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: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


You wrote:

["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."]

There's a lot of finer details and technical terms, but broadly...yes. Like with practically all other ethical systems, there is a part of existence, where 'free will' and responsibility is optional for mankind. In buddhism the option of relating to the existential 'environment' (buddhist subsets vary on the details).

That's half of it. The other half is the overall 'setting' of the cosmic scenario, which differs considerably from the genesis version.

Quote: ["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."]

If you with internally mean 'self-contained', this should be possible. As with all other ideologies which have claims of universality, christianity has its battery of self-reinforcing premises. Premises which are designed to give credibility to the basic claims, but which in reality just are extensions of these claims. A parallel example can be found in Sovjet ideology.

Though eventually an ideology has to meet external conditions also.

Quote: ["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?"]

No, we don't make all the rules. That's why I mentioned the buddhist perspective, with its external setting, and can bring in the science/logic perspective of cosmos and cosmic 'natural laws'.

Quote: ["In another thread I wondered if some basics (Thou shalt not steal.) were so universal that they indicated a single source."]

Personally I doubt, if there are any universal principles making 'stealing' a uniform phenomenon, which can be considered with uniform ethical values. In the primitive version of biological life the strongest just take, and in the sophisticated part of biological life the smartest just take. Most humans don't consider that 'stealing' as such.

All the ideological embellishments are ornamentations to 'justify' whatever excuse for 'just taking', which is the 'natural' state of things. A few ideologies denies the ultimate truth of 'natural state of things' and claim, that the self-organizing potential in complexity (normalese: ~ e.g. mankind with some free will) can reverse 'natural order'. And we CAN to some extent reverse natural order, that's easily demonstrable.

With growing complexity comes growing self-organizing and a growing ability to reverse 'natural order'. This manifests in social contexts also. In western democracies we are in a position, where care for the socially dysfunctional now is possible. Formerly they were dead meat and a threat for the group's survival.

Quote: ["Functionality seems to admit it has bounds."]

Functionality definitely has bounds. We have 'natural order' against it, and more specifically biological imperatives. But considering that functionality in a combined version of politics, economy and ideology (ideology with utilitarian philosophy as its spearhead) has had less than two centuries to grow, the outcome is impressive. Not least with the 'outer' opposition it has had to overcome.

(I take it, that we still are talking about funtionality with lessening of suffering as its aim).

Quote: [""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."]

No objections to your formulation, though we MAY differ on the 'truth' of some points; especially when 'help in society' is to be defined. Offering the 'gentle Jesus' can never be bad. Pushing a political re-introduction of 'christian values' is ideological fascism.

Quote: ["I probably misstated your position, because I don't yet understand how that follows."]

Where I believe you refer to this from my former post:

"while the theist position is a self-proclaimed wholesale category, where moral values of both the mundane and the non-mundane are intertwined."

I'll just take an example and hope that will suffice. Many (manmade)-utilitarian and theistic ethical systems agree on non-stealing, non-killing etc. In e.g. the ten commandments (the popular version) there are some 3-4 extra ethical rules, which defines the relationship between 'god' and mankind. These extra rules are often by theists claimed to be not only valid, but also necessary in mundane social contexts, and when pushing theist ideology it usually starts with the commonly accepted mundane ethics, and then the theist parts are so to speak sneaked in through the backdoor: "Hey, you have to take the whole deal".

It's clearly demonstrable, that societally it's possible to stick with the mundane, utilitarian part alone (or that societies with an impact of different theistic rules at least can function as well as christian societies).

Quote: [" 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."]

It can be mixed, I'm not launching an anti-theist crusade. In northern Europe an interesting cultural phenomenon has manisfested the last 40 years. While buddhism (not as an expression of theism, but of metaphysicism) nominally is a small group, it has a big social impact.

In some countries the number of moral vegetarians (inspired by buddhistic values) are 5%+ of the population, and while a vegetarian in my youth was a weirdo, it's a small status-sign these days.

Similarly is the impact of buddhism and hinduism on the the philosophy of science great and that of Jain religion on social ethics also (~ Gandhi).

