Original sin and inherited guilt

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings!

Romans has a verse in it that says "For ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God."

Nope. Falling short or sinning has nothing whatever to do with inheritance of sin!

So I stand by my statement: there is no such thing as "original sin" because as the Bible says, sin is not inherited!

(BTW, I find it somewhat strange that you didn't argue the Harper Bible Dictionary's point about inherited sin's nonexistence....)

Regards and peace,

Bruce

 

[Quiddity]

Original Sin is a Catholic Doctrine, That if babies die and they are not baptized they go to Limbo forever seperated from God never able to obtain heaven...I dont beleive this though, the Bible never states this.

Though it matters how u look at it. Adam has passed his curse on to every human being, do we account for our sin when we have no knowledge of what sin is, or do we account for it when we have knowledge of it.....That is what i Beleive, When you know you are doing wrong and still do it, that is accountable.

*Sigh*
This is complete non-sense. But I'm glad you're here. Perhaps you can learn something. Read post#10.

~Victor

 

[Quiddity]

Actually, that doesn't strike me as terribly different from my own belief.

Good to hear.

 

[Quiddity]

Good for him! I agree with what he said.

I stand by my what I posted!: there is no such thing as inherited sin, as the Bible states and I demonstrated.

You will forgive me, I trust, if I rely on what the Bible asserts rather than your opinion....

Peace,

Bruce

I'm thinking you didn't bother to read, so I won't entertain your willingness to remain ignorant about what we believe. Next time don't start this on the debate section.

 

[Quiddity]

Hmm, I'd say there's another question of justice here. Before I try and construct too much of an argument on this, perhaps you could tell me, do you think that inclination to sin in any way affects the punishment for that sin? Does our inclination to sin get taken into account when we are judged?

You mean will He cut us some slack?
Let's see, I'm thinking of how to answer this without writing a long essay.
Ok I got it....NO, He will not.
Why? Because there is a way to fix it. Refusing to fix our nature will certainly not be good. That's a whole other thread.

 

[Æsahættr]

You mean will He cut us some slack?
Let's see, I'm thinking of how to answer this without writing a long essay.
Ok I got it....NO, He will not.
Why? Because there is a way to fix it. Refusing to fix our nature will certainly not be good. That's a whole other thread.

So, is everyone equally naturally inclined to do evil? Are the differences in each of us purely a matter of choice? Does God reward effort is what I'm trying to get at I suppose. If two people both put in as much effort trying to lead good lives, but one finds it harder, does God take that into account or are they treated on purely equal terms?

 

[Quiddity]

So, is everyone equally naturally inclined to do evil?

Yup.

Are the differences in each of us purely a matter of choice?

Yes. We tend to condition ourselves and attach ourselves to all sorts of things that we can't seem to stop doing.

Does God reward effort is what I'm trying to get at I suppose.

Yes. I'm not one to say that an atheist is bound to go to hell.

If two people both put in as much effort trying to lead good lives, but one finds it harder, does God take that into account or are they treated on purely equal terms?

If they are both in Grace (anybody without Grace will not enter heaven) they are treated equally and will both have to continue to cleanse their attachments and nature.

Hope that helps.

~Victor

 

[Æsahættr]

If they are both in Grace (anybody without Grace will not enter heaven) they are treated equally and will both have to continue to cleanse their attachments and nature.

I'd like to debate the issue of being everyone being naturally inclined to evil, but first, I just want to fully understand the entire of your post. I do have some knowledge of the idea of grace in catholicism, but seeing as I think I got original sin not quite correct, I'll let you inform me before I jump to any conclusions. Could you possibly clearly define what it means to be in grace for me?

 

[Quiddity]

I'd like to debate the issue of being everyone being naturally inclined to evil, but first, I just want to fully understand the entire of your post. I do have some knowledge of the idea of grace in catholicism, but seeing as I think I got original sin not quite correct, I'll let you inform me before I jump to any conclusions. Could you possibly clearly define what it means to be in grace for me?

