Catholics and original sin confusion
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-06-2016, 06:23 PM
RE: Catholics and original sin confusion
To understand the concept, one must go back in time and ask Irenaeus, and Augustine. Big Grin

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
27-06-2016, 06:39 PM
RE: Catholics and original sin confusion
Julia Sweeney, who was a Catholic before she became an atheist, explains in her monologue "Letting Go of God" that, when you turn seven you've reached the "age of reason" where you're, at that point, capable of committing sins against God and man.

BTW, the monologue is hilarious. I would recommend it anyone, but especially to ex-catholics because there are a lot of references to Catholic rituals.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTvx_QA6gIc

"Why hast thou forsaken me, o deity whose existence I doubt..." - Dr. Sheldon Cooper
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2016, 06:45 PM (This post was last modified: 27-06-2016 06:54 PM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: Catholics and original sin confusion
(27-06-2016 11:12 AM)Chrisinfp Wrote:  I was raised Catholic and went 1/2 heartedly practiced until I was about 30. It was honestly mostly a positive experience. I now just don't believe in the silly fairy tales and can't tolerate their horrific abuses. Anyway, I had to attend a baptism and realized I don't understand a very basic concept. Isn't baptism based on the concept of original sin which began with Adam and Eve. However, Catholics don't believe in the Eden nonsense so is original sin just a result of us being sinful and less about any original sin? What sins is a baptized baby getting washed away?

I attend a catholic Christian university, in fact I have received 3 degrees from them and I am working on my 4th. Here is an old paper I wrote on incarnation and atonement utilizing their textbooks:

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid674774

To contemplate the relationship between incarnation and atonement, with special emphasis on Anselm’s idea of satisfaction, we must first look at what incarnation and atonement mean to those of the Christian faith. Incarnation is continual in that our redemption depends on the reality that the eternal Son of God came to us as a man. If he did not come fully down, then we are not fully saved (Dawson 5-6). Since Jesus became what we are, accepting our very humanity and God crossed the gap between human and deity, and he overcame our sin and came to live on our behalf. He chose to leave a faithful life that was beyond our capacity, but required by the Father.

The very obedience of Jesus led him to die on the cross as a penalty for human sin. Not only did he die for us, but he gave us new life for salvation, and salvation depends on our continuing union with him. The Incarnation is a fundamental theological teaching of Christianity, based on its understanding of the New Testament. The Incarnation represents the Christian belief that Jesus, who is the second part of the triune, God, took on a human body and became both man and deity. This can be seen in the Bible in John 1:14: "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us” (Bible – King James Version – John). The Christians worldview is rooted in the incarnation of Jesus Christ, the belief that Jesus is God and human in one person (Mueller 141).

Atonement is a theological theory that describes human being’s reconciliation with God. This atonement is the forgiveness of sin through the death and resurrection of Jesus. This voluntary sacrifice by Jesus made possible the reconciliation between man and God. “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son” (Bible – King James Version – John 3:16). This Scripture verse highlights the source of atonement by the very provision of God’s love. It is the love of God the father that Paul has in view when he speaks of him who “spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all” (Bible – King James Version – Romans 8:32). Surely God could have saved man by other means then allowing his only son to die. Since God is all-powerful, other ways of forgiving sin were available to him. Some view the very necessity of his great self-sacrifice magnified his glory and enhanced the precise character of the salvation bestowed (Murray 12). Salvation requires not only the forgiveness of sin but also justification. Sin is the contradiction of God and he must react against it with holy wrath. The demonstration of Christ on the cross is the ultimate demonstration of the love of God. The very nature of the atonement requires that it contains obedience, sacrifice, propitiation, reconciliation and redemption.

Obedience is a compilation of motive, purpose, direction and intention, of which Christ was the epitome of obedience and discharge of God’s will in its increasing demands leading up to his inevitable sacrificial death. Sacrifice is the removal of sin liability via the transference of liability itself. Propitiation; to pacify, and Christ’s propitiation to God was to deal with the wrath so that those loved would no longer be the objects of wrath and God’s love would be eternal. Reconciliation is concerned with our alienation from God, and the inherent need to have that alienation removed. Redemption by Jesus’ blood, “Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation” (Bible – King James Version – revelations 5:9).

This atonement can be broken down into various theories, one of which is the satisfaction theory of atonement, developed by Anselm of Canterbury (1033 – 1109). Anselm posited that the sin unbalanced the order of justice in the universe. Once a sin has been performed, something good must be done to restore the balance. For example, a sin is an incurrence of debt to God, the source of order, and that debt must be paid through true repentance (Albl 271). The work of Christ is to repair the breach human sin introduced into the relationship between humanity and God. Anselm argued in Cur Deus Homo that this work can be accomplished only by a God-man; one person equally divine and human. This doctrine of Christ is commonly called “Chalcedonian Christology” because it was created by the Council of Chalcedon in 451 CE (Visser 213).