As a simplistic conclusion I'll summarize the above. In a postulated, self-contained situation of metaphysically good/bad guys man is said to be practically helpless on all levels of existence. All mundane observations point the other way.

This perspective is societal. The individual is free to follow personal choices inside the perimeter of social obligations. Nothing to it, except for those who strive for monopoly.



edit on 27-9-2011 by bogomil because: addition, spelling




posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by zapr1943
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.


I'm convinced that 99%+ of those reading this thread are familiar with the above and its implications; ..... and that repetitive manifestations of it is motivated by propaganda-aspirations rather than a will to add creatively to the debate.

Basically Charles and I have the same debate going, presenting finer points, polishing details and eventually and possibly coming to a presentation of 'objective' reference-points. And even if we disagree, we will come out of it without major confrontations.

Your sermon on the other hand is just waving a red agitational flag, and personally I can't see the purpose in it. But ofcourse this is a forum with free speech, and if you feel that doctrinal postulates is the way forward, nothing worse than this kind of opposition presented in this post will happen.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 07:36 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.


The following does not contain so called "isolated verses" anyone wishing can get a bible and read the context for themselves.

First of all your fundamental understanding of sin is incorrect. Man and woman are currently born with a Sin Nature because Adam's sinned alone not Eve's. This is because Eve was deceived. Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 1Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

A newborn is not AS sinful as a psychotic killer. they just have sin nature like everyone. There is believed by some to be an age of accountability that God has grace on new born babies. But I have not found any verses to support that teaching. But there is one that supports that a child born to at least one Christian parent makes the child holy. 1Corinthians 7:12 -14 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

And Jesus was not Killed for anyone's sin. He Died for our sins. 1Co 15:1-4 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

So first you misrepresented what you called the Doctrine of Original Sin. Read these following verses slowly and with a meditative heart and it will answer the rest of what you posted.


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.


Romans 5:14-21Ro 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.



edit on 27-9-2011 by ChesterJohn because: mulitiple quote needed

edit on 27-9-2011 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by zapr1943Now, I didn't quote Bible verses to make my argument, but I can if anyone would like.


Zapr1943, you should always quote Bible to establish the the doctrine.

To Everyone else,

I didn't read all the posts in the thread before I posted my reply to the lead post.

First off, It is impossible because of the limited character space to provided all scriptures needed to support the doctrine of sin, and imputed sin nature. so sorry if "isolated text" were used but space provided by the server does not allow for in-depth presentation for the support, because it is limited to so many characters.

Secondly, As I read further it looks as if this is some sort of discussion on going between two individuals more than an open debate. So I apologize as I was not trying to preach but show the Bible's support for how sin came to be in all men from birth, and that the Original sin was just an act of one man and because of his act sin was imputed to all his decedents afterwards resulting in death.

Have a good discussion
edit on 27-9-2011 by ChesterJohn because: grammar and spelling correction



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by ChesterJohn
 


You wrote:

["First of all your fundamental understanding of sin is incorrect. Man and woman are currently born with a Sin Nature because Adam's sinned alone not Eve's. This is because Eve was deceived. Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 1Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."]

Which ofcourse is a legitimate subjective position, i.e. a personal faith. Whereas....

Quote: ["A newborn is not AS sinful as a psychotic killer. they just have sin nature like everyone."]

This is a subjective postulate promoted to 'objectivity' as it contains a universal claim: "....like everyone..". It really would be nice, if you guys learned the difference between subjective and objective, but it's probably to much to hope for.

Quote: ["So first you misrepresented what you called the Doctrine of Original Sin. Read these following verses slowly and with a meditative heart and it will answer the rest of what you posted.

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."

There's nothing to misunderstand. Gen. 3 has the basic situation clearly outlined, and your effort if mildening the concept by referring to 'consequences' as the operational point is just an inversion of the parameters of the original 'sin' concept. The treatment individuals get is STILL based on the EXACT same premises as what led to the alleged Eden-drama.

'Righteous-ness' means blind obedience and grovelling to self-proclaimed authority. The other side of the 'sin'-coin.

