₦airaland Forum

Omenuko:
How is this different from what David posted?

I can only go on what I read and perhaps he'll clarify but he seems to hold the view that Original Sin is not hereditary. It is inherent. The act of Adam and Eve is not the responsibility of all humanity, but the consequences of that act changed man-kind.

I point you to your quote:

It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice.

It is considered a hereditary sin handed down from generation to generation. The responsibility of the father is therefore passed down to the son.

DavidDylan's view seems to be in line with mine - that each individual carries the burden individually regardless of his parentage. It is an inherent part of the human condition.

Omenuko:
Well said. . .this is the Catholic understanding also.

No. The Catholic understanding is that it is literally hereditary - passed down from generation to generation by way of lust during sexual intercourse. As quoted from a Catholic website on the subject:
"The crime of a father brands his yet unborn children with shame, and entails upon them a share of his own responsibility."

The Catholic Church also believes that Original Sin is voluntary - "There can be no sin that is not voluntary, the learned and the ignorant admit this evident truth", writes St. Augustine (De vera relig., xiv, 27), whereas DavidDylan seems to be holding the non-Catholic view that it is a condition of man's nature (whether it's origins be in scripture or not) and that the onus of responsibility is entirely down to the individual.

Have you actually thought any of these theories through?

The polio vaccinations given to Africans were orally taken. An oral administration is just about the most inept way of trying to transfer HIV - the lining of the mouth and throat acts as a natural barrier.

Just one of the many other errors in your post concerns Trovan, which was an available drug in the US up until 1999 (three years after the Kanu tests) and which is not a polio vaccine.

Also, the South African AIDS epedemic is considered to have taken hold in 1990 - 4 years before apartheid ended and therefore making your claim that it wasn't a problem under the white regime incorrect.
As for more recent times? What is one to expect from a country who's President (Mbeke) thought that AIDS was only a minor problem and who diverted badly needed funding away from tackling the problem.


I could point out other problems with your theory but simply can't be bothered typing them all up. I'd be here all night!!!

ElRazur:
How is smith an asshole when she is merely doing her job?

She's not an asshole in this particular instance. In fact, it's about the only time she's ever got anything right.
No. It's all the other shit she's been up to that makes her an asshole.

Dude, that is the Orthodox view not the Catholic view.

That is not a belief in Original Sin. Original Sin is a belief in ancestral sin. It is the belief that all sin stems from the eating of the forbidden fruit and has been passed down through the generations. It is an inherited condition by way of concupiscence (basically, lust) during conception as formulated by Augustine of Hippo.
You're just propounding human nature which, as my original statement claims, is the outlook of most Christians outside of the Catholic Church.

davidylan:
Actually your own interpretation was particularly important since you earlier claimed it was NOT in the bible as a concept.

And I stand by that claim. It is not a concept until it is interpreted. And as has been shown, it has been interpreted differently by different churches.

Quite funny . . . and illogical if i may add. When you cant explain the bible simply attack the biblical figures.

I'm not attacking the figure, just the politics. Although the culprits in my opinion are Iraneus and Augustine.

Was Paul using this same "gambit" for the Romans, corinthians, ephesians and galatians too?

Yes. In many cases the churches were wavering. The guy is writing a letter, not waging physical war. Carrots and sticks were all he could fight with.

There is nothing ambigous about this - Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation

I'd say it's ambiguous. The Orthodox Church sees it as ambiguous. It could merely be reaffirming the idea that man is a sinful creature and that the latest generation are no different to the first generation. A statement on the nature of man.
I read English pretty well, but would be the first to admit that the passage is like a lot of other Biblical scripture and does not read well.

It is spoken of in the old testament - Ps 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

One sentence? And again, totally and utterly ambiguous. One should also remember that David's father was Jesse - one of only four people in Jewish tradition who was actually sinless and take that in context. Again, if that passage refers to Original Sin, why didn't the Jews believe in it? And doesn't the fact that they believe that Jesse was one of only 4 people who actually died because of "Original Sin" contradict the idea that the passage is in regards to it. It's actually pointing out the opposite - "I'm not pure and I won't die as my father did".

Did Christ speak of original sin? His entire 33 yrs on earth was BECAUSE OF THE CURSE OF ORIGINAL SIN! Why did Christ have to die on the cross? Who did He come to redeem? Why was He shedding His blood for the remission of sin? Whose sins?
Why did Christ say that anyone who rejected Him was condemned already? Why is it not possible for me to ignore Christ's death on the cross and live a moral life keeping the 10 commandments like the pharisees?

That only goes to reinforce what's missing. 33 years but he never mentioned Original Sin once. Even though, according to dogma, his whole mission on Earth was to eradicate it. Do you not see how ridiculously huge that omission is?

