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: 2
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
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.



I think I said much the same (in the third party) er, Thank God. Trouble with that idea, (which is 'real' to some) is that it belies at least the Christian faith, which also happens to involve God, in that there is no mention of reincarnation, at least back into this world. The other thing is that original sin doesn't relate to Jesus, as he is related to the sins of the world.
If you want to relate 'original sin' in any way that might make sense, then it should be a benign philosophic thing in that God told us through Moses that as humans, we are capable of both good and bad, (free will) and that the commandments are the influence of the good. That's probably all trueism, but is doesn't aknowledge that both good and bad can be done on impulse, (mistake?) as well as constructed good and bad.




posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Dear sk0rpi0n,

Good to see you again. This could turn out to be a pretty involved thread, now we have reincarnation and karma.

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?

Welllllllllllllll, I'm not sure how taking one part of the Bible is more neutral than taking another part, but let's go with that for now.

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.

Ouch! By saying that we have established that Jesus didn't approve of the doctrine of Original Sin, and that even if He had, it wouldn't matter because He's not a real god like God (Although I don't know how we established those things) all your leaving me with is God's Old Testament words. Well, what about this, from Genesis 3:


7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

They have violated a command and shame is an immediate punishment.


10 He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.”

Now shame and fear both, have been introduced to the world, never to leave.


16 To the woman he said,

“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.”

17 To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’

“Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat food from it
all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return.”

God is saying "You have sinned and here are some of your punishments." Those punishments have continued throughout history. Sounds like Original Sin and some consequences to me.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 



Trouble with that idea, (which is 'real' to some) is that it belies at least the Christian faith, which also happens to involve God, in that there is no mention of reincarnation, at least back into this world.


Well considering im not christian, i don't see an issue...

Also, if you're saying that reincarnation isn't mentioned in the bible.... I assure you, it is mentioned a few times... though you have to know where to look.


That's probably all trueism, but is doesn't aknowledge that both good and bad can be done on impulse, (mistake?) as well as constructed good and bad.


Why do you need to aknowledge such a thing? Don't you find it a little obvious?




posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Atzil321
 


Oh, you have a world? And how did you create this world? If you are talking about an imaginative place that you would wish to have based on your belief system, then I understand. What about the name calling though? You just have to call people names just because you don't agree with something?

Look at the introduction of original sin the same as your mother or father passing on a defective gene. Done every time a baby is born. Ok Lassie?



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 

God is saying "You have sinned and here are some of your punishments." Those punishments have continued throughout history. Sounds like Original Sin and some consequences to me.
Verse 16 is not a curse, though it is historically called, a curse on Eve, it is just The Lord explaining to her the future and her life in it.
Verse 17 is The Lord proclaiming the Earth is now accursed, because Adam did listen to the wife's voice telling him to eat of that tree. My explanation for this and the tree, itself, and why The Lord did not want them consuming the tree, is that it was not one He planted but that came up from the earth.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   
Personally, I think it's horrible for any religion to say this to people (that they are born in sin and must repent). As far as I am concerned, religion is a control mechanism, and original sin is a terrible weapon in their arsenal. They are constantly controlling people through guilt. It's sick.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Dear jmdewey60,

Thanks for the response. I like your attitude.


Verse 16 is not a curse, though it is historically called, a curse on Eve, it is just The Lord explaining to her the future and her life in it.
Do we agree that her future will be bad because she violated one of God's commands?

Verse 17 is The Lord proclaiming the Earth is now accursed, because Adam did listen to the wife's voice telling him to eat of that tree.
Not only is the earth affected, but now Adam has to work just to survive. Extra work is a punishment in the military, prison system, schools, etc. Can we call it a punishment for Adam?

My explanation for this and the tree, itself, and why The Lord did not want them consuming the tree, is that it was not one He planted but that came up from the earth.
Here, I start having a problem. Just confusion, not disagreement. Is God's reason for protecting this particular tree significant? I mean, do we come to different conclusions depending on why God wanted to protect it?

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 05:23 PM
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.



If so, that means that God is punishing A for the sins of B.

This a question of fundamental justice.
The question then becomes-----

Is it good justice to punish the innocent for the sins of the guilty?

I cannot see anyone in their right mind saying yes to this question.
He would then have to believe that it is just to punish an innocent person for the sins of the guilty.

If an eye for an eye, or the punishment should suit the crime or sin, then we would have to punish an innocent man and let the guilty go free.

