1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

CHRISTIANITY - The "original sin" concept does NOT make sense

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by DrM, Oct 5, 2004.

  1. DrM

    DrM Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    111
    Ratings:
    +16
    The "original sin" concept does NOT make sense and this is why.

    It is a physical impossibility to be born a sinner because of the nature of sin. Sin is not a substance. It has no physical properties and cannot possibly be passed on physically from one person to another. What is sin?

    The Bible says, "Sin is the transgression of the law." I John 3:4. So, according to the Bible, sin is an act or a choice that transgresses the law of God. It cannot, therefore, be a substance because choice and substance are contradictories. Is a wicked act a substance? Is disobedience, transgressions, lawbreaking, or unrighteousness a substance? Is guilt a substance? No, they are all moral concepts or moral qualities. And it is impossible for them to be transmitted physically. When we speak of sin, we are describing the character of an act. The word sin describes the character of an act as being wicked or wrong.

    Sin is no more a substance than friendliness, goodness, or virtue are substances. If sin is a substance that can be transmitted physically, then virtue also must be a substance that can be transmitted physically. And what would be the result if all this were true? Why, sinners would beget sinners, and saints, of course, would beget saints!

    Sin is not a substance, and we all know that sin is not a substance. Yet learned theologians still maintain the impossible dogma that sin, like some malignant disease, has been passed on physically from Adam to all his descendants. How ridiculous it is to make sin a physical virus, instead of a voluntary and responsible choice. How foolish to speak of men being born sinners! Only in some fantastic science fiction novel might moral character be spoken of as being passed on physically in the bloodstream of man. Moral character, whether holiness or sinfulness, cannot be passed on physically. It is gross superstition to believe that it can be.

    The nature of sin, the nature of justice, and the nature of God are such that it is impossible for men to be born sinners. First, sin is voluntary. Is it a sin to be born with blue eyes, black hair, a small nose, or large ears? Is it a sin to be born short or tall? Is it a sin to be born at all? No, because we have no choice in the matter of our birth. Our birth, and everything we are and have at birth, is ours completely involuntarily. Second, sin is not a substance. It has absolutely no material or physical properties. Sin is an act, and so it is impossible for it to be passed on physically. Third, sin is a responsible choice. Newborn babies are not responsible. They do not know the difference between right and wrong, and so cannot be responsible. A child has no moral character at birth. Moral character can only belong to a child when he has come to know the difference between right and wrong. A child must first reach the "age of accountability" before he can sin. Isaiah 7:16, Deut. 1:39. Fourth, sin is personal and non-transferable. No man can sin for, or be made guilty for, the sin of another man. Moral character, guilt, and accountability are non-transferable. Ez. 18:20, Deut. 24:16.

    God's justice makes it morally impossible for men to be born sinners. Is it possible that the infinitely just God could cause men to be born sinners and condemn them to hell for the sin of Adam? Can the perfect justice of God permit him to impute guilt to the innocent or punish the innocent for the guilt of another? Is it really possible that innocent little babies open their eyes in this world under the wrath of God and that they are condemned to the torments of hell for the sin of Adam? Our whole reason revolts at such an idea. Yet this is the incredible dogma that is taught as orthodoxy in Christian churches today!

    This doctrine represents God as the most cruel and unreasonable being in the universe. It represents him as condemning and sending men to hell for a nature which they received without their knowledge or consent, and with which he created them. According to this doctrine, millions of heathen have been born into this world with a sinful nature and have lived without ever hearing the Gospel; they have sinned necessarily because of the nature with which they were born, and then they have died and gone down into hell without a chance to be saved. What a blasphemous slander this doctrine is upon the character and justice of God!
     
  2. Mister Emu

    Mister Emu Emu Extraordinaire
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,562
    Ratings:
    +1,319
    Religion:
    Christian
    Original sin to me is not that we are born into sin, it is that we are born with the knowledge of good and evil(and that we will all sin), thus we are born with the propensity for sin.
     
  3. Scott1

    Scott1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,303
    Ratings:
    +952
    Nice post Mr Emu!

    Isn't it sad to see someone who "rejected" Christianity who never really understood such a basic principle?

    Oh well, none of us are perfect. Thanks for the post.

    Scott
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. thomasedison

    thomasedison Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2004
    Messages:
    89
    Ratings:
    +3
    Just because we know good and evil does not mean we will all sin. If we are born with a propensity for sin, then we are born with a propensity for doing good.
     
  5. Mister Emu

    Mister Emu Emu Extraordinaire
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,562
    Ratings:
    +1,319
    Religion:
    Christian
    You are right that just because we know good and evil does not mean that we won't sin, regardless we will all sin.
     
  6. Ronald

    Ronald Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,392
    Ratings:
    +51
    This fellow has left his faith in favor of chokmah/knowlege/gnosis and now expects man to convince him the Tanach/Bible/Word of God is the Truth! Denial of the Ruach Haquodesh/Holy Spirit the teacher of all Truth in leiu man's knowlege. Go figure!
     
  7. Linus

    Linus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    1,211
    Ratings:
    +132
    How a can babies be sinful? Babies don't know anything. They don't know right or wrong, they don't know good or evil. Babies are fearless because they do not know what to fear. Until they learn all those things they cannot be sinuful.
     
  8. Jayhawker Soule

    Jayhawker Soule <yawn> ignore </yawn>
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    39,562
    Ratings:
    +13,470
    Religion:
    Judaism
    Compare to ...

    The obvious question becomes: "Is plagiarism a sin?"
     
  9. DrM

    DrM Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    111
    Ratings:
    +16
    Yes, that would be sad. However, in this case it isn't true!
     
  10. DrM

    DrM Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    111
    Ratings:
    +16
    Quite the contrary. I left Christianity because of the ability to reason.
     
  11. DrM

    DrM Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    111
    Ratings:
    +16
    Gee, let's hope not. That's what being "new" will cause. The logic is the same.
     
  12. Ronald

    Ronald Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,392
    Ratings:
    +51
    THAT"S WHAT I SAID! Thank you very much.
     
  13. Jayhawker Soule

    Jayhawker Soule <yawn> ignore </yawn>
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    39,562
    Ratings:
    +13,470
    Religion:
    Judaism
    I'm sorry, DrM, but I haven't a clue you're saying here. The bottom line is this: you apparently took a rather large block of text and pawned it off as your own. It's hard to see how "being 'new'" might justify what elsewhere would be viewed as a serious ethical breach.
     
Loading...