|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 28, 2019 21:03:49 GMT -5
I find it completely disgusting to be honest. In a relative context it's a disgraceful bind on humanity. So the only hope is to switch the context of it, by applying something akin to what Laughter did here.. spiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/469248Judaism is older than Christianity so I don't actually see why they need to reject anything that Christianisation did. Though I'll read the link. That's the point (link, very short article). It's not that they reject Augustine's original sin, they never developed such a concept of original sin. That's why Psalm 51:5 cannot possibly be read that David was born a sinner. Yes, it is disgusting. I began rejecting the Christianity I was raised in about age 14, 15, 16. (BTW, Southern Baptist. So the article is wrong in saying Baptists reject Augustine's original sin). At 17 I started my own search, no holds barred.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2019 21:09:09 GMT -5
"A Christian need only believe in Jesus to be saved; nothing else is required of her." What does believing in Jesus mean? Jesus is an immortal that is bound to humanity through it's dependence on him. So is one just saved from this concept of sinfulness by believing that he can never really die?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2019 21:17:21 GMT -5
I find it completely disgusting to be honest. In a relative context it's a disgraceful bind on humanity. So the only hope is to switch the context of it, by applying something akin to what Laughter did here.. spiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/469248Judaism is older than Christianity so I don't actually see why they need to reject anything that Christianisation did. Though I'll read the link. That's the point (link, very short article). It's not that they reject Augustine's original sin, they never developed such a concept of original sin. That's why Psalm 51:5 cannot possibly be read that David was born a sinner. Yes, it is disgusting. I began rejecting the Christianity I was raised in about age 14, 15, 16. (BTW, Southern Baptist. So the article is wrong in saying Baptists reject Augustine's original sin). At 17 I started my own search, no holds barred. Yeah and I imagine many in your country will repeat such a process, so that when they become parents they'll stop perpetuating such nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 28, 2019 21:22:53 GMT -5
But Augustine's conception of original sin is flawed. And basically all of Protestant Christianity is built on Augustine's concept, that we are all born spiritually dead because of inherited guilt from Adam (and Eve). We are not born spiritually dead. Psalm 51:5 has zero to do with a baby's sin. One has to knowingly transgress the law, to be a sinner. www.amazon.com/LIGHT-MIND-RONALD-H-NASH/dp/0788099175/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1370915219&sr=1-1&keywords=The+Light+of+the+Mind%3A+St.+Augustine%E2%80%99s+Theory+of+KnowledgeOne of the Reviews is interesting.. "The goal of this book is to explain what Augustine meant about how God is a light of truth that illuminates the human mind as a person evolves in various ways. This gets into questions about how people learn. Plato felt that learning is really remembering ideas that the soul heard about in the spirit world. Augie had a different take on this which is learning involves pulling information from a virtual storehouse of knowledge that exists outside of the individual. For me this relates to the three levels of consciousness which are the conscious, subconscious, and super conscious as defined by Western philosophy. I think the ancient Egyptians had further sub divisions of these. The virtual knowledge warehouse that Augie believed in was perhaps his term for the super conscious which knows the plan that fate prepares for a soul before it enters this physical dimension. I guess this is true for Plato also. This is one of the key points of the book and is not easy to understand. The idea of reincarnation is also tied in with this. Plato and eventually Augustine believed in reincarnation. So past life experiences are another source of knowledge that may surface within an individual. There's a clear differentiation between the soul and the physical body in Plato and Augustine's philosophy. Augie got sidetracked with the Manichees cult in his early years. It's hard to imagine that there was ever a time when Augustine was a follower of a materialistic, skeptical belief system. I would say Augustine was often confused in his early years. There's a progression of philosophical thought that started with Plato and continued with Plotinus and then with Augustine. Nash refers to this often and mentions the doctrine of the forms which Plato viewed as his unique contribution to philosophy. According to the legends Plato traveled to Egypt and experienced the Egyptian initiation rites at some level. That knowledge goes back many thousands of years to Atlantis and to other worlds really. This is sort of a strange book due to the deep and philosophical nature of the subject matter. It's hard for me to know how right Augustine was about certain things since I didn't understand all the statements in the book completely. Nash describes Augustine as some sort of philosophical genius. So it sounds like Augustine is held in high regard in philosophical circles by some people." Jeff Marzano Thanks. I've run across Nash before. As I recall he's a Christian philosopher/theologian. I might have to get this book, sounds interesting. (I still *do battle* sometimes with family, several are ministers). I've never read Confessions by Augustine. (Basically because of disgusting original sin). I've read about the battle between Augustine and Pelagius however. Pelagius was a Celtic Christian. Augustine taught that all baby's that die not baptized, go to hell. Pelagius disagreed. So now we call Pelagius a heretic, but he was a hero.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2019 21:26:29 GMT -5
What ? The entire Bible logic of Jesus crucifixion lies on original sin English Standard Version Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me- Psalm 51:5 Jesus has to be crucified for every single individual if we are all not one soul. biblehub.com/psalms/51-5.htmYes, that's the verse I am talking about.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 28, 2019 21:27:31 GMT -5
That's the point (link, very short article). It's not that they reject Augustine's original sin, they never developed such a concept of original sin. That's why Psalm 51:5 cannot possibly be read that David was born a sinner. Yes, it is disgusting. I began rejecting the Christianity I was raised in about age 14, 15, 16. (BTW, Southern Baptist. So the article is wrong in saying Baptists reject Augustine's original sin). At 17 I started my own search, no holds barred. Yeah and I imagine many in your country will repeat such a process, so that when they become parents they'll stop perpetuating such nonsense. I'd say maybe 1 in 100. Most Evangelical Christians support Trump. Not a good sign. Indoctrination/programming/conditioning is hard to overcome.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2019 21:29:14 GMT -5
