That's not the way 'Original Sin' was hammered into me (ex-Catholic). It was the first sin, and baptism is intended to wash away that sin. Otherwise, if I were not baptized, I would bear the responsibility of Original Sin. So, yes, at least according to Catholic doctrine, I did indeed inherit Original Sin.
I'm uncertain if that concept of 'Original Sin' is consistent amongst all Christian denominations or not, so take with a grain of salt.
The Catholic Church does not teach that you bear the responsibility of the sin itself. The original act from Adam was a sin, but the state that's contracted is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.
You're not being punished for the first sinful act; rather, the act created a fundamental change in humanity that still exists to this day. As elaborated further, "Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle. "
The image of original sin as comparable to a personal sin that you would confess and receive forgiveness for is not accurate.
No one born of a forbidden marriage nor any of their descendants may enter the assembly of the Lord, not even in the tenth generation.
The assembly of the Lord is never equated to the afterlife. Per Google, it appears to have been an Israelite political body.
1 Kings 21:29
Have you noticed how Ahab has humbled himself before me? Because he has humbled himself, I will not bring this disaster in his day, but I will bring it on his house in the days of his son.
The punishment is still on Ahab: his household name will lose its prominence in the future. God doesn't say he'll punish Ahab's son; just that he'll forgo removing Ahab's family from prominence until Ahab passes on the patriarchy of his family.
When you tell these people all this and they ask you, ‘Why has the Lord decreed such a great disaster against us? What wrong have we done? What sin have we committed against the Lord our God?’ then say to them, ‘It is because your ancestors forsook me,’ declares the Lord, ‘and followed other gods and served and worshiped them. They forsook me and did not keep my law.
And what does verse 12 say?
this is what the Lord says: I will surely punish Shemaiah the Nehelamite and his descendants. He will have no one left among this people, nor will he see the good things I will do for my people, declares the Lord, because he has preached rebellion against me.’
God's speaking of putting down a rebellion, in which case He's disabling Shemaiah and anyone else in his family that could keep the rebellion going.
Even considering I quite willingly pointed out that inherited sin was present in early Jewish belief, I don't find the above particularly compelling. The other two are, again, consistent with early Jewish belief with regards to the evolving notion of an afterlife.
Well, I won't argue that theology changed over time, but now you have to account for a god that agreed with the old, and now agree with the new. At what point did god change his mind about it? (seems like he changed it at the same time everyone else did)
Again, as I mentioned before, the Bible was penned by humans. The Bible reflects God's revelation as currently understood by the person writing the text at the time they wrote it.
Why shoudn't I take the bible's words for it? If god voiced it, surely he conveyed his exact meaning into the text.
The Biblical authors reflected their current understanding of God's revelation in the text. As someone who is not a literalist, I'm not forced to consider such notions as God sitting someone down and telling them exactly what to write. Rather, I view it more as someone writing their understanding of God into the text, and thus when we're reading the text we're in many cases reading the interpretation of the events rather than a word-for-word retelling of those same events.
Why shouldn't you
take the Bible's word for it? Well, as someone who isn't a Christian, I would imagine that taking the Bible literally would be inconsistent with your world view, as such a view pretty much requires acceptance of a deity. Rather, you're pretty much forced to look at the Bible as human interpretation without any divine guidance whatsoever, or at least no guidance strong enough to form a coherent belief system.
Why would you insist the Bible must be read in a way that the majority of Christians in the world don't read it, and has scant (if any) evidence of ever being read that way by a significant number until ~150 years ago (~1800 years of Christian history)? I don't know. Perhaps because you find it easier to attack that way, perhaps because you were brought up in the newer fundamentalist movement of Christianity, perhaps because you never considered any other way to read the text, or perhaps some factor (or combination of factors) I'm not aware of.
Where did I say that we need an idea of sin? I don't believe that sin nor suffering are particularly needed; I do believe that both exist.
Actually, your theology does require the idea of sin. The centerpiece of christainty is Jesus dying on the cross for our sins (some say that Jesus had to suffer for our sins). Without sin, that centerpiece would not exist.
I mentioned nothing about my theology in that quote. Sin is prominent in Christianity because we believe it exists, not the other way around. The comment I responded to asked why we need the idea of sin; I replied that we don't need the idea of sin as we don't need sin itself. And yes, if we didn't have sin we wouldn't need Jesus. But we do have sin which is why we need Jesus.
In other words, if we had stayed in the Eden state forever, we wouldn't need anything in the Bible past the 2nd chapter of Genesis. And I don't think we particularly needed to leave that state
, but we did and so the rest of the Bible exists. More clear?
This has now been outdated by Mooby's Quantum Interpretation, where every possible explanation is superimposed. So, an event may be said to be 30% punishment from God, 50% natural law, 19% demonic possession, 1% prophecy. Any explanation can be true at the same time, without having to show that any possibilities are based on any evidence.
is not what Mooby believes.
Going back to Catholicism that would be true, as per the Catholic definition of sin. But I'm pretty sure that isn't Mooby's theology...so...
Has Mooby given a definition of sin? It may defined such that the salvation offered by Jesus has nothing to do with sin. Mooby, do you have a definition for sin that resolves this?
I think the best (though not perfect) image of sin is as spiritual hamartia.
I think the Catechism
does a pretty good job of explaining it more specifically (Section II.)
I see. So Yahweh gives NO additional protection to any of his followers on earth. You get good times or you get bad times simply at random - god sends no favours, sends no smites, gives no protection from the bad stuff that happens.
I didn't say that; you're extrapolating my posts a bit. I'm saying that there's not a direct correlation between the two as a result. In other words, this is the world we live in and thus we have the ability to be affected by that world.
I do indeed believe God can and does interact in this world (I'm a theist, not a deist); I just don't believe that His followers don't have any special immunity to this world. I'm open to the power of prayer and God's ability to intervene; I just don't believe that intervention happens by default and with every believer. Thus, while I believe that God has the ability to, say, cure a cancer patient, I don't believe we have any theological basis to see a cancer patient's current state as an indication of that person's spiritual failure (since I don't believe spiritual success automatically results in a miraculous cure).
Interesting YOU bring up Job, because it seems to give the opposite view to the two paragaphs I've quoted above - that Yahweh DOES provide protection from the bad (else why else would Satan say "Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side?") because he has to remove that protection for Satan to be able to touch Yahweh's follower.
From Job's point of view, he has no way of knowing whether that protection is active or not at any given time, and Job's actions are not the reason the protection is lifted. The point of the story is that the larger scope of God's plan is not directly observable to humans, and we shouldn't make hasty conclusions about it based off of our limited observations.