Your religious affiliation, or lack thereof, and why?

[Menassa]

Original sin excludes the unbaptized from the beatific vision.

They propose Limbo because they do not believe an infant, an innocent person, would be condemned to Hell, but the infant has been corrupted by original sin and, therefore, not eligible to the beatific vision.

See, that's what I find odd too and my father finds odd as well; this idea of "Original Sin".

It's foreign to me in a way because you cannot commit any sin as an infant, and Jesus came to absolve humans from the Original Sin, not to rub it into our faces. I grew up as a Christian btw, an Unbaptized Christian though.

Then again I am also assuming that to commit a sin you must have a moral agency, and an infant is not a moral agent in a proper way.

Ezekiel says that we suffer for our own sins.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

See, that's what I find odd too and my father finds odd as well; this idea of "Original Sin".

It's foreign to me in a way because you cannot commit any sin as an infant, and Jesus came to absolve humans from the Original Sin, not to rub it into our faces. I grew up as a Christian btw, an Unbaptized Christian though.

Then again I am also assuming that to commit a sin you must have a moral agency, and an infant is not a moral agent in a proper way.

Ezekiel says that we suffer for our own sins.

Right, so shouldn't this make an infant, since they have not committed any sin, excluded from suffering?

[Mons Garle]

I attended an evangelical Christian school here in England for 7 years - I only ended up there because I didn't want to go to the local comprehensive secondary school when I finished at primary school. Rather than bringing me closer to "God" - the whole experience only moved me further away from the concept of there being a higher power or deity, principally because they couldn't provide any credible evidence of his/her/its existence, and I couldn't bear the constant intolerance and bigotry, especially as I was a closeted gay person for my entire time there.

In a sense I'm thankful, the hooey they threw about in morning assemblies made me see sense instead of being sucked into some warped world view in which I would be made to feel that my sexuality was some kind of defect and to be ashamed of (even if I didn't share it at that time with anyone else).

In terms of getting into a theoretical heaven, I'd like to think that a God would reward those who try and be the best they can in their lives, and think for themselves rather than just believing some holy book and allowing that to make their decisions for them. Oh and yes, in my view there'd be a lot less war, strife, intolerance, ignorance, poverty and general disquiet if religion wasn't a thing. But sadly, it is.

So no, I'm not religious or superstitious or anything like that. Until someone comes along with conclusive proof that there is a higher power, I'm not interested.

It's sad when people twist religion to their own selfish ends (One of the many reasons I decided to go Deist). And I can sympathize with you greatly on the fact that people shouldn't be judged based on sexuality, after all if god does exist and created all humans that means he naturally knew of homosexuality, etc. and (this is a personal opinion) because people are just born as such that should mean there is no issue with it. But then that loudmouth Leviticus came around and screwed the whole 'love thy neighbour' idea to the wall.

I absolutely agree. And I'd say my problem is far more to do with organised religion and literalist interpretation in general than with genuine people of faith.

Yeah... I've read plenty of Leviticus in my time and if we took everything he said literally we wouldn't be living in a very nice place. Like I say, I totally respect those who genuinely believe in God in a personal and sincere way - but when it becomes organised religion and a method for control or power, I can't bear it. But maybe that's just because of my own experiences.

[Gingeska]

I once named a bong Ezekiel.

and a character in Diablo II

[Menassa]

Ezekiel says that we suffer for our own sins.

Right, so shouldn't this make an infant, since they have not committed any sin, excluded from suffering?

Yeah it should, I mean I don't believe in original sin.

Adam was a man, I am a man, he suffered for his sins, I suffer for mine.

[Ublia]

Duly noted. Oh by the way have any questions about Deism feel free to ask. I can assure you its a very liberal philosophy/religious perspective.

What kind of Deist are you? The "Clockmaster" type or another type of Deist? What's your view on God?

Me? Well personally I have a free-will oriented view of god. Personally I see god as the 'Great Observer' unable to influence the mortal plane of existence and merely setting events in motion by creating the universe. By setting the universe in motion god is testing us to see how we act, behave, etc. to see if we are virtuous or not. Hence the existence of logic, reason, and morality which are what define our actions or inaction as everything is a choice.

Anywho yeah god acts as the observer. Once we die though I believe we are judged by god for our actions. As one cannot claim they possessed no choice as even inaction is a choice in it's own way. Ultimately if we have lived an upright or virtuous life in which we pursued happiness and did few or no immoral acts (note due to us possessing morality, logic and reason we know what is immoral due to the influences of the natural world and the priory mentioned items) we are rewarded. However immoral behaviour is undoubtably punished such as murder, and other things that cause real harm to others.

