What does “perfect” mean? What does “spiritually” mean?
“Morality” is a matter of opinion. I believe I follow my own moral code sufficiently. I have no belief in spirits.
If not
I belief that I could follow my own moral code with perfect consistency if I really wanted to, yes. But you still have to define the word “perfect.”
If not
I think people can be as ethically consistent as they want to be, yes, but “perfect” still needs a definition.
If not
Whatever “imperfections” exist in humans exoist because of nature and if God created nature then all moral “imperfection” (which I think is a contrived and meaningless concept) is the fault of God. Yes indeedy.
bsolutely none of this follows from the antecedents. You have not proven that “imperfection” requires a source.
I wasn’t trying to prove that OS is real, just to show that it is more widely held than people realize. I disagree that people can be as morally consistent as they choose, but I left the definition of perfection unstated deliberately to make it as wide as possible. For me, moral perfection requires taking full responsability for my actions, something I am often incapable of physically or emotionally. Frankly, I can’t even avoid deliberate immorality like hurting others for pleasure at times. If your understanding or experience is different, you may not believe in original sin.
I believe that I am morally imperfect (or inconsistent if you will) because I am a biological being whose needs and drives are the result of an evolutionary process, while my moral values are the result of thinking about the sort of world I would like to live in, and the one is often ill suited for the other. If you believe moral imperfection has neither cause nor reason, you may not believe in original sin.
I use the term God to refer to that which is perfect in goodness and worthy of worship. I believe this is consistant with much historical Christian usage. If you use the term to refer to that which is the cause (for whatever reason) of that which is evil or immoral, you may not believe in original sin.
My point was that if you do accept the terms and premises outlines as I presented them, or something vaguely similar, you may in fact believe in original sin, and that this has nothing to do with believing in the intirely seperate and later doctrine of Total Depravity (that humans are basically evil), nor with believing in sexual transmision of sin, imputed guilt, or magic apples, all of which have been involved in various attempts to understand original sin, but are not identical with it.
All organized religions operate by exploiting the fear of death. The concept of original sin is just another way of doing it.
“Adam and Eve sinned, and they screwed up ssooooo bad that you have to atone for it. You’re gonna burn in hell for what they did. Unless you do exactly what we tell you to do and give us money. Then you might be saved. Maybe.”
It seems from the preceding posts, and from what I have read on the sites listed previously, that the concept of original sin is not strictly a biblical declaration, but an interpretation of Genesis (prmarily) by various people in later periods. I was under the impression that Jesus was brought onto the earth by God to cleanse humanity of original sin (hence the Saviour). If that is not the case, i.e. people aren’t born in sin to begin with, why do we need to accept Jesus into our lives as a saviour?
I can understand that today the concept of OS is so ingrained in Christian theology that this might be the reason given by most priests, but what would have been the argument to accept Jesus into someone’s life in the early days of Christianity.
I hope that question doesn’t seem too convoluted.
-Hawk
I agree that it has to be symbolic. If it were literally just eating an apple, the story wouldn’t make any sense. I’m about as far from a theologian as you can get, but I always understood that eating the apple gave them the knowledge of good and evil, and was a rebellion against God. Before, they were innocent, but once they gained the knowledge of good and evil, they became accountable for their actions. And mankind, which was descended from them, retained this knowledge and thus the accountability. Isn’t that pretty much how the story goes? I don’t believe the story, but I was under the impression that was the jist of it.
True. My initial mistake was to take it literally. But the problem with interpreting religious texts is that they can be interpreted too many ways to mean too many different things. Especially with the lack of written information concerning original sin. Shows how much more the original writers know about convincing the masses than I do. If it was upto me, I would be aginising for weeks on how to make story more convincing to the lay person :smack: .
Guess I won’t be starting a religion anytime soon. ;j
That’s a pretty accurate summation of the Jewish and Eastern Orthodox interpretation of the story. But there’s a difference between being accountable for one’s actions and being born already guilty, which is what the Doctrine of OS avers.
Not only does OS say you’re already guilty but that you don’t have the ability to be good by yourself, so only God can save you.
Not really. Judaism has evolved the concept of Gehenna into something fairly similar to the Catholic Purgatory but it is not eternal and they don’t call it “hell.”
Oh! All we who struggle in the darkness for some light (couldnt resist that)
Gods law being applied to us I’m afraid and on which our legal system is based.
If we were ‘as children’ playing in the garden of eden and being gods chum then Adam would apparently still be there but apparently he got bored with gods company and wanted more and hence viola’ eve then problems started.
Apple is knowledge we were not meant to have and one chomp into that apple and we knew that we were naked meaning we knew what our sexual parts were for a start besides excretory function and this includes the power to create a new life (ie children) and according to gods laws this is a sin (or wrongdoing as our laws determine of our acts) because he gave a clear rule ‘do not eat that red juicy fruit’ of the tree of knowledge.
So punishment, eve be dependent on adam, look around and all eve’s would scream black and blue its not but no eve would eve live in isolation naturally without men in her community, adam toil the earth, well we are still toiling and snake well they dont usually get a welcome reception when they appear in our homes do they.
So is it transferred to the offsprings, well apparently so to the bible, meaning we will never be pure as adam was when he was created by god in his own image and so here comes the issue of soul which thought to be part of god that is in all created beings on earth and the bearer of all acts while in physical from on earth which are to be judged by gods laws into good and sin when the soul returns to its maker and in constant contact with god consciously or unconsciously even while we have the gift of the body on earth( just like our ever increasing laws making things that were ok before but now not ok but nobody told you until you did it then the whole neighborhood filled with red and blue lights looking for you).
So it sucks but when did law not suck.
So I guess the basic message is you are born as a sinner (meaning not pure) and so get used to it and then toil on earth to be godly so when your souls time come to return to its maker he will be pleased and allow you to become a part of him as you originally were or to go and join eve and adam in er… anyone want to continue