It means being in friendship (also known as being in the family of God, In the Body of Christ) with God. As catholics we maintain that by our daily decisions and by the sacraments. This is the normative means by which one remains in Grace. Outside of that, I have no idea how God has others (such as atheist, agnostics, or another religion, etc.) in Grace. I just know it's possible. It could be their striving to do right and looking to grow by searching, I don't know.

That clear enough?

 

[Æsahættr]

It means being in friendship (also known as being in the family of God, In the Body of Christ) with God. As catholics we maintain that by our daily decisions and by the sacraments. This is the normative means by which one remains in Grace. Outside of that, I have no idea how God has others (such as atheist, agnostics, or another religion, etc.) in Grace. I just know it's possible. It could be their striving to do right and looking to grow by searching, I don't know.

That clear enough?

That's very clear thanks.

Anyway, the point of being inclined to sin...You say that a person's inclination to sin is not taken into account when they are judged because everyone is equally inclined to sin? So, if someone who has a mental disease kills someone, then they are held just as responsible as anyone else who kills someone? Are you claiming that the ability to judge right and wrong is completly seperate from all physical parts of the brain, that it is in-built into every human being?

 

[Quiddity]

So, if someone who has a mental disease kills someone, then they are held just as responsible as anyone else who kills someone?

It wasn't their inclination to sin or their corrupt nature, but rather the mental disease that was the source. This will certainly be taken into account.

Are you claiming that the ability to judge right and wrong is completly seperate from all physical parts of the brain, that it is in-built into every human being?

A mentally sick person (depending on which disease) does not have the ability to distinguish right from wrong. So long as the physical parts that allow your free will to function properly are working, you are held as equal and held accountable.

 

[BruceDLimber]

I'm thinking you didn't bother to read, so I won't entertain your willingness to remain ignorant about what we believe. Next time don't start this on the debate section.

You couldn't be more wrong about what I did or didn't read.

And as has been said, I am not here to please thee with my answers.

Nor, please note, did I start this thread, little as you seem to realize this....

 

[Quiddity]

You couldn't be more wrong about what I did or didn't read.

And as has been said, I am not here to please thee with my answers.

Nor, please note, did I start this thread, little as you seem to realize this....

I stand corrected.

 

[Jerrell]

Id like to say this. You people are some nice people. Smart and Influential. Now Since i know I am not supposed to Convert...lol...I only ask that you treat people good. Atleast be a good person if you are not going to be a Christian.

 

[fromthe heart]

Greetings!



Nope. Falling short or sinning has nothing whatever to do with inheritance of sin!

So I stand by my statement: there is no such thing as "original sin" because as the Bible says, sin is not inherited!

(BTW, I find it somewhat strange that you didn't argue the Harper Bible Dictionary's point about inherited sin's nonexistence....)

Regards and peace,

Bruce

Perhaps I don't understand what you mean as inherited sin...when Adam failed in being obediant to God it changed the outlook for all mankind...you see Adam and Eve didn't even realize they were naked until they sinned...then their eyes were opened to right and wrong...they then realized they were naked and felt ashamed...it was as if they wore their sin at that point and tried to hide from God because of that sin...I feel because of the original sin we are all born into sin and even as a wee babe when told no they tend to test their limits of obediance...they may not be old enough to understand the concept of sin but begin the process of learning right from wrong and still will choose to do wrong....the sin factor is there. we wont be responsible for Adams personal sin but for our own but still we WILL sin despite ourselves...it IS born in us...we are mortal beings and it's part of our nature because of Adam and Eve committing that first sin. Personally I think God knew they would sin as we know that not one week will go by without one sin in our life. Sin is the reality...Jesus Christ is our saviour...HE and HE alone made it possible to be with God despite sin from ourselves.

Respectfully,
FTH:flower2:

 

[Æsahættr]

A mentally sick person (depending on which disease) does not have the ability to distinguish right from wrong. So long as the physical parts that allow your free will to function properly are working, you are held as equal and held accountable.