My thoughts. There's more if you wish to know and ask.

[Bari]

Original sin excludes the unbaptized from the beatific vision.

They propose Limbo because they do not believe an infant, an innocent person, would be condemned to Hell, but the infant has been corrupted by original sin and, therefore, not eligible to the beatific vision.

See, that's what I find odd too and my father finds odd as well; this idea of "Original Sin".

It's foreign to me in a way because you cannot commit any sin as an infant, and Jesus came to absolve humans from the Original Sin, not to rub it into our faces. I grew up as a Christian btw, an Unbaptized Christian though.

Then again I am also assuming that to commit a sin you must have a moral agency, and an infant is not a moral agent in a proper way.

People are not said to commit original sin. Original sin is transmitted to us by propagation.

You are confusing false, Protestant theology with Catholic theology. We, as descendants of Adam and Eve, do not inherit the guilt of original sin. We inherit the fallen nature that was effected by original sin. That is why we must be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. We do not commit an actual sin in original sin. That means this doctrine does not impute the sin of Adam and Eve to us, their descendants, but merely the privation of the original holiness and justice of mankind. Therefore, original sin does not have the character of personal fault in any of Adam's descendants.

I have no interest in that belief.


No; he was not. The Divine Comedy was a poem, not a theological or doctrinal discourse.

Still sad.

Anywho your correct it was a poem. Still though it does incorporate devices from religious text to help sell the ideas regarding the various places of the damned, saved and all those others we see in Inferno, Purgatorio and Paradisio. And is a pretty interesting presentation on 14th century ideas in theology and philosophy you have to admit through the usage of the three regions.

Yes, that is the premise of the poem. And Catholic doctrine still believes in Heaven, Purgatory and Hell.

[Ublia]

It's sad when people twist religion to their own selfish ends (One of the many reasons I decided to go Deist). And I can sympathize with you greatly on the fact that people shouldn't be judged based on sexuality, after all if god does exist and created all humans that means he naturally knew of homosexuality, etc. and (this is a personal opinion) because people are just born as such that should mean there is no issue with it. But then that loudmouth Leviticus came around and screwed the whole 'love thy neighbour' idea to the wall.

I absolutely agree. And I'd say my problem is far more to do with organised religion and literalist interpretation in general than with genuine people of faith.

Yeah... I've read plenty of Leviticus in my time and if we took everything he said literally we wouldn't be living in a very nice place. Like I say, I totally respect those who genuinely believe in God in a personal and sincere way - but when it becomes organised religion and a method for control or power, I can't bear it. But maybe that's just because of my own experiences.

Quite. Thankfully that's why humans have reason and thus question and ultimately strive towards truth. And no believe me its not your own experience I to have seen all to often how others bully others with the threat of religious consequence. Or exclude people based on it and personally I am disgusted by such corruption. Hence why we should look to ourselves and chart our own path.

[Bari]

Ezekiel says that we suffer for our own sins.

Right, so shouldn't this make an infant, since they have not committed any sin, excluded from suffering?

They do not suffer directly for Adam's sin.

And, no one has said they would suffer.

[Ublia]

See, that's what I find odd too and my father finds odd as well; this idea of "Original Sin".

It's foreign to me in a way because you cannot commit any sin as an infant, and Jesus came to absolve humans from the Original Sin, not to rub it into our faces. I grew up as a Christian btw, an Unbaptized Christian though.

Then again I am also assuming that to commit a sin you must have a moral agency, and an infant is not a moral agent in a proper way.

People are not said to commit original sin. Original sin is transmitted to us by propagation.

You are confusing false, Protestant theology with Catholic theology. We, as descendants of Adam and Eve, do not inherit the guilt of original sin. We inherit the fallen nature that was effected by original sin. That is why we must be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. We do not commit an actual sin in original sin. That means this doctrine does not impute the sin of Adam and Eve to us, their descendants, but merely the privation of the original holiness and justice of mankind. Therefore, original sin does not have the character of personal fault in any of Adam's descendants.

Still sad.

Anywho your correct it was a poem. Still though it does incorporate devices from religious text to help sell the ideas regarding the various places of the damned, saved and all those others we see in Inferno, Purgatorio and Paradisio. And is a pretty interesting presentation on 14th century ideas in theology and philosophy you have to admit through the usage of the three regions.

