Howard

Interesting. But I'm sure you realize that yin (the woman) has periodic cycles of good and evil, whereas as yang (the man) maintains a near constant state of both self-absorption and occasional abuse (the yang-whang as it were). This puts yin and yang in a constant sate of tension that manifests itself in the prosaic, i.e., toilet seats, remote controls, etc.

Still one wonders if sin were not rampant in the world, then the Godhead (Trinity) would be out of a job. So the entire universe becomes, in essence, a make-work project for the Divine.

Amos

Well yes, yin will always have her cycles and yang will always be there to take advantage of the situation. However, yin is very persistent and will succeed if given only a small because she, as an eternal entity, has youth on her side and can wait for ageing to curb the ambitions of yang (yang is temporal and is just there for the occasion).

The immanent danger for yin is that she gets raped just before her time is right. Such fornication will end in the tragedy wherein the mind has been shown signs of immortality while the flesh can't seem to be renewed (new wine-old skin) and will certainly die or even long to die in wait for better days ahead.

To bring this home just ask any avangelist why he loves to get his hands on a Catholic (they are both virgin on the yin side and sinner on the yang side).Not really. The Godhead contracted this out to the 'like god' identity (the ego we boast) which is called into existence by the serpent that serves as the negative stand in the conscious mind (she gives us the thirst for adventure), who in turn is charmed by the eternal woman of our yin identity (wherefore we are determind creatures who think that we have a free will of our own). Therefore, the entire universe is a make-work project of the divine.

Soul Invictus

I'm replying to make this a more current thread again. I need some additional info. A friend of mine and I were discussing the concept of sin and the importance of having an intermediary repair a severance from God. I need help with the following.

1) Define sin or the original sin concept

2)Who was the original proponent of this concept? (although Amos did a good job, I'd like additional commentary from other members)

3) Are there any issues with the Hebrew view of sin with that of the latter Greek interpretation regarding Jesus needing being necessary for redemption? (It has been my inclination that Paul also is a preeminent proponent for original sin as well). Was Jesus' stance this as well, or is it something fallaciously included with Pauline doctrine?

4) Where did the issue of burnt offerings, human sacrifices, blood shed, and circumcision and various other forms of offerings to God fit in within the scheme of atoning for sin, or were these not related to sin per se?

We are trying to compare the views regarding sin and if there are varying views in reference to this.

Regards,

Invictus

Evangelion

Sin is

"Original sin" is a dogma which was first formulated by Augustine. It has no Biblical basis whatsoever.

No, because the NT version is identical to the Hebrew version. This is to be expected, since the first Christians were Jews themselves. The "redemption" concept was established in Genesis 3 and subsequently enlarged upon by the Law of Moses. The NT draws upon the OT for its redemption theology.

I see no indication that he was even aware of the concept. Indeed, he could not possibly have been, since its original proponent (Augustine) did not even exist until centuries later.

No, it is not Jesus' stance. No, it is not something fallaciously included with Pauline doctrine. It is, in fact, something fallaciously ascribed to Pauline doctrine.

*snip*

There were no human sacrifices under the Law of Moses. For the origins of sacrifice as a means of redemption, start with Genesis 3 and move on to the Law of Moses.

The Bible defines sin as the disobedience of God's will. There's nothing mystical about this. The concept of sin is indeed expressed in the OT (though admittedly, not in the technical language of the NT.) The NT tends to concentrate more on the theological implications of sin; the "anatomy of sin" (so to speak) and its consequences. (Romans 6 is a classic example.) But the basic concept itself, remains the same.

It would signify that humans are fallible and therefore in need of improvement.

I don't think that the concept of sin is intended to personify anything. On the contrary, sin is itself personified elsewhere in the Bible.

As previously stated, sin is the disobedience of God's will. Just as we refer to "breaking the law" in a secular context, so too does the Bible refer to "sin" as the religious equivalent.

To sin is to break God's law - but "sin is not imputed where there is no law." (Romans 5:13.)

Volker.Doormann

Morality is not an absolute value. It depends on culture, time, and social power. That, what is an absolute reference on acting is ethic - the natural laws of ethic. Here is a problem. It is senseless to argue in a morality claim, that a morality is arbitrarily.

To do wrong does not mean in any case, that this acting relates to a prior created morality code of a person or of a society. An acting that hurts the holiness of a human soul is also wrong, if there is no morality code available, but it is still acting against the ethical laws of nature.

The Hebrew meaning of ‘sin’ is simple a ‘fault’, which can be corrected. ‘Sin’ as a bias loaded on a human is to be seen from different concrete situations on destiny; some child’s are born with AIDS in Africa, some other child’s with the Cesium radiation from Tschernobyl, Russia, and some other child’s may blind or deaf. A child, who is born in this world, can perceive a load of sorrow on its own soul that is not caused by a morality law.

I think, that, what is meant as a bias of faults is not related to the term ‘sin’, it is related to the term causality or Karma. Causality and Karma are linked to the individual that is acting. This principle is a principle of nature, not depending on time, not on persons, and not on the society or its morality. If there would not exist such a principle in nature, and all law codes are arbitrarily, then each perceiving of an other human soul and its own sorrow must be an illusion. But no one ever has shown by prove, that the observation of a three year old child about justice on an acting of father, mother and brother is an illusion.

