original sin

[greenfairy]

I thought the original sin was eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, or power, or something like that. But a Catholic priest at a talk the other night said the original sin was being conceived by a non-virgin birth, i.e. being produced because your parents had sex. So sex is the original sin. But Eve was created so Adam wouldn't be lonely, and sex is supposed to produce (according to religion, including what the Catholic priest said) a spiritual union of souls. So sex makes you less lonely. So Eve could have been created to have sex with Adam and produce loving harmonious happiness and all that. But sex is a sin. Huh? Can we extrapolate/deduce by combining the two that if knowledge of good and evil and all other god-like powers and sex are both the original sin, then they might be the same thing, and sex will lead to god-like knowledge of good and evil, and everything else? Can we know the mysteries of the universe through sex, and that's what monotheism thinks is a sin, because then we would be like God and have no need for monotheistic religion anymore?

 

[Fidelia]

I think there is a different idea between Catholic and Protestant then of what original sin is.

I believe it generally refers to Adam and Even believing the serpent that through eating the fruit they could be like God. Through that action of defiance against God, they brought sin into the world and every child born after that was born with a sinful nature (ie didn't need to be induced or taught how to sin). Blood was the only thing that could atone for sin, and so after that point, animal sacrifices were required, so that people realized how serious sin was. That was why Jesus' death was such a momentous event - while being fully human and fully God, he was sinless and so could atone for the sin of the whole world once and for all to create a bridge between God and humans.

Catholicism holds the Bible and church dogma as equal authorities. Therefore, throughout the years as Pope's have added new doctrine, it has been adopted as being equally authoritative. The beliefs surrounding Mary's perpetual virginity etc, priestly celibacy and so on have been added throughout the centuries.

In contrast, the Bible indicates that Mary and Joseph did not engage in sex until after Jesus was born, but then went on to have a family together. The book Song of Solomon indicates that sex is a good thing. The Bible says nothing about sex in and of itself being sinful.

 

[Seymour]

I think there is a different idea between Catholic and Protestant then of what original sin is.

I believe it generally refers to Adam and Even believing the serpent that through eating the fruit they could be like God. Through that action of defiance against God, they brought sin into the world and every child born after that was born with a sinful nature (ie didn't need to be induced or taught how to sin). Blood was the only thing that could atone for sin, and so after that point, animal sacrifices were required, so that people realized how serious sin was. That was why Jesus' death was such a momentous event - while being fully human and fully God, he was sinless and so could atone for the sin of the whole world once and for all to create a bridge between God and humans.

Right. I believe it was Augustine who linked original sin with sex, such that he believed original sin to be transmitted sexually down through the generations, providing a kind of explanation for people's inability to live a sinless life on their own, despited humans being created good initially. Since our sexual natures are corrupted, then we conceive children while pursuing our lustful desires, thereby created offspring whose natures are equally corrupted. (Such a cheery view... Augustine wasn't exactly a sex positive kind of guy.)

Such a linking led to doctrine of immaculate conception, which refers to Mary's conception, not Jesus's.

I think that, generally speaking, the conception of original sin is not vastly different among most protestants (although not necessary believed to be a sexually transmitted disease), but most do not believe in the immaculate conception (of Mary), nor do most believe that Mary was sinless. Of course, doctrine varies quite a bit amongst protestants.

 

[greenfairy]

This is one reason I'm not a Christian- Occam's razor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

It's too confusing.

 

[Pseudo]

That priests assertions AREN'T supported by the bible. It's just his interpretation.

 

[Beorn]

This is one reason I'm not a Christian- Occam's razor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

It's too confusing.

Funny you say that because William of Ockham was a Franciscan Friar.

 

[Totenkindly]

... which is entirely irrelevant.

The idea itself is an idea, not "belonging" to any particular belief system. I'm sure Ockham had personal exceptions to his rule, or assumptions he personally made; everyone else who thinks of the same idea would also apply it in ways that make sense to him or her. The initial assumptions determine application. It's common in science for someone to come up with an idea, but they can only apply it in certain ways or "take it so far" because of their own particular worldview or mindset; and then someone later picks up with the idea and explores it further or at least applies it in directions based on their own assumptions.

