original sin

[Sniffles]

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.

May I ask on what grounds you base this argument on?

 

[greenfairy]

May I ask on what grounds you base this argument on?

No, there are too many to list. It's an intuitive compilation of all my thoughts on the matter. I'm sure I could, but it would take way too long. But certainly a fair question, and well deserved.

 

[Sniffles]

No, there are too many to list. It's an intuitive compilation of all my thoughts on the matter. I'm sure I could, but it would take way too long. But certainly a fair question, and well deserved.

Can you give me at least one reason out of the many?

 

[Pseudo]

No, there are too many to list. It's an intuitive compilation of all my thoughts on the matter. I'm sure I could, but it would take way too long. But certainly a fair question, and well deserved.

Can we get just 3 reason that you think it's likely Jesus was a Hindu?




Because really that's pretty improbable from my perspective.

 

[Sniffles]

Usually the claim is that Jesus was a Buddhist, not a Hindu.

 

[greenfairy]

Many have suggested that during the "lost years" of Jesus' life he traveled to India, where there were both Jews and Buddhists. Hindu and Buddhist texts have a couple of passages which it could be argued confirm this. Also there are similarities in teachings to Hindu and Buddhist teachings.

Also I am Hindu and think he was a Bodhisattva, or enlightened being, and he came to teach people how they could achieve enlightenment. It's consistent with his teachings, and makes sense to me.

2 distilled reasons for Jesus being a Hindu.

I don't feel like arguing the other point atm. Just provocative food for thought.

 

[Sniffles]

Many have suggested that during the "lost years" of Jesus' life he traveled to India, where there were both Jews and Buddhists. Hindu and Buddhist texts have a couple of passages which it could be argued confirm this. Also there are similarities in teachings to Hindu and Buddhist teachings.

Also I am Hindu and think he was a Bodhisattva, or enlightened being, and he came to teach people how they could achieve enlightenment. It's consistent with his teachings, and makes sense to me.

2 distilled reasons for Jesus being a Hindu.

I don't feel like arguing the other point atm. Just provocative food for thought.

Thank you, although this doesn't really prove Jesus was a Hindu or a Buddhist per se. There's no real evidence he went to India, and it's not necessary for Jesus to have traveled to India or be a Buddhist or Hindu to account for his teachings, or for that matter the similarities between Christianity and Eastern religions - for all truth comes from the Holy Spirit.

 

[greenfairy]

Thank you, although this doesn't really prove Jesus was a Hindu or a Buddhist per se. There's no real evidence he went to India, and it's not necessary for Jesus to have traveled to India or be a Buddhist or Hindu to account for his teachings, or for that matter the similarities between Christianity and Eastern religions - for all truth comes from the Holy Spirit.

No, it certainly can't be proven. It's just a theory. I agree that truth is common to every truly spiritual tradition.

 

[cafe]

I think I've heard or read a theory that original sin is passed down through men because Eve sinned because she was deceived, while Adam was not deceived and chose to sin anyway. That would make original sin transmitted via sex, but not because sex is bad, but because men are bad. I don't personally subscribe to that theory, but I have heard that or something like it somewhere. I have a mind like a steel sieve, so that's all I've got on that theory.

 

[Sniffles]

Although mention has been made about the differences between Catholics and Protestants, a bigger difference is between Western Christianity and Eastern Christianity. The Eastern Orthodox don't uphold the concept of Original Sin, but rather argue that because of the sin of Adam death was brought into the world. As a result of death, passions arise within the human heart that causes us to sin.

 

[Thalassa]

As a result of death, passions arise within the human heart that causes us to sin.

Oh this is good.

And very Eastern.

The fear of death and loss is at the root of most evil, lack of faith, full of fear.

 

[Thalassa]

I think I've heard or read a theory that original sin is passed down through men because Eve sinned because she was deceived, while Adam was not deceived and chose to sin anyway. That would make original sin transmitted via sex, but not because sex is bad, but because men are bad. I don't personally subscribe to that theory, but I have heard that or something like it somewhere. I have a mind like a steel sieve, so that's all I've got on that theory.