This would be unjust and perhaps insane.
Imagine a rape victim sitting in court and seeing her rapist hit the street while some innocent man goes to jail.
No justice for the innocent nor any closure for the victim.

If you agree then well and good.
If you do not, then, as in a case of murder, how would a judge select his victim to kill, from a list of innocent people?

This indicates that God was unjust in punishing others or accepting even his own son later as ransom to pay for the criminal and or sinners.

As a side note, the originators of the story of Eden, the Jews, did not have the concept of original sin.
It is their scriptures and myths and why Christianity turned a story that the Jews saw as man's elevation, to become as Gods, as God said of A & E, to a Christian story of a fall, has never been explained.

Regards
DL
edit on 25-9-2011 by Greatest I am because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 

Do we agree that her future will be bad because she violated one of God's commands?
No.
There are a lot of translations and interpretations of that verse and I have read them all, and I have studied the verse itself in minute detail, and the ordinary interpretation has nothing to do with the verse, in my opinion. This is not a trivial matter and the fate of the world hangs on this tiny bit of highly compressed information.
So no, and no, and no. I think I have now stated my position in certain terms.

edit on 25-9-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 

Not only is the earth affected, but now Adam has to work just to survive. Extra work is a punishment in the military, prison system, schools, etc. Can we call it a punishment for Adam?
It just happens. It is a result of his listening to and obeying someone else. The Lord says it three times, using three words kiy, min, `abuwr, which mean: the first, because of, the second, on account of, the third, for the sake of, all to indicate that it was from his actions that this was happening.


Here, I start having a problem. Just confusion, not disagreement. Is God's reason for protecting this particular tree significant? I mean, do we come to different conclusions depending on why God wanted to protect it?
Genesis explains how The Lord planted a garden and in it He placed "every tree that was pleasing to look at and good for food." So here it is saying The Lord put all the trees in there which the people could eat from. Then it says, "Now the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil were in the middle of the orchard." It says they were there but does not explain how they got there. The earlier description of His placement of trees covers ones good to look at and to eat. Unless you interpret it to mean, 'He planted good looking trees and He planted trees that were good to eat.' Were they already there, and He decided it was a good place to plant more trees, or was there the one, of Life, that he planted next to and then all of a sudden, the tree of knowledge was there?
One way to look at it is that the spirit of the Elohim strove against the abyss, meaning the ocean, and subdued it to make the firmament by dividing the waters. Part went up somewhere, and that lowered the sea level to where the earth protruded from the ocean. The Elohim did not do anything to the earth any deeper than to where the roots of the vegetation grew that he (or they) placed there. The deeper regions of the earth was unaffected by all the creation going on, in that very relatively thin outer layer. Underneath is all the darkness and fear and the unknown, and better left unknown because that is not the kind of knowledge sky-loving gods like or want anything to do with. The Lord saw that there was a conflict the poor unsuspecting people knew nothing of, and they had just lost the battle, and were being given the bad news.

edit on 25-9-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   
Dear Greatest I am,

You have well and clearly explained your objection to the idea of Original Sin. You also show a good heart for justice. Please forgive my response which may well not be clear or satisfying to you.

Originally posted by Greatest I am
If so, that means that God is punishing A for the sins of B.


Is it good justice to punish the innocent for the sins of the guilty?
This would be unjust and perhaps insane.

There is one, major, distinction I'd like to make. For the sake of convenience let's separate sin into original and personal. Original sin is the Adam and Eve story. They were given the choice between devotion to God and devotion to themselves through the serpent's intervention. They chose the wrong. That sin has sent ripples throughout all of Man's history. Separation from God, an inclination to sin, pain and suffering, death, hatred, jealously, and much more came from that wrong choice.

But each individual makes his own choices. We are all faced with many occasions when we face the choice Adam and Eve made wrongly. God or the Serpent?

Imagine a rape victim sitting in court and seeing her rapist hit the street while some innocent man goes to jail.
No justice for the innocent nor any closure for the victim.

When we commit a personal sin, it creates a personal responsibility. We can't hide. The universe shouts "You did it!" This is a more personal, direct, insult to God and is dealt with differently. We've all chosen wrongly, and there is no innocent. God doesn't punish the innocent and set the guilty free. He prepares to punish us all for our personal sins. And that is justice because there are no innocents among men.

This indicates that God was unjust in punishing others or accepting even his own son later as ransom to pay for the criminal and or sinners.