Quote from a later post: ["Secondly, As I read further it looks as if this is some sort of discussion on going between two individuals more than an open debate."]

There's nothing preventing anyone from joining any discussion going on. Responding to individual posts can take place with- or without invitation, no matter whom posts are addressed to. This is a liberal, public forum, so in my own behalf...feel free.

Quote: ["So I apologize as I was not trying to preach but show the Bible's support for how sin came to be in all men from birth, and that the Original sin was just an act of one man and because of his act sin was imputed to all his decedents afterwards resulting in death."]

For the sake of a meaningful and constructive communication: This is a faith-based assumption, once more presented as an 'absolute', which

a/ Is rationally meaningless

b/ Bound to meet opposition.

Considered from the perspective, that you already have made an objectivity-claim on this.



edit on 27-9-2011 by bogomil because: clarification, syntax



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   
ChesterJohn (and everyone else),

I am sorry for creating the impression this is not an open debate. I hope bogomil will allow me to speak for him and say that we both welcome others to this discussion. If it's causing you great offense, I will be happy to leave and give the field over to you.

It might be helpful to re-read the thread (thankfully it's not too long) to see how we got here. Since it was sk0rpi0n's thread, I thought I'd play by his rules, as much as possible. One of his rules was to limit the number of verses quoted, and only quote those spoken by God. It's a handicap, certainly, but that doesn't prevent you from presenting a biblical statement in non-biblical terms. Also remember that the audience here doesn't share the reverence for scripture you have. Jesus spoke in parables, there are times when we should, also.

Oh, about bogomil. He is a great guy and I admire him a lot in his field. Unless I am at the top of my game he will slap me around (politely) until I get back to work. I've found him willing to adjust his opinions. Not anxious, but willing if you're convincing enough.

I admire your knowledge of the scriptures, and Romans 5 is a good place to explore this subject, but in deference to sk0rpi0n and his rules I've skipped it. Whether you want to or not is your call, but you should speak Greek to the Greeks and Latin to the Romans.

Originally posted by ChesterJohn
First of all your fundamental understanding of sin is incorrect. Man and woman are currently born with a Sin Nature because Adam's sinned alone not Eve's. This is because Eve was deceived.
I haven't gotten into a discussion of whether both sinned or only Adam because I wasn't aware of that idea. But it doesn't seem as though that changes the effects of original sin much. But if I'm wrong, please let me know.

A newborn is not AS sinful as a psychotic killer. they just have sin nature like everyone. There is believed by some to be an age of accountability that God has grace on new born babies. But I have not found any verses to support that teaching.
That was basically the position I took as well. Thankfully, we haven't gotten into the idea that God cannot tolerate any unholiness, so small sins as well as large incur His wrath.

And Jesus was not Killed for anyone's sin. He Died for our sins.
You're quite right that he died for our sins. He was, however, killed, and the result was payment for our sins, so I wouldn't bark at sk0rpi0n too loudly for that one.

So first you misrepresented what you called the Doctrine of Original Sin.
This is the only place where I think you've gone too far. If you meant that sk0rpi0n intentionally presented a view of the doctrine that he knew to be wrong, I think you owe him an apology. You can't know from the little presented here what was in his heart. That was too quick of a judgment. But its possible that I've misinterpreted you. In that case I will apologize for my harsh reaction, but you should know that it struck at least me that way. Please be careful when you're dealing with brother humans and their souls.

Charles1952



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by ChesterJohn
 

This is because Eve was deceived. Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 1Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
This is an argument in a letter, supposedly by Paul, discussing various aspects of accepted decorum on the part of church service attendees. At the church I am a member of, it is flat out ignored with no comment, this concept of the inferiority of women. I do not recommend the Timothy letters (start by reading the Wikipedia articles on them) as the source of the bulwark of a doctrine involving something as important as salvation.