The idea here being that women have to be tricked to have sex? Well, traditionally speaking the idea is that girls are more easily deceived in youth, you know, when they're teenagers or young adult virgins, that they'll have sex because they think a guy loves them, blah blah blah.

I'd be interested to know where this theory comes from, because it makes the apple/snake myth seem symbolically about sex (instead of knowledge or pride) ....but it doesn't really hold water since God created Eve for Adam out of Adam's rib, I would think he would want them to be fruitful together and multiply and all that, and to be companions, so it doesn't make sense in that regard.

There's something that seems vaguely familiar or "right" about all this though, in a way that has nothing to do with logic or the Bible, so I'm thinking this theory may have been one popular in the American South.

Like women are these naive, easily deceivable creatures, weak and led by men who know exactly what they're doing.

 

[cafe]

The idea here being that women have to be tricked to have sex? Well, traditionally speaking the idea is that girls are more easily deceived in youth, you know, when they're teenagers or young adult virgins, that they'll have sex because they think a guy loves them, blah blah blah.

I'd be interested to know where this theory comes from, because it makes the apple/snake myth seem symbolically about sex (instead of knowledge or pride) ....but it doesn't really hold water since God created Eve for Adam out of Adam's rib, I would think he would want them to be fruitful together and multiply and all that, and to be companions, so it doesn't make sense in that regard.

There's something that seems vaguely familiar or "right" about all this though, in a way that has nothing to do with logic or the Bible, so I'm thinking this theory may have been one popular in the American South.

Like women are these naive, easily deceivable creatures, weak and led by men who know exactly what they're doing.

No. I mean, the sin of Adam and Eve was unrelated to sex. Eve was deceived into disobedience. Adam willfully and with full knowledge broke the command that God gave him directly. The sin was doing something God told them not to do. Sex isn't really mentioned as far as I know until they start having kids and then it's not considered something bad. I can't think where sex itself is ever considered bad in and of itself in the Bible. There are rules about it and Paul, I think, considers it a distraction from serving God.

The theory is obviously insulting to women's intelligence and it's very paternalistic, but it's a patriarchal religion. But women would inherit a sin nature from their fathers, but be unable to pass it on. Sort of like the opposite of color blindness where women may carry and pass on color blindness to their sons but are usually not color blind themselves.

 

[Epiphany]

No. I mean, the sin of Adam and Eve was unrelated to sex. Eve was deceived into disobedience. Adam willfully and with full knowledge broke the command that God gave him directly. The sin was doing something God told them not to do. Sex isn't really mentioned as far as I know until they start having kids and then it's not considered something bad. I can't think where sex itself is ever considered bad in and of itself in the Bible. There are rules about it and Paul, I think, considers it a distraction from serving God.

The theory is obviously insulting to women's intelligence and it's very paternalistic, but it's a patriarchal religion. But women would inherit a sin nature from their fathers, but be unable to pass it on. Sort of like the opposite of color blindness where women may carry and pass on color blindness to their sons but are usually not color blind themselves.

I've heard this theory, as well, but it doesn't make any sense. Eve knew the commandment and willingly disobeyed it. It absolves her of any responsibility and suggests that women lack any autonomous reasoning capabilities.

 

[Fidelia]

Yes, Eve understood what she was doing when she ate the fruit, as did Adam. She may not have fully anticipated the consequences of choosing to disobey God, but there was no question about whether her choice was right or wrong in God's eyes. The only connection I can see between their sin and sex is that part of the curse after they left Eden was that her pain in childbirth would be increased. Still, that's a pretty far reach to equate that and sex being wrong.

 

[cafe]

I've heard this theory, as well, but it doesn't make any sense. Eve knew the commandment and willingly disobeyed it. It absolves her of any responsibility and suggests that women lack any autonomous reasoning capabilities.

Yep. Pretty much. Although it would appear from the text that Eve did not yet exist when God made the command.

15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

But for Adam[f] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs[g] and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib[h] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

23 The man said,

“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”
​

Later in the text it's obvious that she knew the command or some form of it, but chose to believe the serpent instead or at least told herself she did.