God's Son was a major explosion in the world of sin, precisely because He was completely innocent. That is a topic worthy of much thought and discussion, shall we set it aside for now? Or, do I misunderstand your point?

As a side note, the originators of the story of Eden, the Jews, did not have the concept of original sin.
It is their scriptures and myths and why Christianity turned a story that the Jews saw as man's elevation, to become as Gods, as God said of A & E, to a Christian story of a fall, has never been explained.

You are quite right that the Jews did not draw the idea of Original Sin from their Book of Genesis and Christians did. I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I understand the significance of that. Some Christians say that Jesus was prophesied in the Old Testament, a Jewish book; Jews do not.

With respect,
charles1952



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 06:40 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.


This is non-sensible.

1/ If I understand you correctly, it would mean, that e.g. Plato's philosophy only can be considered by the premises of Plato's books. You are seemingly presenting the eternal christian circle-argument of the bible being self-contained, self-proving and self-'authorized'. Such subjects can be considered from 'the outside' also by the non-believer.

******

2/ The 'need' for any sacrifices AT ALL, depends on the validity of the absurd 'original sin' doctrine, which

a/ Is the issue here and which you use both as start and end, and.......

b/ As in 1/ above can be considered from 'the outside' and which isn't depending solely on inner bible-coherency.

*****

3/ Concerning the 'fallen angel' concept, either you or OT-relating christians in general have the chronology seriously messed up. Which in the course of the christianities' confused ideological history has manifested in the most bizarre and inconsistent forms.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
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





Charles,

you have manifested elsewhere as a very sensible person, so I would like to hang on to this post of yours.

You gave 'original sin' as one optional position, and I would like to follow up one of the other options, which you didn't present clearly defined. That as 'sin' just being mundane dysfunctional behaviour (whatever that means eventually). Such behaviour having no relevance at all to any theist 'explanations'/doctrines, and where the rules are made up as we go along.

If I remember correctly (and if you remember), we earlier had a rather deepgoing communication about 'secular functionality/dysfunctionality' and the religious 'sin' concept. I can't remember how far we got on this, but to take up this direction again here, the standard theist argument is based on a false category, where (what's vaguely is called) 'common sense' is mixed with theist claims. E.g. the reasonable ethical idea, that it's preferable to lessen 'suffering', MIXED with authority-requests and monopoly-aspirations (it's 'sinful' to disobey 'god' etc).

Now utilitarian philosophy does well on its own socially with only relating to the mundane part of how to lessen suffering (and leave the non-mundane to the individual to decide on). So the non-theist position is a distinction between the mundane and the non-mundane, while the theist position is a self-proclaimed wholesale category, where moral values of both the mundane and the non-mundane are intertwined. From a rational perspective this theist position is ofcourse plain non-sense, and basically a fabricated propaganda-scenario. Or if one likes....a fake.

And to avoid any suspicions of an exaggerated science/logic perspective on my part, I could mention one of the 'competing' metaphysical systems on suffering: Buddhism, which gives quite another existential basis for suffering and consequently comes out with very different answers on how to relate to it (suffering).

How to approach 'suffering' from a broader perspective is imo the most weighty argument AGAINST the 'original sin' doctrine, as 'original sin' really doesn't hold much water except from a fanatical faith-position.
edit on 26-9-2011 by bogomil because: small addition



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
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)


And 'dot-connecting' being your little speciality, unfortunately with chains of dots originating from and staying in YOUR mindset, where no-one else can follow or validate them. Yoúr assumption rejected on grounds of being valid only for you.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
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)


Right on spot, and if this thread survives a little while more, I can support you from 'the outside'.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 11:17 PM
link   
Dear bogomil,
Thank you for your kind thoughts. Be assured that my regard for you increases with each exchange.

You gave 'original sin' as one optional position, and I would like to follow up one of the other options, which you didn't present clearly defined.


And to avoid any suspicions of an exaggerated science/logic perspective on my part, I could mention one of the 'competing' metaphysical systems on suffering: Buddhism, which gives quite another existential basis for suffering and consequently comes out with very different answers on how to relate to it (suffering).


You are correct in your observations, and I apologize for combining your two statements which you separate with a valuable discussion on common sense and secular functionality. I hope that doesn't distort the meaning.

All right, in the above you point out that there are other systems explaining the cause of suffering. Correctly, you note that I didn't pay sufficient attention to them. That is purely based on a lamentable ignorance on my part. I don't know the Buddhist position on suffering. I imagine it has to do with Man's failure to control his passions, thus leading to dissatisfaction and suffering. (If so, could Adam and Eve been the first example of failing to control their desires?)

