... that we are all so reliant on the good will of others and end up corrupting each other when it is perceived as necessary for survival (or at least for some measure of security and confort)?
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!
I do not believe so. I suspect it evolved from a primitive biblical view on reward and punishment.... that we are all so reliant on the good will of others and end up corrupting each other when it is perceived as necessary for survival (or at least for some measure of security and confort)?
Well...I think that this is the consequence, rather than the cause. In other words, the invention of "original sin" has the aim to make humans feel not guilty, if they harm or corrupt other people. Sometimes it is seen as "collateral damage" of a mankind that can't do but sin.... that we are all so reliant on the good will of others and end up corrupting each other when it is perceived as necessary for survival (or at least for some measure of security and confort)?
... that we are all so reliant on the good will of others and end up corrupting each other when it is perceived as necessary for survival (or at least for some measure of security and confort)?
Could the origin of the idea of an "Original Sin" be the perception... that we are all so reliant on the good will of others and end up corrupting each other when it is perceived as necessary for survival (or at least for some measure of security and confort)?
Its Paul's invention to fit the utter implausibility of a messiah crucified and resurrected with his Jewish theology.... that we are all so reliant on the good will of others and end up corrupting each other when it is perceived as necessary for survival (or at least for some measure of security and confort)?
Its Paul's invention to fit the utter implausibility of a messiah crucified and resurrected with his Jewish theology.
What is unclear about this. The idea of original sin is not found outside of Christianity at all, and Paul clearly puts forth the idea in his letters to explain what the supposed death and resurrection means. He invents the idea. The point being that a sociological explanation is unnecessary for a sectarian belief that is not shared by anyone uinless you subscribe to Christianity.Huh?
Actually, it can be argued that the sacrificial death and resurrection have some basis in the protocols surrounding the cities of refuge.What is unclear about this. The idea of original sin is not found outside of Christianity at all, and Paul clearly puts forth the idea in his letters to explain what the supposed death and resurrection means. He invents the idea.
It also shows up in some of the Greek myths as well.Actually, it can be argued that the sacrificial death and resurrection have some basis in the protocols surrounding the cities of refuge.
Where in Greek myths do we have such a sacrifice made to save others?It also shows up in some of the Greek myths as well.
I wasn't referring to that aspect but, instead, of humans becoming deities and sometimes vice-versa.Where in Greek myths do we have such a sacrifice made to save others?
What is unclear about this. The idea of original sin is not found outside of Christianity at all, and Paul clearly puts forth the idea in his letters to explain what the supposed death and resurrection means. He invents the idea. The point being that a sociological explanation is unnecessary for a sectarian belief that is not shared by anyone uinless you subscribe to Christianity.
Perhaps of interest . . .
The Original Sin as the tradition of the Fall from the Garden of Eden' is an archetypal structure embedded deep within our unconsciousness.
The Original Sin is Man's guilt of being carnivorous and lycanthropic.
We are all descended from males of the carnivorous lycanthropic variety, a mutation evolved under the pressure of hunger caused by the climatic change at the end of the pluvial period, which induced indiscriminate, even cannibalistic predatory aggression, culminating in the rape and sometimes even in the devouring of the females of the original peaceful fruit-eating bon sauvage remaining in the primeval virgin forests.
It was the 'clothes of skin' and the 'aprons of fig-leaves', that produced the nakedness of man, and not the other way round, the urge to cover man's nudity that led to the invention of clothing. It is obvious that neither man nor woman could be 'ashamed' (Gen. ii. 25) or 'afraid because they were naked' (Gen. iii. 10 f.) before they had donned their animal's pelt or hunters' 'apron of leaves', and got so accustomed to wearing it that the uncovering of their defenseless bodies gave them a feeling of cold, fear and the humiliating impression of being again reduced to the primitive fruit-gatherer's state of a helpless 'unarmed animal' exposed to the assault of the better-equipped enemy.
The uncovered body could not have been considered 'indecorous' or 'im-moral'. The very feeling of sin, the consciousness of having done something 'im-moral', contrary to the mores, customs or habits of the herd, could not be experienced before a part of the herd had wrenched itself free from the inherited behaviour-pattern and radically changed its way of life from that of a frugivorous to that of a carnivorous or omnivorous animal.
- from a lecture delivered at a meeting of the Royal Society of Medicine by ROBERT EISLER
First published in 1951 by Routledge and Kegan Paul Limited Broadway House, 68-74 Carter Lane, London, B.C.4
Printed in Great Britain by Butler and Tanner Limited Frome and London
Thank you.You have labelled yourself well. You are indeed secular. Paul invented nothing but was taught by Christ Himself. But since you are secular of course you cannot understand what that means.