Posted: Apr 25, 2017 3:34 pm
proudfootz wrote:Thomas Eshuis wrote:proudfootz wrote:Thomas Eshuis wrote:
That's been something I've been asking for since this derail started.
So, going back to page 1 - what do you make of the claim of therapod's that this one dogma about Original Sin is necessary to be a True Christian and that christians who do not adhere to that particular minutia are not christians?
While I agree it is a No True Christian fallacy, he does have a point with regards to Original Sin (or Curse) being a fundamental part of the Christianity's origin myth.
I quite agree the No True Christian fallacy is being employed there, to what end I can't say.
What do you think the point is?
Like I said, that it's incongruous to deny something that is a fundamental part of the origin of your religion.
It would be the equivalent of Jews who believe Moses didn't lead the Jews out of Israel because they were enslaved but because they wanted to live in Israel.
proudfootz wrote:I personally view myths about christian origins to be dubious. That christian cults can exist today without the notion of Original Sin would seem to me an indication that the doctrine was not a necessary condition at an earlier time.
That does not follow.
At best it indicates that later Christians found little or no objection to changing the original dogma.
proudfootz wrote:
Supposing that Jesus and his first followers were Jewish, and as I pointed out in an earlier post Original Sin requiring a Savior doesn't seem to be a part of that religion, this notion would seem to have evolved at a later date.
Jesus and his followers were Jewish in almost the same sense that they are Muslims according to Islam.
They were ethnically Jews and thought of themselves the natural continuation of the Jewish faith.
They interpeted the Jewish text as predicting the arrival of Jesus and that Jesus would absolve/save them from the original sin/curse inflicted upon A&E.