When they are busted Adam blame Eve but doesn't claim to have been deceived. Eve blames the serpent claiming to have been deceived. God doesn't dispute their claims, but punishes both of them and the serpent.

Later, in the New Testament, the idea that the woman was deceived is used to keep women subjugated and out of public discourse because they are untrustworthy, not through any fault of their own, but because they are too stupid to know better.

9Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments,10but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness.11A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.12But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.13For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.14And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.15But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.​

Women aren't treated that way in all passages and even Paul seems to have respected some women as leaders.

I've seen these ideas used to belittle women and make them subject to mistreatment and I've seen them used to hold men to a higher standard in terms of being responsible and treating their wives with love and care. Neither really show women in an equal light, but the former bothers me more than the latter, probably in part because I benefit from the latter.

 

[Thalassa]

No. I mean, the sin of Adam and Eve was unrelated to sex. Eve was deceived into disobedience. Adam willfully and with full knowledge broke the command that God gave him directly. The sin was doing something God told them not to do. Sex isn't really mentioned as far as I know until they start having kids and then it's not considered something bad. I can't think where sex itself is ever considered bad in and of itself in the Bible. There are rules about it and Paul, I think, considers it a distraction from serving God.

The theory is obviously insulting to women's intelligence and it's very paternalistic, but it's a patriarchal religion. But women would inherit a sin nature from their fathers, but be unable to pass it on. Sort of like the opposite of color blindness where women may carry and pass on color blindness to their sons but are usually not color blind themselves.

Ahhh...I see.

But it also conveys the idea that women are innocent, or are purer, or more religious, and this IS a popular idea in the South. And you can also Google "women more religious than men" and see someone say in the second result that it's because women are less intelligent than men.

In country music mythology, though, it's because momma is an angel.

I knew something felt familiar about it, or "right" not right in the sense of being correct, but like it was something culturally familiar to me.

 

[Thalassa]

You guys should take a look at this, talking about Christianity being paternalistic, I collected this from Torah 101, about the role of women in Judaism:

According to traditional Judaism, women are endowed with a greater degree of "binah" (intuition, understanding, intelligence) than men. The rabbis inferred this from the idea that woman was "built" (Genesis 2,22) rather than "formed" (Genesis 2,7), and the Hebrew root of "build" has the same consonants as the word "binah". It has been said that the matriarchs (Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, and Leah) were superior to the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) in prophecy. It has also been said that women did not participate in the idolatry regarding the golden calf. Some traditional sources suggest that women are closer to God's ideal than men.

Women have held positions of respect in Judaism since biblical times. Miriam is considered one of the liberators of the people of Israel, along with her brothers Moses and Aaron. One of the Judges (Deborah) was a woman. Seven of the 55 prophets of the Bible were women.

The Ten Commandments require respect for both mother and father. Note that the father comes first in Exodus 20,11, but the mother comes first in Leviticus 19,3.

So is Christianity or the Bible really paternalistic, or is that just the Roman interpretation? Western culture and ancient Rome are very paternalistic societal structures. A lot of what we interpret in the West as being Christian is through a Western lens.

 

[greenfairy]

Although mention has been made about the differences between Catholics and Protestants, a bigger difference is between Western Christianity and Eastern Christianity. The Eastern Orthodox don't uphold the concept of Original Sin, but rather argue that because of the sin of Adam death was brought into the world. As a result of death, passions arise within the human heart that causes us to sin.

Oh that's interesting. Kind of like the Buddhist idea of suffering arising from attachment to desires, which arise from mortality.

 

[cafe]

Ahhh...I see.

But it also conveys the idea that women are innocent, or are purer, or more religious, and this IS a popular idea in the South. And you can also Google "women more religious than men" and see someone say in the second result that it's because women are less intelligent than men.

In country music mythology, though, it's because momma is an angel.

I knew something felt familiar about it, or "right" not right in the sense of being correct, but like it was something culturally familiar to me.

Ah, yeah, that makes sense. We don't have so much of that where I'm from. Or if we do, I've missed it. You defend your mother whether she's an angel or not because she's your mother. It's like family in general. You (and sometimes other family members) can say what you want about them, but nobody else better say anything that about them.