suit their purpose. Paul took what Adam represented for his purpose. It is a shame that Christianity took a nice cultural story and made it totally about sin. We don't really need those types of stories anymore. They are nice for the kids, but they will outgrow them at some point. From what I've seen so far, the Christians that feel they have no control over their behavior seem to cling to the Creation story. Like I said, losing the story doesn't take away from the teachings of Jesus or Paul. It probably doesn't help the later doctrine created through reinterpretation. Creative License.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3486 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Some translations say when and some don't. If we read about the Fall of Man in the Legends of the Jews, we see Paul's presentation has more association with those stories than with what we have written in Genesis.
First she ate only the outside skin of the fruit, and then, seeing that death did not fell her, she ate the fruit itself.[64] Scarce had she finished, when she saw the Angel of Death before her. Expecting her end to come immediately, she resolved to make Adam eat of the forbidden fruit, too, lest he espouse another wife after her death.[65] It required tears and lamentations on her part to prevail upon Adam to take the baleful step. Not yet satisfied, she gave of the fruit to all other living beings, that they, too, might be subject to death.[66] All ate, and they all are mortal, with the exception of the bird malham, who refused the fruit, with the words: "Is it not enough that ye have sinned against God, and have brought death to others? This is where we see the idea of death being "brought in". From what I've read of some Jewish teachings today, they don't have a problem using Legends to teach. From looking at the NT, IMO, Jesus and Paul didn't have problems with using legends either. That mankind has the capacity to misbehave is a given. That we are not in control of our actions, is not a given. Jesus and Paul didn't present the idea that people were not able to behave. It is interesting when we look at other creation stories, which is what sparked this thread, the idea that there is good and bad seems to be in all the ones I've read; but the idea that mankind needs redemption from this condition does not show up in all of them. Not a universal thought. IMO, that's more of the story part and not the factual part. Marketing strategy: Create a need (real or imagined) and then fill it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3486 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:We can speculate the whys and what for, but really this tells us that the issue was not important to the story that we have in the Bible. The person who put the creation stories together had a reason for doing that and included in the stories the information necessary for his purpose. The Jewish Legends I linked to had more details. Storytellers adjust stories to fit what they need the audience to understand. In the parable of the Good Samaritan Jesus uses a priest, a Levite, and a Samaritan to make his point. Telling that parable to Native Americans wouldn't have had the same impact. They would have gotten the gist of the message, but the differences between the characters would have had no impact. A good storyteller would change the story and use characters that would make a similar impact on the Native American audience as it did the Jewish Audience. Whether Adam was there or not isn't important to the story we have in the Bible. Basically the story tells us why we know the difference between good and bad, why snakes don't have legs, why man works the ground, why we have thistles, why we don't live forever, etc. We can develop many lessons from the story just as we can any story. It doesn't have to be a religious writing. People over analyze a lot of literary works. Eve did what the story needed Eve to do. That's why I said, Paul's argument concerning sin doesn't need the creation story to be a factual event. Knowing that the story isn't a factual event doesn't undo Paul's argument concerning sin. Paul's argument concerning sin wasn't even the original basis for the Doctrine of Original sin. The church fathers reinterpreted the story to fit their needs thousands of years later.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3486 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Ten posts and you haven't really established your position concerning the debate. Do you consider the idea of original sin to be important to Christianity and why?Do you consider the creation stories to be important to Christianity and why? This thread isn't about analyzing the creation stories.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3486 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:But that isn't a good defense. That defense is used by those who don't want to take responsibility, IMO, or they just want to argue. Man's imagination at work. It seems to be in man's nature to blame others also. If one feels there is no God and man's nature is a product of however he evolved. Who do we blame then? Do we blame parents for having us or blame them for marrying the wrong person if we end up with an anomaly? One point of the story is that sin is in our nature. We just need to not dwell on the creative elements of the story or the creative elements used in arguments. Whether one believes God did it or we evolved this way, good and bad are in our nature.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024