EDIT: In general, [MENTION=7111]fidelia[/MENTION] and [MENTION=8074]Seymour[/MENTION] do a good job of covering the typical thoughts underlying Protestantism and Cathlicism.

And of course if you believe the Eden story was more an analogy or attempt to explain why certain things were the way they are, in order to codify the identity of the tribe, then you would look at it even more differently and not really need to smooth out the inconsistencies/ambiguities in the perspectives.

 

[Beorn]

... which is entirely irrelevant.

The idea itself is an idea, not "belonging" to any particular belief system. I'm sure Ockham had personal exceptions to his rule, or assumptions he personally made; everyone else who thinks of the same idea would also apply it in ways that make sense to him or her. The initial assumptions determine application. It's common in science for someone to come up with an idea, but they can only apply it in certain ways or "take it so far" because of their own particular worldview or mindset; and then someone later picks up with the idea and explores it further or at least applies it in directions based on their own assumptions.

It's not irrelevant. It's just a more concise way of getting across what you just said.

 

[RaptorWizard]

I think we should sin as much as possible because then we can defy God and the natural order!

 

[Seymour]

Or, as Romans 6:1 says, "What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase?"


(of course, the next verse starts with "By no means." Paul also comes across as a bit of a downer.)

 

[Totenkindly]

I think we should sin as much as possible because then we can defy God and the natural order!

Spoken like a true Lord of the Sith.

 

[greenfairy]

And of course if you believe the Eden story was more an analogy or attempt to explain why certain things were the way they are, in order to codify the identity of the tribe, then you would look at it even more differently and not really need to smooth out the inconsistencies/ambiguities in the perspectives.

Please elaborate on this concept. I have my own pagan interpretation, but I don't really know any others, other than what I hear the fundamentalists say.


So is it that Catholics and Protestants think of it differently, the sexuality thing is not really literal, or they try to put it all together in a kind of abstract way? Interesting it being sexually transmitted. I hadn't thought of that. So how is it that Catholic priests and popes and whatever decreed things which appeared to be inconsistent with the Bible- which had more weight? Do modern people give one more weight than the other? Is it just a matter of interpretation?

 

[Thalassa]

I agree with [MENTION=7111]fidelia[/MENTION] that the "original sin" is basically seeing themselves as separate from God, and as powerful as God. I've even seen Catholics say that Pride (not Lust) is actually the blackest sin, and that Pride is what makes people think they are little gods, that they can live without god, that they can out-do god, we live very much in an age of sin from this perspective, and what amuses me is that with food, for example, it's actually still the natural occurring foods that are best for us, and processed foods are proven more and more every day to cause disease.

However, I was also raised Protestant, and even when belonging to a Christian church as an adult, I was a member of a Lutheran church. I really admire Catholics, I love how educated they are, and that they practice what they preach about charity, but when it comes to their guilt about sex, their interpretation of original sin, and how they deny divorced people communion, I just can't hang.

I really think the Catholics go out on a limb sometimes, I really do, they've created their own mythology; but then again so have Mormons.

Though [MENTION=16048]Pseudo[/MENTION] says their assertions are supported by the Bible, I really don't see where the Bible says that sex is a sin; it says that lusting after another man's wife and basically having casual sex are sins.

The Song of Solomon portrays sexual love between a husband and wife as a beautiful thing.

 

[Thalassa]

Please elaborate on this concept. I have my own pagan interpretation, but I don't really know any others, other than what I hear the fundamentalists say.


So is it that Catholics and Protestants think of it differently, the sexuality thing is not really literal, or they try to put it all together in a kind of abstract way? Interesting it being sexually transmitted. I hadn't thought of that. So how is it that Catholic priests and popes and whatever decreed things which appeared to be inconsistent with the Bible- which had more weight? Do modern people give one more weight than the other? Is it just a matter of interpretation?

The way I see it, and this is my own interpretation, is that sex is our ultimate "god power" in that we create new people, and that may be how the sin is sexual or "sexually transmitted" to put it in a humorous way. We literally have the ability to create other humans, and animals can create other animals, but they are innocent of their ability; only humans are deeply conscious of what they are doing, which is what complicates our relationship to sex.