Yes, that is the premise of the poem. And Catholic doctrine still believe in Heaven, Purgatory and Hell.

You know if Dante's right I'll be consigned to the fiery tombs of heretics of hell. Oh well me Epicurus, Frederick II and the rest should have a fun chat.

[Bari]

People are not said to commit original sin. Original sin is transmitted to us by propagation.

You are confusing false, Protestant theology with Catholic theology. We, as descendants of Adam and Eve, do not inherit the guilt of original sin. We inherit the fallen nature that was effected by original sin. That is why we must be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. We do not commit an actual sin in original sin. That means this doctrine does not impute the sin of Adam and Eve to us, their descendants, but merely the privation of the original holiness and justice of mankind. Therefore, original sin does not have the character of personal fault in any of Adam's descendants.


Yes, that is the premise of the poem. And Catholic doctrine still believe in Heaven, Purgatory and Hell.

You know if Dante's right I'll be consigned to the fiery tombs of heretics of hell. Oh well me Epicurus, Frederick II and the rest should have a fun chat.

If Dante is right, you would not be able to enjoy anything fun whatsoever.

[Ublia]

You know if Dante's right I'll be consigned to the fiery tombs of heretics of hell. Oh well me Epicurus, Frederick II and the rest should have a fun chat.

If Dante is right, you would not be able to enjoy anything fun whatsoever.

True. True. So won't you be extremely happy if I was right!

[Menassa]

If Dante is right, you would not be able to enjoy anything fun whatsoever.

True. True. So won't you be extremely happy if I was right!

Frankly, it shouldn't matter what Me, you, Dante, or Bari says... the only person's opinion who makes any difference in this instance would be God's.

[Genivaria]

You know if Dante's right I'll be consigned to the fiery tombs of heretics of hell. Oh well me Epicurus, Frederick II and the rest should have a fun chat.

If Dante is right, you would not be able to enjoy anything fun whatsoever.

In which case god is an evil twat and I wouldn't worship him anyway.

[Farnhamia]

If Dante is right, you would not be able to enjoy anything fun whatsoever.

In which case god is an evil twat and I wouldn't worship him anyway.

Not really. If you break the rules set by the guy who created the universe and everything in it, you get punished. Within the context of the world as Dante knew it, it's not at all unreasonable.

[Ublia]

If Dante is right, you would not be able to enjoy anything fun whatsoever.

In which case god is an evil twat and I wouldn't worship him anyway.

Put god on a couch with a psychiatrist. (The Christian one that is) My bet he'd be diagnosed as having multiple personality disorder, misogynistic tendancies, be a full fledged sadomasochist and just for the hell of things have mommy issues, to name a few.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

See, that's what I find odd too and my father finds odd as well; this idea of "Original Sin".

It's foreign to me in a way because you cannot commit any sin as an infant, and Jesus came to absolve humans from the Original Sin, not to rub it into our faces. I grew up as a Christian btw, an Unbaptized Christian though.

Then again I am also assuming that to commit a sin you must have a moral agency, and an infant is not a moral agent in a proper way.

People are not said to commit original sin. Original sin is transmitted to us by propagation.

You are confusing false, Protestant theology with Catholic theology. We, as descendants of Adam and Eve, do not inherit the guilt of original sin. We inherit the fallen nature that was effected by original sin. That is why we must be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. We do not commit an actual sin in original sin. That means this doctrine does not impute the sin of Adam and Eve to us, their descendants,2. but merely the privation of the original holiness and justice of mankind. Therefore, original sin does not have the character of personal fault in any of Adam's descendants.

Then what's the point of calling it "Original Sin" if you're not really "sinning"? In fact, why is even infant baptism necessary when it really doesn't amount to much if there's no guilt in it?

2. But if you are not pure then you are impure, therefore you are saying we have a fault since we are born even though we as infants are not conscious of it. It's like saying that because your heart beats you're not just and holy. Am I supposed to take my heart out or kill myself because my heart beating doesn't make me holy and pure?

Mind, I don't play this whole "Protestant v. Catholic" little game, I'm saying that to me Original Sin doesn't make sense no matter how you spin it because you are implying infants who are not yet to make any moral decisions are impure or somehow have something wrong with them just because they are born.

[Benuty]

In which case god is an evil twat and I wouldn't worship him anyway.

