Is it time we abandoned Augustinian Original Sin altogether?
>Not mentioned anywhere in the Bible
>Based on Augustine's use of a latin translation of Romans 5:12 which mistranslated "because of [Adam] all have sinned" as "in [Adam] all have sinned"
>Appears to have been abandoned by Benedict XVI (source below)
>Pessimistic and absurd to boot
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
>>Appears to have been abandoned by Benedict XVI (source below)
Was he speaking ex cathedra?
The Orthodox never subscribed to it. Saint Augustine was wrong on a lot of things. He was also a Nestorian, for instance.
>Cathocuck so mad about protestantism he now finds it necessary to throw one of the most important Christian theologians out of the window in order to delegitimize it
>ex cathedra
Isn't he always when making public statements? Or is did he just speak as Ratzinger?
Indeed, we should abandon all "absurd" beliefs.
>He was also a Nestorian, for instance
here
"Our Lord Jesus Christ was both God and man. According as He was God, He had not a mother; according as He was man, He had."
-Tractate 8 on the Gospel of John
From Ratzinger's book "In The Beginning"
"In the Genesis story that we are considering, still a further characteristic of sin is described. Sin is not spoken of in general as an abstract possibility but as a deed, as the sin of a particular person, Adam, who stands at the origin of humankind and with whom the history of sin begins. The account tells us that sin begets sin, and that therefore all the sins of history are interlinked. Theology refers to this state of affairs by the certainly misleading and imprecise term 'original sin.' What does this mean? Nothing seems to us today to be stranger or, indeed, more absurd than to insist upon original sin, since, according to our way of thinking, guilt can only be something very personal, and since God does not run a concentration camp, in which one’s relative are imprisoned, because he is a liberating God of love, who calls each one by name. What does original sin mean, then, when we interpret it correctly?
(1/2)
You're right, I should have mentioned that he is saying this as Josef Ratzinger
"Finding an answer to this requires nothing less than trying to understand the human person better. It must once again be stressed that no human being is closed in upon himself or herself and that no one can live of or for himself or herself alone. We receive our life not only at the moment of birth but every day from without--from others who are not ourselves but who nonetheless somehow pertain to us. Human beings have their selves not only in themselves but also outside of themselves: they live in those whom they love and in those who love them and to whom they are 'present.' Human beings are relational, and they possess their lives--themselves--only by way of relationship. I alone am not myself, but only in and with you am I myself. To be truly a human being means to be related in love, to be of and for. But sin means the damaging or the destruction of relationality. Sin is a rejection of relationality because it wants to make the human being a god. Sin is loss of relationship, disturbance of relationship, and therefore it is not restricted to the individual. When I destroy a relationship, then this event--sin--touches the other person involved in the relationship. Consequently sin is always an offense that touches others, that alters the world and damages it. To the extent that this is true, when the network of human relationships is damaged from the very beginning, then every human being enters into a world that is marked by relational damage. At the very moment that a person begins human existence, which is a good, he or she is confronted by a sin-damaged world. Each of us enters into a situation in which relationality has been hurt. Consequently each person is, from the very start, damaged in relationships and does not engage in them as he or she ought. Sin pursues the human being, and he or she capitulates to it."
(2/2)
I'm not Catholic, I'm just interested in theology. Didn't Luther and Calvin subscribe to Augustine's view too?
Luther and Calvin are basically Augustine on steroids. The entire reformation is Augustinian as fuck.
It doesn't sound like Benedict XVI was saying we should move away from old interpretations of original sin. It sounds like he was saying the term's intuitive sense doesn't match up with the traditionally understood reference. This is just a clarification of what original sin is and what its consequences have traditionally been thought to be.
>You're right, I should have mentioned that he is saying this as Josef Ratzinger
Why do we refer to the Popes by their Papal names? That's only for ex cathedra pronouncements, otherwise they should be referred to by their secular names.
The Orthodox generally hold that "original (ancestral) sin" works as follows: if both your parents are alcoholics, you will inherit a disposition towards alcoholism, and will have a troubled upbringing, but you won't inherit their shitty diseased livers. Benedict's statement reminded me of this view
I wasn't aware of that, my bad
>>Based on Augustine's use of a latin translation of Romans 5:12 which mistranslated "because of [Adam] all have sinned" as "in [Adam] all have sinned"
I'm surprised nobody has objected to this yet. If this is true then that's a pretty big deal.
Theism as a whole is absurd, especially monotheism and even more so a monotheism that says we are created by an omnipotent and omnibenevolent deity.
Xtianity is as much a pile of nonsensical horseshit as judaism and islam are.
The guy looks really meek and depressed, I would take anything he says with a grain of salt
Bump
Never trust a papist. The scriptures are clear. By one man's sin, death entered the world, and all men died.
Not all men received a sin nature. Died.
Literally getting your talking points from a member of Hitler's Youth.
Orthodox point this out all the time. It is a pretty big deal. The Vulgate corrected the translation, but unfortunately he wasn't using the Vulgate. It's a shame he didn't read it in Greek, since he could read Greek, but he disliked to.
Of course it is. Humanity was doomed when Adam and Eve died. They were made in God's image; we were made in their dead image. Dead people do not go to heaven.
I'm not sure I get the implications of the difference in translation. Would someone mind explaining it for a complete dumbass?
There is no difference. It's comparison between what the first Adam did, and how the second Adam fixed it. In Adam, we all died. In the second Adam, Jesus, we can all live.
That explained literally nothing.
It's because it's spiritually discerned, and you lack any and all spiritual discernment.
Because of Adam, we all died. Spiritually.
Because of Jesus, the second Adam, we can all live. Spiritually.
What Adam borked, Jesus fixed.
You're not a sinner because you sin; you sin because you're a sinner.
You aren't going to get anything more spooky language from these types.
Oh, you're that asshole who does nothing but shit up threads. Go away.
Augustine technicaly wasn't a papist since he didn't beleive in papal primacy (except in the primus inter pares sense)
Welcome back Constantine
Constantine has been posting under his trip. So it's probably just another Orthodox poster.
No she hasn't. Not in a long tome.
Yeah, let's start with the primitive belief that the physical realm is all there is.
Animism is much older than that.
And the forms are all that remain of ice-age European megafauna
primitive ontologically, not chronologically
Basically: the OP is blowing the mistranslation COMPLETELY out of proportion. Nothing in the correct translation refutes Augustine's understanding of Original Sin.
He's an Orthodox poster trying to start shit. Which is fine, I suppose. I welcome the debate. The truth of Christ and his Church will win out.
>his
>h
In doesn't matter in any practical sense whether or not original sin is true, since everybody sins anyway.