Who gives a fuck.

Yeah, exactly.

Who gives a fuck. — Banno

That is indeed the crucial question. and the answer is 'no one'. It was an immaculate conception and no one gave a fuck, and that is why Jesus was born without sin. But he was born of woman and thus also fully human. As the op well knows.

But this is the triviality of such discussions, one takes a metaphor and a psychological insight as literal and then claims that magic is impossible. Not even stupid.

But this is the triviality of such discussions, one takes a metaphor and a psychological insight as literal — unenlightened

Except that a lot of people do exactly that, which makes them proper subjects for a close questioning. To deny the significance is to deny the historical record, the present in the sense of very recent history, and the future as aspects of human nature, which if they're going away, certainly are not going away any time soon, but whose departure must be assisted with and by reason.


If you think, "Who gives a f***?" is an effective answer, go to the street corners of Tehran and try out the Muslim-adjusted version. Let us know how that goes.

If god did not want rivers to speak, He would not have given them mouths.

I await your close questioning.

That is indeed the crucial question. and the answer is 'no one'. It was an immaculate conception and no one gave a fuck, and that is why Jesus was born without sin. But he was born of woman and thus also fully human. As the op well knows.

But this is the triviality of such discussions, one takes a metaphor and a psychological insight as literal and then claims that magic is impossible. Not even stupid. — unenlightened

No one should care...

...BUT...the Immaculate Conception has nothing to do with Jesus. (A common mistake made by non-Catholics and sometimes by Catholics also.)

It is a Catholic bit of dogma about the birth of Mary...mother of Jesus. SHE is the Immaculate Conception.

...BUT...the Immaculate Conception has nothing to do with Jesus. (A common mistake made by non-Catholics and sometimes by Catholics also.) — Frank Apisa

I bow to your superior knowledge on the terminology, but...

It has to do with the notion of original sin. See the op, question, was Jesus born with original sin?

If you buy original sin as something literal, then you need the literal immaculate conception virgin birth to allow Jesus to evade it in order to be literally, the perfect sacrifice. The whole doctrine makes sense in its own terms, so the argument of the op fails. They've had 2000 years to work these things out, and unsurprisingly, some random poster is not going to trip them up now. If on the other hand, your translation of the relevant verse is "and the bullshit of the fathers shall be visited on the sons unto the seventh generation" all you need is that Jesus was born metaphorically deaf.

What's funny is that Christians and atheists would both answer 'No'.

Where/when/by whom was the concept of original sin first developed?

They've had 2000 years to work these things out, and unsurprisingly, some random poster is not going to trip them up now. — unenlightened

True, but it was only in 1854 that Holy Mother Church got around to settling the matter for those creepy old-line Catholics who buy the idea of papal infallibility (which in itself is not an ancient doctrine--it came out of Vatican I, 1869-1870):

We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful.
Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, 1854

,

Apparently annoyed and feeling the need to nail this question, Mary revealed herself as the Immaculate Conception in Bernadette's vision at Lourdes in 1858 which put the stamp of God's (or at least the BVM'a) approval on the doctrine.

By the way, Martin Luther was enthusiastic about the Immaculate Conception, etc.

And the beat goes on.

You didn't ask me, but Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon, and others contributed to the idea by the 2nd century, and so did St. Augustine in 412 CE, all drawing on St. Paul.

The sin of Adam which all people inherit, is balanced by the Christ's sacrifice to save mankind.

It seems to me that the core of the idea of original sin -- that people generally can't go very long without doing something awful to each other -- has been abundantly proved.

If god did not want rivers to speak, He would not have given them mouths. — unenlightened

A fresh quip I have not heard before. Adding it to my repertoire of irrelevance.

Some people like esoteric theology; some people like origami.

Who gives a fuck. — Banno

All those negatively effected by Christianity.

That would include all gays and women who are denied equality by their homophobic and misogynous religion.

If you are not fighting that immoral thinking, you are not much of a man.

Regards
DL

Yeah, exactly. — Qwex

Read my reply above and the same applies to you.

Regards
DL

also fully human. As the op well knows. — unenlightened

That is what Christians say, while also saying that all humans are born with Original sin.

Which is the lie?

Regards
DL

tim wood — tim wood

+ 1

We must suffer neophytes.