As for why you're not a good boy? Cos you're human, dude. Not because some skank munched on an apple.

Sorry guy but your book doesn't seem to rely on logic or fact.

smile4kenn:
Jesus made claims that, if true, have profound implications on our lives. According to Jesus, you and I are special, part of a grand cosmic scheme, with him as the center of it all.

Jesus was adamant that God was at the center of it all. Never once did he claim that he was God.
So although he may have claimed that "you and I are special" he never claimed that he was the center of it all.

It was primarily Jesus’ outrageous claims that caused him to be viewed as a crackpot by both the Roman authorities and the Jewish hierarchy.

A crackpot? No. They took him seriously. Seriously enough to have him put to death.

Although he was an outsider with no credentials or political powerbase, within three years, Jesus changed the world for the next 20 centuries.

We simply don't know what his credentials were but many scholars believe that he was a rabbi. This is certainly not someone with no credentials. We also don't know wether he had a political power base or not, but if a rabbi it is more likely than not.

Other moral and religious leaders have left an impact---but nothing like that unknown carpenter from Nazareth.

Muslims and Buddhists (amongst others) have a very good case to disagree with that statement.

My interpretation is totally and utterly irrelevant. Quite simply, it is not the issue here.

But as you ask, I take it in the context of what Romans is - a letter sent to a congregation that Paul had never met and that he wanted to get on his side. To do this, he used the typical Paulian carrot and stick. Original Sin is a bit of both but is purposefully ambiguous. My take on it is that it's just yet another device to hook converts and keep them in line. It's ambiguity is it's strength. Something later recognised by both Iraneus and Augustine.
You cannot argue that it is not ambiguous as I have already pointed out that it varies widely in interpretation. The reason I point to the Orthodox church is to display just how wide the variance is - after all, one cannot just write off the second largest Christian church on Earth as just some crackpot little sect.

Obviously, you'll disagree. But then, if the concept of Original Sin is so firmly founded in the Bible, why is it never spoken of by Christ? Why is it not spoken of in the Old Testament? After all, the Old Testament is where it's foundation is found. It seems ludicrous that the concept should be ommitted from being mentioned there. Why does such an important issue merit hardly any mention at all, even in Paul's own writings?

That is a huge cop out.

Logic is imperative to interpretation - especially to such an important matter

what is most important is this - what do Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 say?

They obviously say different things to different churches.

davidylan:
they have a right to interprete it as they pls

I don't dispute that.
But the question is that if it so clear cut, why do they interpret it so differently?

Logic dictates that if it was as clear as you state, there would be no difference in interpretation between Churches.

davidylan:
Laughable . . . did you really expect them to put it EXACTLY as we assume?

Well, yes. For a concept that basically condemns the whole of mankind, I'd say that putting it exactly as it's taught would be pretty imperative, wouldn't you?

Read Romans 5 again . . . the concept is very clear.

If it's that clear, how come the Orthodox church interprets it so differently?

@ Mazaje.

If most Christians in Europe take responsibility for their own sins doesn't that show a schism in thinking between themselves and the Catholic Church on the subject? Otherwise they'd be blaming Adam and Eve, wouldn't they?
Doesn't that therefore go at least part way to confirming my opening statement?

Two assholes in one lawsuit.

I actually hope he wins his case against Smith.

That bitch needs bringing down a peg.

And if he doesn't win? Then one racist fuckwit is out of a bucketload of cash.

It's a Win/Win situation!!!

Sorry. You don't set the rules for any debate.
If you post crap, you get rebuttal - it's as simple as that.
And if you refuse to acknowledge that rebuttal and instead go on a course of "I'm smarter than you", then expect to get treated like an asshole.

It's maligned more because of what is associated with it - human trafficking, drugs, pimping, etc.
It's maligned because the vast majority of women who partake in prostitution do so because they have no other option.

Although I can think of quite a few lawyers I would like to call "whores", the comparison doesn't stand up in the cold light of day.

As for being maligned in religious societies? I think you'll find it's just as maligned (if not more) in societies which have large pro-feminist movements - and these tend to be the more liberal regions.

The question to ask here is how are the prostitutes themselves regarded? As victims or perpetrators?

David Dylan.

I don't see the word's "Original Sin" in that passage anywhere.

Do you not think that such an important issue (as both you and the atheists seem to agree it is) would merit much more than 4 short sentences that can be interpreted in different ways?

The passage was interpreted by Iraneus and he began developing the doctrine which was later taken by Augustine and formed into the dogma that it is today. Being interpreted does not make it Biblical.

DavidDylan.

It quite simply isn't.

It's mentioned nowhere in the Bible and as I've already stated, wasn't even included in Christian doctrine until 400 years after the time of Christ.

