Boy you will believe anything. Even some dude from the 3rd century?
Original sin is the Christian doctrine that holds that humans, through the fact of birth
The belief began to emerge in the 3rd century, but only became fully formed with the writings of Augustine of Hippo (354–430), who was the first author to use the phrase "original sin" (Latin: peccatum originale).[2][3] Influenced by Augustine, the councils of Carthage (411–418 CE) and Orange (529 CE) brought theological speculation about original sin into the official lexicon of the Church.[4]
Judaism does not see human nature as irrevocably tainted by some sort of original sin,[9] while for the Apostle Paul Adam's act released a power into the world by which sin and death became the natural lot of mankind.[10] Early Christianity had no specific doctrine of original sin prior to the 4th century
Justin Martyr, a 2nd-century Christian apologist and philosopher, was the first Christian author to discuss the story of Adam's fall after Paul. In Justin's writings, there is no conception of original sin and the fault of sin lies at the hands of the individual who committed it.
Augustine of Hippo (354–430) taught that Adam's sin is transmitted by concupiscence, or "hurtful desire",[38][39] resulting in humanity becoming a massa damnata (mass of perdition, condemned crowd), with much enfeebled, though not destroyed, freedom of will.[3] When Adam sinned, human nature was thenceforth transformed. Adam and Eve, via sexual reproduction, recreated human nature. Their descendants now live in sin, in the form of concupiscence, a term Augustine used in a metaphysical, not a psychological sense.[
Wow, a major doctrine of the church was from a guy in the 3rd century. This stuff is so made up.
But it gets worse. Augustine thought the Bible was poor literature. He converted only after Milan taught him that scripture should be interpretted symbolically instead of literally.
So original sin is a metaphor, not literal. The inventor of it meant it that way. Other people, literalist fundamentalists took it literal and now it's a literal belief.
Wow.
Why do you copy everything from Wikipedia? That is just lazy and I can do it myself.
I know how the dogma developed. The church did its job. The concept is dogma - an exposition of the biblical stance.
God's self-revelation is progressive.
The history of salvation is progressive.
We have far better understanding now than Moses could have hoped for. The Messiah was a huge turning point in our understanding of the reasons for His coming.
For instance, both the Tanakh and the Gospels and Epistles talk about sin, but the way they discuss it differs in the amount of detail. In the Tanakh, sin seems more simple and even more personal, as opposed to a force that enslaves us. The Jews will obviously reject any Christian concept because they reject the Messiah. So, their dogmas got left behind. It is old and redundant.
You can call the ability and willingness of all humans to sin (what we chose to call original sin) whatever you like BUT the concept of sin comes from the OT i.e. the first chapters of Genesis. Adam ate the fruit that was forbidden and fell into sin. Once Adam had sinned, the entire human race fell with him, and is now sharing his guilt. Since then each individual is a sinner.
The concept of sin is deeply rooted in the OT and centers mostly on the covenant relationship and obedience to that relationship. The foundation of concept was established in the OT.
In Hebrew we find: “ra, bad; rasha, wickedness; asham, guilt; chata, sin; avon, iniquity; shagag, er; taah, wander away; pasha, rebel. The usage of these words leads to our conclusions about the nature of sin in the Old Testament.
Sin was conceived of as being fundamentally disobedience to God.
Call it what you wish and you deny it together with the Jews but the concept and problem of sin comes from the OT.
First that is not true because I gave excerpts from a paper, Mary Boyce book, but Wiki is already written out so its easy.
I gave
WorldHistory,
britannica,
a Harvard scholar on video
what the heck?
God's self-revelation is progressive.
The history of salvation is progressive.
We have far better understanding now than Moses could have hoped for. The Messiah was a huge turning point in our understanding of the reasons for His coming.
An apologetic for the religion being highly syncretic. It's super lame as well. So Yahweh told people heaven is for Yahweh. He couldn't even say, after you die the goal is go to Heaven?
