It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why the bizarre doctrine of "original sin" is flawed.

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 10:10 AM
link   
"Original sin" basically means that all humans are born in sin because of Adam and Eves sin in the garden.

This strange doctrine teaches that all humans are in sin till they accept the blood sacrifice of Jesus.
So this means that a new born baby is as "sinful" as a serial killer/rapist or one of those psychos who abuse their own children.... till of course, they accept that Jesus was killed for their sins.


This is why I believe that original sin has no solid biblical basis....

1. God is shown to be 'pleased' with so many people in the Old Testament... just born after the original sin sin was committed. Starting right with a son of Adam.... Abel.

2. Jesus was not around for any OT era sinner to believe in, but yet many are shown to be "righteous" and were led by God.

3. God never said anywhere in the bible that all humanity in general are born as sinners, by default and that the only way to get saved is to believe that an innocent man died for our sins.... the the old testament prophets or Jesus never said such a thing.

4. God is shown to differentiate between righteous people and sinners even in the OT.



Now I am well aware that there are certain verses which are used commonly to back up the core ideas behind the doctrine of original sin. But then again, there are several more verses which contradict this doctrine... and establish that there were "righteous people", even during the new testament.
For that reason, it would be appreciated if those participating in this thread can hold up a discussion without simply quoting isolated verses which are normally used to promote the doctrine of original sin. It would also be good if you can address the points I have raised regarding the flaws of the idea of the original sin doctrine.





posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   
So are you asking for people who just agree with you to respond? I'm confused what you are asking in your last paragraph. You want people to respond and discuss the points you made but you don't want them challeged? I'm seriously asking b/c I'm confused.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


I don't understand how you can have a discussion on "original sin" and yet not use the only book in the world that this pertains to in this discussion. It plainly states in many scriptures about this.

In the Old Testament animal sacrifices were used to atone for sin. When Jesus died on the Cross, animal sacrifices were no longer necessary.

The original sin by the way was not Eve eating the apple, but the angelic rebellion before Adam and Eve existed.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
"Original sin" basically means that all humans are born in sin because of Adam and Eves sin in the garden.

This strange doctrine teaches that all humans are in sin till they accept the blood sacrifice of Jesus.
So this means that a new born baby is as "sinful" as a serial killer/rapist or one of those psychos who abuse their own children.... till of course, they accept that Jesus was killed for their sins.


This is why I believe that original sin has no solid biblical basis....

1. God is shown to be 'pleased' with so many people in the Old Testament... just born after the original sin sin was committed. Starting right with a son of Adam.... Abel.

2. Jesus was not around for any OT era sinner to believe in, but yet many are shown to be "righteous" and were led by God.

3. God never said anywhere in the bible that all humanity in general are born as sinners, by default and that the only way to get saved is to believe that an innocent man died for our sins.... the the old testament prophets or Jesus never said such a thing.

4. God is shown to differentiate between righteous people and sinners even in the OT.



Now I am well aware that there are certain verses which are used commonly to back up the core ideas behind the doctrine of original sin. But then again, there are several more verses which contradict this doctrine... and establish that there were "righteous people", even during the new testament.
For that reason, it would be appreciated if those participating in this thread can hold up a discussion without simply quoting isolated verses which are normally used to promote the doctrine of original sin. It would also be good if you can address the points I have raised regarding the flaws of the idea of the original sin doctrine.





Body of Christ or Icarus???... but is that real wine or Just grape juice
... Some said
Do not commit my words to a book made of dead trees... Pass my teachings only by genetic memory word of mouth... As God is in the quantum nano moment of the present time


His disciples asked him and said to him, "Do you want us to fast? HOW should we pray? Should we give to charity? What diet should we Observe?"

Jesus said, Don't lie (to yourself), and don't do what you hate(does not apply to people who like to hurt others), because ALL things are disclosed before heaven, AFTER all, there is nothing hidden(stop caring about UFO mystery stuff)that will not be revealed, and there is nothing top secret covered up that will remain undisclosed err project
...


Mr X-ULTRA/BYOdo-DYNAMIC... asking U to please stop rubbing your tail up against me... Other wise I'll give you a Greek
's up



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by dakota1s2
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


I don't understand how you can have a discussion on "original sin" and yet not use the only book in the world that this pertains to in this discussion. It plainly states in many scriptures about this.

