Jesus Christ and Original Sin

[Evandr]

you make it seem as though your god just can't leave it at that.

you also make it seem as though a persons integrity isn't worth crap.
and we are incapable of feeling remorse
and you also make it seem as though we can't learn from our mistakes as though experience is not necessary for knowledge
when in fact it it the best teacher.
you make it seem as though one should be afraid to make mistakes.

life isn't one dimensional...

I'm sorry, your comments are totally detached from the quote cited, they are totally unrelated so explain yourself further to make the connection.

 

[waitasec]

I'm sorry, your comments are totally detached from the quote cited, they are totally unrelated so explain yourself further to make the connection.

sure everything i highlighted in red...

It is a fact that the immutable principles of justice will be meted for mercy cannot rob justice otherwise order and growth would quickly turn to chaos and decay; cause always has consequence and it has to be the same for everyone.


We all know and understand that God has all power and knowledge and can do anything He wants to do, BUT, that does not mean that there are some things He will not do because of the consequences thereof, example: he will not cease to be God. If it were as simple as wielding power and creating everything without free will then why not just create a whole slew of harp playing angles and call it good?


There has to be a plan playing out of a necessity and that means requirements, conditions, and responsibilities, even those that God himself will not unjustly circumvent. He did manage to circumvent the demands of Justice with regard to sin by providing a savior, a perfect man that paid the dues of justice (don't ask how it was done because we cannot comprehend that) therefore tilting the odds in His favor because now justice demands that things be balanced again and therefore Jehovah was able to create a path around sin but we must keep his commandments or we must meet the demands of justice ourselves and that is something that a sinner cannot do.


Now keep in mind that there are several things happening at the same time and they all must work together; mortal probation is one and accomplishing the atonement is another and there are more but you get the idea. It seems unfortunate that people, when considering the requirements of one goal fail to consider that sometimes a path that seems simple enough to the goal, and therefore unnecessarily varied, is exactly as it needs to be because all things have to work together for the whole plan to come to a successful fruition in one eternal round where we can, as heirs to a living God, become like him and start the whole thing over again for our own eternal families. That is how God, who already has everything, can have eternal increase - The family. But keep in mind that the power of God is not something that he will hand out to unworthy children who will abuse it to their own destruction and that of others; so here we are working our way toward the ultimate goal in a plan that must be as it is or everything would come to a screeching halt and all ordered creation would cease to exist.

i just didn't want to repost such tripe...but since you need clarification...
there it is.

 

[Evandr]

I disagree, the majority of Christians are Catholic, and the doctrine of Original Sin as I described is official Church teaching. A majority of American Christians might disagree with us, but not the same thing

Not so historically. The Catholic Church is famous for flip-flopping on issues that begin to make it look bad in an ever changing environment of intelligent followers and turn them away; this is just such an issue. It is true that the current stance of the catholic church attempts to reconcile "original Sin" (partaking of the apple was not a sin in the first place, it was a choice with well understood consequences attached, no faith necessary), with justice and the perfect love of God, a reconciliation that cannot be made without pointing to mysticism and incomprehensible rhetoric. It was not that long ago that the clergy of some diocese will tell members of congregations that an infant will burn in hell if the parents faile to get them baptized for the remission of their supposed sin before they die.

 

[Evandr]

sure everything i highlighted in red...


i just didn't want to repost such tripe...but since you need clarification...
there it is.

You still have not done anything but hurl an insult, I ask again, explain yourself and your position, you not making any sense.

 

[waitasec]

You still have not done anything but hurl an insult, I ask again, explain yourself and your position, you not making any sense.

read my post again, if you don't get it then cest la vie

 

[Blackdog22]

You still have not done anything but hurl an insult, I ask again, explain yourself and your position, you not making any sense.

He is making perfect sense, your just too occupied with your bias to see anything beyond what you want to believe.

Then again everything you say makes no sense to me and that may have to do with my bias in regards to religion in general.

So I guess an argument where no one can even understand the other position because it is so far from what the other thinks a discussion won't be too fruitful with that individual.

 

[Chase200mph]

Jesus Christ was born into the world and clothed in flesh and blood able to feel pain, hunger, joy and heartache...etc. Now, how can one reconcile original sin with a sinless man unless you claim that sexual activity makes the person sinful under the concept of original sin in which case the commandment to be fruitful and replenish the earth is a commandment to commit sin or at very least a commandment to create something sinful.

The whole idea falls in on itself because it is evident that flesh and blood do not have to be the source of sin and thusly judgment. In the grand scheme of things Jesus Christ as a mortal man was akin to Adam and Eve through His mortal mother and thusly one of two conditions exist under the concept of original sin; either Jesus Christ was born into some degree of sin making Him less than perfect, or God is a biased person who pardoned Jesus at the womb; this is not justice because at the point of birth Christ had done nothing in mortality save to act like a baby arms and legs a flying like any other newborn infant. Original sin has some gaping deficiencies leaving any religion who promotes it with the same deficiencies.

Answer: Good Point, original sin is a creation of the Christian mind and is NOT a part of the story or supposed testimony of Genesis. Nowhere in the O/T does original sin come into play…it is an abstract given to the O/T by the Christian bible by its creators….

p.s. the original sin was gods’ sin knowing he made Adam to fail, OR god is flawed and didn’t know.
:slap:

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Jesus Christ was born into the world and clothed in flesh and blood able to feel pain, hunger, joy and heartache...etc. Now, how can one reconcile original sin with a sinless man unless you claim that sexual activity makes the person sinful under the concept of original sin in which case the commandment to be fruitful and replenish the earth is a commandment to commit sin or at very least a commandment to create something sinful.