The history of salvation isn't progressive at all. It came 100% at once and during the Hellenistic occupation?
The messiah was added-on. The entire religion of Judaism seems to feel the understanding is just fine. Your religion needed to account for the fact that you adopted all these other pagan myths.
Also if Gods revelation is progressive interesting that he told Revelation to the Persians first?
And that Satan is an an enemy of God?
And a world savior might come, virgin born.
and God is uncreated
and quite a bit more to the Greeks first.
For instance, both the Tanakh and the Gospels and Epistles talk about sin, but the way they discuss it differs in the amount of detail. In the Tanakh, sin seems more simple and even more personal, as opposed to a force that enslaves us. The Jews will obviously reject any Christian concept because they reject the Messiah. So, their dogmas got left behind. It is old and redundant.
You can call the ability and willingness of all humans to sin (what we chose to call original sin) whatever you like BUT the concept of sin comes from the OT i.e. the first chapters of Genesis. Adam ate the fruit that was forbidden and fell into sin. Once Adam had sinned, the entire human race fell with him, and is now sharing his guilt. Since then each individual is a sinner.
Is what you are told by theologians and it's clearly a work because this Jesus you keep talking about would have SAID SOMETHING about the theology of original sin. But he didn't. A theologian in the 3rd century made it up as FIGURATIVE and literalists decided to make it a thing.
The concept of sin is deeply rooted in the OT and centers mostly on the covenant relationship and obedience to that relationship. The foundation of concept was established in the OT.
In Hebrew we find: “ra, bad; rasha, wickedness; asham, guilt; chata, sin; avon, iniquity; shagag, er; taah, wander away; pasha, rebel. The usage of these words leads to our conclusions about the nature of sin in the Old Testament.
Sin was conceived of as being fundamentally disobedience to God.
Call it what you wish and you deny it together with the Jews but the concept and problem of sin comes from the OT.
Not original sin. And it doesn't come from the OT. They used it like every other religion. It's in Hindu text as well.
"The word Pāpam (paap) is mostly used to denote sin in the Vedas and scriptures such as the Bhagavadgita."
Original Sin is a metaphor made up by a 3rd century man. A literalist fundamentalist made it literal and everyone after bought it.
I guess you are unfamiliar with research and reading other posts then?
He wants proof of realism beyond a scientific proof using tenants of cognitive relativism to break down my use of scientific proof and I simply am not looking for a philosophy debate in esoteric concepts like that. This is a religious debates forum not philosophy. Which is one thing but to get into "what is truth, what is physical" with relativism is not interesting to me.
I am interested in religious debates as I am studying it and might learn something.
If you can not or are unwilling to debate your religion I will not chase you which he was doing.
Mary Boyce (not Wiki)
Zoroaster was thus the first to teach the doctrines of an individual judgment, Heaven and Hell, the future resurrection of the body, the general Last Judgment, and life everlasting for the reunited soul and body. These doctrines were to become familiar articles of faith to much of mankind, through borrowings by Judaism, Christianity and Islam; yet it is in Zoroastrianism itself that they have their fullest logical coherence, since Zoroaster insisted both on the goodness of the material creation, and hence of the physical body, and on the unwavering impartiality of divine justice. According to him, - salvation for the individual depended on the sum of his thoughts, words and deeds, and there could be no intervention, whether compassionate or capricious, by any divine Being to alter this. With such a doctrine, belief in the Day of Judgment had its full awful significance, with each man having to bear the responsibility for the fate of his own soul, as well as sharing in responsibility for the fate of the world. Zoroaster's gospel was thus a noble and strenuous one, which called for both courage and resolution on the part of those willing to receive n. ~1700 BCE
Zoroastrians-Their-Religious-Beliefs-and-Practices-MaryBoyce
wow everyone seemed to know about individual salvation first. And both happened to move in to Israel for 500 and 200 years before the NT? Huh?
Yeah, I am so wrong, that I didn't write this. I get that version of wrong. I learned it from an atheist over 25 years ago and I have been proven wrong by reality ever since that time. Yet I am not really here and didn't write this. I know!
He is, he navigated Covid successfully, managed China incursion well, has strengthened the military. 7% rise in GDP, one of the best in the world. Stocks prices higher than at any other time. But Indian voters are fickle. Opposition floats canards and people vote for caste. No election in India is easy.
No example will impress you because you have probably not been changed by God. Enlighten me if I am wrong.
How can I make that claim?? Romans 12:2 says:- Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Without being born again which brings faith and changes our minds people conform to the patterns and religions of this world. To change, we need saving faith in Christ. Prior to coming to faith i.e. salvation, we were ruled by the ideas of this world.
Without being born again which brings faith and changes our minds people conform to the patterns and religions of this world. To change, we need saving faith in Christ. Prior to coming to faith i.e. salvation, we were ruled by the ideas of this world.
And wouldn't it be necessary to show that this supposedly "true" religion "works" in every way? After all, one example might be coincidence. (Example, my religion tells me that if I eat green tomatoes a wart I have will go away. I have a wart and I eat green tomatoes. It goes away. The problem is that warts go away on their own eventually.)
Trivial example, yes, but I'm trying to point out how difficult "it works" is to prove a religious statement or practice. Maybe this would be closer. I have a problem with alcoholism (I don't really). I pray for help, and find that I can now resist the urge to drink. Sounds convincing, but there are other explanations. Maybe my belief in the power of prayer is the true explanation. Maybe something else happened that I am overlooking. The human mind is a mysterious thing.
Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are saying?
No, I was referring to the totality of humans. Please explain how a Bushman in Africa before colonization could know anything about Judaeo/Christian theology? And how likely is it that someone raised in, say, a strict Muslim country would come to the same conclusions as you?
Since the Bushman in Africa had ancestors... who were not ape-men, by the way, they learn from those who carried the news.
(Joshua 6:27) So Jehovah was with Joshua, and his fame spread through all the earth.
Good question. I would say the vast majority of Christians don't approach their belief in that way, though some do. Scientists pretty much have to, given the environment in which they work.
"the vast majority of Christians" are not true Christians.
That's where the problem lies.
I'm not saying this simple because of a case of "Mine is right. The others are wrong".
The same Bible those "Christians" use says this...
(1 Timothy 4:1) However, the inspired word clearly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired statements and teachings of demons,
(2 Timothy 4:3) For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.
(2 Peter 2:1) However, there also came to be false prophets among the people, as there will also be false teachers among you. These will quietly bring in destructive sects, and they will even disown the owner who bought them, bringing speedy destruction upon themselves.
(1 John 2:18-19) 18 Young children, it is the last hour, and just as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared, from which fact we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of our sort; for if they had been of our sort, they would have remained with us. But they went out so that it might be shown that not all are of our sort.
(Acts 20:29-30) 29 I know that after my going away oppressive wolves will enter in among you and will not treat the flock with tenderness, 30 and from among you yourselves men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves.
(2 Thessalonians 2:3) Let no one lead you astray in any way, because it will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness gets revealed, the son of destruction.
If one is not able to see that there are apostates whom have deviated from the teachings of Christ, and they obviously are more branches today, than back then, that one is obviously asleep, and needs to wake up.
The next thing is to be able to identify the true Christians - followers, or disciples of Christ.
The scriptures do not hide the identifying marks either. One needs to be awake.
Interesting selection of people on that poster. I'm not familiar with all of them but most seem to be pretty extreme. This is a very old claim (that science is like a religion) and I'm not sure I want to go through it all again. I'd say that you have to be careful to distinguish between science and scientists. We are all human and have bias to a greater or lesser extent. I would say with some certainty though that the scientific method is superior to any so far invented for investigating the physical world.
Fair enough.
I don't fight that... and I, nor my brothers in faith, do not think science is a religion, but certain scientists treat it as such, and their beliefs become "the Gospel of Scientist(s) X".