In the Old Testament animal sacrifices were used to atone for sin. When Jesus died on the Cross, animal sacrifices were no longer necessary.

The original sin by the way was not Eve eating the apple, but the angelic rebellion before Adam and Eve existed.
I hope so... Other wise we where all sleeping together from the beginning


Peace and Love brothers&sisters



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by dakota1s2
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 
I don't understand how you can have a discussion on "original sin" and yet not use the only book in the world that this pertains to in this discussion. It plainly states in many scriptures about this.
In the Old Testament animal sacrifices were used to atone for sin. When Jesus died on the Cross, animal sacrifices were no longer necessary.
The original sin by the way was not Eve eating the apple, but the angelic rebellion before Adam and Eve existed.
The OP did mention the Bible, but by saying it does not support the idea that the Church came up with, called original sin. The idea of an official church is that there are persons in that church who are the recipients of a supernatural power, handed down, person to person, from Peter, who got his authority from Jesus who was God. These special people with this power, the general population have to come to (and support financially) in order to have special holy water sprinkled on them to be absolved of this original sin.
The NT does say that sin entered the world though what happened in the Garden and I don't see an explanation which involved an angelic rebellion. I would think that we would have remained unaffected by such a rebellion if our anchient ancestors had not decided to join the rebellion by disobeying The Lord.
edit on 25-9-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by dakota1s2
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


I don't understand how you can have a discussion on "original sin" and yet not use the only book in the world that this pertains to in this discussion. It plainly states in many scriptures about this.

In the Old Testament animal sacrifices were used to atone for sin. When Jesus died on the Cross, animal sacrifices were no longer necessary.

The original sin by the way was not Eve eating the apple, but the angelic rebellion before Adam and Eve existed.


The connection beween 'original sin' and angels behaving badly is even more obscure than eating the apple, and that is itself quite ridiculous. We still have yet to come to terms with A and E and the inbred procreation of their children. There is very few clergy that address that properly, (if it can be that is) most will say the the bible doesn't say that there were not 'other people' and leave it at that!
Anyway there is too many obscurities in the true meanings for Greek words the New Testament, and even the dead sea scrolls are copies in the Hebrew, Aramaic and the Greek.
edit on 25-9-2011 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   
The idea of original sin is the greatest lie ever perpetrated on mankind and is the most destructive and evil form of mass psychosis imaginable. Babies born into sin? Not in my world freaks!



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 

We still have yet to come to terms with A and E and the inbred procreation of their children. There is very few clergy that address that properly, (if it can be that is) most will say the the bible doesn't say that there were 'other people' and leave it at that!
Anyway there is too many obscurities in the true meanings for Greek words the New Testament, and even the dead sea scrolls are copies in the Hebrew, Aramaic and the Greek.
If you study the Hebrew in Genesis 3:16, you may be able to see the explanation for the peoples. The nations were all inside Eve, as in a wide diversity of different people, who would have come out in a long process, but as a result of their expulsion from the Garden, and her inevitable death, the process had to be sped up to where she would have been continuously giving birth in order to provide the genetic diversity that was originally intended for the world.
The normal translations of the NT from the Greek is obscure in places partly on accout of accepted errors from when they were using outdated Vulgate versions to translate from. This is why anyone who wants to properly understand the NT should be studying NT Greek. What I recommend is to download the NT in mp3 files from GreekLatinAudio, and to follow along in the interlinear in full chapter mode at Biblos. The more you do that, the easier it is when you go to break down individual verses.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 11:24 AM
link   
I once saw a guy pose a really good question along these lines. His question was "Why is Adam so much more powerful than Jesus?". The reasoning for the question is that because of this one act of sin committed by Adam, all of humanity from that time forward is responsible for it, and born into sin. It doesn't matter if you have never heard the story of Adam and Eve, you are born into sin. Jesus on the other hand, in his one act, saved all of humanity, well sort of. With Jesus, you have to specifically know the story and accept him and all of that, otherwise, you aren't included in the ones he saved.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Atzil321
The idea of original sin is the greatest lie ever perpetrated on mankind and is the most destructive and evil form of mass psychosis imaginable. Babies born into sin? Not in my world freaks!
A good argument against that idea is that original sin would make Jesus sinful. The counter argument is that Jesus wasn't really a normal person and that God had relations with his mother and he came from sperm from God, making him literally the son of God. They pretend away the descriptions of Joseph being his father and that Jesus is genetically, father to son, descended from David. So, in order to support original sin, one is willing to say the Bible is a lie.
edit on 25-9-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by notquiteright
 

