"Original Sin Doctrine" (Need a Perspective)

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Manji2012

Now, do you understand where I am coming from? If not, please explain your confusion and I will make it crystal clear for you because, your statement was so way off from what I was saying that I just have to it clear what I really do mean.

You posit a thesis about the doctrine of original sin, and asked for a perspective.

I answered it, with evidence supporting my answers, to show your thesis is inaccurate, and fundamentally wrong.

You have not addressed the evidence I have presented, you simply choose to ignore it, so even though your original thesis is proven to be false, you are now building an extended thesis on top of it.

So it seems to me you don't want a perspective at all.

You introduce aliens, sace ships, DNA manipulation, and Atlantis, with less supporting material than the original thesis, and make generalised and largely inaccurate statements about the nature of Christianity and Buddhism.

This is what we call 'building castles in the air'.

What you actually want is people to agree with you.

You want people to understand Scripture as a technomyth.

Have I got that right?

Thomas

[dauer]

Manji,

I'm not really very interested in books on New Age mythology. If there's something relevant that he's said, please do share in your own words. You might, as a counterpoint to his ideas, try looking into how critical scholars understand Sumerian mythology. Or, if you'd like to delve further into New Age myth, this book is pretty good into tying a great deal of them together:

Amazon.com: Nothing in This Book Is True, but It's Exactly How Things Are: The Esoteric Meaning of the Monuments on Mars: Books: Bob Frissell,Brett Lilly

It's got sacred geometry, area 51, the annunaki, atlantis, the ascended masters, the pyramids, etc.

I don't really think that type of mythology gets us closer to understanding absolute truths about the material world but instead repackages ancient mythical themes in shiny contemporary language. There may be truth in it, but I don't think there's more truth to it than in other sacred literature, and I don't think the significant truth to any of that myth is going to be found by taking it in a literal sense, although it may be one element of a more dynamic relationship with the text.

Dauer

[Neemai]

Originally Posted by Manji2012

Is it safe to say that, within most of Judaism from the cradle to the present, the concept of "Original Sin" does not exist in any shape or form? Although Judaism has the story of Adam and Eve, the interpretation or concept of "Original Sin" was never considered within most of Judaism?

Does this concept have much of a bearing on one's practical application of spiritual values, be he/she a follower of Christs teachings, or that of Judaism? I'm trying to see the relevancy on a day-to-day level? How would it be different with or without the doctrine?


... Neemai

[dauer]

Neemai,

I don't think that one detail is something that might make a huge difference, but I think the worldviews that generate the two divergent interpretations can have somewhat of an impact. imo the reason Original Sin is found in a Christian context is because there's a focus on sin and on our inability to clear ourselves of our sinfulness ourselves. In Judaism there's a built-in mechanism that places the responsibility (and possibility) for clearing oneself of any sin in the hands of the individual, and the focus is on right-action instead of on sin.

The story itself, from a Jewish perspective, isn't really so terribly negative. Sometimes Jewish interpretations of it are even a bit positive.

But I think that the interpretation of this story is a bit more of a bi-product in both cases of different perspectives instead of a generator of those perspectives.

Dauer