What ? The entire Bible logic of Jesus crucifixion lies on original sin English Standard Version Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me-Psalm 51:5 Jesus has to be crucified for every single individual if we are all not one soul. But Augustine's conception of original sin is flawed. And basically all of Protestant Christianity is built on Augustine's concept, that we are all born spiritually dead because of inherited guilt from Adam (and Eve). We are not born spiritually dead. Psalm 51:5 has zero to do with a baby's sin. One has to knowingly transgress the law, to be a sinner. Old Testament is Jewish Bible more or less where God says since you have sinned you would return to the ground from which you have taken. And death occupies all the men , what else is needed to prove about original sin ? Paul finds the same reason in Roman 5:12.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2019 21:30:42 GMT -5
I find it completely disgusting to be honest. In a relative context it's a disgraceful bind on humanity. So the only hope is to switch the context of it, by applying something akin to what Laughter did here.. spiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/469248Judaism is older than Christianity so I don't actually see why they need to reject anything that Christianisation did. Though I'll read the link. Yes, exactly.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 28, 2019 21:33:08 GMT -5
But Augustine's conception of original sin is flawed. And basically all of Protestant Christianity is built on Augustine's concept, that we are all born spiritually dead because of inherited guilt from Adam (and Eve). We are not born spiritually dead. Psalm 51:5 has zero to do with a baby's sin. One has to knowingly transgress the law, to be a sinner. Old Testament is Jewish Bible more or less where God says since you have sinned you would return to the ground from which you have taken. And death occupies all the men , what else is needed to prove about original sin ? Paul finds the same reason in Roman 5:12. If you want to discuss this you need to start a new thread.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2019 21:34:40 GMT -5
Thanks. I've run across Nash before. As I recall he's a Christian philosopher/theologian. I might have to get this book, sounds interesting. (I still *do battle* sometimes with family, several are ministers). I've never read Confessions by Augustine. (Basically because of disgusting original sin). I've read about the battle between Augustine and Pelagius however. Pelagius was a Celtic Christian. Augustine taught that all baby's that die not baptized, go to hell. Pelagius disagreed. So now we call Pelagius a heretic, but he was a hero. Yeah I know that that myth is still present in people's thinking. They are just meme's that have lasted for hundreds of years, it's really quite incredible.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2019 21:40:33 GMT -5
But Augustine's conception of original sin is flawed. And basically all of Protestant Christianity is built on Augustine's concept, that we are all born spiritually dead because of inherited guilt from Adam (and Eve). We are not born spiritually dead. Psalm 51:5 has zero to do with a baby's sin. One has to knowingly transgress the law, to be a sinner. Old Testament is Jewish Bible more or less where God says since you have sinned you would return to the ground from which you have taken. And death occupies all the men , what else is needed to prove about original sin ? Paul finds the same reason in Roman 5:12. biblehub.com/romans/5-12.htmAre you saying that because men die it proves that they were sinners before they were born?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2019 21:50:16 GMT -5
Old Testament is Jewish Bible more or less where God says since you have sinned you would return to the ground from which you have taken. And death occupies all the men , what else is needed to prove about original sin ? Paul finds the same reason in Roman 5:12. biblehub.com/romans/5-12.htmAre you saying that because men die it proves that they were sinners before they were born? Yes, death occupies them in the same way it occupies Adam. And also law was not given to them, if there is no law, then it's not possible to sin because it is not possible to miss the mark so none of their action can't be considered as sin even though they killed someone that cannot be considered as sin so only one law was given to Adam that was not to eat the apple and Adam missed the mark and consequently death occupies all other people who haven't done anything wrong, they haven't done anything wrong because they can't do anything wrong because law wasn't given to them. So original sin is true even in Judaism.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2019 21:57:52 GMT -5
Yes, death occupies them in the same way it occupies Adam. And also law was not given to them, if there is no law, then it's not possible to sin because it is not possible to miss the mark so none of their action can't be considered as sin even though they killed someone that cannot be considered as sin so only one law was given to Adam that was not to eat the apple and Adam missed the mark and consequently death occupies all other people who haven't done anything wrong, they haven't done anything wrong because they can't do anything wrong because law wasn't given to them. So original sin is true even in Judaism. I have read what the Bible says in those verses and it looks to me like you are just repeating that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2019 22:02:36 GMT -5
Yes, death occupies them in the same way it occupies Adam. And also law was not given to them, if there is no law, then it's not possible to sin because it is not possible to miss the mark so none of their action can't be considered as sin even though they killed someone that cannot be considered as sin so only one law was given to Adam that was not to eat the apple and Adam missed the mark and consequently death occupies all other people who haven't done anything wrong, they haven't done anything wrong because they can't do anything wrong because law wasn't given to them. So original sin is true even in Judaism. I have read what the Bible says in those verses and it looks to me like you are just repeating that. I am just finding the reason as to why death occupies other people other than Adam if it is not original sin. I think the same was written by Paul somewhere but I don't know where because it's been long time ever since I read Bible.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 28, 2019 23:32:23 GMT -5
I find it completely disgusting to be honest. In a relative context it's a disgraceful bind on humanity. So the only hope is to switch the context of it, by applying something akin to what Laughter did here.. spiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/469248Judaism is older than Christianity so I don't actually see why they need to reject anything that Christianisation did. Though I'll read the link. Well, another way to look at this idea of being born into original sin is that, for any given newborn, eventual onset of the existential illusion of the false sense of limited identity is a foregone conclusion. That, in and of itself, doesn't necessarily have to lead to the mass-scale suffering of a rigidly hierarchical, bigoted and morally unforgiving social structure. That's just the worst of human nature playing out in a sort of clockwork. Ironically, it's the sort of clockwork that the notion of inherited original sin is attempting to describe.
|
|