With Jesus, you have to specifically know the story and accept him and all of that, otherwise, you aren't included in the ones he saved.
If you look at the specific verses that people use to support that idea, you notice they were all said by Jesus to the Jews of his time and place. They knew him directly and did not have to go through the process of believing he even existed, just had to listen to him and believe he was giving the message from God, and not just someone looking for money or fame.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   
sk0rpi0n,

This time I understand the opening post, and don't understand the rest of the thread. I may need a visit to the psych ward.

Let me try to discuss a theory without using Bible verses, let me know what you think. I'd be disappointed if this thread dies too early.

You've identified two kinds of sin; the one we're born into, and the one we make a decision to commit even though we know its a sin. The first kind (original sin) only gives us trouble until we're baptized. That's why some denominations like infant baptism, it takes care of this early. Accepting the blood sacrifice is not necessary to deal with original sin in this theory. And no, original sin is not as sinful as deliberate sin.

Let's try your first two ideas. Maybe they can be combined into one. God is pleased with many people, leads them, and finds some righteous, even though Jesus is not around.

True, but God is around, creation is around, other people are around. It is not hard for me to imagine that God could look on some "Originally Sinful" people and still be pleased with their behavior. He could still talk to these people and find some willing to follow Him and obey, even though they were sinful.


3. God never said anywhere in the bible that all humanity in general are born as sinners, by default and that the only way to get saved is to believe that an innocent man died for our sins.... the the old testament prophets or Jesus never said such a thing.


Awww, come on, play fair. How do I address that with out saying God did say that? And you ruled out using Bible verses. You win on this one, but I think it was a sucker punch.

And as for differentiating in the OT, again, you're right. But being a sinful human doesn't mean there's no hope for me. I can turn my life into better directions and God will look down and be pleased with me, while others may not please God.

Well, is that enough to start a conversation on?

Charles1952



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 

Awww, come on, play fair. How do I address that with out saying God did say that? And you ruled out using Bible verses. You win on this one, but I think it was a sucker punch.
He brought up the Bible in 3. saying that it does not say that. If you could refute his claim, that would be acceptable and I would urge you to do so.
He probably meant people who will make great big post with nothing but forty or so verses, without ever actually explaining anything.
edit on 25-9-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by dakota1s2
 




I don't understand how you can have a discussion on "original sin" and yet not use the only book in the world that this pertains to in this discussion. It plainly states in many scriptures about this.


You can have a discussion on original sin using the bible so long as you dont simply quote one verse and end your argument saying "there, the bible says so".

Why not? you ask?
Because one can just easily quote a number of other verses which challenge/contradict the very doctrine of original sin.

I would rather you use your own words (based on your understanding of the bible) to justify what you believe and refute my 4 points in the OP.

edit on 25-9-2011 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   
I still don't think of any definitive idea of 'original sin' as a root basis for any religion. We, as human beings don't/would not, impart the sins of our fathers on ourselves, although there may be very secular religions that prey on those people unfortunate to have been born with disability, portraying them as a result of sins carried out (by them) SIC; in a previous life..can't you just see the hypocrisy?

Yet that idea is almost the same idea as 'original sin' when you think about. There is more hypocrisy about, since the different faiths have their full-time theologians, who are often at odds with the religious historical picture, and are au fait with the sciences, while the mainstream faith still propagates the old style thinking until radical change is forced upon them, like life on Mars for instance, or universal life for that matter, you see, it is not in what our religious leaders are doing, (in which we are expected to follow) it is what they are really thinking. Just like any Government, military etc; they are always in contingency to cover unseen events.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 

Dear jmdewey60,
There is so much in this thread to be discussed. Again, I hope we don't lose it.