But surely it's not an either or thing? The ability to judge right and wrong is not something that is either totally present or totally absent. For example, someone who is highly autisic lacks empathy. For them surely, the ability to judge right and wrong is not quite as acute as a highly empathic person, because they are less able to imagine that their actions might hurt someone. I do not know the name of the condition, but there is another mild condition that can affect the ability to recognise the likely effect of an action, it affects the ability to make predictions. That also obviously means that they are less likely to realise that a bad outcome may happen from their actions. But neither of these things leave people with no ability to judge right from wrong. It's a quesion of scale. Anyone can have better empathy and better prediction ability than someone else, so their ability to judge right from wrong is better to a certain degree, and therefore, if you believe in free will, they are more responsible for their actions.

Id like to say this. You people are some nice people. Smart and Influential. Now Since i know I am not supposed to Convert...lol...I only ask that you treat people good. Atleast be a good person if you are not going to be a Christian.

Where did that come from? If that is addressing all of us non-believers, then thank you for saying that we are nice people, and thank you for recogising that we can still be good people. I'm sure we are already all trying to be good people. Seriously though, what promted that?

the sin factor is there. we wont be responsible for Adams personal sin but for our own but still we WILL sin despite ourselves...it IS born in us...we are mortal beings and it's part of our nature because of Adam and Eve committing that first sin. Personally I think God knew they would sin as we know that not one week will go by without one sin in our life. Sin is the reality...Jesus Christ is our saviour...HE and HE alone made it possible to be with God despite sin from ourselves.

If God knows that we are going to sin, then why do we need to accept Jesus Christ in order to be forgiven? Why would God not accept any other way in which we could show that we have done the best we can given our disposition to sin? If you wanted someone to apologise to you, then you'd be a bit evil if you gave them one way to apologise, and if for whatever reason they didn't want to apologise that way, but apologised in another way that they put just as much effort into, and then you refused to acknowledge their apology whatsoever. That doesn't seem just at all.

 

[BruceDLimber]

Hi, Heart!

Perhaps I don't understand what you mean as inherited sin. [W]hen Adam failed in being obediant to God it changed the outlook for all mankind

I feel because of the original sin we are all born into ... it's part of our nature.

Nope.

This is where I have to disagree because as I quoted before, Ezekiel 18 says quite specifically that sin cannot be inherited, and that there is no way that one is culpable because, for example, of the sin of his father!

And the Baha'i scriptures go on to state explicitly that we are born good--hence, unstained.

Granted, staying this way is a huge challenge, frequently impossible, it seems!

Nonetheless, we are responsible solely for our own actions and never answerable for what anyone else has done, Adam included.

Regards,

Bruce

 

[Quiddity]

But surely it's not an either or thing? The ability to judge right and wrong is not something that is either totally present or totally absent. For example, someone who is highly autisic lacks empathy. For them surely, the ability to judge right and wrong is not quite as acute as a highly empathic person, because they are less able to imagine that their actions might hurt someone.

That's why we don't believe feelings or your ability to imagine should play a role in what is right and wrong. But I see where you are heading with this.

I do not know the name of the condition, but there is another mild condition that can affect the ability to recognise the likely effect of an action, it affects the ability to make predictions. That also obviously means that they are less likely to realise that a bad outcome may happen from their actions. But neither of these things leave people with no ability to judge right from wrong. It's a quesion of scale. Anyone can have better empathy and better prediction ability than someone else, so their ability to judge right from wrong is better to a certain degree, and therefore, if you believe in free will, they are more responsible for their actions.

By scale, growth pops to my mind. Am I off?
If you want to get a detailed explanation of where I am coming I recommend reading this.
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a8.htm

 

[Æsahættr]

By scale, growth pops to my mind. Am I off?