Romans 5:12
So then, just as sin entered the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all people because all sinned –

Looking at the three words, as sin entered, in the first phrase of the verse, this combination of this preposition, and the verb in this form, according to Greek grammar, it "denotes any cause by means of which an action passes to its accomplishment", where the action is sin entering the world, and the cause is something the one man did.
The writer of Romans is here assuming the readers accept this as fact, that sin results in death, a good example of this happening in a direct fashion, being the murder of Abel by Cain. A larger example is the almost total annihilation of life by the flood, where The Lord is filled with disgust and wants them out of His sight.
As long as people were creating offence to The Lord, He was going to be unrelenting with his withholding of life sustaining blessings which would end the dying. Since we had not accomplished the feet of discontinuing sin, despite The Lord showing up in person demonstrating severe anger and demand for perfection and a detailed Law to describe that perfection, The Lord has allowed death to be the rule of the world.
edit on 27-9-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by ChesterJohn
 

And Jesus was not Killed for anyone's sin. He Died for our sins.


Is your distinction between killed and died? Is it between forced and voluntary?

Jesus died for our sin, that means: Here is our sin. Here is Jesus saying to those sins, 'I will make you less offensive to God, so your host, the one who created all you, sins, can live.'
.
.
.
.
.
.
edit on 27-9-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


you are correct I cannot know what was in his heart when he posted and I don't know where it all came from. So if I spoke out prematurely of his ignorance or his misrepresentation the doctrine then I am sorry.

The object though is Original Sin. Original Sin was all locked up in Adam none of us have his imputed original sin. What was given to us is the nature to sin and because of that we will sin given the chance. None of us sin the original sin that was what Romans 5 was telling us. I never sinned the Original Sin. As far as I can tell not a one of us has as far as it being the first sin. My first sin was more than likely lying if not stealing. Coveting would be right in there as a close third if not second before stealing. And we come from a long line of sinners and there isn't a single sin that is not common to man.

I think it best to speak English to English speaking people and use an English Bible where most of the words are two syllable, and is easy to understand, by anyone with at least a six grade reading level. Not that you or others are not above that reading level but occasionally we have those who are not especially foreigners.

Anyway, most of the post were intelligent and one was a bit preachy for the topic at hand.



edit on 27-9-2011 by ChesterJohn because: miss worded and mr spelling



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by ChesterJohn
 

This is because Eve was deceived. Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 1Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
This is an argument in a letter, supposedly by Paul, discussing various aspects of accepted decorum on the part of church service attendees. At the church I am a member of, it is flat out ignored with no comment, this concept of the inferiority of women. I do not recommend the Timothy letters (start by reading the Wikipedia articles on them) as the source of the bulwark of a doctrine involving something as important as salvation.

Romans 5:12
So then, just as sin entered the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all people because all sinned –

Looking at the three words, as sin entered, in the first phrase of the verse, this combination of this preposition, and the verb in this form, according to Greek grammar, it "denotes any cause by means of which an action passes to its accomplishment", where the action is sin entering the world, and the cause is something the one man did.
The writer of Romans is here assuming the readers accept this as fact, that sin results in death, a good example of this happening in a direct fashion, being the murder of Abel by Cain. A larger example is the almost total annihilation of life by the flood, where The Lord is filled with disgust and wants them out of His sight.
As long as people were creating offence to The Lord, He was going to be unrelenting with his withholding of life sustaining blessings which would end the dying. Since we had not accomplished the feet of discontinuing sin, despite The Lord showing up in person demonstrating severe anger and demand for perfection and a detailed Law to describe that perfection, The Lord has allowed death to be the rule of the world.
edit on 27-9-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)


You are using a completely different Bible than I quoted so of course your Grammatical construction is going to be different. It is best that you use the Bible I quoted from and not bring in another Bible where it allows you to misrepresent me and my words by using another version to prove my points were wrong when I never used that version at all to make my points about Original Sin and how it is not imputed to you or anyone else by both Adam and Eve.

Did Jesus have control over his life when he died? You can play semantic games all day about Killed Death Died. The facts remain he was put to death by Romans, condemned to death by the Jewish Priests, betrayed to death by a one whom he chose. But when it was all said and done he voluntarily died of his own free will.

