This seems pretty straight forward to me.

thought it would be more farfetched

Maybe our understanding of it is slightly different.

so it's just a different take of the Original Sin

hmm

the difference is that we see sin as a sickness causing us to act bad, whereas catholics see it as guilt for breaking the law

it would seem ancestral sin implies that it's not something that originated with Adam and passed down to his progeny

but something that is inside us by default?

contrary to Original Sin, which marks it's origin as the sin of Adam which was passed down to the rest of humanity?

i wonder how the orthos came up with such a theory

Well.

No.

wonder if i phrased it correctly

nigga wat

or rather

ancestral.sin means a strong desire to commit sin
it doesnt make anyone guilty

but catholic understanding of sin is guilt

yeah i phrased it wrong

so you saying

so they have to jump all manner of hoops to have Mary be guiltless

ancestral sin is just our *inclination* to commit sin?

a very strong one yes

one that requires God's will to cure

so you don't believe there's original sin?

Also that which makes us imperfect.

It's why we get sick and can't bench 140kgs on the first day.

do you believe what Adam did ultimately makes no difference in our human nature?

What do you mean "makes no difference"?

Our nature is that of Adam and that of how it was before ancestral sin.

that's what i mean

that we are naturally the same as Adam was before eating the apple

Oh.

Yeah.

We're still good in nature.

But it's ridiculously easy for us to slip up.

what a weird concept

Really?

regardless

i'll have to research it further

i thought it was taken as obvious that original sin is real