One cannot explain the incarnation by appeal to any supposed obligation on God’s part to respect the devil’s rights over humanity. Since the devil had no such rights, so it appears that God would not have been acting unjustly if he had just delivered human beings the power of the devil by fiat. What reason did God have to redeem mankind and the way he did, given that he was not under any obligation to do so? Anselm suggests that since we know God’s will is never irrational, we can be confident that God had some reason for doing what he did, even if we do not see or understand what the reason is (Visser 214).

Anselm believed he could prove, by unavoidable logical steps, that Christ was removed from the case, as if there had never existed anything to do with him, is it possible that without him mankind could have been saved (Anselm 261 – 262). The foundation of Christianity is that Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins (Bible – King James Version –1 Cor 15:3). In this way he fulfilled the old covenant sacrificial system, reconciled us to God, and changed our lives forever. This is the doctrine of the atonement (Mattison 1). At this point, the author makes a faith claim or commonly known as a knowledge claim, by positing “its reality is not in dispute”. I must interject here the whole subject is in dispute and has been the center of the debate for centuries. The author’s mere assertion in a knowledge claim that the atonement “reality” is not in dispute does not make it true. It does, however, assert that the atonement theory is an essential foundation of Christian religious belief. The author goes on to say, “we know that the atonement works, but how it works is not as clear.” Again, a knowledge claim is made; we have zero proof that the atonement works, at best it is a comforting theory for the faithful to cling as validation of their faith to themselves.

“The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Bible –King James Version – Matthew 20:28). The statement suggests that Jesus gave his life as an extreme expression of love for mankind. Iranaeus of Lyons argued that Jesus was paid as a ransom to the devil to free people’s souls. This view was known as the ransom or classic theory. The ransom theory was the dominant theological theory for centuries until dismantled by Anselm of Canterbury. He pointed out that this theory empowered the devil too much, and he posited that Jesus’s life was a ransom paid to God, not the devil. Anselm viewed sin as dishonorable conduct that went against God. Since God cannot ignore this conduct, a debt or “satisfaction” is required. Since mankind is unable to make the requisite level of satisfaction, God became human to do it on our behalf. Thus, Jesus was a payment to God, not the devil. But since Jesus was part of the triune God, did God merely appease himself?

The church leaders developed doctrine to reflect Jesus Christ’s fulfilling of God’s will through active obedience, vice his passive obedience through death. God requires mankind to obey and live a life of perpetual obedience (Mattison 1). This endless cycle of perpetual intellectual and spiritual slavery upon birth, where we continuously strive to bow and scrape in deference to our alleged creator’s self-centered will and ego, is hardly what a thinking person would presume a deity of such universe and life-creating power, would be so obsessed with. What kind of immature supreme being would create all of this, create life, destroy life, send part of his own “body” down in the form of a man through immaculate conception, so he can die on our behalf to satisfy God’s ego requirement for sacrifice. I don’t purport to understand the consciousness of this alleged magical creature, but it is hard to conceive such childish, disingenuous manipulation of life for the entertainment of itself. This dramatic, over thought, contrite, and anthropocentric theory must be the creation of man’s imagination. How could it be anything else?

In summary, this complex, dramatic Christian theological concept is obviously a fabrication of much thought and introspective philosophy. Perhaps they could have put all that time and effort into something more constructive. Creating a subservient, subjugative crutch for people with low mental resilience, apparent inability to use reason and logic to comprehend the world around them, and wild imaginations seem unnecessary. In my opinion, religion and faith block the believer’s ability to utilize appropriate epistemological methods to process and gain knowledge. As apparent by the fact that a 2014 study showed that one-fourth of America believes the sun revolves around the earth. This is the perfect example of how religious thought handicaps a person’s ability to learn.

Works Cited:

Mattison, Mark. “The Meaning of the Atonement.” Mark Mattison. 1987. Web. Retrieved from http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/atonement.html

Anselm, Evans, G. R., The Major Works. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc, 1998. Print.

Visser, Sandra and Williams, Thomas. Anselm. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc, 2009. Print.

Murray, John, The Atonement. Evansville: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1976. Print.

Mueller, J.J., Theological Foundations: Concepts and Methods for Understanding the Christian Faith. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2011. Print.

Albl, Martin C. Reason, Faith, and Tradition: Explorations in Catholic Theology. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2009. Print.

The Catholic Study Bible: The New American Bible 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University press, Inc., 2011. Print.

Dawson, Gerrit S. Jesus Ascended: The Meaning of Christ’s Continuing Incarnation. New Jersey: P&R publishing, 2004. Print.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2016, 06:45 PM
RE: Catholics and original sin confusion
(27-06-2016 06:39 PM)mgoering Wrote:  Julia Sweeney, who was a Catholic before she became an atheist, explains in her monologue "Letting Go of God" that, when you turn seven you've reached the "age of reason" where you're, at that point, capable of committing sins against God and man.

