Debunking Original Sin

reply to post by jmdewey60


Death doesn't just come to people, it comes to all living things. Is the flora and fauna also guilty of Adam and Eve's sin?

Paul clearly says that not all have sinned, and that before the law, or those who have no "law" are not guilty of sin.

Additionally, Paul took the Garden of Eden story literally, while many Christians today, including Catholics, don't. Churches are embracing evolution. Without the first 2 people sinning, there can be no first sin, no original sin.

There were other people living outside of Eden, if you take the story literally, that were not guilty of Adam and Eve's disobedience, and therefore, not guilty of original sin. Paul seems to address this in the scripture I cited.

It's a stretch to think that Paul taught the concept of original sin, especially when Jewish leaders never taught it and Jesus never taught it.

The concept of original sin was first alluded to in the 2nd century by Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons in his controversy (written in Greek) with certain dualist Gnostics. Its scriptural foundation is based on the New Testament teaching of Paul the Apostle (Romans 5:12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15:22), and Psalm 51:5.
en.wikipedia.org...

Original sin is a Catholic construct, who's doctrine wasn't even thought about until the 2nd century.

reply to post by Sahabi

There is no original sin! It is a falsely attributed teaching!

It very well may be that there are false teachings regarding original sin, but that does not take away from the fact that Paul teaches it in the New Testament.
See the verses posted above. (previous page, sorry)

reply to post by windword

Death doesn't just come to people, it comes to all living things. Is the flora and fauna also guilty of Adam and Eve's sin?

Paul says that all creation suffers because of sin.

Paul clearly says that not all have sinned, and that before the law, or those who have no "law" are not guilty of sin.

There is a bigger problem being discussed, which this is a part of, which is why Israel was punished for sin while people like the Romans seemed to prosper while being worse, in the eyes of the Jews of Paul's day.
So he was saying that God was just, even if he did not charge those things against them when they did not have the Law that the Jews had.
Paul was not saying that they did not sin, but they weren't held accountable for laws they didn't know about.
And he was talking about nations, and not individual people.

Without the first 2 people sinning, there can be no first sin, no original sin.

Regardless of what Catholics may think today, a lot of people were familiar with the story and Paul used the Old Testament stories to illustrate points. He would have believed in them in a general way that they were written to make a point, even if the writers didn't understand what points could be made from them hundreds of years later.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Is that retroactive? Did the dinosaurs die because of Adam and Eve's disobedience? What about the Cro-magnum man and Neanderthal man?

reply to post by windword

Is that retroactive? Did the dinosaurs die because of Adam and Eve's disobedience? What about the Cro-magnum man and Neanderthal man?

Your question presupposes a belief in evolution which I do not have.
I think that people were placed on this planet though maybe not exactly the way described in Genesis.

reply to post by jmdewey60

Your question presupposes a belief in evolution which I do not have. I think that people were placed on this planet though maybe not exactly the way described in Genesis.

That's right. It does. (See the OP) That's what this thread is about, the Christians who have accepted evolution theory and the fact that Adam and Eve didn't exist literally, but see the story as allegory, and yet still believe in original sin.

Personally, I never bought into original sin, in the first place.

Originally posted by micmerci

Originally posted by Prezbo369
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

More Stephen Meyer vids? really? did you not read my last reply?......

Do you have anything to say yourself? or do you think the argument for irreducible complexity, a take on the old watchmaker argument hasn't been encountered and debunked before?

Nothing creationists/I.D proponents present hasn't already been said many many many times before, and all they can do is repackage old arguments like Stephen Meyer has done in those vids in the hope of snaring folk like you.

Think for yourself, have an opinion and present it

Don't you think the same can be said for the Dennett/ Hitchens/Dawkins/Harris followers? Not having anything to say for themselves? The debunkingings that you speak of are far from exhaustive. There are plenty of scholarly "folk" that come down on both sides of the argument. Far from a closed case.

Dennett/ Hitchens/Dawkins/Harris and their 'followers' can only respond to creationists/I.D proponents/theists and their claims. You do realize that without creationists/I.D proponents/theists the people listed above would have nothing to say on the matter?

If the case isn't closed, maybe you can show me a scientific breakthrough from the creationists/I.D proponents in the past 150 years that's been peer reviewed and verified just as the theory of evolution by natural selection has.

If not, then I think it's safe to say the case is closed, that is unless the creationists/I.D proponents/theists can bring something new to the table...

reply to post by windword

. . . the Christians who have accepted evolution theory and the fact that Adam and Eve didn't exist literally . . .

I don't remember ever being told specifically not to believe in evolution by my parents or my church.
In fact, when I was very young, I was given books on dinosaurs by my mother and I would try to explain to people the evolution of them, without getting any sort of negative feedback.
Now that I am older and more sceptical, I can see how evolution is a hoax, and I am glad that I didn't invest any more into the theory than I did.
I think that God put the animals and people here, and some thrived and others did not do so well when the environment changed as it would be expected in any natural process.
I don't believe in "aliens" flying about the galaxy in spaceships, but that transdimensional beings, the gods, could (or can, still) create things, or cause the creation of things, on the spot.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Sahabi

 

There is no original sin! It is a falsely attributed teaching!

It very well may be that there are false teachings regarding original sin, but that does not take away from the fact that Paul teaches it in the New Testament.
See the verses posted above. (previous page, sorry)

edit on 9-8-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Hello my brother. May Peace be with you.

Because of specific doctrine, dogma, and teachings that Paul propagates which are in clear contradiction to Lord God of the Old Testament and Jesus of the Gospels,... I am under the opinion that Paul was a false prophet and corrupter of the teachings.

"Original Sin" is a Pauline teaching, not a teaching of Lord God or Jesus.