Original Sin

reply to post by chromatico


I didn't know that this thread is for the exlusive debate of scriptural verses.

let me remind you that this is in conspiracies in relgion and that as a conspiracy all angles will be accepted.

Posts in this forum should be about CONSPIRACIES

This is not the forum for discussing religious views (or "bringing the truth" to people.) The specific focus here is conspiracies in religion. Posts that begin a new thread should reflect some sort of conspiracy angle.

If your topic doesn't have a conspiracy angle, it will be moved to Faith and Spirituality in BTS.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 15-3-2008 by marg6043]

Regarding whether or not Mary had original sin:

The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967, Vol. VII, pp. 378-381) acknowledges regarding the origin of the belief:

“ . . . the Immaculate Conception is not taught explicitly in Scripture . . . The earliest Church Fathers regarded Mary as holy but not as absolutely sinless. . . . It is impossible to give a precise date when the belief was held as a matter of faith, but by the 8th or 9th century it seems to have been generally admitted. . . . ‘which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary was preserved from all stain of original sin in the first instant of her Conception.’”

This belief was confirmed by Vatican II (1962-1965).—The Documents of Vatican II (New York, 1966), edited by W. M. Abbott, S.J., p. 88.

However, confirming that All men are sinners it should be noted that te Bible itself says:

“Well then, sin entered the world through one man, and through sin death, and thus death has spread through the whole human race because everyone has sinned.” (Rom. 5:12, JB; .)

Does that include Mary? The Bible reports that in accord with the requirement of the Mosaic Law, 40 days after Jesus’ birth Mary offered at the temple in Jerusalem a sin offering for purification from uncleanness. She, too, had inherited sin and imperfection from Adam

reply to post by Sparky63


I think that verse is taken out of context. I think it moreso means that one man CREATED sin (Adam) and that one man can CURE it (Christ).

God told Adam & Eve to be fruitful and fill the world. This instruction was given to them BEFORE they ate the fruit. So the original sin cannot be sexual intercourse between them, because they were duly authorized by God to do so.
It was necessary for them to carry out His purpose for mankind.

Eve sinned first by eating the fruit. She had committed this act of rebellion when she was not even in the presence of her husband. Adam later committed the same sin by eating the fruit.

The Bible clearly says that after Eve ate it she noted that it was good for Food.
Simple and clear.

reply to post by chromatico


That is exactly why Christianity need the original sin as that is the only way they can relate it to the Saviour and the only way to salvation.

If salvation was not needed then the Christ will have not meaning, and to the Christian church that is blasphemy.

As one can no be separated from the other.

reply to post by Bigwhammy


"And if you go read the account you'll see God did not come looking for Eve after the event he asked Adam about it. Adams first reaction was the typical human tactic he said "it was that woman that you sent to me." Effectively shifting blame from Eve to God himself. "

My first thought was, That's funny. My second was, Good point you have there, Does that mean that even though it was Eve who capitulated to the Serpent's prodding first, Adam was responsible for her actions as well? Or maybe that his act was more heinous than hers? She gave in to the Serpent, he gave in to her? Now I wonder how all this fits in.

reply to post by chromatico


It is not taken out of context at all for verse 14 of the same chapter in Romans states:

14 Nevertheless, death ruled as king from Adam down to Moses, even over those who had not sinned after the likeness of the transgression by Adam, who bears a resemblance to him that was to come.

You are right though that Christ was the answer. He alone, having been born perfect and remained so until death could pay back what Adam, the first perfect man lost.

reply to post by Sparky63


But that explain why the link to salvation was cemented with the Christ, or it was just another way to explain why man had to die after eating the forbidden fruit.

But to tag men with an original sin to be passed to the unborn makes the God of the old testament a very vengeful one.

But then again without original sin will be no Saviour.

reply to post by Sparky63


Death and sin are not the same things. I will, however, not disagree that physical death is a result of the sin of Adam.