BTW, the monologue is hilarious. I would recommend it anyone, but especially to ex-catholics because there are a lot of references to Catholic rituals.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTvx_QA6gIc

I have it on CD...I enjoy her and was drawn to Carlin back in the day when he was poking fun at Catholic school life - I was living it.

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2016, 06:47 PM
RE: Catholics and original sin confusion
(27-06-2016 06:39 PM)mgoering Wrote:  Julia Sweeney, who was a Catholic before she became an atheist, explains in her monologue "Letting Go of God" that, when you turn seven you've reached the "age of reason" where you're, at that point, capable of committing sins against God and man.

BTW, the monologue is hilarious. I would recommend it anyone, but especially to ex-catholics because there are a lot of references to Catholic rituals.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTvx_QA6gIc

I felt so bad for her when her being like "I guess I don't believe" was front page on the newspaper in her home town and her parents called about it.

(27-06-2016 06:23 PM)Banjo Wrote:  To understand the concept, one must go back in time and ask Irenaeus, and Augustine. Big Grin

Don't ask Augustine, you'd be dead of old age by the time he stopped rambling.

Need to think of a witty signature.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2016, 07:05 PM
RE: Catholics and original sin confusion
(27-06-2016 11:12 AM)Chrisinfp Wrote:  I was raised Catholic and went 1/2 heartedly practiced until I was about 30. It was honestly mostly a positive experience. I now just don't believe in the silly fairy tales and can't tolerate their horrific abuses. Anyway, I had to attend a baptism and realized I don't understand a very basic concept. Isn't baptism based on the concept of original sin which began with Adam and Eve. However, Catholics don't believe in the Eden nonsense so is original sin just a result of us being sinful and less about any original sin? What sins is a baptized baby getting washed away?

...

....

..

... you're expecting religion to make sense? lolwut?

"If I ignore the alternatives, the only option is God; I ignore them; therefore God." -- The Syllogism of Fail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2016, 07:20 PM
RE: Catholics and original sin confusion
(27-06-2016 06:45 PM)Anjele Wrote:  
(27-06-2016 06:39 PM)mgoering Wrote:  Julia Sweeney, who was a Catholic before she became an atheist, explains in her monologue "Letting Go of God" that, when you turn seven you've reached the "age of reason" where you're, at that point, capable of committing sins against God and man.

BTW, the monologue is hilarious. I would recommend it anyone, but especially to ex-catholics because there are a lot of references to Catholic rituals.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTvx_QA6gIc

I have it on CD...I enjoy her and was drawn to Carlin back in the day when he was poking fun at Catholic school life - I was living it.


Have you heard it SitaSky? Knowing your background, I think you'd really enjoy it.

"Why hast thou forsaken me, o deity whose existence I doubt..." - Dr. Sheldon Cooper
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2016, 05:12 AM
RE: Catholics and original sin confusion
(27-06-2016 03:45 PM)Anjele Wrote:  
(27-06-2016 03:03 PM)Dom Wrote:  The nuns told me that we were all born sinners, and we inherited sinner status from Eve. They said when babies are born and die before baptizing, or die before birth, they go to purgatory.

I am told that the catholics got rid of purgatory now (what happened to all those millions of babies? How can you even do that?). But definitely y'all are sinners, you were born that way. Evil_monster

I thought unbaptized babies went to Limbo...which is no longer a thing.

Purgatory was when you did something not really bad and you could burn off those venial sins and get promoted to heaven.

Limbo was there because your not-baptizedness wasn't your fault. Your were just a baby and couldn't do anything about it...your parents were to blame.

Carlin even did a bit about what happens to unbaptized babies - Whip 'em into Limbo.

Babies going to limbo sounds like a pretty nice place:

[Image: Folk_Music_%26_Limbo_Dance_C_IMG_2636.JPG]

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheInquisition's post
01-07-2016, 05:20 AM
RE: Catholics and original sin confusion
(27-06-2016 11:12 AM)Chrisinfp Wrote:  What sins is a baptized baby getting washed away?

Have you seen that yellow stuff in their diapers ?
It's REALLY REALLY evil.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
06-07-2016, 03:39 AM
RE: Catholics and original sin confusion
(01-07-2016 05:20 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(27-06-2016 11:12 AM)Chrisinfp Wrote:  What sins is a baptized baby getting washed away?

Have you seen that yellow stuff in their diapers ?
It's REALLY REALLY evil.

Oh yes. It smells evil. Also, when it comes out and drops between your toes while you are rushing to the kitchen sink ( don't tell your dinner guests,) that really sucks. You've smelled it, you've felt it. There's only taste left. Glad that's not part of the deal.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: