Original Sin?
- Thread starter 786
- Start date
Leo Volont
Registered Senior Member
§outh§tar said:
You must be kidding us, right? Although Eve came from Adam's Rib, you are now telling us that Eve is not in the Same Genealogical Line as Adam.
By the way, if Eve was generated out of Adams Rib, that would make them something akin to Twins, wouldn't it?
Leo Volont said:
That is not what I said. Please read the statement again. I said ONLY Adam is traced back to God. All other descendants are Adam's offspring, NOT God's in this sense of creator and creation.
Eve was not "generated" out of Adam's rib.
@SouthStar
Hey,
You said that the doctrine of "original sin" cannot be trusted. After reading many posts, I come to notice that a lot of people believe in "original sin". Who am I supposed to trust? You provided verses from the bible, but so did others, who claim the concept of "original sin", being in the bible. (Not the actual word "original sin" but the concept)
Hey,
You said that the doctrine of "original sin" cannot be trusted. After reading many posts, I come to notice that a lot of people believe in "original sin". Who am I supposed to trust? You provided verses from the bible, but so did others, who claim the concept of "original sin", being in the bible. (Not the actual word "original sin" but the concept)
This would still be incest, because this "assumption" would make eve his doughter. So Adam was screwing his daughter?
Let's quote the LIE book, I mean the bible.. G's!
And I quote Genesis:
2:21
And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
2:22
And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
2:23
And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
Yeap!! sounds like Leo was right. Whats the lunatics christian version Southstar?
Godless.
Godless said:
Well that is simply your prejudice speaking.
I invite you to look at "the book of the genealogy of Adam" in Genesis 5.
Eve is never mentioned. Now if your claim is at all valid, certainly Eve would be mentioned in the genealogy of Adam because the taking of his rib to form a woman is certainly of enough historical "merit" that it should be placed in his genealogy.
As even you should know, daughters are not formed out of a man's rib, but out of sperm.
Sin is unbelief. That's the original and only sin.
"Drinking is not a sin; committing adultery is not a sin; lying and stealing is not a sin."
You do those things because you do not believe.
If you believed, you wouldn't do them. It's the attributes of unbelief.
And righteousness is a attribute of faith, because your anchored in that faith.
"Drinking is not a sin; committing adultery is not a sin; lying and stealing is not a sin."
You do those things because you do not believe.
If you believed, you wouldn't do them. It's the attributes of unbelief.
And righteousness is a attribute of faith, because your anchored in that faith.
True, that would be using reason. But since when does the bible literature show any reason?.
In other words It's the bible baby, even snake speak here, hey!!!! anything can happen that sounds ludicrous and it's in the bible.
Man your internet connection is not only slow, but your showing the same signs of slowness. or Outright neglet. I posted the scriptures according to Paul, and I quote agan:
"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 (Rom. 5:12)."
It does not say directly "original sin" but only an idiot would fail to see were the concept derived from.
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive (1 Cor. 15:22).
(Also note Rom. 5:17-19).
Rom.5:17-19;
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.
If I'm not wrong, wich I'm not Romans is part of blibical literature. However your correct to call it a "notion" because that is what mainly biblical text is full of nonsense, contradictions, assumptions, rationalisations, and notions.
A bit more on the origins of original sin:
Original sin in The New Testament
The concept of original sin underwent development by Paul, in Romans and First Corinthians, in the New Testament. Paul placed special emphasis on this by stressing that belief in Jesus would allow Christians to overcome death, by earning salvation in the hereafter. The New Testament teaches that rejection of Jesus as the path to salvation must be viewed as willful disobedience, and a rebellion against God. This choice then compels a just God to enforce that person's separation from Him, causing such a person to be sentenced to Hell, or in Roman Catholicism, Purgatory. Only belief in Jesus, as a savior and son of God, could rescue a person from this fate.
Although the character Satan does not appear as such in the Biblical text, by the time that the New Testament was canonized, the serpent mentioned in Genesis became identified with Satan; this identification is so strong that many believers interpret the Biblical story as Eve being tempted by Satan.
Augustine's modern Western formulation of original sin
Under Augustine the common and modern-day Western understanding of Original sin was formulated; he taught that the taint of Adam's original sin was inherited by all people at birth, and that nothing a person does in their life can get rid of this taint. This doctrine took on special prominence in Catholic Christianity and in many Protestant Christian denominations.
In most branches of Christianity, the doctrine of Original sin states that all humans have inherited the guilt of sin from Adam and Eve; this state of sin exists in all people from the moment of their conception. According to this doctrine, all people are born sinners and die sinners; all people are 'lost' eternally, and are in need of Divine salvation. The only way people can be justified in God's eyes and reconciled with God is by humbly asking for forgiveness, believing that His son Jesus Christ, through his death and crucifixion, took on himself the due punishment for our sins and trespasses (atonement), and depending upon God's grace to perfect their faith in God by increasing their love for God, which fulfills obedience. The ultimate punishment for the original sin was expulsion from the presence of God and subjection to physical and spiritual death; the ultimate goal and blessing of reconciliation is the restoration of the original relationship man had with God; this includes eternal life. This idea of inherited guilt is not always followed with literal strictness. Various traditions in the West diverge from one another in terms of what, exactly, is meant by inherited guilt. Most agree that mankind after the fall has inherited the circumstances of ruin, misery, futility, and inability to repair his condition; but they may disagree concerning the sense, or the extent to which man's nature itself is "ruined". Some hold to a doctrine called total depravity; others are repulsed by this term and the doctrine associated with it. The debate also raises the question of whether Jesus Himself had Original Sin. Some theologists hold that Original Sin is passed to offspring through the father, making the son of God the Father free of Original Sin.
Christians have different views on the way to receive salvation from original sin. On one end of the spectrum are those such as Calvinists who believe that each particular person who puts faith in Christ is predestined from the foundation of the world to live in the light of God's love, but those who do not trust in Christ will remain in darkness and the guilt of sin. On the other end are those such as universalists that believe that every person ever born will ultimately be justified, restored and saved. Between those two poles are those that emphasize man's ability to choose life with God or separation from God; people remain dependent on God's grace and mercy, but also have a part to play in achieving their own salvation.
Original Sin as understood by Orthodox Christianity
Augustine wrote in Latin in the fourth century, but his writings were not translated into Greek until the fourteenth century. Consequently, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Christianity never held that guilt is inherited, and began repudiating this idea once they learned of it. They teach that we inherit a corrupted or damaged human nature in which the tendency to do bad is greater, but that each person is only guilty of their own sins. By participating in the life of the church, each person's human nature is healed and it becomes easier to do good; at the same time, the Christian becomes more acutely aware of his or her shortcomings. Eastern Orthodox theologians believe that Adam and Eve began to choose separation from God when they chose independence and took fruit for themselves, rather than allow God to continue to feed them and remain dependent on Him. The expulsion from the Garden was not a legal consequence, but to prevent them from eating of the Tree of Life and immortalizing their sin. As Christians partake of the Eucharist and eat and drink the Body and Blood of Christ, they return to dependence on God and experience a gradual healing of the relationship between God and humanity. The ultimate goal is theosis or divinization, an even closer union with God and closer likeness to God than existed in the Garden of Eden.
Ref.
right here
Godless.
Last edited:
"Drinking is not a sin; committing adultery is not a sin; lying and stealing is not a sin. You do those things because you do not believe.
If you believed, you wouldn't do them. It's the attributes of unbelief.
Leo Volont
Registered Senior Member
Godless said:
That is quite nice! Really! I speak so seldom about the Holy Eucharist. A nice passage like that makes me feel guilty that I don't bring up the subject more often.
Yes, that Nasty Braggart Augustine had a terrible influence on the Church, but he was doing nothing except reducing Paul's Arguments to their Absurd Conclusions. But Scripture was on his side and so church scholars were intimidated into silence and then acquiescence.
You do not have to rely on Augustine to see that Paul had already defined Christians as Sinners. The Protestants never bothered reading Augustine, and they came to the same conclusions after evaluation just how Paul could work for them. Isn't it a Wonderful Religion that Defines its Members by their Sinfulness. It takes off all the Pressure which Religion ordinarily demands. If you are Religiously Defined by Sinfulness, then you can neglect ever becoming Righteous.
Certainly this is not what Christ taught.
The First Prophecy of Simeon was that Christ would be Contradicted. When reading Scripture we must consider that it may be the Very Thing which the Prophecy to -- that it is the Scripture Itself to which Simeon referred. We had the Life of Christ and His Genuine Teaching. And then we have The Scripture which is the Contradiction. All quite Prophetic.
Leo my working partner from the theist side, to bring light of the falsehood of christianity.
None the less. If it serves the greater good, i.e. educate, and open a few eyes, it serves us both well.
In reality if we were to speak about this outside of this forum though "we would be considered a couple of nuts" LOL
Godless.
Leo Volont
Registered Senior Member
Godless said:In reality if we were to speak about this outside of this forum though "we would be considered a couple of nuts" LOL
Godless.
They are rather correct when they warn People not to discuss Politics or Religion at Social Gatherings. It was rather nice of them to finally invent the Web so that we could be Dreadful Bores to our heart's content.
Godless said:True, that would be using reason. But since when does the bible literature show any reason?.
In other words It's the bible baby, even snake speak here, hey!!!! anything can happen that sounds ludicrous and it's in the bible.
Despite all of your cutting remarks, you still know that the Bible recognizes the role of sperm in producing offspring, hence the laws against all that stuff..
Well it just so happens that you are poorly interpreting the text. Why don't you take a look at what the very same book says:
Romans 14
12So then each of us shall give account of himself to God.
Obviously, that means that Adam is not giving account of us or vice versa, which is what your erroneous claim implies. It is a mistake made by many critics, to extract the text and take it out of context so that it suits their argument, even when a very verse in the same book disagrees with such an interpretation. The verse CLEARLY says every person is responsible for his own conduct, and in NO way is Adam referenced as culprit.
Ezekiel 18
20The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.
These are the words of God Himself. Yet another verse that discredits the doctrine of original sin. The verse CLEARLY makes the distinction between "passed down sin" and taking account for one's own conduct.
What more, if this was the case, then Jesus would be born a sinner since he was born through a woman. Even if he didn't have a human father, he still had a mother and would therefore be "partially" sinful. Obviously, this is NOT the case, He was completely holy. Even to further discredit your argument is the fact that Jesus exhorted His disciples to be like the little children. Surely, if your argument were at all valid, why would Jesus tell His twelve to be like sinners?
In contrast of all this Biblical evidence showing that the doctrine of original sin is utterly fallacious and unworthy of consideration, your argument holds no ground.
§outh§tar said:
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"
This verse claims that the sin was passed on. In my opinion this contradicts the verse you provided.
My point precisely!! However southstar is not adamant at figuring out of or admiting of the contradictions that are found throughout the whole manuscript of the bible, THIS IS WHY IT'S AN UNREALIABLE SOURCE OF KNOWLEDGE.
Thus this is why within Judaism there exists several denominations, all interpreting this book to fit their whims and perceptions.
Godless.
786 said:
@ Godless and 786
If I presented that many verses to discredit the doctrine of original sin, and you can only show me one verse (which even happens to be in the same book of Romans), you must understand that you are taking the verse out of context.
To read the verse properly, it is only logical that you place it in the proper context.
The chapter from which you took the verse speaks of the reconciliation of man to God through the death of His Son. (Romans 5:10). Now the verse in question, verse 12, is only saying that in contrast to the separation of God through man's sin, we are joined to Him again through God.
Simply meaning, it is not God who sinned to separate us from Himself, but man who sinned to separated himself from God.
At both of you, it is a verse that many tout as a contradiction
, until you find out that it really is the only verse they can provide in their favor, and even then, only by taking it out of context.