@ Mazage

I honestly doubt that would be the case and in my experiences of discussing morality with people, the answer is always nearly "Because I'm human".
People really do tend to be truthful and recognise their own failing when answering the question and don't heap the blame on Eve!!! The majority wouldn't even blame it on the devil (although he's not the issue here - Original Sin is about Eve's failure to obey rather than Satan's tempting her). In these days, people are taught to be much more reponsible for their own actions and you'll probably find that the number of people holding the Orthodox view has sky-rocketed in the past 100 years or so.

If that's not the case, tell me of your experiences. How many Christians have you personally heard blame any immoral act that they've committed on the eating of the apple? How many have you heard put their hand up and accept that they are to blame for their own greed, avarice, laziness, etc? I'm talking about your personal experience here, not what you merely believe in or what you've read on the net.
Maybe we run in different circles but the latter definitely outnumber the former in my experience.

Then in all honesty, can you say that you are that much different from the parents in your original post?
All you're really doing is swapping the word "religion" for "atheism".

For myself and to be fair to you, I will give you the honest answer to the same question as if you asked it of me but with the child turning to and preaching atheism. And that answer is that it wouldn't bother me one bit.

I would, on the other hand, probably kick him out if he were engaged in criminal activity.

mazaje:
but majority of christians believe in the original sin hypothesis. . .

OK. Here's one for you.
Go out and ask a hundred regular Christians why they sin.

I absolutely guarantee that the majority of the replies will be "Because I'm human" rather than "Because Eve ate an apple".

Without even knowing it, the vast majority of those Christians will be following the Orthodox view rather than the version of Original Sin preached by the Catholic Church.

I've studied Marcionism in the past and it's a very interesting topic.
Out of interest, did you know it came very close to being the major creed in Christianity? Studying the history books it really does seem that it was almost a toss up between Catholicism and Marcionism in the early days. The Catholic Church had to fight it long and hard and turn it into a heresy to beat it down. Who knows how many people lost thier lives in the crusade against it?

But no, Huxley. I don't hold the duallist view that was prevalent amongst followers of Marcionism. I just see the majority of the OT as irrelevant whereas the Marcionites saw it, and the god that it contained, as evil.

@duduspace.

You're just noise.

Would that be all?
How would it affect the relationship between you and the child?
Would you still be prepared to have him live under your roof if he continued preaching under it?

What a crock of shit. I am not your "internet tutor".

The link explains perfectly well the Orthodox stance.
Putting it into my own words or copying and pasting is a waste of my time when the link does the job perfectly well. And why should I bother when you either haven't looked at it or understood it yourself?

Have you read that link yourself at all and do you think you understand it? if then you should be able to summarize your thinking. This is a clear example of what is wrong with Nigerian education, you can only recite a mantra verbatim and can't even understand its implications

Actually, I was educated in the UK. You should also  be aware that I'm very capable of interpreting things for myself as many of my posts here have shown. I would level the charge of not understanding the implications of Original Sin in the Orthodox church directly back at you.
After all, you seem to follow the typical atheistic dogma that all creeds of Christianity are exactly the same.

To tell the truth, I doubt that you were even aware that the Orthodox church existed until I pointed it out to you.

So instead of giving me the ridiculous claim of "You don't understand what your link says", why don't you actually read up on the subject as I actually suggested.

A question, Huxley.

If your child suddenly turned to fundamentalist Christianity whilst he was living under your roof, preached it in your household and refused to reconsider, what would you do?

Why the hell would it be a sin to masturbate?
If God didn't mean for you to jerk off, he wouldn't have given you a cock and a pair of hands.

By the way, the Bible says nothing about masturbation. That would tell you it's OK wouldn't it? After all, it goes into great detail about forbidding other sexual matters. If masturbation was banned you can bet the Bible would be clear on the subject and would have a lot to say about it. Fact is, the guys who were writing the Bible probably weren't averse to pulling it off every now and again.

Jerk away with a clear conscience, guy!!!

The likelihood is that the verse has been misinterpreted and then mistranslated from the original Hebrew.

The translation direct from Hebrew is this:

Abraham got up in the morning and took bread and a skin of water and gave to Hagar placing on her shoulder and the child and sent her out and she went and wandered in the wilderness of Beersheba.

Reading that, the inference is not that he placed the child on her shoulder but that he gave her the child.

It should probably read like this:

Abraham got up in the morning and took bread and a skin of water, gave it to Hagar (placing it on her shoulder), gave her the child and sent her out, etc.

One has to remember that ancient Hebrew has very few instances of grammatical punctuation. Only when we add punctuation and common sense can we see what the author probably meant.

The Vatican are Dan Brown's best publicists by far.