Put god on a couch with a psychiatrist. (The Christian one that is) My bet he'd be diagnosed as having multiple personality disorder, misogynistic tendancies, be a full fledged sadomasochist and just for the hell of things have mommy issues, to name a few.

To be fair, Freud is a fucking quack who couldn't progress past the ideas he had about women. Hell it took feminist Freudians to come up with weird theories about men to make his branch seem less sexist lol.

[Benuty]

In which case god is an evil twat and I wouldn't worship him anyway.

Not really. If you break the rules set by the guy who created the universe and everything in it, you get punished. Within the context of the world as Dante knew it, it's not at all unreasonable.

Considering Dante was in a sense "mad as hell" it not be odd that several of his enemies wound up in this worst parts of hell (specifically a few popes).

[Farnhamia]

Not really. If you break the rules set by the guy who created the universe and everything in it, you get punished. Within the context of the world as Dante knew it, it's not at all unreasonable.

Considering Dante was in a sense "mad as hell" it not be odd that several of his enemies wound up in this worst parts of hell (specifically a few popes).

Yes, Signore Dante did hold one hell of a grudge.

[Distruzio]

People are not said to commit original sin. Original sin is transmitted to us by propagation.

You are confusing false, Protestant theology with Catholic theology. We, as descendants of Adam and Eve, do not inherit the guilt of original sin. We inherit the fallen nature that was effected by original sin. That is why we must be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. We do not commit an actual sin in original sin. That means this doctrine does not impute the sin of Adam and Eve to us, their descendants, but merely the privation of the original holiness and justice of mankind. Therefore, original sin does not have the character of personal fault in any of Adam's descendants.

Then what's the point of calling it "Original Sin" if you're not really "sinning"? In fact, why is even infant baptism necessary when it really doesn't amount to much if there's no guilt in it?

Well, as he said, you're confused about it. For those steeped in Protestant theology, ancestral/original sin is the same thing as concupiscence. For Catholics, as well as we Orthodox (albeit in a different manner), human nature isn't inherently sinful as the act of longing isn't synonymous with sin (as it is for Protestants). Human nature is good. For Christians (Catholics and Orthodox), sin is a voluntary act. For Protestants, it's an unalterable default - involuntary. How this plays into your question is rather simple: Protestants have focused on "original sin" because they, fundamentally, confuse and contort its meaning and in doing so, forget the counterpoint to original sin - Original Justice.

Basically, Augustine and a few others within the Catholic Church focused on some convenient aspects of the doctrine and the Protestant "reformers" ran into the woods with it.

It's called "original sin" because that's what is identified by the moniker. But it isn't a stand alone doctrine. One must consider original justice, traducianist theory, and christology before one can appropriately articulate the consequences of the fall. In articulating those consequences, we stick with the short-hand "original sin" with the understood connotations involved.

[Distruzio]

I responded before you edited the post.

2. But if you are not pure then you are impure, therefore you are saying we have a fault since we are born even though we as infants are not conscious of it. It's like saying that because your heart beats you're not just and holy. Am I supposed to take my heart out or kill myself because my heart beating doesn't make me holy and pure?

We don't have fault. We bare the consequences of the fall - that's it. Protestants get their parameters confused when they cross their i's and dot their t's and try to talk about original sin, the fall, and Christ.

Mind, I don't play this whole "Protestant v. Catholic" little game, I'm saying that to me Original Sin doesn't make sense no matter how you spin it because you are implying infants who are not yet to make any moral decisions are impure or somehow have something wrong with them just because they are born.

Original sin does not apply to infants. Simple as that. Infants are not yet developed enough to bare responsibility for their own actions. Therefore, they cannot be held to account for the consequences of the actions of another.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Then what's the point of calling it "Original Sin" if you're not really "sinning"? In fact, why is even infant baptism necessary when it really doesn't amount to much if there's no guilt in it?

Well, as he said, you're confused about it. For those steeped in Protestant theology, ancestral/original sin is the same thing as concupiscence. For Catholics, as well as we Orthodox (albeit in a different manner), human nature isn't inherently sinful as the act of longing isn't synonymous with sin (as it is for Protestants). Human nature is good. For Christians (Catholics and Orthodox), sin is a voluntary act. For Protestants, it's an unalterable default - involuntary. How this plays into your question is rather simple: Protestants have focused on "original sin" because they, fundamentally, confuse and contort its meaning and in doing so, forget the counterpoint to original sin - Original Justice.

