"original sin'', an inherently evil concept.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Born into sin is STILL evil, no matter how you slice it.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Original sin was cleverly designed by men to trap those with weak minds so as to always have a whip to hang over the heads of the duped.

An evil concept by any standard, it should never have been the basis for ANY religion.

First, make up a creation tale, like there was only A&E, then have one of them fall from grace and thereafter the entire human ra ...[text shortened]... ho invented this god to make it more palatable to the population the elders were set to control.

The term “original sin” is unknown to the Jewish Scriptures, and the Church’s teachings on this doctrine are antithetical to the core principles of the Torah and its prophets.
...
According to Church teachings, as a result of the first sin committed by our first parents in the Garden of Eden, there were catastrophic spiritual consequences for the human race. Most importantly, Christendom holds that these devastating effects extend far beyond the curses of painful childbirth and laborious farming conditions outlined in the third chapter of Genesis.

This well-known Church doctrine posits that when Adam and Eve rebelled against God and ate from the forbidden Tree of Knowledge, all of their descendants became infected with the stain of their transgression.

Moreover, as a consequence of this first iniquity, man is hopelessly lost in a state of sin in which he has been held captive since this fall. As a result, he is powerless to follow the path of obedience and righteousness by his own free will.
...
Despite the zealous position missionaries take as they defend this creed, the Christian doctrine of original sin is profoundly hostile to the central teachings of the Jewish Scriptures. The Torah loudly condemns the alien teaching that man is unable to freely choose good over evil, life over death.

http://outreachjudaism.org/original-sin/

Originally posted by robbie carrobie

"The heart is deceitful above all things, And it is INCURABLE; Who can know it ? (Jeremiah 17:9)

But the righteousness which is out of faith speaks in this way, "Do not say in your heart, Who will ascend into heaven?"
that is, to bring Christ down; Or, "Who will descend into the abyss?" that is to bring Christ up from the dead.

But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart," that is the word of faith which we proclaim,

That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you will be saved." (Romans 10:6-9 expounding on Deuteronomy 30:10-14)

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne

"See, this alone have I found, that God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes." (Ecc. 7:29)

"Righteousness will be that which girds His loins [Messiah King] And faithfulness will be that which girds His hips.

And the wolf will dwell with the lamb; And the leopard will lie down with the kid; And the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; And a young boy will lead them about.

The cow and the bear will graze; Their young will lie down together; And the lion will eat straw like the ox. The nursing child will play by the cobra's hole. And upon the viper's den the weaned child will stretch his hand.

They will not harm nor destroy in all My holy mountain, for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of Jehovah, As water covers the sea." (Isaiah 11:5-9)

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne

The Torah loudly condemns the alien teaching that man is unable to freely choose good over evil, life over death.

"I do indeed know that it is so. But how can a man be righteous before God?" (Job 9:2)

"How then can man be righteous with God? And how can one born of a woman be pure ? " (Job 25:4)

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne

Are you interested in the rabbi's comments because you wish to adopt the Theism of Judaism ?

Or are you just interested in the rabbi's comments because they seem useful to you to argue against the New Testament ?

How could the authors of the New Testament reasonably insist that man’s dire condition was hopeless if the Torah unambiguously declared that man possessed an extraordinary ability to remain faithful to God?

"I have gone astray like a lost sheep, seek Your servant, For I have not forgotten your commandments." (v.176)

I don't believe that original sin was invented by evil priests to oppress weak-minded masses; it would not have survived thousands of years if it had been that simple (and simplistic). Leninism was that simple (and simplistic), and in less than 100 years the masses arose in anger and overthrew it. I think you have to look at original sin in the historical context of the time to see what 'problem' it may have solved for the people to whom it occurred.

Let's make a few broad assumptions about what life was probably like then: most people then were illiterate, poorly fed, living in constant fear of natural disasters (storms, earthquakes, floods, crop failures, etc.), living in constant fear of disease and injury (no antibiotics, no disinfectants, not the slightest idea what germs or bacteria are, etc.); infant mortality was very high (probably 6 out of 10 children would not have lived past age 5). Life was hard, toilsome, filled with misery and injustice. Good and decent people were struck down every day by seemingly random fate. On the other side, evil people were seen to prosper; people who tyrannized others and acted with ruthless brutality were seen to make it to the top of the social heap.

