You reject Pelagianism because you want to keep sinning.
I reject Pelagianism because I want to be forgiven.
>>18040507>men belong in the natural order>can still merit a supernatural endHuh?
>>18040507The notion of "Original Sin" doesn't really have a Biblical basis, it's just a necessary guilt-trip for proselytization purposes as otherwise there's no good answer for the question, "Why did Jesus have to be a human sacrifice in the first place?"
>>18040657Genesis 3Romans 5Try again
>>18040670Neither of those verses outline the idea of original sin as its understood in mainstream Christianity
>>18040681Those are chapters, not verses, and "nuh uh" is not an argument. Genesis 3 says that mankind was cursed for Adam's sin, and Romans 5 expands on it for the purpose of drawing an analogy with Christ; if your covenantal representative before God is Adam, you will be damned, if your covenantal representative is Christ, you will be saved. The bible knows of no third option.
>>18040692Blatant misinterpretation
>>18040718
>>18040692>>18040727I too can ask chatgpt to write a steaming pile of shit for me.>>18040657This guy is right. The real story of Jesus has to do with the Judean revolts of 6 AD, 70 AD, 116 AD, and 130 AD. The first date (6 AD) was Judas the Galilean vs the first Roman census of Syria and Judea. The later wars were inspired by this first act.Romans then reworked the story and made it about someone else, Monobazus and Izates of Adiabene, who was credited in the Talmud for basically being a big softy and massive donator of wealth to Jerusalem. He seems like a nice enough guy, but it really inverts the story of Judas, who did the absolute opposite of "rendering to Caesar what is Caesar's".