John 10:15-18 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

edit on 27-9-2011 by ChesterJohn because: just checking



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by ChesterJohn
 

. . .the nature to sin. . .
Could you describe this thing, the nature to sin?
Do you mean that sinning comes naturally?
Doing a google search, I got a reply in Yahoo answers:
"What the Bible really says is that Adam sinned and because of that we have inherited the nature to sin."
He does not quote a verse.
In a question and answer page for a church, La Vista Church of God, is the question, "Where in the Bible does it say that we only inherit the nature to sin and not the original sin?" It quotes Ezekiel about the sin of the father not going to the son. Then Romans 3:23 where "all have sinned". Then says Jesus was the exception, quoting Hebrews 2:14 and 1 Peter 2: 21, 22. It then covers the concepts in Romans 5:112-14, then hits Romans 3: 10, that none are righteous, which was actually Paul quoting the OT. So, it covers a lot of what was already brought up in this forum thread, then goes on to say there is a sort of weakness we have where we can likely enough sin, then closes this mini-sermon by quoting 1 Peter 5:8 "Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour"

After thinking about this for a minute, and what I wrote in my last post on this thread, this Weakness, that this pastor mentioned in explanation, could be the same thing as the Death, that I was talking about in that post. Adam sins, The Lord puts a cherub with a twirling flaming sword between Himself, and the people, so just as we don't have access to the healing properties of the tree of life, we also do not have access to the spiritual healing properties of being in the presence of God.
Jesus came to break down that barrier, to recall that sword wielding cherub and to give us access through the Holy Spirit to that God presence which heals us spiritually.

edit on 27-9-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ChesterJohn
 


You are using a completely different Bible than I quoted so of course your Grammatical construction is going to be different. It is best that you use the Bible I quoted from and not bring in another Bible where it allows you to misrepresent me and my words by using another version to prove my points were wrong when I never used that version at all to make my points about Original Sin and how it is not imputed to you or anyone else by both Adam and Eve.
That "different Bible" is the Greek, which the NT was written in. I was not using it to prove anything but to make it a bit less ambiguous as what you might come away with by just reading the KJV. You seem to be getting a bit defensive and reading too much into what I wrote. You make a statement of opinion, then I make a statement of my opinion. There is no "proving" unless you do something like say, "I know for a fact that somewhere it says. . ." or "I know for a fact that it nowhere says. . .", then someone comes along and says, "I just found this verse which you claimed is not in the NT." Then you can counter with, "I meant in the KJV." The point being, it is all a matter of opinion because people can read things the way they want. I find the Greek, as originally written, is more restrictive in how you can veer off in one direction or another. I have gotten to where it is a necessity for me to study the sentence structure of every verse I read, you can choose to ignore my noting of such things.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ChesterJohn
 

Did Jesus have control over his life when he died? You can play semantic games all day about Killed Death Died. The facts remain he was put to death by Romans, condemned to death by the Jewish Priests, betrayed to death by a one whom he chose. But when it was all said and done he voluntarily died of his own free will.
Not me, I was asking if that was what you were saying was important, to point out the difference between those choices in how to understand how Jesus came to being dead (as opposed to going into what "for" means). I was not aware of my doing anything beyond asking that question (as concerning the method of death part).
edit on 27-9-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Dear "Original Sinners,"

I use that term to identify those of you who accept the doctrine of Original Sin. The headline was "Why the bizarre doctrine of original sin is flawed." Of course, the OP hasn't proven his case, but that seems to be because we haven't even defined the doctrine of Original Sin to find out if its flawed or not.

Can we agree that the doctrine concerns an event that took place at the beginning of Man's history, in which Man intentionally and willingly disobeyed God after being tempted by Satan? That as a result of this disobedience, much harmony was destroyed and Adam and Eve passed to their descendants a human nature inclined to sin and death? That all humanity is born into a "state" of sin, but they have not necessarily committed an "act" of sin? (I'm especially thinking of very young children here.)

Shouldn't the essentials of the doctrine be determined before we try to defend it?

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 
All speculation, conjecture, assumptions, rationalization, and philosophy, so not really any way to come to a consensus other than to agree to throw out "original sin" as even being a term in any discussion. That is, unless you just mean it as the point of departure, as in a temporal sense, a historical event.


edit on 27-9-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Dear jmdewey60,

Well, I do see the original sin as an historical event. One with incredibly long-reaching consequences. As for physical evidence of the event, I don't see how any is possible. But I do think it is possible to show that it is neither "bizarre" nor self-contradictory. I think that would meet the OP's requirements.

But let's wait until we have some agreement on the definition first.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 

I don't know how many people even care about something like that.
If you think it should be relegated to the status of an archival data type thing, then we would have two people in agreement.
Like I said two posts ago, people mistake the deleterious affects of our being separated from the presence of God for a genetic defect, which needs to be pointed out, did not prevent Jesus from living so as not to sin. (of course that does no mean that God did not preordain a lineage conducive to faithfulness as a natural attribute that could be passed down, to at least give Jesus a fighting chance, as compared to, let's say, a long like of thieves and murderers and traitors)



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
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.


I was answering this post:


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.


In my reply, I noted that original sin is a representation of a larger picture of God developing us over the course of history. We are sentience and sentience needs autonomy to develop. Free will requires that we can fall from our first estate. We are the prodigal son returning to the Father of our first estate. The point of life is the living. If you see God as out-of-control with a creation gone bad, you miss the entire point.

The tree of life is protected by the flaming sword. This is the consuming fire of God that cuts away our pride through experience in the material world. Genesis 3 states that we have a choice. We can follow God as we walk in the wilderness or we can walk on our own. This is the shepherd leading His sheep. Original sin is the starting point for sin. It is pride, or elevating ones self above another. Since God is one, so are we in God. We are part of that one. When we leave God for our own pride (prodigal son), we leave in pride. When we return, we come back in humility. This material world will beat the pride out of us and allow us to see the value in our Father.

In order to fully understand, you must know the meaning of the Hebrew Aleph-Bet. It tells the story. LINK


edit on 27-9-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Charles

“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.”

How do you know they chose the wrong?
You know because you have a moral sense. Where does that moral sense come from?
From the knowledge of good and evil. Right?
God, churches and man work hard to improve the moral sense that began with A & E eating of the tree of knowledge that you and God condemn them for eating. Even as scriptures tell us to emulate God which is exactly what A & E did.

Would you stop Eve from eating of that tree if you were there?
Would you give up your moral sense?

You also seem to say that it is ok for God to have implemented original sin and going against scripture.

Is this scripture saying that God acted in a just way or not?
Show me your moral sense.

Ezekiel 18:20
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

-------------------------------

“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,”

Do not think. Read the words exactly as is. Then think.

Psalm 49:7
None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:

What makes you think God would accept a ransom for Jesus’ brothers. Us that is.

------------------------------

“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.”

Who is more likely to have the right interpretation for their scriptures?
The ones within the culture who wrote them, or the ones who embraced them for their own purposes when they usurped that cultures works?

The Jews did not read their works as literal or historic.
What makes you believe that the talking snake was real?
Have you built your theology with beliefs in fantasy, miracles and magic?

Regards
DL



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
Dear "Original Sinners,"

I use that term to identify those of you who accept the doctrine of Original Sin. The headline was "Why the bizarre doctrine of original sin is flawed." Of course, the OP hasn't proven his case, but that seems to be because we haven't even defined the doctrine of Original Sin to find out if its flawed or not.

Can we agree that the doctrine concerns an event that took place at the beginning of Man's history, in which Man intentionally and willingly disobeyed God after being tempted by Satan?


Is this the same Satan that God tells us is able to deceive the whole world?

If so, that shows that God knew beforehand that A & E would sin because they could not have what it took to resist one who God gave the power to deceive the whole world.

Therefore, God must be seen as setting up A & E to fall. He IOW wanted to have them eat of the tree of knowledge. Why else put the fox in the henhouse. So to speak.

Would any parent here do that to their child. Do any here need to punish their children so badly that they would do such immoral thing to their children?

As above, so below. No thanks, below has more morals than above.

Regards
DL



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join