There are other positions, but I think my first job is to discover whether Original Sin is internally consistent and can be considered a contender at all.


That as 'sin' just being mundane dysfunctional behaviour (whatever that means eventually). Such behaviour having no relevance at all to any theist 'explanations'/doctrines, and where the rules are made up as we go along.

You're right that we make up rules as we go along, changes in circumstances and cultures demand it. But do we make up all the rules? In another thread I wondered if some basics (Thou shalt not steal.) were so universal that they indicated a single source. It was beginning to be a natural law argument. Eating our dead is a functional thing to do, several species do, I believe. We refuse to, however, unless there has been heavy cultural or religious conditioning. Functionality seems to admit it has bounds.

Now utilitarian philosophy does well on its own socially with only relating to the mundane part of how to lessen suffering (and leave the non-mundane to the individual to decide on). So the non-theist position is a distinction between the mundane and the non-mundane, while the theist position is a self-proclaimed wholesale category, where moral values of both the mundane and the non-mundane are intertwined.

You are absolutely right, and put this quite clearly. There's a lot of meat here. Let me reword it as I see it, not necessarily as you meant it.
"Utilitarianism helps you get along in the world, but it's no help if you're interested in mysticism or the after-life. You've got to go to another shop if you want that sort of stuff. The theists say that they can help you in those areas, and as a side benefit, help you in society as well."

From a rational perspective this theist position is ofcourse plain non-sense, and basically a fabricated propaganda-scenario. Or if one likes....a fake.

I probably misstated your position, because I don't yet understand how that follows.

. . . the standard theist argument is based on a false category, where (what's vaguely is called) 'common sense' is mixed with theist claims. E.g. the reasonable ethical idea, that it's preferable to lessen 'suffering', MIXED with authority-requests and monopoly-aspirations (it's 'sinful' to disobey 'god' etc).

Sorry, I'm still confused. Why would it be false to say "it's preferable to lessen suffering, unless you voluntarily submitted to the suffering in order to become more spiritual?" It seems as though common sense can sometimes be mixed with theist claims without causing logical difficulties. But as I say, I might be confused.

How to approach 'suffering' from a broader perspective is imo the most weighty argument AGAINST the 'original sin' doctrine, as 'original sin' really doesn't hold much water except from a fanatical faith-position.
To an extent, you're clearly right again. Any doctrine of sin doesn't hold much water except from a faith position. As to the rest of it, l've come perilously close to running out of space in this response. Hope to see you again.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 11:42 PM
link   
Original sin is a permanent fixture of mankind. It was a curse placed upon man as well as nature, since man was initially given rule over planet earth. Man sinned when he followed Satan, turning from God. He also gave up his earthly birthright to Satan who now has a legitimate claim to earth. Mankind has a "fallen nature."

God said, "If you eat of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil, you shall surly die." Man was from the beginning given a choice to follow God. He failed.

The spirit of man died at the moment he disobeyed God. With Satan now in control of earth, it cannot be renewed as needed since the Creator is no longer in total control of nature, thus the second law of thermodynamics took effect: everything will gradually deteriorate, as it obviously is (even our bodies.)

As far as personal sin, a person is not judged until he/she is of an age where they knowing do wrong through their own volition (choice). Therefore, babies and children who die before the age of accountability will go directly to Heaven. This would include those who are aborted. God Himself stated that little children are in His care.

Again, original sin is a curse upon all of creation, not just mankind. Animal sacrifice was simply a temporary fix until Christ died on the cross to pay the sin debt for all mankind. Then again, it is each individual's choice to accept Christ's death as payment for their sins. Those who do, by accepting His offer, are sealed with the Holy Spirit until fully redeemed at the resurrection. So, going to Heaven or hell, is an individual choice meaning that God sends no one to hell. We send ourselves.

Now, I didn't quote Bible verses to make my argument, but I can if anyone would like.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by zapr1943

Original sin is a permanent fixture of mankind.
It mentions original sin not, in the Bible. If this thing you are theorizing were true, then you are saying Jesus was sinful.

It was a curse placed upon man as well as nature, since man was initially given rule over planet earth. Man sinned when he followed Satan, turning from God. He also gave up his earthly birthright to Satan who now has a legitimate claim to earth. Mankind has a "fallen nature."
The serpent and the earth were cursed, not Adam or Eve.
Satan is not mentioned in the Eden story.
The Bible talks about a birthright being handed down through men, and never talks about a birthright of Satan, plus, he was never born in the first place.
Satan has no legitimate claim to the earth and Jesus said he saw Satan fall like lightning to the earth.
Satan was defeated at the cross.
Man has been lifted up by Jesus being one of us and ascending to heaven and sitting at the right hand of God.