Originally posted by Sparky63
God told Adam & Eve to be fruitful and fill the world. This instruction was given to them BEFORE they ate the fruit. So the original sin cannot be sexual intercourse between them, because they were duly authorized by God to do so.
It was necessary for them to carry out His purpose for mankind.

Eve sinned first by eating the fruit. She had committed this act of rebellion when she was not even in the presence of her husband. Adam later committed the same sin by eating the fruit.

The Bible clearly says that after Eve ate it she noted that it was good for Food.
Simple and clear.

Thank you, that was a clear and concise response. I was basically taught the same, however I do not recall that detail having ever been clarified:

"This instruction was given to them BEFORE they ate the fruit."

That's interesting and could be exactly what I was looking for. I don't suppose you have a source handy?

Originally posted by Sparky63
God told Adam & Eve to be fruitful and fill the world. This instruction was given to them BEFORE they ate the fruit.

I regret that I must disagree with you on this point. It appears that the first mention of sexual relation between Adam and Eve is in Genesis Chapter 4, Verse 1:

"And Adam knew Eve, his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD."

This would be after the eating of the fruit and the discussion that ensued, in Genesis Chapter 3.

Unless there is something I am missing? I see nothing prior to that to imply sexual relations between the two.

However, I agree that he did instruct them to do so, it was just later.

[edit on 15-3-2008 by Annoyed]

God commanded them as per bible genesis before they sinned.

Right after he created the woman.

THE LORD GOD SAID, "IT IS NOT GOOD FOR THE MAN TO BE ALONE. I WILL MAKE A HELPER SUITABLE FOR HIM." SO THE LORD GOD CAUSED THE MAN TO FALL INTO A DEEP SLEEP; AND...HE TOOK ONE OF THE MAN’S RIBS AND CLOSED UP THE PLACE WITH FLESH. THEN THE LORD GOD MADE A WOMAN FROM THE RIB HE HAD TAKEN OUT OF THE MAN, AND HE BROUGHT HER TO THE MAN-Gen 2:18,21,22 NIV. SO GOD CREATED MAN IN HIS OWN IMAGE...MALE AND FEMALE CREATED HE THEM-Gen 1:27. HE...CALLED THEIR NAME ADAM, IN THE DAY WHEN THEY WERE CREATED-Gen 5:2. AND GOD BLESSED THEM, AND GOD SAID UNTO THEM, BE FRUITFUL, AND MULTIPLY, AND REPLENISH THE EARTH-Gen 1:28. THE MAN AND HIS WIFE WERE BOTH NAKED, AND THEY FELT NO SHAME-Gen 2:25 NIV. The first marriage was instituted by God.

www.amazingbible.org...






[edit on 15-3-2008 by marg6043]

reply to post by marg6043



I stand corrected. Thank you, Marg6043. My apologies to Sparky63

reply to post by chromatico


You won't find that from Marg. She just likes to come into the threads like this and state her views and leave. Notice in her latest post she quotes from "other" reference points, which have no bearing on the biblical basis of the original post. Yet she constantly claims all threads are taken off track. Get a grip, Marg. It's you who is taking the thread off point. And, if you're looking for a conspiracy, perhaps you should open a thread about one.

[edit on 3/15/08 by idle_rocker]

Original sin, in my humble enlightenment, is a man made attempt of rationalizing and understanding what took place in the garden of eden; why adam and eve were forced out by their creator for doing what they were instructed not to do: eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. When this "sin" took place god is quoted as saying, "indeed, man has become like one of US, knowing good and evil". An interesting comment, don't you think?

If god is omniscient, he/they would have known the outcome before the "sinful crime" which has been defined as original sin. Allowing that and then punishing his creation would seem foolish even to god. However, if we take the mysticism out of our understanding of god, we can indeed come up with a plausible explanation.

De-mystifying god makes god real. The god of genesis was an ultra advanced race that interceded on earth to create man and to advance his creation, but only as it would be able to experience and evolve on its own to someday understand his creator and be worthy of his presence.