Basically, Augustine and a few others within the Catholic Church focused on some convenient aspects of the doctrine and the Protestant "reformers" ran into the woods with it.

It's called "original sin" because that's what is identified by the moniker. But it isn't a stand alone doctrine. One must consider original justice, traducianist theory, and christology before one can appropriately articulate the consequences of the fall. In articulating those consequences, we stick with the short-hand "original sin" with the understood connotations involved.

Well, I do take in consideration that sin is a voluntary act. It's why it doesn't make much sense to me when people speak of "Original Sin". Mostly because I take it for granted that to be sinful you must have the inclination to sin, but an infant doesn't have an inclination to sin because of the fact they have yet to have some kind of moral agency, so the term contradicts itself in my opinion.

However, these separate doctrines you speak of make much more sense if taken separately rather than toss them all in and call them "Original Sin" because, as you have just explained and from what I understand, it's kind of a misnomer because you cannot sin if it isn't voluntary.

[Distruzio]

Well, as he said, you're confused about it. For those steeped in Protestant theology, ancestral/original sin is the same thing as concupiscence. For Catholics, as well as we Orthodox (albeit in a different manner), human nature isn't inherently sinful as the act of longing isn't synonymous with sin (as it is for Protestants). Human nature is good. For Christians (Catholics and Orthodox), sin is a voluntary act. For Protestants, it's an unalterable default - involuntary. How this plays into your question is rather simple: Protestants have focused on "original sin" because they, fundamentally, confuse and contort its meaning and in doing so, forget the counterpoint to original sin - Original Justice.

Basically, Augustine and a few others within the Catholic Church focused on some convenient aspects of the doctrine and the Protestant "reformers" ran into the woods with it.

It's called "original sin" because that's what is identified by the moniker. But it isn't a stand alone doctrine. One must consider original justice, traducianist theory, and christology before one can appropriately articulate the consequences of the fall. In articulating those consequences, we stick with the short-hand "original sin" with the understood connotations involved.

Well, I do take in consideration that sin is a voluntary act. It's why it doesn't make much sense to me when people speak of "Original Sin". Mostly because I take it for granted that to be sinful you must have the inclination to sin, but an infant doesn't have an inclination to sin, so the term contradicts itself in my opinion.

However, these separate doctrines you speak of make much more sense if taken separately rather than toss them all in and call them "Original Sin" because, as you have just explained and from what I understand, it's kind of a misnomer because you cannot sin if it isn't voluntary.

You're right. Failing to explain any doctrine without appropriately touching on other related doctrines makes any redress of confusion about Christianity rather stillborn. That's why Christians tend to be so damned long winded about things. Asking a question about a singular doctrine, independent of other related doctrines, stunts any illumination that might come from redress.

And that all comes back to the intent of the person asking questions: is he actually interested or is he using the question posed as an opportunity to attack the faith? If the latter, then any extended response will either bore him or be ignored for "changing the subject". All subjects within Christian theology are more than 2000 years old. So a "simple" answer takes a while to relate. Even then, you're lucky if you can get even the shortest of "simple" answers.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I responded before you edited the post.

2. But if you are not pure then you are impure, therefore you are saying we have a fault since we are born even though we as infants are not conscious of it. It's like saying that because your heart beats you're not just and holy. Am I supposed to take my heart out or kill myself because my heart beating doesn't make me holy and pure?

We don't have fault. We bare the consequences of the fall - that's it. Protestants get their parameters confused when they cross their i's and dot their t's and try to talk about original sin, the fall, and Christ.

Mind, I don't play this whole "Protestant v. Catholic" little game, I'm saying that to me Original Sin doesn't make sense no matter how you spin it because you are implying infants who are not yet to make any moral decisions are impure or somehow have something wrong with them just because they are born.

Original sin does not apply to infants. Simple as that. Infants are not yet developed enough to bare responsibility for their own actions. Therefore, they cannot be held to account for the consequences of the actions of another.

I see, I've heard different things from different people. I'm unbaptized as you know by now, but it was mostly due to my father. He didn't baptize me because in the manner he was taught and other people (who were Catholics) defined Original Sin was as that, a sin that as consequence of Adam and Eve we're all guilty of it. My dad thought it was bollocks so he decided to just not baptize me. Now, before this gets into "they're not real Catholics"; El Salvador is Catholic, problem being that people have thoughts, and that can fuck up with the whole "doctrine" aspect of it.