Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Nature and the fall of man
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 121 of 300 (273932)
12-29-2005 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by ramoss
12-29-2005 5:54 PM


Re: There is no original sin in Judaism
Ramoss, your source has a poor understanding of Christianity. Your source seems to think hyper-Calvinism is the only version of Christianity, and some aspects of Catholocism, and even among Catholics, they don't all hold to the extreme form of Original Sin proposed by your sources.
In contrast, the Jewish view is that humans are not born naturally good or naturally bad. They have both a good and a bad inclination in them, but they have the free moral will to choose the good and this free moral will can be more powerful than the evil inclination.
That is not a contrast with most Christian beliefs concerning Original Sin, and in fact, if Jews believe that, they believe in Original Sin because they believe people have both a good and bad inclination in them.
This message has been edited by randman, 12-29-2005 06:02 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by ramoss, posted 12-29-2005 5:54 PM ramoss has not replied

Asgara
Member (Idle past 2303 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 122 of 300 (273935)
12-29-2005 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by randman
12-29-2005 5:58 PM


Original Sin or the original sin
Committing "the" original sin does not equal the concept of "original sin."
Judaism's Rejection of Original Sin
The doctrine of original sin is totally unacceptable to Jews (as it is to Christian sects such as Baptists and Assemblies of G-d). Jews believe that man enters the world free of sin, with a soul that is pure and innocent and untainted. While there were some Jewish teachers in Talmudic times who believed that death was a punishment brought upon mankind on account of Adam's sin, the dominant view by far was that man sins because he is not a perfect being, and not, as Christianity teaches, because he is inherently sinful.
bold mine

Asgara
"I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now"
Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by randman, posted 12-29-2005 5:58 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by randman, posted 12-29-2005 6:07 PM Asgara has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 123 of 300 (273936)
12-29-2005 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Asgara
12-29-2005 6:03 PM


Re: Original Sin or the original sin
Asqara, your sources are just incorrect in many respects. For example, Baptists and Assemblies of God do hold to a form of Original Sin. I attended a Baptist seminary, and they very much hold to Original Sin.
This a taken from the Assemblies of God official site concerning their official doctrines.
Suffering was not created by God. His original creation contained no suffering. But the entry of sin, through the disobedience of Adam and Eve, brought sickness and suffering. "By man came death [and sickness] . . . in Adam all die" (1 Corinthians 15:21,22). To Eve, God said, "I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; In pain you shall bring forth children" (Genesis 3:16). To Adam, God said, "Cursed is the ground for your sake; In toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you, and you shall eat the herb of the field. In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread" (Genesis 3:17-19).
Assemblies of God (USA) Official Web Site | AG
YOur source just isn't aware enough of basic Christianity to be reliable in it's opinion.
This message has been edited by randman, 12-29-2005 06:12 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Asgara, posted 12-29-2005 6:03 PM Asgara has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Asgara, posted 12-29-2005 6:12 PM randman has replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 124 of 300 (273937)
12-29-2005 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by randman
12-29-2005 5:58 PM


Re: the Fall and the existence of God
What you fail to realise that "original sin" is not a Jewish concept.
Period.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by randman, posted 12-29-2005 5:58 PM randman has not replied

Asgara
Member (Idle past 2303 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 125 of 300 (273938)
12-29-2005 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by randman
12-29-2005 6:07 PM


Re: Original Sin or the original sin
So a Jewish source may be wrong about Christianity? So could a Christian source be wrong about Judaism.
I will trust a Jewish site over a Christian one as to Jewish beliefs and vice versa. You have provided no Jewish sources to corraborate you stance that
quote:
those that accept the Genesis account of Adam and Eve all believe Adam and Eve committed this Original Sin and it led to the earth and mankind being in a more fallen state.

Asgara
"I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now"
Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by randman, posted 12-29-2005 6:07 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by randman, posted 12-29-2005 6:15 PM Asgara has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 126 of 300 (273941)
12-29-2005 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Asgara
12-29-2005 6:12 PM


Re: Original Sin or the original sin
Ramoss source indicated Jews believe in Original Sin because they believe people are born with bad inclinations as well as good. You wouldn't expect them to call it by the same name necessarily, but they clearly state a belief in Original Sin.
This message has been edited by randman, 12-29-2005 06:16 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Asgara, posted 12-29-2005 6:12 PM Asgara has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Asgara, posted 12-29-2005 6:19 PM randman has replied
 Message 137 by ramoss, posted 12-29-2005 10:10 PM randman has replied

Asgara
Member (Idle past 2303 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 127 of 300 (273943)
12-29-2005 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by randman
12-29-2005 6:15 PM


Re: Original Sin or the original sin
Being born with an inclination to both good and bad is STILL not a belief in original sin. His source did not say that this inclination was due to Adam's or Eve's behavior.
IMO (my opinion) is that it means that Adam and Eve were created with this inclination also.

Asgara
"I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now"
Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by randman, posted 12-29-2005 6:15 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by randman, posted 12-29-2005 6:30 PM Asgara has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 128 of 300 (273945)
12-29-2005 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Asgara
12-29-2005 6:19 PM


Re: Original Sin or the original sin
wikapedia is a dubious source, but:
According to Jewish tradition, the divine prohibition was to give them free choice and allow them to earn, as opposed to receive, absolute perfection and intimate communion with God, a higher level than the one on which they were created.
The consequences affected Adam and Eve's descendants. People are not intrinsically condemned and sinful, but nevertheless begin life at a spiritual and metaphysical level inherited from Adam and Eve, far lower than Adam's original level. The course of history is meant to return humanity to Adam's original level, and then allow it to surpass that level by completing the task that Adam failed to complete. The curses and changes imposed on mankind and womankind following their sin are meant to facilitate this return to glory.
Clearly, Jews beleive in a form of Original Sin, or some do, since there is good range there.
What you and others fail to realize is very few people believe in the extreme form of Original Sin you equate as the doctrine itself. Some 5 point Calvinists hold to it, and they also argue that Jesus did not die for the sins of the world, but only the elect and things like that.
Most "Reformed" folks are more 4-4.5 point Calvinists however.
Original Sin is just the idea that we, as people, inherit a sin nature or tendency to do bad and are subject to illnesses and such as a result of Adam's sin.
You and the evos here seem to be equating the doctrine of total depravity with the concept of Original Sin, and even those that hold to total depravity may still hold a form of it not so different than Jewish beliefs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Asgara, posted 12-29-2005 6:19 PM Asgara has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by ReverendDG, posted 12-29-2005 7:55 PM randman has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 129 of 300 (273952)
12-29-2005 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by randman
12-29-2005 5:05 PM


That's hilarious, randman
quote:
According to St. Augustine, this rebellion--signified in the eating of the forbidden fruit--resulted in the hereditary curse on humankind (Original Sin), manifesting itself in sin (especially lust), aging, sickness and death. Before the fall, man and woman were in harmony with each other, and all nature peaceful and without threat.
http://endeavor.med.nyu.edu/...docs/webart/durer14-art-.html
The idea this was a late 20th century idea is absurd, as anyone familiar with this subject knows.
ROTFL
That quote is from a commentary, written in 1997, on a 16th century painting. The painting itself is of the garden of eden, which I had already agreed was a special place where perhaps there was no death. The depiction in the art cannot indicate anything about what people thought was the state of the world outside the garden. And even the quoted statement "Before the fall, man and woman were in harmony with each other, and all nature peaceful and without threat" can be reasonably taken as referring only to conditions within the garden of eden.
Given that the commentary was written in 1997, it is difficult to see how it provides any evidence at all that the idea that there were no meat eaters, no diseases and no natural disasters on earth had an origin earlier than the 20th century.
I didn't come up with my statement about a 20th century origin out of thin air. I have spent some time researching the doctrine of original sin. The only references I can find to the idea that there were no meat eaters, no diseases and no natural disasters are on creationist web sites.
I did find this: No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?title=Original_sin
Many creationists teach that the entire creation was immortal in the beginning, and nothing on Earth died prior to the fall of mankind. This latter perspective is often used to contest the evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record as being evidence of millions of years of death and decay prior to the presence of humans. Nevertheless, there remains some debate within the creation science community regarding the nature of this immortality.
That seems to say that the idea that there were no meat eaters, no diseases and no natural disasters on earth is part of creationist teaching, but not part of the doctrine of original sin. I'll take that as supporting the idea of a 20th century origin.

Impeach Bush

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by randman, posted 12-29-2005 5:05 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by randman, posted 12-29-2005 7:40 PM nwr has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 130 of 300 (273957)
12-29-2005 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by randman
12-29-2005 5:16 PM


Re: the Fall and the existence of God
Original sin was not made up though by Christians. It's right there in Genesis. Adam and Eve sinned resulting in the curse. Now, there have been big fights within Christianity especially in the 400s concerning the significance of that.
While investigating the doctrine of original sin, I came across this: November 1998 | Print Edition | First Things
No one now disputes that the Bible does not teach a doctrine of original sin as such. Not only does the term never occur in the entire Bible, these Scriptures - both Old and New Testaments - are also innocent of any notion that Adam’s sin has made proleptically guilty those who live so far from the source of that sin that they seem incapable of having taken part in it. But that is what the doctrine says.
the author, Edward T. Oakes, S. J., is Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Regis University of Denver, Colorado.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by randman, posted 12-29-2005 5:16 PM randman has not replied

lfen
Member (Idle past 4678 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 131 of 300 (273965)
12-29-2005 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by robinrohan
12-29-2005 12:36 PM