God said, "If you eat of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil, you shall surly die." Man was from the beginning given a choice to follow God. He failed.
God did not place the tree in the Garden to be a test to pass or fail. The tree was just there, and The Lord warned Adam, and then he listened to his wife. That is a failure to take good advise but you can't put more into it than there existed a potential for evil to creep in, which only manifested later in Cain killing his brother.

The spirit of man died at the moment he disobeyed God.
That is just a rationalization in man's attempt at saving The Lord embarrassment from not being accurate when he said that in the day that they ate they would surely die of death.

With Satan now in control of earth, it cannot be renewed as needed since the Creator is no longer in total control of nature, thus the second law of thermodynamics took effect: everything will gradually deteriorate, as it obviously is (even our bodies.)
This relegates God to a second class status, making Him a pathetic looser while uplifting Satan to God status. To repeat, Satan does not figure in until much later in the OT.

As far as personal sin, a person is not judged until he/she is of an age where they knowing do wrong through their own volition (choice). Therefore, babies and children who die before the age of accountability will go directly to Heaven. This would include those who are aborted. God Himself stated that little children are in His care.
This is all your personal philosophy and go for it if it makes you happy but you added this little comment on the end of your post which implied that you had Bible verses to back up everything you wrote in your post.

Again, original sin is a curse upon all of creation, not just mankind.
If you want to use "cursed" as a figure of speech, you should indicate that, by saying something like, "not literally".

Animal sacrifice was simply a temporary fix until Christ died on the cross to pay the sin debt for all mankind.
I don't see the NT saying that it ever really did anything and just poses the hypothetical question, "If this blood of animals did do something to cleanse the bodies of people, then how much more can the blood of Jesus, which is pure by the eternal spirit, cleanse the consciences of those who believe in him?" So not a ringing endorsement of the OT sacrifices ever actually doing anything to take sins away.

Then again, it is each individual's choice to accept Christ's death as payment for their sins.
Jesus did not "pay" for sins. Jesus came to ransom the world from being under the Law of the Old Covenant, which needed to be done because of the continued sinning that people were doing regardless of that Law.

Those who do, by accepting His offer, are sealed with the Holy Spirit until fully redeemed at the resurrection.
We are redeemed right now, as a race of men, by the completed work of Jesus to free us from the bondage of the old written Law.

So, going to Heaven or hell, is an individual choice meaning that God sends no one to hell. We send ourselves.
Everyone goes to hell, that is where people go when they die. Whether we come back from hell is up to Jesus.

Now, I didn't quote Bible verses to make my argument, but I can if anyone would like.
Do it or not, it's up to you. You can just do nothing and let my post stand unopposed, that's fine with me.
edit on 27-9-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 03:00 AM
link   
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 


huh?

You are just cross referring verses that do not address the OPs subject matter, i.e - original sin and how it has no real biblical basis. And the second half of your post comparing the 6 days of creation to a persons life sounds like a very personal interpretation of the bible.

The OP challenging the doctrine of 'original sin' is NOT because I personally dont like the doctrine of 'original sin', but because the bible itself makes it clear that this doctrine has no basis in the bible.

Its clear that God differentiates between a righteous man and a sinner... God is never shown to regard someone as "righteous", yet see him as a sinner.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 03:29 AM
link   
reply to post by zapr1943
 



The spirit of man died at the moment he disobeyed God. With Satan now in control of earth, it cannot be renewed as needed since the Creator is no longer in total control of nature

...and yet the bible tells us that there were soooo many people after Adam and Eve, who God saw as "righteous" and NOT as sinners.





Again, original sin is a curse upon all of creation, not just mankind. Animal sacrifice was simply a temporary fix until Christ died on the cross to pay the sin debt for all mankind.

The way out of sin has always been sincere repentance and turning back to God...not some quick fix solution by simply believing that Jesus died for your sins. That idea is simply has no endorsement from God.

As for animal sacrifices being a "temporary fix"... that too is questionable because many places in the bible show that God did NOT ask for animal sacrifices to take away sin. Therefore the very concept of Jesus' sacrifice being akin to animal sacrifice stands on shaky ground.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join