Personally, I don't find his books to be all that. "The DaVinci code" was just a rip-off of "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" and "Angels and Demons" was just the same book with a different title.

topup:
She's probably a victim of human trafficking, anyone who reads a little about her background, will really think, why is a straight A/B, shy girl from the UK, going to be travelling from Holland, to Thailand to Laos. And also why would she >>CHOOSE<< to carry 'just' over the limit that implies the death penalty, if she was carrying a significant amount, then that makes more sense, than trying to carry 180g, that 180g could have saved her life.

Which is why I don't think she was a mule.
As a mule, she would have been carrying a lot more.
My take on it is that she was buying and trafficking for her own profit. The amount she was carrying was probably the amount she could afford to buy. Carrying just over the limit merely shows her inexperience. A mule would carry a little under or a lot more - not just over the limit. And like I've said previously, the fact that she was smuggling it out rather than in isn't in her favour. If she was a forced mule, she was out of the clutches of whoever was threatening her once she left either Thailand or Bangkok. She could have just turned around and headed for either Ireland or the UK.

The way it looks is that she went to Amsterdam and had such a good time she ended up on a drug smuggling holiday.

LMAO.

Yet again you make absolutely no sense and your claims are a contradiction to the words you have already written.

As an "intellectual" maybe you should go and learn about the differences between theoretical/speculative statements and evaluative/factual statements and their use in the English language. Whilst you're there, maybe you can attend to your comprehension and grammar skills.

Once you've got the basic grasp of those fundamentals, then perhaps you can come back and amaze us all with your "intellectualism".
Somehow, I sincerely doubt it though. 

If you are too dumb or lazy to read the link or follow up on the subject for yourself, why should I bother handing everything to you on a platter? The link contains the answers and is only "useless knowledge" if you asked your questions in ignorance.

Notice where I wrote this?

The page above has the answer to you questions.

Go read for yourself. I'm not your wet-nurse. I've given you the information you need to get started.

Why not look at the Orthodox Church? It happens to be the second largest church in the world after the Catholic church.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church

The page above has the answer to your questions.

One important difference between the Eastern Orthodox tradition and that found within Roman Catholicism is that the Eastern Orthodox, while believing in a particular form and explanation of original sin, do not believe in the Augustinian explanation of the doctrine, which speaks of a moral/spiritual stain upon the soul and even an inheriting of guilt. The Eastern Orthodox doctrine of original sin rather speaks of a severance of communion from God, a loss of sanctifying grace, an inheritance of a spiritual and physical death, the introduction of decay and disease, a subjugation to Satan, and finally a weakening of will and thus an inclination to sin. Succumbing to sin and temptation prevented humanity from participation in the Kingdom of Heaven; thus, all people from the beginning until Christ were prevented from entering into Heaven.

You will notice that the passage contains the words "Original Sin" but this is misleading as it is not Original Sin in the context that we use it here. It is not the doctrine expounded by Augustine and the Orthodox Church does not believe in an inherited form of sin which is the basis of Original Sin as it is popularly understood. In fact, not believing that sin is inherited goes against the basic doctrine of Originnal Sin so the words themselves are irrelevant when used in conjunction with the Orthodox Church. It is a doctrine regarding the sinful state of man as a being rather than as a creature which has sin handed down to him through the generations from Adam and Eve -  Adam and Eve were merely the first sinful people. "Original Sin" is used only in the context that they were the original people.

Their version of sin is also cleansed once a person is baptised.


This paper may be of interest to Huxley as regards the relative late introduction of Original Sin.

http://www.antiochian.org/ancestral-versus-original-sin

huxley:
This is extraordinary.  You are either deliberately dishonest or are just stack ignorant about the tenets of Christianity.   Christianity is founded on the notion of Original Sin and the redemptive power of Jesus.

You must suffer from the most adject form of cognitive dissonance - on the one hand holding onto the some of the main essence of rationalism, but still unable to let go of the barbaric beliefs from desert-dwelling tribesmen from about 4000 years ago. Man straighten up.

Read up before you go throwing accusations around, Huxley.

You'll find that Christianity was not founded on the notion of Original Sin - in fact, the Orthodox Church, doesn't recognise Original Sin. It wasn't until 300 years after Christ that Irenaeus first came up with the idea and it was formulated as a weapon to be used to tighten Rome's strength over Christianity. And it wasn't for another couple of hundred years after that when the idea really took off with Augustine of Hippo pushing it on.
Look it up - you'll find Catholics still retain Augustine's doctrine but the majority of Protestants have watered it down or don't believe in it at all, and like I said, those that hold the watered down version believe that Christ's death atoned for it.
Then go and check up on other groups like the Mormons, the Restoration Movement Churches, etc, who don't believe in it at all.
Original Sin as in the context of this thread is almost exclusive to the Catholic Church.

Read up on the subject and then you can come back here and tell me I'm talking crap.