Like any historical document, the Bible has value. Like any historical document, it is subject to criticism. The problem arises when you start claiming that the Bible is the inerrant word of God or some such, because then you are stuck with supporting a claim that everything in the Bible is true. Do you put as much weight on the existence of King Hezekiah as that the sun literally stood still so Joshua could finish a battle? I will admit that some skeptics' claims are just as silly.
I think those who do not understand the Bible make silly statements, because when one reads the Bible like their computer voice Cortana, or such like has read to them, they miss out on quite a lot of benefits.
Those who understand that the Bible is not to be read like some robot is reading it, knows that one has to take a number of factors into consideration.
For example, the perspective from which the writer is presenting his record.
There were times when the writer's perspective was from heaven.
(Isaiah 40:22) There is One who dwells above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers. . .
From a heavenly view, the earth is circular. It has a circle.
This is a fact. Taken literally, yes.
There were others, where his perspective was from earth.
(Joshua 10:12) . . .“Sun, stand still over Gibeon, And moon, over the Valley of Aijalon!”
From an earthly perspective, the sun stood still, yes. Literally... in that the rotation of the earth might have been slowed, so that the sun appeared to stand still.
Why would that be an impossibility for the creator? It's not. (Isaiah 28:21)
Have we not observed that the days are going by more quickly? Earth has started spinning faster – what does it all mean? The Earth’s rotation is changing speed
In 2020 scientists made a startling discovery. They found that, instead of slowing down, the Earth has started to spin faster. It is now spinning faster than at any time in the last 50 years. In fact, the shortest 28 days on record all occurred during 2020.
As yet, scientists are not entirely sure what is causing this increase in Earth’s rotation rate, but some have suggested it could be due to the melting of glaciers during the 20th Century, or the accumulation of large quantities of water in northern hemisphere reservoirs. However, experts predict that this speeding
up is a temporary effect and the Earth will start slowing down again in the future.
If 'nature' (claim and belief noted) can slow down or speed up the rotation of the earth, it would be cake for a super intellect, isn't that so?
There is a general principle though that I was referring to. I'll make a claim now ... all elephants live in Africa. If you dispute that and mention Indian elephants and zoos, and I respond "it's true because I wrote it", you'd think I was very stupid. To return to the Bible, simply because somebody wrote something years ago and someone else wrote something similar in the same book just points to internal consistency and not external proof. It actually does add some weight, but the fact remains that they could both be mistaken. We need external evidence to prove something that is written in a document. Agreed, we do accept such as the best we have to go on, but that still leaves plenty of room for doubt.
I see here, "could", and "doubt".
That... in this case, appears to equal great skepticism, and or denial.
In the case of the Bible, it's not simply a case of "somebody wrote something years ago and someone else wrote something similar in the same book".
It's a case of the Bible having one unified message - one theme, which is like a thread that binds the books of the Bible, beginning at Genesis, and ending at Revelation, although writen by about 40 different men, during a perioud of 1600 years.
Can you explain how that can happen?
They weren't good examples of what I was referring to. As far as I can see they say that an aggressive form of debate can be valuable. Maybe so in the honor/shame society of the times.
Then you missed the point.
If someone is trying to intimidate another, so as to discourage them from saying something important that can help others, the person showing a similar attitude may be required for two reasons - 1) show the opposer that their intimidation isn't working, and 2) help the audience and encourage them not to be fearful.
So, it is valuable - very valuable.
I was simply saying that if A is wrong, then saying B is wrong doesn't change the fact that A is wrong, and doesn't add anything to the discussion of A.
Huh? Why would you say B is wrong, unless to point out that A is wrong?
In that case, it's great, because the person is not able to see that A is wrong... eccept his attention be drawn to the fact that B is wrong.
Super! It's referred to as an object lesson - using an object to draw attention to something else.
The viewer, or listener gets the point. They learn a lesson.
Wonderful!