 

[Pseudo]

ARENT ARENT. EFFFFING AUTOCORRECT!!!! [MENTION=6877]Marmotini[/MENTION]


My understanding is the same as yours and [MENTION=7111]fidelia[/MENTION]. Human were tempted by the idea that they could be all powerfull and not need god.

I listened to a very interesting sermons last week (at a non-denominational) about how self-righteousness is sort of the root sin or the "only true sin" because all other sins branch of from it. Adultery, murder, pride ect. all stem from this idea that God's rules don't apply to us or this situation. That We know better and we don't need God.

 

[Seymour]

[...]The Song of Solomon portrays sexual love between a husband and wife as a beautiful thing.

What makes you think they are married? While it's certainly arguable, I don't think there's any direct evidence of it in the text. Plus, if it WAS written Solomon (also less than clear), he wasn't exactly a one man, one woman kinda guy (700 wives, 300 concubines).

 

[Epiphany]

I thought the original sin was eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, or power, or something like that. But a Catholic priest at a talk the other night said the original sin was being conceived by a non-virgin birth, i.e. being produced because your parents had sex. So sex is the original sin. But Eve was created so Adam wouldn't be lonely, and sex is supposed to produce (according to religion, including what the Catholic priest said) a spiritual union of souls. So sex makes you less lonely. So Eve could have been created to have sex with Adam and produce loving harmonious happiness and all that. But sex is a sin. Huh? Can we extrapolate/deduce by combining the two that if knowledge of good and evil and all other god-like powers and sex are both the original sin, then they might be the same thing, and sex will lead to god-like knowledge of good and evil, and everything else? Can we know the mysteries of the universe through sex, and that's what monotheism thinks is a sin, because then we would be like God and have no need for monotheistic religion anymore?

This catholic priest doesn't know what he's talking about. I no longer identify as a Christian because my lifestyle does not align with biblical teachings, but I did go to a Bible college at one point and wrote a paper along this subject. If there is an omniscient God and the Bible is his inspired word and everything written in it is accurate, it seems to me that sex was created as an earthly representation of the spiritual euphoria that awaits "believers" in eternal paradise. The Garden of Eden was a carnal manifestation of heaven. When Adam was placed into a deep sleep (crucifixion) and God removed a rib from his side and created his wife (the centurion pierced Jesus' side after he died and blood and water poured out which gave salvation or "birth" to the church) they were married and united in "one flesh" which denotes sexual union. Consider these verses.

Genesis 2:21-25 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

1 Corinthians 6:16

What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

Ephesians 5:28-32

So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

This is a great mystery : but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

2 Corinthians 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

Revelation 21:9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.

 

[greenfairy]

This catholic priest doesn't know what he's talking about. I no longer identify as a Christian because my lifestyle does not align with biblical teachings, but I did go to a Bible college at one point and wrote a paper along this subject. If there is an omniscient god and the Bible is his inspired word and everything written in it is accurate, it seems to me that sex was created as an earthly representation of the spiritual euphoria that awaits "believers" in eternal paradise. The Garden of Eden was a carnal representation of heaven. When Adam was placed into a deep sleep (crucifixion) and God removed a rib from his side and created his wife (the centurion pierced Jesus' side and blood and water poured out which gave salvation or "birth" to the church) they were united in "one flesh" which denotes sexual union. Consider these verses.

That's really interesting. Kind of sounds like my pagan interpretation.

 

[greenfairy]

The more consistent and liberal Christianity gets, the more it looks like paganism. Probably because that's how it started. In my humble opinion. I think Jesus was a Hindu, and when it became a religion, and the religion became institutionalized and people capitalized on the teachings for power, then they took all the good pagan stuff out.

 

[Thalassa]

ARENT ARENT. EFFFFING AUTOCORRECT!!!! [MENTION=6877]Marmotini[/MENTION]


My understanding is the same as yours and [MENTION=7111]fidelia[/MENTION]. Human were tempted by the idea that they could be all powerfull and not need god.

I listened to a very interesting sermons last week (at a non-denominational) about how self-righteousness is sort of the root sin or the "only true sin" because all other sins branch of from it. Adultery, murder, pride ect. all stem from this idea that God's rules don't apply to us or this situation. That We know better and we don't need God.

Ha ha oops. Sorry.

Yes, effing autocorrect.