Original sin, as we call it, was merely a test and a clever way to define and advance the human race so it could find itself, learn of the universe, and find its place in it and its relation to its creator. God expected adam and eve would fail. By doing so, the human race experienced for the first time the duality of the universe: good and evil, right and wrong, love and fear. It is by this lesson that man is allowed to lose the singleness of experience in the garden of eden where all was perfect and untainted. But as we know, that is not the real world, the real universe where all duality of experience and thought exists. That was god's plan for us to fail, to be ushered out of the womb to be subjected to the storms of life so that we could discover who we are, choosing love and our own destiny, earning and eventually becoming worthy to become a part of god's universal family by our actions and choices through our free will. Or we fail and we die.

When and if we come of age, truly knowing good and evil for what they are as god knew them in the garden of eden, god's experiment will have been a success and we will have earned our rightful place among him.



[edit on 15-3-2008 by VenusOnTheHalfShell]

IMHO Original sin was the conscious decision of souls to separate from the godhead and enter int lower life forms. Bear in mind that I am not referencing any "scripture" written by man. I also believe the word sin is being misused here. There is to much of a human orientation therein. i prefer the term "Fall from Grace".

If you read City of God Against the Pagans (I would find the exact section, but my text is across the Atlantic, currently), St Augustine goes to some lengths to prove that the Original Sin was nothing of a sexual nature, or even in the eating of the fruit, but in the conscious decision to disobey God. I am not sure that it actually does have Biblical textual evidence, but because much of the Catholic belief system was influenced by Augustine's works, which turned towards the Neo-Platonic concept that God is the essence of good and all things flow forth from him in decreasing levels of good, choosing anything that is against God's will is inherently choosing the less good. The self-centered choice of the less good (the immediate good of eating a good food, or of following your companion into damnation so you would not be alone) over the greater good of God's will was the original sin.

City of God is a pretty good read, though long, for learning about some of what shaped the fundamentals of the Catholic church in its earliest days. I'd really recommend it. Also, Augustine's On Teaching Christian Doctrine and On Genesis. These texts really shaped the way the European Christian moral consciousness was shaped.

reply to post by albright

Agreed. I read City Of God many years ago during the honeymoon period of my relapse from the RC faith. I have since acquired a more cosmically oriented. view. I therefore do not view this decision to disobey the creator as a sin, but rather a choice to exercise the gift of free will to the fullest, unfortunately, this involves separation from imersement in the godhead.

I'm not a religious person but here's my take on the idea.

I'd have to agree with other posters who believe that the concept of original sin is a man made one used by religious leaders to control the masses. The church used it as leverage to get people to obey and serve. I believe the concept is the disobedience to god by man, not the specific event of eating of the tree. This was used by saying 'see what happens when you disobey'.

I have some problems with it though.

Why would god need to concern himself with human emotions.

If god supposedly gave us free will, why the punishment? That's not free will, that's do as I say or else.

God created man and as such programmed into us our natural inquisitiveness, emotions, needs and desires. Why punish us for behaving exactly as he made us.

If god were as we were told...all knowing, all powerful, all seeing, everywhere at once, knows that past present and future..would he not know that the fruit would be eaten before he even created man? If you say no then you deny that god knows all. If you say yes then god is sadistic and set man up to fail. Either way he is no longer perfect.

These are just some thoughts on the topic and why I believe that original sin is a made up concept injected into the religion by those who held power. The road to salvation could only be got through them.

reply to post by Primordial


I'm not sure there is any punishment involved. We c consciously chose to leave the godhead and lower our vibration to planes where universal laws such as karma and grace govern things. the creator isn't going to change those laws for us. we have to consciously choose to return and also we have tom abide by the universal laws required to do so, IE. pay off any karmic debts incurred while we were in lower frequencies. free will is a gift and it can be a self imposed curse.