• Zloubida
    link
    English
    -3
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I’ll try to explain what I think (it’s of course my vision and not the Truth), but in advance sorry for my broken English.

    I’ve always hated the idea of original/inherited sin. It’s such a cruel idea to me.

    It depends on what you put behind these words. American Christianity (but it’s of course not the case only there) is obsessed by the question of hell, thus the idea that everybody inherits the condamnation is indeed cruel. But as you said, one should understand the culture and history of the people who wrote Genesis 1 and 2 (two different texts that are in opposition if one takes them literally, by the way, a proof that it’s not how the authors thought them), and to them, the question of the afterlife was if not irrelevant, at least not central. The oldest parts of the Old Testament even do not presuppose an afterlife at all. It comes later, first as the sheol, a place that welcomes everybody, and finally as a bodily resurrection of the just people only. Thus the original sin is not what condemns you to hell.

    Sin is not about hell and heaven. Sin is an existential reality here and now. Etymologically, it’s an archery terms which signifies “to miss the mark”. Sin is the fact that we can’t be what we should be. Our “mark”, a life in communion with God, thus a life free of evil, can’t be not missed. We are not able to attain it, and that’s because of sin. But sin is not our fault, sin is original, it predates us, thus we can’t be accused of sinning. Sin is not a moral question.

    Why does sin exist? @[email protected] is right when they ask if God is responsible of the sin. Genesis does say that God created everything, thus he created, if not the original sin itself, at least the possibility of sin. Why would a good God do that? It’s a mystery, but Genesis offers a part of the answer: because of freedom. God wants us free. God wants us able to refuse him. He loves us, and he wants us to love him too, but because he loves us he wants us to be autonomous. Without the ability to sin, we wouldn’t be autonomous.

    Thus, the doctrine of the original sin is not an accusation of everybody. It’s a freeing doctrine: you’re not responsible for the evil that inhabits you. It’s not your fault. It’s original, inherited. It’s the price of your freedom. You can now walk freed of culpability (if a Church makes you feel more guilty than before, this Church is not teaching the Gospel). And God doesn’t let us alone in that. It’s not in Genesis 1-2 anymore, but the rest of the Bible is pretty clear about the fact that God accompanies us in our road, he suffers when we suffer, he walks with us, and he offers his presence in our lives. He helps us endure, if we make the decision to ask him. He asks the believers to fight against the consequences of evil, making the world a better place. It’s not always the case, of course, but it’s what he calls us to do.

    The doctrine of the original sin changed my life, I do not fell guilty and I’m stronger to change the world.

    Edit : it’s very mature Lemmy to downvote a message you disagree with.

      • Zloubida
        link
        English
        -31 year ago

        You asked and answered. I agree with the question and not the answer.

    • @SuddenlyBlowGreen
      link
      2
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      So your version of the christians god is not omnipotent and omnicient?

      • Zloubida
        link
        English
        01 year ago

        He is. But he also loves us thus he will not use his omnipotence to make us do something we do not want. And omnipotence can’t go against logic.

        • @SuddenlyBlowGreen
          link
          11 year ago

          If he is, then he is not benevolent.

          After all, he could have created us with free will and no suffering, but chose not to.

          So he either is not omnipotent, or is not benevolent.

          • Zloubida
            link
            English
            01 year ago

            After all, he could have created us with free will and no suffering, but chose not to.

            Could he? Like I said, omnipotence can’t go against logic. Which free will would we have if we couldn’t make bad and suffering-inducing decisions?

            • @SuddenlyBlowGreen
              link
              11 year ago

              Well, if he were truly omnipotent (and real), he could have created free will that doesn’t go against logic and without suffering.