There are several possible responses to this. One is the Greek stoical response: just accept it. Seek tranquility in your own mind and let the gods do their worst to your body. But there is psychological weakness to the Stoic position: it does not make the misery any easier to bear. Misery is hard to bear, and senseless misery even more so. Misery is easier to bear if it has (or at least appears to have) some meaning or purpose.

Religion, as opposed to Stoic philosophy, places misery within a meaningful-purposeful context. Religion tells us that misery isn't random, it contributes to some higher goal in the cosmic economy. This serves the psychological function of making misery easier to bear. It thereby solves a 'problem', if you will.

Examples: Buddhism. Misery isn't random; our present misery comes from prior karma, and we are all working out karma in this life.

The Abrahamic tradition found a different solution to the problem of incomprehensible misery: it isn't random; it is intended; it is atonement/punishment. This at once gives misery a meaning, a purpose, and a place in the cosmic economy: God wants us to suffer.

'But why are good people punished along with the bad?' is the obvious objection. And this is where original sin comes in. Because apparently innocent people are seen to suffer along with obviously evil people, an explanation was needed, otherwise God is just an arbitrary bastard. Original sin covered this case: people aren't innocent; there was a primordial crime of which we are all guilty. The primordial crime was: disobeying God (breaking the Covenant)--that is why we are being punished, that is why there is misery (the pain of childbirth, the toilsomeness of having to work for our daily bread, illness and death, etc. ).

If you just leave it at that, it does seem a monstrous imposition. Misery has acquired a meaning, but we still want/need comfort in our misery. Stoicism didn't provide much of that. What religion provided, over and above stoicism, was comfort: the injustice will be rectified (in another life), the misery will be compensated (double, in another life). Original sin, without the 'glad tidings', would indeed be a foul soup.

This is a terribly long post, I know, but original sin is complex. Great theologians have racked their brains over it for centuries. A pat answer would hardly do it justice.

Originally posted by moonbus
I don't believe that original sin was invented by evil priests to oppress weak-minded masses; it would not have survived thousands of years if it had been that simple (and simplistic). Leninism was that simple (and simplistic), and in less than 100 years the masses arose in anger and overthrew it. I think you have to look at original sin in the historical co ...[text shortened]... logians have racked their brains over it for centuries. A pat answer would hardly do it justice.

Originally posted by sonhouse
The thing I see NEVER happening is the loss of the hierarchy structure of religion, our Rabbi or our Deacon or our priest has a direct line to god so you can direct your love of your god through him or her, whoever is the honcho priest ATT.
I don't think that will change even if another thousand years goes by with Abrahamic religions in sway.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[quote]
The term “original sin” is unknown to the Jewish Scriptures, and the Church’s teachings on this doctrine are antithetical to the core principles of the Torah and its prophets.
...
According to Church teachings, as a result of the first sin committed by our first parents in the Garden of Eden, there were catastrophic spiritual consequences for ...[text shortened]... to keep Christians from fully exercising their free will and "freely choos[ing] good over evil".

Originally posted by sonhouse
Nice answer, long or not. I can actually read🙂 The only objection I have to that is other religions have been around as long or longer than any of the Abrahamic ones, and they seem to adjust to abject misery pretty well. It was not a deity making life better for common folk in the last 500 odd years, it was a direct result of the combined effort of literal ...[text shortened]... think that will change even if another thousand years goes by with Abrahamic religions in sway.

Originally posted by sonship
You refer to "Abrahamic religions." Who do you think [b]Abraham was ? And how did this man Abraham have such influence on world history ?[/b]

Originally posted by sonhouse
Do YOU know what that means? The Abrahamic religions?

Abrahamic religions (also Semitic religions) are monotheistic religions of West Asian[1] origin, emphasizing and tracing their common origin to Abraham[2] or recognizing a spiritual tradition identified with him.

Originally posted by sonship
[b]
This is what the rabbi said:

How could the authors of the New Testament reasonably insist that man’s dire condition was hopeless if the Torah unambiguously declared that man possessed an extraordinary ability to remain faithful to God?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The authors of t ...[text shortened]... ion leading up to the Savior of the world - the Son of God.

For length's sake, I stop here.[/b]