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.
Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by NOTurTypical
NuT,
Wow that really sucks. Now instead of being responsible for my sins in this life, I have numerous other lives full of sin to account for on judgment day.
my friend...
I hope in the new year you find a way to STOP WORRYING and beating yourself up.
As for "original sin" - ludicrous for it to be passed on from the mythical Adam and Eve....
babies are born innocent - perhaps having returned after a former life but with only limited memory of it -
I believe neither in "original sin" nor in Jesus "sin-sacrificing" for us. We are human; sometimes better, sometimes worse, but we are all loved and we belong to the same "Oneness."
Hug to you, man.
Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
Christianity teaches the idea that the "original sin" perpetrated by Adam and Eve in the garden, was inherited by mankind.
Yet, Christianity also teaches that Jesus'executioncrucifixion removed the worlds sins. Which means babies born after the crucifixion are innocent.
Keeping this in mind, is it theologically sound to teach that babies are still born in "sin" today.... when considering Jesus supposedly died to remove all sin?
I'm not saying the baby would grow up to be sinless (that depends on what he/she does in life)... but can the doctrine of "original sin" exist alongside that of "sin sacrifice"?
Discuss.
edit on 31-12-2012 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)
Who's "schedule"? The Mayans?
Biblically speaking, there needs to be A LOT transpire first before that day.
And how does adding sin on top of more sin make up for sin when heaven is for the righteous?
Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
Christianity teaches the idea that the "original sin" perpetrated by Adam and Eve in the garden, was inherited by mankind.
Yet, Christianity also teaches that Jesus'executioncrucifixion removed the worlds sins. Which means babies born after the crucifixion are innocent.
Keeping this in mind, is it theologically sound to teach that babies are still born in "sin" today.... when considering Jesus supposedly died to remove all sin?
I'm not saying the baby would grow up to be sinless (that depends on what he/she does in life)... but can the doctrine of "original sin" exist alongside that of "sin sacrifice"?
Discuss.
edit on 31-12-2012 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)
Calling things good and evil is judgement. Good and evil are subjective determinations. What's evil to you may not be evil to the black widow spider. Your judgements shade your perception of the judged object as the judgement, which is a subjective interpretation, which ultimately is an opinion and not absolute. Good and evil are valid for individualized perception, but not for the absolute. Not for ultimate truth.
Jesus taught unconditional love. This means love for good things and bad things. There may be good things and bad things according to your subjective interpretation, but they are both to be held in the same regard– loved. That is the lesson he intended to convey.
Everything is as it should be because it was made this way by God, the one creator. When you see this, then unconditional love is then only possible attitude you can have. When you accept the world as it is, then your true nature is revealed. And that is all you need.
Maybe Jesus did. "God" didn't. He's got the biggest kill record in the Christian history of mankind. No matter which way you look at it, he made those people knowing he was going to kill them in the end. And he still didn't change his design. It was like a controlled demolition, planned from the first day of construction.
Seriously? If you want to be able to hold a conversation with bible scholars you at least need to read the material