Regards
DL

Was Jesus born with Original Sin? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Nobody wears a stamp "Born with the original sin" or "born without the original sin" on their forehead or on any other parts of their body.

I think Christians are prepossessessessed by this idea. I am sure I was born without the original sin. I ain't Jesus, but you don't have to be. Just don't believe in the crap, and all of a sudden you are born back for the first time when it happened, not again; AND without the sin.

I agree with you GCB, but I think God is a poorly characterized creator, and the bible, non-scientific. I, personally, believe the universe was created, or something like it.

I don't call this God, and I know morality properly.

God is not the same as creator, I even doubt the word 'creator' as the right word (referring to a more specific word - like "builder" - or, creatively, 'manifer').

God is an artisically characterized creator.

Sorry for my insult, I'm tired of God.

The whole doctrine makes sense in its own terms, — unenlightened

How do you make sense out of a god that cannot reproduce without a human female?

How do you morally justify god coveting Mary and breaking his own commandment, cuckolding Joseph, producing a chimera half breed god and then becoming a deadbeat dad by dropping the kid and taking off?

Regards
DL

Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon, and others contributed to the idea by the 2nd century, and so did St. Augustine in 412 CE, all drawing on St. Paul. — Bitter Crank

Then how did it become a part of Christian teachings? I mean, sure, I get reasons why people would want to justify sin and the inevitability of it. But it seems like it's become quite an integral premise to the whole narrative of salvation despite having been designed outside of original scriptural literature. I've always thought the idea of original sin is weird (unreasonable) with respect to common sense reasoning but, it's even weirder now that I know it's provenance. It's like, so much of Christian belief is based on simulations such that it is almost impossible for that faith to be reasonable.

What's funny is that Christians and atheists would both answer 'No'. — Virgo Avalytikh

Atheists would be right, FTPOV, and Christians would be wrong unless they hide behind their supernatural shield and poor math of Jesus being both 100% man and 100% god.

They stupidly break the law of the excluded middle and are to stupid or uncaring to repent and think correctly.

Regards
DL

How do you make sense out of a god that cannot reproduce without a human female? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

By hypothesis, I don't need to, since he produced the first woman anyway. But alas I, a mere mortal, have no cure for literalism. You don't even want to understand, and I am not a Christian, so I'll leave you to your knockdown defeat of whatever you think you are defeating.

Where/when/by whom was the concept of original sin first developed? — BrianW

I have not looked that up and do not really care.

It is the reverse of the Jewish tradition and does not follow their thinking.

They see what they call Original Virtue and both god and man as successes coming out of Eden and not Original sin which makes both man and god losers coming out of Eden.

Christian also have a glitch by calling Adam's sin a happy fault and necessary to god's plan.

It looks like they prefer that man fell, while saying that the falling had to be as it was necessary to god's plan.

Stupid is as stupid does and Christians stupidly contradict themselves.

Regards
DL

It seems to me that the core of the idea of original sin -- that people generally can't go very long without doing something awful to each other -- has been abundantly proved. — Bitter Crank

That is not the core idea.

The core idea, and the need for baptism, is that we are all born in sin.

That core does not exist in Judaism. It makes god look like a poor creator who cannot get creation right and has to later destroy the vast majority of us after suitable eons in hell.

Regards
DL

Just don't believe in the crap, — god must be atheist

I am a Gnostic Christian.

We have rejected the crap and retained the good. That may be why some say that the only good Christian is a Gnostic Christian.

Regards
DL

I, personally believe the universe was created. — Qwex

In case you want to expand.

I would say self created from a big bang.

Do you give sentience to what you call creator, and was that entity created?

Regards
DL

it is almost impossible for that faith to be reasonable. — BrianW

That is why it grew through inquisitions and murder as it could not argue for itself in a cohesive manner.

The same applied to Islam. They share the same DNA.

Regards
DL

Again, I'm unsure of whether creator is the right word.

My idea is that an ancient species used certain resources from their environment to create[replace with proper word] the specimen/bonding, of resources, which reacted and 'big banged'.

That's if it was a big bang, I'm not saying it was; other theory: giant volatile clouds.

So, to answer your question, yes, my current belief, and hypothesis of such (and that's all it is), is that the creator was sentient.

But alas I, a mere mortal, have no cure for literalism. — unenlightened

Nor I except to point out the idiocy of reading myths like history and thinking a god created women.

Regards
DL