Not the claim, that morality (and ‘sin’) is to be rejected, has any meaning; each individual can recognize, that there are real ethical principles of nature, which exist. Ethical principles are not to be shown; they only can be recognized by an individual. (Morality) Law codes can help to avoid big faults, but they cannot replace the necessity to recognize and to be aware about the eternal ethical laws of nature.

No one knows for certain, about his faults prior to this life. If causality has any meaning, then justice is not limited on a physical life, which is only a physical body of atoms. He, who is, is the one, who is responsible for his actions. And this ‘one’ no one has ever seen or shown.

Ethic cannot be limited to one physical life. Nothing in nature is created out of nothing as a rabbit out of an empty hat of magician is impossible, and if this would not be true, then there would no sense to seek for justice and to be fair in this few years of physical life.

Volker

Rational BAC

I have always been interested in the concept of original sin-----since I don't really believe it, and wonder where this strange idea came from

So====the concensus is that the concept of original sin came from St Augustine. That it is not Biblical (by the Gospels) or Pauline.

So--it is from St Augustine that we get this notion that Jesus died to save us from our original sin? Or from the sins that we have personally committed? Or both?

It is my personal belief that Jesus died and was resurrected to show that there is an afterlife, and personally demonstrated that as an example to us. And it had lilttle or nothing to do with sin at all.

I have never understood the part about Jesus dying to save us from our sins. What are the Biblical references for this? And try to stay away from the writings of Paul as much as you can. I take Paul with a large grain of salt.

Evangelion

I don't know about "consensus" - but it is, at least, my own position.

From sin in general, and "Original Sin" in particular, yes.

Speaking for myself, I say "Not from 'Original Sin', but from (a) the sins we have personally committed, and (b) the curse of mortality."

Just off the top of my head:

• John 3:14-17.
  And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
  That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
  For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
  
• I Peter 1:18-19.
  Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
  But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
  
• Revelation 5:8-9.
  And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odors, which are the prayers of saints.
  And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

Rational BAC

I just do not see in any of those passages anything but the promise of an afterlife. It seems to me a large stretch (at least from those passages) to say that Jesus died to save us from our sins---original or otherwise.

(Forgot to mention, I am not real wild about Revelations either. Think it was a gross mistake to include all that insanity in the Bible.)
-------------------------------------------------------------

PS---Maybe I narrowed the source material too much. After all Paul did write a whole bunch of the New Testament.

So if have to use the writings of Paul, go ahead.

I would just like to find out the Biblical references that the primary reason that Jesus died on the cross was to save us from our sins.

I know that it is a core Christian belief for most Christians---but where did that idea come from? (Biblically)

Hard to believe that St. Augustine just made the whole thing up by himself. ---------------- Or maybe he did.

abe smith

Invictus, resp. to your recent inquiry for explanation. Please note that ALL THE FOLLOWING EXPLANATIONS are statements of Roman Catholic JUNK FICTIONS!
Okay: RC dogma (in the Catechism, and/via? Thos Aquinas)admits that the Incarnation and the Crucifixion/Death were NOT NECESSARY, to redeem "Man"and atone for Original Sin. (The crux -sic- of the matter.)
"God" (the fiction) COULD have absolved Man of Original Sin, and swept away its consequences, by Divine Fiat for example;
without the Incarnation , and without the Incarnated Guy's Crucifixial death & expiation. The Incarnation and the Atonement WERE NOT NECESSARY.
Roman Catholicism says that "God" CHOSE (voluntarily, of course) to do it this way; but that "He" WAS NOT (:of course) REQUIRED to have done it this way.
Ask your local RC Bishop: it's his job to know & to teach you about all this >>> what he's there for.
Also, (Jewish) circumcision is NOT about atoning for sin. Circumcision is the *Sign of the Covenant* made between "God" and Abraham, forever. Ask your local Rabbi to explain this to you.

abe smith

Your interesting position, BAC, that Jesus died to "give us eternal life".
Okay (Check this out w/ your local RC Bishop; he is supposed to be the Authority/Teacher to anyone , about these matters.) .......
RC dogma teaches that , if it had not been for "Adam's" Original Sin of disobedience,(In eating of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge: Look it up in *Genesis!*) there would never have been human death.
Got that straight? Humankind were created originally IMMORTAL. It was Adam's original sin of disobedience which brought (human) death into the world.. (This is of course BIOLOGICALLY Nonsense!)
Hence you are correct that (:ALL THESE STATEMENTS ARE RELIGIOUS JUNK FICTIONS.) the expiatory death (NONSENSE! "God" cannot die!) of Jesus did/does give humankind (back) "eternal life" --- instrumented through the sacrament of Baptism, which wipes away, in each baptised person, the "stain" of Original Sin and its consequences..
Just make sure that you understand that all these ridiculous, unsubstantiated assertions are MANMADE JUNK = Bull shit; and that (probably) a/the major motive of the priesthood in preaching this garbage is to bully the laity into giving POWER & MONEY to priests. There's absolutely no reason to believe any of this!