Print

[Ianto]

The notion of "Original sin" from a Judeao-Christian viewpoint was that Adam and Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The current belief is that all humans inherit that sin at birth. It wasn't always so. In the 4th century a British monk named Pelagius advocated the view that children were born innocent. He preached "Original Blessings" This was hotly debated and was opposed by such people as Saint Augustine. It was known as the Pelagian heresy and was finally removed from doctrine about a 100 years later in the Synod of Victory.
Alchymist makes some excellent points and I agree with him. What I appreciate about the Gods of north west Europe, the Celtic and Germanic, is that there is no "Sin" concept. The old myth and legend do not speak of crime and punishment or sins against Gods, only obligation. As in the tale of Arawn and Pwyll as just one example. Pwyll steals a stag from Arawn, Lord of the otherworld, he must then take Arawns place in Annwn and defeat an enemy. This story, like so many others present the principle that if you give harm or injustice you are obligated to make it right. A basic difference between the Celtic Gods and the Gods of Eastern Europe.

[shadetree]

Correct , my belief system is based on obligation as well . Otherwise known as the what comes around goes around . The point I was trying to make above is the belief in the original sin and the subsequent laws , the way the christians try to teach them lack any balance for me . If I were to do you harm , for no reason . Then my intent would be askew and there would be reprocussions for that . We know this without there being a written law or rule because the action/reaction is what  maintains the balance . That being said IF there was an original sin , if you want to believe sin is real then is the original sin the thought , the intent , or the actual action sparked by the thought or intent ?

[Wyldkat]

Correct , my belief system is based on obligation as well . Otherwise known as the what comes around goes around . The point I was trying to make above is the belief in the original sin and the subsequent laws , the way the christians try to teach them lack any balance for me . If I were to do you harm , for no reason . Then my intent would be askew and there would be reprocussions for that . We know this without there being a written law or rule because the action/reaction is what  maintains the balance . That being said IF there was an original sin , if you want to believe sin is real then is the original sin the thought , the intent , or the actual action sparked by the thought or intent ?

In my opinion, the action.  Although Christian faith does put thoughts and intent as sins (coveting for example).

[oldghost]

Original sin is still going on ,just on a much grander scale and it is GREED.oldghost

[Raven Star]

INTERESTING! Hmmm, now we have to realize that the Bible has been re-writen so many times by (sorry guys) men of that time,how do we really know what that first sin was? Also,if Adam and Eve "were" the first humans,who wrote all this down? And this is the one that always threw me,who the heck wrote it all down in the first darn place..I was raised Christian and was always asking questions that bugged me,I got slapped in the mouth once for defending Mary Maggie..

Which I still defend her and Jesus and always will,but then thats another issue...I also have other ideas on where we came from in the first place,also another issue...So the first sin,it could be any number of things..It seems we humans have been guilty of so many first sin's lol, it seems we are never out of trouble for something or other..But,I love this topic,it makes you think of "why/when/how"........

[cheese]

I've begun to think of the story of the Fall as a story about when man became self aware and could recognize the harm one could do to another. Iirc, the bible speaks of humans knowing the difference between right and wrong. Seems like the beginning of consciousness to me.

[C_A]

I don't have "Original Sin", as I am not descended of Adam.  I am from the "other tribes" that Adam, Eve, and their children wen't to live with after getting chased out of Eden.

Hmm..."FIRST" man and woman?

Or, just first man and woman that THIS particular G-d made?  Or maybe they were brought there as babies to be sacrificed on a rock, and lived?  Only to be told all sorts of stories by "that man behind the curtain"?  And when "that" man caught them "doing what comes naturally", he gave them the boot?

Wow.  I have to cut out this "thinking" stuff....

[Serpentium]

If we must have "sin", then let it be the idea of sin itself.
I, for one will not give any credence to some vague, outdated morality code, from the often deranged Priests of some ancient desert goat herder's God, that makes virtue out of meekness, and demands constant supplication and penance for the supposed crimes of our most ancient ancestors. That's just about the most backwards and crazy idea I've heard all day.

[Khara]

If we must have "sin", then let it be the idea of sin itself.
I, for one will not give any credence to some vague, outdated morality code, from the often deranged Priests of some ancient desert goat herder's God, that makes virtue out of meekness, and demands constant supplication and penance for the supposed crimes of our most ancient ancestors. That's just about the most backwards and crazy idea I've heard all day.

You make Pat Robertson cry......

[Serpentium]

You make Pat Robertson cry......

Don't know who Pat Robertson is.

[Firesong]

Don't know who Pat Robertson is.

Not necessarily a bad thing... he's the leader of the "700 Club", a Christian TV ministry.  Basically, he's waaaaayyyyy over the top even for a Christian like me...

[Firesong]

If we must have "sin", then let it be the idea of sin itself.
I, for one will not give any credence to some vague, outdated morality code, from the often deranged Priests of some ancient desert goat herder's God, that makes virtue out of meekness, and demands constant supplication and penance for the supposed crimes of our most ancient ancestors. That's just about the most backwards and crazy idea I've heard all day.

That's because it's absurd... *lol* (not your statement but the concept itself).  Original sin is a purely 3rd century Christian idea that cemented the need for a) baptism and b) the priest/king power structure.  It comes from (Romans 5:12) where Paul says, "Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. By one man's disobediance many were made sinners." 

The Jews (and Jesus WAS a Jew) have no concept of original sin.  Paul was very likely NOT a Jew, and just as likely, never ever saw Jesus in the flesh.  Unfortunately, most of the New Testament is based on his writings.   Even if it had any validity, the crucifixion of Jesus would have washed it away from all...

[cheese]

Paul was very likely NOT a Jew

Interesting. Source? I haven't heard that before.

[C_A]

It's possible and even likely.  I'll have to take a look, now..I'm intrigued.

This much I can recall...he was a Roman citizen from Tarsus, therefore a Turk.

Hmm.  I also remember that, and again, I'll have to go look, maybe in the Apocrypha?  That not all of the disciples were Jews going in, but which-were-or-were-not is what I need to "re-remember".

[Firesong]

Interesting. Source? I haven't heard that before.

Cheese!!! How great to hear from you!!  I'll have to check my sources but I've read it in several places... I don't think anyone really knows, but it's been speculated by some sources.  I think it's the reason so much of the New Testament appears to be the words of a Jew interpreted by a Gentile.  Paul was the one who became "enlightened" and spread Christianity.  I always try to understand Jesus the man, and to do that I need to understand Jesus the Jew.

It's not hard to understand what he believed... he was an orthodox Jew, bound under the Covenant of Moses, with very strictly defined practices mandated by G-d.  A covenant binds both parties to a pattern of behavior, and can't be broken by either party without the consent of the other...

If you think about it, what good is any god that doesn't fulfill it's promises?  For that reason, I think the whole "New Covenant" idea was partly Paul, and partly the directive of Constantine and the Council of Nicea, created as a power structure; a religious "Pax Romanus". 

Even recognizing the politically-based construction of the Bible, I don't think it takes anything away from it, but merely requires a little bit of a filter.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on it, since I know you have a wonderful knowledge base.