Original Sin?

Adstar said:
: :eek: "they would give up their babies to Caleb to go into the city..."????????????? what are you talking about where did i say anything about them giving their childeren up to Caleb????????? Can anyone else explain to me what Southstar is talking about???

All Praise The Ancient of Days
Click to expand...

Well obviously you don't read your Bible verses before you post them on the forum. You even highlighted the word Caleb, wanna check? :rolleyes:
 
§outh§tar said:
http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/originalSin.htm

Take a look here 786
Click to expand...

Ok, this is getting confusing. And contadictive towards bible. When I finished reading your article. It claims, in the conclusion part, that "orginal sin" doctrine is not biblical.

This is the exact wording.

"The truth of the matter is, the doctrine of original sin is not Biblical."

So in other words "orginal sin" is not valid. Thus the bible is corrupt. Is this right SouthStar?
 
Well, check what they say with what the Bible says and also show me which parts contradicts before you accuse.
 
§outh§tar said:
Well, check what they say with what the Bible says and also show me which parts contradicts before you accuse.
Click to expand...

The concept of original sin is in the bible, meaning that it is biblical.

In the second paragraph of the "Conclusion." It states:

"The truth of the matter is, the doctrine of original sin is not Biblical."

They are saying that the doctrine of original sin is not Biblcial.
 
Well SHOW me where in the Bible.

EDIT: I think what they are talking about is different from what you are talking about. I thought I noticed a discrepancy but I couldn't quite place it at first.

The site says:
The doctrine of original sin – the notion that one is born into this world hereditarily totally depraved – is widely believed in the religious world.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica says:
in Christian doctrine, the condition or state of sin into which each human being is born; also, the origin (i.e., the cause, or source) of this state.

Enigma'07's definition was thereby incorrect.

Now you are misunderstanding the site. The site is NOT saying there is no such thing but investigating whether or not babies are born in sin and validating or dismissing the claim through analysis. Their conclusion must therefore must be viewed in scope unless evidence says otherwise.

Then again I may be misreading it but at least now you have the official definition..
 
Last edited:
SouthStar tell me if I am correct so far, in my understanding.

1. Only Adam is responsible for the original sin.
2. All mankind inherited this sin from our father Adam.
 
Yo Jenyar,

Nah, you are always quite clear to me. Methinks I choose not to hear you! :)

I suppose what I should ask is: Do you think the Christian God is comfortable with the myriad church offshoots. The thing is, yes, we have Catholic and we have Protestant. That in itself is division enough for if the Word were clear there would be no division. There are also the Mormons, Gnostics, JW`s, etc. Yes these are certainly "Christian" offshoots, just as surely as "Christianity" is an offshoot of Judaism. So if the Holy Spirit was really flowing through Christianity, regardless of human nature, assertiveness and lack of humility, the question still remains: "Is God cool with the state of the Christian nation?

And Jenyar, don’t doubt that as surely as you hear God, I hear also.

Allcare.
 
What do you mean? Last time I checked, there were many unjust laws, I guess I do feel guilty about that.
 
786 said:
SouthStar tell me if I am correct so far, in my understanding.

1. Only Adam is responsible for the original sin.
Click to expand...

NO.

2. All mankind inherited this sin from our father Adam.
Click to expand...

NO.

BOTH Adstar and Enigma'07 gave you unbiblical and incorrect information on the issue.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica says:
in Christian doctrine, the condition or state of sin into which each human being is born; also, the origin (i.e., the cause, or source) of this state.

That is a heretical doctrine of folly.
 
§outh§tar said:
NO.



NO.

BOTH Adstar and Enigma'07 gave you unbiblical and incorrect information on the issue.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica says:
in Christian doctrine, the condition or state of sin into which each human being is born; also, the origin (i.e., the cause, or source) of this state.

That is a heretical doctrine of folly.
Click to expand...

I'm really getting confused, you could probably tell why. Ok let me ask this.
Is there a original sin or not?
 
spidergoat said:
What do you mean? Last time I checked, there were many unjust laws, I guess I do feel guilty about that.
Click to expand...

What I meant to say is humans practice lawlessness.
 
786 said:
I'm really getting confused, you could probably tell why. Ok let me ask this.
Is there a original sin or not?
Click to expand...


The doctrine of original sin is incorrect. Your question is difficult because it's like saying "is there a constitution", instead of "is the constitution correct".
 
Okay, so if there isn't any mention of an "original sin" in the bible, then why are there so many references to man's sinfull nature? Like he has no choice but to be sinfull and he has to get these sinfull urges under control thru jesus? It sounds like either a sinfull nature was inherited from waaaay back (like eye colour for example) or that god made us sinfull right from the very beginning, and we just carry it on thru reproduction. Like it's part of the mold.


BTW...wasn't "original sin" the time when lucifer disobeyed god? That was the first recorded sin, no?
 
mario said:
Okay, so if there isn't any mention of an "original sin" in the bible, then why are there so many references to man's sinfull nature? Like he has no choice but to be sinfull and he has to get these sinfull urges under control thru jesus? It sounds like either a sinfull nature was inherited from waaaay back (like eye colour for example) or that god made us sinfull right from the very beginning, and we just carry it on thru reproduction. Like it's part of the mold.


BTW...wasn't "original sin" the time when lucifer disobeyed god? That was the first recorded sin, no?
Click to expand...

"Original Sin" is a Pauline Doctrine. It goes hand in hand with Paul's emphasis that Religion should dispense Forgiveness rather than demanding Righteousness. In certain preludes within his arguments paul paid lipservice to Righteousness, but in the conclusions and final Doctrines Paul come down on the side of saying that Sin is inescapable and that it is not a problem anyway since Christ died for our sins.

Christ, on the otherhand, demanded Perfection. You see, the disobedience of Adam and Eve brought on the Curse of God, and Humanity, who had been created as Pure Spirits was given the punishment of being cast down to earth to live out their lives in the bodies of Animals. It is the Job of Redemption for Humanity to discern that they are not really animals, but that they are indeed Spirit. In this context, every animal act perpetrated by a human being is a Sin. Spirits do not copulate, so copulation is a sin. Spirits do not eat either, and so eating is a sin. But sex is the more damaging sin since people tend to put more of their identy and personal energy into their sex lives then what they have for breakfast or lunch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top