Re: If no Fall
I've just about convinced myself that if evolution is true, there is no God, and if evolution is not true, there has to be a God.
Robin,
I'm back briefly as the vacation gives me a little time. Either/or's are seductive rhetorical devices but do you really wish to limit your hypotheses in such a binary fashion?
I get frustrated by the dominance of Christian literalism vs. science polarity on this forum. There are at least several alternatives. I have tried to give some sense of the nondual or advaita viewpoint, think Taoism, Buddhism, advaita Vedanta.
Suffering and evil are major problems for people. What if the solution is not at the level of the manifest universe of space, time, matter, and energy? What if like a Shakespearan play polarity is an absolute requirement for human existence?
But I will offer the majestic poetics of the great Bard:
PROSPERO
You do look, my son, in a moved sort,
As if you were dismay'd: be cheerful, sir.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors,
As I foretold you, were all spirits and
Are melted into air, into thin air:
And, like the baseless fabric of this vision,
The cloud-capp'd towers, the gorgeous palaces,
The solemn temples, the great globe itself,
Ye all which it inherit, shall dissolve
And, like this insubstantial pageant faded,
Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff
As dreams are made on, and our little life
Is rounded with a sleep.
The Tempest Act 4, Scene 1
The great non dual traditions are far from the literalism of either religion or science. They point to a solution that cannot be formulated by language. Once you assume the reality of the "self" and identify it with the organism you are then in the realm of duality and many paradoxes.
Literalism attempts to define the paradoxes away.
Non dualism points to a solution that is prior to manifestation. The solution is not at the level of the problem.
This I offer to you as a third approach to your dilemma. Look to the source of consciousness not to the play of manifestation for meaning.
I believe I've suggested the Heart of Awareness Sutra to you before. There is a very good translation of it available on the internet. It's a very succinct statement of Vedantic Advaitism.
You argue well. Hope this adds to your fun!
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by robinrohan, posted 12-29-2005 12:36 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by robinrohan, posted 12-30-2005 7:30 AM lfen has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 132 of 300 (273973)
12-29-2005 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by nwr
12-29-2005 6:48 PM


Re: That's hilarious, randman
I didn't come up with my statement about a 20th century origin out of thin air. I have spent some time researching the doctrine of original sin.
Sure, doesn't sound like it, nwr.
Also, you seem to be confusing the Fall with the doctrine of Original Sin. Original Sin primarily refers to humanity, but the Fall includes all of the earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by nwr, posted 12-29-2005 6:48 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by nwr, posted 12-29-2005 8:06 PM randman has not replied

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4111 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 133 of 300 (273975)
12-29-2005 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by randman
12-29-2005 6:30 PM


Re: Original Sin or the original sin
Clearly, Jews beleive in a form of Original Sin, or some do, since there is good range there
no you read it that way, but it was an uncommon belief that some rabbis held due to reading it that way
Original Sin is just the idea that we, as people, inherit a sin nature or tendency to do bad and are subject to illnesses and such as a result of Adam's sin.
I think some jews did hold this belief, or else it wouldn't have been taken up by the christians later, but to say it was a common belief by all jews would be wrong, and no they don't believe it now, they believe humans have good and bad tendences because they arn't perfect, nor created perfect
You and the evos here seem to be equating the doctrine of total depravity with the concept of Original Sin, and even those that hold to total depravity may still hold a form of it not so different than Jewish beliefs.
what the hell are you talking about? thats how most of the big named christians present it, they say its all about depravity and perversion, now thats not all of the christian groups, but they are pretty vocial.. as I said before the jews do not see the fall as a world shattering event since they know humans arn't perfect

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by randman, posted 12-29-2005 6:30 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by randman, posted 12-29-2005 8:09 PM ReverendDG has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 134 of 300 (273983)
12-29-2005 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by randman
12-29-2005 7:40 PM


Re: That's hilarious, randman
Also, you seem to be confusing the Fall with the doctrine of Original Sin. Original Sin primarily refers to humanity, but the Fall includes all of the earth.
Why don't you just come up with a clear reference for a source clearly showing the idea that before the fall there were no meat eaters, no diseases and no natural disasters on earth had an origin earlier than the 20th century.

Impeach Bush

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by randman, posted 12-29-2005 7:40 PM randman has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 135 of 300 (273984)
12-29-2005 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by ReverendDG
12-29-2005 7:55 PM


Re: Original Sin or the original sin
Reverend, you guys are talking about terms you do not understand. First off, the doctrine of total depravity can mean beleiving just that only God's grace draws someone to believing or all the way to beleiving unregenerate man is not capable of moral acts. That's a massive range for that one doctrinal idea alone.
Original Sin is also an idea existing within a certain range. You guys seem completely unaware of that, and of the range among people that hold to Original Sin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by ReverendDG, posted 12-29-2005 7:55 PM ReverendDG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by ReverendDG, posted 12-29-2005 8:22 PM randman has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024