The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Another perspective on evil > Comments

Another perspective on evil : Comments

By David Fisher, published 22/10/2008

The concept of Original Sin has its roots in paganism not monotheism. The nature of evil is not connected with Original Sin.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
GrahamY

'The reason that many try to load Augustine up with the invention of the doctrine is it then allows them to argue that it is not authentically Christian and to then try to substitute another doctrine for it.'

You have summed it up well.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 22 October 2008 3:04:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well..for once (?) Graham Young and myself are pretty much on the same page.

Romany.. you say you have studied the Bible?

Please.. no one who has read Romans would ever attribute the doctrine of Original sin to Augustine. (so clearly a lot of theological mythology is out there)

They would know absolutely that it came (as a developed doctrine) from Paul, who spends the first 3 chapters of his letter to the Romans developing systematically that very point!

Chapter 1 Gods wrath against mankind. (information about God is available, man rejects it) and the reality of human rejection of Grace.

Chapter 2
-Gentiles are sinful, under judgement.
-Jews are sinful.. the law does not help them.

Chapter 3 ALL have sinned.

"Original" sin ? it's part and parcel of the human condition as Paul shows. He explains the connection to the Fall of man in Adam in Romans 5:12ff please read it.

In spite of David's colorful story of Augustine and Plato..one need go no further than Paul for the origin of the idea. Augustine had access to the Scriptures and it is rather strange (to be kind) to consider that Augustine ignored Paul, who himself received revelation from the risen Lord.

I would take the word of a Trained Pharisee..

<circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; 6as for zeal, persecuting the church>

Over any Rabbi at any time. It should be remembered that Rabbi's also decided (in the absence of specific numbers) that betrothal could be confirmed by intercourse with a child of 3 yrs and 1 day age.
No...that's not from the 'protocals of zion' its from the Babylonian Talmud.
Posted by Polycarp, Wednesday, 22 October 2008 4:06:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A bit late in the day but, among other things, this talk and essay gives a unique understanding of "sin".

http://www.dabase.org/birthday.htm

"Sin" being the always, in every present moment, active dramatisation of the presumption of being separate from The Divine Conscious Light, which has inevitably manifested in the situation described in this essay.

http://www.ispeace723.org/liberationfromego2.html

Plus this essay tells us how the religion of self-transcending love, as demonstrated and taught by Saint Jesus of Galilee was changed into the ego-consoling, and power and control seeking worldly "religion" of churchianity.

http://www.dabase.org/exochrist.htm

Which INEVITABLY produced everything described in this reference

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com
Posted by Ho Hum, Wednesday, 22 October 2008 6:33:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A couple of grammatical nit-picks, Polycarp. It should be 'and I' not 'and myself' at the beginning of your post (myself should only be used where I appears in relation to it I- as in 'I gave myself time to relax.' And at the end of your post the plural of Rabbi is Rabbis, not Rabbi's, which indicates something that belongs to a/the Rabbi. Now that grammar is back on the educational agenda, I feel obliged to point these thing out!

On the original sin front, I have always regarded it as one of the twin 'get out of gaol free' cards offered by Christianity, the first being I can't help doing the wrong thing, I was born sinful and the second being do whatever you like as long as you repent later to ensure forgiveness. Those two, Runner, are far more responsible for the current state of humankind than evolution.
Posted by Candide, Wednesday, 22 October 2008 6:45:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DB, -

"Romany.. you say you have studied the Bible? Please.. "

Right. No-where in the above statement are the words "You are lying." "I know better than you." "I have better knowledge than you." Nor do the words "I myself am an ill-mannered, smug and self-righteous person" appear either. But each one of those statements can be extrapolated from your words.

I defy you to present me with The Doctrine of Original Sin in Romans 2, 3 or 4. I will, however agree with your statemnt "so clearly a lot of theological mythology is out there" if you are able to do so.

Although, as you once stated that the King James is impossible to interpret as it appears to you as though it had been written on Mars, I imagine you will dive into the dumbed down, multi-deconstructed and translated copy which appears to have been tailored for your own particular use, which is cheating somewhat. Does it come with a spiral binding and a black and yellow cover, too?

The doctrine of Original Sin was EXTRAPOLATED by some from Paul. Do you not know what the word means?

Not considering myself the gatekeeper of all knowledge of things biblical and, being more familiar with the Augustinian model I was responding to someone elses post. What was there in mine- apart from the fact that it differed from your viewpoint - to suggest I would welcome being maligned?

How DARE you impute disbelief in my moral and ethical standards? And how DARE you constantly impugn the knowledge, beliefs and/or scholarship not just of me, but of so many others, based solely upon the idea that you alone are qualified to set those standards?

You are an unnecessarily unkind person who has done more on this site to insult, inflame and upset people than anyone else.
Posted by Romany, Wednesday, 22 October 2008 7:46:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Candide...thanx for that grammatical nitpick :) I'll try to remember that in future. I'll categorize your criticism in the box "Speaking the truth in love" and "Let us therefore stir one another up to love and good works" (good grammatical works :)

Dear Romany... I'm sensing a mild case of animosity there ? :)
don't get too worked up.. we simply disagree.. no need for a barrage of insults or stern rebukes.

Your position seems to depend a bit on what is meant by the 'doctrine' of Original sin.
As far as I understand it, it says "Humanities state of sin resulting from the fall of man"

Which to me is simply a re-statement of...not an extrapolation from Pauls writings.
So, perhaps if by original sin you are referring to a specific volume of Catholic Theology, which can be traced back (as a specific volume) to a particular person, in that sense I suppose what you said could be correct.

But this is one of those discussions where definitions are most important. To me.. "Original Sin" means a condition...not a theological treatize. That condition is clearly spelt out in Romans "All have sinned" (3:23) which of course is the culmination of the previous chapters.

But Paul summarizes the human condition most succinctly in Romans 5:12ff where he clearly spells out that in Adam...we all sinned.
That is the idea of 'original' sin.

You asked me to provide evidence of that doctrine in Romans...I've now done it, do you disagree?

PS. there is an interesting aspect of Romans 5:13b I wonder if folks can pick it up? :)
Posted by Polycarp, Thursday, 23 October 2008 8:07:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy