Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If one looks at it closely, the concept of Original sin has a very strong resemblance to the ancient Caste system of India. the children carried the burdens of their ancestors.
Hmmm...And isn't the indian religion the oldest?...
If one looks at it closely, the concept of Original sin has a very strong resemblance to the ancient Caste system of India. the children carried the burdens of their ancestors.
Really it is the concept of injecting false programming into the humans who will have to do the dirty work while those in high and mighty positions remain pure and favored by "G()D"...
First the guilt has to be established. It is one thing to say 'you are guilty' and have the power to enforce some kind of penalty on the offender...
...it is another thing to have that offender of their own volition believe that yes indeed, they are guilty.
Now we can see plainly why the G()Ds of human invention all share the same mannerisms and attitudes and sit their royal butts in gold thrones encrusted with precious gems etc.
It is plainly a sickness invented by those who take the lions share of the wealth and squander that on props - on keeping up the appearance - of reinforcing the deception...
But the deception has become truth because it has been enabled by the slaves because the slaves believe it to be the truth.
Oh the human drama...
What make the deception so complete is that on every level of human society, the same play is in progress, so it is not just about the 1% uber rich keeping everything 'just so' but that same attitude prevailing down through the ranks where people simply want to control others and be seen to being influential and able to keep others in their place.
How is such a specie able to wise up and make things right (equal etc) without resorting to violence and controlling tactics as part of the process?
Original Sin is one of the most damaging ideas in all of traditional Christianity.
Original Sin is a weapon to use against the masses of followers, nothing more.
It is a way to make certain everyone "by default goes to hell" - then, you can sell them salvation, provided they toss in enough money, follow orders, and give their lives over to whatever self-serving and often evil or warped desires the church leaders have.
Conceptually, Original Sin is a farce. Even if we buy into Christianity, God made us in his own image and he loves us all... but we're also apparently flawed, terrible beings who are all doomed at the same time? Come on... that's totally illogical nonsense. If God loves us all and holds absolute power, he wouldn't allow original sin because it would be a nasty and spiteful way to treat his creations.
Now, from a philosophical perspective, one could consider original sin to be our "animal nature" - our baser, primitive desires against which we must always fight to remain civilized. That works, but anything else - particularly the loony "curse of Original Sin" - just doesn't make sense.
If one looks at it closely, the concept of Original sin has a very strong resemblance to the ancient Caste system of India. the children carried the burdens of their ancestors.
Hmmm...And isn't the indian religion the oldest?...
I believe the pharaonic religion is older. As is the Sumerian. And the religion practiced at Catal Huyuk. All of which involved blood sacrifices. I think it striking that the idea of blood sacrifice seems to be accompanied by a wealthy priesthood. Of course, my impression may be due to my own ignorance on the subject.
The roots of Chinese religion are pretty old too, but I've never heard whether it involved blood sacrifice.
original sin is simply the notion that we are born with a sinful nature. not that we are born having already committed a sin.
The fact remains that many Christians believe we still bear Adam's guilt from the moment we are born. While they may deny the fact that we have committed a sin, they still seem to feel that we bear the guilt incurred by Adam. If that were the case, it would make the atonement of Jesus Christ pretty meaningless. If He was able and willing to atone for the sins of people who have done far worse things than take a bite out of a piece of fruit, why would His sacrifice have not taken care of Adam's "sin," too?
original sin is simply the notion that we are born with a sinful nature. not that we are born having already committed a sin.
The people who teach "original sin" may say this, but they still teach that the "taint" of original sin must be removed. What the heck is "taint" if not some consequence. Certainly we have self-interest as part of our nature, and that will inevitably come into conflict with the interest of our society, but there is nothing "tainting" about that until we knowingly act on our desires at the expense of our society.
Claiming a "taint" is just another way of laying a guilt trip for something never done by an individual OR a way of keeping the parents of a child who has done nothing in line with the governing religion in order to ensure safety for their child.
Hmmm...And isn't the indian religion the oldest?...
I have heard that said. I am not convinced it is, particular not in the form it is today.
I keep coming across indications Hinduism was originally Monotheistic.
It really is not clear when Hinduism formed it seems to have been an evolutionary process over several thousands of years.
But it seemed to have taken on a recognizable form with the formation of Brahamanic rituals in the Vedic period about 900 BC
Quote:
Brahmanism is not the oldest of Indian religions but it represents an important starting place for the understanding of Indian philosophy and religion. Hinduism grows out of Brahmanism, and accepts most of the basics of Brahmanism, while Buddhism and Jainism are reactionary—they adopt some of the ideas of Brahmanism, yet they reject much of it, and so in a way they too are an outgrowth of Brahmanism.
But at the moment I am trying to point out the monotheistic origin of Hinduism evolved from the pantheism of Brahmanism.
Now going back to the question. Hinduism is not the oldest religion it developed parallel with Christianity and shares many beliefs and practices.:
Amazing....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