The whole idea falls in on itself because it is evident that flesh and blood do not have to be the source of sin and thusly judgment. In the grand scheme of things Jesus Christ as a mortal man was akin to Adam and Eve through His mortal mother and thusly one of two conditions exist under the concept of original sin; either Jesus Christ was born into some degree of sin making Him less than perfect, or God is a biased person who pardoned Jesus at the womb; this is not justice because at the point of birth Christ had done nothing in mortality save to act like a baby arms and legs a flying like any other newborn infant. Original sin has some gaping deficiencies leaving any religion who promotes it with the same deficiencies.

Or perhaps, the nature of sinful flesh is passed on through the father and as such Jesus did not inherit Adams flesh. Or it could get into the realm of the peccability vs. the impeccability of Christ where He either could have or was incapable of commiting sin.

Anyway I think it's the concept and definition of original sin and how it relates to Adams descendants that is the source of the confusion.

 

[Quiddity]

Hard to take serious...

 

[Chase200mph]

Or perhaps, the nature of sinful flesh is passed on through the father and as such Jesus did not inherit Adams flesh. Or it could get into the realm of the peccability vs. the impeccability of Christ where He either could have or was incapable of commiting sin.

Anyway I think it's the concept and definition of original sin and how it relates to Adams descendants that is the source of the confusion.

Or perhaps, the nature of sinful flesh is passed on through the father and as such Jesus did not inherit Adams flesh. Or it could get into the realm of the peccability vs. the impeccability of Christ where He either could have or was incapable of commiting sin.

Answer: So god raping a young girl is without sin. Putting her in danger of being stoned as the LAW demanded….placing another note of sin in Josephs court by forcing him disobey the law is another sin, Jesus and god telling everyone to obey the law of the land, Jesus and god telling him to obey all 633 Jewish laws equate another sin…..god sinned against this land, these people and the Law…gods law. Pretty trick deal from the never changing god who changed a lot.

Anyway I think it's the concept and definition of original sin and how it relates to Adams descendants that is the source of the confusion.

Answer: The confusion is in it Christian creation, the Jewish teaching of the Zohar claimed it never happened in the first place…

 

[JacobEzra.]

Not so historically. The Catholic Church is famous for flip-flopping on issues that begin to make it look bad in an ever changing environment of intelligent followers and turn them away; this is just such an issue. It is true that the current stance of the catholic church attempts to reconcile "original Sin" (partaking of the apple was not a sin in the first place, it was a choice with well understood consequences attached, no faith necessary), with justice and the perfect love of God, a reconciliation that cannot be made without pointing to mysticism and incomprehensible rhetoric.

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man".293 By this "unity of the human race" all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated in Christ's justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.
405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.



^^ Thats what the Church teaches. It was still a sin, but a sin that effected the human nature.

It was not that long ago that the clergy of some diocese will tell members of congregations that an infant will burn in hell if the parents faile to get them baptized for the remission of their supposed sin before they die.

No, they were told the baby would spend eternity in Limbo. And Limbo was taught to be temporary and happy.

 

[JacobEzra.]

Jesus Christ was born into the world and clothed in flesh and blood able to feel pain, hunger, joy and heartache...etc. Now, how can one reconcile original sin with a sinless man unless you claim that sexual activity makes the person sinful under the concept of original sin in which case the commandment to be fruitful and replenish the earth is a commandment to commit sin or at very least a commandment to create something sinful.

The whole idea falls in on itself because it is evident that flesh and blood do not have to be the source of sin and thusly judgment. In the grand scheme of things Jesus Christ as a mortal man was akin to Adam and Eve through His mortal mother and thusly one of two conditions exist under the concept of original sin; either Jesus Christ was born into some degree of sin making Him less than perfect, or God is a biased person who pardoned Jesus at the womb; this is not justice because at the point of birth Christ had done nothing in mortality save to act like a baby arms and legs a flying like any other newborn infant. Original sin has some gaping deficiencies leaving any religion who promotes it with the same deficiencies.

I don't get your logic. Maybe you just fail to understand the doctrine?

 

[cablescavenger]

Jesus Christ was born into the world and clothed in flesh and blood able to feel pain, hunger, joy and heartache...etc. Now, how can one reconcile original sin with a sinless man unless you claim that sexual activity makes the person sinful under the concept of original sin in which case the commandment to be fruitful and replenish the earth is a commandment to commit sin or at very least a commandment to create something sinful.

The whole idea falls in on itself because it is evident that flesh and blood do not have to be the source of sin and thusly judgment. In the grand scheme of things Jesus Christ as a mortal man was akin to Adam and Eve through His mortal mother and thusly one of two conditions exist under the concept of original sin; either Jesus Christ was born into some degree of sin making Him less than perfect, or God is a biased person who pardoned Jesus at the womb; this is not justice because at the point of birth Christ had done nothing in mortality save to act like a baby arms and legs a flying like any other newborn infant. Original sin has some gaping deficiencies leaving any religion who promotes it with the same deficiencies.

I think this can be explained by the Python of Monty.
He is not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy!

 

[Mister Emu]

It was not that long ago that the clergy of some diocese will tell members of congregations that an infant will burn in hell if the parents faile to get them baptized for the remission of their supposed sin before they die.

Possibly, but that was no more official Church teaching than limbo. I.e. not at all.