That's part of it. But I don't just mean that as someone grows into an adult their ability to judge right from wrong increases. I think quite a strong case can be made that ability to judge right from wrong varies from person to person. As I said, empathy has to be a part of that ability, because understanding when you are hurting someone is an obvious precursor to that ability. The more empathic you are, the greater your ability to judge right from wrong becomes. And obviously there are other factors as well.
You said that someone without the ability to judge right from wrong is not held responsible for their actions. Do you accept that ability to judge right from wrong is a scale, because of empathy etc., and therefore that the degree to which people are held responsible for their actions should also work on a scale?


From the link you provided:

For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent

Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice.

This definition of mortal sin for example, is this simply a term that groups together all those sins that are the very worst, with shades of mortal sin within that group, or are all mortal sins treated as identical? It says that a "consent sufficiently deliberate" is needed. Is it saying that once you pass a certain threshold of level of consent, you reach the area of mortal sin and then have a certain degree of punishment given to you? Because that sounds far more like human law than divine law to me. Our laws are limited in that they need black and white distinctions. There is some manuverability for exact circumstances in our laws, but the perfect justice system would be one where every crime is dealt with on its own level, and there are no black and white areas. The severity of the punishment would increase smoothly with the severity of the crime, rather than in jumps. And surely God's Law must be perfectly just?

Am I mistaken in thinking that this sentence of yours:

That's why we don't believe feelings or your ability to imagine should play a role in what is right and wrong.

is at odds with this from the link:

The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense

 

[Quiddity]

That's part of it. But I don't just mean that as someone grows into an adult their ability to judge right from wrong increases. I think quite a strong case can be made that ability to judge right from wrong varies from person to person. As I said, empathy has to be a part of that ability, because understanding when you are hurting someone is an obvious precursor to that ability. The more empathic you are, the greater your ability to judge right from wrong becomes. And obviously there are other factors as well.

Ah I see what you mean!! But how does this compare to someone that neither has the ability to empathize or to properly analyze the situation? (like a disorder)

My point is that analyzing the situation is what matters most, regardless of the intensity of empathy. Yes it does give you greater sensitivity, but feelings don't gravitate toward what is right. They prefer to gravitate to something pleasurable, then what is right. That's when your brain kicks into gear and can tell your feelings...."hey, your wrong stupid"....

You said that so:slap: meone without the ability to judge right from wrong is not held responsible for their actions. Do you accept that ability to judge right from wrong is a scale, because of empathy etc., and therefore that the degree to which people are held responsible for their actions should also work on a scale?

My respect for you has increased for actually having read what I provided. I'll keep that in mind when chatting with you. It's a scale based solely on growth or the forming of your conscious. Feelings are random, and may or may not help you. They can certainly assist you in doing the right thing. But it goes the other way around too.

This definition of mortal sin for example, is this simply a term that groups together all those sins that are the very worst, with shades of mortal sin within that group, or are all mortal sins treated as identical?

Only in the sense that it takes you out of Grace. Of course some may cause more damage then others, but that is secondary to what you knew personally. And if you notice, it's actually quite difficult to categorize something as a mortal sin. Unless you are a well thought-out catholic that knew something was wrong, and proceded to do it.

It says that a "consent sufficiently deliberate" is needed. Is it saying that once you pass a certain threshold of level of consent, you reach the area of mortal sin and then have a certain degree of punishment given to you?

The punishment is being out of Grace and turning your back on God and losing friendship etc. If no repentance comes, hell is certainly the destination. Which is basically the "seperation from God".

Also, the punishment may show itself here on earth (depending on what it is). You beat someone up, they may come back and put a "cap in your a**". You steal, you go to jail. These are pretty obvious, even to you.

Because that sounds far more like human law than divine law to me. Our laws are limited in that they need black and white distinctions. There is some manuverability for exact circumstances in our laws, but the perfect justice system would be one where every crime is dealt with on its own level, and there are no black and white areas.

They are certainly similar.

The severity of the punishment would increase smoothly with the severity of the crime, rather than in jumps. And surely God's Law must be perfectly just?

I don't know what you mean by "jumps".

is at odds with this from the link:

No, when I speak of this, I am specifically talking about being in Grace and out of Grace. This speaks of earthly affects in everyday life.