Concerning sk0rpi0n's point 3, I really only looked at the limitation on using Bible verses. Now I've noticed that he wants verses where God said it. That may be a little trickier. I wonder, does it have to come from God's mouth? Or anywhere in the Gospels? Anywhere in the Bible?

The first verse that came to mind was John the Baptist when he saw Jesus coming and said "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world." I always took "the sin of the world" as Original Sin.

Anyway, thanks for the encouragement.

With respect,
Charles 1952



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   
Since this is a discussion about original sin... let me present a variation of said topic.

Its said we are born into sin... but instead of blaming that sin on A&E, why do we not accept it as our own problem?

To me, original sin is your own accumulated Karma from previous lives... how else can you be born into sin?

The mistakes from your previous lives are manifested in your current life.

Since the OP said we can't use the bible... whos ready for a curve ball?

A "man who curses" is given a body that will be continually "troubled in heart". A "man who slanders" receives a body that will be "oppressed". A thief receives a "lame, crooked and blind body". A "proud" and "scornful" man receives "a lame and ugly body" that "everyone continually despises." Thus earth, as well as hell, becomes the place of punishment.

Interesting wouldn't you say?




posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 




Concerning sk0rpi0n's point 3, I really only looked at the limitation on using Bible verses. Now I've noticed that he wants verses where God said it. That may be a little trickier. I wonder, does it have to come from God's mouth? Or anywhere in the Gospels? Anywhere in the Bible?



Well,going by Gods words(in the bible) might be a good idea if we are going to try and figure out this particular matters in a neutral OBJECTIVE manner. Thats the best way to stay NEUTRAL on this topic, dont you think?

God does not seem to be endorsing the idea of original sin
And as a christian, please realize that Jesus himself has established he is subordinate to God... and did not endorse this idea.
edit on 25-9-2011 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 




This strange doctrine teaches that all humans are in sin till they accept the blood sacrifice of Jesus. So this means that a new born baby is as "sinful" as a serial killer/rapist or one of those psychos who abuse their own children.... till of course, they accept that Jesus was killed for their sins.


The point of knowing the story is not to understand the implications in totality from this lifetime. We can only connect the dots looking back. The garden story is part of God's work to build your faith and remove your pride. Each life that lives on earth will experience the Genesis story from creation to the exodus and beyond. The days of creation are the seven parts of your life. You choose to eat the fruit of knowledge on your own in toil or walking with God. Every life has this choice to make. Every nation has this choice to make. The works of man happen in 6 days and then rest.

Epistle of Barnabas

Barnabas 15:3

Of the Sabbath He speaketh in the beginning of the creation; And
God made the works of His hands in six days, and He ended on the
seventh day, and rested on it, and He hallowed it.

Barnabas 15:4

Give heed, children, what this meaneth; He ended in six days. He
meaneth this, that in six thousand years the Lord shall bring all
things to an end; for the day with Him signifyeth a thousand years;
and this He himself beareth me witness, saying; Behold, the day of
the Lord shall be as a thousand years. Therefore, children, in six
days, that is in six thousand years, everything shall come to an end.

Adam to Noah 2000
Noah to Jesus 2000
Jesus - Today 2000

6 Days

1000 year Reign of Christ makes the 7th day.

For a person, each day is 10 years give or take.

Day 1 Birth and the Creation of you. Let there be light (Consciousness)
Day 2 Separation of waters. Leaving the family to make a new family.
Day 3 The land produces. Production of a livelihood.
Day 4 Separation of light. New family and raising the family to make the clan. Passing on wisdom.
Day 5 The waters team with living creatures. Grandchildren.
Day 6 Giving of seed to produce new life. The man looks back at the family and enjoys what he has produced knowing that it will continue.
Day 7 Retirement and Rest

The fruit of the tree of knowledge is what is gained by living. If we live by pride, we will toil the ground. If we live by following the shepherding of God, we live in peace and joy as He intended. The family is the crowning achievement of our creation as we follow God's lead. It is the same for a nation and it is the same for the earth among the kingdom of God in the universe. Our glory is what we produce from a life lived. Walking with God in the garden is the way to gain freedom from original sin. Pride is original sin and we all have the duty to overcome the world by overcoming our own pride by loving others as ourselves. God considers Himself one of the others to be loved.




edit on 25-9-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join